Free will

[Muzzinho]

After having studied Buddhism for a while, I have come to some ideas about the philosophy and in particular its' relation to morality. For westerners especially, Buddhism seems to be paradoxical and difficult to really categorize. I can accept that some things cannot be controlled, that man cannot directly choose his circumstances all the time. However, Buddhism, in particular Zen, which is influenced by Taoism has, throughout its' teachings a kind of 'whatever happens, happens' kind of ideal. It seems to me that this could be fatalistic. If life is out of our control, then what about morality. If bad things just ' happen' and chaos to order, order to chaos is inevitable, doesn't that destroy our notion of choice and free will? This can also create a kind of unclarity in one's mind about what is right, what is wrong and can be used as an excuse for surrender to responsibility for one's own life.

Im sorry if the question seems a bit vague, this is the best way I can explain what I am experiencing...

[aggie]

i definitely believe in free will and freedom to choose between right and wrong, as a christian.

i believe if we do all we can do, if we do what is right to the best of our abilities, if there is really something we "need to let go and let God"..we will be helped and guided. we are not supposed to be able to depend on just ourselves and our own actions all the time.

[MiBeloved]

There is a negative side to Buddhism but there is a positive side as well. The best thing to do is to study the life of Buddha to see what his life was all about and to follow the conclusions he came to. Many people have this idea that Buddha was an atheist, but if you read his biography you will find that he has discourses with divine beings and he did not resent any of them. There were discussions between him and the Brahmas who are deities who create universes on the causal plane.
Buddha did reject materialistic living but his rejection was based on a desire to make sense of existence and to find out if there was any other ending besides disease, old age and death. He was attracted to renunciation for the sake of figuring out what this existence is all about.
In Buddha’s life there was morality and for that matter his Middle Way path has morality as an integral part of it. But let us deal with your inquiry directly:
If bad things just “happen” and chaos inevitably flows into order and visa versa, and if this is inevitable as the process of nature and the process of gross manifestation, then where does free will fit in?
It fits in a relative sense and if you take it too seriously you will get crushed by destiny. So Buddha was saying that since all this is temporary, don’t put all your hopes on it. If you are immoral you will get bad consequences coming to you in the future, and you won’t be able to dodge it, and it might hit you when you are in a position where you cannot capitalize on it, but that does not mean that being moral will make this situation permanent.
You can be Mother Teresa and still you will not be able to cause this place to be permanent. Your body and the world itself, will eventually deteriorate. Our planet will eventually be scorched by the very same sun that now sustains it. So you should be moral but don’t feel that chaos will be put on hold indefinitely because of your moral action. So you should be moral and also be detached from wanting material nature to change into something permanent.
B e large-hearted with life, in the sense that even though it is going to peter out for you no matter what, still you will be moral and you will be caring to others. Buddha knew that in the final analysis everything will be reduced to nothing, everything material that is, and still he was not immoral in behavior. He did not exploit others. He reduced all his faults to nil.
From another view, Buddhism is not for people who are soft-hearted to social life. The founder of it was a person who abruptly and completely separated himself from the advantages of social life. If you want to foster social life in a moral way, in a productive way, then Buddha’s life is not the example you want to follow. Try instead to follow the life of Arjuna who was instructed in how to manage social life and still reap spiritual progression from it. Try studying the Bhagavad Gita.*
Some years ago I visited a Buddhist temple in South Korea. There was a receptionist there, a female, when I asked her how she was managing as a Buddhist she said this, “ I am not a strict Buddhist. I cannot follow this strictly because I am still attached to the world. I want worldly things. I was born in this religion but actually I cannot really follow it.”
So that is it. Buddha was a radical spiritualist, an extreme renunciant, a meditative genius. He was not a normal human being. He was superhuman from the psychological angle. He was comfortable being socially separated, something which would irk most of us.

*See my translation of Bhagavad Gita here:
Amazon.com: BHAGAVAD GITA ENGLISH (9780557027361): Michael Beloved: Books

See my other books here:
Amazon.com:

[aphorist]

If you want to conceptualize the true nature, you'll get lost in the paradoxes of it... Zen is really about waking people up. It's not about talking about the truth, really. It's just about getting people to snap out of the dream state, to "awaken."

The best way to go about these issues is to be very close to your own experiences. Don't conceptualize things, just see what's true for you right now in this moment. Do you have choice right now? Do you not have choice right now? Does it matter? Who does it matter to? Is that you?

The problem with 'free will' vs 'no free will' is the 'vs'. In non-duality, there is no 'vs'... There's both, and neither. The question is wrong to begin with, eh?

