Free Will...What is it? What is it not?

federica

Free Will....Karma.... Temptation....Fate....

Post your thoughts and comments HERE.....

Simonthepilgrim

Thank you, F.

The question really is: to what extent is each of us free to choose our actions?

For those who believe in karma/kamma and rebirth, how far does previous life action/inaction determine today's actions?

Where do we draw the line? Most countries set an age limit below which a child is deemed not to be responsible for their actions. Are they free or not free to act? and, if free, how can they not be responsible?

Are the mad free? the bedridden? the illiterate? the literate?

I can see arguments on both sides of this. Like some sort of optical illusion, we sometimes appear to be free and, at other times, human action appears as predetermined as a pebble dropping from a great height.

And, what makes the whole thing worse is that I cannot see a useful or persuasive experiment for either hypothesis.

magpie

I have been thinking about the meaning of free will lately. I interpret it to be the same as intentional action. I wonder about how much choice we actually do have. I mean, I know there are choices to be made, but not all possible choices are mine to be made.

If I go to the pantry and see a box of wheat crackers and a box of cookies, it is because of my free will that I am able to choose between the two. I don't, however, have the choice to eat the icecream that isn't in the pantry because it would melt there.

I believe that free will, to the extent we are capable of choosing, makes us responsible for our actions. It is true that I may be predisposed, genetically (as all primates are) to like sweets. But, there are two things I can do when confronted: Eat or turn aside.

How does free will fit into Buddhism, if there is such a thing as free will?

Angela

federica

The 'Ask Oxford' on-line dictionary, defines Fate thus:
noun 1 the development of events outside a person’s control, regarded as predetermined. 2 the course or inevitable outcome of a person’s life.

And 'Free Will' as follows:
• noun the power to act without the constraints of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion.


To further confuse the issue, it has this definition for Karma:
• noun (in Hinduism and Buddhism) the sum of a person’s actions in this and previous states of existence, viewed as affecting their future fate.


As I understood it (and I am of this opinion still) Karma evolves according to the calibre of our Skilful - or unskilful - prior actions... Whether we have previously generated 'Positive' or 'Negative' Karma is of little consequence, and very often beyond our memory, or comprehension....
What we do with our 'lot' Here and Now - how we transform the 'bad' and perpetuate the 'Good' is down to our assessing the situation in which we find ourselves, and behaving in such a way as to follow the Eightfold path and Five Precepts, so that whatever is going on now, only Good Karma will result.

fine so far...

However, the above three definitions may appear to be self-contradictory, but only if you presume the definitions to be correct...
I for one would dispute the definition of Karma....because according to the dictionary, if Fate is outside of a person's control, and predetermined - how can a person's actions - supposedly the fruits of Free Will or 'choice' (the power to act without the constraints of necessity or fate) - then affect their future 'Fate' - ?!?

The use of the word 'Fate' in the definition of 'Karma' is in my view, incorrect, and the person who created this entry for the dictionary, does not understand Karma....!

Vacchagotta

Interesting issue.

We can take a fresh look at the terms of "free will" and posit the Buddhist solution of the "true" free will, that being in Pali cetovimutti or liberation of the mind.

In other words, rather than think of "free will" as being the freedom to choose between this or that limited, impermanent, unsatisfying option in life (kamma), we might alternatively think of "free will" as the path, and our ability to choose it through wisdom, toward liberating the mind from all motions of clinging intention or willing. This is done through self-effort. It is in that way, through correcting the error of directing all our willing outwardly to all that which can never ultimately satisfy it (in other words to that which is impermanent, suffering, and not-self and therefore not the adequate domain of a "free will"--like a king who imagines he rules countries beyond his own), by centering, pacifying, and fulfilling the will of itself in samadhi that we aspire to a true "free will" as opposed to a degraded, kamma-based will.

in friendliness,
V.

Simonthepilgrim

I have been told that there is a Dzochen saying that if you're falling to your death from a high place, it's a pity not to enjoy the view.

Perhaps, in the extreme situation, the real expression of free will is how we view the inevitable.

Extending this: the more we understand the function of the genome, the action of the endocrine glands, the operation of proteins, etc, the less human action appears to be under conscious control. And free will demands that the actor be the conscious executant.

As I understand the lessons of the Dharma, samsara is, of its nature, conditioned. This phenomenon that I call "me" is as conditioned as any other. It is thus the outcome of whole bundles of causes, none of which is, itself, other than an outcome. From some points of view, it is possible, particularly with hindsight to say, "It was thus because it had to be thus, because of such-and-such a cause."

What the Dharma shows me is that, whilst that may be true, it is also true that, as a human being, I can, with practice, begin to see the process at work. I can begin to "enjoy the view". I can make the choice of how I perceive any moment.

This, I suggest, the beginning of the freedom that is declared in the Third Noble Truth.

Vacchagotta

Simon,

I enjoyed your post and I think maybe you and I were thinking along similar lines!

V.

Simonthepilgrim

It is good to journey together.

Jason

Fede,

I really like the way the Venerable Thanissaro explores this idea. Here are some short paragraphs that illustrate his take on free will from a Buddhist context:

In the course of his Awakening, the Buddha discovered that the experience of the present moment consists of three factors: results from past actions, present actions, and the results of present actions. This means that kamma acts in feedback loops, with the present moment being shaped both by past and by present actions; while present actions shape not only the present but also the future. This constant opening for present input into the causal processes shaping one's life makes free will possible. In fact, will — or intention — forms the essence of action. Furthermore, the quality of the intention determines the quality of the act and of its results. On the mundane level there are three types of intentions: skillful, leading to pleasant results; unskillful, leading to painful results; and mixed, leading to mixed results, all these results being experienced within the realm of space and time. However, the fact that the experience of space and time requires not only the results of past actions but also the input of present actions means that it is possible to unravel the experience of space and time by bringing the mind to a point of equilibrium where it contributes no intentions or actions to the present moment. The intentions that converge at this equilibrium are thus a fourth type of intention — transcendent skillful intentions — which lead to release from the results of mundane intentions, and ultimately to the ending of all action. *

For the early Buddhists, karma was non-linear. Other Indian schools believed that karma operated in a straight line, with actions from the past influencing the present, and present actions influencing the future. As a result, they saw little room for free will. Buddhists, however, saw that karma acts in feedback loops, with the present moment being shaped both by past and by present actions; present actions shape not only the future but also the present. This constant opening for present input into the causal process makes free will possible. This freedom is symbolized in the imagery the Buddhists used to explain the process: flowing water. Sometimes the flow from the past is so strong that little can be done except to stand fast, but there are also times when the flow is gentle enough to be diverted in almost any direction. *

Although the precise working out of the kammic process is somewhat unpredictable, it is not chaotic. The relationship between kammic causes and their effects is entirely regular: when an action is of the sort that it will be felt in such and such a way, that is how its result will be experienced [§13]. Skillful intentions lead to favorable results, unskillful ones to unfavorable results. Thus, when one participates in the kammic process, one is at the mercy of a pattern that one's actions put into motion, but that is not entirely under one's present control. Despite the power of the mind, one cannot reshape the basic laws of cosmic causality at whim. These laws include the physical laws, within which one's kamma must ripen and work itself out. This is the point of passage §14, in which the Buddha explains that present pain can be explained not only by past kamma but also by a host of other factors; the list of alternative factors he gives comes straight from the various causes for pain that were recognized in the medical treatises of his time. If we compare this list with his definition of old kamma in §15, we see that many if not all of the alternative causes are actually the result of past actions. The point here is that old kamma does not override other causal factors operating in the universe — such as those recognized by the physical sciences — but instead finds its expression within them.

However, the fact that the kammic process relies on input from the present moment means that it is not totally deterministic. Input from the past may place restrictions on what can be done and known in any particular moment, but the allowance for new input from the present provides some room for free will. This allowance also opens the possibility for escape from the cycle of kamma altogether by means of the fourth type of kamma: the development of heightened skillfulness through the pursuit of the seven factors for Awakening and the noble eightfold path — and, by extension, all of the Wings to Awakening [§§16-17].

