Is There Free Will In Buddhism?

[Plus]

I agree that one should not bring his own definitions to the table when discussing Buddhism. The article, however, takes a shot at "several wrong applications of the term "kamma" prevailing in the West". The concept of karma/kamma as known in the west is not a sole property of Buddhism and it seems that the author attempts to put them all "straight".

Maybe the author meant misconceptions among western Buddhists but it's not clear from the quote itself. Also note the different spellings - karma/kamma. Which one is a Buddhist one? Even in this forum karma is a more common spelling, by the factor of two to one at least.

I also agree that "free will" remains undefined, just as the notion of "self" itself. I think the "self" should be defined first, then we will see what kind of "free will" can it have.

>>>>>

Returning to the graduate/convict situations - the graduate might feel that he has more options in his life, but, conversely, the convict has less illusions!

[chownah]

Kamma is the Pali word and karma is the Sanskrit word.....kamma is used by Theravada Buddhists since they only recognize the Pali scriptures and karma is often used by other Buddhist schools which recognize Sanskrit sciptures as well.

The definition for self is an interesting idea. The Buddha spent alot of time defining what was not self and came to the conclusion that wherever we look we will not find an adequate self.

Edited August 25, 2006 by chownah

[Abrasol]

Returning to the graduate/convict situations - the graduate might feel that he has more options in his life, but, conversely, the convict has less illusions!

I don't agree, as I see no indication, why "convicts" may have less illusions. The may have plenty of illusions or false interpretation of fate and their respective origin as well (they may even blame others for what happened to them). Some may indeed be disillusioned about some "parts of life", but they may generate "fresh" illusion by attempting to understand what happened to them. I anyway don't think that "convicts" have less illusions as "graduates". But there is a clear indication that choices (in most cases) are limited, as soon as someone becomes a convict, respectively trapped in another way.

Again: what I wanted to demonstrate by this example, is the fact that some situations of some individuals clearly allow less choices. A person who is sitting in an airplane that is just about to crash, has not much choices-, and hence not much free will left. Actually I wanted to avoid using such examples, because they may distract more than they are clearing things.

___________________________________________

About the general discussion and:

I agree that one should not bring his own definitions to the table when discussing Buddhism.

What about individual deliberation, does it make sense?

There can't be a parallel access to a dualistic- and a monistic view of the world at the same time, as there is no way to compare the eight-fold path, (which is intelligible intellectually even by lay people), - and deep insights about paticcasammupada, which only may be "understood" through meditation.

Wether those coherence about free will, fate, reincarnation are intelligible by all (especially by lay people), or they are not! And a practical use, as well as clear advices should exist and go further as the eight-fold path too. Otherwise I see a connection between early Christianism, when only priests and monks were able to understand latin, while lay people weren't. At that time "god-business" was restricted to some "elite" who was able to understand what God was supposed to be, while others had to 'stupidly' believe (and only trust the authorities and "theologians" knowledge, insight and their 'translations' into an intelligible form). Even more: they had the sole power to communicate with God and translate his aims. They even had powers like "the sacrament of penance" and other more or less doubtful "skills & powers"....

Certainly aware of the enormous differences between both "religions" or philosophies, - it still looks to me if there is no big difference between being a believer - and, being someone who has no access to deep insight (perhaps through meditation).

If things can't be explained easily without permanent contradictions (which always need to be justified by complex rhetoric), then both, Christian believers and Buddhist lay people look "stupid" to me in some way or the other...

Edited August 25, 2006 by Abrasol

[Plus]

I don't agree, as I see no indication, why "convicts" may have less illusions.

They certainly have no illusions about free will - they don't have any left!

I don't buy the idea that one person can have more free will today and less tomorrow, and again a lot on Sunday. Free will should not depend on outside conditions like faulty airplanes or incompetent lawers.

Re. self - I don't know what exactly the position of Theravada Buddhism is. I think they state that self does not truly exist, it's part, or even root, of all illusions and it has to be discarded to attain nirvana. With this view talking about free will is pointless. One can talk of free will only as long as he identifies with his self, and as "self" is a product of illusion, so is its "free will".

The problem, as I see it, is that this illusory self must use itself to get rid of the notion of the self.

Or maybe in Thereravada they focus on separating "not-self" to find what the true self is. Now if that true self exists, then it can have its own free will, independent from "not-self" imposed conditions.

[sabaijai]

Or maybe in Thereravada they focus on separating "not-self" to find what the true self is. Now if that true self exists, then it can have its own free will, independent from "not-self" imposed conditions.

I think this approaches the heart of the matter, and in fact in the Sutta Pitaka the Buddha is quoted as saying we are neither self nor not-self.

