Can anyone refute this depressing viewpoint?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am

Re: Can anyone refute this depressing viewpoint?

Post by seeker242 »

The viewpoint doesn't need to be refuted. What needs to happen is discernment of what is appropriate to give attention to and what is inappropriate to give attention to.
"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'
Do I/Don't I have free will falls under the same umbrella of "Ideas unfit for attention".
"And what is the food for the arising of unarisen restlessness & anxiety, or for the growth & increase of restlessness & anxiety once it has arisen? There is non-stillness of awareness. To foster inappropriate attention to that: This is the food for the arising of unarisen restlessness & anxiety, or for the growth & increase of restlessness & anxiety once it has arisen.
Putting your attention on "Ideas unfit for attention" often causes restlessness & anxiety.
"And what is lack of food for the arising of unarisen restlessness & anxiety, or for the growth & increase of restlessness & anxiety once it has arisen? There is the stilling of awareness. To foster appropriate attention to that: This is lack of food for the arising of unarisen restlessness & anxiety, or for the growth & increase of restlessness & anxiety once it has arisen.
Stilling of awareness is where help will be found. :meditate:
User avatar
Pseudobabble
Posts: 938
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:11 am
Location: London

Re: Can anyone refute this depressing viewpoint?

Post by Pseudobabble »

budo wrote: Tue Jan 01, 2019 10:16 am "Yes I have free will, I have no choice but to have it" - Christopher Hitchens

At the end of the day this topic is a waste of time because you can better your life based on your decisions regardless of the mechanism behind it being random (free will) or legacy (determinism)

This is why the Buddha said such topics are wrong view and foolish, because they waste time and don't solve the problem of Dukkha.
This is the correct answer.
"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.'" - Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta


'Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return.' - Genesis 3:19

'Some fart freely, some try to hide and silence it. Which one is correct?' - Saegnapha
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Can anyone refute this depressing viewpoint?

Post by mikenz66 »

Pseudobabble wrote: Tue Jan 01, 2019 12:11 pm
budo wrote: Tue Jan 01, 2019 10:16 am "Yes I have free will, I have no choice but to have it" - Christopher Hitchens

At the end of the day this topic is a waste of time because you can better your life based on your decisions regardless of the mechanism behind it being random (free will) or legacy (determinism)

This is why the Buddha said such topics are wrong view and foolish, because they waste time and don't solve the problem of Dukkha.
This is the correct answer.
Here's a not-particularly-developed comment from Bhikkhu Sujato connected with this issue:
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/qu ... c/11457/34
In this way, the whole dilemma is wrongly conceived. There’s no such thing as “free” or “determined”, there’s only patterns that can be observed. We can make inferences about those patterns, and use them to make wiser choices: if I do this, suffering results; if do that, happiness results.
:heart:
Mike
User avatar
Benjamin
Posts: 260
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2012 9:41 am
Location: Taiwan

Re: Can anyone refute this depressing viewpoint?

Post by Benjamin »

budo wrote: Tue Jan 01, 2019 10:16 am "Yes I have free will, I have no choice but to have it" - Christopher Hitchens

At the end of the day this topic is a waste of time because you can better your life based on your decisions regardless of the mechanism behind it being random (free will) or legacy (determinism)

This is why the Buddha said such topics are wrong view and foolish, because they waste time and don't solve the problem of Dukkha.
The Buddha didn't entirely dismiss the topic of free will, and he refuted the idea that all actions are based on the past (determinism). He likewise refuted that we have complete control over our existence.

A relevant quote:
For the early Buddhists, karma was non-linear and complex. Other Indian schools believed that karma operated in a simple straight line, with actions from the past influencing the present, and present actions influencing the future. As a result, they saw little room for free will. Buddhists, however, saw that karma acts in multiple feedback loops, with the present moment being shaped both by past and by present actions; present actions shape not only the future but also the present. Furthermore, present actions need not be determined by past actions. In other words, there is free will, although its range is somewhat dictated by the past. ["Karma", by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight (Legacy Edition), 8 March 2011]
:candle: :buddha1: :candle:
budo
Posts: 1752
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:16 am

Re: Can anyone refute this depressing viewpoint?

Post by budo »

Benjamin wrote: Wed Jan 02, 2019 12:43 pm
budo wrote: Tue Jan 01, 2019 10:16 am "Yes I have free will, I have no choice but to have it" - Christopher Hitchens

At the end of the day this topic is a waste of time because you can better your life based on your decisions regardless of the mechanism behind it being random (free will) or legacy (determinism)

This is why the Buddha said such topics are wrong view and foolish, because they waste time and don't solve the problem of Dukkha.
The Buddha didn't entirely dismiss the topic of free will, and he refuted the idea that all actions are based on the past (determinism). He likewise refuted that we have complete control over our existence.

A relevant quote:
For the early Buddhists, karma was non-linear and complex. Other Indian schools believed that karma operated in a simple straight line, with actions from the past influencing the present, and present actions influencing the future. As a result, they saw little room for free will. Buddhists, however, saw that karma acts in multiple feedback loops, with the present moment being shaped both by past and by present actions; present actions shape not only the future but also the present. Furthermore, present actions need not be determined by past actions. In other words, there is free will, although its range is somewhat dictated by the past. ["Karma", by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight (Legacy Edition), 8 March 2011]
Once again, this is just another trap. There are many many suttas praising both laymen and monks for not falling into this trap and instead focusing on suffering.

"Regarding the venerable who said this: ‘The world is finite …’ … ‘The world is infinite …’ … ‘The soul and the body are the same thing …’ … ‘The soul and the body are different things …’ … ‘A Realized One exists after death …’ … ‘A Realized One doesn’t exist after death …’ … ‘A Realized One both exists and doesn’t exist after death …’ … ‘A Realized One neither exists nor doesn’t exist after death. This is the only truth, other ideas are stupid. That’s my view, householder.’ This view of his has either arisen from his own improper attention, or is conditioned by what someone else says. But that view is created, conditioned, chosen, dependently originated. Anything that is created, conditioned, chosen, and dependently originated is impermanent. And what’s impermanent is suffering. What he clings to and holds to is just suffering.” "

"When this was said, those wanderers sat silent, dismayed, shoulders drooping, downcast, depressed, with nothing to say. Seeing this, Anāthapiṇḍika got up from his seat. He went to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side, and informed the Buddha of all they had discussed. “Good, good, householder! That’s how you should legitimately and completely refute those foolish men from time to time.”



https://suttacentral.net/an10.93/en/sujato
User avatar
Benjamin
Posts: 260
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2012 9:41 am
Location: Taiwan

Re: Can anyone refute this depressing viewpoint?

Post by Benjamin »

budo wrote: Wed Jan 02, 2019 12:53 pm
Benjamin wrote: Wed Jan 02, 2019 12:43 pm
budo wrote: Tue Jan 01, 2019 10:16 am "Yes I have free will, I have no choice but to have it" - Christopher Hitchens

At the end of the day this topic is a waste of time because you can better your life based on your decisions regardless of the mechanism behind it being random (free will) or legacy (determinism)

This is why the Buddha said such topics are wrong view and foolish, because they waste time and don't solve the problem of Dukkha.
The Buddha didn't entirely dismiss the topic of free will, and he refuted the idea that all actions are based on the past (determinism). He likewise refuted that we have complete control over our existence.

A relevant quote:
For the early Buddhists, karma was non-linear and complex. Other Indian schools believed that karma operated in a simple straight line, with actions from the past influencing the present, and present actions influencing the future. As a result, they saw little room for free will. Buddhists, however, saw that karma acts in multiple feedback loops, with the present moment being shaped both by past and by present actions; present actions shape not only the future but also the present. Furthermore, present actions need not be determined by past actions. In other words, there is free will, although its range is somewhat dictated by the past. ["Karma", by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight (Legacy Edition), 8 March 2011]
Once again, this is just another trap. There are many many suttas praising both laymen and monks for not falling into this trap and instead focusing on suffering.

"Regarding the venerable who said this: ‘The world is finite …’ … ‘The world is infinite …’ … ‘The soul and the body are the same thing …’ … ‘The soul and the body are different things …’ … ‘A Realized One exists after death …’ … ‘A Realized One doesn’t exist after death …’ … ‘A Realized One both exists and doesn’t exist after death …’ … ‘A Realized One neither exists nor doesn’t exist after death. This is the only truth, other ideas are stupid. That’s my view, householder.’ This view of his has either arisen from his own improper attention, or is conditioned by what someone else says. But that view is created, conditioned, chosen, dependently originated. Anything that is created, conditioned, chosen, and dependently originated is impermanent. And what’s impermanent is suffering. What he clings to and holds to is just suffering.” "

"When this was said, those wanderers sat silent, dismayed, shoulders drooping, downcast, depressed, with nothing to say. Seeing this, Anāthapiṇḍika got up from his seat. He went to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side, and informed the Buddha of all they had discussed. “Good, good, householder! That’s how you should legitimately and completely refute those foolish men from time to time.”



https://suttacentral.net/an10.93/en/sujato
I think we're talking past each other a bit. None of the mentioned views in that sutta refer to the right view regarding karma and action that thanissaro is referring to. I don't think he is falling into any trap by promoting the middle way between determinism and total free will.
:candle: :buddha1: :candle:
User avatar
Pseudobabble
Posts: 938
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:11 am
Location: London

Re: Can anyone refute this depressing viewpoint?

Post by Pseudobabble »

Benjamin wrote: Wed Jan 02, 2019 12:43 pm
budo wrote: Tue Jan 01, 2019 10:16 am "Yes I have free will, I have no choice but to have it" - Christopher Hitchens

At the end of the day this topic is a waste of time because you can better your life based on your decisions regardless of the mechanism behind it being random (free will) or legacy (determinism)

This is why the Buddha said such topics are wrong view and foolish, because they waste time and don't solve the problem of Dukkha.
The Buddha didn't entirely dismiss the topic of free will, and he refuted the idea that all actions are based on the past (determinism). He likewise refuted that we have complete control over our existence.

A relevant quote:
For the early Buddhists, karma was non-linear and complex. Other Indian schools believed that karma operated in a simple straight line, with actions from the past influencing the present, and present actions influencing the future. As a result, they saw little room for free will. Buddhists, however, saw that karma acts in multiple feedback loops, with the present moment being shaped both by past and by present actions; present actions shape not only the future but also the present. Furthermore, present actions need not be determined by past actions. In other words, there is free will, although its range is somewhat dictated by the past. ["Karma", by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight (Legacy Edition), 8 March 2011]

Agreed, WRT Thanissaro quote. The aspect I have found most helpful is expressed in AN6.63:
AN6.63 wrote: Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect.

"And what is the cause by which kamma comes into play? Contact is the cause by which kamma comes into play.
This means that intention is the nexus where 'external events', via contact, and thought/mind/etc, become involved with each other, and influence each other. One intends, acts, and experiences the fruits of action, via contact, which condition intentions.

The free will/determinism dichotomy is false, brought about by the perception, which is a linguistic illusion, that 'the mind' and 'external events' are separate things, whereas the reality is that they influence each other through kamma, which becomes thought, word, and deed.

Free will/internal action/thoughts/mind and external events/determinism/etc are conventional language constructs which allow us to analyse and communicate, but fail to capture the reality, because there is only the all. We don't, as human animals, have access to reality beyond the mind, the only way we can access that at all is by scientific and statistical methods, abstractions.

The 4NT are an expression of this fact: unpleasant experiences exist (external events mediated by contact and the senses, etc), they have an origin, there exists a means of stopping them, and the 8FNP is that means.
SN12.15 wrote: "'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."
I read this as an account of how unskillful (ignorant) intention leads to suffering, and stopping unskillful intention leads to the end of suffering.

Generally the Buddha is shown saying that dilemmas posed in binary format are not valid ways of looking at the situation because the binary set up is a false simplification of the process of making kamma.
"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.'" - Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta


'Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return.' - Genesis 3:19

'Some fart freely, some try to hide and silence it. Which one is correct?' - Saegnapha
User avatar
Nicolas
Posts: 1295
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

Re: Can anyone refute this depressing viewpoint?

Post by Nicolas »

Absolute determinism ("whatever one experiences, all that is caused by what was done in the past"), when taken to its conclusion, leads to non-doing; see AN 3.61.
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Can anyone refute this depressing viewpoint?

Post by cappuccino »

manas wrote: Fri Dec 28, 2018 9:19 pmThrough I try, I cannot refute what Sam Harris says in this talk.

there is free will, otherwise karma wouldn't care about your intentions
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Can anyone refute this depressing viewpoint?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,

To follow on from the two above posts (and those generally on this page of this topic), I recommend expanding one's understanding of kamma and its results.

Whilst it may not directly address Sam's position, similarly, it's also going to make it appear to be a rather boring, unprofitable and pointless worldview, which it is, from a Dhammic perspective. Rightly regarded as such, it needn't be engaged with, and depression need not ensue.

General reminder, there is no obligation to "pick up" things - indeed, in the Dhamma, moreover, it's best for things to be "put down".

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Can anyone refute this depressing viewpoint?

Post by Coëmgenu »

retrofuturist wrote: Thu Jan 03, 2019 12:35 am To follow on from the two above posts (and those generally on this page of this topic), I recommend expanding one's understanding of kamma and its results.

Whilst it may not directly address Sam's position, similarly, it's also going to make it appear to be a rather boring, unprofitable and pointless worldview, which it is, from a Dhammic perspective.
We actually agree on something. This is cause for celebration IMO.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
zerotime
Posts: 480
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Can anyone refute this depressing viewpoint?

Post by zerotime »

DooDoot wrote: Tue Jan 01, 2019 2:02 am
Consciousness is not self.
SN 22.59

This is quite important.

Question on free will is only related with the self. Because in the anatta nature of the moment there is no present, past or future. And the question about freedom or determinism doesn't have any sense.

Science don't have answers for these things. It is better don't forget what the Buddha taught about where to find these answers. On the contrary one forget his own experience and can became alienated by the endless speculations of the world. We know we experience the freedom to choose and that is an empirical fact. That freedom is real, and also the choosing became causally determined for the self. However, never for the consciousness. Consciousness lack of any previous cause but it arises in co-dependence. Consciousness is always present in all our intellectuals operations and speculations, including our experience of choosing. When we think in who do the choosing, it is delusion.

I believe the point is forgetting that we are alliberated by wisdom and consciousness, not by this fake "protagonist" of the live, the self.
It doesn't care if what we experience like the -self choosing was determined according our later knowledge of causality. It doesn't care.
User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2712
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Can anyone refute this depressing viewpoint?

Post by Zom »

There is no "free unconditioned will" according to Dhamma. I think this is obvious. Though, we live in a world of illusions, where things exist by themselves and among them there is "free will", based on a sense of selfhood.
I'm also wondering if there is anywhere in the Pali Canon where the Buddha specifically states that free will / agency actually exists.
Buddha never touched that topic, just never. The reason for that, as I see it, is any discussion on that matter with any conclusion made is unskilful. If there is "free will" - one might incline to wrong (sakkaya) ditthi. If there is no free will - one might incline to pernicious nihilist view - like - any efforts on the Path are useless since everything is predetermined.

For this reason Buddha just said this: If you put efforts into the Path, you'll eventually end samsara with its sufferings. If you don't, you won't. Just that simple. :popcorn:
budo
Posts: 1752
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:16 am

Re: Can anyone refute this depressing viewpoint?

Post by budo »

Nicolas wrote: Wed Jan 02, 2019 7:18 pm Absolute determinism ("whatever one experiences, all that is caused by what was done in the past"), when taken to its conclusion, leads to non-doing; see AN 3.61.
Good sutta, the Buddha hits the nail on the head about the dangers of nihilism
"Those who fall back on past deeds as the essential truth have no desire to do what should be done and to" avoid doing what should not be done, nor do they make an effort in this respect. Since they do not apprehend as true and valid anything that should be done or should not be done, they are muddle-minded, they do not guard themselves, and even the personal designation ‘ascetic’ could not be legitimately applied to them. This was my first legitimate refutation of those ascetics and brahmins who hold such a doctrine and view."
In other words, these people think there's no use doing anything if everything is pre-determined, and one should just accept what happens and let things unfold, which you see in many many pragmatic "Buddhism" communities, to just accept everything.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Can anyone refute this depressing viewpoint?

Post by Coëmgenu »

Zom wrote: Fri Jan 04, 2019 12:29 pm There is no "free unconditioned will" according to Dhamma. I think this is obvious. Though, we live in a world of illusions, where things exist by themselves and among them there is "free will", based on a sense of selfhood.
I'm also wondering if there is anywhere in the Pali Canon where the Buddha specifically states that free will / agency actually exists.
Buddha never touched that topic, just never. The reason for that, as I see it, is any discussion on that matter with any conclusion made is unskilful. If there is "free will" - one might incline to wrong (sakkaya) ditthi. If there is no free will - one might incline to pernicious nihilist view - like - any efforts on the Path are useless since everything is predetermined.

For this reason Buddha just said this: If you put efforts into the Path, you'll eventually end samsara with its sufferings. If you don't, you won't. Just that simple. :popcorn:
Attakara & parakara, IMO AN6.38 is very relevant here.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Post Reply