Nibbana tangent parts 1 & 2 (Agnosticism)

by David Turell , Sunday, May 26, 2024, 17:44 (157 days ago) @ xeno6696

dhw: I am equally puzzled by your insistence. At any one moment, we will generally only be “using” part of of our self. If I’m focusing on writing a play, I’m using my imagination and those parts of the body that are needed to record the words of the dialogue I am imagining. That doesn’t mean that my love of cricket no longer exists! The self is the total of all our personal attributes. What you are saying amounts simply to the fact that we are only conscious of them when we are conscious of them! As an analogy, I have flat feet. You seem to be saying that if I’m not thinking about my flat feet, I don’t have flat feet.

Matt: I was trying to delete that "insistence" bit on editing, but for whatever reason, it kept coming back. Please don't focus on that part.

To understand me better, go back to where I brought up Phineas Gage. I believe you take for granted the idea that your love for cricket will always be there. If trauma befell you, and wiped out half or more of your memories including your love of cricket, what you just said here is false. Your love of cricket exists only so long as that conditioning remains in your head. By that logic, I say that your love of cricket, only exists when it's the direct focus of your mind, and disappears when you're not looking at it. I've spent time with Alzheimer's patients, and I've read the accounts of how schizophrenics feel as their sense of self dissolves into the cacophony of their voices. This has given me a healthy skepticism in regards to my relationship with those bits that feel like they have alot more permanence than they do.

If we're talking physical body parts, that's (literally) alot more solid. The errant thinking though is that your love of cricket has the same level of permanence and reality as your feet. The Buddhist perspective here would be, "have you loved your feet lately? Might want to show them some appreciation for all they do for you." It's not unlike the stoic practice of pretending that someone or something in your life has died or gone missing. This practice makes you appreciate and show gratitude for what you have, because it might not be there. (More powerful for people or loved ones but you get the idea.)

dhw: I’ve left out the rest of your statement because the misunderstanding is apparent on both sides. If you read my comment above, you’ll see that our disagreement has nothing to do with your personal circumstances. It is the Buddhist “doctrine” that I oppose: namely, the belief that for someone to achieve the ideal of Nibbana, they must lose all concept of self and all desires. I’m delighted that you have found your own “balance” without what I consider to be a renunciation of all that I consider to be fundamental to the enjoyment and I might even say the value of human life (in the context of those desires that benefit us and others). I think we actually agree - but I'm sure you'll tell me if we don't!

Matt: The personal circumstances bit is soley to level set, because I feel almost ignored by having to repeat that Nibbana line as many times as I have. Buddhism doesn't say to restore the "vital balance" you do those things. It only says 'if you want to transcend *all* suffering, do these things.' I will restate again, concisely:

I've already answered the doctrine part: If you're on the path to Nibbana, it is impossible to avoid the dissolution of the sense of self, and it is impossible not to become more ascetic, wordly desires get replaced by meditative desires. It happens naturally according to practice. That is why "must" is used. Nibbana literally means you've severed the last little thread of attachment to the ego in this life. And that bit of doctrine, isn't relevant for any of use who are otherwise living normal lives. Every Buddhist is not seeking Nibbana. This is categorically different from Western Christianity which I don't recall if you were forced through (but I certainly was). I only spent two years of my life going to church, but it was literally more hell than I could imagine south of heaven.

It's Buddhist Doctrine because Nibbana was his discovery and the rest of the teaching is in how to replicate it. It's called the "Middle Way" because just prior to his own enlightenment he was engaging in some pretty tortuous ascetic practices and he realized that way was just pain. The search for all of these aspirants was to either become one with Brahma or to find the 'self.'

I guess from my perspective, it seems like you're taking aim at the Buddhist ideal from the perspective where it's ineffable (like God.) I've tried to demonstrate with the compass analogy, that whatever it is that YOU think Nibbana is, I think your conception is mistaken. See my comment above where I talk about how meditation naturally suppresses the sense of self and just do what I do and take that to the logical conclusion where Nibbana is a state of mind where you're not caught in the wind anymore.

As in the other thread, I understand you lose a sense of self in meditation but can always return to it.