Eternal Return as the Necessary Precept for Life and Thought

by Alec Ontiveros

The following is a logical proof for eternal return, as it works to show this thought as not just an experiment for the affirmation of life, but rather as the perspective which validates and affirms all life. As it stands here, eternal return is to come to the fundamental perspective of life that one does not see each moment passing by, but rather lives in each and all moments, and thus engages with reality from an eternal perspective. One has come to see all of life for what it is, that is the moment, and thus returns from a partial perspective, one which is metaphysical, to a total perspective of all things, an understanding of what is, distinctly from what is not. What this return, fundamentally accomplishes can be described as similar to transcendence, in that one has negated what is not, from what is, and thus one does not destroy, but rather creates the fundamental moment, the highest place of awareness. Imagine it as being lifted out of one’s existential body, that is, mind and body cast off, as perspective and interpretation comes to see things from the eternal position. The best analogy for this, is astral projection, in that one leaves all that they are not, to be what they essentially are, and thus views the world from a transcended vantage point, a rising above or an overcoming of sorts. What then is overcome, and what is achieved? It is precisely the self and nihilism that is overcome, that is mind and body, as one achieves buddhahood and buddha-nature. These two terms may hold a lot of connotations, but as they are used here is in the constant exertion of an eternal self, one that is only what is, and not an attempt to be what is not, and thus one that is all things and no things, one that fulfills the emptiness of eternity. One that transcends the opposition of what is and what is not, so that one is eternal.

Buddhahood is this ceaseless practice of exerting an eternal self, which is impermanent in form, for it attaches to no things, and thus is permanently reborn anew in each and all moments with the potential to be all things, with the ability to organically create art, that is the freedom to be any thing. Buddha-Nature is the organic, artful knowing that comes from an eternal understanding, and thus it creates in each and all moments harmony and jointure with eternity, it is dike . This is why it is not a philosophical attitude, but rather something substantive itself, something that affirms all life, and all living, through itself, through its actions, and through its understanding, one that needs no things, for it has accomplished the cessation of wants, and thus lives fully in each and all moments, without need for past or future, but rather the highest reverence for the eternal present in which it lives, for the eternity that it is.

The best way to describe this is with dreaming, in that in the truest dreams one is always living in the moment, fully understanding each and all moments through full exertion of self, giving way to a full perspective and full interpretation of each and all moments within the dream. The dreamer does not think about what has come before the dream, nor do they think about what is to

1

come afterwards, they instead live fully within the dream. Each thing that occurs to them, and each thing that they need to do to satisfy the dream, to satisfy who and what they are, is accomplished with the removed perspective of the individual. With dreaming, the thing that is what is, is the dream itself, the thing-itself, and thus the meaning of the dream, is always seen as the dream itself, that is meaning-itself, or the things are what is. The dream is always being interpreted, it is always fleeting, and thus there is no weight with thoughts or actions, they only are what they are in that they are what is in the dream. One does not need past and future in a dream, as it is that one does not need a metaphysical system of thought to satisfy the dream, rather the dream is satisfied through the dream itself. This is to say then that the moment does not need system or telos, but rather needs interaction with the moment itself. Thus, one sees that the interpretation of the dreamer, is not of the thing-in-itself, that is of something other than what is, thus the interpretation of the dreamer is of the thing-itself, each thing is what it is, it does not have a past or future, but rather is the fullest attribution of itself. Thus meaning, is meaning-as-it- relates-to-you, and thus is able to be completely freeform as it satisfies the moment in which it has developed. To bring this into waking life, thus we see that it is only the moment, which is the dream, that one is living within, and thus there is nothing outside of this moment. To bring other things in, is to attempt to bring what is not into the moment. This does not exclude action or art, but rather is to say that the basis for nihilism is from the attempt to bring what is not into what is, that is to project the past onto the present so that the future will change. However, when one sees that to bring what is before a dream into a dream, so that what is after a dream will be different, is in no way connected to the dream itself, but what is outside the dream, what is its backworld. Therefore actions which use what is before, to dictate what should happen now, so that what is to come will be different, in the dream analogy is to say that one should wake themselves up so that they can accomplish what it is in the dream they were attempting to fulfill. This is the nihilistic enigma. Thus action that is not for the moment but for what is believed to be outside of it, would not satisfy the moment, but instead demand that one is to die so that they can live.

To be living within the dream, as the dreamer, is to be no thing other than what is, and thus to be reborn as each new dream is conspired, that is to live each moment for itself and not for other moments. The dream can never be anything other than the dream it is, and each dream is reborn each time it is created. To become the dreamer is thus in the waking world, to transcend nihilism so that one has an eternal perspective and eternal interpretation of each and all moments, so that the inner necessity of being, of eternity, is satisfied in jointure with what is. Thus it stands that in overcoming self and nihilism, one has given away the system for dreaming, that is system and telos, past and future, to live fully in each and all moments, to be in harmony with eternity, and jointure with what is, so that creation and art organically develop without opposition or negation, but rather as all things and no things, as the higher thing, which continually wills eternity, and thus is for life, and not for death.

2

Thus eternal return is not just a way of saying yes to life, not a way to judge or evaluate living, but much more importantly, the thought and action which transcends an individual to their buddhahood, so that from that moment and each and all moments that follow, they are eternal, and thus exerting their buddha-nature. This does not mean perfect action, infallibility, or any sense of total completion, but rather the position from which one is best able to satisfy the inner necessity of the moment. Inner necessity is something that does not come regulated by system, nor is it for any purpose, but rather inner necessity is best explained as that which most directly satisfies the moment. This inner necessity is driven by intuition, through emotion, so that understanding is a constant form of knowing in the moment, it makes apparent that which is what is, thus that which is most in accordance with eternity, is understood. This allows for the artful creation to be that which illuminates the chaos, thus in each moment it satisfies and transcends that which it has satisfied, rather than only being an action in accordance with a system or something reactive to its opposite. This then allows for a return to eternal innocence or impermanence, so that each moment is reborn anew with the efforts of a continuous exertion of understanding and knowing.

As a note before this proof is introduced, it must be said that this statement does not come from tradition, nor is it the final stripping of existence to reveal its true nature. The point is that from the nothingness comes the everythingness, that we move from the clear to the obscure, thus the argument I am putting forth is wholly organic and thus from it, comes philosophy, comes the things that look to explain themselves, that look to connect themselves with the original. To state this argument as some discussion of being or existentialism, is to put a mask on it that would only look to pervert and festishize the argument for consumption, it would be to flatter those who think I am writing for them. The only thing that has come before this argument, the only thing that is, before it, is eternity. Thus when I say, “what is”, I mean, eternity is, and thus what is anything at all, the all things, the everythingness. And when I say “what is not”, I mean, what is not eternity, and thus what is not anything at all, the no thing, the nothingness. To understand this argument, one must understand the direction it flows. Each word is an attempt at return, each word is an attempt to return to that which is all things, each word is an attempt to say that which is highest, each word is eternity. Thus we can even see eternal return, as it stands for philosophical tradition, as it stands for everyone who has not achieved it, as the final thought, as the end thought, which will both negate and affirm all that has been thought, which will transcend thought, for thought is not understanding itself, and thus return to nothingness, so that when I make the statement, “what is” it is understood without identity, it has no pregnant meaning, but is simply eternity that is what is, and thus from it all things comes, all things are eternity. The point here is to give an image of eternity, it is to show how things have come from eternity, how anything is, and thus we will see how eternal return as a thought is related to eternity, and finally grasp its full importance.

3

What is contended here is that eternal return is the perspective of eternity that does not form identity nor metaphysics, but is instead self-fulfilling. To represent this, we take a logical tautology, a statement which is devoid of content and context, and stands to be true without argument. That is, 1=1, or "what is is because it is". This statement can stand as the basis of the everythingness, as the first concept, or the first thing that has been said about the everythingness. After it can come all thoughts, but as it stands as itself, it is the everythingness. To validate this statement, we simply need identity or concept, that is, 1, or "what is", again the everythingness- itself. The question then is, what separates 1, or "what is", from nothingness, that is 0, or "what is not", which we see as that from which we have developed our concept of identity. For we see that from the nothingness came this everythingness, and thus we look to see how it is that we are able to make this first concept. How is that we are allowed to have any thing at all? What we need here is a place where things are, that is, eternity, time, infinite, or where "what is is". This place is not distinct from the everythingness, but rather describes it as it stands in relation to the nothingness, for we see eternity as that which is both the nothingness and the everythingness, we see it as the thing which has brought the nothingness to the everythingness, so that we may have anything at all, we see that the everythingness came from the nothingness, and thus what is the nothingness is no thing. This is necessary to separate "what is" from "what is not" or "what is not yet". It is to acknowledge that each and all moments come forth from this nothingness and thus each and all moments have an organic everythingness.

