The Malady of Haumain

[Onasander]

I've been reading some of the Sikh gurus, and I gotta say, it's becoming increasingly clear someone stole from the other- one way or the other..... be it Nietzsche taking from them or vice versa.

It's funny though, thier Hakam..... direction and will to evolve in scope of time is Alturistic (literally, a alturistic superman is a Sachiara), whereas Nietzsche is the counter opposite.

Yes, Sikhism predates Nietzsche, but I am hardly yet a scholar on this matter, I can only see in my mind what I've read, and what I have observed directly of Sikhs, and what I know of Nietzsche, both of which grows in time. I have the deepest suspicion though someone stole from the other.... and though the theft was great, did it haphazardly, making it fit thier needs by shifting through it's merits, and purposely reversing unpalatible contradictions, leaving the larger architecture intact.

[the_dwarf]

not like I know what you're talking about, but, he did have some appreciation for Buddhism. it could be that in reading up on the subject, he came across material about Sikhism, inducted a few things but felt the relevance of the source was too negligible to mention.

or perhaps the same with Buddhist concepts that look like Sikhism. though I don't know what that could be. hell, it could have been entirely coincidence.

how about the Buddhist concept of transcendentalism, and Nietzsche's creation of this figure he calls the Overman? same dilemma. he could have got the idea from Buddhism, or it could simply be a good idea that gets expressed in different ways, and probably will again someday.

It's funny though, thier Hakam..... direction and will to evolve in scope of time is Alturistic (literally, a alturistic superman is a Sachiara), whereas Nietzsche is the counter opposite.

did you mean 'altruistic'?

[Onasander]

Yes, I did. I am not that great at remembering how words are spelled, and anything I write goes through a lot of review, not to change content, but the spelling itself. I am not embarrassed though in the least about it so long as people understood what I was talking about. It's just a cogitive shadow I have to deal with.

With the Sikhs, it can go either way, they are not a anceint religion, and they took a while compiling the first guru's works (to hold up to the religious-academic scruples of the hindus), even while they practiced and taught his teachings as it came down to them. I highly doubt they could pull off a codification that was not orthodox, because everyone would of noticed. It be a bit like trying to pass gnosis off on the first century church, most of who's members knew jesus or the apostles, or knew people who knew them.... be hard as hell to do a philosophical switch, accomidating into the religion Neitzsche's point of view- and why anyone would choose to is beyond me.

The religion is dualistic, God fights and destroys evil.... man's evolution is above good and evil.... in the same sense in some Catholic sects following Pierre Teillard de Chardin where man evolves to a point of exestince over time where he can comprehend and become one with God. Not sure if Sikhs have a Omega Point theory yet though.... looks as a possibility from what I've read. If so, then it makes the Sikh and Teillardian Catholic concepts of a Superman much more compatible with modern theories of evolution, without losing much of the substansive goals Nietzsche likes so much. Teillard read Nietzsche, but was a anthropologist, and served in WW1 as a medic, and took note of the role of man, faith, and striving as central to a successful assult, with ramifications in the scope of time and being. The Sikhs are a warrior race upholding the just teachings of the divine, operating on much the same basis. Both seem far superior in my opinion to Nietzsche when..... well, thinking Nietzschean. They preserve the redeeming qualities of man and his beliefs, which Nietzsche was too burdened to cope with and contront face on, while natively exploring the greater universe and destiny, and a sense of self in the scope of place and time in terms of evolution.


Makes Nietzsche look like a pussy either way in my opinion, be he first or second, borrower or coincidence in arriving to the same conclusion.

[perpetualburn52]

in the same sense in some Catholic sects following Pierre Teillard de Chardin where man evolves to a point of exestince over time where he can comprehend and become one with God.

Isn't this in conflict with Church doctrine? I thought man could never become divine because of original sin. What were his thoughts on original sin?

[Onasander]

Church doctine is remarkably dodgy in the Catholic Church. It's always been that way. Yes, his writtings were suppressed during his lifetime. And if you were to ask the pope directly, he would mumble alot, and then point over your sholder, and say 'what's that' and then run the other way.

But the catholic church has always been like this, even during the inquisition. There have always been philosophers who've contradicted other philosophers within it, saints who were intellectual nemisis. It's catholic for a reason.

The church accepts Evolution (sure the hell doesn't inforce it though), and allows for continued exploration of Chardn's writings. It's far from accepting of it though, but recognizes his role in the development of modern concepts of anthropology (you would be massively surprised how many cathoilcs have been involved in forming it- sure it erks Richard Dawkings to no end), and as a philosophy inportant to many in reconciling faith to science. The catholic church rarely does more than this though in taking a stance on anything that doesn't involve the breakdown of the community or the loss of life, especially through actions that contradict the teachings of christ of doctrine that already dealt with that issue.


This is a remarkable wise course in the long term for a organization that plans on being around till the end of time. Many theories that seemed both revolutionary and conrete sure have come and passed. Many major philosophers developed under the catholic church that made a lot of sense back then, but not as much now. The church STARTED the secular movement, as well as the university system back in the 12th century- it's not opposed in the least to this idea (especially now), it's pushed it for centuries.... but it also know's it's bread and butter is in faith and community, and focuses most of it's attention on that. So they make massive allowances at time, accept nominal adherence in it's intellectuals, and rarely comes out in the defence of new ideas. What makes sense now, may seem silly a thousand years from now.... no matter how ironclad it now is.

[Christian]

Church doctine is remarkably dodgy in the Catholic Church. It's always been that way. Yes, his writtings were suppressed during his lifetime. And if you were to ask the pope directly, he would mumble alot, and then point over your sholder, and say 'what's that' and then run the other way.

But the catholic church has always been like this, even during the inquisition. There have always been philosophers who've contradicted other philosophers within it, saints who were intellectual nemisis.

Indeed. Reading through the Catholic Encyclopedia, for example, one cannot help but notice the ebb and flow of perspective between the two dipoles of decadence and tragedy.

[Onasander]

If your serious about becoming a catholic, then I would recommend in your case head out to the nearest monastery, and ask for a spiritual father. Tell them of your background, in philsophy and Nietzsche, and your need for intellectual independence. I know I've seen a few works on the Will to Power philosophy before. Wikipedia has a long ass listing of catholic philosophers. They speak with as much force and merit as me or you- they are just philosophers.... but deal with the topic at hand.

You can even go to a seminary and become a rabbi- a theologion.... a recognize teacher of religion, but not a priest. I know a few women who've done this- it's the same degree priests have to get before becoming priests themselves.... it's hardly exclusive.... I too could go and get it. Your not allowed admittance without the approval of your spiritual father though- your not allowed to become a priest either without his approval. This is a univesal rule in all ancient churches.... bit like Jedi have to train under a Sith or Jedi first before becoming a master or darth.