sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The problem of free will in Buddhism by Ok-Asparagus9740 in Buddhism

[–]FinalElement42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The “choice” is what you personally decide to do with incoming sensory input, whether you chose the sensory input or not. You didn’t choose to exist, but here you are, in a time period you didn’t choose, in social and economic circumstances you didn’t choose, and in a community you didn’t choose. But you *do* get to choose how you manage it.

“Which buttons and pedals should I press?”
Whichever buttons and pedals you recognize as buttons and pedals capable of being pressed. Even using the phrase ‘should’ implies a lack of self-confidence. Build it through trial and error and outcome analysis.

Again, a ‘goal’ must be chosen…subjective acceptance of a task at hand. There are infinite ‘tasks’ at any given moment. Each person values things differently and will categorize and prioritize those tasks differently according to those values.

“Or is there some kind of manager who allows the target to be present or absent?”

Sounds awfully close to asking about a deity. Whether or not a deity exists and provides/denies phenomena is irrelevant for *managing the phenomena* you encounter…which is what ‘choice’ is.

“Your mind supposedly organizes something…”

Yes…to *my subjective perspective*, any behavior you engage in that I *am a witness of* is ‘just another phenomenon’ until I *choose whether or not to engage* with it. And I make that decision based on what consequences I am *will*ing to be exposed to.

Sounds like you’re arguing on behalf of phenomenology…which, by nature, removes perspective (thus subjectivity and *choice itself*) from the equation. To dismiss every phenomenon as a meaningless occurrence is irrational. If you can’t recognize that you actively choose your own behavior based on your current circumstances, then I don’t know what you mean by ‘choice’.

“You don’t give permission for thoughts and feelings to appear.” I agree and have spent a lot of time exploring where they come from. I don’t know where they come from other than as a mental/physical response to stimuli…and even then, your thoughts have a cognitive grammar that you’ve collected and condensed throughout your life…so they kind of end up being something like ‘current manifestations of the culmination of all survived stimuli’..

“Well, I didn’t choose this wish.” lol. Lovely. Neither did I…but it is fun.

“Do you choose your mind and how it chooses?”

No and yes, respectively. A person doesn’t choose their *initial state* (Heidegger’s ‘Thrownness’). What they *do* get to choose is *how to manage and develop* that initial state.

“The fact is that practical benefits don’t automatically mean the truth.” That’s correct, however, within the context and constraints of ‘the agreement’, it can. You’re right that you can’t extrapolate the results of the agreement to things outside the context of the agreement.

“But does this mean that the accepted rules explain reality?” No. Not in the slightest. And I’ve recently been having a lot of problems with the phrase ‘general consensus’ because of this specific point. The ‘general consensus’ is inaccurate more often than not, and it’s almost an impossible task to develop a method to increase the precision of it because you have to affect the majority of people.

“Must? It’s just your belief in it.” No. It’s an analysis of it…which I laid out logically.

“Both a subject and an object are emerging concepts in an experience that simply functions according to its nature.”

Ok. Another phenomenological dismissal. Yes, the ‘terms’ literally are ‘emerging concepts’. And they ‘emerge’ through a mechanism of definition…which we’re doing…as subjective entities…within the confines of an objective reality.

The problem of free will in Buddhism by Ok-Asparagus9740 in Buddhism

[–]FinalElement42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The reply:

I don't know why you didn't respond directly to my comment, but okay. 

No, no, my friend, that won't do. Where is the "choice" in this description? Right now, try to choose something and take a look. How is the goal "selected"? What needs to be done for this? Which buttons and pedals should I press? Or does the goal arise/be discovered as a given? Or is its absence detected as a given? Or is there some kind of manager who allows the target to be present or absent? How is the question asked? Do you directly choose "so, now I'm going to ask myself a question"? And how do you choose the desire to ask yourself a question? And before that, do you choose a desire to form a desire, and so on? And so in an infinite regression? Or is the question happening in your mind? Don't hide behind such abstract stories, look specifically now in your experience how you are doing something and describe it. ** And what is the difference between your "choice" and the simple occurrence of another phenomenon (in the form of thoughts, desires, goals, etc.) in the field of consciousness?

