Question: Not Free Will, Not Determinism, then?
-
Originally posted by I No Stupid:
Why not just stick to the topic of the thread and ignore the noises? When you are on the road, your focus is on the purpose of the journey and the destination. There are noises, smoke and dirt but they should not detract you. Pay a little attention but no more.
An online forum is open to anyone - the knowledgeable as well as the ignorant. There will be differing views and opinions, contradictions and disagreements. Short of outright insults and vulgarities, one should not take any contrary views as 'disrespectful'. This word 'disrespect' has been abused in every forum or discussion and is a euphemism for disagreement. Just because someone disagrees, criticises, makes robust comments or presents his opinion or belief contrary to yours does not mean he is disrespectful.
Recognise that participants have motives or personal agenda, and it is not difficult to tell. If a non-Buddhist wants to participate and project his agenda, the appropriate respond is to offer ‘right understanding’. It is bigotry and parochial to suggest the person go elsewhere. I have seen such bigotry in Christian forums, so don’t commit their ‘sins’ in a Buddhist forum!
I guess i don't have your level of tolerance yet...
If someone who comes here with no intention to participate in a constructive discussion of Buddhism, why bother to talk to him? Just tell him to go Christian forum and evangelise lah.. Isn't that more systematic?
All he speaks is Christianity and accused Buddhism as a satanic cult!
If Buddhists don't clarify, who will? Christians??
-
Christian evangelism is not allowed in this forum and will be deleted.
-
Originally posted by 2009novice:
I guess i don't have your level of tolerance yet...
If someone who comes here with no intention to participate in a constructive discussion of Buddhism, why bother to talk to him? Just tell him to go Christian forum and evangelise lah.. Isn't that more systematic?
All he speaks is Christianity and accused Buddhism as a satanic cult!
If Buddhists don't clarify, who will? Christians??
-
Originally posted by shanfan:
Judging by this, shanfan is definitely not a christian. -
I think christians see your behaviour here also facepalm in embarrassment. Like the "fun pack pack" song you know? Lol
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
I think christians see your behaviour here also facepalm in embarrassment. Like the “fun pack pack” song you know? Lol
hmmm i quite like the fun pack pack song :) thought it's creative. can't say the same for some of the posts here tho haha
-
Originally posted by Almond Cookies:
Judging by this, shanfan is definitely not a christian.Who are you to judge? I definitely don't agree with the way you treat people, you are just cannot make it type. All you know about Christianity is only head knowledge without reality. You are empty minded, you are so empty as a person, you are a failure.
-
Originally posted by shanfan:
Who are you to judge? I definitely don't agree with the way you treat people, you are just cannot make it type. All you know about Christianity is only head knowledge without reality. You are empty minded, you are so empty as a person, you are a failure.
Shanfan I asked u if muslim ask u which gospel is true. How u tell him? A true christian must tell him their INJIL is false and our gospel is the right one. Evangelism surely is linked to attacking other faith. I seen how evangelism works in my church. -
What we need to do is attack at the right time. They never ask we keep quiet. They ask us we clarify by attacking.
-
Shanfan is hopeless. I bet he never evangelise much.
-
Originally posted by Almond Cookies:
Shanfan I asked u if muslim ask u which gospel is true. How u tell him? A true christian must tell him their INJIL is false and our gospel is the right one. Evangelism surely is linked to attacking other faith. I seen how evangelism works in my church.
After so much talk here from people, you still have not learned when to shut your gap. Of course, I won't be stupid like you to engage the muslim in controversial discussion, damn it, what's your bloody problem little childish boy? Your damn church is hopeless then to impart wrong teaching. Stupid like you, no wonder you attend such a church. S T U P I D ALMOND COOKIES is damn fool and easily manipulated. If the church instigate him to rob a bank, I suppose he will do so. Stupid!Stop your christianity discussion here. All Eternal Now, please delete his posts.
-
Originally posted by Almond Cookies:
Shanfan is hopeless. I bet he never evangelise much.
Shut your gap, evangelism does not base on your style of practising it, only damn fools like you follow blindly. You are a cult. You definitely have no right to force me to practise your evangelism style of cursing, condemning, slamming others. Christianity is about love, and this you lack of this love. DAmn dumb fool, you are satanic. -
Rob bank break ten commandments. Go read ur bible shanfan.
-
Originally posted by Almond Cookies:
Rob bank break ten commandments.
Go read ur bible shanfan.
Don't tell me that, you don't even interpret such a simple statement correctly. You have proven too many times you have no IQ and EQ. Damn la, you are a loser. A shame to God in your action against others.All you do is judge people and show no love to people.
-
Originally posted by 2009novice:
I guess i don't have your level of tolerance yet...
If someone who comes here with no intention to participate in a constructive discussion of Buddhism, why bother to talk to him? Just tell him to go Christian forum and evangelise lah.. Isn't that more systematic?
