Best Of

@ScottPen said:
Straight answers really are hard to come by sometimes.

Y' think?

My response was pretty awesome. If you want to know more about what the Buddha said about himself, you'll have to crack a book, I'm afraid. There is no "The World-Honored One Talks About Himself Sutra".

It's an unusual question you ask. What the Buddha thought of himself, isn't high on most folks Dharma Bucket List. But WTF!! If it's important, find an answer.

Jeeez..... the more I think about this, the more interesting it becomes. Not so interesting that I'll undertake more research, though. Nope. I'm 70, and I don't have to do research anymore.

@ScottPen
Dude!
Figure this out, man! Find out what the Buddha thought of himself and then report back, with your findings. You can do this.

The last time I looked, he just said he was awake!

@person said:
Currently I'm something of a compatibilist. I believe in causes and conditions, but don't think that quite means we're all on a completely predictable set of train tracks. I hold open the possibility of present moment causation, that in the moment we can be aware of what is arising in the mind and that information acts in the causal chain to allow divergence from strict past determinism. It frees us from Laplace's demon. I also think the common sense notion of the self as being a homunculus separate from the world and biology that makes decisions is a false view that confuses people. Just because a process in your decision making comes from the subconscious doesn't mean that's not you. Just because environmental factors influence decisions doesn't mean they don't affect your unique makeup differently than another's. Practically and morally there is a distinction between being pushed off a diving board and deciding to jump off yourself even though both are deterministic.

I think this is a good way of putting it, and I agree for the most part. I think that the non-linearity of the complex causal process of conditionality allows for multiple causes and conditions to impact any one moment, and that "in the moment we can be aware of what is arising in the mind and that information acts in the causal chain to allow divergence from strict past determinism." But I do think it's ultimately causation all the way down as it seems highly unlikely that the faculty of the mind that intends and makes choices is itself free from causality/causal processes, be they mental or physical. In fact, I really like pegembara's post because I think it expresses this succinctly:

@pegembara said:

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.

Dependent arising is the teaching of the Buddha.
One who sees dependent arising sees the Dhamma.

All things, including suffering, are dependently arising or due to causes and conditions.
Intentions, too, are due to causes and conditions.
Mix with the wrong people and wrong intentions become the norm.

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

I suspect a lot of the issue, as @person has already noted, is linguistical and comes down to the nuances of the terms used. I believe many of us ultimately agree on things but not how they're linguistically framed. Very few would argue that our intentions, or the psychophysical beings who produce them, are unconditioned, hence they're characterized by conditionality. But describing that process and reality can be a challenge for said beings as there are multiple levels and POVs involved.

So, as others have mentioned, the most skillful approach is to focus on the purpose of these teachings, that of understanding dukkha and the cessation of dukkha. Because ultimately, that's all the Buddha described.

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.

Dependent arising is the teaching of the Buddha.
One who sees dependent arising sees the Dhamma.

All things, including suffering, are dependently arising or due to causes and conditions.
Intentions, too, are due to causes and conditions.
Mix with the wrong people and wrong intentions become the norm.

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

@ScottPen said:
If freedom from suffering is dependent upon understanding and accepting reality,

Well, it's not freedom, it's cessation. The cessation of suffering. Freedom means that suffering still exists. If cessation is dependent on something, it's more like dependent on arising. For a phenomenon to cease, it must first arise. If a phenomenon arises, it must certainly cease.