Free Will, do we have it?

Asiaprod

An interesting question was asked today in the Atheist/Agnostic forum about the real meaning, or even the existence of, free will. I found the following talk on the issue to be very enlightening and a good basis on which to debate if free will does actually exist.


Thee Buddhist tenet system holds Knowledge (jnana) in a much higher esteem than it holds Will.
The power of will, in the Buddhist system of practice, is a blind force brought about through erroneous thinking. As such, it must be transcended through the proper use of intellectual analysis. Once the insubstantiality of the cravings, clinging and attachment/aversion becomes plainly evident to the practitioner (via the use of intellectual analysis), the power of will inevitably wilts away and fades out. Such blind force of will, that arises via the confusion of ignorance, can be dispelled once proper understanding has been achieved. But, can the concept of Free Will, which should be a much less blind force, be regarded as a guiding principle in the Buddhist practice?
The principle of Free Will stands in stark contrast with the abiding Law of the Universe. The Law (or, a collection of laws) governs the Universe, governs the behavior of all manifested phenomena. The Law is inescapable — it applies in all places, at all times. But if that’s invariably the case, then morality and ethics would become meaningless. Every act, every thought being predestined by the rigid workings of the Law, no one would be accountable for their actions.
All the great religions of the world uphold morality as the cornerstone of their practice. Consequently, such teachings cannot allow for a full blown determinism of the Universe. A loophole must be allowed to appear so that humans could be made accountable for their behavior. And such loophole is called Free Will. According to the doctrine of Free Will, human beings are given a choice — either they will attempt to discern what is right from what is wrong and then chose to do the right thing, or they will neglect that duty and turn their backs to the moral teaching. And, depending on their choice, humans will get rewarded/punished.
Depending of the scope of the human being (i.e. whether a particular person is viewed as lasting only a single lifetime, as opposed to being reincarnated in multiple lifetimes), the concept of reward/punishment gets defined. If a human being is viewed as contained within a single lifetime (as is the case in the Semitic religions), the reward or punishment will be awarded after that person’s demise. If, however, the person’s scope is viewed as extending into multiple lifetimes, the rewards and/or punishments are viewed as being administered on a pretty much ongoing basis.
Buddhism, being prevalently an ethical practice, places emphasis on the necessity of being accountable for one’s deeds. The basic premise of the Buddhist teaching is that anything a person does will bear fruit, and that fruit will get experienced by that same person sometime in the future. Furthermore, and as a corollary to this, it would never be possible for one person to experience the fruit of another person’s deed.
This morality therefore pretty much demands that a person, upon reaching the end of his life, must be born again. This is so because up until the very end of his life, that person has continued committing deeds, and such deeds will inevitably bring fruits in the future. And as that doer instantly dies and perishes, there will be no one to experience the fruits of his actions in the future (because of the dictum that forbids one person to taste the fruits of another person’s doing). Consequently, and according to the Law of Karma, anyone that dies must be reborn in order to reap what he or she had sown in their previous life.
Now, similar to other ethical teachings, Buddhism also places the onus of choice on the individual’s shoulders. If the practitioner understands the moral law as taught by the Buddha, and if the practitioner observes that understanding in her everyday acts, she will experience the fruits of her good deeds. And conversely, if she does not understand the teaching, or if she understands it but nevertheless choses to ignore it, she will experience the fruits of her bad deeds.
In Buddhism, the fruits of good deeds are experienced as an improved conditions for practising the Dharma. The fruits of bad deeds are experienced as worsening of such conditions, as in the case when a practitioner regresses into some form of a subhuman creature upon being reborn.
So, unlike in some other religions, where bad deeds are being punished by an act of eternal damnation, for example, in Buddhism there is no such concept. Since everything we might encounter in our lives is a direct product of our own acts, we go from lifetime to lifetime always carrying this choice whether we want to improve or worsen our chances for attaining complete freedom.
