The third mark of existence states *sabbe dhamma anatta* - all phenomena is not self. Despite that, the following sutta states that there is a self-doer (*attakārī*). Also, this implies free will. How is it that the existence of the self-doer (and free will) does not conflict with the third mark of existence? > “So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring > beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer, > this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a > doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one — moving > forward by himself, moving back by himself — say ‘There is no > self-doer, there is no other-doer’?” > AN 6.38 (translated by K. Nizamis) > “Brahmin, if there is this element of approaching, brahmin, then it is > evident then that beings are approaching: this is what beings do > themselves [self-agency], this is what is done by others > [other-agency].” “Yes, sir.” > > “Brahmin, I do not hold such a doctrine, > such a view [that there is no action of one’s own, that there is no > action by others]. For, I have neither seen nor heard of a situation > where one could oneself step forward or one could oneself step back, > and yet say, ‘There is no action of one’s own, there is no action by > others.’” > AN 6.38 (translated by Piya Tan) > “Since there is an element of energy, and sentient beings who have > energy are found, sentient beings act of their own volition or that of > another. > > Brahmin, may I never see or hear of anyone holding such a doctrine or > view! How on earth can someone who comes and goes on his own say that > one does not act of one’s own volition, nor does one act of another’s > volition?” > AN 6.38 (translated by Ven. Sujato)

There are mainly 3 western views: 1. Free Will is real & I believe in it. 2. Free Will is an illusion but I live my life assuming it is real because it is a healthy assumption. 3. A compatibilist that believes in degrees of freedom & determinism cannot harm the truth of future outcomes. My first thought would be none of these apply as they assume a self and the world works on the principles of dependent origination. Perhaps, I'm incorrect in my thinking or heading in the correct direction. It would be great to hear detailed and well-thought responses.

With reference to the title of the question, I would like to know if the person blessed or under a curse if for him the past, present, and future are the same? If by unlawful acts he is elevated to a higher position when these three positions are better. He wants such a condition to perpetuate and go on. If he is downgraded for his lawful acts, his downfall is usually bitter for him. How to analyze the situations?

> You see, there is only one constant, one universal, it is the only > real truth: causality. Action. Reaction. Cause and effect. (...) Choice is an illusion, created between those with power, and those without. (...) Beneath our poised appearance, the truth is we are completely out of control. Causality. There is no escape from it, we are forever slaves to it. > > -- The Merovingian, The Matrix Reloaded I've read/listened somewhere that the illusion of control and choice is a source of suffering. Does the Buddhist see it in a unyielding manner as the Merovingian? Does different groups of Buddhism view this point differently? **EDIT:** Please complement your answers. Beyond the views on causality (deterministic or stochastic perception) how these views relate to suffering? Is there relation between suffering and how someone perceives choice? The misunderstanding of causality and control can produce suffering?

My current understanding of dependent origination is that things cause other things to arise and cease and ultimately it a big interconnected web of influences. If that's reasonably correct (on a provisional level) then what meaning does right effort or just effort generally have in that context. If I arise and cease dependent on other things then where does my own effort come into it? If I decide to practice the Dharma how does that come about? Isn't my decision to practice just the interplay of causes in a big interconnected web? I appreciate that this kind of questioning can be (rightly) criticised as metaphysical nitpicking. However when I meditate (or even just sit around and reflect) this kind of question comes up for me. It's like a little personal koan that keeps nagging at me so I would appreciate any input - even if it is just a reminder not to worry and get practicing.

What is the position of Buddhism in regards to free will and Determinism? What would be the correct position of Buddhism and could you use an analogy to describe to me the correct view of Buddhism Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu

According to the traditional Buddhist dogma the fourth noble truth or eight-fold path is the way to attain Enlightenment then again some sects in Buddhism accept karma as a factor. Not knowing (gnosis) what your karma was in your previous life and how it affects your current life to attain Enlightenment makes you wonder about the illusory nature of karma or Buddhism itself. What's the view Buddhism has on your own chances to obtain Enlightenment? Is it because Enlightenment is just like truth and there are different degrees of Enlightenment? Is it because Enlightenment is like a path or direction you take in existence like a boat that heads west but the wind (karma) sometimes prevents you from moving forwards? Is it because Enlightenment is just like a riddle the Buddha plays to tell you about that characteristic of perception that makes you realize something that was always there but you were unaware of, or perhaps Enlightenment is the ultimate version of that? Or perhaps there is no Enlightenment and it's just the pursuit of it that gives us purpose in life and therefore less suffering (as long as we take the middle way of course...)? > "There is no spoon" The Matrix

To what extent does Buddhism state we have free will and moral responsibility for our actions? Does Karma mean our future is predestined?

I'm just trying to understand the concept of anatta better here. Buddhism tells me there is the concept of no-self (anatta), and even the so called conditional self is actually an illusion that arises out of my ignorance (correct me if I'm wrong). But psychology tells me on the other hand, that there exists something called Volition or Will. From Wikipedia: > Volition or will is the cognitive process by which an individual decides on and commits to a particular course of action. So you see, there needs to be an individual or self who needs to take the decision or make the will, so to speak. As a practical example, I decide to lift my hand right now, and lo and behold! my hand is lifted instantly. So, who is this decision-maker or will-maker that made the decision of lifting the hand? You say there is no self? Now saying that the conditional self made the decision is not something I'm going to buy. How can anything as lowly as an illusion, decides to take control of things and make an impact on the real world? It is just an illusion after all. That's the reason I'm unable to bring anatta in sync with this practicality of life, however hard I try. Please care explain how do you explain volition if anatta is a reality?

For example, the body has the choice to walk on path A or B. Before the body starts walking, there must be thoughts of path A and B. There must also be a (mental?) decision/choice made to walk on one path or the other. What is it that allows to make choices? I have always been at loss to understand what that untouchable phenomenon is. What is it that let's me choose at all? I have trouble phrasing the question. So I will give another example. When someone offers me a marijuana joint, there are the options to accept or decline. Both feel just as far, just as easy to make. Sometimes I accept, sometimes reject. What phenomenon chooses? I've never been able to 'touch' that phenomenon directly. This question about changing habits is the same question as this one. EDIT: In another attempt to convey what is being asked (my apologies), there is now another question (this one with a bounty) https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/18738/what-is-volition

I have meditated and come to the conclusion that the world never ends, that conciousness goes on infinitely. This was ok when I felt I had free will, when I believed I was helping other people, when I thought that even what was apparently nonsense had purpose and when I felt like I could at least to some degree affect the feelings I have and those of others; to make things better for everyone. But sometimes I feel like I can't, like everything is predestined and there's no control over anything. Like we're all trapped in a giant hamster wheel that runs around and around forever with no exit. What is the correct way to view this problem? (Also, you probably need an 'eternal return' tag.)

Is there a Buddhist concept that maps to the western concept of the will? For instance the will to get up on a morning, to go to work, practice Buddhism etc... One of my teachers said that it is just another name for our greed, hatred and delusion. I really like that concept but I wonder if the will is discussed in Buddhist texts or by established teachers and in what terms.

In Buddhism we are encouraged to make the right choices, make the right effort, keep morality etc. it feels like our future is open. Kamma also points to that direction. The future will be created according to our actions! On the other hand, on several occasions, the Buddha spoke about the future as if it were predetermined. A few examples: Person A will become a Buddha, true Dhamma will be replaced, people will live only 10 years, Maitreya Buddha will come etc. It can be confusing! Is the future open? Do we know that some things will happen no matter what? Are they irreversible?

I was out walking today when my eyes were intially attracted to a butterfly that was on the ground to my right. I stopped to have a quick look at it to notice that it couldnt' fly very well. I picked it up, it fluttered about in my hand and then flew a bit and landed on my jacket where I could see it better. It turned out there was a bit of (what looked like) brown leaf which was stuck to one of its wings, which didn't seem fully developed / opened. I made the decision to pull this bit of brown off away from the wing thinking it'd help the butterfly. As I pulled it cafefully off, I noticed a tiny speck of the wing came off too. However, after I pulled it off, the butterfly flew away over my head - something it couldn't do before. So, I'm thinking was it so panicked that it managed to fly away in terms of a short burst (it fluttered away fairly quickly) or was I able to help it do what it wanted to do in the first place? I realise that I imposed my will onto something thinking I know best which I feel bad about but I possibly also helped it do something that it wanted to do in the first place? I also realise that in the grand system, maybe that butterfly was to become food for another creature which I've now deprived it of. So I'm not sure whether I did something worthwhile or not. If it wasn't worthwhile, then is helping another creature / person frowned upon because it isn't as it should be?

I found the below from the book **Mindfulness with Breathing: A Manual for Serious Beginners** http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mindfulness-Breathing-Manual-Serious-Beginners/dp/0861711114 > The Thai word **kuab-kum** is used throughout these talks. It can be > translated **'to regulate**; to control or confine; to oversee, > supervise, or superintend.' When one of these translations appear, all > of the rest should be understood. In all cases, **kuab-kum depends on > sati and wisdom, never force or will-power**. Could someone explains why **will-power** could not be used to regulate kaya , vedana and citta?

The term "free will" can imply that one's will is without causes. But whenever we make a decision, it always has causes. ex: If you have just enough money to buy either an apple or a chocolate for a snack, what makes you choose one over the other? Is it a spontaneous decision without any causes? No! If you pick the chocolate, it could be due to the craving of the taste of chocolate at that time. Why do you crave for it? Because the taste of chocolate had made an impression on you which says that it is enjoyable. Would you have chosen the chocolate, if it had an unpleasant taste? So your willingness to pick the chocolate is not really free. Because the taste played a big role in your decision. On the other hand, if you are willing to pick the apple, is that willingness free? No! Again, it could be because of the of the taste. Or because eating the apple would be healthier. If the apple wasn't a healthy food, would you have picked it? So your willingness to pick the apple is dependant on the condition of the food. Even if you pick any one of them just because you are hungry, is that decision free? No! Because the decision is cause by hunger and hunger is cause by other causes. So the question is: is free will possible in a practical world or is it just 'will' which isn't free?