Meditation, conditionality, and anatta

General discussion of issues related to Theravada Meditation, e.g. meditation postures, developing a regular sitting practice, skillfully relating to difficulties and hindrances, etc.
Locked
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Meditation, conditionality, and anatta

Post by Alex123 »

tiltbillings wrote:Okay, but given the almost infinite complexity of the conditioning at play at any one time, things are never simple, nor is it a "strict conditionality."
A mixture of different causes will produce a mixture of results. Each result has a specific cause. If there are many different causes at play, then there will be results for each of those causes, and the sum total of those results can be of infinite complexity.

Let me give you an example. Lets say wholesome roots are like seed + all conditions necessary that grow into trees that give sweet fruits. Unwholesome roots are like seeds + all conditions necessary that grow into trees that give bitter fruits.

If the field is sown with only one type of seeds, then the result will be the fruits of one type. If there is mixture (50/50, 40/60, 99/1, etc) of kinds of seeds, the resultant crop will be according to those ratios. Still a specific seed gives a specific result. And there can be many different seeds each giving their own result.
"If one says that in whatever way a person performs a kammic action, in that very same way he will experience the result — in that case there will be no (possibility for a) religious life and no opportunity would appear for the complete ending of suffering.

"But if one says that a person who performs a kammic action (with a result) that is variably experienceable, will reap its results accordingly — in that case there will be (a possibility for) a religious life and an opportunity for making a complete end of suffering."
— AN 3.110

What that quote is saying is that often the active roots at a given period of time are not always all unwholesome or wholesome. Because of that the wholesome roots by producing wholesome results can "dilute" the negative effects of unwholesome roots, and vice versa with unwholesome roots diminishing the positive result of wholesome roots.

None of that refutes strict conditionality. It just adds more diverse causes & conditions, each of those causes has a specific result. The sum total of specific cause + specific result, can produce overaly mixed result when judged as a whole. But this never means that individually a unwholesome root can be the sole cause for wholesome result, and wholesome root individually cannot be the cause for unwholesome result.
User avatar
kirk5a
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: Meditation, conditionality, and anatta

Post by kirk5a »

Apologies if by chance this has been mentioned in this thread already, but I found a scholarly article titled "What Kind of Free Will Did the Buddha Teach?" by Asaf Federman here: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/3142/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To my mind it's as thorough an examination of the topic as one could hope for. I'm satisfied with his conclusions too, which in part say

"The Cartesian and Brahmanical understandings of free will refer to a power that
belongs in the soul, that transcends the physical, and that has ultimate control over
the body. The Buddha rejects this notion and at the same time rejects fatalism, which
leaves no room for significant choices."

If your mind isn't satisfied with that well then you can continue in perplexity about the issue and see what that gets ya :rolleye:
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Meditation, conditionality, and anatta

Post by Alex123 »

Hello Kirk5a, welcome to this discussion.

As I understand it, the fatalism that Buddha rejected is the fatalism of "there is no good or bad actions. there is no kamma or results of kamma. There is no cause for awakening or for defilement of beings".

I understand how no-control is difficult for many people to consciously or subconsciously accept. The self view goes really deep, and one of the beliefs is the possibility of control, "I am in charge. I can do this, I can abstain from that. I can freely chose to do this or that, and it is my choice, not a fixed outcome of specific causes & conditions "

There is nothing bad about the teaching that once you see things as they really are, there is no freedom of choice to escape becoming Awakened. This is awesome! It would be much worse if what happens now (choices, intentions, etc) is totally unrelated to what happened before. That would be chaos, total insecurity and fatalism.

"For a person who knows & sees things as they actually are, there is no need for an act of will, 'May I feel disenchantment.' It is in the nature of things that a person who knows & sees things as they actually are feels disenchantment.

"For a person who feels disenchantment, there is no need for an act of will, 'May I grow dispassionate.' It is in the nature of things that a person who feels disenchantment grows dispassionate.

"For a dispassionate person, there is no need for an act of will, 'May I realize the knowledge & vision of release.' It is in the nature of things that a dispassionate person realizes the knowledge & vision of release.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The choices that are made are determined by the roots from which they are based and not due to free agency that is independent of causes&conditions. If there is unwholesome root, then choice or action will only be unwholesome and never wholesome. If there is wholesome root, then the choice or action can only be wholesome and never unwholesome. The wholesome action to "plant the causes for more wholesome roots in the future" depends on present wholesome roots and not on unwholesome roots.

If the causes and conditions are for Choice X to be made, then only choice X can be made, never choice Y.
If the causes and conditions are for Choice Y to be made, then only choice Y can be made, never choice X.


If the same set of causes and conditions could equally likely to produce X or not-X outcome, then not only would this deny the resultant distinction between wholesome/unwholesome roots, but it would invalidate the possibility of step-by-step progress of the path or regress. This would be because none of the steps would affect the later stages in a meaningful way. Killing 100 people or giving charity to 100 people would then equally be random in producing wholesome or unwholesome result. This would be terrible. This would invalidate the point of Buddha's teaching.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Meditation, conditionality, and anatta

Post by tiltbillings »

Alex123 wrote:. . . .
You keep repeating yourself; you do not really engage any of what is said in response, you keep trying to redefine any claim for choice as supposedly meaning "free" - unconditioned - choice, totally ignoring what is said to the contrary, and on and on.

The fact of the matter is that there is choice. That choice is conditioned does not mean there is no choice. It just means that choice is conditioned and choice being conditioned does not mean that there is no active choice. The Buddha taught that we have active, direct choice, albeit conditioned, and we should actively utilize our capacity to choose via the precepts, which are guidelines on how to choose and are a way of changing our conditioning to a more positive color, we should meditate, which is a way of cultivating wisdom and attenuating the unwholesome roots, altering our conditioning.

Cease to do evil, cultivate the good and purify our own minds, which is all stuff we can actively choose do to alter our conditioning - it is what the Buddha taught. Choice, it is what directly and strongly matters. That choice is conditioned is not a problem, because it is choice that conditions. Also, the conditioning is not ever a singular thing. A person may have hot and hairy lust, but there is a choice as to what to do with it and that choice is what matter. If we did not have that choice there would be no way to awakening. "This being is bound to samsara, kamma [choice] is his means for going beyond." -SN I, 38.
The choices that are made are determined by the roots from which they are based and not due to free agency that is independent of causes&conditions.
Which is what I have been saying from the start.
If there is unwholesome root, then choice or action will only be unwholesome and never wholesome. If there is wholesome root, then the choice or action can only be wholesome and never unwholesome. The wholesome action to "plant the causes for more wholesome roots in the future" depends on present wholesome roots and not on unwholesome roots.
The problem with this overly simplistic and overly narrow statement is that there is rarely - if ever - one "root" or one bit of conditioning at play, which is why the lustful person can choose not to act upon his or her lustful drive, altering his or her conditioning. A lustful action may come from a lustful "root," but there may be - and far more likely than not, are - other conditionings at play as well. Not acting on a lustful bit of conditioning may come from a wholesome root, but other bits of conditioning may be - and far more likely than not, are - at play.

The bottom line is that we can choose within the context of the complexity of conditions in which we find ourselves and by our choice we can alter our conditioning, making it easier or harder - depending upon the choice - to choose in a particular way the next time. The Buddha taught that we have choice for which we are responsible.
>> 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: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Meditation, conditionality, and anatta

Post by Alex123 »

Hi Tilt, all,

If by choice you mean: certain thoughts, intentions, picking available options, deliberating course of action to do, making a decision - then I agree that this happens. However, why were there only these available options? Why does someone picks this, rather than that action? Due to causes.
What I disagree is with the implicit idea that above are independent of past causes. If (certain thoughts, intentions, picking available options, deliberating course of action to do, making a decision) are not unconditioned, then they aren't freely chosen. It refutes the idea of a REAL choice made independent of conditionality, which is what I tried to show not to exist.

I deny the idea of anything that relates to samsara and is unconditioned by any kind of cause (wholesome, unwholesome, neutral, physical or mental).
tiltbillings wrote: "This being is bound to samsara, kamma [choice] is his means for going beyond." -SN I, 38.
I don't deny the importance or validity of kamma. I only deny the idea that it is uncaused, random, or that it is due to a will of a trully existing being

tiltbillings wrote: Cease to do evil, cultivate the good and purify our own minds, which is all stuff we can actively choose do to alter our conditioning -
That is a good instruction. However it requires certain causes to be present in order to do that. Choice and decision to do or not to do the above are fully conditioned, so they are not Free Will. You can't ask, lets say, a fundamentalist Christian to follow Buddha's instruction to the full - because they have different conditioning. You can't force yourself to believe in Zeus, Jehovah, or whatever. Why does a person believe X rather than Y? Due to conditioning.

tiltbillings wrote: The problem with this overly simplistic and overly narrow statement is that there is rarely - if ever - one "root" or one bit of conditioning at play, which is why the lustful person can choose not to act upon his or her lustful drive, altering his or her conditioning. A lustful action may come from a lustful "root," but there may be - and far more likely than not, are - other conditionings at play as well. Not acting on a lustful bit of conditioning may come from a wholesome root, but other bits of conditioning may be - and far more likely than not, are - at play.
Right, there are rarely if ever one root in a period of time. This is why a lustful person can understand the drawbacks of his/her lustful drive. But why do some people ACT on lust even without thinking that lust is bad, and some people resist it? Due to presence or absence of other roots.


With metta,

Alex
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Meditation, conditionality, and anatta

Post by tiltbillings »

Alex123 wrote:Hi Tilt, all,

If by choice you mean: certain thoughts, intentions, picking available options, deliberating course of action to do, making a decision - then I agree that this happens. However, why were there only these available options? Why does someone picks this, rather than that action? Due to causes.
So? There is still is a choosing this over that, or it could have gone the other way. It is choice.
What I disagree is with the implicit idea that above are independent of past causes.
The "implicit idea" is your silly bugbear, having not a thing to do with what I am saying; it is part of your insistence upon a dead, mechanical determinism, which is something the Buddha did not teach, but rather comes out of a dry, spiritless reading of the Abhidhamma, little related to actual life.
If (certain thoughts, intentions, picking available options, deliberating course of action to do, making a decision) are not unconditioned, then they aren't freely chosen. It refutes the idea of a REAL choice made independent of conditionality, which is what I tried to show not to exist.
Again, this is your attempt at redefining choice to fit your limited, contracted point of view. Choice may be conditioned, but it is still choice.
I deny the idea of anything that relates to samsara and is unconditioned by any kind of cause (wholesome, unwholesome, neutral, physical or mental).
So? I never made such a claim. Choice does not have to be unconditioned to be choice.
tiltbillings wrote: "This being is bound to samsara, kamma [choice] is his means for going beyond." -SN I, 38.
I don't deny the importance or validity of kamma. I only deny the idea that it is uncaused, random, or that it is due to a will of a trully existing being
Have I said otherwise? Quite the contrary. Just because choice is conditioned does not mean there is no choice.
Choice and decision to do or not to do the above are fully conditioned, so they are not Free Will. You can't ask, lets say, a fundamentalist Christian to follow Buddha's instruction to the full - because they have different conditioning. You can't force yourself to believe in Zeus, Jehovah, or whatever. Why does a person believe X rather than Y? Due to conditioning.
And who is saying otherwise? Not me; however, conditioning does not prevent choice from being made, altering one's conditioning.

