Is There Free Will In Buddhism?

[Abrasol]

I have had a discussion about free will and will power in another forum. The concept of buddhist "will power" wasn't considered though.

It seems a bit complicate to me to define the buddhist concept of free will and will power. One may argue that if there is no "Self", there could'nt be any free will either. But in annother way, one needs to use free will to achive "no action", good action, anything that may lead to get out of samsara... (well this seems one of the clasical paradigms of buddhism)

Castananeda emphases a lot on will power, he claims that will power is one of the most important qualities one should develope on the path. Islamic philosophers have found for example that Allah couldn't be allmighty, because if he would be, he would know the future (as well) - and if he'd know the future, one must exclude free will. So (even) islamic philosophers found that Allah couldn't be allmighty, respectively accepted free will as given.

In Yoga, will power is a quality that should be trained and cultivated. It is said that if you are able to overcome your physical limits, you will be able to do so with your spirituality.

Annother more scientific or even sociologic conclusion may claim, that all kinds of conditioning, education, moral and ethic concept, as well as daily manipulation neary exclude free will and will power in human behavior or action.

And then again, one can see that many times people seem to not have any chance or choice to use there free will. They are so trapped in causal events (karmic chaines), that there destiny seems pretty fixed, unevitable in most dramatic cases. (no examples needed here, I guess).

Well, one cannot combine many different philosophic concepts and ideas and conclude from all easily - so don't missunderstand me. As for me, I think that free will is sometimes available and at some occasions (or distinct moments in time) it is not, for some people there is more of it available, for others there is less choice and hence, less free will. It seems as if it depends on if you are at the beginning of a "causal chain" or at it's end (of course, if ever one can see a beginning or an end in those chains)

Well, I would be interested in personal fiews as well as in those that may translate best a buddhist concept and view.

Edited August 21, 2006 by Abrasol

[chownah]

The Buddha did not teach predestination. One of the elements of the Noble Eightfold Path is Right Effort.....without free will, Right Effort would be meaningless.

[Abrasol]

One of the elements of the Noble Eightfold Path is Right Effort.....without free will, Right Effort would be meaningless.

I agree with that, even more of the Eightfold Path would be meaningless without free will. It also reflects my personal experience in daily (spiritual) life. Well, in a general philosophical discussion, such refference to the Eightfold Path wouldn't match.

And, is free will limited to "such efforts"?

Concernig this point, I do to refer to some "causal chains" where it seems that free will is "disabled" because of "dense Karma". But here again I don't want to cite any examples (even if I easily could), to avoid speculations about specific situations.

PS: in case examples would be helpful though, I always can give a few of them.

[camerata]

My understanding is that we have free will (i.e. voluntary choice) for any action. As a result of karma, our choice may not have the desired results or perhaps the choices may be limited. I believe that if we make a choice with good intent but the result is bad, we still make some good karma. In particular, there should be a wholesome effect on our mind because of the good intention.

Our choices at any given moment are heavily influenced by genetic history and life experience. With Buddhism, the mind is progressively trained so that we make increasingly more wholesome choices more often. So in a real sense we can positively influence our destiny.

[billzant]

I have had a discussion about free will and will power in another forum. The concept of buddhist "will power" wasn't considered though.

It seems a bit complicate to me to define the buddhist concept of free will and will power. One may argue that if there is no "Self", there could'nt be any free will either. But in annother way, one needs to use free will to achive "no action", good action, anything that may lead to get out of samsara... (well this seems one of the clasical paradigms of buddhism)

Castananeda emphases a lot on will power, he claims that will power is one of the most important qualities one should develope on the path. Islamic philosophers have found for example that Allah couldn't be allmighty, because if he would be, he would know the future (as well) - and if he'd know the future, one must exclude free will. So (even) islamic philosophers found that Allah couldn't be allmighty, respectively accepted free will as given.

In Yoga, will power is a quality that should be trained and cultivated. It is said that if you are able to overcome your physical limits, you will be able to do so with your spirituality.

Annother more scientific or even sociologic conclusion may claim, that all kinds of conditioning, education, moral and ethic concept, as well as daily manipulation neary exclude free will and will power in human behavior or action.

And then again, one can see that many times people seem to not have any chance or choice to use there free will. They are so trapped in kausal events (karmic chaines), that there destiny seems pretty fixed, unevitable in most dramatic cases.

Well, one cannot combine many different philosophic concepts and ideas and conclude from all easily - so don't missunderstand me. As for me, I think that free will is sometimes available and at some occasions (or distinct moments in time) it is not, for some people there is more of it available, for others there is less choice and hence, less free will. It seems as if on depends on if you are at the beginning of a "causal chain" or at it's end (of course, if ever one can see a beginning or an end in those chains)

Well, I would be interested in personal fiews as well as in those that may translate best a buddhist concept and view.

Dear Abrasol,

How are you?

I feel there are a number of issues tied up in your piece. In general I feel that you are trying to define free will as some sort of absolute and that because of this you are bringing into it concepts that are viewed differently in Buddhism.

Consider Karma, this is a fundamental law of cause and effect. This initially would negate free will as we inherit our Karma. And yet how do we build up good Karma but with good intention through “free will”. How can this be viewed in one concept of free will when there are clearly two fundamental purposes in play?

Significant in the pYaqui knowledge put forward by Don Juan as discussed by Castaneda is the notion of Path. Is this not a form of Karma? And yet Don Juan, as you assert, demonstrates the importance of the power of will throughout.

Why is there a need to introduce a notion of “self”, can’t will power be an attribute of mind?

In neither case is there inconsistency, there is only inconsistency if free will is sought as some kind of an encompassing absolute.

Hope you are keeping well,

All the Best

Bill Z

[lannarebirth]

Buddhism in a nutshell. 1. Stop doing bad things 2. Start doing good things 3. Purify your mind by freeing it of defilements.

All these acts require volition or free will to undertake.

I find many westerners look upon Buddhism as an intellectual puzzle to unravel; searching for hidden meaning or nuance in all things related to what the Buddha taught.

He taught that dukkha was universal, that there was a way to not experience dukkha, and that way involved the conscious application of following the precepts he'd outlined, together with the Eightfold Path.

Edited August 21, 2006 by lannarebirth

[Plus]

Whose free will you are talking about? Who or what has or doesn't have free will?

[chownah]

While free will is most often considered relative to action, in Buddhism the concept is also meant to apply to mental activity. Our reactions to events while being influenced by conditions is also influenced by our will....we can choose to develop our mental abilities in different ways and our mental abilities are not predetermined. The bottom line here is that we can, through effort, direct our minds toward liberation......or not.

[Plus]

What is this "we", or "I", to have this free will? I understand that free will can express itself in one's mind and not only in action, but where does it come from? And what makes it free? Free from what?

For example one's thinking is influenced by recieved knowledge, which is limited by our education, culture, traditions, religion, even particular brands of Buddhism we come in touch with - when does the will become free from conditions imposed by this previously accumulated knowledge?

Does Buddhism have a different concept of what free will is?

[lannarebirth]

Whose free will you are talking about? Who or what has or doesn't have free will?

It is that combination of the five aggregates that for the sake of conversation is labeled an individual, or "I". All constantly changing of course.

[chownah]

Plus,

I think that "free will" is mostly used as meaning the opposite of predestination. Some people believe that the universe and everything in it is like a big machine and everything that happens follows natural laws of interaction so in essence the laws of cause and effect have predetermined everything for all time and there is only one way that the future can be......this is called predestination. In this theory it there is not room for a different future based on what people do...the future is rigidly fixed and we only have the illusion of being able to effect what happens. The idea of "free will" is contrary to predestination in that it assumes that by exercising our will to change things we can actually make a difference in what happens in the future by taking our chosen action today.

Chownah

[Plus]

Thanks, Chownah, but combining your post with Lannarebirth, don't you see the contradiction?

We assume that free will comes from "individual" consisting of "five aggregates" that are constantly changing, under external influences, I suppose.

In western interpretation the will must be freed from these influences to be called truly free. My body parts will never have free will, my mind is also very much conditioned by external influences. Then what is left?

[sabaijai]

Thanks, Chownah, but combining your post with Lannarebirth, don't you see the contradiction?

We assume that free will comes from "individual" consisting of "five aggregates" that are constantly changing, under external influences, I suppose.

In western interpretation the will must be freed from these influences to be called truly free. My body parts will never have free will, my mind is also very much conditioned by external influences. Then what is left?

Sati.

[Abrasol]

In western interpretation the will must be freed from these influences to be called truly free. My body parts will never have free will, my mind is also very much conditioned by external influences. Then what is left?

Well, most of my body parts follow my free will (except one), while my digestion as well as my whole vegetative life functions are clearly excluded from it, they seem to have there own.

Well I anyway don't see free will in such a absolute way, (as also presumed by Bill Z.). Why not see free will as something facultative (elective in someway) which some individuals have more or less, and which is eventually more or less available at different moments in time?

From a pragmatical point of view, it really looks like if free will (seen as opions and choices) is clearly available in some situations - and during others moments in in time it seems quite limited. During some rare cases extremely restricted, - or there can even be a complete lack of it. But then again, one doesn't necessarily need to be "truly" free to still have some freedom of choice, - having some choice and will power left, might be just enough, to get out of some mess.

Well in this case I will go to use a example: first case, a young individual which is about to decide for his career, life style, goals, future a.s.o. - second case, another individual sitting in the back of a police car on the way to some state prison. Well for the second case one can easily imagine even a worse case

Edited August 22, 2006 by Abrasol

[billzant]

Well, most of my body parts follow my free will (except one), while my digestion as well as my whole vegetative life functions are clearly excluded from it, they seem to have there own.

Well I anyway don't see free will in such a absolute way, (as also presumed by Bill Z.). Why not see free will as something facultative (elective in someway) which some individuals have more or less, and which is eventually more or less available at different moments in time?

Original Post

It seems a bit complicate to me to define the buddhist concept of free will and will power. One may argue that if there is no "Self", there could'nt be any free will either. But in annother way, one needs to use free will to achive "no action", good action, anything that may lead to get out of samsara... (well this seems one of the clasical paradigms of buddhism)

Dear Abrasol,

Have you not now defined free will as a faculty of mind? Nothing to do with a "self"? Isn't that what you were originally seeking?

Sabaijai, sati (mindfulness) and free will are the same??

Hope you are keeping well,

All the Best

Bill Z

[Abrasol]

Hi Bill!

How are you?

Fine!

I feel there are a number of issues tied up in your piece. In general I feel that you are trying to define free will as some sort of absolute

Well, I didnt tie them up yet, I just gave a few examples of views and concepts, to show a wide range of perception, demonstrate how different the topic may be viewed.

and that because of this you are bringing into it concepts that are viewed differently in Buddhism.

Not sure about that either - well, if I do rmber well, Buddha clearly expressed about the option of comparision and analytics of his words. Was I wrong about that?

Consider Karma, this is a fundamental law of cause and effect. This initially would negate free will as we inherit our Karma. And yet how do we build up good Karma but with good intention through “free will”. How can this be viewed in one concept of free will when there are clearly two fundamental purposes in play?

I consider free will necessary to create or dissolve our Karma, but about the part which is supposed to be inherited, I'm not sure - maybe some of it has to undergo anyway, and some of it perhaps needs to be worked out or dissolved through good will (hence free will). One doesn't exclude the other, and free will is not necessarly related to independent action. Inhereted Karma may be resolved through free will as well, - even if the connection is not obvious, right?

And yet Don Juan, as you assert, demonstrates the importance of the power of will throughout.

Yes he did, and I agree with that - even if he considers "power of will" as a more complex power. The roots of the Yaqui knowledge may be closer to Brahmanism as to Buddhism, - if ever one may do such comparision. There is this "creator" named the Eagle, which still is a abstraction of a supperior, even allmighty power, which curiously can be fooled by sorcerers ...

I guessed that such concepts are not relevant from a Buddhist point of view, and to be honest - I do not find those parts of the teachings of C.C. very convincing.

Why is there a need to introduce a notion of “self”, can’t will power be an attribute of mind?

There is no explicite need, - and yes, will power could be an attribute of mind. But then again we need to make clear if a mind is able to use "will power" by it's own and without the existence of a self...

In neither case is there inconsistency, there is only inconsistency if free will is sought as some kind of an encompassing absolute.

That "argument" may be the most powerfull, (perhaps you meant consistency vs. inconsistency) because will power probably is part of samsara at the end. Let me put it that way: will power has no permanancy, so it is wrongly seen as having consistency and should anyway not be of any use to make the cycle of rebirth come to an end.

Hope you are keeping well,

Trying to do my best, and whishing you the same...

Edited August 22, 2006 by Abrasol

[chownah]

Thanks, Chownah, but combining your post with Lannarebirth, don't you see the contradiction?

We assume that free will comes from "individual" consisting of "five aggregates" that are constantly changing, under external influences, I suppose.

In western interpretation the will must be freed from these influences to be called truly free. My body parts will never have free will, my mind is also very much conditioned by external influences. Then what is left?

In your previous post I thought there were two questions....one about what is the entity that is supposed to have free will (the self?...which some people say that the Buddha said does not exist?) and the other question (which I thought you might be raising) seemed to be more about just what was this "free will" thing all about. Since we are on the same page about what "free will" is all about, I'll mention the concept of self.

The concept of self is a highly controversial topic in Buddhism. Even Theravada Buddhism which is one of the most conservative (if not actually being the most conservative) schools of Buddhism has much disagreement on this topic. The Buddha taught that each of us has a sense of self and that the sense of self that we have is based on delusion. The Buddha teaches that all of our experiences are based on six sense doors....eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind....and that there is no other way for experience to happen. The Buddha then goes on to make an arguement that each of these is unsatisfactory for being considered as the self....so....the Buddha taught that having a view that you have a self is a wrong view....but he also taught that having a view that you have no self is a wrong view too....one explanation for this is that you have to take on the assumption that you have a self in order to consider that you have no self........this is a difficult thing to explain briefly....it is sort of like the more you consider whether you have a self or not the more strongly the concept of self is asserting itself on your mind......in short the Buddha taught that one should eliminate ALL views of self....whether affirming or denying its existence.

Just to state again, this concept of self or no self is very controversial in Buddhism so there is no easy answer. I think that your question is more about the existence of self than it is about "free will'" and you are using the concept of free will to question the existence of the self by asking "who has this free will?" whereas you could just as well ask the same thing about any number of ideas like "who is it who tries to follow the path?"...or "who is it who dies and has rebirth?" It is usually when the concept of no-self gets entangled with the concept of rebirth and the concept of kamma that the discussion gets hot and heavy.

Chownah

[sabaijai]

Sabaijai, sati (mindfulness) and free will are the same??

Not sure it's as simple as that, in fact I'm not sure that the western concept of 'free will' is entirely compatible/correlative with Buddhism. However within the (Theravada) Buddhist context, only when sati (awareness) arises can there be action based on free will rather than conditioning.

[Plus]

you are using the concept of free will to question the existence of the self by asking "who has this free will?"

I'm not questioning the existence of the self, I'm just pointing out that "free will" is an attibute of something that should be defined first.

Well, most of my body parts follow my free will (except one), while my digestion as well as my whole vegetative life functions are clearly excluded from it, they seem to have there own.

That's an illusion, as you age you'll see that your body parts are the major culprits that interfere with your free will.

Well I anyway don't see free will in such a absolute way, (as also presumed by Bill Z.). Why not see free will as something facultative (elective in someway) which some individuals have more or less, and which is eventually more or less available at different moments in time?

Surely if free will exist it must manifest itself somewhere among the other, conditioned urges. The problem is finding the difference, finding out which actions exactly can be attributed to free will.

Also the example of a school graduate deciding which career path to take is an example of illusion. He thinks he is free to chose, but his fiture succes, his occupation, his education, his fiture wife he will meet in course of his life - they are all predestined by karma, as well as number of his children and the date of his death.

[chownah]

Also the example of a school graduate deciding which career path to take is an example of illusion. He thinks he is free to chose, but his fiture succes, his occupation, his education, his fiture wife he will meet in course of his life - they are all predestined by karma, as well as number of his children and the date of his death.

If you believe that everything in the future is already fixed or predestined by kamma then you do not believe in free will. This type of belief in kamma is the one that existed in India before the Buddha was enlightened....it is not the view on kamma that the Buddha taught....the Buddha definitely taught that your efforts are what makes your life either good or bad....he definitely did not teach that these things are predestined by kamma.

Chownah

[Abrasol]

Well, most of my body parts follow my free will (except one), while my digestion as well as my whole vegetative life functions are clearly excluded from it, they seem to have there own.

That's an illusion, as you age you'll see that your body parts are the major culprits that interfere with your free will.

Wether it is an illusion anyway, or it is not - the "illusion" can hardly be explained by relating it to age or disablement, etc. This would mean that youngsters may have the illusions, while elders or disabled people will not.

Surely if free will exist it must manifest itself somewhere among the other, conditioned urges. The problem is finding the difference, finding out which actions exactly can be attributed to free will.

The attribution (of different or even distinctive action) to free will is an interesting point - it is not that absolute view of free will.

Also the example of a school graduate deciding which career path to take is an example of illusion. He thinks he is free to chose, but his fiture succes, his occupation, his education, his fiture wife he will meet in course of his life - they are all predestined by karma, as well as number of his children and the date of his death.

Well, here I agree, (a youngster's choices may be enormous or restricted nobody can predict anything) but in fact I didn't want to emphasise on the amount of choices of the younger individual - but actually on the fewer choices of the "criminel"!

As a matter of facts, the idea of completly predestinated Kamma, excludes free will completely as well! That is why I want to get away from that "absolute" concept of free will vs. predestination.

In my opinion, it looks more like if there are moments of choice as well as "points of no return" in some individual's life. Both may be caused through short term- or long term- (or even 'inherited') Kamma.

[sabaijai]

In my opinion, it looks more like if there are moments of choice as well as "points of no return" in some individual's life. Both may be caused through short term- or long term- (or even 'inherited') Kamma.

An interesting idea.

One thing to remember is that kamma is momentary, it's not something that is carried along. Each moment of kamma conditions the next, and that conditions the following one, and so on, so that it may erroneously appear as if there is some sort of continuous kamma.

There is kusala kamma (wholesome/skilful action) and akusala kamma (unwholesome/unskilful action). The echo of each is kusala vipaka (wholesome/skilful result) and akusala vipaka (ubwholesome/unskilful result). While on a gross level our consciousness may think it knows the difference, only sati is refined enough to perceive/understand the citta (mind-moments) involved. Outside of that all our notions about kamma and vipaka are conditioned.

From an essay by Nyanatiloka Mahathera:

This phenomenality and egolessness of existence has been beautifully expressed in two verses of the Visuddhimagga:

No doer of the deeds is found,

No one who ever reaps their fruits.

Empty phenomena roll on.

This only is the correct view.

No god nor Brahma can be called

The maker of this wheel of life:

Empty phenomena roll on,

Dependent on conditions all.

In hearing that Buddhism teaches that everything is determined by conditions, someone might come to the conclusion that Buddhism teaches some sort of fatalism, or that man has no free will, or that will is not free. Now, with regard to the two questions: (1) "Has man a free will?" and (2) "Is will free?" the Buddhist will say that both these questions are to be rejected for being wrongly put, and therefore unanswerable.

The first question "Has man a free will?" is to be rejected for the reason that, beside these ever-changing mental and physical phenomena, in the absolute sense no such thing or entity can be found that we could call "man," so that "man" as such is merely a name without any reality.

The second question "Is will free?" is to be rejected for the reason that "will" is only a momentary mental phenomenon, just like feeling, consciousness, etc., and thus does not yet exist before it arises, and that therefore of a non-existent thing — of a thing which is not — one could, properly speaking, not ask whether it is free or unfree. The only admissible question would be: "Is the arising of will independent of conditions, or is it conditioned?" But the same question would equally apply also to all the other mental phenomena, as well as to all the physical phenomena, in other words, to everything and every occurrence whatever. And the answer would be: Be it "will," or "feeling," or any other mental or physical phenomenon, the arising of anything whatsoever depends on conditions; and without these conditions, nothing can ever arise or enter into existence.