As such, we see that Buddhism is the teaching that is based on the idea of change. One’s situation could be quite bleak, but one can change that. How? Simply by learning the Buddha’s teaching and observing it in one’s workaday life. Conversely, one’s situation could be quite advantageous, but one can change that as well. How? Simply by forgetting the Buddha’s teaching, or by neglecting to apply it in everyday life.
Also, the Buddhist teaching of ultimate freedom is based on the idea of change. It is thanks to the fact that everything is impermanent that a person can change his/her situation and attain liberation. If things were permanent, being forever defined with unchangeable identity, no chance of being freed could ever present itself to any human being.
Observing this situation superficially, it would appear that the concept of Free Will is extremely prominent in the Buddhist teaching and practice. However, upon closer examination, it becomes really hard to identify this concept anywhere in this teaching. True, sentient beings are faced with a choice at every moment in their lives — observe the Buddha’s precepts, or ignore them. But, their choice is not governed by their will. It is governed by their knowledge, as obtained through careful proper analysis of phenomena.
In non-Buddhist religions, the practitioners do not feel the need to examine the phenomena, since they believe that the world was created by the Supreme Being, or God. The only thing a worshipper needs to do is embrace the Will of the Creator, discard one’s own will, and rest assured of the posthumous award. Conversely, failing to do that, the subject will rest assured of a tormentous punishment that awaits in the designated hell.
Where does Free Will fit in with that picture? Why was the individual human being given Free Will and the ability to choose?
Free Will in such religions is merely an expedient that enables the all-loving Creator not to be blamed for the ills of His creation. Why would an omnipotent all-knowing all-loving Creator create a world with so much hardship, heartbreak, misery and catastrophe? He wouldn’t, not under any conceivable circumstances. How are we then to explain all the misery and inconceivable suffering that permeates the world? There is no other way to explain that discrepancy away other than to invoke the magical principle of Free Will. God has created humans in his own image and endowed them with Free Will, with the ability to choose between embracing Him or embracing the darkness. All the miseries that collate around the world are caused by the man’s weak will, by his inability to choose the right path.
On the surface, this situation seems very similar to the Buddhist worldview. In Buddhism we also have the situation where individuals can choose at any moment whether to embrace the light or embrace the darkness. However, this is where the similarities end. In Buddhism, a person does not embrace darkness because of the weakness of his will, but because of ignorance. In non-Buddhist religions, the worshipper cannot be excused on the grounds of ignorance, because the unambiguous teaching is explained to all worshippers, and it is easy to understand that teaching. Basically, the knowledge needed to embrace the light consists in undivided allegiance to the Creator. Embrace the Creator in one’s heart, devote one’s entire life to Him, and you will be saved.
Things are far from being that simplistic in the Buddhist practice. To begin with, there is no Creator, so there is no one to pledge our allegiance to. Secondly, the teaching itself is abtruse, extremely recondite. Even among the advanced Buddhist practitioners one can notice considerable struggle in trying to fathom the more subtle, profound aspects of the teaching.
We have said at the beginning of this essay that proper knowledge is sufficient to eradicate any will. This is precisely what Buddhist practice aims for. The deluded mind conceives erroneously of “I” and soon enough the notion of “mine” follows. Then the “non-I” becomes a problem, and the will arises to fight the “non-I” and to conquer the “not mine”, and turn it into “mine”.
This will is the result of erroneous, miscalculated perception and apprehension. The same miscalculated perception gives rise of the false, phantom Free Will. Feeling falsely imprisoned by the phantom “non-I”, the equally phantom-like “I” dreams of breaking free. This dream is what gives rise to the notion of Free Will.
Once this dream dissipates (through the establishment of the right view, or proper knowledge), the miscalculated perception turns into unblemished perception. The falsely perceived enslaved “I” vanishes, and with it every notion of Free Will. Once the notion of Free Will is discarded, true liberation is shines through.