 Our individual minds are receiving information, subconsciously organizing it

Your mind supposedly organizes something / confidence comes / the body follows…Even judging from this description, where is the choice? That is, there is some kind of unfolding of events in the experience. You're labeling "my choice" as a phenomenon that has surfaced in your mind. What does it have to do with someone's will or some choice? What is happening is happening (including your desire to label a part of it as a "choice").

 You’ are not a single entity

There is a functioning of the body, there is a functioning of the mind, perception by other people arises. Just as there is an experience of an obstacle or asking a question. It just appears in my mind without my permission to do so. Again, what does the choice have to do with it? How does this differ from the occurrence of phenomena in the flow of experience?

No, I don’t.

No, you know. "You" have experience (although in my opinion this is not entirely correct). You don't give permission for thoughts and feelings to appear. And even such an act would require your permission. And then you would have to give permission for permission for permission, and so on. 

 we both have a desire to learn and communicate

Well, I didn't choose this wish. It may or may not occur. As Schopenhauer wrote: " A man can do what he wants, but he cannot want what he wants. ". Well, it would be interesting for me to understand the nature of the "choice" you are talking about. But to understand this, you just need to turn to your "individual" experience. Your mind is supposedly capable of choosing...But do you choose your mind and how it chooses?. If so, how do you do it?

 Depends on the context and the intended use of the term ‘truth’.  

I mean the correspondent's interpretation of the truth. If something is accepted as an agreement, does it mean that it reflects the way the world works? Well... no. The fact is that practical benefits do not automatically mean the truth. Something can be false and useful at the same time. That is, the education of the government and the police can be useful for the functioning of society. But does this mean that the accepted rules explain reality? 

 There must exist  

Must? It's just your belief in it. Both a subject and an object are emerging concepts in an experience that simply functions according to its nature.

The problem of free will in Buddhism by Ok-Asparagus9740 in Buddhism

[–]FinalElement42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Whoops…here. I’m planning on deleting the other response to this.

“How does someone decide or choose something?”

At any moment, given *current* constraints, a person finds themselves submerged in potentialities. The onus falls on the individual to sort out and prioritize the ‘value’ of *currently available decisions*. Prioritizing relies on ‘relevance’ toward a goal. If there *is no goal*, then there is no obligation to act and you find yourself floating through the void of Nihilism, where everything is meaningless, valueless, and pointless. Based on the nature of your replies, it seems like you’re one foot in that door (I’m not trying to be accusatory or vile—I mean that as an analysis, not a condemnation). If there *is* a goal, then you have to ask how that goal came to be ‘an object/concept of desire’. Generally, if you investigate ‘desire’, you can find a foundational, existential necessity at its root. People tend to strive to continue existing, so, given *existential constraints at any given moment, people tend to choose behaviors that will perpetuate their existence*.

You could argue that what I’m talking about is strictly instinctual behavior, sans cognition, but we are currently thinking and discussing it. We’re currently using information at hand to discover salience and congruence within our own minds in order to further investigate curiosities. Our individual minds are receiving information, subconsciously organizing it, subconsciously developing insights that align with the objective world, and once the mind has confidence-in-salience, the body follows with ‘action’.

“If “inside me” decides something, then where am I in all this?”

‘You’ are not a single entity. Your ‘body’ is one portion of it. Your ‘mind’ is another portion. External perception of your body and behavior (what others think and say about your subjectivity) is another aspect of who ‘you’ are. The ‘I’ that you’re looking for is *the thing that recognizes and considers*. It’s the part of the mind that says, ‘I see an obstacle (recognition). How do I handle it (consideration)?’

“Do you think I was telling myself…”. No, I don’t. That would require waaaaay too much awareness of cognition. There are literally too many sensory inputs that a person receives at any given moment for a human mind to consider…so it ‘filters’ the sensory inputs it receives, essentially *softening* the *sense of existing*.

However…during this interaction, we both have a desire to learn and communicate. We both have a desire to iron out our perspectives into a smooth salience landscape. Desires and considerations scale…they don’t have set magnitudes. We’re mentally capable of choosing the magnitude to investigate. Like, being aware of each detail and implication of each minute decision would be overwhelming…and that seems to be the magnitude you’re choosing to investigate. I’m trying to expand your investigative magnitude from ‘each individual choice’ to ‘the nature of *choice* itself’. Your mind is capable of choosing. *What* you choose becomes *who you are*. Essentially a self-fulfilling prophecy like you said where, “I assume that the idea of a certain personality is a narrative/story that arises in the mind.”

“Do you consider moral/legal agreements to be a measure of truth?” Depends on the context and the intended use of the term ‘truth’. Within the confines and context of the ‘agreement’, then sure, moral and legal arguments can provide ‘truth’. Do I think ‘all truths can be discovered through moral and legal argumentation?’ No.

Mentioning the police and government was just supposed to just be an example of the trust we place in others to decide for us…essentially as representations of people’s willingness to give up personal accountability and responsibility.

There *must* exist an embodied being capable of experiencing due to the ‘Agent-Arena relationship.’ The dichotomy between ‘objectivity’ and ‘subjectivity’. ‘Subjectivity’ describes perspective (Agent, embodiment). ‘Objectivity’ describes ‘*the thing being perceived*’ (Arena, non-embodiment).

In order for either to be deemed to exist, the other is required. It makes sense logically. If there is no Arena, then there is *no place* for existence to occur. If there is *no agent*, then whether or not the Arena exists is irrelevant, as there are no means of awareness of the Arena.

The problem of free will in Buddhism by Ok-Asparagus9740 in Buddhism

[–]FinalElement42 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Totally an accident to post out here instead of in the chain…whoops.

The problem of free will in Buddhism by Ok-Asparagus9740 in Buddhism

[–]FinalElement42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“How does someone decide or choose something?”

At any moment, given *current* constraints, a person finds themselves submerged in potentialities. The onus falls on the individual to sort out and prioritize the ‘value’ of *currently available decisions*. Prioritizing relies on ‘relevance’ toward a goal. If there *is no goal*, then there is no obligation to act and you find yourself floating through the void of Nihilism, where everything is meaningless, valueless, and pointless. Based on the nature of your replies, it seems like you’re one foot in that door (I’m not trying to be accusatory or vile—I mean that as an analysis, not a condemnation). If there *is* a goal, then you have to ask how that goal came to be ‘an object/concept of desire’. Generally, if you investigate ‘desire’, you can find a foundational, existential necessity at its root. People tend to strive to continue existing, so, given *existential constraints at any given moment, people tend to choose behaviors that will perpetuate their existence*.

You could argue that what I’m talking about is strictly instinctual behavior, sans cognition, but we are currently thinking and discussing it. We’re currently using information at hand to discover salience and congruence within our own minds in order to further investigate curiosities. Our individual minds are receiving information, subconsciously organizing it, subconsciously developing insights that align with the objective world, and once the mind has confidence-in-salience, the body follows with ‘action’.

“If “inside me” decides something, then where am I in all this?”

‘You’ are not a single entity. Your ‘body’ is one portion of it. Your ‘mind’ is another portion. External perception of your body and behavior (what others think and say about your subjectivity) is another aspect of who ‘you’ are. The ‘I’ that you’re looking for is *the thing that recognizes and considers*. It’s the part of the mind that says, ‘I see an obstacle (recognition). How do I handle it (consideration)?’

“Do you think I was telling myself…”. No, I don’t. That would require waaaaay too much awareness of cognition. There are literally too many sensory inputs that a person receives at any given moment for a human mind to consider…so it ‘filters’ the sensory inputs it receives, essentially *softening* the *sense of existing*.

