Question: Not Free Will, Not Determinism, then?
-
Hello everyone! Stumbled onto this forum a while ago, but since I had nothing of worth to contribute I was just happy to lurk and read what gems everyone had to offer.
I have been getting myself accquaintant with buddhism for a while, and sometimes there are certain topics that I just miss or haven't come across a proper explanation yet, and this happens to be one of them.
I understand and believe that the world doesn't work like proponents of determinism would describe, i.e. everything's already predetermined and there's nothing we can do to change them since it's all set in stone, fated if you will. But at the same time, I believe buddhism (as well as many other people actually) states that we don't actually have true free will as there's no "one" around doing the willing thanks to dependent origination and non-self.
So, my question is: When I decide to do something, for example, walk to the MRT station instead of running, what's happening here? There's no one to exert the will to "want to walk", so I'm guessing conditions ripen that "the mind decides and walking happens", but I wonder if this actually means it's a predetermined event, but is it?
Eagerly awaiting your replies. Please no not hesitate to correct my assumptions as well :) .
-
Hi, welcome to the forum.
There is willing going on... there is intentions. How do intentions arise? Inseperable from the requisite conditions of latent tendencies, preferences, environment, etc etc... countless causes and conditions coming together manifesting as this action, this intention, this thought.
There is no intender but there certainly is intention.
Determined implies 'you' cannot do a thing to change the way things happen. But since there is no 'you' separate from the universe, it cannot be said that things are determined, since determined implies there is a 'you' and 'your actions' not being able to affect 'the universe which is predetermined'.
In other words, determinism presumes that there is a 'self' determined by 'others' or a 'self' being helpless in the face of 'others', or 'this' determined by 'that'... whereas in reality there is no such division, reality, D.O. is flat without hierarchy (that in control of this or this in control of that) and as such, all are free-manifestations of D.O. beyond extremes of determinism (subject at mercy of object) and free will (subject in control of object).
'Your actions' is not really 'your actions' but it is the action of the whole universe manifesting freely now, with no one at the center being at the mercy of, or being in control of, the process.
This is a good article (even though David Loy is unable to differentiate Buddhism anatta and Vedanta brahman, it nevertheless has good contents):
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/loy3.htm
For Nietzsche, intention and the will in general are epiphenomena not amounting to the cause of an action. This denial of volition (by no means uncommon [46]) would seem to imply determinism, but the concept of nondual action suggests an alternative that escapes the usual dilemma of freedom or determinism. The classical statement of that problem is dualistic in presupposing a conscious subject whose actions either are completely determined by a causal chain (the strongest causal influence reaps effect) or are free from a causal chain (or, rather, free from complete determination, since totally uncaused, random choice does not seem to provide freedom in any meaningful sense). Both alternatives assume the existence of a conscious self distinct from its actions and existent outside the causal chain -- although its actions may be totally determined by external causes. But if, as the nondualist maintains, there is no self, this does not imply complete determinism, for if there is no subject then there are also no "objective" causal factors. The deterministic view implies a self, helpless before causal influences which struggle among themselves to see which is strongest, rather like medieval knights competing to see who will win the hapless lady; but if there is no hapless consciousness here, the situation must be understood differently. If "liberty or freedom signifies properly the absence of opposition" (Hobbes [47]) then non-duality would seem rather to imply limitless freedom, since there is no "other" to be opposed. Elsewhere I have argued that the nondualist denial of self (as in Buddhism) is equivalent to asserting that there is only the Self (as in VedÄ�nta). [48] We would normally infer that the former implies complete determinism, the latter absolute freedom. However, if the universe is a whole (Brahman, Tao, VijñaptimÄ�tra, and so forth) and if, as Hua Yen Buddhism develops in its image of Indra's Net, each particular is not isolated but contains and manifests that whole, then whenever "I" act it is not "I" but the whole universe that "does" the action or rather is the action. If we accept that the universe is self-caused, then it acts freely whenever anything is done. Thus, from the nondualist perspective, complete determinism turns out to be equivalent to absolute freedom. [49]
-
Nietzsche can be read as a leisure or novelty than to be taken seriously ...
ask what is the so-called objective truths have on your life than what they could serve only in your mind or dreams..
-
Thank you very much for your reply AEN, I'll go take a moment to mull over this.
Fcukpap: Thanks for the advice, never really read Nietzsche but I have the impression that the guy seems very extremist. Not sure if it's true, but eh. Unfortunately, I don't quite understand your second paragraph.If they are "so-called" objective truths, that just means if I take them to be of the absolute sort I'm just being deluded?
-
western values are attractive but could be too egoistic...eastern virtues are tolerant and for keeps..the Superman, or Overman is gone...down to earth you and me...
be water my friend .... the practical philosophy of life unravels the abstract truths to what is workable in reality than one dwelling in only minds, or dreams, or its own illusions
-
-
-
the link help me understand more about karma. and especially the walking up the stairs example.
Good, Evil and Beyond
Kamma in the Buddha's Teaching
P. A. Payutto
Translated by Bruce Evans
http://www.buddhanet.net/cmdsg/kamma.htm
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).
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.
so the query of "Not Free Will, Not Determinism, then? " is also not right. karma is more complicated. it is a mix of everything. it can be freewill at time, and it can be determine at time etc etc..
/\
-
Extract from a thread in Dhamma Wheel:
We can say, that:
The past is fully determined. -> no viable options, everything determined
The present is under-determined. -> some viable options, some things already determined
The future is undetermined. -> infinite viable options, nothing determinedAnother extract
Choice. The view that we are always free to make a choice does not accord with experience. We did not choose to be born, to stop growing old, to get sick or to suffer pain. We can’t choose to live for ever. We can’t choose to be happy in every moment of the day. We can’t choose the outcomes of events that effect our life. We might think we make free and independent choices only to find out later that the so-called free choice that we made turned out be a nightmare. Our so-called choices are limited. We make choices without knowing countless conditions influencing those choices either from the past, present or that might arise in the future. We are heirs to our karma and bound to our karma (MLD 135). Is this a choice? Is it wise to use the language of choice? Is the notion of consumer choice keeping us deluded and imprisoned as customers? The Buddha placed more emphasis on intention affecting body, speech and mind. In clarity, we naturally cultivate ethics, samadhi and wisdom. It is a natural priority. Wisdom says that there doesn’t feel to be any choice about it. It is simply conducive to a liberated way of life. Deep down, there is really no choice.
Determinism and Fatalism. The past certainly can determine the process of dependent arising. The fact that the past can determine the present does not mean that we are prisoners, because the past is not an agent that ultimately can imprison us. This also means that there are no events that just happen without causes and conditions. The Buddha also does not teach fatalism. If the past absolutely determined our life, then the teachings of the Four Noble Truths are irrelevant. We would be a total prisoner to our past. Again, there would be no liberation from the past, from the unresolved forces of karma. The Buddha teaches dependent arising and liberation.
Free will. For the will to be free, it would have to be independent, self supporting and not conditioned by circumstances inner and outer. The Buddha does not teach free will. The Buddha taught the middle way between free will and determinism. The self is tied to the notion of free will and equally tied to the notion of determinism. Truly knowing and seeing dependent arising is liberating. It reveals the emptiness of a real self and real things
-
The Buddha established the twelve causal links in defense of Free Will and against a theory of wholesale Determinism. He was against one of his contemporaries called Gosala who preaches an extreme form of determinism which denies absolutely all free will and moral responsibilities. According to him, all things are inalterably fixed, pre-destined, and nothing can be changed, and went on to live a life lacking in total self restraint. The Buddha called him the ‘bad man’ who was like a fisherman, catching men only to destroy them. He declared that there is free action, but there is also retribution.
As against determinism, the Buddhist should maintain that there is free will and responsibility. As against liberty, there is the necessity of causal laws. Free Will is a freedom within the prison of Dependent Origination. It is the evolution of our moral progress towards Final Deliverance and attainment in Nirvana where, causation and dependent origination would become extinct in this final deliverance.
-
As a Christian I think God is in control of everything that's happening in the universe past present and future.
This like the Trinity is beyond our human limited mind to grasp.
-
Originally posted by Synasta:
Extract from a thread in Dhamma Wheel:
We can say, that:
The past is fully determined. -> no viable options, everything determined
The present is under-determined. -> some viable options, some things already determined
The future is undetermined. -> infinite viable options, nothing determinedAnother extract
Choice. The view that we are always free to make a choice does not accord with experience. We did not choose to be born, to stop growing old, to get sick or to suffer pain. We can’t choose to live for ever. We can’t choose to be happy in every moment of the day. We can’t choose the outcomes of events that effect our life. We might think we make free and independent choices only to find out later that the so-called free choice that we made turned out be a nightmare. Our so-called choices are limited. We make choices without knowing countless conditions influencing those choices either from the past, present or that might arise in the future. We are heirs to our karma and bound to our karma (MLD 135). Is this a choice? Is it wise to use the language of choice? Is the notion of consumer choice keeping us deluded and imprisoned as customers? The Buddha placed more emphasis on intention affecting body, speech and mind. In clarity, we naturally cultivate ethics, samadhi and wisdom. It is a natural priority. Wisdom says that there doesn’t feel to be any choice about it. It is simply conducive to a liberated way of life. Deep down, there is really no choice.
