Tonight, while suffering from a bout of uncertainty in my career and social life, I came upon an argument of Descartes: "A. The argument from knowledge. 1. I can be sure that my mind exists. 2. I cannot be sure that my body exists" "B. The argument from extension. 1. My mind is unextended. 2. My body is extended" (courtesy of anselm.edu) With this said, would you consider it true that if a mind is depressed/elated/forlorn/ecstatic, the mind is as well? Conversely, is the opposite true? Is our body able to be experiencing any of these emotions while the mind is healthy? Notwithstanding of you psychology majors with your biofeedback mechanisms. Any thoughts appreciated; I'll answer any questions if this is confusing.
By definition, yes. If a mind is happy, the mind is as well… Do you want to reword that? Or do you mean the mind IS (as in exists) as well?
I would have to think the mind is the only thing capable of feeling, the body mostly just goes along for the ride. By show do you mean like body language? Or if I took a blood sample, would the hormone levels be different in a happy versus unhappy person?
This bit confused me, I thought you were talking about whether or not it was only your mind that had emotions, and your body is simply an empty vessel for your mind. Then this bit threw me off because I think you're asking 'if the mind thinks/feels, does it prove your existence', and Descartes belief was 'Je pense donc je suis'. But yeah, now I'm confused about what your asking, probably because i'm pretty blazed...
No. That's the first step towards Samsara. Suffering is impossible if you do not (think you) exist. No self. No suffering. Nirvana.
Nirvana cannot be attained simply by wishing or thinking it so… Suffering is, unfortunately, necessary to achieve the wisdom required to be truly enlightened. IMO/E. I'm not that familiar with the Vedas or Buddhism or wherever the idea of Nirvana comes from...
Yup. Wishing for anything is counter to the Tao. Thinking is usually a waste of time. Nope. Suffering is the opposite of Nirvana. The Buddha said Nirvana is the end of suffering. But if you never suffered to begin with, then you were already enlightened. You can only realize what already is. So, ultimately, there is no suffering... so it surely isn't necessary.
It's the end of suffering, sure, but it possible to end suffering without first having suffered yourself? I remember reading somewhere that the Buddha basically gave up all his stuff and starved himself (aside from what people offered him) for like 30 years, no? "never suffered to begin with" honestly… who is that? Pm's… let's not derail the thread, unless OP is cool with this…?
Well, the Buddha answers that question realizing that the questioner doesn't know what Nirvana is. Someone who is already enlightened wouldn't even bother asking the question. Gaining more knowledge is useless if you're already content. Yeah, according to legend, the Buddha survived on one grain of rice a day at one point. He was born a Prince, but soon realized that material wealth did not guarantee happiness. He then took the ascetic route and starved himself. But eventually realized that didn't guarantee happiness either. This is how he learned the Middle Way... 'Free from extremes, it is called the great Middle Way.' I do not know if anyone has never suffered. But I cannot say that everyone absolutely must suffer either. <-free from extremes Dialogue like this is what this forum is for... the OP will surely learn a lot more by watching the living interact than from studying the dead. Only Descartes truly knows what Descartes is talking about.
Yes indeed, body language. Or more simply, if you are happy and you know it, will you clap your hands? see above. A sidetrack, but it's related. Also, in the Buddha's path of suffering, he realized that suffering isn't the only path to enlightenment. He did give up all of his possessions for quite some time due to his life in relative wealth. He realized that there are others who were poor--and living with reasonable degrees of happiness. Oh, and I'm cool if it gets derailed. explained fairly well. but I wanted to know, do any of you agree with this statement?
One really important thing to remember here when talking Buddhism is that while there was a first being we now come to know as "The Buddha" there are now and have been many. It is critical in this discussion that we do not reduce or essentialise the Buddah into a figure resembling the deities (oh the irony embedded in this sentence) of monotheistic religions such as Judaism/Christianity/Islam (and offshoots). The Buddah (the first, the one to which is referred to in this conversation) cannot and will never be the one irrefutable authority on enlightenment/nirvana/etc. As for Descartes, like most Western philosophers he was stuck within monotheistic logic. His proposition is at its core, arrogant. To suggest that the mind is anything other than the body was one of the greatest rapes of human intellectual potential that has ever occurred. The mind is the body and vice versa. What is beyond is unknowable and that, to me is Nirvana. But let's be careful here too. Nirvana is no special happy heaven at the end of a rainbow of suffering, it is rather the complete insererable reintegration of "self" into whole. In other words: We're born, we suffer, grow old and die. And as a species we do it again and again. So do it right, y'all!
Yeah, 'Buddha' just means 'one who is awake.' According to legend, the Buddha's mother saw a psychic while she was pregnant with Siddhartha who predicted that he would become a Buddha. And of course, the Buddha said, 'Believe nothing, no matter who said it, even if I said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and logic.' The Buddha trusts you to figure it out for yourself... because you are the Buddha. --- It's possible that the mind has no tangible affect on the body. It's also possible that the mind does have a tangible affect on the body. It's possible that the body has an affect on the mind. It's also possible that the body has no affect on the mind. None of this proves or disproves dualism. For example: Does the tree have an affect on the mind?
Yes... stress - which is when the mind is in a negative/sad state your internal functioning isn't as sharp and is rather torpid. The immune system is also heavily effected, you become weaker and more susceptible to disease and sickness.. and on the contrary - if the mind is in a positive/happy state, the immune system becomes stronger and more active, and your overall internal functioning is up to beat. So, the mind can heavily effect the body, it may not manifest itself on the outside, although it can - pale skin, tender muscles, it effects your body on thee inside a lot more. So, yes, I can know for sure my body exist, because my existent mind directly effects the intrinsic functioning of my physical shell. I dont know if this is what u were asking, but thats what I think u were asking.
the body and mind are very interconnected. Health and the Mind/Body Connection | Molecular Matters New Scientist TV: How to heal your body with your mind Heal thyself: The power of mind over body - health - 25 August 2011 - New Scientist happy can heal you