Freedom is not something you can talk about because it's too elusive to be known for what it is. It can only be known for what it isn't, and it isn't always clear because freedom is always moving away from the known toward what it doesn't know.

It's impossible to say what freedom is, but if you feel free to say, "I don't know", it's possible you're finding out.

This post was last updated by nick carter Sat, 13 Nov 2010.

nick carter wrote:
It's impossible to say what freedom is, but if you feel free to say, "I don't know", it's possible you're finding out.

Isn't it more a question of being in that "I don't know" state of mind ?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

nick carter wrote:
It's impossible to say what freedom is, but if you feel free to say, "I don't know", it's possible you're finding out.

I don't know, if i can be free through this.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

nick carter wrote:
It's impossible to say what freedom is, but if you feel free to say, "I don't know", it's possible you're finding out.

This is an interesting (to me) point, Nick, since my mind did draw a blank in looking at the questions you posed about 'desire'...
I did not have any answers, as such, beyond 'off pat', dictionary terms and/or obvious tangents and so 'resorted' to looking at what Krishnamurti said which defeated the object, somewhat, of the question. Simply stating that 'I don't know'
also seemed quite pointless.

I am aware, too, of the inherited custom of looking to answer one another's questions for everything which is not freedom is it?

Nor is it possible for me to talk about freedom other than in relative terms ie. being 'free to' or 'free from'.

I see that being free to say 'I don't know' perhaps indicates finding this out honestly oneself. Thanks.

I am resistant to falling into ramblesome aspiration and/or referencing poets and all so it is, perhaps, more useful (authentic?)
to not say anything at all!:)

Regards, Katy

I don't know either !

This post was last updated by Katy 7 (account deleted) Sat, 13 Nov 2010.

Congratulation Katy for so many lines and new look, but again it may give illusion of Man K:)

Don't need K or any, do yourself

Katy 7 wrote:
since my mind did draw a blank in looking at the questions you posed about 'desire'... I did not have any answers, as such, beyond 'off pat', dictionary terms and/or obvious tangents and so 'resorted' to looking at what Krishnamurti said which somewhat defeated the object of the question. Simply stating that 'I don't know' also seemed quite pointless.

Wonderful!

Don't need K or any, do yourself

Soham netti wrote:
Congratulation Katy for so many lines and new look, but again it may give illusion of Man K:)

:)

Yes, Soham, I had to change the picture because some people thought it was of me wearing a Krishnamurti t-shirt even though 'Katy' is a woman's name ...I think it is very obvious from my writing that I am 'K' for Katy, not Krishnamurti!

I don't know either !

This post was last updated by Katy 7 (account deleted) Sat, 13 Nov 2010.

Nick,

Your first sentence, "Freedom is not something you can talk about because it's too elusive to be known for what it is."

One can talk about anything he can think about, elusive or not. Your opening two paragraphs prove the point.

max

nick carter wrote:
Freedom is not something you can talk about

Then why start a thread on it, for heaven's sake?

max greene wrote:
One can talk about anything he can think about, elusive or not.

And Nick wants to be the first accomplished in talking about that which he can't talk about. Well, he has that freedom, at least.

What are you waiting for?

nick carter wrote:
Nick Carter is not something you can talk about because Nick Carter's too elusive to be known for what he is. He can only be known for what he isn't, and it isn't always clear because Nick Carter is always moving away from the known toward what he doesn't know.
It's impossible to say what Nick Carter is, but if you feel free to say, "I don't care", it's possible you're finding out.

What are you waiting for?

This is the second time you've done this, Paul, and it's sad that this is the best you can do.

Nick Carter sounds like the 'star of his own show'. Applause, applause!

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Nick Carter sounds like the 'star of his own show'. Applause, applause!

TheHero loves killling! he will kill the storyline, the plot, the spirit of this show at the first opportunity. So what if he looks immature and childish in doing so. He needs that applause for maintaining his sanity and satisfaction of the ego.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Certainly, this is an erudite discussion that I failed to hesitate to join! I think Dr. Sharma is correct when he places the onus on the ego or rather the self. Yes, one must get past the self in order to truly find peace, and perhaps God. Though I see many who can point the finger and only one or two who are genuine in responding to the question of defining and finding "freedom", I have not seen it answered.

Theodore Bennett wrote:
I see many who can point the finger and only one or two who are genuine in responding to the question of defining and finding "freedom", I have not seen it answered.

Thank you fpor bringing us back down to reality, Theodore. You see, there has been a little campaign going on here to shut up NC because he has been starting threads solely in order to catch people out an then insult them.

Freedom is a very important topic but it cannot be addressed in the manner in which this thread began, Perhaps elsewhere. Also, I doubt it would do good to define freedom. Definition is death. It all becomes metaphysics. I think that if we set our minds to it we could find an appropriate and useful approach, if anyone wishes.

The problem is that one cannot define freedom, having never known it. We can, however get closer to that state of unfreedom, which we do know. Better to define the prison.

What are you waiting for?

Paul Davidson wrote:
Freedom is a very important topic but it cannot be addressed in the manner in which this thread began, Perhaps elsewhere.

Paul, Theodore and all,

I would still be interested to read what other people might want to write about this topic of freedom here...

I do not see that it necessarily has to 'close' because of friction between members and this is still only the first page!

Regards, Katy

I don't know either !

This post was last updated by Katy 7 (account deleted) Mon, 15 Nov 2010.

Thanks Katy. Maybe you can suggest a good way forward - a real question.

Katy 7 wrote:
I am resistant to falling into ramblesome aspiration and/or referencing poets and all so it is, perhaps, more useful (authentic?) to not say anything at all!:)

We got to the point rather early on where we said we could not discuss it without theorising etc. Both you and Nick commented on the difficulties. Now we need to start from another point entirely. I suggested, maybe, something about the state of unfreedom we actually live. But someone else please pose a question. I have no doubt it could be done here.

What are you waiting for?

Paul Davidson wrote:
Now we need to start from another point entirely. I suggested, maybe, something about the state of unfreedom we actually live. But someone else please pose a question. I have no doubt it could be done here.

Okay, Paul, so if we are throwing out talking about 'freedom' in the absolute, for now, I guess we are left with 'what is' (ie. as you say; 'the state of unfreedom we actually live')...

This puts me in mind of what might read to some as a 'cliche question' (apologies); can we emerge from this cave of images/imagery or not?

Does the answer - path to truth/freedom - lie in removing these images and, hence, the 'ego - bashery' between us (misguided or otherwise)? Or is this just one part of it? If so; what other elements are involved? Is freedom having the freedom/faculty to see the truth? (No answers expected, just preamble and rhetorical questions, Paul, to lead, hopefully, towards a useful question!).

Am I free to consider this question, here, without evoking Krishnamurti's wisdom/teachings? Can a person ever truly divorce oneself from context? Is it possible, as Krishnamurti said, to be in society but not of it - or words to this effect?

Over to you!

Regards, Katy

I don't know either !

This post was last updated by Katy 7 (account deleted) Mon, 15 Nov 2010.

Katy 7 wrote:
Does the answer - path to truth/freedom - lie in removing these images and, hence, the 'ego - bashery' between us (misguided or otherwise)? Or is this just one part of it? If so; what other elements are involved? Is freedom having the freedom/faculty to see the truth?

I think what you are suggesting, Katy, is that this state of unfreedom is one of being imprisoned by images. Is that it? And then the question of how to remove these images, right?

Let's first see whether the first proposition holds up. It seems so to me. We have become imprisoned by an accumulation of the results of imagination, images that have some tenacity and are in some ways demanding of and capturing our attention. Is this the prison?

And if so, why has imagination become such a power? Why do we confront life day by day with this image making machine and how is it that we lack the ability or the energy to address life directly? Why is an image made of everything? Why do we seem to need or be locked into this process whereby a filter is presented that stands between me and 'what is?' It is such a stubborn thing.

Rather than endeavoring to remove the images, perhaps we need to understand the physiogomy and functions of the image-making machine, which seems to have taken over our lives. It does not seem right for a human being to have developed in this way and to this point.

Maybe you or others can add to this, or redirect the inquiry, as preferred.

What are you waiting for?

Paul Davidson wrote:
Why is an image made of everything?

Yes, Paul, I wonder, too, and also whether the image - making is simply a symptom, hazard or signal of 'unfreedom'?
I see, more clearly now, the link between this thread, started by Nick, and the one about desire...

Is the root - element of this 'unfreedom' - or the filter, as you put it - essentially something to do with the obstructive force of desire/sensation?

I see/say this having just read yesterday's quote from Krishnamurti:

"You can act clearly, freely when the mind is stripped of all sensation, and then only will your action cease to bring about the utter chaos which exists in the world at present.
Action without motive is truly free; in it there is no calculation, wanting. Doing anything you like for the moment is not spontaneous.
Spontaneity of action is the fullness of perception, and that can be realised only through freeing the mind from wanting."

Katy

p.s. so now I have resorted to a 'Krishnamurti answer'...fait accomplis!:)

I don't know either !

This post was last updated by Katy 7 (account deleted) Tue, 16 Nov 2010.

One can focus on the light or the dark. Both are just as real. And, by my understanding, there is much, much more of dark energy and dark matter than that other kind. However, it does not mitigate the fact that a sun or fire or spirit alive is far more interesting than the breach.
Where you put your attention is vital. As the Dalai Lama says, "Focus on similarities, not differences. If I want to find differences, I need only look to the hairs of my own head."
Feel free to heal, forgive, grow to your greatest heights through focus on God, Spirit, Love and relationships. What do you want? A mind free from wanting? Maybe. But what is in your heart? Katy trumps us.

nick carter wrote:
It's impossible to say what freedom is, but if you feel free to say, "I don't know", it's possible you're finding out.

Freedom from what? If I am tied to a pole, then I want freedom from being tied to that pole.

The body I inhabit stops me from doing things I want to do. I am stuck to my body like a goat tied to a pole. So, it is possible for me to say what freedom is. There is no need for me to find out for I know what it is.

ayar hari wrote:
Freedom from what? If I am tied to a pole, then I want freedom from being tied to that pole.

The body I inhabit stops me from doing things I want to do. I am stuck to my body like a goat tied to a pole. So, it is possible for me to say what freedom is. There is no need for me to find out for I know what it is

When you come to the edge of all the light you know,

and are about to step off into the darkness of the unknown,

faith is knowing one of two things will happen:

There will be something solid to stand on,

or you will be taught how to fly.

Death is Nothing at All

Nice poetry, ravi. But what has it got to do with what I said about being free of the body?

ayar hari wrote:
The body I inhabit stops me from doing things I want to do. I am stuck to my body like a goat tied to a pole. So, it is possible for me to say what freedom is. There is no need for me to find out for I know what it is.

ayar,

One's prison and freedom can be mind made (concepts and ideas). The conflict may be between what the mind wants and body can't deliver.At this intellectual level one may have done all the finding out and knows what they are.

But there is still a need for one to find out the relationship between freedom and prison at the level of daily living in the now. It is a totally different dimension of 'knowing'- very alive and dynamic!

FLOW WITH LIFE!

ayar hari wrote:
The body I inhabit stops me from doing things I want to do. I am stuck to my body like a goat tied to a pole.

Is there a "you" apart from the body? Do you "inhabit the body" or are you the organism?

nick carter wrote:
Is there a "you" apart from the body? Do you "inhabit the body" or are you the organism?

There is definitely a "me" apart from the body. I am not the organism. I inhabit the body. If I discover a lump in the throat of my body, I go beserk. If there is blood in the urine, I go beserk.

Are you nuts, nick. Why are you asking me such questions?

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
One's prison and freedom can be mind made (concepts and ideas).

You are too "Indian" for me, doctor. I don't mean to be rude. If you deny the fact of the body and believe it is mind-made, then I won't play with you, as K would say.

ayar hari wrote:
then I won't play with you, as K would say.

Nice to have some one who is here to play. Henceforth, I would stop taking your replies as serious enquiry.:-)

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Nice to have some one who is here to play. Henceforth, I would stop taking your replies as serious enquiry.:-)

Serious inquiry? Even K would laugh at this.