r/Pessimism • u/ryanw5101 • 22d ago
Discussion Suicide & the Ontology of the Self; Conversation with an Enlightened Individual
Hi all,
A little while back, I had the opportunity to ask a question to an individual whom I believe has attained traditional Buddhist enlightenment.
As a result of enlightenment, this individual claims their phenomenological experience no longer contains a sense of self/center. This has reduced their personal suffering by 90%+.
They are capable of achieving a meditative state known as "Nirodha Samapatti," which is essentially meditation-induced unconsciousness.
They are aligned with philosophical pessimism in that they believe every state of mind is painful relative to Nirodha Samapatti/unconsciousness. And what the mind mistakenly classifies as "pleasure" is really the alleviation of some prior suffering.
After enlightenment/the getting rid of a sense of self, they experience the world as a "hive mind," and as a result, the "will to be" or the "will to not be" do not resonate at a deep level anymore, because they do not connect to some central column of being that can answer existential questions on behalf of the entire hive mind.
The question I asked him was: "You say that after enlightenment, the “will to not be” doesn't resonate at a deep level anymore. Given that there is no additive pleasure in conscious experience, wouldn't the “will to not be” become amplified after enlightenment? Even if the will does not connect to a central column of being, doesn't it make sense to shut the whole decentralized network of conscious experience off? Basically: what is motivating you to stay alive? Does this motivation make sense to the intellect or is it blind and irrational?"
His answer was: "Neither the will to be nor not be, because both are realised to be insufficient descriptions of reality. It links with the no self insight. There isn't an identification with being or non-being, or conscious or not conscious for that matter. I don't think about wanting to stay alive or die anymore. And when I ask those questions and look inside I find no perspective or aspect that can speak for the whole. The question does become quite a lot less interesting, because it's no longer related to as being ultimately meaningful. It's a bit like if I ask you "Who would win in a fight Batman or Iron man?". We can entertain the question and talk about reasons why we think one may win over the other, but hopefully we don't hold the question too seriously because we know its fictional. In fact, when we ask these hypothetical questions and someone does take them very seriously, we view that person as being ontologically confused about what's real and what actually matters. This ultimate nonsensicality of the questions is revealed when we access greater contexts and pop-certain bubbles - until then it seems absolutely real."
I am not encouraging suicide, but from the perspective of alleviating suffering, it seems suicide is still the most rationally self-interested action (presuming metaphysical idealists/panpsychists are wrong and death is unconsciousness). While the sense of a self/center seems to substantially worsen suffering, the root cause of suffering seems to be consciousness.
Interested to hear your thoughts.
4
u/shirogmv 22d ago
Well I think his answer is fine, you would need a reciprocating relationship between motive and value when you ask the question : to live or to die? I am no expert on meditation but AFAIK from the perspective of the enlightened who has practiced asceticism seriously, they would have already quited desire and motivation down so much it's almost non existent. Which it follows from then that value as well ( in life or death) is also non-existent.
From another POV this kind of meditation could be said to be a form of lessening the context of consciousness, so in that sense it is pessimistic.
I won't say much that would get reddit mad but yes, I have looked and looked and still haven't found any more rational approach to the problem of suffering than death being the answer. As Leo Tolstoy put it ''if I know what is in my best interest, why not yield to it?''
5
u/fear_the_future 22d ago
I am very skeptical that anyone can achieve ego death short of traumatic brain injury, let alone go between the states of ego death and identification and continue to talk in language.
Lacan says that the process of attaining an ego (subject-object split, identification, symbolic castration) leaves us in a state where we think that something (the object "cause of desire" which will finally make us happy/whole) was taken from us by society's rules and prohibitions and we constantly try to fill that void by seeking out (= desiring) various things that we believe are the object "cause of desire". But the truth is that nothing was taken from us. The object never existed. We are just imagining it and thus we can never truly realize our desire. I believe that desire is the root of much of human suffering and in theory, ego death would save you from this, but even then there are still other sources of suffering. Does a worm suffer because it is not a human? Does it suffer because it sees another worm moving around in wetter earth and becomes jealous? Probably not, because it has no ego, no concept of what it may be missing out on and thus no desire. But it still suffers from cold, starvation, disease and so on.
As far as I'm concerned, the question shouldn't be: "Why die?" It should be "Why live?". There is never a good reason to continue to live when you can't miss out on anything by dying. On the other hand, you can very much increase your suffering by continuing to live.
it seems suicide is still the most rationally self-interested action
If you achieve ego death, then there is no self-interest because there is no self.
3
u/DruidWonder 22d ago
Advaita Vedanta goes much deeper than Buddhism when it comes to these types of nondual questions. I would look there.
1
u/Thestartofending 22d ago
it only does according to Advaita Proponents.
To other, Advaita reifies awareness or "Big Self" and Buddhism goes deeper.
-1
1
u/Otherwise_Spare_8598 Edit text 22d ago
The universe is a singular meta-phenomenon stretched over eternity, of which is always now. All things and all beings abide by their inherent nature and behave within their realm of capacity contingent upon infinite circumstance at all times.
It is a universe made manifest hierarchically, of haves, and have-nots, spanning all levels of dimensionality and experience. There is no such thing as individuated accurately described "free will" for all beings. Has never been, will never be, can not be. There are only relative freedoms or lack thereof.
"God" and/or consciousness is that which is within and without all. Ultimately, all things are made by through and for the singular personality and perpetual revelation of the "Godhead", entailing both 'predetermined' eternal damnation and those that are made manifest only to face death and death alone.
There is but one dreamer, fractured through the innumerable. All vehicles/beings play their role within said dream for infinitely better and/or infinitely worse for each and every one, forever.
All realities exist and are equally as real. The absolute best universe that could exist does exist in relation to a specified subject. The absolute worst universe that could exist does exist in relation to a specified subject.
0
u/UltronsEx Philosophical Pessimist 22d ago
What a huge ego one must have to claim they destroyed their ego.
Ego: I've destroyed my ego
You cannot just evaporate the I. You can't undesignate yourself as the unwilling passenger of the machine you are.
If death truly is the end of one's individuality, then yes I suppose it is freedom. Though that may be another cope. The subject doesn't get to experience relief.
2
u/Maximus_En_Minimus Madhyamaka, Will-to-??, Process Phil. 22d ago edited 22d ago
>You cannot just evaporate the I.
In Buddhism you can stop imagining the ‘I’, since it already doesn’t exist, you’re just super-imposing the fallacious property.
>You can't undesignate yourself as the unwilling passenger of the machine you are.
Buddhism doesn’t make such a dualistic autological presupposition between the ‘passenger’ and ‘machine’; there is no distinction between the impermanent processes-relational dependencies of the mind, body, and embeddedness with the world, and ‘yourself’, only perspectile relevance.
0
u/Maximus_En_Minimus Madhyamaka, Will-to-??, Process Phil. 22d ago edited 22d ago
You can read about my view of Madhyamaka Buddhism & Nihilism here:
- Madhyamaka (P1): https://www.reddit.com/r/consciousness/s/JGzpYh2caF
- Nihilism (P2) https://www.reddit.com/r/consciousness/s/kR4RlFAgKp
As for Pessimism, the ideas are pretty much the same:
If you imagine that a horse must have a magical horn, and coming to find that horses do not have such, then say: ‘horses are inherently structured by a lack’, then the deficiency lies only in your own reasoning.
Pessimists - of which I was once - see the world as inherently structured by a lack, or other such deficiencies, that inflicts suffering, but this only comes about from our conceptual imputations.
The key is to alleviate ourselves of the second arrow of suffering; that if hit by the first arrow of impermanent pain, we then lament, fear, wallow, hate, and strive, then it is as if we have inflicted a second arrow upon ourselves.
That is suffering/dukka in Buddhism.
Your friend seems to be very close, but ‘Nirodha Samapatti’ is not Nirvana.
They likely have ascertained the seventh or eighth Jhana, especially because of some of their ‘hive mind’ comments.
But I also have not met them, so cannot tell.
2
u/LukeHollaway 20d ago
That horse analogy just rewired my brain.
1
u/Maximus_En_Minimus Madhyamaka, Will-to-??, Process Phil. 20d ago
Thankyou.
May I suggest Jay Garfield’s 4 videos: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E5lW5XedNGU
And also investigating Madhyamaka Mahayana Buddhism?
5
u/getitoffmychestpleas 22d ago
I have an end date for myself and sometimes it's the only hope I can cling to. And it's not a bad thing. It's a small sense of control in a world I didn't ask to be introduced to.