MATT: the sense of future and past isn't there. Which is part of the reason Buddhism places emphasis that where the 'self' lives--is right now in the present moment.

dhw: Which is exactly what I keep saying: the self is the total of our attributes at any given moment, which = right now. There is nothing in your post that I disagree with, and so far I can’t see what there is in my posts that you disagree with.

MATT: Apologies for the unexpected layover. Bank account got hacked around the time of my last post and then in the last week I had an unexpected atopic dermatitis that turned my entire body into essentially a mosquito bite. Sleep was terrible. Also work chose to ramp up, as they say, "when it rains, it pours!"

dhw: You have all my sympathy!

MATT: At any rate, as per this conversation, I had a suspicion for over a week that we were dancing around the same ideas with different window dressing. […] I was honestly just trying to get you to say something to confirm it without me really prompting you.

dhw: This is very reassuring, and you’re right. It’s largely a problem of language, because it’s often difficult to agree on definitions. I’ll now comment on selected points from your reply – but once more, it’s a matter of clarification rather than disagreement.

MATT: I think what was getting me was the repeated reference to Nibbana as death, and me not interpreting your statement as a 'well, from my perspective that sounds like death!' It's supposed to be a sense of peace so profound that it eclipses everything else. That doesn't sound like a bad thing (and to me yes, death, despite being natural isn't a good thing to me ROFL).

dhw: All clear. My focus was on the prescribed elimination of the self and of all desires, whereas yours is on a kind of purification and pacification of the self, with which of course I agree. My own attitude towards death, as with many other problems of life, is mixed. I’m still very emotional over the loss of my wife ten years ago and of my elder son last year (and I'm immeasurably grateful for the happiness and love we shared). And like all of us I’m fearful of the possible suffering that may precede my own death (as it did theirs). But intellectually, I see nothing to fear in death as the end of my story. This is partly because I simply cannot imagine any sort of joy that would last for ever and ever. But for me – picking up on your own word – although death would be peace, what I want and get from life is the far more positive, active feeling of joy.

MATT: […] in my own case it has been an exercise in learning more about my nuances. […] “if it's not so important that I think about it so rarely, how important is it?" Right, so that's detachment from my identity, and I don't see that as a bad thing either.

dhw: I don’t see “learning more about my nuances” as detachment but simply as a greater awareness of who you are (and possibly of who you do or don’t wish to be). And the fact that “it’s not so important” is, in my view, because – as with our bodies – our identity is something we generally take for granted until something goes wrong. That’s why it’s an immense relief if we can be rid of the pain or the selfishness that creates suffering.

MATT: So it teaches how to have a different relationship with the self, and per the points I was trying to make with Gage and the foot, one that is filled with more gratitude.

dhw: Exactly.

MATT: Which might be the only puzzle left--you've repeatedly asked about why the ascetic life has some aspect of turning away even from good experiences, and the only answer I've offered is that people who go that far are clearly getting more pleasure from that than you think, or they wouldn't do it. At least in my school of Buddhism, never trust a monastery where a Buddha statue isn't smiling.

DAVID: Your last paragraph is the key, Buddhists wouldn't do it unless they liked what it did.

dhw: Agreed. But there is no contradiction here. I think the three of us derive our joy from being “selves” that relish the fulfilment of our desires. And from all our conversations, I am sure those desires are not harmful to others, but if anything are beneficial both to us and them. I don’t wish to sound boastful, but I am very much “at peace” with myself and with all the people I know. If others feel the same through the “pleasure” of monastic life, that’s fine. And if the Buddha’s teachings lead to a healthier attitude towards oneself and others (offering a kind of therapy for when things have gone wrong), I’m all for it. What I’m against is “dogma”. But we’ve been over all that.

I am at peace with myself and all I know.

dhw: Which is exactly what I keep saying: the self is the total of our attributes at any given moment, which = right now. There is nothing in your post that I disagree with, and so far I can’t see what there is in my posts that you disagree with.

MATT: Apologies for the unexpected layover. Bank account got hacked around the time of my last post and then in the last week I had an unexpected atopic dermatitis that turned my entire body into essentially a mosquito bite. Sleep was terrible. Also work chose to ramp up, as they say, "when it rains, it pours!"

You have all my sympathy!

MATT: At any rate, as per this conversation, I had a suspicion for over a week that we were dancing around the same ideas with different window dressing. […] I was honestly just trying to get you to say something to confirm it without me really prompting you.

This is very reassuring, and you’re right. It’s largely a problem of language, because it’s often difficult to agree on definitions. I’ll now comment on selected points from your reply – but once more, it’s a matter of clarification rather than disagreement.

MATT: I think what was getting me was the repeated reference to Nibbana as death, and me not interpreting your statement as a 'well, from my perspective that sounds like death!' It's supposed to be a sense of peace so profound that it eclipses everything else. That doesn't sound like a bad thing (and to me yes, death, despite being natural isn't a good thing to me ROFL).

