Posts
Wrote this as the topic came up in discussion:
Manage
Manage
Manage
Manage
Manage
Manage
Manage
Manage
Manage
Manage
Manage
Manage
Manage
Manage
Determinism
has the flaw which erroneously misapprehends that internal thought,
decision or action is always triggered by an external process (such as
the environment). This causes passivity -- there's no need to do
anything or nothing that can be done since 'actions' are always
triggered only by something else (such as the environment), and there is
also no possibility of an action or thought to be otherwise (thus
negating the path of purification, transformation and liberation).
Determinism is sort of like a false logic of 'you steal because you're
poor, therefore being poor determined your stealing', as if being poor
causes your stealing, but that needn't be the case as you can just beg
for food without stealing, or better yet seek some financial assistance
and find a job.
In the first verse of Dhammapada, the Buddha set out the cause for the importance of mind-training:
Mind is the forerunner of all states.
Mind is chief;
mind-made are they.
If one speaks or acts with wicked mind,
because of that, suffering follows one,
even as the wheel follows the hoof of
the draught-ox.
Mind is the forerunner of all states.
Mind is chief;
mind-made are they.
If one speaks or acts with pure mind,
because of that, happiness follows one,
even as one’s shadow that never leaves
On the other hand, free will has
the flaw of thinking that an internal agent is the cause of an action,
this is a delusion. No agent truly exists. With investigation it can be
seen that thought or decision arises spontaneously, unbidden and unknown
even a moment ago, with no thinker or watcher behind the thought.
And yet, actions arise from a conventionally labelled 'internal process' which includes thoughts, intentions, and so forth. Mind is the forerunner of all our thoughts, speech and deeds. And yet this 'Mind' is only conventionally labelled upon an 'internal' process, it is not a real entity. There is just a process of thoughts, actions and sensations without a doer or thinker or experiencer in any case. However, you cannot blame your unwholesome thoughts, speech, or actions on anything 'external' such as an environment. 'Mind' is indeed the forerunner of your own actions and consequences.
This process called "Mind" can be purified, or transformed, or liberated. This requires following the path of Buddhadharma. Completely unlike the neo-Advaitin notion of 'everything is just happening on its own and therefore there's nothing that no one can do, no path, etc'. This goes beyond the extremes of free will and determinism. Nowadays this topic does not come up in my mind at all since it has long resolved itself. I only see dharma and conditionality.
I do not see causality of entities causing entities to react in certain ways, I see conditionality. I water the plants, I plant the seed, I nurture the soil, and let the sun shine on it. Yet I do not say that I am the cause of the plant growing, nor do I say the water caused the plant to grow, nor the seed, nor the soil, nor the sun that 'caused' the plant to grow, or even the sum total of them that 'causes' the plant to grow (since each of them are not an agent that causes something to happen how can you perceive the sum of the non-agents to be an agent?) Instead what arises, arises only when all conditions are met, yet it is not via the kind of 'causality' that implies agency but 'relativity' or 'conditionality'. This itself frees one from the extremes of determinism and free will.
And yet, actions arise from a conventionally labelled 'internal process' which includes thoughts, intentions, and so forth. Mind is the forerunner of all our thoughts, speech and deeds. And yet this 'Mind' is only conventionally labelled upon an 'internal' process, it is not a real entity. There is just a process of thoughts, actions and sensations without a doer or thinker or experiencer in any case. However, you cannot blame your unwholesome thoughts, speech, or actions on anything 'external' such as an environment. 'Mind' is indeed the forerunner of your own actions and consequences.
This process called "Mind" can be purified, or transformed, or liberated. This requires following the path of Buddhadharma. Completely unlike the neo-Advaitin notion of 'everything is just happening on its own and therefore there's nothing that no one can do, no path, etc'. This goes beyond the extremes of free will and determinism. Nowadays this topic does not come up in my mind at all since it has long resolved itself. I only see dharma and conditionality.
I do not see causality of entities causing entities to react in certain ways, I see conditionality. I water the plants, I plant the seed, I nurture the soil, and let the sun shine on it. Yet I do not say that I am the cause of the plant growing, nor do I say the water caused the plant to grow, nor the seed, nor the soil, nor the sun that 'caused' the plant to grow, or even the sum total of them that 'causes' the plant to grow (since each of them are not an agent that causes something to happen how can you perceive the sum of the non-agents to be an agent?) Instead what arises, arises only when all conditions are met, yet it is not via the kind of 'causality' that implies agency but 'relativity' or 'conditionality'. This itself frees one from the extremes of determinism and free will.