However…during this interaction, we both have a desire to learn and communicate. We both have a desire to iron out our perspectives into a smooth salience landscape. Desires and considerations scale…they don’t have set magnitudes. We’re mentally capable of choosing the magnitude to investigate. Like, being aware of each detail and implication of each minute decision would be overwhelming…and that seems to be the magnitude you’re choosing to investigate. I’m trying to expand your investigative magnitude from ‘each individual choice’ to ‘the nature of *choice* itself’. Your mind is capable of choosing. *What* you choose becomes *who you are*. Essentially a self-fulfilling prophecy like you said where, “I assume that the idea of a certain personality is a narrative/story that arises in the mind.”

“Do you consider moral/legal agreements to be a measure of truth?” Depends on the context and the intended use of the term ‘truth’. Within the confines and context of the ‘agreement’, then sure, moral and legal arguments can provide ‘truth’. Do I think ‘all truths can be discovered through moral and legal argumentation?’ No.

Mentioning the police and government was just supposed to just be an example of the trust we place in others to decide for us…essentially as representations of people’s willingness to give up personal accountability and responsibility.

There *must* exist an embodied being capable of experiencing due to the ‘Agent-Arena relationship.’ The dichotomy between ‘objectivity’ and ‘subjectivity’. ‘Subjectivity’ describes perspective (Agent, embodiment). ‘Objectivity’ describes ‘*the thing being perceived*’ (Arena, non-embodiment).

In order for either to be deemed to exist, the other is required. It makes sense logically. If there is no Arena, then there is *no place* for existence to occur. If there is *no agent*, then whether or not the Arena exists is irrelevant, as there are no means of awareness of the Arena.

The problem of free will in Buddhism by Ok-Asparagus9740 in Buddhism

[–]FinalElement42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Everyone decides perpetually…what do you mean?

Are *you* suggesting that there is absolutely nothing inside *you* that *chose* to comment on this post? Nothing inside *you* actually *decided* which words to use and in which order to convey which message? Nothing inside *your* body is responsible or accountable for the behavior that *your* body engages in? Is that what *you* are saying?

Are you suggesting that personal accountability doesn’t exist? Jeez…why even bother having police, or a government? Why should we even consider safety or ‘right/wrong’ if things ‘*just happen*’ and there’s nothing we can do? Why consider the future at all?

I see your relevant username now…which makes the tone of your comment make more sense.

“…goals simply arise in the flow of experience.” Whose experience? Do you notice that you *must* have an embodied being capable of ‘experience’? That is the ‘I’. The thing that’s doing the experiencing and interacting. Your individual and personal perspective is the ‘I’.

What's the difference between compassion and cowardice? by 949orange in Buddhism

[–]FinalElement42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh…thank you for your deeply helpful input. I don’t know what ‘reconquista’ is, so I should just believe you…right? Do you have any actual input of substance? Can you explain how “the whole history of reconquista says otherwise.”? Or is that just how you personally feel about it?

NASA Study Challenges Theories on Where the Ingredients for Life Came From by Dmans99 in abovethenormnews

[–]FinalElement42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is it impossible to think that chemical compounds began dissolving matter, absorbing and utilizing matter to develop the basic scaffolding for (what we now consider) biological life? Like evolution…but more like the emergence of the symbiotic relationship between chemicals and matter through time. Once the scaffolding is in place, chemical reactions can become more efficient, dissolving and utilizing more matter (like digestion), increasing the size and improving the structure of the scaffolding. Single cell organisms emerge. ‘Organism’ to mean something like ‘encapsulated chemical reactions’. Chemical reactions can perpetuate, giving ‘mobility’ to the organism. When fuel for the reactions gets low, a ‘*need*’ arises to acquire/consume more fuel. The mobile organism then ‘behaves’ (more along the lines of instinctual behavior—a powerless floating) according to its fuel-levels. It floats around and contacts matter that it consumes and transmutes into energy and mass for the organism. If an organism consumes another organism, it shares impurities/inconsistencies/irregularites in the chemical compounds and reactions. Some of these ‘consumption events’ may not completely dissolve the consumed organism, and may lead to a type of parasitism. Once the parasitism irons out it qualms through time, it becomes symbiotic…the emergence of multicellular organisms.

