What a Freedom inquiry seems to do is to provide yet another way of “staying free” in daily experience, as long as there seems to be a constant suggestion (and it’s only a suggestion) of separation and restriction.
There are many variations of this type of inquiry.
One also can do what might be called a lightness inquiry.
Lightness really is no different from freedom or openness. It also is based on seeing through the illusion of there being separate physical, material objects. To see through an illusion of physical matter, is to see through an illusion of heaviness, or weight as a separate state with its own existence.
How could “material objects” which have no genuine presence of their own, have any genuine weight of their own? They don’t.
There may seem to be a sense of weight, yes. But to whom? Only to the so-called noticer or witness of weight. The witness of weight and the so-called weight itself are seen to be inseparable. Each needs the other to pretend its presence. In inquiry, this is what is seen, and then seen through.
There is no identification with either the witness or what is witnessed as having its own genuine existence. The freedom that results from seeing through both the sense of weight and the witness of the sense of weight, could be called lightness (if one is going to use words).
Again, this does not mean a conceptual lightness, which has an opposite of heaviness. It is pointing to the freedom of no identification with either concept.
Whatever this freedom is, it doesn’t weigh anything—which is why lightness is used.
Why not do an “utter-absence-of-weight” inquiry?
What is this?
Not, what is it to thinking.
How light is utter lightness as it “tastes” its own lightness?
To see through the illusory sense of separate material objects is to also see through the illusion of hardness or density.
As there are no material objects having their own separate presence or existence, there can be no hardness in that sense either. Of course, the concept of hardness seems to have its opposite—softness.
What about the freedom that results from not identifying with either concept?
What is this?
This freedom or openness certainly can’t be said to be materially hard, or a hardness. So, similar to lightness, it is in this sense that softness is meant.
What is it to do a softness-inquiry?
Just how soft is un-locate-able, un-confine-able openness?
Another “take-away” from the traditional inquiry of “no separation” is the clarity that there really is no such thing as physical space or distance in which anything could be separate.
If there is no space, there can’t be three dimensions of length, width, and height.
In the same way that traditional inquiry results in “no separation,” it also results in “no dimensions.”
There can be no physical length, width or height in which there could be such things as parts or areas, one separate from another.
This is another way of saying un-dimensional.
What is this? Have you ever done an un-dimensional inquiry?
What is it to start as that which is un-dimensional, yet alive, and inquire, “What’s true here?”
Did you ever stop to realize that, as there is no separation, no separate physical world where there are physical dimensions of length, width and height—there is no distance.
To say “no separation” is to say “no distance.” None. Anywhere.
What is it to do a “distance-less-ness inquiry”?
What is it to taste that the only kind of “experience” there ever seems to be, is that of distance-less-ness being distance-less?!!
As there is no distance, could this post, and this alive openness be coming from another, “out there”?
How could it, since distance-less-ness leaves no “out there”?
How immediate is this?
As there is no separation, no distance anywhere, how immediately present is all that is?
Using these same kinds of questions, try doing an unconditional Love inquiry.
Do an Infinity inquiry.
Earlier it said that alive openness is un-shut-off-able.
What is it to do an un-shut-off-able inquiry?
What is it to do a freedom-is-inescapable inquiry? (That’s a paradox if ever there was one!)
Because these variations use different terms, this is not implying there are various separate characteristics or qualities.
Rather, they make clear that, regardless of the term or label, it is always the same, one, simple, non-separable taste: Freedom is the same taste as openness, is the same taste as aliveness, is the same taste as distance-less-ness, is the same as infinity, is the same as Love, is the same as history-less-ness.
And finally, what is it to do a never-before-ness inquiry?
Again, what is the entire evidence for there having been any and all so-called past times? The only evidence there is for a “past” never is “back there” but is found only in, or as, the current thought that seems to arise now.
All so-called evidence that there has been a long history of using traditional inquiry—is not “back there” in time at all either!
It, too, would be just a current thought!
Shocking as it may seem, there is absolutely no evidence of there having been a long tradition of nonduality or any kind of spirituality, or any kind of anything—for all of that, too, would be found only as current thought.
Even all evidence that there was a realization of “no separation” at some prior time—this also, isn’t really prior at all, but is found only as a current thought.
And is there the tiniest speck of evidence that there was a past of even several minutes ago when a freedom inquiry was begun? No—for even that notion, too, would at most be only a current thought arising now for the first time ever.
Not even this open, pure, freedom has so much as a moment of prior history! That also would be just a thought arising now.
This is how new, open and free you truly are.