Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
How does the lack of free will tie in with the law of kamma?
jll
Veteran
if we had no free will, what about our karma?
0
Comments
This can happen perfectly without a free will to guide the actions. If there were free will , wouldn't our choice of action be to always do the thing that gave good results?.. Yet, even if we know anger makes us feel bad and doesn't really solve anything, we sometimes still get angry. That's because to get angry is a pattern in the mind, not a result of a free choice. To slowly restructure these patterns is part of the practice, to be more wholesome and less unwholesome. But there is no need for free will in this.
Karma can only really exist together with the absence of free will. It's the same as asking how can karma and no-self be together. In a way the two are part of the same thing. Our intention, our will, is part of karma, it is karma and a result of karma.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/karma.html
I think it was Adyashanti who I once heard say in a video: If will was free, why can't people keep their new years resolutions?
I expected somebody to bring venerable Thanissaro's views into the topic. But I disagree with his views. For one thing, and for me the most important one, because I don't experience 'free will'. But also there are many teachers who share my view. Also, I don't see it in the suttas. Venerable's idea of free will is not directly stated and what he says is only his interpretation. I interpret it differently.
Take the quote below. My interpretation is very literal as I gave it before: because we can't control our will (we can't have it "let it be thus") it means there is no free will, and therefore we make decisions that lead to suffering (afflictions). Or more correctly, decisions are being made that lead to suffering, but not by "us" because there is no self.
The sutta goes on saying that every choice is "not mine". If it's not mine, it's not free and I can't control it. I found this essay on no-self and kamma that fits the topic. I think it explains it better than I did. But the way to really understand it is in my experience not by reading suttas or debating about it. It comes through meditation. On that topic I'm very much in agreement with Ajahn Brahm: Metta!
Sabre
I am with @federica on this.
You say: "This can happen perfectly without a free will to guide the actions."
Yet free Will has no will of it's own to choose. It doesn't 'guide' - it free in that sense.
Shakyamuni showed how we had a choice (of our own free will) to do good or evil.
You seem to believe that the universe is deterministic- that the law of karma suggests we have no choice.
Not true - that choice is free will in action.
When the Buddha says "Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect."
That 'intending' he talks about is a function of our free will.
on thinking about it in another way, my thinking says: does free will exist? if free will exist, then it can exist independently, but since free will does not exist independently without body and mind, so free will does not exist. if free will does not exist, then no choices can be made, but since choice can be made to do skillful act or unskillful act, so free will exists. so free will exists but conditionally, not inherently. so free will is empty of inherent existence, but conventionally exists.
In Buddhism we have to understand conditioned arising to penetrate karma. Instead of the vague concept of free will, we can talk about choices. You have choices. Your life is composed of choices. What you choose to do is neither completely random (free will) nor fated (pre-ordained). Your choices are conditioned from everything that has happened before but also conditioned upon who and what you are now. This conditioned choice does not have only one possible outcome because your mind is in conflict. You have the ability to chose between actions, but some actions are much more likely than others. So it's not entirely free, but not fated either. You have a choice, conditioned on who you are then and now.
That's why "conditioned arising" is so important to understand when chewing away on Buddhist philosophy.
Or take stressful situations, the mind leaves the identifying with choices aside. People go in an automatic fighting response. Or sportsmen who are "in the flow" may experience something similar. In those situations there is no time for the mind to identify with decisions.
But usually the ego is so strong defending it's own illusory existence, it keeps a firm grip on the idea of being in control. Because if it doesn't keep hold on this, it loses a big part of itself, it has to really let go and die in a way. So it seems so obvious at first that we can decide on things, that we have the freedom to choose. But if we look deeply, we can see it all unfold and that really, there is no control. This you can't analyze over ordinary choices, but only if the mind is really still and there is very little or no movement at all.
The discussion on whether everything is predetermined should really be another topic. Things can easily be indetermined without the indetermining factor having to be free will by any means. Likewise, the suttas say not everything experienced is a result of the past, that is true - some things happen now. But to automatically assume that means the Budda was talking about free will, is really going too quickly. It's like when I say I don't have a car, you automatically assume I must have a bike, otherwise how would I get around? It's jumping to conclusions.
but are we, really?
we feel like we are free to choose, yet we are not really.
our decision is a product of our conditioning.
take food, for example, how many westerners will say
that chicken feet or durian is their favorite food?
I actually turned down the first offer, but the second time I tried it. It tastes like chicken, by the way, but the crunchy is gross and definitely spit out the claws if you ever try it out. So why did I chose different the second time? I just did.
I'll quote a sutta passage because I can in this case. Here the Buddha makes a logical argument as to why not everything occurs because of what was done in the past. If all of our actions were a result of past karma and we had no ability to direct the course of our lives then that would kind of make a mockery of the whole Buddhist path.
Looking at my own actions my take is that mindfulness of our mental arisings gives us the space to take a different course. If anger arises in my mind and I'm unaware of it but just react then that is pretty deterministic. If the same anger arises and due to my mindfulness I become aware of it then that knowledge allows alternate possibilities to arise like the negative effects of getting angry and methods to cope. These possible other arisings also then arise because of a cause, the knowledge of getting angry. The difference is awareness, awareness is always only available in the present moment and it itself is a basic quality of mind that exists in each moment not because of a past cause but because we have a mind. Of course the degree of our awareness in each moment is a result of our efforts and karma but not the basic fact of it.
That would be fatal.
For instance, an amoeba is a sentient being, but it appears not to have free will, and is only doing it what it basically programmed to do. However, it would seem, at the very least, its experiences are affected by the karma relative to the realm it lives in.
at the very least we will 'suffer' the effects of our actions.
why do we make the choices?
now, that is a much harder question to answer.
it is not as simple as most people think.
our genetic make-up, our environment n experiences
are vitally important.
war veterans do not choose to have high rates of suicide.
they do not choose PTSD.
Great questions to ponder.
On the other hand, personal will is bondage. Surrender of personal will is freedom. But sometimes the only way to remove a thorn is with another thorn.
(assuming you have heard that before
So, we don't have freedom. This lack of freedom means we are actually not in charge of our lives! If we were we would not need to follow the N8FP. There would be no suffering, no samsara.
Give me liberation.
There is no free will involved. The action precedes any conscious consideration.
I suppose people who say that “karma is volition” would argue there is no karma in the act. But clearly the action can have consequences, for example if in this reflex I drop whatever I had in my hands and it breaks. If it was something of value and it belongs to someone else I could be liable.
And what do you guys think of a homicidal sleepwalker? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicidal_sleepwalking
The actions clearly have consequences but the process of conscious consideration is absent or at least different from waking conscious consideration. I for one would not like to be on trial for the content of my dreams.
In my understanding the brain is the organ in our body that controls our actions. The brain produces our conscious considerations and the real question is why it does that; because it can do most things without these conscious considerations very well.
Our self-image consists of our conscious thoughts and feeling plus our good looks of course. But I think we are deceived both mentally and physically. Underneath our skin we don’t look so pretty and underneath our conscious considerations is the reality of our brain. The brain is in charge. I am not my brain; I am not my liver or my stomach either. There is no “I” making the decisions.
The difficulty is that the brain produces the illusion of the decision-maker. We perceive a person who is making decisions on the basis of conscious considerations and we feel strongly identified with it. But it is like identifying with our skin; identifying with a superficial illusion.
(For reference a book from Victor Lamme I recently finished)
If things just happen and there is no free-decision-maker making any free decisions, only the brain functioning beyond “my” control, and everything we do is done “by accident”; all that karma can be is cause and effect. It would have nothing to do with volition. When I break something it is broken and therefore I have to pay for it. It is nothing personal.
No free will means there can be no good or evil.
We get to choose in every minute.
That is how the round of birth and death is destroyed eventually.
(Read the attached.... grab a coffee, or something - it's long!!)
The bottom line is, that every moment, is a choice.
Use every moment Mindfully and skilfully.
Simple.
(:D )
"The present is no doubt the offspring of the past and is the present of the future, but the present is not always a true index of either the past or the future; so complex is the working of Karma. "
That is how even Angulimala could be redeemed.
This means that through repeated reflection, one can make the correct choice with respect to bodily, verbal and mental acts. For example, in the Sutta, the Buddha says:
Therefore, the above implies that there is always a choice between giving up an action and continuing with an action. And the Buddha is saying that by reflecting on our bodily, verbal and mental acts, we'll be able to make the right decision/choice about whether the bodily, verbal or mental act in question should be given up or carried out.
You do realise 'Karma' actually translates as "Voiltional action" do you?
And, since we cannot foresee all the consequences of our actions, we cannot determine the result of our choices. However, I can repeatedly decide to honor a promise, then honor it. Say sending money or a computer fan to a friend. So, in a small way I have free will of choice though I cannot fully determine the future nor all the consequences of fulfilling my choice, and sometimes I cannot even determine to fulfill the choice repeatedly until I do.
That, I know, only makes partial Buddhistic sense.
All we have are choices. We can choose suffering or freedom. Unfortunately we mostly choose suffering over freedom because we just don't know what is truly good for us.
'Everything is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'
"Thy" will be done.
Thy here does not refer to God.
http://diydharma.org/free-will-ajahn-brahmavamso
Free Will by Ajahn Brahmavamso
http://diydharma.org/free-will-ajahn-brahmavamso
Metta
1. There is no free will.
2. There is total free will.
The middle way seems to be that 'free will' is conditional; it's based upon causes and conditions.
As an alcoholic I just could not stop drinking for any length of time; A.A. showed me how to create the causes and conditions for me to exercise my [conditional] will in order that I am now long term sober.
Nothing exists in a vacuum, so the will cannot be inherently free and existing; see the doctrine of Dependant Arising.
Some say "free will" is important because it gives us the opportunity to choose for the "good". First of all, choices exist without someone or thing being able to make them, but also, that's not the goal of the practice. It is not about willing good instead of willing evil, it is about letting go of will: It may be obvious that to let go of willing is not a choice, because that is another willing...
But at that point it is still not obvious, it was not to me at least. Through letting go, then in deep states of meditation, however, the will disappears. Then we can see how the will really behaves, when it is (almost) gone, not when we are fully in the middle of it, like normally. And then we see it is without anybody behind the wheel. It is so subtle, the ego does not identify with it anymore as "I did that".
Maybe man wants to classify and order things to the extreme.
I don't really see anyone arguing for a total free will here, though. Whatever that may mean.
It may be that a lot of our decision making is made unconsciously, then we consciously process that and believe that is was a 'conscious' decision.
That makes sense physically as our bodies know what they are doing without conscious intervention so to speak. Cricketers batting against a bowler apparently decide which stroke to play before the ball has left the bowlers hand.
There is no evidence that the same issues arrive when we consider issues over a period of time.
Some researchers suggest that the conscious mind is there to 'veto' decisions made by the unconscious. That is to say it chooses to 'inhibit' certain actions.
That also makes sense to me, it inhibits our conditioned instincts.
Our job is to see these 'conditions' arising and create the space to 'veto' them and act with more wisdom.