Did the Buddha teach we have choice? (aka The Great Free Will v Determinism Debate)

[mikenz66]

Hi Tilt,

You are going to have to draw out from the article what the "agents" in fact are; otherwise, Alexis going to choose to distort what is being said here.

Sure:

Although the Buddha denied ultimate agency—the singular point from which soul
ultimately controls the body—he acknowledged moral choice and personal retribution.
The agent in this case is nothing but a collection of physical and mental processes,
but as such it can still choose what to do.

There is action... Not dust...

Mike

[Alex123]

Hi Tilt,

If there is control of the senses, it is because a series of choices to practice in a way, as the Buddha taught, altering our conditioning. Choice, meaning that one could opt not to do the what the Buddha taught. The Dhammapada texts point to clear choices of action between this or that. It is up to the individual to choose to act this way of that way.

And those choice arise because there are requisite conditions for them to arise. One has enough wisdom to see the benefit of sense restraint, the drawbacks of sensuality, and knows what to do in the first place. If there are too much negative qualities and not enough faith or wisdom, then one may not even think

If there are causes for sense restraint to occur, sense restraint occurs, never non-restraint of the senses.
causes = plural.

Conditioning is hardly a singular "cause" thing, thusly giving us options.

And I wasn't talking about a single cause. I was talking about many.

If there are causes for wholesome kamma to be made, wholesome kamma is made, never unwholesome.
If there are causes for unwholesome kamma to be made, unwholesome kamma is made, never wholesome.

Since when is there simply a singular bit of conditioning - and only that - at play during a moment of choice? This may be so in your simplistic world of dead mechanical causality.

Or do you propose that despite there being causes of wholesome kamma to be made, unwholesome kamma can occur instead?

Your usual trotting out of

Tilt, I was not talking about a single cause. I was using causes in plural. And what kind of convincing response is "Your usual trotting out"?


Do you propose that: Despite there being many complex causes for wholesome kamma occur, unwholesome kamma can occur instead ?
Note: causes = plural.

With metta,

Alex

[Alex123]

Hello Mike,

There is action... Not dust...

Do you agree with:

Whatever action arises, it arises in the only possible way that it could ever arise given those set of many complex internal/external, past or present, set of conditions. If additional conditions were added, the different action would arise in accordance with those additional conditions.

You can answer is simple "yes or no" .

With metta,

Alex

[tiltbillings]

Hi Tilt,

You are going to have to draw out from the article what the "agents" in fact are; otherwise, Alexis going to choose to distort what is being said here.

Sure:

Although the Buddha denied ultimate agency—the singular point from which soul
ultimately controls the body—he acknowledged moral choice and personal retribution.
The agent in this case is nothing but a collection of physical and mental processes,
but as such it can still choose what to do.

There is action... Not dust...

Mike

But be prepared for the march of the

[tiltbillings]

If there are causes for sense restraint to occur, sense restraint occurs, never non-restraint of the senses.
causes = plural.

Sure, but before the choice was made, there would be the option to not act in accordance with the Buddha's teaching. It is making of the choice that is the deciding condition, which means it could have gone differently. If it could not have gone differently, there would have been no choice.

Conditioning is hardly a singular "cause" thing, thusly giving us options.

And I wasn't talking about a single cause. I was talking about many.

Now you are.

[tiltbillings]

Tilt, I was not talking about a single cause. I was using causes in plural. And what kind of convincing response is "Your usual trotting out"?

It simply points out that, despite what is being said by others here, you very frequently trot out your straw-man argument that does not address what the other said.

Do you propose that: Despite there being many complex causes for wholesome kamma occur, unwholesome kamma can occur instead ?
Note: causes = plural.

I have addressed this more than once. The complex of causes is most likely a mixture, which is why the individual could act this way or that way. It is the action of choosing - kamma - among viable options that is the determining condition.

[Alex123]

Hi Tilt,

If there are causes for sense restraint to occur, sense restraint occurs, never non-restraint of the senses.
causes = plural.

Sure, but before the choice was made, there would be the option to not act in accordance with the Buddha's teaching. It is making of the choice that is the deciding condition, which means it could have gone differently. If it could not have gone differently, there would have been no choice.

If there are causes for "option not act in accordance with the Buddha's teaching" to occur, then option of not acting in accordance with the Buddha's teaching occurs.

Or do you propose that Despite there being many complex causes for "option not act in accordance with the Buddha's teaching" to occur, option to act in accordance with the Buddha's teach can occur instead ?

Conditioning is hardly a singular "cause" thing, thusly giving us options.

And I wasn't talking about a single cause. I was talking about many.

Now you are.

Tilt,

In SN35.193 the Anatta of consciousness is explained as consciousness arising due to causes and conditions.
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 20#p100072" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

notice "due to causes and conditions". I started posting from page2 of this thread. And even there I've used causes and conditions. Plural.

In my 2nd post on page 1 in the "Meditation, conditionality, and anatta" thread I've mentioned multiple causes. So straw man is all yours.

Some say, "put in the required causes and the effects will follow". But even "putting in the causes" is still beyond control, fully conditioned, and not-Self. There isn't any Self-Agency that can do things...
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... t=0#p98280" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

With metta,

Alex

[Alex123]

Hello Tilt,

Do you propose that: Despite there being many complex causes for wholesome kamma occur, unwholesome kamma can occur instead ?
Note: causes = plural.

I have addressed this more than once. The complex of causes is most likely a mixture, which is why the individual could act this way or that way. It is the action of choosing - kamma - among viable options that is the determining condition.

Thank you for answering!


So just because there is a mixture of many trillions of complex interrelated causes doesn't alter the fact that this mixture of many trillions of complex interrelated causes is the cause for wholesome rather than unwholesome kamma to occur.

"The action of choosing - kamma - among viable options" happens due to a mixture of many trillions of complex interrelated causes. When these many causes are, the specific result occurs. If these causes were absent, "The action of choosing - kamma - among viable options" would not occur or would be different in accordance with differences of causes.


If there are causes for X to occur, X occurs, never not-X. Tilt, Do you agree?

causes = a mixture of many trillions of complex interrelated causes
X = "The action of choosing - kamma - among viable options" , or anything else


With metta,

Alex

[tiltbillings]

Hi Tilt,

If there are causes for sense restraint to occur, sense restraint occurs, never non-restraint of the senses.
causes = plural.

Sure, but before the choice was made, there would be the option to not act in accordance with the Buddha's teaching. It is making of the choice that is the deciding condition, which means it could have gone differently. If it could not have gone differently, there would have been no choice.

If there are causes for "option not act in accordance with the Buddha's teaching" to occur, then option of not acting in accordance with the Buddha's teaching occurs.

If that is one of the options presented by the mixed bag of conditioning present AND only if the choice - the deciding condition - is made in that direction.

Or do you propose that Despite there being many complex causes for "option not act in accordance with the Buddha's teaching" to occur, option to act in accordance with the Buddha's teach can occur instead ?

If acting in accordance with the Buddha's teachings is also an option, that realistically it could be a choice of action.

In SN35.193 the Anatta of consciousness is explained as consciousness arising due to causes and conditions.
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 20#p100072" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

notice "due to causes and conditions". I started posting from page2 of this thread. And even there I've used causes and conditions. Plural.

But if you look at your overall language it comes across as singular.

[tiltbillings]

Hello Tilt,

Do you propose that: Despite there being many complex causes for wholesome kamma occur, unwholesome kamma can occur instead ?
Note: causes = plural.

I have addressed this more than once. The complex of causes is most likely a mixture, which is why the individual could act this way or that way. It is the action of choosing - kamma - among viable options that is the determining condition.

Thank you for answering!

And it would be nice if you would do the same.

So just because there is a mixture of many trillions of complex interrelated causes doesn't alter the fact that this mixture of many trillions of complex interrelated causes is the cause for wholesome rather than unwholesome kamma to occur.

What?

"The action of choosing - kamma - among viable options" happens due to a mixture of many trillions of complex interrelated causes. When these many causes are, the specific result occurs. If these causes were absent, "The action of choosing - kamma - among viable options" would not occur or would be different in accordance with differences of causes.


If there are causes for X to occur, X occurs, never not-X. Tilt, Do you agree?

No. I really find your presntation a bit off. I am not going to accept your attempt at re-wording, and actually reframing, of what I clearly said.

causes = a mixture of many trillions of complex interrelated causes

You really don't get it, or you are just trying to be difficult.

X = "The action of choosing - kamma - among viable options" , or anything else

Damdifino what you are talking about here.

[Alex123]

If that is one of the options presented by the mixed bag of conditioning present AND only if the choice - the deciding condition - is made in that direction.

If acting in accordance with the Buddha's teachings is also an option, that realistically it could be a choice of action.

The options are fully conditioned. When there are all the requisite trillions of complex and interrelated conditions for set of options X to occur, set of options X occur never the other set. Tilt, do you agree with this?

The choice of action occurs because there are all the requisite trillions of complex and interrelated conditions for that as opposed to other choice of action to occur. Tilt, do you agree with this?

But if you look at your overall language it comes across as singular.

I am sorry if my communication was less then ideal. Since page 1 of the original topic

Some say, "put in the required causes and the effects will follow". But even "putting in the causes" is still beyond control, fully conditioned, and not-Self. There isn't any Self-Agency that can do things...
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... t=0#p98280" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I’ve talked about multiple causes and conditions. Multiple could mean trillions and trillions.


With metta,

Alex

[Ceisiwr]

If new causes are inputed (having heard true Dhamma) then the cause-effect stream will change. So the situation is not un-changeble. Also what happens now dependent on past causes and what happens now. The Buddha taught us out of compassion so that his wisdom would insert the causes for Arhatship to occur

.

So things that happen now are determined on past causes yes?

Is my acceptence of the 4NT's determined by past causes or was their a choice in accepting them?

Yes or no

So the situation is not hopeless.

If it is determined then it is "hopeless" since their is no choice, there is just the ball of string

[Alex123]

Hi Tilt,

So just because there is a mixture of many trillions of complex interrelated causes doesn't alter the fact that this mixture of many trillions of complex interrelated causes is the cause for wholesome rather than unwholesome kamma to occur.

What?

The teaching of conditionality doesn’t alter in principle if by causes one includes trillions of causes rather than just one cause. Neither does the complexity and interrelatedness of non-dynamic and functional causes alter the basic principle that

Certain set of causes leads to certain set of results.

If there are causes for X to occur, X occurs, never not-X. Tilt, Do you agree?

No. I really find your presntation a bit off. I am not going to accept your attempt at re-wording, and actually reframing, of what I clearly said.

So are you saying that:
Despite there being the causes for X to occur, not-X occurs instead?


With metta,

Alex

[tiltbillings]

If that is one of the options presented by the mixed bag of conditioning present AND only if the choice - the deciding condition - is made in that direction.

If acting in accordance with the Buddha's teachings is also an option, that realistically it could be a choice of action.

The options are fully conditioned. When there are all the requisite trillions of complex and interrelated conditions for set of options X to occur, set of options X occur never the other set. Tilt, do you agree with this?

Too vague.

The choice of action occurs because there are all the requisite trillions of complex and interrelated conditions for that as opposed to other choice of action to occur. Tilt, do you agree with this?

Way too vague.

I’ve talked about multiple causes and conditions. Multiple could mean trillions and trillions.

Do you choose among trillions and trillions when you are choosing tyoe what you type. Are you aware of them all? I think I understand your hypebole here, but I am not going to respond to it.

[Ceisiwr]

If there are causes for X to occur, X occurs, never not-X. Tilt, Do you agree?

So you are an ajivaka

'Though one might think," "Through this morality, this practice, this austerity, or this holy life I will ripen unripened kamma and eliminate ripened kamma whenever touched by it" — that is impossible. Pleasure and pain are measured out, the wandering-on is fixed in its limits. There is no shortening or lengthening, no accelerating or decelerating. Just as a ball of string, when thrown, comes to its end simply by unwinding, in the same way, having transmigrated and wandered on, the wise and the foolish alike will put an end to pain.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Which would mean wrong view, wrong intention .. wrong effort .. wrong insight