Determinism and Fatalism. The past certainly can determine the process of dependent arising. The fact that the past can determine the present does not mean that we are prisoners, because the past is not an agent that ultimately can imprison us. This also means that there are no events that just happen without causes and conditions. The Buddha also does not teach fatalism. If the past absolutely determined our life, then the teachings of the Four Noble Truths are irrelevant. We would be a total prisoner to our past. Again, there would be no liberation from the past, from the unresolved forces of karma. The Buddha teaches dependent arising and liberation.
Free will. For the will to be free, it would have to be independent, self supporting and not conditioned by circumstances inner and outer. The Buddha does not teach free will. The Buddha taught the middle way between free will and determinism. The self is tied to the notion of free will and equally tied to the notion of determinism. Truly knowing and seeing dependent arising is liberating. It reveals the emptiness of a real self and real things
Hi Synasta...Thanks for the extract... I was thinking and it made sense... if Buddha was to believe that he was a prisoner of his past actions, there is no Four Noble Truths... and no one will be enlightened... and there will be no Buddha ! Lol...
-
focus on the pragmatic possibilities than to be trapped in lingual constructs which would impede the path of understanding ....
buddhist lingual and terminologies should be de-constructed to provide clarity..
enlightenment is better achieved through pragmatism
-
be a pragmatic buddhist than an agnostic one
-
Originally posted by Almond Cookies:
As a Christian I think God is in control of everything that's happening in the universe past present and future.
This like the Trinity is beyond our human limited mind to grasp.
Did All Eternal Now not tell you not to discuss christianity here? You don't even have respect for others then how you expect others to respect you to listen to you preaching. Dumb. -
Originally posted by Almond Cookies:
As a Christian I think God is in control of everything that's happening in the universe past present and future.
This like the Trinity is beyond our human limited mind to grasp.
Then is'nt it irrelevant to talk about? If then (This like the Trinity is beyond our human limited mind to grasp), why are you hung up about even talking God or Christianity?!! Selective grasping?!! It all boils down to conjecture is'nt("you think") it ?!!! -
Originally posted by Weychin:
Then is'nt it irrelevant to talk about? If then (This like the Trinity is beyond our human limited mind to grasp), why are you hung up about even talking God or Christianity?!! Selective grasping?!! It all boils down to conjecture is'nt("you think") it ?!!!
Cookies is here to irritate people only... lolbecareful of him...
@Cookies- please go back to your christian forum. Thanks.
-
Because Trinity is very important to Christians.
If you don't believe in that, not a christian.
Although our limited mind cannot understand It, It's still important to believe in it.
-
Originally posted by 2009novice:
Cookies is here to irritate people only... lolbecareful of him...
@Cookies- please go back to your christian forum. Thanks.
Eternal hope is not active. I mostly discuss in sgclub christian forum. -
the higher being is coined in different languages and meanings for different people and cultures...
before we say our own higher being controls the skies of others... spare how they feel and how you feel when your own sky is being overshadowed by others..
-
Originally posted by Almond Cookies:
Because Trinity is very important to Christians.
If you don't believe in that, not a christian.
Although our limited mind cannot understand It, It's still important to believe in it.
If it is all very well to you, this is a forum for discussing Buddhism,and (1) you are unable to link your views in that context. (2) You are currently a christian, we know that, so,what else is new? (3)You don't understand and yet you are telling and share what you do not understand, so what is the point of telling what you don't understand and unable to discuss it? (4) Since you assert that our limited mind is incapable of understanding. what is the point of sharing. Your logic is flawed. why don't you try telling it to the dogs or cats as it is also beyond their scope of understanding, is'nt it also important that they believe?!! -
Originally posted by 2009novice:
Cookies is here to irritate people only... lolbecareful of him...
@Cookies- please go back to your christian forum. Thanks.
No, he is just lonely, maladjusted person and craves attention, ever own pets that pees everywhere when nobody's home? -
Evangelise lost souls when I am free.
-
Originally posted by Weychin:
No, he is just lonely, maladjusted person and craves attention, ever own pets that pees everywhere when nobody's home?
I think I am still confused. I think I can't practise any religion for the time being.I wanna go speak to a counsuellor for help.
-
Maybe we should give Almond Cookies the benefit of the doubt that he is confused and need some guidance. Coming onto a Buddhist forum site and getting ridicule for his Christian views I believe, is not much fun that is, unless he is such a committed Christian, that to convert the unbelievers to his faith is his final and only objective. Hopefully he is just trying to seek affirmation that the Christian teaching and thoughts are true and is acceptable by other faith as well, and that there is no other motives behind his coming on this site with his views.
Almond go see a counsellor to remove all the doubts in your mind.