Is God a Taoist? Sure. This dialogue about free will proves it.

My atheist mind goes back and forth between Taoism and Buddhism when I try to decide which secular version of these philosophies appeals the most to me.

Since I'm heavy into Tai Chi, which basically is Taoism expressed in human movement, I've got an inclination in that direction. Taoism also resonates with me because its writings often are considerably less serious than the Buddhist variety. 

In large part this is because Taoism really doesn't have anything comparable to Buddhism's enlightenment or satori. Nor does Taoism have dogmas akin to the Four Noble Truths. Its a lot more free-flowing, unstructured, and light-hearted. 

(Yes, I realize that Zen Buddhism has many humorous stories in its lexicon, but these often involve not-so-funny stuff like being hit over the head with a stick, and the fact that the point of the stories is Serious Enlightenment gives them a heavier tone than, say, those attributed to Chuang Tzu.)

This morning I picked up one of my favorite Taoist books, Raymond M. Smullyan's "The Tao is Silent." I've written about the book before here and here. 

In fact, I just noticed that the first "here" link deals with the same subject in Smullyan's book -- free will -- that enthralled me so much again today.

Oh, well. Since I just re-read the Is God a Taoist? chapter, I guess it is fitting that I'm re-writing a post about how free will is discussed in that chapter.

In short, marvelously. 

What I like the most about Smullyan's writing is that sometimes, like this time, it leaves me baffled. Meaning, I can follow him up to a point. Then he leaps over a conceptual edge that has me staring over the cliff, wondering where the hell he disappeared to. 

That was the feeling I had this morning after I read the excerpt below.

Which I thankfully was able to copy from someone who shared the entire Is God a Taoist? chapter on one of those wonderful web pages that look like they date from close to the dawn of the Internet. Since "The Tao is Silent" was published in 1977, that isn't surprising in this case.

What perplexed the logical side of my mind was Smullyan's final statement in this excerpt: "A conscious being without free will is simply a metaphysical absurdity."

I sort of get what he means. And I sort of dou't. 

Maybe he means that every conscious being is going to feel like it/he/she has free will. Or maybe he means that the freedom in free will arises from the fact, as Smullyan says before, that "you" and "nature" are a continuous whole, so the question of whether we control nature or nature controls us is moot.

(This makes me think of Janis Joplin's freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose. However, since I actually have no idea what Joplin meant by this, it's difficult to use that lyric as an explanation for what Smullyan means by what he said.)

Anyway, here's the excerpt from Smullyan's book that I enjoyed re-reading so much. Again, I liked this not because I could completely comprehend what he meant, but because I couldn't. 

Mortal:
   I don't know. Do I have free will?

God:
   Yes.

Mortal:
   Then why did you say I shouldn't have taken it for granted?

God:
   Because you shouldn't. Just because something happens to be true, it does not follow that it should be taken for granted.

Mortal:
   Anyway, it is reassuring to know that my natural intuition about having free will is correct. Sometimes I have been worried that determinists are correct.

God:
   They are correct.

Mortal:
   Wait a minute now, do I have free will or don't I?

God:
   I already told you you do. But that does not mean that determinism is incorrect.

Mortal:
   Well, are my acts determined by the laws of nature or aren't they?

God:
   The word determined here is subtly but powerfully misleading and has contributed so much to the confusions of the free will versus determinism controversies. Your acts are certainly in accordance with the laws of nature, but to say they are determined by the laws of nature creates a totally misleading psychological image which is that your will could somehow be in conflict with the laws of nature and that the latter is somehow more powerful than you, and could "determine" your acts whether you liked it or not. But it is simply impossible for your will to ever conflict with natural law. You and natural law are really one and the same.

Mortal:
   What do you mean that I cannot conflict with nature? Suppose I were to become very stubborn, and I determined not to obey the laws of nature. What could stop me? If I became sufficiently stubborn even you could not stop me!

God:
   You are absolutely right! I certainly could not stop you. Nothing could stop you. But there is no need to stop you, because you could not even start! As Goethe very beautifully expressed it, "In trying to oppose Nature, we are, in the very process of doing so, acting according to the laws of nature!" Don't you see that the so-called "laws of nature" are nothing more than a description of how in fact you and other beings do act? They are merely a description of how you act, not a prescription of how you should act, not a power or force which compels or determines your acts. To be valid a law of nature must take into account how in fact you do act, or, if you like, how you choose to act.

