Volitional Activities?

Discussion
22

I totally agree, 100%.

23

There is a great video from Ajahn Brahmali on this topic, possible following a confuse post I put out in a response to thread he was in:

It is a very good dhamma talk and it definitely help me on this very topic.

Bhante @Brahmali,
Sadhu, sadhu, sadhu

3 Likes
24

We all ‘believe’ in atoms and sub-atomic particles, right? If we are all just (and only) these particles, where is volition? How can there even be room to think about a Self?

25

Well there is no volition, not really. And it was always quite clear to me that there was no self, because of this exact reason. There is no volition, so my whole purpose of this discussion was to say that it shouldn’t ever be translated as such, but instead as “conditioned formations.”

1 Like
26

And it’s because of the exact reason highlighted above that the Buddha remained silent when being asked point blank whether there is or there is not a self, knowing full well that future generations will fall into these 2 extremes which only lead to further wrong views:

Then the wanderer Vacchagotta approached the Blessed One … and said to him:

“How is it now, Master Gotama, is there a self?”

When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.

“Then, Master Gotama, is there no self?”

A second time the Blessed One was silent.

Then the wanderer Vacchagotta rose from his seat and departed.

Then, not long after the wanderer Vacchagotta had left, the Venerable Ānanda said to the Blessed One: “Why is it, venerable sir, that when the Blessed One was questioned by the wanderer Vacchagotta, he did not answer?”

“If, Ānanda, when I was asked by the wanderer Vacchagotta, ‘Is there a self?’ I had answered, ‘There is a self,’ this would have been siding with those ascetics and brahmins who are eternalists. And if, when I was asked by him, ‘Is there no self?’ I had answered, ‘There is no self,’ this would have been siding with those ascetics and brahmins who are annihilationists.

“If, Ānanda, when I was asked by the wanderer Vacchagotta, ‘Is there a self?’ I had answered, ‘There is a self,’ would this have been consistent on my part with the arising of the knowledge that ‘all phenomena are nonself’?”

“No, venerable sir.”

“And if, when I was asked by him, ‘Is there no self?’ I had answered, ‘There is no self,’ the wanderer Vacchagotta, already confused, would have fallen into even greater confusion, thinking, ‘It seems that the self I formerly had does not exist now.’” ~~ SN 44.10 ~~

1 Like
27

I always got the impression that the Buddha answered in his way because he knew Vacchagotta wouldn’t have understood and he was just explaining to him the best way he could given his particular intellect.

1 Like
28

Of course. And at the same time, there’s absolutely no guarantee that our current level of understanding is any better than Vacchagotta. Hence, SN 44.10 still applies to everyone who’s yet to attain enlightenement.

2 Likes
29

Exactly. The same goes for the philosophical question of the existence of the Tathagatha after death.

To those who had right view, he taught this:

not be thus.’
“What do you think, monks — Is form constant or inconstant?”
“Inconstant, lord.”
“And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?”
“Stressful, lord.”
“And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”
“No, lord.”
SN 22.59

with metta

30

@jimisommer - what you are saying above is correct if we view ‘mind’ as a classic physical object where there is no true randomness and (pseudo) randomness occurs because we just don’t have enough information about the events - think tossing a coin - we could predict heads or tails if we had enough information and given the exact same circumstances the coin would come down the same way each time. But the world does not work like this at the quantum level, where we get true randomness and all we can do is give odds on a particular event. I think that this true randomness maybe opens a gap where we might find uncertainty and hence the possibility of ‘volition’ appearing. I don’t think that we yet know if the ‘mind’ follows the familiar classical physical world or the much stranger quantum world. From what I can make out there seem to be advocates on both sides in the ‘mind’ sciences, but no real evidence either way.

I wonder if I could ask a couple of (hopefully appropriate) rookie questions here.

  1. It seems to me that there is no effort involved post stream entry. It’s down hill all the way. Is that correct?

  2. In the quote

could I use the terms “certain or uncertain” instead of “constant or inconstant”?

31

Rookie questions are welcome :slight_smile:
The second is easier - you can’t replace ‘constant’ with ‘certain’. We have here the classic tilakkhana, the three Buddhists ‘marks’ or ‘characteristics’, i.e. anicca - dukkha - anatta, or impermanence - suffering - non-self. And the first aspect is simply that things are changing, hence ‘inconstant’.

The first question is not formally answered in the texts I think. I always thought that if Santa Claus brings me Sotapatti-Streamentry this year I would kick back and relax. I have my doubts about that strange mathematical limitation of max.7 rebirths, but I guess you’d find yourself practicing in the next life according to the traditional view. So probably you couldn’t ‘just relax’. I can’t even in this very life! I got the Buddha bug :face_with_hand_over_mouth:

32

The cause of volition (sankhara) is contact (phassa). Contact remains until the death of the arahanth and the dispersion of the five aggregates. So volition will continue after stream entry as well.