All clear. My focus was on the prescribed elimination of the self and of all desires, whereas yours is on a kind of purification and pacification of the self, with which of course I agree. My own attitude towards death, as with many other problems of life, is mixed. I’m still very emotional over the loss of my wife ten years ago and of my elder son last year (and I'm immeasurably grateful for the happiness and love we shared). And like all of us I’m fearful of the possible suffering that may precede my own death (as it did theirs). But intellectually, I see nothing to fear in death as the end of my story. This is partly because I simply cannot imagine any sort of joy that would last for ever and ever. But for me – picking up on your own word – although death would be peace, what I want and get from life is the far more positive, active feeling of joy.

MATT: […] in my own case it has been an exercise in learning more about my nuances. […] “if it's not so important that I think about it so rarely, how important is it?" Right, so that's detachment from my identity, and I don't see that as a bad thing either.

I don’t see “learning more about my nuances” as detachment but simply as a greater awareness of who you are (and possibly of who you do or don’t wish to be). And the fact that “it’s not so important” is, in my view, because – as with our bodies – our identity is something we generally take for granted until something goes wrong. That’s why it’s an immense relief if we can be rid of the pain or the selfishness that creates suffering.

MATT: So it teaches how to have a different relationship with the self, and per the points I was trying to make with Gage and the foot, one that is filled with more gratitude.

Exactly.

MATT: Which might be the only puzzle left--you've repeatedly asked about why the ascetic life has some aspect of turning away even from good experiences, and the only answer I've offered is that people who go that far are clearly getting more pleasure from that than you think, or they wouldn't do it. At least in my school of Buddhism, never trust a monastery where a Buddha statue isn't smiling.

DAVID: Your last paragraph is the key, Buddhists wouldn't do it unless they liked what it did.

Agreed. But there is no contradiction here. I think the three of us derive our joy from being “selves” that relish the fulfilment of our desires. And from all our conversations, I am sure those desires are not harmful to others, but if anything are beneficial both to us and them. I don’t wish to sound boastful, but I am very much “at peace” with myself and with all the people I know. If others feel the same through the “pleasure” of monastic life, that’s fine. And if the Buddha’s teachings lead to a healthier attitude towards oneself and others (offering a kind of therapy for when things have gone wrong), I’m all for it. What I’m against is “dogma”. But we’ve been over all that.

MATT: the sense of future and past isn't there. Which is part of the reason Buddhism places emphasis that where the 'self' lives--is right now in the present moment.

DHW: Which is exactly what I keep saying: the self is the total of our attributes at any given moment, which = right now. There is nothing in your post that I disagree with, and so far I can’t see what there is in my posts that you disagree with.

Matt: Apologies for the unexpected layover. Bank account got hacked around the time of my last post and then in the last week I had an unexpected atopic dermatitis that turned my entire body into essentially a mosquito bite. Sleep was terrible. Also work chose to ramp up, as they say, "when it rains, it pours!"

Everything is back to nominal now.

At any rate, as per this conversation, I had a suspicion for over a week that we were dancing around the same ideas with different window dressing. Your words here echo that--I was honestly just trying to get you to say something to confirm it without me really prompting you.

I think what was getting me was the repeated reference to Nibbana as death, and me not interpreting your statement as a 'well, from my perspective that sounds like death!' It's supposed to be a sense of peace so profound that it eclipses everything else. That doesn't sound like a bad thing (and to me yes, death, despite being natural isn't a good thing to me ROFL).

It did force me to do more studies here, which is never a bad thing. There's a very common misconception that Buddhism teaches literally "the self doesn't exist." And I mean, maybe, if we're drawing in crayon there's truth to that if we relate the Buddhist concept of self against the concept of self we've grown up with. I run the risk of offending maybe, but in my own case it has been an exercise in learning more about my nuances. Understanding for example, that I don't think about my "identity" all that often naturally leads to the question, "well, if it's not so important that I think about it so rarely, how important is it?" Right, so that's detachment from my identity, and I don't see that as a bad thing either.

So it teaches how to have a different relationship with the self, and per the points I was trying to make with Gage and the foot, one that is filled with more gratitude. I tell you what, being on fire and itching head to toes (literally, fingers and toes had rash) makes me value the "nothing" of "normal" that I had taken for granted for several decades! I'm so thankful to be mostly itch free today that it fills me with a sense of joy--which means, in Buddhist terms, that's the best time to meditate.

Which might be the only puzzle left--you've repeatedly asked about why the ascetic life has some aspect of turning away even from good experiences, and the only answer I've offered is that people who go that far are clearly getting more pleasure from that than you think, or they wouldn't do it. At least in my school of Buddhism, never trust a monastery where a Buddha statue isn't smiling.

Glad you survived. I assume with steroids. Your last paragraph is the key, Buddhists wouldn't do it unless they liked what it did.

