What is controlling?

[khlawng]

So simply moving the legs is giving rise to self-illusion in your view?

assuming a voluntary movement, simply moving the legs begins with a chain of cause and effect moments. it is the inability to breakdown these moments that gives rise to self-illusion.
for someone who is not established in the dhamma, it is a foregone conclusion that he operates within a self-view, always as the controller even when he moves his leg without noticing or out of habit.
for others who has some insight training(samatha-jhana samadhi), especially on the subject of nama-rupa and cause-and-effect, when mindfulness is applied, this chain can be quite clear and the self-illusion begins to break down over time.

[pegembara]

In addition to paying attention to the breath, sensation, sounds, thoughts, images, emotions, and mind states, there is one more factor of mind that is important to single out and notice carefully in the meditation practice, because it plays a very critical role in opening the doors of deeper insight. That is becoming aware of and noting the various intentions in the mind. Intention is that mental factor or mental quality that directly precedes a bodily action or movement.

The body by itself doesn't move. It moves as the result of a certain impulse or volition. So before beginning any movement of the body, notice the intention to move, the intention to stand, the intention to shift position, the intention to turn, the intention to reach.

Noting "intention" also helps us to discover and understand the selfless nature of the mind-body process. Even when we are observing the breath, sensation, thoughts, images, and emotions, and we begin to see that all of these objects are simply part of a passing show, we may still be identifying with the sense of a doer, the director of it all, the one who is commanding the actions.

When we note intentions and see that they are also passing mental phenomena, that they arise and pass away, that intentions themselves are not "I" and not "mine," when we see that they do not belong to anybody, we begin to loosen the sense of identification with them. We experience on deeper and deeper levels the selflessness of the whole unfolding process.

From Seeking the Heart of Wisdom by Joseph Goldstein and Jack Kornfield

[reflection]

So there is no essential part of the mind that is doing this - no essential "free will" or thing like that.

On the context of choosing to be aware, i agree, it is more on refining the practice to create wholesome tendency.

However, when the mind is aware of itself it can choose what to think, what not to think and recollect what has been learned. How can we deny freewill in this process?

Why would it need free will? It can occur perfectly without. The choice to think or not to think certain things is not free, it is made because one is taught it, one has (to some level) mastered it and because the intention for it arises.

[barcsimalsi]

I wish to discuss further on freewill.
Lets say one(with clear awareness) decides to praise someone, but in one's mind there are many words that can be used to express one's thought for instance "pretty", "beautiful", "gorgeous", "attractive"...etc. It doesn't matter which word one picks the intention remains the same. In this case, if not free will then what decides the choice of words one will use?

[reflection]

There is no deciding thing. The question "what decides" is already wrong. It's just factors, habits and preferences that form a decision.

There are many topics, essays and talks on free will. It's clear that with intellectual pursuit there is no answering the question of whether there is or not - it has to come through meditation. The stiller the mind, the less faculties are involved, the clearer it is that the "decision making" is just a process that can also stop totally and that the identification with a "free choice" is actually a quite coarse activity of mind.

[kirk5a]

The Buddha did not say that individual choices are an illusion or fallacy. He strongly denied determinism/fatalism. Nor did he deny self-control. On the contrary:

“I have not, brahman, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view. How, indeed, could one — moving forward by himself, moving back by himself [2] — say: ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’? What do you think, brahmin, is there an element or principle of initiating or beginning an action?”[3]

“Just so, Venerable Sir.”

“When there is an element of initiating, are initiating beings [4] clearly discerned?”

“Just so, Venerable Sir.”

“So, brahmin, when there is the element of initiating, initiating beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer. [5]

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .niza.html

[chownah]

The Buddha did not say that individual choices are an illusion or fallacy. He strongly denied determinism/fatalism. Nor did he deny self-control. On the contrary:

“I have not, brahman, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view. How, indeed, could one — moving forward by himself, moving back by himself [2] — say: ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’? What do you think, brahmin, is there an element or principle of initiating or beginning an action?”[3]

“Just so, Venerable Sir.”

“When there is an element of initiating, are initiating beings [4] clearly discerned?”

“Just so, Venerable Sir.”

“So, brahmin, when there is the element of initiating, initiating beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer. [5]

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .niza.html

I've been wanting to discuss this doer thing and now that you have posted it maybe here is the chance. The term self-doer can for me have two meanings: 1) a self which has the function of doing.....or 2) a thing which creates a self like a "self-maker". I'm wondering what the difference is between "self" and "self-doer" and I'm reasonably sure that the answer lies in the Pali.
chownah

[barcsimalsi]

The Buddha did not say that individual choices are an illusion or fallacy. He strongly denied determinism/fatalism. Nor did he deny self-control. On the contrary:

“I have not, brahman, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view. How, indeed, could one — moving forward by himself, moving back by himself [2] — say: ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’? What do you think, brahmin, is there an element or principle of initiating or beginning an action?”[3]

“Just so, Venerable Sir.”

“When there is an element of initiating, are initiating beings [4] clearly discerned?”

“Just so, Venerable Sir.”

“So, brahmin, when there is the element of initiating, initiating beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer. [5]

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .niza.html

Thanks for bringing this up. It is one of the sutta i'm not clear of.
Quoting from Isidatta sutta, Ven. Isidatta explained that the self is just a view:

"Now, householder, are you asking this: 'Concerning the various views that arise in the world... when what is present do they come into being, and what is absent do they not come into being?'?"

"Yes, venerable sir."

"Concerning the various views that arise in the world, householder... when self-identity view is present, these views come into being; when self-identity view is absent, they don't come into being."

"But, venerable sir, how does self-identity view come into being?"

"There is the case, householder, where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form[2] to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He assumes feeling to be the self, or the self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in the self, or the self as in feeling. He assumes perception to be the self, or the self as possessing perception, or perception as in the self, or the self as in perception. He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self, or the self as possessing fabrications, or fabrications as in the self, or the self as in fabrications. He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. This is how self-identity view comes into being."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Although it isn't the words from Buddha it is support by what Buddha taught in Anattalakkhana sutta.

I'm wondering what the difference is between "self" and "self-doer" and I'm reasonably sure that the answer lies in the Pali.
chownah

I've the same feeling on this.

[pegembara]

"There is the case, householder, where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form[2] to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He assumes feeling to be the self, or the self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in the self, or the self as in feeling. He assumes perception to be the self, or the self as possessing perception, or perception as in the self, or the self as in perception. He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self, or the self as possessing fabrications, or fabrications as in the self, or the self as in fabrications. He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. This is how self-identity view comes into being."

The operative word is "assumes". We assume the body, feelings, emotions, thoughts, perceptions and consciousness to be ours. If we are truly in control, we would not age, happiness is available 24/7 and we can make sure only good thoughts occur to us. Nibbana would be ours for taking. No need to follow the N8FP. But since that is not true we need to follow the instructions as laid down be the Buddha. On a contrary, it is the self view that is the cause of all the trouble. We need to fully understand what this self is to escape from the same self ( a true paradox).

[kirk5a]

Thanks for bringing this up. It is one of the sutta i'm not clear of.
Quoting from Isidatta sutta, Ven. Isidatta explained that the self is just a view:

"Now, householder, are you asking this: 'Concerning the various views that arise in the world... when what is present do they come into being, and what is absent do they not come into being?'?"

"Yes, venerable sir."

"Concerning the various views that arise in the world, householder... when self-identity view is present, these views come into being; when self-identity view is absent, they don't come into being."

"But, venerable sir, how does self-identity view come into being?"

"There is the case, householder, where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form[2] to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He assumes feeling to be the self, or the self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in the self, or the self as in feeling. He assumes perception to be the self, or the self as possessing perception, or perception as in the self, or the self as in perception. He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self, or the self as possessing fabrications, or fabrications as in the self, or the self as in fabrications. He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. This is how self-identity view comes into being."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Although it isn't the words from Buddha it is support by what Buddha taught in Anattalakkhana sutta.

I'm wondering what the difference is between "self" and "self-doer" and I'm reasonably sure that the answer lies in the Pali.
chownah

I've the same feeling on this.

"self-identity view" (sakkāya diṭṭhi) is as explained in the quotation above. Those are wrong assumptions. Recognizing that beings have the ability to initiate an action, make an exertion, make an effort, exercise steadfastness, persistence, and endeavoring is not self-identity view. Getting these things mixed up, thinking the Buddha taught the total negation of individual beings, having an extreme view about lack of control, is a confused view of the teachings.

[reflection]

The attakari sutta is a bit off an odd duck and the word "attakara" (translated as self doer) as far as I know only occurs there without a direct explanation. The full meaning of a word does not always have to be made up by its components, so it isn't always clear from the pali. You have to look in the context. Quite clearly "atta" here does not mean a self as we usually see it, because that is denied so many times.

So I think it goes very far to conclude from that sutta alone that the Buddha thought there is free will. And we have to look at this sutta in context of all the others, instead of the other way around. There are so many suttas that say volitions are not self, and also "one can't have it of *any aggregate*, 'let it be thus'".

So to me the sutta does not imply a free will. I see the answer lying in sentences such as this:

"“So, brahmin, when there is the element of initiating, initiating beings are clearly discerned; of (among) such beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer. [5]"

As also seen in the notes the word of is to be interpreted as among. So the sutta is just saying there are beings among beings. There are individual beings, and of each being its actions are part of that individual being. One beings actions are not part of another being. So that beings have a self or whatever else which has free choice - that isn't said in this sutta.

This could be seen as opposed to people who may think that there is a God who controls it all - or that we are part of his dream or whatever. That would explain the view of the brahmin.

[daverupa]

Teasing mere individual continuity apart from a sense of personal existence is a very difficult task. Limited free will is a feature of individual continuity; belief in a personal existence is the root of asking "who controls", I think. Same as asking, "which self do non-self-actions affect?" The question has to bring in an assumption from outside the Dhamma.

[barcsimalsi]

Recognizing that beings have the ability to initiate an action, make an exertion, make an effort, exercise steadfastness, persistence, and endeavoring is not self-identity view.

The Attakari sutta does not implies that way, it says the self-doing is conditioned by the element of initiating so the "self-doer" comes secondary to "element". And the question in interest lies more on what is the element of initiating that give rise to self-doing.

EDIT:
Sorry for the mistake above, i'm sure i misunderstood something. I'm not sure which is the primary cause, the element of initiating or the self-doer?


Thank you everyone for the replies.

[chownah]

You could try some things to see if you can learn something about how the mind is controlled. Before reading further, here is what I will do. I will try to make you lose control of your mind. You should pay close attention to your mind as you lose control of it to see what you can see about the process. I will give you a task which will start with you controlling your mind to accomplish the task and end with you losing control of your mind. Try to detect the moment you lose control. Before starting you should clear your mind and calm it a bit so that you can observe it better. It's is an experiment, I hope it works.







I am going to type backwards......I want you to figure out what I typed but do not think about it...do not imagine it's appearance or taste or smell or texture or sound:

maerc eci

Could you detect the moment when you lost control?
chownah

[SarathW]

I could work it out what you typed back word based on my previous knowledge (karma).