Freedom is not believing.
Of course, Inquiry…! I am aware my mind pretends it has freedom. I am attempting to display/expose how my mind is appropriating freedom.
In this seeing there is indifference.
This is how I understand JK to be talking about observing ourselves. But that because we ‘think’ that we already know ourselves, we don’t bother?
So it would seem, but the elimination of the noise of thought might not be necessary if a more fundamental change transforms thought from something powerful and threatening into something as ordinary, benign, and companionable as the sound of birds. crickets, or a babbling brook, and more useful than persuasive or authoritative.
- Isn’t freedom, the ultimate(essential?) “object” that the mind longs for ? (mentioned above)
- Isn’t death, the ultimate(essential?) “object” that the mind fears ? (added here, now)
My son started to express to me his fear of death around age 3, he struggled with it for few years. My aging parents are facing this fear every day. I can observe it in my dad, especially.
I contemplate death every day… I may be “too” focused on death…could be a personal thing…? Maybe this “interest” I have to contemplate death, prompts me to say that the mind dreams to be free of fear of death - and this may explain why I say that “Mind’s ultimate desire is freedom” (from it self, freedom from the mind).
PS: And yes, I was not thinking of freedom in K’s spiritual sense. Feel free to ignore this comment, if makes no sense…
PS: of course mind’s "freedom from it self " is an interpretation of K’s “freedom from the mind” - but, this is what the mind does !!! it imitates the unknown;
Freedom, as seen by the mind, is an “imitation” of freedom, and the outcome of fear.
When the mind runs from psychological fear suffering etc, it has made ‘freedom’ the opposite of these things? Freedom is NOT escaping? It is the “denial” of escape?
On the contrary, your use of the word freedom makes a lot more sense than K’s.
Longing makes sense. Separation makes sense. It is rational to fear death. And to take steps to mitigate our discomfort.
Krishnamurti thought ultimately is not rational. Is not about making sense. All that depends on there being an observer and an observed. The separation between me and everything else is what makes measure (and longing) possible. K’s position as I understand it is that there is no fixing of this situation. Where there is division in this manner there will be conflict. That is a physical law in his opinion. For him then there is no freedom from longing (to avoid death, to rectify conditioning or anything else) if one is looking from the vantage point of a separate observer. Division breeds conflict. End of story.
His nonsensical use of the word freedom then is to describe intrinsic awareness. A mind that is in communion with what is impinging upon it rather than one able to and intent on manipulating what it observes. We have to go easy on him though. He is probably trying to communicate the un-communicable.
Or it is too simple for the sophisticated mind to grasp? Our psychological fears and suffering are ‘lawful’, they’re there because of what went before them. He’s saying as I hear it, the effort, motive, desire to escape, to ‘change’ what’s there only strengthens the situation and postpones actually (if ever) facing it.
The full question is : “Is freedom from pleasure essential?”
Meaning : Are you free? Do you see that it is essential?
The answer is either Yes or No (or WTF?)
If we answer : I want some! or what is freedom really? or how can I get some of that freedom? We are not free of the itch, we are still trying to scratch the itch.
If we do not see that pleasure is the cage we are like the the addict who is willing to do anything to get it. (Even weird stuff like self-observation, anti intellectualism or tree-hugging - whatever it takes).
This is because we are the movement of desire, and we are blind to everything that comes with it : the tears, the baby left for hours in its own filth, the violence, the aches and pain.
Isn’t that the ‘stream’ we’re in? Thought / desire can’t ‘step out’ of it. What can? What has no motive, no desire, no direction, no movement at all? Thought will flow on. Any attempt to ‘change’ it is still the stream…
Are you sure that pleasure is “the cage”, and not desire/fear?
If by “pleasure” you mean relief from the pain of withdrawal, that’s what the addict seeks.
Pleasure, fear, desire - these are descriptors of the same movement from different perspectives.
We keep getting caught in the details of our own perspective, the intricacies of our own opinions, and of course that makes the cage seem so complex, intricate, fascinating and confusing and endlessly full of stuff.
Yea - the pleasure and the pain given by the words - and I am laughing now
Like a seesaw - the mind swings between the opposites, this is what the mind seems to do - (no opposite can exist without the other)
Sadism and masochism are “different perspectives”, but sane, healthy humans need pleasure and pain to remain healthy. Desire and fear are pathological.
How to be free from the known? The answer cannot be found in what I know.
How to be free from fear & desire? My desire for freedom will not set me free.
For the freedom of intelligence, for intelligent action, the delusion and exigence of me must end…
The delusion and effects of the me process can be seen intellectually and described (K describes it, we describe it on this forum endlessly) - what is needed in order to end its omnipotence?
What gives rise to the death of fear?
“As long as you are a prisoner of the world, whatever you do will aggravate the situation” N. Maharaj
There will always be content (the known) in the human mind; I can’t discard the known; yet, there are moments when the known can be …not seen/not visible
So, the tiniest fraction of this world, the known, covers the unknown; the finite hides the infinite.
The known comes right up/in my face (mind), and it is all I see;
If the known can be seen as rising memory, the unknown must appear differently.
Something makes the known not visible, and the unknown appears “visible”
I don’t know what “the unknown appears visible” means - And I’m not sure our mission is to know the unknown, we are not here to accomplish mission impossible, nor mission incomprehensible.
The mission is “freedom from the known”, and the question is : how on earth does that come about?
Starting from the Known. We are told that knowing stuff is essential for our survival. For example : Trump won the election, vaccines cause autism, communists hate guns etc… all this knowledge helps us make practical choices in our daily life.
How tightly do we hold onto our reality? that is the question - Is what I know a solid truth or is it just thoughts that may or may not be useful in this moment, are causing me anxiety, conflict and confusion or not in this moment.
I don’t know Doug what to say, nevertheless I’ll say few words:
“freedom from the known” means - known remains as it is, but I relate to it from a different space, in freedom; did I answer to your question ? No !
Can we say, logically: if the prison is no more, the content of this prison remains, but there is freedom, which transforms the way I relate to the known. (freedom doesn’t wipe out the known.)
I am not familiar with zen but this quote, I think, relates to what I am trying to say:
“Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water.”
I am aware I have not responded to your question.
PS “the unknown appears visible” - refers to freedom
ADDED NOW: I wonder if indifference isn’t freedom acting in the known