It'll be in vain anyway, but just saying...

Wayfarer wrote:Do you turn up and post on Dharma Wheel forum of your own volition, or is life such that you had no choice but to do so, and no choice but to say exactly what you say, every time you post? If your answer is 'no', then that must mean you joined and posted of your own free will, and not because you were compelled to do so. I think that's what the argument is about, anyway.
It seems to me Buddhism does actually teach this. One of the Five Remembrances is that we are "heirs to our karma, born of our karma, related through our karma, and have our karma as our arbitrator."Wayfarer wrote:I think the parallel view in Buddhism would be the idea that 'all human actions are bound by karma, nobody can act in any way other than what their karma dictates.' And that is not what Buddhism teaches, obviously, because if it were true, then there would be no point in teaching!
There are also the case studies done on split-brain patients, which tend to undermine the notion of a unified self. If your right and left hemispheres are saying/doing different things, where is the self exactly? Current science doesn't align with all aspects of Buddhist doctrine, but both seem to agree on one key point: each of us is a collection of aggregates. In that sense, I think, both differ from the long-standing Western paradigm that relies on the notion of a soul (which has "free will").The question really came into focus in Western culture, due to the idea that human action can be understood solely in terms of material causes - neurons, evolution, history, culture or whatever. In that context, those who deny that humans have free will, are typically materialists of various kinds, like Dennett, or Dawkins, who say that everything humans do is a consequence of 'the selfish gene'.
But for what reason does a person make the choice one way or another? Is it simply random accident, like tossing a die in the mind?DGA wrote:To my mind, the fact that Buddhism offers precepts to its followers is the measure to which it assumes the existence of some kind of choice (murder or not?).
odysseus wrote:The notion of "free will" comes from modern philosophy. It is unclear what it constitutes, because it implies something about a creator god. But Buddhism is 100 percent compatible with "free will" - that's why there is talk about "volition" in Buddhism. Volition is something like the free will. Very simple, that with volition we make our karma and therefore we have so-called free will.
Very well said!David N. Snyder wrote: Okay, perhaps more toward determinism. There is will / volition, but it is highly determined by our past kilesas, saṅkhāras, our conditioned consciousness, viññāna via paṭiccasamuppāda. I believe from a Buddhist perspective, the only way out of the determinism is by strong mindfulness and concentration, so that one (the aggregates; self-less conventional being) does not get controlled by those past kilesas and saṅkhāras. And this could explain why nearly all people do appear to be operating completely in a deterministic way, i.e. successful meditation, mindfulness, is not easy.
Think of the aggregates being something like a computer -- garbage in, garbage out. The computer gets programmed with various information and this results in very specific outcomes / products. In the same way humans get exposed to certain information, environment, culture, upbringing in a certain country, religion, etc and their world view is subsequently quite predictable. There is a way out of the cycle (programming), but it isn't easy.
It's just "others", everyone else, other beings, other people. There's also an analysis of the sutta by Piya Tan here.Wayfarer wrote:Could you expand on what 'other-doer' refers to?
It is a difference made between old and new karma, i.e. past acts and present acts (see: Kamma Sutta). On a conventional level there is agency, there is intention. But when analysed, it's all empty (no doer) and dependently arisen (causally bound). Where this topic of "free will" actually comes up is how karma is interpreted in Buddhism and by others, and that shows that the moral responsibility lies with the individual being according to Shakyamuni, while other theories (see: Samaññaphala Sutta) deny that.I think the parallel view in Buddhism would be the idea that 'all human actions are bound by karma, nobody can act in any way other than what their karma dictates.' And that is not what Buddhism teaches, obviously, because if it were true, then there would be no point in teaching!
None of us have free will. But with effort and wisdom one can acquire absolute free will. As per lotus sutra Buddhas reach that stage of absolute free will. In chapter 8 of Lotus sutra future of an ordinary person named Purna is predicted by Guatam Buddha.Riju wrote:We have absolute free will if we know that awareness in us is the deciding factor. In that state we chose our path , destination and activities.
We have no free will if are ignorant of our awareness , in this case karmas and surroundings force us to take decisions.
I think not. Thanisarro Bikkhu has this to say:LazyEye wrote:Wayfarer wrote: I think the parallel view in Buddhism would be the idea that 'all human actions are bound by karma, nobody can act in any way other than what their karma dictates.' And that is not what Buddhism teaches, obviously, because if it were true, then there would be no point in teaching!
It seems to me Buddhism does actually teach this.
