It would seem to be an oft-overlooked assumption, the sensation of freedom...freedom in the sense that I choose how I act and what I do. But how can this be? I do not choose to exist; this, whether a glorious gift or unbearable burden, seems absolute. I do not choose the time or circumstance of my birth, nor do I choose how I am to be raised or who is to raise me. I do not choose the nature of the universe or the extent of its natural laws. I do not choose the desires of my fragile body, or the thoughts of my elusive mind. I do not choose my personality, or the temperaments and dispositions embedded within my DNA. Furthermore, when pressed it would seem that any idea of a self, a continuous and unchanging ego or soul, is an illusion created for convenience but bought into out of craving. I do not choose to be a link in the chain of cause and effect, yet every action I take is tethered inevitably to some effect outside of my control. Is freedom to be defined as the ability to react to one's circumstance? But this answer is lacking; how can any action or being be free when it MUST act and, by virtue of its circumstance, act in a certain way?
I see this chain of cause and effect, so fittingly named since it binds us, as the karma that Siddhartha Gotama spoke about. It is not a mystical cycle or magical retribution, it is simple cause and effect, at times shrouded from our understanding due to the complicated nature of the universe. But Gotama also spoke about freedom. He spoke about liberation, and freeing ourselves from delusion and suffering. Is the delusion our illusion of free will? Of personhood? Our suffering is self-created, so why not our freedom as well? Perhaps the release that he spoke about is merely an understanding of our cosmic circumstance. Perhaps we are like leaves on a river, seemingly free but ultimately powerless to change our path. The difference between us and the leaves is that we have the uncanny ability to percieve our circumstance.
The answer might lie in the question. When I ask, "Do I have free will?" I may be begging the question. I assume there is an "I" to possess free will. Is this the resolution? Is the question of free will an absurd one, since it relies on assumption? Perhaps, but it gives rise to another question: what is it that I percieve to be myself? Gotama called the self nothing more than an illusion based on the five skandas, but does this explain my consciousness? Does this answer WHY I am aware of my lack of free will?
It does not.
**NOTE: This is an edited version of something I wrote in a more formal setting, so it definitely breaks rank with my normal posts. I thought I would throw it on here since I've been thinking a lot about free will recently.
