Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
General Discussion | moderated by Dev Singh

freedom


Displaying all 14 posts
Page 1 of 1
Sun, 21 Aug 2016 #1
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 539 posts in this forum Offline

No one prevents the mind from being free, no one stands in the way of “my” freedom. When “another” is being stubborn, contrary, aggressive, stupid, blind, and so on and so on - such conflictual action is not what robs “me” of freedom. No matter what the environmental circumstances are, freedom is there for the “taking”, so to speak.

What prevents the mind from being free is the refusal to put aside, the unwillingness to shed, for even one second, the totality of knowledge as its guiding light for action. No? That refusal or unwillingness stems from fear, doesn’t it? This process is the root of conflict, isn’t it? Because if I ignore the voice of the past, if I turn away from the authority of knowledge, then how do I know what to do, what to I say, how do I deal with my contradictions, obsessions, compulsions, my fears, my anger, my depression, my torment, and so on, what is my action going to be? Action from the known is the only action I know.

Before chasing freedom, I think it’s important for the mind to clarify what it is really interested in. Is it total freedom or is it freedom from “my” suffering, i.e. from personal suffering? Don’t we think that these are one and the same? That is, don’t we already “know” that freedom means freedom from pain and suffering, freedom from the ache of loss, of loneliness, of injustice, of brutality, and so on? But we can’t really know what freedom is as long as the mind is “tethered” (as K put it) to the past.

I’m not, really not, implying that there’s anything wrong with wanting suffering to end. But we want it to end without understanding its nature, its source and processes. We think it can end without looking at “what is”, and that is a sterile quest. But this is like expecting a sterile womb to give birth.

The known IS the mind’s bondage, isn’t it? If so, then freedom cannot be engendered by the known; bondage cannot bring about freedom. Doesn’t this perception (if that’s what it is) transform the mind’s relationship with the known, such that it turns to the known only where appropriate? That is, the known remains of course, but it is in abeyance.

Whenever the known, the past, the self, the “me”, wants to teach a lesson, to outwit, to outsmart, to defeat, to avenge, to punish, to make the winning point, and so on, against “another”, that is not freedom, is it? Isn’t this the traditional action of the past which is the source of conflict, and it isn’t it therefore perpetuating conflict? An end to conflict, a true resolution of conflict, cannot come out of conflict, it seems to me.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Sun, 21 Aug 2016 #2
Thumb_stringio randall merryman United States 3832 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Huguette . wrote:
When “another” is being stubborn, contrary, aggressive, stupid, blind, and so on and so on -

I lose my chance at freedom of self when I am being stubborn, contrary, aggressive/angry, stooped, blind etc,.....

The tree of knowledge mearly encites these mental states within.

Stuff happens

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 Aug 2016 #3
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

randall merryman wrote:
I lose my chance at freedom of self when I am being stubborn, contrary, aggressive/angry, stooped, blind etc,.....

Otherwise said when I resist 'what is' ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 Aug 2016 #4
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 329 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
What prevents the mind from being free is the refusal to put aside, the unwillingness to shed, for even one second, the totality of knowledge as its guiding light for action. No? That refusal or unwillingness stems from fear, doesn’t it? This process is the root of conflict, isn’t it? Because if I ignore the voice of the past, if I turn away from the authority of knowledge, then how do I know what to do, what to I say, how do I deal with my contradictions, obsessions, compulsions, my fears, my anger, my depression, my torment, and so on, what is my action going to be? Action from the known is the only action I know.

Yes it is. But if I ignore the voices of the past, if I turn away from the auority of knowledge, is there still contradictions, obsessions, compulsions ; fears anger depression, tourments and so on ? And you ask what is my action going to be ?

Huguette . wrote:
I’m not, really not, implying that there’s anything wrong with wanting suffering to end. But we want it to end without understanding its nature, its source and processes. We think it can end without looking at “what is”, and that is a sterile quest. But this is like expecting a sterile womb to give birth.

It is. One have to look at what is. Without selfknowledge, can there be freedom ?

Huguette . wrote:
The known IS the mind’s bondage, isn’t it? If so, then freedom cannot be engendered by the known; bondage cannot bring about freedom. Doesn’t this perception (if that’s what it is) transform the mind’s relationship with the known, such that it turns to the known only where appropriate? That is, the known remains of course, but it is in abeyance.

So freedom would be freedom from the known ?

Huguette . wrote:
Whenever the known, the past, the self, the “me”, wants to teach a lesson, to outwit, to outsmart, to defeat, to avenge, to punish, to make the winning point, and so on, against “another”, that is not freedom, is it? Isn’t this the traditional action of the past which is the source of conflict, and it isn’t it therefore perpetuating conflict? An end to conflict, a true resolution of conflict, cannot come out of conflict, it seems to me.

Recommend

Of course not. Isn't this the actual conditioning of our mind ? We are conditioned. It seems obvious. Of course the question about what would be action without the past interferring remain. If there is no hurt accumulated, no beleives, no lesson, outwit, defeat, advenge punish , winning point; no system, no ..ism, no Jung, and so on....no past interfering , what would be our action ? Interesting and fundamental question. Because we have fear, as you said, to let go the past.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Sun, 21 Aug 2016.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 21 Aug 2016 #5
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 539 posts in this forum Offline

re: #2

randall merryman wrote:
I lose my chance at freedom of self when I am being stubborn, contrary, aggressive/angry, stooped, blind etc,.....

The tree of knowledge mearly encites these mental states within.

