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

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 3853
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

Re: Did the Buddha teach that we have choice?

Post by Modus.Ponens »

Emanresu wrote:
Modus.Ponens wrote:Pure determinism is an inevitable consequence of the principle of causality, which is a principle I think the Buddha thaught. However, only a person completely aware of the laws that run the universe and what the present state of the universe is would be devoid of choice.
Hello,

I agree with the first sentence, but not with the second one, because I think that this kind of omniscience would itself become a determinant of one's choices/actions - unless we assume that knowledge is a passive thing with no influence on choice/action, which is certainly not what the Buddha taught. In other words: The omniscience you mention would enable the omniscient being to change the future it "foresees" as far as its own sphere of influence is concerned, unless (and I can only repeat myself here) you assume that knowledge (omniscience in this case) is passive and cannot itself become a determinant. So there is no room for fatalism in the sense that the future is unchangable regardless of what one knows. Knowledge can make a huge difference, which is still deterministic, but not fatalistic like "I see it coming but can't do anything", because if I see it coming I can change it (provided it is within the range of what I can do with my body or mind).

All the best!
Hello.

Good point. You pointed out a stronger paradox. Since I think such omniscience doesn't exist, this is in the domain of speculation. However, we can discuss it :) . I think the mistake in your line of thought is that such omniscient being would foresee a different scenario from what could happen if he acted differently. The thing is that there is only one possible future due to pure determinism and such being is compleetely bound to act acording to causes. He/she would be the only one devoid of choice because he/she would be aware of that.
'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' - Jhana Sutta
User avatar
kirk5a
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: Did the Buddha teach that we have choice?

Post by kirk5a »

Modus.Ponens wrote:[
Hello.

Good point. You pointed out a stronger paradox. Since I think such omniscience doesn't exist, this is in the domain of speculation. However, we can discuss it :) . I think the mistake in your line of thought is that such omniscient being would foresee a different scenario from what could happen if he acted differently. The thing is that there is only one possible future due to pure determinism and such being is compleetely bound to act acording to causes. He/she would be the only one devoid of choice because he/she would be aware of that.
"one possible future"...

Is "one possible future" even supported by modern physics with regard to the material realm? Isn't it a matter of "probable futures"? If so, that sorta kicks the legs out from underneath the application of the "one possible future" view with regard to the mental.
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
User avatar
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 3853
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

Re: Did the Buddha teach that we have choice?

Post by Modus.Ponens »

kirk5a wrote: "one possible future"...

Is "one possible future" even supported by modern physics with regard to the material realm? Isn't it a matter of "probable futures"? If so, that sorta kicks the legs out from underneath the application of the "one possible future" view with regard to the mental.
It depends on the particular interpretation of quantum mechanics we are talking about. My preffered interpretation, from what I understand of it, is the De Broglie-Bohm interpretation, because it's deterministic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_interpretation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' - Jhana Sutta
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: Did the Buddha teach that we have choice?

Post by Individual »

mikenz66 wrote:Hi Individual,
Individual wrote:
Alex123 wrote: If one can't wish or will away ignorance, then one can't will or wish away that which is caused by ignorance, namely saṅkhāra. And Saṅkhāra includes all choice, intention and will.

" From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications". avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā - Ud1.3 and many suttas.
Let's be clear here by what we mean by "requisite condition." Ignorance is a sufficient condition for fabrications, but it is not a necessary condition. The same applies to all the factors of dependent origination. :)
It seems to me you have your terminology backwards. When ignorance ceases fabrications cease (and the whole DO sequence). That, it seems to me, makes ignorance a necessary condition. Or am I misunderstanding your wording?
See here for clarification on what these terms mean:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_ ... _condition" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If we regard the factors of dependent origination as necessary conditions, then it is inescapable; it is deterministic in the way Alex123 describes. But the Buddha, as I understand it, did not teach like this.

Instead, dependent origination is not a description of the totality of the cosmos, just a model of the world of experience, of rebirth; something basic (like the present existence) is assumed to exist and the stuff that precedes it are merely sufficient conditions describing how in this very instance it came to be, without any speculations about whatever else might have been, however else things might have been or might be, if dependent origination was different, or if in this realm there was no dependent origination, if there was something like no-rebirth, a different kind of rebirth, or something altogether different entirely.

So, with ignorance, it is sufficient to say there are mental formations, with mental formations it is sufficient to say that too. And it's a cycle of sufficient conditions. But these things are not necessary, in some sense. If each were necessary, then none of the factors could be renounced. But they can be renounced, so they must not be necessary. And so, by renouncing the factors of birth, a Buddha for instance might still have a mind and a body, or consciousness, or whatever (I'm not claiming that or denying it), but because these conditions are sufficient but not necessary for there to be a mind-and-body, a Buddha (and his mind and body) may appear the same but is not the same as a worldling's; it is something that is winding down rather than continually winding up.

