Freedom

[Aupmanyav]

Can one be free in prison?

Yeah, one can be free anywhere.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Here's what chatgpt had to say:

@chatgpt always makes long posts.

Arjuna is not free. No matter what decision he makes.

You mean 'complete freedom'? Anarchy? Biology does not permit that. One has to eat and to eat one has to work. One has to live in a society. Society imposes our duties (Dharma). One has to follow 'dharma'.

 

[ajay0]

You are correct that Hinduism and Buddhism do not possess "commandments" that resemble those found in Abrahamic faiths. But in the Bhagavad Gita you will find an analysis of the three Gunas, especially in the latter third. While not explicitly forbidden, one of these Gunas seems to be the subject of continuous admonishment. And this Guna relates to weakness and servility. You either partake of the essence of this Guna, which is by its nature conducive to non-freedom. Or you resolve to not partake (or partake less) in this Guna, which, by design, is a kind of unfreedom. A prohibition upon oneself that avoids partaking (or participating in) what this particular Guna does in your life.

Actually, all the gunas are considered to be instruments of bondage that nature imposes on the soul or purusha.

Tamas is considered to be the least good, so emphasis is given on the transcending the qualities of this guna. One thus moves to the second higher guna of rajas and finally the third and highest guna sattva.

Transcending Sattva, one recognizes one's true nature or Self. Self-realization or Buddhahood brings release from all bondages.

It is said in the Patanjali yoga sutras that the person who conquers his mind attains the supreme prize, and nature (prakriti) which had been hitherto dominant and masterly, becomes a willing slave.

The Buddha or enlightened ones who has annihilated these bondages obviously are the free ones.

These are not overt commandments. They are not trying to be commands or binding laws over men and women. Yet, these Hindu concepts point to unfreedom as a brute fact nonetheless. Arjuna must fight after all. As Krishna explains, by conquering his will toward compliance, he attains freedom. But, in a very real way, that means he is not free to comply to his will to give up and not fight.

Arjuna was in a state of philosophical confusion and had no will to fight due to despair. To give up and leave the arena of hard duty does not require any determination or will.

There are many who shirk their duties due to love of pleasure and comfort or cowardice.

After Krishna's reasoning and wisdom gives him perspective, Arjuna loses his confusions, regains clarity of mind and chose to abide by his duties by his own free will.

He had the free will to choose to leave but did not do so, and instead exercised it in performance of duty.

Yet, these Hindu concepts point to unfreedom as a brute fact nonetheless.

Unfreedom is a fact for those who are under the bondage of their minds due to raag-dvesh, meaning strong desires in the form of cravings and aversions. A man can waste his whole life through addiction to drugs and alcohol and never accomplish anything worthwhile, including contentment that comes with a peaceful, equanimous mind free of agitations.

External political freedom is not enough. Internal freedom from such bondages is also important, so that the mind is not slavishly and constantly manipulated as a puppet by external objects and events, like a leaf in a tornado.

 

[Nakosis]

Freedom. What is it, anyways?

Some might think its the right to do whatever you want; honestly, we have that more often than not, we just don't like the consequences. Freedom to do whatever you want without consequence? That seems like it would get hairy really quickly, and it would just be a big ugly fight of 'freedoms', resulting in much pain and tragedy.

I tend to think its an attitude. One of the freest moments I had was when I was being attacked by someone I didn't have the hopes to take down, but took the punches with a smirk; you won't bring me down mentally or physically, buddy. Some of my most restricted times I was alone in a dwelling that I paid for, feeling crushed by my own miseries, unable to function.

One of my sons bought a Sublime shirt yesterday, and it has "40oz to freedom" written on it. Recognizing it as an old song, I listened to it; its been years since I heard it. The lyric stuck out: "A 40 oz to freedom is the only chance I have to feel good, though I feel bad". I remembered back to my own days of opening a beverage, the sudden 'release', and feeling the 'freedom' pouring in... But, it wasn't real freedom; just borrowed(and I'd have to pay it back).

Anymore, I think that's what I strive for. Freedom. I will likely never be rid of responsibilities, I will never be in any financial situation in which I don't have to consider such things. But, I'd like the freedom to act as the heart and mind dictate appropriate for the moment, to stay in the moment, to be released of the bondage of the brain, to shoo off the 'what if's. To eat when I'm hungry, stop when I'm full. To be done with 'shoulda, woulda, coulda'. To flush any personal labels down the toilet, and just be.

Who would have thought freedom would be such work...

What's freedom like for you?

(I know I said the word 'freedom', but this is about personal freedom, and is not a political discussion. If anyone tries to turn this into something political, I will send an overfed brontosaurus to take a dump on your front steps.)

Freedom for me is when whatever problem is placed before me, I am able to resolve through my own thoughts and actions.
No one is there telling me what steps I must take. Whatever needs to be done, I figure it out on my own. That's when I feel freest.

 

[ajay0]

So many religions talk of "liberation" and "freedom"... (Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity)... but when you look at the general message of these religions it's always "restrict your actions"... "don't do this"... "don't do that." How is that freedom?

The yama niyamas, (a couple of do's and don'ts) are emphasized in Hinduism to ensure fast progress in meditation.

Ethics lead to restraint of the lower self and thereby the mind is calmed. Through calmness of mind, discrimination dawns and one knows the Self. Without ethical perfection there is no spiritual progress. ~ Swami Sivananda

Controlled desire leads to the highest results. Transform the sexual energy into spiritual energy. The stronger this force, the more can be done with it. Only a powerful current of water can do hydraulic mining. ~ Swami Vivekananda

To let go of desires you have to follow a certain code of conduct. This is the manure by which the rose of love will blossom. ~ Sri Sri Ravi Shankar

Love is a state of mind where self interests are removed. The mind dwells in its natural state of sat-chit-ananda - existence, consciousness, bliss. Love is not created; it is a mental state which develops by living a disciplined life and developing positive qualities. Human ego is very attracted to negative qualities, so it needs much austerity to develop positive qualities. ~ Baba Hari Dass

The Buddha emphasized Sila ( behavioral discipline or moral conduct) as the foundation of all wholesome qualities. That means that if we develop good sila, then it will be easy to develop other good qualities like samadhi (concentration) and pañña (wisdom).

So self-restraint or self-discipline actually serves as a means to greater progress and ability, resulting in greater strength and consequent freedom.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Actually, all the gunas are considered to be instruments of bondage that nature imposes on the soul or purusha.

Hey man, thank you for the measured and knowledgeable response. You are correct that all three gunas are seen as instruments of bondage. I used to know that. But it's been quite some time since I read the Gita. I loved the book, and gave it multiple reads, but I never gave it serious study like you obviously have.

As a kind of "Gita layman"though, I got a vibe from the book that was generally deterministic about the physical universe. ie. it could be argued that the Gita professes some kind of non-freedom as far as we ordinarily conceive of freedom. It speaks of a kind of "spiritual freedom" that we have access to (provided we work at it) but it doesn't necessarily claim that we have freedom in the ordinary sense. In one or two places, it might even deny that we have any such freedom.

Do I have anything wrong about the Gita in my assessment? In general philosophic terms, what does the Bhagavad Gita say about human freedom?