Did the Buddha teach that we have choice?

[tiltbillings]

In this thread viewtopic.php?f=17&t=6234 in the general meditation section was a back and forth about the role of determinism within the Buddha's teachings. It is a battle better fought here for those who are interested.

Edit: Yes, the Buddha taught causilty, but to refine the question: Did the Buddha teach that we have choice within the causal context within which we find ourselves?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Strict determinism means complete predictability of events and only one possible future.

Source: http://www.informationphilosopher.com/f ... inism.html

Metta,
Retro.

[Kim O'Hara]

Strict determinism rules out free will.
The Buddha taught us to *choose* between skillful and unskillful actions.
Therefore the Buddha did not teach strict determinism.
... I think.

Kim

[alan]

Obvious answer is no. But, this being a forum, I suppose we will hear from someone who insists on arguing the opposite. For what reason, I cannot conceive.

[Sherab]

What does "free" in "free will" mean?

[tiltbillings]

What does "free" in "free will" mean?

That is the question and it was discussed at length in this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=6234#p98275

[Sherab]

What does "free" in "free will" mean?

That is the question and it was discussed at length in this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=6234#p98275

I noted that "free" was defined as unconditioned. So what does an unconditioned will mean?

[octathlon]

That thread was way too long and complex for me to catch up on, but what I did read was interesting. I thought one of the problems was people having different ideas of what free will means. I don't think saying that free will is an illusion means you are saying that there is strict determinism. IMO it's the same false dichotomy as eternalism vs. annihilationism. We make choices with our will, but the choices we make are based on our exact state and conditions at that moment. It's not free will nor is it strict determinism.

Any two beings with the same exact kamma-- same exact body, mind, and life history (if that were possible) in a given situation would react, feel, think, consider and deliberate in the same way and their resulting deliberate decision/action would be the same. For that not to be true would require something that could exist or act independently of causes and conditions.

[Sherab]

I don't think saying that free will is an illusion means you are saying that there is strict determinism.

Because there is still the factor of pure chance.

[m0rl0ck]

Obvious answer is no. But, this being a forum, I suppose we will hear from someone who insists on arguing the opposite. For what reason, I cannot conceive.

Well obviously, being a determinist, he would be doing it because he couldnt stop himself.

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

Four Points to Bear in Mind

Relationship of Cause to Effect

The fourth aspect of Dependent Origination is the one-to-one correspondence between cause and effect (evam dhammatā). Every cause leads only to the relevant effect; it has nothing to do with any irrelevant effects. In other words, every cause is the sufficient and necessary condition for the corresponding effect. This leaves no room for chance or moral impotency (akiriya-ditthi). However, as the Visuddhimagga says, for those who misunderstand it, it provides the basis for rigid determinism (niyatavāda). Meditators clearly see the relationship of each effect to its cause, so they have no doubt about their one-to-one correspondence and the truth of moral responsibility.

[Modus.Ponens]

I have not read the other thread as it is way too long.

Pure determinism is an inevitable consequence of the principle of causality, which is a principle I think the Buddha thaught. However, only a person completely aware of the laws that run the universe and what the present state of the universe is would be devoid of choice. Anyone who is not in this condition is unable to completely understand the causes that made him act in a way and therefore has the illusion of choice. The conclusion is not that one should not care for one's actions because all is predetermined and choice is an illusion. The conclusion is that we should care for our actions because that illusion is the reality to us and we got to make the best out of our reality.

[mikenz66]

I think M.P. sums the issues up well. I found the article
Federman, Asaf (2010) What kind of free will did the Buddha teach? Philosophy East and West, Vol.60 (No.1). ISSN 0031-8221
http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/3142/
that was already referred to on the other thread very interesting (though now my head hurts...). In particular the distinction made between determinism and fatalism...


Mike

[Viscid]

I have not read the other thread as it is way too long.

Pure determinism is an inevitable consequence of the principle of causality, which is a principle I think the Buddha thaught. However, only a person completely aware of the laws that run the universe and what the present state of the universe is would be devoid of choice. Anyone who is not in this condition is unable to completely understand the causes that made him act in a way and therefore has the illusion of choice. The conclusion is not that one should not care for one's actions because all is predetermined and choice is an illusion. The conclusion is that we should care for our actions because that illusion is the reality to us and we got to make the best out of our reality.

[Sherab]

Pure determinism is an inevitable consequence of the principle of causality..

Agreed.

However, only a person completely aware of the laws that run the universe and what the present state of the universe is would be devoid of choice. Anyone who is not in this condition is unable to completely understand the causes that made him act in a way and therefore has the illusion of choice. The conclusion is not that one should not care for one's actions because all is predetermined and choice is an illusion. The conclusion is that we should care for our actions because that illusion is the reality to us and we got to make the best out of our reality.

This conclusion while inevitable is still emotionally unsatisfactory. Why? Because as a result of determinism and by the law of large numbers, there will be at least a minority of sentient beings who can never ever attain liberation or buddhahood. To affect the outcome of such a deterministic situation, one will need an influence that is outside the range of determinism or an influence that is a truely random.

[tiltbillings]

I have not read the other thread as it is way too long.

Pure determinism is an inevitable consequence of the principle of causality, which is a principle I think the Buddha thaught. However, only a person completely aware of the laws that run the universe and what the present state of the universe is would be devoid of choice. Anyone who is not in this condition is unable to completely understand the causes that made him act in a way and therefore has the illusion of choice. The conclusion is not that one should not care for one's actions because all is predetermined and choice is an illusion. The conclusion is that we should care for our actions because that illusion is the reality to us and we got to make the best out of our reality.

Good post? If it made sense, maybe it would be, but pure determinism leaves us as leaves blowing in the winds, having no choice. What difference is there in what we do, since what we do is has nothing to do with anything I imagine I want, since imagining that I want anything and can do anything of my own accord is just an artifact, a side effect, of impersonal mechanical cause and effect, meaning there is not a thing I can do? Is that what the Buddha taught?

[tiltbillings]

As a matter of clarification Did the Buddha teach strict determinism? Is the the subject of this thread. Is strict determinism what one finds the Buddha teaching in the suttas?

Edit: shifting the focus: Did the Buddha teach that we have a functional choice?

[Sherab]

As a matter of clarification Did the Buddha teach strict determinism? Is the the subject of this thread. Is strict determinism what one finds the Buddha teaching in the suttas?

The Buddha only taught what was required to help us attain liberation/buddhahood. Whether his teachings implied strict determinism or not is for us to figure out if we so desire.

[robertk]

I think the Buddha taught causality based on his knowledge of complex conditions. Determinism sounds like a philosophical viewpoint that the old philosophers debated about.

[tiltbillings]

I think the Buddha taught causality based on his knowledge of complex conditions. Determinism sounds like a philosophical viewpoint that the old philosophers debated about.

Yes, the Buddha taught causilty, but to refine the question: Did the Buddha teach that we have functional choice within the causal context within which we find ourselves?