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

Re: Did the Buddha teach that we have choice?

Post by Alex123 » Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:16 pm

Hi clw_uk,
clw_uk wrote: the dhamma of choice would be influenced but not told what to do, i.e. C4 to A9
It would be C4 would be better than A9
What is the difference between influence and "being told what to do".

Why isn't influence a cause, just on a lesser scale?

What are the reasons why a person would choose C4 rather than A9?

clw_uk wrote: No Alex actually the quality of coke was greather than the 4NT's at first
I've meant quality as strength. Not as immediate gratification.
clw_uk wrote: I understood the 4NT's rationally but didnt know really know them (which would make them greater)
So your rational understanding with good enough to work at abandoning coke. So abandoning coke was conditioned process.

clw_uk wrote: the dhamma that chooses chose the 4NT's despite coke calling me back
The causes for abandoning coke and choosing 4NT was greater than snorting coke and abandoning 4NT.
clw_uk wrote: But I didnt really see the drawbacks of coke at first
Then why did you quit? That was a required cause to quit coke.

clw_uk wrote: There are no morals (since these rely on choice)
There is kamma and outcome of kamma. There is sila and benefits of sila. What is so immoral here?

clw_uk wrote: Also liberation is certain at some time or another during the metaphysical round of "samsara"
Not unless there is sufficient paññā is present.

clw_uk wrote: Thought experiment here :
I accept your
A) Determinism (in your buddhaistic Ajivakaistic form)
B) rebirth
So therefore why should I try, why should I choose
Because when you fully see the benefits of X and drawbacks of Y, there is no other choice possible but to strive for X.

clw_uk wrote: Why Should I have SHAME
Because of many conditions and wisdom that really sees the drawback and folly of what you've done.


With metta,

Alex
"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
tiltbillings
Posts: 23043
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Did the Buddha teach that we have choice?

Post by tiltbillings » Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:19 pm

Alex123 wrote:Hi clw_uk,
clw_uk wrote: the dhamma of choice would be influenced but not told what to do, i.e. C4 to A9
It would be C4 would be better than A9
What is the difference between influence and "being told what to do".
Not worded quite correctly. You said dictate, so it is between influence, which is open to resistance and another course of action, and being forced to do something, which is being forced to something with no options, which is what you seem to be advocating.
>> 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: 3476
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Did the Buddha teach that we have choice?

Post by Alex123 » Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:23 pm

tiltbillings wrote:You are simply not talking about choice.
Not your definition of what amounts to being a causeless choice Y that can occur despite the conditions for choice X to occur.

Alex wrote: Choice does not happen without requisite set of many complex internal & external conditions. But as conditioned process it does occur.
tiltbillings wrote:
Not that you have shown.
Do you claim that
Despite there being conditions for Choice X to occur, Choice Y occurs instead ?

What was the reason for Choice Y to occur? To accept the above claim would be like saying that

Despite there being conditions for fire to occur, water occurs instead.

tiltbillings wrote:
You really do not listen. The point is, Alex, clearly is that at the point of choosing the conditions for this and that and maybe the other thing to occur are present, giving us the viable options of choice. No viable options, no choice.
I do. I just don't accept the chaos of saying that the choice can occur other than the choice that was meant to occur given the specific set of internal & external causes.

I also don't accept that viable options are unconditioned, and if they are conditioned, then they follow the conditioned nature of things.


With metta,

Alex
"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
clw_uk
Posts: 4718
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Did the Buddha teach that we have choice?

Post by clw_uk » Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:23 pm

No choice, as you advocate, no moral responsibility.

I think tilt has rounded up Alex's view

No choice leads to the Ajivaka camp


Ajivaka was not just the following of Gosala btw alex it was many teachers

The main two were

Gosala -

"When this was said, Makkhali Gosala said to me, 'Great king, there is no cause, no requisite condition, for the defilement of beings. Beings are defiled without cause, without requisite condition. There is no cause, no requisite condition, for the purification of beings. Beings are purified without cause, without requisite condition. There is nothing self-caused, nothing other-caused, nothing human-caused. There is no strength, no effort, no human energy, no human endeavor. All living beings, all life, all beings, all souls are powerless, devoid of strength, devoid of effort. Subject to the changes of fate, serendipity, and nature, they are sensitive to pleasure and pain in the six great classes of birth.

"'There are 1,406,600 principle modes of origin. There are 500 kinds of kamma, five kinds, and three kinds; full kamma and half kamma. There are 62 pathways, 62 sub-eons, six great classes of birth, eight classes of men, 4,900 modes of livelihood, 4,900 kinds of wanderers, 4,900 Naga-abodes, 2,000 faculties, 3,000 hells, 36 dust-realms, seven spheres of percipient beings, seven spheres of non-percipient beings, seven kinds of jointed plants, seven kinds of devas, seven kinds of human beings, seven kinds of demons, seven great lakes, seven major knots, seven minor knots, 700 major precipices, 700 minor precipices, 700 major dreams, 700 minor dreams, 84,000 great aeons. Having transmigrated and wandered on through these, the wise and the foolish alike will put an end to pain.

"'Though one might think, "Through this morality, this practice, this austerity, or this holy life I will ripen unripened kamma and eliminate ripened kamma whenever touched by it" — that is impossible. Pleasure and pain are measured out, the wandering-on is fixed in its limits. There is no shortening or lengthening, no accelerating or decelerating. Just as a ball of string, when thrown, comes to its end simply by unwinding, in the same way, having transmigrated and wandered on, the wise and the foolish alike will put an end to pain.'
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


And Purana Kassapa (also an ajivaka)

"When this was said, Purana Kassapa said to me, 'Great king, in acting or getting others to act, in mutilating or getting others to mutilate, in torturing or getting others to torture, in inflicting sorrow or in getting others to inflict sorrow, in tormenting or getting others to torment, in intimidating or getting others to intimidate, in taking life, taking what is not given, breaking into houses, plundering wealth, committing burglary, ambushing highways, committing adultery, speaking falsehood — one does no evil. If with a razor-edged disk one were to turn all the living beings on this earth to a single heap of flesh, a single pile of flesh, there would be no evil from that cause, no coming of evil. Even if one were to go along the right bank of the Ganges, killing and getting others to kill, mutilating and getting others to mutilate, torturing and getting others to torture, there would be no evil from that cause, no coming of evil. Even if one were to go along the left bank of the Ganges, giving and getting others to give, making sacrifices and getting others to make sacrifices, there would be no merit from that cause, no coming of merit. Through generosity, self-control, restraint, and truthful speech there is no merit from that cause, no coming of merit.'
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

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

Re: Did the Buddha teach that we have choice?

Post by Alex123 » Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:27 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
Alex123 wrote:Hi clw_uk,
clw_uk wrote: the dhamma of choice would be influenced but not told what to do, i.e. C4 to A9
It would be C4 would be better than A9
What is the difference between influence and "being told what to do".
Not worded quite correctly. You said dictate, so it is between influence, which is open to resistance and another course of action, and being forced to do something, which is being forced to something with no options, which is what you seem to be advocating.
Why isn't resistance being forced to resist something?

Is resistance conditioned or unconditioned?

Do you say that despite there being conditions for resistance to resist X, resistance resists Y?

Resistance happens in the only possible way that it ever could have happened given those multitude of complex interrelated conditions.
"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
clw_uk
Posts: 4718
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Did the Buddha teach that we have choice?

Post by clw_uk » Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:28 pm

clw_uk wrote:
There are no morals (since these rely on choice)


There is kamma and outcome of kamma. There is sila and benefits of sila. What is so immoral here?


Sorry for the capitals but

what is kamma in buddhadhamma


:woohoo: INTENTIONAL :tantrum:


ACTION



What is intention? Choice not Determinism Gosalism/ajiakism/kassapaism


IT IS NOT A BALL OF STRING


Ajivakas did not advocate INTENTION

metta

:)


P.S. captials for emphasis not for aggression
Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23043
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Did the Buddha teach that we have choice?

Post by tiltbillings » Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:34 pm

Alex123 wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:You are simply not talking about choice.
Not your definition of what amounts to being a causeless choice Y that can occur despite the conditions for choice X to occur.
This is just silly. The point is, Alex, that at the moment of choosing the conditions exit for the various options. There is no "causeless choice" option.

Choice, as you seem to be describing it, has no options, which means no choice.
. . . the choice that was meant to occur given the specific set of internal & external causes.
If it was meant to occur, then it is not a choice.
I also don't accept that viable options are unconditioned
Image
and if they are conditioned, then they follow the conditioned nature of things.
Sure, which is what I have been saying and have shown
>> 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: 3476
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Did the Buddha teach that we have choice?

Post by Alex123 » Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:35 pm

Hi clw,
clw_uk wrote: I think tilt has rounded up Alex's view
No choice leads to the Ajivaka camp
From what I've read:
ajivaka did not believe in Kamma. I do.
ajivaka did not believe in Buddha. I do.
ajivaka (or any non-Buddhist schools) did not believe in role of paññā or drawbacks of avijjā - I do.
ajivaka did not believe that paññā resulted in liberation and that avijjā prevents exit from samsara.



clw_uk wrote: Ajivaka was not just the following of Gosala btw alex it was many teachers
And I don't agree with them.
"When this was said, Makkhali Gosala said to me, 'Great king, there is no cause, no requisite condition, for the defilement of beings. Beings are defiled without cause, without requisite condition. There is no cause, no requisite condition, for the purification of beings. Beings are purified without cause, without requisite condition..."'Though one might think, "Through this morality, this practice, this austerity, or this holy life I will ripen unripened kamma and eliminate ripened kamma whenever touched by it" — that is impossible. Pleasure and pain are measured out, the wandering-on is fixed in its limits. There is no shortening or lengthening, no accelerating or decelerating. Just as a ball of string, when thrown, comes to its end simply by unwinding, in the same way, having transmigrated and wandered on, the wise and the foolish alike will put an end to pain.
I have never claimed that there is no cause for purification or for defilement. There is cause for Liberation and Samsara.

Paññā makes liberation possible. With more paññā, liberation occurs faster. Avijjā obstructs liberation and keeps one in samsara. One doesn’t escape samsara due to merely wondering on. Escape from samsara happens because of developed Paññā that cuts off 10 fetters.

Makkhali Gosala did not teach about Paññā and Avijjā. He didn’t teach that these are key causes that can either keep one in samsara or cause escape from Samsara.


Nibbāna does not arise simply due to wandering on. It arises due to paññā eliminating all fetters.


"When this was said, Purana Kassapa said to me, 'Great king, in acting or getting others to act, in mutilating or getting others to mutilate, in torturing or getting others to torture, in inflicting sorrow or in getting others to inflict sorrow, in tormenting or getting others to torment, in intimidating or getting others to intimidate, in taking life, taking what is not given, breaking into houses, plundering wealth, committing burglary, ambushing highways, committing adultery, speaking falsehood — one does no evil. If with a razor-edged disk one were to turn all the living beings on this earth to a single heap of flesh, a single pile of flesh, there would be no evil from that cause, no coming of evil. Even if one were to go along the right bank of the Ganges, killing and getting others to kill, mutilating and getting others to mutilate, torturing and getting others to torture, there would be no evil from that cause, no coming of evil. Even if one were to go along the left bank of the Ganges, giving and getting others to give, making sacrifices and getting others to make sacrifices, there would be no merit from that cause, no coming of merit. Through generosity, self-control, restraint, and truthful speech there is no merit from that cause, no coming of merit.'
I strongly condemn the above view. I have never talked about it. Good kamma leads to good result, bad kamma leads to bad result. There are good actions and there are bad actions.


With metta,

Alex
"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
tiltbillings
Posts: 23043
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Did the Buddha teach that we have choice?

Post by tiltbillings » Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:37 pm

Alex123 wrote: Why isn't resistance being forced to resist something?

Is resistance conditioned or unconditioned?

Do you say that despite there being conditions for resistance to resist X, resistance resists Y?

Resistance happens in the only possible way that it ever could have happened given those multitude of complex interrelated conditions.
Your questions are Image
>> 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
clw_uk
Posts: 4718
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Did the Buddha teach that we have choice?

Post by clw_uk » Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:37 pm

Alex

Why isn't resistance being forced to resist something?
Resistance means going against the flow

Is resistance conditioned or unconditioned?
Conditioned would mean the three marks, not determined "it must be this"

Do you say that despite there being conditions for resistance to resist X, resistance resists Y?
:rolleye:

Resistance happens in the only possible way that it ever could have happened given those multitude of complex interrelated conditions.
Hello murky water
Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

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

Re: Did the Buddha teach that we have choice?

Post by Alex123 » Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:39 pm

clw_uk wrote:

what is kamma in buddhadhamma

:woohoo: INTENTIONAL :tantrum:

ACTION


What is intention? Choice not Determinism Gosalism/ajiakism/kassapaism


IT IS NOT A BALL OF STRING


Ajivakas did not advocate INTENTION

metta

:)


Intention is conditioned, like any other thing. While ajivikas did not advocate intention, I do. Good (kusala) intention leads to good results, bad intention (akusala) leads to bad results.


The path is not ball of string. Participation itself in samsara is not cause for liberation.


If sufficient paññā is present, then wholesome actions will inevitably occur that will help to get out of samsara.
Nobody is determined for release just for transmigrating on and unbinding just like ball of strong. Only when there is sufficient Paññā are there conditions for Nibbāna.


With metta,

Alex
"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
tiltbillings
Posts: 23043
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Did the Buddha teach that we have choice?

Post by tiltbillings » Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:40 pm

Alex123 wrote:Hi clw,
clw_uk wrote: I think tilt has rounded up Alex's view
No choice leads to the Ajivaka camp
From what I've read:
ajivaka did not believe in Kamma. I do.
ajivaka did not believe in Buddha. I do.
ajivaka (or any non-Buddhist schools) did not believe in role of paññā or drawbacks of avijjā - I do.
ajivaka did not believe that paññā resulted in liberation and that avijjā prevents exit from samsara.
Choiceless kamma, rejecting the choice the Buddha advocated, etc, but generally the point is that you are advocating a determinism that does not require us to act and it has no moral accountability. A choice without option, as you advocate, is not choice. No choice, no moral responsibility.
>> 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: 3476
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Did the Buddha teach that we have choice?

Post by Alex123 » Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:41 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
Alex123 wrote: Why isn't resistance being forced to resist something?

Is resistance conditioned or unconditioned?

Do you say that despite there being conditions for resistance to resist X, resistance resists Y?

Resistance happens in the only possible way that it ever could have happened given those multitude of complex interrelated conditions.
Your questions are Image

So when you can't defend your viewpoint, you attack the person, claim that the question is irrelevant, fail to understand the question and thus think it is strawman.
"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
tiltbillings
Posts: 23043
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Did the Buddha teach that we have choice?

Post by tiltbillings » Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:43 pm

Alex123 wrote:Intention is conditioned, like any other thing. While ajivikas did not advocate intention, I do. Good (kusala) intention leads to good results, bad intention (akusala) leads to bad results.
So you are advocating that we act, choosing between viable conditioned options based upon our intention? Finally, you have gotten it.
>> 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: 3476
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Did the Buddha teach that we have choice?

Post by Alex123 » Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:44 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
Alex123 wrote:Hi clw,
clw_uk wrote: I think tilt has rounded up Alex's view
No choice leads to the Ajivaka camp
From what I've read:
ajivaka did not believe in Kamma. I do.
ajivaka did not believe in Buddha. I do.
ajivaka (or any non-Buddhist schools) did not believe in role of paññā or drawbacks of avijjā - I do.
ajivaka did not believe that paññā resulted in liberation and that avijjā prevents exit from samsara.
Choiceless kamma, rejecting the choice the Buddha advocated, etc, but generally the point is that you are advocating a determinism that does not require us to act and it has no moral accountability. A choice without option, as you advocate, is not choice. No choice, no moral responsibility.

I do advocate choice, and there are options to choose from. But the options and the final choice is dependent on causes such as Paññā or Avijjā and all the other relevant factors such as aggregates, 12 sense spheres, 18 elements, etc.

There is moral accountability. Good kamma leads to good results, bad kamma leads to bad results.


With metta,

Alex
"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
Alex123
Posts: 3476
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Did the Buddha teach that we have choice?

Post by Alex123 » Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:47 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
Alex123 wrote:Intention is conditioned, like any other thing. While ajivikas did not advocate intention, I do. Good (kusala) intention leads to good results, bad intention (akusala) leads to bad results.
So you are advocating that we act, choosing between viable conditioned options based upon our intention? Finally, you have gotten it.

Action and choosing between viable options does occur. But it occurs in the only possible way that it ever could occur given the complex set of internal/external conditions for it.


A leaf can move when it is blown by the wind. But it moves only due to being blown by the wind, and only in the direction that sum total of physical causes cause it to move.
"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
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 18603
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Did the Buddha teach that we have choice?

Post by retrofuturist » Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:50 pm

Greetings,
Alex123 wrote:But it occurs in the only possible way that it ever could occur given the complex set of internal/external conditions for it.
Fatalism.

Image

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead" - Thomas Paine

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23043
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Did the Buddha teach that we have choice?

Post by tiltbillings » Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:50 pm

Alex123 wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
Alex123 wrote: Why isn't resistance being forced to resist something?

Is resistance conditioned or unconditioned?

Do you say that despite there being conditions for resistance to resist X, resistance resists Y?

Resistance happens in the only possible way that it ever could have happened given those multitude of complex interrelated conditions.
Your questions are Image

So when you can't defend your viewpoint, you attack the person, claim that the question is irrelevant, fail to understand the question and thus think it is strawman.
And you fail to see, or admit that the questions have been addressed, often numerous times. The straw-man is your argument, not you. You continually fall back to this "unconditioned" business when I have never advocated, suggested, implied unconditioned anything. And actually, your questions, as I reread them, make no sense in relationship to what I said.
>> 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
clw_uk
Posts: 4718
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Did the Buddha teach that we have choice?

Post by clw_uk » Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:53 pm

Alex


From what I've read:
ajivaka did not believe in Kamma. I do.
Yes they did. Gosala was also a pupil of mahavira and most likely adopted some form of kamma

also bear in mind that the original concept of kamma was simpy action, i.e. determinism
ajivaka did not believe in Buddha. I do.
Im sorry but it doesnt seem that you do, you believe in Gosala or Pūraṇa Kassapa
ajivaka (or any non-Buddhist schools) did not believe in role of paññā or drawbacks of avijjā - I do.

Actually most of the indian traditions place emphasis on ignorance and wisdom they just define it differently

ajivaka did not believe that paññā resulted in liberation and that avijjā prevents exit from samsara.
Really?
clw_uk wrote:
Ajivaka was not just the following of Gosala btw alex it was many teachers


Alex - And I don't agree with them.
Really?

But in your teaching there is

A) Fate (gosalaism) - There is no shortening or lengthening, no accelerating or decelerating. Just as a ball of string, when thrown, comes to its end simply by unwinding, in the same way, having transmigrated and wandered on, the wise and the foolish alike will put an end to pain.'

BTW I also remember you saying that dukkha is not just mental pain but the aggregates themselves, which fits nicely with gosala


B) No intentional action (determinism) and so no morals
"When this was said, Purana Kassapa said to me, 'Great king, in acting or getting others to act, in mutilating or getting others to mutilate, in torturing or getting others to torture, in inflicting sorrow or in getting others to inflict sorrow, in tormenting or getting others to torment, in intimidating or getting others to intimidate, in taking life, taking what is not given, breaking into houses, plundering wealth, committing burglary, ambushing highways, committing adultery, speaking falsehood — one does no evil. If with a razor-edged disk one were to turn all the living beings on this earth to a single heap of flesh, a single pile of flesh, there would be no evil from that cause, no coming of evil. Even if one were to go along the right bank of the Ganges, killing and getting others to kill, mutilating and getting others to mutilate, torturing and getting others to torture, there would be no evil from that cause, no coming of evil. Even if one were to go along the left bank of the Ganges, giving and getting others to give, making sacrifices and getting others to make sacrifices, there would be no merit from that cause, no coming of merit. Through generosity, self-control, restraint, and truthful speech there is no merit from that cause, no coming of merit.'

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


Sorry Alex but you have slipped into Ajivakism
I have never claimed that there is no cause for purification or for defilement.
The Ajivaka view is rooted in fate and so is yours

If there is no intentional action then "beings are not defiled by themselves or others"

Makkhali Gosala did not teach about Paññā and Avijjā. He didn’t teach that these are key causes that can either keep one in samsara or cause escape from Samsara.


Nibbāna does not arise simply due to wandering on. It arises due to paññā eliminating all fetters.
The buddha didnt not have a monopoly on these terms


In your view nibbana does since all is determined and just simply plays out in the grand ball of string of life

I strongly condemn the above view. I have never talked about it. Good kamma leads to good result, bad kamma leads to bad result. There are good actions and there are bad actions.
Alex is refering to Purana Kassapa

How can there be "good" (skillfull kamma) without intention

Skillfullness means intention based on knowing how to act to a situation, not being determined towards it
Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23043
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Did the Buddha teach that we have choice?

Post by tiltbillings » Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:54 pm

Alex123 wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
Alex123 wrote:Intention is conditioned, like any other thing. While ajivikas did not advocate intention, I do. Good (kusala) intention leads to good results, bad intention (akusala) leads to bad results.
So you are advocating that we act, choosing between viable conditioned options based upon our intention? Finally, you have gotten it.

Action and choosing between viable options does occur. But it occurs in the only possible way that it ever could occur given the complex set of internal/external conditions for it.
Wow!!. So spell it out how it works.

A leaf can move when it is blown by the wind. But it moves only due to being blown by the wind, and only in the direction that sum total of physical causes cause it to move.
Never mind, you are again claiming choiceless choice calling it choice when it isn't. Ho, hum. it is the dastardly dinosaur again.
>> 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

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], ginko, m0rl0ck and 83 guests