In the first verse of Dhammapada, the Buddha set out the cause for the importance of mind-training:
Mind is the forerunner of all states.
Mind is chief;
mind-made are they.
If one speaks or acts with wicked mind,
because of that, suffering follows one,
even as the wheel follows the hoof of
the draught-ox.
Mind is the forerunner of all states.
Mind is chief;
mind-made are they.
If one speaks or acts with pure mind,
because of that, happiness follows one,
even as one’s shadow that never leaves
Peter Wang But
if thoughts, actions, and intention are spontaneously arising, where or
what is the agent that evaluates and drives to perform wholesome vs
unwholesome action. How can something be spontaneous yet there seems to
be a process that chooses between right
and wrong? Choice implies free will. Does the mind become the agent of
choice? Then doesn't that make mind just another word for ego, chooser,
doer? Mind like those words are also conceptual. Then the intention to
purify the mind, if not spontaneous, must come from some agent that
results in "I" should be moral and perform wholesome actions.
Soh Wei Yu There
is no agent whatsoever. Choices, intentions, and actions are always a
happening. This process happens due to mental conditions which can be
purified, transformed and liberated. Mind can be purified of incoming
defilements and become luminous, as the Buddha taught in Pabhassara Sutta. This luminous, pure mind is the condition for all wholesome and liberated actions.
p.s. I say 'become' but it's not so accurate. Mind is by nature luminous, its luminosity is only temporarily obscured.
p.s. I say 'become' but it's not so accurate. Mind is by nature luminous, its luminosity is only temporarily obscured.
Peter Wang Then
one must be lucky enough to encounter the teaching and be in a
situation where one's own defilement processes are less influential than
the ones of the dhamma. But at the end, if it's, all spontaneous... it
seems like universal karmic will?
Peter Wang Soh Wei Yu
So x, y, z factors are present leads to event A occuring. All
spontaneous. Whatever choices "we" appear to make is a sum total of all
factors that give rise to that event. So no free will, just process. It
does appear a little bit on the determinism
side. Causality. The poor kid stealing is a result of being poor, not
having moral values, and not concerned about being caught, because he's
too hungry to wait. And perhaps he's embarrassed to beg. Now had he been
introduced with another variable prior to the event (say the dhamma),
event B would occur and he would go beg instead. Diff results due to
diff factors.
Soh Wei Yu Since
each of the factor is not a cause or agent for an action, the sum total
of the non agents does not amount to an agent. Determinism is founded
on the false premise that one or many or the total of those factors are
agents or causes. As James Corrigan
wrote, just let the silly notion of agency go. Saying that something is
determined by something else, either an individual or the sum total of
it, is wrong. We can only say that this arises along with that arising
due to conditionality but not in terms of causes.
He wrote the same analogy as me:
http://levekunst.com/the-trouble-with-agency/
Also as Jay Garfield pointed out, Nagarjuna also rejected causes in favour of conditions:
When Nagarjuna uses the word "cause" (hetu [rGyu]), he has in mind an event or state that has in it a power(kriya[Bya Ba]) to bring about its effect, and has that power as part of its essence or nature (svabhava [Rang bZhin]). When he uses the term "condition," on the other hand (pratyaya [rKyen]), he has in mind an event, state, or process that can be appealed to in explaining another event, state, or process, without any metaphysical commitment to any occult connection between explanandum and explanans. In chapter 1, Nagarjuna, we shall see, argues against the existence of causes and for the existence of a variety of kinds of conditions.[3]
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../Jay%20L...
ManageHe wrote the same analogy as me:
http://levekunst.com/the-trouble-with-agency/
Also as Jay Garfield pointed out, Nagarjuna also rejected causes in favour of conditions:
When Nagarjuna uses the word "cause" (hetu [rGyu]), he has in mind an event or state that has in it a power(kriya[Bya Ba]) to bring about its effect, and has that power as part of its essence or nature (svabhava [Rang bZhin]). When he uses the term "condition," on the other hand (pratyaya [rKyen]), he has in mind an event, state, or process that can be appealed to in explaining another event, state, or process, without any metaphysical commitment to any occult connection between explanandum and explanans. In chapter 1, Nagarjuna, we shall see, argues against the existence of causes and for the existence of a variety of kinds of conditions.[3]
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../Jay%20L...
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland What
a lovely discussion. I think it would be beneficial to have a much
expanded vocabulary when talking about these things, with much more
subtle nuance than an everyday conversation.
