“Nihilism is the rejection of everything but rejection. It has no stance – except the stance of having no stance.
Being for or against ideas is just another idea. We are free when we no longer derive a sense of self from being for or against anything. When you have no views, even the view of having no views, you are truly free.
Both attachment and rejection mire you more deeply in sleep.
Find what is false in yourself. If you do this deeply enough, you will wake yourself up from this nightmare of conformity and nonconformity and find Something Else. This is not a religion.
Atheists have a god and that is the god of having no god. Who would you be without any positions or beliefs at all?”
–James Wood Stelzenmuller. The Path of Awakening (2007) p.265-266
Svaha 
Hi Aly… interesting post. I am wondering if having the view of having no views isn’t yet another layer of views? (views meaning opinions, ideas and isms). Also, saying that “then” one is truly free is also a view. I am not trying to play with words here. It has always seemed like those types of statements were just more beliefs.
My teacher, Steve Hagen, of ” Buddhism: It’s Not What You Think” fame, always points to direct seeing and no saying afterwards. He can be found at
http://www.dharmafield.org
Hi Ed, yes, I feel that the view of having no views is another layer. That’s what I understand when I read “When you have no views, even the view of having no views, you are truly free.” Ideas and views can go on endlessly in layer after layer. The question ‘who would you be without any beliefs or positions at all?’ is important, because when it’s asked deeply, where does it go? Ideas break down. Who would we be without the position of ‘direct seeing and no saying afterwards’?
Well said. I “take my hat off” to your understanding. Yes, even Steve admits that his 4 books and weekly lectures are all too much fuss over the unspeakable…
Keep writing…. :-}
:) Thank you so much for the discussion!
I would disagree with the Atheism position — though it may typify some atheists.
I wrote this post to try to illustrate one way your typification could misunderstand folks like me:
Atheism as an Epiphenom
I like those excerpts because the point is not to argue for or against the existence of god, but to see which views and positions we define ourselves with, become devoted to and defend.
These two posts on ‘isms’ have kind of left me wanting to comment, and yet really having few useful thoughts. So consider this a sigh or smile, I guess.
Sabio’s distinction between a ‘turn to atheism’ or just ‘happen to be atheist’ is important, but does not seem universally understood. A lot of people are still strongly attached to explicit explanations and identities, regardless of what camp they ‘sleep’ in.
Maybe we need a moratorium on words like ‘truth’? Each time it comes up, we replace it with ‘tool’?
Yes, the distinction is good, and that post seems very heartfelt. I think here, with the above quoted, we’re challenged to go a step further – into questioning any idea, thought, explanation or story about reality that we are attached to – whether it’s a religious or conceptual explanation of reality or a personal-historical belief about reality… Thanks for your comments :)