| | I personally am no fan of the limited emotional range models of awakening, and that includes not liking the notion of complete freedom from all guilt and related feelings. In that same vein, I also oppose the notion that enlightened beings do not engage in the discriminating that classifies things as better or worse, as they clearly do, as did the Buddha and many others.
As to free will vs. determinism, there is Middle Way between these extremes. From this vantage point, the sense of will arises, clearly, but it arises in some way that is clearly natural and mysteriously causal. Pragmatically, when practicing training in morality and concentration, assume will, as it helps, regardless of whether or not it is completely true. When practicing training in insight, some mix of effort and surrender is needed, a blending of the two points of view, until gradually no-self is understood, including the no-self of the still arising sense of will, guilt, discrimination, and the rest.
As to predestination, this is also referred to in these sorts of debates as superderminism, i.e. taking causality to its lawful, logical extreme, meaning that if the momentum and position of all particles were known, then from that point on all future positions and momenta could be worked out if one could just do the math, which is clearly impossible, but regardless, from a Newtonian point of view would seem a tempting conclusion. I think that the modern physicists do this as well as anyone, and they come up with all sorts of problems that arise when one tries to come to the firm conclusion that things are superlawful to that degree.
Pragmatically, practice, practice, practice! |