B. Alan Wallace - A Buddhist View of Free Will

[@daznaguna7635]

If you read the Abhidhamma manual regarding the thought process taking place everytime an object is entered into our mind through our sense faculties, Buddha describes 17 thought moments for every object that enters our mind. During the 8th thought moment known as Votthapana(determining consciousness), humam mind exercises 'free will' and discrimination also plays its part here. The qualities of free will exercised is no doubt attributed to the level of development of the mind in any individual. I mean these thought processes for the layman is almost instantaneous and we can't really intercept it, whereas a highly developed mind is aware and in control of every thought process and hence the ability to make wise decisions that will not accumulate akusala karma.

[@patricioansaldi8021]

Right on, free will is something that doesn't necessarily exist as a precondition but it is something that humans can develop

[@marionow6227]

Very well said

[@shashankkumar1437]

Much gratitude 🙏

[@chuckschultz4809]

I'm reading that votthapana-citta determines the object in the sense-door process. It seems to me that this is not the same thing as a moment of self-determination.

[@seeker8619]

Any thought (chiththa) only exist for a small fraction of time called 'chiththakshana'. As buddha told this one 'chiththakshana' is very small time which could be smaller than a micro second. If anyone had decided something withing that short time period how can we aware about that? And as to buddha consciousness (wijjana) take only one object. it only does getting aware of the object. so if consciousness does only getting know about the object it was sprung up, how can it do something else? if 'Voththappana' decides, what causes 'voththapana'? if there is no person in this five aggregates who does has the free will?

[@thejetavanagrove3865]

This is excellent. Such clarity.

[@snowdakini]

Thank you so much!

[@lucask3]

Remember the MIDDLE WAY, so important in all aspects of life. There is no Free will neither determinism, is something in between . We can argue for ages and never come up with an explanation that appeals to everyone cause we all have different intellects. Reality is beyond words, it has to be experience Mall all be happy!

[@patricioansaldi8021]

Great post. However, would not one drop of free will cause the whole ocean to become a function of that free will? Cause even though 99% of things may be "predetermined", the 1% of choice we exercise is still predicated upon having a free will in the first place

[@Basaltq]

Wallace basically described Buddhism in a nutshell. And for us westerners, from very relatable perspective. The concept of free will is something our culture is obsessed with, so it makes very much sense to start unwinding from that.

[@nayanmalig]

Dependent origination proves that there is nothing called free will because nothing can stand on it's own without a preceding incident.

[@JesseNickelltheFourth]

Such a sharp and brilliant mind!

[@umblnc]

Punishment is not about free will. Even if people don't have free will, and they are not morally responsible for what they did, we still need to prevent them from doing it again. We would do the same with robot, we would prevent it from doing the same thing. If we are not able to fix the robot, we would turn it off. Punishment is also related to changing the person or other people that are watching someone being punished. Even if they don't have free will, they have no choice but to change their behavior when they know they will be punished. You can influence other people, even if your influencing is predetermined, and their reaction is predetermined. The cause and effect still exist.

[@smlanka4u]

A great explanation. Thank you so much.

[@turhanoniz3523]

Excellent enjoyeded Thanks

[@felixliang7558]

incredible explanation

[@IlyaShap]

Thank you!

[@justingreen1887]

Personally I think the debate between free will and determinism is an illusion too, that consciousness and life is a dynamic process similar to a Hegelian dialectical framework.

[@edwardlobb931]

Free Will is where mistakes are made. What triggers emotion? attainment or denial of gratification. Where's the free will? He achieves excellence here, during the transmission of awareness.

[@gustavosanthiago]

Perfect!!!

[@dtseringdorje]

Manjusri was famous of being very talkative. Maybe silence of Vimalakirti's says everything about the subject. What is better a chatterbox or stillness of a stone...? What the Buddha would say about it...? He would cut a pear into two parts and give you one half and one half for himself and says: let's eat.

[@felixewenson3546]

One of the central tenants of Buddhism is that there is no self that ego is an illusion is this not the same as saying there is no free will?

[@IRLiAm]

No, there is a misunderstanding here of no self. In Buddhism there is still a self, the realisation of no self is that there is no separate and absolute self. But there is still a relative self. Buddhism is not nihilism.

[@andrewollmann304]

indigo j "self" is not ego. Ego arises in dependence on craving for things like goods, strong emotions, experiences, etc. This craving leads to suffering becouse we want temporal things (things that can change) to make us truly happy.

[@ffederel]

No Buddhist tenet refutes that there is a person. You exist, I exist, we are different from one another. There is a person that sleeps, that speaks, whom I see, etc. The meaning of selflessness is a negation, not of the person, but of a mode of existence. According to most schools, the person is empty of being self-sufficient substantially existent. According to Madhyamika Prasangika, the person is empty of inherent existence. By no means do Buddhist tenets posit the person as an illusion. It is often said that it is "like an illusion" because it doesn't exist the way it appears, but it is not an illusion.

[@fruitionapt]

@@IRLiAm the question is still the same

[@usernameryan5982]

Yes you're right, no free will is a corollary of there being no self. Buddhist states that you aren't a self, you are a process. A process that eternally changes based on genetics and environment. Therefore, there is no will that is free from these two things. I'm pretty sure that people confuse free will with willpower. Kind of like how Alan said it's not whether we have free will but how much do we have and how can we get more? Free will is not the right word here, he's really talking about willpower. The reason we punish someone who doesn't have schizophrenia rather than someone who does is because punishing someone who doesn't has a much higher effect of creating a corrective behavior whereas it won't do anything for someone who's sick.

[@stevenholmes4628]

If electrical currents transfer information then I assume that the speed of the impulses will always dictate thought patterns.

[@stevenholmes4628]

Punishment is a action of desire by the punisher.

[@adammichelini1]

I don’t think that’s always true. Some punishments are justified and sometimes you are duty bound to carry them out.

[@stevealkire6140]

To the extent we can reason dispassionately without delusion or ignorance, we can exercise freedom of choice, but that begs the question that such activity may be the result of conditions. Can we become aware of this awareness?

[@chrishickey]

if we don't have free will then we have no choice about how we follow the implications of that. we can't go oh i have no free will so i'll just do whatever i want...

[@Spedfree]

Chris Hickey yes but being exposed to that idea enough for it to make sense to you changes ur life possibly in a positive way,

[@chrishickey]

@@Spedfree just saw your comment. yes, if i understand you correctly, i agree. believing in no free will leads to more compassion and less pride. it works for me. i think i was just responding to the notion of "if there's no free will, i might as well just stay in bed" (as though you had a choice)

[@nickecommerce8127]

You'd have no choice if you think that or not. Thoughts just arise.

[@JazevoAudiosurf]

we can't explain things because we only know either or and not between. there is no free will or destiny, but something between I think. that doesn't mean that you sometimes have free will and sometimes not but it is so absolutely between yes and no that you can't put it in a concept or understand entirely unless you're enlightened.

[@fruitionapt]

It's very simple. If there is no absolute separate self then how is there free will? In Buddhism we are elaborations of nature/reality, so what makes us different in any absolute way than a rock? Buddhist's: Does a rock have free will? Buddhist's grasp onto this idea of free will but it really makes no sense. I also find it ironic, especially since in Buddhism grasping onto concepts is highlighted again and again as wrong action. I'd love to see Sam Harris have a talk with Mr. Wallace.

[@patricioansaldi8021]

Lol that's the answer right there. I keep struggling with these questions but ultimately I see i am trying to outline, explain, and manifest into 3d human reasoning something that is actually an ineffable dance of the dharma. It can be experienced and understood but not transmitted directly (with any accuracy)

[@protofone3616]

He's not gasping; you're projecting...

[@joshboston2323]

totally agree with you sean. You're absolutely right.

[@IAmMotivation123]

The same way the earth came to be is the same way our genetics and a rock came to be “it just happened” there is no difference between a rock and me

[@johnweber8497]

So who is it that has an intention? It's an endless rabbit hole that leaves one resting in existential unknowingness.- and then typically we begin the cycle again (and again) . If Mr. Wallace is somehow asserting intention as some absolute quality then I think he's mistaken, and if I assert intention is not an absolute quality, then I'm mistaken.

[@ouishi9447]

Not related to the video but i just remembered i had a to-do list in school where i added «ur mom» as one of the points just as a little joke for myself and then another student, a bit of a nosey type started reading my tasks and spotted it 😂

[@marionow6227]

I would argue that according to buddhism free will DOES exist. But it depends on your definition of 'free will'. Many of our actions and thoughts are automated and are rooted in ignorance/delusion. Like someone saying that I am an idiot and my automatic reaction is to feel hurt and react defensive. These are the predetermined reactions that neuroscientists speak of and the electrochemical processes that lead to my defensive reaction could undoubtedly be seen in my brain before the outward reaction itself takes place. But when 'sati' or mindfulness is well established in the mind, for instance because of regularly practising meditation, the arising of automated reactions in the mind can be observed by the actor before they come into fruition in an outward reaction. This gives the chance to stop the automated reaction and contemplate another, more skillful and wise reaction. This I would call free will. I think this basically agrees with what Wallace is saying.

