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.
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.