Just one example is to distinguish "determinism" and "pre-determinism". I would suggest that one use the term determinism to mean that a thing is dependent on something else. This seems to be true on all levels. No one can argue that plants grow without water. So plants depend on water. Water determines plant growth.
But after a thing like this has been suggested, what happens in different peoples' minds is a little up in the air. Many will take this simple fact of determination or conditionality, and project it back and forwards in time and come to a conclusion that everything is PRE-determined. This leads to saying things like "there aren't choices", etc.
On one hand, maybe it is true that determinism implies and necessitates pre-determination. Or maybe it doesn't. But, on the other hand, *even if* we may not be able to prove that determinism doesn't entail pre-determination, it may actually be simply UNHELPFUL to focus on THIS aspect of determination (i.e. that it entails pre-determination), and it might be simply HELPFUL to focus on ANOTHER aspect of determination. What might this other aspect of determination be? That it refutes a misconception of self that, when refuted, leads to much more joy and freedom than anything else.
Just one example is to distinguish "determinism" and "pre-determinism". I would suggest that one use the term determinism to mean that a thing is dependent on something else. This seems to be true on all levels. No one can argue that plants grow without water. So plants depend on water. Water determines plant growth.
But after a thing like this has been suggested, what happens in different peoples' minds is a little up in the air. Many will take this simple fact of determination or conditionality, and project it back and forwards in time and come to a conclusion that everything is PRE-determined. This leads to saying things like "there aren't choices", etc.
On one hand, maybe it is true that determinism implies and necessitates pre-determination. Or maybe it doesn't. But, on the other hand, *even if* we may not be able to prove that determinism doesn't entail pre-determination, it may actually be simply UNHELPFUL to focus on THIS aspect of determination (i.e. that it entails pre-determination), and it might be simply HELPFUL to focus on ANOTHER aspect of determination. What might this other aspect of determination be? That it refutes a misconception of self that, when refuted, leads to much more joy and freedom than anything else.
Soh Wei Yu Yes
I would say the practicality of dependent origination is not to
formulate a fanciful theory but to 1) understand the conventional
implications of suffering, causes and the path to end suffering, and
thus also being free from the extremes of eternalism
and nihilism of the externalist paths 2) the actualization of general
d.o. Into a seamless coherent presencing that is total exertion
completely emptied of any sense of self, and 3) the actualization of
appearances as empty-clarity equal to space and illusions. It has not
much practical use besides these, certainly its purpose is not to
produce more proliferations and theorizing and conceptualisations.
After all, the Buddha himself said that he is free of all theories.
After all, the Buddha himself said that he is free of all theories.
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Says it’s not meant to be a fanciful theory.
Proceeds to use phrases like
“the actualization of general d.o. Into a seamless coherent presencing that is total exertion completely emptied of any sense of self”,
and
“the actualization of appearances as empty-clarity equal to space and illusions”.
Proceeds to use phrases like
“the actualization of general d.o. Into a seamless coherent presencing that is total exertion completely emptied of any sense of self”,
and
“the actualization of appearances as empty-clarity equal to space and illusions”.
Soh Wei Yu Well Stian Gudmundsen Høiland, it’s actually a direct yogic taste in my experience, however i can see how it sounds like a theory
Soh Wei Yu Even
without a concept, when I breathe or eat it feels like the whole
universe is the activity of eating, and yet the entirety of it is
completely empty like a holographic illusion. There is no sense of a
self/Self/agent involved.
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 1h
Soh Wei Yu Also,
non-doership is not to be mechanical and machine-like. You are not a
robot. Have to realize and actualise this quality described by Rob :
"About 13 times in my life, in the past 3 years, I would wake up from sleep in the morning and before the mind kick-started I would be overwhelmed with the absolute aliveness around me. The stillness. The joy felt deep, deep, deep within – the joy of Being Alive. That I exist! It was like a revelation – I exist! I Exist! How amazing! What a miracle! I exist!!!!! I Am!! Each cell of my body was full of aliveness. And as quickly and spontaneously and uninvited it came, it left. The ‘me’ wanted to snatch the experience for itself and own it. Possess it. It is so strange to me, that, when it happens, it's so obvious, so clearly the case, you know you can’t lose it – and the second you think that, it's gone. It is like trying to grab a handful of water. Rob" (taken from http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/actua.../others/corr-pce.htm )
Manage"About 13 times in my life, in the past 3 years, I would wake up from sleep in the morning and before the mind kick-started I would be overwhelmed with the absolute aliveness around me. The stillness. The joy felt deep, deep, deep within – the joy of Being Alive. That I exist! It was like a revelation – I exist! I Exist! How amazing! What a miracle! I exist!!!!! I Am!! Each cell of my body was full of aliveness. And as quickly and spontaneously and uninvited it came, it left. The ‘me’ wanted to snatch the experience for itself and own it. Possess it. It is so strange to me, that, when it happens, it's so obvious, so clearly the case, you know you can’t lose it – and the second you think that, it's gone. It is like trying to grab a handful of water. Rob" (taken from http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/actua.../others/corr-pce.htm )
Soh Wei Yu This
state of hyper aliveness is my everyday constant experience, unlike
those peak experiences described above (only 13 times? hah!). And it is
centerless and boundless after anatta, not contained within the body or
even limited to the bodily sensations but also manifests as the very
radiance of all sights, sounds, smells, etc. It can be very blissful and
intense especially if one is having quality time not lost in thoughts.
