Free Will And Karma

[RedQualia]

." Vasubandhu, the second Buddha,

who is this?

not on this list...

http://www.mahindarama.com/amata-foundatio...-28-Buddhas.doc

One of a cast of thousands, of course.

http://r1.chass.utoronto.ca/mappingreligion/?q=node/123: Vasubhandu, the younger brother, had studied Buddhist thought extensively throughout his lifetime. He had made a special study of the Abhidharma in Kashmir. Moreover, his most important work, when he was in his Saravastivada phase was the Abhidharma Kosa which was an encyclopedia of Buddhist doctrine and philosophy (Ahir, Pg. 73). According to his creation of this encyclopedia it caused Vasubhandhu to be known as the second Buddha by his fellow monks (Ahir, Pg. 73). After this, he then decided to follow his elder brother, Asanga, in the Yogacara School. According to tradition, the reason for his conversion was that he was becoming unhappy with the teachings in Saravastivada.

Google is my friend...

[RedQualia]

Preamble for the thought that if you are aware that your actions resulted in the death of the hiker, that awareness of your action can represent a causative force in your mind. If you are forever unaware that your action caused his death, then there is nothing for it to contribute to your kamma, since kamma is not imposed by some external force (god doesn't stick you with it).

Yes? No?

My view is that if there was no intent to kill (you don't say in your example if there was intent) then the act which accidentally caused the death would not create kamma.....and if there was intent to kill then some kamma would be created regardless as to whether the act was successfully committed and regardless of whether the preson knew if their act was successful (tried to kill but don't know if succeeded). Knowing that you killed someone (accidentally or intentionally) can be the cause of further intentions (beyond the intention (or lack) to kill) which could give rise to further kamma. Also, it is my view that for most people seeing a corpse in any situation will cause the precipitation of the fruits of past kamma....but this is only my view and I have never seen any scriptural reference which comments on this.

By the way...for those who get confused about what is kamma and what is the fruit of the kamma, an analogy is that creating kamma is like setting a trap while the fruit of the kamma is like getting caught in your own trap.....although do remember that the fruits of kamma can be pleasant too and not always negative like in my analogy.

Chownah

No, I didn't address intent. But that was because your example (not mine) specified that you had no intention of killing him, so I didn't feel I had to address the matter of intent.

Of course, if one intended to kill the guy, then one would have to have some pretty bad karma going down in advance, and would be feeding that with more (and more?) bad intentions. The old song by The Rude Girls: "I can see your aura and it's ugly!"

[fabianfred]

http://r1.chass.utoronto.ca/mappingreligion/?q=node/123: Vasubhandu, the younger brother, had studied Buddhist thought extensively throughout his lifetime. He had made a special study of the Abhidharma in Kashmir. Moreover, his most important work, when he was in his Saravastivada phase was the Abhidharma Kosa which was an encyclopedia of Buddhist doctrine and philosophy (Ahir, Pg. 73). According to his creation of this encyclopedia it caused Vasubhandhu to be known as the second Buddha by his fellow monks (Ahir, Pg. 73). After this, he then decided to follow his elder brother, Asanga, in the Yogacara School. According to tradition, the reason for his conversion was that he was becoming unhappy with the teachings in Saravastivada.

Google is my friend...

just being a good monk doesn't warrant being compared to a Buddha..... even arahants are in a different class

[sleepyjohn]

off topic but great reference:

I think Nagarjuna's normally called the Seoond Buddha. Check out the amazing investigation of phenomena (or not) in the Mulamadhyamakakarika!

ps: you need the Garfield translation

pps: it's not the Reader's Digest, you won't be reading this and doing two other things at the same time apart from peristalsis and breathing

Edited June 25, 2007 by sleepyjohn

[RedQualia]

http://r1.chass.utoronto.ca/mappingreligion/?q=node/123: Vasubhandu, the younger brother, had studied Buddhist thought extensively throughout his lifetime. He had made a special study of the Abhidharma in Kashmir. Moreover, his most important work, when he was in his Saravastivada phase was the Abhidharma Kosa which was an encyclopedia of Buddhist doctrine and philosophy (Ahir, Pg. 73). According to his creation of this encyclopedia it caused Vasubhandhu to be known as the second Buddha by his fellow monks (Ahir, Pg. 73). After this, he then decided to follow his elder brother, Asanga, in the Yogacara School. According to tradition, the reason for his conversion was that he was becoming unhappy with the teachings in Saravastivada.

Google is my friend...

just being a good monk doesn't warrant being compared to a Buddha..... even arahants are in a different class

Very well. But your comment here has nothing to do with karma or free will. You are instead quibbling with a quote from a book, which is further backed up by widespread references to Vasubhandu as "second Buddha" on the Internet.

I took the time to transcribe that piece to this thread in the belief that it might add something to the subject of karma and free will. I certainly did not intend to start a "my second Buddha is better than your second Buddha" kind of discussion. Sorry if that's all you got from it.

[Plus]

I think one of the last questions left unanswered in one of the previous karma threads was - what or who is supposed to have this free will? Do rocks have free will? Do animals have free will? What makes humans so special?

In Hinduism there are different views on this but the general idea is that the soul is not a part of matter and is not on the list of material elements. Karma, in a sense of cause and effect, applies to matter. Thus the soul has no free will in relation to material interactions. If there's a free will for the soul, it lies in realisation of it's spiritual nature as a part of Brahman, or attaining Nirvana in Buddhism.

