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.
Can't think of a name for this one
I have come to the conclusion that everything that happens is in and of itself. What I mean is that I don't actually have any control over anything. I may feel like I do sometimes, but other times I don't and life goes on just the same. There is nothing I can do about it
What confuses me is that the concept of no-self cannot be understood by any act of will, or doing, or effort. It just comes and goes by itself, usually when I stop looking for it. I'm starting to think that many things operate this way, regardless of my volition. Things like my thoughts, my feelings, my sense of self or no-self.
Is my volition something that comes about regardless of my effort as well? In a sense, isn't it impossible to DO anything? If it's going to happen it is going to happen.
So what it all comes down to is chance? Doesn't that mean that things are perfect the way they are, and couldn't possibly be any other way? If that's true then there's nothing I, or anyone else on these boards, can do to understand dharma. If circumstances line up and we're supposed to understand it, we understand it, but none of that happens because of anything that we do.
Then why worry about practicing at all, why worry about good and bad karma, skillfull and unskillfull acts if there's not a damn thing you can do about it either way? Even people who are doing terrible things like murder, couldn't be any other way; they're exactly who they are supposed to be at this moment. It's just how the chips fell.
What confuses me is that the concept of no-self cannot be understood by any act of will, or doing, or effort. It just comes and goes by itself, usually when I stop looking for it. I'm starting to think that many things operate this way, regardless of my volition. Things like my thoughts, my feelings, my sense of self or no-self.
Is my volition something that comes about regardless of my effort as well? In a sense, isn't it impossible to DO anything? If it's going to happen it is going to happen.
So what it all comes down to is chance? Doesn't that mean that things are perfect the way they are, and couldn't possibly be any other way? If that's true then there's nothing I, or anyone else on these boards, can do to understand dharma. If circumstances line up and we're supposed to understand it, we understand it, but none of that happens because of anything that we do.
Then why worry about practicing at all, why worry about good and bad karma, skillfull and unskillfull acts if there's not a damn thing you can do about it either way? Even people who are doing terrible things like murder, couldn't be any other way; they're exactly who they are supposed to be at this moment. It's just how the chips fell.
0
Comments
I'm not sure why not but no!
While it is definitely true that we have no control over the past, in the present, you can act and affect the future.
And everything is interrelated.
I really like your line of questioning, I think its pretty awesome. There are a couple little angles that might help that came up while I was reading your post.
Isn't volition intrinsically tied to your effort? The game seems to be that when we act skillfully upon the world (according to some well observed guidelines) that our perceptions of things naturally relax into a non-attached state. What you might be experiencing then is a result of skillful effort (where you feel inner stillness and a no-self) and unskillful effort (where you fall into the habituated pattern of noticing phenomena too much.) The more you practice and focus on impermanence, breath, 8 FP and so forth, the more the no-self view will be available and you will naturally be in the space of openness. When you look for no-self, you might be forgetting that you are inherently no self. When you then stop and settle, you move into the view?
Remember that motion is itself is also transient, and when you speak of DO, your mind is trying to solidify the action into a concrete. Actions also have no direct and measurable quality to them... 'doing' is a concept we attach to ourselves as we observe a linear stream of perceptions and responses. I don't mean its 'bad' to do, but as we are doing, there is no need to reflect on the actions, when we are acting from open space. If you are busy in the moment doing, then you have no need to examine and reflect on what is done. I feel that the art of non-reflecting is part of what holds us into the space, as we stay present with the phenomena in front of us.
I agree there is no need to worry. Life unfolds like the petals of a lotus, one petal at a time. We need only shed our light upon it, the rest is simple nature. When we view these people doing 'terrible things' we must also remember that those are subject to the same views of non-concept.. so terrible is our words. If we untie that, we can see habituated patterns that are leading one of our family into dukkha.
Hope this helps.
With warmth,
Matt
Ajahn Brahm uses the simile of the "driverless bus". There's no one to complain to, no one to say "speed up" or "slow down" to, just an empty process. Once we see that there is no one driving the "bus" of life we go back to our seat, sit down, shut up and enjoy the ride!
You practice because you have no choice!
Something like a form of Synchronicity. We act, however insignificantly, rippling through consciousness and reality.
But in enjoying the ride, we are compelled to lessen the suffering of others around us. We have choices to make on the ride. We are not powerless over our own choices.
If we do something good, kind, or compassionate, is it really us that is doing it? Or is it our teacher? Or is it the Buddha? I have a great deal of respect for teachers like Ajahn Brahm and the words he has spoken have influenced my views and in turn my words and actions. His views, words and actions were influenced by Ajahn Chah. Ajahn Chah was influenced by Ajahn Mun. And so on...all the way back to the Buddha. Even the Buddha, before he became the Buddha, was influenced in a previous life when he met with Kassapa Buddha and on and on it goes.
Who is really making the choices?
you could say that if one computer knew ALLL of the causes and conditions out there, it could determine their effect and then the effect of that condition, and in that way the future could be predicted and really people don't have control over their minds and bodies but simply watch as their own minds believe they have control.
But for practical purposes, this is useless to think about. Better to make sure ones actions are good.
I believe WE make OUR choices to better ourselves and attain enlightenment. To say another is controlling us makes us irrelevant, so why even attempt to follow the path in this case? You might as well run off and do as you please if it is of no consequence to you!
WE are here due to causation. WE are here to become enlightened. Our teachers teach us, but WE must put the teachings into practice and become the enlightened individual. Your teacher cannot enlighten you, only teach you.
Computers only know what they are programmed to know. We only know what we learn and what we accept through teachings. The difference between sentient beings and computers is the ability to rationalize and understand the world around you. There are infinite reactions to infinite experiences for living beings. Computers ALWAYS react the same way to the SAME input. We can react differently at any moment. We have control of our own actions, but we must use our control to better the world around us.
To say we are beyond culpability in the world because we "have no control" is a cop out and goes against anything I have read concerning Buddhism.
Everything I have read concerning Buddhism, however, does emphasize personal responsibility to do what is right and to lessen suffering. To me, that removes the "predestined" philosophy, because it involves us making choices that influence a fluid future. If we're all going to be Buddah's in our own time, why try? Why be a Buddhist in the first place?
When you say "I believe WE make OUR choices"...what exactly do you mean? Do you take will/volition to be who you really are? That is still Dukkha. Even "our" effort that "we" make has been conditioned. If we see Dukkha we will naturally put "effort" (for lack of a better word) into the causes which lead to freedom from it. In the same way that someone who accidentally puts their hand into boiling water doesn't consciously choose to remove their hand, it is out before they can even say "ouch that's hot!".
I never claimed that anyone is "controlling us", but as unenlightened beings our way of thinking (and in turn, behaving) is certainly influenced/conditioned by other people and our environment. For example, I eat vegemite on toast, do I choose to do that? Or is it my conditioning have grown up in Australia? Many (deluded) foreigners (wrongly) think it is disgusting!
As far as the question of "why even attempt to follow the path" is concerned, why don't you try and not follow the path then, if you think you have a choice then go ahead and choose not to! I'll bet that you can't because you have seen how valuable the Buddha's teachings are and so really there is no choice - you have to follow the Path!
If there is no power to do good or evil or to better ourselves, why not fall into depravity and follow our base lusts? We might as well, because we aren't in control and we all will become enlightened anyway by no choice of our own.
I'm not following your philosophy and I don't buy predestination as reality.
I am not saying "it's all good". There are paths (the two extremes: sensuality and self-mortification) that we should not follow, which do not lead to Nibbana. And there is the path which leads to Nibbana. So let's follow the Path to Nibbana!
I am not a fatalist. I recognize that we can influence each other in a positive or negative way (and that other people can and do influence us too for better or worse!), which reinforces the need to be careful about how we treat other people.
Yes we do, thats part of our nature to have the sensitivity.
I think to think the universe is exactly like a clock is speculation. In my eyes it would be 'thinking mind' that I would just let be neither following or repressing...
One might say "I have free will and I can prove it, because I'm deciding to post the word bold in bold. There I just did it", but wasn't it my thread that got you to think about posting in the first place? Didn't you respond the way you did because of alllllll the little events in your life that shaped your personality? Those events hapened the way they did because of the events preceding them, like a domino effect on an unfathomable scale.
I don't really believe in fate/destiny, I just like playing devil's advocate. Then again, I don't reject it either. Maybe I'm going through a Taoist phase? :P
lol that's an awesome analogy!
@AMatt, your post did help
As far as your predetermined bolding, I think actions are both. Perhaps they are a harmony of effort between the present instant and your habits (ie, operating out of preconditioned need) and your not-conditioning (operating out of stillness). So it could be said that the more un-aware a person is (or the more unskilled the mind) the less free will they really have.
You see that all the time in people who get caught up in reactions to situations... feeling compelled, chase addictions or even projecting solid forms into empty space. However, in the absence of the inner drive, there is room to be spontaneously skillful with whatever the choice might be. This would be the ultimate expression of free will, in my opinion.
With warmth,
Matt
But isn't operating out of stillness still conditioned? Because that stillness has to come from somewhere. Something has to happen to trigger your mind into being still. It's not something we can control, (I find it's impossible to still my mind when I'm trying to make it still).
I'm coming to the conclusion that "control" and "free will" are just illusions, just like the self. It never existed, we just thought it did.
Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu!
lol! I had to google that one :P
Certainly illusory-like, but that doesn't mean that the opposite is true either. There is not control or non-control, because the objects and motions are non-fixed, non-conceptual. The difference I allude to is when the connection to phenomena is rooted directly in the 'impermanence' and 'control-lessness' you were contemplating initially.
When you can see all phenomena in the light that nothing is solid or fixated, its a direct experience of anatta. There is nothing solid that controls or to control upon. Its from there that I consider free will to happen (or even 'freedom from will') Even then, no action is an island of its own, there is a flow to it all.
For instance, we choose words based on the language we were taught, yet the way we impart life into the words can be rooted in non-concepts, where we absolutely recognize that the words we are using are fluid pointers toward the non-concepts. Words are not the concepts themselves. It can be like that in all relating, where all phenomena are just what they are... and we impart form upon them only to exchange information.
Another example would be, if you walk across the room to turn on a light because its dark. Ultimately, there is no walking, no room, no light, no dark, no moving from light to dark... those are all attributions we make to non-conceptual space. So in essence, what you say is true. We cannot turn on a light of our own free will, because the observing (and then assuming that the objects have a fixed meaning) binds us to the conceptual space. However, if we do not assign meaning to the space, we can still turn on the light... its just really a formless, non-conceptual blob moving through formless, non-conceptual space. If you understand this, then saying 'i'm going to turn on the light' is fine, because its a matter of convention for communicating or relating to the world.
The problem is when you trick yourself into believing that there is someone controlling, or something to control, making solid that which is not. In between is the middle space where the 'not-solid-self' interacts with the 'non-fixated-objects' in way that is skillful, or without clinging (making false attributions) If you disconnect fully, you move into nihilism, where nothing has any meaning. That is just as false as everything having a fixed meaning.
With warmth,
Matt
What causes the observing? My only guess is observing comes from 'a need to observe', but what drives something to feel the need to observe?
Btw, I find your posts very interesting. That last one really baked my noodle. I read like like 4 times
People have said different things about the arising of that need. What I see is that it comes from a fear of formlessness, or a fear of reality not having a fixed quality to it. Observing the object gives us a toehold into a sensation that we too are a solid existing phenomena... which comforts us. "Well, we exist in a world where objects have solid, permanent meaning, therefore I must have a solid and permanent meaning."
Hopefully this is more like a cool noodle salad
With warmth,
Matt