As long as there is an 'I' thinking and feeling, no matter how that 'I' may be conceived, that 'I' is an object and is bound - for all objects are necessarily bound.
Even if I should succeed in freeing my 'self' from fear, desire, affectivity of any kind or degree, that freed 'self' is still there as a 'self', and it matters not whether it is freed or not freed from any apparent incubus - for its continued subsistence as a centre that is free or unfree is itself bondage. The fear, desire, affectivity, are manifestations of the pseudo-entity which constitutes bondage; therefore it is the entity, rather than the manifestations thereof, that needs to be eliminated.
An entity must inevitably be bound, for an entity is an object of the subject which it claims to be, and every such object of a subject is in the bondage of apparent causality.
That is why the Masters so often stated that there is no difference between 'enlightenment' and 'ignorance', for in either condition there remains a conceptual entity to be the one or the other, to experience the one or the other condition.
Whatever can be stated of a supposed entity or 'self', or 'centre' of any kind, is not different from its opposite, for each is the positive or negative aspect of an inference, an interpretation, which appears to 'exist' and is a concept in mind. Each, whatever it may be, neither is nor is-not, for it is a supposition conditioning an entity which itself is a supposition, so that the condition, or its opposite, or its absence, is a concept applied to a concept, that is the shadow of what is itself a shadow, the substance of which lies in its noumenal origin.
In 'noumenality' alone can there be absence of bondage, for noumenally there cannot be any entity to be bound.
Only noumenal living, therefore, can be free.