Question about dependent origination

A forum for members who wish to develop a deeper understanding of the Pali Canon and associated Commentaries, which for discussion purposes are both treated as authoritative.

Moderator: Mahavihara moderator

User avatar
archaic
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:42 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada

Question about dependent origination

Post by archaic » Sun Jan 21, 2018 5:36 pm

I have an intellectual grasp of dependent origination. Currently I am reading Under the Bodhi Tree by Ajahn Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, which is wonderful and delves into many of the facets of dependent origination.

My question however, is more philosophical. If everything arises from causes - everything is conditional - then would this not imply lack of free will?

Or is this a case where free will, and lack of free will form a non-dualistic relationship where both are true and yet both are also not true?

Or is my effort in striving to understand this concept misguided, and I would be better inclined to cease trying to cling to views?

I would appreciate feedback from those more permeated with the dhamma than I :thinking:

:namaste:
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 3561
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Question about dependent origination

Post by Sam Vara » Sun Jan 21, 2018 6:41 pm

archaic wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 5:36 pm
I have an intellectual grasp of dependent origination. Currently I am reading Under the Bodhi Tree by Ajahn Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, which is wonderful and delves into many of the facets of dependent origination.

My question however, is more philosophical. If everything arises from causes - everything is conditional - then would this not imply lack of free will?

Or is this a case where free will, and lack of free will form a non-dualistic relationship where both are true and yet both are also not true?

Or is my effort in striving to understand this concept misguided, and I would be better inclined to cease trying to cling to views?

I would appreciate feedback from those more permeated with the dhamma than I :thinking:

:namaste:
Hi archaic,

There have been several discussions on the topic of free will here on DW over the past few years. My computer is a bit slow at the moment but if you use the search function at the top right of the screen, you should find a couple of similar questions and some lengthy and useful threads.

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 1240
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Question about dependent origination

Post by cappuccino » Sun Jan 21, 2018 6:49 pm

Karma is the result of free will.

SarathW
Posts: 9194
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Question about dependent origination

Post by SarathW » Sun Jan 21, 2018 7:43 pm

I would say Kamma is performed due to free will
If the Kamma is a result of ignorance there will be DO.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 1882
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Question about dependent origination

Post by DooDoot » Sun Jan 21, 2018 11:59 pm

archaic wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 5:36 pm
My question however, is more philosophical. If everything arises from causes - everything is conditional - then would this not imply lack of free will?
While not important in Buddhism, imo, there is probably a lack of free will, given actions are conditioned by either ignorance or, alternately, wisdom.
archaic wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 5:36 pm
Or is this a case where free will, and lack of free will form a non-dualistic relationship where both are true and yet both are also not true?
Maybe not in the book you are reading but Buddhadasa used to teach non-duality although the Buddha didn't.
archaic wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 5:36 pm
Or is my effort in striving to understand this concept misguided, and I would be better inclined to cease trying to cling to views?
Yes, probably.
archaic wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 5:36 pm
I would appreciate feedback from those more permeated with the dhamma than I
The more enlightened the mind is, the more control over life & circumstances it "appears" to have. Yet, ultimately, this control is a produced by wisdom or knowing what is peaceful. In other words, the enlightened mind is a "slave" to peace, just as Buddhadasa considered himself the Buddha's "slave".

freedom
Posts: 189
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2014 1:44 am

Re: Question about dependent origination

Post by freedom » Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:46 am

archaic wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 5:36 pm
My question however, is more philosophical. If everything arises from causes - everything is conditional - then would this not imply lack of free will?
With feeling as condition, craving comes to be.

When feeling can be used as condition, craving will come with no exception. However, this does not mean that if there is feeling then there is craving. Craving can only come when feeling can be used as condition. In other word, when there is sufficient, appropriated feeling that can be used to trigger craving then craving will come with no exception.

By wisdom, one will not let that initial feeling to be intensified or developed by dis-identifying oneself with it. That feeling will eventually cease by its nature and craving will not come. This is one's "free will". If one lets that feeling develop up to a level that it can be used as condition for craving, then craving will come with no exception.
One should not be negligent of discernment, should guard the truth, be devoted to relinquishment, and train only for calm - MN 140.

User avatar
archaic
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:42 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada

Re: Question about dependent origination

Post by archaic » Mon Jan 22, 2018 1:57 am

cappuccino wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 6:49 pm
Karma is the result of free will.
OK, so for an arahant, who produces no kamma, do they have free will?
SarathW wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 7:43 pm
I would say Kamma is performed due to free will
If the Kamma is a result of ignorance there will be DO.
That makes a lot of sense to me, thank you very much.
DooDoot wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 11:59 pm
While not important in Buddhism, imo, there is probably a lack of free will, given actions are conditioned by either ignorance or, alternately, wisdom.
Yes, probably.
Very good!
The more enlightened the mind is, the more control over life & circumstances it "appears" to have. Yet, ultimately, this control is a produced by wisdom or knowing what is peaceful. In other words, the enlightened mind is a "slave" to peace, just as Buddhadasa considered himself the Buddha's "slave".
This would agree with the concept that an arahant produces no kamma... Being a slave with no resistance to peace.
Last edited by archaic on Mon Jan 22, 2018 2:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.

User avatar
archaic
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:42 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada

Re: Question about dependent origination

Post by archaic » Mon Jan 22, 2018 1:58 am


Hi archaic,

There have been several discussions on the topic of free will here on DW over the past few years. My computer is a bit slow at the moment but if you use the search function at the top right of the screen, you should find a couple of similar questions and some lengthy and useful threads.
Thanks I will check those out as well.
freedom wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:46 am
With feeling as condition, craving comes to be.

When feeling can be used as condition, craving will come with no exception. However, this does not mean that if there is feeling then there is craving. Craving can only come when feeling can be used as condition. In other word, when there is sufficient, appropriated feeling that can be used to trigger craving then craving will come with no exception.

By wisdom, one will not let that initial feeling to be intensified or developed by dis-identifying oneself with it. That feeling will eventually cease by its nature and craving will not come. This is one's "free will". If one lets that feeling develop up to a level that it can be used as condition for craving, then craving will come with no exception.
And craving comes from ignorance, which agrees with what SarathW mentioned.

However, if conditions are such that a person has let their ignorance build up very much, and not practiced restraint of their tanha, and has let their impulses rule, such as an extremely desire-driven human... Then wouldn't they, in certain situations, be compelled to follow their cravings and therefore have no choice in the matter?


Thank you everyone for your comments, this is very helpful to me. The relation of kamma to dependent origination had always been somewhat fuzzy to me.
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 1240
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Question about dependent origination

Post by cappuccino » Mon Jan 22, 2018 2:38 am

archaic wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 1:57 am
OK, so for an arahant, who produces no kamma, do they have free will?

In that case karma doesn't apply.
Last edited by cappuccino on Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:22 pm, edited 3 times in total.

freedom
Posts: 189
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2014 1:44 am

Re: Question about dependent origination

Post by freedom » Mon Jan 22, 2018 3:49 am

archaic wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 1:58 am

However, if conditions are such that a person has let their ignorance build up very much, and not practiced restraint of their tanha, and has let their impulses rule, such as an extremely desire-driven human... Then wouldn't they, in certain situations, be compelled to follow their cravings and therefore have no choice in the matter?
They always have a choice, but with so much ignorance and without wisdom they will choose to follow their cravings until they suffer so much that they could not handle it and start looking for an escape from that suffering. Once they see their ignorance, they will choose differently.
One should not be negligent of discernment, should guard the truth, be devoted to relinquishment, and train only for calm - MN 140.

pegembara
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Question about dependent origination

Post by pegembara » Mon Jan 22, 2018 5:12 am

My question however, is more philosophical. If everything arises from causes - everything is conditional - then would this not imply lack of free will?
Free will implies that there is a person making all those choices. In the face of anatta, one could say that choices are being made which are driven by causes and conditions without a self behind them.

Advertisers are experts in manipulating people into buying their products as are politicians. This lack of free will is the reason why advertising and election campaign works.

https://www.placedise.com/blog/the-illu ... ing-works/

And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.

User avatar
Dhammarakkhito
Posts: 988
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: Question about dependent origination

Post by Dhammarakkhito » Mon Jan 22, 2018 5:29 am

friend, read the long discourse on dependent origination https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
see if you still have questions
"Just as the ocean has a single taste — that of salt — in the same way, this Dhamma-Vinaya has a single taste: that of release."
— Ud 5.5

https://www.facebook.com/noblebuddhadha ... 34/?type=3

http://seeingthroughthenet.net/
https://sites.google.com/site/santipada ... allytaught

justindesilva
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 12:38 pm

Re: Question about dependent origination

Post by justindesilva » Mon Jan 22, 2018 8:32 am

SarathW wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 7:43 pm
I would say Kamma is performed due to free will
If the Kamma is a result of ignorance there will be DO.
If kamma is a result of free will then we have to decide on which type of kamma arises. It is shown that ignorance is the root cause of akusal which creates unwholesome karma. That shows that anyone who has overcome ignorance will have a free will of skill causing good karma. ( Also please refer to avijja suttaSN 35.80).

freedom
Posts: 189
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2014 1:44 am

Re: Question about dependent origination

Post by freedom » Mon Jan 22, 2018 8:10 pm

pegembara wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 5:12 am
Free will implies that there is a person making all those choices. In the face of anatta, one could say that choices are being made which are driven by causes and conditions without a self behind them.
Anatta is always a controversial topic...

To my understanding anatta is not about if there is a self (permanent, impermanent, limited, unlimited,...) or there is no self . It is not about if there is a person or there is no person. It also is not about if there is a soul or there is no soul. All of these are just clinging to doctrine of self.

Anatta is about "dispassion, relinquishment, cessation" of whatever related to the identity "I" (me, my, mine, myself). What can relate to the "I"? form, feeling, perception, mental volitions, consciousness. That's all.

When there is no "I" in form, feeling, perception, mental volitions, consciousness, there is no notion of "I have a form", "I have a beautiful body", "I am formless", "I have neither form nor formless", "I have a self", "I do not have a self", "I have a soul", "I do not have a soul", "That is not I"...

When there is no "I" in form, feeling, perception, mental volitions, consciousness, one will not run back to the past and ask if I was in the past or how will I be in the future, or what am I now? or I am not a self but I am just a stream of consciousness or I am a consciousness without feature or my true self is this or that or I am nibbana or nibbana is my true self or I am neither a self nor not-self or I am an indestructible citta that is neither self or not-self... All of these are just about that "I". They are self-view.

When there is no "I" in perception, mental volitions,... there is no notion of "I make a choice" or "I do not make a choice". However, this does not mean that there is no choice and there is nothing that make the choice, or the choice is magically happened. The absence here is just the "I, me, my, mine, myself" or we can say "the choice was made". It's about the choice, not about the "I".

Feeling caused craving to arise. However, when feeling arises, there is a choice if we should let that feeling develop or not. The choices are there, but by ignorance we often blindly let it develop into craving. With wisdom, we will choose to let it go and dis-identify ourselves from it. Without this choice, there is no hope to end our sufferings.

Therefore, the first step is "dispassion" then "relinquishment" and finally "cessation" of whatever related to the identity "I". This is what anatta is about. This is the path to end all sufferings.
One should not be negligent of discernment, should guard the truth, be devoted to relinquishment, and train only for calm - MN 140.

pegembara
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Question about dependent origination

Post by pegembara » Tue Jan 23, 2018 5:13 am

freedom wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 8:10 pm
pegembara wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 5:12 am
Free will implies that there is a person making all those choices. In the face of anatta, one could say that choices are being made which are driven by causes and conditions without a self behind them.
Anatta is always a controversial topic...

To my understanding anatta is not about if there is a self (permanent, impermanent, limited, unlimited,...) or there is no self . It is not about if there is a person or there is no person. It also is not about if there is a soul or there is no soul. All of these are just clinging to doctrine of self.

Anatta is about "dispassion, relinquishment, cessation" of whatever related to the identity "I" (me, my, mine, myself). What can relate to the "I"? form, feeling, perception, mental volitions, consciousness. That's all.
To me, anatta is a characteristic of existence regardless one's opinion or clinging. In this discourse, the Buddha clearly point towards the no self doctrine based on impermanence. As in there being no permanent person.

The realisation of anatta(seeing things as arising from causes and conditions or DO and not within our control) leads to dispassion, not the other way.
“If anyone says, ‘The mind is self,’ that is not tenable. The rise and fall of the mind are discerned, and since its rise and fall are discerned, it would follow: ‘My self rises and falls.’ That is why it is not tenable for anyone to say, ‘The mind is self.’ Thus the mind is not self.

“If anyone says, ‘Mind-objects are self,’…‘Mind-consciousness is self,’…‘Mind-contact is self,’…‘Feeling is self,’…… ‘Craving is self’…That is why it is not tenable for anyone to say, ‘Craving is self.’ Thus the mind is not self, mind-objects are not self, mind-consciousness is not self, mind-contact is not self, feeling is not self, craving is not self.

Seeing thus, bhikkhus, a well-taught noble disciple becomes disenchanted with the eye, disenchanted with forms, disenchanted with eye-consciousness, disenchanted with eye-contact, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with craving.

https://suttacentral.net/en/mn148
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.

santa100
Posts: 2900
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Question about dependent origination

Post by santa100 » Tue Jan 23, 2018 7:53 pm

archaic wrote:My question however, is more philosophical. If everything arises from causes - everything is conditional - then would this not imply lack of free will?
Conditioned things and free will are not mutually exclusive of each other. Say a chained smoker who's addicted to smoking, if one traces every single variable in the lengthy conditioned equation that lead to his addiction, they might be: He was raised by parents who smoked, He grew up surrounded by friends who smoked, his job is stressful, etc... And those are the external variables. Now, quite often we tend to forget a very important "internal" variable: the smoker's intention to continue to smoke! Had this variable not existed at all, the Buddha wouldn't even bother to teach the Four Right Exertions!

freedom
Posts: 189
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2014 1:44 am

Re: Question about dependent origination

Post by freedom » Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:50 pm

pegembara wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 5:13 am

To me, anatta is a characteristic of existence regardless one's opinion or clinging. In this discourse, the Buddha clearly point towards the no self doctrine based on impermanence. As in there being no permanent person.

The realisation of anatta(seeing things as arising from causes and conditions or DO and not within our control) leads to dispassion, not the other way.
Going against normal stream is not very easy...

Even if I believe in "no permanent person" and things arise from causes and conditions not within my control, what will this view lead me to? I am not permanent now. There is no permanent person behind me now. I am arising from causes and conditions not within my control now. I am a stream of consciousness in this impermanent body now. However, I am perfectly OK now. I have a beautiful wife who loves me so much. I have a beautiful house. I am rich. I have everything that I need. I am so happy. Why so? According to this view, I should be suffer and it should lead me to dispassion - not satisfaction like that!

Do you see how do you suffer? There are many people died everyday. We can see this in newspapers, Internet,... They died because of impermanence, because of causes and conditions. Do you suffer because of this? Why not? Do these events lead you to dispassion?

You do not suffer because they are not "yours". You do not suffer because they do not relate to you. However, if there are your love ones in them, if they relate to you then you will suffer. Why? because there is "I, my, mine" in there. "Because my beloved wife just died, I am suffering."

A lovely lady in New York just died. She died because of impermanence. She died because of causes and conditions. Do you suffer because of this? Does this event lead you to dispassion?

A man in California just lost all of his saving money. He lost the money because money is impermanence. He lost the money because of causes and conditions. Do you suffer because of this? Do you have any dispassion if you even do not know about it?

Impermanence, causes and conditions that are not within our control do not always lead to suffering and dispassion. If they do not directly relate to "me", I do not suffer. Moreover, If I am in pain or suffering now, impermanence will lead me to relief and happiness.

Impermanence, causes and conditions that are not within our control lead to suffering if I am badly affected by them. If there is "I, me, my, mine, myself" in them, I will be affected. Otherwise, I am not.

Seeing this, we develop dispassion with whatever "I, me, my, mine, myself". How can I suffer if there is no "I, me, my, mine, myself" in anything?

DO shows us how do we suffer and how can we end that suffering.

When I see a beautiful car, I like it and I want it to be "my car". I will try to get it. When I got it. It becomes "my car". Now there is a new "my" in my possessions.
With this new car, I will need to pay for "my" new insurance payment, "my" new gas cost, "my" new maintenance cost... This is birth. Now I have many more new "my" (or many new potential sufferings).

When I ran off money (condition came), I cannot pay for those new "my"s. I suffer. When "my" new car gets in an accident, I suffer... Those "my"s again give new births to new law suits, new collections, new headaches... I suffer more...When I did not have that car, I did not need to deal with any of these!

A young boy has no idea about if there is a permanent person or not. He never care if he has a "self" or "soul" or not. He even never think about it. Yet, he is suffering. He suffers because he lost "his" toys. He suffers because he lost "his" mother. He does not suffer because he think that he lost his soul (or self) or his soul is impermanent or not in his control. He will be happy if he can find his toys and his mother.

The Buddha advised us not to identify with form, feeling, perception, mental volitions, consciousness. He told us do not take form, feeling, perception, mental volitions, consciousness as "I, my, my, mine, myself". This is what anatta is about.

Therefore, anatta is about "dispassion, relinquishment, cessation" of whatever relates to "I, mine, myself, me"; therefore, do not take anything to be "I, mine, myself, me". This is how we end our cravings. This is wisdom.
"So, bhikkhus any kind of form whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near, must with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself.' SN22.59
One should not be negligent of discernment, should guard the truth, be devoted to relinquishment, and train only for calm - MN 140.

pegembara
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Question about dependent origination

Post by pegembara » Wed Jan 24, 2018 5:46 am

freedom wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:50 pm
pegembara wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 5:13 am

To me, anatta is a characteristic of existence regardless one's opinion or clinging. In this discourse, the Buddha clearly point towards the no self doctrine based on impermanence. As in there being no permanent person.

The realisation of anatta(seeing things as arising from causes and conditions or DO and not within our control) leads to dispassion, not the other way.
Impermanence, causes and conditions that are not within our control do not always lead to suffering and dispassion. If they do not directly relate to "me", I do not suffer. Moreover, If I am in pain or suffering now, impermanence will lead me to relief and happiness.

Impermanence, causes and conditions that are not within our control lead to suffering if I am badly affected by them. If there is "I, me, my, mine, myself" in them, I will be affected. Otherwise, I am not.

Seeing this, we develop dispassion with whatever "I, me, my, mine, myself". How can I suffer if there is no "I, me, my, mine, myself" in anything?
First hearing the true teachings, then the realisation which leads to dispassion etc. Blindly repeating that things are not me or mine doesn't cut it because we don't truly see them as such.
"Bhikkhus, when a noble follower who has heard (the truth) sees thus, he finds estrangement in form, he finds estrangement in feeling, he finds estrangement in perception, he finds estrangement in determinations, he finds estrangement in consciousness.

I agree. :anjali:
At Savatthi. "Monks, eye-consciousness is inconstant, changeable, alterable. Ear-consciousness... Nose-consciousness... Tongue-consciousness... Body-consciousness... Intellect-consciousness is inconstant, changeable, alterable.

"One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way is called a faith-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry.

"One who, after pondering with a modicum of discernment, has accepted that these phenomena are this way is called a Dhamma-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry.

"One who knows and sees that these phenomena are this way is called a stream-enterer, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.

pegembara
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Question about dependent origination

Post by pegembara » Wed Jan 24, 2018 7:24 am

archaic wrote:
My question however, is more philosophical. If everything arises from causes - everything is conditional - then would this not imply lack of free will?
Yes.
At Savatthi. "Monks, intention for forms is inconstant, changeable, alterable. Intention for sounds... Intention for smells... Intention for tastes... Intention for tactile sensations... Intention for ideas is inconstant, changeable, alterable.

"One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way is called a faith-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry.

"One who, after pondering with a modicum of discernment, has accepted that these phenomena are this way is called a Dhamma-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry.

"One who knows and sees that these phenomena are this way is called a stream-enterer, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
OK, so for an arahant, who produces no kamma, do they have free will?
That is the wrong question. There is no "they" so the question of free will doesn't arise.
"When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering."
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 1882
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Question about dependent origination

Post by DooDoot » Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:29 am

freedom wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 8:10 pm
To my understanding anatta is not about if there is a self (permanent, impermanent, limited, unlimited,...) or there is no self . It is not about if there is a person or there is no person. It also is not about if there is a soul or there is no soul. All of these are just clinging to doctrine of self.

Anatta is about "dispassion, relinquishment, cessation" of whatever related to the identity "I" (me, my, mine, myself). What can relate to the "I"? form, feeling, perception, mental volitions, consciousness. That's all.
I think sutta support is required for this unusual way of explaining.
pegembara wrote:
Wed Jan 24, 2018 7:24 am
To me, anatta is a characteristic of existence regardless one's opinion or clinging. In this discourse, the Buddha clearly point towards the no self doctrine based on impermanence. As in there being no permanent person.
This link appears to support this answer: https://suttacentral.net/en/an3.136
pegembara wrote:
Wed Jan 24, 2018 7:24 am
The realisation of anatta (seeing things as arising from causes and conditions or DO and not within our control) leads to dispassion, not the other way.
It seems this way in the suttas.
freedom wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:50 pm
A lovely lady in New York just died. She died because of impermanence... A man in California just lost all of his saving money. He lost the money because money is impermanence. He lost the money because of causes and conditions. Do you suffer because of this? Do you have any dispassion if you even do not know about it? Impermanence, causes and conditions that are not within our control do not always lead to suffering and dispassion.
All impermanence & unsatisfactoriness, if seen clearly, should lead to dispassion. No self-clinging is required to be dispassionate, according to Dhp.
277. "All conditioned things are impermanent" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

278. "All conditioned things are unsatisfactory" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

279. "All things are not-self" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .budd.html
:candle:
freedom wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:50 pm
If they do not directly relate to "me", I do not suffer.
Yes. And, so?
freedom wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:50 pm
Moreover, If I am in pain or suffering now, impermanence will lead me to relief and happiness.

I do not recall any teachings like this in the suttas. Impermanence is taught for the abandoning of the conceit "I" (MN 62; MN 118; SN 22.59; etc).
freedom wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:50 pm
Impermanence, causes and conditions that are not within our control lead to suffering if I am badly affected by them. If there is "I, me, my, mine, myself" in them, I will be affected. Otherwise, I am not.

You appear to be mixing up the teaching of the 4NTs with the teaching of the Three Characteristics. The 4NTs seem to explain attachment is suffering but the Three Characteristics say all compounded things are impermanent, unsatisfactory & not-self; regardless of attachment. For example, a TV by its very nature cannot bring lasting happiness. It is unsatisfactory by its very nature.
freedom wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:50 pm
Seeing this, we develop dispassion with whatever "I, me, my, mine, myself". How can I suffer if there is no "I, me, my, mine, myself" in anything?

The suttas say: "Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?". This statement does not refer to dispassion with whatever "I, me, my, mine, myself".
freedom wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:50 pm
DO shows us how do we suffer and how can we end that suffering.
Yes. But D.O. does not appear to explain the Three Characteristics of all compounded things.
freedom wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:50 pm
When I see a beautiful car, I like it and I want it to be "my car". I will try to get it. When I got it. It becomes "my car". Now there is a new "my" in my possessions. With this new car, I will need to pay for "my" new insurance payment, "my" new gas cost, "my" new maintenance cost... This is birth.
And?
freedom wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:50 pm
When I ran off money (condition came), I cannot pay for those new "my"s. I suffer. When "my" new car gets in an accident, I suffer... Those "my"s again give new births to new law suits, new collections, new headaches... I suffer more...When I did not have that car, I did not need to deal with any of these!

You suffer due to clinging; which occurs due to ignorance of impermanence & not-self.
freedom wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:50 pm
A young boy has no idea about if there is a permanent person or not. He never care if he has a "self" or "soul" or not. He even never think about it. Yet, he is suffering. He suffers because he lost "his" toys. He suffers because he lost "his" mother. He does not suffer because he think that he lost his soul (or self) or his soul is impermanent or not in his control. He will be happy if he can find his toys and his mother.
It seems the young boy does not realise his mother & toys are impermanent, unsatisfactory & not-self. Therefore, the young boy does not have dispassion towards these phenomena.
freedom wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:50 pm
The Buddha advised us not to identify with form, feeling, perception, mental volitions, consciousness. He told us do not take form, feeling, perception, mental volitions, consciousness as "I, my, my, mine, myself". This is what anatta is about.

My impression is the Buddha told us do not take form, feeling, perception, mental volitions, consciousness as "I, my, my, mine, myself" because these five aggregates are inherently anatta; regardless of whether or not we believe they are mine or myself. The act of non-identification I have never read is called 'anatta'. 'Anatta' I read in the suttas is a characteristic (lakkhana) of all compounded things. In other words, all compounded things do not have an "owner". A rock or cloud is "anatta".
freedom wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:50 pm
Therefore, anatta is about "dispassion, relinquishment, cessation" of whatever relates to "I, mine, myself, me"; therefore, do not take anything to be "I, mine, myself, me". This is how we end our cravings. This is wisdom.

The suttas appear to say dispassion occurs when anatta is realised rather than say dispassion is anatta. Its like having passion towards a sexy girl until you realise the husband of the sexy girl is Mike Tyson. When you realise the sexy girl is not yours & cannot be yours & you might get beaten up by Mike Tyson, I imagine there arises dispassion.
freedom wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:50 pm
"So, bhikkhus any kind of form whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near, must with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself.' SN22.59
The relevant quote appears to be as follows. The quote does not appear to say he finds estrangement in clinging to things as "I & "mine".
"Bhikkhus, when a noble follower who has heard (the truth) sees thus, he finds estrangement in form, he finds estrangement in feeling, he finds estrangement in perception, he finds estrangement in mental formations, he finds estrangement in consciousness.

When he finds estrangement, passion fades out. With the fading of passion, he is liberated. When liberated, there is knowledge that he is liberated. He understands: 'Birth is exhausted, the holy life has been lived out, what can be done is done, of this there is no more beyond.'"

SN22.59

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests