It’s becomes so much easier imo to be compassionate to people when you let go of the idea of free will and see everyone’s behavior as well as aspects of their character as products of factors outside of their control. This doesn’t mean intention and choices and habits don’t matter or have significant impact but that you don’t have to hate or wish suffering upon people for having the wrong intentions or choices or habits.

Free will in Buddhism is the ability to do things freely by conditions of cause and effect not by anyone choices.

You are doing a great job for humanity by spreading Buddha dharma , this time for Sammasum Shakyamuni Buddha .

I'm a philosophy student who has pretty much exclusively studied western thinkers and a desire to explore Buddhist/eastern philosophy and spirituality brought me to your channel. So far I have been really delighted with the strength of the Buddha's teachings with regards to metaphysical issues like the self and free-will. Western (monotheistic) religions seem, generally, to be devoted to a metaphysics that I find entirely unconvincing and this is something that has pushed me away from taking religious teachings seriously until now. Subbed to the channel. Do you have a discord or any similar kind of place where your community can have discussions other than youtube comment sections?

Thank you Sir, I really enjoyed listening to you.I have been listening to you in the morning and night.I find it very meaningful to how we carry ourselves in our daily life.

Why not just call it conditioned/conditionable will? The word free will just elicits the libertarian extreme.

thanks for the video, i've been struggling with free will and determinism for the past 2 years and this video makes me feel a little better

Hi Doug, The writer Phillip Roth, in deprecating Jewish humour, when asked do you believe in free will, reputedly replied "Do I have a choice?" The root of the word hope I believe is to bend towards, I think that gives room for hope. Thank you kindly for your teachings,, when I return to them it is as cool drink of water quenching a spiritual thirst.

I love these more philosophical videos you've made.

Dough, I have been following your videos for the last few months.Your research and presentation is very good. The subject of free will is very difficult to comprehend when our lifespan is considered limited to the present one. However when we consider our life to continue and also to have existed earlier, then free will and the result of previous actions become more comprehensible. To me it seems that the results of previous karma, which consitute the already determined fate, and free will as of NOW exist together. By the removal of the fetters (including delusion), we free ourselves completely. I was attracted to buddhist teaching due to following reasons: 1. It is based on facts & reality as actually realized by the Buddha. 2. It can be examined by science. No blind beliefs. 3. Good in the beginning, middle and end. 4. If one falters or goes astray we can get up and come back on track. 5. Buddhist teachings are secular by nature. I sometimes wonder whether there is any requirement to call your website secular buddhism. I live in India and have visited the main buddhist places of importance. Best Wishes

This is great quality. Thank you so much

It seems like compatiblism is just a variety of fatalism that takes the time to label parts of a causal chain (namely those involving certain mental states like desiring a future action) as “freedom”. It seems as though fundamentally, compatiblism does not acknowledge any uncaused origin (ex.self/god) for a choice, and so it counts as a type fatalism. Compatibilism seems like fatalism decorated with emergent/supervening mental constructs like beliefs, preferences, desires, intentions/etc. What am I missing?

Agree, determined choices may be important. Responsibilty is not to be owned as me and mine, but just a collabration of interaction that responds according to arbitary standards with a set of skills to do that.

Sadhu sadhu Thank you Doug!!!

I enjoy watching this video very much. So thank you Doug a lot for doing all the researches and making those difficult theories approachable to us! I'd like to put the Buddha's teachings in its contexts, which is, when, where, who, what, why and how he said those words. The same sentence could have different meanings to different people, in different tones, at different times and in different locations. So consider that complexity and try not to interpret those words just by their literal meanings. he Buddha didn't encourage a king to be a monk, but rather, encouraged his friend to be a benevolent king. So I guess the Buddha might say to a modern scientist, whose job is to discover the secret of the world as clearly as possible, that please be a good scientist.

Isn’t right effort built on the idea of some underlying belief in our ability to pick wisely between options? That ability to pick correct choice increases with our awareness of our mental states.

