In the human being, there is a "co-incidence" of body and consciousness (literally an arising together, a mutual conditioning).
You do not have a body, your body has you.
The particularities of your consciousness are reflections of your unique psycho-physical makeup, a fact amply supported by neuroscience.
The FACT of your consciousness, your actual first-person experience of these determined states and innate capacity to overcome them through observation and detachment, is the basis of Buddhist praxis, simultaneously the principle and path of transcendence from all relativity and conditioned reality.
Who can possibly refute this?
>>1420801
Why is it not the case that I have a body and my body has a me?
Please restate as a historical question
Cool, OP. While I disagree with you, I thought I'd say that Descartes had a very similar opinion (that body and consciousness were coincidental, but not essentially related, if I understood correctly).
The reason I don't agree is because all it takes is an accident or a brain disease for a person to become a drooling zombie with no memory or awareness of himself. So much for the consciousness being independent of the body.
>>1420944
History and Humanities
>>1420926
Because your body is not "you", you never willed it, you cannot unwill it short of suicide, it determines you, you do not determine it. The character and texture of your experience is rooted in the body, as being the awareness in your particular body, but the fact of awareness itself is what you really are. Like water poured into a vessel. The vessel is the body, the shape is your mundane consciousness, what you really are is the water.
>>1420926
Your body came first, and can survive without "you".
>>1420801
>Who can possibly refute this?
Nobody, because anyone who is interested in the topic knows that's true.
The ego you experience is quite literally an illusion, and it is possible to cut it completely out.
Also, "You do not have a body, your body has you" is wrong.
There really isn't any "you" at all, there's just a body with feelings, aspirations, and experience.
Enjoy hell
>>1420992
The Buddha never argued for a soul, only that the perceiver (whether you want to call it the Self, non-Self, whatever) is prior and more fundamental than the contents of experience.
If you were your thoughts, truly, you'd blip out of existence every time you were in the zone watching a movie or having sex or whatever.
The more one identifies with the unconditioned nature of his ontological status as a volitional awareness, the more one transcends samsaric relativity, and by extension, suffering.
The more one identifies in the opposite direction, the more one's consciousness becomes narrowed and "solidified", the more one becomes subject to determination than being BEYOND determination
>>1421049
>Christian '''''''''''''compassion''''''''''''
>>1421019
It's not wrong, the "you" simply means that which understands itself as not of the nature of samsaric existence, because one knows he is essentially not his body, his mind, his thoughts, his likes, dislikes, personal history etc.
>>1421067
>one knows he is essentially not his body, his mind, his thoughts, his likes, dislikes, personal history etc.
Yeah, but you don't seem to understand that there is no "you" that understand these things.
There is only pure moment to moment experience. Please explain where this "you" that supposedly understands this exists.
>>1421051
Cool dude. You can still lose your memory or become retarded if you hit your head too hard. So much for your volitional awareness or whatever.
>>1421085
The "you" is the only thing there is, and samsara are its illusory manifestations. I know that. There's only so far language can take us.
>>1421097
You're still conflating a breakdown if cognitive function as equivalent with the breakdown of the Self, when I explicitly stated in the OP human consciousness is just that - consciousness in the human organism. What "you" really are is what is behind the conditioned nature of both these things. To perceive one's conditioning is, intrinsically, to be beyond it, or to take the first step that will take you beyond it.
I'm arguing the farthest thing from the independence of mundane consciousness from the body.
With what does this baby identify with, the the unconditioned nature of his ontological status as a volitional awareness or samsaric relativity?
The answer is neither becase he doesn't have a normal brain. He could have been born a healthy baby and grown to be a become normal and rational adult, pondering about consciousness and whatnot. But a freak of nature happened, a virus, a life that feeds on life, fucked up his DNA and as a result he was born an unconsiouss, drooling doll that will live a short and meaningless life.
Did he fuck up in his last life? No I don't believe that. Life is just absurd. He will die without reproducing so a virus could live and propagate its genetic material.
The problem with Buddhism, and by extension the OP is not in its metaphysics, but in its ethics. There is absolutely zero reason to assume that because all pleasant experiences are transitory, the self is aggregate, etc etc, that the "right" response is detachment and contemplation.
