Wrote this as the topic came up in discussion:
Determinism has the flaw which erroneously misapprehends that internal thought, decision or action is always triggered by an external process (such as the environment). This causes passivity -- there's no need to do anything or nothing that can be done since 'actions' are always triggered only by something else (such as the environment), and there is also no possibility of an action or thought to be otherwise (thus negating the path of purification, transformation and liberation). Determinism is sort of like a false logic of 'you steal because you're poor, therefore being poor determined your stealing', as if being poor causes your stealing, but that needn't be the case as you can just beg for food without stealing, or better yet seek some financial assistance and find a job.

On the other hand, free will has the flaw of thinking that an internal agent is the cause of an action, this is a delusion. No agent truly exists. With investigation it can be seen that thought or decision arises spontaneously, unbidden and unknown even a moment ago, with no thinker or watcher behind the thought.

And yet, actions arise from a conventionally labelled 'internal process' which includes thoughts, intentions, and so forth. Mind is the forerunner of all our thoughts, speech and deeds. And yet this 'Mind' is only conventionally labelled upon an 'internal' process, it is not a real entity. There is just a process of thoughts, actions and sensations without a doer or thinker or experiencer in any case. However, you cannot blame your unwholesome thoughts, speech, or actions on anything 'external' such as an environment. 'Mind' is indeed the forerunner of your own actions and consequences.

This process called "Mind" can be purified, or transformed, or liberated. This requires following the path of Buddhadharma. Completely unlike the neo-Advaitin notion of 'everything is just happening on its own and therefore there's nothing that no one can do, no path, etc'. This goes beyond the extremes of free will and determinism. Nowadays this topic does not come up in my mind at all since it has long resolved itself. I only see dharma and conditionality.

I do not see causality of entities causing entities to react in certain ways, I see conditionality. I water the plants, I plant the seed, I nurture the soil, and let the sun shine on it. Yet I do not say that I am the cause of the plant growing, nor do I say the water caused the plant to grow, nor the seed, nor the soil, nor the sun that 'caused' the plant to grow, or even the sum total of them that 'causes' the plant to grow (since each of them are not an agent that causes something to happen how can you perceive
the sum of the non-agents to be an agent?) Instead what arises, arises only when all conditions are met, yet it is not via the kind of 'causality' that implies agency but 'relativity' or 'conditionality'. This itself frees one from the extremes of determinism and free will.

 In the first verse of Dhammapada, the Buddha set out the cause for the importance of mind-training:

Mind is the forerunner of all states.
Mind is chief;
mind-made are they.
If one speaks or acts with wicked mind,
because of that, suffering follows one,
even as the wheel follows the hoof of
the draught-ox.

Mind is the forerunner of all states.
Mind is chief;
mind-made are they.
If one speaks or acts with pure mind,
because of that, happiness follows one,
even as one’s shadow that never leaves



Peter Wang

Peter Wang But if thoughts, actions, and intention are spontaneously arising, where or what is the agent that evaluates and drives to perform wholesome vs unwholesome action. How can something be spontaneous yet there seems to be a process that chooses between right and wrong? Choice implies free will. Does the mind become the agent of choice? Then doesn't that make mind just another word for ego, chooser, doer? Mind like those words are also conceptual. Then the intention to purify the mind, if not spontaneous, must come from some agent that results in "I" should be moral and perform wholesome actions.
Manage

LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 3h
Soh Wei Yu

Soh Wei Yu There is no agent whatsoever. Choices, intentions, and actions are always a happening. This process happens due to mental conditions which can be purified, transformed and liberated. Mind can be purified of incoming defilements and become luminous, as the Buddha taught in Pabhassara Sutta. This luminous, pure mind is the condition for all wholesome and liberated actions.

p.s. I say 'become' but it's not so accurate. Mind is by nature luminous, its luminosity is only temporarily obscured.
Manage

LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 3h · Edited
Peter Wang

Peter Wang Then one must be lucky enough to encounter the teaching and be in a situation where one's own defilement processes are less influential than the ones of the dhamma. But at the end, if it's, all spontaneous... it seems like universal karmic will?
Manage

LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 3h · Edited
Soh Wei Yu

Soh Wei Yu There is no universal karmic will, karma (intentional actions and its reactions) is an individual process. No two person's karmas are the same, although there can be similarities. There is no universal shared cosmic karma.
Manage

LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 3h · Edited
Peter Wang

Peter Wang What about just universal will.
Manage

LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 3h
Soh Wei Yu

Soh Wei Yu That's more Christian or Advaitin
Manage

LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 3h
Soh Wei Yu

Soh Wei Yu Just understand conditionality. That replaces free will and determinism.
Manage

LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 3h
Peter Wang

Peter Wang Soh Wei Yu So x, y, z factors are present leads to event A occuring. All spontaneous. Whatever choices "we" appear to make is a sum total of all factors that give rise to that event. So no free will, just process. It does appear a little bit on the determinism side. Causality. The poor kid stealing is a result of being poor, not having moral values, and not concerned about being caught, because he's too hungry to wait. And perhaps he's embarrassed to beg. Now had he been introduced with another variable prior to the event (say the dhamma), event B would occur and he would go beg instead. Diff results due to diff factors.
Manage

LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 3h · Edited
Soh Wei Yu

Soh Wei Yu Since each of the factor is not a cause or agent for an action, the sum total of the non agents does not amount to an agent. Determinism is founded on the false premise that one or many or the total of those factors are agents or causes. As James Corrigan wrote, just let the silly notion of agency go. Saying that something is determined by something else, either an individual or the sum total of it, is wrong. We can only say that this arises along with that arising due to conditionality but not in terms of causes.

He wrote the same analogy as me:

http://levekunst.com/the-trouble-with-agency/

Also as Jay Garfield pointed out, Nagarjuna also rejected causes in favour of conditions:

When Nagarjuna uses the word "cause" (hetu [rGyu]), he has in mind an event or state that has in it a power(kriya[Bya Ba]) to bring about its effect, and has that power as part of its essence or nature (svabhava [Rang bZhin]). When he uses the term "condition," on the other hand (pratyaya [rKyen]), he has in mind an event, state, or process that can be appealed to in explaining another event, state, or process, without any metaphysical commitment to any occult connection between explanandum and explanans. In chapter 1, Nagarjuna, we shall see, argues against the existence of causes and for the existence of a variety of kinds of conditions.[3]

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../Jay%20L...
Manage

LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · Remove Preview · 3h · Edited
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland What a lovely discussion. I think it would be beneficial to have a much expanded vocabulary when talking about these things, with much more subtle nuance than an everyday conversation.

Just one example is to distinguish "determinism" and "pre-determinism". I would suggest that one use the term determinism to mean that a thing is dependent on something else. This seems to be true on all levels. No one can argue that plants grow without water. So plants depend on water. Water determines plant growth.

But after a thing like this has been suggested, what happens in different peoples' minds is a little up in the air. Many will take this simple fact of determination or conditionality, and project it back and forwards in time and come to a conclusion that everything is PRE-determined. This leads to saying things like "there aren't choices", etc.

On one hand, maybe it is true that determinism implies and necessitates pre-determination. Or maybe it doesn't. But, on the other hand, *even if* we may not be able to prove that determinism doesn't entail pre-determination, it may actually be simply UNHELPFUL to focus on THIS aspect of determination (i.e. that it entails pre-determination), and it might be simply HELPFUL to focus on ANOTHER aspect of determination. What might this other aspect of determination be? That it refutes a misconception of self that, when refuted, leads to much more joy and freedom than anything else.
Manage

LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 2h · Edited
Soh Wei Yu

Soh Wei Yu Yes I would say the practicality of dependent origination is not to formulate a fanciful theory but to 1) understand the conventional implications of suffering, causes and the path to end suffering, and thus also being free from the extremes of eternalism and nihilism of the externalist paths 2) the actualization of general d.o. Into a seamless coherent presencing that is total exertion completely emptied of any sense of self, and 3) the actualization of appearances as empty-clarity equal to space and illusions. It has not much practical use besides these, certainly its purpose is not to produce more proliferations and theorizing and conceptualisations.

After all, the Buddha himself said that he is free of all theories.
Manage

LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 2h · Edited
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Says it’s not meant to be a fanciful theory.

Proceeds to use phrases like
“the actualization of general d.o. Into a seamless coherent presencing that is total exertion completely emptied of any sense of self”,
and
“the actualization of appearances as empty-clarity equal to space and illusions”.
Manage

LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 2h · Edited
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland

LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 2h
Soh Wei Yu

Soh Wei Yu Also Dogen’s causes do not precede effects totally invalidates pre-determinism.

“causes do not happen before effects, effects do not happen after causes.”
Manage

LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 1h · Edited
Soh Wei Yu

Soh Wei Yu Well Stian Gudmundsen Høiland, it’s actually a direct yogic taste in my experience, however i can see how it sounds like a theory
Manage

LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 1h · Edited
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland I support it. Like
I said: An expanded vocabulary is beneficial for these things. It was just a fun juxtaposition 🙂

Manage

LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 1h
Soh Wei Yu

Soh Wei Yu Even without a concept, when I breathe or eat it feels like the whole universe is the activity of eating, and yet the entirety of it is completely empty like a holographic illusion. There is no sense of a self/Self/agent involved.
Manage

LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 1h
Soh Wei Yu

Soh Wei Yu Also, non-doership is not to be mechanical and machine-like. You are not a robot. Have to realize and actualise this quality described by Rob :

