31021119 the ideas of free will and responsibility in buddhist ethics

Upload: mehmsura

Post on 10-Apr-2018

219 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 8/8/2019 31021119 the Ideas of Free Will and Responsibility in Buddhist Ethics

    1/6

    The Ideas of Free Will and Responsibility in

    Buddhist Ethics

    The concepts of free will and karma in Buddhism both address the same issue

    individual potentiality and ethical responsibilityalthough neither developed in the same way.

    The Buddhists interpret their ethical teaching through concepts of karma in a special direction of

    spiritual discipline, whereas free will emphasizes the problems of human ethics in particular and,

    to a certain extent, focusing on metaphysics, as noted by C. A. Campbell in his In Defence of

    Free Will.[1]

    However, the current paper will discuss a few basic ideas common to both free will

    and karmanamely, the common sense of human ethicsby exploring the similarities and

    difference between the two theories.

    Similarities between Karma and Free Will

    Both karma and free will mention the foundation on which human ethics is developed in

    all aspects, including psychological formations, thoughts, actions, behaviors, virtues, and moral

    responsibility. In Buddhist ethical teaching, karma is the familiar concept that generally covers

    three dimensions of a person: body, mouth, and mindor the physical, the verbal, and the

    mental. Based upon these three aspects, a person directs his or her own life in spiritual vocations.

    However, according to Buddhism, the most important factor that is always at the forefront of the

    three karmas is the mind. The mind of each individual, as always, takes the essential role in

    determining ones destiny (karma)either happiness or suffering. In theDhammapada Sutta, the

    Buddha portrayed that essential role of the mind in building up or pulling down the virtues of a

    human being through several verses: Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they

    are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like

    the wheel that follows the foot of the ox (Dhammapada verse 1); and Mind precedes all mental

    states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts

  • 8/8/2019 31021119 the Ideas of Free Will and Responsibility in Buddhist Ethics

    2/6

    happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow (Dhammapada verse 2). In this context,

    the mind is considered the architect who subjectively designs the specific life for each person

    through his or her individual volitional actions. As such, the path leading to the life of happiness

    or even that of enlightenment is nothing more than the process of the purification of the mind

    thus identifying the special teaching of Buddhist humanistic ethics focused on individual

    potentiality and the moral responsibility of each person.

    Similarly, the theory of free will directly emphasizes the moral responsibility of humanity

    through the potentiality and freedom of the will. The debate between Determinists and

    Libertarians on the subject of free will led to the central problems of human ethics, which related

    not only to human values, but also to religious values. The question as to whether or not an

    existence called free will that influences all human conduct and shapes the so-called human

    destiny directly governed by moral responsibility, both personally and individually, exists.

    According to the doctrine of Libertarians, human beings possess free will and have the potential

    to think and to act freely.[2]

    However, the Determinists completely denied the possibility that

    human choice is never self-initiated, asserting that free will is an egotistical illusionno more,

    no less. Yet the theory of the Libertarians has retained a special position in modern society.

    According to Burton, the view [of Libertarians] seems far more acceptable since it is not fraught

    with logical flaws and is in keeping with our common sense attitude toward our actions.

    Moreover, we are essentially free to choose our own paths, and we bear a burden of personal

    responsibility for the paths we choose.[3]

    The main idea of free will, as developed by Campbell, is that it consists of two essential

    factors: the self-determined and the environment. Every historic self has an hereditary nature

    consisting of group of inborn propensities, in range more or less common to the race, but specific

    to the individual in their respective strengthand, the self-choices that manifest the influence of

    his hereditary nature the choice is determined at least in part, by factors external to the self

  • 8/8/2019 31021119 the Ideas of Free Will and Responsibility in Buddhist Ethics

    3/6

    (Campbell). Libertarians clearly do not deny the fact that a personal choice or moral

    responsibility relies, in part, on the individuals basis of biology, sociology, and psychology;

    however, they absolutely claim that the individual retains the freedom to choose or decide

    between alternatives of external forces. In addition, they argue that this environment or external

    forces are in factinfluences and not determinants. Thus, a person will always have the ability to

    choose or reject his or her own influences. The crucial question here, however, is the element of

    human consciousness: Are we aware or unaware of the operation of influences in our

    lives? Burton answered this question:

    Once we are aware of the various forces operative in our lives, these forces are

    disarmed of power over us; we then empowered to decide which influences toaccept and which to reject. The influences are only determinants when we are

    unconscious of their existence and the way in which they affect us; once we areaware of them, we can become free of their control.[4]

    Clearly the theory of free will advocates self-determinedness as the most important agent

    in creating individual morality and responsibility. Although both elementsself-cause and the

    environmentare equally important in shaping ethical personality, self-cause or self-

    determinedness is considered the primary element, establishing the true value for moral

    responsibility within each individual. Without self-determinedness working as the basis as well

    as the background for developing individual personality, the external elements alone would not

    be able to produce a personality or an ethical responsibility as such. As Erich Fromm asserted,

    As man approaches maturity he gradually frees himself from instinctive and compulsive

    behavior and he develops his powers of self-reliance and choice.[5]

    Differences between Karma and Free Will

    Both karma and free will concentrate on the active and dominant nature of the mind

    and the will in establishing the ethical responsibility of each individual. However, the two

    theories seek different purposes, at least in certain religious aspects. Buddhism, from its

  • 8/8/2019 31021119 the Ideas of Free Will and Responsibility in Buddhist Ethics

    4/6

    viewpoint of reincarnation (samsara), has pointed to the circle of time, in which an individual is

    born and rebornnot into one life, but multiple livesdepending on his or her karmas of the

    past. Even a Bodhisattva still has to cultivate good karma on his way to enlightenment. Thus, we

    cannot simply put the concept of karma into the frame of human ethics. At a higher level, the life

    of a Bodhisattva for instance, we cannot interpret or explain karma using only ordinary

    knowledge or human language since the realms between humanity and that of the Divine are not

    identical. For example, we may say that God absolutely knows the whole process of human

    karma or human free will; however, no ordinary person can claim that he or she knows precisely

    what the realm of God or that of the Buddha is. In this regard, D. T. Suzuki said:

    We are too much of a slave to the conventional way of thinking, which is dualisticthrough and through. No interpenetration is allowed, there takes place no fusingof opposites in our everyday logic. What belongs to God is not of this world, and

    what is of this world is incompatible with the divine [] This is the way things orideas go in this universe of senses and syllogisms.[6]

    Therefore, the karma about which we are talking is the karma that is explainable and applicable

    to the human domain only. As such, karma is the way in which the Buddhists cultivate and

    develop their sense of moral responsibility. Consequently, the effort to purify negative karmas in

    Buddhism is the most essential discipline not only for issues of human ethics, but also for

    practicing and cultivating the spiritual life.

    Meanwhile, the theory of free will focuses on issues of both human ethics and the

    metaphysical structure of human heredity. Although the theory mentions elements of

    preconditionsprior causes, it does not indicate any meaning related to religious purposes; rather,

    it describes the human potentiality from a humanistic viewpoint. As Porter mentioned, The

    libertarian is not saying that human behavior is capricious and independent of all natural laws but

    that the particular laws that are brought into play are decided by the self-aware person.[7]

    The

    self-aware person here is in fact the determined element in all aspects of human existence:

  • 8/8/2019 31021119 the Ideas of Free Will and Responsibility in Buddhist Ethics

    5/6

    activities, conduct, behaviors, and ethical responsibility. Thus, it is reasonable to say that the

    view of free will is very humanistic, if humanism is not free will.

    The truth is that all concepts of morality are changing, always and everywhere. For

    instance, abortion can be either right or wrong depending on the different traditions and

    societies; for those who believe in the benefits of modern science, abortion is necessary in certain

    cases, but it is absolutely not an evil. In contrasting, the Roman Catholic Church definitively

    views abortion as an evilno more, no less. For this reason, the doctrine of free will does not

    accept any prediction based on the so-called prior cause, but it accepts the self-determined and

    the external forces. The fact is that the concepts of ethics are products of human beings, and

    moral responsibility itself is not identical in different traditions and societies. Therefore,

    according to Libertarians, if human beings are controlled by prior causes as a mechanistic

    system, then human behaviors can be predicted with the same degree of certainty. Yet human

    conduct is in fact non-mechanistic and exists in a biological systemthat is to say, human

    beings possess free will. Therefore, human life, in the ethical sense, is governed not by external

    environments or by any prior causes, but by the inner free will of each individual.

    In brief, both free will and karma share a common groundin the ethics of humanity while

    each also maintains its own development. The teachings of karma emphasize a religious base on

    which people cultivate their lives through the path from the purification of ethics to the

    enlightenment of the spiritual realm. The teachings of free will focus in particular on the nature

    of human ethics and human potentiality in being free. Both theorieskarma and free will

    can be considered the base of humanistic principles. Interestingly, both theories consider the

    element of awareness as the essential factor for controlling human life and directing that life to

    the end goal of all values.

  • 8/8/2019 31021119 the Ideas of Free Will and Responsibility in Buddhist Ethics

    6/6

    [1] Oliver A. Johnson, ed., Ethics Selection from Classical and Contemporary Writer,8th ed. (New York: Harcourt

    Brace, 1999) 448.[2]

    Burton F. Porter, The Good Life: Alternatives in ethics. 2nd

    ed. (New York: Ardsley House, 1995) 63.

    [3] Ibid. 79.

    [4] Ibid. 74.

    [5] Ibid. 75.

    [6] D. T. Suzuki, Essay in Zen Buddhism (New York: Grove Press, 1961) 269.

    [7]

    Porter 77.