Free-will is it an illusion?

[Rui Sousa]

In my opinion there is will, but is it not free. It is not free because it is conditioned. But there is will. And actions, words and thoughts affected by that will.

Maybe it is just a question of gradient, because even in Christianity will is not absolutely free, because there are consequences for actions and there is the case of divine intervention guiding believers on their actions.

In my understanding of Buddhism "will" is not as free as in Christianity, which is not completely free there, and freer than in fatalist believes.

In Christianity, how can you act other than how god knows you are going to act AND how you act is a result of the very nature of the creation of that god.

The logical black holes of Christianity have always driven me elsewhere...

[Modus.Ponens]

If we have a look at this question out from more wide prospect that we'll get some more facts to be observed and discussed. We people are only the faint manifestations of the Great Emptiness. This Emptiness is so-called Absolute, the unmanifested Adi-Buddha. It's shunyata. And at the same time it is the only and the ultimate Subject.
The manifested world, Samsara, looks like a lightening in a night sky. It is... and in one moment it is not... Samsara is only one subtle and hardly visible thought into this Emptiness, or Subject, or Big Mind.
Well, continuing the example with lightening, we proseed that we're able to know that the lightening will definitely come to an end... we can even calculate what certain moment it will happen. In this scene it's perfectly known that the lightening will be over. So, Samsara will come to its end definitely. And there are some calculations among brahmans of India. The time period when Samsara exists they call "the Day of Brahma".
But, on the other hand, can we say how any particle in the lightening conduct? Can we calculate if any electron go here or there? We can't, and there's a law in phisics, the law of uncertainty (look, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle ). So, as a path of any electron can't be foreseen, so how a man behaves in an hour or two we can't say. 'Cause people have a free-will. And I cannot agree with the following:

The fact that there is, objectively, no choice is an inevitable consequence of the principle of causality.But subjectively we do have a choice because we are not aware of everything that conditions us.

The manifested world as a Whole has no free will, 'cause its end and its evolution goes according to certain laws. But - if we're "aware of everything that conditions us" or we are not - people can conduct as they like, and their behaviour will definitely be individual and unique. No one knows where the electron is in a second...

Apart from the non Theravada business, lets adress the principle of uncertainty.

the principle of uncertainty manifests only in small scales. In a large scale like the human scale, the principle of uncertainty is imperceptionable (if this word exists... ). Furthermore there are other interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as the de Broglie–Bohm theory which is deterministic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpreta ... ohm_theory

[tiltbillings]

If we have a look at this question out from more wide prospect that we'll get some more facts to be observed and discussed. We people are only the faint manifestations of the Great Emptiness. This Emptiness is so-called Absolute, the unmanifested Adi-Buddha. It's shunyata. And at the same time it is the only and the ultimate Subject.
The manifested world, Samsara, looks like a lightening in a night sky. It is... and in one moment it is not... Samsara is only one subtle and hardly visible thought into this Emptiness, or Subject, or Big Mind . . . .

Adi-Buddha, Great ewmptiness? Products of wishful thinking, and certainly not taught by the Buddha.

[Goedert]

Christians would say God gave us Free-will. Does Free-will exist? Or is it similar to Anatta where it's only an illusion?

This is a difficult quenstion to answer. Because free will can imply religious, sientific and ethical aplications.

We have to conceit free will first.

We can say that free will is the purported right of agents to make choices and actions free from any constraints.

In catholic relegion the term Free will imput that god does not assert his power over the choices and actions of any being.

So we can asked about it:
- Determinism exist?
- Does free will exist?
Or
- When one make choices or actions, could he has any physical constraints?
- When one make choices or actions, could he has any social constraints?
- When one amke choices or actions, could he has any psychological constraints?

To have a clue to this questions this quotes are necessary:

Determinism is roughly defined as the view that all current and future events are causally necessitated by past events combined with the laws of nature. Neither determinism nor its opposite, indeterminism, are positions in the debate about free will.

Free Will in Buddhism:

Buddhism accepts both freedom and determinism (or something similar to it), but rejects the idea of an agent, and thus the idea that freedom is a free will belonging to an agent. According to the Buddha, "There is free action, there is retribution, but I see no agent that passes out from one set of momentary elements into another one, except the [connection] of those elements [aggregates]." Buddhists believe in neither absolute free will, nor determinism. It preaches a middle doctrine, named paticcasamuppāda in Pali, which is often translated as "inter-dependent arising". It is part of the theory of karma in Buddhism. The concept of karma in Buddhism is different from the notion of karma in Hinduism. In Buddhism, the idea of karma is much less deterministic. This Buddhist notion of karma is primarily focused on the cause and effect of moral actions in this life, while in Hinduism the concept of karma is more often connected with determining one's destiny in future lives.