Thus, dependent origination and how it relates to "choice" is very clear without having to rely on "speculations about the past, present, and future," or things like quantum mechanics. :)
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
User avatar
kirk5a
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: Did the Buddha teach that we have choice?

Post by kirk5a »

Modus.Ponens wrote: It depends on the particular interpretation of quantum mechanics we are talking about. My preffered interpretation, from what I understand of it, is the De Broglie-Bohm interpretation, because it's deterministic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_interpretation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Hmm. So it seems to me that one of the views underlying certainty of determinism with regard to the mental, is the view that determinism is absolutely established in the physical.

And yet within the most cutting edge physics, such certainty is not to be found. "preference" sure. :smile: We do have preferences.
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:53 am

Re: Did the Buddha teach that we have choice?

Post by Sherab »

Modus.Ponens wrote:
Emanresu wrote:
Modus.Ponens wrote:Pure determinism is an inevitable consequence of the principle of causality, which is a principle I think the Buddha thaught. However, only a person completely aware of the laws that run the universe and what the present state of the universe is would be devoid of choice.
I agree with the first sentence, but not with the second one, because I think that this kind of omniscience would itself become a determinant of one's choices/actions - unless we assume that knowledge is a passive thing with no influence on choice/action, which is certainly not what the Buddha taught. In other words: The omniscience you mention would enable the omniscient being to change the future it "foresees" as far as its own sphere of influence is concerned, unless (and I can only repeat myself here) you assume that knowledge (omniscience in this case) is passive and cannot itself become a determinant. So there is no room for fatalism in the sense that the future is unchangable regardless of what one knows. Knowledge can make a huge difference, which is still deterministic, but not fatalistic like "I see it coming but can't do anything", because if I see it coming I can change it (provided it is within the range of what I can do with my body or mind).
Good point. You pointed out a stronger paradox. Since I think such omniscience doesn't exist, this is in the domain of speculation. However, we can discuss it :) . I think the mistake in your line of thought is that such omniscient being would foresee a different scenario from what could happen if he acted differently. The thing is that there is only one possible future due to pure determinism and such being is compleetely bound to act acording to causes. He/she would be the only one devoid of choice because he/she would be aware of that.
It need not be a paradox. For someone who is omniscient, I would think that there will be no temporal gap between knowledge and acting on that knowledge. Everything would be spontaneous. Even the idea of choice is irrelevant.
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:53 am

Re: Did the Buddha teach that we have choice?

Post by Sherab »

Individual wrote:If we regard the factors of dependent origination as necessary conditions, then it is inescapable; it is deterministic in the way Alex123 describes. But the Buddha, as I understand it, did not teach like this…..

…So, with ignorance, it is sufficient to say there are mental formations, with mental formations it is sufficient to say that too. And it's a cycle of sufficient conditions. But these things are not necessary, in some sense. If each were necessary, then none of the factors could be renounced. But they can be renounced, so they must not be necessary.
In saying that with ignorance it is sufficient to say that there are mental formations, etc., it opens up the possibility for ignorance not to give rise to mental formations and therefore the possibility of dependent origination operating without mental formations.

It is because the conditions are necessary that there is stability in the structure of dependent origination.

It is because the conditions are necessary that it is necessary for the Buddha to give the Dhamma (ie. creating a necessary condition) in order for there to be an escape from the cycle of existence.

Determinism does not imply no liberation.
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4529
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Did the Buddha teach that we have choice?

Post by Dan74 »

TMingyur wrote:It is obvious that he taught that we have free will and choice.

Why?

He taught the 8fold path to those who did not tread it at the time of being taught.


Kind regards
No, I don't think this necessarily follows. The Buddha teaching would have formed a part of the causes and conditions that would lead to deterministic results (according to determinism) for those who followed the teachings (depending on their abilities, etc etc). I don't think you can disprove determinism since it is postulated outside the system as it were, ie any phenomenon within the system is part of the causes and conditions that the effect can be contributed to. So what other cause can you postulate? Only God, ie an agency outside the system.
_/|\_
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: Did the Buddha teach that we have choice?

Post by Individual »

Sherab wrote:
Individual wrote:If we regard the factors of dependent origination as necessary conditions, then it is inescapable; it is deterministic in the way Alex123 describes. But the Buddha, as I understand it, did not teach like this…..

…So, with ignorance, it is sufficient to say there are mental formations, with mental formations it is sufficient to say that too. And it's a cycle of sufficient conditions. But these things are not necessary, in some sense. If each were necessary, then none of the factors could be renounced. But they can be renounced, so they must not be necessary.
In saying that with ignorance it is sufficient to say that there are mental formations, etc., it opens up the possibility for ignorance not to give rise to mental formations and therefore the possibility of dependent origination operating without mental formations.

It is because the conditions are necessary that there is stability in the structure of dependent origination.

It is because the conditions are necessary that it is necessary for the Buddha to give the Dhamma (ie. creating a necessary condition) in order for there to be an escape from the cycle of existence.

Determinism does not imply no liberation.
If it were impossible for ignorance to NOT give rise to mental formations, for mental formations to not give rise to consciousness, etc., then liberation would not be possible, because liberation is the cessation of these things. :)

If you mean some kind of soft determinism, I agree determinism does not mean no liberation. If you mean hard determinism, I don't agree or disagree, but that seems like a pretty convoluted philosophy. :)
Last edited by Individual on Tue Nov 23, 2010 1:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Did the Buddha teach that we have choice?

Post by Alex123 »

Hi Lazy_eye, all,
Lazy_eye wrote:Hi all,
In a world governed by causality, we could -- in theory -- know the outcome of any "choice" if we knew all the conditioning factors. (Indeed, this is probably why dhamma posits the Buddha's omniscience).
Right. Buddha could predict where such and such would be reborn and he could see who had the potential for awakening in this life and who didn't.
Practically speaking, though, it's impossible for any of us to know all the factors and thus the illusion of choice remains in effect. From the conditioned POV it always appears that we have a choice to make, and therefore the concept of free will has functional meaning, as Geoff said.

There's another complication, however: our belief in free will is itself one of the conditioning factors. A person who rejects the idea of choice and one who accepts it may act in different ways. If you have two nearly equivalent sets of factors, but one contains "belief in free will" and the other contains "fatalism" it's likely we won't see the same outcomes.
You said it really well. The views that are held result in the choices that are made. Wrong views prevent Awakening, while Right views cause (directly or indirectly) awakening. This is why this topic is not speculations just for fun. It is for right view.


With metta,

Alex
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Did the Buddha teach that we have choice?

Post by Alex123 »

Lazy_eye wrote:Well, does a choice take place without a motive? Why do you make the choices that you make? Are they simply random?

Exactly. A choice is a result of certain motives. Motives are also conditioned by prior factors and are beyond control. And those motives too have a cause, and their cause has a cause, ad infinitum. The only way to stop this would be to claim an "uncaused" event, but this would ruin the teaching of conditionality and even uncaused event is not Free Full choice.


With metta,

Alex
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Did the Buddha teach that we have choice?

Post by Alex123 »

Individual wrote: If it were impossible for ignorance to NOT give rise to mental formations, for mental formations to not give rise to consciousness, etc., then liberation would not be possible, because liberation is the cessation of these things. :)

If you mean some kind of soft determinism, I agree determinism does not mean no liberation. If you mean hard determinism, I don't agree or disagree, but that seems like a pretty convoluted philosophy. :)
It is impossible for ignorance not to give rise to sankharas. Sankharas is the only possible result.

However there can be outside influence that can reduce and remove some kinds of ignorance, and add wisdom that will eventually lead to full eradication of ignorance and full awakening . This is why it is important to hear the Dhamma. Hearing true Dhamma adds the conditions necessary for eventual breaking through ignorance. It is like anti-virus.

So determinism doesn't mean that Awakening is impossible, and in no way is it fatalism. Once one meets the Dhamma, there can be external conditions that will cause the listener to eventually become an Ariyan.

With metta,

Alex
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Did the Buddha teach that we have choice?

Post by Alex123 »

Hello Tinhtan,
tinhtan wrote: From my personal experience, the magnifiant glasses show you clearly the small part but it also hide the whole picture. Oh yes ! that's maybe the reason why you don't see the whole path described in the 37 Boddhipakiyadhamma , especially the "four bases of power". (note that they are also taught in the 2nd book of the Abhidhamma pitaka).
The big picture is made of small parts, and these small parts can play a deciseve role in big scheme of things.


As for 37 Factors of Awakening. According to Ptsm (Sutta Pitaka) TREATISE XXIII chapter "Convergence" they happen at the moment of path&fruit (maggaphala). In fact so does N8P, and 5 faculties happen at the maggaphala moment.



Your kind of resolution "do not think any thought or imagine any thing" is incorrect. In the samatha meditation, you have just to apply your attention to an unique subject of meditation, that's it.
I've tried that too. It doesn't for with my current conditions.


- Can you tell me what is the pre-requisite condition before listening the Dhamma ?
Associating with those who know the Dhamma. For them one needs good enough results of kamma, plus all the physical necessities required. One needs to be alive, be able to hear or see, have the physical circumstances necessary to visit them (or read Dhamma books), etc.

- Could you explain more in a pratical way what do you mean by "considering the Dhamma" ?
Thinking about Dhamma such as 4NT, anicca-dukkha-anatta-conditionality, drawbacks, in such a way to weaken craving & ignorance and to understand Dhamma more.

- What do you think about the proved formula Sila->Samadhi->Panna (in the context of the Buddha teachings, of course) ?
These are physical and mental actions that happen due to corresponding causes. These can occur in momentary fashion as in Bahiya's case where 4 paths and 4 fruits happened within minutes or seconds.


With metta,

Alex
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Did the Buddha teach that we have choice?

Post by tiltbillings »

Alex123 wrote:
- Can you tell me what is the pre-requisite condition before listening the Dhamma ?
Associating with those who know the Dhamma. For them one needs good enough results of kamma, plus all the physical necessities required. One needs to be alive, be able to hear or see, have the physical circumstances necessary to visit them (or read Dhamma books), etc.
Is associating with others a choice or is just more leaves blowing in the winds of external causes over which we can exert no influence?

- Could you explain more in a pratical way what do you mean by "considering the Dhamma" ?
Thinking about Dhamma such as 4NT, anicca-dukkha-anatta-conditionality, drawbacks, in such a way to weaken craving & ignorance and to understand Dhamma more.
Thinking is not a choice, according to you, which would mean the only way I could think about something is if some external force cause me to think - in other words, thinking, being nothing more than leaves blowing in the wind, is a process that just happens as a result of mechanical causality. There being no choice, there is no moral imperative or responsibility, making purity of mind and action, as advocated by the Buddha nothing more than falling dominoes. Wow. Now that is a religion.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Did the Buddha teach that we have choice?

Post by Alex123 »

Hi Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:You may believe that we are naught more than leaves blowing in the winds,


Because there is no Atta, or cetana beyond and above 5 aggregates (which are fully conditioned). Without an outside force, one cannot control 5 aggregates, which include choice.
tiltbillings wrote: Also, your above statement is simply incoherent as is your overarching argument. You state: “There can be many dynamic causes for the choice,” but if we are leaves blowing in the winds and your mechanical, linear X always gives rise to Y, then there is nothing that could possibly be called choice.
This is what I tried to explain to you in the original thread, except I would say "there is nothing that could possibly be called free choice" . Conventionally choice occurs, but since it is within aggregates, it is conditioned like those aggregates.
tiltbillings wrote: Choice, of course, requires viable albeit conditioned options, but for you, no such thing as viable options exists, which renders your above paragraph meaningless.
Perceived options exist. But the options that are available are fully conditioned, and so is the motive for chosing this vs that option, and the final choice of option is fully conditioned.


tiltbillings wrote: So, rather than actually deal with the Buddha’s words that talk about choice, we have to listen to you expound your un-Buddhist theories based upon vague generalities.


Same can be said about your idea of unconditioned cetana (which appears like an idea of Atta as controler). Or if you do say that cetana is conditioned, what you don't admit is that it is dependent on conditions - not on choice above and beyond conditions.

tiltbillings wrote: As the Buddha makes quite clear in the words I quoted, control, in the sense he is advocating, in the texts I have quoted, is the result of active choices of the individual, not external forces acting upon the individual in a dead mechanical fashion.
In what way does what you say differ from teaching of Atta or Puggala?

tiltbillings wrote: The thing is, Alex, the Buddha taught how use the very nature of conditionality to modify it and to gain insight into it in order to free one’s self from its enslavement.
All that is fully conditioned. There is nothing beyond and above conditionality that can do it out of its own wish. Part of what makes Path to Arhatship possible is that "hearing the Dhamma" adds certain new conditions that will be responsible for the conditions to be modified such so they would develop toward Arhatship.


Either we grow up and take responsibility for our actions, acting as the Buddha taught, or we become sad little things blown about by forces out of our control, hiding behind that as an excuse, finding a childish liberation in no responsibility, rather than striving to become the adult the Buddha demands of us.
[/quote]

Determinism doesn't require one to be irresponsible (there is no full choice!). It requires understanding of Anatta, conditionality, and not giving "oneself" credit for what occurs.


With metta,

Alex
Post Reply