Having taken a seat to one side, Vacchagotta the wanderer said to the Master, 'Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?' When this was said, the Master was silent.

'Then is there no self?' For a second time the Master was silent.

Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.

Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, the Venerable Ananda said to the Master, 'Why, sir, did the Master not answer when asked a question asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer?'

'Ananda, if I, being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self, were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism (i.e., the view that there is an eternal soul). And if I... were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism (i.e., that death is the annihilation of experience). If I... were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?

'No, Lord.'

'And if I... were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: "Does the self which I used to have, now not exist?"'

— S XLIV.10

This is where the logical aspects of Buddhism many of us admire fade into the mist, ie, once you reach this point intellectual analysis comes up short. Anyone who expects Buddhism to be 100% logical, from an epistemological perspective, will surely be disappointed.

Re. self - I don't know what exactly the position of Theravada Buddhism is.

As you can see from the Sutta discourse above, definiton of self is not part of the Theravada Buddhist ontology.

I recommend reading Aj Thanisarro's 'Not-Self Strategy' essay for one view of how to reconcile self vs not-self. The questions you're asking have many answers, including the reliable 'tends not to edification'.

[Abrasol]

I don't agree, as I see no indication, why "convicts" may have less illusions.

They certainly have no illusions about free will - they don't have any left!

Strange reflection after all, - so tell me why "convicts" are able to use drugs in jail, or even kill pleople because of some kind power strugglings, or even for no reason? So, sometimes they have a lot of illusions and free will too!

I don't buy the idea that one person can have more free will today and less tomorrow, and again a lot on Sunday.

No, that is not exactly what I was saying, I wasn't talking about today, tomorrow or a specific day at all. I was just saying, that free will (in a practical sense) is clearly related to situations and "moments in time". I mean this is something easly to comprehend, if there is a will to do so

Free will should not depend on outside conditions like faulty airplanes or incompetent lawers.

But here again it surely does! Those are excellent paradigms how free will can be limmited by a combination of someone's actions and external factors as well.

The problem, as I see it, is that this illusory self must use itself to get rid of the notion of the self.

I really liked a specific example by Carlos Castaneda about a guy called Don Vincente. He had solved the secret of intention. He was then able to intend anything he wanted - but he had to give up his (illusion of a) "self" to achieve that goal. Then, he could intend anything, had access to unlimmited free will - but had no more objectives, aims or motivation to use this "great power"....

So may be, some elucidation is more accessible the other way round

Edited August 25, 2006 by Abrasol

[Plus]

Aerosol, I'm losing you. If free will depends on numerous conditions and is limited, what kind of freedom is this? Certainly not the one I'm talking about.

From Wikipedia:

Within the Mahayana branch of Buddhism, there exists an important class of sutras.. which affirm that, in contradistinction to the impermanent "mundane self" of the five "skandhas"(the physical and mental components of the mutable ego), there does exist an eternal True Self, which is in fact none other than the Buddha himself in his ultimate "Nirvanic" nature. This True Self of the Buddha is indeed said to be attainable by anyone in the state of Mahaparinirvana. Furthermore, the essence of that Buddha — the Buddha-dhatu ("Buddha-nature", "Buddha principle"), or Dharmakaya, as it is termed — is present in all sentient beings and is described as "radiantly luminous". This Buddha-dhatu is said in the Nirvana Sutra to be the uncreated, immutable and immortal essence (“svabhava”) of all beings, which can never be harmed or destroyed. The most extensive sutra promulgating this as an "ultimate teaching" (uttara-tantra) on the Buddhic essence of all creatures (animals included) is the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra. There we read in words attributed to the Buddha: "... it is not the case that they [i.e. all phenomena] are devoid of the Self. What is this Self? Any phenomenon ["dharma"] that is true ["satya"], real [“tattva”], eternal [“nitya”], sovereign/autonomous [“aishvarya”] and whose foundation is unchanging [“ashraya-aviparinama”] is termed 'the Self' [atman]." (translated from Dharmakshema's version of the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra).

I'm not sure if this particular sutra is recongnised by Theravada Buddhism.

[Abrasol]

Aerosol, I'm losing you. If free will depends on numerous conditions and is limited, what kind of freedom is this? Certainly not the one I'm talking about.

I wasn't talking about freedom (another new term you put in here), but about the limmits of free will everyone can experience in some way or the other in daily life and over time. You may relate those observations to freedom, but this isn't explicitely included. If you do so, - you have to answer to your question by yourself as well.

Certainly not the one I'm talking about.

Any quick or extended reasoning is (and will always remain) a subjective view. Anyhow, "Things" will not change for others, if you denominate them as "what I am talking about".

You loosing me? - never mind, if there is no self, perhaps I am you at the end!

Have a nice day!

[chownah]

".......................

(translated from Dharmakshema's version of the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra).

I'm not sure if this particular sutra is recongnised by Theravada Buddhism.

Sutra is a Sanskrit word and the Pali equivalent is Sutta. If it is a Sutra then Theravada Buddhism does not recognize it since the Theravada Scriptures are all written in Pali [edited for redundancy].....with the odd exception of someone using the Sanskrit word to describe the Pali text...which is highly unlikely and I think by most would be considered to be an error.

[chownah]

Aerosol, I'm losing you. If free will depends on numerous conditions and is limited, what kind of freedom is this? Certainly not the one I'm talking about.

I wasn't talking about freedom (another new term you put in here), but about the limmits of free will everyone can experience in some way or the other in daily life and over time. You may relate those observations to freedom, but this isn't explicitely included. If you do so, - you have to answer to your question by yourself as well.

Certainly not the one I'm talking about.

Any quick or extended reasoning is (and will always remain) a subjective view. Anyhow, "Things" will not change for others, if you denominate them as "what I am talking about".

You loosing me? - never mind, if there is no self, perhaps I am you at the end!

Have a nice day!

I think that the defintion that you are using for free will is not an appropriate one to use when discussing Buddhism. In most Buddhist discussions, the concept of free will goes something like this: Even if a person is imprisoned and will be executed in short order, if the person sees and insect (for example) then that person can choose to either kill the insect or to not kill the insect. If that person actually has the choice and can create either result then this is evidence that the world in general functions at least partly through the mechanism of free will. If the mechanism of free will exists (some people say it does not exist...these people are called fatalists) then a persons thoughts or actions do actually have a real effect on the outcome and the outcome is dependent at least partly by the persons inputs. For example...some/many Buddhists believe that what you are thinking at the moment of death will determine where you are reborn....this is an example of free will because it assumes that the individual has the ability to make a decision and this decision will actually help to determine what the future will bring. It is not important if the decision will have a big effect or a small effect....if it has some effect then the future is not fixed and the future is sort of made up as life goes on. This should be contrasted with fatalism which claims that we only think that our decisions make a difference because the future is fixed forever and frozen even before it happens. Fatalists say that when you think you are making a decision you actually are not deciding anything because how you will decide is already fixed even before you think you make the decision. Fatalists are sometimes described as believeing in a totally mechanical view of the universe where everything happens by fixed mechanical rules that form a rigid structure of cause and effect which predetermines what will happen in the future....fatalism is also called predetermination.

To summarize: free will has nothing or very little to do with how much control you have on the particular details of your life...but rather that you do have decisions that you can make (even if they are decisions about how you think about what is transpiring) and that these are real decisions that will create what the future is....and that the future is not fixed but is influenced by decisions that are made in the present.

Chownah

[the swagman]

From my limited readings, at the time of the Buddha, Brahminism was prevalent in India and the Buddha did believe in the notion of samasara and kamma and reincarnation. Good deeds lead to a kinder rebirth, however he believed, unlike the thought of that day, that the cycle of rebirth can be broken. The suffering of rebirth can cease through the following of the eightfold path.

The Buddha saw the suffering and reached the conclusion that the mind is tempted throughout ones life and to calm the mind and to bring about an end of the suffering is to deny the temptations using the outline he prescribed. Free will is there, temptation is there but by meditation and by following the middle way one can control the mind and train the mind to act nobly and morally and not fall to temptation.

[Plus]

a) The Bhagavata Purana that "predicts" Buddha's appearance was written long past his death, according to the same Wikipedia

It's a "Buddhism" forum, people come here to discover Buddhism, not to knock it off. If you feel the need to bash Buddhists, take it somewhere else - show respect to your hosts

c) Do I smell a hidden Hare Krishna here?

[sabaijai]

Closet Krishna's post is in the trash bin. Back to the topic at hand.

[sabaijai]

The Cetana Sutta has this to say about the will in the case of a arahant (enlightened person).

"For a person endowed with virtue, consummate in virtue, there is no need for an act of will, 'May freedom from remorse arise in me.' It is in the nature of things that freedom from remorse arises in a person endowed with virtue, consummate in virtue.

"For a person free from remorse, there is no need for an act of will, 'May joy arise in me.' It is in the nature of things that joy arises in a person free from remorse.

"For a joyful person, there is no need for an act of will, 'May rapture arise in me.' It is in the nature of things that rapture arises in a joyful person.

"For a rapturous person, there is no need for an act of will, 'May my body be serene.' It is in the nature of things that a rapturous person grows serene in body.

"For a person serene in body, there is no need for an act of will, 'May I experience pleasure.' It is in the nature of things that a person serene in body experiences pleasure.

"For a person experiencing pleasure, there is no need for an act of will, 'May my mind grow concentrated.' It is in the nature of things that the mind of a person experiencing pleasure grows concentrated.

"For a person whose mind is concentrated, there is no need for an act of will, 'May I know & see things as they actually are.' It is in the nature of things that a person whose mind is concentrated knows & sees things as they actually are.

"For a person who knows & sees things as they actually are, there is no need for an act of will, 'May I feel disenchantment.' It is in the nature of things that a person who knows & sees things as they actually are feels disenchantment.

"For a person who feels disenchantment, there is no need for an act of will, 'May I grow dispassionate.' It is in the nature of things that a person who feels disenchantment grows dispassionate.

"For a dispassionate person, there is no need for an act of will, 'May I realize the knowledge & vision of release.' It is in the nature of things that a dispassionate person realizes the knowledge & vision of release.

"In this way, dispassion has knowledge & vision of release as its purpose, knowledge & vision of release as its reward. Disenchantment has dispassion as its purpose, dispassion as its reward. Knowledge & vision of things as they actually are has disenchantment as its purpose, disenchantment as its reward. Concentration has knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its purpose, knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its reward. Pleasure has concentration as its purpose, concentration as its reward. Serenity has pleasure as its purpose, pleasure as its reward. Rapture has serenity as its purpose, serenity as its reward. Joy has rapture as its purpose, rapture as its reward. Freedom from remorse has joy as its purpose, joy as its reward. Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, freedom from remorse as their reward.

"In this way, mental qualities lead on to mental qualities, mental qualities bring mental qualities to their consummation, for the sake of going from the near to the Further Shore."

[Plus]

Actually, to be fair, a lot of what that deleted post said made sense, and even if half is true, there will be a need for a lot of explaining. It's the presentation that turned me off, personally. Timeline for writing vedic texts is a controversial issue, there are strong points on both sides. I tend to agree that they were written long before English colonialists decided when they dated them, but what do I know!!!

Now we can't even check his links.

[sabaijai]

Actually, to be fair, a lot of what that deleted post said made sense, and even if half is true, there will be a need for a lot of explaining. It's the presentation that turned me off, personally. Timeline for writing vedic texts is a controversial issue, there are strong points on both sides. I tend to agree that they were written long before English colonialists decided when they dated them, but what do I know!!!

Now we can't even check his links.

Claiming that Vedanta or any other religious thought has 'defeated' Buddhism won't fly here. Please read the posting guidelines pinned to the top of this forum branch.

Everyone's free to discuss any religion they like, as long as they relate their points to Buddhism But claiming one of them has 'defeated' another, or that one religion is 'the only truth' or another religion is 'wrong' isn't in keeping with the ecumenical spirit we're trying to maintain here, sorry.

[Plus]

Yes, the way that post was worded is unacceptable, and it was mostly off topic, too.

What about your last sutra? Numerous translations make it a little cloudy.

Does it mean that arahants do not practive their free will, or that it is part of the nature of the things that they can observe, meaning that it's not an attribute of the arahant's self, if such thing as self exists. If it doesn't, than what it is that is observing the nature?

[Neeranam]

QUOTE

I don't agree, as I see no indication, why "convicts" may have less illusions.

They certainly have no illusions about free will - they don't have any left!

Why don't they?

The only real freedom (kaivalya) consists in realizing the ultimate separateness of matter and self.

There cannot be any such thing as free-will; the very words are a contradiction, because will is what we know, and everything that we know is within our universe, and everything within our universe is moulded by conditions of time, space and causality. ... To acquire freedom we have to get beyond the limitations of this universe; it cannot be found here.

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.

I think you have he wrong understanding of what yoga is.

Edited September 3, 2006 by Neeranam

[sabaijai]

Yes, the way that post was worded is unacceptable, and it was mostly off topic, too.

What about your last sutra? Numerous translations make it a little cloudy.

Does it mean that arahants do not practive their free will, or that it is part of the nature of the things that they can observe, meaning that it's not an attribute of the arahant's self, if such thing as self exists. If it doesn't, than what it is that is observing the nature?

Sati is observing. I assume since an arahant's citta (mind moments/thoughts) are always kusala (wholesome/skilful), there is no effort involved.

Again I think the notion of 'free will' is difficult to apply in any exact manner within the context of Buddhism. If I'm not mistaken, the idea is rooted in the Judaeo-Christian tradition, as informed by Greek philosophy. For that matter even in English it's a topic for endless debate. Doesn't mean there isn't common ground, but I doubt we'll find any perfect correlate in Buddhist philosophy. In other words the question tends not to edification ....