user5709: I've heard Nirvana described as a state of bliss, but if there is no self then how can it be described as bliss when nobody is there to experience it?

user5715: One must be very careful with the idea that there is no self. This is not quite what the early Buddhist texts say. What they say is that when one examines one's experience (the five khandhas: form, sensations, perceptions, volitions and cognitions) one does not find a self, nor anything that belongs to a self (Alagaddupama Sutta, Majjhima Nikāya, Sutta no.22). 
This is because experience is constantly changing, whereas by the definitions of the time a self is not changing. The unchanging ātman which is not affected by actions or events is a feature of the early Upaniṣads and the Bhagavadgīta. But if your experience is always changing, which can be confirmed by simple introspection, then no unchanging thing will ever be perceptible or comprehensible. At no point did the Buddha say "there is no self". He strongly implies that there is no possibility of an unchanging self. 
Thus if there is any unchanging element to a human being we cannot experience it. And thus from a Buddhist point of view it is irrelevant. In the Sabba Sutta (Saṃyutta Nikāya, 35.23), the Buddha defines "everything" (sabba) as the āyatanas: the six kinds of sense object and the corresponding kinds of sense faculty. Everything of interest to the Buddha is found in experience. And really this makes sense because outside of experience can only be speculated about (there are philosophical problems with this view, but it is conventional enough that most people accept it without question). 
Where Descarte said "I think therefore I am", the Buddha might have said "There is experience". He does not conclude that this implies "being", he just acknowledges that there is experience. 
On the other hand we do experience ourselves as having a first-person perspective. I experience myself as a self. The Buddha seems to have acknowledged this, but pointed to the fact that feeling like we are someone is just an experience and as such marked by the same characteristics as all experiences: impermanence, disappointment, and insubstantiality. 
The problem from a Buddhist point of view is that we are intoxicated with sense experience. And we have a view that happiness is about maximising pleasant sense experiences and minimising unpleasant ones. So we chase experiences in pursuit of happiness. But the nature of experience is impermanence and thus they cannot satisfy.
In the same way, just because there is no permanent feature of experience does not deny that there is an experience we can call "bliss". It is no different from other experiences. Even nibbāna is an experience. It's just that nibbāna radically transforms how we perceive other experiences once we have it. After Nibbāna we stop thinking about sense experience as leading to happiness. It's just what it is and nothing more. Happiness is not something that comes from sense experience at all. It comes from not being intoxicated with sense experience. 
So in this context the idea that nibbāna might be accompanied by an experience of bliss is certainly plausible, but not very interesting. In fact as with the Dhammapada verse mentioned above, it's doubtful that sukha even means "bliss" in this context. In fact it is more likely to mean "well-being" or even "happiness".

user745: According to Buddhism, even when I am typing these words and seeing the screen, there is no one there. The 'person' isn't an existing thing, it is just a label we put on things to describe how things work, and the label of person refers to a large group of many different mental and physical processes. 
If there is ultimately no self, does that mean that all experience is impossible? No. There are individual parts that preform functions and made experience possible. When I look at the computer screen, it isn't some sort of seperate "me" inside my head that is seeing the screen. Rather, the coming together of the object, my eye, and and my brain, work together and as a result, awareness of the screen arises.
It's the same way with Nibbana. There isn't anything there that you can really call a person, but there is Nibbana, and there is consciousness that is taking Nibbana as an object (called Lokuttara-Citta in the books of Abhidhamma). It is this consciousness that is blissful.

5709: <p>I've heard Nirvana described as a state of bliss, but if there is no self then how can it be described as bliss when nobody is there to experience it?</p>
 5715: <p>One must be very careful with the idea that there is no self. This is not quite what the early Buddhist texts say. What they say is that when one examines one's experience (the five khandhas: form, sensations, perceptions, volitions and cognitions) one does not find a self, nor anything that belongs to a self (Alagaddupama Sutta, Majjhima Nikāya, Sutta no.22). </p>

<p>This is because experience is constantly changing, whereas by the definitions of the time a self is not changing. The unchanging ātman which is not affected by actions or events is a feature of the early Upaniṣads and the Bhagavadgīta. But if your experience is always changing, which can be confirmed by simple introspection, then no unchanging thing will ever be perceptible or comprehensible. At no point did the Buddha say "there is no self". He strongly implies that there is no possibility of an unchanging self. </p>

<p>Thus if there is any unchanging element to a human being we cannot experience it. And thus from a Buddhist point of view it is irrelevant. In the Sabba Sutta (Saṃyutta Nikāya, 35.23), the Buddha defines "everything" (sabba) as the āyatanas: the six kinds of sense object and the corresponding kinds of sense faculty. Everything of interest to the Buddha is found in experience. And really this makes sense because outside of experience can only be speculated about (there are philosophical problems with this view, but it is conventional enough that most people accept it without question). </p>

<p>Where Descarte said "I think therefore I am", the Buddha might have said "There is experience". He does not conclude that this implies "being", he just acknowledges that there is experience. </p>

<p>On the other hand we do experience ourselves as having a first-person perspective. I experience myself <em>as a self</em>. The Buddha seems to have acknowledged this, but pointed to the fact that feeling like we are someone is just an experience and as such marked by the same characteristics as all experiences: impermanence, disappointment, and insubstantiality. </p>

<p>The problem from a Buddhist point of view is that we are intoxicated with sense experience. And we have a view that happiness is about maximising pleasant sense experiences and minimising unpleasant ones. So we chase experiences in pursuit of happiness. But the nature of experience is impermanence and thus they cannot satisfy.</p>

<p>In the same way, just because there is no permanent feature of experience does not deny that there is an experience we can call "bliss". It is no different from other experiences. Even nibbāna is an experience. It's just that nibbāna radically transforms how we perceive other experiences once we have it. After Nibbāna we stop thinking about sense experience as leading to happiness. It's just what it is and nothing more. Happiness is not something that comes from sense experience at all. It comes from not being intoxicated with sense experience. </p>

<p>So in this context the idea that nibbāna might be accompanied by an experience of bliss is certainly plausible, but not very interesting. In fact as with the Dhammapada verse mentioned above, it's doubtful that <em>sukha</em> even means "bliss" in this context. In fact it is more likely to mean "well-being" or even "happiness".</p>
 745: <p>According to Buddhism, even when I am typing these words and seeing the screen, there is no one there. The 'person' isn't an existing thing, it is just a label we put on things to describe how things work, and the label of person refers to a large group of many different mental and physical processes. </p>

<p>If there is ultimately no self, does that mean that all experience is impossible? No. There are individual parts that preform functions and made experience possible. When I look at the computer screen, it isn't some sort of seperate "me" inside my head that is seeing the screen. Rather, the coming together of the object, my eye, and and my brain, work together and as a result, awareness of the screen arises.</p>

<p>It's the same way with Nibbana. There isn't anything there that you can really call a person, but there is Nibbana, and there is consciousness that is taking Nibbana as an object (called Lokuttara-Citta in the books of Abhidhamma). It is this consciousness that is blissful.</p>