Can the soul produce any effect on matter at all? No, not directly.

Do animals have free will? Why humans are so different?

As living beings they both have equal amounts of free will, their souls continuously transmigrate from one body to another, living through various animal and human life forms. From the point of view of the soul it does not matter in the least - time is a material element that has no effect on it.

Concept of time is another curiousity - we naturally presume that time flows from past into future, all karmic actions have effects in the future. However this concept makes absolutely no sense in a timeless world of Brahman or Nirvana.

One of the interesting time paradoxes following from Einstein's theories is that when time seriously slows down it is quite possible to find a point of view where the effect would precede its cause - the observer would just have to move fast enough in a proper direction.

More specifically - there's no absolute time reference to judge two events that happened in different places - for some observers they will occure simultaneously, for others the event number one would happen first, yet to others the event number two.

I hope this idea shows that our discussions on karma/kamma are seriously conditioned by material circumstances - our slow relative speeds. If we moved around fast enough we would see that cause-effect relation as we know it simply doesn't exist. It's all in your mind.

[RedQualia]

off topic but great reference:

I think Nagarjuna's normally called the Seoond Buddha. Check out the amazing investigation of phenomena (or not) in the Mulamadhyamakakarika!

ps: you need the Garfield translation

pps: it's not the Reader's Digest, you won't be reading this and doing two other things at the same time apart from peristalsis and breathing

Thanks for the reference! I know I have that title here somewhere, but can't find it at the moment. Perhaps it's wandered to a different bookshelf. Nagarjuna is also heavily referenced in the "Buddhist Logic" I mentioned. It has a few hundred pages on the "sensible world," and a few hundred more on the "constructed world," and a few hundred more on the "reality of the external world," etc.

Wonder if I might have left the Mulamadhyamakakarika at work. Or loaned it to someone. Hmm...

[sabaijai]

A similar step by step analysis of the Sutta I mentioned could also be done I'm sure but I don't have the time now...maybe later....but maybe the discussion would best be moved out of the dueling scriptures and interpretations of scriptures mode and into another mode....an impractical example: I through a rock off a cliff in my exuberance at seeing the beautiful view and it kills a hiker far far below where you would never expect a hiker to be. I had no intention of killing anyone....do I create kamma the same as if I had intentionally killed the hiker?...in discussions with other well read Theravadan Buddhists on another forum the concensus seems to be that since there was no intention then there would be no kamma...at least not the killing someone kamma...maybe the indulging in overexuberance kamma...I don't know.

Chownah

By your logic the reverse would have to be true. If I intend to kill the hiker and throw the rock, but it misses my target entirely, is the kamma (and vipaka) the same as if the rock does strike my target and kill him?

As Nyanatiloka's Dictionary says, "kamma intentions (kammacetana) can be made manifest in three ways, body, speech, and mind ......." Someone who attempts to kill the hiker but fails has created kamma through mind and probably to some extent through body as well since bodily actions were carried out under the influence of an intention to kill. Someone who declares that they will kill the hiker has created kamma through speech. Someone who thinks that they want to kill the hiker but says and does nothing has still created kamma through mind. Note that since intention is an act of the mind that simply having intention automatically creates kamma through mind. It is my view that the kamma created will not be the same in all of these situation so the answer to your specifice question, "is the kamma (and vipaka) the same as if the rock does strike my target and kill him?" is that no, it would not be the same.

Chownah

It appears that you're agreeing that intention is not the sum total of kamma, but rather a critical conditioning factor. Still, reading all these explanations and points of view reminds me that we are basically talking about various working hypotheses. Speaking for myself, I have little direct experience of how kamma/vipaka works. Or rather the experience is constantly unfolding but sati doesn't arise sufficiently to see the dhammas clearly. We have no sure way of knowing whether our intellectual understanding of kamma matches the reality until the path bears fruit.

Nonetheless, a topic worth contemplating ...

"What, monks, is old kamma? The eye is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated and willed, capable of being felt. The ear...The nose...The tongue...The body...The intellect is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated and willed, capable of being felt. This is called old kamma.

And what is new kamma? Whatever kamma one does now with the body, with speech, or with the intellect. This is called new kamma.

And what is the cessation of kamma? Whoever touches the release that comes from the cessation of bodily kamma, verbal kamma, and mental kamma. That is called the cessation of kamma.

And what is the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma? Just this noble eightfold path....This is called the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma."

S.XXXV.145

[markwhite]

So how can Free Will exist if all our choices deliver us to the same destinations regardless?

Free will allows us to ignore what we receive to make us grow in the most appropriate possible way in the circumstances we are in.

How can we blaze new trails

Spiritual development is the only trail worth blazing. Anything else is a distraction.

In developing spiritual you learn to make more appropriate decisions when taking actions nd deciding what actions to take. Spiritual development is not inaction, just as meditation is not just sitting.

or get new future results

The trick is to get the most appropriate results in the most appropriate way. That is less likely to happen if you have an ego-led way of thinking, or exercise free-will even when it's completely inappropriate to a beneficial lifestyle.

and improve the lot

Who's lot?

if all we can do is execute the Karmic system? Are we merely droids?

No, we're mostly unrealised human beings with little idea of what it means to be fully realised. I suppose it's a bit like a small child who considers that being an adult mostly consists of being a money-earning machine. They cannot understand what it is like to be an adult with an adult's experience about life.

[markwhite]

"Everything in the universe runs on cause and effect".....quite a big assumption....maybe none of it runs on cause and effect....or maybe only some of it....or maybe it runs on cause and effect and also something else which has not been fully discovered yet.

What are your views on dependent origination in the context of what you say here?

or maybe it runs on cause and effect and also something else which has not been fully discovered yet.

Are you saying that the Buddha was not fully enlightened on all matters then?

[markwhite]

I through a rock off a cliff in my exuberance at seeing the beautiful view and it kills a hiker far far below where you would never expect a hiker to be. I had no intention of killing anyone....do I create kamma the same as if I had intentionally killed the hiker?...in discussions with other well read Theravadan Buddhists on another forum the concensus seems to be that since there was no intention then there would be no kamma...at least not the killing someone kamma...maybe the indulging in overexuberance kamma...I don't know.

It's messy getting into hypotheticals, but you can't have no intention. It may not be your intention to kill anyone, but you would have had some intention.

It's a flaw in your example, but you acknowledge it's an impractical one.

[markwhite]

If I intend to kill the hiker and throw the rock, but it misses my target entirely, is the kamma (and vipaka) the same as if the rock does strike my target and kill him?

You have allowed the defilement of anger to enter into your mind. You will experience answering kamma as a result.

[chownah]

Markwhite,

you posted to the effect that the Buddha taught that everything runs on cause and effect alone with no other factors involved....do you have a scriptural reference which shows this? How about discussing your views on dependent origination and how they are applicable?

Chownah

[chownah]

I through a rock off a cliff in my exuberance at seeing the beautiful view and it kills a hiker far far below where you would never expect a hiker to be. I had no intention of killing anyone....do I create kamma the same as if I had intentionally killed the hiker?...in discussions with other well read Theravadan Buddhists on another forum the concensus seems to be that since there was no intention then there would be no kamma...at least not the killing someone kamma...maybe the indulging in overexuberance kamma...I don't know.

It's messy getting into hypotheticals, but you can't have no intention. It may not be your intention to kill anyone, but you would have had some intention.

It's a flaw in your example, but you acknowledge it's an impractical one.

Sorry about that....I left out four words thinking it would be understood but I guess that was a bad assumption on my part...I should have written, "since there was no intention to kill then there would be no kamma for killing"... and I sorrrrry

Chownah

Edited June 26, 2007 by chownah

[markwhite]

you posted to the effect that the Buddha taught that everything runs on cause and effect

Actually I asked you about your views on dependent origination because you commented that it was a big assumption to consider that everything depended on cause and effect.

....do you have a scriptural reference which shows this?

No. I don't have any scriptural references at all. Maybe I could find something in a book or on the internet and quote that verbatim, but I get bored reading posts like that so won't be doing it myself.

How about discussing your views on dependent origination and how they are applicable?

There's a number of points there:

Yours is a very general question. If you started a new thread with some direct questions, that'd help.

Your whole message sidesteps my request for your views on dependent origination. Though I admit I don't really care about your answer.

My views are worthless. I'll post them, but don't expect me to explain or defend them. They're simply not worth it.

How they apply to what? The original question by the OP or something else?

Edited June 26, 2007 by markwhite

[markwhite]

Sorry about that....I left out four words thinking it would be understood but I guess that was a bad assumption on my part

Fair enough.

[chownah]

Yours is a very general question. If you started a new thread with some direct questions, that'd help.

Your whole message sidesteps my request for your views on dependent origination. Though I admit I don't really care about your answer.

My views are worthless. I'll post them, but don't expect me to explain or defend them. They're simply not worth it.

How they apply to what? The original question by the OP or something else?

I don't know what you mean when you say, "Yours is a very general question." I did not think that I was posing a general question....if you feel like I'm asking some general question the please let me know what it is.

I didn't go to the effort to explain my veiws on dependent origination because I can not see how it relates to our discussion about cause and effect and whether it is a big assumption or not. I'm glad I didn't go to the effort since you don't really care about my answer. I'm wondering why you requested that I post something when you really don't care about my answer.

I was asking for your views on dependent origination in relationship to our discussion of cause and effect and as to whether it is a big assumption or not....or in relationship to whatever prompted you to bring it up in the discussion....why did you bring it up as a topic to be discussed?...just wondering.

Chownah

[Make]

Everyone cretes his or her own karma by free will.

[sleepyjohn]

CAUSALITY AND FREE WILL.

In connection with the theory of Causation the Buddhist attitude relating the great question of Liberty and Necessity must be breefly indicated. According to a tradition which we have no reason to disbelieve, the Special Theory of Causation [the twelve membered pratitya-samutpada] has been established by Buddha himself in defense of Free Will and against a theory of wholesale Determinism. This problem, which has always perplexed almost all of the human race, was also vehemently discussed at the time of Buddha. He had singled out for special animadversion the doctrine of one of his contemporaries, Gosala Maskariputra, who preached an extreme determinism and denied absolutely all free will and all moral responsibility. According to him all things are inalterably fixed and nothing can be changed. Everything depends on fate, environment and nature. He denied all moral duty [. . .]. Buddha stigmatized him as the "bad man" who like a fisherman was catching men only to destroy them. He rejected his philosophy as the most pernicious system. "There is free action, he declared, there is retribution," "I maintain the doctrine of free actions."

But on the other hand we are confronted by the statement that nothing arises without a cause, everything is "dependently originating." Vasubandhu, the second Buddha, categorically denies free will. "Actions, says he, are either of the body, or of speech or of the mind. The two first classes, those of the body and of speech, wholly depend upon the mind, and the mind wholly depends upon unexorable causes and conditions." We are thus at once landed in a full contradiction.

As against determinism the Buddhists maintain free will and responsibility. As against liberty they maintain the strictest necessity of causal laws. Buddha is represented in tradition as maintaining the paradoxical thesis that there is Liberty, because there is Necessity, viz, necessity of retribution which reposes on Causality.

The solution of the puzzle seems to lie in a difference of the conception of Liberty. For the Buddhist empirical existence is a state of Bondage comparable to a prison. Life by its own principle of kinetic reality is constantly moving towards an issue [nihsarana == moksa] in Final Deliverance. It is this movement which the Buddhist imagines as subject to strict causal laws. Movement or life is for him a process characterized in all its details by the strictest necessity, but it is a necessary movement towards a necessary final aim. Causality does not differ here from finality. For Gosala necessity evidently means Deliverance. For the Buddhist, on the contrary, necessity is a constant change, a running necessity, steering unavoidably to a definite aim. Thus interpreted the words of Vasubandhu are not in conflict with the declaration ascribed to Buddha.

But the Buddhists were always obliged to defend themselves against the stricture that there is in their outlook no place neither for Bondage nor for Deliverance, since the Ego, the Agent who could be bound up and then delivered does not exist at all. This the Buddhist concedes, but he maintains that the passing stream of events is the only Agent which is required. "There is (free) action, there is retribution, says Buddha, but I see no Agent which passes out of one set of momentary elements into another one, except the Consecution of these elements. This Consecution has it, that being given such and such points, such other ones will necessarily appear."

There is indeed not a single moment in the mental stream constituting the run of the individual's volitions which would appear at haphazard [*SEE FOOTNOTE ONE BELOW] without being strictly conditioned, i.e., "dependently originating." But volition which precedes every bodily action can be either strong or feeble. If it is feeble the action is quasi-automatical. It then will have no consequence, it will entail neither reward nor punishment. Such are our usual animal functions or our usual occupations. But if the volition is strong, the following actions will have an outspoken moral character, it will be either a virtuous deed or a crime. Such actions will be necessarily followed by retribution, either by reward or punishment. The law according to which a moral, resp. immoral, deed must necesarily have its fruition, is the law of karma.

If something happens as a consequence of former deeds, it is not karma, that is to say, it will have no further consequence, it is quasi-automatical. In order to have a consequence the action must be free, i.e, it must be produced by a strong effort of the will. [** SEE FOOTNOTE TWO BELOW]

The law of karma has been revealed by Buddha. It cannot be proved experimentally. It is transcendental. But when critically examined it will be found to conain no contrdiction and therefore it can be believed even by critical minds. The so called Free Will is nothing, but a Strong Will and the law of karma, far from being in conflict with causality, is only a special case of that causality.

Thus it is that the Buddhist Free Will is a freedom inside the limits of necessity. It is a freedom to move without transgressing the boundaries of causation, a freedom inside the Prison of Dependent Origination. However this prison has an issue. Another postulate of Buddhism, besides the law of karma, seems to be the firm conviction that that the sum-total of good deeds prevails over the sum-total of bad deeds. The evolution of the world process is an evolution of moral progress. When all good deeds will have been brought their fruitition, Final Deliverance will be attained in Nirvana. Causation is then extinct and the Absolute is reached. Nagarjuna says -- "having regard to causes and conditions (to which all phenomena are subjected, we call this world) phenomenal. This same world, when causes and conditions are disregarded, (the world sub specie aeternitatis) is called the Absolute."

FOOTNOTE ONE: In Sanhkya karma is explained materialistically, as consisting in a special collocation of minutest infra-atomic particles or material forces making the action either good or bad. In Hinayana the will (cetana) is a mental (citta-samprayukta) element (dharma) or force (samskara) representing a stream of momentaty flashes, every moment of which is strictly conditioned by the sum total (samagri) of preceding moments. Apparent freedom consists in our ignorance of all the conditions of a given action. Garbe things that the Sankhya doctrine constains a contradiction, but it probably must be explained just as the Buddhist one. Determinism means that it is impossible to escape retribution.

FOOTNOTE TWO: Macrocosmically regarded, since we cannot know all causes and conditions of a given action, it seems as though it were free, but every single moment of the will (cetana), microcosmically regarded, cannot but appear in strict conformity to the totality of all preceding moments. Apparent freedom consists in our ignorance of all the minutest influences.

From pages 131-134, chapter II, "Causation," part 7, "Causality and Free Will,"" of "Buddhist Logic," Volume 1, by Th. Stcherbatsky, published by Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited, Delhi, 1993, 1994, 2000, 2004.

NOTE: The author is Russian, writing in English, and was published in India. The language and punctutation can therefore sometimes be a bit odd (the word "breefly" is actually written that way in the original). One (inconsequential) sentence of the original was omitted above, since it contains a serious mistake in meaning that would have caused (!) everyone who reads this here to roll in uncontrollable laughter.

Footnotes listed here are incomplete. My apologies for not even trying to include Pali punctuation (strokes over this letter or that, and such).

A final thought: Much of the work, "Buddhist Logic," consists of the presentation of a wide variety of Buddhists and non-Buddhists who tend to disagree with one another quite a bit. Not unlike this forum...

Hmmmm......

What do you think of the idea that individual human beings actually are ready for whatever stages of enlightenment are coming next, including the final and complete one if there is such, or they're not? That it will happen, or it won't. I don't know of anything to contradict this and it seems reasonable and is organic development. It doesn't mean one just stays in bed and stops "trying". That doesn't happen.

Being a determinist doesn't mean one suddenly becomes a murderer or rapist either. One can and certainly does fulfil one's obligations to whatever one normally does just as a free-willy hopefully does. People seem fearful of not being the boss of their actions. This is ego or atman doing it's insidious worst. There is however a sort of freedom that comes from knowing one is just watching it, or rather there is the watching of it, all go by, like a dream or a movie, even as one joins in. It's actually the detachment that the Buddhist, and of course other, sages recommend.

SJ

Edited June 27, 2007 by sleepyjohn

[RedQualia]

Hmmmm......

What do you think of the idea that individual human beings actually are ready for whatever stages of enlightenment are coming next, including the final and complete one if there is such, or they're not? That it will happen, or it won't. I don't know of anything to contradict this and it seems reasonable and is organic development. It doesn't mean one just stays in bed and stops "trying". That doesn't happen.

Being a determinist doesn't mean one suddenly becomes a murderer or rapist either. One can and certainly does fulfil one's obligations to whatever one normally does just as a free-willy hopefully does. People seem fearful of not being the boss of their actions. This is ego or atman doing it's insidious worst. There is however a sort of freedom that comes from knowing one is just watching it, or rather there is the watching of it, all go by, like a dream or a movie, even as one joins in. It's actually the detachment that the Buddhist, and of course other, sages recommend.

SJ

Offhand, and only at the highest of levels, I'd say that I need more words. What I mean is that I do not feel that I completely understand your question. From whence does this "idea" originate? Is it the doctrine of one school or another? mai khao jai, krup.

I may be able to kinda sorta address your question, however. I believe you ask me about my personal beliefs, and so that's where this will come from. But I do not think that my personal beliefs in this regard are well aligned with Buddhism, other than in a most limited sort of way.

First, I would like to remind you and anyone else of the obvious: I merely transcribed and posted the pages on "causality and free will" found above in this thread. They were posted for informational purposes only, as I thought they were related to this thread. That said, I am not, in fact, much of a determinist.

Second, I want to say that this answer will end up being a loopy sort of trip. But I do think that it does bear on your question(s) somehow. It also opens up other of my thoughts for criticism by one and all, which is a good thing. Onward...

I agree with those Buddhist logicians who assert(ed) that the only thing that exists is "now." It makes obvious sense to me, and yet not to all. I have argued with at least one physicist/philosopher who insisted that "now" does not exist: only the past and future are real. So there are at least other schools of thought on the matter.

I am also largely sympathetic to the logicians' extrapolation from this that all that actually exists are "point-instants" -- points in space at an instant in time. This is largely metaphycial, however, forming a reality somewhat apart from that reality we experience. So set that aside for the moment.

However, the idea that "now" is the only thing that exists appears to have practical value. It is easy to lose sight of the fact that "a moment ago" no longer exists, in a very absolute sense. Similarly, it is easy to forget that "a moment from now" does not yet exist. It exists in no way whatsoever. It has no reality. It is only "anticipation" on the part of those who anticipate it.

The entirety of the future (including a moment from now) is then, undefined.

Bear with me, please. I'm trying to get to the point. Honest.

I will add to these thoughts regarding time, the matter of consciousness. While causal relationships among physical objects are clearly demonstrated, most physical objects either possess no consciousness, or at the very least have no motor control. If I skip a rock over a river, neither the rock nor the river is in a position to complain, or to intentionally effect the results of my effort.

Conscious things are different. I am unable to anticipate your thoughts concerning my words here, for example, with any accuracy whatsoever, just as I surely write a reply that you have in no way anticipated.

Or another example: when I recently had surgery on my face, I planned to sequester myself in my home, to avoid frightening women and children. I did not plan to post messages in the Buddhist forums on ThaiVisa, however. That I would spend time on the internet is a reasonable projection. But I could have as easily become absorbed in say, www.3quarksdaily.com, or www.smirkingchimp.com. The result of spending time in any of these places would probably be efforts to communicate with others. But whom I communicated with, and what might be communicated, would vary greatly.

So I do not believe that it was predetermined that I would wander into the Buddhist forum here, and begin posting. Which means that I do not believe that it was predetermined that you would read any of my posts (whomever and wherever you might be), and respond, much less expect a follow-on post.

These things said, then I would like to call attention to the old French proverb, "Those who do not do politics will be done in by politics." The reason is just because it points to a personal responsibility in the reality we each create for ourselves, in this existence. Now, and in the next moment. This proverb very much seems to recognize the idea of personal responsibility. And it's an old proverb, implying that the idea is nothing new.

