Why is Buddhism not Nihilism?

If you hold the view that the Buddha taught there is no eternal soul, then Buddhism is basically nihilism. If there is no transcendent self outside the scope of samsara, there is no rebirth, no enlightenment and no liberation from samsara because there is nothing that is being reborn, enlightened or liberated, just a phantom and an illusion. Fortunately this is absolutely something the Buddha DID NOT TEACH:

“Whatever form, feelings, perceptions, experiences, or consciousness there is (the five aggregates), these he sees to be without permanence, as suffering, as ill, as a plague, a boil, a sting, a pain, an affliction, as foreign, as otherness, as empty (suññato), as Selfless (anattato). So he turns his mind/will/spirit (citta, Non-aggregate) away from these; therein he gathers his citta (nous/spirit/mind) within the realm of Immortality (amataya dhatuya). This is tranquility; this is that which is the most excellent!” [MN 1.436]

If it is nihilism then it isn't IMVHO degenerate passive nihilism of so called "western buddhism" (schopenhauer - i think).

We should be wary of saying that death is opposed to life

Nietzsche said...

Whether we see death as a rebirth or not, that does IMHO mean that release from suffering (even if we say that all life is suffering) is not opposed to life and not opposed to living.

Discovering nirvana does not erase the self because nirvana is the self. Discovering nirvana is the seeing beyond local identity to the non-local source. So local and non-local become indistinguishably the field and its knower.

In buddhism the self as in nirvana consciousness exists independent of the local brain. So if you swat a fly say that fly as a form dies but its consciousness exists still as you the swatter of the fly. Because the fly and swatter of the fly share the same empty consciousness.

'Eternalism' does not mean 'permanence' & 'nihilism' does not mean impermanence. Instead, both Eternalism & Nihilism are forms of 'self-view'. 'Eternalism' is the belief "I" will exist after death. 'Nihilism' is the belief "I" will cease at death. This link called 'Held by Views' may help:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.2.042-049x.irel.html#iti-049

You may also read the Brahmajāla Sutta (if you enjoy reading), which defines these words clearly.

Buddhism is perhaps not a philosophy that can be easily compared with nihilism. Buddhism (and I can only speak of Zen) is a way of being that essentially problematises the inherent dialectic of thought and the governance of reason. Nihilism represents an extreme doctrine within the philosophic tradition wherein one's subjective/analytic sense of emptiness becomes axiomatic of synthetic/objective emptiness. The Buddhism I admire would smile at the childish certainty of such notions.

Put another way, the false notion of a separate 'I' - a core idiom of Western thought - is the root of nihilism. Indeed, nihilism may represent the analytic fruit of this ontology. Buddhism names the Way wherein self, as something separate, is dissolved. In such a state of being - so full in its emptiness - nihilism has no meaning.

In Nihilism, as noted, there is a sense of self which is 'lost' upon death, and is absorbed into a vacuum, as it were. In buddhism there is no inherently-independent existence of a self, so upon death nothing is lost and nothing is gained. This in fact reflects physical reality much more than nihilism does, regardless whether you consider it from an agnostic or buddhist perspective.

However the philosophical implications of this are, 'you' don't lose anything. Ergo, a nihilist is someone who is attached to there being a sense of relative meaning in life, because they still believe in an inherently-existing self. Whereas a buddhist is someone who strives to be free of the false view of an inherently-existing sense of self, and hence avoids the depression, negative attachment to life, and ultimately, despair, that the nihilism view ultimately entails.

If you take the buddhist view, the sense of 'self' ultimately becomes dispersed, and even in early stages, 'wider'.

Dhamma is not a philosophy, it's a path of practice to go beyond and to see what is reality for one self. What happens is one does not use it simply like this is good described in Iti 49

(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of trade and keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)

Sometimes there are translation issues. When people say that Buddhism is not nihilistic, they are not exactly talking about the definition you gave. One can say that the Buddha never said anything about nihilism (according to the definition you gave) one way or the other. The Buddha avoided the three wrong views, eternalism, hedonism and what is usually translated as nihilism, the view that "nothing is".

Strictly speaking, the experience of emptiness (sunyata) provides experiential insight about one’s basic relationship with the universe, with others, and with oneself. It is an experience that establishes beyond any doubt that we give meaning, purpose, and value to life and to experience. It is somewhat like making a distinction between sensation and perception: Sensation is the given and the real, while perception is what we add to or understand about that sensation. Perception, understanding, value, and motivation, of course, are real but in a “relative” way. The experience of sunyata provides a valuable perspective on what is true or wise, because it teaches us to be more careful about what we add to experience. We become more careful by acquiring a deeper understanding of what is “relatively” true. Relative truth is based upon evidence. In other words, truth is objective and not arbitrary. It is on this point that Buddhism and nihilism takes opposite positions on the nature of existence.

Loosely, They say the Buddha was asked: - What is the happiness there where there are no sensations? - Just that is the happiness there.

The answer to OP question is in the definitions there, it is the core of the teaching on mechanics of reality. The sole postulation of existence of that something supposedly makes the teaching definitely not nihilistic unless there would be contradictions in that doctrine, there are no such contradictions. Surely someone couldve formed a more or less coherent argument if there were.

As simply as i can:

All or Everything that is, gains footing in the Deathless. In a fashion of unbinding, All that has a cause or supportive condition can cease, whilst that in which it used to gain footing, in that sense unafflicted.

