As per Buddha, who experiences pain and pleasure?

misecmisc1

Hi All,

As per my understanding of Buddha's teachings, Buddha taught that there is no being called 'I' but it is actually the 5 aggregates. What i am not able to understand is : what is that which experiences pain and pleasure? Suppose we get hit by a stone in our leg, then we feel pain, so my question is who is feeling the pain here? Similarly who experiences pleasure and the effects of the causes? Please suggest.

Bekenze

An I does exist, but at the same time, it does not. Get it?

You do exist (form), this is true. Your body has mass to it - it is a material thing. It is not that you do not exist, because you do. But..

This you, though, does not exist independently from all other things. It is conditioned by nature. Where does this you start or stop? When did you become you? When will you no longer become you? This is what we mean by "there is no you." You "do" exist, but not in a concrete sense (emptiness). You are ever changing - connected with everything else - not some separate, concrete entity.

So what feels the pain and pleasure? Your body. Or, the body which you believe to be you.

Form is emptiness and emptiness if form.

Now, if you are asking what really am I? Well, I believe the most appropriate answer is awareness. You are the awareness which is aware of all the pain, all the pleasure, all the actions of the body. You are the silent watcher behind all the action.

misecmisc1

@Bekenze - You said - Now, if you're asking what really am I? Well, I believe the most appropriate answer is awareness. You are the awareness which is aware of all the pain, all the pleasure, all the actions of the body. You are the silent watcher behind all the action.


This awareness which you are saying is the silent watcher behind all the action - this is called Self or Soul or Consciousness in other religions. But Buddha said there is no Soul. So my question still remains - what is that which is experiencing all the pain, pleasure and actions , in other words, who am I in reality?

Bekenze

This awareness which you are saying is the silent watcher behind all the action - this is called Self or Soul or Consciousness in other religions. But Buddha said there is no Soul. So my question still remains - what is that which is experiencing all the pain, pleasure and actions , in other words, who am I in reality?

An eternal soul does not exist. Temporary awareness does exist. You being aware is proof of awareness, is it not? Awareness may not be eternal, as its arising to conditioned as well, but awareness does exist.

In meditation, who is thinking? Who is observing the thoughts? Who is observing the observing of the thoughts? Replace observing with 'being aware of.'

At your very core, you are the silent watcher. Not a soul, per se, but an awareness upon awareness upon awareness.

Bekenze

http://www.adyashanti.org/index.php?file=writings_inner&writingid=2

Please read that for a better explanation. I can also give an audio file with a longer talk if you need.

Tosh

@Bekenze, can you post a link to the audio file?

misecmisc1

@Bekenze: just one question are your replies based on Buddha's teachings? i don't think so. Buddha said - there is thought, but no thinker - there is seen, but no seer. So there is no silent observer behind the scene.

So that is why, i asked this question - what as per Buddha, experiences pain or pleasure or effects of action?

federica

duality and dependent arising.
simply put, your Self feels the pain.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.006.than.html

Jeffrey

'who' is an overlay onto the experience. One way of thinking is that 'who' is the pain in the leg followed by a thought saying that the pain belons to 'someone'.

It is the same 'someone' who does the dishes and the laundry each day. The ghost in the iron mask.

misecmisc1

@federica - some links related to duality and dependent arising, please.

@jeffery - still not understood. is there something which is experiencing the 5 aggregates in total, or is I equal to sum of 5 aggregates? please suggest.

Jeffrey

The five aggregates are not 'I'. At least not according to buddha. This understanding is the Shravaka view of emptiness.

Saying that 'someone' is experiencing the aggregates is just a mental fermentation..

In the yogacara school of tibetan buddhism (try wiki) 'I' is associated with the 7th level of consciousness the manos. The manos is what causes all of the trouble and it is transformed during the buddhist path. The first 6 consciousness are the senses + mind sense. The eighth is the seed consciousness from which mental phenomena arise.

'who' is an overlay onto the experience. One way of thinking is that 'who' is the pain in the leg followed by a thought saying that the pain belons to 'someone'.

It is the same 'someone' who does the dishes and the laundry each day. The ghost in the iron mask.

Why don't you understand?

taiyaki

Conditional arising based on body, contact, object, and body consciousness.

When sensation arises thats all there is. Yet it is completely hallow because it is dependently arisen. Same with the other parts as they are dependent on each other as well.

federica

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_27.html

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html

misecmisc1

Hi All,

But there is individualism? because what i feel is local to my body, feelings etc - what other feels is local to their body, feelings etc - So what is this individualism - a mental formation(thought with no inherent existence) or a reality of a living being?

As per Buddha, who am I in reality? - please tell. Is awareness of I is equal to addition of the 6 types of consciousness, which Buddha told in 5 aggregates? Moreover, who is controlling these 5 aggregates in totality - means we say we have free will, then who/what is that which takes decision in our free will?

May be i am too stupid to understand these things and may be i am asking very stupid questions here, but please help me understand these questions. Thanks in advance.

robot

I think you should start by studying the information in the links that Federica has given you. And any other material that seems to point to the answers that you are looking for. And don' t expect to understand it right away. You will need to work at it for some time. Go over it again and again. Then other things you read or hear will start to tie in and things will become more clear for you. You are certainly not too stupid to understand. Maybe later you could pick up Jay Garfields interpretation and commentary on Nagarjuna's Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way. Read that a few times. You are going to have to be patient because the type of answers you are looking for are not something that someone can give you in a few lines.

Jeffrey

'I' is just a labeling done with mind. It doesn't really exist in much the same way as if I say a rock or a bit of rubble is named 'I'.

You are not stupid but I don't think you are reading what others are writing to you. Its been explained to you by myself and others several times.

Dakini

I dunno, you guys. I think it's important not to get too hung up in relative truth/absolute truth theory. We feel plain and pleasure. The Buddha felt pain. It's reported he had back pain and other physical ailments due to years of austerity practice. Who else would feel pain and pleasure if not we, ourselves?

Mountains

What she said^^^^

Jeffrey

@Dakini, there are six senses which includes mind. Saying that there is an 'I' which we must defend from death and blame and so forth is shown by buddha to be incorrect. So 'there is pain' is quite different from 'I must avoid my pain'. The second statement is agitated while the first statement may be at peace. Buddhism is the path to peace is one way to say it.

Buddha could use the word self sometimes in speaking. Because he wasn't caught up in the idea of the self. For example he states in the dammapada that there is no other than the self to liberate one from evil.

At the same time I recall Dhamma Dhatu and others showing scripture of the Pali Canon where buddha says that I, me, and mine lead to suffering. This is also consistent with the mahayana sutra, the diamond cutter (diamond sutra), which says that the realized being is not caught in an idea of birth, death, being, or lifespan. This is also corroborated by the dependent origination 12 links teaching of the Pali Canon in which Buddha shows that ignorance leads to craving, becoming, birth and death. And that the path of liberation is to overcome ignorance.

Basicly this is a key point of buddhism. If you miss this I would recommend to start a meditation practice and watch your mind to see that all arisings are impermanent. How could a self be constructed from senses which are all impermanent. In meditation you can even arrest the 'I' thoughts and see that they are merely thoughts.

Jeffrey

At the same time you are correctly recognizing *something* in your experience. This is where shentong comes in for me. There is an 'I' but it is not what we think it is. The 'I' is NOT: body, judgement, discrimation, conditioning, or consciousness. Rangtong also is a great view and system and is also consistent with your observations, I believe they simply say that body etc are all conditional and thus there is only thin air to locate a self as if you are trying to find a hand to fit a glove and none can be found.

driedleaf

There is no self as to what or how we would label a self. The labeling is not

self and label itself is not self, but the self is still very real. The real

self is the self that we want to nourish and keep wholesome. Keeping the self

nourished and wholesome will surely depend on our perception and how we see

through the labels.

Jeffrey

That's true @driedleaf. And its important to learn what nourishes the self. All conditional phenomena such as wrinkle cream, lexus, even relationships if they are for ego, none of those nourishes. We can see for ourselves that they are unreliable in the end. There is nothing wrong with pursuing those as a learning experience, seeing into impermanence and learning the nature of grasping including emotionality.

aMatt

so my question is who is feeling the pain here? Similarly who experiences pleasure and the effects of the causes? Please suggest.

The problem is in the question. The body feels senses, such as pain and pleasure, and through ignornace generates a 'who'. For instance as I understand it, if the Buddha stepped on a nail, there would be an understanding that the body and nail met unskillfully, and created a temporary arising of singnalling of the unskillful meeting, but would not arise as "my foot vs nail."

seeker242

As per Buddha, who am I in reality? - please tell.

Ahh, the $20,000 question! Which always reminds me of the words of Master Ajahn Chah "If you want to understand Anatta,(not-self) you have to meditate. If all you do is think about it, your head will explode" I personally think this question can only be answered by Prajna (wisdom), not by someone telling you about it.

Dakini

I don't think we should over-intellectualize a very simple question: who feels pain? Whether or not you tell yourself there's not "I", etc., YOU are still going to say "OW" when someone stabs you. Try it.

Bekenze

@Tosh

http://www.mediafire.com/?9fr43cxo25114#t5iwslw5zxs5r,1

Here is the audio file.

taiyaki

When you look for anything no things are found. Though everything appears it is all like a dream. Keyword is like.

Even when one looks at the one whose looking no "thing" is found. This lack of some "thing" is emptiness. Yet everything appears. Vivid yet empty, dependently arisen.

The subject/object duality is a projection based on inference and conditioning.

In direct preception of reality and mind one will see how everything manifests and then then then then then then "i am" is asserted. Pleasure and pain is impersonal processes that don't inherently exist. Because of karma we are forced to project pain/ pleasure. Because of ignorance we cannot see this.

Even the senses though they appear are empty.

This arising sound. Coming and going to a mind that links. Without linking sound appears in no where and disappears into no wheree. It is unborn and a play of causes and conditions.

Listen to a sound. Do not assert anything. Thinking is just thoughts. Listen. In listening there is only the sounds. Then projections of i am listening to this song and i like this song because of this and that. The subject and object is asserted. But this sound was originally just sound.

See how much is added?

The sound occurs when ear contact is made. Ear meets sound meets ear consciousness, then mind projects sound and i am. Here is where suffering begins.

So if one were to just be mindful of the six sense doors of contact and feeling then one were to guard the senses.

We are not denying anything. We are asserting that only processes exist. So lighten up. This means that since self is projected. You can project any kind of self.

This means you can be anyone you want to. But the flavor to be someone diminishs as wisdom provails.

taiyaki

I don't think we should over-intellectualize a very simple question: who feels pain? Whether or not you tell yourself there's not "I", etc., YOU are still going to say "OW" when someone stabs you. Try it.

I think pain is a great example. When we examine pain it is different points and levels of sharp sensation that arises based on various conditions.

Seeing the emptiness of pain is to sit with it and to examine it. Is this pain? And you will soon realize that it is pain because we are forces to see it as suh because of karma. To another this may be pleasure. Well they must have interesting karma lol.

But pain when seen as different points coming together and then pain is projected. You can project something else and it would be equally valid.

This is how one can theoretically condition oneself to be in constant bliss from everything.

Because all this are empty of inherent existence. Pain, self, suffering, happiness.

Empty canvas. Use it.

Jason

@Bekenze: just one question are your replies based on Buddha's teachings? i don't think so. Buddha said - there is thought, but no thinker - there is seen, but no seer. So there is no silent observer behind the scene.

Actually, that passage is from the Visuddhimagga, a post canonical commentary dating centuries after the Buddha:

Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found.
The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there,
Nirvana is, but not the man that enters it.
The path is, but no traveller on it is seen.

In my opinion, the answer is a bit more subtle, however. To begin with, the Buddha addresses these questions directly in suttas like SN 12.12, SN 12.35, and SN 12.46. I think the translators note to SN 12.35 is particularly useful here:

In this discourse, the Buddha refuses to answer the question of whether there is anyone or anything lying behind the processes described in dependent origination. When his interlocutor asks, for each factor in the causal process, "Which is the X, and whose is the X?" the Buddha equates this with the assumption that "X is one thing, and it is the X of someone/something else." He then equates this with the proposition, which he has rejected many times elsewhere in the discourses, that the life-principle is one thing, and the body is something else, i.e., that there is something unseen lying behind the visible processes of life. However, the Buddha has also rejected, in as many times, the proposition that the life-principle is the same as the body, i.e., that there is nothing unseen lying behind the visible processes of life. Avoiding these two extremes, he simply drops the question and focuses attention on what is directly perceivable — the way one factor in dependent co-arising functions as a prerequisite for the next. If one were to focus on what might or might not lie behind these factors, one would be tied up in speculations about what, by definition, can never be experienced. But by focusing on the interplay of the factors that are directly perceivable, and — by so doing — developing dispassion for them, one can overcome the craving and ignorance that keep producing stress and suffering, and in that way gain release.

A great place to go for a more detailed look at the Buddha's teachings on dependent co-airing, and particularly its relation to our experience of suffering, is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's book, The Shape of Suffering.

misecmisc1

@taiyaki: may be i am slightly getting what you are pointing at. when i sit in meditation, after sometime some pain arises in my legs, then when i keep on observing it that it is just pain, even sometimes saying in my mind- this is just pain, after sometime the pain vanishes itself.

But still when there was sensation of pain in the legs, a feeling of pain arose and then this sensation when gone away, then the feeling of pain is also gone.So the pain has no inherent existence of itself.

But few questions still unanswered:
But still if there are 6 consciousness, which Buddha identified, then which is that which is controlling the 6 consciousness in totality?
Moreover, is that the body which governs individuality, as all these 6 consciousness are local to the body?
Please suggest.

misecmisc1

@jason: Thanks for the explanations and the links. I will go through the links.

@seeker242: Thanks for your reply. my view is the real answer to this question shall only come after enlightenment. So even Buddha, as suggested by jason's above explation, did not clearly told the answer in yes/no about questions relating to whether there is Self or not, what happens after death etc. May be the reason was that if these things are told, then the whole process leading to Nirvana, might seem less important to people as they will just by studying know what is attained at Nirvana - this is not to say that Buddha wanted to hide something, but may be the reality is so simple or so complex that it is beyond the comprehension of our logical mind and brain - may be because of this it is said that it can only be experienced and cannot be explained in words, as words are made to describe the physical world as perceived by our senses - Even in yoga(even though yoga suggests there is Self), the 4th state of consciousness Turiya is just put as a question mark, as it cannot be explained in words.

The above are my thinking and it can be totally wrong.

misecmisc1

@jeffery, @amatt and all: Thanks for replying.

@federica: will go through your links as well.

Hi All,
From Buddha's explanations of conditioned genesis or dependent origination, the things which are clear to me, as per my understanding, is that conditions lead to things getting occurred - initially ignorance leading to becoming leading to birth leading to death. From this the concept of rebirth is understood, as we in no two consecutive moments are either same or different. Buddha said there is no I but in reality it is just 5 aggregates - so i is just a mental formation created by our mind by associating us with our body, sensation, perception and 6 consciousness - this i can understand.

Now one question- if everything is conditioned, then there will be no free will. But there is free will, as you all will agree. Now my question is: who takes the decision in that free will? Please tell and help me to understand.

person

Now one question- if everything is conditioned, then there will be no free will. But there is free will, as you all will agree. Now my question is: who takes the decision in that free will? Please tell and help me to understand.

The thing is I don't think we all will agree that there is free will. I've spent a bit of time lately trying to sort this one out. I think things are conditioned but awareness opens up some space for wiggle room, just my current take.

Also in emergence phenomena (the aggregates in this case) don't require an outside agent (the self) to organize themselves (make decisions). Again nothing definative, just my two cents.

Jeffrey

free will implicitly has an agent. However, Buddhism is not deterministic. Not only the past conditions the future...

But also the present conditions the future.

There is no self, but the karma made today can influence the future. So I recommend meditating after you read this because you can become a buddha. Or even a hearer or bodhisattva would be a grand realization and become a wish giving jewel to sentient beings.

taiyaki

The six consciousness appear when the conditions of contact and physical/ metal object meet.

So in essence the sound is consciousness. Same with thought, sensation, etc. One cannot distingush between consciousness and phenomena.

The subject or agent is asserted after any experience. The experience is just the conditional manifestation of sound. It appears and disappears. Completely self luminous yet unlocatable. We cannot say it happened here or there or in here or out there. This is because the sound doesn't inherently exist. On the basis of parts we project wholes. So ear consciousness, ear, sound makes contact thus sound magically arises.

Think about infinite finites meeting constantly. What moves all of this? Karma or action.

So what we experience is single streams that our mind links. For instance right now there is the clear arising vision of jeans, red shirt, etc. there is sensation of butt meeting the chair. There is noise of car and radio on.

What we have done is replaced the phenomenal world with symbols. Everything already is unlinked, empty of inherency thus dependently originates.

If you hold up anything or rather focus on one thing. That appears because of the whole infinite variety of past conditions/causes. So drinking water is drinking the whole universe.

Each stream of consciousness needs its conditions. Say with eyes, if one does not have eyes then consciousness cannot arise. Everything exist as pure potential, even consciousness.

Thus each part is dependent on other parts. No inherency. If some thing were inherent then interaction or change would never occur. Thus it would be impossible to even be around such an object. By being near it we change it.


Just start to see how the agent is asserted. It happens usually right after the experience. During an experience there is only the arising phenomena. Luminous and empty. No duality and no inherency.

Hope this helps.

taiyaki

About free will. When you wake up, notice how the eyes just look around on their own.

When the body is thirsty, "i" drink water. Then the body uses the restroom. Notice how the i is asserted. In actuality it is just causes/conditions manifesting.

All our life is the same. We follow desires. We assert a self and this causes a lot of problems. We suffer because we do not understand how dependent origination functions.

Another way this idea really hit my mind is he idea that there are only processes meeting processes. Only verbs!

So driving is just the car, road, body, mind. All is needed for driving to occur. There isn't an agent just the karmic force which manifests based on certain causes/conditions.

Just be with your immediate experience. Its all happening.

Jeffrey

Mind and matter must interbe.

taiyaki

Notice also with language it is hard not to assert a subject/object relation.

But things really only exist nominally for us. Other than this we cannot assert or negate anything. Reality as it is, is just as it is. Appearing but hollow. Complete self aware and complete onto itself. This arising sound has no relation to the other arising sound.

This is the ocean of phenomena. Happening no where but still vividly appearing.

Spring comes and the grass grows by itself.

taiyaki

Mind and matter must interbe.

thich nhat hanh right?

I like his story about the death of his mother. He was so sad then one day he realized no death. His hand was her hand. His movements were her movements. And her dying was just a thought. She was always here. Well the essence of her.

Fun story.

driedleaf

Now one question- if everything is conditioned, then there will be no free will. But there is free will, as you all will agree. Now my question is: who takes the decision in that free will?

Our conscience takes that decision. If at that time our mind is either greedy, angry, or deluded, then we will follow our senses. If our mind is not greedy, angry or deluded, than we will not act on them.

misecmisc1

@driedleaf: this consciousness, which you are saying, is not any of the 6 consciousness of 5 aggregates, because those 6 consciousness were just awareness of the corresponding sense organs and mind - so those 6 cannot take a decision by itself.

So this consciousness seems similar to the Self or Soul.

@person: So can you help me with some links which you may have come across in your analysis regarding the question - is there free will? Is there a definite answer to this question in yes/no, or is it also unanswered till now like other unanswered questions?

Next question: if there is free will, then is there a consciousness - which takes inputs from the 6 consciousness of 5 aggregates - and then decides what it has to do in that free will? This governing consciousness(if it exists) is similar to Self or Soul or Atman in other religions. Please tell.

misecmisc1

Hi All,

One question: what is that thing which we call individuality, or what thing creates individuality? my thinking says it cannot be a just mental formation, as we are separate individuals and what one experiences, others do not. May be i am totally wrong here, but please help me understand this thing.

Bekenze

One question: what is that thing which we call individuality, or what thing creates individuality? my thinking says it cannot be a just mental formation, as we are separate individuals and what one experiences, others do not. May be i am totally wrong here, but please help me understand this thing

Conditioning. Genes and experiences. "You" are conditioned, just like anybody. Your personality is based on your experiences and your genes. Could you be anybody else than who you are now?

driedleaf

@misecmisc1
Conscience is not consciousness. I think you have those two confused. Our mind and heart is what decides on our freewill. Rebirth is not that same as reincarnation. You do not need to have a soul to have rebirth. Rebirth is what happens when defilement (greed, hate, and delusion) is born from the 6 types consciousness (eye, ear, touch, taste, smell, and mind). This type of birth being born again is rebirth.

As to what creates individuality...nothing created it.

misecmisc1

@driedleaf: Thanks for replying.

@taiyaki: Thanks for explaining.

Hi taiyaki/All,
Just to be clear, so that we are on same page and you speaking English and i understanding German is not the case, just to be clear i am asking few basic questions here(you can consider me to be a complete idiot, who is not able to understand these things) , but please clarify below things:

1. Saying no inherent existence or emptiness - means in reality it is not existing? For example, if for sound it is said that there is no inherent existence in sound, or in reality in sound there is emptiness - means - in reality, sound does not really exist and is just a perception by our sense organ?

2. It is said there is no inherent existence in anything and everything is emptiness. Sound is easy to think about, but what about visual consciousness - if there is a stone and we see it, then does it mean there is no inherent existence in stone ? but this is not ok as the stone is there physically.

3. Is this concept of no inherent existence only applied in statements in which the 'I' is associated in some form? For example, saying a book as a book is ok, but referring the book as my book has no inherent existence as there is no I? But just saying it as a book has some existence of the physical availability of book - or - even a book is also of no inherent existence?

Thanks all for helping me to try to understand these things.

octinomos

2. It is said there is no inherent existence in anything and everything is emptiness. Sound is easy to think about, but what about visual consciousness - if there is a stone and we see it, then does it mean there is no inherent existence in stone ? but this is not ok as the stone is there physically.

3. Is this concept of no inherent existence only applied in statements in which the 'I' is associated in some form? For example, saying a book as a book is ok, but referring the book as my book has no inherent existence as there is no I? But just saying it as a book has some existence of the physical availability of book - or - even a book is also of no inherent existence?

Thanks all for helping me to try to understand these things.

There is no self means don’t ever be content with your current stage of development. Nature is always developing us. When we act in harmony with it, we see things go smooth, when we act thinking we’re disconnected from others then we receive negative consequences. Nature forces us to go towards where there’s less pain. So we don’t avoid pain or try to reduce it by being goodie two shoes. We welcome it, because it points us to what needs to be corrected in order for us to advance towards the general, from the particular. To see ourselves as a single cell in one organism and that has to work for the benefit of the whole organism, in order to assure its own survival. In other words, don’t become attached to forms, but just aim your mind towards the right goal, of unification and becoming integral, therefore in harmony with nature, to receive less physical pain. And the others will become the only thing that matters to you, not your own perception.

Jeffrey

You mentally label senses as 'mine'. You say that before I was born there was no 'me'.

But actually thoughts are impermanent. They arise in the space of awareness, but they are not awareness itself. This means that the thought 'me' is also impermanent and is not itself awareness.

The boundaries between two people have no dimensions. Non-self means that 'me' is made of non-me elements. Such as the food I eat and the warmth of the sun and the oxygen.

The synapses fire and there is a thought. But that is not 'me'.

Jeffrey

The stone was once formed in molten rock. It is impermanent and made of non-stone elements such as heat, pressure, cooling, atoms, etc..

Additionally the stone is not only physical, but it is a mental formation in your mind. Suppose a particular stone is sentimental for you. That invokes a whole we of non-stone elements such as memories and neediness for love to evoke old memories.

Jeffrey

#3. There are 5 skandas: form, judgement (good bad who cares), perception, conditioning, and consciousness (senses and mind)..

Ok now the book is made up of these 5 skandas and none of them are a self. They are ever changing and they are made of parts that are ever changing. Each of them is suffering when relied on because they are impermanent. For example if you expect there is a cookie and you want the cookie for your self and then someone else has eaten it you will not suffer if it is not thought of as 'my' cookie. Not that you can't ask someone else why they ate it I am just showing you attachment to 'I' in a simple case.

Jeffrey

Strictly speaking there is an 'I' but it is empty. There are all the connections between you and other beings for example. You cannot escape these connections. That is why karma and so forth is important.

But this mandala of connections has no skin where me and not-me are bordered. Thus 'I' interpenetrates all creation. This is why I said there is no boundary between beings (with dimensions).

Since there is no skin there is no individuality. This is a fundamental difference between eastern and western thought.

sukhita

@misecmisc1
Have you read this? It helped me some, but I'm a long way from being able to help anyone with my own explanation. Maybe 'truths' like this can only be understood experientially, meaning, no one can really 'fully explain' it to us in conseptual terms, but merely point us in the right direction. Perhaps, that's why 'meditation' is stressed so much.

On the subject of 'free will', it appears that it is 'conditioned' like everything else. So, it is 'conditioned freewill' . So, how can something that is 'conditioned' be referred to as 'free'? It's all so confusing now. Keep a steady practice and the realities will reveal themselves at the appropriate time. At least, that's what i think. I'm still a beginner, so take everything I say with a pinch of salt.

Wish you well in your practice.