Free Will!!

Mathew Naismith

We must remember, non-material evidence, like faith or intuition, is not going to be accepted as evidence of existence by a material consciousness. I often produce material evidence to consciousnesses of materialism, but I have more faith in non-material evidence that is from a consciousness of infinite consciousness, not finite consciousness like material consciousness. However, in a material reality, non-material evidence can become distorted, like our faith or intuition can become overly influenced by materialism.

I have recently been asked to supply evidence or give an example of free will. Giving material evidence to free will is easy. Giving non-material evidence of free will is not easy, not if you want a material mind to comprehend this as evidence.  I did find an interesting article on this which I passed on to the person who asked for evidence of free will.

"Over the years I have revisited this paradox many times. In my mid-twenties I wrote a magazine article entitled “And the Opposite is Also True.”   There I argued that it was not a question of whether free will or determinism was correct. I postulated that they were like two sides of a coin; two very different perspectives of the same reality. From one perspective determinism is true; from the other free will is true. But as to what these two complementary perspectives might be, I wasn’t clear.

Then last year, in one of those moments of insight, it all fell into place. I realized that the two fundamentally different perspectives stemmed from two fundamentally different states of consciousness."

Two fundamentally different states of consciousness, not one. One consciousness driven by ego (motion), the other by egoless (motionless) but all the same, still of consciousness. You cannot define that there is no free will by deriving at this fact while only considering one type of consciousness, a consciousness of motion (soul) as opposed to motionless, a consciousness in the absence of a soul to start with.  

"They find that what we take to be a sense of an omnipresent “I” is simply consciousness itself. There is no separate experiencer; there is simply a quality of being, a sense of presence, an awareness that is always there whatever our experience. They conclude that what we experience to be an independent self is a construct in the mind—very real in its appearance but of no intrinsic substance. It, like the choices it appears to make, is a consequence of processes in the brain. It has no free will of its own."

There is no separate experiencer which gives us the perception there is no free will, however, when many consciousnesses become one, which creates a state of motionlessness, free will is evident. You probably need to experience this to know this. This is like giving birth, how many blokes exactly know what it is like giving birth? When you have not yourself experienced a motionless state, you will of course never know or even want to know that this state is of free will.

"Free will and determinism are no longer paradoxical in the sense of being mutually exclusive. Both are correct, depending upon the consciousness from which they are considered. The paradox only appears when we consider both sides from the same state of consciousness, i.e, the everyday waking state."

"I remember hearing a statement Maharishi Mahesh Yogi said something like: ” We can choose whatever we like, eg plant an orange seed or an apple seed, but once the choice is made, the result is already determined by that choice”. This to me resolved the paradox and made both sides compatible as you suggested."

Source: https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/the-paradox-of-free-will/

Try to understand free will though; your environment often determines your actions. In saying this, you are often a reflection of your environment, an environment of your choice or a choice of another within your environment!!