Non-Action
-
Originally posted by Aik TC:
//Yes, according to this line of reasoning, even "will" is dependent on conditions... none of which is within "our" control. In short, whether we have the will to change our course and get out of samsara or not is also not in "our" control. Everything just happens accordingly. Is that correct?//
Karma in Buddhism is strictly psychological and not metaphysical. The Buddha said ‘Volition, O monks, is what I call actions’. In other words, when there is intention, there is karmic action which results in the consequences of character forming and determines our inclinations and thus our future actions and reaction. Character thus, is the tendency of our will, form from repeated actions.
Free will is the expression of one’s own will, the will that correspond to one’s own nature. It also presume and includes the idea of individuality or individual character, if it is free, it express the particular character of the individual. The difference between a law of nature and free will is that one acts automatically and with universal sameness, while the other is conscious and individual. Free will is a relative term. It is the relationship of a conscious individual towards his surrounding or toward a certain situation.
It also means the freedom to express one’s own will according to one’s own nature and insight. It is not a mechanical reaction, and may or may not follow general laws, but one can modify them and converts them into individual laws. There can be no absolute free will. When necessity from outside coincide with the inner law or nature of the individual, it becomes a truly genuine expression of freedom, of free will itself.
To the Buddhists, Free Will is a freedom inside the limits of Necessity, namely the necessity of retribution based on the Law of Causality. It is the freedom to move within the boundaries of causation, a freedom inside the prison of Dependent Origination.
Life itself is a constant movement towards an issue in final deliverance. It is an evolution of our moral progress. When all good deeds have brought their fruition as in the Law of Karma, final deliverance will be attained in Nirvana. The absolute is reached, causation than become extinct and Free Will, will become an inconsequential factor in one’s life.
The Buddha stigmatized one of his comtemporaries, Gosala Maskariputra as a ‘bad man’. Gosala believes in an extreme form of determinism that denies absolutely freewill and all moral responsibility. To him all things are fixed and nothing can be changed. Everything depends on fate, environment and nature. He denies all moral duty and was unrestraint in his personal behaviour. To the Buddha, he is like a fisherman, catching men only to destroy them eventually, and that is not what Buddhism taught us to believe, act and behaves.
Thank you for the explanation. My difficulty in understanding all this is:
How is it that we can use terms such as one's volition, one's will, one's nature and individual laws if there is no one (no self) in reality to begin with? Isn't volition simply a thought that arises out of emptiness as well (like all other thoughts), hence not within "one's control"?
-
Originally posted by allkosong:
Thank you for the explanation. My difficulty in understanding all this is:
How is it that we can use terms such as one's volition, one's will, one's nature and individual laws if there is no one (no self) in reality to begin with? Isn't volition simply a thought that arises out of emptiness as well (like all other thoughts), hence not within "one's control"?
Hi,
you mean why we still use "I" or one's will etc, when there is not-self?
It's just label only... for conventional use...
A deva asked a similar question to Buddha too
Araha.m Sutta: The Arahant -
In my opinion, volition does not simply rises out of emptiness or nothingness.
It's dependent on contact (senses and the forms), together with feelings and perceptions. Volition takes place, maybe desire/aversion arises.
If everything is determined, then everything should be permanent... But since we see changes all the time, then determinism can't hold water... it is erroneous
-
Originally posted by allkosong:
Thank you for the explanation. My difficulty in understanding all this is:
How is it that we can use terms such as one's volition, one's will, one's nature and individual laws if there is no one (no self) in reality to begin with? Isn't volition simply a thought that arises out of emptiness as well (like all other thoughts), hence not within "one's control"?
Think about the control aspect in this way: If you're given ingredients only enough to bake a cake, it's impossible that you can construct a drivable volkswagon out of them. But you can perhaps bake a chocolate cake, a black forest cake, banana cake etc. That's the control afforded to "free" will. But it's not exactly free since you can't invent things that don't have the required conditions to cause them to occur.
-
Originally posted by Jui:
Think about the control aspect in this way: If you're given ingredients only enough to bake a cake, it's impossible that you can construct a drivable volkswagon out of them. But you can perhaps bake a chocolate cake, a black forest cake, banana cake etc. That's the control afforded to "free" will. But it's not exactly free since you can't invent things that don't have the required conditions to cause them to occur.
