I am not awakened either.
I used to be passionate about awakening, saw it as the zenith of human potential, our ultimate birthright, perhaps even purpose.
I donāt think Iām passionate about anything, but clearly, we need to awaken to what weāre doing.
I eventually saw Iād fallen for the story of awakening and was miles away from the reality of it (whatever that is).
When weāre prisoners of our brains, everything is a story, so if the awakening story is not the most compelling one for you, what is?
When you say we " we are prisoners of the brain " , do you mean we are the ego/ centre/I. So when we are not prisoners of the brain, what we are ? are we nothing - only a brain remains with no prisoners. So death must be a welcome as it extinguishes both the prisoner and that which holds the prisoner. So why bother about " freedom from the known"ā etc and all these discussions - few years more and death brings end to " I and the body " - the freedom from known without any effort. ( sucide will do the same but my attachment and desire for living prevents me to attempt that )
But if we believes in life after death then it is a different ball game and we can go and on about Kās teachings / enlighment etc . Is it the feeling in me may be subconsciously , that I may survive after death and suffering may continue that makes me interested in teachings / enlightenment etc ?
When confronted with the idea of Quantum Psychology - I feel I should either foldā¦
Or counter with some Multiverse Cosmo-astrology!!! 
According to Kās teaching, freedom from the known, sanity, wholeness, etc., is the brainās awakening to its conditioned limitation, and is absolute freedom. When the brain is silent, inactive, empty, and completely attentive, it can commune with what K called āintelligenceā, which he said is synonymous with compassion, love, selflessness, etc.
If this is true, freedom is the end of the brainās confinement to its self-imposed limitation to intellect, memory, self-image, hope, fear, desire, striving, etc.
So when we are not prisoners of the brain, what we are ? are we nothing - only a brain remains with no prisoners.
I can only speculate, but why ask what freedom is when you know youāre in prison?
And the main āattachmentā is to the idea of a continuous āmeā? A permanent psychological center? The movement of psychological thought is this āmeā? The movement of psychological thought is the known?
Is the sense of a real enduring ME the origin of all forms of attachment? Thought experiment: You have zero sense of a real enduring ME, is it possible for you to attach emotionally to an object?
If the āenduring meā is a fiction created by thought and it ends with the movement of psychological thought, the attachments that were sought to āprotectā, entertain, give a sense of psychological security, comfort etc wouldnāt be needed?
āEmotion wouldnāt be āself centeredā?
Awareness of this sense of āmeā , an āenduring meā , is necessary. But the awareness canāt be ādirectedā in any way. It cannot have any motive. Because any direction or motive will be from the fictional āenduring meā. That is why the awareness must be āchoicelessā. Totally without direction. And this awareness is completely without effort.
Which makes no sense for the āmeā which only understands effort?
Does the me have agency? Can it do things like: understand, observe, love, create? If so, it must have some form of actual existence. A mirage or illusion canāt do anything.
If I was a fundamentalist religious person who believed that women should be hidden from view - I would act and feel as if my delusion was true (righteous anger and pain in the inner and outer world might ensue)
nb. the process of self and what it knows works the same in me as in the other person with weird beliefs out there that I can point at.
PS. Damn! maybe I should have used the example of a fundamentalist who had concluded that thought and knowledge needed to be suppressed.
I think Inquiry pointed at the āpersonification ā that is created by the movement of thought. Just because thought personifies itself doesnāt mean that that person āmeā actually exists?
This āmeā and āmineā may seem harmless enough but it is the source of human suffering and psychological fear. This āentityā, āthinkerā, āobserverā imagines himself standing alone, separate from all the rest engendering the fear that comes with that view. āWhat will happen to me?ā āHow can I find the āgood ā and keep away the ābadā?ā āWhere will I go when I dieā? āWhat if I lose someone very close to me?ā āWhat if something goes wrong with āmyā body?ā Etc.
This is the movement of āpsychological ā thought, is it not?
What would be the feeler and actor? Who or what would be feeling and acting?
If I answer : the universe, or noumenon, or the past rushing towards the future - we must realise that the words can only point towards what feeling and acting has created in our imagination, or the whole inconceivable movement.
Seems true. The thing is, the ME is also the source (driver) of human joy and pleasure. If you love and are emotionally attached to the joys and pleasures you experience (and who isnāt?), the thought they would disappear is a deal breaker. Note that I said āthe thought,ā the reality might well be utterly different.
This is a description of fear
We donāt imagine ourselves āstanding alone, separate from all the rest engendering the fear that comes with that viewā - we are standing alone, separate and isolated from everyone and everything we are aware of. Due to the brainās conditioning, this is the only āviewā we are capable of.
As long as thought persists in its incessant activity, one is condemned to solitary confinement to the brain. We imprison ourselves by identifying with thought and its inherent limitation.
Fear is definitely involved. As it is whenever you seek to avoid something unpleasant. For most, fear is Iād say consciously or unconsciously present pretty much 24/7.
Fear is (consciously and unconsciously) the game breaker (and maker) - it is the drive. I am the driven. This is my life and the domain I have built, it is the life we are forced to live, alone and with each other.
Is my discrimination worth the cost it entails? Is it possible to have faith in the mystery? Or must I depend solely on my need?
nb. Desire being also the movement of fear.