[@NewEarth25]

Our intentions (cetana) are not always predetermined, mindfulness is about choosing where and how to direct our attention. What kind of free will comes out of greed/lust. hate/anger and ignorance/delusion?

[@protofone3616]

That's why calm abiding is step 1. Until u accomplish shamatha, you don't have a mind, your mind has you!

[@happylearningforyou]

wow so well explained..

[@tyreliouszukarious2582]

Does anyone have the link to the full video of this talk, please ?

[@thestruggleisreal9626]

I think people really misunderstand the implications of determinism. You (the controlling agent) are part of the deterministic stream... you are not somehow separate from it, or trapped inside a body that makes choices without your control. I think this philosophical disconnect lies in the illusion of the self. In order to have any meaningful conversation on this topic, we all need to agree to stop falling into the trap of "ME-ness" or "I-ness." The implication of a deterministic universe changes nothing about the way we live our lives. We punish our children because without that corrective response, they will likely grow to make bad choices. This doesn't seem, to me, to be a mystery. I think the misbehaving laptop analogy falls a bit short because you can just fix or replace a laptop; it would be better to say we are forces of nature, like a shark, or a hurricane. We don't blame sharks and punish them because they are the victims, not perpetrators, of their nature; on the other hand, we punish and lock up criminals AS a corrective mechanism regardless of the origin of their intent, and we can justify doing this for our own protection without attributing blame, just as we could justify locking up a hurricane. I firmly believe in a deterministic model (mostly because there's still no evidence for libertarian free will, but also because we live in a causal universe, and it's a bit obvious). The implications therein aren't changing my choice-making habits because THERE ARE NO implications there for how or why we make choices. It really changes nothing. When I choose between vanilla and chocolate, the result of that choice is not out of my control; the thing I'm calling "me" or "my" or "I" is PART of that causal event. The problem here really is in our understanding of the self, and throwing the deterministic argument out because people don't seem to "really believe it" wouldn't be an honest philosophical move anyway; even if it were true that we should stop locking up criminals or disciplining our children (which it's not). The only real implication in a deterministic universe is that we have less of a justification for attributing blame, and spend less energy on feelings of retribution or vengeance. Same as if we started viewing people the way we view lions, tigers, or bears.

[@Anonymous-sx5tc]

YES! I completely agree. Honestly, I thought the same through the video.

[@iceydaywalker9198]

Agreed, thanks for your good articulation!

[@iceydaywalker9198]

In my chaotic 22 yrs of life I’ve now gone from naive optimism to nihilism/determinism and now Buddhism. Before, I couldn’t reconcile my strong observation that nature is deterministic with my similarly strong feeling that I am somehow still a controlling agent here. Now I see how compatible determinism and karma are. It could be that karma is the true game and determinism is the way in which it appears through time and space. I gotta stop thinking so much and meditate more. I hope I keep improving myself. Peace and love to you.

[@billybob5588]

Brilliant.

[@patricioansaldi8021]

I mostly agree but I think the exercise of will power is the ultimate choice that is predicated by free will. Even if 99% of things are predetermined, it's the 1% of higher executive cognitive function that makes the difference by making a choice. Even though it may be true that the choices available are influenced exogenously, the act of picking one or another can still be managed by a "free will aspect". I think about determinism in terms of my relationship with most other humans, but I think of free will in terms of taking responsibility for my actions. Due to this, I see that other people are capable of taking responsibility, and thus I see this as the exalted form of humanity. So I would say that free will is what allows us to conceive of free will in the first place, otherwise we would only expect humans to be as animals, and thus attribute them the rights that would be due as such. However, we always give people a chance do we not?

[@robertjsmith]

There isn’t a self to either have or not have free will ?

[@taisaichan9568]

Buddhist can do anything but you need to accept with the consequences. It's a simple rule of karma, that's Buddha say you do it, you have to get the results of that action.

[@bassmonk2920]

Will we be punishing AI....