The Deathless as i wrote it is to be understood as a Name for and a quality of that something apart from Everything/All. It is the ultimate Reality.

The way to make sense of how can something be said to be apart from everything, is to realize that ultimately everything can hardly be said to exist in first place.

It is similar to saying that hearing gains footing in the brain and brain gets footing in the Mind, which is of course no less confusing for we usually assume that mind gains footing in the brain.

Experiencing is definitely there and we can study that, that is a good start.

Because it offers an escape and the path leading to the escape from the impermanent, the substance less and the sorrowful. Nihilism offers no such escape.

Buddhism is not nihilism because the Buddha clearly posits the Deathless as the goal of nirvana.

Buddhism contains optimism and pessimistic view points on life. On the positive side, there is the celebration of merit (virtue, alms giving, helping one another etc). There are the four sublime states of lovingkindness, compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity. But it is a religion which points out that there is a field of unhappiness as well as a field of merit/happiness. This field of unhappiness contains painful human circumstances/woe and the woe of beings in hungry ghost realms, animal realm and ultimately hells. But salvation is Nirvana which is (the realisation) of emptiness but which is said to be a completely blissful state of being. So the goal of Buddhism isn't nihilistic. There is something "in" the aim. It is the promise of a pleasurable/transcendant state of being as a reward for good actions of body speech and mind and following the 8-fold path. But the religion could be construed as nihilistic in the sense that Buddha didn't directly, as far as I am aware, offer an explanation of why we suffer or why the law of karma exists. He merely states that that is how life is, in Samsara, the wheel of life and death/ cycle of becoming.

So can anyone state for us why Buddhism is not Nihilism?

One can argue that from the Ego's point of view Buddhism is nihillisim .Because practicing Buddhism fully, inevitably leads to the destruction of the ego.Buddhism helps shatter the ego's solidity.So quite understandably the ego freaks out at some stage of the practice.

Fortunately,we're not the ego.Buddhism is not nihilistic because we're not the five aggregates which we continuously mistaken ourselves to be.

Nihilism is even worse than eternalism. Because eternalists can still do good deeds and reach heavens. Nihilists are said to be destined for hells. There's also a version of nihilism which is said to be even worse than the Ananthariya Karmas(matricide, patricide etc.). It is called Niyatha Micca Ditti. It is said that they won't be able to escape even when the world ends. They will be born in a hell called the Lokantarika Naraka, which is located at the center of where 3 universes meet.

Key beliefs of the person with Niyatha Micca Ditti are,

1. No benefit in offering alms
2. No purpose in caring for parents
3. There is no merit or demerit in deeds
4. There aren't any ascetics who preach the Dhamma with direct knowledge
5. There is no rebirth.
6. No spontaneous becoming i.e. becoming of gods, brahmas and hungry ghosts etc.

Your definition of nihilism seems to me to ignore the four noble truths: that suffering (dukkha) exists, and, can cease.

You define nihilism as "life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value", however isn't "cessation of dukkha" (i.e. third noble truth) the 'purpose' of Buddhism (see also 'sentient beings')?

Nothing Exists

Yamaoka Tesshu, as a young student of Zen, visited one master after another. He called upon Dokuon of Shokoku.

Desiring to show his attainment, he said: "The mind, Buddha, and sentient beings, after all, do not exist. The true nature of phenomena is emptiness. There is no realization, no delusion, no sage, no mediocrity. There is no giving and nothing to be received."

Dokuon, who was smoking quietly, said nothing. Suddenly he whacked Yamaoka with his bamboo pipe. This made the youth quite angry.

"If nothing exists," inquired Dokuon, "where did this anger come from?"

Because it does not deny or reject conventional reality, and conventional experience. Buddhism reaches emptiness via the dependent origination of apparent objects. It does not negate the conventional existence of them, just examines their absolute or final nature.

Because of this acceptance of conventional reality and truth, Buddhism examines causality, morality, and consequence, specifically in the light of human suffering and liberation. This is far from nihilism, which is essentially the view that there is no consequence.

^{(Since the question seems to be referring to Annihilationism and not Nihilism, I suggested an edit to it. I'm responding with this change in mind.)}

Plainly, Annihilationism assumes a self that is destroyed after death. Buddhism doesn't assume a self.

For references, see DN 1, Brahma­jāla-sutta, especially the Annihilationism section and the ending section.

I believe it all comes down to the way one sees reality. One could argue that as everything has been changing since the beginninless time, everything is "Eternal", it is just changing shapes.

I believe the point regarding the middle way is how things exist:

Eternalism suggests things exist as they are. The chair is a chair, it has a "chair-nature", it goes against the dependent origination. Also the name 'chair' is just a convention, nothing more.

Nihilism as we know it is a recent phenomena. The name has a Latin origin, so in the time of the Buddha Nihilism didn't exist like today. It was more related to ascetic practices of thinking that the world is a illusion and nothing exists at all. So the Buddha was trying to explain that things DO exist, but not as we think. There IS a chair, but it does not own a chair-nature. It is something transitory, impermanent with a dependent origination that we perceive with the eye-consciousness

Buddhism is not Nihilism because it does not reject values, morals, and religious truth. Buddhism is not Annihilationism because it establish idea of karma (i.e. inheritance of actions). Actions are not destroyed at death and inherited in next birth. Thus, it is useful to do wholesome deeds and practice Teaching.