Conceptualizing too much (including about free-will vs determinism) can
be hindrance.
Soh Wei Yu Alan
Watts: "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."
It should be added that cause and effect are dependently designated by the designating consciousness. They are not pre-given realities, one existing before another. Parents are only the parents of a child when a child is born.
How can a cause predetermine an effect if a conventionally labelled cause cannot be established in and of itself apart from the conventionally labelled effect?
It should be added that cause and effect are dependently designated by the designating consciousness. They are not pre-given realities, one existing before another. Parents are only the parents of a child when a child is born.
How can a cause predetermine an effect if a conventionally labelled cause cannot be established in and of itself apart from the conventionally labelled effect?
Peter Wang I'm
starting to see what you mean, determinism and free will are only
relevant under the notion of separate independent things (agents)
existing within the universe. But that's a false premise to begin with
because nothing is ever separate or apart from
the universe/existence, hence no agents. Agents are conceptual and work
in the relative framework. So events are as they are. So those on the
path are essentially part of some conscious process attempting to purify
itself of defilements and the apparent struggle is just a natural
unfolding.
Soh Wei Yu Also,
non-doership is not to be mechanical and machine-like. You are not a
robot. Have to realize and actualise this quality described by Rob :
"About 13 times in my life, in the past 3 years, I would wake up from sleep in the morning and before the mind kick-started I would be overwhelmed with the absolute aliveness around me. The stillness. The joy felt deep, deep, deep within – the joy of Being Alive. That I exist! It was like a revelation – I exist! I Exist! How amazing! What a miracle! I exist!!!!! I Am!! Each cell of my body was full of aliveness. And as quickly and spontaneously and uninvited it came, it left. The ‘me’ wanted to snatch the experience for itself and own it. Possess it. It is so strange to me, that, when it happens, it's so obvious, so clearly the case, you know you can’t lose it – and the second you think that, it's gone. It is like trying to grab a handful of water. Rob" (taken from http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/actua.../others/corr-pce.htm )
Manage"About 13 times in my life, in the past 3 years, I would wake up from sleep in the morning and before the mind kick-started I would be overwhelmed with the absolute aliveness around me. The stillness. The joy felt deep, deep, deep within – the joy of Being Alive. That I exist! It was like a revelation – I exist! I Exist! How amazing! What a miracle! I exist!!!!! I Am!! Each cell of my body was full of aliveness. And as quickly and spontaneously and uninvited it came, it left. The ‘me’ wanted to snatch the experience for itself and own it. Possess it. It is so strange to me, that, when it happens, it's so obvious, so clearly the case, you know you can’t lose it – and the second you think that, it's gone. It is like trying to grab a handful of water. Rob" (taken from http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/actua.../others/corr-pce.htm )
Soh Wei Yu This
state of hyper aliveness is my everyday constant experience, unlike
those peak experiences described above (only 13 times? hah!). And it is
centerless and boundless after anatta, not contained within the body or
even limited to the bodily sensations
but also manifests as the very radiance of all sights, sounds, smells,
etc. It can be very blissful and intense especially if one is having
quality time not lost in thoughts. Conceptualizing too much (including
about free-will vs determinism) can be hindrance.
Soh Wei Yu Alan
Watts: "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."
It should be added that cause and effect are dependently designated by the designating consciousness. They are not pre-given realities, one existing before another. Parents are only the parents of a child when a child is born.
How can a cause predetermine an effect if a conventionally labelled cause cannot be established in and of itself apart from the conventionally labelled effect?
It should be added that cause and effect are dependently designated by the designating consciousness. They are not pre-given realities, one existing before another. Parents are only the parents of a child when a child is born.
How can a cause predetermine an effect if a conventionally labelled cause cannot be established in and of itself apart from the conventionally labelled effect?