I think this is an incredibly important topic - thank you so much - it helps get us out of thinking that fuels existentialism and problems that flow from tunnel thinking based on what evolved into Christian thinking

Great video, and thanks for engaging in the comments section. My comment is just a reminder of the abject horror of a sentient being held responsible for mundane free action when their ability to be free in a supra-mundane sense is due to forces outside of their control. Of course we can’t run a society or even a small group without this mundane sense of freedom, which just adds to the horror of it all.

good job well done

The individual and environment cannot be separated

Obviously we are not free to think our thoughts (if that was the case, we should be able to think them before we think them). Also, our thoughts are the foundation upon which our intentions and actions rest. This however does not mean that choices do not exist. We can choose, we just are not free to choose. Some choices are wiser than others obviously, but we should be gentle and forgiving to those who make errors (including ourselves), since they are not free to do otherwise.

Nice expository discussion. I really enjoy how you bring things together. My perspective is that the historical Buddha has no need to directly discuss notions of free will for his philosophy has to do with showing a way or method to achieve Nirvana. Freedom is in Nirvana per se. Everything else is an illusion. To reach Nirvana an awakening (bodhi, satori) has to occur. The bodhi, which is mistranslated as enlightenment to fit the Western psyche, is an area left to concepts of epiphany in Western literature (e.g. William Wordsworth's epiphanic mode in his poems, Hermann Hesse's Siddharta) or in Catholic dogma (the eucharist) as well as mysticism (Juan de la Cruz) and the more cultural anthropological Loa (panegyric/prologue) para el auto sacramental de "El Divino Narciso" (Loa to Divine Narcissus) by Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz. The latter fits more into the syncretism of the méti psyche and that has many parallelisms with the syncretic nature of Buddhism.

Great

your good thanks

Thanks Doug. You are obviously well read on this topic, however, the philosophical debate left me with the image of a dog chasing its own tail. You are probably correct that the Buddha would not have devoted much time to this topic. Life is much simpler. Taoism loves using the idea of a river in its teachings. The water moves on to its destination in the sea without intentionally striving to force its way in a particular direction or demanding to know where it is going. If it meets a rock, it will flow around it and the obstacle will eventually wear away. If it floods, it takes the shape of the lowest land it meets. It is probably enough to live without illusion, 'ignorance' in Buddhist terms. Simply being mindful in this moment is sufficient and Right Action will follow naturally. Everything rises and falls. Considering the mechanics behind it might easily become a diversion from what is truly important.

I listen to these deep Buddhist philosophical videos in the vipassana meditation posture to help me easily imbibe them.

Buddha talked about ordinary everyday actions/choices of people are reflection of conditioned will/ mental fabrications/volitions arising from ignorance. We know our mind and attachment styles are conditioned or programmed even before birth by conditions we are exposed to in developmental psychology and latent tendencies..

Once I had a debate with my senior a Psychology major on whether we had free will. We each held on to our views. He then said "I suggest you take Philosophy!"

@8:15 afaik in early Buddhism ownership=complete control. "If anything could be called my own self, then I should have full control over it, so that it behaves in the way I want it to behave. If something is really my own, I should be able to exercise full mastery, full sovereignty over it. Otherwise, how can I call it my own? This is how Buddhism understands the idea of ownership or possession. Since we do not have full control over our possessions, when something adverse happens to them, it is we who come to grief. So it is our possessions that really possess us." (Y. Karunadasa, Early Buddhist Teachings The Middle Position in Theory and Practice)

In Buddhism there seems to be at least limited free will, kamma influenced free will. As you mentioned in another video. No free will or all is kamma = fatalism which Buddha opposed.

As a long time Determinist, I think you may have shifted my views on this topic slightly. I re-watched this video recently, and I thought I would leave a comment about how my perspective has evolved since I first considered the buddha's (inferred) reasoning on this. So, In my more recent view, to really simplify it down; 1. Awareness precedes Control. Without Awareness, freedom is impossible. 2. The arising of Thoughts, Physical limitations and Reflexive Actions are Determined. 3. Non-Thought (you might say non-reaction), and Non-Action are Free Willed, as they are non-physical phenomena. 4. Achieving the level of mental control necessary to actualise (3) requires Enlightenment. I'm probably faulty with my Logic here. The issue is whether one regards "not reacting" to physical stimuli as a determined (physical) phenomenon or not. If you suspect, as I do, that perhaps non-action is a possible source of freedom from the physical laws - or "Fetters" as the Buddha says - then the next question would be the degree to which you are free to; 1. be made aware of this possible escape. 2. be capable of actualising this ability through gradual training/Sudden ability. In the end, the closest I can get to free will seems to be; Ounce you are made aware of the key to the cell, and when you learn how to turn the key properly, then, and only then, will you have the chance to be free. What do you think?

There is volition formation at second place in dependent origination list. Then we must have free will.

I think your peers could follow you and receive your detailed explanation. As a common person with several semesters of college I found it very hard to follow the twisting and winding explanation. Thanks for your time.

Free will can be explained in relation to youtube. Everyone is free to watch any videos on youtube without any coercion whatsoever. But given that freedom, each video gets different views. If the owner of youtube asks why some videos get a lot of views and some get a few views then the answer(s) must rely on many factors. These factors, perhaps the interest of the watcher, the time he/she had, and the quality of the video, in a sense constraint him/her as if he/she is not free.

Thanks for the mention btw. My ego was boosted ha! :-)

Mind bogling.

Free will is just the belife that the ego has control

Seeing the chain of dependent origination is through the wisdom, not self.

Grat

I view free will as the freedom of choice to surrender my personal will or ego in any situation

there is no control only ideas of control, there is only the ever flow of what is

I think Nagarjuna explained it deeply, the Sunnata point of view. And all is bounded to "cause-effect".

Buddha told us to Free our Spirit(Will) from Pain BUT we need to train our Sathi through Samathi and Panya.

The notion of pre determinism seems almost depressing but the free presbyterians in Scotland find it liberating I think. I get about 80% of what you say but I'll keep trying. I'd like to know about the 10 fetters so that's next

Again very interesting, fair and open-minded video. I personally went from the viewpoint of Soul/independent internal agent and close to 100% free will to a much more deterministic type of view where life is more like a stage play and everyone plays out their scripted roles. If I go only by my own experience and leave out metyphysical beliefs than there is absolutely nothing that suggests free will. Like you correctly mentioned in the video: if you ask a human being what he consists of he'd respond: "I sir, consist of body and mind (mind being the sum of all thoughts)." Anything beyond that is mere speculation (at least for the vast majority of humans). Now, what percentage of bodily functions or thoughts are in our control? Almost none. So if you consist of body and mind but pretty much do not control them (almost) at all -- what kind of free will is that? And looking at the mechanism of free will more precisely: When you are faced with a situation in life and are "weighing" the different options, how does that exactly work? Usually the different options appear in different thoughts or thought patterns right? Some of these thoughts have a very strong pull and some have less less strong pull---HOWEVER the "free-will-choosing-thought" also comes in the form of ANOTHER thought. There is no difference. It is like that: a situation appears--> Thoughts presents different options in response to that situation, namely Option A,B,C,D,E etc. --> then thought usually presents in an alternating way the possible outcome of the different options --> then thought presents the choosing thought, for example Option B --> then thought adds the "I" thought as "I chose this because this is the wisest course of action" and accordingly a feeling of satisfaction arises in the body. Overall the plane of the mind has never been left in any decision making process. From the beginning to the end it is a conversation of the mind within itself with itself --> crowning one thought as the winner --> attaching the "I chose this" thought afterwards to give the impression of an inner agent having made some sort of free-will-choice.

So to summarize, i think Buddha did believe in free will, the free will is limited if your mind affected by psycological and mabye material influences, but the more you free yourself from those aspects the «more» free will you have. And i’m unsure what his take would be on determinism in a purley physical world (if such a thing could exist) but i’d guess mabye, yes there could be determinism there.

I feel Buddhism and existentialism are compatible at least to me they are.

From my understanding, the saying that everything happened due to its cause and conditions doesn’t mean that things are determined. You do need other assumptions to form a concept that things are determined. For example, you assume that an independent time exists, things really exist, things are really produced, etc. One nice saying in the very beginning of Buddhapālita's commentary on Madhyamaka is like this: Someone: Since Buddha has already described dependent origination in great detail, why Nāgārjuna again explain it (and form the writing of Madhyamaka)? Buddhapālita: Although Buddha has already described dependent origination in great detail, with the effect of peoples' worldviews and thoughts (which change over time), many ideas, e.g. things are really produced, become popular. With these ideas or thoughts, some people read and interpret Buddha's text and form the ideas including things absolutely exist, because things are produced, ended, come and go, etc. They misunderstand dependent origination!

