No-Self is Not Pre-Determinism

(This issue is not peculiar to Stage 5 but can be present the moment one has glimpses or experiences of the non-doership aspect of no-self, even if one has not yet reached Stage 1)

There is a kind of pathology or danger in various kinds of insights because they are partial and one may not have yet seen the complete picture. As you may have seen in my recent discussions, the pathology or danger in non-doership is that one will fall into a kind of extreme deterministic thinking - that somehow because there is no doer, nothing can/should be done about things. This leads to a very passive attitude to things, or rather, one is restricted to experiencing no-self in a passive way (of merely letting experience happen in non-doership), one which prevents the experience of non-dual in action/activities via complete non-dual engagement, involvement, incorporating intentions, and later going into total exertion. (Also non-doership does not imply one has arisen non-dual insight)

On the disease of non-doership, John Tan said:

“Nihilistic tendencies arise when the insight of anatta is skewed towards the no-doership aspect. The happening by itself must be correctly understood. It appears that things are accomplished by doing nothing but in actual case it is things get done due to ripening of action and conditions.

So the lack of self-nature does not imply nothing needs be done or nothing can be done. That is one extreme. At the other end of extreme is the self-nature of perfect control of what one wills, one gets. Both are seen to be false. Action + conditions leads to effect.”

“As to the specifics of your question I’m not sure, but here are a few major differences between classical “determinism” and Buddhist karmic causality:

Determinism proper necessarily involves inherently existent causes giving rise to inherently existent effects in a unilateral manner.

Karmic cause and effect in the context of the buddhadharma is only valid conventionally, and since every cause is an effect and every effect a cause, they are, in a coarse sense, bilateral in nature.

Karma can be “determined” in a certain sense, but since karma takes direction from intention, change can occur, certain results can be averted, suffering can be mitigated and ideally uprooted altogether.” - Kyle Dixon, 2019

“Kyle Dixon Dante Rosati we gave volition [cetana], and can direct that volition freely.

Of course we are subject to our karma, but it is not as rigidly deterministic as you suggest.

1

●

Kyle Dixon Yes, we “have,” possess, volition. And are capable of directing it where we choose.

○ Like

○ · Reply

○ · 17h

●

Kyle Dixon Life is not a fully automated process in the sense that you are like a helpless leaf being blown around by the wind, is the point.

You can make choices and direct volition.

●

Kyle Dixon Eric Aksunah I don’t know the specifics.

I just recall Malcolm once said we don’t have “free will” because such a principle implies a rational agent, and we are still subject to karma. Nevertheless, we can direct our volition and intention in specific directions, such as following the path.

1

○ Like

○ · Reply

○ · 15h

“ - Kyle Dixon, 2020

“Someone asked: Yes not fixed, undetermined, and unknown. But what is it within "us" that can act or influence independently outside of conditions? Of all the multitude of infinite flow of interdependent points, I assume there is some co-rippling affect, no end to being caused, no end to being effected. Is our choice eating an Apple vs a Donut factored in an algorithm dependent on all prior conditioning of past experiences and expected outcome of future long term reward against short term satisfaction. Is there really choice hidden in there or simply born of conditions and situations of our current predicaments. Ongoing evolution of genetics, family, society, era, location, culture, and luck.

Soh replied: “Us” is an aggregation, it is a convention like chariot. That is like asking how does the chariot move, actually chariot and movement is dependently designated, agent and action is dependently designated and unfindable. Choice or intention is dependently originating also. Buddha taught, not caused by self, by other, nor causelessly, but via dependent origination. Not caused by self means not caused by an agent, and also Madhyamika explains not caused by the same thing. Not caused by other negates notions of annihilation of some existent self, and also negates notions of fatalism or determinism as if things are caused by “other” with no relation to itself. Rather whatever manifests, manifests due to conditions. For example if desire arise, it arise due to the arising of pleasant sensations (say, nice smell of food) and latent tendencies towards craving and grasping. They do not arise due to agency but due to conditions. But those conditionings are not the same as “caused by others”. They are also subject to cessation. The path that leads to cessation is also dependently originating such as the twelve transcendental links of dependent origination (the one that talks about practice factors like joy, etc), and so on. Then when we get to subtler level, we realise the non arising and non origination of what dependently originates.”

John Tan

S0h1hao7m4fl6s93orltm ·

Ok enough of blahing for few weeks, this will be my last post.

For those who conclude mmk denies causal efficacy,

they have unknowingly fallen into the essentialist view of "true existence". Mmk only teaches if cause and effect exist essentially, then casuality is untenable and impossible.

Therefore don't just say "ultimately causality, self and phenomena are empty" but deeply understand:

In anatta, there is action without agent.

In prasangika, action is performed by empty agent.

As such "empty wars" kill, "empty self" suffers, empty self takes rebirth and only empty things have causal relations.

That is y Nagasena can be ferried by an "empty chariot".

Hence, don't neglect the imagined and experience the wonderment of seeing emptiness of the conventional.

An early Happy New Year to all and happy journey to all my dharma friends!

2 Comments