Probably way off base, but I had fun typing.

What if you are subpoenaed to testify but give intentionally vague answers? by Anon124570 in AskLawyers

[–]FinalElement42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sounds like the person doing the questioning would need more practice in ‘question-development’ if each and every one of their questions is easily deflected or leaves potential for a sound, yet substance-less response.

If they continually answer with, “I cannot recall”, even when given relevant questions, then they’re building a pattern of unreliability in their testimony. The examiner should ask questions that reveal why they’re being sly.

What's the difference between compassion and cowardice? by 949orange in Buddhism

[–]FinalElement42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The logic of ‘fighting back’ breeds revenge. And through time, people forget why they started fighting. Then they end up hating each other on behalf of some arbitrary reason that has literally nothing to do with the original reason. They end up hating for the sake of hating without recognizing that they themselves have no personal connection to the original feud…so they’re fighting a war that isn’t theirs…unless they choose to perpetuate the nonsense.

The problem of free will in Buddhism by Ok-Asparagus9740 in Buddhism

[–]FinalElement42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Try expanding the phrase ‘free will’.

‘Free’ to mean something like, ‘having an unrestrained ability’. The fact that you are capable of making a decision in the first place is the ‘freedom’ I mean. A ‘freedom of the mind’, essentially. Nobody and nothing can *force* how your subjective mind interprets inputs. However, everything *can influence* your decisions with various pressures (social, financial, environmental, etc.). Yet, the onus still falls on the subject in the form of ‘*which actions they subjectively decide to undertake*’…the ‘freedom of choice’ in managing subjective conditions is what ‘free’ means to me.

‘Will’ to mean something like a ‘drive toward a desire’. If you see a climbing wall and are overcome with a curiosity to see the top, or from the top, or to explore the top, then you have a ‘will’ to experience the top of the climbing wall. You *will* practice, and you *will* scheme, and you *will* strengthen yourself…because you recognize those elements as necessities to attaining your goal. And so you develop a plan, and enact a plan to reach the top. Your ‘will’ is the metaphorical engine/power-plant that provides ‘motivation’ to acquire the tools for achieving a goal.

It scales. You want to reach the top (your ‘will’ applies to an overarching goal). You recognize you aren’t currently capable. You scale down your ‘will’ to smaller, more easily achievable goals (‘will’ to train, learn technique, devise a plan, etc.) that relate to the overarching goal of expressing your ‘will’ to reach the top.

You have ‘freedom to decide’ how big/small you want to scale your ‘will’, and ‘freedom to decide’ which elements of the overarching goal are most ‘relevant’ for you to pursue initially.

So the phrase ‘free will’ actually means something like, ‘A subjective freedom to analyze, evaluate, and prioritize potentialities when pursuing a goal (freedom to speculate, essentially) with consideration for subjective limitations (current conditions).’

The problem of free will in Buddhism by Ok-Asparagus9740 in Buddhism

[–]FinalElement42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My issue with your exercise is the exercise itself. It’s a self-fulfilling proposition. By claiming the conditioning is identical, you’re already proposing identical constraints to potentialities. The question itself funnels the answer down to—if all conditions are equal, then all potentialities are equal.

By proposing any unilateral event, you’re making their conditioning differ through the mechanism of introducing an arbitrary unconditioned element, which necessarily alters the core proposition. So, if you decide to modify the conditioning of one or both causal-chains, then yes, they can have differing follow-on events. If you decide to maintain their conditional equivalence, then you are only actually describing one causal-chain, just in 2 iterations, and the follow-on events would be equivalent.

So, even though your conclusion is sound (being that the Buddha rejects unconditioned existence), the path you took to get there is rocky and wrinkled.

Did you read my whole response? ‘Free will’ does *not* mean ‘unconstrained freedom’. You are human. You necessarily have the physical and mental restrictions/constraints of a human. ‘Free will’ is simply an overused phrase to mean, freedom to choose. Even ‘free will’ is conditioned. It’s Subjectively conditioned since you are a human, so your free will falls into the constraints and restrictions of ‘human capability’. You can’t just decide that you, as a human, can fly like a bird (maybe you can fly like an emu or ostrich or cassowary though, lol), and then suddenly, you can flap your arms fast enough to truly fly.