The problem with this issue is in regards to cause and effect think about the wake of a ship does the wake of the ship push the ship along no

The opening of the Dhammapada talks about how a man thinks has an affect on him. Although not explicitly speaking on free will it definitely implicitly requires free will to decide. Much as the stoics say, Buddha teaches the mind is the only thing one has control over, so isn’t this a clear example of one deciding how to think and an exercise of free will? Also in many Sutras, the one that most comes to mind is the Lotus Sutra, enlightened beings seemingly conjure up entire worlds and fantastic events at will. Also examples of beings exercising free will. The inter-being teachings for me seem to more deal with the fact that the world is moving and changing - much like wind and weather. In fact the 8 worldly dharmas are sometimes called the 8 worldly winds because they push and pull. When one exercises mindfulness correctly they can identify these pushes and pulls and navigate them much as a sailor pulls sails to travel with and against the wind to maintain their navigation and not lose course. Inter-being ultimately does not negate free will but instead the opposite is true - if one does not recognize inter-being they can not exercise free will because they will be subject to pushing and pulling of forces they are completely unaware of.

I would break the categories into 4, not 3: Libertarian free will, compatibilism, determinism, fatalism. Eliminating that third category I think just leaves us with the pandering language of compatibilism which may be good for selling Buddhism to those emerging from Western belief systems but leaves most making the same errors they would under a libertarian belief.

So getting deeper into the weeds ;-) Stoicism differs from the Buddha's notional idea of compatiblism, in the sense that it is deterministic or fatalistic (Amor fati). Stoicism dictates that we are to do it all over again in the next life time. In which case what was the point of actions in the quest for eudaimonia? And in the case of Buddhism, isn't the notion of 'Supramundane' and ones ability to attain 'freedom' somewhat elitist in a sense. By which I mean that one has to have a certain degree of intellect to attain insight and then on to freedom from dukkha. In which case does it not imply that not all 'people' are truly sentient?

Our belief of free will and the kind of free will is really inextricably link to our model of reality. Based on the views he rejected and the views that he taught, it would appear to me that reality as viewed by the Buddha is unique to him and to anyone who has attained the enlightenment of the Buddha.

Just to make sure I understand compatibilist free will, let's say you make it to your death bed and you're looking back at your life, does that mean that you did the only thing you possibly could have given the casual chain set off by your environment and genetics? At every given choice in your life, you couldn't have made a different one? Sounds like the path of enlightenment is more simply out of pure luck and is just not in the cards for everyone. Correct me if I've misinterpreted and thanks for the great video!

It is kinda similar to Spinoza's view, at least to some extent.

compatibilist doesn't believe in free will but try to save the term for unknown reason

The Anattalakana sutta (discourse on not self) denies that any of the pancha khanda (five constituents of experience: form, feeling/sensation, perception/memory, thinking and consciousness) are a permanent soul. He never denies the existence of a self/soul outright. Why do so many Buddhists focus only in the teachings about the conditioned and ignorance the higher teachings on the unconditioned?

We are in the middle of a process of choosing. As long as we identify with this process, free will exists. Objectively free will does not exist. Our decisions are determined or random. But subjective truth exists alongside objective one. My pain can be identical as someone else's pain. But my pain is different for me because of its subjective twist. Everyone's will is the same and not free. But my will is free. It's just a matter of perspective. Buddha obviously didn't want people to believe in fatalism because it is another thought/believe input which impacts decision making. It's a kind of a bug in a system, self-reference unsolvable problem with devastating implications.

To believe or not to believe that is the question, or is that a choice.

I wonder what the buddha would think of Spinoza?!

Much of our discourse about free will is shaped in turn by western philosophical and religious discourse, and simply isn't relevant to Buddhist. Causality in Buddhism is more fundamental to understanding the universe , whereas free will is a notion that appeals to a Christians sense of (often) individual moral responsibility.

Hey bro do come to buddha birth place bihar INDIA I AM FROM BODHGAYA AND DO HELP DEVELOP OUR BIHAR AS POPULAR PILGRIMAGE FOR BUDDHISTS

Looks like our views are biased, we may unaware that we hold a wrong view or correct view Unless we achieved the ultimate wisdom, our views be biased

My meditation experience has led me to the conclusion that there are really 2 fundamental systems operating in the mind; awareness and will. Awareness is 5 physical senses. These are passive. In humans, will is almost entirely expressed in language which is analytic and tendentious. It is directed to solving problems which the 5 senses bring to our awareness. The unconsidered mind, which is one that the person has not reflected on, is usually dominated by will and therefore by language. It is highly reactive and usually compulsively so. The considered mind sees will in the context of awareness. The will becomes aware that the mind is aware, that awareness precedes will and will is conditioned by it. The will becomes aware of this because it’s own compulsive nature causes us to suffer. The will recognises that the person has a choice whether to use and how to use itself. That choice is usually developed in a reflective or mindful manner so that being aware, we observe the effects of wilful action. In this way the will decides whether it’s own actions are skilful. This is the path to liberation in the Buddhist sense. The western concept of free will is also whether we are compelled in our actions or whether we have control over them and has much to do with moral responsibility and therefore accountability to god, or in gods place, to society and its courts (motto of British courts - dieu et mon droit - god is my right). However in the west, the issue is rarely considered in terms of meditative reflection or mindfulness. It is considered in terms of absolutes, soul, grace, essential goodness, but above all of fear (of gods punishment or punishment by his earthly proxies). So the question is whether it is fair to punish a person who has no control over what they do? It is this lack of a more buddhistic construction of free will that has caused westerners such problems with the concept. Western religious practice focuses on prayer. But for most people this is directed outward to an authority figure who we are afraid of offending and is not deliberately a personal reflective process. This lack of understanding of the causes of compulsive behaviour which often has grievous results, famously led Augustine to believe that humans were so irredeemably sinful that it was really up to god whether he could be bothered to save us from hell, there was nothing we could do. This was a sad misdirection of western culture. All will has consequences because this is its purpose. Will presupposes suffering. In “classic” Buddhism (an imprecise term) will is to be relegated to a small function of the mind and the mind abides in awareness. But a problem with this is the suffering of others and it seems to me to have been a longstanding issue in Buddhism that abandoning the will, rather than refining it, is a moral weakness on account of its lack of care. Moreover of course, this is not what the Buddha himself did, since he devoted himself to teaching. This trade off between care and karma seems to me to be a profound problem in Buddhism and one that is rarely clearly or explicitly addressed.

Adam and Eve Shalom 🙏🏼

In case where someone takes a gun and robs the store. Where is the mesurment that he did it because of mental ilness or non mental ilness? How can you say that a normal person can do such a thing. He was at least temporary ill. I'm trying to imagine my self picking up a gun and robbing a store and I know I couldn't do it in some peaceful and happy state of mind.

Not first atomist because it's vaisheshika school of India which is first atomist school 9th century bce

Free will and determinism are dualistic concepts, so the question makes assumptions contrary to Buddhist teachings.

Free will is your awareness from daily life.🤣🇯🇵

Karma

free Will, I don't even why he's in jail?

Actual free will seems to be logically impossible, and I don't think Buddha endorsed it in any way. Galen Strawson's article 'The Impossibility Of Moral Responsibility' and his book 'Freedom and Belief' are convincing to me. The article is available for free, just Google it.

You brought up the atomic level, but on a Quantum level, reality takes a twist, which Hindu Yogi's are familiar with. In quantum physics there's the dual slit experiment which is used to map out light particle patterns. However, the experiment can't be done with human intervention. As soon as a human looks at it, the particle patterns reset themselves. They've done experiments with people meditating and who could control the patterns through thought or imagination. This begs the question, how much of our reality is controlled by thought patterns itself, and if we can use thought to control Quantum particles, can our thoughts dictate future outcomes, which historical figures in Hindu were able to do. Just a thought, no pun intended :)

Absolutely wrong theology of Upanishads is no way similar to Catholic Church, Upanishads terminology of what the refer to brahman is more compatible with shunyata of nagarjuna than with Christian notion of soul. and Upanishads are deterministic not libertarian in their teachings I guess instead of making everything black and white comparing everything you must know Upanishads influenced and have been influenced by Buddhism. these traditions are actually more similar in their viewpoint than to western ideas.

All I heard was blah blah blah de blah de blah de blah Buddha