This is a good analogy. The question I have is: even whether a person ultimately has the "will" to make a cake or not out of all the given ingredients is all but an unfolding of life, if there really is no self to will (or not) it. Is that correct, if not, where is the loophole in that line of reasoning?
-
Just to be sure, the analogy is talking about "will", i.e. what can be "willed" is totally due to causes and conditions leading up to the moment of "will"ing.
So the answer to your question is, yes it's an unfolding of life, and it is not predetermined.
-
Originally posted by Jui:
Just to be sure, the analogy is talking about "will", i.e. what can be "willed" is totally due to causes and conditions leading up to the moment of "will"ing.
So the answer to your question is, yes it's an unfolding of life, and it is not predetermined.
If everything is an unfolding of life, then there must be some grand set of rules that life follows (which is beyond the human intellect). So in that sense, everything is predetermined ie. given a set of conditions, there is a certain outcome based on the workings of the set of rules, which then becomes input/conditions for the next outcome and so on, and thus life unfolds itself. Is that correct?
-
Originally posted by allkosong:
Thank you for the explanation. My difficulty in understanding all this is:
How is it that we can use terms such as one's volition, one's will, one's nature and individual laws if there is no one (no self) in reality to begin with? Isn't volition simply a thought that arises out of emptiness as well (like all other thoughts), hence not within "one's control"?
Something I wrote in my e-book:
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.htmlNo-self does not imply determinism.
As I wrote to someone:
............
Yes but not to be mistaken that will has no part in all these. The teaching of anatta or no self does not deny will or the aggregates... The buddha teaches that a sentient being is simply a convention for five aggregates: matter/body, feelings, perception, volition, consciousness. Notice that volition is part of it. This will/volition can be directed towards a wholesome or unwholesome path. However, also remember that the five aggregates are empty of self - and are without agent. Does that mean there is no free will? In a sense yes, but neither does it imply determinism: another dualistic extreme. Free will means subjective controller determines action, determinism means objective world determines subjective experience. In reality there is no subject and object - in thinking just thought, in hearing just sound. But there are requisite conditions for every manifestation. Those conditions can be changed if there is a correct path.
A concrete example: if you ask a beginner to run 2.4km in 9 minutes with an unfit body, that is asking for the impossible. No matter how hard willed is he, he is never going to make it. Why? The current requisite conditions of his body is such that the result of running 9 minutes is impossible. Control, agency, doesn't apply when manifestation always arise due to conditions.
It however also means that if you exercise regularly for months or years, there is no reason the body (conditions) cannot be improved to the degree that running 9 mins is definitely possible. This is what I mean by working with conditions.
So those teachers who say meditation are useless are not understanding latent tendencies and conditions. They mistook no doership with some kind of fatalism. Every proper practice has its place in working with one's conditions.
Just because there is no self, no doer, doesn't mean my body is fated to be unfit and I can't reach the 9 min. Just because I exercise regularly doesn't mean I am reinforcing the notion of self or doership. In any case, action is always without self.
It also does not mean that "will" has no place at all. "Will" is often misunderstood to be linked to a self or agent that has full control over things, whereas it is simply more manifestation and conditions. Yes, sheer will going against conditions isn't going to work – this is not understanding no-self and dependent origination. But if will is directed properly with correct understanding of no-self and conditionality, at a proper path and practice, it can lead to benefits.
That is why the first teaching of Buddha is the four noble truths: the truth of suffering, the cause of suffering, the end of suffering, the way to end suffering. This path arises as a result of his direct insight into no-self and dependent origination.
Like a doctor, you don't tell your patients "you are fated to be ill and sick and in pain, because there is no individual controller, everything is the will of God". That is nonsense. Instead, you diagnose the illness, you seek the cause of illness, you give a treatment that eliminates the cause of illness. There is no self, there is no controller, but there is conditions and manifestation and a way to treat bad conditions. This is the way of the four noble truths. -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Something I wrote in my e-book:
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.htmlNo-self does not imply determinism.
As I wrote to someone:
............
