Nibbana tangent parts 1 & 2 (Agnosticism)

by dhw, Saturday, May 25, 2024, 13:33 (105 days ago) @ xeno6696

I’m going to try to summarize our discussion, as it’s now covering so much ground that there is a danger of confusion rather than enlightenment!

We began with examples of rebirth (people remembering events before they were born), and has since branched out in two different directions: Buddhism as therapy, and Buddhist concepts such as rebirth, the route to and nature of “Nibbana”, the nature of the self. With regard to therapy, I believe this is necessary when the balance of the self has been disturbed (i.e. something has gone wrong). After traumatic experiences, Matt has found the answer in learning to control self-centredness and foster a degree of detachment from whatever threatens his tranquillity. David and I have not needed this therapy (see below). The only disagreement I have with Matt is over the general Buddhist “doctrine” that to achieve the vital balance, “all concept of self must disappear” and with it, all desires. I kick hard against this, because the conscious fulfilment of desires can be the source of the most joyful experiences of our lives. (This may include the desire to help others.) My view is that what must disappear are any desires or concepts of the self that might cause harm to oneself or to others. I hope that’s a fair summary of the therapy discussion, and I think it’s supported by this exchange:

DAVID (to Matt) I feel no need for what you do.

MATT: To be clear, I never felt the need for it myself. I was perfectly happy being a fairly rote materialist. What happened was in 2017 my job took a turn for the worst and I was suffering from panic attacks just walking in the building.

Perhaps if David and I had had a similar experience, we too would have needed therapy. My earlier point was that the self is not continuous, but the fact that it can change does not mean it is not real. The panicking you was real, and the newly tranquillized you is real. You are totally aware of this. Your “self” has changed; but it has not disappeared. It is not an “illusion”.

The second area of discussion concerns certain forms of what I’d call “doctrine”: rebirth, the reasons for rebirth (seen basically as virtually a punishment for the sins of the past, which need to be rectified), the course that must be followed in order to end the cycle of rebirth, and the nature of Nirbanna/Nirvana once the cycle of rebirth is ended. All of this overlaps with discussions on the “self”, but takes these into a different – in my view far more controversial - context from that of coping with the here and now.

In reply to points made while I was away yesterday:

DAVID: dhw and I are close friends. He told me all of his plays and children's books were produced by this free-reign system, free from him.

MATT: It's clear that when you're writing, you have to engage in the content at least enough to be able to write it down, so there's a sense of self here. Nothing wrong with that. Where I would posit the "danger" would lie from the Buddhist perspective is fully immersing or "becoming" the characters, or interfering in some way. Just instead of characters in a story, substitute your own thoughts and emotions.

I can only speak for myself, although I know plenty of other writers have the same experience. The process involves different layers of consciousness. The characters and the story emerge (presumably from my subconscious, as in dreams) and I watch/listen to them, and am fully aware that I am writing down what they do and say. Sometimes I’m even puzzled by what they do or say, but I’ve learnt to be faithful, and very often it’s only later that I understand. But sometimes it turns out that my conscious mind was right, and something has to be changed. I don’t know where all this is meant to fit into the question of what is the self, but I see absolutely no “danger” here, other than the possibility that what I’m writing will later bore me or bore other people! Perhaps – as with literature generally – this temporary sharing of lives enables me/all of us to have experiences we would not otherwise have had (whether comic or tragic). It is or should be an enrichment, and for some writers even a therapy. Perhaps a bit of both, depending on WHAT they write!

MATT: (referring to a friend’s beliefs) It appears that Buddhism uses a slightly different definition for materialism than what I'm used to, but for sure, he was clear that any religion that believes in a single creation event is by definition materialist.—

We would need to know his definition of materialism, which conventionally means the belief that matter is the only reality. Believers believe in an immaterial God who created a material universe, i.e. a conscious mind created and used matter. Materialists don't know how the material universe created itself or created life and conscious minds, but they believe it did. And so materialism and its opposite - dualism - are matters of belief. In the context of religion, if your friend really thinks that materialism is by definition belief in an immaterial God, or belief in an immaterial God is by definition materialism, then I suggest he attends a course in semantics as soon as possible.