Nibbana tangent part 2 (Agnosticism)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, May 28, 2024, 22:24 (155 days ago) @ dhw

MATT: 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.

If by taking aim you mean criticizing, I do most certainly criticize the “doctrine” that encourages people to “lose all concept of self” and abandon all desires. No need to repeat the arguments. I do not criticize the concept of Nibanna. I’m trying to understand it. But clearly, if we reach the point where something is ineffable, it can’t be discussed with words, and so you can say that any verbalized conception is mistaken! All I have done is examine the words you have used, and extrapolate conclusions: if you tell me that Nibanna means that all concept of self disappears and there is no such thing as an eternal self, my conclusion is that you might as well be dead. (By the way, I don’t have a problem with eternal death. But since I love life, I'd like to delay my death as long as possible!)

Okay, explain to me how it can mean death, when the Buddha (and many of his other followers who achieved Nibbana) could be alive for 40+ yrs? Like, your insistence that it means some sort of final death makes absolutely no sense to me. I've tried to explain this in various ways, so instead I'll ask you to explain yourself, because clearly I'm missing something. When I come back from a meditation, I'm still myself but my sense of self is gone and it takes awhile for it to come back. There's nothing at all about that that feels particularly "dead" to me.

--
\"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.\"