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.
No control—the absence of choice in the present moment?
Also, just to make myself absolutely clear, I am not denying individual effort (attakara), nor have I ever done so that I am aware of; nevertheless, I am denying that individual effort arises of its own volition. In the context of this thread, I would say that individual effort has its own requisite conditions just as right effort (sammakara) has its requisite conditions as well i.e. right view (sammaditthi).
I think to say this and that has requisite conditions, it does not necessarily follow that there is no control, no choice.
Suffering is given as the requisite condition for faith, but this does not mean that all who suffer become faithful. It only means that without suffering, there is no need for faith.
I think that from the viewpoint of Abhidhamma, to say this and that has requisite conditions means that on the conventional level (that of beings), there can said to be control and choice; but that on the ultimate level (that of dhammas), these words are effectively meaningless. Furthermore, the requisite conditions for conviction (saddha) to arise out of suffering (dukkha) is right view (sammaditthi). Right view has a very prominent place in the Buddha's dispensation.
I can see why there are so much disagreement on this topic. After searching the web for the meaning of abhidharma and theravada. Here is what I come up with:
Very interesting read, however, I saw this in the passage of this article in the middle. it says:
"Theravada promotes the concept of Vibhajjavada (Pali), literally "Teaching of Analysis." This doctrine says that insight must come from the aspirant's experience, critical investigation, and reasoning instead of by blind faith; however, the scriptures of the Theravadin tradition also emphasize heeding the advice of the wise, considering such advice and evaluation of one's own experiences to be the two tests by which practices should be judged.[2]"
With this, I agree, I think one should get insight into the Truth before reciting the Sutra and following the words. Also, here is what some people think of the Abdhidharma from the same article:
"The Pali Tipitaka consists of three parts: the Vinaya Pitaka, Sutta Pitaka and Abhidhamma Pitaka. Of these, the Abhidhamma Pitaka is believed to be a later addition to the first two pitakas, which, in the opinion of many scholars, were the only two pitakas at the time of the First Buddhist Council. The Pali Abhidhamma was not recognized outside the Theravada school."
Here again, we see doctrinal difference between various school but ultimately, those wise Theravadin teachers even tell students to get "insight" before they understand the meaning of "no control".
The New York Times has an interesting article that is somewhat related to this discussion in its science section today. If anyone is interested in reading it, it is called Free Will: Now You Have It, Now You Don’t, although you might to sign up in order to read it.
The New York Times has an interesting article that is somewhat related to this discussion in its science section today. If anyone is interested in reading it, it is called Free Will: Now You Have It, Now You Don’t, although you might to sign up in order to read it.
Sincerely,
Jason
My favorite part of the article.
Rather, Dr. Dennett argues, it is precisely our immersion in causality and the material world that frees us. Evolution, history and culture, he explains, have endowed us with feedback systems that give us the unique ability to reflect and think things over and to imagine the future. Free will and determinism can co-exist.
''All the varieties of free will worth having, we have,'' Dr. Dennett said.
''We have the power to veto our urges and then to veto our vetoes,'' he said. ''We have the power of imagination, to see and imagine futures.''
In this regard, causality is not our enemy but our friend, giving us the ability to look ahead and plan. ''That's what makes us moral agents,'' Dr. Dennett said. ''You don't need a miracle to have responsibility.''
It fits nicely with this.
Monks, consider the monk who with conscious purpose lives controlled by controlling the eye-faculties. Whereas, were he to live uncontrolled, the cankers, vexations, tormenting, would arise; since he lives controlled by controlling the eye faculties, the cankers are not. So, too, as to the faculties of the ear, nose tongue, body, mind. ... Whereas were he to live uncontrolled in control, the cankers, vexations, tormenting, would arise; since he lives controlled in control, the cankers are not. — A.iii.387 VI, VI, § 58
So now we all may freely choose to have free will or no free will. How is that for freedom?
any reaction with emotion.. that you give in to.. is not free will. Anger and reactions to me dictate that free will isn't existant. As everythign is a conditioned response. To an extent we have the choice, but there are things that lead where there is no real choice.. deciding which desert u want is free will.. saying no to the desert can be too hard in which case there is no free will..
