the non-reality of free will

[Williams, Pat]

An earlier post stated:

> "It is hard to draw a line between
> > Fate and Free will.  It depends on who you are talking to.  But for
> > guidelines, you have to assume that you have the sole responsibility
> > to shape your future through Free will, but see what is past as
> Fate."
>
Jonathan responded as follows:

> I think it is a good working model, too.  A good start, at any rate.
> But
> after awhile,  if it is sincerely practiced, I would imagine it would
> start
> to collapse as a model.  It does all depend on who you talk to
>
I agree with the Swami and with Jonathan that it does, indeed, depend on
who you're talking to.  I feel sure this is good advice for many.  But
as we progress on the path our understanding must transform, and the
direction of transformation that Jonathan has outlined is correct, I
believe.  An example is the following statement of his:

> Why not just drop
> the myth of self creating altogether and let the impersonal interplay
> between thoughts that gives the illusion of will shine through?
>
He goes on to ask:

> But why emphasize the future so much?  Having
> removed the illusion of an agent self from the past, why bring it back
> to
> *face* the future?  Perhaps a next step in this "working model" might
> be to
> turn around.  Instead of "facing" the future, walk backwards in time,
> not
> moving forwards into the future as if we were crossing through a vast
> field
> laid out before us.   We cannot move forwards into the future since we
> cannot know what the next moment will be until *after* it has
> occurred.
> The only way we can move into the future is backwards, with our eyes
> facing
> the direction opposite from that toward which we are moving, seeing
> the
> next moment only after we have passed through it, just as scenery
> comes to
> a train passenger sitting with her or his back to the engine car.
>
I'd like to offer the additional suggestion that a still further step
toward full realization is to leave behind the concept of time, with its
"past" and "future" entirely.  Specifically, as to the "future," instead
of imagining that we're moving into the future (whether walking forward
or backward), perhaps we should seek to  realize that there is no past
or future, only now.  The one-moment-following-another sequence is an
illusion.  What seems to be a sequence of future events is the arising
of one's prarabdha as it shows itself to us.  The conditioned mind
either responds reflexively or thinks that we are responsible for
choosing and executing a response, which it then imagines that it does.
Only when we simply witness this arising do we avoid further
entanglements and so come a little closer to release.  If we seem to
have free will, it's a much subtler situation than our seeming
capability to choose how to act in various circumstances.  The free will
which we seem to have is the choice of whether we will (1) respond in
any way whatsoever to that which arises before us, or (2) simply witness
what arises.

As is often the case when we think and talk about things like this,
words, and even the concepts they name, fail.  So I realize that some of
the words I've used above are contradictory.  If we have no free will,
then we have no free will for choosing whether to react or witness.  I
know, I know.  Anything we can say about such matters is, at best, a
pointer toward the truth, so hopefully we'll gaze in the direction of
THAT rather than fixating on the pointer.