Did the Buddha teach we have choice? (aka The Great Free Will v Determinism Debate)

[tiltbillings]

And you fail to see, or admit that the questions have been addressed, often numerous times. The straw-man is your argument, not you. You continually fall back to this "unconditioned" business when I have never advocated, suggested, implied unconditioned anything. And actually, your questions, as I reread them, make no sense in relationship to what I said.

If things are not unconditioned, then they are conditioned.
If things are conditioned, then conditions dictate how they will occur.

Which means, according to hard determinism stance, there is no choice. No choice, no kamma, no moral responsibility. The point is, if there is choice, at the moment of choosing the conditions do not determine the outcome in a dead mechanical causality of a leaf being blown about the ground by the wind as you advocate.

Do you agree with those? Then you would have to agree with other things that I've said.

Of course I do not agree with you. I have never said anything like it and it is not what the Buddha taught.

Being able to choose something that was not conditioned to occur, is equivalent to it being unconditioned. Something we both reject.

But if something was conditioned to occur, then it occurs in the way the conditions conditioned it to occur.

Do you read what I write. I don't think so. What I have said is that at time of choosing, if there is choice, that must mean that there that the conditions in play are such that a number of conditioned options are viably possible to be chosen.

[Alex123]

Which means, according to hard determinism stance, there is no choice. No choice, no kamma, no moral responsibility.

There is choice, kamma, and moral responsibility. The way in which they operate is what I disagree with.

The point is, if there is choice, at the moment of choosing the conditions do not determine the outcome in a dead mechanical causality of a leaf being blown about the ground by the wind as you advocate.

So the choice is indeterminate, since there are no conditions that determine it. Right?
Following that line of logic, things can appear out of nowhere, randomly, not due to any cause. Even in this case there is no free will. Stuff just happens due to no-cause.

What I have said is that at time of choosing, if there is choice, that must mean that there that the conditions in play are such that a number of conditioned options are viably possible to be chosen.

Those condition condition the choice. The conditions condition the viable options. The choice happens in the only way that it ever possibly could occur given its conditions (such as Paññā and Avijjā, and other conditions).


With metta,

Alex

[Ceisiwr]

Ajivaka Alex


clw_uk wrote:
Alex

Yes they did. Gosala was also a pupil of mahavira and most likely adopted some form of kamma

Alex - Gosala clearly taught that

""there is no cause, no requisite condition, for the defilement of beings. Beings are defiled without cause, without requisite condition. There is no cause, no requisite condition, for the purification of beings. Beings are purified without cause, without requisite condition. ". This goes totally contrary to what I was saying for so long.

No it doesnt

Beings can only be defilied if there is choice, otherwise its just cause and effect, ball hitting ground

guy raping guy, in your view, it is not choice it is just cause and effect, no intention and no unskillfulness

As I understand it, they did not include intention. I do.

THEN WTF ARE YOU ARGUING ABOUT

I do believe in the Buddha, and I have refuted MG and Purana Kassapa's evil views.

What is evil alex?

if there is no choice then its just determined outcome, like a bullet leaving a gun if the trigger is pulled


You adhere to no morals since there is no choice. If there is no choice alex then how can their be a skillfull action, which BTW implies a choice

Avijjā obstructs liberation and keeps one in samsara. One doesn’t escape samsara due to merely wondering on. Escape from samsara happens because of developed Paññā that cuts off 10 fetters.

In your world it does

Your adhere to "rebirth as a tadpole" untill one hears " 4NT's" which determins nibbana

Ball of string alex, ball of string

Makkhali Gosala did not teach about Paññā and Avijjā. He didn’t teach that Paññā purifies, and Avijjā defiles. I do

Ignorace and wisdom were not a monopoly of Buddha, even the greeks had ideas about these terms. What is different is their understanding

Wisdom shortens time in samsara. Ignorance lengthens time in samsara.

Hello ball of .....

There is intentional action. It is just fully conditioned like everything else.

Contradiction

I strongly condemn the above view.