"About 13 times in my life, in the past 3 years, I would wake up from sleep in the morning and before the mind kick-started I would be overwhelmed with the absolute aliveness around me. The stillness. The joy felt deep, deep, deep within – the joy of Being Alive. That I exist! It was like a revelation – I exist! I Exist! How amazing! What a miracle! I exist!!!!! I Am!! Each cell of my body was full of aliveness. And as quickly and spontaneously and uninvited it came, it left. The ‘me’ wanted to snatch the experience for itself and own it. Possess it. It is so strange to me, that, when it happens, it's so obvious, so clearly the case, you know you can’t lose it – and the second you think that, it's gone. It is like trying to grab a handful of water. Rob" (taken from http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/actua.../others/corr-pce.htm )
Manage

actualfreedom.com.au

LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · Remove Preview · 12m · Edited
Soh Wei Yu

Soh Wei Yu This state of hyper aliveness is my everyday constant experience, unlike those peak experiences described above (only 13 times? hah!). And it is centerless and boundless after anatta, not contained within the body or even limited to the bodily sensations but also manifests as the very radiance of all sights, sounds, smells, etc. It can be very blissful and intense especially if one is having quality time not lost in thoughts. Conceptualizing too much (including about free-will vs determinism) can be hindrance.
Manage

LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 5m · Edited
Soh Wei Yu

Soh Wei Yu Alan Watts: "The existence of a man implies parents, even though they may be long since dead, and the birth of an organism implies its death. Wouldn't it be as farfetched to call birth the cause of death as to call the cat's head the cause of the tail? Lifting the neck of a bottle implies lifting the bottom as well, for the “two parts” come up at the same time."

It should be added that cause and effect are dependently designated by the designating consciousness. They are not pre-given realities, one existing before another. Parents are only the parents of a child when a child is born.

How can a cause predetermine an effect if a conventionally labelled cause cannot be established in and of itself apart from the conventionally labelled effect?
Manage

LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 1m · Edited

Peter Wang

Peter Wang I'm starting to see what you mean, determinism and free will are only relevant under the notion of separate independent things (agents) existing within the universe. But that's a false premise to begin with because nothing is ever separate or apart from the universe/existence, hence no agents. Agents are conceptual and work in the relative framework. So events are as they are. So those on the path are essentially part of some conscious process attempting to purify itself of defilements and the apparent struggle is just a natural unfolding.
Manage

LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 31m · Edited
Soh Wei Yu

Soh Wei Yu Also, non-doership is not to be mechanical and machine-like. You are not a robot. Have to realize and actualise this quality described by Rob :

"About 13 times in my life, in the past 3 years, I would wake up from sleep in the morning and before the mind kick-started I would be overwhelmed with the absolute aliveness around me. The stillness. The joy felt deep, deep, deep within – the joy of Being Alive. That I exist! It was like a revelation – I exist! I Exist! How amazing! What a miracle! I exist!!!!! I Am!! Each cell of my body was full of aliveness. And as quickly and spontaneously and uninvited it came, it left. The ‘me’ wanted to snatch the experience for itself and own it. Possess it. It is so strange to me, that, when it happens, it's so obvious, so clearly the case, you know you can’t lose it – and the second you think that, it's gone. It is like trying to grab a handful of water. Rob" (taken from http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/actua.../others/corr-pce.htm )
Manage

actualfreedom.com.au

LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · Remove Preview · 14m · Edited

Soh Wei Yu

Soh Wei Yu This state of hyper aliveness is my everyday constant experience, unlike those peak experiences described above (only 13 times? hah!). And it is centerless and boundless after anatta, not contained within the body or even limited to the bodily sensations but also manifests as the very radiance of all sights, sounds, smells, etc. It can be very blissful and intense especially if one is having quality time not lost in thoughts. Conceptualizing too much (including about free-will vs determinism) can be hindrance.
Manage

LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 10m · Edited
Soh Wei Yu

Soh Wei Yu Alan Watts: "The existence of a man implies parents, even though they may be long since dead, and the birth of an organism implies its death. Wouldn't it be as farfetched to call birth the cause of death as to call the cat's head the cause of the tail? Lifting the neck of a bottle implies lifting the bottom as well, for the “two parts” come up at the same time."

It should be added that cause and effect are dependently designated by the designating consciousness. They are not pre-given realities, one existing before another. Parents are only the parents of a child when a child is born.

How can a cause predetermine an effect if a conventionally labelled cause cannot be established in and of itself apart from the conventionally labelled effect?
Manage

LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 5m · Edited

Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu For the first step just continue self-inquiry until there is this certainty "That I exist! It was like a revelation – I exist! I Exist! How amazing! What a miracle! I exist!!!!! I Am!!"
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 1m · Edited

2 Responses
  1. Anonymous Says:

    When this physical body had been shedded off at time of death,what determines whether one get a fine astral body(and subtle,causal etc)without suffering or otherwise?


  2. Soh Says:

    Check out https://dhammawiki.com/index.php/31_planes_of_existence