Question: I am under the impression that in western culture, it is quite common to conceive the Self as an illusion — probably as an import from eastern religions, and in particular from Buddhism, and in connection with the widespread practice of meditation.

That is, to see the Self as a collection of psychological dispositions, and so on, and in particular to conceive of reality as a continuum where nothing starts and nothing ends, and nothing exists separated — I think that in Buddhism it is called dependent arising.

People often speak about having had a spiritual experience in which they realized that everything is One and all distinctions are an illusion.

It seems to me that people are disposed to accept that without much issue.

But I also have the opposite impression about Free Will — that people have a lot more trouble letting go of that concept and of conceiving it as an illusion.

What is that which has Free Will, if the Self is an illusion?

What is that which merits praise or blame, or bears moral responsibility, if all arises dependently?

How can we let go of one (the Self) and not the other (Free Will)?

Have any philosophers discussed this last question?

---

**Note** — Naturally these questions dissolve within the framework of compatibilist Free Will, and therefore, to clarify, I am concerned with how this problem is dealt with within a layperson or libertarian view of Free Will.

---

**Note #2** — I realize this is not a purely philosophical question. One might say that it is a scientific question. I'd say it is both. That a question cannot be solved a priori from one's couch does not mean that it is not philosophical. See for example Dennett's Consciousness Explained which is a 500 pages long scientifically informed influential philosophy book.

Answer: 
Freewill is actually most commonly discussed with regard to the Self. Freewill is the defining attribute of an entity that has "agency" over their actions. The exact meaning of this concept is one which has not been fully resolved, creating disagreement among philosophers. It doesn't even always cross cultural barriers, for Eastern philosophers often have very different things to say about the Self than Western philosophers do.

If one has experienced a spiritual experience which has lead one to believe all is connected and that the Self is an illusion, then is it not unreasonable to presume that agency is also an illusion, at least as the layman's version we consider today. However, this would only be half of the story, for the meaning of freewill, self, and agency are not universally agreed upon. One who has had such a Oneness event would most likely find the most valuable questions and resounding statements of truth be made with respect to universal concepts within that Oneness, not simply human words which have highly divisive meanings.

In other words, it is not unreasonable to surmise that those who have such spiritual experiences find these questions to simply be the wrong questions. They may be useful in the lesser scheme of things to further one towards the right questions, but such spiritual individuals often advise against becoming attached to them.

As for many specifics in your questions, they show a tendency to refer to Buddhist philosophy. You may be able to ask a similar, more narrowly phrased, question or questions on [Buddhism.SE](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/) address the particular attributes of Buddhist philosophy rather than that of philosophy in general.

Edit: One approach seen in Western philosophy which is close to what you describe is to use deeper and wider selves to explore these scenarios. One I can think of is Arne Naess's "Ecological Self:" "The Ecological Self is that with which the Self relates to." This does not remove Self completely from the equation, but it does explore alternatives to the layman's approaches.
From Buddhist perspective,

> 
> What is that which has Free Will, if the Self is an illusion?
> 
> 
> 

In absence of Self, free will could be separate phenomenon in itself. It's act of *free-will* to have free will. (Sort of like *adverbialism*.) And let's define free-will phenomenon further, as will which is *intentional* (as opposed to involuntary or unconscious act). This will is caused by other phenomena to arise.

> 
> What is that which merits praise or blame, or bears moral responsibility, if all arises dependently?
> 
> 
> 

1. Person. As long as person's *will* is not suppressed she is free willing.
2. Action itself. Any voluntary, conscious action is free-willed. (And action could be blamed or praised.) By causality action will bring consequences as type of responsibility.
3. And on deeper level, conscious attitude towards action. (Consciousness which is arranged in a way to be supportive of producing wrong actions, is in same time supporting arising of consequences for such actions.)

> 
> How can we let go of one (the Self) and not the other (Free Will)?
> 
> 
> 

Free will is already misattributed to Self. Thus, destruction of wrong concept of Self does not affect free-will at all.

> 
> Who has free will in the absence of a Self?
> 
> 
> 

On a conventional level, it's Person. On phenomenological level, 'who' is not a question, if there is no Self as phenomenon. There will be *will*, which is characterized as being *free*, and which is worked out by other consciousness phenomena.