Mortal:
   So you really claim that I am incapable of determining to act against natural law?

God:
   It is interesting that you have twice now used the phrase "determined to act" instead of "chosen to act." This identification is quite common. Often one uses the statement "I am determined to do this" synonymously with "I have chosen to do this." This very psychological identification should reveal that determinism and choice are much closer than they might appear. Of course, you might well say that the doctrine of free will says that it is you who are doing the determining, whereas the doctrine of determinism appears to say that your acts are determined by something apparently outside you.

But the confusion is largely caused by your bifurcation of reality into the "you" and the "not you." Really now, just where do you leave off and the rest of the universe begin? Or where does the rest of the universe leave off and you begin? Once you can see the so-called "you" and the so-called "nature" as a continuous whole, then you can never again be bothered by such questions as whether it is you who are controlling nature or nature who is controlling you.

Thus the muddle of free will versus determinism will vanish. If I may use a crude analogy, imagine two bodies moving toward each other by virtue of gravitational attraction. Each body, if sentient, might wonder whether it is he or the other fellow who is exerting the "force." In a way it is both, in a way it is neither. It is best to say that it is the configuration of the two which is crucial.

Mortal:
   You said a short while ago that our whole discussion was based on a monstrous fallacy. You still have not told me what this fallacy is.

God:
   Why, the idea that I could possibly have created you without free will! You acted as if this were a genuine possibility, and wondered why I did not choose it! It never occurred to you that a sentient being without free will is no more conceivable than a physical object which exerts no gravitational attraction. (There is, incidentally, more analogy than you realize between a physical object exerting gravitational attraction and a sentient being exerting free will!)

Can you honestly even imagine a conscious being without free will? What on earth could it be like? I think that one thing in your life that has so misled you is your having been told that I gave man the gift of free will. As if I first created man, and then as an afterthought endowed him with the extra property of free will. Maybe you think I have some sort of "paint brush" with which I daub some creatures with free will and not others. No, free will is not an "extra"; it is part and parcel of the very essence of consciousness. A conscious being without free will is simply a metaphysical absurdity.

Comments

[vinny]

Free will of a driver to speed the vehicle from first gear to fifth gear is there but there is option of stopping the vehicle by using brake & getting out of vehicle . Similarly , there is option to neutralize mind by sadhna / systematic effort & attain Samadhi.

[s*]

A Dutch Vipassana teacher said when asked him about free will..
´Yes we have free will ..but it is not ´ours´

[vinny]

Himalayan mystics are not using the path of devotion / Sufism to neutralize mind . They are using the path of breath control to freeze mind & attain samadhi . It is the quickest path since it does not require any faith / devotion .

[777]

Wauuuuw Vinny

That is a bold statement

Total ascese for many lives during many big bang periods
for attaining Brahma

Is that quicker / nicer than the house father/mother just extremely falling in Love on HIS EXQUISE SOUND
and it ever grows ?

Think Twice

777

-

[777]

*S

It was always ours

We just have to enjoy our OURS again
and U know it , darling

777

[William Nelson]

“If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know.”

Raymond Smullyan's "A conscious being without free will is simply a metaphysical absurdity" alludes to the jazziness of the mind (if you have to ask what mind is you will never know). A mind without freedom is simply no mind at all, i.e. absurd.

Reading tips for you Brian: Bernardo Kastrup (someone who can challenge your materialistic evangelism).

[Spencer Tepper]

If you are truly free, you can say you have free will. But if you are not free, by any objective measure, and in fact do as your conditioning, biology and enthronment mold you, then you are, actually, a slave.

If you cannot think a single thought outside of that parameter, you are most certainly not free.

[D.r]

I find it amusing when people engage in debates about free will and say it doesn't exist. It would be so easy to try to explain everything through science if determinism was true. But science isn't about explaining everything to be true, it is simply a method to ascertain the most likely truth since it is based on sensory data, which errs. Life and existence cannot be dumbed down to simplistics. It is a futile effort.