Pretty certain (!) that this is impermanent and not uncertain. However uncertainty could be a quality secondary to impermanence i.e. a quality deduducted by an observing mind (such as unsatisfactoriness or not-Self). Insubstantiality (Phena sutta) is another feature apart from the common 3.

With metta

33

I hear you, but even with quantum uncertainty, that’s just totally random, so there’s not much room for direct volition, we still would have no control, just instead of it being predictable, it can go totally off the rails at times, but still entirely out of our control which way it goes. And as far as stream entry, I believe you still need effort, it’s just that you are now on a direct path which has a limited time frame. Before, there’s not way to know how long it could take, because even if it’s set it stone, we still don’t know the future or have the capabilities to predict it, but once stream entry occurs, we now have a marker, a set point on the path where we know we are, and so then we can know that it will only take this certain amount of time at the most. I think they say 7 lifetimes or something of that nature, but that’s regardless really, it’s more so just that we know we’re headed the right way now, to me that’s the most important part. So it’s not that we don’t need effort, but just that we have reassurance that we are headed the right way for sure.

34

And I thought the cause for sankhara was just ignorance, or non-awakening. It’s the 2nd nidana right? So it’s conditioned results that cause the next experience, the fact that consciousness and namarupa came before it and so forth, conditioning the next arising of it all. As for the beginning of a life, I always saw it as conditioned by the laws of physics and biology, the growing of a fetus inside a womb is the result of conditioned phenomena, sperm fertilizing the egg, and everything that happens after that, those are all conditioned formations, how those things have grown to react over millions of years of evolution, giving rise to namarupa and consciousness.

36

You guys are awesome. Thank you for taking the time with me. :slight_smile:

I wonder if I could just explore this a little further. From a practical point of view (as a basis for reflection) I’m not quite sure how I use the idea that:

I can look at inconstancy/impermanency in two ways. Things can either be inconstant in an uncertain, unpredictable way, or they can be inconstant in a certain, predictable way. If things are going to unfold (change over time) in a certain, predictable way (from my mental standpoint), then how can they be said to be ‘stressful’?

So when contemplating old age for example, there is a certainty about it (if you don’t die young, then you are going to get old, that’s the best you can hope for). So on those occasions where there is appropriate attention (yoniso manasikara??) one can see the unfolding into old age and so there is no attachment and hence no dukkha. If however, one is ‘intoxicated with youth’ (love that idea that I read in the suttas recently) or otherwise deluded, then I cannot see this natural unfolding and there will be suffering through attachment.

But … This doesn’t seem to be what the Buddha is saying here. Instead he seems to be suggesting that those things that are impermanent/inconstant, even if they are recognised for what they are with certainty, they are still inherently stressful? That doesn’t seem correct to me. How can a path be forged from this standpoint? Or am I missing something?

I thought that ‘all things’ were “qualities deducted by an observing mind” in the EBTs? Does this not include ‘impermanence’? Does it have a special place? Are there (other)things to consider outside an observing mind in the EBTs? If so, is it explained how they can be useful for us?

@Gabriel I hope Santa bring you something beautiful this year. :man_playing_water_polo::woman_playing_water_polo:

37

I think the idea is that there is still some predictability (so not totally random), but that predictability is based on ‘probability’ rather than ‘causality’, which gives an opportunity for a creative process (which we might term volition :woman_shrugging:). But yes you are right, it’s out of ‘our’ control. In fact I think the idea is that there is no ‘us’ to have control in the first place.

38

I haven’t found a good answer to that myself. There will be some who’ll argue that it’s crystal clear what is meant. I don’t think so at all. I know for example very well that the joy of sexuality or a good movie is impermanent. Is it therefore self-evidently suffering? Not at all! I just have to tweak here and there, find another similarly good movie, and voila - again a somewhat pleasant experience. And this is well acknowledged in the suttas as well. Take for example AN 2.65:

Bhikkhus, there are these two kinds of happiness. What two? Sensual happiness and the happiness of renunciation.

So there must be a context that is implied but not spelled out. In my mind this anicca-dukkha-anatta addresses ultimate seekers, or believers in a perceivable soul. So then the question would be “Is what is impermanent ultimately satisfying as a permanent refuge?” The answer must be “No, to set my hopes to something that is ever-changing must result in failure, frustration and is therefore doomed to lead to suffering”. Something like that. I haven’t done a systematic analysis in the suttas though. Or is there a good article around that has done the job?

39

There is impermanence that is clearly apparent to everybody (Macro level: Universe expanding; Observational level: having sex, aging process). These are however observed with no generation of insight knowledge. They require no mental unification to observe. The insight of the dhamma requires mental preparation. This allows someone to see phenomena at a ‘micro’ (clarity and time) level. In short, the five clingable aggregates are seen, arising and passing away.

This arising and passing away is a visible feature of phenomena. Based on this, further insights into unsatisfactoriness can be deduced (or more accurately, arise). Note the logical interpolation of the anattalakkhana sutta. A person watching a TV screen sees impermanence but when they zoom in and watch the individual pixel, the insight into impermanence is very very different.

With metta