MATT: the sense of future and past isn't there. Which is part of the reason Buddhism places emphasis that where the 'self' lives--is right now in the present moment.

DHW: Which is exactly what I keep saying: the self is the total of our attributes at any given moment, which = right now. There is nothing in your post that I disagree with, and so far I can’t see what there is in my posts that you disagree with.

Apologies for the unexpected layover. Bank account got hacked around the time of my last post and then in the last week I had an unexpected atopic dermatitis that turned my entire body into essentially a mosquito bite. Sleep was terrible. Also work chose to ramp up, as they say, "when it rains, it pours!"

Everything is back to nominal now.

At any rate, as per this conversation, I had a suspicion for over a week that we were dancing around the same ideas with different window dressing. Your words here echo that--I was honestly just trying to get you to say something to confirm it without me really prompting you.

I think what was getting me was the repeated reference to Nibbana as death, and me not interpreting your statement as a 'well, from my perspective that sounds like death!' It's supposed to be a sense of peace so profound that it eclipses everything else. That doesn't sound like a bad thing (and to me yes, death, despite being natural isn't a good thing to me ROFL).

It did force me to do more studies here, which is never a bad thing. There's a very common misconception that Buddhism teaches literally "the self doesn't exist." And I mean, maybe, if we're drawing in crayon there's truth to that if we relate the Buddhist concept of self against the concept of self we've grown up with. I run the risk of offending maybe, but in my own case it has been an exercise in learning more about my nuances. Understanding for example, that I don't think about my "identity" all that often naturally leads to the question, "well, if it's not so important that I think about it so rarely, how important is it?" Right, so that's detachment from my identity, and I don't see that as a bad thing either.

So it teaches how to have a different relationship with the self, and per the points I was trying to make with Gage and the foot, one that is filled with more gratitude. I tell you what, being on fire and itching head to toes (literally, fingers and toes had rash) makes me value the "nothing" of "normal" that I had taken for granted for several decades! I'm so thankful to be mostly itch free today that it fills me with a sense of joy--which means, in Buddhist terms, that's the best time to meditate.

Which might be the only puzzle left--you've repeatedly asked about why the ascetic life has some aspect of turning away even from good experiences, and the only answer I've offered is that people who go that far are clearly getting more pleasure from that than you think, or they wouldn't do it. At least in my school of Buddhism, never trust a monastery where a Buddha statue isn't smiling.

MATT: I applaud overall your description of the self, and on most things we're closer that maybe it seems, but again, as above, you're confusing the 'self' for the 'sense of self.' One goes away and the other remains.

dhw: That is precisely what I am saying, but let’s not exaggerate. The ‘self’ will no doubt continue to retain many of its attributes (which helps us to maintain our sense of self), but you will notice that in my summary, I specified that it is the total of our attributes at any given time. Some may go away, and may be replaced, but the sense of self remains.

MATT: What I want to focus in on here is that post-meditation, I'm fully conscious, but there's no 'sense of self'. The sense of self is like an emotion that only exists for brief moments.

dhw: You have changed the subject. My comment concerned the nature of the self as I attempted to define it. But you are talking about consciousness of the self, which I dealt with elsewhere: “It’s self evident that we don’t spend our lives consciously thinking about what is or isn’t our “self”. Most of the time our consciousness is focused on other things.” You go on to talk about memory:

MATT: If you don't put energy into that memory--which we tend to do instinctively--it maintains itself and it remains firmly entrenched and lodged into the psyche.

dhw: I have no idea what you mean by “putting energy into memory”. Memories are part of the “self”, but many disappear, many become distorted – they are probably more likely than most other attributes of the self to “change” with time. But whatever is there – accurate or not – is still a part of the self, but we’re not conscious of it unless circumstances require us to focus on it.

dhw: But that doesn’t mean the self is not there!

This was the conclusion to my ruminations on consciousness/unconsciousness of the self. The fact that we're not thinking about it doesn't mean that it’s illusory. I have no idea why you go on to call this a “conflation”.

MATT: Again, the conflation. I originally used the term "concept of self" in terms of its disappearance. As I've tried to show here, that 'sense of self' has more in common with an emotion or a thought--a concept. The error that MOST of us make is in mistaking that sense of self, AS the self. You don't like me drawing the line between that sense of self and that bare-awareness or "right now" attention of consciousness.

dhw: I don’t understand why you make it seem so complicated. Of course sense of self is not the self – it’s awareness of the self! What is your “sense of self” if it is not the consciousness/awareness of self as it is right now?

MATT: the sense of future and past isn't there. Which is part of the reason Buddhism places emphasis that where the 'self' lives--is right now in the present moment.

dhw: Which is exactly what I keep saying: the self is the total of our attributes at any given moment, which = right now. There is nothing in your post that I disagree with, and so far I can’t see what there is in my posts that you disagree with.

