Nibbana tangent part 2 (Agnosticism)

by David Turell , Thursday, May 30, 2024, 00:26 (101 days ago) @ xeno6696

Contd. from PART ONE

Matt: I’m in no position to write a history of the Buddha’s thoughts and feelings during his last 40+ years, but I am prepared to guarantee that neither he nor his followers could possibly have gone on living without any concept of self. Bodily functions alone are constant reminders of our having a “self”, but you seem to be fixated on your idea that the “self” is an illusion just because you are not permanently aware of every attribute. You haven’t responded to my objections to this or to my definition of the self. (See next exchange for more detail.)

You conflate a "sense of self" with a "self." See my PART ONE response.)

MATT: 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.

This is what I would imagine would have been the Buddha’s own experience. Meditation as per Matt, followed by a return to the self. I can’t believe he lived through his last 40+ years being unaware that he wanted to teach others, that he was teaching his ideas, and the pain in the butt was his pain, and his enjoyment of a good meal was his enjoyment. Your own life history clearly illustrates that it is not all concept of self that disappears, but individual aspects of it that disappear and are replaced by others.

So you're very close with your description in that last statement, only, as I said in part one, the sense of self is what disappears. You still use self-referents, you still have access to all your memories and experiences, you just don't think about them in terms of "THIS IS MINE" anymore. Like, throw away Buddhism for a second. Do you own your body? I would say no, because I can't control when I die, and my body will dissolve in to the elements from whence it came. This is why many religious traditions treat the body "as a temple." This body was given to you perhaps, or in my case it was a natural process beginning in cellular biology. Buddhism tries to think about our lives from a zoomed out perspective, like that one, where unequivocally, our bodies don't exactly belong to us.

MATT: I did start in the beginning of this to state that religions have their 'mysteries', in Christianity it's the resurrection, in Buddhism it's Nibbana. The Buddha deliberately left undeclared what happens past that point. However, as I've also stated, from what I've experienced it doesn't 'feel' all that ineffable.

dhw: We are forced to use words to explain our beliefs. You have explained that in order to reach Nibbana, “all concept of self must disappear”. Elsewhere there was also mention of our desires having to disappear. My point is that if the “ideal” is for you to have no awareness of yourself and of any personal attributes, and you have no personal desires, you might as well be dead. And since the Buddha apparently did not believe in an eternal soul, we all end up dead anyway, once the (extremely mysterious) cycle of rebirth has ended.

Matt: Again, you just don't like my answers here. The sense I get of Nibbana, doesn't feel like death, and it can't be death because the Buddha lived after it. On this, you're just wrong my friend.

Summary: The self is the sum total of all our attributes, both physical and mental, at any given time. Any attribute can be changed by new circumstances or experiences. We do not have to be conscious of all attributes at all times for those attributes to be real.

But our brains construct our consciousness out of what's at hand, and that isn't always constant in time. Therefore our "self" is better described as I said up above.

Nibbana: As I understand it, the ideal state would be for the self to be rid of all attributes that cause suffering to oneself or to others.

I’ll steer clear of rebirth for the time being, but it seems clear to me that if the Buddha did not believe in an eternal soul, then once the cycle of rebirth had ended, there would be no afterlife. If there is an afterlife but we are not aware that it's our self living on, then once more we might as well be dead. But maybe, as you say, the Buddha deliberately left this part of the “doctrine” undeclared.

The problem here is precisely that the Buddha left this undeclared, and you're engaging in raw speculation. As a fellow agnostic I would have thought it easier to suspend judgment here. As someone who walks this path and has told you where the compass points, who has even a little bit of an idea on what it feels like--you're just being dismissive. When you think of my comments as "I understand that this has been therapeutic.." when I'm trying to use that experience to help you understand the right place to look in my words... The "ideal" is that sense of peace.

I have told you, that whatever Nibbana means as an experience, it cannot mean death. He would have declared that, one, and two, he lived, and three, the little tidbit of Nibbana that i've attained, is awfully life-affirming. If Buddhists think death is life-affirming, then how could it still exist as an institution?