Schuhart

A few thoughts occurred to me that might or might not be relevant.

Free will would seem to assume an independent self. If we see that self as a temporary thing, then free will only exists for as long as that entity persists. Hence, to me, the question looks to be really about whether or not that temporary self can make independent choices, or whether its actions are simply the product of the situation it finds itself in.

Forgetting for a minute that you never stand in the same river twice, is free will supposed to mean that the exact same person confronted with the exact same context might do something utterly different second time around? Considered in that way, free will would seem not to be meaningful. Maybe sometimes we feel we’ve flipped a coin, and might equally have decided to do the opposite in a particular situation. But an alternative reading is simply that the determination process is complex and hard to trace a source for, rather than independently controlled.

Taking an example from the religious context, if most people adhere to the faith of their parents, does that suggest a use of free will?

This might create a problem for seeing a choice to follow a particular spiritual path as free in some absolute sense. However, presumably the mechanism remains and the prospect of the mechanism being self aware. A supporting beam holds up your roof, but can never be aware that its doing that, understand how it’s achieving that result or form a view as to whether it would be better to remove itself from the building and let the whole structure collapse. The fact that we can do those things might or might not amount to free will, but it does give a lot of scope for enquiry.

Asiaprod

Good points, must admit I am at sea on this issue. I find it hard to comprehend that I have no free will. If there is no free will, would that not cast doubt on the whole concept of Karma. Can there be Karma if there is no free will. I think not.

You mentioned that Free will would seem to assume an independent self. That raises another question, how independent does one have to really be in order to have Free will? Or even what aspect of life would one need to be Independent off to have free will, given that we have to follow certain rules in order to even survive as a population. I agree that society, morals, self-preservation and ethics do indeed bind us to making certain choices, but surely not all choices we make are controlled by these influences.
Maybe Free will is in fact what enlightenment really is:eek:
Looking forward to hearing other's views on this.

Schuhart

I have a lot of sympathy with Teilhard’s concept of ultimate convergence. I don’t see this as necessarily determined or something that happens without individual effort (and, for what it’s worth, I don’t think he did either). But I’m not sure that individual effort means the same as free will. I think it’s useful for these topics to be explored and for our knowledge to increase as best we can. But self awareness and self determination seem to me to be different things. That said, at the moment, I’m actually open on the question of whither free will.

On the question of independence, given that we are ultimately part of the one physical reality it strikes me as a question of defining boundaries. In the case of a person, the physical boundary is reasonably easily defined. The mental boundary is harder to establish. What is me, and what is just placed in my mind by the context I’ve lived in? I don’t think there is any simple answer, although reflection on where exactly that bare spark of awareness sits seems like a reasonable course of enquiry.

The path that brings us here may not be one we’ve freely chosen in the broadest sense. But if we’ve come to this point, then it is in our nature to be here. Maybe self awareness and acceptance of our nature is all that we can reasonably achieve.

Asiaprod

I found this interesting take on Free Will, it is certainly food for thought

"The Buddha's teachings on Karma are interesting because it's a combination of causality and free-will. If things were totally caused there would be no way you could develop a skill - your actions would be totally predetermined. If there was no causality at all skills would be useless because things would be constantly changing without any kind of rhyme or reason to them. But it's because there is an element of causality and because there is this element of free-will you can develop skills in life."

maitri

Hi everybody!

Interesting topic, Asia! And a very difficult one. The concept of free will has bothered me for some time. What does it really mean to have “free will”, and do we have it? I have to admit that I think total determinism is easier to defend than absolute free will, if I have to choose between the two extremes. (But extremes are not very Buddhist, anyway, are they?;)) With determinism we have the problem with accountability* (and feeling resentment will probably be totally irrational – but then maybe it is?), with absolute free will we have the problem of fitting causality into the picture without ruining the idea of total freedom of will.

What does Buddhism say about this? I think you are right when you say/quote:

Asiaprod wrote:

"The Buddha's teachings on Karma are interesting because it's a combination of causality and free-will.
(...)
But it's because there is an element of causality and because there is this element of free-will you can develop skills in life.""

But how does Buddhism combine freedom and causation? And what does “freedom” mean in Buddhism?
I’ve tried to look up some Sutras to see if I could find some relevant passages. I found:

On freedom:

If there were no freedom, beings could never disentangle themselves from the world. But since there is freedom to transcend the world, beings are able to become disentangled.
(Anguttara Nikaya)

If the element of truth seeker did not exist in everyone,
There would be no turning away from craving,
Nor could there be a longing for Nirvana,
Nor a seeking for it, nor a resolve to find it.
(Vishuddi Magga)

But is the element of truth seeker the same as free will? Or should it rather be described as a natural good will that exists in everybody? (I think some of the old Greek philosophers thought in what seems to be a similar way – not so much in terms of a free will as of a good will in everybody. And when people choose evil those thinkers thought it’s because of ignorance when it comes to measuring what are the greatest goods.)

More about karma and freedom:

If anyone says that a person must reap according to his deeds, if anyone thinks the law of karma is inexorable, then he is saying that there is no spiritual life or growth, nor is there any opportunity to bring confusion to an end. But if anyone says that what a person reaps is in accordance with his deeds, in that case a spiritual life can exist and there is opportunity for realization.
(Anguttara Nikaya)

On causality:

If you want to know the past, to know what has caused you, look at yourself in the present, for that is the past’s effect. If you want to know your future, then look at yourself in the present, for that is the cause of the future.
(Majjhima Nikaya)

On body, perceptions, thoughts, ideas and feelings as result of causality:

What is not yours, put away; putting it away will be good for your welfare.
What are the things that are not yours? Your body is not yours – put it away. Your feelings come and go; don’t own them, put them away. Perception and the things you perceive are not yours, put them down. The way your brain works and forms ideas is not yours, let it go. Consciousness is a condition that is general; it is not yours, do not own it. Letting go and putting away and not owning will be for your good and welfare.”
(…)

The body, monks, is not a self. The body has evolved out of time immemorial from causes and preconditions that are also without a self. How then could the body, evolving out of something that is not a self, be a self? The same is true of thoughts and ideas that have come into existence by the influence of all beings through time – how could thoughts and ideas be a self? So, too, with feelings and perceptions, which are relative to the body and mind – how could they be a self?”
(…)
This body is not yours, nor does it belong to others. It should be seen as the product of the whole of history. In regard to it the wise person will reflect on the nature of conditioning: If this comes into being, that will arise; if this does not come into being, that will not arise.
(Samyutta Nikaya)

(All quotes –as usual – are from The Pocket Buddha Reader, edited by Anne Bancroft)

We see that Buddhism states freedom in the sense of freedom to transcend the world (but what does that mean?) – Is that the same as to say we have free will?
Buddhism also states that the body, feelings, perception, thoughts and ideas are conditioned, and so IMHO cannot be said to be free.
So if a Free Will exists it must then be independent - or maybe rather transcend - the body, feelings, perception, thoughts and ideas; but if so, can it then be said to be “our” anymore?

Hmmm… I’m not at all sure that I made things any clearer by this. Actually I’m very confused when it comes to the question of freedom of will and causation and accountability. (And having to write about it in English doesn't make it any easier...)

Schuhart wrote:

Maybe self awareness and acceptance of our nature is all that we can reasonably achieve.

Maybe you are right, Schuhart. But self awareness and acceptance of what is, is no little achievement, anyway - and it also actually seems to be the starting point and premise for the "transcendence of the world" that Buddhism talks about.




* One of my old teachers in philosophy actually seems/seemed to think determinism and accountability can be combined, but I don’t know how he does that. I’ve wanted to ask him about it for years but I never get around to doing it.

Schuhart

maitri wrote:

So if a Free Will exists it must then be independent - or maybe rather transcend - the body, feelings, perception, thoughts and ideas; but if so, can it then be said to be “our” anymore?.

My only thought, which might be irrelevant, is that the situation is not static.

We come into the world, and the context into which we come determines an amount. In a way, its like a ball is passed to us to play. We don't necessarily choose the game, or even the team we're playing with. But what we do next maybe is within our free will, to an extent.

That may start with self awareness. Maybe we try to understand what put us on that team, in that game. We take that wherever it brings us.

At the end, we will hopefully have achieved some kind of enlightenment that can be passed on. What we've done with our free will sets up a new game for whoever comes after us. Hence, its not just that each one of us is hopefully in some sense deepening our understanding, but we are adding to a collective understanding. Maybe, at the end of the day, the free will we are talking about is not something any one of us 'owns', but something that we each have a part of and have added to.

Scofflaw

I'm uncertain why free will has to somehow transcend the body/brain, although I see that everyone seems to assume this is the case - religious and unreligious alike. In the case of most atheists, this leads them to reject free will, since the assumption seems to be that it would prove the soul (meanwhile, they attack the religious for living their lives at the dictates of their gods).

It seems to me that this is an argument from ignorance. We don't know how it is possible for matter/energy to so organise itself that it is conscious, but then we're not really sure what consciousness is, come to that.

I'll grant you the most we can do for the moment is to wave our hands vaguely and say things like 'probably an emergent property of a self-organising system', but the only reason I can see for assuming that it requires something supra-mundane is that we need there to be something special about us.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote:

but the only reason I can see for assuming that it requires something supra-mundane is that we need there to be something special about us.

Indeed, there is no particular reason for assuming that we are all part of some kind of evolution towards a Gaia or some other goal. I see the process in terms of a choice – i.e. we’re here, so is this reality (leaving aside, for a moment, questions of how we perceive or decide). If we are the consciousness in creation, what do we want to do about it?

Maybe the answer is nothing. Some day the planet will be dead anyway. Whether that’s sooner or later or what happens in the mean time may not amount to a hill of beans. That, I think, is where that sense of wanting to be special or ‘if there’s no heaven what is this hunger for’ comes in (to take my quote of the moment from Emmylou Harris).

I see that concept of alienation as relevant here. Do we choose a God, and alienate onto that the quality that makes us special “God made me, God is good and I feature in his plan” or claim that quality back into ourselves “We are good, and we have a plan”. Better still, can we do this in a way that doesn’t involve turning people of a different view into chutney.

