It’s becomes so much easier imo to be compassionate to people when you let go of the idea of free will and see everyone’s behavior as well as aspects of their character as products of factors outside of their control. This doesn’t mean intention and choices and habits don’t matter or have significant impact but that you don’t have to hate or wish suffering upon people for having the wrong intentions or choices or habits.
@@DougsDharma Yes Sir , one should spread the dhamma in its essence . Its not the Buddha he chooses to be a guide , Buddha never took the role of a savior or talked about God . Therefore his doctrines are an end to find our truly awakened selves . Buddha want to create other Buddhisattva , other beings who are able to liberate others . Therefore Buddhas relied on Buddhisattva qualities , in fact one more step than Arahant so that we can understand the four truths ourselves . ✌✌ In the modern world , we have no time to spare to become Arahants but knowing the eightfold path and the four truths in itself is so liberating and you are spreading it . ✌✌
I'm a philosophy student who has pretty much exclusively studied western thinkers and a desire to explore Buddhist/eastern philosophy and spirituality brought me to your channel. So far I have been really delighted with the strength of the Buddha's teachings with regards to metaphysical issues like the self and free-will. Western (monotheistic) religions seem, generally, to be devoted to a metaphysics that I find entirely unconvincing and this is something that has pushed me away from taking religious teachings seriously until now. Subbed to the channel. Do you have a discord or any similar kind of place where your community can have discussions other than youtube comment sections?
Great question Joe. I don't have a discord set up yet, though I've been considering doing one through my Patreon page. We'll see. (Main issue is I'm kind of loath to have to become a Mod again ...)
Hey there Joe ! Buddha's Teachings are Primarily Philosophical in Nature. That's why they are so good ! The Religious Parts are, if I am not mistaken, not even 15 % of All of Buddha's teachings. So, it's time to celebrate Buddha as a Philosopher, instead of a religious leader ...
@@DipayanPyne94 ---I would totally disagree Dipayan. Buddhism is really an anti-philosphy. The 4 noble truths and the eightfold path are not something to be discussed or analysed. Rather, it is meant to be experienced.
@@joshboston2323 What is 'Experienced' is considered to be a part of 'Empiricism', Epistemologically speaking. It's Philosophy as well. I mean, Buddha was, basically, an Empiricist, as demonstrated by K. N. Jayatilleke, in his Masterpiece, 'Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge'. So, you're just mistaken ...
@@DipayanPyne94 --I guess that is true in a way. I have no problem with the way you phrased that. Semantics is a big factor in this discussion. Now, I guess what I meant to convey is that words and theories, used so often in philosophy, hinder us from realizing what is actually the essence of the path. Ultimately we want to move beyond philosophy; beyond concepts. Now, it might be the case that I am simply defining philosophy in too narrow a manner, but I hope you understand what I mean.
Hi Doug, The writer Phillip Roth, in deprecating Jewish humour, when asked do you believe in free will, reputedly replied "Do I have a choice?" The root of the word hope I believe is to bend towards, I think that gives room for hope. Thank you kindly for your teachings,, when I return to them it is as cool drink of water quenching a spiritual thirst.
@@DougsDharma Of course you can. You have already completely given up free will the moment before you turned to compatibilism. It's just a matter of remembering and thinking things through. Instead of jumping at the first feeling of anger, you can recognize that the actor of bad deeds is not the entity that will suffer a sadistic punishment. They cannot logically be identical. If you understand that, you're free from free will.
Thank you Sir, I really enjoyed listening to you.I have been listening to you in the morning and night.I find it very meaningful to how we carry ourselves in our daily life.
It seems like compatiblism is just a variety of fatalism that takes the time to label parts of a causal chain (namely those involving certain mental states like desiring a future action) as “freedom”. It seems as though fundamentally, compatiblism does not acknowledge any uncaused origin (ex.self/god) for a choice, and so it counts as a type fatalism. Compatibilism seems like fatalism decorated with emergent/supervening mental constructs like beliefs, preferences, desires, intentions/etc. What am I missing?
Well compatibilism is not fatalism; in fatalism there is nothing we can do to change what happens to us. In compatibilism we could change anything we wanted to. The other problem is that the alternative, that of an “uncaused origin” is actually incoherent when you really consider it. None of our decisions are ever “uncaused”, they depend on prior beliefs about the way the world is, and desires we have to change what is around us. For a decision of ours to be “uncaused” it would have to be random, like a twitch.
Doug's Dharma I guess I am pointing out that compatiblism does not actually permit choosing, but rather labeling those “choosing” events with psychological constructs, but ultimately acknowledges a deterministic chain. In other words, compatibilism is accounting for the illusion of choice, and still counts as a species or type of fatalism. Other kinds of fatalism (besides compatiblism) may not take the time to account for these illusions - for example, they may just stipulate Newtonian physics and deny the existence of psychological constructs like desires or preferences or intentions. I agree with the second part of your comment, which I take to be an argument for compatiblism. What I am arguing is that most compatiblists don’t acknowledge that they are actually fatalists of a certain type, a fatalist with an ontology of psychological constructs, which are used to account for the illusion of choice. By the way, I love your videos.
Dough, I have been following your videos for the last few months.Your research and presentation is very good. The subject of free will is very difficult to comprehend when our lifespan is considered limited to the present one. However when we consider our life to continue and also to have existed earlier, then free will and the result of previous actions become more comprehensible. To me it seems that the results of previous karma, which consitute the already determined fate, and free will as of NOW exist together. By the removal of the fetters (including delusion), we free ourselves completely. I was attracted to buddhist teaching due to following reasons: 1. It is based on facts & reality as actually realized by the Buddha. 2. It can be examined by science. No blind beliefs. 3. Good in the beginning, middle and end. 4. If one falters or goes astray we can get up and come back on track. 5. Buddhist teachings are secular by nature. I sometimes wonder whether there is any requirement to call your website secular buddhism. I live in India and have visited the main buddhist places of importance. Best Wishes
Agree, determined choices may be important. Responsibilty is not to be owned as me and mine, but just a collabration of interaction that responds according to arbitary standards with a set of skills to do that.
I think this is an incredibly important topic - thank you so much - it helps get us out of thinking that fuels existentialism and problems that flow from tunnel thinking based on what evolved into Christian thinking
I take the viewpoint that the massive scale events of the Universe, unimaginable, incomprehensible to the degree our infinitesmal minds would implode even if we could take in so much data... such as what 'The Great Attractor' is that is outside the observable universe, galaxies colliding and merging, or even the 'smaller' Black Holes, the whole overall flow of the Universe at maximum scale.. that's all largely pre-determined by the fundamental forces of Reality. However, at our much smaller scale, all life is capable to some degree of independent movement, therefore capable of choice. We are all but microbes trying to understand what New York City is, and why it exists. We are all but gnats in a blast furnace.
@8:15 afaik in early Buddhism ownership=complete control. "If anything could be called my own self, then I should have full control over it, so that it behaves in the way I want it to behave. If something is really my own, I should be able to exercise full mastery, full sovereignty over it. Otherwise, how can I call it my own? This is how Buddhism understands the idea of ownership or possession. Since we do not have full control over our possessions, when something adverse happens to them, it is we who come to grief. So it is our possessions that really possess us." (Y. Karunadasa, Early Buddhist Teachings The Middle Position in Theory and Practice)
Isn’t right effort built on the idea of some underlying belief in our ability to pick wisely between options? That ability to pick correct choice increases with our awareness of our mental states.
Exactly so. In order to put effort into the right direction we have to be able to pick wisely. That ability increases with our mindful awareness of the results of our actions.
And that all depends in having the right information. Problem I see is, information, especially when it comes to human life decisions is highly contextual. Also, it is impossible to have complete knowledge.
@@rexaustin2885 the right information is captured under “right view” (samma ditti). Like you said it’s hard to have that information ahead of time. Morality, concentration and wisdom keep feeding each other till your mental model is perfectly aligned with right view.
Obviously we are not free to think our thoughts (if that was the case, we should be able to think them before we think them). Also, our thoughts are the foundation upon which our intentions and actions rest. This however does not mean that choices do not exist. We can choose, we just are not free to choose. Some choices are wiser than others obviously, but we should be gentle and forgiving to those who make errors (including ourselves), since they are not free to do otherwise.
Thanks Doug. You are obviously well read on this topic, however, the philosophical debate left me with the image of a dog chasing its own tail. You are probably correct that the Buddha would not have devoted much time to this topic. Life is much simpler. Taoism loves using the idea of a river in its teachings. The water moves on to its destination in the sea without intentionally striving to force its way in a particular direction or demanding to know where it is going. If it meets a rock, it will flow around it and the obstacle will eventually wear away. If it floods, it takes the shape of the lowest land it meets. It is probably enough to live without illusion, 'ignorance' in Buddhist terms. Simply being mindful in this moment is sufficient and Right Action will follow naturally. Everything rises and falls. Considering the mechanics behind it might easily become a diversion from what is truly important.
Thanks martynsnan, I think you're right that getting too deep into the weeds on this question isn't likely to be very helpful to us, but it does seem to be a perennial topic of discussion, for whatever reason! 🙂
I like your feedback in many many ways. But in a practical sense, you do need to plan ahead in order to achieve the state of water for a complicated task. Say planning for your wedding, etc. Obviously, you cannot just do a crappy job and attribute that failure to the water philosophy. You still have to take that responsibility for not having the perfect wisdom, and not doing your homework planning ahead.
Food Meditation, you're right, of course. I buy food in the expectation that I shall live long enough to eat it. One day, unknown to me, that expectation will fail. That's the way we work in this life with our sense of survival being one of the strongest we have. Where we can flow is by accepting that we have never had any real control over how or where events will arise or disappear. I can plan for a situation but I cannot guarantee a particular outcome. If I cling to the result that I want to happen, I may become fearful that it might fail or even be dissatisfied if it succeeds in an unexpected way. It is by accepting constant changing and flowing with it that worrying disappears and every day on my journey becomes an adventure.
I agree that accepting failure is a necessary lesson along the journey. But there's gotta be an ultimate goal, otherwise, life becomes meaningless. Observing the natural law doesn't mean you cannot try to create something out of it. You can certainly put water in a fridge, turn it into ice, and make a refreshing drink out of it during hot summer. I believe humans can modify nature a little bit and still feel comfortable. In addition, what is natural? Is sex natural? I think that really depends on the audience. For Buddha, sex is not even necessary after he achieved enlightenment. For most people, however, sex becomes "natural" because it usually happens out of our control. What we deem as natural, is usually limited by where we stand and how much we understand about the universe. There's no end to learning, so don't put un limit to people and close the door to the wonders that might come out of the unknown area. Last but not least, the fact that I could be killed during my preparation of a meal is extremely rare. I don't believe I should cancel eating just because of that. The Buddha talks about the middle path, which I believe is relevant to those who "has gone forth", don't engage in sensual pleasures or self-afflictions. The middle path will lead to self-awakening.
Loved the video ! Tend to struggle with this theme and always try to look for solace. I think reality itself proves that pure determinism or fatalism are not observable. I tend to see psychological or behaviourial change as a proof of that. If we can change, even if we are suggested to do so, if we are able through hard work and insight training to recognize our patterns and learn to avoid them when we see them coming, doesnt that prove that between a stimulus and a reaction , there is a space where we can intervrne, or choose between two actions? One coming from impulse or habit and the other from a a softer reconnection to our calmer, more rational version? This doesnt mean we are not victims of our past and tendencies - just that we are victims who are free to recognize the culprit of our ill will and make us able to fight back. Towards change and growth, love and acceptance.
Great video, and thanks for engaging in the comments section. My comment is just a reminder of the abject horror of a sentient being held responsible for mundane free action when their ability to be free in a supra-mundane sense is due to forces outside of their control. Of course we can’t run a society or even a small group without this mundane sense of freedom, which just adds to the horror of it all.
Buddha talked about ordinary everyday actions/choices of people are reflection of conditioned will/ mental fabrications/volitions arising from ignorance. We know our mind and attachment styles are conditioned or programmed even before birth by conditions we are exposed to in developmental psychology and latent tendencies..
I enjoy watching this video very much. So thank you Doug a lot for doing all the researches and making those difficult theories approachable to us! I'd like to put the Buddha's teachings in its contexts, which is, when, where, who, what, why and how he said those words. The same sentence could have different meanings to different people, in different tones, at different times and in different locations. So consider that complexity and try not to interpret those words just by their literal meanings. he Buddha didn't encourage a king to be a monk, but rather, encouraged his friend to be a benevolent king. So I guess the Buddha might say to a modern scientist, whose job is to discover the secret of the world as clearly as possible, that please be a good scientist.
As a long time Determinist, I think you may have shifted my views on this topic slightly. I re-watched this video recently, and I thought I would leave a comment about how my perspective has evolved since I first considered the buddha's (inferred) reasoning on this. So, In my more recent view, to really simplify it down; 1. Awareness precedes Control. Without Awareness, freedom is impossible. 2. The arising of Thoughts, Physical limitations and Reflexive Actions are Determined. 3. Non-Thought (you might say non-reaction), and Non-Action are Free Willed, as they are non-physical phenomena. 4. Achieving the level of mental control necessary to actualise (3) requires Enlightenment. I'm probably faulty with my Logic here. The issue is whether one regards "not reacting" to physical stimuli as a determined (physical) phenomenon or not. If you suspect, as I do, that perhaps non-action is a possible source of freedom from the physical laws - or "Fetters" as the Buddha says - then the next question would be the degree to which you are free to; 1. be made aware of this possible escape. 2. be capable of actualising this ability through gradual training/Sudden ability. In the end, the closest I can get to free will seems to be; Ounce you are made aware of the key to the cell, and when you learn how to turn the key properly, then, and only then, will you have the chance to be free. What do you think?
Well free will doesn't have anything to do with a phenomenon being non-caused or non-physical; it has to do with the phenomenon's causal history. In a nutshell, if an action is caused by our beliefs and desires then it is free, at least in the mundane sense. There is a higher freedom though that comes from purifying those beliefs and desires so that they tend to produce skillful actions.
@@DougsDharma Thank you for the response, Doug, I really appreciate your expert input. The compatibilist description you have given in your response and in the video is fine by me, I feel like the distinction between Hard Determinism and Compatibilism is mostly splitting hairs anyway. I have heard some theorists and philosophers (Zizek to name one), who emphasise the incompleteness or "Gap" in reality - they tend to point to Quantum Indeterminency as suggestive evidence - at the most fundamental scales of physics. My conception of what I called, "Non-action/Non-Thought", is a form of a break in the (mental) causal chain which is potentially similar to Epicurus' Swirve, but is only active as a sort of negative freedom, that is, it allows one to claim a - admittedly narrow and underwhelming - degree of agency through "not-acting" even when compulsions would normally dictate it. I believe Sartre had a similar notion to this in his work "Being and Nothingness" he calls Vertigo, the moment when we recognise that we "could" negate ourselves - or my less extreme example of negating action (non-action) - at any moment. This is shaky ground for sure, I know, as I'm potentially making an unfalsifiable claim here, but then again, so is a particle in superposition before the wave function collapse. This "Gap" in reality, if true, could open the door for a reduced version of libertarian free will to enter. Anyway, enough of my mad ramblings. I thank you kindly if you have read this far, i will leave you in Peace ;]
@@DougsDharma If that was the case people wouldn't get angry at mass murderers or serial killers any more than they get angry at leopards or floods. But they do. That means they do not share the compatibilists' notion of free will.
Once I had a debate with my senior a Psychology major on whether we had free will. We each held on to our views. He then said "I suggest you take Philosophy!"
Free will can be explained in relation to youtube. Everyone is free to watch any videos on youtube without any coercion whatsoever. But given that freedom, each video gets different views. If the owner of youtube asks why some videos get a lot of views and some get a few views then the answer(s) must rely on many factors. These factors, perhaps the interest of the watcher, the time he/she had, and the quality of the video, in a sense constraint him/her as if he/she is not free.
No, you missed the point entirely. The point is that the you that notices decisions and actions, the you that experiences this sentence, cannot be the origin of choices. Ever.
In Buddhism there seems to be at least limited free will, kamma influenced free will. As you mentioned in another video. No free will or all is kamma = fatalism which Buddha opposed.
Nice expository discussion. I really enjoy how you bring things together. My perspective is that the historical Buddha has no need to directly discuss notions of free will for his philosophy has to do with showing a way or method to achieve Nirvana. Freedom is in Nirvana per se. Everything else is an illusion. To reach Nirvana an awakening (bodhi, satori) has to occur. The bodhi, which is mistranslated as enlightenment to fit the Western psyche, is an area left to concepts of epiphany in Western literature (e.g. William Wordsworth's epiphanic mode in his poems, Hermann Hesse's Siddharta) or in Catholic dogma (the eucharist) as well as mysticism (Juan de la Cruz) and the more cultural anthropological Loa (panegyric/prologue) para el auto sacramental de "El Divino Narciso" (Loa to Divine Narcissus) by Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz. The latter fits more into the syncretism of the méti psyche and that has many parallelisms with the syncretic nature of Buddhism.
Thanks Ivan. Interestingly Bhikkhu Bodhi has actually argued quite convincingly in a recent essay that "enlightenment" is a proper translation of nibbāna in English.
@@DougsDharma OK. There is a wonderful German movie translated into English as Enlightenment Guaranteed. Hope you noticed that the lexicon was not my main line of thought. Still, thank you for pointing out that nibbana/Nirvana is that. Are you also saying that satori and bodhi means enlightenment? I only took those two words as awakening. Perhaps you could do a talk about these definitions, according to scholars. I only speak Western languages and cannot argue either way for Oriental vocabulary. Only took an argument I have heard repeatedly so what you are saying now is significant. Please, keep spreading the discourse.
Excellent video! I was looking for a long time for an analysis like this! I would like to ask how this question is percieved by mahayana traditions and how the notion of an individual free will is related to budha nature.
No one can help you. Only you can help yourself. Learn a lot and forget it all. You won't know until you discover the truth for yourself. Everyone can become a Buddha.
I think your peers could follow you and receive your detailed explanation. As a common person with several semesters of college I found it very hard to follow the twisting and winding explanation. Thanks for your time.
So to summarize, i think Buddha did believe in free will, the free will is limited if your mind affected by psycological and mabye material influences, but the more you free yourself from those aspects the «more» free will you have. And i’m unsure what his take would be on determinism in a purley physical world (if such a thing could exist) but i’d guess mabye, yes there could be determinism there.
Again very interesting, fair and open-minded video. I personally went from the viewpoint of Soul/independent internal agent and close to 100% free will to a much more deterministic type of view where life is more like a stage play and everyone plays out their scripted roles. If I go only by my own experience and leave out metyphysical beliefs than there is absolutely nothing that suggests free will. Like you correctly mentioned in the video: if you ask a human being what he consists of he'd respond: "I sir, consist of body and mind (mind being the sum of all thoughts)." Anything beyond that is mere speculation (at least for the vast majority of humans). Now, what percentage of bodily functions or thoughts are in our control? Almost none. So if you consist of body and mind but pretty much do not control them (almost) at all -- what kind of free will is that? And looking at the mechanism of free will more precisely: When you are faced with a situation in life and are "weighing" the different options, how does that exactly work? Usually the different options appear in different thoughts or thought patterns right? Some of these thoughts have a very strong pull and some have less less strong pull---HOWEVER the "free-will-choosing-thought" also comes in the form of ANOTHER thought. There is no difference. It is like that: a situation appears--> Thoughts presents different options in response to that situation, namely Option A,B,C,D,E etc. --> then thought usually presents in an alternating way the possible outcome of the different options --> then thought presents the choosing thought, for example Option B --> then thought adds the "I" thought as "I chose this because this is the wisest course of action" and accordingly a feeling of satisfaction arises in the body. Overall the plane of the mind has never been left in any decision making process. From the beginning to the end it is a conversation of the mind within itself with itself --> crowning one thought as the winner --> attaching the "I chose this" thought afterwards to give the impression of an inner agent having made some sort of free-will-choice.
@@DougsDharma Markus echoes my own understanding. When I attend to my own experience, phenomena come and go, but there is no evidence of a "doer". Without a self or agent, my mind is unable to conceive of the possibility of free will in a meaningful sense. I studied the debates on free will intensely at university as a philosophy major and like Markus, I went into my studies with a Libertarian sense of free will. After years of study and debate on the subject I left with the sense that free will--in any meaningful definition of the word--and causal determinism are incompatible. The problem with Compatibilism, as I see it, is that it changes the definition of free will in order to operate. In the Libertarian sense, free will is the freedom to choose otherwise in every choice. This is the most natural and intuitive concept of free will, and the way that most humans would define it. However, causal determinism is fundamentally at odds with the Libertarian definition of free will. In order to create compatibility, most Compatibilists have changed the defintion of free will (see Principle of Alternate Possibilities for Compatibilist responses). Harry Frankfurt made a valiant attempt to show the possibility of Compatibilism with the Libertarian definition of free will in a series of thought experiments, but ultimately these cases require the addition of "higher order volitions" in order to work and he lacks support to show a connection between higher order volitions and Libertarian free will. Ultimately, Frankfurt's examples are really only useful for showing that situations may exist in which causal determinism and moral responsibility align, and they do little to show that the most intuitive and meaningful definition of free will is compatible with causal determinism. This is all to say that Compatibilists, whether intentionally or not, shift the goal posts on the argument in order to make their case. However I do think Buddhism and Causal Determinism are compatible in all the ways that are meaningful. A lack of free will does not conflict with the truth of suffering or dependent origination. In addition, whether or not free will pertains has no effect on our lived experience. If we hold firmly to the idea that we do not have free will then it can result in nihilism which ultimately results in suffering. If we hold firmly to the idea that we do have free will, then it conflicts with concept of anatta: how can there be free will in any meaningful sense of the term without an independent self or agent of choice? With both of these positions at odds, the skillful means approach is to hold to neither extreme and simply act with compassion for all beings while recognizing the interdependent nature of phenomena.
I would break the categories into 4, not 3: Libertarian free will, compatibilism, determinism, fatalism. Eliminating that third category I think just leaves us with the pandering language of compatibilism which may be good for selling Buddhism to those emerging from Western belief systems but leaves most making the same errors they would under a libertarian belief.
From my understanding, the saying that everything happened due to its cause and conditions doesn’t mean that things are determined. You do need other assumptions to form a concept that things are determined. For example, you assume that an independent time exists, things really exist, things are really produced, etc. One nice saying in the very beginning of Buddhapālita's commentary on Madhyamaka is like this: Someone: Since Buddha has already described dependent origination in great detail, why Nāgārjuna again explain it (and form the writing of Madhyamaka)? Buddhapālita: Although Buddha has already described dependent origination in great detail, with the effect of peoples' worldviews and thoughts (which change over time), many ideas, e.g. things are really produced, become popular. With these ideas or thoughts, some people read and interpret Buddha's text and form the ideas including things absolutely exist, because things are produced, ended, come and go, etc. They misunderstand dependent origination!
The Anattalakana sutta (discourse on not self) denies that any of the pancha khanda (five constituents of experience: form, feeling/sensation, perception/memory, thinking and consciousness) are a permanent soul. He never denies the existence of a self/soul outright. Why do so many Buddhists focus only in the teachings about the conditioned and ignorance the higher teachings on the unconditioned?
Well he denies the existence of anything permanent or unchanging within our conditioned existence, and says that all dharmas, even nibbāna, are "non-self".
@@DougsDharma I’m not aware of a sutta where the Buddha explicitly applies any of the thee characteristics to Nibbana. Nibbana, in my understanding, is the only thing to which anicca, dukkha, and anatta do not apply. There is also the direct experience of modern masters within the Thai Forest Tradition whose experience of liberation includes the knowing of “a consciousness that does not depend on consciousness as its cause” The Buddha only says in reference to whether Nibbana is self or not self that “they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to unbinding (nibbāna). That's why they are undeclared by me.” (MN 63) Only philosophers of later generations get entangled in these questions
In MN 63 the Buddha does not discuss whether nibbāna is not-self; he discusses (and refuses to answer) whether an enlightened being exists/does not exist after death. In the Dhammapada however Dhp. 277-279 are usually interpreted to mean that all conditioned things are impermanent and dukkha, but all things -- incluidng nibbāna -- are non-self.
Our belief of free will and the kind of free will is really inextricably link to our model of reality. Based on the views he rejected and the views that he taught, it would appear to me that reality as viewed by the Buddha is unique to him and to anyone who has attained the enlightenment of the Buddha.
@@DougsDharma That would be from YOUR viewpoint. I've been perplexed by the many paradoxes that seem to pop up when one try to understand the Buddha's utterances on reality in the suttas and in particular in the sutras. Even within vajrayana, different people have different take on what that true reality is. I think the differences come from the different models of reality that each of them has in their mind. Is there a model of reality that would resolve all the paradoxes?
@@samo4003 Ah yes, I think there are inconsistencies between different schools of Buddhism if that's what you're asking. I was talking about early Buddhism in particular.
The opening of the Dhammapada talks about how a man thinks has an affect on him. Although not explicitly speaking on free will it definitely implicitly requires free will to decide. Much as the stoics say, Buddha teaches the mind is the only thing one has control over, so isn’t this a clear example of one deciding how to think and an exercise of free will? Also in many Sutras, the one that most comes to mind is the Lotus Sutra, enlightened beings seemingly conjure up entire worlds and fantastic events at will. Also examples of beings exercising free will. The inter-being teachings for me seem to more deal with the fact that the world is moving and changing - much like wind and weather. In fact the 8 worldly dharmas are sometimes called the 8 worldly winds because they push and pull. When one exercises mindfulness correctly they can identify these pushes and pulls and navigate them much as a sailor pulls sails to travel with and against the wind to maintain their navigation and not lose course. Inter-being ultimately does not negate free will but instead the opposite is true - if one does not recognize inter-being they can not exercise free will because they will be subject to pushing and pulling of forces they are completely unaware of.
One reason I reject the likes of Robert Sapolsky, he is basically a determinist, a fatalist. Given the fact that I can make an actual choice is actual proof of free will. Sure, there are many factors involved with choice, but awareness is the overriding one. The deeper awareness, the greater understanding, the greater scope we have for clarity of choice. Most are going through life in automatic mode, habit is the performative force. That need not be.
So getting deeper into the weeds ;-) Stoicism differs from the Buddha's notional idea of compatiblism, in the sense that it is deterministic or fatalistic (Amor fati). Stoicism dictates that we are to do it all over again in the next life time. In which case what was the point of actions in the quest for eudaimonia? And in the case of Buddhism, isn't the notion of 'Supramundane' and ones ability to attain 'freedom' somewhat elitist in a sense. By which I mean that one has to have a certain degree of intellect to attain insight and then on to freedom from dukkha. In which case does it not imply that not all 'people' are truly sentient?
Thanks for the interesting questions Patrick! I don't think that the Buddhist notions of supramundane freedom (my coining BTW, I don't think it's ever explicitly called that in the texts) depend on a high intellect. They depend on wisdom, which is a different matter. Although often intellect will go along with wisdom, I think one can well imagine someone who is very wise but not very intelligent in the sense let us say of being able to do mathematical exercises or the like. And probably the Buddha was illiterate, FWIW.
Doug's Secular Dharma Do you not think that some are more 'awake' than others? And if one has a feeling of one being more 'awake' than some, is that not egotistical and lacking humility? Dangers lurk in knowledge perhaps. I think Sam Harris is a proponent of Determinism although does he not claim leanings towards Buddhism? Anyway that is probably by the by. Myself personally I am comfortable with the notion of having 'free will' but at the same time realising that it is influenced by causes. Karma...in this lifetime.
I do think that some are wiser, more "awake", than others. As to thinking such a thing, it would lack humility depending on how one clung to it: does one identify with the "I" who is wiser? Does one go around comparing oneself to others in a puffed-up way? Or does one simply think, "Yes, this is the right way to go about things." Of course, one can be somewhere along the spectrum of wisdom, as most all of us are, and have some wisdom and some puffery.
I don't see anything wrong with believing in an immortal soul, which itself may be made of "fine matter" that is also subject to the laws of cause and effect, except for the fact that a firm belief in free will is essential, in my estimation, to being able to make the best decisions we are capable of making by raising the level of our consciousness in order to break free from unproductive subconscious patterns of behavior and by going beyond that even when we utilize the power of our positive emotions and visualization, plus affirmations, in order to reprogram our subconscious minds that do in deed drive most of our behavior (see Dr. Joe Dispenza's work. So yes, let's all believe in free will because even if it is an illusion, it's our illusion, which makes it very real for us!
We are in the middle of a process of choosing. As long as we identify with this process, free will exists. Objectively free will does not exist. Our decisions are determined or random. But subjective truth exists alongside objective one. My pain can be identical as someone else's pain. But my pain is different for me because of its subjective twist. Everyone's will is the same and not free. But my will is free. It's just a matter of perspective. Buddha obviously didn't want people to believe in fatalism because it is another thought/believe input which impacts decision making. It's a kind of a bug in a system, self-reference unsolvable problem with devastating implications.
It literally only exists as a thing in a story you are telling yourself. As a matter of moment to moment experience, there's no free will. It's inserted later in stories about choices that appear in consciousness.
Just to make sure I understand compatibilist free will, let's say you make it to your death bed and you're looking back at your life, does that mean that you did the only thing you possibly could have given the casual chain set off by your environment and genetics? At every given choice in your life, you couldn't have made a different one? Sounds like the path of enlightenment is more simply out of pure luck and is just not in the cards for everyone. Correct me if I've misinterpreted and thanks for the great video!
Compatibilist free will just means that you do what you wanted to do. You could have done otherwise, if you'd wanted different things. (I mean, assuming you actually did have the freedom to do them, for example you weren't too poor or sick, or in jail or something). Some people's wants won't include kindness, wisdom or awakening. That's sad because it's not very skillful.
@@DougsDharma But the fact that you can do what you want and with the teaching of no-self, wouldn't it be fair to say that it was actually impossible to have wanted otherwise at a given past choice? Yeah, I find that very sad as well. What's even more sad is that I see them as a sort of victim of circumstance as well that they don't have any interest in kindness, wisdom, and awakening. I know you may not believe in the idea of karma but I always found it interesting that the buddhists believed in karma and the rejection of any notion of libertarian free will, because even as a compatabilist, I'd have to say that people are purely at the mercy of their biology and environment (both of which they did not choose) so that suggests that the notion of praise or blame doesn't seem very logical. Thanks for the reply!
You could have wanted otherwise if your past had been different. Though I would stress that the Buddha didn't get into these kinds of questions in the texts, most likely because he would have considered them unedifying.
@@DougsDharma Considering almost every compatibilist disagrees with the idea of "I could have done otherwise", their use of the term "free will" is so far removed from most people's egofull conception of freedom that it seems silly to remain attached to the phrase. I think agency is a much better stand-in as it doesn't imply any actual freedom.
@@DougsDharma Wrong. The entire point of free will historically was to justify the torture of people, who were already harmless, especially the torture of people by the Christian god. Out of a hundred philosophically unaware people from the street, how many define "free will" like compatibilists? I'd bet it's less than ten. Most people react very strongly to being made aware of the impossibility of libertarian free will. They wouldn't if compatibilists were right. Indeed if compatibilists were right, then hatred, shame and pride simply would not exist in most people.
Much of our discourse about free will is shaped in turn by western philosophical and religious discourse, and simply isn't relevant to Buddhist. Causality in Buddhism is more fundamental to understanding the universe , whereas free will is a notion that appeals to a Christians sense of (often) individual moral responsibility.
@@DougsDharma People change there beliefs, religion, political parties, sports teams etc. etc. as long as you have variety there will be choices to choose from.
The notion of pre determinism seems almost depressing but the free presbyterians in Scotland find it liberating I think. I get about 80% of what you say but I'll keep trying. I'd like to know about the 10 fetters so that's next
In case where someone takes a gun and robs the store. Where is the mesurment that he did it because of mental ilness or non mental ilness? How can you say that a normal person can do such a thing. He was at least temporary ill. I'm trying to imagine my self picking up a gun and robbing a store and I know I couldn't do it in some peaceful and happy state of mind.
The Buddha does envision that normal people can do pretty terrible things. I agree it's hard to comprehend, but greed, hatred, and ignorance are powerful tendencies.
My meditation experience has led me to the conclusion that there are really 2 fundamental systems operating in the mind; awareness and will. Awareness is 5 physical senses. These are passive. In humans, will is almost entirely expressed in language which is analytic and tendentious. It is directed to solving problems which the 5 senses bring to our awareness. The unconsidered mind, which is one that the person has not reflected on, is usually dominated by will and therefore by language. It is highly reactive and usually compulsively so. The considered mind sees will in the context of awareness. The will becomes aware that the mind is aware, that awareness precedes will and will is conditioned by it. The will becomes aware of this because it’s own compulsive nature causes us to suffer. The will recognises that the person has a choice whether to use and how to use itself. That choice is usually developed in a reflective or mindful manner so that being aware, we observe the effects of wilful action. In this way the will decides whether it’s own actions are skilful. This is the path to liberation in the Buddhist sense. The western concept of free will is also whether we are compelled in our actions or whether we have control over them and has much to do with moral responsibility and therefore accountability to god, or in gods place, to society and its courts (motto of British courts - dieu et mon droit - god is my right). However in the west, the issue is rarely considered in terms of meditative reflection or mindfulness. It is considered in terms of absolutes, soul, grace, essential goodness, but above all of fear (of gods punishment or punishment by his earthly proxies). So the question is whether it is fair to punish a person who has no control over what they do? It is this lack of a more buddhistic construction of free will that has caused westerners such problems with the concept. Western religious practice focuses on prayer. But for most people this is directed outward to an authority figure who we are afraid of offending and is not deliberately a personal reflective process. This lack of understanding of the causes of compulsive behaviour which often has grievous results, famously led Augustine to believe that humans were so irredeemably sinful that it was really up to god whether he could be bothered to save us from hell, there was nothing we could do. This was a sad misdirection of western culture. All will has consequences because this is its purpose. Will presupposes suffering. In “classic” Buddhism (an imprecise term) will is to be relegated to a small function of the mind and the mind abides in awareness. But a problem with this is the suffering of others and it seems to me to have been a longstanding issue in Buddhism that abandoning the will, rather than refining it, is a moral weakness on account of its lack of care. Moreover of course, this is not what the Buddha himself did, since he devoted himself to teaching. This trade off between care and karma seems to me to be a profound problem in Buddhism and one that is rarely clearly or explicitly addressed.
Thanks for your comments BenjaminFranklin. It's a common misunderstanding that Buddhism is "non-dualistic". Non-dualism as such arose sometime in the Common Era of Buddhist thinking, but is not part of the early teaching. For more on this see: www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_27.html
Well yes, one traditional Christian theological interpretation is that the fall was due to libertarian free will. That said, libertarian free will isn’t really compatible with early Buddhism.
Actual free will seems to be logically impossible, and I don't think Buddha endorsed it in any way. Galen Strawson's article 'The Impossibility Of Moral Responsibility' and his book 'Freedom and Belief' are convincing to me. The article is available for free, just Google it.
@@DougsDharma I find the concept of responsibility quite problematic. It is clear that bad actions produce bad karma and so on, and that there is an objective moral reality bringing about these effects, but there is no element of punishment or desert in any form of Buddhism that I'm familiar with. Karma is not something we 'earn', but simply something that happens by natural law. To say that one is 'responsible' for something, in Buddhism, is not - I think - easily understood. But if one says 'your unskillful action towards another produces bad karma for you, a bad consequence in an equivalent degree with the action', this is extremely well understood. Buddhist teachings tell us to be mindful of our thoughts for they become actions and actions become our destiny. The key to Buddhist freedom is mindfulness and understanding that comes from the dhamma.
@@steve5123456789 Decisions can be made but not autonomously. You can't decide what your motivations are. That's the key thing. Another thing is that in order to be autonomous you should be able to will - freely - also the opposite that you're in fact willing, but you can't. But think about this: how does one autonomously choose what one is motivated to do?
Absolutely wrong theology of Upanishads is no way similar to Catholic Church, Upanishads terminology of what the refer to brahman is more compatible with shunyata of nagarjuna than with Christian notion of soul. and Upanishads are deterministic not libertarian in their teachings I guess instead of making everything black and white comparing everything you must know Upanishads influenced and have been influenced by Buddhism. these traditions are actually more similar in their viewpoint than to western ideas.
You brought up the atomic level, but on a Quantum level, reality takes a twist, which Hindu Yogi's are familiar with. In quantum physics there's the dual slit experiment which is used to map out light particle patterns. However, the experiment can't be done with human intervention. As soon as a human looks at it, the particle patterns reset themselves. They've done experiments with people meditating and who could control the patterns through thought or imagination. This begs the question, how much of our reality is controlled by thought patterns itself, and if we can use thought to control Quantum particles, can our thoughts dictate future outcomes, which historical figures in Hindu were able to do. Just a thought, no pun intended :)
Hi J Norfleet and thanks for your comment. Personally I'd be skeptical of those Yogi claims to affect experimental results in quantum mechanics. Quantum weirdness is very real, but it doesn't have to do with human intervention. Any large-scale measuring device will do the trick, indeed it's the measuring devices that cause the changes, not the humans. At any rate the Buddha didn't know anything about quantum mechanics. 🙂
@@DougsDharma, thanks for the reply. It's not just Hinduism, Christianity is based on somebody who turned water into wine ;) I have to respectfully disagree with measuring devices causing nuances. If a device were causing the pattern shift, then the patterns would be consistent and the outcome predictable, but they're not. Meditators are told to think right or left, and this is where the particles accumulate. They've also done experiments with people who are not used to meditating, but they don't have the success rate.
Hi J Norfleet. The patterns are extremely consistent but only statistically so. If these meditators are actually doing what they claimed they would get a Nobel Prize for it. My expectation is that something simpler is going on ... 😉
@@DougsDharma, depends on what you're measuring for. When we measure for waves electrons act like a wave. When we measure for particles the electron wave breaks down and there's no more interference from probability waves. The electrons know what the sensors (extension of human consciousness) are looking for and act in accordance. The measurement problem itself shows there is a deeper relationship between the observer and observed system.
It’s becomes so much easier imo to be compassionate to people when you let go of the idea of free will and see everyone’s behavior as well as aspects of their character as products of factors outside of their control. This doesn’t mean intention and choices and habits don’t matter or have significant impact but that you don’t have to hate or wish suffering upon people for having the wrong intentions or choices or habits.
@@ataraxia7439 we have free will…Gautuma Buddha is WRONG. Bye
How so?@@michaelbrickley2443
Free will in Buddhism is the ability to do things freely by conditions of cause and effect not by anyone choices.
You are doing a great job for humanity by spreading Buddha dharma , this time for Sammasum Shakyamuni Buddha .
Thanks for the kind words Absolute Nice. 🙏
@@DougsDharma Yes Sir , one should spread the dhamma in its essence . Its not the Buddha he chooses to be a guide , Buddha never took the role of a savior or talked about God . Therefore his doctrines are an end to find our truly awakened selves . Buddha want to create other Buddhisattva , other beings who are able to liberate others . Therefore Buddhas relied on Buddhisattva qualities , in fact one more step than Arahant so that we can understand the four truths ourselves .
✌✌
In the modern world , we have no time to spare to become Arahants but knowing the eightfold path and the four truths in itself is so liberating and you are spreading it . ✌✌
I'm a philosophy student who has pretty much exclusively studied western thinkers and a desire to explore Buddhist/eastern philosophy and spirituality brought me to your channel. So far I have been really delighted with the strength of the Buddha's teachings with regards to metaphysical issues like the self and free-will. Western (monotheistic) religions seem, generally, to be devoted to a metaphysics that I find entirely unconvincing and this is something that has pushed me away from taking religious teachings seriously until now. Subbed to the channel. Do you have a discord or any similar kind of place where your community can have discussions other than youtube comment sections?
Great question Joe. I don't have a discord set up yet, though I've been considering doing one through my Patreon page. We'll see. (Main issue is I'm kind of loath to have to become a Mod again ...)
Hey there Joe ! Buddha's Teachings are Primarily Philosophical in Nature. That's why they are so good ! The Religious Parts are, if I am not mistaken, not even 15 % of All of Buddha's teachings. So, it's time to celebrate Buddha as a Philosopher, instead of a religious leader ...
@@DipayanPyne94 ---I would totally disagree Dipayan. Buddhism is really an anti-philosphy. The 4 noble truths and the eightfold path are not something to be discussed or analysed. Rather, it is meant to be experienced.
@@joshboston2323 What is 'Experienced' is considered to be a part of 'Empiricism', Epistemologically speaking. It's Philosophy as well. I mean, Buddha was, basically, an Empiricist, as demonstrated by K. N. Jayatilleke, in his Masterpiece, 'Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge'. So, you're just mistaken ...
@@DipayanPyne94 --I guess that is true in a way. I have no problem with the way you phrased that. Semantics is a big factor in this discussion.
Now, I guess what I meant to convey is that words and theories, used so often in philosophy, hinder us from realizing what is actually the essence of the path. Ultimately we want to move beyond philosophy; beyond concepts.
Now, it might be the case that I am simply defining philosophy in too narrow a manner, but I hope you understand what I mean.
Why not just call it conditioned/conditionable will? The word free will just elicits the libertarian extreme.
That's one option Luv, thanks!
I've heard a term called "soft determinism" that I like. A middle ground between free will and determinism.
Hi Doug, The writer Phillip Roth, in deprecating Jewish humour, when asked do you believe in free will, reputedly replied "Do I have a choice?" The root of the word hope I believe is to bend towards, I think that gives room for hope. Thank you kindly for your teachings,, when I return to them it is as cool drink of water quenching a spiritual thirst.
Very kind of you James. Yes, I don't think we can really give up free will. We just have to find what phenomena are really involved in it.
@@DougsDharma
Of course you can. You have already completely given up free will the moment before you turned to compatibilism.
It's just a matter of remembering and thinking things through.
Instead of jumping at the first feeling of anger, you can recognize that the actor of bad deeds is not the entity that will suffer a sadistic punishment. They cannot logically be identical. If you understand that, you're free from free will.
Thank you Sir, I really enjoyed listening to you.I have been listening to you in the morning and night.I find it very meaningful to how we carry ourselves in our daily life.
Wonderful, thanks for listening Nellie! 🙏
thanks for the video, i've been struggling with free will and determinism for the past 2 years and this video makes me feel a little better
Glad I could help!
The individual and environment cannot be separated
It seems like compatiblism is just a variety of fatalism that takes the time to label parts of a causal chain (namely those involving certain mental states like desiring a future action) as “freedom”. It seems as though fundamentally, compatiblism does not acknowledge any uncaused origin (ex.self/god) for a choice, and so it counts as a type fatalism. Compatibilism seems like fatalism decorated with emergent/supervening mental constructs like beliefs, preferences, desires, intentions/etc. What am I missing?
Well compatibilism is not fatalism; in fatalism there is nothing we can do to change what happens to us. In compatibilism we could change anything we wanted to. The other problem is that the alternative, that of an “uncaused origin” is actually incoherent when you really consider it. None of our decisions are ever “uncaused”, they depend on prior beliefs about the way the world is, and desires we have to change what is around us. For a decision of ours to be “uncaused” it would have to be random, like a twitch.
Doug's Dharma I guess I am pointing out that compatiblism does not actually permit choosing, but rather labeling those “choosing” events with psychological constructs, but ultimately acknowledges a deterministic chain. In other words, compatibilism is accounting for the illusion of choice, and still counts as a species or type of fatalism. Other kinds of fatalism (besides compatiblism) may not take the time to account for these illusions - for example, they may just stipulate Newtonian physics and deny the existence of psychological constructs like desires or preferences or intentions. I agree with the second part of your comment, which I take to be an argument for compatiblism. What I am arguing is that most compatiblists don’t acknowledge that they are actually fatalists of a certain type, a fatalist with an ontology of psychological constructs, which are used to account for the illusion of choice. By the way, I love your videos.
Dough, I have been following your videos for the last few months.Your research and presentation is very good. The subject of free will is very difficult to comprehend when our lifespan is considered limited to the present one. However when we consider our life to continue and also to have existed earlier, then free will and the result of previous actions become more comprehensible.
To me it seems that the results of previous karma, which consitute the already determined fate, and free will as of NOW exist together. By the removal of the fetters (including delusion), we free ourselves completely.
I was attracted to buddhist teaching due to following reasons:
1. It is based on facts & reality as actually realized by the Buddha.
2. It can be examined by science. No blind beliefs.
3. Good in the beginning, middle and end.
4. If one falters or goes astray we can get up and come back on track.
5. Buddhist teachings are secular by nature. I sometimes wonder whether there is any requirement to call your website secular buddhism.
I live in India and have visited the main buddhist places of importance.
Best Wishes
Thanks very much for your comment Rajendra. 🙏
Agree, determined choices may be important. Responsibilty is not to be owned as me and mine, but just a collabration of interaction that responds according to arbitary standards with a set of skills to do that.
That's right optizap. Thanks!
I think this is an incredibly important topic - thank you so much - it helps get us out of thinking that fuels existentialism and problems that flow from tunnel thinking based on what evolved into Christian thinking
🙏😊
I take the viewpoint that the massive scale events of the Universe, unimaginable, incomprehensible to the degree our infinitesmal minds would implode even if we could take in so much data... such as what 'The Great Attractor' is that is outside the observable universe, galaxies colliding and merging, or even the 'smaller' Black Holes, the whole overall flow of the Universe at maximum scale.. that's all largely pre-determined by the fundamental forces of Reality.
However, at our much smaller scale, all life is capable to some degree of independent movement, therefore capable of choice. We are all but microbes trying to understand what New York City is, and why it exists. We are all but gnats in a blast furnace.
@8:15 afaik in early Buddhism ownership=complete control.
"If anything could be called my own self, then I should have full control over it, so that it behaves in the way I want it to behave. If something is really my own, I should be able to exercise full mastery, full sovereignty over it. Otherwise, how can I call it my own? This is how Buddhism understands the idea of ownership or possession. Since we do not have full control over our possessions, when something adverse happens to them, it is we who come to grief. So it is our possessions that really possess us." (Y. Karunadasa, Early Buddhist
Teachings The Middle Position in Theory and Practice)
Exactly so. I discussed some of this in my discussion of the Buddha's Second Sermon: ruclips.net/video/Ro0BV84dci4/видео.html
Isn’t right effort built on the idea of some underlying belief in our ability to pick wisely between options? That ability to pick correct choice increases with our awareness of our mental states.
Exactly so. In order to put effort into the right direction we have to be able to pick wisely. That ability increases with our mindful awareness of the results of our actions.
And that all depends in having the right information. Problem I see is, information, especially when it comes to human life decisions is highly contextual. Also, it is impossible to have complete knowledge.
@@rexaustin2885 the right information is captured under “right view” (samma ditti). Like you said it’s hard to have that information ahead of time. Morality, concentration and wisdom keep feeding each other till your mental model is perfectly aligned with right view.
@@shantanushekharsjunerft9783 so simple, right?
Obviously we are not free to think our thoughts (if that was the case, we should be able to think them before we think them). Also, our thoughts are the foundation upon which our intentions and actions rest. This however does not mean that choices do not exist. We can choose, we just are not free to choose. Some choices are wiser than others obviously, but we should be gentle and forgiving to those who make errors (including ourselves), since they are not free to do otherwise.
This is great quality. Thank you so much
You're very welcome!
I love these more philosophical videos you've made.
Thanks Antonious! It's kind of my background.
Thanks Doug. You are obviously well read on this topic, however, the philosophical debate left me with the image of a dog chasing its own tail. You are probably correct that the Buddha would not have devoted much time to this topic.
Life is much simpler. Taoism loves using the idea of a river in its teachings. The water moves on to its destination in the sea without intentionally striving to force its way in a particular direction or demanding to know where it is going. If it meets a rock, it will flow around it and the obstacle will eventually wear away. If it floods, it takes the shape of the lowest land it meets.
It is probably enough to live without illusion, 'ignorance' in Buddhist terms. Simply being mindful in this moment is sufficient and Right Action will follow naturally. Everything rises and falls. Considering the mechanics behind it might easily become a diversion from what is truly important.
Thanks martynsnan, I think you're right that getting too deep into the weeds on this question isn't likely to be very helpful to us, but it does seem to be a perennial topic of discussion, for whatever reason! 🙂
I like your feedback in many many ways. But in a practical sense, you do need to plan ahead in order to achieve the state of water for a complicated task. Say planning for your wedding, etc. Obviously, you cannot just do a crappy job and attribute that failure to the water philosophy. You still have to take that responsibility for not having the perfect wisdom, and not doing your homework planning ahead.
Food Meditation, you're right, of course. I buy food in the expectation that I shall live long enough to eat it. One day, unknown to me, that expectation will fail. That's the way we work in this life with our sense of survival being one of the strongest we have.
Where we can flow is by accepting that we have never had any real control over how or where events will arise or disappear. I can plan for a situation but I cannot guarantee a particular outcome. If I cling to the result that I want to happen, I may become fearful that it might fail or even be dissatisfied if it succeeds in an unexpected way. It is by accepting constant changing and flowing with it that worrying disappears and every day on my journey becomes an adventure.
I agree that accepting failure is a necessary lesson along the journey. But there's gotta be an ultimate goal, otherwise, life becomes meaningless. Observing the natural law doesn't mean you cannot try to create something out of it. You can certainly put water in a fridge, turn it into ice, and make a refreshing drink out of it during hot summer. I believe humans can modify nature a little bit and still feel comfortable.
In addition, what is natural? Is sex natural? I think that really depends on the audience. For Buddha, sex is not even necessary after he achieved enlightenment. For most people, however, sex becomes "natural" because it usually happens out of our control. What we deem as natural, is usually limited by where we stand and how much we understand about the universe. There's no end to learning, so don't put un limit to people and close the door to the wonders that might come out of the unknown area.
Last but not least, the fact that I could be killed during my preparation of a meal is extremely rare. I don't believe I should cancel eating just because of that. The Buddha talks about the middle path, which I believe is relevant to those who "has gone forth", don't engage in sensual pleasures or self-afflictions. The middle path will lead to self-awakening.
Loved the video ! Tend to struggle with this theme and always try to look for solace. I think reality itself proves that pure determinism or fatalism are not observable. I tend to see psychological or behaviourial change as a proof of that. If we can change, even if we are suggested to do so, if we are able through hard work and insight training to recognize our patterns and learn to avoid them when we see them coming, doesnt that prove that between a stimulus and a reaction , there is a space where we can intervrne, or choose between two actions? One coming from impulse or habit and the other from a a softer reconnection to our calmer, more rational version? This doesnt mean we are not victims of our past and tendencies - just that we are victims who are free to recognize the culprit of our ill will and make us able to fight back. Towards change and growth, love and acceptance.
Yes well said!
Great video, and thanks for engaging in the comments section. My comment is just a reminder of the abject horror of a sentient being held responsible for mundane free action when their ability to be free in a supra-mundane sense is due to forces outside of their control. Of course we can’t run a society or even a small group without this mundane sense of freedom, which just adds to the horror of it all.
It's tough sometimes isn't it David. But ... there we are.
Buddha talked about ordinary everyday actions/choices of people are reflection of conditioned will/ mental fabrications/volitions arising from ignorance. We know our mind and attachment styles are conditioned or programmed even before birth by conditions we are exposed to in developmental psychology and latent tendencies..
Indeed so Susmita. We are all caught in the causes and conditions of saṃsāra.
I enjoy watching this video very much. So thank you Doug a lot for doing all the researches and making those difficult theories approachable to us!
I'd like to put the Buddha's teachings in its contexts, which is, when, where, who, what, why and how he said those words. The same sentence could have different meanings to different people, in different tones, at different times and in different locations. So consider that complexity and try not to interpret those words just by their literal meanings.
he Buddha didn't encourage a king to be a monk, but rather, encouraged his friend to be a benevolent king. So I guess the Buddha might say to a modern scientist, whose job is to discover the secret of the world as clearly as possible, that please be a good scientist.
Absolutely, thanks FM!
Why don't you Buddhists come to bodhgaya bihar u will get nirvana by visiting bodhgaya
As a long time Determinist, I think you may have shifted my views on this topic slightly. I re-watched this video recently, and I thought I would leave a comment about how my perspective has evolved since I first considered the buddha's (inferred) reasoning on this.
So, In my more recent view, to really simplify it down;
1. Awareness precedes Control. Without Awareness, freedom is impossible.
2. The arising of Thoughts, Physical limitations and Reflexive Actions are Determined.
3. Non-Thought (you might say non-reaction), and Non-Action are Free Willed, as they are non-physical phenomena.
4. Achieving the level of mental control necessary to actualise (3) requires Enlightenment.
I'm probably faulty with my Logic here. The issue is whether one regards "not reacting" to physical stimuli as a determined (physical) phenomenon or not. If you suspect, as I do, that perhaps non-action is a possible source of freedom from the physical laws - or "Fetters" as the Buddha says - then the next question would be the degree to which you are free to;
1. be made aware of this possible escape.
2. be capable of actualising this ability through gradual training/Sudden ability.
In the end, the closest I can get to free will seems to be;
Ounce you are made aware of the key to the cell, and when you learn how to turn the key properly, then, and only then, will you have the chance to be free.
What do you think?
Well free will doesn't have anything to do with a phenomenon being non-caused or non-physical; it has to do with the phenomenon's causal history. In a nutshell, if an action is caused by our beliefs and desires then it is free, at least in the mundane sense. There is a higher freedom though that comes from purifying those beliefs and desires so that they tend to produce skillful actions.
@@DougsDharma Thank you for the response, Doug, I really appreciate your expert input. The compatibilist description you have given in your response and in the video is fine by me, I feel like the distinction between Hard Determinism and Compatibilism is mostly splitting hairs anyway.
I have heard some theorists and philosophers (Zizek to name one), who emphasise the incompleteness or "Gap" in reality - they tend to point to Quantum Indeterminency as suggestive evidence - at the most fundamental scales of physics.
My conception of what I called, "Non-action/Non-Thought", is a form of a break in the (mental) causal chain which is potentially similar to Epicurus' Swirve, but is only active as a sort of negative freedom, that is, it allows one to claim a - admittedly narrow and underwhelming - degree of agency through "not-acting" even when compulsions would normally dictate it. I believe Sartre had a similar notion to this in his work "Being and Nothingness" he calls Vertigo, the moment when we recognise that we "could" negate ourselves - or my less extreme example of negating action (non-action) - at any moment. This is shaky ground for sure, I know, as I'm potentially making an unfalsifiable claim here, but then again, so is a particle in superposition before the wave function collapse. This "Gap" in reality, if true, could open the door for a reduced version of libertarian free will to enter.
Anyway, enough of my mad ramblings. I thank you kindly if you have read this far, i will leave you in Peace ;]
@@DougsDharma
If that was the case people wouldn't get angry at mass murderers or serial killers any more than they get angry at leopards or floods.
But they do. That means they do not share the compatibilists' notion of free will.
Sadhu sadhu
Thank you Doug!!!
You're very welcome!
Once I had a debate with my senior a Psychology major on whether we had free will. We each held on to our views. He then said "I suggest you take Philosophy!"
Good suggestion!
Free will can be explained in relation to youtube. Everyone is free to watch any videos on youtube without any coercion whatsoever. But given that freedom, each video gets different views. If the owner of youtube asks why some videos get a lot of views and some get a few views then the answer(s) must rely on many factors. These factors, perhaps the interest of the watcher, the time he/she had, and the quality of the video, in a sense constraint him/her as if he/she is not free.
Great points Surabaya, thanks!
You're welcome. Your video is great too.
No, you missed the point entirely.
The point is that the you that notices decisions and actions, the you that experiences this sentence, cannot be the origin of choices. Ever.
@@MrCmon113 okay
there is no control only ideas of control, there is only the ever flow of what is
In Buddhism there seems to be at least limited free will, kamma influenced free will. As you mentioned in another video. No free will or all is kamma = fatalism which Buddha opposed.
Yes. There is no room for right effort if fatalism is true.
I listen to these deep Buddhist philosophical videos in the vipassana meditation posture to help me easily imbibe them.
It is a very comfortable posture! Thanks Sam.
Nice expository discussion. I really enjoy how you bring things together. My perspective is that the historical Buddha has no need to directly discuss notions of free will for his philosophy has to do with showing a way or method to achieve Nirvana. Freedom is in Nirvana per se. Everything else is an illusion. To reach Nirvana an awakening (bodhi, satori) has to occur. The bodhi, which is mistranslated as enlightenment to fit the Western psyche, is an area left to concepts of epiphany in Western literature (e.g. William Wordsworth's epiphanic mode in his poems, Hermann Hesse's Siddharta) or in Catholic dogma (the eucharist) as well as mysticism (Juan de la Cruz) and the more cultural anthropological Loa (panegyric/prologue) para el auto sacramental de "El Divino Narciso" (Loa to Divine Narcissus) by Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz. The latter fits more into the syncretism of the méti psyche and that has many parallelisms with the syncretic nature of Buddhism.
Thanks Ivan. Interestingly Bhikkhu Bodhi has actually argued quite convincingly in a recent essay that "enlightenment" is a proper translation of nibbāna in English.
@@DougsDharma OK. There is a wonderful German movie translated into English as Enlightenment Guaranteed. Hope you noticed that the lexicon was not my main line of thought. Still, thank you for pointing out that nibbana/Nirvana is that. Are you also saying that satori and bodhi means enlightenment? I only took those two words as awakening. Perhaps you could do a talk about these definitions, according to scholars. I only speak Western languages and cannot argue either way for Oriental vocabulary. Only took an argument I have heard repeatedly so what you are saying now is significant. Please, keep spreading the discourse.
Excellent video! I was looking for a long time for an analysis like this! I would like to ask how this question is percieved by mahayana traditions and how the notion of an individual free will is related to budha nature.
Interesting question, I don't think the answer would necessarily be any different, though it might depend on what one understood Buddha nature to be.
I view free will as the freedom of choice to surrender my personal will or ego in any situation
Thanks for your thoughts Raymond!
No one can help you. Only you can help yourself. Learn a lot and forget it all. You won't know until you discover the truth for yourself. Everyone can become a Buddha.
I think your peers could follow you and receive your detailed explanation. As a common person with several semesters of college I found it very hard to follow the twisting and winding explanation. Thanks for your time.
Yes, free will can be a bit of a rabbit hole. If you let me know where you were confused I could try to clear up questions. 🙏
Seeing the chain of dependent origination is through the wisdom, not self.
🙏
I think Nagarjuna explained it deeply, the Sunnata point of view. And all is bounded to "cause-effect".
Yes a lot of this is interrelated.
Free will is just the belife that the ego has control
Buddha told us to Free our Spirit(Will) from Pain BUT we need to train our Sathi through Samathi and Panya.
Yes that's right madjo23!
So to summarize, i think Buddha did believe in free will, the free will is limited if your mind affected by psycological and mabye material influences, but the more you free yourself from those aspects the «more» free will you have. And i’m unsure what his take would be on determinism in a purley physical world (if such a thing could exist) but i’d guess mabye, yes there could be determinism there.
Again very interesting, fair and open-minded video.
I personally went from the viewpoint of Soul/independent internal agent and close to 100% free will to a much more deterministic type of view where life is more like a stage play and everyone plays out their scripted roles. If I go only by my own experience and leave out metyphysical beliefs than there is absolutely nothing that suggests free will. Like you correctly mentioned in the video: if you ask a human being what he consists of he'd respond: "I sir, consist of body and mind (mind being the sum of all thoughts)." Anything beyond that is mere speculation (at least for the vast majority of humans). Now, what percentage of bodily functions or thoughts are in our control? Almost none. So if you consist of body and mind but pretty much do not control them (almost) at all -- what kind of free will is that?
And looking at the mechanism of free will more precisely: When you are faced with a situation in life and are "weighing" the different options, how does that exactly work? Usually the different options appear in different thoughts or thought patterns right? Some of these thoughts have a very strong pull and some have less less strong pull---HOWEVER the "free-will-choosing-thought" also comes in the form of ANOTHER thought. There is no difference. It is like that: a situation appears--> Thoughts presents different options in response to that situation, namely Option A,B,C,D,E etc. --> then thought usually presents in an alternating way the possible outcome of the different options --> then thought presents the choosing thought, for example Option B --> then thought adds the "I" thought as "I chose this because this is the wisest course of action" and accordingly a feeling of satisfaction arises in the body.
Overall the plane of the mind has never been left in any decision making process. From the beginning to the end it is a conversation of the mind within itself with itself --> crowning one thought as the winner --> attaching the "I chose this" thought afterwards to give the impression of an inner agent having made some sort of free-will-choice.
Yes, and a lot of this is actually subconscious.
@@DougsDharma Markus echoes my own understanding. When I attend to my own experience, phenomena come and go, but there is no evidence of a "doer". Without a self or agent, my mind is unable to conceive of the possibility of free will in a meaningful sense.
I studied the debates on free will intensely at university as a philosophy major and like Markus, I went into my studies with a Libertarian sense of free will. After years of study and debate on the subject I left with the sense that free will--in any meaningful definition of the word--and causal determinism are incompatible. The problem with Compatibilism, as I see it, is that it changes the definition of free will in order to operate. In the Libertarian sense, free will is the freedom to choose otherwise in every choice. This is the most natural and intuitive concept of free will, and the way that most humans would define it. However, causal determinism is fundamentally at odds with the Libertarian definition of free will. In order to create compatibility, most Compatibilists have changed the defintion of free will (see Principle of Alternate Possibilities for Compatibilist responses). Harry Frankfurt made a valiant attempt to show the possibility of Compatibilism with the Libertarian definition of free will in a series of thought experiments, but ultimately these cases require the addition of "higher order volitions" in order to work and he lacks support to show a connection between higher order volitions and Libertarian free will. Ultimately, Frankfurt's examples are really only useful for showing that situations may exist in which causal determinism and moral responsibility align, and they do little to show that the most intuitive and meaningful definition of free will is compatible with causal determinism.
This is all to say that Compatibilists, whether intentionally or not, shift the goal posts on the argument in order to make their case.
However I do think Buddhism and Causal Determinism are compatible in all the ways that are meaningful. A lack of free will does not conflict with the truth of suffering or dependent origination. In addition, whether or not free will pertains has no effect on our lived experience. If we hold firmly to the idea that we do not have free will then it can result in nihilism which ultimately results in suffering. If we hold firmly to the idea that we do have free will, then it conflicts with concept of anatta: how can there be free will in any meaningful sense of the term without an independent self or agent of choice? With both of these positions at odds, the skillful means approach is to hold to neither extreme and simply act with compassion for all beings while recognizing the interdependent nature of phenomena.
I would break the categories into 4, not 3: Libertarian free will, compatibilism, determinism, fatalism. Eliminating that third category I think just leaves us with the pandering language of compatibilism which may be good for selling Buddhism to those emerging from Western belief systems but leaves most making the same errors they would under a libertarian belief.
Which errors do you see people making then?
There is volition formation at second place in dependent origination list. Then we must have free will.
Yes I'd say so, though to my knowledge the Buddha doesn't really talk about freedom with respect to the saṅkhāras.
From my understanding, the saying that everything happened due to its cause and conditions doesn’t mean that things are determined. You do need other assumptions to form a concept that things are determined. For example, you assume that an independent time exists, things really exist, things are really produced, etc.
One nice saying in the very beginning of Buddhapālita's commentary on Madhyamaka is like this:
Someone: Since Buddha has already described dependent origination in great detail, why Nāgārjuna again explain it (and form the writing of Madhyamaka)?
Buddhapālita: Although Buddha has already described dependent origination in great detail, with the effect of peoples' worldviews and thoughts (which change over time), many ideas, e.g. things are really produced, become popular. With these ideas or thoughts, some people read and interpret Buddha's text and form the ideas including things absolutely exist, because things are produced, ended, come and go, etc. They misunderstand dependent origination!
Well yes, it also depends on what one means by words like "thing" and "exist".
Mind bogling.
Well it does take a way of looking at freedom that is somewhat different from that normally discussed in for example theological circles.
The Anattalakana sutta (discourse on not self) denies that any of the pancha khanda (five constituents of experience: form, feeling/sensation, perception/memory, thinking and consciousness) are a permanent soul. He never denies the existence of a self/soul outright. Why do so many Buddhists focus only in the teachings about the conditioned and ignorance the higher teachings on the unconditioned?
Well he denies the existence of anything permanent or unchanging within our conditioned existence, and says that all dharmas, even nibbāna, are "non-self".
@@DougsDharma I’m not aware of a sutta where the Buddha explicitly applies any of the thee characteristics to Nibbana. Nibbana, in my understanding, is the only thing to which anicca, dukkha, and anatta do not apply. There is also the direct experience of modern masters within the Thai Forest Tradition whose experience of liberation includes the knowing of “a consciousness that does not depend on consciousness as its cause”
The Buddha only says in reference to whether Nibbana is self or not self that “they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to unbinding (nibbāna). That's why they are undeclared by me.” (MN 63)
Only philosophers of later generations get entangled in these questions
In MN 63 the Buddha does not discuss whether nibbāna is not-self; he discusses (and refuses to answer) whether an enlightened being exists/does not exist after death. In the Dhammapada however Dhp. 277-279 are usually interpreted to mean that all conditioned things are impermanent and dukkha, but all things -- incluidng nibbāna -- are non-self.
Our belief of free will and the kind of free will is really inextricably link to our model of reality. Based on the views he rejected and the views that he taught, it would appear to me that reality as viewed by the Buddha is unique to him and to anyone who has attained the enlightenment of the Buddha.
Maybe so Sam, but the view of reality the Buddha provides isn't so very unusual.
@@DougsDharma That would be from YOUR viewpoint. I've been perplexed by the many paradoxes that seem to pop up when one try to understand the Buddha's utterances on reality in the suttas and in particular in the sutras. Even within vajrayana, different people have different take on what that true reality is. I think the differences come from the different models of reality that each of them has in their mind. Is there a model of reality that would resolve all the paradoxes?
@@samo4003 Ah yes, I think there are inconsistencies between different schools of Buddhism if that's what you're asking. I was talking about early Buddhism in particular.
Whose model of reality? Because it doesn't fit in mine whatsoever.
@@MrCmon113 It doesn't fit precisely because you have your own different model of reality.
The opening of the Dhammapada talks about how a man thinks has an affect on him. Although not explicitly speaking on free will it definitely implicitly requires free will to decide. Much as the stoics say, Buddha teaches the mind is the only thing one has control over, so isn’t this a clear example of one deciding how to think and an exercise of free will?
Also in many Sutras, the one that most comes to mind is the Lotus Sutra, enlightened beings seemingly conjure up entire worlds and fantastic events at will. Also examples of beings exercising free will.
The inter-being teachings for me seem to more deal with the fact that the world is moving and changing - much like wind and weather. In fact the 8 worldly dharmas are sometimes called the 8 worldly winds because they push and pull. When one exercises mindfulness correctly they can identify these pushes and pulls and navigate them much as a sailor pulls sails to travel with and against the wind to maintain their navigation and not lose course. Inter-being ultimately does not negate free will but instead the opposite is true - if one does not recognize inter-being they can not exercise free will because they will be subject to pushing and pulling of forces they are completely unaware of.
🙏😊
I feel Buddhism and existentialism are compatible at least to me they are.
Yes, maybe so!
One reason I reject the likes of Robert Sapolsky, he is basically a determinist, a fatalist. Given the fact that I can make an actual choice is actual proof of free will. Sure, there are many factors involved with choice, but awareness is the overriding one. The deeper awareness, the greater understanding, the greater scope we have for clarity of choice. Most are going through life in automatic mode, habit is the performative force. That need not be.
So getting deeper into the weeds ;-) Stoicism differs from the Buddha's notional idea of compatiblism, in the sense that it is deterministic or fatalistic (Amor fati). Stoicism dictates that we are to do it all over again in the next life time. In which case what was the point of actions in the quest for eudaimonia? And in the case of Buddhism, isn't the notion of 'Supramundane' and ones ability to attain 'freedom' somewhat elitist in a sense. By which I mean that one has to have a certain degree of intellect to attain insight and then on to freedom from dukkha. In which case does it not imply that not all 'people' are truly sentient?
Thanks for the interesting questions Patrick! I don't think that the Buddhist notions of supramundane freedom (my coining BTW, I don't think it's ever explicitly called that in the texts) depend on a high intellect. They depend on wisdom, which is a different matter. Although often intellect will go along with wisdom, I think one can well imagine someone who is very wise but not very intelligent in the sense let us say of being able to do mathematical exercises or the like. And probably the Buddha was illiterate, FWIW.
Doug's Secular Dharma Do you not think that some are more 'awake' than others? And if one has a feeling of one being more 'awake' than some, is that not egotistical and lacking humility? Dangers lurk in knowledge perhaps.
I think Sam Harris is a proponent of Determinism although does he not claim leanings towards Buddhism? Anyway that is probably by the by. Myself personally I am comfortable with the notion of having 'free will' but at the same time realising that it is influenced by causes. Karma...in this lifetime.
I do think that some are wiser, more "awake", than others. As to thinking such a thing, it would lack humility depending on how one clung to it: does one identify with the "I" who is wiser? Does one go around comparing oneself to others in a puffed-up way? Or does one simply think, "Yes, this is the right way to go about things." Of course, one can be somewhere along the spectrum of wisdom, as most all of us are, and have some wisdom and some puffery.
your good thanks
Thanks for watching!
Great
I don't see anything wrong with believing in an immortal soul, which itself may be made of "fine matter" that is also subject to the laws of cause and effect, except for the fact that a firm belief in free will is essential, in my estimation, to being able to make the best decisions we are capable of making by raising the level of our consciousness in order to break free from unproductive subconscious patterns of behavior and by going beyond that even when we utilize the power of our positive emotions and visualization, plus affirmations, in order to reprogram our subconscious minds that do in deed drive most of our behavior (see Dr. Joe Dispenza's work. So yes, let's all believe in free will because even if it is an illusion, it's our illusion, which makes it very real for us!
I wonder what the buddha would think of Spinoza?!
There are so many philosophers it would be interesting to bring together!
@@DougsDharma True, Lol i'm alway trying to ship everyone with Marx! It will work one day, I hope!
We are in the middle of a process of choosing. As long as we identify with this process, free will exists. Objectively free will does not exist. Our decisions are determined or random. But subjective truth exists alongside objective one. My pain can be identical as someone else's pain. But my pain is different for me because of its subjective twist. Everyone's will is the same and not free. But my will is free. It's just a matter of perspective. Buddha obviously didn't want people to believe in fatalism because it is another thought/believe input which impacts decision making. It's a kind of a bug in a system, self-reference unsolvable problem with devastating implications.
It literally only exists as a thing in a story you are telling yourself. As a matter of moment to moment experience, there's no free will. It's inserted later in stories about choices that appear in consciousness.
Just to make sure I understand compatibilist free will, let's say you make it to your death bed and you're looking back at your life, does that mean that you did the only thing you possibly could have given the casual chain set off by your environment and genetics? At every given choice in your life, you couldn't have made a different one? Sounds like the path of enlightenment is more simply out of pure luck and is just not in the cards for everyone. Correct me if I've misinterpreted and thanks for the great video!
Compatibilist free will just means that you do what you wanted to do. You could have done otherwise, if you'd wanted different things. (I mean, assuming you actually did have the freedom to do them, for example you weren't too poor or sick, or in jail or something). Some people's wants won't include kindness, wisdom or awakening. That's sad because it's not very skillful.
@@DougsDharma But the fact that you can do what you want and with the teaching of no-self, wouldn't it be fair to say that it was actually impossible to have wanted otherwise at a given past choice? Yeah, I find that very sad as well. What's even more sad is that I see them as a sort of victim of circumstance as well that they don't have any interest in kindness, wisdom, and awakening. I know you may not believe in the idea of karma but I always found it interesting that the buddhists believed in karma and the rejection of any notion of libertarian free will, because even as a compatabilist, I'd have to say that people are purely at the mercy of their biology and environment (both of which they did not choose) so that suggests that the notion of praise or blame doesn't seem very logical. Thanks for the reply!
You could have wanted otherwise if your past had been different. Though I would stress that the Buddha didn't get into these kinds of questions in the texts, most likely because he would have considered them unedifying.
It is kinda similar to Spinoza's view, at least to some extent.
compatibilist doesn't believe in free will but try to save the term for unknown reason
Ha! On the contrary, I’d say the compatibilist is the only one who actually understands what free will is. 🙂
@@DougsDharma Considering almost every compatibilist disagrees with the idea of "I could have done otherwise", their use of the term "free will" is so far removed from most people's egofull conception of freedom that it seems silly to remain attached to the phrase. I think agency is a much better stand-in as it doesn't imply any actual freedom.
@@DougsDharma
Wrong.
The entire point of free will historically was to justify the torture of people, who were already harmless, especially the torture of people by the Christian god.
Out of a hundred philosophically unaware people from the street, how many define "free will" like compatibilists? I'd bet it's less than ten.
Most people react very strongly to being made aware of the impossibility of libertarian free will. They wouldn't if compatibilists were right.
Indeed if compatibilists were right, then hatred, shame and pride simply would not exist in most people.
Much of our discourse about free will is shaped in turn by western philosophical and religious discourse, and simply isn't relevant to Buddhist. Causality in Buddhism is more fundamental to understanding the universe , whereas free will is a notion that appeals to a Christians sense of (often) individual moral responsibility.
That's true, although to be fair the western debate over free will began among the ancient Greeks before the rise of Christianity.
The problem with this issue is in regards to cause and effect think about the wake of a ship does the wake of the ship push the ship along no
True, the wake doesn't, but the motor does.
Looks like our views are biased, we may unaware that we hold a wrong view or correct view
Unless we achieved the ultimate wisdom, our views be biased
Sure, all we can do is to do our best to limit our biases.
To believe or not to believe that is the question, or is that a choice.
Yes. Is belief really ever a choice?
@@DougsDharma People change there beliefs, religion, political parties, sports teams etc. etc. as long as you have variety there will be choices to choose from.
Not first atomist
because it's vaisheshika school of India which is first atomist school 9th century bce
The notion of pre determinism seems almost depressing but the free presbyterians in Scotland find it liberating I think. I get about 80% of what you say but I'll keep trying. I'd like to know about the 10 fetters so that's next
Yes it can be confusing sometimes, but eventually something clicks and you'll get it. Thanks John. 🙂
good job well done
Thanks for the kind words, Alfred. 🙏
Thanks for the mention btw. My ego was boosted ha! :-)
😄 Very welcome Patrick!
Hey bro do come to buddha birth place bihar INDIA I AM FROM BODHGAYA AND DO HELP DEVELOP OUR BIHAR AS POPULAR PILGRIMAGE FOR BUDDHISTS
Thanks Sanjeev, I'd like to someday! 🙂
Grat
🙏😊
In case where someone takes a gun and robs the store. Where is the mesurment that he did it because of mental ilness or non mental ilness? How can you say that a normal person can do such a thing. He was at least temporary ill. I'm trying to imagine my self picking up a gun and robbing a store and I know I couldn't do it in some peaceful and happy state of mind.
The Buddha does envision that normal people can do pretty terrible things. I agree it's hard to comprehend, but greed, hatred, and ignorance are powerful tendencies.
My meditation experience has led me to the conclusion that there are really 2 fundamental systems operating in the mind; awareness and will.
Awareness is 5 physical senses. These are passive.
In humans, will is almost entirely expressed in language which is analytic and tendentious. It is directed to solving problems which the 5 senses bring to our awareness.
The unconsidered mind, which is one that the person has not reflected on, is usually dominated by will and therefore by language. It is highly reactive and usually compulsively so.
The considered mind sees will in the context of awareness. The will becomes aware that the mind is aware, that awareness precedes will and will is conditioned by it. The will becomes aware of this because it’s own compulsive nature causes us to suffer.
The will recognises that the person has a choice whether to use and how to use itself. That choice is usually developed in a reflective or mindful manner so that being aware, we observe the effects of wilful action. In this way the will decides whether it’s own actions are skilful.
This is the path to liberation in the Buddhist sense.
The western concept of free will is also whether we are compelled in our actions or whether we have control over them and has much to do with moral responsibility and therefore accountability to god, or in gods place, to society and its courts (motto of British courts - dieu et mon droit - god is my right).
However in the west, the issue is rarely considered in terms of meditative reflection or mindfulness. It is considered in terms of absolutes, soul, grace, essential goodness, but above all of fear (of gods punishment or punishment by his earthly proxies). So the question is whether it is fair to punish a person who has no control over what they do?
It is this lack of a more buddhistic construction of free will that has caused westerners such problems with the concept. Western religious practice focuses on prayer. But for most people this is directed outward to an authority figure who we are afraid of offending and is not deliberately a personal reflective process.
This lack of understanding of the causes of compulsive behaviour which often has grievous results, famously led Augustine to believe that humans were so irredeemably sinful that it was really up to god whether he could be bothered to save us from hell, there was nothing we could do. This was a sad misdirection of western culture.
All will has consequences because this is its purpose. Will presupposes suffering. In “classic” Buddhism (an imprecise term) will is to be relegated to a small function of the mind and the mind abides in awareness.
But a problem with this is the suffering of others and it seems to me to have been a longstanding issue in Buddhism that abandoning the will, rather than refining it, is a moral weakness on account of its lack of care. Moreover of course, this is not what the Buddha himself did, since he devoted himself to teaching. This trade off between care and karma seems to me to be a profound problem in Buddhism and one that is rarely clearly or explicitly addressed.
Thanks for your thoughts Austin!
Free will is your awareness from daily life.🤣🇯🇵
If you say so!
@@DougsDharma Hello It is so.😁🇯🇵
Free will and determinism are dualistic concepts, so the question makes assumptions contrary to Buddhist teachings.
Thanks for your comments BenjaminFranklin. It's a common misunderstanding that Buddhism is "non-dualistic". Non-dualism as such arose sometime in the Common Era of Buddhist thinking, but is not part of the early teaching. For more on this see: www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_27.html
Sorry but science proves there is no free will.
Adam and Eve
Shalom 🙏🏼
Well yes, one traditional Christian theological interpretation is that the fall was due to libertarian free will. That said, libertarian free will isn’t really compatible with early Buddhism.
free Will, I don't even why he's in jail?
Actual free will seems to be logically impossible, and I don't think Buddha endorsed it in any way. Galen Strawson's article 'The Impossibility Of Moral Responsibility' and his book 'Freedom and Belief' are convincing to me. The article is available for free, just Google it.
Thanks Artturi. My sense is that moral responsibility is fundamental to the Buddha dhamma.
@@DougsDharma I find the concept of responsibility quite problematic. It is clear that bad actions produce bad karma and so on, and that there is an objective moral reality bringing about these effects, but there is no element of punishment or desert in any form of Buddhism that I'm familiar with. Karma is not something we 'earn', but simply something that happens by natural law. To say that one is 'responsible' for something, in Buddhism, is not - I think - easily understood. But if one says 'your unskillful action towards another produces bad karma for you, a bad consequence in an equivalent degree with the action', this is extremely well understood. Buddhist teachings tell us to be mindful of our thoughts for they become actions and actions become our destiny. The key to Buddhist freedom is mindfulness and understanding that comes from the dhamma.
Exactly so Artturi, well said. 🙏
I don't understand your point? I can decide to lie in bed and sleep more or get up.
@@steve5123456789 Decisions can be made but not autonomously. You can't decide what your motivations are. That's the key thing. Another thing is that in order to be autonomous you should be able to will - freely - also the opposite that you're in fact willing, but you can't. But think about this: how does one autonomously choose what one is motivated to do?
Karma
Absolutely wrong theology of Upanishads is no way similar to Catholic Church, Upanishads terminology of what the refer to brahman is more compatible with shunyata of nagarjuna than with Christian notion of soul. and Upanishads are deterministic not libertarian in their teachings
I guess instead of making everything black and white comparing everything you must know Upanishads influenced and have been influenced by Buddhism.
these traditions are actually more similar in their viewpoint than to western ideas.
You brought up the atomic level, but on a Quantum level, reality takes a twist, which Hindu Yogi's are familiar with.
In quantum physics there's the dual slit experiment which is used to map out light particle patterns. However, the experiment can't be done with human intervention. As soon as a human looks at it, the particle patterns reset themselves. They've done experiments with people meditating and who could control the patterns through thought or imagination.
This begs the question, how much of our reality is controlled by thought patterns itself, and if we can use thought to control Quantum particles, can our thoughts dictate future outcomes, which historical figures in Hindu were able to do.
Just a thought, no pun intended :)
Hi J Norfleet and thanks for your comment. Personally I'd be skeptical of those Yogi claims to affect experimental results in quantum mechanics. Quantum weirdness is very real, but it doesn't have to do with human intervention. Any large-scale measuring device will do the trick, indeed it's the measuring devices that cause the changes, not the humans. At any rate the Buddha didn't know anything about quantum mechanics. 🙂
@@DougsDharma, thanks for the reply. It's not just Hinduism, Christianity is based on somebody who turned water into wine ;)
I have to respectfully disagree with measuring devices causing nuances. If a device were causing the pattern shift, then the patterns would be consistent and the outcome predictable, but they're not. Meditators are told to think right or left, and this is where the particles accumulate. They've also done experiments with people who are not used to meditating, but they don't have the success rate.
Hi J Norfleet. The patterns are extremely consistent but only statistically so. If these meditators are actually doing what they claimed they would get a Nobel Prize for it. My expectation is that something simpler is going on ... 😉
@@DougsDharma, depends on what you're measuring for. When we measure for waves electrons act like a wave. When we measure for particles the electron wave breaks down and there's no more interference from probability waves. The electrons know what the sensors (extension of human consciousness) are looking for and act in accordance. The measurement problem itself shows there is a deeper relationship between the observer and observed system.
Be well my friend. 🙏
All I heard was blah blah blah de blah de blah de blah
Buddha