Free Will and Determinism: Integrating the Eastern and Western Perspectives - Part I

The Western Viewpoint

I’ve always wondered why philosophers are so obsessed with the question of whether we have free will. The issue didn’t seem particularly interesting to me until I embarked on this project of exploring the connections between science, philosophy, and spirituality in pursuit of a post-material future. It was then that I realized how deeply this question is intertwined with the nature of consciousness. I began by outlining the issue, asking: Free will? What’s that? Ironically, the question of free will has become central to my inquiry—not so much because of the topic itself, which may seem like abstract philosophizing to many, but because it reveals how we think and, more importantly, why we believe what we believe about reality and ourselves. After all, our lack of awareness of how we think and why we’ve adopted certain ideas and worldviews is one of the root causes of human suffering, especially in the era of social media.

So, forgive me if you (rightly) notice a fixation on this subject in my posts. However, the points raised by Kastrup are central to understanding an integrated view of the relationship between matter and spirit. While he 'catches the lion's tail'—remaining somewhat on the surface—he still begins to sense and uncover a deeper truth that most Western philosophers don't even start to consider. Therefore, let me dedicate another two-part essay to this topic, with the hope that I might become less insistent on it in the future.

Kastrup made a short video presenting a standpoint that I have already criticized here. On this occasion, he further clarified his position, which, as far as I can tell, is the result of a personal and recent insight.

I would summarize his vision as follows.

There is no distinction between free will and determinism because we are part of Nature, and ultimately, it is Nature that makes choices in and through us. It is Nature that determines my nature¹, what I am, and what I do. What Nature decides to do is both what it wants to do and what it must do. Nature wills, yet it cannot do otherwise than that of willing precisely what it wants, due to its inherent nature. Thus, there is an identity—indeed, a strict determinism—between Nature, our nature, and our actions. In other words, you act according to who you are and could not do otherwise. If you had chosen differently, you would not be who you are.

But my identity, character, and inherent personhood, with all their desires and tendencies, determine my actions. I cannot will otherwise without becoming something I am not. In his own words: “Nature wills what it must will, given what it is.” Everything is as it should be because the universe could not be anything other than what it is. Even if we feel misaligned with the universe, that misalignment is part of the universe as well. Yet, Nature makes choices that could not be different, because if they were, Nature would not be what it is. On the one hand, everything, including our behavior, is determined by Nature. On the other hand, Nature is free because there is nothing beyond it that could compel it to will otherwise. Thus, the apparent incompatibility between free will and determinism fades away.

Kastrup, however, is not referring to physical causal determinism, which imagines the world as composed of countless material particles governed by the laws of physics—like tiny marbles that, once set into motion under specific initial conditions and subjected to external forces, bounce around, blindly obeying abstract differential equations. Here, the determinant is a Will—the Will of Nature, which wills in and through us.

Then comes the decisive point. What people usually mean by ‘free will’ is a liberation from Nature—that is, from the universal consciousness, the Mind at large—which allows 'me' (read: the little ego) to be free to do whatever I want, according to my preferences, tastes, desires, etc. However, since there is no 'me' or 'you' separate from Nature, it is not we who determine those preferences, tastes, desires, and so on. Ultimately, the desires we pursue are also manifestations of Nature's 'waves' moving in and through us. Therefore, even the choices we make in what feels like complete freedom to chase our cravings are still Nature’s choices.

End of summary.

To all those who follow this blog, these speculations may sound familiar. We have already discussed them in what I believe to be a much broader and deeper context, where these aspects emerge as only the tips of a larger iceberg. While his thoughts are interesting and largely agreeable, I find that he overlooks some central aspects (or seems to consider them of secondary importance). If these aspects are not fully addressed, his profound insight, nevertheless, remains on the surface.

First of all, there is no reflection on whether Nature is more than just a calculating, blind mechanism and unconscious instinct, or whether these aspects are merely surface appearances beyond which our physical minds cannot see. In my two part series on Nature, I outlined a broader vision where the apparently unconscious physical determinism conceals a much vaster, luminous, and conscious Nature. There is a complementarity between our subconscious, conscious, and superconscious beings and the corresponding planes of Nature’s existence (as described here). There is, so to speak, a 'lower Nature' characterized by the determinism of matter and the life instinct, and a 'higher Nature' that is fully conscious and operates according to principles beyond human comprehension. Considering this perspective, the entire question of free will, and many other questions as well², acquire a new dimension. The reason most scientists and philosophers do not consider this possibility is that acknowledging a deeper intelligence underlying reality is anathema in an intellectual environment committed to naturalism. It also does not find favor in religious contexts, as it appears to be a pantheistic understanding that elevates Nature to the status of God.³ We will explore this further in the second part of this essay.

Then, there is the interesting logical point that Kastrup raises: Since there is nothing beyond Nature that could compel it to act differently, Nature is entirely free to will what it wants. The natural question, however, is whether we can free ourselves from Nature? According to Western scientific and analytical philosophical logic, the answer is evidently no, because while Nature might be free, we are compelled to follow its impulses, which we refer to as 'my impulses,' 'my desires,' and 'my character.' If we adhere to the views of Spinoza, Schopenhauer, or more recently analytic philosophers like Kastrup, it must be that deep down, everything is an unconscious machinery, and since you are part of Nature, you too must obey this machinery, forever. And since, in this pantheistic view, Nature and God are one, the universal mind, or Mind at large (or however we might refer to it), is also merely a blind instinct operating without aim or purpose. It simply is what it is and wills what it wills; it cannot do otherwise. This view always made me raise my eyebrows and left me with a sense of a 'dumb deity’.

And who is the “me,” “I,” or “you” that is supposed to be liberated? Questions that a rationality alone can’t answer. However, if we move beyond the usual understanding of the analytic mind and begin to sense, intuit, and feel the vaster reality behind the veil of appearances, we may start to realize a different truth.

It is interesting to observe how the dialogue between Kastrup and the interviewer, Hans Busstra, guides them through a process of self-discovery that resembles a preliminary step into a (still not fully conscious) form of yoga. I suspect this might also be a trick of Nature to push them beyond their own analytic perception of reality.

In fact, this is where the mystical experience can become particularly useful. In the following post, I will approach the topic from an Eastern perspective, complementing the previous discussion with two chapters from Sri Aurobindo's Essays on the Gita. In my view, this Eastern perspective provides a much deeper insight with greater explanatory power. The reason it is often dismissed by Western scientists and philosophers (especially those from the analytic tradition) is, obviously, its theistic approach. Nonetheless, I believe that comparing these two standpoints and integrating them into a complementary cosmology will shape the future of science and philosophy, paving the way for their merging with spirituality, and beyond.

Stay tuned!

The subscription to Letters for a Post-Material Future is free. However, if you find value in my project and wish to support it, you can make a small financial contribution by buying me one or more coffees!

1. People often ask me why I write “Nature” with capital letter “N”? This sentence may clarify. There is a distinction between the proper noun and common noun.

2. For example, environmentalism would shift from a movement that approaches environmental protection through a technocratic lens to one that is spiritually awakened, complementing a materialistic understanding with deeper levels of insight. This transformation will be crucial for effectively addressing the challenges posed by the destructive behaviors humans are inflicting on the planet.

3. Spinoza experienced this first-hand. His pantheistic theory, which identified God with Nature, led to his expulsion from the Jewish community, and the clerical orthodoxy branded it as 'atheism.'