The mind or consciousness is the most fascinating thing we know of because anybody that has meditated will be aware that thoughts constantly arise and change. And we know that most of the contents of the mind are based on sensory data. But there is also intuition, without which it would be impossible to create anything. There is something more to consciousness than sensory data and philosophy of science recognises this, as do many other fields.

The free will debate is one of the oldest in the world. And I think it is a bit like Pi - it's a debate that will seemingly never be resolved. That is why I am amused when I see people on the internet come along with their pea brains and their absolute stances.

[Spencer Tepper]

To be ignorant of the things which have molded our own thinking isn't freedom. Just ignorance.

To hold to the fantasy that some kind of higher intuition exists that defacto makes us "free" is a misunderstanding of what freedom and will actually are.

A brilliant, creative, drunken prisoner, is still a prisoner. But too drunk to know it, shouts "I'm free!".

Sad.

[manjit]

D.r. - excellent post and I completely agree! Yours is one of the few comments around such simplistic either/or debates, in today's "pop" climate, which seems to really get the absurdity of taking absolute, dualistic stances, as if our minds can not only comprehend but also translate & reduce the entire magnificence & mystery of reality into simplistic dualistic statements. We humans have a propensity for over-estimating our intelligence & it's scope, I have found.....

Spencer wrote "A brilliant, creative, drunken prisoner, is still a prisoner. But too drunk to know it, shouts "I'm free!".

Sad. "

Well, I find apologists for religious & dogmatic absurdities sad, but each to their own.

What you are inferring here with your post - with the typical extreme arrogance masked behind faux humility that many followers of "spiritual" dogma & doctrine exhibit - is that being "free" is not something that one defines for them SELF, but something objective that YOU are imposing on them (of course, in this case the muddled and derivative RSSB dogma and unsophisticated myth of human "incarnation" etc).

So, one may think they are free, like a drunken prisoner who claims they are free - but YOU know they are not, as you know so very well their temporal incarnation born of karmas into this life etc!

Sorry mate, no, being "free" is a subjective state of mind. Quite obviously so, too.

Just as, in your mind, you have accepted the belief (dogma, doctrine etc) a priori that we are trapped in a cycle of reincarnation, that the human birth is precious, that you have now met a "perfect living master" who can lead you to "freedom" from this "prison of chaurasi", you now indulge in the belief, like a brilliant, creative but drunken prisoner, that you are being led to "freedom".

Ah, but not the "freedom" of a "drunken prisoner", but the "freedom" of a RSSB initiate, the real thing, right?! :)

Haha, I do love the universe, it is so wondrously absurd! :)

Well, I guess I am a prisoner of my belief that this entire edifice of stories regarding being "trapped in chaurasi" and "perfect living masters" etc is merely a fantasy created out of the dream-stuff that is our minds, maya.

But, isn't it strange how one belief is that of being trapped, and one isn't? Indeed, one person makes a prison for himself, and then waxes lyrical about attaining "freedom". What use does somebody who has not voluntarily entered into this self-constructed prison of beliefs have with talking about "freedom", drunken or otherwise?

By trapping yourself in the prison of "spiritual beliefs" Spencer, why do you insist on trapping everyone else also?

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi Manjit

I'm sorry but your projections about reincarnation, Karma and all the rest have nothing to do with what I wrote. They are your own layers of opinion and vitriol.

What I wrote, specifically, was conditioning, environment and biology.

Sorry Mate, you can't escape those. Pretending you are free of bias does not make you so. It just makes you judgmental and wrong.

[manjit]

Dear Spencer,

I guess I owe you an apology. To be honest, I speed read and speed responded to the comments here earlier today. In the act, I engaged with the caricature I have formed of you from your comments on this forum. Perhaps I have formed an unfair opinion, and for that I would indeed apologise.

But first, I'd like to clarify; you wrote "I'm sorry but your projections about reincarnation, Karma and all the rest have nothing to do with what I wrote. They are your own layers of opinion and vitriol."

Can I ask, do you believe in reincarnation and/or karma? Do you believe Charan or Gurinder were "free" in some way the rest of us mere drunken mortals are not? I hope you can answer clearly and honestly! :)

Because, if the answer is yes, to any of these, then by direct and causal relation your views of "conditioning, biology and enthronement" do indeed have something to do with what you wrote!

