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 is dependent origination different than determinism?
ScottPen
Maryland Veteran
in Philosophy
And how is either one compatible with free will? I don't see how, and I've been searching for arguments that change my mind.
0
Comments
One view in a nutshell says that..
Dependent Origination intricately describes the interlinking causes and effects that result and propel all of life's suffering.
Buddhism uses Dependent Origination to show us where we can unlink from this process to result in suffering's diminishment. Here in a Buddhist practice, your free will to continue with or to delink in this process determines how much or how little suffering you will create.
Determinism proposes that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to one's free will.
A view that says that free will is irrelevant to life's outcome simply doesn't understand suffering's true causes.
What benefit does it bring us to know whether free will exists or not? Life is as it is, there is no need to describe it in language or solve all of the problems the mind creates in that process. Knowing this doesn’t alter the way the mind evaluates or makes choices, which is what determines our actions.
We have had a number of discussions about this topic. A couple past threads:
https://newbuddhist.com/discussion/comment/574653#Comment_574653
https://newbuddhist.com/discussion/25996/things-you-can-control/p1
I've given most of my opinions on them re: free will and causal determinism and I won't rehash them here. The jist of my POV, however, is that while I'm sympathetic to the idea of free will, I've yet to be convinced that we have an agency independent of causality, hence I see dependent co-arising as a description of psycho-physical causal determinism in line with what we currently know about the world. It's primarily concerned with the causes and conditions of suffering, but I think the underlying logic of this complex, non-linear casual chain applies to the outside world as well.
In addition, I've become an admirer of Spinoza and his philosophy expounded in his Ethics. And in this video series in particular, I see a lot of similarities between his ideas on causal determinism and achieving equanimity in part 3 and the Buddha's ideas on causality (esp. kamma) and freedom from suffering:
That said, I did listen to an interesting argument on the biological possibility of free will that has me more open to the idea. If you're interested, you can check it out here:
If freedom from suffering is dependent upon understanding and accepting reality, I'd like to give it a shot
Ok so... Dependent origination only describes the cause of suffering? Does it not describe the cause and effect of other phenomena? Or, maybe it does, but thinking about that part of it doesn't relieve suffering so it's not useful to consider? Seems like acceptance of the way things are means a person would actually try to understand how things are.
That is a big ‘if’. Some of the Ch’an patriarchs held that the Lankavatara sutra was all you ever needed to study, and they did quite well. Also, if you were to try and understand reality, where do you draw the line? The most up-to-date quantum physics don’t claim to understand reality… you could spend a long time studying.
Closer to the truth is the quote from Nisargadatta that I just posted, I reckon, which went “explanations are there to please the mind, they don’t need to be true.” You can certainly accept reality as you know it. And some enlightened people have held there is no such thing as free will and the universe is deterministic.
The whole issue is fraught with a lot of nuance and semantics. So many of the terms have very specific definitions and two people can be using the same word but be talking about slightly or very different things.
Take free will, the sort of common sense notion is akin to the philosophical definition known as libertarian free will. That at any moment we can choose one thing over another. (I heard some breakdown of the percentage of surveyed philosophers and where they stood on the issue recently, if memory serves I think the number of libertarian free willers was at around %20 (don't quote me on that)). But not everyone who talks about free will means that sort of freedom when they use the term. My point being, check definitions.
Currently I'm something of a compatibilist. I believe in causes and conditions, but don't think that quite means we're all on a completely predictable set of train tracks. I hold open the possibility of present moment causation, that in the moment we can be aware of what is arising in the mind and that information acts in the causal chain to allow divergence from strict past determinism. It frees us from Laplace's demon. I also think the common sense notion of the self as being a homunculus separate from the world and biology that makes decisions is a false view that confuses people. Just because a process in your decision making comes from the subconscious doesn't mean that's not you. Just because environmental factors influence decisions doesn't mean they don't affect your unique makeup differently than another's. Practically and morally there is a distinction between being pushed off a diving board and deciding to jump off yourself even though both are deterministic.
Regarding determinism and dependent origination I don't know how much of a distinction, if any, can be made. The word determinism to me has a feeling more in line with fatalism, that the future is set and there's nothing to be done about it. Whereas, for me, dependent origination speaks to "what leads to what" as Joseph Goldstein puts it. It shows practical tools for creating conditions that lead to certain outcomes. Maybe its all in my mind, but one says its out of your control and one says its in your control.
I appreciate all of the thoughtful posts. It's giving me a lot to think about.
From a personal training/habits perspective:
When one is lazy, unfocused, and controlled by negative habits, it appears subjectively as if one has little control and free will.
When one 'wins over oneself' frequently, trains discipline and focus, lets go of negative habits, and cultivates positive habits, it appears subjectively as if one has much more control and free will.
'Only the disciplined ones are free' (Marathon runner Eliud Kipchoge).
Dependent origination explains suffering is caused by non-realisation (ignorance). If realisation can be developed, suffering can be ended. Therefore, dependent origination is not determinism because change can happen.
I like the Tao’s approach to enlightenment, that one should be in harmony with what is. This is the ultimate in letting go, because one’s will disappears in the natural pattern of the world.
Well, it's not freedom, it's cessation. The cessation of suffering. Freedom means that suffering still exists. If cessation is dependent on something, it's more like dependent on arising. For a phenomenon to cease, it must first arise. If a phenomenon arises, it must certainly cease.
Dependent arising is the teaching of the Buddha.
One who sees dependent arising sees the Dhamma.
All things, including suffering, are dependently arising or due to causes and conditions.
Intentions, too, are due to causes and conditions.
Mix with the wrong people and wrong intentions become the norm.
I think this is a good way of putting it, and I agree for the most part. I think that the non-linearity of the complex causal process of conditionality allows for multiple causes and conditions to impact any one moment, and that "in the moment we can be aware of what is arising in the mind and that information acts in the causal chain to allow divergence from strict past determinism." But I do think it's ultimately causation all the way down as it seems highly unlikely that the faculty of the mind that intends and makes choices is itself free from causality/causal processes, be they mental or physical. In fact, I really like pegembara's post because I think it expresses this succinctly:
I suspect a lot of the issue, as @person has already noted, is linguistical and comes down to the nuances of the terms used. I believe many of us ultimately agree on things but not how they're linguistically framed. Very few would argue that our intentions, or the psychophysical beings who produce them, are unconditioned, hence they're characterized by conditionality. But describing that process and reality can be a challenge for said beings as there are multiple levels and POVs involved.
So, as others have mentioned, the most skillful approach is to focus on the purpose of these teachings, that of understanding dukkha and the cessation of dukkha. Because ultimately, that's all the Buddha described.
This came across my feed and thought it might be relevant. Our intellect can make sense of only a certain level of complexity, additionally our intuitive sense of the world is based on a gross day to day experience of the world. Something like our will probably exists at a level where the actual way it works is simply beyond anyone's everyday capacity to understand it. Perhaps something like how our intuitive experience of the way physics works simply doesn't apply at cosmic or subatomic scales.
Yuk! Life is just luck? Yuk?
If there is truly free will, all would be chaos.
Imagine trying to cross a busy road or getting paid for doing no work.
eh ... yipee?
OK I will imagine and dissolve ... other tips to the usual Order of Chaos Magicians ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminates_of_Thanateros