Please cite exactly where in SN 22.59 and SN 22.100 that there’s no “control”, and more specifically “no actual volition”?
1 Like
Do you think you may be taking about a Soul?
When we think of the Self, we usually think of something within this mind and/or body. Those things usually are phenomena we can experience, thus are not mysterious or mysteries.
They are observable and not recognisable as a Self.
With metta
1 Like
The Sutta I quoted earlier (AN 6.38) shows the Buddha confirming “agency.” I’m using this definition of the word (Wiktionary):
The capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power; action or activity; operation.
But if one construes it as ultimately a “self” exerting agency, free will, volition, or what have you, then one is seeing things in terms of self-view, i.e. in a deluded way.
2 Likes
Okay, well in SN22.59 it says:
“Bhikkhus, form is nonself. For if, bhikkhus, form were self, this form would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’ But because form is nonself, form leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’
“Feeling is nonself… Perception is nonself…. Volitional formations are nonself…. Consciousness is nonself. For if, bhikkhus, consciousness were self, this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of consciousness: ‘Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus.’ But because consciousness is nonself, consciousness leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of consciousness: ‘Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus.’”
That is clearly no control, specifically no control over the aggregates.
And in SN22.100 it says:
“Suppose, bhikkhus, an artist or a painter, using dye or lac or turmeric or indigo or crimson, would create the figure of a man or a woman complete in all its features on a well-polished plank or wall or canvas. So too, when the uninstructed worldling produces anything, it is only form that he produces; only feeling that he produces; only perception that he produces; only volitional formations that he produces; only consciousness that he produces.“
This is clearly saying that everything we do comes from the aggregates. So if you can’t change the aggregates, and you have no control over them, and everything we do comes from the aggregates, then we have no control over anything we do. Again, all uncontrollable processes.
And this isn’t the only place, the buddha says many times that all of our thoughts and behavior are within the aggregates. Look at any sutta that explains what they are. Sankhara is said to be our bodily, verbal, and mental actions, and also in SN22.79 it says it is what constructs the other 4 aggregates. So if it says you can’t “Let my sankhara be thus” or “Let my sankhara not be thus” then that is clearly saying you have no control over your bodily, verbal, or mental actions, or any control over the construction of the other 4 aggregates. And besides no control over their construct, you have no control at all over them, as it says that for all the aggregates in the first sutta I cited.
Also you may try to argue that in the second sutta it says uninstructed worldling so that doesn’t apply for arahants, and maybe it doesn’t, but arahants are still bound to their aggregates until they die which it says it SN35.232. So yes, maybe once you attain parinibbana this all changes, but that certainly isn’t the argument here. I of course have no place to say how parinibbana will be.
1 Like
Please note the term ‘uninstructed worldling’. This would be someone that had not been exposed to the teachings and taken them to heart - which implies that if one does accept the teachings this will not be the case. Which implies a choice and in fact, as has already been noted - the entire path requires will and intention.
1 Like
Not at all, that sutta has nothing to do with control, only with whether there is anything more than the aggregates. The buddha states many times that all of our thoughts, speech, and actions are from the aggregates. This not just an uninstructed worldling thing.
1 Like
Actually you’ve just helped me proving that you’ve been wrong: volitional formation is non-self, but there IS volitional formation. it says right there in the very sutta you quoted!
How does that make sense? There is volition but you have no control of it? Volition is just a poor translation. It is often translated as “conditioned formations” and this is a much better fit for the reason you just gave. And this isn’t about the word volition, this is about free will. You can call our bodily, verbal, and mental actions whatever you want, but if we have no control of them, which is clearly stated in that sutta, then we have no free will.
2 Likes
Hi Mat,
No, I am saying that the EBTs are not addressing the issue of what ultimately exists or does not exist and if we read into the teachings notions about the ultimate nature of reality then we can get into all kinds of theories that serve no useful purpose and have no support in the EBTs. By rejecting the view that the Buddha taught there is no self as opposed to not self (for the purpose of training) people may think I am saying there is a self or soul - I am not - I am just saying both views are unprovable - so going down that road is pointless.
Wrong again. Sankhara means a lot more than just “conditioned formations”. This is basic Buddhism 101.
The control comes from the aggregates. Volitional formations are themselves among the aggregates. They are, of course, caused on the Buddhist picture. So while the mental energy and determination to direct events in a particular direction is a real mental phenomenon, playing in real role in how things go, those determinations are themselves caused by previous mental events. But we can say that there is no independent controller somehow standing outside of, and uninfluenced by, the course of skhandic events and processes.
The Buddha never argues against what we would now call “causal determinism” - although he doesn’t seem to have viewed these issues through our kind of conceptual framework in any case. He argues against what is sometimes called “fatalism” - the view that our actions don’t matter because what will be just will be, independently of our mental determinations and volitions. Some of his contemporaries seem to have held this silly view. But of course our volitions do matter. Even if they are causally determined by previous events via a strict determinism, they play an essential causal role in determining future events.
2 Likes
Yes, you’re right, and all of that is uncontrollable, again stated by that sutta. So it’s not just bodily, verbal, and mental actions that are uncontrollable, but a lot more than that as you just said. All uncontrollable.
But you’ve just proved it against yourself that’s “uncontrollable” is no where to be found in the very suttas you quoted. The word doesn’t even exist there.
I agree with all of that. In fact, that’s the point I’m trying to make. That without a self, free will no longer applies. Regardless of whether the actions matter, there is no one there to control them. The main point which I might argue you pushed past a little too quickly is that the aggregates control eachother, but are in turn controlled by the previous causes and conditions and all the way back as far as you want to go. There is no moment in our lives that isn’t just the exact result of what came before. That is the main and essential point of free will, that regardless of the causes and conditions, you still have a “choice,” but you really don’t, because whatever choice you make was already caused and conditioned beyond your control, and this goes for every decision you make. This is the only point I am trying to make, but I 100% agree that what happens now does matter, because it will cause and conditon the future, and regardless of whether we have control or free will, we still have to experience it. It’s really like we’re just a series of experiences strapped onto a rollercoaster with a set track, and possibly a quantum random number generator to throw in a couple curveball experiences along the way.
1 Like
“Bhikkhus, form is nonself. For if, bhikkhus, form were self, this form would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’ But because form is nonself, form leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’
Feeling is nonself… Perception is nonself…. Volitional formations are nonself…. Consciousness is nonself. For if, bhikkhus, consciousness were self, this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of consciousness: ‘Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus.’ But because consciousness is nonself, consciousness leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of consciousness: ‘Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus.’”
It doesn’t need to say uncontrollable. It says “It is not possible to have it of form, feeling, perception, formations, or consciousness: Let it be thus, or let it not be thus.”
This obviously means you cannot control them. How could you possibly interpret that any other way?
1 Like
First of, you said the Buddha said there’s no “control”; Second, you said there’s “no volitional formation”; these are your very own words, which is nowhere to be found in the very suttas you cited. The Buddha did say one can control one’s mental state through the Four Right Exertions. And the Buddha did say on many occasions there is volitional formations in both contexts: conditioned phenomena and mental volition.
No, I said volitional isn’t the best translation of sankhara because it’s misleading. And yes no control, tell me what that sutta means if it doesn’t mean no control? It is crystal clear in that sutta he is saying you cannot control the aggregates. Now you’re argument is just nitpicking, and not even accurate nitpicking. If you actually have another way to interpret that section of the sutta then I’m listening. But it straight up says it is not possible to make any of the aggregates a certain a way, that is the very essence of no control.
1 Like
Not nitpicking, just refute your outright wrong speech by putting words into the Buddha’s mouths. Nowhere did He say one has no control, and nowhere did He say there is no volitonal formation. These are entirely your own ideas, not the Buddha’s. If you acknowledge that these are your own ideas, then that’s ok. But the moment you attribute it to the Buddha, you’re slandering Him and do expect that people will refute your claim. Matter of fact, this was the only reason I joined the thread, only after you said your fancy idea was in fact the Buddha’s idea, which is totally false.
Just tell me how that sutta doesn’t clearly state that you don’t have control of the aggregates?
1 Like
Just tell me where exactly that sutta backs up your claim of “no control”?