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?
As part of the Noble Eightfold Path, having "Right Intention" (or "Right Will") is an essential part of the practice. According to Bhikkhu Bodhi, having Right Intention is very much conditional upon having Right View. Therefore, developing Right View through contemplation of the Four Noble Truths is an important foundation for Right Intention to arise. And when Right Intention is firmly established, this leads to virtuous conduct (ie. Right Speech, Right Action and Right Livelihood).
The second factor of the path is called in Pali samma sankappa, which we will translate as "right intention." The term is sometimes translated as "right thought," a rendering that can be accepted if we add the proviso that in the present context the word "thought" refers specifically to the purposive or [volitional] aspect of mental activity, the cognitive aspect being covered by the first factor, right view. It would be artificial, however, to insist too strongly on the division between these two functions. From the Buddhist perspective, the cognitive and purposive sides of the mind do not remain isolated in separate compartments but intertwine and interact in close correlation. Emotional predilections influence views, and views determine predilections. Thus a penetrating view of the nature of existence, gained through deep reflection and validated through investigation, brings with it a restructuring of values which sets the mind moving towards goals commensurate with the new vision. The application of mind needed to achieve those goals is what is meant by right intention.
The Buddha explains right intention as threefold: the intention of renunciation, the intention of good will, and the intention of harmlessness... Each kind of right intention counters the corresponding kind of wrong intention. The intention of renunciation counters the intention of desire, the intention of good will counters the intention of ill will, and the intention of harmlessness counters the intention of harmfulness.
.....
Right intention claims the second place in the path, between right view and the triad of moral factors that begins with right speech, because the mind's intentional function forms the crucial link connecting our cognitive perspective with our modes of active engagement in the world. On the one side actions always point back to the thoughts from which they spring. Thought is the forerunner of action, directing body and speech, stirring them into activity, using them as its instruments for expressing its aims and ideals. These aims and ideals, our intentions, in turn point back a further step to the prevailing views. When wrong views prevail, the outcome is wrong intention giving rise to unwholesome actions.
.....
But when the intentions are right, the actions will be right, and for the intentions to be right the surest guarantee is right views. One who recognizes the law of kamma, that actions bring retributive consequences, will frame his pursuits to accord with this law; thus his actions, expressive of his intentions, will conform to the canons of right conduct. The Buddha succinctly sums up the matter when he says that for a person who holds a wrong view, his deeds, words, plans, and purposes grounded in that view will lead to suffering, while for a person who holds right view, his deeds, words, plans, and purposes grounded in that view will lead to happiness.
Since the most important formulation of right view is the understanding of the Four Noble Truths, it follows that this view should be in some way determinative of the content of right intention. This we find to be in fact the case. Understanding the four truths in relation to one's own life gives rise to the intention of renunciation; understanding them in relation to other beings gives rise to the other two right intentions. When we see how our own lives are pervaded by [suffering], and how this [suffering] derives from craving, the mind inclines to renunciation -- to abandoning craving and the objects to which it binds us. Then, when we apply the truths in an analogous way to other living beings, the contemplation nurtures the growth of good will and harmlessness. We see that, like ourselves, all other living beings want to be happy, and again that like ourselves they are subject to suffering. The consideration that all beings seek happiness causes thoughts of good will to arise -- the loving wish that they be well, happy, and peaceful. The consideration that beings are exposed to suffering causes thoughts of harmlessness to arise -- the compassionate wish that they be free from suffering.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited May 2013
In the video they told the subject to react when they felt the desire to stop the clock. Do you know of any test where the subjects could decide to not react and thus choose a different course. In my meditative experience thoughts and emotions arise and when I don't follow their orders I am able to choose a different course. It just seems to me that in telling the subjects to react what they are measuring is the impulse and not whether there is any ability to choose otherwise or what that kind of brain activity may look like.
Edit: I mean they asked the subject to press the button when they felt like it but they kind of forced the choice to do it on them, they weren't allowed to not press the button when they felt like pressing it.
In the video they told the subject to react when they felt the desire to stop the clock. Do you know of any test where the subjects could decide to not react and thus choose a different course. In my meditative experience thoughts and emotions arise and when I don't follow their orders I am able to choose a different course. It just seems to me that in telling the subjects to react what they are measuring is the impulse and not whether there is any ability to choose otherwise or what that kind of brain activity may look like.
Good you bring this up. In fact Libet suggested a form of "free won't", but I don't know how solid the arguments or experiments are. Or if it can be measured at all. I just know of this video and some other sources, I'm no expert.
"Free won't" could very well also be a function of the brain, but one that is not measurable or not yet found. And if it is not found in the brain, of course it takes another daring step to conclude it must be "us" then, as an independent agent making the decision.
But I know there is no consensus on this experiment. Still interesting, I think.
In my meditation I experience both "free will" and "free won't" are not really free. The more we develop our path, the more likely we are to do good and prevent bad, but it is still conditioned. We do it because of reasons. Faith, insights, trust, because our teacher says it, an automatic response or whatever - all these things are conditioned.
The culavedalla sutta says:
"Is the noble eightfold path conditioned or unconditioned?" (Buddha: ) "The noble eightfold path is conditioned."
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
In my meditation I experience both "free will" and "free won't" are not really free. The more we develop our path, the more likely we are to do good and prevent bad, but it is still conditioned. We do it because of reasons. Faith, insights, trust, because our teacher says it, an automatic response or whatever - all these things are conditioned.
We might be talking about the same thing but are calling it different things. I don't buy into the debate about libertarian free will or hard determinism. I've said that I think our will is conditioned, I don't think we are imprisoned by the past and I remember you saying that you do think that there is some kind of choice. Maybe, maybe not, it just seems like we may be getting tripped up by definitions.
And in the end, we have to ask yourselves, what difference would be seen between a world of free will and one where every action is predetermined? In fact, both worlds would look and behave exactly the same to us. So either we have the ability to make a choice withing limits or we live in a universe where it appears we have the ability to make a choice and no way of telling the difference.
In my meditation I experience both "free will" and "free won't" are not really free. The more we develop our path, the more likely we are to do good and prevent bad, but it is still conditioned. We do it because of reasons. Faith, insights, trust, because our teacher says it, an automatic response or whatever - all these things are conditioned.
We might be talking about the same thing but are calling it different things. I don't buy into the debate about libertarian free will or hard determinism. I've said that I think our will is conditioned, I don't think we are imprisoned by the past and I remember you saying that you do think that there is some kind of choice. Maybe, maybe not, it just seems like we may be getting tripped up by definitions.
Could well be. That's always the problem with discussions like this. My point of view is, there is choice but we don't make it; choice is a mechanism. But that doesn't mean imprisonment, because freedom is to be beyond will.
But my more important point of view is that discussion won't convince one either way and meditation will in the end show reality.
Also, and I should have said this earlier maybe, I don't think it really matters what view one has as long as it is used skillfully. When one has a sense of free will it's fine as long as one uses it to investigate ourselves and to do good. But part of that investigation is of course the will itself and that's where topics such as this may inspire people.
In the end though, I experience if I let go of "the ego" willing or having freedom of choice, funnily the mind always makes the skillful decisions. That's because the sense of ego is itself the thing causing the unskillful decisions. All that is needed is the courage to let go.
So I also belief the Buddha was unable to do bad things, unable to kill, cheat or lie intentionally, because he never had the conceit of ego. So in a way for me he was the prime example of no free will.
We don't have "free will". We can't will our bodies not to grow old, get sick or die. We can't will ourselves to be happy and not feel sad or scared. We can't will ourselves from thinking bad thoughts. If we see red we can't will what we see to become blue. We can't will ourselves to fall asleep. We can't not be there.
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.
"Form, monks, is not self. If form were the self, this form would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' But precisely because form is not self, form lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.'
"Feeling is not self...
"Perception is not self...
"[Mental] fabrications are not self...
"Consciousness is not self. If consciousness were the self, this consciousness would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.' But precisely because consciousness is not self, consciousness lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.'
"Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form 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.'
"Any feeling whatsoever...
"Any perception whatsoever...
"Any fabrications whatsoever...
"Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness 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.'
"Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'" Anattalakkhana Suttahttp://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.than.html
Then where is the border between the conditioned and the "free will"? If you look deeply you see there is no border and all will is conditioned. And it is this conditioned will that keeps us from being peaceful, that is causing craving for this or that.
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:
"But if a man neither wills nor plans nor dwells on anything, no basis is formed for the continuation of consciousness. This basis being absent, consciousness has no lodgment. Consciousness not being lodged there and not growing, no rebirth of renewed existence takes place in the future, and so birth, decay-and-death, grief, lamentation, suffering, sorrow and despair are destroyed. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.038.wlsh.html
It may be obvious that to let go of willing is not a choice, because that is another willing... If it were up to our choosing, we could simply stop willing, no? But that is not easily done as we see in meditation. If it is not possible to stop willing, controlling, doing, then of course it is not free. It is not under our control. Our desires, intentions, volitions come up whether we want it or not.
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".
I think the fear is if we dropped the will that was 'trying to get something or be something" the fear is that something horrible would happen in our lives. What's to prevent us from meditating while murdering someone? I think we still need some way to control the defilements. Maybe then we can drop the will?
I think the fear is if we dropped the will that was 'trying to get something or be something" the fear is that something horrible would happen in our lives. What's to prevent us from meditating while murdering someone? I think we still need some way to control the defilements. Maybe then we can drop the will?
It certainly is fearful because you really lose a part of your identity you thought was essential for 'you' to exist. But we don't control defilements, we let go of defilements. Ideally at least. So no fear to lose control over them is needed. I think people who are on the verge of killing someone will not have the mental capacity to enter the states of meditation I talked about, so also not to worry. Purification of conduct largely comes before these states.
We don't have "free will". We can't will our bodies not to grow old, get sick or die. We can't will ourselves to be happy and not feel sad or scared. We can't will ourselves from thinking bad thoughts. If we see red we can't will what we see to become blue. We can't will ourselves to fall asleep. We can't not be there.
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.
"Form, monks, is not self. If form were the self, this form would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' But precisely because form is not self, form lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.'
"Feeling is not self...
"Perception is not self...
"[Mental] fabrications are not self...
"Consciousness is not self. If consciousness were the self, this consciousness would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.' But precisely because consciousness is not self, consciousness lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.'
"Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form 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.'
"Any feeling whatsoever...
"Any perception whatsoever...
"Any fabrications whatsoever...
"Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness 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.'
"Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'" Anattalakkhana Suttahttp://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.than.html
We are like chess pieces on a chess board. There are rules to follow on that chess board just like the movie The Matrix. It is here that conventions(law of kamma) apply. As long as we think we are that those chess pieces, those rules(conventions) apply. We have no choice but to play by those rules. We don't have to be those chess pieces. Once we realize that we are free.
Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva when practicing deeply the Prajna Paramita perceives that all five skandhas are empty and is saved from all suffering and distress.
We have our own connections in the universe unique to us. So say we used to be a drinker. There are connections towards that that even after we have stopped we still have those mental connections. Same with all the people who contributed to our upbringing. We didn't choose our DNA but we were involved in the process. And now we decide how to honor those connections.. It might be better to break off with family or drinking if it causes less harm. If we are clear on the principal of ahimsa as a guide to our life the power of that wisdom and clarity can navigate you on all of your connections to deal skilfully with them. So we have connections, but in the moment our minds are automatically parsing out what to do. As we cut away more delusions the skilfullness of our minds also increases on an upwards spiral.
We have our own connections in the universe unique to us. So say we used to be a drinker. There are connections towards that that even after we have stopped we still have those mental connections. Same with all the people who contributed to our upbringing. We didn't choose our DNA but we were involved in the process (of our youth). And now we decide how to honor those connections.. It might be better to break off with family or drinking if it causes less harm. If we are clear on the principal of ahimsa as a guide to our life the power of that wisdom and clarity can navigate you on all of your connections to deal skilfully with them. So we have connections, but in the moment our minds are automatically parsing out what to do. As we cut away more delusions we get increasingly refined or even more 'simple' in our skill.
Daniel Wegner (The Illusion of Conscious Will) isn’t saying that all our conscious decisions are illusions. I think he pointed out that our inner perception of authorship is flawed and we can't trust it. We need to look better at it; with scientific enquiry.
Does all this mean that conscious thought does not cause action? It does not mean this at all. The task of determining the causal relations between conscious representations and actions is a matter of inspection through scientific inquiry, and reliable connections between conscious thought and action can potentially be discerned by this process. . The point made here is that the mind’s own system for computing these relations provides the person with an experience of conscious will that is no more than a rough-and-ready guide to such causation, one that can be misled by any number of circumstances that render invalid inferences (see also Box 1). We should be surprised, after all, if cognitive creatures with our demonstrably fallible self-insight were capable of perceiving the deepest mechanisms of our own minds[38,39] . The experience of conscious will is a marvelous trick of the mind, one that yields useful intuitions about our authorship – but it is not the foundation for an explanatory system that stands outside the paths of deterministic causation http://web.gc.cuny.edu/cogsci/private/wegner-trick.pdf
In the end though, I experience if I let go of "the ego" willing or having freedom of choice, funnily the mind always makes the skillful decisions. That's because the sense of ego is itself the thing causing the unskillful decisions. All that is needed is the courage to let go.
When I use to go on retreats based on the Mahasi Sayadaw meditation technique, the importance of being aware of and noting "intentions" was often emphasized. I never managed to progress very far with this meditation method as I switched to a different one that I found more suitable for me so I can't say from experience about the benefits of being fully aware of the arising of intentions. However, theoretically, studying the nature of intentions through mindfulness is supposed to be very useful for, to borrow your words, letting go of "the ego" willing or having freedom of choice.
From Seeking the Heart of Wisdom by Joseph Goldstein and Jack Kornfield:
In addition to paying attention to the breath, sensation, sounds, thoughts, images, emotions, and mind states, there is one more factor of mind that is important to single out and notice carefully in the meditation practice, because it plays a very critical role in opening the doors of deeper insight. That is becoming aware of and noting the various intentions in the mind. Intention is that mental factor or mental quality that directly precedes a bodily action or movement.
The body by itself doesn't move. It moves as the result of a certain impulse or volition. So before beginning any movement of the body, notice the intention to move, the intention to stand, the intention to shift position, the intention to turn, the intention to reach.
Before each of these movements there will be a volition in the mind. Intention or volition is quite subtle. It's not a tangible, discrete object like a thought or an image that you can see clearly having a beginning, middle, and end. At first the intention might be experienced simply as a pause before the movement begins, a moment's pause in which you know that you are about to do something. If you acknowledge the pause and make the note "intending," that will serve the purpose. ......
Noting "intention" also helps us to discover and understand the selfless nature of the mind-body process. Even when we are observing the breath, sensation, thoughts, images, and emotions, and we begin to see that all of these objects are simply part of a passing show, we may still be identifying with the sense of a doer, the director of it all, the one who is commanding the actions.
When we note intentions and see that they are also passing mental phenomena, that they arise and pass away, that intentions themselves are not "I" and not "mine," when we see that they do not belong to anybody, we begin to loosen the sense of identification with them. We experience on deeper and deeper levels the selflessness of the whole unfolding process.
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.
I believe that people who practice mindfulness and especially those who are good at it enough to see intentions as they arise in the mind, this should allow them to be aware of more instances of intentions arising, thus resulting in more opportunities for exercising a conscious veto, i.e. they will be much less likely to act on impulses as compared to the average person.
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.
...
Exactly. Why do so many people think things are either one way or the other?
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
What would be interesting is if the Libet study was done on experienced meditators to see if they become aware of their brain impulses sooner than others. In every other experiment that I'm aware of meditators score higher on awareness type tests.
On freewill Ramesh Balsekar writes this in The Ultimate Understanding, giving the meaning of ‘Wu Wei’, or non-volitional living.
"Living volitionally, with volition, with a sense of personal doership, is the bondage. Would, therefore, living non-volitionally be the way in which the sage lives? But the doing and the not-doing - the positive doing and the negative not-doing - are both aspects of ‘doing’. How then can the sage be said to be living non-volitionally?
Perhaps the more accurate description would be that the sage is totally aware that he does not live his life (either volitionally or non-volitionally) but that his life - and everyone else’s life - is being lived.
What this means is that no one can live volitionally or otherwise; that, indeed, ‘volition’ is the essence of the ‘ego’, an expression of the ‘me’ concept, created by ‘divine hypnosis’ so that the ‘lila’ of life can happen. It is this ‘volition’ or sense of personal doership in the subjective chain of cause-and-effect which produces satisfaction or frustration in the conceptual individual.
Again, what this means is that it is a joke to believe that you are supposed to give up volition as an act of volition! ‘Let go’ - who is to let go? The ‘letting-go’ can only happen as a result of the clear understanding of the difference between what-we-are and what-we-appear-to-be. And then, non-volitional life or being-lived naturally becomes wu wei, spontaneous living, living without the unnecessary burden of volition. Why carry your luggage when you are being transported in a vehicle? To be enlightened is to be able to accept with equanimity anything in life at any moment as God’s will. "
Good point about cricket. It is baffling to me as an ex-player how it is possible to play a shot in the time allowed. The nerve signals take longer to reach your hands than it does for the ball to reach your head. It ought to be carnage.
On freewill Ramesh Balsekar writes this in The Ultimate Understanding, giving the meaning of ‘Wu Wei’, or non-volitional living.
"Living volitionally, with volition, with a sense of personal doership, is the bondage. Would, therefore, living non-volitionally be the way in which the sage lives? But the doing and the not-doing - the positive doing and the negative not-doing - are both aspects of ‘doing’. How then can the sage be said to be living non-volitionally?
Perhaps the more accurate description would be that the sage is totally aware that he does not live his life (either volitionally or non-volitionally) but that his life - and everyone else’s life - is being lived.
What this means is that no one can live volitionally or otherwise; that, indeed, ‘volition’ is the essence of the ‘ego’, an expression of the ‘me’ concept, created by ‘divine hypnosis’ so that the ‘lila’ of life can happen. It is this ‘volition’ or sense of personal doership in the subjective chain of cause-and-effect which produces satisfaction or frustration in the conceptual individual.
Again, what this means is that it is a joke to believe that you are supposed to give up volition as an act of volition! ‘Let go’ - who is to let go? The ‘letting-go’ can only happen as a result of the clear understanding of the difference between what-we-are and what-we-appear-to-be. And then, non-volitional life or being-lived naturally becomes wu wei, spontaneous living, living without the unnecessary burden of volition. Why carry your luggage when you are being transported in a vehicle? To be enlightened is to be able to accept with equanimity anything in life at any moment as God’s will. "
Yes. Balsekar is not a theist. He is a follower of Wei Wu Wei.
Now there's an interesting character. Started life in Ireland as Terence Gray, aristocrat, later a lover of fine wines and racehorses, then a respected philosopher-sage and writer. Well worth reading.
Comments
From The Noble Eightfold Path by Bhikkhu Bodhi:
Edit: I mean they asked the subject to press the button when they felt like it but they kind of forced the choice to do it on them, they weren't allowed to not press the button when they felt like pressing it.
"Free won't" could very well also be a function of the brain, but one that is not measurable or not yet found. And if it is not found in the brain, of course it takes another daring step to conclude it must be "us" then, as an independent agent making the decision.
But I know there is no consensus on this experiment. Still interesting, I think.
In my meditation I experience both "free will" and "free won't" are not really free. The more we develop our path, the more likely we are to do good and prevent bad, but it is still conditioned. We do it because of reasons. Faith, insights, trust, because our teacher says it, an automatic response or whatever - all these things are conditioned.
The culavedalla sutta says:
But my more important point of view is that discussion won't convince one either way and meditation will in the end show reality.
Also, and I should have said this earlier maybe, I don't think it really matters what view one has as long as it is used skillfully. When one has a sense of free will it's fine as long as one uses it to investigate ourselves and to do good. But part of that investigation is of course the will itself and that's where topics such as this may inspire people.
In the end though, I experience if I let go of "the ego" willing or having freedom of choice, funnily the mind always makes the skillful decisions. That's because the sense of ego is itself the thing causing the unskillful decisions. All that is needed is the courage to let go.
So I also belief the Buddha was unable to do bad things, unable to kill, cheat or lie intentionally, because he never had the conceit of ego. So in a way for me he was the prime example of no free will.
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".
I think the fear is if we dropped the will that was 'trying to get something or be something" the fear is that something horrible would happen in our lives. What's to prevent us from meditating while murdering someone? I think we still need some way to control the defilements. Maybe then we can drop the will?
The Heart Sutra comes from a deep place I get the shivers when I read the sutra even though I don't normally read Mahayana sutras.
When I use to go on retreats based on the Mahasi Sayadaw meditation technique, the importance of being aware of and noting "intentions" was often emphasized. I never managed to progress very far with this meditation method as I switched to a different one that I found more suitable for me so I can't say from experience about the benefits of being fully aware of the arising of intentions. However, theoretically, studying the nature of intentions through mindfulness is supposed to be very useful for, to borrow your words, letting go of "the ego" willing or having freedom of choice.
From Seeking the Heart of Wisdom by Joseph Goldstein and Jack Kornfield: I believe that people who practice mindfulness and especially those who are good at it enough to see intentions as they arise in the mind, this should allow them to be aware of more instances of intentions arising, thus resulting in more opportunities for exercising a conscious veto, i.e. they will be much less likely to act on impulses as compared to the average person.
until i watched the bbc program.
as far as i know, everyone i know believe they have total
freewill too.
it is the default assumption of most people
until they are challenged by the brain scan results.
"Living volitionally, with volition, with a sense of personal doership, is the bondage. Would, therefore, living non-volitionally be the way in which the sage lives? But the doing and the not-doing - the positive doing and the negative not-doing - are both aspects of ‘doing’. How then can the sage be said to be living non-volitionally?
Perhaps the more accurate description would be that the sage is totally aware that he does not live his life (either volitionally or non-volitionally) but that his life - and everyone else’s life - is being lived.
What this means is that no one can live volitionally or otherwise; that, indeed, ‘volition’ is the essence of the ‘ego’, an expression of the ‘me’ concept, created by ‘divine hypnosis’ so that the ‘lila’ of life can happen. It is this ‘volition’ or sense of personal doership in the subjective chain of cause-and-effect which produces satisfaction or frustration in the conceptual individual.
Again, what this means is that it is a joke to believe that you are supposed to give up volition as an act of volition! ‘Let go’ - who is to let go? The ‘letting-go’ can only happen as a result of the clear understanding of the difference between what-we-are and what-we-appear-to-be. And then, non-volitional life or being-lived naturally becomes wu wei, spontaneous living, living without the unnecessary burden of volition. Why carry your luggage when you are being transported in a vehicle? To be enlightened is to be able to accept with equanimity anything in life at any moment as God’s will. "
Good point about cricket. It is baffling to me as an ex-player how it is possible to play a shot in the time allowed. The nerve signals take longer to reach your hands than it does for the ball to reach your head. It ought to be carnage.
Now there's an interesting character. Started life in Ireland as Terence Gray, aristocrat, later a lover of fine wines and racehorses, then a respected philosopher-sage and writer. Well worth reading.