Being led by the eyes.. senses.. temptation as u will.. is something which affects us in different ways. In all cases there is part of free will which both applies and doesn't apply to all of us. One thing may invariably be easy to choose for you, but virtually impossible for another.
We don't have the choice to have conquered minds, this is something to aspire to.
That is an interesting point. When greed, hatred, or delusion arises, they are accompanied by various unwholesome mental states; when non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusion arise, they are accompanied by various wholesome mental states—each of which being involved in the following mental, verbal, or bodily actions.
These, in turn, arise due the requisite pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral feelings that arise out of contact between the six senses and their corresponding objects, which arise due to the requisite of materiality and mentality, which arise due to the requisite of consciousness, which arise die to the requisite of fabrications, which arise die to the requisite of ignorance.
In this process of conditionality, the question has been what part of this process allows for choice or free will. The answer would seem to be that which is free from conditionality, however, what part of our mental and physical make-up is unconditional? What part of our experience of the world is free from these conditions?
Volition (cetana) is the only thing that seems to come close to the active decision making will of the unenlightened individual as it is said that as soon as volition arises, one does an action by body, speech or mind; nevertheless, volition is considered one of the seven mental factors (cetasika) inseparably bound up with all consciousness.
Furthermore, in MN 9 we find that not only is volition one of the four nutriments for the existence of beings that arises due the arising of craving, it is also included as one of the constituents of mentality (nama). Therefore, volition does not seem to be very free, although there seems to be a hint of directability to volition in the suttas.
That is an interesting point. When greed, hatred, or delusion arises, they are accompanied by various unwholesome mental states; when non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusion arise, they are accompanied by various wholesome mental states—each of which being involved in the following mental, verbal, or bodily actions.
These, in turn, arise due the requisite pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral feelings that arise out of contact between the six senses and their corresponding objects, which arise due to the requisite of materiality and mentality, which arise due to the requisite of consciousness, which arise die to the requisite of fabrications, which arise die to the requisite of ignorance.
In this process of conditionality, the question has been what part of this process allows for choice or free will. The answer would seem to be that which is free from conditionality, however, what part of our mental and physical make-up is unconditional? What part of our experience of the world is free from these conditions?
Regards,
Jason
When people talk about greed, hatred and delusion then they talk about the non arising of greed, of hatred and of delusion. This talk, I afraid, is still entangled in what Grandmaster Hui-neng says in his Platform Sutra "merely pair of opposites". This could explain why some monks who go on meditation retreat became serene but he/she becomes quite his/her own agitated persona again after the retreat is over. A Zen master says it is like putting a big stone on the grass. The grass will grow back after the stone is removed.
With this dilemna, I would like to point out what I found on the Nirvana Sutra:
"The constant presence / abiding of the Tathagata is called 'the Self' [atman]. The Dharmakaya [essential being of the Buddha] is unbounded, unimpeded, neither arising nor perishing, and endowed with the eight masteries / sovereignties [aishvarya - such as being able to project countless mind-endowed forms, to acquire all dharmas, and to pervade all places like space]. This is called 'the Self'. (Dharmakshema version)."
Reading this article, I think one can not find the Absolute in the Skandhas like you have asked in your post. So to ask what part of our mental or physical make up is unconditional (I think you mean "Unconditioned") is pointless. I think one should looks for the Undying as I have heard lot of masters are saying. I dont know what they mean yet, but I know I will get there. Just my opinion, YMMV.
I sometimes visualize the ability of choice together with total determination as following:
There are a number of ways/paths given, when entered will be totally determined what turns out from the beginning to end. With a finite number of ways given to to act and think, i then think of a possibility to transcend those ways, and having transcended them, being able to instruct people on a particular path. In Buddhism, it would be that the Tathagata being transcended (beyond) all paths, would be able to chose them and instruct people. He would give the listeners right view, initiating their journey on the eightfold path. If he must speak directly to them or if memorized suttas are sufficient is a seperate issue.
This of course, shifts the problem of free will to the domain of the Tathagata, putting a sort of end to the debate and might not be satisfactory for all of us, especially not for the highly analytical minds amongst us.
I think that it is important to note that we have generally been discussing choice, control, decision making, and free will from the perspective of ordinary, non-enlightened beings—at least I know that I have. I think that when it comes to Noble Ones such as the Tathagata, however, these discussion becomes pointless since they are no longer subject to the determinations of volition (cetana) or action (kamma). When volition or will is no longer a factor, discussions concerning free will, no will, or will in any way, shape, or form become mote.
of course. I did not want to stop the topic, I just wanted to share this thought which I consider a valid approach, albeit "only" rooted in the faith that the Tathagata transcended our conditioning, hence being able to change us.
Seeking but not finding the housebuilder, I have traveled through the round of countless births. How painful is birth over and over again. Oh housebuilder! You have now been caught! You shall not build a house again. Your rafters have been broken. Your ridgepole demolished. The unconditioned consciousness has been attained. And every kind of craving has been destroyed. Dhammapada, Verses 153, 154
Let`s not forget that when we talk of free will, we take the whole issue to a broad, general level. Strictly speaking, if we translate sankhara skanda as will, then the notion of a conditioned skanda immedialty contradicts the term "free". Nevertheless, in the above quote, at least the Buddha obviously was able to attain free will, if the housbuilder is interpreted as sankhara skanda conditioned by ignorance.
On an interesting side note, this idea is even more apparent in certain Mahayana texts such as the Threefold Lotus Sutra, where the arhat is said to have not yet reached final nirvana. Essentially, they are seen as being intoxicated with the samadhi of cessation, not the nirvana that is attained by a fully enlightened Buddha.
Furthermore, it is said that Buddhas are then able to awaken these individuals from their temporary cessation in order for them to continue towards complete Buddhahood, which is characterized by omniscience. This is due to Buddhahood being the result of wisdom and merit accumulation, not just eradicating afflictions.
Free Will. Someone might say: "If all phenomena are conditionally arisen, then Buddhism is a form of fatalism, for we have no free will to control our destiny." Such a statement would not be correct. Will is volition (cetanaa), a mental state, determined ethically by its root condition (hetu paccaya). If the root is unwholesome, we can either restrain or indulge the volition; if the root is wholesome, we can encourage it or neglect it. In this exercise of will lies our freedom to guide our destiny.
Of course, this is just another reasoning brought back to "conventional" level, if we assert that on "ultimate" level, there is no we, or I, the above lines are not really helpful to describe control on "ultimate" level.
One may ask is 'condition' the right translation for the term paccayo/pratyaya? The latinate word "condition" is pretty straightforward; nor has it changed much over the years. The Latin word conditio means a state or a prerequisite. The English meaning for condition from what I can see is about the same as the Latin. Western Buddhist use 'condition' in the sense of a prerequisite, i.e., something has to be present if something else is going to happen.
So does 'condition' match up with paccayo/pratyaya which modern Buddhist scholars are in the habit of using in their translations? For the nonce, I will have to say, no.
Is it correct to say that the rope is a condition of hemp? I guess you could say yes but this doesn't connect with paccayo/pratyaya. The word 'condition' suggests a result or an effect. Paccaya doesn't.
It would be more accurate to say that hemp is the basis or cause (paccayo) of rope. Pacaya/pratyaya can also mean, besides basis and cause, the reason or ground. But it is not an effect which in my opinion leads to all sorts of category mistakes is we use condition as a substitute for paccaya/pratyaya.
When a modern Buddhist, for example says, "There is a deep and intricate conditionality [i.e., the quality of being conditional] of things" he or she has made a category mistake. It is better to say, "There is a deep and complex basis or reason for each thing."
The metaphysical basis or reason (paccayo) that things exist is probably irrelevant. But it is not irrelevant to say, however, that the basis or reason for suffering is because of appropriating (trishna) what is impermanent, etc.! Yes, suffering is conditioned. But its cause or reason (paccyo/pratyaya), which is different, concerns apprehending conditioned/contingent things thus making oneself conditioned.
If, on the other hand, one were to listen to the Dhamma penetrating the meaning, agreeing with it, then will to contemplate it, exerting oneself, being self-resolute, then one can win the ultimate truth and be free of suffering; no longer being enslaved to conditioned things. If fact, the freedom from being conditioned owes its reason (paccayo) to the will or the like.
With regard to this forum's inquiry, it gets nowhere if we stick with the word 'condition'. Moreover, to oppose strong or weak initiative to paccayo hardly makes any sense.
Personally, I never decided to delve into Buddhism owning to being conditioned by materialism. The reason (paccayo) why I eventually became interested in Buddhism and freely chose to peruse it more than the average guy was because a very attractive woman invited me to her temple. She then conditioned me like Pavlov's dog—and I have yet to break the asava/influence she has put on me. But if you saw her, my reasons (paccayo) for staying conditioned to her is pretty easy to figure out. (Just kidding. But ya'll get the point.)
That is definitely an interesting post, one that I find very thought provoking; nevertheless, I have never had a problem with translating paccaya as 'condition' or 'requisite condition', especially in the case of the twenty four modes of conditionality in the Patthana. These twenty four modes of conditionality, if one finds the Abhidhamma a useful resource, are enumerated and explained, and then applied to all conceivable mental and physical phenomena and occurrences. All of this seems straightforward and reasonable to me.
In addition, when reading suttas such as SN 12.20, using 'requisite condition' appears to match up fine with the intended meaning of paccaya in the Discourses. That being said, I would not argue against using 'basis' instead of 'condition' in most circumstances either, because I feel that it also appears to match up fine with the intended meaning of paccaya in the Discourses. The only problem that I see is that 'basis' seems to imply a single cause, whereas 'condition' is more open-ended, allowing for more than one influence.
What a fascinating discussion this has been. I know that I am WAY, WAY out of my league here. You guys have a vast and detailed knowledge of your stuff, and my hat goes off to you! But even though my knowledge is terribly limited, I will venture a comment.
I do feel that this thread has helped me see more clearly why I "choose" Mahayana and to feel more comfortable with that. I am grateful for having seen now the roots even of Pure Land teaching in Theravada. I was surprised but glad when Jason mentioned some other Mahayana teaching (specifically, the Lotus Sutra). I am grateful for now having noticed the particular phrase UNCONDITONED CONSCIOUSNESS from the Dhammapada.
The Heart of Great Wisdom Sutra seems to apply the notion of Conventional Truth/Ultimate Truth to such essential basic teaching as the Four Noble Truths and the Twelve-fold Chain of Causation. In other words, the Heart Sutra`s series of phrases of "no this, no that...etc..." amounts to saying that from the point of view of the Unconditioned Consciousness, "No four noble truths, no chain of causastion". This was pointed out in a footnote to the Heart Sutra in D.T. Suzuki`s Handbook of Zen Buddhism.
There was plenty that I will admit I did not understand on this thread, but I am wondering if the seemingly all-inclusive "no this, no that" also means, to the Mahayanist, "no free will, no fatalism, no determinism, no non-determinism, no choice, no absense of choice".
Comments
Also, just to make myself absolutely clear, I am not denying individual effort (attakara), nor have I ever done so that I am aware of; nevertheless, I am denying that individual effort arises of its own volition. In the context of this thread, I would say that individual effort has its own requisite conditions just as right effort (sammakara) has its requisite conditions as well i.e. right view (sammaditthi).
Jason
Suffering is given as the requisite condition for faith, but this does not mean that all who suffer become faithful. It only means that without suffering, there is no need for faith.
I think that from the viewpoint of Abhidhamma, to say this and that has requisite conditions means that on the conventional level (that of beings), there can said to be control and choice; but that on the ultimate level (that of dhammas), these words are effectively meaningless. Furthermore, the requisite conditions for conviction (saddha) to arise out of suffering (dukkha) is right view (sammaditthi). Right view has a very prominent place in the Buddha's dispensation.
Jason
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theravada
Very interesting read, however, I saw this in the passage of this article in the middle. it says:
"Theravada promotes the concept of Vibhajjavada (Pali), literally "Teaching of Analysis." This doctrine says that insight must come from the aspirant's experience, critical investigation, and reasoning instead of by blind faith; however, the scriptures of the Theravadin tradition also emphasize heeding the advice of the wise, considering such advice and evaluation of one's own experiences to be the two tests by which practices should be judged.[2]"
With this, I agree, I think one should get insight into the Truth before reciting the Sutra and following the words. Also, here is what some people think of the Abdhidharma from the same article:
"The Pali Tipitaka consists of three parts: the Vinaya Pitaka, Sutta Pitaka and Abhidhamma Pitaka. Of these, the Abhidhamma Pitaka is believed to be a later addition to the first two pitakas, which, in the opinion of many scholars, were the only two pitakas at the time of the First Buddhist Council. The Pali Abhidhamma was not recognized outside the Theravada school."
Here again, we see doctrinal difference between various school but ultimately, those wise Theravadin teachers even tell students to get "insight" before they understand the meaning of "no control".
It is just my 2 cents, YMMV.
Thanks for looking.
SG
The New York Times has an interesting article that is somewhat related to this discussion in its science section today. If anyone is interested in reading it, it is called Free Will: Now You Have It, Now You Don’t, although you might to sign up in order to read it.
Sincerely,
Jason
My favorite part of the article.
It fits nicely with this.
So now we all may freely choose to have free will or no free will. How is that for freedom?
Love ya'll,
Bobby
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm ;-)
Bobby,
I'm so excited that I can choose to have free will or not that I hardly know what to do with myself!
Jason
Being led by the eyes.. senses.. temptation as u will.. is something which affects us in different ways. In all cases there is part of free will which both applies and doesn't apply to all of us. One thing may invariably be easy to choose for you, but virtually impossible for another.
We don't have the choice to have conquered minds, this is something to aspire to.
That is an interesting point. When greed, hatred, or delusion arises, they are accompanied by various unwholesome mental states; when non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusion arise, they are accompanied by various wholesome mental states—each of which being involved in the following mental, verbal, or bodily actions.
These, in turn, arise due the requisite pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral feelings that arise out of contact between the six senses and their corresponding objects, which arise due to the requisite of materiality and mentality, which arise due to the requisite of consciousness, which arise die to the requisite of fabrications, which arise die to the requisite of ignorance.
In this process of conditionality, the question has been what part of this process allows for choice or free will. The answer would seem to be that which is free from conditionality, however, what part of our mental and physical make-up is unconditional? What part of our experience of the world is free from these conditions?
Regards,
Jason
Volition (cetana) is the only thing that seems to come close to the active decision making will of the unenlightened individual as it is said that as soon as volition arises, one does an action by body, speech or mind; nevertheless, volition is considered one of the seven mental factors (cetasika) inseparably bound up with all consciousness.
Furthermore, in MN 9 we find that not only is volition one of the four nutriments for the existence of beings that arises due the arising of craving, it is also included as one of the constituents of mentality (nama). Therefore, volition does not seem to be very free, although there seems to be a hint of directability to volition in the suttas.
Regards,
Jason
When people talk about greed, hatred and delusion then they talk about the non arising of greed, of hatred and of delusion. This talk, I afraid, is still entangled in what Grandmaster Hui-neng says in his Platform Sutra "merely pair of opposites". This could explain why some monks who go on meditation retreat became serene but he/she becomes quite his/her own agitated persona again after the retreat is over. A Zen master says it is like putting a big stone on the grass. The grass will grow back after the stone is removed.
With this dilemna, I would like to point out what I found on the Nirvana Sutra:
"The constant presence / abiding of the Tathagata is called 'the Self' [atman]. The Dharmakaya [essential being of the Buddha] is unbounded, unimpeded, neither arising nor perishing, and endowed with the eight masteries / sovereignties [aishvarya - such as being able to project countless mind-endowed forms, to acquire all dharmas, and to pervade all places like space]. This is called 'the Self'. (Dharmakshema version)."
Reading this article, I think one can not find the Absolute in the Skandhas like you have asked in your post. So to ask what part of our mental or physical make up is unconditional (I think you mean "Unconditioned") is pointless. I think one should looks for the Undying as I have heard lot of masters are saying. I dont know what they mean yet, but I know I will get there. Just my opinion, YMMV.
Thank for looking
SG
There are a number of ways/paths given, when entered will be totally determined what turns out from the beginning to end. With a finite number of ways given to to act and think, i then think of a possibility to transcend those ways, and having transcended them, being able to instruct people on a particular path. In Buddhism, it would be that the Tathagata being transcended (beyond) all paths, would be able to chose them and instruct people. He would give the listeners right view, initiating their journey on the eightfold path. If he must speak directly to them or if memorized suttas are sufficient is a seperate issue.
This of course, shifts the problem of free will to the domain of the Tathagata, putting a sort of end to the debate and might not be satisfactory for all of us, especially not for the highly analytical minds amongst us.
Regards
I think that it is important to note that we have generally been discussing choice, control, decision making, and free will from the perspective of ordinary, non-enlightened beings—at least I know that I have. I think that when it comes to Noble Ones such as the Tathagata, however, these discussion becomes pointless since they are no longer subject to the determinations of volition (cetana) or action (kamma). When volition or will is no longer a factor, discussions concerning free will, no will, or will in any way, shape, or form become mote.
Jason
of course. I did not want to stop the topic, I just wanted to share this thought which I consider a valid approach, albeit "only" rooted in the faith that the Tathagata transcended our conditioning, hence being able to change us.
Seeking but not finding the housebuilder, I have traveled through the round of countless births. How painful is birth over and over again. Oh housebuilder! You have now been caught! You shall not build a house again. Your rafters have been broken. Your ridgepole demolished. The unconditioned consciousness has been attained. And every kind of craving has been destroyed. Dhammapada, Verses 153, 154
Let`s not forget that when we talk of free will, we take the whole issue to a broad, general level. Strictly speaking, if we translate sankhara skanda as will, then the notion of a conditioned skanda immedialty contradicts the term "free". Nevertheless, in the above quote, at least the Buddha obviously was able to attain free will, if the housbuilder is interpreted as sankhara skanda conditioned by ignorance.
Regards
On an interesting side note, this idea is even more apparent in certain Mahayana texts such as the Threefold Lotus Sutra, where the arhat is said to have not yet reached final nirvana. Essentially, they are seen as being intoxicated with the samadhi of cessation, not the nirvana that is attained by a fully enlightened Buddha.
Furthermore, it is said that Buddhas are then able to awaken these individuals from their temporary cessation in order for them to continue towards complete Buddhahood, which is characterized by omniscience. This is due to Buddhahood being the result of wisdom and merit accumulation, not just eradicating afflictions.
Jason
Recently, I found this
Free Will. Someone might say: "If all phenomena are conditionally arisen, then Buddhism is a form of fatalism, for we have no free will to control our destiny." Such a statement would not be correct. Will is volition (cetanaa), a mental state, determined ethically by its root condition (hetu paccaya). If the root is unwholesome, we can either restrain or indulge the volition; if the root is wholesome, we can encourage it or neglect it. In this exercise of will lies our freedom to guide our destiny.
Of course, this is just another reasoning brought back to "conventional" level, if we assert that on "ultimate" level, there is no we, or I, the above lines are not really helpful to describe control on "ultimate" level.
Regards
So does 'condition' match up with paccayo/pratyaya which modern Buddhist scholars are in the habit of using in their translations? For the nonce, I will have to say, no.
Is it correct to say that the rope is a condition of hemp? I guess you could say yes but this doesn't connect with paccayo/pratyaya. The word 'condition' suggests a result or an effect. Paccaya doesn't.
It would be more accurate to say that hemp is the basis or cause (paccayo) of rope. Pacaya/pratyaya can also mean, besides basis and cause, the reason or ground. But it is not an effect which in my opinion leads to all sorts of category mistakes is we use condition as a substitute for paccaya/pratyaya.
When a modern Buddhist, for example says, "There is a deep and intricate conditionality [i.e., the quality of being conditional] of things" he or she has made a category mistake. It is better to say, "There is a deep and complex basis or reason for each thing."
The metaphysical basis or reason (paccayo) that things exist is probably irrelevant. But it is not irrelevant to say, however, that the basis or reason for suffering is because of appropriating (trishna) what is impermanent, etc.! Yes, suffering is conditioned. But its cause or reason (paccyo/pratyaya), which is different, concerns apprehending conditioned/contingent things thus making oneself conditioned.
If, on the other hand, one were to listen to the Dhamma penetrating the meaning, agreeing with it, then will to contemplate it, exerting oneself, being self-resolute, then one can win the ultimate truth and be free of suffering; no longer being enslaved to conditioned things. If fact, the freedom from being conditioned owes its reason (paccayo) to the will or the like.
With regard to this forum's inquiry, it gets nowhere if we stick with the word 'condition'. Moreover, to oppose strong or weak initiative to paccayo hardly makes any sense.
Personally, I never decided to delve into Buddhism owning to being conditioned by materialism. The reason (paccayo) why I eventually became interested in Buddhism and freely chose to peruse it more than the average guy was because a very attractive woman invited me to her temple. She then conditioned me like Pavlov's dog—and I have yet to break the asava/influence she has put on me. But if you saw her, my reasons (paccayo) for staying conditioned to her is pretty easy to figure out. (Just kidding. But ya'll get the point.)
Love ya'll,
Bobby
That is definitely an interesting post, one that I find very thought provoking; nevertheless, I have never had a problem with translating paccaya as 'condition' or 'requisite condition', especially in the case of the twenty four modes of conditionality in the Patthana. These twenty four modes of conditionality, if one finds the Abhidhamma a useful resource, are enumerated and explained, and then applied to all conceivable mental and physical phenomena and occurrences. All of this seems straightforward and reasonable to me.
In addition, when reading suttas such as SN 12.20, using 'requisite condition' appears to match up fine with the intended meaning of paccaya in the Discourses. That being said, I would not argue against using 'basis' instead of 'condition' in most circumstances either, because I feel that it also appears to match up fine with the intended meaning of paccaya in the Discourses. The only problem that I see is that 'basis' seems to imply a single cause, whereas 'condition' is more open-ended, allowing for more than one influence.
Jason
I do feel that this thread has helped me see more clearly why I "choose" Mahayana and to feel more comfortable with that. I am grateful for having seen now the roots even of Pure Land teaching in Theravada. I was surprised but glad when Jason mentioned some other Mahayana teaching (specifically, the Lotus Sutra). I am grateful for now having noticed the particular phrase UNCONDITONED CONSCIOUSNESS from the Dhammapada.
The Heart of Great Wisdom Sutra seems to apply the notion of Conventional Truth/Ultimate Truth to such essential basic teaching as the Four Noble Truths and the Twelve-fold Chain of Causation. In other words, the Heart Sutra`s series of phrases of "no this, no that...etc..." amounts to saying that from the point of view of the Unconditioned Consciousness, "No four noble truths, no chain of causastion". This was pointed out in a footnote to the Heart Sutra in D.T. Suzuki`s Handbook of Zen Buddhism.
There was plenty that I will admit I did not understand on this thread, but I am wondering if the seemingly all-inclusive "no this, no that" also means, to the Mahayanist, "no free will, no fatalism, no determinism, no non-determinism, no choice, no absense of choice".
Nice save. :winkc: