“My God, I would not long to see
My fate with curious eyes,
What gloomy lines are writ for me,
Or what bright scenes arise”
The above quote from A Sermon No.2330 illustrates, perfectly, the general indifference to the denial of free will. Resulting in widespread ennui, and the unwillingness to act without bearing any responsibility, but justifying through ‘fate’, which is the polar opposite of personal freedom and taking control of one’s life.
Clearly, the concept of ‘pre determination’ (or ‘pre-destination’) limits choice while serving the elimination of free will, instead of its liberation, taking away the establishment of one’s true destiny, the will to choose it, and the involvement in the creation of the future as it radiates from within.
The concept aids a person, only, in helplessness and from partaking in the creative process of life. That, they could have fully determined, in the way that they would have imagined, in time. But instead, fate raises a disability which clogs up the dynamics of forward thinking or action, equating to nothing more than social and personal immobility and functionality.
Because, the concept stipulates that destiny has, already, been scripted, set and cast, without any participants having had a say, or the ability to alter, or, unfix it, is an idea, with which I’ve come to, absolutely disagree, on the basis that we are more than just programmed automaton, or beings under mind control, having our will power removed.
A line of thinking, which I’m mulling over, assumes exactly the opposite that we have free will and we are in fact the authors of our own ‘destiny’. Surprisingly, this is writ large and is specifically suggested in all the major religious texts, but which have been, and, still, are sorely misunderstood due to the misinterpretations and their canonisation
Consider the idea of Time being ‘projected’ into the future, and, there being the scope (omnipresence/God/who ever you think the creator is) to see the occurring events in that time line, which is yet to come.
Now, imagine that a ‘record’ is held of those future ‘actions’ which could have been essentially made through ‘personal choice’, and which have already occurred in that future time.
But, the record may (or may not) be determined by ‘free will’, but in this example we’re assuming that it is, and, entitled Destiny, which is not the means limiting persons to its content, as the notion has it: What gloomy lines are writ for me, Or what bright scenes arise.
The ‘record’ of those specific events would then translate to what we currently understand as ‘destiny’ and ‘fate’. But, unlike the normal restrictive idea, the record would give predetermination or predestination a different meaning, the amplitude of freedom within its scope
Generally, religious interpretations prefix destiny by fixing the future and removing free will, which should not be the case. In the Torah, and Old Testament, at Mount Sinai, where Moses and the Israelites amassed, before God, who held the seeds of Adam (past and future), were ‘chosing’ to bear witness to Him, and ‘their’ future, (Mankind’s) He SAW, and it was writ. In the Quran, The Covenant of Alaast also echoes the same scenario. But, I haven’t come across as yet, when God seeing their future, it was only as He had willed it for them, and didn’t include the actions of their own ‘choosing’ that culminated in the book of destiny. It seems evident to me that free will in those future instances was a relative component, because it’s not suggested otherwise, anywhere. Yet, custodians of the human Will grossly continue to misrepresent the point, while caring even less fo it.
Destiny should not be entangled with the generally perceived and accepted concepts, pre- destined or pre- determined, meaning a lack of choice in any given process, even in thinking: “All my times are in thy hand,
All events at thy command”? Destiny is a bounty of choice.
An after thought: Destiny, in those texts, becomes the past, but in accordance with its general conception, it this is paradoxically implies the future – if this is the case we are truly starting from a point in the past, and are ‘willing’ to do so. What do you think?
All quotes from: