Mr RB:

Jesus man I’ve been looking for some references for 2 hours now 

What Suttas indicate the exercising of will and intention by arahants?

R

entering cessation of perception and feeling by determination 

got that with MN 44 

there’s also the couple stories of arahants committing suicide

R

mostly passages state of course that the abandoning of intentions as determinations results in unbinding 

but I’m looking for anything specific that shows an Arahant still exercises intent without producing further karmic formations

R

Mr. RB

any help would be appreciated!

Soh sent

In the suttas, denying that a Buddha has five aggregates is a wrong view: 

What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard the Tathagata as one who is without form, without feeling, without perception, without volitional formations, without consciousness?” - “No, friend.”

Soh sent

- https://suttacentral.net/sn22.85/en/bodhi?lang=en

Soh sent

A buddha or arahant is just free from appropriating them

Soh sent

Yamaka Sutta wrote:

What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard form as the Tathagata?” - “No, friend.” - “Do you regard feeling … perception … volitional formations … consciousness as the Tathagata?” - “No, friend.”

“What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard the Tathagata as in form?” - “No, friend.” - “Do you regard the Tathagata as apart from form?” - “No, friend.” - “Do you regard the Tathagata as in feeling? As apart from feeling? As in perception? As apart from perception? As in volitional formations? As apart from volitional formations? As in consciousness? As apart from consciousness?” - “No, friend.”

“What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness taken together as the Tathagata?” - “No, friend.”

What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard the Tathagata as one who is without form, without feeling, without perception, without volitional formations, without consciousness?” - “No, friend.”

http://suttacentral.net/en/sn22.85

Additionally:

SN 22.122 wrote:

"But, friend Sariputta, what are the things that a bhikkhu who is an arahant should carefully attend to?"

"Friend Kotthita, a bhikkhu who is an arahant should carefully attend to these five aggregates subject to clinging as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as empty, as nonself. For the arahant, friend, there is nothing further that has to be done and no repetition of what he has already done. However, when these things are developed and cultivated, they lead to a pleasant dwelling in this very life and to mindfulness and clear comprehension."

You replied to yourself  · 

Edited

If an arahant did not have five aggregates, it goes without saying that they cannot possibly attend to them at all. But instead they are instructed to attend to them with right view

Soh sent

Additionally

Soh sent

In my experience those who say liberated persons do not have volition are harboring a wrong understanding of anatta or no self

Soh sent

I was just sharing today:

Soh sent

Someone asked: “Ah okay. Still trying to think about what John means by there is volition without a self”

Soh sent

I replied:

First you have to understand the lightning and flash analogy

https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2020/06/choosing.html

John Tan:

The logic that since there is no agency, hence no choice to be made is no different from "no sufferer, therefore no suffering".

This is not anatta insight.

What is seen through in anatta is the mistaken view that the conventional structure of "subject action object" represents reality when it is not. Action does not require an agent to initiate it. It is language that creates the confusion that nouns are required to set verbs into motion.

Therefore the action of choosing continues albeit no chooser.

"Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found;

The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there;

Nibbāna is, but not the man that enters it;

The path is, but no traveler on it is seen."

Soh sent

Alan watts:

From "The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are" by Alan Watts:

As soon as one sees that separate things are fictitious, it becomes obvious that nonexistent things cannot “perform” actions. The difficulty is that most languages are arranged so that actions (verbs) have to be set in motion by things (nouns), and we forget that rules of grammar are not necessarily rules, or patterns, of nature. This, which is nothing more than a convention of grammar, is also responsible for (or, better, “goeswith”) absurd puzzles as to how spirit governs matter, or mind moves body. How can a noun, which is by definition not action, lead to action?

Scientists would be less embarrassed if they used a language, on the model of Amerindian Nootka, consisting of verbs and adverbs, and leaving off nouns and adjectives. If we can speak of a house as housing, a mat as matting, or of a couch as seating, why can't we think of people as “peopling,” of brains as “braining,” or of an ant as an “anting?” Thus in the Nootka language a church is “housing religiously,” a shop is “housing tradingly,” and a home is “housing homely.” Yet we are habituated to ask, “Who or what is housing? Who peoples? What is it that ants?” Yet isn't it obvious that when we say, “The lightning flashed,” the flashing is the same as the lightning, and that it would be enough to say, “There was lightning”? Everything labeled with a noun is demonstrably a process or action, but language is full of spooks, like the “it” in “It is raining,” which are the supposed causes, of action.

Does it really explain running to say that “A man is running”? On the contrary, the only explanation would be a description of the field or situation in which “a manning goeswith running” as distinct from one in which “a manning goeswith sitting.” (I am not recommending this primitive and clumsy form of verb language for general and normal use. We should have to contrive something much more elegant.) Furthermore, running is not something other than myself, which I (the organism) do. For the organism is sometimes a running process, sometimes a standing process, sometimes a sleeping process, and so on, and in each instance the “cause” of the behavior is the situation as a whole, the organism/environment. Indeed, it would be best to drop the idea of causality and use instead the idea of relativity.