I have enjoyed this exchange. You don't disagree and I have the same thoughts about self.

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”.

MATT: 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.

I have no idea why you have suddenly introduced the concept of ownership and possession and “belonging” to something. There is a perfectly simple concept that doesn’t need any of these terms: this is my body. What don’t you understand? And my body is part of my “self”. What don’t you understand? And just like the rest of my “self” the body can undergo changes. And most of the time, I am not conscious of my body. The fact that your Mum and Dad created it and you can’t become a wolf doesn’t mean it’s not yours! Do people really go around saying: “I own my house, my car, my TV and my body”?

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.

MATT: Well there's your problem, you've already said you're using your own concept of Nibbana!

No, that is the concept you spelled out for us! And my comment is on what you told us.

MATT: 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”.

Precisely the point I have made above, except that you’ve left out the very important bit about desires. So you’ve just confirmed that we really are talking about Buddhism.

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!

MATT: 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!

Nibbana in this present life as you have defined it is definitely off-putting for me. As far as afterlives go, yep, you’ve given me a good laugh. Thank you! I really can’t help wondering what one could possibly enjoy doing for the rest of eternity, and maybe the Buddha was hinting at something very wise with his rejection of the concept of an eternal soul!

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?

MATT: 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.

The only “definition” you have given us so far is the need to obliterate the self and get rid of all desires. My “definition” was: “the ideal state would be for the self to be rid of all attributes that cause suffering to oneself or others.” Please explain why you disagree.

dhw: That is precisely what I am saying, but let’s not exaggerate. The ‘self’ will no doubt continue to retain many of its attributes (which helps us to maintain our sense of self), but you will notice that in my summary, I specified that it is the total of our attributes at any given time. Some may go away, and may be replaced, but the sense of self remains.

MATT: What I want to focus in on here is that post-meditation, I'm fully conscious, but there's no 'sense of self'. The sense of self is like an emotion that only exists for brief moments.

You have changed the subject. My comment concerned the nature of the self as I attempted to define it. But you are talking about consciousness of the self, which I dealt with elsewhere: “It’s self evident that we don’t spend our lives consciously thinking about what is or isn’t our “self”. Most of the time our consciousness is focused on other things.” You go on to talk about memory:

MATT: If you don't put energy into that memory--which we tend to do instinctively--it maintains itself and it remains firmly entrenched and lodged into the psyche.

I have no idea what you mean by “putting energy into memory”. Memories are part of the “self”, but many disappear, many become distorted – they are probably more likely than most other attributes of the self to “change” with time. But whatever is there – accurate or not – is still a part of the self, but we’re not conscious of it unless circumstances require us to focus on it.

dhw: But that doesn’t mean the self is not there!

This was the conclusion to my ruminations on consciousness/unconsciousness of the self. The fact that we're not thinking about it doesn't mean that it’s illusory. I have no idea why you go on to call this a “conflation”.

MATT: Again, the conflation. I originally used the term "concept of self" in terms of its disappearance. As I've tried to show here, that 'sense of self' has more in common with an emotion or a thought--a concept. The error that MOST of us make is in mistaking that sense of self, AS the self. You don't like me drawing the line between that sense of self and that bare-awareness or "right now" attention of consciousness.

I don’t understand why you make it seem so complicated. Of course sense of self is not the self – it’s awareness of the self! What is your “sense of self” if it is not the consciousness/awareness of self as it is right now?

MATT: the sense of future and past isn't there. Which is part of the reason Buddhism places emphasis that where the 'self' lives--is right now in the present moment.

Which is exactly what I keep saying: the self is the total of our attributes at any given moment, which = right now. There is nothing in your post that I disagree with, and so far I can’t see what there is in my posts that you disagree with.

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.

MATT: I applaud overall your description of the self, and on most things we're closer that maybe it seems, but again, as above, you're confusing the 'self' for the 'sense of self.' One goes away and the other remains.

DHW: That is precisely what I am saying, but let’s not exaggerate. The ‘self’ will no doubt continue to retain many of its attributes (which helps us to maintain our sense of self), but you will notice that in my summary, I specified that it is the total of our attributes at any given time. Some may go away, and may be replaced, but the sense of self remains.

For the sake of time, I'm going to take the microscope here in the hopes that this is the lynchpin of the potential controversy.

What I want to focus in on here is that post-meditation, I'm fully conscious, but there's no 'sense of self'. The sense of self is like an emotion that only exists for brief moments. It's a state of consciousness where when I return to the five senses, there's enough distance between mind and senses that you can trace the threads, you can find the exact moment where your mind wraps a sound or a touch into something positive or negative, neutral is harder to feel. At that moment you can locate the precise part of you responsible for 'self-izing' your experience of phenomena.

I think what's becoming clear is that we are drawing the lines of 'self' at different places. I brought up memories because they're concrete, but as a mental structure, the self is little different than any of the rest of your memories. If you don't put energy into that memory--which we tend to do instinctively--it maintains itself and it remains firmly entrenched and lodged into the psyche.

But that doesn’t mean the self is not there!

Again, the conflation. I originally used the term "concept of self" in terms of its disappearance. As I've tried to show here, that 'sense of self' has more in common with an emotion or a thought--a concept. The error that MOST of us make is in mistaking that sense of self, AS the self. You don't like me drawing the line between that sense of self and that bare-awareness or "right now" attention of consciousness.

On your last bit, I still have a sense of self, I can just point to it more clearly when it's in my mind. If you complimented me right after a meditation, I wouldn't apprehend it in the same way as you suggest however. Typically when in that state there's more of a reflexive desire to share and reciprocate. It takes a good 30min for even a weakened buzz of thinking to resume. It's a very clear state. You can sense thoughts and emotions as they bubble up. It's raw awareness, the sense of future and past isn't there. Which is part of the reason Buddhism places emphasis that where the 'self' lives--is right now in the present moment.

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

MATT: 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.

dhw: You seemed to agree with my account of what the Buddha would have done in his last 40 years. My point was precisely that his “sense of self” could not have disappeared, and nor could all his desires. Hence my own concept of Nibbana:
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.

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.

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.

MATT: But our brains construct our consciousness out of what's at hand, and that isn't always constant in time.

“At any given time” means “what’s at hand”, and I have said that this can be changed (= not always constant). Once again you seem to disagree with something you agree with!

dhw: 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.

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!

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

dhw: 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'm following along.

dhw: I will expand a little on my original reply to this, which was that the self is the total of all our attributes at any given time. The fact that we don’t consciously think of each one all the time does not mean they are not there. (I used the analogy of my flat feet, which you misinterpreted as meaning that all attributes were permanent.) No, the attributes may change at any time through illness, accident, or new experiences. But that does not mean they are not present or are not real. A bigot one day may have an experience that changes his rigid opinions. Psychotherapy may perform the same function. The bigotry was real, not illusory. Now the open mind is real. Phineas Gage is another illustration.

MATT: You're conflating "self" with "sense of self" with every line here. Buddhism (and my own meditative experience) demonstrates that I can still be a "self" without a "sense of self." Under your definition, if I lost half my memories, I'd still have the *same* sense of self, and that's patently false. I'd have *a* sense of self--I'd feel the same, but I wouldn't be the same, and as I interacted with friends and family, it would start to come out, all the different things that I had forgotten.

dhw: I feel more and more that there’s no disagreement between us, but you are using different terminology which in itself is confusing. You say the same sense of self would be false, but then you go on to say that you would still feel the same. Having the same sense of self to me means feeling the same! (Not to be confused with consciousness of the self – see later). But of course the self would not be the same because, as I keep pointing out, it is constantly subject to change! You then switch to the subject of memories. These are notoriously unreliable, but whatever I remember or think I remember is still part of the present me. In your case, you vividly remember the egotistical attributes of your past real self, and are fully aware of the changes that have led to the present real you. Your “sense of self” remains the same, but the self is not the same.

MATT: I applaud overall your description of the self, and on most things we're closer that maybe it seems, but again, as above, you're confusing the 'self' for the 'sense of self.' One goes away and the other remains.

dhw: That is precisely what I am saying, but let’s not exaggerate. The ‘self’ will no doubt continue to retain many of its attributes (which helps us to maintain our sense of self), but you will notice that in my summary, I specified that it is the total of our attributes at any given time. Some may go away, and may be replaced, but the sense of self remains.

MATT: Imagine an hour or so of your life where phrases or feelings like "I am ME" just stop appearing? You don't feel the other "I'm NOT me", you feel neither thing. THAT is what consciousness without a sense of self is like.

dhw: Again, there is no disagreement. It’s self-evident that we don’t spend our lives consciously thinking about what is or isn’t our “self”. Most of the time, our consciousness is focused on other things. But that doesn’t mean the self is not there!

dhw: 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.

MATT: 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.

dhw: No, the chances are that you will start thinking “this is mine” only if you’re discussing psychology with somebody, or if something goes wrong, or if your contact with others makes you think in those terms. If I tell you that I think you are a very intelligent, learned, and sensitive man (which I do!) then I reckon your “sense of self” will automatically be activated. But if your wife asks you to wash the car, I doubt if you will be inspired to start analysing yourself.

edited by DAVID

DAVID: May I ask, is there a place in Buddhism for the evidence of NDE's that consciousness is separate from the brain which must receive it??

MATT: I thought I answered this or a similar question, but yes absolutely. It's off in that category with rebirth for me, but it is also why this particular school of Buddhism has continuously challenged me.