Which is why I began the post with "inferred". I have to be honest Spencer, I read your posts as attempts to make RSSB beliefs sound contemporary & reasonable, with a basis in rational science & thought, with the occasional insightful sounding but jingoistic metaphor thrown in that really contains no substance or meaning at all! But that might just be me :)

So maybe I am mistaken and you don't believe in karma, reincarnation and beings that are relatively more free than the rest of us (drunken) prisoners, and that your above posts weren't just restatements of those ideas in more reasonable sounding, pseudo-scientific terminology? In that case, I do apologise profusely - I hope you can surprise me!!

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi Manjit

I very much appreciate your comments.

Please take my comments separately from the persona.

I don't actually believe in anything outside my personal experience. Therefore I honor that portion of the Atheist Philosophy which is similar.

From the biochemical, environmental, social conditioning and educational perspective we are all victims of that, until a different experience intervenes. And then we are victims of that.

[manjit]

Hi Spencer,

Thanks or your measured response!

But I hope you can forgive me if I say it feels like you haven't actually answered my questions! It kinda feels like a smoke and mirror show....

I will restate my question as a redress to your seeming evasion! :)

Have you had "personal experience" that causes you to believe in karma and/or reincarnation? Have you had "personal experience" that some beings, such as, perhaps specifically, Charan or Gurinder, are relatively more "free" than the rest of us due to this "different experience intervening"?

It is simple, do you believe in karma/reincarnation or don't you, regardless of what "personal experience" has led you to your beliefs?

Thanks for your answers!

[Jim Sutherland]

To Manjit and Spencer, and any others interested ,

Bible Verses seem to be mostly written off here as worthless fiction by most posters here, so I have restrained my self from quoting Bible Verses here.

But there are plenty of Bible Verses, that corraborate Sant Mat Philosophy Teachings, as well as orher Scriptures such as the Vedas, Gita, Granth, and others.

There is a Bible Verse saying that God is a Spirit that can only be worshipped in spirit and truth.

“ Worship” from the Greek, to English translates “ Work for.”

There is another Bible Verse that states that no man has ever seen God at any time.

So, it becomes obvious, that no human form has ever been, or is, God!

So, there are no Radiant Forms that are God, nor formless radiant forms, what ever Gurinder implied that such a formless radiant form might be!

Taking that a step forward, my seeing Charan inside, or Spencer seeing Gurinder inside, does not prove either of them are God.

What it DOES prove to me, is the truth of Theosophy Teachings about the Astral, and Causal Planes, and Dr. Ishwar Puri fleshing these Teachings out in hundreds of his Youtube talks, while Gurinder is entertaining the questions asked by mostly uninitiated young people looking for Get Out of Jail Free cards with out needing to do any Inner Work.

I have seen many radiant forms of people inside, both in dreams, as well as in deep meditation.

I have seen my Father, several times, as well as past Bosses, and people I knew that are dead, and passed on, as well as people I can’t remember knowing in this present life.

I do not attribute ANY of those readiant forms as being God, The Spirit never seen by ANY man.

The Spirits Book, free as a pdf, by Allen Kardec, written in the mid 1800s explanes all about radiant forms manifesting as spirits, some dead, others still alive, but Astral projecting.

I do belive in Reincarnation, Transmigration in the Wheel of 84, i.e. Charausi, as taught by Sant Mat Masters who took the teachings from Hinduism.

Ishwar Puri puts flesh on the Astral and Causal Planes, fully explaining the operation of spirits in those planes.

Allen Kardec interviewing thousands of spirits channeled by hundreds of Mediums corraborate what Ishwar Puri is presently preaching as a Preacher, with past baggage, which most Preachers also carry with them.

But Puri does not claim to be a Master.

Jim

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi Manjit

I wasn't avoiding your questions. But I was attempting to reiterate the point that my experiences are not at issue.

The fact is we are products of environment, biology and conditioning, and that our thinking, even about right and wrong is hopelessly colored by these. Therefore the notion that we are free arises only out of ignorance about these dynamics.

That has nothing to do with spirituality at all.

It can't be linked to religion or any concepts about anything outside this physical reality.