The non-linearity of this/that conditionality explains why heightened skillfulness, when focused on the present moment, can succeed in leading to the end of the kamma that has formed the experience of the entire cosmos. All non-linear processes exhibit what is called scale invariance, which means that the behavior of the process on any one scale is similar to its behavior on smaller or larger scales. To understand, say, the large-scale pattern of a particular non-linear process, one need only focus on its behavior on a smaller scale that is easier to observe, and one will see the same pattern at work. In the case of kamma, one need only focus on the process of kamma in the immediate present, in the course of developing heightened skillfulness, and the large-scale issues over the expanses of space and time will become clear as one gains release from them. *

This view is based on a very simplistic understanding of fabricated reality, seeing causality as linear and totally predictable: X causes Y which causes Z and so on, with no effects turning around to condition their causes, and no possible way of using causality to escape from the causal network. However, one of the many things the Buddha discovered in the course of his awakening was that causality is not linear. The experience of the present is shaped both by actions in the present and by actions in the past. Actions in the present shape both the present and the future. The results of past and present actions continually interact. Thus there is always room for new input into the system, which gives scope for free will. There is also room for the many feedback loops that make experience so thoroughly complex, and that are so intriguingly described in chaos theory. Reality doesn't resemble a simple line or circle. It's more like the bizarre trajectories of a strange attractor or a Mandelbrot set. *

As often as I had contemplated this subject, I never really came to a satisfactory understanding of it until I began to see the importance intention and skill played.



Jason

aing

When I was last working in a psychiatric hospital, the treatment team was more and more looking at mental disorders to be more often genetic than from life experience.(excluding trauma/abuse experience. "Depressed in the womb" Behavioral (personality) disorders were also thought of as genetic in origin. We worked at training (along with medications) the patients to have socially acceptable behavior. (Dont talk to your voices in public).

This issue, along with cultural conditioning, leads me to belive in a predestination type concept towards human behavior rather than a universal free will.

I have no quotes to back my point of view. I believe that Karma is associated with ones ability to use intention and skill. Free will then plays a part in deciding to be skillful.

I think that is part of what the Venerable Thanissaro was saying. I get confused from long learned discourses.

Russell

KnightofBuddha

We all have free will. There is no doubt in my mind about that. Although every choice is not without consequence.

Karma to me means that every action that I take has consequences in my life and I must be mindful of this. I am the one solely responsible for the decisions I make. I don't believe in karma to be punishment for previous negative actions.

I don't know what to say about temptation. It is not always a bad thing.

Fate is a human complex of the mind. I see it as a grasping of human beings for something greater than themselves. I know fate and destiny sounds nice in poetry in all, but it is incompatible with choice.

buddhafoot

This is an interesting thread.

I wonder if any of us has free will at every single level of our existance. We are conditioned by so many outside (and as we are growing and trained) inside (mental) factors/conditions - that one would have to wonder how much is free will and how much is reacting to conditions based upon how we've been taught or what has been defined as "socially acceptable". Whew!, that was a long sentence!

Like our friend Jerbear here - we all know the crap he's gone through in his life. How many times can he or does he exhibit "free will"? We know that we can do many, many things, but what of the consequences that we have to deal with? Is that truly free will? Being "allowed" to do what we wish under duress?

-bf

Simonthepilgrim

As Saint Augustine understood, the whole debate has enormous implications for how we approach the question of responsibility, and the debate rumbles on!

In the past, before the Freudian revolution, guilt or innocence in law were judged solely on the action. The insane or children were not excused by reason of their intellectual/moral deficit. If anything, their condition was seen as making matters worse.

Today, we take a different position. We perceive that a person's responsibility will rarely be absolute but conditioned by many factors.

As students of the Dharma, treatises and commentaries, we may not be surprised at conditioned phenomena, but, as Westerners (those of us who are or who think like one) we also want to assert that we are capable of choice.

buddhafoot

Simonthepilgrim wrote:

As students of the Dharma, treatises and commentaries, we may not be surprised at conditioned phenomena, but, as Westerners (those of us who are or who think like one) we also want to assert that we are capable of choice.

True... we want to "assert that we are capable of choice" - but if we really look at it - we are capable of choice from a predetermined set of options.

-bf

Simonthepilgrim

buddhafoot wrote:

True... we want to "assert that we are capable of choice" - but if we really look at it - we are capable of choice from a predetermined set of options.

-bf

The question must be to what extent our response to that set of options is, itself, conditioned. Simply because we have the impression that we are free to choose our actions does not make it true. It could be an hallucination.

buddhafoot

This all sounds very Matrixy, Simon.

Or should I call you, "Mr. Anderson..."!?!?!?

-bf

buddhafoot

Or maybe I should just call you "Ma Trixy"!

-bf

Simonthepilgrim

As i reflect on my own actions, I am often struck by the chain of events and decisions which have brought me to a final decision. In retrospect, this chain can appear inevitable and, I believe, often is so.

One of the functions of my own practice is to awaken awareness of the chain. Choice can only fully be exercised unless we are free of compulsion. This is even recognised in law where a contract is invalid if entered into under duress. The more I look at the gestalts of recursive action and outcome, the longer the history becomes and the further back in history, personal, national, global and geological.

As I understand the cosmological background to the Dharma, the less aware/awake the less responsibility, but - and this is the important point - personal responsibility has no part to play in the operation of karma/kamma.

buddhafoot

I'm now sitting here and wondering how much less of a choice an "enlightened" one has. We, as ignorant beings, have many more options open to us that may conflict with the tenants of the Eightfold Path.

We are open to making decisions or having actions that cause hurt, anger, pain, death, unhappiness - where a buddha or boddhisattva would not be able to make those choices because of their very being.

-bf

Simonthepilgrim

buddhafoot wrote:

I'm now sitting here and wondering how much less of a choice an "enlightened" one has. We, as ignorant beings, have many more options open to us that may conflict with the tenants of the Eightfold Path.

We are open to making decisions or having actions that cause hurt, anger, pain, death, unhappiness - where a buddha or boddhisattva would not be able to make those choices because of their very being.

-bf

Who is the freer: me, who can play no musical instrument but could learn any I choose, or (when he was still alive, of course) Yehudi Menuhin?

I begin to suspect that one of the aspects of 'awakening' is a greater sense of available choices, an increased ability to make those choices skillfully,and carry them through.

magpie

What could condition a person to be a serial killer? What conditions a person to want to cause misery and suffering, just for the sake of inflicting pain? How could people choose such? These are the issues I try to figure out when I consider free will.

I remember the first lie I told. I was 4, and had been standing above my baby brother who was in his crib. I was toying with the carousel above his head when I broke it. My first thought must have been one of survival (I don't know) because I ran to my mother and immediately told her that my brother had broken his toy. She asked me if I was telling her something that was not the truth. It's weird, because I remember that I was indeed stating something that was not true, but I didn't feel badly about it. Mom asked me, "You know you're doing something wrong to say something that isn't true, right?" Right then, I was conditioned to know that lying is wrong. I couldn't tell another lie without having to do some serious "work" to try to justify it to myself and make it ok.

Other things I came here thinking were wrong. Like the time I found out that our pet cow was going for slaughter so that people could have hamburgers. I always felt like that was wrong, but I accepted it because I knew that people had to eat. So I was conditioned, in this case, to go against my better judgement.

So back to the mind of a serial killer...how could he not know that what he is doing is wrong, and therefore choose right?

Any ideas?

Angela

Palzang

I think that's more a question for psychologists to figure out than Buddhists, Angela. All sentient beings seek to be happy, but because of ego-clinging and delusion they don't know how to achieve lasting happiness. The mind of a serial killer is only an exteme example of this. All of us, every last sentient being, suffers from the same delusion, however. Just because we don't go out and kill people doesn't mean we're not deluded. We all cling to the deluded notion of self and other, and nothing, not even hearing the Dharma, can break that grip. It's only with long years of practice, practice, practice combined with study and contemplation of the Dharma that gradually, bit by bit, that hold loosens and we can get a little space in our minds.

Palzang

buddhafoot

I couldn't help but think of this from our Dhammapada posts...

1. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.

2. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.

Who knows what conditions arise that cause a serial killer to do what a serial killer does. But, for some reason, this "condition" is mind-wrought. And to assume something on Palzang's part - at some point a person must give into this delusion that they take refuge in.

I wonder if it causes them suffering?

-bf

Palzang

I agree with what you're saying, bf, and I'd say their actions cause them extreme suffering, though they may not get the connection. Usually people who are extremely deluded exteriorize their suffering and blame it on something "out there" - society, parents, girl/boyfriends, twinkies, whatever. And I'm not just being facetious about the twinkies! That's the excuse that the guy (Dan White) who murdered Harvey Milk and George Moscone in San Francisco used!

In fact, I would go so far as to say that the cause of mental illness is not due to parental neglect, chemical imbalance in the brain or anything else like that. Rather, I would say that mental illness (I'm talking psychosis here, not your garden-variety neurosis) is extreme self-absorption. The reason I say that is because that's why my teacher says, and it also makes sense, if you really think about it.

Palzang

fofoo

Very intersting topic

I came to the conclusion, that wether or not there is such a thing as free will, we should act as if we had one. If we have free will, we can freely choose. If we do not have free will, we are 100% conditioned and must react to an event in one particular way and in no other. But would we actually realize that if it was the case, free will is merely an illusion? I think it is good to asume a free will, for every other assumption might lead you into trouble, will give excuse for having no responsability at all, leads to fatalistic worldview. I think western judical systems assume free will, disregarding philosphical disputes, they merely seek for circumstances that could have triggered a crime and conditioned a response to some extend, for instance, analyzing its seveerness and impact of the "free will" person and giving him less penalty, e.g. when he was drunk, doing drugs, reacted to a threat and so on

fofoo

Just to add a view on free will from the canonical point of view:

In Anguttara Nikāya, first book verse 30, the teachings of Makkhali-Gosála are dismissed as causing harm to others like no other does. The Makkhaklis were determinists/fatalists, denied the free will.

http://www.metta.lk/pali-utils/Pali-Proper-Names/makkhali_gosala.htm

edit: I cannot find the english version of it, at palikanon.com it is entiteld "A.I.30 Makkhali Gosāla, der Irrlehrer (XVI,3. 4)"

ajani_mgo

Simonthepilgrim wrote:

I have been told that there is a Dzochen saying that if you're falling to your death from a high place, it's a pity not to enjoy the view.

Perhaps, in the extreme situation, the real expression of free will is how we view the inevitable.

Extending this: the more we understand the function of the genome, the action of the endocrine glands, the operation of proteins, etc, the less human action appears to be under conscious control. And free will demands that the actor be the conscious executant.

As I understand the lessons of the Dharma, samsara is, of its nature, conditioned. This phenomenon that I call "me" is as conditioned as any other. It is thus the outcome of whole bundles of causes, none of which is, itself, other than an outcome. From some points of view, it is possible, particularly with hindsight to say, "It was thus because it had to be thus, because of such-and-such a cause."

What the Dharma shows me is that, whilst that may be true, it is also true that, as a human being, I can, with practice, begin to see the process at work. I can begin to "enjoy the view". I can make the choice of how I perceive any moment.

This, I suggest, the beginning of the freedom that is declared in the Third Noble Truth.

Well said! :rockon:

not1not2

That Dzogchen statement reminded me of the two tigers koan.

A man walking across a field encounters a tiger. He fled, the tiger chasing after him. Coming to a cliff, he caught hold of a wild vine and swung himself over the edge. The tiger sniffed at him from above. Terrified, the man looked down to where, far below, another tiger had come, waiting to eat him. Two mice, one white and one black, little by little began to gnaw away at the vine. The man saw a luscious strawberry near him. Grasping the vine in one hand, he plucked the strawberry with the other. How sweet it tasted!

There's lots of symbolism in this one.

Anyway, I would agree that it is hard to argue for fatalism or against it. I think it really depends on how you look at it. I guess it could be said that there are certainly choices being made & that we have free will, but that our actual decision is entirely dependent upon conditions. Here we have something that is neither entirely fate nor choice. In other words, while both can be inferred, we cannot say that either one is the entire truth of the matter. Taking the former view helps us understand how/why things are the way the are, yet the the latter gives us the ability to change our current & future course. And then it could be said that even this ability to change & choose is entirely dependent different factors, including the agency of choice/volition.

Anyway, this is one of those '"yes', 'no', both 'yes' & 'no', neither 'yes' nor 'no'" situations to me. I'm not so sure that the intellect can pin this one down.

_/\_
metta

not1not2

Just listened to a good talk by Ven. Robina Courtin which deals with this. Thought I'd post it here.

Why Bad Things Happen

_/\_
metta

Palzang

I really like Ven. Robina. She tells it like it is without pulling punches. She came through Sedona a couple of years ago and gave a talk and showed her movie. We've got a lot of sangha from Australia. Really liked her. Thanks for the link.

Palzang

not1not2

Palzang wrote:

I really like Ven. Robina. She tells it like it is without pulling punches. She came through Sedona a couple of years ago and gave a talk and showed her movie. We've got a lot of sangha from Australia. Really liked her. Thanks for the link.

Palzang

You're very welcome. I really like her too. She talks a little fast at times, but she's really good. Also, there is a good deal more audio by her & others at www.lamrim.org.

_/\_
metta