tiltbillings wrote: The problem with this overly simplistic and overly narrow statement is that there is rarely - if ever - one "root" or one bit of conditioning at play, which is why the lustful person can choose not to act upon his or her lustful drive, altering his or her conditioning. A lustful action may come from a lustful "root," but there may be - and far more likely than not, are - other conditionings at play as well. Not acting on a lustful bit of conditioning may come from a wholesome root, but other bits of conditioning may be - and far more likely than not, are - at play.
Right, there are rarely if ever one root in a period of time. This is why a lustful person can choose not to act upon his/her lustful drive. But why do some people ACT on lust even without thinking that lust is bad, and some people resist it? Due to presence or absence of other roots.
Well, you have just totally undercut your own argument. People do ACT and they can choose how to act in the context of their conditioning, which what the Buddha has said. If cannot choose how to act there is no awakening.

Instead of repeating the same crap over and over about unconditioned choice, which is not what I am saying, why don't you try something new, like taking the Buddha's teachings seriously beyond trying excuse away bad behavior because of conditioning.
>> 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: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Meditation, conditionality, and anatta

Post by Alex123 »

tiltbillings wrote:
So? There is still is a choosing this over that, or it could have gone the other way. It is choice.
And why where there only certain choices present, and not some others? Why was this decision rather than that decision? Why was there the need for solving this or that problem and coming with a choice in the first place? Because due to being conditioned by many different factors (aggregates, wholesome or unwholesome roots, etc)


If lets say a situation would repeat in exactly the same way, with all internal & external complex causes being exactly the same, would the final choice, and that action following the choice be exactly the same? Of course it would. Otherwise how can we say that X was a cause for Y if in some cases it isn't cause of Y?

To say that a same situation can turn out differently even if absolutely all conditions were the same, would undercut conditionality and the idea of a cause.

If the same set of causes and conditions could produce X or not-X outcome, then not only would this deny the resultant distinction between wholesome/unwholesome roots, but it would invalidate the possibility of step-by-step progress of the path or regress. This would be because none of the steps would affect the later stages in a meaningful way. Killing 100 people or giving charity to 100 people would then equally be random in producing wholesome or unwholesome result. This would be terrible. This would invalidate the point of Buddha's teaching.
Last edited by Alex123 on Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Meditation, conditionality, and anatta

Post by tiltbillings »

Alex123 wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
So? There is still is a choosing this over that, or it could have gone the other way. It is choice.
. . .
Are you going to actually say anything new here that actually addresses what I have said? That would be novel, but the point is the Buddha taught that there is choice and that we can and should use choice as a means to our awakening.
To say that a same situation can turn out differently even if absolutely all conditions were the same, would undercut conditionality.
And you keep trying to play this game, which assumes a rigid, mechanical universe, but while you believe this, you don't know if that is actually true. We are not talking about a rigid mechanical universe when talking about human beings - which is what we are talking about -; rather, we are talking about a dynamic, ever changing organic causality/conditionality in which there is choice.
>> 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: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Meditation, conditionality, and anatta

Post by Alex123 »

tiltbillings wrote: ]Are you going to actually say anything new here that actually addresses what I have said?
ALL you've said was addressed. Maybe not directly, but it was. Since all phenomena arise from a cause, there is no possibility to alter the results of a specific set of causes. Sure they can be complex, dynamic and manifold. But causes are called causes for a reason.
That would be novel, but the point is the Buddha taught that there is choice and that we can and should use choice as a means to our awakening.
Are you saying that "choice" is fully independent of anything? Could a person who doesn't know anything about Dhamma and has no capability to follow it, chose to follow Dhamma and succeed while never knowing about Dhamma and not having the capability to follow it? No.

Those people who grew up in a certain fanatic religious environment and may not have even heard a word about other faiths, freely chose which faith to follow no? They will follow what they have been taught to believe.
And you keep trying to play this game, which assumes a rigid, mechanical universe, but while you believe this, you don't know if that is actually true.
It was the Buddha who has said:
When this is, that is. From the arising of this comes the arising of that. When this isn't, that isn't. From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
He didn't state that X can arise without its cause, or that X can cease without a cause.