All he speaks is Christianity and accused Buddhism as a satanic cult!
If Buddhists don't clarify, who will? Christians??
No tolerance required. You need to overcome your own ignorance. How much do you know and understand the dharma? Buddha in his 40 yrs of teaching was confronted and challenged by other faiths. He never disparages other religions (at that time mainly Brahmanism and Jainism) but instead use what he knew about Brahmanism to teach the dharma. I have used my understanding of Christianity to teach Christians the Buddha-dharma. An example: in the Gospel of Luke, an expert in law stood up to ask Jesus "What must I do to have eternal life?" Jesus asked the man: "What is written in the old testament? The man answered: "Love your God with all your heart and all your strength and all your spirit, and love your neighbour as yourself." Jesus said: "You have answered correctly. Do this and you will live."
Note, it says "Love your God", it didn't say, "love my God; love the Christian God or Jehovah." One's god might be Sai Baba, Vishnu, Kwan-In, Nirvana, Tao, etc. Jesus was teaching something very similar to what Buddha taught 500 years earlier. So take heart, Christ was not a Buddhist but he taught what the Buddha taught. Take heart also that Jesus said true followers of his are very rare. So, you will see in this forum and even in Christian forums, many half-baked and run-of-the-mill so-called Christians. Take heart also that Mahatma Ghandi said to a Christian evangelist: “I don’t like Christians, they are so unlike Christ.”
I would ask you to focus on your ‘god’ – the Noble Eightfold Path than to be bothered by detractors whatever their agenda may be. 'Right Concentration' is the eighth step in the Noble Eightfold Path. It is sometimes called 'one-pointedness of mind'. Read and researches the dharma, don’t waste your energy or effort on what Christians say.
-
I hope shanfan's intention is clear to everyone. So everyone, lets get back on topic... where were we? Ah... determinism....
-
It just meant that every actions are determinable in a closed system. Like I- Ching, or predictions, prophecies.... With that in mind, "free will" would not the arbitary decision maker as generally accepted.
I see it this way: A far more intelligent being could read a lesser mind and predict its moves. The lesser mind's "free will" is determinable.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
It just meant that every actions are determinable in a closed system. Like I- Ching, or predictions, prophecies.... With that in mind, "free will" would not the arbitary decision maker as generally accepted.
I see it this way: A far more intelligent being could read a lesser mind and predict its moves. The lesser mind's "free will" is determinable.
With given factors, there is a general sense of direction of how things may go.
I Ching is the book of change, it is about probabilities, not absolute, allow you a chance of alternating "fate". It usually begins divination with "everything being equal"
The key would is higher consciousness and predictability of factors or given set of conditions. For instance, you could fairly accurately determine an animal's actions guided solely by instinct, as it is more obvious. A predator could sufficiently predict it's prey behavior most of the time, otherwise it would end up very hungry and dead. A prey animal, well, eaten and dead. In nature the scales are not overly tipped, otherwise the will be an imbalance, for the most part. There dynamics to consider, lots more wriggle room,living to a ripe old age, although possible, but not likely . Domestic livestock will almost always certainly end up in someone's table, but not absolute.
Ever heard the childhood rhyme about for the loss of a horseshoe, a kingdom was lost? It explains to children the chain of events in a simplistic way.Or Humpty Dumpty.
But to predict on it's variabilty of it's behavior also derives studied behaviour from patterns emerging to it's primary and secondary response behavior. The prediction becomes more consistent as the evaluation more refined. The higher our consciousness are. the better we are at predicting.
-
"With given factors, there is a general sense of direction of how things may go"
With given factors being determinable, the results would be determinable.
"I Ching is the book of change, it is about probabilities, not absolute, allow you a chance of alternating "fate". It usually begins divination with "everything being equal""
Perhaps, but I read it as a formula depicting cycles and equilibrium, which is still deterministic in nature.
I'm not saying that all events or all decisions can be determined but the point that any event happens is inevitable, which by same logic, determinable.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"With given factors, there is a general sense of direction of how things may go"
With given factors being determinable, the results would be determinable.
"I Ching is the book of change, it is about probabilities, not absolute, allow you a chance of alternating "fate". It usually begins divination with "everything being equal""
Perhaps, but I read it as a formula depicting cycles and equilibrium, which is still deterministic in nature.
I'm not saying that all events or all decisions can be determined but the point that any event happens is inevitable, which by same logic, determinable.
It depends on whether you are "predicting" on an outcome before or after it has happened. When we hypothesized on outcomes we often blurr this line. We must ask ourselves, are we" determining" the past(which has already happened) or the yet undetermined future?
"A politician needs the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen. "
When events happened they way it did(or appeared to us), we use logic to reconstruct occurrence as to how it occurred, factors coming into play. The reconstruct may or may not be faithful to the chain of events, just appeared so to us. Although things and events are interdependent., how relevant your logic is, reliability of prediction,depends on your level of awareness.
Things shows(to the observer anyway) how things happened they way it did, the more things you factored the probability of predicting according what you envisaged. Timeline is linear, but factors and synergy of events are variable to the components at play.
Take a bus to school or work, or go taking for examinations example, I can say with more reliability on whether I'll going to school tomorrow than what my actual exam results will be. The first due to constancy of factors in play and no inclusion of other intervening factors.
-
The Ten Suchness
The Ten Suchness consists of ten words prefaced by “such a” or “such an”: “Such a Form”, “Such a Nature”, “Such an Embodiment”, “Such a Potency”, “Such a Function”, “Such a Primary Cause”, “Such a Secondary Cause”, “Such an Effect”, “Such a Recompense”, and “Such a Complete Fundamental Whole”. This doctrine reveals the deepest reality of the existence of all things in the universe, which they call the principle of the Reality of All Existence. Modern science has analyzed physical substrates to the extent of subatomic particles. However, the principle of the Reality of All Existence is much more profound than such an analysis, extending even to the mental world.
“Such a Form” (Appearance) The existence of all things invariably has form.
“Such a Nature” That which has a form invariably has a nature.
“Such an Embodiment” That which has a nature invariably has an embodiment.
“Such a Potency” (Power) That which has an embodiment invariably has potency (energy).
“Such a Function” When it has potency, it invariably produces various outwardly directed functions.
“Such a Primary Cause” Innumerable embodied substances exist in the universe. For this reason, their outward-directed functions are interrelated with all things. Nothing in the universe exists in an isolated existence having no relation to other things. All things have complicated connections with one another. They are interdependent and through their interaction cause various phenomena.
“Such a Secondary Cause” (Condition) Even when there exists a cause, it does not produce its effect until it comes into contact with some occasion or condition. For instance, there is always vapor in the air as the primary cause of frost or dew. But if it has no secondary cause that brings it into contact with the ground or the leaves of a plant, it does not become frost or dew.
“Such an Effect” When a primary cause meets with a secondary cause, they produce a phenomenon (effect).
“Such a Recompense” (Rewards and retribution) An effect not only produces a phenomenon but also invariably leaves some trace or residue. For example, the effect of frost forming will give a pleasant feeling to one person who enjoys the patterns it makes on the windowpane, while the same effect will give an unpleasant feeling to someone else whose crops have been damaged by it. The function of an effect leaving a trace or residue “Such a Recompense.”
It will be helpful to explain primary cause, secondary cause, effect, and recompense in more detail. Suppose a man has offered his seat in the train to an old woman. In his mind he possesses, as a primary cause, the potential of wishing to be kind to others. When such a primary cause comes into contact with a secondary cause, in this case his seeing an old woman staggering while trying to stand in the train, it produces the effect of his offering his seat to her. Afterward he feels refreshed, thinking, “I have done something good.” This is recompense.” This recompense comes from one's mind and from outside. The former comes first to him, the most important recompense.
“Such a Complete Fundamental Whole” The nine suchnesses mentioned above occur incessantly in society and in the universe as a whole. They are interconnected in a complex manner, so that in most cases, man cannot discern what is a cause and what is an effect. But these suchnesses never fail to operate according to the 1aw of the universal truth, and no one, no thing, and no function can depart from this law. Everything functions according to the Law of the Ten Suchnesses, from form to recompense, namely, from beginning to end. This is the meaning of “Such a Complete Fundamental Whole.”
The fact that this law forms all things, including people and their relations with one another is called the Reality of All Existence.
The Ten Suchness
Such a Form (phenomenon)
Such a Nature (character)
Such an Embodiment (entity)
Such a Such a Potency (ability)
Complete
Fundamental Such a Function (activity)
Whole
Such a Primary Cause (direct cause)
Such a Secondary Cause (occasion or condition)
Such an Effect (result)
Such a Recompense (reward or retribution)
-
"It depends on whether you are "predicting" on an outcome before or after it has happened. When we hypothesized on outcomes we often blurr this line. We must ask ourselves, are we" determining" the past(which has already happened) or the yet undetermined future?"
There various types of cycles, like planetary orbit or life cycles where predictions are made by what already happened before. For equilibrium, it more causal determinism than anything I can think of. Quite absolute. Of cause, if one takes quantum mechanics to mind, nothing is 100%....
"A politician needs the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen. "
The 2nd sentence is... applicable to everyone, not just politicians....
-
Originally posted by Jui:
Hello everyone! Stumbled onto this forum a while ago, but since I had nothing of worth to contribute I was just happy to lurk and read what gems everyone had to offer.
