
INTRODUCTION
✨ In this uncompromising examination of Arthur Schopenhauer’s pessimistic philosophy, Master Woo Myung addresses the claim that the essence of existence is blind will and that life itself is fundamentally hopeless. Schopenhauer viewed human existence as driven by survival instinct, desire, and inevitable suffering, concluding that non-existence would be preferable to life itself. 🌌
🌿 Master Woo Myung reveals that this view arises from a misunderstanding of the true substance of reality. The world is not governed by will, but by mind, and will itself exists within the mind. Life is not sustained by blind survival instinct alone, but by the deeper instinct of self-existence. When the self disappears, sin, karma, and evil also disappear. ðŸŒ
This teaching overturns pessimism at its root, showing that life itself is hope and that God is not a delusion, but the real substance upon which all existence depends. ✨
ORIGINAL WRITING BY MASTER WOO MYUNG
Is Schopenhauer’s View Correct?
Schopenhauer, a German philosopher, belonged to the pessimism school of thought. He thought that the real substance of the world of existence is will, and he believed that the power which controls the material world is also connected with the action of will. He claimed that the instincts to breed and the instinct of survival of the fittest come from the will to live, and that man’s original nature is also the basic instinct to survive.
Therefore, sexual desire is also a fundamental instinct to perpetuate the survival of one’s species, and reason and knowledge are simply aides to this will of basic instinct. It is because of this that man engages in war and conquest and does not refrain from destroying life to ensure self-survival; it is the reason that the world is the worst that it can be.
If we could choose, the best choice is to not be born. Therefore, suicide is acceptable. Man is going down a path of ever-growing evil, and the present world has no hope and the existence of God is no more than a false delusion. Is his opinion correct?
Schopenhauer’s claim that the real substance of the world is will is wrong. The real substance of the world is mind. All living things just as they are are mind. He did not know that will exists within the mind.
His claim that the power to control the material world is connected to will is also wrong; the place of will and power is the mind. His other claim that what maintains life is a basic instinct of life to breed and survive, and that man’s original nature is also this basic survival instinct is also wrong.
Man lives through the basic instinct of self-existence, not through will of basic instinct. Therefore, sexual desire also comes from self-existence, and maintaining species is not the only motivation.
Moreover, it is wrong to say that reason and knowledge are simply aides to the will of basic instinct. It would be more correct to say that reason and will are the aides of basic instinct of self-existence.
Because man’s life comes from the basic instinct of self-existence, when he is completely without self, he does not have any sins or karma. It is because his self or ego exists that he feels both evil and sins, but when he reaches the level where he is completely self-less, these issues will all be resolved.
Although it can be said that life is futile, one must know that there is absolutely no sin and karma in life. It is not that there is no hope in one’s reality, but life itself is hope, so hope cannot be found when it is looked for too far from one’s self.
Moreover, the existence of God is not a fantastical one, but a real substance. This is because all creations, the world, and man exist because God exists; they would not exist if God did not exist.
— Woo Myung
🌿 REFLECT AT SANTA CLARA MEDITATION
At Santa Clara Meditation, this teaching is practiced as liberation from pessimism and despair. By discarding the false self and awakening to mind as the true substance of existence, practitioners rediscover life itself as hope and realize God as the living reality exactly as taught by Master Woo Myung. ðŸŒ
