My thoughts on Anatta (not-Self)

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6625
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: My thoughts on Anatta (not-Self)

Post by Cittasanto » Fri Jun 29, 2012 9:11 pm

Eccedustin wrote: The Buddha said: “As a net is made up of a series of ties, so everything in this world is connected by a series of ties. If anyone thinks that the mesh of a net is an independent, isolated thing, he is mistaken. It is called a net because it is made up of a series of interconnected meshes, and each mesh has its place and responsibility in relation to the other meshes.” (Gach, 2002)


This is a theravadin forum, but it is a Buddhist forum and the essence of Buddhism is truth. Not dogma or over-reliance upon scriptures.

Now, in what way have I described inter-connectedness that you disagree with on a factual basis? Have you ever heard of chaos theory? The butterfly effect?
if you read what I said in response to what you have said, the Mahayana texts are not actually representative of Buddhism "as a whole group" therefore not representative of Buddhism, particularly on a Theravadin forum, although they may be seen as authoritative & representative of Buddhism on Dharma Wheel, they would be at best secondary source in support of something rather than a primary source. nothing about dogma or over-reliance on scriptures, simply a fact of the situation here.

I have heard of Chaos Theory & the Butterfuly effect, doesn't mean I understand them enough to equate everything is one, or all actions effect everything else.

what do you mean by factual basis? I ask due to the dogma comment, but...
Moreover, all that we are and do is a result of what has happened before us.
this denies any responsibility for action in the present moment as it is predetermined by past events, and removes choice.
the present moment isn't influenced by kamma alone (as noted previously)
We are our environments and our environments are us.

see above
Environment can be seen as one of these factors but it is not the only one.
We are the universe and the universe is us. There is no separation, and any separations made are illusory. My thoughts, feelings, actions, etc. are all influenced by the universe and the universe is influenced by me, resulting in a single entity or "thing".
all is not one, nor is it 100% removed, but certainly it is not 100% joined.
The idea behind "No self" is to abandon the ideas of differentiation between "you" and everything else. We do become affected by our actions, but we also become affected by actions of other people.
it removes the identification not the differentiation, there are still beings; mountains, rivers, lakes. discernment does not go away, but that doesn't mean one does not treat others equally.

To be honest what you have said looks very similar to some Nigantha theories refuted in the texts.(know known as Jainism, although I do not know how acurately they portray the Jains).
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

User avatar
Eccedustin
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:56 pm
Location: Tallahassee, Fl

Re: My thoughts on Anatta (not-Self)

Post by Eccedustin » Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:12 pm

Cittasanto wrote: if you read what I said in response to what you have said, the Mahayana texts are not actually representative of Buddhism "as a whole group" therefore not representative of Buddhism, particularly on a Theravadin forum, although they may be seen as authoritative & representative of Buddhism on Dharma Wheel, they would be at best secondary source in support of something rather than a primary source. nothing about dogma or over-reliance on scriptures, simply a fact of the situation here.
My view is that, that which is truth is Buddhism. That which is reality is the Dhamma. Taught by the Buddha or not. Thus is representitive of Buddhism.

Do you accept things to be true if they are not in Theravadin Buddhism? Do you deny anything that is?

I'm asking, what part of my comments do you disagree with? "Factual basis" means factually, regardless of Buddhist scriptures.

Chaos theory and the Butterfly effect are mathematical concepts in physics which show that everything is indeed connected in one way or another. This means that not only are all we are and do the result of past events (determinism), but also that whenever I do something it creates a casual chain of events that can affect potentially anything in the world. For instance, here is a secnario to demonstrate my point:

1. I miss school because I am sick.
2. I fail to bump into someone to talk to for 2 minutes.
3. That person is not stalled for 2 minutes and thus ends up getting hit by a truck.
4. That person doesn't have a kid because he dies.
5. That kid that would have been born would have been a scientist who discovers the cure to cancer.

This is a hypothetical example showing how each action we make creates a ripple through everything. I can throw an apple into the park, squirrel eats it, spends time eating it and doesn't run into the road instead, car doesn't swerve to hit squirrel, person in car survives and interacts with someone else, who interacts with someone else, who does something for something, etc., etc...This is interconnectedness.