(Emphasis added.)For the early Buddhists, karma was non-linear and complex. Other Indian schools believed that karma operated in a simple straight line, with actions from the past influencing the present, and present actions influencing the future. As a result, they saw little room for free will. Buddhists, however, saw that karma acts in multiple feedback loops, with the present moment being shaped both by past and by present actions; present actions shape not only the future but also the present. Furthermore, present actions need not be determined by past actions. In other words, there is free will, although its range is somewhat dictated by the past. The nature of this freedom is symbolized in an image used by the early Buddhists: flowing water. Sometimes the flow from the past is so strong that little can be done except to stand fast, but there are also times when the flow is gentle enough to be diverted in almost any direction.
So, instead of promoting resigned powerlessness, the early Buddhist notion of karma focused on the liberating potential of what the mind is doing with every moment. Who you are — what you come from — is not anywhere near as important as the mind's motives for what it is doing right now. Even though the past may account for many of the inequalities we see in life, our measure as human beings is not the hand we've been dealt, for that hand can change at any moment. We take our own measure by how well we play the hand we've got. If you're suffering, you try not to continue the unskillful mental habits that would keep that particular karmic feedback going. If you see that other people are suffering, and you're in a position to help, you focus not on their karmic past but your karmic opportunity in the present: Someday you may find yourself in the same predicament that they're in now, so here's your opportunity to act in the way you'd like them to act toward you when that day comes.
(Emphasis added.)There are two ways in which someone can take rebirth after death: rebirth under the sway of karma and destructive emotions and rebirth through the power of compassion and prayer. Regarding the first, due to ignorance negative and positive karma are created and their imprints remain on the consciousness. These are reactivated through craving and grasping, propelling us into the next life. We then take rebirth involuntarily in higher or lower realms. This is the way ordinary beings circle incessantly through existence like the turning of a wheel. Even under such circumstances ordinary beings can engage diligently with a positive aspiration in virtuous practices in their day-to-day lives. They familiarise themselves with virtue that at the time of death can be reactivated providing the means for them to take rebirth in a higher realm of existence.
On the other hand, superior Bodhisattvas, who have attained the path of seeing, are not reborn through the force of their karma and destructive emotions, but due to the power of their compassion for sentient beings and based on their prayers to benefit others. They are able to choose their place and time of birth as well as their future parents. Such a rebirth, which is solely for the benefit of others, is rebirth through the force of compassion and prayer.
I think that "choice" here is not the best word.Wayfarer wrote:And as for the Mahāyāna, the Dalai Lama makes the following observation
(Emphasis added.)HHDL wrote:...superior Bodhisattvas, who have attained the path of seeing, are not reborn through the force of their karma and destructive emotions, but due to the power of their compassion for sentient beings and based on their prayers to benefit others. They are able to choose their place and time of birth as well as their future parents. Such a rebirth, which is solely for the benefit of others, is rebirth through the force of compassion and prayer.
So here, His Holiness says that the bodhisattva is no longer compelled to take birth due to karma, but may be born voluntarily for the sake of sentient beings; and if that is not an exercise of free will, then I don't know what would be!
Buddhist ethics does certainly seem to presuppose our making choices (and being responsible for the choices we make provided they follow our intention). I am far less certain to what extent such a position is fully compatible with Mahayana teachings on pratitya sammutpada and emptiness. If all of my lifeworld -- all of my karmic vision -- both on the side of the subject and on the side of the object is produced by and on the basis of my past deeds, there is no room for any genuine choice, is there?DGA wrote:Our choices are not causeless. Choices are legible in actions. Actions follow from intentions. Intentions emerge from [the complex of mental processes and sensory inputs that predicate intention]. Which is to say that it is easy to discern a Buddhist doctrine of choice, especially in light of different indices of ethical conduct that are given for lay and ordained people.
What is the Vinaya if not a catalogue of choices one is not to make? Similarly for the Brahma Net Sutra precepts? Precepts themselves presuppose the inevitability of choice in that they aim to limit the range of one's choices preemptively. To my mind, the fact that Buddhism offers precepts to its followers is the measure to which it assumes the existence of some kind of choice (murder or not?).
