Posts
https://www.facebook.com/groups/AwakeningToReality/posts/26988828614065213/
Mr EJ said:
Hello,
I have had this realization which is an odd one, that everything is Karma unfolding and that the world is actually perfect just the way it is. Things happen because they must.
But this comes off as cold to most people.
The person getting murdered is their karma and the person murdering is their karma to murder. Sounds very weird to the average person.
The truth is, that's just Karma working itself out. We don't know their past lives. They have to go through it, for whatever reason.
But I'm not saying ah whatever, my heart suffers in a different way. Wanting to help people on a spiritual level to get out samsara, not just have a good human birth.
With all this being said, I have also realized my goal as a human being is not really to go out there and change the world for the better because the world is already the way it is. My goal is to get out of Samsara and attain Buddhahood or Bodhisattva to help souls spirituality.
Has anyone had this realization? And how can we explain this to someone without sounding cold showing no signs of empathy?
Soh replied:
Your post inclines towards determinism. Karma does not mean determinism.
“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).”
Also, not everything is due to karma:
https://suttacentral.net/sn36.21/en/bodhi?lang=en&reference=none&highlight=false"
“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).”
Also, not everything is due to karma:
https://suttacentral.net/sn36.21/en/bodhi?lang=en&reference=none&highlight=false"
Mr EJ said: "yes determinism from one's own Karma.
An apple seed is determined to grow an apple tree.
Not determinism that some God up in the sky makes decisions, we're all victims.
That is not what I meant in my post."
Soh replied: "karma is not determinism, as the suttas above stated, and other posts I made in this thread explained
karma does not determine that someone is a murderer, etc
This is why people can change"
Mr EJ said, "if an Apple seed is planted with all the right conditions, an apple tree is determined to grow. Not a pear, not a watermelon.
What is that law called in Buddhism?"
Soh replied: "Buddha taught dependent origination, in which karma is only one subset of it. Karma is not the cause of everything. Also, dependent origination does not imply determinism. An apple seed can be planted, but you can stop it from ever growing if you either remove the seed, block it from receiving sunlight, not give enough nutrients for the seed to grow, and so on and so forth. Dependent origination does not imply agents or inherent producers and production, it does not mean determinism.
If an apple seed could determine that an apple tree Must grow, then nothing could be done to stop it. But it does not. Apple seed needs other conditions to grow, and we can could divest those conditions through various means.
Likewise, as Buddha was saying, past karma or actions does not determine that a person is a murderer this life. A murderer can change and mend his ways, can take refuge in the triple gems and follow the noble eightfold path to awakening, and so forth. There is the cause of suffering, an end to suffering and a path that leads to the end of suffering. If nothing could be done to change our ways, then all sentient beings will be forever doomed. Buddhism is not about predeterminism or determinism.
Each person has autonomy and a choice to make. It doesn't matter what conditionings we have, we have the autonomy to make the right choice to undertake the path as taught by Buddha, to undergo the training of sila (conduct/precepts), samadhi (meditative composure), and prajna (wisdom, insight). These three trainings lead to liberation.
You can read more at https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2010/10/quietening-inner-chatter.html
Also, this one should clarify things:
THE TROUBLE WITH AGENCY
In INSIGHTS by James Corrigan4 Comments
Agency implies an agent. If there is no agent, there can be no agency. Agency, of course, is the action or intervention of a thing, or person, that produces an effect. To say that language can’t capture the truth is even more true when silly things are being stated. So when someone talks about causes and conditions, they are being silly because these are not the same. A cause is that which makes a thing happen. It implies an agent and agency, a veritable proliferation of sillinesses. A condition is that which opens the possibility of something happening. But conditions can never cause anything to happen because they are neither an agent nor have agency. Perhaps this surprises you. But think about all the things you thought were going to happen in your life that didn’t, and all the things that did that you never saw coming!
Scientists call this stochastic behavior, it extends all the way down to the quantum level, and perhaps especially there. It’s the reason why a computer needs a clock, that coordinates all the stochastic behavior of electronic components so that the device can actually accomplish the tasks it has been engineered to allow to happen. Notice I didn’t say make happen, because sometimes things don’t. And we’ve probably all experienced that too.
