Buddhism and Free Will

Buddhist practice and teaching represents a fully qualified triumph of Intellect over Will. When attempting to describe the Buddha's incomparable achievements and powers, Buddhist texts invariably speak of his omniscience, but seldom of his omnipotence. Clearly, the Buddhist tenet system holds Knowledge (jnana) in a much higher esteem than it holds Will.

The power of will, in the Buddhist system of practice, is a blind force brought about through erroneous thinking. As such, it must be transcended through the proper use of intellectual analysis. Once the insubstantiality of the cravings, clinging and attachment/aversion becomes plainly evident to the practitioner (via the use of intellectual analysis), the power of will inevitably wilts away and fades out.

Such blind force of will, that arises via the confusion of ignorance, can be dispelled once proper understanding has been achieved. But, can the concept of Free Will, which should be a much less blind force, be regarded as a guiding principle in the Buddhist practice?

The principle of Free Will stands in stark contrast with the abiding Law of the Universe. The Law (or, a collection of laws) governs the Universe, governs the behavior of all manifested phenomena. The Law is inescapable -- it applies in all places, at all times.

But if that's invariably the case, then morality and ethics would become meaningless. Every act, every thought being predestined by the rigid workings of the Law, no one would be accountable for their actions.

All the great religions of the world uphold morality as the cornerstone of their practice. Consequently, such teachings cannot allow for a full blown determinism of the Universe. A loophole must be allowed to appear so that humans could be made accountable for their behavior. And such loophole is called Free Will.

According to the doctrine of Free Will, human beings are given a choice -- either they will attempt to discern what is right from what is wrong and then chose to do the right thing, or they will neglect that duty and turn their backs to the moral teaching. And, depending on their choice, humans will get rewarded/punished.

Depending of the scope of the human being (i.e. whether a particular person is viewed as lasting only a single lifetime, as opposed to being reincarnated in multiple lifetimes), the concept of reward/punishment gets defined. If a human being is viewed as contained within a single lifetime (as is the case in the Semitic religions), the reward or punishment will be awarded after that person's demise. If, however, the person's scope is viewed as extending into multiple lifetimes, the rewards and/or punishments are viewed as being administered on a pretty much ongoing basis.

Buddhism, being prevalently an ethical practice, places emphasis on the necessity of being accountable for one's deeds. The basic premise of the Buddhist teaching is that anything a person does will bear fruit, and that fruit will get experienced by that same person sometime in the future. Furthermore, and as a corollary to this, it would never be possible for one person to experience the fruit of another person's deed.

This morality therefore pretty much demands that a person, upon reaching the end of his life, must be born again. This is so because up until the very end of his life, that person has continued committing deeds, and such deeds will inevitably bring fruits in the future. And as that doer instantly dies and perishes, there will be no one to experience the fruits of his actions in the future (because of the dictum that forbids one person to taste the fruits of another person's doing). Consequently, and according to the Law of Karma, anyone that dies must be reborn in order to reap what he or she had sown in their previous life.

Now, similar to other ethical teachings, Buddhism also places the onus of choice on the individual's shoulders. If the practitioner understands the moral law as taught by the Buddha, and if the practitioner observes that understanding in her everyday acts, she will experience the fruits of her good deeds. And conversely, if she does not understand the teaching, or if she understands it but nevertheless choses to ignore it, she will experience the fruits of her bad deeds.

In Buddhism, the fruits of good deeds are experienced as improved conditions for practising the Dharma. The fruits of bad deeds are experienced as worsening of such conditions, as in the case when a practitioner regresses into some form of a subhuman creature upon being reborn.

So, unlike in some other religions, where bad deeds are being punished by an act of eternal damnation, for example, in Buddhism there is no such concept. Since everything we might encounter in our lives is a direct product of our own acts, we go from lifetime to lifetime always carrying this choice whether we want to improve or worsen our chances for attaining complete freedom.

As such, we see that Buddhism is the teaching that is based on the idea of change. One's situation could be quite bleak, but one can change that. How? Simply by learning the Buddha's teaching and observing it in one's workaday life. Conversely, one's situation could be quite advantageous, but one can change that as well. How? Simply by forgetting the Buddha's teaching, or by neglecting to apply it in everyday life.

Also, the Buddhist teaching of ultimate freedom is based on the idea of change. It is thanks to the fact that everything is impermanent that a person can change his/her situation and attain liberation. If things were permanent, being forever defined with unchangeable identity, no chance of being freed could ever present itself to any human being.

Observing this situation superficially, it would appear that the concept of Free Will is extremely prominent in the Buddhist teaching and practice. However, upon closer examination, it becomes really hard to identify this concept anywhere in this teaching. True, sentient beings are faced with a choice at every moment in their lives -- observe the Buddha's precepts, or ignore them. But, their choice is not governed by their will. It is governed by their knowledge, as obtained through careful proper analysis of phenomena.

In non-Buddhist religions, practitioners do not feel the need to examine the phenomena, since they believe that the world was created by the Supreme Being, or God. The only thing a worshipper needs to do is embrace the Will of the Creator, discard one's own will, and rest assured of the posthumous award. Conversely, failing to do that, the subject will rest assured of a tormentous punishment that awaits in the designated hell.

Where does Free Will fit in with that picture? Why was the individual human being given Free Will and the ability to choose?

Free Will in such religions is merely an expedient that enables the all-loving Creator not to be blamed for the ills of His creation. Why would an omnipotent all-knowing all-loving Creator create a world with so much hardship, heartbreak, misery and catastrophe? He wouldn't, not under any conceivable circumstances. How are we then to explain all the misery and inconceivable suffering that permeates the world? There is no other way to explain that discrepancy away other than to invoke the magical principle of Free Will. God has created humans in his own image and endowed them with Free Will, with the ability to choose between embracing Him or embracing the darkness. All the miseries that collate around the world are caused by the man's weak will, by his inability to choose the right path.

On the surface, this situation seems very similar to the Buddhist worldview. In Buddhism we also have the situation where individuals can choose at any moment whether to embrace the light or embrace the darkness. However, this is where the similarities end. In Buddhism, a person does not embrace darkness because of the weakness of his will, but because of ignorance. In non-Buddhist religions, the worshipper cannot be excused on the grounds of ignorance, because the unambiguous teaching is explained to all worshippers, and it is easy to understand that teaching. Basically, the knowledge needed to embrace the light consists in undivided allegiance to the Creator. Embrace the Creator in one's heart, devote one's entire life to Him, and you will be saved.

Things are far from being that simplistic in the Buddhist practice. To begin with, there is no Creator, so there is no one to pledge our allegiance to. Secondly, the teaching itself is abtruse, extremely recondite. Even among the advanced Buddhist practitioners one can notice considerable struggle in trying to fathom the more subtle, profound aspects of the teaching.

We have said at the beginning of this essay that proper knowledge is sufficient to eradicate any will. This is precisely what Buddhist practice aims for. The deluded mind conceives erroneously of "I" and soon enough the notion of "mine" follows. Then the "non-I" becomes a problem, and the will arises to fight the "non-I" and to conquer the "not mine", and turn it into "mine".

This will is the result of erroneous, miscalculated perception and apprehension. The same miscalculated perception gives rise of the false, phantom Free Will. Feeling falsely imprisoned by the phantom "non-I", the equally phantom-like "I" dreams of breaking free. This dream is what gives rise to the notion of Free Will.

Once this dream dissipates (through the establishment of the right view, or proper knowledge), the miscalculated perception turns into unblemished perception. The falsely perceived enslaved "I" vanishes, and with it every notion of Free Will. Once the notion of Free Will is discarded, true liberation shines through.