According to Buddhism, everything mental and physical happens in accordance with laws and conditions; and if it were otherwise, chaos and blind chance would reign. But such a thing is impossible and contradicts all laws of thinking.

and

Here I should like to rectify several wrong applications of the term "kamma" prevailing in the West, and to state once for all: Pali kamma, comes from the root kar, to do, to make, to act, and thus means "deed, action," etc. As a Buddhist technical term, kamma is a name for wholesome and unwholesome volition or will (kusala- and akusala-cetana) and the consciousness and mental factors associated therewith, manifested as bodily, verbal or mere mental action. Already in the Suttas it is said: "Volition (cetana), monks, do I call kamma. Through volition one does the kamma by means of body, speech or mind" (cetanaham bhikkhave kammam vadami; cetayitva kammam karoti kayena vacaya manasa). Thus kamma is volitional action, nothing more, nothing less.

From this fact result the following three statements:

The term "kamma" never comprises the result of action, as most people in the West, misled by Theosophy, wish this term to be understood. Kamma is wholesome or unwholesome volitional action and kamma-vipaka is the result of action.

There are some who consider every happening, even our new wholesome and unwholesome actions, as the result of our prenatal kamma. In other words, they believe that the results again become the causes of new results, and so ad infinitum. Thus they are stamping Buddhism as fatalism; and they will have to come to the conclusion that, in this case, our destiny can never be influenced or changed, and no deliverance ever be attained.

There is a third wrong application of the term "kamma," being an amplification of the first view, i.e. that the term "kamma" comprises also the result of action. It is the assumption of a so-called joint kamma, mass-kamma, or group-kamma, or collective kamma. According to this view, a group of people, e.g. a nation, should be responsible for the bad deeds formerly done by this so-called "same" people. In reality, however, this present people may not consist at all of the same individuals who did these bad deeds. According to Buddhism it is of course quite true that anybody who suffers bodily, suffers for his past or present bad deeds. Thus also each of those individuals born within that suffering nation must, if actually suffering bodily, have done evil somewhere, here or in one of the innumerable spheres of existence, but he may not have had anything to do with the bad deeds of the so-called nation. We might say that through his evil kamma he was attracted to the hellish condition befitting him. In short, the term "kamma" applies, in each instance, only to wholesome and unwholesome volitional activity of the single individual. Kamma thus forms the cause, or seed, from which the results will accrue to the individual, be it in this life or hereafter.1

[chownah]

I found this on the web:

From:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors...saro/karma.html

I found this:

"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."

j---------------------

Note that this discussion does not rely on the concept of self.

Chownah

[Plus]

No doer of the deeds is found,

No one who ever reaps their fruits.

Empty phenomena roll on.

This only is the correct view.

No god nor Brahma can be called

The maker of this wheel of life:

Empty phenomena roll on,

Dependent on conditions all.

This verse and its explanation are simply brilliant. The second long quote about misconceptions about the word karma is full of holes if you look closely.

The first "misconception" is simply nitpicking on what people mean by karma. The term is older than Buddhism, people are not obliged to follow buddhists' fine distinctions in wording - kamma vs. kamma-vipaka.

The second "misconception" is actually what is expressed in the verse above - "Empty phenomena roll on, Dependent on conditions all"

The third misonception also flies in the face of logic - that group karma does not exist, or at least denying any role it might play in one's life. It goes against all observations, it goes against basics of traditional Hindu view of karma where astrology, palmistry, numerology and all other "prediction" sciences are always comfortable with collective karma - fates of countries and their leaders.

Buddhists of course are also not obliged to follow Hindu view of what karma is, but to be in such contradiction is unreasonable. To say that astrology does not promote one's liberation is one thing, to call it a false science is quite another.

I'm also having trouble trying to reconcile

"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" with "No doer of the deeds is found". If you try to diver the flow, you are a doer.

Now, where does "sati" fit in all this? Is it about our actions or about our attitute? Is Buddhism about changing the flow of water?

[Abrasol]

"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" with "No doer of the deeds is found". If you try to diver the flow, you are a doer.

Now, where does "sati" fit in all this? Is it about our actions or about our attitute? Is Buddhism about changing the flow of water?

Maybe "Sati" is when you realise that it flows just like it flows, an when you don't feel any need of interfering, diving, swiming with- or against it's current....just observing it.

Anyway- what I'm missing in this context (and discussion) is the idea of "no-action". We have considered free will as something necessary to do "skilful actions" (and eventually influence our Kamma positively) but we have not consideres "no-action" as the sole way to not create Kamma. The only available 'tool' to avoid (MORE) kamma-formations?

[chownah]

I'm also having trouble trying to reconcile

"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" with "No doer of the deeds is found". If you try to diver the flow, you are a doer.

I think that there is nothing to reconcile here.....I think you have got it exactly right. Trying to use your "self" to divert the flow is not the answer....that only underscores the ignorant view of self. Maybe a good way to start is to try to see your view of "self" as being an effect of the flow and not a cause of the flow.......or maybe that would be a bad way to start.

Chownah

[Plus]

I agree with "not a cause" of the flow, and the "self" is the product of the flow, except that it doesn't exist, of course. So what is that substance that is not a product of the flow, the essence of the self that is able to "observe" the flow. Without it praciticing Buddhism would be no different from any other mundane activity i.e. totally preconditioned as part of the "empty phenomena roll on".

[sabaijai]

The first "misconception" is simply nitpicking on what people mean by karma. The term is older than Buddhism, people are not obliged to follow buddhists' fine distinctions in wording - kamma vs. kamma-vipaka.

I disagree. If you're going to use the term karma/kamma in a Buddhist context, you need to understand the way it's defined by Buddhism itself. Otherwise we all bring our own definitions to the table and the discussion is meaningless (or better relegated to a New Age forum )

I'm not questioning the existence of the self, I'm just pointing out that "free will" is an attibute of something that should be defined first.

Ditto for 'free will' itself. One of the main problems with our discussion here, as I see it, is that 'free will' has gone undefined. I'm not at all sure I know what it means, but I'm sure about one thing, nowhere is there a single definition that we can all source. Unlike kamma, which is explained in great detail in the Abhidhamma Pitaka.

[chownah]

I agree with "not a cause" of the flow, and the "self" is the product of the flow, except that it doesn't exist, of course. So what is that substance that is not a product of the flow, the essence of the self that is able to "observe" the flow. Without it praciticing Buddhism would be no different from any other mundane activity i.e. totally preconditioned as part of the "empty phenomena roll on".

I've got to go do some outside work before it gets dark so...a brief reply.

It is important to differentiate between a "self" and a "view of self". It's like Santa Claus, some people might say that Santa Claus doesn't exist....but most people would agree that a view of Santa Claus could exist...for instance the view that Santa Claus does not exist is a view of Santa Claus and it exists in the minds of the doubters.

What "observe"s the flow? In the Pali Canon (scripture) there is a place where the Buddha taught (to the best of my memory) something like....There is seeing but no one sees, there is hearing, but no one hears, there is smelling odors but no on smells, there is tasting but no one tastes, there are bodily sensations but no one feels them, there are thoughts but no one concieves them. I have sort of paraphrased this since I don't remember the exact wording.......the point is that this is a very deep subject and penetrates to the heart of the Buddhas teachings. It is profound and mysterious and there is no quick and easy answer......I firmly believe that one needs to do some meditation to get a feel for what this really means....but some people approach this from the intellectual side and claim to get it after studying scriptures....

Chownah

[sabaijai]

I firmly believe that one needs to do some meditation to get a feel for what this really means....but some people approach this from the intellectual side and claim to get it after studying scriptures....

True, both ways may produce the same intended result. I can find both camps equally convincing; best to keep an open mind as to how the fruit of the path might ripen.