THIS consciousness is tied to a body, but as we get close to death leaving it is trivial. If you're in particular states of meditation at the time of death the experience becomes more like lucid dreaming. I'm not sure between which stages of meditation earns you psychic powers, but those are in the offing as well. Ajahn Brahm has so many stories to tell of Devas (celestial beings) or even of one story where A man several villages away died and his consciousness took over someone else's body. The Tibetan Book of the dead as I have mentioned earlier is supposed to be a complete guide to dying. It is through the lens of Tibetan Buddhism which has a more up close and personal attitude towards deities. But it's studied by students in all schools.

It's not clear at what point you gain psychic abilities, but once you reach the 2nd Jhana, you're supposed to be able to freely move through the memories of all your past lives--in that 'aftermath period' where the self is suppressed, and then somewhere between there and Nibbana is supposed to allow the practitioner to OBE, read minds, walk on water, an incomplete list is here. Some of the exploits of the Shaolin monks have been explained with physics, but obviously most people (including myself) kinda roll their eyes at flying through the air. Brahm has talked several times about a "mind-made-body".

However, as I stated at some point when I came back to chat here, there are also planes of existence where there is no material body component--mind made realms entirely. (The states of meditation beginning with the first Jhana all grant access to that universe of existence apparently.)

I know dhw you get frustrated when I don't compile bits together but I already answered your other two sets of comments. This is one I should have stated sooner, but while the Buddha did not declare what happens if you reach Nibbana and this body passes, he was adamant that both eternalism and annihilationism were false. This is one of several reasons his path is called "the middle way." Annihilationism is the materialist belief that this is the only life, period, when you die, that's it forever. Nibbana by definition is NOT that. Nibbana is also not eternalism: An eternal self that lives for all time. As I tried to say around the time that David asked if it meant joining God in some way, a cosmology that allows for realms that have no material component, clearly allow levels of latitude for odd realms of existence. Assume String Theory is true: there's many higher dimensions possible in our universe, surely there exists a bucket somewhere for what happens after you attain Nibbana, and then pass.

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

MATT: 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.

You seemed to agree with my account of what the Buddha would have done in his last 40 years. My point was precisely that his “sense of self” could not have disappeared, and nor could all his desires. Hence my own concept of Nibbana:
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.

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.

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.

MATT: But our brains construct our consciousness out of what's at hand, and that isn't always constant in time.

“At any given time” means “what’s at hand”, and I have said that this can be changed (= not always constant). Once again you seem to disagree with something you agree with!

dhw: 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.

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

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!

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?
--

MATT: You're conflating "self" with "sense of self" with every line here. Buddhism (and my own meditative experience) demonstrates that I can still be a "self" without a "sense of self." Under your definition, if I lost half my memories, I'd still have the *same* sense of self, and that's patently false. I'd have *a* sense of self--I'd feel the same, but I wouldn't be the same, and as I interacted with friends and family, it would start to come out, all the different things that I had forgotten.

I feel more and more that there’s no disagreement between us, but you are using different terminology which in itself is confusing. You say the same sense of self would be false, but then you go on to say that you would still feel the same. Having the same sense of self to me means feeling the same! (Not to be confused with consciousness of the self – see later). But of course the self would not be the same because, as I keep pointing out, it is constantly subject to change! You then switch to the subject of memories. These are notoriously unreliable, but whatever I remember or think I remember is still part of the present me. In your case, you vividly remember the egotistical attributes of your past real self, and are fully aware of the changes that have led to the present real you. Your “sense of self” remains the same, but the self is not the same.

MATT: I applaud overall your description of the self, and on most things we're closer that maybe it seems, but again, as above, you're confusing the 'self' for the 'sense of self.' One goes away and the other remains.

That is precisely what I am saying, but let’s not exaggerate. The ‘self’ will no doubt continue to retain many of its attributes (which helps us to maintain our sense of self), but you will notice that in my summary, I specified that it is the total of our attributes at any given time. Some may go away, and may be replaced, but the sense of self remains.

MATT: Imagine an hour or so of your life where phrases or feelings like "I am ME" just stop appearing? You don't feel the other "I'm NOT me", you feel neither thing. THAT is what consciousness without a sense of self is like.

Again, there is no disagreement. It’s self-evident that we don’t spend our lives consciously thinking about what is or isn’t our “self”. Most of the time, our consciousness is focused on other things. But that doesn’t mean the self is not there!

dhw: 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.

MATT: 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.

No, the chances are that you will start thinking “this is mine” only if you’re discussing psychology with somebody, or if something goes wrong, or if your contact with others makes you think in those terms. If I tell you that I think you are a very intelligent, learned, and sensitive man (which I do!) then I reckon your “sense of self” will automatically be activated. But if your wife asks you to wash the car, I doubt if you will be inspired to start analysing yourself.

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?

May I ask, is there a place in Buddhism for the evidence of NDE's that consciousness is separate from the brain which must receive it??

I thought I answered this or a similar question, but yes absolutely. It's off in that category with rebirth for me, but it is also why this particular school of Buddhism has continuously challenged me.

THIS consciousness is tied to a body, but as we get close to death leaving it is trivial. If you're in particular states of meditation at the time of death the experience becomes more like lucid dreaming. I'm not sure between which stages of meditation earns you psychic powers, but those are in the offing as well. Ajahn Brahm has so many stories to tell of Devas (celestial beings) or even of one story where A man several villages away died and his consciousness took over someone else's body. The Tibetan Book of the dead as I have mentioned earlier is supposed to be a complete guide to dying. It is through the lens of Tibetan Buddhism which has a more up close and personal attitude towards deities. But it's studied by students in all schools.

It's not clear at what point you gain psychic abilities, but once you reach the 2nd Jhana, you're supposed to be able to freely move through the memories of all your past lives--in that 'aftermath period' where the self is suppressed, and then somewhere between there and Nibbana is supposed to allow the practitioner to OBE, read minds, walk on water, an incomplete list is here. Some of the exploits of the Shaolin monks have been explained with physics, but obviously most people (including myself) kinda roll their eyes at flying through the air. Brahm has talked several times about a "mind-made-body".

However, as I stated at some point when I came back to chat here, there are also planes of existence where there is no material body component--mind made realms entirely. (The states of meditation beginning with the first Jhana all grant access to that universe of existence apparently.)

I know dhw you get frustrated when I don't compile bits together but I already answered your other two sets of comments. This is one I should have stated sooner, but while the Buddha did not declare what happens if you reach Nibbana and this body passes, he was adamant that both eternalism and annihilationism were false. This is one of several reasons his path is called "the middle way." Annihilationism is the materialist belief that this is the only life, period, when you die, that's it forever. Nibbana by definition is NOT that. Nibbana is also not eternalism: An eternal self that lives for all time. As I tried to say around the time that David asked if it meant joining God in some way, a cosmology that allows for realms that have no material component, clearly allow levels of latitude for odd realms of existence. Assume String Theory is true: there's many higher dimensions possible in our universe, surely there exists a bucket somewhere for what happens after you attain Nibbana, and then pass.

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.

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, 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?

May I ask, is there a place in Buddhism for the evidence of NDE's that consciousness is separate from the brain which must receive it??

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?

Matt: If you take your 'self' to be that bare aware "in the now" consciousness, you are correct, but dhw is taking a definition that includes more than just that. See my comment re: Phineas Gage again.
And:
MATT: You overidentify that a "sense of self" means you as an entity. You already spend a good chunk of your day doing things where the sense of self is repressed or at least on snooze, unless every waking second of every day you repeat to yourself "I am dhw, I am dhw."

I will expand a little on my original reply to this, which was that the self is the total of all our attributes at any given time. The fact that we don’t consciously think of each one all the time does not mean they are not there. (I used the analogy of my flat feet, which you misinterpreted as meaning that all attributes were permanent.) No, the attributes may change at any time through illness, accident, or new experiences. But that does not mean they are not present or are not real. A bigot one day may have an experience that changes his rigid opinions. Psychotherapy may perform the same function. The bigotry was real, not illusory. Now the open mind is real. Phineas Gage is another illustration.

You're conflating "self" with "sense of self" with every line here. Buddhism (and my own meditative experience) demonstrates that I can still be a "self" without a "sense of self." And I'll be candid here: my lived experience from the meditations leads me to a very strong conviction on this: I know I'm right about this. On this, this is direct experiential knowledge here. Under your definition, if I lost half my memories, I'd still have the *same* sense of self, and that's patently false. I'd have *a* sense of self--I'd feel the same, but I wouldn't be the same, and as I interacted with friends and family, it would start to come out, all the different things that I had forgotten. This was my experience with Alzheimer's patients. This taught me (before Buddhism) that I can't take my memories for granted--they might not exist and that will hurt people--Buddhism just extended to also give me some mental distance between myself and my memories. Maybe instead of "that's not me" it looks more like "did I remember that correctly?" but that's purely a difference in degree. What ever my "self" is, it isn't my memories. Another way to look at it, The past can't be changed, the future is unknown, the only thing I can be *sure* of--and can fully rely on--is *right now.* This is why it would be more truthful to describe yourself as this "bare awareness right now."

This isn't a statement that the past doesn't exist. But that for all intents and purposes, if you don't remember it, it might as well *not* exist. This is like methodological materialism. The closer you get to your temporal present moment, the more safe and secure you can be about where your self actually lives. We're like a prism with the future streaming into us with white light, and the rainbow of past events scattering to the winds.

Returning to the Alzheimer's patients, the final lesson I learned is that it's a lot of suffering when people lose memories of entire people. So don't forget the past, but treat your recollections lightly.

MATT (to DAVID:) I developed at a young age an intense worry that I was being too selfish when dealing with other people. So a message that targets the ego/self as a source of pain in the world has a strong resonance for me. I've been that guy.

You are an excellent illustration of the point that I am making. You disliked your selfish attributes of the past, and so you took steps to change them. Your previous self was real, and so is your current self. You have not removed any sense of self; you have changed the excessively egotistical attributes of your previous self.

I changed myself long ago. I was jolly fat kid and changed into my skinny much more serious guy before andv after medical school. I went from New York liberal to very conservative.> >

Matt: I applaud overall your description of the self, and on most things we're closer that maybe it seems, but again, as above, you're confusing the 'self' for the 'sense of self.' One goes away and the other remains. Imagine an hour or so of your life where phrases or feelings like "I am ME" just stop appearing? You don't feel the other "I'm NOT me", you feel neither thing. THAT is what consciousness without a sense of self is like. All of those things you describe happen to me or that guy, but without that sense of self. (I stopped using 'ego' because I looked up what that means in Freudian terms and its WAY too packed of a word for me to be using it. I'll just keep it to that felt sense of "I AM.")

Why lying? A trauma will change your attributes, as above. But your quote above was directed towards me, and the relevant part of my reply was this:

Lying is strong, but illustrative. See above as to my logic.

Contd. from PART ONE

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.

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.

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?

Matt: If you take your 'self' to be that bare aware "in the now" consciousness, you are correct, but dhw is taking a definition that includes more than just that. See my comment re: Phineas Gage again.
And:
MATT: You overidentify that a "sense of self" means you as an entity. You already spend a good chunk of your day doing things where the sense of self is repressed or at least on snooze, unless every waking second of every day you repeat to yourself "I am dhw, I am dhw."

I will expand a little on my original reply to this, which was that the self is the total of all our attributes at any given time. The fact that we don’t consciously think of each one all the time does not mean they are not there. (I used the analogy of my flat feet, which you misinterpreted as meaning that all attributes were permanent.) No, the attributes may change at any time through illness, accident, or new experiences. But that does not mean they are not present or are not real. A bigot one day may have an experience that changes his rigid opinions. Psychotherapy may perform the same function. The bigotry was real, not illusory. Now the open mind is real. Phineas Gage is another illustration.

You're conflating "self" with "sense of self" with every line here. Buddhism (and my own meditative experience) demonstrates that I can still be a "self" without a "sense of self." And I'll be candid here: my lived experience from the meditations leads me to a very strong conviction on this: I know I'm right about this. On this, this is direct experiential knowledge here. Under your definition, if I lost half my memories, I'd still have the *same* sense of self, and that's patently false. I'd have *a* sense of self--I'd feel the same, but I wouldn't be the same, and as I interacted with friends and family, it would start to come out, all the different things that I had forgotten. This was my experience with Alzheimer's patients. This taught me (before Buddhism) that I can't take my memories for granted--they might not exist and that will hurt people--Buddhism just extended to also give me some mental distance between myself and my memories. Maybe instead of "that's not me" it looks more like "did I remember that correctly?" but that's purely a difference in degree. What ever my "self" is, it isn't my memories. Another way to look at it, The past can't be changed, the future is unknown, the only thing I can be *sure* of--and can fully rely on--is *right now.* This is why it would be more truthful to describe yourself as this "bare awareness right now."

This isn't a statement that the past doesn't exist. But that for all intents and purposes, if you don't remember it, it might as well *not* exist. This is like methodological materialism. The closer you get to your temporal present moment, the more safe and secure you can be about where your self actually lives. We're like a prism with the future streaming into us with white light, and the rainbow of past events scattering to the winds.

Returning to the Alzheimer's patients, the final lesson I learned is that it's a lot of suffering when people lose memories of entire people. So don't forget the past, but treat your recollections lightly.

MATT (to DAVID:) I developed at a young age an intense worry that I was being too selfish when dealing with other people. So a message that targets the ego/self as a source of pain in the world has a strong resonance for me. I've been that guy.

You are an excellent illustration of the point that I am making. You disliked your selfish attributes of the past, and so you took steps to change them. Your previous self was real, and so is your current self. You have not removed any sense of self; you have changed the excessively egotistical attributes of your previous self.

I applaud overall your description of the self, and on most things we're closer that maybe it seems, but again, as above, you're confusing the 'self' for the 'sense of self.' One goes away and the other remains. Imagine an hour or so of your life where phrases or feelings like "I am ME" just stop appearing? You don't feel the other "I'm NOT me", you feel neither thing. THAT is what consciousness without a sense of self is like. All of those things you describe happen to me or that guy, but without that sense of self. (I stopped using 'ego' because I looked up what that means in Freudian terms and its WAY too packed of a word for me to be using it. I'll just keep it to that felt sense of "I AM.")

Why lying? A trauma will change your attributes, as above. But your quote above was directed towards me, and the relevant part of my reply was this:

Lying is strong, but illustrative. See above as to my logic.