That our personal realities are maleable is further suggested by say, TV. Advertisers, for example, are hel_l-bent to influence what we do, think, buy. So are propagandists, whether Buddhist, Christian or Bush. They all lobby for our attention, dollars, and beliefs. Their actions are predicated on the idea that they can influence our (future) behavior. So in a very real way, abstract thoughts concerning free will vs. determinism have no bearing on reality. Sure, it's a bit interesting. But it has almost no pragmatic value. (One of the things I most love about the Thai people is their pragmatism... Traffic direction signs made of four foot long flourescent bulbs are just way cool, and it says a great deal about their character. But I digress.)

To summarize:

- My personal take is that there is only "now." The moment at which I began writing this sentence no longer exists. And the moment at which I will put a period at the end of this sentence (or that you will see it) does not yet exist.

- Consciousness precludes predetermination in fundamentally important ways. That it may be physically caused does not effect its content to any great degree (though it may impose boundaries).

- We bear personal responsibility for the reality we create for ourselves in this existence.

Lastly, I'll add that, as I stated in some other thread, I'm not a big fan of "pie in the sky by and by" kinds of things. I think the idea of "do this, in this life, and you'll get that, in the next life," is seriously flawed. Historically, and especially in the Christian realms, it is a con of enormous proportions. I think of this approach as little more than a tool for control of the masses, beginning (in Christianity) perhaps with Constantine, then into the dark ages and the burning of the libraries, the crusades, on to the inquisition period (quite a long period of time, and primarily targeting the Jews and other "undesirables"), and well, the beat goes on up to the present day. What Christ may have said and what Christianity is are fundamentally different things.

I am as yet unsure of the degree to which it might be a con in the Buddhist environment, but it certainly lends itself to that analysis. In Tibet and Nepal, it was leveraged to support a feudalistic society for hundreds of years. Thai history can also be described as feudalistic until relatively recent times, with various minor kings measuring their wealth in terms of the numbers of people under their control as workers. That Buddhism assisted in these matters is undeniable, though the degree may be, along with the degree to which Buddhism "willfully" supported these things. And as was the case with Christianity, what the Buddha may have said and what Buddhism actually is today are fundamentally different things.

So... What is "the final and complete stage of enlightenment?" You ask me that question as a Buddhist. I reply as a philosopher and political activist. The referrent of "the final and complete stage of enlightenment" is unknown, and cannot be known. One can believe, sure. And one can attempt to leverage that belief in an effort to improve one's understanding, one's life, one's relationship, ethically, to the planet. And that's all good. Probably the underlying goal of most Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists. The metaphysical validity of any religion's ethereal prognostications is dubious at best, however. The existence of Nirvana is not testable.

All of that said, then I choose not to lose sight of the fact that this existence is the only one we can be certain of in any way. And that we can make of it what we will. That this existence can be heaven or hel_l, in senses applicable to Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and atheists alike. And that it is finite.

Now... How close did I come to answering your question? Did I get close in any way whatsoever?

Edited June 28, 2007 by RedQualia

[Plus]

Or another example: when I recently had surgery on my face, I planned to sequester myself in my home, to avoid frightening women and children. I did not plan to post messages in the Buddhist forums on ThaiVisa, however. That I would spend time on the internet is a reasonable projection. But I could have as easily become absorbed in say, www.3quarksdaily.com, or www.smirkingchimp.com. The result of spending time in any of these places would probably be efforts to communicate with others. But whom I communicated with, and what might be communicated, would vary greatly.

There are millions of conditions that made it possible for you to wander in this forum. There are millions of reasons why you paused on Thavisa to have a better look. Internet connection reasons, webdesign reasons, nothing to watch on TV reasons, some other site didn't have anything interesting or loaded later reasons, you wanted to talk about Buddhism but not with monks reasons - one little change would have sent you somewhere else.

[RedQualia]

There are millions of conditions that made it possible for you to wander in this forum. There are millions of reasons why you paused on Thavisa to have a better look. Internet connection reasons, webdesign reasons, nothing to watch on TV reasons, some other site didn't have anything interesting or loaded later reasons, you wanted to talk about Buddhism but not with monks reasons - one little change would have sent you somewhere else.

Indeed. But I do not believe so many of them were predetermined. The existence of consciousness, on the part of many, contributes a great many "wild cards."

That said, it occurred to me after my last post above that I should also post something suggesting that the idea of "free will vs. determinism" is perhaps a false dichotomy. When asking the question that way, it tends to restrict the answers considered to only those two.

In advocating the idea that much of what happens is not pre-determined, I am not advocating that free will exists. Only that much is not "pre-determined" in the sense of some causal chain that can be traced back to... where, and when?

Less strong than "free will" is simply the idea that many things are indeterminent. Something of a middle ground, between determinism, and free will.

For those interested, a list of links to philosophical essays on the subject of free will can be found at http://consc.net/online2.html#freewill.

[sleepyjohn]

Indeed. But I do not believe so many of them were predetermined. The existence of consciousness, on the part of many, contributes a great many "wild cards."

I believe you don't believe.....but on what grounds? Why does consciousness add wild cards?

