Buddhism and What it Offers

[allergies]

If there is no continuity of experience from one life to the next, what is the purpose of achieving nibbana or final nibbana? If experience does not continue onto the next life, is final nibbana not practically achieved at the time of death?

[cappuccino]

If there is no continuity of experience from one life to the next, what is the purpose of achieving nibbana or final nibbana?

you are here from yesterday

you are here from yesteryear

[alfa]

So you're saying the self exists, but continuity of self doesn't exist?

Absolutely not.
What the Dhamma says is that there is no continuity, and that this continuity is the illusion. (SN 22.95)
Nothing among the khandhas (or the internal ayatanani) should be regarded as self or belonging to a self (e. g. SN 22.89 (SN 35.85)), (nor blissful) - which continuity (and blissfulness) was supposed to be the intrinsic nature of a self in the Indian philosophy of the time of Buddha.
I have explained that for years now. But for some reason that I do understand, the fact has been swiped under the Upanishadic rug of this forum - and "cleaned up" with much "logorrheanic" trivial red herring. search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&sid= ... 0&start=15

What SN 22.95 is actually saying, is that this continuity is an illusion (santāno, māyāyaṃ), and that consciousness is a stand, a foundation, for that illusion (māyūpamañca viññāṇaṃ).

So what Buddha says is that the "world" [the internal ayatanani (eye, ear,... mano) - forms - the internal ayatanani-consciousness - the internal ayatanani-contact, and whatever feeling arises with the internal ayatanani-contact as condition (SN 35.82)] is empty of self and what belongs to self.

If Buddha had say to Vachagotta, "there is no self" (SN 44.10), this is what he would have meant.
However what Vachagotta would have understood by "there is no self", would have been about the "non-existence" of a self - which was the usual annihilationist view. Vachagotta would have remained in his narrow minded frame of Eternalism vs. Annihilationism (see also SN 44.08 - where Vachagotta seems to understand absolugely nada; if only that all Buddha's disciples say the same thing).
So Buddha remained silent.
.
.

But what is it that appears to continue? Can that be called a self at least for practical purposes?

[SarathW]

If there is no continuity of experience from one life to the next, what is the purpose of achieving nibbana or final nibbana?

What we discuss in Sutta as Nibbana is not really the Nibbana. It is the objectification of Nibbana as we are trying to define it with five clinging aggregate.
According to Buddhist teaching any perception or feeling experience with five clinging aggregate is Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta.

[cappuccino]

Can that be called a self at least for practical purposes?

On Self, No Self, and Not-self

[ToVincent]

But what is it that appears to continue? Can that be called a self at least for practical purposes?

Mr. Olivelle, a translator of the Upanishads says the following in his "The early Upanishads":
"atman/atta (self), is a term liable to misunderstanding and mistranslating because it can mean the spiritual self or the inmost core of a human being, besides functioning as a mere reflexive pronoun."

Therefore, to say "atta is anatta" is not illogical when it means "himself (he) is not self". But sounds illogical when translated as "the self is not self".

Here, we are in the situation where the self as mere reflexive pronoun (himself/herself/oneself), that is to say in proper English, he/she believes that he/she has to do something with the khandhas.
Which is what the late Vedic and Upanishadic folks used to believe (making it a continuous and permanent spiritual self). And what Buddha disavowed; because of the "anicca" intrinsinc nature of the khandhas, their coactions (saṅkhārā) and ensuing phenomena (dhammā).
Oneself cannot be the same as the khandhas and their phenomena, because the khandhas are anicca (not one's own").
Oneself cannot make "one" with the khandhas and their phenomena, and be a spiritual self that is a permanent continuity (santāno). This is the illusion.
Oneself (atta) is anatta (not a spiritual self).

The view of a spiritual self as a blend between the phenomena from the coaction of the khandhas in the nāmarūpa link AND the "world" (of senses, as defined above), that would make a "one", is the late Vedic view of the Upanishads.And Buddha contradicted that because of the inherent anicca nature of the khandhas.

Bhikkhus, when what exists, by clinging to what,
by adhering to what, does such a view as this
arise: 'That which is the self is the world (of senses); having passed away, that I shall be permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change'?"
SN 22.152

.

[allergies]

If there is no continuity of experience from one life to the next, what is the purpose of achieving nibbana or final nibbana?

What we discuss in Sutta as Nibbana is not really the Nibbana. It is the objectification of Nibbana as we are trying to define it with five clinging aggregate.
According to Buddhist teaching any perception or feeling experience with five clinging aggregate is Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta.

After death, or after final nibbana there is no more experience? Is there at any point a complete cessation of experience according to buddhism?

[DooDoot]

If there is no continuity of experience from one life to the next, what is the purpose of achieving nibbana or final nibbana? If experience does not continue onto the next life, is final nibbana not practically achieved at the time of death?

Nibbana means peace in the here & now. Your questions are nonsensical. Your questions are like asking: "Why seek happiness? Why not dwell in suffering!".

After death, or after final nibbana there is no more experience? Is there at any point a complete cessation of experience according to buddhism?

When Nibbana is reached, there is actually no "death". This is what the scriptures teach. When Nibbana is reached, all there is "peace".

[allergies]

Why avoid the main part of the question. Is there at any point a cessation of experience according to buddhism?

[SarathW]

Is there at any point a complete cessation of experience according to buddhism?
Top

There is a meditative stage called cessation of perception and feeling. (Nirodha Samapatti)

[DooDoot]

Is there at any point a cessation of experience according to buddhism?

If what you are calling "rebirth" (aka "reincarnation") is true then, yes, the cessation of experience at the termination of life would be the most wonderful thing for enlightened minds that discern the unsatisfactoriness & undesirability of the world clearly. But for individuals attracted to sexual, sensual & other worldly pleasures, yes, the cessation of experience probably sounds unappealing.

Why avoid the main part of the question.

The idea of Nibbana as the ending of reincarnation is pointless in Buddhism without the here-&-now Nibbana. In other words, what is regarded as a Nibbana after the termination of life (called anupādisesā nibbānadhātu) cannot occur if the here-&-now Nibbana (called saupādisesā nibbānadhātu) is not reached. That is why your question is pointless. What is important is Nibbana is here & now peace. In your OP, you dismissed the "relaxation" of Nibbana as something not valuable. In reality, the "relaxation" of Nibbana is the highest & most valuable thing a human can reach. It is better than winning a $1 billion lottery. If you want to take refuge in Buddhism, the following is the most important refuge you should recite 84 times each day:

Nibbānaṃ paramaṃ sukhaṃ

Nibbana the highest happiness

[justindesilva]

Can that be called a self at least for practical purposes?

On Self, No Self, and Not-self

Paticca samuppada is the way of damma that explains the conditioning of existence. Self at all if exists is subjected to Dependant origination which continues with vingnana. Vingnana is an impermanent darma yet conditioning nama rupa. Hence this implies that jati which is the 11 th step is what we are today that we believe as self. As it arises by conditioning of impermanent darma as pancendriya and salayatana which is responsible in vedana which makes us realise of a so called self , existence of a being is not self as of its impermanence.
It can be explained that practically beings explained with dependant origination is a psycho physico reaction dependant on past action , and as of the nature of such reaction there can not exist the nature of a permanent self. This has been explained by ven K.Dammananda thero.

[SarathW]

But what is it that appears to continue? Can that be called a self at least for practical purposes?

I will call it ignorance at least for practical purposes.
What continues is the ignorance.

[cappuccino]

Why avoid the main part of the question. Is there at any point a cessation of experience according to Buddhism?

such is called annihilationism

[equilibrium]

Ito 43:

"The escape from that is:

calm, permanent,
beyond inference,
unborn, unproduced,
the sorrowless, stainless state,
the cessation of stressful qualities,
the stilling of fabrications,
bliss"

AN 3.47:

“Bhikkhus, there are these three characteristics that define the unconditioned

What three? No arising is seen, no vanishing is seen, and no alteration while it persists is seen. These are the three characteristics that define the unconditioned.”

AN10.81:

“Just as a red, blue, or white lotus born in the water and growing in the water, rises up above the water and stands with no water adhering to it, in the same way the Tathagata — freed, dissociated, & released from these ten things — dwells with unrestricted awareness.”