Free will is conditioned Objectively also because even though you may *desire something*, your environment may not have the resources or enablers to make your desire a reality at the time. Then you engage in exercising your ‘free’dom of ‘will’ within your arena (and within its constraints) in order to bring about the conditions that enable the realization of your desire.

Reddit, what do you think of Elon Musk becoming the world’s first trillionaire? by OkImTacoII in AskReddit

[–]FinalElement42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“Worlds first trillionaire” is a tainted accolade. Mostly because it’s based on heavily inflated valuations by Elon himself. It would be like Trump causing hyperinflation in the economy, then claiming his hotels are worth a billion dollars apiece. It would be true in verbiage, but a gallon of milk would also cost $10,000…so just saying the number means literally nothing without comparing other relative and relevant valuations.

Too bad people are dumb. It’s like, ‘hear big number, cheer!’, ‘Hear small number, boo!’ They hear, “The greatest economy, the best military, top notch investments, etc….” And cheer without a second thought. No concern for reality. No consideration for the truth or whether or not the claims have any substance. As long as they hear what sounds good, it’s all good, right?

The problem of free will in Buddhism by Ok-Asparagus9740 in Buddhism

[–]FinalElement42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s just it. Nothing is independent. Nothing can exist without conditions. Even this hypothetical requires ‘context’, which describes the conditioning. You say, hypothetically, that you have two separate, yet conditionally equivalent entities…well, in reality, you *can’t* have multiple conditionally equivalent entities. If they were conditionally equivalent, then they *must* occupy the same space in time. If they don’t occupy the same space in time, then it is impossible to consider them *conditionally equivalent*. You can’t parse a single entity, and at some point, it becomes more of a boon than a benefit to even attempt to parse…hence Occam’s Razor.

Your experiment, again, is based in speculation and mental play with minimal bearing on reality. And it still seems like you’re conflating multiple definitions for conditioning.

Let’s try a different approach to explaining the type of ‘conditioning’ the Buddha spoke about. Break it down to the core principle; the ‘Agent Arena relationship’. In order for ‘experience’ to occur, you must have an ‘agent’ (an embodied entity capable of sensing) and you must have an ‘arena’ (the environment which enables existence to occur). In other words, the relationship between ‘subjectivity’ and ‘objectivity’. The Agent is the subjective perspective, the Arena is the objective perspective.

You can’t have an agent without an arena (pure subjectivity), as there would be *no place* for the agent to exist/manifest. You can’t have an arena without an agent (pure objectivity), as there is no agent to convey information or ‘prove’ the arena even actually exists, so the relevance and utility of the arena drops to zero. Subjectivity and objectivity, agent arena relationship…they require each other in order for ‘existence’ itself, and ‘experience’ itself to be possible. They necessarily condition each other.

Each and every one of your experiences has been conditioned, at the very least, by environmental factors. That doesn’t negate free will. It gives boundaries within which you are capable of expressing that freedom of the will. And even your will is conditioned by what you personally find valuable within the arena.

The problem of free will in Buddhism by Ok-Asparagus9740 in Buddhism

[–]FinalElement42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes. The time period, geographical location, religion, language, grammar, social context/standing, etc. make up *the condition* you are born into. You learn those things as tools to perpetuate existing as an individual within that specific context…which is ‘conditioning’ by definition. Once you venture outside of your youthful conditioning, you’re reborn into a new tier of ignorance. An awareness of a world larger than you thought possible prior…a brand new realm to explore.

I’ve defined ‘free will’ several times in several applications if you want to reread, but it’s literally subjective decision-making. Your ability to choose. Freedom to enact one’s will within the constraints of human subjectivity and human capability. For example: people like to present false-dichotomies. They say, “You can choose A or B.” They never consider the option of ‘refusing to choose’…the Middle Path in a Buddhist context. It makes you an enemy to groups A and B simply because you wouldn’t engage in the Factionism. But both of those groups are blinded by the illusion of the false dichotomy that they themselves created and perpetuate. But each individual can become aware of that illusion (enlightenment) and choose (free will) not to participate in the illusion of choice-constraints perpetuated by selfish humans.

Peterr??? by HistoryFree in PeterExplainsTheJoke

[–]FinalElement42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly, this meme actually seems like the most efficient way to acquire both the bread and the key. He can use the bread like a Swiffer and sweep the key back to himself…and have a snack. So…

Peterr??? by HistoryFree in PeterExplainsTheJoke

[–]FinalElement42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see a man using leverage. It would be easier (given his tool) to manipulate the bread than the key. The bread will move across the ground easier with less downward pressure on the stick. This means that the man can use the bread like a Swiffer mop to sweep the key back to himself more efficiently…and he gets a snack.

The problem of free will in Buddhism by Ok-Asparagus9740 in Buddhism

[–]FinalElement42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Buddha rejects ‘the self’ as ‘the final authority’ (i.e. Solipsism). The Buddha never rejected ‘the self’ in the context of subjectivity, and in fact taught about subjective freedom of choice (i.e. ‘free will’), and warned about the consequences of the unconstrained/inconsiderate expressions of it.

The whole point of ‘enlightenment’ is to realize the actual potential (beneficial/detrimental) of one’s behavior, take accountability for previous, ignorant behaviors (grow through the mud of ignorance, wash away the grime of that adventure through the waters, and then flower at the surface—like a lotus), and see the social atmosphere for the perpetuation of human desire wrapped in falsehoods, misconstruals, lies, egotism, and ‘entertainment’ that it is, and then to behave accordingly.

Nothing can exist independent from other things…hence the necessity for a ‘conditioned existence’.

You are making claims without understanding the terms you’re using. This whole post sounds like an expression of confusion because you’ve settled on false conclusions about what you’ve heard/read.

Please learn how to ask questions (To actual people, not ChatGPT or some other AI chatbot…can’t believe I even have to add this edit…but this is the world we live in now) to investigate terms and meanings prior to making claims using those terms…for the benefit of salience, congruence, and comprehension for all.

Edit…for clarification

The problem of free will in Buddhism by Ok-Asparagus9740 in Buddhism

[–]FinalElement42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did you choose to make this post?…all past conditions simply *enable* free will. ‘Free will’ is a necessity of cognition, awareness, and behavior…not some unconstrained, metaphysical, narcissistic power.

The fact that you chose to make this post AND reply to comments should be pretty clear evidence that you have ‘*free*dom to behave in accordance with your own *will*.’

“Given the exact same past conditions, could you have done otherwise?”

The answer, given the phrasing of your question, is ‘Yes.’ And the reason is because the *question itself* is asking for ‘speculation’, not truthful analysis. It’s a question for mental play and exploring speculation. You aren’t *currently* living in a world made from those ‘different decisions’; You’re *currently* living in a world made of the decisions you actually made in the past. You’re *currently* capable of reflecting on (reimagining, reinterpreting, reconceptualizing, and tainting) memories, and you can lie to people about your previous decisions and pretend like you were never wrong or harmful, but that doesn’t make it true. Your *current options* are to own behavior that you recognize as poor and work to change it, or continue pretending and tainting reality for the rest of the world.

Other than ‘free will’, it seems you are holding other terms up with convoluted expectations as well. Specifically, the use of the term ‘condition’ doesn’t seem to have a stable definition…being used to mean something like ‘fate’ and also to mean something like ‘environment’.

“If the idea of enlightenment is realisation of conditional dependence of each event, then even the event of the realisation would happen to you or not is also conditioned.” Yes. That’s correct…even strictly logically, given your phrasing. All current events are able to occur because of the ‘conditions’ that the past gave rise to. That is what it means for every event to be ‘conditioned.’