It doesn't require conjecture about those things.

The argument stands on its own. Every event has a cause. Basic science. Every thought the brain generates begins and ends in biochemistry. And different biochemistry, different genetics, different culture, different conditioning, all mold that thinking.

From that perspective alone, we are not free.

We can change the subject of the discussion, but that should not be to avoid this basic truth. Anyone, especially an Atheist grounded in a passion for fact based truth should understand this fundamental truth. Conjecture about anything else, spiritual or will to power, or consciousness or any other notion is just an invention of human thinking, which arises out of the above dynamics.

As for spirituality, we can discuss it if you like. But I've already answered your question. Experience drives our beliefs.

Different experiences are going to drive different beliefs. Whether spiritual or worldly doesn't alter the fact that we are products of these things and therefore have absolutely zero free will, even though every moment we live under the impression of freedom.

[manjit]

Haha Spencer. I had a cracking moment of synchronistic delight yesterday.

Immediately after I wrote this post above yesterday - now honestly, I still have absolutely no idea how this happened, and it happened in front of my eyes - I was looking at the thread on my iPad when, in front of my eyes, the webpage changed to a series of posts of yours from 27th October, talking specifically about karma and reincarnation! Let me see if I can find the thread.......ah, here it is:

http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2017/10/buddhism-doesnt-believe-in-a-soul-which-is-fine-with-soulless-me.html

Now, I have absolutely no idea how my iPad not only navigated to this thread, but also DIRECTLY to your posts about karma & reincarnation...I went back on browser to see what I may have accidently pressed to take me there, and nope, nothing - so this was the universe giving me a little helping hand :)

You see Spencer, your comments on that thread, and your evasiveness here, has cleared something up for me. I thought I may, indeed, have misunderstood you based on my "projections".

However, it is now entirely apparent that my original post to you was staggeringly accurate & appropriate as well as very insightful, and all your subsequent posts have been your attempts at evading that. You may fool yourself (and the mindless RSSB choir here that praises any pro-RS comments, now matter how absurd & inane), but you certainly didn't fool me (almost, but not quite!). Perhaps now we have ascertained that my original post was indeed an accurate representation of your thought processes, without the smoke & mirrors sleight of hand, subterfuge & manipulations, perhaps you can face some of the questions?

Cheers my friend, better luck next time - and forgive me my drunken imaginings of freedom!!

[Spencer Tepper]

Dear Manjit

The lack of free will due to biology, environment, and conditioning is a separate argument from discussions of spirituality.

The argument I've put forth is not based upon spiritual beliefs.

I am a Satsangi, but the fact of our imprisonment in flesh, biochemistry and culture is a physical reality.

That is my entire point. It is a physical fact.

Pretty straightforward.

[Spencer Tepper]

Hi Manjit

Your link to my prior posts about Karma also makes no sense.

My comments there were to cite quotes from ancient Buddhist texts pointing to the acknowledgement of Spirit, in a similar vein to Sant Mat teachings that the soul has no persona.

That was just a comparison of two sets of teachings.

You seem to need to make personal inferences to support personal attacks.

Try to stick to the arguments presented.

[D.r]

Spencer Tepper, only dumb people would believe that an anonymous internet blog writer like you has solved the issue of free will versus determinism that has been raging debate for thousands of years.

But I'm still waiting for proof or evidence for your claim.

[777]

Back to the subject and reality

BBC Math specialist Marcus du Sautoy did a CTScans in Frankfurt
and all was filmed and broadcasted here.

The Scan operators knew a whole 6 seconds, before He knew what to do what he was going to decide to do.
He was not able to trick them in any way - The scanner beat him

777

ps
Beloved and clever MaharaJI Charan Singh said :
"After your first move you lost free will"

ps2
It s a kind of simple :
We took alcohol that day, . . next the bottle decides
First stop drinking

Love is so special

777

-

[Spence Tepper]

Dear D.r.,

Determinism is an old and well-established fact among those who deal in facts.

You are a biological entity.
You have learned language and culture from a place of origin in a specific time and geography.

Those who taught you had their own opinions, which you were exposed to.

Your body and brain have limitations imposed by your genetic heritage and environment, as well as events in your past.

