Alex123 wrote:Hi Tilt, all,
If by choice you mean: certain thoughts, intentions, picking available options, deliberating course of action to do, making a decision - then I agree that this happens. However, why were there only these available options? Why does someone picks this, rather than that action? Due to causes.
So? There is still is a choosing this over that, or it could have gone the other way. It is choice.
What I disagree is with the implicit idea that above are independent of past causes.
The "implicit idea
" is your silly bugbear, having not a thing to do with what I am saying; it is part of your insistence upon a dead, mechanical determinism, which is something the Buddha did not teach, but rather comes out of a dry, spiritless reading of the Abhidhamma, little related to actual life.
If (certain thoughts, intentions, picking available options, deliberating course of action to do, making a decision) are not unconditioned, then they aren't freely chosen. It refutes the idea of a REAL choice made independent of conditionality, which is what I tried to show not to exist.
Again, this is your attempt at redefining choice to fit your limited, contracted point of view. Choice may be conditioned, but it is still choice.
I deny the idea of anything that relates to samsara and is unconditioned by any kind of cause (wholesome, unwholesome, neutral, physical or mental).
So? I never made such a claim. Choice does not have to be unconditioned to be choice.
tiltbillings wrote:"This being is bound to samsara, kamma [choice] is his means for going beyond." -SN I, 38.
I don't deny the importance or validity of kamma. I only deny the idea that it is uncaused, random, or that it is due to a will of a trully existing being
Have I said otherwise? Quite the contrary. Just because choice is conditioned does not mean there is no choice.
Choice and decision to do or not to do the above are fully conditioned, so they are not Free Will. You can't ask, lets say, a fundamentalist Christian to follow Buddha's instruction to the full - because they have different conditioning. You can't force yourself to believe in Zeus, Jehovah, or whatever. Why does a person believe X rather than Y? Due to conditioning.
And who is saying otherwise? Not me; however, conditioning does not prevent choice from being made, altering one's conditioning.
tiltbillings wrote:The problem with this overly simplistic and overly narrow statement is that there is rarely - if ever - one "root" or one bit of conditioning at play, which is why the lustful person can choose not to act upon his or her lustful drive, altering his or her conditioning. A lustful action may come from a lustful "root," but there may be - and far more likely than not, are - other conditionings at play as well. Not acting on a lustful bit of conditioning may come from a wholesome root, but other bits of conditioning may be - and far more likely than not, are - at play.
Right, there are rarely if ever one root in a period of time. This is why a lustful person can choose not to act upon his/her lustful drive. But why do some people ACT on lust even without thinking that lust is bad, and some people resist it? Due to presence or absence of other roots.
Well, you have just totally undercut your own argument. People do ACT and they can choose how to act in the context of their conditioning, which what the Buddha has said. If cannot choose how to act there is no awakening.
Instead of repeating the same crap over and over about unconditioned choice, which is not what I am saying, why don't you try something new, like taking the Buddha's teachings seriously beyond trying excuse away bad behavior because of conditioning.