If, lets say, awakening can arise without specific causes, then why do anything? If a thing is not caused by anything, then anything done previously would have no influence on the outcome. Killing 100 people or abstaining from killing 100 people would equally likely affect or not affect the Awakening, if Awakening was uncaused. But if Awakening has specific causes, then it cannot be willed to occur. Only when the causes are met, the results follow.

If there are only 5, and not more, aggregates. If they are fully conditioned, then it leaves no room for anything unconditioned outside of them (such as will, choice, knowing, etc) to affect them. The choices that are made, are fully conditioned and do not go above conditionality.

To think that free (rather than "inevitable") choice can be outside of conditionality and 5 aggregates is almost identical to postulation of a Self that can control things.
Last edited by Alex123 on Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Meditation, conditionality, and anatta

Post by tiltbillings »

Alex123 wrote:
tiltbillings wrote: ]Are you going to actually say anything new here that actually addresses what I have said?
ALL you've said was addressed. Maybe not directly, but it was.
Not really. Your "addressing" what I said was not much more than your continually saying that choice implies choice without conditions, even though I said choice very clearly involved conditioning.
That would be novel, but the point is the Buddha taught that there is choice and that we can and should use choice as a means to our awakening.
Are you saying that "choice" is fully independent of anything?
Now you are doing it again. What have I said about choice, repeatedly, over and over? What have I said, directly and clearly? What have I said?
Could a person who doesn't know anything about Dhamma and has no capability to follow it, chose to follow Dhamma and succeed while never knowing about Dhamma and not having the capability to follow it? No.
Non sequitur.
He didn't state that X can arise without its cause, or that X can cease without a cause.
And I never implied or said that, did I? So, why do you keep going back to this when it is not my argument or even remotely implied in my argument?
If, lets say, awakening can arise without specific causes, then why do anything? If a thing is not caused by anything, then anything done previously would have no influence on the outcome. Killing 100 people or abstaining from killing 100 people would equally likely affect or not affect the Awakening, if Awakening was uncaused. But if Awakening has specific causes, then it cannot be willed to occur. Only when the causes are met, the results follow.
Again, not a thing to do with what I have said. Not a thing, except for the last sentence, which is why the Buddha taught that we have to make choices in following the path.
>> 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: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Meditation, conditionality, and anatta

Post by Alex123 »

tiltbillings wrote:Not really. Your "addressing" what I said was not much more than your continually saying that choice implies choice without conditions, even though I said choice very clearly involved conditioning.
I am not perfect communicator, and it could be my fault at explaining certain very complex things.

What I was saying is that there is causality, and that things (such as choice) arise due to causes & conditions. "Choice A vs B" are not outside of causality. What would be chosen is also fully conditioned and determined by the complex and dynamic causes.

To repeat: If by "choice" you mean something independent from causes that can turn in any way, then the Buddha didn't teach this.

If by "choice" you meant specific cause-effect process with outcome dependent on causes, then I agree with this choice.

But there is No One to freely choose. There is no choice that is free and totally independent of past causes.


With metta,

Alex
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Meditation, conditionality, and anatta

Post by tiltbillings »

Alex123 wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Not really. Your "addressing" what I said was not much more than your continually saying that choice implies choice without conditions, even though I said choice very clearly involved conditioning.
I am not perfect communicator, and it could be my fault at explaining certain very complex things.

What I was saying is that there is causality, and that things (such as choice) arise due to causes & conditions. "Choice A vs B" are not outside of causality. What would be chosen is also fully conditioned and determined by the complex and dynamic causes.

To repeat: If by "choice" you mean something independent from causes that can turn in any way, then the Buddha didn't teach this.

If by "choice" you meant specific cause-effect process with outcome dependent on causes, then I agree with this choice.

But there is No One to freely choose. There is no choice that is free and totally independent of past causes.
I have, in detail, addressed every one of those points repeatedly and it doesn't matter what I say, you just repeat the same stuff over and over, which does not address or even really acknowledge what I have said. Maybe you are giving us a practical demonstration of your rigid view of causality. If so, you are doing a good job of 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: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Meditation, conditionality, and anatta

Post by Alex123 »

tiltbillings wrote: I have, in detail, addressed every one of those points repeatedly and it doesn't matter what I say, you just repeat the same stuff over and over, which does not address or even really acknowledge what I have said. Maybe you are giving us a practical demonstration of your rigid view of causality. If so, you are doing a good job of it.


It is not my rigid view of causality, it is Buddha's (as I understand it). He didn't say that a specific set causes can sometimes turn like this, and sometimes turn like that.
Only if some different causes come into play, would different results occur.

ex: action caused by unwholesome root is always bad, and no choice to make it turn out wholesome. Action caused by wholesome root is always wholesome, and no choice to make it turn out unwholesome. An additional cause may add some additional result, but it doesn't change the specific cause->effect relationship.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Meditation, conditionality, and anatta

Post by tiltbillings »

Alex123 wrote:It is not my rigid view of causality, it is Buddha's (as I understand it).
Which seems to be the problem. What you are presenting reads like a lifeless reading of the Abhidhamma, ignoring the direct teachings of the Buddha that have to do with the real world, which present choice as a real option for altering conditioning. While choice may be within the context of conditioning that does not mean the conditioning necessarily compels a specific choice, though whatever choice that is made is made within the context of conditions.
He didn't say that a specific set causes can sometimes turn like this, and sometimes turn like that.
"specific set [of] causes" Interesting attempt trying to undercut my argument, but a specific set of causes is likely going to be mixed, and out of that one may choose a positive course of action, but the motivation may not be singularly wholesome or unwholesome, but no one is arguing that the choice is not conditioned, but I will argue that the conditions may not necessarily compel a specific choice. If conditions compel choice, then choice is not really a choice, which means there is no kamma, and no kamma, no awakening.
action caused by unwholesome root is always bad,
If I choose to act badly, the roots are unwholesome, but I may not choose to act badly even if unwholesome roots are in play, given that there may be other options.
>> 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: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Meditation, conditionality, and anatta

Post by Alex123 »

Hello Tilt.

Thank you very much for your discussion with me. It really helps me to understand Buddha's teaching, and for that I am grateful. MN#9 says that understanding of wholesome/unwholesome roots can result in Arahantship. So I believe it is a good teaching to discuss. Until one is an Arahant, no amount of discussion of Dhamma is enough.


Anattalakkhana/Pañcavaggiya Sutta clearly states that:
"Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self. Were consciousness self, then this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.' And since consciousness is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.'
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nymo.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[same with other 4 aggregates]
What it means is that one can't control "let me do only good kamma, never bad kamma". One can't control "let me do this choice rather than that". One can't even control "let there be peace or anger between observer and the observed". One can't even control "let awakening happen or not. Let meditation succeed or not".

Whatever happens, happens the only way it ever possibly could due to complex set of causes and conditions. If additional causes would be added, then the outcome could be altered in accordance with new causes. If there were different set of conditions, there would be different set of results.
tiltbillings wrote: If I choose to act badly, the roots are unwholesome, but I may not choose to act badly even if unwholesome roots are in play, given that there may be other options.
if lust arose, it was due to unwholesome root. If one were to mindfully reflect on drawbacks of lust and determine to abstain from it, that happened due to wholesome root. The other options appear because other conditions come into play. So choosing to abstain is due to a wholesome root.

In AN6.39 it specifically states that only one type of action can originate from the root.
Greed is an origin for the arising of action (kammānaṃ), hate is an origin for the arising of action and delusion is an origin for the arising of action. Bhikkhus, non-greed does not arise from greed, greed itself arises from greed Bhikkhus, non-hate does not arise from hate, hate itself arises from hate. Bhikkhus, non-delusion does not arise from delusion, delusion itself arises from delusion.

Non-greed is an origin for the arising of action, non-hate is an origin for the arising of action and non-delusion is an origin for the arising of action. Bhikkhus, greed does not arise from non-greed, non-greed itself arises from non-greed Bhikkhus, hate does not arise from non-hate, non-hate itself arises from non-hate. Bhikkhus, delusion does not arise from non-delusion, non-delusion itself arises from non-delusion.
9. Nidānasuttaṃ Ý The origin
http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/ ... ggo-e.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
tiltbillings wrote: the conditions may not necessarily compel a specific choice
Then why call them conditions? If choice is not compelled by anything, then it would be unconditioned, not compelled by anything. Even if there was such a choice, it could never affect aggregates in any way because aggregates are fully conditioned and anatta.
"And what is the cause by which kamma comes into play? Contact is the cause by which kamma comes into play.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
No hint of unconditioned Kamma that is independent from contact (a required condition).

tiltbillings wrote: What you are presenting reads like a lifeless reading of the Abhidhamma
What I have been talking in this thread was from the Suttas. Even if I 100% disagreed with Abh (but agreed with the suttas), the conditionality principle would be viewed the same. If there is contradiction between Suttas and Commentaries or Abhidhamma literature, I take suttas to be correct.

When it comes to the suttas, we need to keep the basics (conditionality, anicca, dukkha, anatta) in mind. Buddha and arahants often have said "I need to do this, I walk, I talk". In DN11 the Buddha has said "I feel horrified, humiliated, and disgusted with the miracle of psychic power." . How an arahant could feel such emotions? He can't. The passage talks about it conventionally from the point of view of the listeners.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


So just as one shouldn't take conventional words without the context of the rest of (conditionality, anicca, dukkha, anatta), same with choice.

Choice belongs primary to Saṅkhārā khandha, and SN22.59 clearly says that and none can have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.' .
Bhikkhus, it is said, determinations arise from ignorance. [10] Do determinations arise from ignorance or not or how does it happen here? Venerable sir, determinations arise from ignorance. It happens thus to us. Determinations arise from ignorance. Good O! bhikkhus, you say this, and I too say it. When this is not present, this is not. When this ceases this cease. Such as with the cessation of ignorance cease determinations.
http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/ ... .html#BM10" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Then the thought occurred to me, 'This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. [3] But this generation delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment. For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality & dependent co-arising are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... html#fnt-3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
These are a sutta quotes, not Abhidhamma. Where have I quoted Abh or commentaries in this thread?

Some want there to be control, or influencing, of what happens. This is subtle belief in a controller, a Self basically (see SN22.59).


tiltbillings wrote: If conditions compel choice, then choice is not really a choice, which means there is no kamma, and no kamma, no awakening.
This is why we had long discussion about the word choice, and possible assumptions of what it means..

However I disagree with the other part of your sentence. There is kamma, there is Awakening, there is progress or regress. It, as everything, is just fully conditioned.


"Bhikkhus, determinations (Saṃkhārā) are not self. Were determinations (Saṃkhārā) self, then these determinations would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of determinations: 'Let my determinations be thus, let my determinations be not thus.' '

[The same is said for all 5 aggregates, into which choice, Kamma, decisions, are included]
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nymo.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[same with other 4 aggregates]

This is why I reject the idea of Unconditioned Self, or unconditioned Controller, or unconditioned will. Something unconditioned can not ever interact with what is conditioned (5 aggregates). Unconditioned decisions could never make any of the aggregates change beyond their conditionings that compel them to develop in this or that direction.

Just like one cannot own the sun, "the Sun is mine" (one doesn't own or control the sun), same with 5 aggregates.
Locked