Often, in our attempts to make sense of reality, we fall into old habits of thought that arise from an understanding in our heads that things do things. Exorcising that understanding happens naturally when a certain point is reached, but without the direct experience, silliness abounds.
Parmenides, an Ancient Greek philosopher once wrote a poem about his insights into reality. He didn’t use any pronouns, and few, if any nouns. Smart people, thinking they knew what he meant, supplied a lot of additional wording that made the poem easier to read, but empty of truth. Then, once that was done, they realized that Parmenides hadn’t said the right thing in the right way, so they fixed that up too. When Parmenides said: “the same: to be and wherefore is intuitive awareness” (“ταὐτὸν δ᾽ ἐστὶ νοεῖν τε καὶ οὓνεκέν ἐστι νόημα”), equating the manifesting appearances and selfless knowing, they clarified it, equating “being” with “thinking,” turning it into a kind of “I think, therefore I am!” statement instead. Silliness. Neither the Greek word for thought, nor for thinking appears anywhere in Parmenides’ statement.
So, try to make sense of conditions, not as any kind of interaction between entities, not even in a metaphorical fashion. Instead, think of how a seed grows. The sun doesn’t cause the seed to grow, any more than rain does, or the soil, or all the bacteria, fungi, animals, and other plants do. Yet, for the seed to grow, all of those conditions need to be right, including the condition of the seed being present.
As to what causes the seed to grow, well, just let the idea of causes go. It involves agents and agency, and they are just silly nonsense. Understand that when the right conditions are present, the possibility of genesis is present, but what actually happens is uncaused.
Now divest that scenario of all sense of things inherent in it. Sunlight isn’t a thing, except as a concept. Neither is water, or soil, or all the life present in soil. These are all just ideas, ways to talk about reality in shorthand. Instead, see an amazing, and coherent presencing of selfless naturing. Don’t even hold onto the idea of a nature, as something doing the naturing. It will cause a cognitive dissonance that will tire you out, but the effort lays a groundwork for the direct experience to come. It’s all just more conditioning, and in this case, it’s called mind training, but it could be called mind conditioning as well, because you are not making anything happen, you are only developing the right conditions for certain experiences to happen.
So remember: there is no mind, instead there is just this awesome and beautiful selfless naturing. Or if you prefer, there is just this awesome and beautiful selfless minding. But no nature and no mind anywhere, just the appearance of awesome beauty. Reflect on that phrase, awesome beauty.
Another way of expressing it, that I use, is the visceral essence of selfless loving. But you can just call it bliss instead."
If an apple seed could determine that an apple tree Must grow, then nothing could be done to stop it. But it does not. Apple seed needs other conditions to grow, and we can could divest those conditions through various means.
Likewise, as Buddha was saying, past karma or actions does not determine that a person is a murderer this life. A murderer can change and mend his ways, can take refuge in the triple gems and follow the noble eightfold path to awakening, and so forth. There is the cause of suffering, an end to suffering and a path that leads to the end of suffering. If nothing could be done to change our ways, then all sentient beings will be forever doomed. Buddhism is not about predeterminism or determinism.
Each person has autonomy and a choice to make. It doesn't matter what conditionings we have, we have the autonomy to make the right choice to undertake the path as taught by Buddha, to undergo the training of sila (conduct/precepts), samadhi (meditative composure), and prajna (wisdom, insight). These three trainings lead to liberation.
You can read more at https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2010/10/quietening-inner-chatter.html
Also, this one should clarify things:
THE TROUBLE WITH AGENCY
In INSIGHTS by James Corrigan4 Comments
Agency implies an agent. If there is no agent, there can be no agency. Agency, of course, is the action or intervention of a thing, or person, that produces an effect. To say that language can’t capture the truth is even more true when silly things are being stated. So when someone talks about causes and conditions, they are being silly because these are not the same. A cause is that which makes a thing happen. It implies an agent and agency, a veritable proliferation of sillinesses. A condition is that which opens the possibility of something happening. But conditions can never cause anything to happen because they are neither an agent nor have agency. Perhaps this surprises you. But think about all the things you thought were going to happen in your life that didn’t, and all the things that did that you never saw coming!
Scientists call this stochastic behavior, it extends all the way down to the quantum level, and perhaps especially there. It’s the reason why a computer needs a clock, that coordinates all the stochastic behavior of electronic components so that the device can actually accomplish the tasks it has been engineered to allow to happen. Notice I didn’t say make happen, because sometimes things don’t. And we’ve probably all experienced that too.
Often, in our attempts to make sense of reality, we fall into old habits of thought that arise from an understanding in our heads that things do things. Exorcising that understanding happens naturally when a certain point is reached, but without the direct experience, silliness abounds.
Parmenides, an Ancient Greek philosopher once wrote a poem about his insights into reality. He didn’t use any pronouns, and few, if any nouns. Smart people, thinking they knew what he meant, supplied a lot of additional wording that made the poem easier to read, but empty of truth. Then, once that was done, they realized that Parmenides hadn’t said the right thing in the right way, so they fixed that up too. When Parmenides said: “the same: to be and wherefore is intuitive awareness” (“ταὐτὸν δ᾽ ἐστὶ νοεῖν τε καὶ οὓνεκέν ἐστι νόημα”), equating the manifesting appearances and selfless knowing, they clarified it, equating “being” with “thinking,” turning it into a kind of “I think, therefore I am!” statement instead. Silliness. Neither the Greek word for thought, nor for thinking appears anywhere in Parmenides’ statement.
So, try to make sense of conditions, not as any kind of interaction between entities, not even in a metaphorical fashion. Instead, think of how a seed grows. The sun doesn’t cause the seed to grow, any more than rain does, or the soil, or all the bacteria, fungi, animals, and other plants do. Yet, for the seed to grow, all of those conditions need to be right, including the condition of the seed being present.
As to what causes the seed to grow, well, just let the idea of causes go. It involves agents and agency, and they are just silly nonsense. Understand that when the right conditions are present, the possibility of genesis is present, but what actually happens is uncaused.
Now divest that scenario of all sense of things inherent in it. Sunlight isn’t a thing, except as a concept. Neither is water, or soil, or all the life present in soil. These are all just ideas, ways to talk about reality in shorthand. Instead, see an amazing, and coherent presencing of selfless naturing. Don’t even hold onto the idea of a nature, as something doing the naturing. It will cause a cognitive dissonance that will tire you out, but the effort lays a groundwork for the direct experience to come. It’s all just more conditioning, and in this case, it’s called mind training, but it could be called mind conditioning as well, because you are not making anything happen, you are only developing the right conditions for certain experiences to happen.
So remember: there is no mind, instead there is just this awesome and beautiful selfless naturing. Or if you prefer, there is just this awesome and beautiful selfless minding. But no nature and no mind anywhere, just the appearance of awesome beauty. Reflect on that phrase, awesome beauty.
Another way of expressing it, that I use, is the visceral essence of selfless loving. But you can just call it bliss instead."
Soh said: "Also read all my other replies on this thread carefully."
Mr EJ said, "Sorry maybe this is off topic, but question was, apple seed becoming an apple tree. There's a knowledge in there, a law. The law that knows an apple seed must grow to be an apple tree, not any other tree. What is that called in Buddhism?"
Soh replied: "That is referring to the general principle of dependent origination, of which karma is only a subset (also not applicable in your example of apple tree because karma literally means 'action' or volitional actions that only pertains to sentient beings, and trees are not karmically born sentient beings) but it is not a pre determining sort of law. An apple seed will not grow an apple tree unless there are other conditions involved. There are ways to stop it from growing.
Likewise nobody is 'predetermined' to be a murderer, etc. Karma, dependent origination, etc, does not determine that someone is so, and one always has autonomy and choice to steer the course away from suffering to liberation by engaging in the noble path taught by Buddha.
Likewise nobody is 'predetermined' to be a murderer, etc. Karma, dependent origination, etc, does not determine that someone is so, and one always has autonomy and choice to steer the course away from suffering to liberation by engaging in the noble path taught by Buddha.
Buddha:
"When this is, that comes to be; with the arising of this, that arises; when this is not, that does not come to be; with the cessation of this, that ceases; namely: dependent on ignorance, volitional formations....(and so on). Thus does this whole mass of suffering arise. With the utter cessation of ignorance, the cessation of volitional formations....(and so on). Thus does this whole mass of suffering cease.""
"When this is, that comes to be; with the arising of this, that arises; when this is not, that does not come to be; with the cessation of this, that ceases; namely: dependent on ignorance, volitional formations....(and so on). Thus does this whole mass of suffering arise. With the utter cessation of ignorance, the cessation of volitional formations....(and so on). Thus does this whole mass of suffering cease.""
...
Soh:
"“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
“Determinism would require truly established causes giving rise to established effects in a unilateral manner, thus based on that buddhadharma is not deterministic. Causes are only conventional, and cause and effect are bilateral dependencies. Like Āryadeva says, we might think the father is the cause of the child, but the child is also the cause of the father.
Re free will, we Buddhists acknowledge volition [cetana] but only conventionally. Free will is actually a monotheist principle used to reconcile sin with a creator deity. Thus free will proper is not a thing in Buddhism. Further, free will requires a rational agent which buddhadharma does not uphold. And actually we negate such a thing. As such we have conventional volition but are still subject to karma.” – Kyle Dixon, 2022
Also, here's Buddha's teaching: https://suttacentral.net/an6.38/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=none¬es=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 shared:
"[Someone wrote:] “There is nobody controlling anger, anger arise whether one wants to or not”
[John replied:] Maybe sees it this way:
There is no one controlling anger, anger arises due to dependent origination.
With ignorance comes attachment. When attachment meets its secondary conditions, anger arises. Without secondary conditions, anger does not arise. Although it does not arise, it will not cease to arise unless the primary cause is severed. Here the appearance of “spontaneous arising” is seen from the perspective of DO.
Seeing this way, there is anatta; there is dependent origination; there is mindfulness of the cause of anger, the conditions, the cure and the ending of it. There is no bypassing as in “nothing needs be done”, albeit no-self."
On the subject of free will, 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.
June 1 at 11:32am · Unlike · 8"
[John replied:] Maybe sees it this way:
There is no one controlling anger, anger arises due to dependent origination.
With ignorance comes attachment. When attachment meets its secondary conditions, anger arises. Without secondary conditions, anger does not arise. Although it does not arise, it will not cease to arise unless the primary cause is severed. Here the appearance of “spontaneous arising” is seen from the perspective of DO.
Seeing this way, there is anatta; there is dependent origination; there is mindfulness of the cause of anger, the conditions, the cure and the ending of it. There is no bypassing as in “nothing needs be done”, albeit no-self."
On the subject of free will, 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.
June 1 at 11:32am · Unlike · 8"
Soh:
"The Buddha said:
(Partial excerpt from https://suttacentral.net/an3.61/en/bodhi?lang=en&reference=none&highlight=false)
"Regarding this, I went up to the ascetics and brahmins whose view is that everything that is experienced is because of past deeds, and I said to them: ‘Is it really true that this is the venerables’ view?’ And they answered, ‘Yes’. I said to them: ‘In that case, you might kill living creatures, steal, be unchaste; use speech that’s false, divisive, harsh, or nonsensical; be covetous, malicious, or have wrong view, all because of past deeds.’
Those who believe that past deeds are the most important thing have no enthusiasm or effort, no idea that there are things that should and should not be done. Since they don’t actually find that there are things that should and should not be done, they’re unmindful and careless, and can’t rightly be called ascetics. This is my first legitimate refutation of the ascetics and brahmins who have this doctrine and view."
Continue reading from the link above"
(Partial excerpt from https://suttacentral.net/an3.61/en/bodhi?lang=en&reference=none&highlight=false)
"Regarding this, I went up to the ascetics and brahmins whose view is that everything that is experienced is because of past deeds, and I said to them: ‘Is it really true that this is the venerables’ view?’ And they answered, ‘Yes’. I said to them: ‘In that case, you might kill living creatures, steal, be unchaste; use speech that’s false, divisive, harsh, or nonsensical; be covetous, malicious, or have wrong view, all because of past deeds.’
Those who believe that past deeds are the most important thing have no enthusiasm or effort, no idea that there are things that should and should not be done. Since they don’t actually find that there are things that should and should not be done, they’re unmindful and careless, and can’t rightly be called ascetics. This is my first legitimate refutation of the ascetics and brahmins who have this doctrine and view."
Continue reading from the link above"
Mr. AZ asked, "isn't karma precisely conditionality?"
Soh replied, "No. Here's a partial excerpt from https://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/karma.htm
"...Refuting the erroneous view that "whatsoever fortune or misfortune experienced is all due to some previous action", the Buddha said:
"So, then, according to this view, owing to previous action men will become murderers, thieves, unchaste, liars, slanderers, covetous, malicious and perverts. Thus, for those who fall back on the former deeds as the essential reason, there is neither the desire to do, nor effort to do, nor necessity to do this deed, or abstain from this deed."
It was this important text, which states the belief that all physical circumstances and mental attitudes spring solely from past Karma that Buddha contradicted. If the present life is totally conditioned or wholly controlled by our past actions, then certainly Karma is tantamount to fatalism or determinism or predestination. If this were true, free will would be an absurdity. Life would be purely mechanistic, not much different from a machine. Being created by an Almighty God who controls our destinies and predetermines our future, or being produced by an irresistible Karma that completely determines our fate and controls our life’s course, independent of any free action on our part, is essentially the same. The only difference lies in the two words God and Karma. One could easily be substituted for the other, because the ultimate operation of both forces would be identical.
Such a fatalistic doctrine is not the Buddhist law of Karma.
According to Buddhism, there are five orders or processes (niyama) which operate in the physical and mental realms.
They are:
Utu Niyama - physical inorganic order, e.g. seasonal phenomena of winds and rains. The unerring order of seasons, characteristic seasonal changes and events, causes of winds and rains, nature of heat, etc., all belong to this group.
Bija Niyama - order of germs and seeds (physical organic order), e.g. rice produced from rice-seed, sugary taste from sugar-cane or honey, peculiar characteristics of certain fruits, etc. The scientific theory of cells and genes and the physical similarity of twins may be ascribed to this order.
Karma Niyama - order of act and result, e.g., desirable and undesirable acts produce corresponding good and bad results. As surely as water seeks its own level so does Karma, given opportunity, produce its inevitable result, not in the form of a reward or punishment but as an innate sequence. This sequence of deed and effect is as natural and necessary as the way of the sun and the moon.
Dhamma Niyama - order of the norm, e.g., the natural phenomena occurring at the advent of a Bodhisattva in his last birth. Gravitation and other similar laws of nature. The natural reason for being good and so forth, may be included in this group.
Citta Niyama - order or mind or psychic law, e.g., processes of consciousness, arising and perishing of consciousness, constituents of consciousness, power of mind, etc., including telepathy, telaesthesia, retro-cognition, premonition, clairvoyance, clairaudience, thought-reading and such other psychic phenomena which are inexplicable to modern science.
Every mental or physical phenomenon could be explained by these all-embracing five orders or processes which are laws in themselves. Karma as such is only one of these five orders. Like all other natural laws they demand no lawgiver...""
"...Refuting the erroneous view that "whatsoever fortune or misfortune experienced is all due to some previous action", the Buddha said:
"So, then, according to this view, owing to previous action men will become murderers, thieves, unchaste, liars, slanderers, covetous, malicious and perverts. Thus, for those who fall back on the former deeds as the essential reason, there is neither the desire to do, nor effort to do, nor necessity to do this deed, or abstain from this deed."
It was this important text, which states the belief that all physical circumstances and mental attitudes spring solely from past Karma that Buddha contradicted. If the present life is totally conditioned or wholly controlled by our past actions, then certainly Karma is tantamount to fatalism or determinism or predestination. If this were true, free will would be an absurdity. Life would be purely mechanistic, not much different from a machine. Being created by an Almighty God who controls our destinies and predetermines our future, or being produced by an irresistible Karma that completely determines our fate and controls our life’s course, independent of any free action on our part, is essentially the same. The only difference lies in the two words God and Karma. One could easily be substituted for the other, because the ultimate operation of both forces would be identical.
Such a fatalistic doctrine is not the Buddhist law of Karma.
According to Buddhism, there are five orders or processes (niyama) which operate in the physical and mental realms.
They are:
Utu Niyama - physical inorganic order, e.g. seasonal phenomena of winds and rains. The unerring order of seasons, characteristic seasonal changes and events, causes of winds and rains, nature of heat, etc., all belong to this group.
Bija Niyama - order of germs and seeds (physical organic order), e.g. rice produced from rice-seed, sugary taste from sugar-cane or honey, peculiar characteristics of certain fruits, etc. The scientific theory of cells and genes and the physical similarity of twins may be ascribed to this order.
Karma Niyama - order of act and result, e.g., desirable and undesirable acts produce corresponding good and bad results. As surely as water seeks its own level so does Karma, given opportunity, produce its inevitable result, not in the form of a reward or punishment but as an innate sequence. This sequence of deed and effect is as natural and necessary as the way of the sun and the moon.
Dhamma Niyama - order of the norm, e.g., the natural phenomena occurring at the advent of a Bodhisattva in his last birth. Gravitation and other similar laws of nature. The natural reason for being good and so forth, may be included in this group.
Citta Niyama - order or mind or psychic law, e.g., processes of consciousness, arising and perishing of consciousness, constituents of consciousness, power of mind, etc., including telepathy, telaesthesia, retro-cognition, premonition, clairvoyance, clairaudience, thought-reading and such other psychic phenomena which are inexplicable to modern science.
Every mental or physical phenomenon could be explained by these all-embracing five orders or processes which are laws in themselves. Karma as such is only one of these five orders. Like all other natural laws they demand no lawgiver...""
----
Soh:
After reading the other posts I made in this thread, I predict the neo advaitin minds will think, "how can there be choice, volition, autonomy if there is no self?"
The answer to this can be found here:
Partial excerpt: 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."
The answer to this can be found here:
Partial excerpt: 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."
----
ChatGPT summary:
In the provided conversation, Soh and other contributors explain why karma and dependent origination in Buddhism do not equate to determinism. Here's a summary of their key points:
Karma vs. Determinism:
- Karma refers to the law of cause and effect related to actions and their consequences. However, it is not deterministic because it does not rigidly fix outcomes based solely on past actions.
- Mr. EJ's Misconception: He initially suggests that everything unfolds due to karma, implying a deterministic worldview. Soh clarifies that this view misunderstands karma's flexibility.
- Autonomy and Change: Buddhism teaches that individuals possess volition (cetana), allowing them to make choices that can alter their karmic path. This means people can change their actions and mitigate past karma, preventing a fixed destiny.
Dependent Origination (Pratītyasamutpāda):
- Interdependent Causality: Dependent origination explains that all phenomena arise in dependence upon multiple conditions and causes. It emphasizes a bilateral and interconnected causal relationship rather than a single, unidirectional cause-effect mechanism.
- Flexibility and Non-Determinism: Since dependent origination involves numerous conditions, outcomes are not predetermined. Changes in any of the contributing factors can lead to different results, allowing for personal and spiritual transformation.
Rejection of Both Determinism and Indeterminism:
- Buddha's Teachings: The Buddha explicitly rejected both determinism (the idea that all events are predetermined and inevitable) and indeterminism (the notion that events occur without any cause).
- Middle Path Approach: Buddhism adopts a middle path, recognizing that while past actions influence present circumstances, individuals retain the capacity to make choices that shape their future.
Volition Without a Fixed Self:
- Anatta (No-Self): Buddhism teaches the concept of anatta, or no inherent self. Despite this, individuals still exercise volition through their intentions and actions.
- Choosing Without a Fixed Chooser: Actions occur without a permanent "self" orchestrating them, but the process of choosing and acting remains integral to personal development and liberation.
Practical Implications:
- Path to Liberation: Emphasizing personal effort, ethical conduct (sila), meditation (samadhi), and wisdom (prajna), Buddhism encourages individuals to actively engage in their spiritual journey, demonstrating that outcomes are not fixed by past karma alone.
- Potential for Change: Even those with negative past actions, such as murderers, have the opportunity to change and pursue enlightenment, underscoring the non-deterministic nature of karma.
Conclusion: Karma and dependent origination in Buddhism outline a complex web of interdependent causes and conditions that influence but do not rigidly determine outcomes. Buddhism upholds individual autonomy and the potential for change, rejecting both strict determinism and complete randomness. This framework allows for personal responsibility, ethical action, and the pursuit of spiritual liberation.