Yes but not to be mistaken that will has no part in all these. The teaching of anatta or no self does not deny will or the aggregates... The buddha teaches that a sentient being is simply a convention for five aggregates: matter/body, feelings, perception, volition, consciousness. Notice that volition is part of it. This will/volition can be directed towards a wholesome or unwholesome path. However, also remember that the five aggregates are empty of self - and are without agent. Does that mean there is no free will? In a sense yes, but neither does it imply determinism: another dualistic extreme. Free will means subjective controller determines action, determinism means objective world determines subjective experience. In reality there is no subject and object - in thinking just thought, in hearing just sound. But there are requisite conditions for every manifestation. Those conditions can be changed if there is a correct path.
A concrete example: if you ask a beginner to run 2.4km in 9 minutes with an unfit body, that is asking for the impossible. No matter how hard willed is he, he is never going to make it. Why? The current requisite conditions of his body is such that the result of running 9 minutes is impossible. Control, agency, doesn't apply when manifestation always arise due to conditions.
It however also means that if you exercise regularly for months or years, there is no reason the body (conditions) cannot be improved to the degree that running 9 mins is definitely possible. This is what I mean by working with conditions.
So those teachers who say meditation are useless are not understanding latent tendencies and conditions. They mistook no doership with some kind of fatalism. Every proper practice has its place in working with one's conditions.
Just because there is no self, no doer, doesn't mean my body is fated to be unfit and I can't reach the 9 min. Just because I exercise regularly doesn't mean I am reinforcing the notion of self or doership. In any case, action is always without self.
It also does not mean that "will" has no place at all. "Will" is often misunderstood to be linked to a self or agent that has full control over things, whereas it is simply more manifestation and conditions. Yes, sheer will going against conditions isn't going to work – this is not understanding no-self and dependent origination. But if will is directed properly with correct understanding of no-self and conditionality, at a proper path and practice, it can lead to benefits.
That is why the first teaching of Buddha is the four noble truths: the truth of suffering, the cause of suffering, the end of suffering, the way to end suffering. This path arises as a result of his direct insight into no-self and dependent origination.
Like a doctor, you don't tell your patients "you are fated to be ill and sick and in pain, because there is no individual controller, everything is the will of God". That is nonsense. Instead, you diagnose the illness, you seek the cause of illness, you give a treatment that eliminates the cause of illness. There is no self, there is no controller, but there is conditions and manifestation and a way to treat bad conditions. This is the way of the four noble truths.unfortunately, i still do not get it. if there is indeed "will", from where/whom does it come from if there is no doer?
-
Originally posted by allkosong:
unfortunately, i still do not get it. if there is indeed "will", from where/whom does it come from if there is no doer?
It arises due to varying conditions - latent tendencies, a previous moment of thought, other influences.
Will here simply means intention. It does not mean there is a subjective controller that wills. -
Years ago:
Thusness says:
*komomonte cannot understand the question of free will this way.
*he must first experience no-self and understand how subject/object view affect us then when he look at the question of free will, he will be able to understand better.
*because when our mind and experienced are shaped by inherent thoughts, we see 'free will' as a form of freedom. Once we are able to go beyond dualistic and inherent views, we see otherwise. But we must also not lead to the wrong understanding of determinism for both free will and determinism are extremes.
Thusness says:
*what did u write to him?
Me:
*u mean previously
Thusness says:
*yeah
Me says:
*basically i said what u said, that things do not happen by chance or ramdomly or determined, but due to conditions. so there is no control, but there is influence by intentions and imprints.
(My original e-mail to him: we have to understand that things do not happen by chance or randomly (nor is it pre-determined, nor is there free will or a separate controller), but according to conditions. Our actions are influenced by our intentions and imprints. So there is intentions. And there is imprints -- for example something bad happened to you in the past with a person, and now every time you see the person you have a bad impression of him, and hence affects your behavior. Or certain deep ingrained habits always keeps surfacing -- that is also imprints.)
Thusness says:
*yes
*Dharma Dan's answer i also along that line.
*It is causal. (based on causes and conditions)
Me says:
*icic..
