Nibbana tangent part 2 (Agnosticism)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, May 31, 2024, 00:43 (100 days ago) @ dhw

MATT: 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.

DHW:

1. Why are you suddenly talking of ownership?
2. That has nothing to do with the “self”!
3. You can hardly deny that your body is part of your “self”.
4. And just like your mental attributes, it can be changed at any time.
5. If you suffer from any physical illness, you are probably more conscious of your physical “self” than you are of your mental “self”.

You've logically contradicted yourself on 1-3. First off, part OF a sense of self is some concept of possession. They co-arise together. This is betrayed on your third sentence where you reflexively state that 'the body is part of your "self".' I'm a part of nature, if I belong to anything, I belong to this world. I didn't create this body, I can't shape shift into other forms so I have little control over it.

DHW: My point is that if the concept is as you have described it – “all concept of self must disappear”, together with all our desires – we might as well be dead.

Well there's your problem, you've already said you're using your own concept of Nibbana! Which is fine, but then we're not really talking about Buddhism anymore. The Buddha was clear: Nibbana isn't annihilation, it isn't an eternal self, to attain Nibbana, the last thread to cut is to your sense of self. I'll call out what I said in bold: “all concept of self must disappear”.

MATT: The problem here is precisely that the Buddha left this undeclared, and you're engaging in raw speculation.

DHW: There is no speculation on my part! It’s a simple conditional sentence, based on the concepts you offered us: if all sense of self has disappeared, and if there is an afterlife, you might as well be dead. If there is no afterlife, you will be dead anyway. I myself have no set view on the subject. I’ll wait and see what happens, or of course I shan’t ever know what happens!

That's some lovely cheekiness, I do say! I mean, I'm immediately in your boat at least as far as the end result. I don't really know about an end result, life's final great mystery

But I disagree that Nibbana is as off-putting as what you're saying right here. Again, not my goal, but I mean, as far as afterlives go, it sounds a helluva lot better than singing someone's praises for eternity!

MATT: I have told you, that whatever Nibbana means as an experience, it cannot mean death.

Once more: my point is that (a) if you attain Nibbana during your life on Earth, but that means you lose all sense of self and have no more desires, you might as well be dead. See my speculation on the Buddha’s last 40 years; and (b) see above for the question concerning a possible afterlife. That is why I have offered you an alternative definition of Nibbana. Do you agree with it or not?
--

I do not, I go with the definition that the Buddha gave, since he discovered it. As for my own understanding on that, I will hold to the compass analogy.

--
\"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.\"