I have been getting myself accquaintant with buddhism for a while, and sometimes there are certain topics that I just miss or haven't come across a proper explanation yet, and this happens to be one of them.
I understand and believe that the world doesn't work like proponents of determinism would describe, i.e. everything's already predetermined and there's nothing we can do to change them since it's all set in stone, fated if you will. But at the same time, I believe buddhism (as well as many other people actually) states that we don't actually have true free will as there's no "one" around doing the willing thanks to dependent origination and non-self.
So, my question is: When I decide to do something, for example, walk to the MRT station instead of running, what's happening here? There's no one to exert the will to "want to walk", so I'm guessing conditions ripen that "the mind decides and walking happens", but I wonder if this actually means it's a predetermined event, but is it?
Eagerly awaiting your replies. Please no not hesitate to correct my assumptions as well :) .
It is correct to say that Buddhism doesn't states that we have complete free will, as generally understood by most people as the ‘ability to choose freely’ without any influence. The idea of free will is usually contrasted with determinism, hence your question. Buddhism also does not teach that our lives or everything we do are determined but that our will is conditioned or limited to a greater or lesser extent.
Isn’t obvious that our ability to choose and act is under the influence of our desires and limited by skill, power, strength, wealth, health and many other circumstances and factors? Also, our ability to choose is also conditioned by our past learning and experience.
When you chose to walk and not run to the MRT station, it is conditioned by many factors – others are walking, you are in no hurry, the station is crowded, it is silly to run, you are injured, etc. However, is your choice predetermined? If so, either you had planned consciously to walk or any of the aforementioned 'determined' that you walk instead of run, or other factors such as carrying a child.
The bottomline is: there is no complete free will and no absolute determinism. Thus your statement "understand and believe that the world doesn't work like proponents of determinism would describe, i.e. everything's already predetermined and there's nothing we can do to change them since it's all set in stone, fated if you will. But at the same time, I believe buddhism (as well as many other people actually) states that we don't actually have true free will" is correct.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"It depends on whether you are "predicting" on an outcome before or after it has happened. When we hypothesized on outcomes we often blurr this line. We must ask ourselves, are we" determining" the past(which has already happened) or the yet undetermined future?"
There various types of cycles, like planetary orbit or life cycles where predictions are made by what already happened before. For equilibrium, it more causal determinism than anything I can think of. Quite absolute. Of cause, if one takes quantum mechanics to mind, nothing is 100%....
"A politician needs the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen. "
The 2nd sentence is... applicable to everyone, not just politicians....
Your predictions belies the need for everthing being a constant,everything contained within, but the universe as a whole is infinite, and is not contained within, except as concept taken as one whole. What you have manage to grasp and envisaged it to be and then some more,and then some more...
Even as we has the ability to discover a particle smaller than the previous one, you will also correspondingly find a bigger universe when technology allows.
It is possible that everything comes into a cycle in due course, but on what time scale?The Sun, seen in context with the human lifespan or even the human race's lifespan will seem infinite, but not so, it too eventuallly will go extinct. As the did the dinosaurs, extinct. And that they grew so big due to one huge land mass that they grew to massive proportions. Will they ever come back, or be they huge as they were before? Not likely. Conditions not there.
When we talk of things of being the same,though they are just similar in certain aspects in which we relate. We conveniently over looked the difference.Similiar but not identical, never will be. Even if we who have cloned ourselves, are we then. the same person, life/mind experience or situations.
I am not even the same person I was. Part of me used to be the chicken I ate yesterday, part of me is going to be the shit I excrete. I just believe that I am the same person. And I am going to be old and feeble a decade later, maybe not, not if I die before that or I change a better lifestyle. Yes. death is a certainty, but when? Also a mundane event taking place at different time or location, it is really the same thing. That I eating rice today and tomorrow, is it the same? Or similar actions?
I put my hand in a moving stream,the constant sensation of coldness reaches my hand, but why is it cold? It appears to be same the river, but is it the same water (molecules) brushing pass my hands? So now, is it the same river?
If I dug some soil from a mountain, is it still the same mountain? Why is my bucket of soil not mountain? Or the firewood, is'nt a tree. Forests are being cut down or burnt , new trees grow but are they same, identical as the previous forest?
We believe them to be same even though they are not, but the only constant is the process, conditions in place. So our perception is actually flawed. The so called cycle is the process.
-
i do wonder that only Buddha is all knowing. that by seeing a person He can see his/her past karma/affinities for countless life time, even more than an arhat of 500 past lifes and know what he/she will happen in the future. like how He predicted eventually in the future, the Buddha name of the arahats in Lotus sutra. or the coming of the next Buddha or the ending of earth, generally. there's also a story that during a alm round, Buddha only ask one of his disciple to enter a house. as the owner only have affinity with his disciple. etc.
/\