--------------------The E-mail:
I wrote to Dharma Dan and asked the question about Free Will. Below is his reply for your inforamtion:============================================================================Dear Jason,Thanks for your email. I have been working a lot so it took a little while to get back to you.Hello Daniel,
I just read your blook. Your chapter on No-Self vs True Self is very good. I feel it is much better than the chapter on the same topic in the book Path with Heart by Jack Kornfield. Could you allow me to ask you a couple of questions here?According to this chapter, basically you don't agree with Advaita's concept of True Self and Oneness. Is this correct?Second, all Advaita people basically assert that humans have no free will. Here is a sample short article to show what I mean:I think this view is closely connected to their another view which is seeing this world completely as an illusion and dream. I think Buddhism's dependent origination is a better description for perceived reality. As I read some Buddhism books, when they talk about Karma, they all say humans have a choice to change the future course. I interpret this as saying that humans have free will in Buddism's view. Is this correct? If so, how does this reconcile with no-self/ego teaching?Best regards,I am a pragmatist, so I think that concept that help people are key.Tbe Buddha addressed this topic, and I agree with his answer. He said that when training in Morality assume free will, as it helps. Thus, you presume that you can make healthy choices about how to speak and act and think, and so you proceed with the notion that you are in control and can make yourself and your world better.When doing Insight practices, you do the complete opposite as much as possible. You assume that sensations arise on their own in a causal, natural way and as much as possible you try to see that aspect of things. That said, until concentration, mindfulness, and continuity of practice are strong, one makes a lot of effort to see things as they are and stay with the natural arising and vanishing of sensations.From an ultimate point of view, and from a strictly Buddhist technical point of view, there is no free will. All the sensations of effort and will are themselves causal, and thus, while there are definitely the impressions of free will, these themselves are made of moments that arise and vanish on their own according to the laws that govern causality.Helpful?Daniel -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Years ago:
Thusness says:
*komomonte cannot understand the question of free will this way.
*he must first experience no-self and understand how subject/object view affect us then when he look at the question of free will, he will be able to understand better.
*because when our mind and experienced are shaped by inherent thoughts, we see 'free will' as a form of freedom. Once we are able to go beyond dualistic and inherent views, we see otherwise. But we must also not lead to the wrong understanding of determinism for both free will and determinism are extremes.
Thusness says:
*what did u write to him?
Me:
*u mean previously
Thusness says:
*yeah
Me says:
*basically i said what u said, that things do not happen by chance or ramdomly or determined, but due to conditions. so there is no control, but there is influence by intentions and imprints.
(My original e-mail to him: we have to understand that things do not happen by chance or randomly (nor is it pre-determined, nor is there free will or a separate controller), but according to conditions. Our actions are influenced by our intentions and imprints. So there is intentions. And there is imprints -- for example something bad happened to you in the past with a person, and now every time you see the person you have a bad impression of him, and hence affects your behavior. Or certain deep ingrained habits always keeps surfacing -- that is also imprints.)
Thusness says:
*yes
*Dharma Dan's answer i also along that line.
*It is causal. (based on causes and conditions)
Me says:
*icic..
--------------------The E-mail:
I wrote to Dharma Dan and asked the question about Free Will. Below is his reply for your inforamtion:============================================================================Dear Jason,Thanks for your email. I have been working a lot so it took a little while to get back to you.I am a pragmatist, so I think that concept that help people are key.Tbe Buddha addressed this topic, and I agree with his answer. He said that when training in Morality assume free will, as it helps. Thus, you presume that you can make healthy choices about how to speak and act and think, and so you proceed with the notion that you are in control and can make yourself and your world better.When doing Insight practices, you do the complete opposite as much as possible. You assume that sensations arise on their own in a causal, natural way and as much as possible you try to see that aspect of things. That said, until concentration, mindfulness, and continuity of practice are strong, one makes a lot of effort to see things as they are and stay with the natural arising and vanishing of sensations.From an ultimate point of view, and from a strictly Buddhist technical point of view, there is no free will. All the sensations of effort and will are themselves causal, and thus, while there are definitely the impressions of free will, these themselves are made of moments that arise and vanish on their own according to the laws that govern causality.Helpful?DanielThank you. Daniel's last paragraph is exactly what I'm trying to get at.
-
From an ultimate point of view, and from a strictly Buddhist technical point of view, there is no free will. All the sensations of effort and will are themselves causal, and thus, while there are definitely the impressions of free will, these themselves are made of moments that arise and vanish on their own according to the laws that govern causality.
Buddhism does not deny that we existed, or that we have a personality, or that we shouldn’t have an “ego.” What it denies is the individual false conception of the self: a self that is separate-unto-itself and unchanging. The personality that existed as an individual does have a Will to control and change his destiny and not everything is just mechanically causal. If that is so, we would not need to believe in a religion.
It is well and good to say that the ultimate point of view is that there is no free will. We are living in a conventional world. If one has not grasped at least intellectually the Buddhist teaching of ‘not-self’, such statement could easily lead one onto the path of Deterministic practices.
-
Originally posted by Aik TC:
From an ultimate point of view, and from a strictly Buddhist technical point of view, there is no free will. All the sensations of effort and will are themselves causal, and thus, while there are definitely the impressions of free will, these themselves are made of moments that arise and vanish on their own according to the laws that govern causality.
Buddhism does not deny that we existed, or that we have a personality, or that we shouldn’t have an “ego.” What it denies is the individual false conception of the self: a self that is separate-unto-itself and unchanging. The personality that existed as an individual does have a Will to control and change his destiny and not everything is just mechanically causal. If that is so, we would not need to believe in a religion.
It is well and good to say that the ultimate point of view is that there is no free will. We are living in a conventional world. If one has not grasped at least intellectually the Buddhist teaching of ‘not-self’, such statement could easily lead one onto the path of Deterministic practices.
And there we go again:) Is this a subject of debate even within the buddhist community and amongst enlightened beings?
-
Originally posted by allkosong:
And there we go again:) Is this a subject of debate even within the buddhist community and amongst enlightened beings?
It is an interesting subject of debate not just within the Buddhist community but also generally among anyone who has an interest in the topic. And among enlightened beings? Sorry, I do not know whether they care to talk about it at all.
-
Originally posted by allkosong:
And there we go again:) Is this a subject of debate even within the buddhist community and amongst enlightened beings?
No, it is uncommon topic in buddhism but more common in the west where the notion of free will or determinism is being expounded or the debate between free will and determinism is common due to the influence of monotheism.
-
just some random questions...
how about the people we meet, things we do etc... is it somehow semi-determined ? -
It is not determined but there is the influence of karma. Simpo has talked to me about many events in this life, people he met, things that happened etc that are linked ot past life karma (he traced them to his past life in deep meditation).
-
tot we alr stated:- Beliefs that are contrary to the law of kamma There are three philosophies which are considered by Buddhism to be wrong view and which must be carefully distinguished from the teaching of kamma: 1. Pubbekatahetuvada: The belief that all happiness and suffering arise from previous kamma (Past-action determinism). 2. Issaranimmanahetuvada: The belief that all happiness and suffering are caused by the directives of a Supreme Being (Theistic determinism). 3. Ahetu-apaccayavada: The belief that all happiness and suffering are random, having no cause (Indeterminism or Accidentalism). Concerning this, we have the Buddha's words: "Bhikkhus, these three sects, on being questioned by the wise, fall back on tradition and stand fast on inaction. They are: 1. The group of ascetics or Brahmins which teaches and is of the view that all happiness, suffering and neutral feeling are entirely a result of kamma done in a previous time. 2. The group of ascetics and Brahmins which teaches and is of the view that all happiness, suffering and neutral feeling are entirely a result of the will of a Supreme Being. 3. The group of ascetics and Brahmins which teaches and is of the view that all happiness, suffering and neutral feeling are entirely without cause. "Bhikkhus, of those three groups of ascetics and Brahmins, I approach the first group and ask, 'I hear that you uphold this teaching and view ... Is that so?' If those ascetics and Brahmins, on being thus questioned by me, answer that it is so, then I say to them, 'If that is so, then you have killed living beings as a result of kamma committed in a previous time, have stolen as a result of kamma done at a previous time, have engaged in sexual misconduct ... have uttered false speech ... have held wrong view as a result of kamma done in a previous time.' "Bhikkhus, adhering to previously done kamma as the essence, there are neither motivation nor effort with what should be done and what should not be done ... Not upholding ardently what should be done, nor abandoning what should be abandoned, those ascetics and Brahmins are as if deluded, lacking a control, incapable of having any true teaching. This is our legitimate refutation of the first group of ascetics and Brahmins holding these views. "Bhikkhus, of those three groups of ascetics and Brahmins, I approach the second group ... and say to them, 'If that is so, then you have killed living beings because of the directives of a Supreme Being ... stolen the goods of others ... engaged in sexual misconduct ... uttered false speech ... have held wrong view because of the directives of a Supreme Being.' "Bhikkhus, adhering to the will of a Supreme Being as the essence, there are neither motivation nor effort with what should be done and what should not be done ... "Bhikkhus, of those groups of ascetics and Brahmins, I approach the third ... and say to them, 'If that is so, then you have killed living beings for no reason whatsoever ... stolen the goods of others ... engaged in sexual misconduct ... uttered false speech ... have held wrong view for no reason whatsoever.' "Bhikkhus, adhering to accidentalism as being the essence, there are neither motivation nor effort with what should be done and what should not be done ..."[42] The first of these three schools of thought is that of the Niganthas, about which we can learn some more from the Buddha's words: "Bhikkhus, there are some ascetics and Brahmins who are of this view, 'All happiness and suffering are entirely caused by previous kamma. For this reason, with the exhausting of old kamma through austerities, there will be no influence exerted by kamma-results. When there is no more influence of kamma-results, kamma is ended. With the ending of kamma there is an ending of suffering. With the ending of suffering there is an ending of feeling. With the ending of feeling, all suffering is eventually extinguished.' Bhikkhus, the Niganthas are of this view."[43] The following words from the Buddha clearly illustrate the Buddhist view: "Listen, Sivaka. Some kinds of feeling arise with bile as condition ... with changes in the weather as condition ... with inconstant behavior as condition ... with danger from an external source as condition ... with kamma-results as condition. Any ascetic or Brahmin who is of the view that, 'All feeling is entirely caused by previous kamma,' I say is mistaken."[44] These words discourage us from going too far with kamma by considering it as entirely a thing of the past. Such a view encourages inactivity; passively waiting for the results of old kamma to ripen and taking things as they come without thinking to correct or improve them. This is a harmful form of wrong view, as can be seen from the Buddha's words above. Significantly, in the above passage, the Buddha asserts effort and motivation as the crucial factors in deciding the ethical value of these various teachings on kamma. The Buddha did not dismiss the importance of previous kamma, because it does play a part in the cause and effect process, and thus has an effect on the present in its capacity as one of the conditioning factors. But it is simply one of those conditions, it is not a supernatural force to be clung to or submitted to passively. An understanding of the Principle of Dependent Origination and the cause and effect process will clarify this. For example, if a man climbs to the third floor of a building, it is undeniably true that his arriving is a result of past action -- namely, walking up the stairs. And having arrived there, it is impossible for him to reach out and touch the ground with his hand, or to drive a car around. Obviously, this is because he has gone up to the third floor. Or, having arrived at the third floor, whether he is too exhausted to continue is also related to having walked up the stairs. His arrival there, the things he is able to do there and the situations he is likely to encounter, are all certainly related to the "old kamma" of having walked up the stairs. But exactly which actions he will perform, his reactions to the situations which he meets there, whether he will take a rest, walk on, or walk back down the stairs and out of that building, are all matters which he can decide for himself in that present moment, for which he will also reap the results. Even though the action of walking up the stairs may still be influencing him (for example, with his strength sapped he may be unable to function efficiently in any given situation), whether he decides to give in to that tiredness or try to overcome it are all matters which he can decide for himself in the present moment. Therefore, old kamma should be understood in its relation to the whole cause and effect process. In terms of ethical practice, to understand the cause and effect process is to be able to learn from old kamma, understanding the situation at hand, and to skillfully make a plan of action for improving on and preparing for the future. http://www.buddhismtoday.com/english/buddha/Teachings/037-payutto2.htm /\