In Buddhism it is taught that the idea of absolute freedom of choice (i.e. that any human being could be completely free to make any choice) is foolish, because it denies the reality of one's physical needs and circumstances. Equally incorrect is the idea that we have no choice in life or that our lives are pre-determined. To deny freedom would be to deny the efforts of Buddhists to make moral progress (through our capacity to freely choose compassionate action). Pubbekatahetuvada, the belief that all happiness and suffering arise from previous actions, is considered a wrong view according to Buddhist doctrines. Because Buddhists also reject agenthood, the traditional compatibilist strategies are closed to them as well. Instead, the Buddhist philosophical strategy is to examine the metaphysics of causality. Ancient India had many heated arguments about the nature of causality with Jains, Nyayists, Samkhyists, Cārvākans, and Buddhists all taking slightly different lines. In many ways, the Buddhist position is closer to a theory of "conditionality" than a theory of "causality", especially as it is expounded by Nagarjuna in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā.

Actually our friends Vajrayana may have a different view. With the role of Samanthabadra and Samanthabadri.

In "my" opinion I prefer to be with the view of Paticcasamupada and wold state the following:

"Either free-will or non-free-will, but a subtle freedom that is on the supramundane realesation".

You can find more in Wiki Philosphy Portal

[acinteyyo]

What is free-will?

[Goedert]

If we have a look at this question out from more wide prospect that we'll get some more facts to be observed and discussed. We people are only the faint manifestations of the Great Emptiness. This Emptiness is so-called Absolute, the unmanifested Adi-Buddha. It's shunyata. And at the same time it is the only and the ultimate Subject.
The manifested world, Samsara, looks like a lightening in a night sky. It is... and in one moment it is not... Samsara is only one subtle and hardly visible thought into this Emptiness, or Subject, or Big Mind.
Well, continuing the example with lightening, we proseed that we're able to know that the lightening will definitely come to an end... we can even calculate what certain moment it will happen. In this scene it's perfectly known that the lightening will be over. So, Samsara will come to its end definitely. And there are some calculations among brahmans of India. The time period when Samsara exists they call "the Day of Brahma".
But, on the other hand, can we say how any particle in the lightening conduct? Can we calculate if any electron go here or there? We can't, and there's a law in phisics, the law of uncertainty (look, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle ). So, as a path of any electron can't be foreseen, so how a man behaves in an hour or two we can't say. 'Cause people have a free-will. And I cannot agree with the following:

The fact that there is, objectively, no choice is an inevitable consequence of the principle of causality.But subjectively we do have a choice because we are not aware of everything that conditions us.

The manifested world as a Whole has no free will, 'cause its end and its evolution goes according to certain laws. But - if we're "aware of everything that conditions us" or we are not - people can conduct as they like, and their behaviour will definitely be individual and unique. No one knows where the electron is in a second...

Hello friend, Padmasambhava was a Shivaist before turn to buddhism so the things got mixed-up. When one want to post Vajrayana point of view an concepts in a Theravada Forum, one must also put Hindu points of view. Because Yogic culture was different from the Sramana culture in ancient India. Not doing so, one will get a misunderstanding answer. Because this is not the early buddhist terms thought by the Gautama Sakyamuni Buddha.

See:

In Kashmir Shaivism
The concept of free will plays a central role in Kashmir Shaivism. Known under the technical name of svātantrya it is the cause of the creation of the universe - a primordial force that stirs up the absolute and manifests the world inside the supreme consciousness of Śiva.

Svātantrya is the sole property of God, all the rest of conscious subjects being co-participant in various degrees to the divine sovereignty. Humans have a limited degree of free will based on their level of consciousness. Ultimately, Kashmir Shaivism as a monistic idealist philosophical system views all subjects to be identical - "all are one" - and that one is Śiva, the supreme consciousness. Thus, all subjects have free will but they can be ignorant of this power. Ignorance too is a force projected by svātantrya itself upon the creation and can only be removed by svātantrya.

A function of svātantrya is that of granting divine grace - śaktipāt. In this philosophical system spiritual liberation is not accessible by mere effort, but dependent only on the will of God. Thus, the disciple can only surrender himself and wait for the divine grace to come down and eliminate the limitations that imprison his consciousness.

Causality in Kashmir Shaivism is considered to be created by Svātantrya along with the universe. Thus there can be no contradiction, limitation or rule to force Śiva to act one way or the other. Svātantrya always exists beyond the limiting shield of cosmic illusion, māyā.

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#In_Kashmir_Shaivism

[PeterB]

I find it slightly puzzling that a thread discussing freewill ( ! ) on a Theravada Forum has turned into a discussion about Vajrayana notions and the possible influence pf Kashmiri Shaivism on these notions. I know this is the lounge but......

[tiltbillings]

I find it slightly puzzling that a thread discussing freewill ( ! ) on a Theravada Forum has turned into a discussion about Vajrayana notions and the possible influence pf Kashmiri Shaivism on these notions. I know this is the lounge but......

I agree.

Back to the topic, unless you - whomever you are - feel that your are compelled to act otherwise, which means I feel compelled to delete the off-topic msgs.

[Dharma Atma]

Could you provide traceable links to the Suttas or Abhidhamma which will support what you have stated above?

I could have, but Buddha said that even He said something and it goes in contradiction with common sense, we must follow common sense. So, I don't think it is important where I or you take this or that. But I can say it: I wrote the combined viewpoint taken from Lankavatara Sutra, partially from the Diamond Sutra, such ideas are also situated in such books as The Secret Doctrine by H.P. Blavatsky, and especially in No Boundary by Ken Wilber, known buddhist.

Apart from the non Theravada business, lets adress the principle of uncertainty.the principle of uncertainty manifests only in small scales.

I didn't mean that we have to explore physics now! It was just a metaphore...

Adi-Buddha, Great ewmptiness? Products of wishful thinking, and certainly not taught by the Buddha.

Shunyata was not taught by the Buddha? You're joking maybe... He did, and did it often and everywhere.
Truth is not Theravada or non-Theravada. We must go along common sense. C'est tout! And I haven't seen any real facts against the viewpoint I wrote above (with my poor English... )...

[PeterB]

Dharma Atma, The Theravada does not in general recognize The Lankavatara Sutra or The Diamond Sutra as representing the teachings of the Buddha. Neither Wilbur or Blavatsky are Buddhist teachers.
The Shunyata doctrine is not taught in the Theravada.
There is a sister forum to this one called Dharma Wheel. It might be the case that you will find discussion there more suited to your point of view.

[Snowmelt]

Phenomena just are. 'Me' being or not being in control doesn't come into it. It's a kind of clinging. The Buddhist practice is to see that and thus let go.

Except the reality is that until we have the insight to see it as it is, we need to work with the "me," which is the purpose of the precepts, of sitting practice, etc. It is a matter of starting where we are. We might want to tell the "constructed self" where to get off, to put it in its place, but it really does not work that way. Being recalcitrant, stubborn, and persistent, we have to work with it, cultivate it with the precepts, thin its walls with generosity and metta, to gain insight into it via mindfulness.

Or is it the case that thoughts about this topic are to be let go of, not to be pursued and elaborated on? Considering such questions as whether the universe is finite or infinite do not lead toward Nibbana. Is the question of free will another such distraction from the path?

[PeterB]

I cant speak for the mods Snowmelt but in my view there is nothing wrong with the topic, but on a forum which which exists "for discussion of the Dhamma of the Theravada " discussion should I would suggest happen within the parameters set by that Theravadin Dhamma.

[Goedert]

Phenomena just are. 'Me' being or not being in control doesn't come into it. It's a kind of clinging. The Buddhist practice is to see that and thus let go.

Except the reality is that until we have the insight to see it as it is, we need to work with the "me," which is the purpose of the precepts, of sitting practice, etc. It is a matter of starting where we are. We might want to tell the "constructed self" where to get off, to put it in its place, but it really does not work that way. Being recalcitrant, stubborn, and persistent, we have to work with it, cultivate it with the precepts, thin its walls with generosity and metta, to gain insight into it via mindfulness.

Or is it the case that thoughts about this topic are to be let go of, not to be pursued and elaborated on? Considering such questions as whether the universe is finite or infinite do not lead toward Nibbana. Is the question of free will another such distraction from the path?

Friend,

It has to do with dhamma. Because free-will directs involve Dukkha, Anicca, Anatta and indirect involves Paticcasamuppada. One can gain insight from this contemplation.

Any topic, including the Dhamma, that some relate to it in a ego-clinging way, of course it will be a barrier to nibbana.

See what you have said:

The universe is finite or infinite do not lead toward Nibbana. (Yes, but the universe exist).

The question to topic is free-will exist or not exist. (So, we are discussin different things here. We are not discussing if free-will is infinite or not infinite, mesuring it).

This is called Non sequitur Falacy because your conclusion can't be sustained by it premisses.

Kind regards.

[chownah]

AS always, like an echo from the past.....the Buddha advises to have no doctrine of self whatever....

I guess that what this means is that if you have to have some belief in some "self" which has or exercises this "free will" thing then it is probably best to just pass on conceptualizing this "free-will" thing altogether.......is it important to ask or answer this question?.....it can in principle not be proved one way or the other anyway....there can never be a true resolution of the issue.
chownah

[Dharma Atma]

The Theravada does not in general recognize The Lankavatara Sutra or The Diamond Sutra as representing the teachings of the Buddha.

Really? Didn't know that.

There is a sister forum to this one called Dharma Wheel.

Thank you. Do you mean this - http://www.dharmawheel.net/ ? I'll visit it But as I had stated before (the thread "Hi from Russia") I am here with purpose to know the point of view of Theravada.

The Shunyata doctrine is not taught in the Theravada.

Does Theravada have to contradict to the common sense? I guess, it doesn't. So it'd be very interesting to know why Theravada rejects the Emptiness, the empty space in which all the objects exist? Anyone can explain (by logic... not by writings)?

[tiltbillings]

AS always, like an echo from the past.....the Buddha advises to have no doctrine of self whatever....

I guess that what this means is that if you have to have some belief in some "self" which has or exercises this "free will" thing then it is probably best to just pass on conceptualizing this "free-will" thing altogether.......is it important to ask or answer this question?.....it can in principle not be proved one way or the other anyway....there can never be a true resolution of the issue.
chownah

Until one has enough vipassana, one is going to "believe" in a self and believe in non-self. One has to start from where one is.

[Goedert]

The Theravada does not in general recognize The Lankavatara Sutra or The Diamond Sutra as representing the teachings of the Buddha.

Really? Didn't know that.

There is a sister forum to this one called Dharma Wheel.

Thank you. Do you mean this - http://www.dharmawheel.net/ ? I'll visit it But as I had stated before (the thread "Hi from Russia") I am here with purpose to know the point of view of Theravada.

The Shunyata doctrine is not taught in the Theravada.

Does Theravada have to contradict to the common sense? I guess, it doesn't. So it'd be very interesting to know why Theravada rejects the Emptiness, the empty space in which all the objects exist? Anyone can explain (by logic... not by writings)?

Tathagata once said: "This kind of teaching only conduce to the reappearing in dimension of nothingness/emptiness" - He learned it with his first teacher, Alara Kalama.

Theravada focus in Anatta, the no self doctrine.

Ānanda, Buddha's attendant asked, "It is said that the world is empty, the world is empty, lord. In what respect is it said that the world is empty?" The Buddha replied, "Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ānanda, that the world is empty." He goes on to explain that what is meant by "the world" is the six sense media and their objects, and elsewhere says that to theorize about something beyond this realm of experience would put one to grief.

This emptiness doctrine in fact comes from Anatta by

[Rui Sousa]

Does Theravada have to contradict to the common sense? I guess, it doesn't. So it'd be very interesting to know why Theravada rejects the Emptiness, the empty space in which all the objects exist? Anyone can explain (by logic... not by writings)?

This is way off topic, and maybe it deserves thread on its own on the discovering Theravada sub-forum.

But I believe your source for the "common sense" issue to be the Kalama Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html) namely the following passage:

Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them.

I believe that the Kalama Sutta is widely misunderstood as a call for the use of "Common Sense", but in my interpretation that is not the case.

First I would note the difference between "common sense" and "good sense". Common sense is the same as popular knowledge, or shared knowledge, which is not always our best guide. Good sense is an exercise of a pondered use of our logical abilities, with a good outcome.

I believe the Buddha has invited to neither, instead he has invited the Kalamas to investigate reality in accordance the Dhamma, and determine which qualities are good and skilful, as well as praised by the wise (i.e. the Arahants -> Bala-Pandita Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.019.than.html). In a more extensive understanding of who the wise are, you may include the four Aryan types, or even the ordained monks. But the bottom line is that whatever the results of our investigation it should be validated with the wise, in order to be sure that we are not eluding ourselves.

[tiltbillings]

The Theravada does not in general recognize The Lankavatara Sutra or The Diamond Sutra as representing the teachings of the Buddha.

Really? Didn't know that.

There is a sister forum to this one called Dharma Wheel.

Thank you. Do you mean this - http://www.dharmawheel.net/ ? I'll visit it But as I had stated before (the thread "Hi from Russia") I am here with purpose to know the point of view of Theravada.

The Shunyata doctrine is not taught in the Theravada.

Does Theravada have to contradict to the common sense? I guess, it doesn't. So it'd be very interesting to know why Theravada rejects the Emptiness, the empty space in which all the objects exist? Anyone can explain (by logic... not by writings)?

If you are serious about these questions, please start a new thread.

[Dharma Atma]

If you are serious about these questions, please start a new thread.

I'm on the top of seriousity And am gonna follow your advise, sir...