It is the eternal moment that is in every moment, it is the eternal moment that is in between the nothingness and the everythingness, it is the eternal moment that sees forth the creation of each and all everythingness from the nothingness, for it draws from the nothingness to create the everythingness, it is what is moving. With this distinction we form some antecedent of future, but what is to be contended here is not becoming in the sense of future-coming-into-present or present-coming-into-future, for such statements presuppose directional time, duration or some place other than eternity. Rather it is eternity that is the place in which "what is not yet", becomes "what is", not in the sense of "what is not" changing to "what is", but rather just simply that "what is not yet" has not yet happened. The creation of a coming moment is not the moment that is happening, and thus it has not yet happened, this does not mean that it will happen or that it is set to happen, but rather that what is happening now is all that is happening. Thus eternity must be understood as an eternal present, or as a moment and moments, where "what is not yet" becomes "what is", and everything-all-ways-is-what-is. The eternal present and the eternal moment flows in every direction, it is all things, eternity is all things, thus there is potential for the everythingness to change. That does not mean that change is flowing through the everythingness, but rather that the nothingness flows through change to continuously constitute the everythingness, and it is eternity that is both this process and the thing-itself. For we see eternity as the flame which has come from itself, we see it as the thing which rebirths itself, we see it as the thing which is continuously anew, which has no basis other than itself, and thus we see all of creation in a moment, we see the potential for all of creation as the movement of

4

eternity, we see the everythingness as the nothingness, and thus we see the eternal moment as the organic creation of each and all moments.

Then the question forms as to what separates "what is" from "what has been". We have here an entrance of existentialism, a being, but a being that is only seen as a connotation of the denotation of moment, that is, greatness is not something that is what is, but rather something is only great by the actions that move it to greatness, “what is” becomes greatness through greatness, and thus when the moment is reborn, it is greatness that is “what has been” if “what is” is no longer moving towards greatness, if “what is” is no longer happening as greatness. Thus the distinction is not between “greatness” and “not-greatness”, but rather between “what is” and “what has been”, for it is not that greatness is no longer a thing, for it continues to be a thing always, it does not cease to exist, but rather is made to exist, and thus when it is “what has been” it is that it is no longer “what is”. This distinction stands to be a necessary condition of eternity, because "what is" would not be fully distinguished from "what is not", if there was no distinction from "what has been". That is, "what is" is always what is and does not leave the eternal present. This then forms the concept of past as not that which has faded from "what is" into obscurity, but rather that which is not "what is" any longer, and thus is "what is not". Thus existence, being, these words do not have much meaning for what we are talking about, if anything, they are a mask or appearance that is worn by the moment, and when they are cast aside they are not destroyed, but rather not being worn. We see each and all things as that which can be achieved in each and all moments, and thus we see what is not in the moment, not in the sense of losing existence, as dying or being dead, or any other thing than “what is”, but instead as simply “what is not”. We see the everythingness coming forth again and again, and we see the nothingness as no thing.

To make this distinction then, the eternal present must be the place where "everything always is, and will always be what is". That is, "what is is, and will always be what is in eternity". This previous statement is eternal return and it means that "what is" in this eternal present lives in it eternally and thus infinitely in the moment, eternity is what constitutes each thing, and each thing is a movement of eternity in the moment. The returning is a return to the eternal moment, to eternity, to nothingness and thus from this return the potential for organic and creative everythingness in each and all moments. This eternal return is the rebirth of the flame, it is the renewal, it is that which binds all moments, for it is the all moment, it is the every moment, it is what drives each and all moments. Thus we see why eternal return is necessary for "what is" to even be what is, and thus for any concept or identity to be existent at all. Eternal return then stands as the necessary precept for creation itself. The meaning to life and thought thus comes from Eternity, Eternal Present or Moment, and Eternal Return. What gives the everythingness its form, what allows for meaning, what allows for value, for thought and life, is eternity, and the eternal moment, thus what is at the basis of all we have done is eternal return. That is, what allows for any thing and everything are these conditions, and thus they are seen to be logically

5

necessary without prior argument, for they are eternity. So that to achieve eternal return, is to return to this position that is not bogged down in a past everythingness, or one that looks to build a future everythingness, but rather one that is in each and all everythingness, innocent, and in harmony with eternity, so that jointure can satisfy the inner necessity of every moment, to live the eternal moment.

To put this in a different perspective, I see eternal return as the face of eternity itself. For to perceive eternal return, is to perceive eternity prior to the creation of concept and identity, it is to overcome the problem of nihilism. That is, nihilism as the opposition between “what is” and “what is not”, as the confused interpretation of eternity that does not see “what is” in the moment, but rather looks to the past and future, to “what has been” and what may be, as that which is “what is”, and thus tries to make “what is” into “what is not”. This interpretation is not of eternity, but against it, for nihilism sees eternity as not that which is before the creation of thought and life, not that which is in between the nothingness and the everythingness, not that which is the nothingness and everythingness, but rather it sees eternity as a particular everythingness, as some rigid form which has been or has not yet come, and thus is “what is not”. Thus when one overcomes nihilism, they do not surmount it, but rather they return from it, to a perspective of eternity that is innocent of what has been, that understands the distinction between “what is” and “what is not”, and thus is free to organically create each and every moment in accordance with “what is”. Affirmation then stands as the ability to let “what has been”, no longer be the focus of “what is” so that one is living within the moment. Nihilism, or any form of it, is thus the prevention of moment, one that dictates towards how moments should be by saying that they should be “what is not”; and eternalism, the looking towards a total history, a total moment, an equalizing of moments so that all moments may be the same, is thus the attachment to an idea of moment, one that dictates how moments should be by saying they should be a particular “what is”. Thus the importance of eternal return, is in the transcendence of these two positions to the eternal position, to the eternal moment, which has been shown to be that which comes before these two positions, that which is the thing that allows them even to be things in the first place. For to reject the moment, one has to live in the moment first, and to limit the moment, one has to create a moment first.

What may be valuable in explaining this, is an analysis of this process of affirmation and thus eternal return. The dialectic, nihilism, or metaphysics all contain an approach for the affirmation of truths so that one is able to negate "what is not true" from "what is true", and then ultimately affirm a higher or highest truth. This approach is similar to Marx's M-C-M'1 and we will write it as affirmation-negation-affirmation'. Affirmation, in the sense we speak of it, can only be total affirmation, because it is to transcend the opposition of “what is” and “what is not” in order to come to the eternal moment, and thus buddhahood and buddha-nature. Thus we see affirmation and affirmation' as not a lower and a higher, but instead as the same affirmation. Thus this

1 Marx Capital 251-7

6

approach presupposes, in it, a condition of time which is counter to what was previously stated. That is, that what constitutes "what is", and thus what is to be affirmed, is the past and "what has been", and the future-coming-into-the-present of "what is not" to "what is". What distinguishes the two affirmations is their location in time, one being before or at the beginning of life and thought, and the other at the end or after. Thus the prime is what binds them, and this prime is a notion of death and what comes after death or before life. The prime signifies moments outside of life, in some other place than here, where affirmation is to be achieved. For this approach to be valid, time would have to be cyclical and continuous such so that "what is" at the end or after feeds into "what is" at the beginning of life, only by means of this other place or prime. Any other notion of time than this would not be able to overcome the void of "what is not". That is because for death to be the end of life, life would not be able to be again, unless time was to turn itself over. However, if time is cyclical, as many of the arguments we find this process within maintains, then this approach does not work for affirmation in life, but seeks it in death, for affirmation only comes in the transcendence of the life-death moment, in the transcendence of “what is” and “what is not”, in the return to eternity. Thus to see death as the thing which is affirming, to see this prime as the only way into the eternal moment, is to see death as the liberator of life, and thus to see life as that which can only be affirmed by its death. It is to be tied down to the image of the past, as one sees “what has been” as the thing that is “what is”. Such an approach does not fully distinguish between "what is" and "what is not", and thus is logically against itself and life, for it presupposes that what it states to be truth is not fully truth until its death, until it is able to fully become affirmed. Thus this approach is not an approach for life, but an approach towards death, and things beyond, it is an attempt to fill the void between "what is" and "what is not" with arguments. When rather, we see that all that is in the walls of the moment, is eternal return, all that we need to do to live in the moment is achieve eternal return.

What this proof for eternal return comes to argue is that the process is instead one of negation- affirmation, one that happens in the moment, in life, and does not look to death, but rather sees the opportunity to transcend, to come to the eternal moment, in each and all moments. As the idea of eternal recurrence can come to represent, what one is affirming is their life, as it stands, lived again and again, so that one is not in one moment, but in each and all moments. That is, a return from concept and identity to a perspective of eternity, which is in control of creation, which is in the moment. To cast mind and body off as one transcends the approach, this life- death cycle, to overcome nihilism, to leave the system for dreaming, and thus to find jointure with eternity, creation, and knowing. That is to live in the moment, to allow the organic everythingness from the nothingness, to allow each and all moments the fullness of eternity. If anything, the weight of this thought, this perspective is something akin to historical Buddhahood, that is enlightenment, in that it achieves the affirmation of life that Nietzsche thought was essential to getting past the fetter of nihilism2, so that one may cross the bridge over the abyss,

2 Stambaugh The Other Nietzsche

7

into the realm of übermenschlich.3 To a state of impermanence and a constant exertion of self in the moment that Stambaugh would call Buddha-Nature.4

Works Cited:

Joan Stambaugh, Impermanence Is Buddha-nature, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1990

Joan Stambaugh, Nietzsche’s Thought of Eternal Return, Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1972

Joan Stambaugh, The Other Nietzsche, Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994

Karl Marx, Capital: Volume 1: A Critique of Political Economy, (Ben Fowkes), London: Penguin Classics, 1990 (251-7)

3 Stambaugh Nietzsche’s Thought of Eternal Return 4 Stambaugh Impermanence is Buddha-Nature

8