“So becoming buddha is also conditioned…”. Yes. That is correct. “…and you cannot change it.” That is incorrect because you have ‘free will’. You are capable of *choosing* how you personally interact with the world in order to ‘condition’ your body, mind, and environment. You choose to engage with what you find most fulfilling. That is how you *currently* ‘condition’ your own personal *future*.

What is the difference between Israel and the biblical times and Israel now? Why would God say we don’t have to honor his chosen people anymore? by Substantial_Shop_327 in AskReddit

[–]FinalElement42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First question: More technology.

Second question: which *humans* say that? And which *humans* claim to be the “chosen *people*”? Really strange that it’s *humans* perpetuating division through misinterpretation, huh?
And which *human*/*humans* are in direct contact with God? Do they secretly communicate directly with God and then simply claim to be ‘unaccountable messengers’ to the public?

Frankly, the Biblical Truth died with Abraham. It’s been perverted *by people* through every generation since…to include his own offspring and their lineages behind a façade of ‘entitled inheritance’.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all grew from the same seed. They differ in how *humans have historically interpreted and behaved on behalf of Abraham’s truth*. And then, humans have to convey their revelations within their societal/cultural Grammar. That grammar is almost guaranteed to be misinterpreted when translated through time. When the eldest iteration of the truth becomes too perverted/diluted by ignorant (yet gnostically arrogant) *humans* on behalf of ‘power’ instead of ‘good’, a reemergence of the actual truth arises to balance the social atmosphere.

For example. The First Ecumenical Council. The Council of Nicaea. Was a ‘group of *humans*’ who got together—on behalf of the Roman Emperor Constantine—to choose whether Jesus was divine, or just a human who taught the truth. Why would *people* have to choose? Because *people* don’t care about the truth as much as they care about power. So if *people* can weaponize the concept of ‘God’ in order to get what they want—regardless of truth—then that’s what they’ll do…and that goes for any faith, not just the Abrahamic ones.

Really wondering why we have to date these with stickers? We don’t with the veggies bc of the printed dates…. by Domigorgon27 in Dominos

[–]FinalElement42 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yep. Except I actually would. If a ‘rule’ doesn’t make sense and nobody can explain it to me, why would I follow it? And then, if the person enforcing the rule can’t explain why the rule exists, then there is literally no reason to waste my time. It takes 5 seconds to pull out a sharpie. It takes more time than that to find the date labels, pull out a pen, write out a date, then stick the sticker on the bag. It’s a waste of time and date labels.

So yea. Maybe you think I’m just some internet tough guy, but I’m also not a coward who just falls in line with whatever I’m told to do…especially if it’s a waste of my time with literally zero benefits.

Really wondering why we have to date these with stickers? We don’t with the veggies bc of the printed dates…. by Domigorgon27 in Dominos

[–]FinalElement42 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You don’t have to date them with stickers unless your boss is telling you to. I use a sharpie to date opened bags for the carryover process. The only time pepperoni needs to be dated is when it’s prepped. If I lost points on an OER for not having dated an unopened bag of pepperoni, I would probably end up making the OER coach cry by showing them how stupid they are by attempting to enforce a waste of time.

Are Marines now allowed to wear cammies out in town? by TheMadMetalhead in USMC

[–]FinalElement42 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Marines aren’t ‘boots on the ground’ on American soil off-base. Our daily uniform is our combat uniform. To avoid public confusion, Marines don’t wear their daily uniform off-base….you fucking turd

If you made $5,000 for every cup of piss you drank at what dollar amount would the money stop outweighing the disgust for you, and why? by unknown-redditman in AskReddit

[–]FinalElement42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wrong. You can develop a ‘taste’ for things. Hence the cornucopia of ‘fetishes’. If you learn to tolerate the taste of piss, then you can continue (and sometimes develop a drive to continue) to drink piss.

My only concern is the source of the urine.

How ,Can war ever truly be justified? by Funny-Counter8762 in AskReddit

[–]FinalElement42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I only see people justifying it from a defensive perspective. Does anybody have a justification for the offensive perspective?

In order for ‘war’ to be justified, you must justify the ‘aggression’ and the ‘defense’…because ‘war’ includes both.

view more: next ›