This is really valuable information to know, that you (turquoiseb) speak
for the whole universe ('I think this is a pretty dismal view of the
universe and indicates that the universe ... doesn't really think very
much of them [the no-free-will adherents]'). Someone pass the crown! I
certainly do not know enough to speak for all of existence.The idea of an enlightened cuckoo clock is not all that bad. A similar idea (unfortunately for those Hindu believers) is found in the Bhagavad-Gita: 'Ishvara, situated in the heart of all beings, Arjuna, causes these beings to move, (as if) being placed on a machine, by virtue of maya.' In religious terminology, this is called the will of God. However religions that use this model of description do have a problem when they make this God omniscient. This logically eliminates free will on the individual level. God, in this model, exists - why or how we do not know, but this God and will are there, so we can say that it is free, it is a given. So we have will, and the will is free. Everything follows along as if on a machine, a giant cuckoo clock. Enlightenment is giving up the idea that this free will operates on the individual level of sub units of the whole. One then flows in stream of life. What one gives up is the idea that in one's experience, there is an individual (a person) that is separate from whatever is left over outside the person. Everything is actually connected in some way, which seems pretty obvious, but somehow for most people, is not obvious especially when the idea of individual personhood is involved. Kurt Vonnegut made fun of this idea in one of his novels: by giving Adam free will, God could not predict what Adam would do, and thus God was always surprised, as Adam, having free will on the individual level, would always do something that in principle, could not be predicted. To give an individual free will, God must surrender omniscience, and that of course makes God not such hot stuff. The Buddha's doctrine of no-self also follows along the lines that the universe is a cuckoo clock. The idea one is an individual soul in this accounting is a mistake. Maybe there are some Buddhists who believe in free will, but the doctrine of no-self means there is no one to have free will. The universe as a whole is what is free, and is responsible for the machinations of the world. This is what science investigates in the attempt to discover universal laws. One of the logical problems in dealing with the relation of the whole to the parts is logic illuminates the relationship of the parts, it sets the part in their 'true' relationship with the whole. But logic itself is a subset of the whole representing the balance of those relationships, so it can never work to explain the entire value of existence. Your conclusions about enlightenment resulting in coming to the view that one is an automaton certainly follows, but even if that is in fact true, why is that some how sad? The universe remains the same, enlightenment does not change the universe. This does not lessen having a human body in our vicinity, that seems to be the focus of our experience, it just widens the perspective through which we understand what is happening. All the fun and sorrow of life is in forgetting that it is all just a cuckoo clock. One does not become a soggy pile of mindless oatmeal porridge with enlightenment, blissfully unaware of all the crap that goes on in this universe. One becomes fully engaged in a mystery. From time to time, we try to solve part of the mystery. But we will never solve the whole mystery. This gives you, me, and others here the license to continue to investigate this here in writing, or draw battle lines, whatever suits us for the moment, even if what suits us is out of our hands; we can always pretend we are the doer. For many things in life this is a useful way to look at our experience. You have written some very entertaining things on this forum, but I think you may not always be thinking through all your arguments. I particularly enjoyed your piece on manufactured needs. Enlightenment is a manufactured need. Most people in this world do not give a thought to the idea because they either do not know the term, or just don't care. But if the idea resonates, and it hooks you, then the need seems to be real, only to find out, if the quest goes the distance, that it was in fact, just made up. Being a seeker is an idiot's quest, but one does not realize one is the idiot until the path falls out from under the feet. The idea that we have free will is made up, and it has a particular application. The idea that we are automatons is similarly made up, and it has a particular application. If you are sitting watching a beautiful sunset, maybe neither idea will come to mind, just the sitting and watching, no mind, just pure experience. By the way, enlightenment is soul suicide. --- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Sometimes I really love the view that non-believers in > Free Will have of the universe they live in and what > that implies about what the universe thinks of them. > > They postulate essentially an enormous cuckoo clock, > in which all sentient beings are just automatons doing > what they've been programmed to do, endlessly. In their > view of the universe, many of these automatons think > that they're making their own decisions, but they aren't > really. That's just an illusion. In reality, they're > just acting out actions designed by something or someone > else, whatever or whoever wound up the clock. > > What is most fascinating is that many of the automatons > who believe in this Cuckoo Clock Universe present them- > selves as if they were "spiritual seekers," that is, as > if there were something that was in their power to *do* > that would facilitate or speed up their evolution towards > the goal of "enlightenment" they aspire to. > > What I don't understand is why, if they are incapable > of "doing" anything, they believe that there is anything > they can do to facilitate their enlightenment. Even more > puzzling is their reverence for spiritual teachers who > they feel are "enlightened." According to their view > of the universe, none of these "enlightened" beings can > do diddleysquat, either. They are just as much automatons > as the people who revere and follow them. And if the > whole thing is one big deterministic cuckoo clock, then > there was nothing the "enlightened" could *ever* have > done for them. > > Me, I think this is a pretty dismal view of the universe, > one that indicates that the universe (which many of these > supposed "spiritual seekers" believe is sentient) doesn't > really think very much of them. It doesn't allow them > any freedom or autonomy, and allows them no say in their > own lives. Everything is programmed, and there is nothing > they can ever do that will affect anything else, *includ- > ing* their own enlightenment. And if they ever realize > this "enlightenment" they seek, the only thing that's > happened for them is that they supposedly realize that > they're automatons. > > Big whoop. I'm much more comfortable with a more Buddhist > view of the universe in which everyone has Free Will and > thus can affect not only their own lives but the lives > of others. Teachers in such a universe would actually be > accomplishing something, not just speaking as automatons > to other automatons. > > But if that's the way they want to see the universe they > live in, so be it. At least now I understand why so many > of them seem so chronically unhappy and why so many of > them actually long for annihilation. If I thought I lived > inside an enormous cuckoo clock and that nothing I had > ever done or will ever do mattered, I'd probably hope > for "soul suicide" myself. :-) >