Although I respect Thanissaro Bhikkhu and his explanation is useful, I believe he is confusing non-linearity with free will.For the early Buddhists, karma was non-linear and complex. Other Indian schools believed that karma operated in a simple straight line, with actions from the past influencing the present, and present actions influencing the future. As a result, they saw little room for free will. Buddhists, however, saw that karma acts in multiple feedback loops, with the present moment being shaped both by past and by present actions; present actions shape not only the future but also the present. Furthermore, present actions need not be determined by past actions. In other words, there is free will, although its range is somewhat dictated by the past. The nature of this freedom is symbolized in an image used by the early Buddhists: flowing water. Sometimes the flow from the past is so strong that little can be done except to stand fast, but there are also times when the flow is gentle enough to be diverted in almost any direction.
So, instead of promoting resigned powerlessness, the early Buddhist notion of karma focused on the liberating potential of what the mind is doing with every moment. Who you are — what you come from — is not anywhere near as important as the mind's motives for what it is doing right now. Even though the past may account for many of the inequalities we see in life, our measure as human beings is not the hand we've been dealt, for that hand can change at any moment. We take our own measure by how well we play the hand we've got. If you're suffering, you try not to continue the unskillful mental habits that would keep that particular karmic feedback going. If you see that other people are suffering, and you're in a position to help, you focus not on their karmic past but your karmic opportunity in the present: Someday you may find yourself in the same predicament that they're in now, so here's your opportunity to act in the way you'd like them to act toward you when that day comes.
To me, this looks more like an exercise of bodhicitta.His Holiness says that the bodhisattva is no longer compelled to take birth due to karma, but may be born voluntarily for the sake of sentient beings; and if that is not an exercise of free will, then I don't know what would be!
My present action, the one I am perpetrating right now, will condition my future actions (and co-create "me"). The present action itself, however, is conditioned by all my past actions.Lazy_eye wrote:it is also true that our lives are not conditioned solely by the past, but also by present actions. As he says, "our hand can change at any moment," so fatalism is not justified
I would interpret HHDL’s statement like this. Even though every intention is determined by a cause, within any moment it is possible to “nudge” our intentions.Wayfarer wrote:... And as for the Mahāyāna, the Dalai Lama makes the following observation:(Emphasis added.)There are two ways in which someone can take rebirth after death: rebirth under the sway of karma and destructive emotions and rebirth through the power of compassion and prayer. Regarding the first, due to ignorance negative and positive karma are created and their imprints remain on the consciousness. These are reactivated through craving and grasping, propelling us into the next life. We then take rebirth involuntarily in higher or lower realms. This is the way ordinary beings circle incessantly through existence like the turning of a wheel. Even under such circumstances ordinary beings can engage diligently with a positive aspiration in virtuous practices in their day-to-day lives. They familiarise themselves with virtue that at the time of death can be reactivated providing the means for them to take rebirth in a higher realm of existence.
On the other hand, superior Bodhisattvas, who have attained the path of seeing, are not reborn through the force of their karma and destructive emotions, but due to the power of their compassion for sentient beings and based on their prayers to benefit others. They are able to choose their place and time of birth as well as their future parents. Such a rebirth, which is solely for the benefit of others, is rebirth through the force of compassion and prayer.
Yes, I agree. There doesn't seem to be any room for an unconditioned choice, unless one has broken the twelvefold chain and become a Buddha.treehuggingoctopus wrote:My present action, the one I am perpetrating right now, will condition my future actions (and co-create "me"). The present action itself, however, is conditioned by all my past actions.Lazy_eye wrote:it is also true that our lives are not conditioned solely by the past, but also by present actions. As he says, "our hand can change at any moment," so fatalism is not justified
It really is pretty much watertight unless you argue along with the Theravadins that not all that you experience/are is karmic -- or argue that the emptiness of everything is somehow the factor here that liberates one from the twin horns of perfect order (in which literally everything is predetermined) and perfect chaos (in which literally every choice one makes is perfectly meaningless).
And then there is no room for any choice for entirely different reasons.Lazy_eye wrote:There doesn't seem to be any room for an unconditioned choice, unless one has broken the twelvefold chain and become a Buddha.
Yes. As the, lets' call it "info", which is resulting in a choice of action is already in the mind before the "info" is remarked by the deciding-thinking mind. It is already before the “individual” thinks to take a decision and is convinced it is his her decision.My present action, the one I am perpetrating right now, will condition my future actions (and co-create "me"). The present action itself, however, is conditioned by all my past actions.
I disagree. I think between the 7th and 8th links (Feeling > Craving) there is a potential gap. Feeling is a projected effect. Craving is an actualizing cause.Lazy_eye wrote:There doesn't seem to be any room for an unconditioned choice, unless one has broken the twelvefold chain and become a Buddha.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests