Surely the question is, Are we free to see the world ‘as it is’ rather than what we think it ‘should be’?
And if the answer to that question is that we are unable to see the world as it is because we are caught in our wishes and wants (for the ‘should be’), then the question is, Are we free to see that?
This is then an enquiry, so the answer is not a simple yes or no: it requires sincerity, awareness. Everyone is free to be aware of some aspect of their conditioning, and move from there.
But that is not what I asked. In our little group here, we are encouraged to see the world in a certain way, ‘as it is.’ But doesn’t that encouragement limit our freedom to see the world in a different way, ‘as we imagine it or would like it to be?’ Are we being conditioned to think it is good to see the world in one way, not good in another? If so, where’s the freedom in that?
Yes. Or are we free not to see it? If there are taboos in a worldview, doesn’t that limit freedom?
What does it mean ‘to be free?’ Is freedom in the eye of beholder?
Your most recent question was:
If we are incapable of seeing the world ‘as it is’, then the simple fact is that we must be caught in some aspect of what ‘should be’. So that then is ‘what is’. I’m sure you understand this.
So then the question is, Is one free to be aware of this actuality (that one is caught up in one’s ideas of what ‘should be’)?
Here, the what ‘should be’ is that I have an ideal that I should see the world ‘as it is’, and yet I am incapable of doing so.
So you see, this becomes my what ‘should be’, right? I feel I should see the world in this way (‘as it is’), but I do not actually see the world in this way.
In which case, the question is (to repeat it again), Can one be aware of this fact - that I feel coerced by an ideal of seeing the world ‘as it is’?
The actuality, the ‘what is’, then has no opposite: if I am caught up in something false, the so-called ‘truth’ is unreal: what is true is that I am caught up in something false. If I am caught up in what ‘should be’, then that ‘should be’ is what ‘is’. And can one be aware of that? This is called vipassana in the Buddhist world (as you must know). It is seeing whatever ‘is’ (false or true) as it arises.
Just this: to see whatever ‘is’ (true or false) as it arises.
The other question you ask about “taboos” sounds sophistical to me. It’s like saying, If God isn’t free to imprison Himself, then He isn’t really free is He? But if He imprisons Himself then He’s no longer free. This may be food for theologians and philosophers, but as you know, the Buddha never bothered with such questions.
Yes, but does that mean there’s no end to learning what K was saying? Or does it mean that the end of learning what K said is realizing the limit of what words can convey?
What “people”? Who got killed after understanding the teaching? What were the circumstances?
I admittedly don’t know what “choiceless awareness” actually is, though I understand that the phrase means having no ability to choose what I’m aware of.
K’s words are only a beginning, what I find in myself goes beyond words. Insight is described in words but they are never the insight. Words are always the past. Thought is ALWAYS the past.
Yes, that’s critical. If I’m not aware of how my perception is distorted by my unconscious beliefs, assumptions, ideals, and biases, I haven’t begun to understand why the teaching exists.
Can one be aware of this fact - that I feel coerced by an ideal of seeing the world ‘as it is’?
The truth is that I don’t know if it’s possible to see “the world as it is”, and that seeing the world through the lens of ideals, fears, desires, etc., is worse than seeing nothing. So all I can do is see my way of seeing.
Thought is always present when there’s confusion, misunderstanding, etc., which is constantly.
Thought is always the past.
Sorry, I was not very clear. What I’m trying to say is sometimes we understand, heart and mind, deeply even, but rather than act on this understanding, we fall back into our conditioned responses and behaviors. The bad wolf takes over. On the collective level this can lead to war, on the personal level to violence, revenge, persecution, racism. This happens not only to those who don’t know better, it also happens to those who do.
Thanks for the explanation, it helps me understand you better. 
There is freedom in seeing what arises in consciousness, I agree. But because it is conditional, you must do X to be free, it is limited. A person with this kind of freedom would be un-free if they zoned out, went into auto-pilot, got lost in thought.
What would full-throttle unconditional no-holds-barred freedom look like?
Not necessarily.
To quickly address this fallacy, it might be helpful to ask : Is it possible to be mistaken?
The perceived (what I think is going on) is not the actual (what is actually happeing).
Yes. To put it differently, all that one can see is all that one can see, in that moment. But the seeing is important; it is in itself action with regards to what is seen, right? That is, to see one’s bias as it appears in relationship has an effect on that bias - the bias is no longer working purely in the dark.
I’m not sure that I follow your meaning here. What is conditional about this inward seeing? There are no conditions for this seeing (or awareness) other than being alive (I am speaking of an average person’s awareness, not someone who has suffered irreparable brain damage). Freedom is the first step, as Krishnamurti put it.
One is always free to notice that one is lost in autopilot or lost in thought. The awareness of being lost, or of being a prisoner of one’s thoughts, is part of freedom.
Wouldn’t it be pure seeing, total attention, without a cloud of ideation to interfere?
But if this becomes an ideal to be pursued, then it is merely a wish or a want, a getting lost in thought (what ‘should be’). And then can one be aware of that?
This is our desire to be free/have control over reality itself - its the usual “me, I want” - the feeling of injustice of not being God almighty himself, of not at least finding a genie in the lamp.
But yes - we are limited by reality, limited by this universe
nobody,
Witness Will Smith’s reaction to Chris Rock’s “joke”… which tells us a lot about everyone, eh?
If freedom is the absence of limits, being absolutely free would mean being absolutely unlimited, an impossibility for us mortals. So a realistic inquiry into freedom would need to stay focused on relative freedom.
Of course. But not, perhaps, when it comes to feeling/qualia. If I feel something, experience some qualia, can the feeling/experiencing itself be doubted or denied?
To feel free is to be free?
@nobody I’ll just repeat what I asked you in our discussion on the “understanding K’s teachings thread” : aren’t we discussing psychological freedom - rather than the freedom/ability to walk through walls and stuff? In which case absolute freedom may well be a possibility.
Do we need to define what "psychological freedom " means?
Why do you ask? I don’t get it - we can doubt stuff but why would I doubt what someone is telling me about their beliefs/feelings - I need some context. (You have asked this question before, but I still can’t see what for - please make your point if you have one - is it about respecting other peoples freedom of thought?)
Example : I am a believer/follower of some religion. I think I am free. Someone does something that is forbidden by my religion, and this upsets me emotionally (eg. Anger, shock, hatred). Am I actually free?
Example: I and my parents have lived all our lives in the USA, I feel free. Someone mentions the word freedom, and I am immediately assailed by strong emotions and ideas about civil rights, gun rights, LGBTQ issues, etc… In what way am I (psychologically) free?
Psychological freedom is all about our state of mind, but feeling (being?) free right now has no bearing on whether or not we are (mentally) constricted by some belief.
PS. Is it necessary to point out that it may be possible to be imprisoned within a real/physical cage (in jail for example) and be psychologically free? (well, now I have, just in case)