Less strong than "free will" is simply the idea that many things are indeterminent. Something of a middle ground, between determinism, and free will.

Please send me some quales I can conceptualize from to suggest some bases for your suggestion.

[RedQualia]

Indeed. But I do not believe so many of them were predetermined. The existence of consciousness, on the part of many, contributes a great many "wild cards."

I believe you don't believe.....but on what grounds? Why does consciousness add wild cards?

Less strong than "free will" is simply the idea that many things are indeterminent. Something of a middle ground, between determinism, and free will.

Please send me some quales I can conceptualize from to suggest some bases for your suggestion.

You're a riot... How do I insert an image here? Does cut and paste work? [nope... Doesn't work. So visualize a red Ducati 900SS...]

So here is a red qualia. It comes to life at around 150KPH. With what would you do with it? Would you ride it? Would you ride it with ME driving it? Would you ride it only, say, at the track? Would you ride it to Mae Hong Son?

Your decisions are presently undetermined, though you may have certain inclinations. They cannot be determined before their actualization. Maybe causation, and/or the results of causation in terms of any individual's response, is a bit like Shroedinger's cat. Maybe your response would vary from one day to the next. From moment to moment. When it is started, and you feel the ground shaking, how will you react?

There are determinants, to be sure. But your decision is indeterminant until actualized. Which is not to say that you have free will...

As reds go, it's only a qualia, and not quite a quale. And no, this is not THE red qualia from which I found my handle here.

Edited June 29, 2007 by RedQualia

[Plus]

The fact that our decisions are conditioned by multitude of factors means that they are "predermined".

There are two sides to this. First, we have choices that we didn't set up ourselves, they are determined by someone/something else. Free will doesn't even come to play here.

Second, the process of actually making choices. Most people naturally feel they are free to choose one option over another. However, there is another group of people who make a living out this misconeption, make a living out of guessing and influencing others' opinions and selections. Politics and advertising pay off extremely well to those who understand how "free will" really works.

Pause for a second and try to find a reason why you chose one option over another. It shouldn't be too difficult because if someone critisizes your choice you'll immediately find a million reasons to justify yourself, completely abandoning the notion of free will in the process.

It is impossible to even simply simulate a truly free decision, free of any previoius experiences and memories and education and long held beliefs, and other people influences.

Open a new browser window and type anything you want into address field. I bet it will be in English and it will end in .com. See what I mean?

[sleepyjohn]

Your decisions are presently undetermined, though you may have certain inclinations. They cannot be determined before their actualization. Maybe causation, and/or the results of causation in terms of any individual's response, is a bit like Shroedinger's cat. Maybe your response would vary from one day to the next. From moment to moment. When it is started, and you feel the ground shaking, how will you react?

There are determinants, to be sure. But your decision is indeterminant until actualized. Which is not to say that you have free will...

I hear your opinion which I have to say sounds a teensy bit like proclamation.........but I still don't get any evidence to back it all up, or a train of thought to counteract the repeated empiric evidence for cause and effect and rational extrapolation therefrom to promote the determinist argument.

As my headmaster used to say "You'll have to do better than that boy"

[sleepyjohn]

Plus......blimey i actually find myself starting to agree with you old man.

As a matter of fact there's a very interesting point you've noted that is a real pondering point.

Most people naturally feel they are free to choose one option over another.

As something of a neural Darwinist I and others wonder what evolutionary advantage this illusion of free will serves. Because the fact is the conviction one has will IS an experience. Is it just to reinforce the more easily explicable illusion of self?

I must try to plough my way further through The Illusion of Free Will/MIT press it's been on the end of my desk for too long

[RedQualia]

Your decisions are presently undetermined, though you may have certain inclinations. They cannot be determined before their actualization. Maybe causation, and/or the results of causation in terms of any individual's response, is a bit like Shroedinger's cat. Maybe your response would vary from one day to the next. From moment to moment. When it is started, and you feel the ground shaking, how will you react?

There are determinants, to be sure. But your decision is indeterminant until actualized. Which is not to say that you have free will...

I hear your opinion which I have to say sounds a teensy bit like proclamation.........but I still don't get any evidence to back it all up, or a train of thought to counteract the repeated empiric evidence for cause and effect and rational extrapolation therefrom to promote the determinist argument.

As my headmaster used to say "You'll have to do better than that boy"

My apologies for taking so long to reply, sleepy. It's been a busy weekend here.

And my apologies as well, for anything that sounds like a "proclamation." To the extent this is so, perhaps it is because it's a bit like a lightbulb going off for me. If I haven't found words to lead you down my path as yet, then I am probably unlikely to do so. But I'll give it another shot. I'll try not to venture into too many philosophical abstractions, nor too far down the road of physics either.

I do not argue that actions are undetermined. Only that they are not pre-determined in any "hard" way. That is, I do not believe that future human events are necessitated by the past. The reason for this is simple randomness, combined with the unpredictability of consciousness. Consider: I might not have had the work done on my face that I had done, for any number of reasons (deciding it was too expensive, or simply rescheduling to another day). If it were not done, for any reason, then my appearance would have remained more or less presentable. In this event, I would probably have accepted a nice woman's invitation to dinner and a movie. Since I knew my face would look like a pizza at the time (still does, just a bit), I asked for a raincheck.

