Self Will occupies a peculiar and contested position across the depth-psychology corpus: it is simultaneously the pathology to be overcome and the faculty through which overcoming becomes possible. In the Vedantic commentaries of Easwaran, self-will names the ego’s compulsive insistence on preference and personal agenda — a force causally linked to suffering, conflict, and the dissolution of inner unity. Its renunciation is not passive resignation but an active, graduated practice, a spiritual athleticism requiring the very defiant energy it seeks to redirect. In the ascetic literature represented by Sinkewicz’s Evagrius corpus, self-will (ἴδιον θέλημα) is the object of the Desert Fathers’ most stringent discipline: the ‘cutting off’ of individual will is the narrow way itself. Yalom’s existential framing inverts the valence: will is the therapeutic hero, the responsible mover eclipsed by deterministic models, whose recovery is essential to genuine agency and clinical progress. Jung situates the problem structurally — the ego’s ‘free will’ is real but circumscribed by the Self, which acts upon it as an objective occurrence. In A.A.-inflected depth psychology (McCabe, Brown, Peterson), surrendering self-will to a Higher Power or the Self is the pivotal act of recovery, the hinge between compulsive self-centeredness and genuine transformation. Schopenhauer’s shadow, mediated through Sharpe and Ure, frames self-will cosmologically: willing is suffering, and salvation requires the will’s self-negation. What unites these divergent traditions is the recognition that unreflective self-will binds; its conscious examination or surrender is the gateway to liberation, individuation, or sobriety.