For it is still inexact to say that an organism “responds” or “reacts” to a given situation by running or standing, or whatever. This is still the language of Newtonian billiards. It is easier to think of situations as moving patterns, like organisms themselves. Thus, to go back to the cat (or catting), a situation with pointed ears and whiskers at one end does not have a tail at the other as a response or reaction to the whiskers, or the claws, or the fur. As the Chinese say, the various features of a situation “arise mutually” or imply one another as back implies front, and as chickens imply eggs—and vice versa. They exist in relation to each other like the poles of the magnet, only more complexly patterned.

Moreover, as the egg/chicken relation suggests, not all the features of a total situation have to appear at the same time. The existence of a man implies parents, even though they may be long since dead, and the birth of an organism implies its death. Wouldn't it be as farfetched to call birth the cause of death as to call the cat's head the cause of the tail? Lifting the neck of a bottle implies lifting the bottom as well, for the “two parts” come up at the same time. If I pick up an accordion by one end, the other will follow a little later, but the principle is the same. Total situations are, therefore, patterns in time as much as patterns in space.

And, right now is the moment to say that I am not trying to smuggle in the “total situation” as a new disguise for the old “things” which were supposed to explain behavior or action. The total situation or field is always open-ended, for

Little fields have big fields

Upon their backs to bite 'em,

And big fields have bigger fields

And so ad infinitum. 

We can never, never describe all the features of the total situation, not only because every situation is infinitely complex, but also because the total situation is the universe. Fortunately, we do not have to describe any situation exhaustively, because some of its features appear to be much more important than others for understanding the behavior of the various organisms within it. We never get more than a sketch of the situation, yet this is enough to show that actions (or processes) must be understood, or explained, in terms of situations just as words must be understood in the context of sentences, paragraphs, chapters, books, libraries, and … life itself.

To sum up: just as no thing or organism exists on its own, it does not act on its own. Furthermore, every organism is a process: thus the organism is not other than its actions. To put it clumsily: it is what it does. More precisely, the organism, including its behavior, is a process which is to be understood only in relation to the larger and longer process of its environment. For what we mean by “understanding” or “comprehension” is seeing how parts fit into a whole, and then realizing that they don't compose the whole, as one assembles a jigsaw puzzle, but that the whole is a pattern, a complex wiggliness, which has no separate parts. Parts are fictions of language, of the calculus of looking at the world through a net which seems to chop it up into bits. Parts exist only for purposes of figuring and describing, and as we figure the world out we become confused if we do not remember this all the time.”

John tan replied just now “He is so gifted in expressing anatta and his insights, so clear.”

---

There is choice and volition, they are not automatic or causeless

Buddha ridiculed the notion of no volition:

Author: Astus

Date: Sat Jul 20, 2024 4:42 AM

Title: Re: Free Will?

Content:

Beings are the makers and heirs of their own actions. If they were not the makers, that would be determinism. If they were not the heirs, that would be indeterminism. Such denial of cause and effect is called wrong view (e.g. https://suttacentral.net/an3.119/en/sujato), and is based on the mistaken belief in a self (https://suttacentral.net/sn24.5/en/sujato).

Author: Astus

Date: Fri Jul 19, 2024 3:59 AM

Title: Re: Free Will?

Content:

The Buddha has rejected both determinism and indeterminism (https://suttacentral.net/an3.61/en/sujato), and he practically ridiculed those who denied autonomy in their actions (https://suttacentral.net/an6.38/en/sujato). Naturally, what's been done is done, but currently one chooses how to act (https://suttacentral.net/sn35.146/en/sujato), therefore bad habits can be rectified (https://suttacentral.net/sn42.8/en/sujato), and even the consequences of past actions can be mitigated (https://suttacentral.net/an3.100/en/sujato).

-----

Buddha's teaching: https://suttacentral.net/an6.38/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin

Numbered Discourses 6.38

4. Deities

One’s Own Volition

Then a certain brahmin went up to the Buddha, and exchanged greetings with him. When the greetings and polite conversation were over, he sat down to one side and said to the Buddha:

“Mister Gotama, this is my doctrine and view: One does not act of one’s own volition, nor does one act of another’s volition.”

“Brahmin, may I never see or hear of anyone holding such a doctrine or view! How on earth can someone who comes and goes on his own say that one does not act of one’s own volition, nor does one act of another’s volition?

What do you think, brahmin, is there an element of initiative?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Since this is so, do we find sentient beings who initiate activity?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Since there is an element of initiative, and sentient beings who initiate activity are found, sentient beings act of their own volition or that of another.

What do you think, brahmin, is there an element of persistence … exertion … strength … endurance … energy?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Since this is so, do we find sentient beings who have energy?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Since there is an element of energy, and sentient beings who have energy are found, sentient beings act of their own volition or that of another.

Brahmin, may I never see or hear of anyone holding such a doctrine or view! How on earth can someone who comes and goes on his own say that one does not act of one’s own volition, nor does one act of another’s volition?”

“Excellent, Mister Gotama! Excellent! … From this day forth, may Mister Gotama remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge for life.”

Soh sent

Someone said: “I still dun get it

If there is no self, who chooses? If there is no self, who is responsible for the choices?

Please explain the concept of choosing without self under Anatta insight”

---

I replied:

Because you assume choosing and volition must be initiated by a self or agent, then if there is no self or agent, there is no volition.

That is precisely the illusion seen through in anatta. That is no different from saying if there is no hearer, then there is no hearing/sound.

What is pointed out is that there is no chooser, only choosing and volition. There is no hearer, only hearing/sound. 

No nouns or agents were ever needed nor existed, the process itself rolls and knows by itself

Its like the lightning and flash analogy. There is no lightning besides flash. Lightning is not an agent of flashing but another name for flash

No nouns or agents are required to initiate a process or verb

Soh sent

“For me volition arises without being felt as relating to a sense of self

So it can be deconstructed

That requires contemplation and inquiry

For me responsibility does not require a self also. This process acts and thinks responsibly”

Soh sent

Also see https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=44173&start=90

"And what is kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result, leading to the ending of kamma? Right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is called kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result, leading to the ending of kamma." - AN 4.237

“The underlying tendency to greed should be given up when it comes to pleasant feeling. The underlying tendency to repulsion should be given up when it comes to painful feeling. The underlying tendency to ignorance should be given up when it comes to neutral feeling.”

“Should these underlying tendencies be given up regarding all instances of these feelings?”

“No, not in all instances. Take a mendicant who, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters and remains in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected. With this they give up greed, and the underlying tendency to greed does not lie within that. And take a mendicant who reflects: ‘Oh, when will I enter and remain in the same dimension that the noble ones enter and remain in today?’ Nursing such a longing for the supreme liberations gives rise to sadness due to longing. With this they give up repulsion, and the underlying tendency to repulsion does not lie within that. Take a mendicant who, giving up pleasure and pain, and ending former happiness and sadness, enters and remains in the fourth absorption, without pleasure or pain, with pure equanimity and mindfulness. With this they give up ignorance, and the underlying tendency to ignorance does not lie within that.” - MN 44

“The Buddha chose to go to this city or that when he was alive. How does someone choose to go somewhere, without intending it?

Another sutta which add to the understanding...

MN57

Katamañca, puṇṇa, kammaṁ akaṇhaṁ asukkaṁ akaṇhaasukkavipākaṁ, kammakkhayāya saṁvattati? Tatra, puṇṇa, yamidaṁ kammaṁ kaṇhaṁ kaṇhavipākaṁ tassa pahānāya yā cetanā, yamidaṁ kammaṁ sukkaṁ sukkavipākaṁ tassa pahānāya yā cetanā, yamidaṁ kammaṁ kaṇhasukkaṁ kaṇhasukkavipākaṁ tassa pahānāya yā cetanā, idaṁ vuccati, puṇṇa, kammaṁ akaṇhaṁ asukkaṁ akaṇhaasukkavipākaṁ, kammakkhayāya saṁvattatīti.

“And what, Puṇṇa, is action that is neither dark nor bright with neither-dark-nor-bright result, action that leads to the destruction of action? Therein, the volition for abandoning the kind of action that is dark with dark result, and the volition for abandoning the kind of action that is bright with bright result, and the volition for abandoning the kind of action that is dark and bright with dark-and-bright result: this is called action that is neither dark nor bright with neither-dark-nor-bright result, action that leads to the destruction of action.”

R replied to you

seems to be quite common?

R

Mr. RB

Will read all this soon

You’re a true dharma professional thank you 🙏

Fri 4:59 PM

You replied to R

Yes common. Especially Among those who dont understand anatta or prone to deterministic kind of non doership. Usually just a preliminary level of experience into a partial aspect of no self https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2020/04/different-degress-of-no-self-non.html

Fri 8:49 PM

R

Mr. RB

it seems to be a related to a lack of refinement in investigation of states 

You as a meditator know as i do— it’s very clear that thoughts and impulses are automatic but intention is not.  it must be exercised 

experience arises so quickly it can appears that things are happening by themselves but upon investigation it’s obvious 

even getting up from bed in the morning is not possible without intention 

if that function were  deleted or absent one wouldn’t be able to move

R

Mr. RB

great stuff man 

you nailed this in the coffin lol 

and saved me many many hours 😂