Is freedom essential?

Freedom is born of the perception that freedom is essential.
full quote here

I kept coming back to today’s quote of the day - just because I am struck by the claim : Freedom is born of the perception that freedom is essential

It seems so true, but just after that claim, K continues : The moment you perceive that freedom is essential, you are in a state of revolt

Which seems weird, because it goes against my idea which could be stated thus : The moment you perceive that freedom is essential, you are in a state of surrender. ie. you just give up, you see that trying harder only perpetuates the base of misfortune - strengthens our impression that reality is my experience of need.

Of course, either way, none of this reveals how such a perception comes about.

If one can see that suffering is a self-perpetuating phenomenon, that my desire for progress is dependant on the solid, steady reality of my misfortune - then we may see that freedom is necessarily the first step.
But what makes this denial of self indispensible? What makes us refuse suffering completely? What makes peace all important?


If this perception that I am in a state of revolt is direct perception and not the usual distorted perception of the condition brain, I am free in that moment.

You mean we shouldn’t necessarily take the word “revolt” in its usual “conflictual”, “combative” sense?

In other words, maybe more that one finds the self (or at least the perpetuation of suffering) rather “revolting” (disgusting/unpalatable) ~ one instinctively shies away from it.

Once the brain perceives how it has been limited by the narrowness of a ‘self-image’, how its infinite potential has been stolen from it, has been allowed to ‘dry up’,…how could it not revolt?

It wants more? What it perceives itself to be seems inadequate? Surely this would be just more of the same?

No. The ‘center’, call it what you will, is crippling the brain and it can’t go beyond it until it is removed. There can be no freedom for it and that freedom is essential…it is the ‘house that is burning”’?

Seeing that I am not free tells me, by contrast, that freedom is essential. I am not yet free, I only see the absence of freedom as my current state. I finally see I am in prison, and now my revolt is absolute natural, and fresh. This revolt is a kind of awakening out of the dream of living unknowingly in a prison.


With Krishnamurti, you never know why he used a certain word, e.g., his use of “indifference” where “equanimity” would have been better.

My point is that if being in revolt is the first direct perception one has, then freedom is revolt. Makes no sense to me, but it’s what he said.

Do you mean : we want what we don’t have? Surely this is just more of the same.

“Surely this is just more of the same” : I’ve said this twice now - first to @DanMcD above when he also seemed to imply : I see myself as this (undesireable, insufficient) thing and I want to become this other (improved, bettter) thing.

Obviously K has told us that this is just more of the same selfist drive for progress - I think it is clear that freedom does not arise from self pity or any need for self-betterment.

We are told to turn the light of awareness onto ourselves, to see what we are experiencing - but maybe more is needed? Maybe there is no actual frontier between me and the world, between what I feel and what I do, between the suffering I feel and the suffering I create?

Why is freedom essential? Essential for whom?

I would say that it is “essential’ for the brain which is trapped in the past, trapped in the ‘known’.

For example, the illusion of the continuity of ‘me’ from day to day.

I don’t understand. Surely the consequences for the mushy stuff between our ears is of no consequence whatsoever ?

Nor am I whipped into a frenzy of revolt (far from it) when I consider the feeling of being a continous me.

The energy for change will not come from consideration of my own feelings or body parts. Change is not essential for the delusion, nor parts of the delusion.

Freedom is not essential for the cage.

When we say “see the whole problem”, that means more than just seeing the model, the parts; it also means seeing the implications of the process, the relationships, or effects.

When you say : “essential for the brain”, maybe you mean “essential for the brain to…” what? (its not quite the same as “essential for whom”, more like “essential to do what?”)

‘Essential’ for the brain to complete its hobbled development (the “mutation”?). There is no “whom”…that’s the illusory projection of thought that you spoke about, no?

Here is an analogy:
Suppose I have the habit of holding my breath but I am not fully aware of the danger of my habit. The moment I see the danger of holding my breath I see the that freedom from this holding is essential. I don’t need to be free yet to see this.

So freedom it is not an imagined desire, it is like breath. It is essential for survival.

Is freedom brain’s natural state ?

No ‘whom’?

There is a center through which I perceive the world around, that is the body. The senses… the question is, is there a psychological center? A ‘me’ and a ‘mine’? There seems to be. So much so, that its existence Is taken for granted. But is it so or is it a psychological illusion? The divisive effects of this ‘me and mine’ can’t be overstated. We all have basically the same brain. If this ‘me and mine’ is a ‘mistake’, can it be dissolved?

Not in order to replace it with a ‘better’ ‘me and mine’.

How do you know you’re not free? If one is not free, can one know anything?

Driving an automobile on the highway is dangerous and we know how dangerous it is, but we do it anyway because our reason for driving overtakes our awareness of how dangerous it is. We choose to do dangerous things for reasons that matter more to us than our health and safety, so this is not a good analogy.

Yes - the moment that there is a revulsion/instinctive stepping away from the process of suffering, we step away/are revolted - we are asking what might bring this about.

PS. Freedom, for those in a cage, is always imagined - survival is the bread and butter of self.

One day I awaken to what a poorly calculated risk I’m taking when I drive on the highway, and the shock of realizing how reckless I am incites me to sell or give away my automobile and be a pedestrian instead of a motorist.

I wouldn’t call this a revolt, but a clear-headed response to an insane practice. I’m not revolting and inciting a revolution by walking everywhere, and I’m not even trying to set an example. I’m just doing what feels appropriate under the circumstances instead of rationalizing insane behavior.

Dear Inquiry,

I don’t know what to say to you (or here, in the forum, in general ) - obviously, my words and analogies are going to be weak, because I don’t see clearly my struggle. …I acknowledge this !

I can’t talk about freedom until I am free. I agree.
You are saying that if I haven’t been free before, if I haven’t tasted freedom, why or what makes me long for it ?

You also say, or we all wonder, if I don’t know freedom, why bother to exit the prison ?

We long for things that exist only in our imagination, so it’s no surprise that freedom is one of those imagined things. I can only long for what I can imagine or remember, so since I’ve never been free, I can only imagine freedom.

When it becomes clear that I am tantalizing and torturing myself with desire and fear, I want to stop doing it, to be free of this kind of thinking, but it’s all I know.

So my condition is my conditioning - desiring, fearing, and the misery, madness, and sorrow this game of opposites brings. But this game is what I am, and if there’s anything I can do about it, it is to do nothing.

1 Like