I think that anyone can clearly see that “when I’m being stubborn, contrary”, and so on, the mind is not free. But this condition is not irremediable. Doesn't it end immediately when mind understands the habit or process that is “controlling” it? And there is this understanding when there is awareness of the process, awareness that it is a habitual mental process operating and not “me acting". No?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 Aug 2016 #6
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 539 posts in this forum Offline

re: #4

Huguette . wrote:

What prevents the mind from being free is the refusal to put aside, the unwillingness to shed, for even one second, the totality of knowledge as its guiding light for action. No? That refusal or unwillingness stems from fear, doesn’t it? This process is the root of conflict, isn’t it? Because if I ignore the voice of the past, if I turn away from the authority of knowledge, then how do I know what to do, what to I say, how do I deal with my contradictions, obsessions, compulsions, my fears, my anger, my depression, my torment, and so on, what is my action going to be? Action from the known is the only action I know.

Rich Nolet wrote:
Yes it is. But if I ignore the voices of the past, if I turn away from the auority of knowledge, is there still contradictions, obsessions, compulsions ; fears anger depression, tourments and so on ? And you ask what is my action going to be ?

I wasn’t actually demanding to know what my action is going to be. I meant that, as I see it, the mind wants to know beforehand what the future will be if it turns away from authority. It is afraid so it demands to know, and of course, it can’t know. Therefore fear binds “me”, stops me from repudiating the authority of knowledge, feeds my dependency on knowledge.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 Aug 2016 #7
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 539 posts in this forum Offline

re: #4

Huguette . wrote:

The known IS the mind’s bondage, isn’t it? If so, then freedom cannot be engendered by the known; bondage cannot bring about freedom. Doesn’t this perception (if that’s what it is) transform the mind’s relationship with the known, such that it turns to the known only where appropriate? That is, the known remains of course, but it is in abeyance.

Rich Nolet wrote:
So freedom would be freedom from the known ?

I don’t quite see it that way. If the mind says, “I am free from the known”, it is not. Right? The mind cannot see that it is free. It can see that it is afraid, angry, obsessed, jealous, etc. It can see anger, etc., by observing the movement of thought/emotion. But it cannot say, “I am free from the known”, can it? It cannot observe that, it seems to me. I don’t know if I understood what you said.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 Aug 2016 #8
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 329 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I wasn’t actually demanding to know what my action is going to be. I meant that, as I see it, the mind wants to know beforehand what the future will be if it turns away from authority. It is afraid so it demands to know, and of course, it can’t know. Therefore fear binds “me”, stops me from repudiating the authority of knowledge, feeds my dependency on knowledge.

Yes, it was understood Huguette.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 Aug 2016 #9
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 539 posts in this forum Offline

re: #4

Huguette . wrote:

Whenever the known, the past, the self, the “me”, wants to teach a lesson, to outwit, to outsmart, to defeat, to avenge, to punish, to make the winning point, and so on, against “another”, that is not freedom, is it? Isn’t this the traditional action of the past which is the source of conflict, and it isn’t it therefore perpetuating conflict? An end to conflict, a true resolution of conflict, cannot come out of conflict, it seems to me.
Recommend

Rich Nolet wrote:
Of course not. Isn't this the actual conditioning of our mind ? We are conditioned. It seems obvious. Of course the question about what would be action without the past interferring remain. If there is no hurt accumulated, no beleives, no lesson, outwit, defeat, advenge punish , winning point; no system, no ..ism, no Jung, and so on....no past interfering , what would be our action ? Interesting and fundamental question. Because we have fear, as you said, to let go the past.

As I see it, this question of "what action would be without the past" does not need to be answered, cannot be answered. The only thing that needs to be “done” with respect to this question is to see that it gives rise to fear and to a demand for security. This demand for security is what tethers me to knowledge/time. Isn't this more or less the process that binds the mind to the known?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 Aug 2016 #10
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 329 posts in this forum Offline

Well, one can't say : I am free. The moment one say: I am free, it is already something of the past. Is it what you mean ? Freedom from the known is not the same as: I am free from the known. One can never say that . Is it what you mean ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 Aug 2016 #11
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 329 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
As I see it, this question of "what action would be without the past" does not need to be answered, cannot be answered. The only thing that needs to be “done” with respect to this question is to see that it gives rise to fear and to a demand for security. This demand for security is what tethers me to knowledge/time. Isn't this more or less the process that binds the mind to the known?

Yes.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 Aug 2016 #12
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 329 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I don’t quite see it that way. If the mind says, “I am free from the known”, it is not. Right? The mind cannot see that it is free. It can see that it is afraid, angry, obsessed, jealous, etc. It can see anger, etc., by observing the movement of thought/emotion. But it cannot say, “I am free from the known”, can it? It cannot observe that, it seems to me.

No. There can't be consciousness of freedom. Is it what you mean ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 Aug 2016 #13
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 539 posts in this forum Offline

re: #10 and 12

Rich Nolet wrote:
Well, one can't say : I am free. The moment one say: I am free, it is already something of the past. Is it what you mean ? Freedom from the known is not the same as: I am free from the known. One can never say that . Is it what you mean ?

Yes it is.

I can say, “I’m afraid” (or whatever “I am”) because fear and so on are observable. Fear is a movement of the known, a movement of thought/emotion, a fragment which can be observed. Freedom is silence, emptiness, psychologically speaking, isn’t it? It is not thought or emotion, it is not a fragment of the whole, it is not divisible.

Silence too is not observable, just as awareness is not observable. As I see it.

The intellect can understand this limitation of thought, that it cannot claim truthfully, “I am free” or “I am silent, I am empty”. The moment it claims to be free, that is the known speaking, as you say - i.e. such "freedom" is a describable, debatable, arguable fragment.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Mon, 22 Aug 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 Aug 2016 #14
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 329 posts in this forum Offline

Exactly Huguette.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Sun, 21 Aug 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying all 14 posts
Page 1 of 1
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)