“Is The Buddhist ‘No-Self’ Doctrine Compatible With Pursuing Nirvana?”
Katie Javanaud asks whether there is a contradiction at the heart of Buddhism.
Got that? Okay, now, in plain English, describe one’s actual day to day existence having reached Nirvana. No-self in what sense? Really, any descriptive details at all will be helpful.
Or, instead, is the whole point to entirely rid yourself of such mundane obligations. You merely “think” yourself into imagining the farthest possibly reality from the one you have now. And, if it makes you feel a comforting combination of equilibrium and equanimity, you’ve already managed to embody a semblance of it on this side of the grave.
Nihilism [like Buddhism, like Nirvana, like nothingness, like liberation] is a word that was invented to “capture” a particular manner in which we come [as individuals] to order relationships in our head. But without a context it all just evaporates in to these mental, emotional and psychological states. Nihilism pertaining to what?
Until and unless Nirvana can be substantiated in a way that we can relate it to the self interacting on this side of the grave, it can [conveniently] remain whatever we think it is. That way if another argues it is actually the way she thinks it is instead, you can both walk away convinced your own rendition comes closest. After all, there is nothing “out there” you can turn to resolve such conflicts.
It’s basically just another “spiritual” rendition of God and Heaven. In other words, tailor-made for leaps of faith.
Once again, substantively, these are “alternatives” only in a narrative sense. The stories are different but there is no way in which to either verify or falsify either one. The only thing being described are the words themselves. Ever and always connected only to other words. Dueling definitions over and over and over again. With practically nothing of an empirical nature to show for it.
The no-self self then becomes just another ghost in the machine.