MeditationMom

Another Koan in the Buddhist Forum?

by Asiaprod - We have said at the beginning of this essay that proper knowledge is sufficient to eradicate any will. This is precisely what Buddhist practice aims for. The deluded mind conceives erroneously of “I” and soon enough the notion of “mine” follows. Then the “non-I” becomes a problem, and the will arises to fight the “non-I” and to conquer the “not mine”, and turn it into “mine”.
This will is the result of erroneous, miscalculated perception and apprehension. The same miscalculated perception gives rise of the false, phantom Free Will. Feeling falsely imprisoned by the phantom “non-I”, the equally phantom-like “I” dreams of breaking free. This dream is what gives rise to the notion of Free Will.
Once this dream dissipates (through the establishment of the right view, or proper knowledge), the miscalculated perception turns into unblemished perception. The falsely perceived enslaved “I” vanishes, and with it every notion of Free Will. Once the notion of Free Will is discarded, true liberation is shines through.

posted by Maitri - On freedom:

If there were no freedom, beings could never disentangle themselves from the world. But since there is freedom to transcend the world, beings are able to become disentangled.
(Anguttara Nikaya)

If the element of truth seeker did not exist in everyone,
There would be no turning away from craving,
Nor could there be a longing for Nirvana,
Nor a seeking for it, nor a resolve to find it.
(Vishuddi Magga)

These statements hit the nail on the head. Liberation is the freedom from the illusion of "free will".

When we ask ourselves "whose free will?" - "my will", "your will", "God's will", "the will of the Universe"? - we recognize the reason for eternal conflict, and eternal harmony, simultaneously. A great Koan - good for smashing our dualistic thinking.

"Free will" - after making us first follow our cravings, and then, our longing/craving for Nirvana - is nothing but the boat that gets us across the river of illusion. As we don't have use of it anymore, the whole question of "free will" or "no free will" evaporates.

The last "free will choice" is to let go of "free will" (total surrender), only to find, that "my will" is "your will", is "God's will", is "the will of the Universe".

This is how one would be able to predict, surrender to, and endure even Cruci-fiction, all while maintaining compassion for the crucifiers.

The "will of the Universe and God" is not willfull. It is absolute surrender beyond our imagination - to something more like a dance. That is why "evil" also exist in the world - it has no substance. It is part of the dance, the same way a valley is part of a mountain. There would be no good without evil.

Welcome to the Tao, everyone.

maitri

Hi!

Schuhart wrote:

But what we do next maybe is within our free will, to an extent.

It certainly is within our will (to an extent), but is that will really free?

Schuhart wrote:

That may start with self awareness. Maybe we try to understand what put us on that team, in that game. We take that wherever it brings us.

….


Maybe, at the end of the day, the free will we are talking about is not something any one of us 'owns', but something that we each have a part of and have added to.

I like that way of thinking.

MeditationMom wrote:

These statements hit the nail on the head. Liberation is the freedom from the illusion of "free will".

...

"Free will" - after making us first follow our cravings, and then, our longing/craving for Nirvana - is nothing but the boat that gets us across the river of illusion. As we don't have use of it anymore, the whole question of "free will" or "no free will" evaporates.

The last "free will choice" is to let go of "free will" (total surrender), only to find, that "my will" is "your will", is "God's will", is "the will of the Universe".

Those are very interesting thoughts!

MeditationMom wrote:

The "will of the Universe and God" is not willfull. It is absolute surrender beyond our imagination - to something more like a dance.

Who is the dancer then?

MeditationMom wrote:

There would be no good without evil.

I can to a certain extent see - and agree - that we would probably have no notion of "good" without a notion of "evil". But do you really think that love in its nature is dependent of evil? That doesn't make any sense to me.
But maybe I misunderstand what you are saying here, or what you and other thinkers mean by "There is no good without evil."?

M.:)

Schuhart

maitri wrote:

It certainly is within our will (to an extent), but is that will really free?

I can't think of any certain way of knowing how much of a choice is 'free' in the sense of independent of any outside influence. In practical terms, sometimes I find the reason why I took a decision may not even be clear to me until some later time.

Is a decision made in ignorance free? Perhaps, if independence is the quality that defines free will. But does that mean that free will is only possible in a situation of perfect ignorance, as any knowledge will influence us in this or that direction?

If that thought is rejected, and free will is defined as the exercise of judgement on whatever knowledge is available to us, that still leaves a problem as that knowledge may be biased.

I find it hard to reach any conclusion, and I'm just left with a sense that, indeed, the first pursuit is simply to understand more.