[MD] Free Will

[MarshaV]

On Jun 19, 2011, at 1:14 AM, John Carl wrote:

> That's a good point, Marsha.  And helps me to rethink a bit...
> 
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 2:30 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> I can't help but wonder...
>> 
>> The topic seems all wrong.   Isn't the notion of free will (an intellectual
>> static pattern of value) dependent the acceptance of causation?  MY
>> CHOICE WILLED is the CAUSE of such-and-such independent EFFECT?
>> 
>> Putting aside what it appears like for "normal people," is this true?
>> Based on what?
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha
>> 
> 
> 
> John:
> 
> And interestingly, I think the MoQ does provide a very well-thought response
> to the conundrum you pose.  It was in Pirsig's statements of preference vs.
> causation as explanatory devices.  Preference implies a choice in the
> matter, and THAT, I believe, is fundamental.




Hi John,  

I have probably read more commentary about causation than any other 
Buddhist explanation of Emptiness.  It is the first topic addressed in 
Nagarjuna's MMK.  Nagarjuna's logic is not easy.  It seems he may 
have been battling a particular form of logic, called Nyaya.  Regardless 
of the methodology, causation has dissolved, for me, into interdependency, 
entanglement.  And this does not diminish one's sense of responsibility 
(caring) in the least; quite the opposite.   A multi-directional preference?     

I do not deny choice as a static pattern (conventional truth.)   But it implies a 
chooser and something chosen.   -  I know, I know, this drives every one crazy, 
but I cannot divorce myself from my experience, just to fall into line.   Btw, I'm 
not talking about the mountaintop form of experience, but a very potent 
experience none the less.   
 
 
Marsha  
 
 
___