Indeed like all moralities, the Buddhist one is purely axiomatic. It is asserted, not proven. Hume is ultimately the one standing in the Buddha's way. Siddhartha falls into error the MOMENT he ceases to say "Conditioned things are like such" and begins to say "Because they are like such, follow the Eightfold Path."
>>1421142
ZIKA'D
>>1421148
>that the "right" response is detachment and contemplation.
This is incidentally why Nietzsche criticized Schopenhauer.
>>1421167
Well of course. Nietzche and Stirner are in many ways anti-Buddhists. Their metaphysical systems are very similiar, but their ethical conclusions are totally opposite.
>>1421142
Huh? If there is no consciousness, there is no identification with anything. End of story
Also, the doctrine of reincarnation is a myth. It is more appropriate to speak of re-birth.
>>1421148
No. Pretty sure the Buddha was his own proof. Even if you don't buy that he exhorted his followers to try it themselves.
Once one understands the principles of samsaric existence, of suffering and how it arises, claiming detachment and awareness will mitigate it is just "another assertion, not proof" is like saying "how do you know taking my hand off the stove will make the pain stop??? WHERES YOUR PROOF???" Just do it nigga.
>>1421148
>detaching yourself from states of experience which only exist to self-perpetuate and can never be fulfilled will prevent suffering
>absolutely no evidence
Family...
>>1421229
Yeah. Your explanation is lame and requires faith like any other religion. Next.
>>1421271
The Four Noble Truths are meant to be experimentally verified. A little introspection and observance of how one's mind functions goes a long way.
Just because you can't intuitively understand these ideas and see them manifest in your own life does in no way mean it is "faith-based".
>>1421271
He literally said the opposite of "just believe what I say" lmao
>>1421229
>>1421268
You're both retarded.
When the Buddha says "Detachment and contemplation shall reduce pain", he speaks truthfully.
When he says "Pain ought be reduced", he is spewing mere emotion.
>>1422907
>m-muh epin is-ought problem
Stay quibbling about autismal shit like this while easterners actually do something about the human condition
>>1422953
>Nihilism and disengagement from the world as a means of sparing muh fee-fees is "doing something about the human condition"
Also
>Hurr stop criticizing a philosophy in a thread dedicated to giving honest critique's of a philosophy.
>>1423053
>Buddhism is nihilistic
Back to fucking plebbit
>>1423078
Pleb-tier Buddhism IS nihilistic.
Even Patrician "Knows their shit" Buddhism is a life-denying philosophy.
Ontology itself resists study or analysis since there's an obvious conflict of interest: you exist therefore you are unworthy to conclude honestly about existence.
This is why Heidegger deliberately doesn't make sense.
>>1423088
>>1423078
Buddhism is not nihilistic. It's simply assumed you wouldn't come to a nihilistic conclusion to Buddhism, it's assumed you'll simply know it's the wrong conclusion and come to any other correct conclusion.
>>1422907
That's simply an observation, wanting things means you have to do things. Doing things necessarily means sacrifice of some sort, even if it's the caloric energy required to shovel more cheetos into your inflated, bulbous body.
Siddhartha neither said pain must be avoided as he said pain must be enjoyed through masochisticism. There is a third option.
>>1423088
>Even Patrician "Knows their shit" Buddhism is a life-denying philosophy.
this; emotions matter to hedonists who think hedonism is a good life style.
But of course, most people love hedonism far too much to stop being scared of leaving hedonism. Most people are not meant to be something else than hedonist. In fact, the whole humanity is here because people love to cling to what they feel and think and refuse to do something else with their life.
for people saying that hedonism is relevant,
>life=what you feel+what you think+what you expect from your desires from what you feel and think
therefore,
>grade your desires
and
>non acting on your favorite desires = non life = death
hedonism is not an effective doctrine to be happy. Hedonists believe that you literally die if you ''do not think nor do feel''. They have faith that 'no moving' is death.
of course, doing the opposite brings you a better life:
>perpetual evanescence and lack of control of what you think and feel, therefore cannot be taken seriously (to be happy) => stay still towards what you think and feel.
Once you try to reach stillness, you are more equanimous and benevolent.
