Is The Buddhist ‘No-Self’ Doctrine Compatible With Pursuing Nirvana?

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Philosophy Now
Posts: 733
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:49 am

Is The Buddhist ‘No-Self’ Doctrine Compatible With Pursuing Nirvana?

Post by Philosophy Now » Thu Dec 12, 2013 8:07 am

Katie Javanaud asks whether there is a contradiction at the heart of Buddhism.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/97/Is_T ... ng_Nirvana

jackles
Posts: 1553
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2013 10:40 pm

Re: Is The Buddhist ‘No-Self’ Doctrine Compatible With Pursu

Post by jackles » Thu Dec 12, 2013 11:25 am

nirvana is a state of realisation of the oneness that before liberation from the ego cannot be attained.because the ego limits the self to the individual.nirvana is oneness with the maker and mover of planets and gallatic forms.nirvana is simply the every day self of all individuals .that self is at one with the moverwhen nirvana is realised and thus at one with the unmoving thing the over self.the self that never happens but causes happening events to happen.

Felasco
Posts: 544
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:38 pm

Re: Is The Buddhist ‘No-Self’ Doctrine Compatible With Pursu

Post by Felasco » Thu Dec 12, 2013 12:14 pm

Interesting.

I would suggest that nirvana, enlightenment and any other proposed permanent shifts in consciousness be set aside.

We can't rule out that such states exist, and one can make a reasonable argument that they might. As example, just as there are people with extraordinary talents in every other field it's surely possible, perhaps likely, that there are people way out at the end of the talent bell curve in psychology too. We can reason that there may be individuals who are to psychology what Mozart was to music, what Einstein was to science etc.

While this possibility is interesting, the practical question is, what good does it do us if some rare individuals have reached some rare states of mind? I like Mozart, but I'm never going to write or play like Mozart, nobody how many years I try, right?

On the other hand....

Some people, perhaps most, may never discover the real value that such topics have to offer unless they are first attracted to the subject with shiny baubles waved under their noses. After all, most of us probably come to such inquiries with the usual "more, more, more" mindset typical of humanity in general and our culture in particular. Enlightenment is the ultimate "more" so it makes a powerful magnet. The danger here is that once some suffering souls get hooked on the nirvana dream, it can be hard for them to let it go.

jackles
Posts: 1553
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2013 10:40 pm

Re: Is The Buddhist ‘No-Self’ Doctrine Compatible With Pursu

Post by jackles » Thu Dec 12, 2013 1:51 pm

nirvana is ordinary you as you are now.its ordinary ness at rest state without desire.

Tarique
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:34 am

Re: Is The Buddhist ‘No-Self’ Doctrine Compatible With Pursu

Post by Tarique » Tue Dec 17, 2013 7:58 pm

Nirvana is a belief of budihism that there is no self.If it is ,in fact, is true .Then no one on the earth can claim one`s existence.Without it , this is almost impossible to define that humans do have mutually exclusive pschies.

noself
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 5:43 pm

Re: Is The Buddhist ‘No-Self’ Doctrine Compatible With Pursuing Nirvana?

Post by noself » Fri Dec 15, 2017 6:06 pm

In short = No Self is Nibanna.

Long version to entertain the Self
------------------------------------------
In this world, the only thing that constantly screaming, yelling and suffering is Self.
Every possible problems in the world are tied to Self and ego.
However, self is just a phenomenon, when we really investigate Self to the root,
We found that we couldn't find anything. By so, who is the one that is screaming ?
is it the name ? is the form ? who is the one that suffering ? is it the name or the form or both ?

If one have a big ego (self), you bet, any tiny things in this imperfect world could make his / her life miserable.
if one has a tiny ego (self), it is more easy to live with them, and basically they are more easy going and happy.
What if one without ego (self) ?

Any complex construct in this world, is form by simple constructs, and to the root, it is nibanna
No one needed to achieve nibanna or to find it. As everything that exists here and now are a derived of it.
Self too arise from it. To only thing that blind us from the underlying truth which is so pervasive in the universe
is Self. Therefor no-self is Nibanna.

Knowing with the ego (Self) is one thing, walking the path to divorce the ego (Self) is another.
The first bring you a degree, the later will bring you to Nibanna.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 874
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Is The Buddhist ‘No-Self’ Doctrine Compatible With Pursuing Nirvana?

Post by bahman » Sat Dec 23, 2017 12:21 pm

How could you reconcile the concept of rebirth and no-self?

seeds
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Is The Buddhist ‘No-Self’ Doctrine Compatible With Pursuing Nirvana?

Post by seeds » Sat Dec 23, 2017 7:37 pm

bahman wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 12:21 pm
How could you reconcile the concept of rebirth and no-self?
You can't.

To slightly paraphrase something I posted elsewhere:

When I Googled “what is nirvana,” the first thing that appeared at the top of the page was the following definition:
Google wrote: nir•va•na

(in Buddhism) a transcendent state in which there is neither suffering, desire, nor sense of self, and the subject is released from the effects of karma and the cycle of death and rebirth. It represents the final goal of Buddhism.

synonyms: paradise, heaven, bliss, ecstasy, joy, peace, serenity, tranquility, enlightenment.