[Muzzinho]

I guess what I am trying to say here is that the vagueness that is consistent throughout eastern thought and lack of certainty about how the world can be influenced by our actions seems to give rise to the idea that 'whatever we do is inconsequential'.

How does this effect free will. If everything is inconsequential, then why bother with making moral choices in life?

[MiBeloved]

With moral choices, there is a chance that there will be favorable returns. Even though ultimately everything a limited being does will be washed out, still while the creation is running the limited person is better off making moral choices based on not being too anti-social.
Suppose we are on an aircraft and the pilot announces that for sure the plane will crash because his landing gear as well as his wing flap adjustments are frozen up, that what should be do. should we be fatalistic and begin abusing one another.
So even though the universe will be destroyed undoubtedly and even though our free will cannot in any way affect that outcome, still it is not sensible to become self destructive or even to attempt to destroy everything within reach.
Positive actions carry with them a potential for positive returns but the potential is not absolute. Still it is in our interest to remain on the positive side.
Even though Buddha saw the futility of material existence, and emphasized its temporary nature,he was never amoral in his behavior. In fact he was very concerned about our human condition and set up a system of easement from our afflictions.

[Muzzinho]

Thank you very much everyone for your help and advice. It is very interesting to hear, especially, Mibeloved.

Cheers guys

[simpo]

Free will is a concept. You only think about it when it is concreted as a concept/thoughtform.

When you don't think about it, life still rolls on.

You get what i mean. It is just a concept ... like 'Fashion' is a concept...

[MichaelP]

Free will is the engine on the sailboat. You can give up and let life happen - that's OK and can feel like peace, but you still exercised free will by choosing that. But many of us feel that we are here to consciously create, which is the reason we even have free will in the first place. By doing so we collectively create the physical world.

In the end, free will is what allows you to choose to create your world or allow it to happen to you randomly according to whatever frequency your unconscious happens to emanate.

Originally Posted by Muzzinho

After having studied Buddhism for a while, I have come to some ideas about the philosophy and in particular its' relation to morality. For westerners especially, Buddhism seems to be paradoxical and difficult to really categorize. I can accept that some things cannot be controlled, that man cannot directly choose his circumstances all the time. However, Buddhism, in particular Zen, which is influenced by Taoism has, throughout its' teachings a kind of 'whatever happens, happens' kind of ideal. It seems to me that this could be fatalistic. If life is out of our control, then what about morality. If bad things just ' happen' and chaos to order, order to chaos is inevitable, doesn't that destroy our notion of choice and free will? This can also create a kind of unclarity in one's mind about what is right, what is wrong and can be used as an excuse for surrender to responsibility for one's own life.

Im sorry if the question seems a bit vague, this is the best way I can explain what I am experiencing...

[aphorist]

Originally Posted by Muzzinho

I guess what I am trying to say here is that the vagueness that is consistent throughout eastern thought and lack of certainty about how the world can be influenced by our actions seems to give rise to the idea that 'whatever we do is inconsequential'.

How does this effect free will. If everything is inconsequential, then why bother with making moral choices in life?

I wouldn't conceptualize it into 'everything is inconsequential.' It's more like 'nothing is gained, nothing is lost,' but even those words are merely pointers. Life seems to be just a beautiful play, a dance. It has nowhere to go, nothing to do, but just be.

Free will and moral choices are two different concepts. It doesn't seem like free will really bothers you. Take away the idea that 'there's no free will' and just experience what's there. Are things okay when you don't care about those words? If you feel like there's a choice to be made, don't hide behind a concept of 'no choice,' just choose.

Are you getting stuck in making the 'right decision'? Morality is just more conditioning. How do you know what action will produce a desired result? How do you know that a result is desired in the first place? It's almost as if the mind is saying it knows what the will of god is. The mind can't know that, it can't contain that. The mind wants to think it has control of the world, and when it notices things aren't going its way, it suffers.

So suffering over some issue with the mind, is just more mind.

Enlightenment isn't about knowing what decision is better or worse. It's not some special knowledge gained. It's more about accepting what is in this moment, and this moment, and this. And the more you start to live in this moment, your mind starts to realize it doesn't really know anything. That all of its ideas/concepts are fabrications, and none of them are true expressions of right now.

Once the mind is removed from how we navigate, we no longer have moral judgment, no longer have worry or anxiety over choices. We just are. It is very easy for the mind to get caught up on these different words. The words will never be the truth. The truth is just all around you, right now.

[Muzzinho]

Thank you guys again, this topic has been very interesting.