Nibbana tangent parts 1 & 2 (Agnosticism)

by dhw, Thursday, May 23, 2024, 14:11 (182 days ago) @ xeno6696

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. […] if the issue is how we relate to ourselves, why must we be rid of all desires […] and “all concept of self must disappear”?

MATT: 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?

Yes. Anger is a negative, damaging reaction. But why must we check the joy and enthusiasm which makes us happy but can also enable others to share our joy?

“all concept of self must disappear”

MATT: 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.

You keep repeating this, but as above, your examples don’t explain why. Your
next one is beautiful:

MATT: 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. […] there is no sense of self at all, in fact the very second it returns, the entire thing collapses. […] 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.

You may be surprised to hear that I’ve had similar experiences: a fleeting oneness with everything, totally unconnected with the senses, entirely the product of the mind. But “I” am fully aware of it, and love it, and when I return to “normality”, I hug the experience inwardly. It is joyful and a PART of myself, not extraneous to myself.

MATT: 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. […]

My experience is sensing myself as part of the oneness! But it’s a feeling, much like those moments when you might look at your wife and children and be filled with love. Nothing to do with the senses or with conscious analysis. “Pure mind experience” is part of the self, and although we may then return to the baby crying, or the the lawn that needs mowing, that feeling – now a memory – remains a part of my self. And so back to your Number One: “Your sense of self must disappear”. Then it’s goodbye to the bad/miserable self, but it’s also goodbye to the good/joyful self.

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

MATT: 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. […]Think of it more as moderately consuming your emotions as opposed to being ruled by them.

I accept your conclusion, though I don’t understand “consume”. Of course we should not be ruled by emotions that lead us and others to misery. But “disappearance” means no sense of self at all. The limits to our love, joy, wonderment can only be set by the extent of their positive effects on ourselves and others – but “moderation” is not “disappearance”!

You go on to discuss continuity, consciousness and illusion.

MATT: If your entire personality can be rewritten by a chance blow through your brain, what does that say about your 'self' and your feelings of continuity?

I’ve already agreed that the self is NOT continuous. (My example was the newly enlightened bigot.) But the fact that it can change does not make it an illusion. Nor does the fact that you are not always thinking about your “self”. We are a collection of attributes which may change at any time through new experiences. But possible future changes do not mean that present attributes are not real! You seem to agree, but then you say the self is an illusion.

MATT: The Buddha said this: "It is far better to think of your self as this body than it is to think of the self as this mind." His context was aimed at the Brahmin idea of the mind as an eternal soul, but it's broadly applicable and I think directly relevant to this conversation.

I’m surprised you’ve quoted it. Firstly, if Nibbana is the culmination of the process of rebirth etc. and the self is the body not the mind, then the Buddha’s Nibbana can only have been eternal death. Secondly, for you, “pure mind experience” seems to be a goal, so I don’t know how the Buddha quote is applicable. Thirdly I think it’s reasonable to distinguish between physical and mental, but I see the self as body AND mind, not OR.

I’ll leave it there, as I think it covers most of the rest of your posts.