Free will and cause/effect

Julia

If everything is based on cause and effect, how can we have a free will?
The believe in cause and effect sounds a lot like determinism.

ThailandTom

Hey, I think that you are looking at cause and effect from a wrong point of view. It does not mean that eveyrthing has been arranged by some entity or everything is mapped out in some way. Cause and effect in buddhism relates to how everything interacts with everything else in the universe. This could be natural phenomena interacting with other natural phenomena, natural phenomena interacting with living beings, living beings interacting with natural phenomena, living beings interacting with other living beings, and a mixture of them all!!

To give a simple example, if you throw a stone at a window the cause is you throwing the stone for whatever reason, the effect the windown breaking. Other effects after this may be you having to pay for it, you becoming guilty, somebody getting angry with you, somebody may cut themselves on the glass etc. So you can see how one simple act can cause suffering to yourself and others around you. That action of throwing a stone was your intention and your free will, it has a cause and it has an effect.

Tosh

For me, exploring why I couldn't stop drinking and subsequently did stop drinking gave me some insight into 'free will'. There were periods when I really did want to stop drinking - my life was hell and physically I was really a mess - but I just couldn't stop doing it to myself.

So I ended up in A.A. and followed it's 12 Step program, and with the support of the fellowship, I am nearly three years sober.

So, in essence, I didn't have the free will to stop drinking until I was shown how to create the causes for me to exercise my free will, so that I could stop drinking. And I think this is in accordance with Dependant Arising, where all things depend on causes and conditions; even 'free will'.

I also don't believe we have 'totally free will', but nor do I believe in determinism either; I think the truth like many things Buddhism seems to teach, is in some subtle area in the Middle (The Middle Way).

Maybe anyone can explore their own free will with any strong attachment they have?

My Buddhist teacher says we should start with our grossest attachments first. So why not identify your grossest attachment (smoking, chocolate, or TV, or spending too much money on clothes, that kind of thing) and see how much free will you have when it comes to letting that one go?

If the attachment is very strong, you should get a strategy in place before you attempt to give it up. Experiment with it. I think that's what makes Buddhism fun too.

seeker242

If everything is based on cause and effect, how can we have a free will?
The believe in cause and effect sounds a lot like determinism.

Cause and effect in Buddhism simply means that your speech, actions, etc. inevitability have consequences. Good acts have good consequences and bad acts have bad consequences. Therefore, you should choose to not do bad acts and do good acts. In Buddhism, karma is considered predetermined and deterministic in the universe, with the exception of a human, who through free will can influence the future. In other words, dogs and cats, etc. live a deterministic life, but humans do not. This is why it is considered a great gift to be born as a human.

Sabre

The Buddha never said we have free will. In fact, in his second sermon he said we don't.

Sabre

If everything is based on cause and effect, how can we have a free will?
The believe in cause and effect sounds a lot like determinism.

Cause and effect in Buddhism simply means that your speech, actions, etc. inevitability have consequences. Good acts have good consequences and bad acts have bad consequences. Therefore, you should choose to not do bad acts and do good acts. In Buddhism, karma is considered predetermined and deterministic in the universe, with the exception of a human, who through free will can influence the future. In other words, dogs and cats, etc. live a deterministic life, but humans do not. This is why it is considered a great gift to be born as a human.

Where did you get this from? In Buddhism animals and humans are not that different. In fact humans are also animals. It is a gift to be born as a human because you have a decent amount of both suffering and happiness.

Tosh

The Buddha never said we have free will. In fact, in his second sermon he said we don't.

Is this is a 'There is no 'self' to have a will' thing?

Conventionally don't you think we have any free will?

Sabre

The Buddha never said we have free will. In fact, in his second sermon he said we don't.

Is this is a 'There is no 'self' to have a will' thing?

Conventionally don't you think we have any free will?

Yes, to be more precise: "Mental formations are no self".

The will is part of this.

I don't think we have any free will.

taiyaki

Only forms manifesting based on causes and conditions. All is interdependent and ungraspable.

The will or agent is a projection after the fact. Just like the causality. Mind connects the two.

I place the seed into the ground and it grows. I made this plant. I am the first cause. Nope the seed was there based on causes abd conditions along with your inclination to plant the seed. All conditions and causes coming together to create the greatest probabilty for a manifestion of the plant to occur. There are only interdepedent processes coming together and then going away. Full but empty. There but ungraspable.

Where is this agent? It is just thinking confusing itself as the inner subjectivity of awareness. I have this sense of time and hereness and experience. I grasp at this and construct a self based on ignorance. When one can see thoughts and objectify them hey become not mine or me or graspable. The wisdom of clear seeing cuts all agent assertion.

When the mind is confused there is only higher probability for negativity to arise based on causes and conditions. When the mind see's the wisdom of the buddha, then such negativity if arises is broken down into parts and thus emptiness is seen.

person

As a human being we have meta cognition and awareness. We don't have to simply react to some stimulus. We can mentally seperate ourselves from our natural reaction and act in a different way.

Its hard to say if this process also works in a purely deterministic fashion but I also think it makes us more than simply meat robots.

seeker242

If everything is based on cause and effect, how can we have a free will?
The believe in cause and effect sounds a lot like determinism.

Cause and effect in Buddhism simply means that your speech, actions, etc. inevitability have consequences. Good acts have good consequences and bad acts have bad consequences. Therefore, you should choose to not do bad acts and do good acts. In Buddhism, karma is considered predetermined and deterministic in the universe, with the exception of a human, who through free will can influence the future. In other words, dogs and cats, etc. live a deterministic life, but humans do not. This is why it is considered a great gift to be born as a human.

Where did you get this from? In Buddhism animals and humans are not that different. In fact humans are also animals. It is a gift to be born as a human because you have a decent amount of both suffering and happiness.

"For the early Buddhists, karma was non-linear and complex. Other Indian schools believed that karma operated in a simple 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 multiple 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. Furthermore, present actions need not be determined by past actions. In other words, there is free will, although its range is somewhat dictated by the past. The nature of this freedom is symbolized in an image used by the early Buddhists: 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."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/karma.html

So technically, to say there is complete free will is not true, however to say there is no free will is equally not true. Pubbekatahetuvada, the belief that all happiness and suffering arise from previous actions, is considered a wrong view according to Buddhist doctrines. There is free will, but it is not absolute.

"Likewise, the statement that the doctrine of anattā is inconsistent with free will is also due to a misconception. If nothing arises without a cause, if
everything is of “dependent origination,” can there be free will? That is the question. There is a tradition that the doctrine of dependent origination (paṭicca-samuppāda) itself was established by the Buddha in defense of free will and against a theory of wholesale determinism."
http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Wheels/wh127.pdf

seeker242

"The law of moral retribution or kamma as taught in Buddhism has also been criticised on the grounds that it amounts to fatalism. This again is due to ignorance of the Buddhist teaching. Causation in Buddhism is carefully distinguished by the Buddha on the one hand from strict determinism and on the other from indeterminism. The Buddha argues that if everything was determined, then there would be no free will and no moral or spiritual life would be possible and we would be slaves of the past; and on the other hand, if everything
was undetermined (adhicca-samuppanna) or fortuitous, then again the moral and spiritual life would not be possible, for the cultivation of moral and spiritual values would not result in moral and spiritual growth. It is because the world is so constituted that everything is not strictly determined or completely undetermined that the religious life is possible and desirable, according to the Buddha."
http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Wheels/wh003.pdf

Julia

I know I can create my own skillful actions but what cause made me able to plant that? It was another cause who made that possible. I mean everything needs causes to plant other causes. If not then it would not be possible to create because everything is karma.

taiyaki

Yup strangers helping stranger. I help the future me who is different then this me. Both are strangers yet we help each other. This is the basis for all compassion. Already in our self cherishing we are compassionate. With a little wisdom we can redirect such energy to save all strangers by saving our delusion. The energy remains.

Sabre

[..]

I don't agree with the article by Thanissaro.

"Furthermore, present actions need not be determined by past actions. In other words, there is free will"

This is not a good conclusion. If there is no determination of present actions that doesn't imply that there is free will. The reverse is true, yes, but the above isn't good reasoning. People often set free will vs. determinism like there is no other possibility, that is a common mistake, but that is not the right thing to do. The other articles quoted make similar conclusions.

I think the "will" (as we perceive it) is a byproduct of the act, not starting the act itself.

This is also interesting:

pegembara

If you have "free will" you should be able to perform unskillful actions and not suffer the consequences. It is precisely because you have no free will that actions have consequences ie. karma operates.

You have a so called "choice"
Good actions gives good results and bad actions bad results. You cannot expect bad actions to give good results!

Tosh

From a scientific point of view, it's been seen that when we make a conscious decision, the decision is in fact made some time earlier to when we 'thought' we made that decision. Experiments using brain scanning devices have shown this.

However, the decision that is made (the one prior to when we thought we made that decision), is made on the basis of the mind/brain knowing what kind of choice we would make anyway.

I guess from a Buddhist point of view, our past karma is in operation here, making these decisions for us - upto 6 seconds - before we thought we made the decision.

This Horizon science documentary is packed with 'Buddhist themes', but for this bit go to minute 47 onwards for the 'free will' section:

seeker242

People often set free will vs. determinism like there is no other possibility, that is a common mistake, but that is not the right thing to do. The other articles quoted make similar conclusions.

I think the "will" (as we perceive it) is a byproduct of the act, not starting the act itself.

I agree it is a mistake to set absolute free will vs absolute determinism which is why I believe it is really neither one or the other, but a combination of both to a certain degree.

I think "will" is what allows you to abstain from wrong acts and engage in good acts. What is it that allows you to keep the precepts if not the will to keep them? To say there is no choice or will in keeping the precepts, I think is nonsensical. It often takes "willpower" to keep them. If there was no free will at all, there would be no need for the precepts to begin with, everything would already be determined and there would be no need to make an effort to follow proper ethics.

Sabre

If there is no free will, that doesn't mean there are no choices or no will/willpower. It's quite clear those exist. But if you investigate a choice, you'll see it is always based on something else. The choice to keep the precepts is based on certain values, feelings, expectations and other things. It doesn't come out of nowhere.. So I also don't see why there would be no need for the precepts if there was no free will. For me it is the other way around, but I won't go into details explaining that here.

seeker242

As far as I'm concerned free will = choice. I'm thinking the disagreement is simply a matter of semantics.

person

It seems to me like the majority of the disagreement between @Sabre and @seeker242 may simply be about the definition of free will. The explanations don't really seem that far apart, there's probably some difference but not as much as 100% free will and absolutely no free will.

I know I can create my own skillful actions but what cause made me able to plant that? It was another cause who made that possible. I mean everything needs causes to plant other causes. If not then it would not be possible to create because everything is karma.

In my view your actions do come from somewhere, but its not a straight line. Say you have a choice between cake and fruit for dessert. Think of all the experience and knowledge you have to draw on to make that decision. Its a wide array and any small thing like whether its sunny or rainy out can minorly effect your mood enough to sway you one way or another. Its not simply a matter of fruit is better for me but cake tastes better battle each other out and whichever is stronger is the choice you make. I feel there is a role for reason and awareness of our habitual tendencies to create some space for us to direct the course of our thoughts, like the example of the river seeker242 gave.

federica

I thought up a good and long answer to this, but then decided to not bother posting it.

I think that's exercising my own free will, there......

Cloud

According to the Wings to Awakening (compiled by Thanissaro Bhikkhu) that someone provided a link to on this forum (also available here), the Buddha's explanation of this-and-that conditionality is both linear and synchronic. What that means is that past karma does affect our current experience, but that we also have the ability to intentionally act in the moment. Our options are limited in the moment because of conditions, but this does allow for "will".

That's a conventional understanding of course. It's worth reading into as explained in the Wings to Awakening. There are alternative explanations and understandings of course, but it seems a lot of work went into this particular exploration of the workings of karma.

What it really comes down to is that we obviously (conventionally) make choices and decisions. We could go round in circles about it, but it's really going to be following the Path (putting it into practice) that will get us somewhere. It doesn't matter whether we'd call it free will or not, as long as we can learn and adapt and act skillfully toward the alleviation of suffering.

Jeffrey

Free will and cause and effect are conceptual overlays to experience as it is..

Vajraheart

If everything is based on cause and effect, how can we have a free will?
The believe in cause and effect sounds a lot like determinism.

The more you realize the emptiness of the dependent origination of phenomena, the more you will be free from determinable fate. Buddhism does not only talk about cause and effect, it talks about emptiness too, this grants space for awareness to be free from cause and effect, even while it's happening.

Vajraheart

[..]

I don't agree with the article by Thanissaro.

"Furthermore, present actions need not be determined by past actions. In other words, there is free will"

This is not a good conclusion. If there is no determination of present actions that doesn't imply that there is free will. The reverse is true, yes, but the above isn't good reasoning. People often set free will vs. determinism like there is no other possibility, that is a common mistake, but that is not the right thing to do. The other articles quoted make similar conclusions.

I think the "will" (as we perceive it) is a byproduct of the act, not starting the act itself.

Buddhas teaching reveals that even the longing for freedom from ones pre-determined fate arises in a mind stream due to past influences. Which is why Buddhas in the Mahayana, prier to Buddhahood make the vow to attain Buddhahood for the sake of all beings so they may influence others through whatever means available. Everything is a ball of inter-influence, but at the same time... it's all empty of inherent existence and awareness of this is what liberates.

octinomos

As humans, we don’t like to think we’re just robots or animal-like and everything is instinctive, but for most people that’s exactly what’s going on. The whole point of a religious or spiritual ascent would be to escape that trigger-response mechanism, not because it’s evil or wrong, but simply because we can. Buddha and other religious figures have laid out the path for us to follow so we’re not just blindly experimenting and starting from scratch. Many actions we do instinctively, such as breathing or sneezing and we have little free will in the matter, but for questions of morality, where a right vs wrong decision is necessary, then hopefully there’s free will there, otherwise we’ve accomplished nothing by being spiritual. Each of us needs to just be mindful of every little action and constantly keep examining ourselves, if we’re keeping the precepts and have our minds set on the path. We will all have problem areas that need work, such as addictions for food or any kind of pleasure. So it’s not a thing that we achieve over night but by constant diligence and daily inner observation of our skandhas (aggregates), to make sure we’re operating as a unit and every aspect of ourselves is working for higher ideals and moral actions which will eventually lead to less suffering and little by little our capacity for free will should increase. But definitely faith is needed at the start until we start seeing changes in ourselves that we can observe we’re no longer just reacting to stimuli but actually engaging our body and mind/soul in all their capacity.

Jeffrey

When past karma ripens in the present,
new karma is created by how one responds,
which affects the direction of past karma,
and creates the direction of future karma.

- Stonepeace

swaydam

There is experience but no experiencer, thinking but no thinker etc.
In the same way, I think there is choosing without an agent.

praxis

To give a simple example, if you throw a stone at a window the cause is you throwing the stone for whatever reason, the effect the windown breaking.

Why isn't "for whatever reason" the cause of the window breaking? Also, couldn't the cause of the window breaking be attributed to the stone? The window could not have broken without the stone, and countless other factors.

It seems almost arbitrary to choose the person who threw the stone as the cause for the window breaking. Why choose the person as the cause?

Jeffrey

Yes I agree praxis. There is always multiple causes. In a web if you think of it.

octinomos

To give a simple example, if you throw a stone at a window the cause is you throwing the stone for whatever reason, the effect the windown breaking.

Why isn't "for whatever reason" the cause of the window breaking? Also, couldn't the cause of the window breaking be attributed to the stone? The window could not have broken without the stone, and countless other factors.

It seems almost arbitrary to choose the person who threw the stone as the cause for the window breaking. Why choose the person as the cause?

you seem to be saying that if there's a brick and a stone next to each other, and the person chooses the stone, the window will break, but if he chooses the brick, then it won't break. it's not the brick or the stone that breaks the window, but the person throwing either.

praxis

To give a simple example, if you throw a stone at a window the cause is you throwing the stone for whatever reason, the effect the windown breaking.

Why isn't "for whatever reason" the cause of the window breaking? Also, couldn't the cause of the window breaking be attributed to the stone? The window could not have broken without the stone, and countless other factors.

It seems almost arbitrary to choose the person who threw the stone as the cause for the window breaking. Why choose the person as the cause?

you seem to be saying that if there's a brick and a stone next to each other, and the person chooses the stone, the window will break, but if he chooses the brick, then it won't break.

Yes that could be the case, if the brick was substantially heavier than the stone and the thrower couldn't reach the window with the heavier object. Good point!

"it's not the brick or the stone that breaks the window, but the person throwing either."

What if I forced the person to throw the stone, like by gun point or something. Would I then be the cause?

federica

Yes.

praxis

Yes.

Skillful, on topic and simple. I like it.

federica