• another term for moksha.
• a state of perfect happiness; an ideal or idyllic place.
Furthermore, there is also “Parinirvana.”

According to Wiki:
Wiki wrote: Parinirvana

In Buddhism, the term parinirvana....is commonly used to refer to nirvana-after-death, which occurs upon the death of the body of someone who has attained nirvana during his or her lifetime. It implies a release from the Samsara, karma and rebirth as well as the dissolution of the skandhas.

In some Mahayana scriptures....Parinirvāṇa is described as the realm of the eternal true Self of the Buddha.
(Underlining/bolding mine.)

When it is stated that...

“the subject is released from the effects of karma and the cycle of death and rebirth”

...in my mind, the word “released” needs to be more clearly defined, for it seems to imply one of only two possibilities:

1. A subject is released via a complete and utter extinguishing (“blowing out”) of the flame of consciousness. Or In other words, “released” means the passing of the self (soul/consciousness) into a state of eternal oblivion and non-existence.

...(or)...

2. A subject (self/soul/consciousness) is released from the corporeal bounds of its physical body in order to advance and evolve into a higher form of being within a higher context of reality.

The point is that doesn’t it seem logical that in order for a subject to experience...

“paradise, heaven, bliss, ecstasy, joy, peace, serenity, tranquility, enlightenment, and a state of perfect happiness”

...after being released from the cycle of death and rebirth, then shouldn't said subject be alive, conscious, and in possession of a “self” (a central and self-aware “I-Am-ness”) that is capable of, again, “experiencing” the wide range of qualia mentioned above?

Therefore, it would appear that nirvana can only be fully-realized by means of option number “2.”
_______

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 874
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Is The Buddhist ‘No-Self’ Doctrine Compatible With Pursuing Nirvana?

Post by bahman » Sun Dec 24, 2017 6:15 am

seeds wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 7:37 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 12:21 pm
How could you reconcile the concept of rebirth and no-self?
You can't.

To slightly paraphrase something I posted elsewhere:

When I Googled “what is nirvana,” the first thing that appeared at the top of the page was the following definition:
Google wrote: nir•va•na

(in Buddhism) a transcendent state in which there is neither suffering, desire, nor sense of self, and the subject is released from the effects of karma and the cycle of death and rebirth. It represents the final goal of Buddhism.

synonyms: paradise, heaven, bliss, ecstasy, joy, peace, serenity, tranquility, enlightenment.

• another term for moksha.
• a state of perfect happiness; an ideal or idyllic place.
Furthermore, there is also “Parinirvana.”

According to Wiki:
Wiki wrote: Parinirvana

In Buddhism, the term parinirvana....is commonly used to refer to nirvana-after-death, which occurs upon the death of the body of someone who has attained nirvana during his or her lifetime. It implies a release from the Samsara, karma and rebirth as well as the dissolution of the skandhas.

In some Mahayana scriptures....Parinirvāṇa is described as the realm of the eternal true Self of the Buddha.
(Underlining/bolding mine.)

When it is stated that...

“the subject is released from the effects of karma and the cycle of death and rebirth”

...in my mind, the word “released” needs to be more clearly defined, for it seems to imply one of only two possibilities:

1. A subject is released via a complete and utter extinguishing (“blowing out”) of the flame of consciousness. Or In other words, “released” means the passing of the self (soul/consciousness) into a state of eternal oblivion and non-existence.

...(or)...

2. A subject (self/soul/consciousness) is released from the corporeal bounds of its physical body in order to advance and evolve into a higher form of being within a higher context of reality.

The point is that doesn’t it seem logical that in order for a subject to experience...

“paradise, heaven, bliss, ecstasy, joy, peace, serenity, tranquility, enlightenment, and a state of perfect happiness”

...after being released from the cycle of death and rebirth, then shouldn't said subject be alive, conscious, and in possession of a “self” (a central and self-aware “I-Am-ness”) that is capable of, again, “experiencing” the wide range of qualia mentioned above?

Therefore, it would appear that nirvana can only be fully-realized by means of option number “2.”
_______
I agree with what you stated. The concept of rebirth without self is meaningless since something must survive death in order to reborn again.

Atla
Posts: 220
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Is The Buddhist ‘No-Self’ Doctrine Compatible With Pursuing Nirvana?

Post by Atla » Fri Jan 05, 2018 7:32 pm

Buddhists throw out the self but then use the trick of believing in karma and the skandhas. That way there is something facilitating "their" rebirth.

They have everything backwards. In reality, the self is real in some sense, it's a part of the head. Karma and skandhas are entirely made up however. So there is no rebirth. And there is nothing to get away from or nowhere get to. So then what are they doing and why.

Reducing the clinging of the ego may be a good idea, but why would you want to fully dismantle it. That only leads to social dysfunction, not some kind of Nirvana.

Also, what's with all the emptiness. Why not fullness, or anything between the two.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest