Mike could you tell us why you found it so helpful, I find it a very misleading . and confused essay on the Buddha's teaching.mikenz66 wrote:IFederman, Asaf (2010) What kind of free will did the Buddha teach? Philosophy East and West, Vol.60 (No.1). ISSN 0031-8221
http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/3142/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Human choice and endeavor has a causally effective power within a causally
operated reality. In other words, the fact that reality is deterministic does not contradict
the ability of agents to speculate and reflect about what to do next and decide
accordingly. This kind of free will—imperfect and limited, but not powerless and
irrelevant—is not the opposite of determinism but the opposite of fatalism. While
determinism means that events happen because other events caused them, it is silent
on whether agents cause anything; determinism may well be true in a world without
agents at all. On the other hand, fatalism is an ethical stance because it says that
agents do not have the power to cause anything and that therefore there is no point
in trying. This has, of course, far-reaching ethical implications that are not overlooked
by the Buddha.
This wisdom enables free will, and is a faculty that can be
developed. What limits free will is not causality itself, but various mental compulsions.
The kind of free will that the Buddha taught is the acquired ability for clear
reflection and wise choice that emerges with their eradication
I wrote to you about a year ago:
Mike: I keep seeing the argument that "because of anatta there is no control". Can
someone please explain this? I'm afraid that the logic is beyond me.
Perhaps I can give an example. A computer-controlled vehicle has no self but
does have some control of trajectory...
yes and in the same way a human, dog, insect is programed to perform certain
actions and have certain beliefs. However, unlike your computer car, there was
never any original programmer- no person, no God, no one at all, who set up the
program. In fact no beginning can be discerned..
Also this program- comprising of paccaya- conditions, is much more more complex than any computer robot/car
because it is very gradually changing, aeon by aeon, millienia by millenia,
century by century, year by year, and in fact moment by moment.
Now I act, think and look like a man because of the rupas that arise due to
kamma, next life maybe I will be a woman where I will have all the
characteristics of that gender.
No control anywhere - the rupas (matter) don't
want to be woman or man- but they arise depending on kamma. Nor do the namas
(mentality) want to think like a man, they merely perform their functions.
I enjoy being a man now- but I will also enjoy being a woman, no doubt- not
because "I" want to enjoy but because underlying life is the roots of avija,
ignorance, lobha, attachment, and wrongview(that thinks there is some self that
is doing, behaving and thinking in various ways).)