[@afreshlife422]

Thanks for posting this. Curious how the Dawkins, Dennet, Harris meme insists that there is no free will and then expect anyone to believe their totally determined/conditioned utterances told as some kind of truth derived from reason or something...and that we need to change our ways...hmmmmm.

[@bayreuth79]

Yes. If you were determined to believe x then you did not choose to believe x, so how do you know that its true? Dawkins and Dennet, et al, are assuming some kind of free will when they say that they believe such and such because electing a true belief presupposes that we can choose from different alternatives based on weighing the evidence; but if Dawkins, et al, is correct that we are all determined then it follows that they had no choice but to believe that we are all determined, so there was no decision made based on the evidence alone. Dawkins cuts off the branch he was sitting on.

[@Spedfree]

bayreuth79 true but that doesnt mean its wrong since the people who belive in free will (most people) have had pretty bad circumstances leading them to believe in that

[@patricioansaldi8021]

Loooool! That's right

[@suemiller2078]

Determinism would suggest that we are determined to use our reasoning abilities to select based on evidence. We make choices that reflect our design. I dont have free will. I have my will, which if it were free would imply I have no design or form. But I do. Im human and act like it, as determined by things before me. I can still make rational decisions based on evidence. The part that shows I lack free will is that I cannot do otherwise unless I decided to make a point that I could. Which would have been setup by seeking to do so. Prior causes and such. You should be glad you don't have free will because if you were truly free you wouldn't get to settle on being any one thing, you wouldn't be human or material for that matter. Just pure potential. Does that make sense?

[@suemiller2078]

The very fact that you are something entails that you are also not EVERYTHING ELSE. Material form entails material constraints, making you who you are. You are complicated and make choices and experience the computation involved in making decisions. You feel it in real time as it happens, and it feels like free will, but you are doing what you would, that's all.

[@jeffsilkwood9878]

He set up a good straw man argument. One of his major premise is that in the west there’s no agreement over the issue of determinism and free will. However, the very fact that that are multiple schools of Buddhist thought, each teaching a different variant of the belief, shows this is a case of the kettle calling the pot black. Very smart man, I give him credit. But his understanding of the Christian worldview is not very accurate. He gets many details right, but fails at understanding the why questions. Hitler is not punished for a finite crime. He is punished for his crime against an eternally holy God. It is God that has been sinned against. It is the finite’s deeds against the infinite that determines the punishment. Not the finite against the finite. Thanks for the video, despite the critique I appreciate the effort. I do not expect my comments to persuade anyone to accept what I said. I only offered the comment in the heart of accurately representing other’s worldview.

[@leetaodana535]

it's always best to answer briefly. i found myself skipping through to get to his point.

[@protofone3616]

Wow. This needs to be watched several times. Not once with skipping 🤦‍♂️

[@aleksandarkuraica3229]

its all in the can.

[@seanconnollynz]

Unskillful means - Seems that Alan Wallace is fond of his own voice and uses poor arguments to take way too long to finally get to the kernel which seems to be that the question of free will doesn't have a useful answer, so we need a better question and the guy called Buddha generally tried to give useful tips on what he found worked really well for him - i.e. the importance of intention in consequent karma.

[@sasquatch1554]

If the majority of people in society realized we don't have free will the repercussions would be absolutely profound and not in a negative way like Wallace imagines. For one, our justice system would focus on rehabilitation instead of punishment and revenge. Yes, we would still need to keep people in prison for life because rehabilitation would fail some and they would continue to be a danger to society. Prison would be very different, but we just wouldn't open prison gates and say, "you are free to go, you aren't responsible for your actions!" The way we treat the homeless, disadvantaged people, and people in general would vastly improve. No, people wouldn't become morally bankrupt if they didn't believe in free will like Wallace is desperately trying to convince us in this video. That's no different than saying an atheist will be an evil or immoral person because of their disbelief in God. Is the fear of bad karma the only reason Wallace is a good person? Morality not only benefits you, but your morality benefits all of society. I'm still going to discipline my child if he misbehaves and teach him good manners if I don't believe in free will. Teaching and disciplining my child is not a pointless endeavor because everything is cause and effect it doesn't matter if was determined and not my choice. For these reasons and many more I believe (by no choice of my own) that getting rid of the belief in free will would be one the most important advancements in the history of the human species. The ego hates nothing more than to be told it doesn't have free will and Wallace is victim to that. He even calls the idea "creepy." That's not only his ego talking, but his fear of an idea the contradicts his religion and attacks his identity. Reality is the way it is not the way we want it to be, and the majority of professionals in both neuroscience and physics agree we don't have free will. There was a philosophy in the east older than Buddhism called Ajivika that didn't believe in free will but did believe in absolute determinism. Unfortunately, due to fear and misunderstanding, it was destroyed and what we know about it only comes from sources (such as Buddhist texts) that were deeply biased against it. Look it up if interested. The channel Stoic Sadhu English has a good video on it.

[@kalumu4230]

You were born in the west may be conditioned by Christian culture but you chose to be a Buddhist. It is the choice that you can make. You can chose freely.

[@protofone3616]

So then why can't you decide to be free of all mental afflictions from 16h00 today?

[@AWakingApe]

hes really oversimplifying the topic and making alot of generalizations here. the buddah did teach us that "we cannot find an agent that causes thoughts too arise"

[@dtseringdorje]

Where is meat and potatoes...?

[@manaoharsam4211]

Does an alcoholic have free will. Not much because neural pathways created during drinking become memory. Immediate memory influences decision or freewill. But still there could be a silent seer. Like a drop in a vast ocean.

[@efraimhernandez9134]

He didn't explain anything. Free will is an illusion, just watch your own thoughts closely.

[@nicolasbachand1972]

What made you say this? Who decided there is no free will?

[@protofone3616]

You mean you didn't get anything. That means that the teachings have been denied to you. Sorry, try practice ethics and then return to try again later

[@joshboston2323]

Agree with you Efraim. There is no free will to be found.

[@MultiAdamowski]

how terrible that even a Buddhist teacher thinks in terms of "punishing". Of course there's nothing to punish for. It doesn't mean, however, that we allow bad things to be done. of course you don't send your laptop to prison, but if the laptop start walking around killing people, you send it to a pc doctor or just don't allow it to walk around.

[@456inthemix]

"punishing" is a term used by people who believe in creature god, he doesn't believe in that.

[@protofone3616]

Time to watch again but this time, with what I hope are fresh eyes and not the stagnant eyes that u probably still have...

[@dtseringdorje]

Wallace doesn't see.

[@protofone3616]

Support that statement

[@darkzen227]

Your argumentation is not complete imo. Humans are robots who can learn - that is why education and sanctioning work for humans. I am not clear yet about the question of free-will, but your comparison with robots isn't an argument in my opinion. Whether the Buddha said this or that also does not proof anything. Also, determination does not mean there is no responsibility: actions still have effects, and within determination an actor can learn and it's behavior can change, those are not proofs for free-will.

[@marcusorangeboomivnone7490]

So much ignorance in people...we need to raise our kundalini

[@user-bb3kw8gx1n]

Kundalini is my favorite dish, I need a good kundalini recipe though

[@mattpiper5278]

What is the self That has free will in Buddhism? This guy is deeply misinformed.

[@protofone3616]

Stop projecting. And if you think you aren't, then watch again and again without going into your standard oscillation between ADD and ADHD

[@mattpiper5278]

@@protofone3616 “stop projecting”. …You might want to ask someone you trust what projection means. To start.

[@protofone3616]

Says someone who's oscillating between ADD and ADHD. First, master your own attention. You think u have free will but u aren't even free enough to direct your own attention. Then once you're worthy, re-watch Alan Wallace and tell us again how he's deeply misinformed. And please add supporting points. Just saying something without any evidence just proves how little control you have over yourself...

[@mattpiper5278]

@@protofone3616 look closer… And read what is being said. There is no self that is separate from the universe as such. There is nothing that stands outside of causes and conditions to freely will anything. For you to respond back that I can’t control myself just shows how dense the localization of consciousness you refer to as your self is, LOL.

[@JeoJetsonmusic]

This is completely nonsensical and thoroughly misunderstands determinism. The whole notion of punishment and describing people or actions as good or bad also makes no sense. Now there may be a preferred means of behavior and behavior that doesn’t fall into that line can attempt to be corrected in either in an effective or ineffective way. We need to strive to increase our awareness through understanding we arrive at effective living. Saying a rapist or murderer is a bad person therefore we must lock them up is incomplete and far from optimal. We should be there early understanding the root of the behavior and if we need to keep them away from society it is not necessarily as a punishment but because they can’t behave in the way we define as proper. I can get behind the adjective of calling a person dangerous not necessarily evil.