Quote:
|
Originally Posted by blackraven
I think the 'freedom with, where things may be free to be just as they are' may also present itself as a form of lack of freedom or shackles. For example, what comes to mind is living in a contorted physical body as a result of injury or birth defect or mental deterioration: both being free to be just as they are, but are such persons experiencing freedom at all? So often on these forums I come across vast numbers of people that have medical or mental disorders that drive them into suffering. Is suffering a freedom or is it shackles from freedom of good or optimal health?
But I think I get what you're saying, maybe, about 'freedom with', is it more so living in the moment as is and having the freedom to accept things as they are or freedom to reject ones current state of being? That kind of freedom?
|
I often wonder if people can observe themselves just to find out what's there without any judgment or likes and dislikes or impulsion to interfere, control, fix, make better ad so on. In short, can it just be as it is? If one is able to be fine and at peace with it just as it is could we say it is then free to be the way it is, and therefore, the person free from it? This isn't a case of liking it as it is, but even without liking it, seeing it factually as 'the way things are'.
Not to reject it and not to accept it, but the utter and complete removal of any choice in the inevitable fact of 'this', so that all that is left is the conscious awareness with this experience as it is in the way it is being experienced.
What then of action? For it would seem so passive that one would lie down and soon die rather than continue living, but here I argue action would be a willingness to act rather than acting willfully. In other words, to act in accordance with or in synergy with the movement of life as it unfolds within the experience. If there is a choice, this is it: one can be willing or willful, but not both at once, for willingness implies forsaking ones sense of volition. For example, one can't observe the spontaneously occurring breath and control the breath at the same time. There is either willingness toward the breath or willfulness toward it. Willfulness is all about thinking about the breath ad making it do as you 'tell it'. Willingness is letting it be as it is while being conscious of it. It takes willfulness to not breath and hold the breath, so inaction is actually the interference of volition. If you leave it alone it continues to rise and fall - so willingness is 'immediate action' even before 'you' make any choices to accept, reject, alter, control or what have you.
This brings up the subtle difference between 'letting go' and 'letting be' which is relative to the difference between 'freedom from' and 'freedom with'.
In the case where volition is forsaken for willingness, what of 'ego'? In willingess there nothing that needs to be done because action unfolds much like the breath does, and there is naught but to be aware of it all unfolding. The brain continues just as it did but you no longer preconceive thoughts. They appear simultaneously as they are perceived, an instant manifestation of which you are conscious and willing, rather than willfully projecting. And what kinds of thoughts are these? That willingness is 'at rest' so to speak, so the troubled mind isn't concocting conflict as the thought is produced/perceived and then fighting that perception (which already exists) with a second thought about 'making it different'. There's no ego trying to be the controller and the mind is set free form that tyranny.