Nibbana tangent parts 1 & 2 (Agnosticism)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, May 22, 2024, 22:09 (108 days ago) @ dhw

MATT: […] [Ego] was the easiest word to me to represent the shift from "I AM" to "i am." The issue in Buddhism is ultimately in how we relate to ourselves, even though its outward focus is on ultimately being kind and compassionate.

DHW: I still don’t know what you’re getting at, unless it really is the shift in priorities: away from egotism to awareness of the needs of others. This is one of our major topics: if the issue is how we relate to ourselves, why must we be rid of all desires (which means being rid of some of the things that give us the greatest joy in life) and “all concept of self must disappear”, so we’re not allowed to think how happy we are when we help others instead of just ourselves?

It's more than just egotism, it's in relinquishing the sense of self as it arises with your various mental phenomena. Right, so we would agree that if something happens and it causes explosive anger to rise up in you, it would be uncontroversial to check it before you did something to harm yourself or the object of your anger, correct? I've stated a version of this previously, but the degree to which you have reactive personality traits is the degree to which your sense of self sits more firmly embedded within those triggers--you're more attached. The path of becoming less reactive is another example of changing I AM" to "i am."

Pausing briefly, in

“all concept of self must disappear”

I have to call out two things:
1.) To achieve Nibbana your sense of self must disappear and
2.) By engaging in Buddhist practices, it leads inevitably to this. Anyone who follows the gradual training (outlined when I discussed the stages of meditation) will experience a weaker and weaker sense of self, until it's gone in Nibbana. You can stop this at any point, but you can't undo what's been done. This is a psychological transformation certainly.

I'll attempt to illustrate a couple things, both which I hope, will fill in some gaps. In explaining what the sense of self-dissolution feels like, one of my favorite meditations is in moving from the sense of my whole body, and then "expanding" it to take in the feeling of the sky. (This is poetic language, I don't know another way to phrase it.) When in this state of consciousness, there is no sense of self at all, in fact the very second it returns, the entire thing collapses. But more or less, you dissolve into the sky. At this phase, if unbidden thoughts arise, you can sense them as distant breaths. A willed thought however, collapses the entire space. I'm in my body, but I'm not experiencing the self in the slightest. The five senses are long gone. This is pure mind experience.

Now, the other side of this, is that I can sense my 'self' as other, and when my 'self' reasserts itself, this entire state disappears. It isn't like waking from a dream. In those cases, I'm very firmly in a sense of self. This is being in a state where the self is turned off. but I'm still experiencing mind. This then raises the question, "Who, or what, is the self if it's something you can consciously escape?" It isn't your mind--experiencing a literally self-less mind, it's very clear that there isn't even a sense of 'me' anymore. There's just a serene stillness where all of my normal day to day is missing. My 'true' self as it were, isn't that sense of self, it's that totally naked, bare awareness that is focusing on the mind as an object, but in a state where I can't hear, see, touch, smell, or taste anything, and my thoughts are gone as well.

Putting all that together, when the 'sense of self' (ego) intrudes, if I want to maintain the state, I don't interact with it. The second you do--that's what relinks attachment and causes the meditation to collapse. This is very similar to what happens in the next scenario you bring up.

so we’re not allowed to think how happy we are when we help others instead of just ourselves?

It's not that you're not allowed, but that tranquillity--the more you actively engage and allow yourself to be fully consumed by that content--disappears. And there's a difference between say, feeling joy, and feeling joy. Right, so when anger arises, we meet it immediately, and before dealing with its content, we recognize that there's anger within us, and the practices of compassion and loving kindness allow us to handle the content of that anger. Think of it more as moderately consuming your emotions as opposed to being ruled by them.

One of the key signs of a good teacher in Buddhism is in how gently they interact with even brash people. You have to be quite selfless (in both senses of the word) not to get agitated into unskillful behavior. Remember what I said about how deeper stages of meditation naturally last longer and longer, that's where this test comes from. Alright, gotta handle the rest of your comments...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"