Two kinds of freedom

There are two kinds of freedom: "freedom from" and "freedom to." For example, I can be free to smoke cigarettes or free from the desire to do so. Another example: I can be free from anger or free to express my anger naturally. Which is greater?

Kenneth

I'd prefer to have "freedom to." Freedom from sounds like another fetter - not really freedom at all but the absence of something. Having the full set of human senses, feelings, desires and capabilities, and using them wisely is where it's at. That's practice!

I choose "freedom to".
Yes, freedom from sounds live another fetter.
Even from a not Awakened perspective, and driven only by my common sense ethics.
I don't smoke, but I'm still involved in bad habits like anger, an I prefer to express my anger.
If I think about love is even easier:
- free from love
- free to love
- forced to love
I choose "free to love".

Freedom to is future oriented.
Freedom from can be future oriented or a true statement of the present.

It's hard to say which of these is "greater".

"Freedom to" is the freedom of license or free will. A good Existentialist would say that this is already available to every human being, as Jean-Paul Sartre said that we are, "condemned to be free." Even in situations where some so called higher authority wishes to force their hand on an individual in order to get them to act in a way which they do not desire to (e.g. sending them off to war) the person may commit suicide or just simply refuse to act when on the battlefield. The person may be subjected to dire consequences, but that is the burden of being free.

"Freedom from" is the freedom of liberation. The connotation implies that what one desires to be freed from is beyond their control. The Buddha of the Pali Cannon taught about this kind of freedom. As we are bound to the unstoppable processes of birth, aging, sickness, and death, he sought a way to be "free from" these things. The way to do so, he said, was to free one's self from greed, hatred, and delusion - which really boils down to the one big cause: Ignorance. In this sense, freedom from is something not yet attained for most people.

"Freedom from" can also carry a positive connotation in Western psychology. You can say that someone with a severe phobia is bound by their fear. But undergoing psychological treatment for phobias generally results in very positive outcomes, and the person is usually - to some greater degree - free from the fear that once plagued their life. The same is true for the drug addict who undergoes detox or withdrawal. At the end of the process, their body is free from the presence of whatever substance that bound them - though, they still have to act by not taking the substance again, which is the "freedom to" we're talking about.

So which is greater? Yikes. I don't know if I can make that call.

If "freedom from" is liberation, "freedom to" for me is not simply the ordinary free will, it is more something like "freedom from liberation".
In the spirit of the statement "After enlightenment, the laundry". This could be only a linguistic joke.
Another one: real freedom means no distinction between freedom from and freedom to. Derrida was able to collapse every form of dialectic thinking.
We are using language and there is no freedom there. Language is the trap.
But I think that Kenneth's question is more related to a psychological model of enlightment...

Absolutely fantastic discussion. You guys rock.

Kenneth

I resonate with Geppo in #5.

At some level the idea of freedom neccesarily creates its object. All freedoms verbs including "to" or "from" give rise to a sense of bondage and liberation. We may even solidify our bondage and liberation into a sliding scale, where in reality none exists (like " I am really free"). The felt sense of bondage and liberation is born of ignorance, for we are neither. That which we seek, the happiness without conditions is not found in freedom, and an identification with freedom is suffering.

As Geppo said this is probably not Kenneth's question!

"That which we seek, the happiness without conditions is not found in freedom, and an identification with freedom is suffering.
"

So then, being FREE from an identification with freedom is the end of suffering?

Same old trap. Nothing more than intellectual gymnastics. A double bind, really.

As Alex quoted in a separate thread...

"As all things are buddha-dharma, there is delusion and realization, practice, and birth and death, and there are buddhas and sentient beings.

As the myriad things are without an abiding self, there is no delusion, no realization, no buddha, no sentient being, no birth and death.

The buddha way is, basically, leaping clear of the many and the one; thus there are birth and death, delusion and realization, sentient beings and buddhas.

Yet in attachment blossoms fall, and in aversion weeds spread."

(Eihei Dogen, Genjokoan)

To contextualize Dogen to this discussion, "The buddha way is, basically, leaping clear of the many and the one; thus there are..." freedom and bondage.

*End Transmission*

"There are two kinds of freedom: "freedom from" and "freedom to." For example, I can be free to smoke cigarettes or free from the desire to do so. Another example: I can be free from anger or free to express my anger naturally. Which is greater?

Kenneth"

Been waiting for someone else to bite on this, but for the sake of discussion I will.

Are there *Really* (in the Absolute sense) two kinds of freedom? From my perspective, no, since freedom has no meaning in the Absolute. In which case, the question which is greater has no meaning.

In the dualistic sense there are multiple kinds of freedom - as many kinds of freedom as language and concepts allow one to define (more than 2). In which case, the question which is greater has no meaning, because there is no absolute measure, it's all completely relative.

Michael

Now back to my cave.

"That which we seek, the happiness without conditions is not found in freedom, and an identification with freedom is suffering.

So then, being FREE from an identification with freedom is the end of suffering?
"

More precisely I meant to convey the identification with freedom gives rise to suffering. One results from the other.

The question "So then, being FREE from an identification with freedom is the end of suffering?" with the word "being" implies there is something to be free, changing the meaning.

Okay I am being picky, but it sort of hit at the point of what I was trying to convey, in that it is this "something to be free" that IS THE IDENTIFICATION.

"Are there *Really* (in the Absolute sense) two kinds of freedom? From my perspective, no, since freedom has no meaning in the Absolute. In which case, the question which is greater has no meaning."

Isn't this true of all concepts?

Hey, speaking of freedom, Hokai Sobol posted an interesting quote on his blog last month...

"'¦every demand for explanation in regard to freedom comes back, without our suspecting it, to the following question : '˜Can time be adequately represented by space?' To which we answer : Yes, if you are dealing with time flown ; No, if you speak of time flowing. Now, the free act takes place in time which is flowing and not in time which has already flown. Freedom is therefore a fact, and among the facts which we observe there is none clearer. All the difficulties of the problem, and the problem itself, arise from the desire to endow duration with the same attributes as extensity, to interpret a succession by a simultaneity, and to express the idea of freedom in a language into which it is obviously untranslatable.'

Henri Bergson, 'Time and Free Will'

hokai.info/2009/12/freedom-time-and-space/

"
"Are there *Really* (in the Absolute sense) two kinds of freedom? From my perspective, no, since freedom has no meaning in the Absolute. In which case, the question which is greater has no meaning."

Isn't this true of all concepts?

"

Yes.

And clearly (at least to me : "freedom, "freedom from" and "freedom to" (and "freedom of" and "freedom through", etc.) are all distinct and separate concepts within duality. Any comparison is strictly subjective. What's the point?

Which is greater - "10" or "J"?

Edit: bowing out _/\_... I've used up my discussion quota for the month