Dialogue with a Neo-Buddhist: Action versus inaction 0610 17l
Clyde G. is a respected thinker and Neo-Buddhist who has been acknowledged for his ability to ask questions going to the heart of issues regarding metaphysical models of reality.
Clyde
061009
Dan;
OK, acknowledging that we have not addressed the issue of how desirability of consequences is defined and your qualifier regarding our ability to know, we are mostly in agreement. That leaves this:
Cg: How would your suggestion that “one is responsible for the actions one does not take”, given the above conclusion, effect your decision making? To me (you may feel differently) it seems that such a consideration might cause me permanent indecision or, more likely, to ignore that suggestion and choose.
Djs: I would disagree with this point. We make decisions every day, every hour, every minute, every second regarding what actions we will or will not take. This scenario does not cause us to enter into a state of ‘permanent indecision’ although it does cause us to pause from time to time.
Yes, people make decisions every day, but that may be because people do not believe that “one is responsible for the actions one does not take”.
061017:
Djs: …or that may be because people do not believe that ‘…one is responsible for ‘actions they do take’ – namely determinists, or eternally responsible for ‘actions they do take’ (do not believe in an existence void time – timelessness) – namely phenomenologist), or responsible for ‘actions they do not take’ (do not believe that actions ‘freely not taken’ are not a form of action) – namely Buddhists?????
There are two forms of actions of free will:
Active action of free will: action freely taken, consciously chosen
Passive actions of free will: actions freely not taken, consciously ignored
One is responsible for all actions of free will, both active and passive
061009 continued:
Djs: I am not suggesting we are capable of knowing ALL potential actions; rather I am speaking of potential actions of which we are aware.
Oh, of course, not literally ALL, but reasonably aware. Yes?
061017
Djs: Not to get too involved, let me just say: As an analogy: When one steps ‘over’ the threshold of the physical one enters the mansion it is one builds. This mansion is composed of various levels (representing various levels of knowing – physical consciousness – built upon the five senses, awareness of self…)
Each level is divided into ‘rooms’ each representing both passive actions of free will and active actions of free will. One builds one’s mansion, one lives within the mansion one builds. One accepts visitors into the mansion one builds.
The bottom line: One is responsible for the mansion one builds.
Ignoring what I have just said and in response to your question: Yes.
061009 continued:
But even when considering only the consequences of the “potential actions of which we are aware”, those consequences will depend on the actions taken by everyone, excluding you, at that moment of your act and ALL the actions taken by everyone, including you, thereafter eternally.
061017
Djs: True but keep in mind that it is the individual who is responsible for the action of free will they personally initiate regardless of what actions others take.
061009 continued:
And remember, the point of my original e-mail to you was that I had found something that corresponded to “your search for something personal that was born and would live eternally” and that was “our action; that was born because it came into existence with our doing, and would live eternally because the consequences are endless”.
061017
Djs: I will keep that in mind, my friend.
061009 continued:
Do no harm,
clyde
