Mental Freedom and Freedom of the Loving Heart: Free Will and Buddhist Meditation

Abstract

In Buddhism, Meditation and Free Will: A Theory of Mental Freedom, Rick Repetti explains how the dynamics of Buddhist meditation can result in a kind of metacognition and metavolitional control that exceeds what is required for free will and defeats the most powerful forms of free will skepticism. This article argues that although the Buddhist path requires and enhances the kind of mental and volitional control Repetti describes, the central dynamic of the path and meditation is better understood as a process of habituation. This not only involves the dis‐identification from mental and emotional content that Repetti discusses—and is commonly emphasized in modern presentations of mindfulness or insight (vipassanā) meditation—but also a transformation of the heart that is effected through the complementary psychological and somatic qualities associated with calm abiding (samatha) and concentration (samādhi) and emphasized in the Pali Nikāyas and commentaries.

Free Your Mind: Buddhism, Causality, and the Free Will Problem

“…Meyers agrees with Repetti that while the Buddhist path both requires and aims to enhance metavolitional control, the goal is habituation or (re‐)habituation––broadly understood as the twin task of rooting out defilements by means of calm abiding and concentration––not mental freedom simpliciter . Moreover, as she rightly points out, this “process is also deeply somatic —a dimension of Buddhist meditative praxis that Repetti does not address” (Meyers 2020). The freedom in question is of the loving heart or better still of the loving heart‐mind , since the terms typically translated as ‘mind’ or ‘consciousness’, the Pāli ceto and Sanskrit citta , cut across the mind‐body or heart‐mind dichotomy: one points to the center of one's chest, rather than the head, when referring to citta .…”

“…The freedom in question is of the loving heart or better still of the loving heart‐mind , since the terms typically translated as ‘mind’ or ‘consciousness’, the Pāli ceto and Sanskrit citta , cut across the mind‐body or heart‐mind dichotomy: one points to the center of one's chest, rather than the head, when referring to citta . Likewise, one speaks of dispositions or volitions ( cetanā ) not as pure intentional acts, but as a “kind of executive function …that involves the entire personality” (Meyers 2020). Meyers is less worried about the need for grounding agency or the sources of autonomy in an ‘ontological‐causal reality’, even as she agrees with Repetti that the kind of control Buddhist adepts are supposed to command far exceeds what Western conception of free will or mind over matter entail.…”

“…Meyers is less worried about the need for grounding agency or the sources of autonomy in an ‘ontological‐causal reality’, even as she agrees with Repetti that the kind of control Buddhist adepts are supposed to command far exceeds what Western conception of free will or mind over matter entail. What motivates her view is confidence “that Buddhists have the resources to account for personal agency, self‐control, and moral responsibility in a way that is neutral with respect to the truth of causal determinism” (Meyers 2020, see also Meyers 2014). Furthermore, since Buddhists are mainly interested in prospective freedom rather than retrospective responsibility , the requirement that reasons one shows responsiveness to (on a reason‐responsive account of moral responsibility) be one's own rather than someone else's is less stringent.…”