Thread: Mind and Body -What's the Difference

  1. #1

    Mind and Body -What's the Difference

    A 24 minute video from Doug Smith of the Secular Buddhist Association:




    Any thoughts about what he said in the video?


    .

  2. #2
    Forums Member Avisitor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Albany, NY
    Posts
    24
    This is not Buddhism.
    Talks about mind and body as two separate entities.
    Talks about what philosophers through out history thought about mind and body
    Can believe if one wants to believe
    Or find the truth of the Buddha

    Not one, not two
    Both one and two

    This mind is a result of the aggregates which make up the body
    For instance, the mind experiences drugs introduced to the body
    So not separate, also not one.

    The three truths of the Buddha are impermanence, suffering and no-self.
    There is no permanent self. This mind dies with the body.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Avisitor
    This is not Buddhism.
    Good morning , Avisitor,

    Who said it was? (Plus its worth noting that in an earlier post you said "I am not a Buddhist").

    Doug Smith begins the video by talking about western philosophy and theology in the context of mind and body, before going on to talk about early Buddhism and the way that the Buddha responded to certain questions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Avisitor View Post

    The three truths of the Buddha are impermanence, suffering and no-self.
    The historical Buddha didn't teach "no self". If you read some of the early suttas in the Pali Canon, the last of "the three characteristics" he taught was "not self".

    https://suttacentral.net/sn22.59/en/sujato

    https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/No...ction0014.html



  4. #4
    Forums Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    640
    For those interested in the different takes on the whole question of mind and body this talk gives a good insight into how ideas developed over thousands of years in the West were superimposed on Buddhism when first encountered around the world, or at least embedded in the language used to translate the Dharma. Greek philosophy brought us perfect forms which exist somewhere to be discovered by man. Cartesian Dualism took this further and came up with reasoning as a suitable strategy to deal with mind-body relationships, rather than relying on 'revealed' knowledge handed down by God to a chosen person. The language used to translate writings about what the Buddha taught reflects all of these issues.

    The Buddha left a number of questions unanswered, deliberately so as he thought any answer dysfunctional to the process of meditation and following the path. Personally I like the idea in the Heart Sutra that we must accept that there are no answers as such, that we need to let go of everything that may hold us back, that chain us to our current misunderstandings, so I'm not sure why the last points in the talk were there. maybe it was to raise some points that the Buddha couldn't possibly comment about, because they weren't around during his time.

    Essentially Doug is, I think, saying that a comparative study of western and early Buddhist philosophy is useful when talking about some of the interpretations about what the Buddha said, and when talking of Buddhist teachings which came a long time after the death of the Buddha.

  5. #5
    Forums Member Avisitor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Albany, NY
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Aloka View Post
    Good morning , Avisitor,

    Who said it was? (Plus its worth noting that in an earlier post you said "I am not a Buddhist").

    Doug Smith begins the video by talking about western philosophy and theology in the context of mind and body, before going on to talk about early Buddhism and the way that the Buddha responded to certain questions.
    This forum is titled Buddhist Discussions, Beyond Belief.
    So I pointed out that this really is not Buddhism.
    It brings more distractions.
    Sure, it is great for more stuff to talk about.
    And, may be some scholars would find it useful.

    Yes, I am not formally a Buddhist.



    Quote Originally Posted by Aloka View Post
    The historical Buddha didn't teach "no self". If you read some of the early suttas in the Pali Canon, the last of "the three characteristics" he taught was "not self".

    Did not know that. Thanks.
    Guess there must be a wide difference between the two, "no self" and "not self" ....??
    And then there could be a case made about suffering too?
    That it really isn't suffering but more of dis-satisfaction??
    Is this what it is all about??
    Talking about all the finer points around Buddhism??

    Oh, not a Buddhist scholar, also.
    Sorry, I will restrict my posting to a minimum.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Avisitor
    This forum is titled Buddhist Discussions, Beyond Belief.
    Hello again,

    Actually the title of this particular forum was intended to be : "Beyond Belief.- A forum for open minded, free enquiry and critical exploration of Buddhism in the modern world". ....and its in the "Buddhist Discussions" area of the main page.


    Quote Originally Posted by Avisitor
    Sorry, I will restrict my posting to a minimum.
    I'm sorry too, because I don't understand what your problem is.


    Take care and be well and happy

Los Angeles Mexico City London Colombo Kuala Lumpur Sydney
Mon, 12:33 PM Mon, 1:33 PM Mon, 7:33 PM Tue, 1:03 AM Tue, 3:33 AM Tue, 6:33 AM