Yet you teach it

Good or bad actions occurs with intention. Intention is just conditioned.

THEN WTF ARE YOU ARGUING ABOUT

[Alex123]

Alex
fully conditioned = Ajivakaism

Did Buddha teach conditionality?

"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;

Whatever phenomena arise from cause: their cause & their cessation. Such is the teaching of the Tathagata, the Great Contemplative.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hello Gosala and Kassapa
Hello no morals
Hello Cocaine, charity, heroin, rape, blood donours, hitler, milton, mao

I do talk about important of morals and Paññā. Please don't appeal to emotion by denying it one the ground that it welcomes "Cocaine, heroin, rape, blood s, hitler, mao" etc.


Only with insufficient Paññā, and too much dosa with avijjā would there ever be a serious consideration of doing evil things.

One should not use conditionality as an excuse for unrestrained behaviour.

It is not screwdriver's (or its maker's) fault if someone uses it as a weapon.


With metta,

Alex

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Alex,

I do talk about important of morals and Paññā.

... but as Tilt has pointed out previously, you deny the underlying principle of morality, by denying the possibility of volitional action which could go either way in terms of being skilful or unskilful, moral or immoral... depending upon the action chosen.

To you it is 100% pre-determined, leaving no scope for moral input. Ball of string.

Cue the dinosaur who cannot make a moral decision not to squash the house, because it was pre-determined by previous causes that he would do so.

Metta,
Retro.

[Alex123]

Gosala was also a pupil of mahavira and most likely adopted some form of kamma

According to DN#2 at part called "Purification through Wandering-on"

Alex - Gosala clearly taught that
"""Another time I approached Makkhali Gosala and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings and courtesies, I sat to one side. As I was sitting there I asked him: 'Venerable Gosala, there are these common craftsmen... They live off the fruits of their crafts, visible in the here and now... Is it possible, venerable sir, to point out a similar fruit of the contemplative life, visible in the here and now?'

"When this was said, Makkhali Gosala said to me, 'Great king, there is no cause, no requisite condition, for the defilement of beings. Beings are defiled without cause, without requisite condition. There is no cause, no requisite condition, for the purification of beings. Beings are purified without cause, without requisite condition. ".
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This goes totally contrary to what I was saying for so long.

Beings can only be defilied if there is choice, otherwise its just cause and effect, ball hitting ground

Not according to Gosala, whose views I strongly reject.

guy raping guy, in your view, it is not choice it is just cause and effect, no intention and no unskillfulness

It is a very bad choice motivated by lots of hatred, delusion and greed. There was intention and lots of unskillfulness.

The only thing is that all those things happened due to causes.

THEN WTF ARE YOU ARGUING ABOUT

I don't agree with the teaching that denies conditionality and that all things arise due to necessary causes.

What is evil alex?

All actions under the influence of greed, anger and delusion.

if there is no choice then its just determined outcome, like a bullet leaving a gun if the trigger is pulled

There is a choice, but is fully conditioned. Just because it is fully conditioned it doesn't mean that anything goes.
Good actions lead to good results, and never to bad results.
Bad actions lead to bad results, and never to good results.

You adhere to no morals since there is no choice.

I do believe in morals and reject immoral behaviour.

If there is no choice alex then how can their be a skillfull action,

There is choice and skillful action. It is just fully conditioned. I don't believe that skillful or unskillful actions are mine. They are just aggregates doing their thing.


With metta,

Alex

[Ceisiwr]

clw_uk wrote:
Alex
fully conditioned = Ajivakaism


Did Buddha teach conditionality?

Ajivaka you teach determinism not condtionality


You ignore the dhamma that chooses

I do talk about important of morals and Paññā. Please don't appeal to emotion by denying it one the ground that it welcomes "Cocaine, heroin, rape, blood s, hitler, mao" etc.

No you dont

You say that its all determined, which mixed with your other view of rebirth as a toad = determinism = ball of string


Dont mistake a moment of sati with evidence of determinism


Your view is X causes X and not Y


Coupled with your metaphysical view of "rebirth as a toad" this means that since the "start" all has been determined already, everyone has already been liberated so lets just sit back and enjoy the horrors of Mao

One should not use conditionality as an excuse for unrestrained behaviour.

A causes B which causes C which causes murder


Your teachers view alex (gosala/kassapa). Where there is no intention there is this and only this, robotic dhammas and no dhamma of choice

[tiltbillings]

Which means, according to hard determinism stance, there is no choice. No choice, no kamma, no moral responsibility.

There is choice, kamma, and moral responsibility. The way in which they operate is what I disagree with.

The problem is the way you say they operate; there is no choice, which means no kamma or moral responsibility.

The point is, if there is choice, at the moment of choosing the conditions do not determine the outcome in a dead mechanical causality of a leaf being blown about the ground by the wind as you advocate.

So the choice is indeterminate, since there are no conditions that determine it. Right?

As I have already said - repeatedly -, the determining factor/condition is that of the act of choosing. You really do not read what I write.

Following that line of logic, things can appear out of nowhere, randomly, not due to any cause. Even in this case there is no free will. Stuff just happens due to no-cause.

Wrong, as usual.

What I have said is that at time of choosing, if there is choice, that must mean that there that the conditions in play are such that a number of conditioned options are viably possible to be chosen.

Those condition condition the choice. The conditions condition the viable options. The choice happens in the only way that it ever possibly could occur given its conditions (such as Paññā and Avijjā, and other conditions).

Sure. At the moment of choosing this could be chosen or that could be chosen. Each are viably possible at that moment. Conditioning may influence a predeliction in one direction, but that via other conditiuoning can be resisted and another option chosen. Conditioning does not dictate what will happen next. If is was a dictation, it would not be a choice.

I have no idea hat you mean by choice or options other than for you choice is naught more than domino C falling because it was hit by domino B. We are not dominoes, we are not a dead mechanical causilty of a leaf blown about the ground by the winds.

[Alex123]

Greetings Retro,

Greetings Alex,

I do talk about important of morals and Paññā.

... but as Tilt has pointed out previously, you deny the underlying principle of morality, by denying the possibility of volitional action which could go either way in terms of being skilful or unskilful, moral or immoral... depending upon the action chosen.

But when faced with either choice A or choice B, why was one choice chosen over another? What was the reason?

There were more kusala or akusala qualities at that time. There was more Paññā or Avijjā. There was present or absent fear of wrongdoing. Etc.

To you it is 100% pre-determined, leaving no scope for moral input.

Moral qualities present in the mindstream to affect the choices made.

Ball of string.

In Makkhali Gosala's heretical view, awakening would occur no matter what (Paññā or Avijjā), just through wondering on.

Here what MG said.
"Having transmigrated and wandered on through these, the wise and the foolish alike will put an end to pain."

Cue the dinosaur who cannot make a moral decision not to squash the house, because it was pre-determined by previous causes that he would do so.
Metta,
Retro.

So? Dinasaurs and animals do not have Paññā and enough kusala qualities to be able to do intentional and highly moral choice.


With metta,

Alex

[Virgo]

I have no idea hat you mean by choice or options other than for you choice is naught more than domino C falling because it was hit by domino B. We are not dominoes, we are not a dead mechanical causilty of a leaf blown about the ground by the winds.

Actually we are. The thing is that because of our self-view and delusion we have a sense of self and self respect, the wish to achieve, to be the best we can be, and so forth, so we feel we must make the "right" choice, the "best" choice, and if we think that best choice is following the Buddhist path well because we know that things like sila and discernment cause the wisdom that sees things clearly arises, we set forth to make that "best" choice. It is all a matter of conditions. On days when we are lazy, we are overcome by unwholesome emotions and cetasikas, they get the best of us, and we "make choices" that we know are not the best ones.

Kevin

[Alex123]

Hi Tilt,

The problem is the way you say they operate; there is no choice, which means no kamma or moral responsibility.

There is choice, kamma and moral responsibility. Just no agent to which they belong.

At the moment of choosing this could be chosen or that could be chosen.

But only one option was chosen. Why was this rather than that chosen? What was the reason for this vs that choice? What was the reason that set A of options rather than set B was considered?

Only the most viable option was chosen, and the choice was inevitable based upon its conditioning factors.

As I have already said - repeatedly -, the determining factor/condition is that of the act of choosing. You really do not read what I write.

And as AN6.63 states, contact is the cause for choosing (cetana). If you can't control phassa, than what makes you think you can control cetana?


With metta,

Alex

[tiltbillings]

I have no idea hat you mean by choice or options other than for you choice is naught more than domino C falling because it was hit by domino B. We are not dominoes, we are not a dead mechanical causilty of a leaf blown about the ground by the winds.

Actually we are.

No we are not, but now you have shown that you do not have a consistent, coherent point of view.

The thing is that because of our self-view and delusion we have a sense of self and self respect, the wish to achieve, to be the best we can be, and so forth, so we feel we must make the "right" choice, the "best" choice, and if we think that best choice is following the Buddhist path well because we know that things like sila and discernment cause the wisdom that sees things clearly arises, we set forth to make that "best" choice. It is all a matter of conditions. On days when we are lazy, we are overcome by unwholesome emotions and cetasikas, they get the best of us, and we "make choices" that we know are not the best ones.

Kevin

We have a sense of self. That is not a delusion. What is a delusion is the assumption that the sense of self is other than it is. The Buddha quite clearly taught us how to use and tame the sense of self that we are going to be stuck with until we attain full awakening. And choice is not a delusion, though choice can be wrongly grasped.

[tiltbillings]

Hi Tilt,

The problem is the way you say they operate; there is no choice, which means no kamma or moral responsibility.

There is choice, kamma and moral responsibility. Just no agent to which they belong.

No unchanging, permanent agent entity. Again, you have not shown there to be actual choice, which means no choice, no kamma, etc.

At the moment of choosing this could be chosen or that could be chosen.

But only one option was chosen. Why was this rather than that chosen? What was the reason for this vs that choice? What was the reason that set A of options rather than set B was considered?

Only the most viable option was chosen, and the choice was inevitable based upon its conditioning factors.

Well, duh, only one option chosen, but that not does mean that the other options could not have been chosen.

As I have already said - repeatedly -, the determining factor/condition is that of the act of choosing. You really do not read what I write.

And as AN6.63 states, contact is the cause for choosing (cetana). If you can't control phassa, than what makes you think you can control cetana?

From contact cetana arises, Cetana is part of what makes choice possible.

[Virgo]

The Buddha quite clearly taught us how to use and tame the sense of self that we are going to be stuck with until we attain full awakening.

I agree completely and I agree that we should make the right choices, e.g. when we feel like masturbating to pornography we should not. We should not sit on our laurels but take action for our deliverance. That is not in question by me. What I am saying that even though we have these choices and even thought we should make them, they are just made by conditioned mentallity. You and I have conceit and fear and dread and pride. We don't want to go on in samsara because of aversion, we think we can attain if we try because of conceit (conceit cetasika is slighty different form how the word is frequently used in English) and so and and so forth. And because of that aversion, because of that conceit, because of many factors we _choose_ to do things like meditate, study, learn, etc. We choose to, but the choices are conditioned by these internal factors which arise.

All the best,

Kevin

[tiltbillings]

The Buddha quite clearly taught us how to use and tame the sense of self that we are going to be stuck with until we attain full awakening.

I agree completely and I agree that we should make the right choices, e.g. when we feel like masturbating to pornography we should not.

Gee, thanks for sharing that about you, but it is an image I'd rather not have.

We should not sit on our laurels but take action for our deliverance. That is not in question by me. What I am saying that even though we have these choices and even thought we should make them, they are just made by conditioned mentallity.

I have not said otherwise, but certainly we are not falling dominoes.