There seems to be enough randomness left as possible in this scenario to preclude saying that the outcome in question could have been pre-determined, or that it could have been foretold by Laplace's demon, or "God," or whomever.

More simply, we can imagine a situation in which we are at a fork in the road, and decide which branch to take on the basis of a coin toss. Better -- arbirtrarily deciding the moment at which to look at a watch and then going left or right on the basis of whether the second was even or odd. Other decision making mechanisms are imaginable, with those influenced by consciousness more unpredictable than others. The results of the decision -- taking the left road or the right -- would result in physically different outcomes.

Of course after the fact, we could easily look back and see the causes that contributed to almost any decision, should we want. My gut tells me, however, that it's wrong to rule out the contribution of randomness, and that consciousness would be the primary source of such randomness.

Free will is a different matter from the kind of hard determinism that would lead one to think that all could be foretold by anything powerful enough to "see" a causal chain extending back in time to the beginning, or forward to the end.

Dan Dennett may think along the same lines as I do here. A summary of his argument found on the 'net is: '[His] basic reasoning is that, if one excludes God, an infinitely powerful demon, and other such possibilities, then because of chaos and quantum randomness, the future is ill-defined for all finite beings. The only well-defined things are "expectations". The ability to do "otherwise" only makes sense when dealing with these expectations, and not with some unknown and unknowable future. Since individuals have the ability to act differently from what anyone expects, free will can exist.' Of course, Dennett does not lack for those who disagree. And I find "quantum randomness" to be compatible with the idea of "consciousness" as well.

Consider also that category of choice described as being made "on the horns of a dilemma." Just now, I own a house in California. I wish to relocate to Thailand once again. The problem is that the housing market in California has collapsed, and my various efforts to sell have thus far been unsuccessful. I am content to continue working at selling the house for another year, anyway. After that, however, and it will really be "time to go."

I wonder, just now, what I will do if I cannot sell it. Will I pursue a "short sale" with the mortgage company? Possibly. Might I simply let the mortgage company "have the house back?" It is not inconceivable that I will do so. What is right, and what is wrong? From whose point of view? The ability to rationalize can be a powerful thing.

Determinism of the sort relating to foretelling of outcomes seems especially unlikely with regard to "horns of a dilemma" kinds of things.

Best I can do for now, and I'm comfortable with it. You don't have to be, of course!

[markwhite]

I don't know what you mean when you say, "Yours is a very general question." I did not think that I was posing a general question....if you feel like I'm asking some general question the please let me know what it is.

This is the question I thought was general:

'How about discussing your views on dependent origination and how they are applicable?'

But you have asked a question and if I only respond with a question, I can't see any interesting information coming out of this discussion. So I will offer my answer:

Ignorance gives rise to contact. If we are not mindful at the point of contact, the ego is likely to jump in and affect our course of action in a way that will lead us to grasping, and onwards to suffering. If we are mindful at the point of contact, we approach the contact with action based on wisdom and so achieve an outcome that does not lead to grasping, or suffering, and hence the accumulation 'neither black nor white' karma (using the idea of black - bad, white - good, 'neither black nor white' - the karma attracted by a wise action). [in relation to OP's original question]

Then there's the part I find it difficult to remember. That consciousness and perception and the other ones (three...are they the khandas? No, that's not right..) are things that arise as the result of the previous one arising. They cause each other. They occur when the conditions are such that they occur. Like steam occurs when water is heated to 100C. The environment which is impinging on our six sense doors is just such that these arise, and so lead to the opportunity of wise or ignorant contact.

So the suchness of the environment causes this.

Which is quite cool as while I have been typing this, I've just clarified something that wasn't sitting in my mind. Anyway...

Well that's thrown me completely. I had some idea about the questionable structure of reality as coloured by the mind through the senses, but that's just how it is. When the colouration is taken away, we see things as they are. What they appear to be is still nothing more than the sum of our perceptions. Only clearly. Not darkly. I suppose that is the nature of mind: that there is nothing distinguishable between the process that we consider to be reality, or our physical environment, and a process that is purely the nature of our mind and has no physical basis.

If there is no distinguishable difference, and it's impossible to prove that there is - it's only an experiential conclusion, then there is both cause and effect in all things, but of course there are no things to have any cause or effect on each other.

I need to stop. I'm not able to put down clearly what's in my head as it's not clear to me in a way that I can communicate.

I didn't go to the effort to explain my veiws on dependent origination because I can not see how it relates to our discussion about cause and effect and whether it is a big assumption or not.

<shrugs> Up to you.

I'm glad I didn't go to the effort since you don't really care about my answer.

I did when I asked. When I got a reply back that I read as evasive in that you didn't offer any answers, I questioned whether it was worth persevering in what might become a fruitless 'you said...I said' thread, and wasn't going to ask you repeatedly for your views if you didn't want to give them. And I read the 'and I sorrrrry' part in your other response as sarcastic and it gave me the hump.

I'm wondering why you requested that I post something when you really don't care about my answer.

Maybe I 've answered that with what I've said above. But the fundamental reason is because I'm learning.

[Douggie Style]

Here's a quote you might like :

'Somehow we expect spiritual truths to be complicated, understood only be keen theological minds. The sayings from the Dhammapada show us just how un-intellectual it all is. What may seem like empty platitudes are accurate instructions for leading the best life imaginable.'