You have an opinion that you have formed about various things, based on what you have seen and heard, and how these things effected you through your particular brain tissues.

That is your prison, D.r. and you cannot venture outside of it. Nor can you think a single thought beyond its capacity.

But you are not alone. We are all in that situation.

You didn't call other people you have never met "dumb" out of your free will. You were compelled by emotion to write that. This is your conditioning. Each of us has our own.

[manjit]

Spencer wrote: "The argument I've put forth is not based upon spiritual beliefs."

Hi Spencer. I have to be honest, I find your evasiveness & lack of transparency an indicator of dishonesty. Whether to others or to your own self, I cannot tell. There is no lack of ingenuity in the mind's coping mechanisms.

It is extremely clear your posts have a deep seated origin in your specific belief in the theology and dogma of RS. Indeed, as I have already hinted at directly, I believe you are merely restating your understanding of RS doctrine in what you consider to be "rational" and "reasonable" pseudo-scientific concepts & terminology.

However, your posts are riddled with comments which betray your true meaning, such as "To hold to the fantasy that some kind of higher intuition exists that defacto makes us "free" is a misunderstanding of what freedom and will actually are." or "From the biochemical, environmental, social conditioning and educational perspective we are all victims of that, until a *different* *experience* *intervenes*" etc etc. What is this "higher intuition", scientifically speaking, that you are talking about? Stop playing games (with yourself or me, who knows!) Spencer, your meaning is obvious!! :)

You say your posts are not based on "spiritual beliefs" and that they bear no relevance to your argument. I contest that and simply ask for clarification on your beliefs so others can decide if they bear any relevance to what you're writing themselves. I mean - and this was the actual point of my original post - it gives an entirely different context to your "drunken prisoners" falsely imagining they are free if you believe Charan or Gurinder were "free" because of their "experiences", does it not? Because it is obvious we would then just ask, how do we know Charan or Gurinder aren't just "drunken prisoners" themselves imaging they are free?

In regards to your, imo, half-baked and muddled thinking around scientific models and their relation to your spiritual beliefs (to the extent we can distinguish them from your veiled and censored comments here....but I think it's safe to say you believe in RSSB dogma and doctrine completely & without adulteration, even if you may say it is based on your "experiences"), I'm not really interested in that tired and clichéd debate. Utterly pointless and futile, like trying to measure luminosity with food scales. My personal conclusion on the topic is seemingly in accord with Ramana Maharshi's:

"19. Arguments about destiny and free-will are carried on by those who have not realized. Those who have, are free from both. . ."

Verse 19, 40 verses on reality."

But, just to clarify, I have spent many years fully studying and researching this & related subjects, across a variety of disciples (scientific, philosophical & a variety of personal experiences). Here is a review of Sam Harris's book on free will which should clarify some of the inherent problems in making proclamations, based on scientific models, for the lack of "free will":

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/radhasoamistudies/conversations/messages/254869

It should clarify my original post to you in this thread, Spencer, and why a drunken prisoner proclaiming they are "free", may indeed be "free". Because the concept of "free will" relates to consciousness, and science has absolutely no grasp or clue about consciousness, at all, so to claim absolute "determinism" about any aspect of consciousness, such as the concept of "free will", is utterly arrogant, ignorant and profusely absurd. In your unqualified zeal to associate your personal comprehension of some aspects of RSSB dogma, such as everything is preordained, with current pop-trendy materialism-scientism, you have unwittingly killed the soul, consciousness. But never mind, this is an extremely ancient, multi-faceted and incomprehensibly complex subject with no resolution within the scope of language and concept. It is so easy to trap oneself.

The above post also address 777's comment in support of your argument, about the over-referenced, but little-understood Libet related experiments into free will (the "illusion" of conscious choice being made after our autonomous system has already made the "choice" - up to 6 seconds before, no less, how astonishing, what does that imply for when we are given less than 6 seconds to make a conscious "choice"!? Perhaps our autonomous nervous system is pre-cognitive?! etc etc re the experimental method absurdities when it comes to trying to measure the immeasurable!). F W H Myers more than a hundred years ago was positing models of consciousness and choice far more sophisticated than the assumptions around consciousness, will and "choice" that are being used here in these kind of experiments.

Cheers.