We see the same thing in our environments. We influence our environments as much as our environments influence us. We change the world as much as the world changes us.


Now, The law of determinism (all we do is what has happened before us) does not necessite a lack of responsibility for our actions. "Choice" exits but choice is not something that arises independent of causuality, and thus every decision we make has been influenced by things that happen to us, who we are, etc. Genes play a large role in decision making, but so does environment. Both are outside influences. Nothing arises within us that is not influenced by the outside world.
"Responsibility" is a difficult word to use, are you refering to penal punishment in reference to responsibility?


Here is a question for you: What part of "you" or "yourself" is not 100% joined with the outside environment or not 100% influenced by the outside world?


What do you mean by "the present moment isn't influenced by kamma alone (as noted previously)" ?


I'm not arguing that mountains, rivers, lakes, etc. don't exist or that they somehow go away. I'm saying that we are all linked. The light bouncing off of the mountain hits our skin and influences us, the light hits our eyes and we see the lakes and mountains and are influenced. We smell and feel and taste the world around us. We gain nourishment from the world around us. Nothing that we 'are' exists independent of the universe, our world or environment.

What do you mean "treat others equally"?
The universe is awake, conscious and aware of itself! The universe is awake, conscious and aware of itself because we are awake, conscious and aware of ourselves. We are the not just in the universe, we are the universe.

User avatar
DarwidHalim
Posts: 537
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Neither Samsara nor Nirvana

Re: My thoughts on Anatta (not-Self)

Post by DarwidHalim » Sat Jun 30, 2012 2:01 am

santa100 wrote:DarwidHalim wrote:
That's certainly valid in principle but how exactly do we implement it? If right view alone is sufficient to destroy the three poisons at its root, then the Buddha wouldn't have called it the Eightfold Noble Path. He would just call it the Single Noble Path with just that single element of right view. But that wasn't the case. One would need 7 more to effectively destroy the three poisons: right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. That's why there're stages of stream entry, once return, non return, and arahant. It's simply impossible for one with just the element of right view to make the quantum leap from an uninstructed worldling to an enlightened being..
Oh yes. Your point is fine.

I want to add something here.

From all 8 noble path. The most important is no. 8 - right view.

Because it is that no 8 that finally solve all our issue for once and for all.

Imagine there is no 8, only have no 1 - 7. We can also solve our problem. But it is only temporary and like a time bomb.
If we see something that we like, we will struggle to detach it. That struggling then depends on our concentration power, which is no. 7 - right concentration. If your concentratin is superb, we can be quite save to maintain that detachment. However, there is always a constant struggle here.

The use of no. 1 to 7 is actually to get no. 8. Without 1 to 7, we cannot realize no 8. If we don't have proper discipline, we can't build the wisdom, for example.

There is a reason why right view is in no. 8 instead of no. 1.

For sure, we need to apply some antidotes like thinking this body is disgusting to prevent us from attaching this body. Because the right view is still very weak or probably we still don't have it. This is fine.

But only fine temporarily.

Until that no. 8 get perfected.

I ever read that there are people who get sick with emptiness and said the understanding of emptiness is not necessary.

The question is how can this mind be at ease when we still see I and you?

No. 1 to 7 seem can solve it and seem can make this mind in peace and stillness. But actually, if we look again carefully, they can't solve this issue.

We need them. But that is not the main target.
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!

User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8504
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: My thoughts on Anatta (not-Self)

Post by cooran » Sat Jun 30, 2012 6:30 am

Hello DarwidHalim, all,

This might be of interest regarding Right View:

''Perplexity sometimes arises over an apparent inconsistency in the arrangement of the path factors and the threefold training. Wisdom -- which includes right view and right intention -- is the last stage in the threefold training, yet its factors are placed at the beginning of the path rather than at its end, as might be expected according to the canon of strict consistency. The sequence of the path factors, however, is not the result of a careless slip, but is determined by an important logistical consideration, namely, that right view and right intention of a preliminary type are called for at the outset as the spur for entering the threefold training. Right view provides the perspective for practice, right intention the sense of direction. But the two do not expire in this preparatory role. For when the mind has been refined by the training in moral discipline and concentration, it arrives at a superior right view and right intention, which now form the proper training in the higher wisdom.

Right view is the forerunner of the entire path, the guide for all the other factors. It enables us to understand our starting point, our destination, and the successive landmarks to pass as practice advances. To attempt to engage in the practice without a foundation of right view is to risk getting lost in the futility of undirected movement. Doing so might be compared to wanting to drive someplace without consulting a roadmap or listening to the suggestions of an experienced driver. One might get into the car and start to drive, but rather than approaching closer to one's destination, one is more likely to move farther away from it. To arrive at the desired place one has to have some idea of its general direction and of the roads leading to it. Analogous considerations apply to the practice of the path, which takes place in a framework of understanding established by right view.''
[…………………………………]
The Noble Eightfold Path by Bhikkhu Bodhi
RIGHT VIEW (SAMMA DITTHI)
http://www.vipassana.com/resources/8fp2.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

with metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6625
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: My thoughts on Anatta (not-Self)

Post by Cittasanto » Sun Jul 01, 2012 6:55 am

Eccedustin wrote:My view is that, that which is truth is Buddhism. That which is reality is the Dhamma. Taught by the Buddha or not. Thus is representitive of Buddhism.

Do you accept things to be true if they are not in Theravadin Buddhism? Do you deny anything that is?
There are things that are true, then there are things that are true!
just because it is true, or real, does not mean it is in line with the truth, the Buddhas teachings, or in reality true i.e., it is just a preference.
Alcahol is a real thing, yet it is not in line with the Dhamma to drink.
1+1=2 is true, yet it is not in line with where the Buddha was pointing to matter to practice, so not representative of Buddhism.
I'm asking, what part of my comments do you disagree with? "Factual basis" means factually, regardless of Buddhist scriptures.
the parts that are unsubstantiated claims and opinion of what is.
I knew someone who claimed and was 100% sure that the noble eightfold path was not the fourth noble truth; and then there is the case of CAF Rese Davis, one of the early translators, didn't believe the Buddha taught Anatta, all despite evidence to the contrary.
Chaos theory and the Butterfly effect are mathematical concepts in physics which show that everything is indeed connected in one way or another. This means that not only are all we are and do the result of past events (determinism), but also that whenever I do something it creates a casual chain of events that can affect potentially anything in the world. For instance, here is a secnario to demonstrate my point:

1. I miss school because I am sick.
2. I fail to bump into someone to talk to for 2 minutes.
3. That person is not stalled for 2 minutes and thus ends up getting hit by a truck.
4. That person doesn't have a kid because he dies.
5. That kid that would have been born would have been a scientist who discovers the cure to cancer.

This is a hypothetical example showing how each action we make creates a ripple through everything. I can throw an apple into the park, squirrel eats it, spends time eating it and doesn't run into the road instead, car doesn't swerve to hit squirrel, person in car survives and interacts with someone else, who interacts with someone else, who does something for something, etc., etc...This is interconnectedness.

We see the same thing in our environments. We influence our environments as much as our environments influence us. We change the world as much as the world changes us.
this is not in line with the Buddhist teaching of Kamma.

Now, The law of determinism (all we do is what has happened before us) does not necessite a lack of responsibility for our actions. "Choice" exits but choice is not something that arises independent of causuality, and thus every decision we make has been influenced by things that happen to us, who we are, etc. Genes play a large role in decision making, but so does environment. Both are outside influences. Nothing arises within us that is not influenced by the outside world.
"Responsibility" is a difficult word to use, are you refering to penal punishment in reference to responsibility?
well if something is determined, and choice is determined by past events alone then it isn't choice, as in free will.
Here is a question for you: What part of "you" or "yourself" is not 100% joined with the outside environment or not 100% influenced by the outside world?
You would have to show that I am 100% connected! I am not saying things outside myself can not under any circumstance effect but not everything and not 100%.
What do you mean by "the present moment isn't influenced by kamma alone (as noted previously)" ?
there are other contributing factors to life other than Kamma.
Kamma; Disease; circumstance; carelessness (not being fully aware of what you are doing as opposed to doing something regardless of known unskillfulness)
I'm not arguing that mountains, rivers, lakes, etc. don't exist or that they somehow go away. I'm saying that we are all linked. The light bouncing off of the mountain hits our skin and influences us, the light hits our eyes and we see the lakes and mountains and are influenced. We smell and feel and taste the world around us. We gain nourishment from the world around us. Nothing that we 'are' exists independent of the universe, our world or environment.
you may wish to look at what I said and what it was in responce to
The idea behind "No self" is to abandon the ideas of differentiation between "you" and everything else. We do become affected by our actions, but we also become affected by actions of other people.
it removes the identification not the differentiation, there are still beings; mountains, rivers, lakes. discernment does not go away, but that doesn't mean one does not treat others equally.
and seeing something does not neccesarily effect anything.
What do you mean "treat others equally"?
just because there is this being and another i.e. differentiation, doesn't mean that we treat others any different, making an exception for one and not another just because of personal preferences.
Thanissaro Bhikkhus introduction to MN101 wrote:to quote a recent book devoted to the topic, "Karma is the moral principle that governs human conduct. It declares that our present experience is conditioned by our past conduct and that our present conduct will condition our future experience." This, however, does not accurately describe the Buddha's teaching on karma, and is instead a fairly accurate account of the Nigantha teaching, which the Buddha explicitly refutes here. As he interrogates the Niganthas, he makes the point that if all pleasure and pain experienced in the present were determined by past action, why is it that they now feel the pain of harsh treatment when they practice asceticism, and no pain of harsh treatment when they don't? If past action were the sole determining factor, then present action should have no effect on their present experience of pleasure or pain.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: My thoughts on Anatta (not-Self)

Post by vinasp » Mon Jul 02, 2012 11:39 am

Hi everyone,

I agree with DarwidHalim that change, in itself, is not the cause of suffering.

Consider these two passages from SN 22.1

"There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He is seized with the idea that 'I am form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his form changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair over its change & alteration."

"And how is one afflicted in body but unafflicted in mind? There is the case where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He is not seized with the idea that 'I am form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is not seized with these ideas, his form changes & alters, but he does not fall into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair over its change & alteration."

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

See also SN 22.7 for a very similar description.

Regards, Vincent.

vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: My thoughts on Anatta (not-Self)

Post by vinasp » Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:55 pm

Hi everyone,

I also agree with DarwidHalim that craving is not the cause of suffering.

You could say that it is A CAUSE, but not THE CAUSE.

Also, craving is not the origin of suffering, this is a common mistranslation.

Take, for example, the Second Noble Truth:

idaṃ kho pana, bhikkhave, dukkhasamudayaṃ ariyasaccaṃ —

"Monks, what is the Noble Truth concerning the origin of suffering?"

[ The Venerable Mahasi Sayadaw, The Great Discourse on the Turning of the
Wheel of Dhamma, Buddhadhamma Foundation, 1996 - page 124]

The key term here is samudayam - PED:

Samudaya [saŋ+udaya] 1. rise, origin D i.17; ii.33, 308; iii.227; A i.263 (kamma˚); Vin i.10; Sn p. 135; It 16 (samuddaya metri causa) etc. dukkha˚; the origin of ill, the second ariya -- sacca, e. g. D iii.136; A i.177 Vism 495 (where samudaya is expld in its parts as sam u+aya); VbhA 124. -- 2. bursting forth, effulgence (pabhā˚) J i.83. -- 3. produce, revenue D i.227.[End Quote]

Clearly, the correct meaning here is "rise" or "arising", and not the cause or origin.

In many places in the Salayatana samy the six-spheres are said to be suffering,
these are three links prior to craving in the DO formula.

Craving originates from ignorance or a misconception, it has a cognitive
origin.

This is why the four principle asava's are only eliminated by seeing.

Seeing what?

Regards, Vincent.

User avatar
Eccedustin
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:56 pm
Location: Tallahassee, Fl

Re: My thoughts on Anatta (not-Self)

Post by Eccedustin » Tue Jul 03, 2012 12:39 am

Cittasanto wrote:
There are things that are true, then there are things that are true!
just because it is true, or real, does not mean it is in line with the truth, the Buddhas teachings, or in reality true i.e., it is just a preference.
Alcahol is a real thing, yet it is not in line with the Dhamma to drink.
1+1=2 is true, yet it is not in line with where the Buddha was pointing to matter to practice, so not representative of Buddhism.
Buddhism is about accepting the truth, all truths. Buddhist texts aren't to be followed like dogma but rather to be thought out, considered and debated. However, I'm not asking you if you accept things as real, like objects, if they aren't in line with the Buddha's teachings. Alcohol a given example. I'm asking you if you have any world philosophy or convictions about life that are not part of the Dhamma, or if there are aspects of the Dhamma that you do not accept as true or accurate to reality.

Cittasanto wrote: this is not in line with the Buddhist teaching of Kamma.
This is in line with reality.
Cittasanto wrote: well if something is determined, and choice is determined by past events alone then it isn't choice, as in free will.
It is Free Will still. Certainly our free will is predetermined due to causality, but it is still our own free will. We make our own choices, we choose our own choices...That does not, however, mean that what we want to choose or decide to choose isn't predetermined.
It IS "our choice" but "our choice" is predetermined. Predetermination does not negate the fact that we still choose our own actions, it just states that what we decide to choose is already predetermined by circumstance. For us to have "free will" it is not necessary that we somehow make decisions totally uninfluenced in some vacuum uninfluenced by causality.


Cittasanto wrote: You would have to show that I am 100% connected! I am not saying things outside myself can not under any circumstance effect but not everything and not 100%.

I think perhaps we have different definitions of "100% connected". I'm saying that any sort of distinction that we make between "ourselves" and "the outside world" are purely made up. If you doubt this, then define "you". What are "you"? What defines "you"? What includes "you"? Is your finger "you"? or is it just a bodypart? Is your hair "you"? What about your own mind? If you consider it and think about it, there is no "you" that can be differentiated from the "outside world" because every part of our minds is the result of the outside world and belongs to the outside world. There is, in fact no outside world. This is an illusion. That is what I mean.
Cittasanto wrote:
and seeing something does not neccesarily effect anything.
Not seeing it, but just about everything else we do affects things. Walking on it, Drilling into the mountain, blowing it up, building a road on it, etc.
Cittasanto wrote: just because there is this being and another i.e. differentiation, doesn't mean that we treat others any different, making an exception for one and not another just because of personal preferences.
I agree that this is good.
Cittasanto wrote:
Thanissaro Bhikkhus introduction to MN101 wrote:to quote a recent book devoted to the topic, "Karma is the moral principle that governs human conduct. It declares that our present experience is conditioned by our past conduct and that our present conduct will condition our future experience." This, however, does not accurately describe the Buddha's teaching on karma, and is instead a fairly accurate account of the Nigantha teaching, which the Buddha explicitly refutes here. As he interrogates the Niganthas, he makes the point that if all pleasure and pain experienced in the present were determined by past action, why is it that they now feel the pain of harsh treatment when they practice asceticism, and no pain of harsh treatment when they don't? If past action were the sole determining factor, then present action should have no effect on their present experience of pleasure or pain.

To clarify things here, this is true. Some people choose to inflict suffering upon themselves. This is a personal choice, it is not some form of cosmic punishment due to past deeds. However, their suffering is a result of cause and effect. They choose to suffer and thus they suffer. A past action of theirs is their choice to pursue the ascetic lifestyle, and due to this past action they suffer physically. However, the main point in Kamma is the aspect of becoming awakened. It has little to do with superficial physical suffering but rather the overall path to our pursuance of enlightenment. Choice we make affect our path to enlightenment, some positively some negatively.
The universe is awake, conscious and aware of itself! The universe is awake, conscious and aware of itself because we are awake, conscious and aware of ourselves. We are the not just in the universe, we are the universe.

User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 3476
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: My thoughts on Anatta (not-Self)

Post by Alex123 » Tue Jul 03, 2012 1:00 am

Eccedustin wrote: It is Free Will still. Certainly our free will is predetermined due to causality, but it is still our own free will. We make our own choices, we choose our own choices...That does not, however, mean that what we want to choose or decide to choose isn't predetermined.
It IS "our choice" but "our choice" is predetermined. Predetermination does not negate the fact that we still choose our own actions, it just states that what we decide to choose is already predetermined by circumstance. For us to have "free will" it is not necessary that we somehow make decisions totally uninfluenced in some vacuum uninfluenced by causality.
Bolded is mine. If something is predetermined due to causality, then it is not really Free Will.
"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

User avatar
Eccedustin
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:56 pm
Location: Tallahassee, Fl

Re: My thoughts on Anatta (not-Self)

Post by Eccedustin » Tue Jul 03, 2012 1:08 am

Alex123 wrote:
Eccedustin wrote: It is Free Will still. Certainly our free will is predetermined due to causality, but it is still our own free will. We make our own choices, we choose our own choices...That does not, however, mean that what we want to choose or decide to choose isn't predetermined.
It IS "our choice" but "our choice" is predetermined. Predetermination does not negate the fact that we still choose our own actions, it just states that what we decide to choose is already predetermined by circumstance. For us to have "free will" it is not necessary that we somehow make decisions totally uninfluenced in some vacuum uninfluenced by causality.
Bolded is mine. If something is predetermined due to causality, then it is not really Free Will.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The universe is awake, conscious and aware of itself! The universe is awake, conscious and aware of itself because we are awake, conscious and aware of ourselves. We are the not just in the universe, we are the universe.

User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 3476
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: My thoughts on Anatta (not-Self)

Post by Alex123 » Tue Jul 03, 2012 1:13 am

Eccedustin wrote:
Alex123 wrote:
Eccedustin wrote: It is Free Will still. Certainly our free will is predetermined due to causality, but it is still our own free will. We make our own choices, we choose our own choices...That does not, however, mean that what we want to choose or decide to choose isn't predetermined.
It IS "our choice" but "our choice" is predetermined. Predetermination does not negate the fact that we still choose our own actions, it just states that what we decide to choose is already predetermined by circumstance. For us to have "free will" it is not necessary that we somehow make decisions totally uninfluenced in some vacuum uninfluenced by causality.
Bolded is mine. If something is predetermined due to causality, then it is not really Free Will.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Compatibilism seems to be self refuting:
  • "In other words, although an agent may often be free to act according to a motive, the nature of that motive is determined. "
There is no real freedom of will here. Furthermore, in Buddhism, Agent doesn't truly exist. Anatta.


To say that someone is free to act according to motive, but the motive is determined, is like saying that leaf can choose where it flies. It flies wherever wind blows it or someone/something moves it. No real Free Will.
"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

User avatar
Eccedustin
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:56 pm
Location: Tallahassee, Fl

Re: My thoughts on Anatta (not-Self)

Post by Eccedustin » Tue Jul 03, 2012 1:37 am

Alex123 wrote:
Bolded is mine. If something is predetermined due to causality, then it is not really Free Will.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Compatibilism seems to be self refuting:
  • "In other words, although an agent may often be free to act according to a motive, the nature of that motive is determined. "
There is no real freedom of will here. Furthermore, in Buddhism, Agent doesn't truly exist. Anatta.


To say that someone is free to act according to motive, but the motive is determined, is like saying that leaf can choose where it flies. It flies wherever wind blows it or someone/something moves it. No real Free Will.[/quote]

It seems that way, but it isn't self-refuting.Think about it like this: You have to realize that the motives for our choices and the choices themselves and the will to choose them are all influenced by cause and effect. I choose to type the letter "X". I made the choice, right now I just made it. The choice was made by my own mind and executed by my body. Does this mean that my choice wasn't caused by something else? No. In reality, science has pointed out that decisions and thoughts occur within our brains before we are even conscious of them. Thus as I type the letter "X", the inclination and choice to do so has already been process by my brain and created before I was even aware of it! A thousandth of a second before I was conscious of it, but nonetheless before I was conscious of it.
The universe is awake, conscious and aware of itself! The universe is awake, conscious and aware of itself because we are awake, conscious and aware of ourselves. We are the not just in the universe, we are the universe.

User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 3476
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: My thoughts on Anatta (not-Self)

Post by Alex123 » Tue Jul 03, 2012 1:45 am

Eccedustin wrote: It seems that way, but it isn't self-refuting.Think about it like this: You have to realize that the motives for our choices and the choices themselves and the will to choose them are all influenced by cause and effect. I choose to type the letter "X". I made the choice, right now I just made it. The choice was made by my own mind and executed by my body. Does this mean that my choice wasn't caused by something else? No. In reality, science has pointed out that decisions and thoughts occur within our brains before we are even conscious of them. Thus as I type the letter "X", the inclination and choice to do so has already been process by my brain and created before I was even aware of it! A thousandth of a second before I was conscious of it, but nonetheless before I was conscious of it.
So there is no control, and with teaching of Anatta, there is even less of it.
Eccedustin wrote: The choice was made by my own mind and executed by my body. Does this mean that my choice wasn't caused by something else? No.
It was made by prior conditions. No metaphysical Self to do it. Even if there was (there isn't) metaphysical Self, could it in principle have Free Will? Based on what would it choose? With anatta, there is even less space for Free part of Free Will.
"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

User avatar
Eccedustin
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:56 pm
Location: Tallahassee, Fl

Re: My thoughts on Anatta (not-Self)

Post by Eccedustin » Tue Jul 03, 2012 1:55 am

Alex123 wrote:
Eccedustin wrote: It seems that way, but it isn't self-refuting.Think about it like this: You have to realize that the motives for our choices and the choices themselves and the will to choose them are all influenced by cause and effect. I choose to type the letter "X". I made the choice, right now I just made it. The choice was made by my own mind and executed by my body. Does this mean that my choice wasn't caused by something else? No. In reality, science has pointed out that decisions and thoughts occur within our brains before we are even conscious of them. Thus as I type the letter "X", the inclination and choice to do so has already been process by my brain and created before I was even aware of it! A thousandth of a second before I was conscious of it, but nonetheless before I was conscious of it.
So there is no control, and with teaching of Anatta, there is even less of it.
Eccedustin wrote: The choice was made by my own mind and executed by my body. Does this mean that my choice wasn't caused by something else? No.
It was made by prior conditions. No metaphysical Self to do it. Even if there was (there isn't) metaphysical Self, could it in principle have Free Will? Based on what would it choose? With anatta, there is even less space for Free part of Free Will.

Well, perhaps to make things easier..How do you define "Free will"?
The universe is awake, conscious and aware of itself! The universe is awake, conscious and aware of itself because we are awake, conscious and aware of ourselves. We are the not just in the universe, we are the universe.

User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 3476
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: My thoughts on Anatta (not-Self)

Post by Alex123 » Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:10 am

Eccedustin wrote:
Alex123 wrote:
Eccedustin wrote: It seems that way, but it isn't self-refuting.Think about it like this: You have to realize that the motives for our choices and the choices themselves and the will to choose them are all influenced by cause and effect. I choose to type the letter "X". I made the choice, right now I just made it. The choice was made by my own mind and executed by my body. Does this mean that my choice wasn't caused by something else? No. In reality, science has pointed out that decisions and thoughts occur within our brains before we are even conscious of them. Thus as I type the letter "X", the inclination and choice to do so has already been process by my brain and created before I was even aware of it! A thousandth of a second before I was conscious of it, but nonetheless before I was conscious of it.
So there is no control, and with teaching of Anatta, there is even less of it.
Eccedustin wrote: The choice was made by my own mind and executed by my body. Does this mean that my choice wasn't caused by something else? No.
It was made by prior conditions. No metaphysical Self to do it. Even if there was (there isn't) metaphysical Self, could it in principle have Free Will? Based on what would it choose? With anatta, there is even less space for Free part of Free Will.
Will that is not caused or conditioned by any condition. Something that is "free" in that sense.

When one domino falls pushing 2nd domino to fall, does 2nd domino have any choice to stay or to fall down?


Well, perhaps to make things easier..How do you define "Free will"?
"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 70 guests