Have you ever thought about freedom? Why do we fight for freedom? Is it because the mind is trapped? Are you aware of this? In our way of thinking, awareness is thought to be an action of I, self. Thought, has created an image, a capsule of existence, a limited perception, looking from inside the brain to the outside world. It is not integrated in a whole living world. It is a limited being, a fragmented individual, person, with ideas about everything, ideas that can not actually be living. Now there is technology which give animation to these ideas. The actuality is a being trapped by the minds limitation to thought, inventing solutions, developing whole religions and societies, and thinking of freedom, somewhere, some place, somehow. Making freedom even more difficult.
Are you aware or unaware of this? I say I am aware of my unawareness. I am trapped, not free. This is the mind and its way of thinking, not actual being. This awareness is freedom.
Yes, I thought about it many times and I observed limitations of the knowledge, I am having.
I think awareness means not just a single thought, there are cognitive aspects lying underneath. The preconception in mind will have an impact on the accuracy of perceived information. Therefore, the conclusions coming from such a mind will not hold the reality and appears to be limited.
Can you elaborate on that?
A few thoughts:
Thought / thinking can never be āfreeā, if what is meant by freedom is not being tied to anything, limited,etc. Thought is the past. We say the body is not free if it is impeded, held captive, enslaved. Psychologically, enslavement is being tied to something, believing something, trapped , limited, somehow, tied to the past, to images. Only real awareness of the situation reveals that attempts at psychological freedom, happiness, peace, etc are doomed because the duality of observer/ observed exists i.e., the illusion of psychological ātimeāā¦time to become free. K.: āFreedom is at the beginning.ā Awareness is freedom.
In your way of thinking, perhaps, but awareness is like breathing or the beating of the heart. The self may impose its beliefs and biases upon awareness, but awareness is what distinguishes waking consciousness from sleep and dreaming.
I asked the question, āHave you ever thought about freedom?ā Looking at this question together, we are talking about whatās on the mind. We donāt have to find something, get more information, we are looking at the mind. The mind is full of thoughts, and habits, and will automatically have something to say. Is this self expression, a freedom? Or, is the conditioning being repeated? So we can ask this question for ourselves, and see what is happening. To be aware of a few words, a sentence, something, or another person, is a very limited, fragmented awareness. That awareness is constructed with images and thought. Thatās where there is no freedom. It is not a whole living awareness.
Is the reader to assume that the writer is free, āa whole living awarenessā, or is just speaking as if he is? I have no reason to think the writer knows any more about being whole and free and unfragmented than I, so I either respect his right to speak as if from the dais because thatās the custom in these forums, or I question it.
Letās look into this. When I think about my freedom of expression what is thought doing? Is it thinking I am reading, hearing, something, and it is my right to respond? This right is to make things in my way of thinking. The brain is working the way it knows and this is a confinement in thought, not actually addressing the natural state, an ordinary awareness of what is. Then thought is in its own struggle with complacency, conservatism, tradition, and to be free, it is limited to only adding more thoughts. The questions raised are self satisfying. Going round in circles.
Freedom is always at the beginning-K
I have said to you many times, it is best you donāt read my postings.
I suspect that my critiques of your sermons are not appreciated, so I will do my best to steer clear of your pulpit.
Using words like āsermonā and āpulpitā referring to someoneās posts strikes me as demeaning. Itās putting the poster in a role they donāt have. If you want to object to the substance is one thing but trying to make the poster into some preacher clicheā is uncalled for. It seems to me.
In your opinion. To me, he comes across as preachy.
And your negative āopinionā, though it demeans, belittles, needs to be expressed, to see the light of day?
Why is that?
You read a lot into āpreachyā. Do you feel itās politically incorrect to describe someoneās rhetoric as such?
I comment on what gets published here because thatās what we do. Why should I suppress or censor my honest take on what someone has said? Are we all too thin-skinned to take criticism?
There is disorder. It is all a mess. I am a part of this. Do I see all this? Or do I object to some part, and put my petty point of view. This is what I think is freedom?
Good questionā¦
Talking together, what is said is not his or hers, mine or yours, it is arising in the freeflow of communicating. We are looking at a question about freedom. Is freedom the function of a person, an individual, using their ideas, beliefs, and asserting all their usual reactions? Observing what is said, there can be a learning of what the brain is doing, the habits of a way of thinking. Personal judgment and self justification are obvious in the nature of what is said in reaction, and is what anyone can see for them selves. The observing is the freedom. This is all obvious. The learning is in the observing. The freedom we think of as a right to self expression is a conflict of personal judgment and self justification. It is reactionary thought.
This discussion has finished.
No more comments on this page please.
In your opinion my comment is ānegativeā, it ādemeansā and ābelittlesā, but I disagree. I could tell a good friend that he or she is being āpreachyā because itās a fact in that instance, and I have no intention to demean or belittle my friend.
I suggest you look objectively at your reaction before launching accusations.