What Is Man? and Other Essays Part 14

O.M. Yes, there was a choice to be made, between bodily comfort on the one hand and the comfort of the spirit on the other. The body made a strong appeal, of course-the body would be quite sure to do that; the spirit made a counter appeal. A choice had to be made between the two appeals, and was made. Who or what determined that choice?

Y.M. Any one but you would say that the man determined it, and that in doing it he exercised Free Will.

O.M. We are constantly a.s.sured that every man is endowed with Free Will, and that he can and must exercise it where he is offered a choice between good conduct and less-good conduct. Yet we clearly saw that in that man's case he really had no Free Will: his temperament, his training, and the daily influences which had molded him and made him what he was, _compelled _him to rescue the old woman and thus save himself -save himself from spiritual pain, from unendurable wretchedness. He did not make the choice, it was made _for _him by forces which he could not control. Free Will has always existed in words, but it stops there, I think-stops short of fact. I would not use those words-Free Will-but others.

Y.M. What others?

O.M. Free Choice.

Y.M. What is the difference?

O.M. The one implies untrammeled power to _act _as you please, the other implies nothing beyond a mere _mental process: _the critical ability to determine which of two things is nearest right and just.

Y.M. Make the difference clear, please.

O.M. The mind can freely _select, choose, point out _the right and just one-its function stops there. It can go no further in the matter. It has no authority to say that the right one shall be acted upon and the wrong one discarded. That authority is in other hands.

Y.M. The man's?

O.M. In the machine which stands for him. In his born disposition and the character which has been built around it by training and environment.

Y.M. It will act upon the right one of the two?

O.M. It will do as it pleases in the matter. George Was.h.i.+ngton's machine would act upon the right one; Pizarro would act upon the wrong one.

Y.M. Then as I understand it a bad man's mental machinery calmly and judicially points out which of two things is right and just-

O.M. Yes, and his _moral _machinery will freely act upon the other or the other, according to its make, and be quite indifferent to the _mind's _feeling concerning the matter-that is, _would _be, if the mind had any feelings; which it hasn't. It is merely a thermometer: it registers the heat and the cold, and cares not a farthing about either.

Y.M. Then we must not claim that if a man _knows _which of two things is right he is absolutely _bound _to do that thing?

O.M. His temperament and training will decide what he shall do, and he will do it; he cannot help himself, he has no authority over the mater. Wasn't it right for David to go out and slay Goliath?

Y.M. Yes.

O.M. Then it would have been equally _right _for any one else to do it?

Y.M. Certainly.

O.M. Then it would have been _right _for a born coward to attempt it?

Y.M. It would-yes.

O.M. You know that no born coward ever would have attempted it, don't you?

Y.M. Yes.

O.M. You know that a born coward's make and temperament would be an absolute and insurmountable bar to his ever essaying such a thing, don't you?

Y.M. Yes, I know it.

O.M. He clearly perceives that it would be _right _to try it?

Y.M. Yes.

O.M. His mind has Free Choice in determining that it would be _right _to try it?

Y.M. Yes.

O.M. Then if by reason of his inborn cowardice he simply can _not _essay it, what becomes of his Free Will? Where is his Free Will? Why claim that he has Free Will when the plain facts show that he hasn't? Why content that because he and David _see _the right alike, both must _act _alike? Why impose the same laws upon goat and lion?

Y.M. There is really no such thing as Free Will?

O.M. It is what I think. There is will. But it has nothing to do with _intellectual perceptions of right and wrong, _and is not under their command. David's temperament and training had Will, and it was a compulsory force; David had to obey its decrees, he had no choice. The coward's temperament and training possess Will, and _it _is compulsory; it commands him to avoid danger, and he obeys, he has no choice. But neither the Davids nor the cowards possess Free Will-will that may do the right or do the wrong, as their _mental _verdict shall decide.

Not Two Values, But Only One

Y.M. There is one thing which bothers me: I can't tell where you draw the line between _material _covetousness and _spiritual _covetousness.

O.M. I don't draw any.

Y.M. How do you mean?

O.M. There is no such thing as _material _covetousness. All covetousness is spiritual.

Y.M. _All _longings, desires, ambitions _spiritual, _never material?

O.M. Yes. The Master in you requires that in _all _cases you shall content his spirit -that alone. He never requires anything else, he never interests himself in any other matter.

Y.M. Ah, come! When he covets somebody's money-isn't that rather distinctly material and gross?

O.M. No. The money is merely a symbol-it represents in visible and concrete form a _spiritual desire. _Any so-called material thing that you want is merely a symbol: you want it not for itself, but because it will content your spirit for the moment.

Y.M. Please particularize.

O.M. Very well. Maybe the thing longed for is a new hat. You get it and your vanity is pleased, your spirit contented. Suppose your friends deride the hat, make fun of it: at once it loses its value; you are ashamed of it, you put it out of your sight, you never want to see it again.

Y.M. I think I see. Go on.

O.M. It is the same hat, isn't it? It is in no way altered. But it wasn't the _hat _you wanted, but only what it stood for-a something to please and content your spirit. When it failed of that, the whole of its value was gone. There are no _material _values; there are only spiritual ones. You will hunt in vain for a material value that is _actual, real-_there is no such thing. The only value it possesses, for even a moment, is the spiritual value back of it: remove that end and it is at once worthless-like the hat.

Y.M. Can you extend that to money?

O.M. Yes. It is merely a symbol, it has no _material _value; you think you desire it for its own sake, but it is not so. You desire it for the spiritual content it will bring; if it fail of that, you discover that its value is gone. There is that pathetic tale of the man who labored like a slave, unresting, unsatisfied, until he had acc.u.mulated a fortune, and was happy over it, jubilant about it; then in a single week a pestilence swept away all whom he held dear and left him desolate. His money's value was gone. He realized that his joy in it came not from the money itself, but from the spiritual contentment he got out of his family's enjoyment of the pleasures and delights it lavished upon them. Money has no _material _value; if you remove its spiritual value nothing is left but dross. It is so with all things, little or big, majestic or trivial-there are no exceptions. Crowns, scepters, pennies, paste jewels, village notoriety, world-wide fame-they are all the same, they have no _material _value: while they content the _spirit _they are precious, when this fails they are worthless.

A Difficult Question

Y.M. You keep me confused and perplexed all the time by your elusive terminology. Sometimes you divide a man up into two or three separate personalities, each with authorities, jurisdictions, and responsibilities of its own, and when he is in that condition I can't grasp it. Now when I speak of a man, he is _the whole thing in one, _and easy to hold and contemplate.