Belief and Faith

[doc benway]

Some silly musings from the bath tub... it's where I do my best (and worst) thinking these days...

 

I once read someone's ideas on the differences between belief and faith. It may have been Watts or Krishnamurti or Demello or someone else entirely. Many people confuse belief and faith. In fact, most people confuse faith with a fervent hope that their beliefs are true. They really, really, really, really want to believe that their religious or spiritual ideas are an exact or reasonably close estimation of the ineffable.

 

The perspective I prefer is the following. Belief is a system of ideas that someone holds to be true or representative of a truth that is beyond the capacity for measurement or proof of any sort. Faith, on the other hand, is the conviction that when all beliefs are shed, whatever remains is the truth - reality. Faith is what occurs in the absence of believe not something we use to reinforce belief.

 

Belief cuts faith off at the knees. Religious institutions are all exactly the same. They offer a spectrum of ideas, methods, rituals, explanations, parables, images, and so forth, which hint at or lead one in the general direction of, the truth. The truth will always be outside the capacity of words and ideas. The ignorant mistake the system or method for reality. The wise understand that reality transcends words and ideas and systems and wisdom can be gained through any system and through no system.

 

True religion or spirituality is the personal voyage that occurs once beliefs and methods are discarded entirely and one comes into direct experience with whatever remains. Faith is the confidence that whatever remains is reality.

[Moonbar]

Ok firstly ... Is that you in your avatar pic?! Brilliant!

 

I definately agree with your unfortunate description of Faith in your first paragraph, faith by many people is instantly adopted rather than eventually arrived at over a period of time.

 

I have a Christian friend who is Fiercely faithful, I ask him many times how & why his faith is so strong ... He simply replies, "I have faith in the Bible" - That is utterly confusing to me to have such faith in something that was given to you by a stranger & then told by him "This is the truth - believe it"

 

*sigh* But who knows ... maybe its me thats missing something

[Marblehead]

Yeah, it is oftentimes difficilt to separate the concept of beliefs and faith.

 

I think that oftentimes faith is useful to those who do not and can not otherwise understand a proposed truth.

 

But I believe that both beliefs and faith can be used to deny the truth of reality.

[Aaron]

I think the difference between belief and faith is subtle, even the definitions are suspiciously similar. In my opinion it's the degree of belief that shifts one's beliefs into the providence of faith (which I believe is part of Steve's point). With that said, I have faith that the Tao exists, even though I can't prove to the average person that it does. I have a belief that there is a way that is beneficial, even though others might not see it as such.

 

In my mind there is nothing wrong with having a belief or faith, but rather how one applies that belief or faith in their lives. I have a sister in law that is very religious (Protestant), but she is not judgmental in the least.

 

Aaron

Edited December 18, 2010 by Twinner

[goldisheavy]

Interesting post, although I think you're being more kind to religion than it deserves. Religions, for the most part, lead people away from truth.

 

The ignorant mistake the system or method for reality. The wise understand that reality transcends words and ideas and systems and wisdom can be gained through any system and through no system.

 

That doesn't mean that all methods are the same. A good method must have an antidotal quality. If you have a presupposition that closes-off your view of reality, a good method has to either challenge that presupposition, or at least help in doing so. So methods aren't supposed to be random. A good method is tailored to the ignorance that a person might have. Because all people have slightly different assumptions and presuppositions, different methods are required for each person if enlightenment is your goal.

 

I think religion is simply trash. This is especially true of the three big Abrahamic religions, and especially Islam. All of them are pure garbage that drives people into ignorance and hell. They're based on and fervently promote dogma and dogma is nothing other than a package of assumptions.

 

Spiritual and non-religious people are slightly better, but they too fall into "one size fits all" method nonsense. For example look at the obsession with kundalini. How does kundalini challenge assumptions? I doesn't. In fact kundalini systems are themselves based on assumptions and presuppositions about mind and reality. It's much better to actually explore one's own mind via a testing than to assume something about it, and just keep doing it over and over as a daily practice.

 

For example, "When the crown chakra opens, one becomes wise." What's that? It's an assumption. In fact, why tie wisdom to any element of experience? Why not this, "When your toes fall off, you become wise?" It's arbitrary. Of course people love their toes, so they're not going to tie wisdom development to their toes falling off. Still, it's arbitrary bullshit.

 

So people who consider themselves spiritual are most often what I would call "spiritual." In other words, they're materialists who don't have a spiritual bone in their body and who simply take the assumptions about what they believe is a physical world and extend those same assumptions into the spiritual world (about which they have no clue whatsoever, as is evidenced by the fervent desire to find a Guru).

 

True religion or spirituality is the personal voyage that occurs once beliefs and methods are discarded entirely and one comes into direct experience with whatever remains. Faith is the confidence that whatever remains is reality.

 

Beliefs shouldn't be discarded. They should be examined and seen for what they are. No more. No less. Taking a negative attitude toward beliefs is the wrong way. Offering aversion as an antidote to attachment is a dangerous game. It can work and it can be effective, but you're playing with fire.

[doc benway]

Ok firstly ... Is that you in your avatar pic?! Brilliant!

In the interest of full disclosure that is not me in the avatar but I love the pic and it snowed here 2 days ago so it seemed apropos...

Thanks for the comments everyone.

[Apech]

 

 

Spiritual and non-religious people are slightly better, but they too fall into "one size fits all" method nonsense. For example look at the obsession with kundalini. How does kundalini challenge assumptions? I doesn't. In fact kundalini systems are themselves based on assumptions and presuppositions about mind and reality. It's much better to actually explore one's own mind via a testing than to assume something about it, and just keep doing it over and over as a daily practice.

 

 

 

Hurrah! Gold I may start believing in you!

[Otis]

In the interest of full disclosure that is not me in the avatar but I love the pic and it snowed here 2 days ago so it seemed apropos...

Thanks for the comments everyone.

**a little let-down**

 

Not that I needed to know what you looked like naked, Steve, but it is one helluva great avatar!

[Otis]

I think religion is simply trash. This is especially true of the three big Abrahamic religions, and especially Islam. All of them are pure garbage that drives people into ignorance and hell. They're based on and fervently promote dogma and dogma is nothing other than a package of assumptions.

 

Spiritual and non-religious people are slightly better, but they too fall into "one size fits all" method nonsense. For example look at the obsession with kundalini. How does kundalini challenge assumptions? I doesn't. In fact kundalini systems are themselves based on assumptions and presuppositions about mind and reality. It's much better to actually explore one's own mind via a testing than to assume something about it, and just keep doing it over and over as a daily practice.

 

For example, "When the crown chakra opens, one becomes wise." What's that? It's an assumption. In fact, why tie wisdom to any element of experience? Why not this, "When your toes fall off, you become wise?" It's arbitrary. Of course people love their toes, so they're not going to tie wisdom development to their toes falling off. Still, it's arbitrary bullshit.

 

So people who consider themselves spiritual are most often what I would call "spiritual." In other words, they're materialists who don't have a spiritual bone in their body and who simply take the assumptions about what they believe is a physical world and extend those same assumptions into the spiritual world (about which they have no clue whatsoever, as is evidenced by the fervent desire to find a Guru).

Your post is a bit brutal, but that said, I love it. It would be foolish of us to wag our fingers at Abrahamic dogma, but then embrace Eastern traditions and practices with blind faith.

[Encephalon]

Your post is a bit brutal, but that said, I love it. It would be foolish of us to wag our fingers at Abrahamic dogma, but then embrace Eastern traditions and practices with blind faith.

 

I don't believe it would be entirely foolish, given that the Eastern traditions, in spite of their archaic origins, place a premium on mindfulness while the Abrahamic tradition, especially Islam, remains trapped in their superstitions.

 

I just finished 'The End of Faith' by Sam Harris. He tried to take a stab at why this dramatic distinction between the east and west, mindfulness and faith, unfolded the way it did, but had to concede that a thorough explanation would require a huge undertaking.

[Aaron]

Interesting post, although I think you're being more kind to religion than it deserves. Religions, for the most part, lead people away from truth.

 

 

 

That doesn't mean that all methods are the same. A good method must have an antidotal quality. If you have a presupposition that closes-off your view of reality, a good method has to either challenge that presupposition, or at least help in doing so. So methods aren't supposed to be random. A good method is tailored to the ignorance that a person might have. Because all people have slightly different assumptions and presuppositions, different methods are required for each person if enlightenment is your goal.

 

I think religion is simply trash. This is especially true of the three big Abrahamic religions, and especially Islam. All of them are pure garbage that drives people into ignorance and hell. They're based on and fervently promote dogma and dogma is nothing other than a package of assumptions.

 

Spiritual and non-religious people are slightly better, but they too fall into "one size fits all" method nonsense. For example look at the obsession with kundalini. How does kundalini challenge assumptions? I doesn't. In fact kundalini systems are themselves based on assumptions and presuppositions about mind and reality. It's much better to actually explore one's own mind via a testing than to assume something about it, and just keep doing it over and over as a daily practice.

 

For example, "When the crown chakra opens, one becomes wise." What's that? It's an assumption. In fact, why tie wisdom to any element of experience? Why not this, "When your toes fall off, you become wise?" It's arbitrary. Of course people love their toes, so they're not going to tie wisdom development to their toes falling off. Still, it's arbitrary bullshit.

 

So people who consider themselves spiritual are most often what I would call "spiritual." In other words, they're materialists who don't have a spiritual bone in their body and who simply take the assumptions about what they believe is a physical world and extend those same assumptions into the spiritual world (about which they have no clue whatsoever, as is evidenced by the fervent desire to find a Guru).

 

 

 

Beliefs shouldn't be discarded. They should be examined and seen for what they are. No more. No less. Taking a negative attitude toward beliefs is the wrong way. Offering aversion as an antidote to attachment is a dangerous game. It can work and it can be effective, but you're playing with fire.

 

Hello Goldisheavy,

 

I think you're missing the big picture. You can argue about the evils of religion, faith, and belief, how it's the root of all evil, but that doesn't answer any questions, it just states a fact. The fact is that the human race will always find reasons to kill one another, long after God is dead and Buddha is forgotten, what will be remembered is the state of duality. As long as there is good, there will always be bad. As long as there is right, there will always be wrong. As long as there is something to disagree with, people will die, it's inevitable. You can long for the warm comfort of science and logic, but they wont save you, nor will they save me, because just like everything you've said about religion, they're a dogma unto their own, one that will probably cause as much damage as any of the major religions in the long run.

 

Today we are learning to kill each other more efficiently than ever before. We can do it with bombs, bullets, and even diseases. The fact that it never stops or slows down should be warning light for us, we should learn from it, but we don't. We close our eyes and act like it doesn't exist. Somewhere in the world tonight a small child is being forced to pick up a gun so that he can learn to shoot a man. That child after tonight, will never be a child again. Does it really matter why he is being forced to do this? Can there be any justification in our hearts or minds for something like this?

 

When we can drop the illusion that there is good and a bad, that there is a wrong and right, and see the world for what it is, see everything for what it is, learn not to value things, or hold one person above another, then we will find peace in the world.

 

The problem may be that we have moved so far from the ability to do that, that it will never happen. What we have to look forward to, what our children have to look forward to, is what we've left them. I wish I could say that I have hope that the world will become a better place, but I can't, all I can say is that we each have the choice to be beneficial or a hindrance to each other. If we choose the former, then I think we will search for serenity and peace, if we choose the latter, then we will search for what is right. It's when we search for what's right that everything seems to go so wrong.

 

I really don't want to sound like a pessimist, but I feel in a very deep way, that people are missing the point.

 

Aaron

Edited December 19, 2010 by Twinner

[goldisheavy]

Good and bad aren't illusions. There is nothing that's absolutely good or absolutely bad, but that fact doesn't strip good and bad of all value.

 

If people realize that each person has their own ideas about good and bad and that there is no such thing as absolute good or absolute bad that must be unilaterally imposed on all people, we can begin the process of bargaining with each other.

 

There may never be a perfect frictionless world, but I will take honest bargaining over the bullshit unilateral imposition of superstition as "the absolute truth."

 

Suffering is bad and eliminating the deep causes of suffering is good. Living exclusively for the afterlife while tolerating and ignoring the abuses and superstition in this life is bad.

 

Religion is bad in the sense that it divides people into us vs them. Believer vs. the infidel/heretic. If we can eliminate this source of divisiveness, we'll be better off.

 

Just because fire can be started in many ways, it doesn't mean we shouldn't bother putting insulation on electric wires. It's dumb to argue that "who cares about insulating wires, since wires will always start. Even if you insulate all the wires in the world, someone can drop a cigarette on the mattress. Oh, it's hopeless!"

 

If you can eliminate even one cause of fire, do it.

Edited December 19, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Aaron]

Good and bad aren't illusions. There is nothing that's absolutely good or absolutely bad, but that fact doesn't strip good and bad of all value.

 

If people realize that each person has their own ideas about good and bad and that there is no such thing as absolute good or absolute bad that must be unilaterally imposed on all people, we can begin the process of bargaining with each other.

 

There may never be a perfect frictionless world, but I will take honest bargaining over the bullshit unilateral imposition of superstition as "the absolute truth."

 

Suffering is bad and eliminating the deep causes of suffering is good. Living exclusively for the afterlife while tolerating and ignoring the abuses and superstition in this life is bad.

 

Religion is bad in the sense that it divides people into us vs them. Believer vs. the infidel/heretic. If we can eliminate this source of divisiveness, we'll be better off.

 

Just because fire can be started in many ways, it doesn't mean we shouldn't bother putting insulation on electric wires. It's dumb to argue that "who cares about insulating wires, since wires will always start. Even if you insulate all the wires in the world, someone can drop a cigarette on the mattress. Oh, it's hopeless!"

 

If you can eliminate even one cause of fire, do it.

 

I don't think you get it yet Gold. As long as you continue to view things as good or bad, there will always be a reason to fight. That's the simple answer. Good and bad are constructs, they don't actually exist outside of our mind. The problems that exist, exist because people do see good and bad, yet never seem to agree on what it is. So you can argue religion causes it, but I would suggest that you look at the reason why you have such a deep seated dislike for it, come to terms with it and move on, then your argument will seem less like a mission of vengeance.

 

With that in mind Buddhists can and have been violent, so have Hindus, and Taoists. As long as you are working on the basis of humanity, ethics, and virtue, you will have strife and discord because people are working along principles that cause those things. The key to working in harmony with each other is returning to the Tao and allowing the innate capacity of mankind to arise and work without the limits of man made constructs.

 

I know you have good intentions, that's fine, we live within society and need to work within society, but my point is that nothing will ever change so long as society doesn't recognize the root cause of it's own misery and pain, which is it's own self imposed separation from the natural order and inability to recognize the connection each of us has to each other.

 

That child that's picking up a gun tonight is you and it's me. The elderly lady next door that can't mow her yard is you and me. We are connected to them, whether we know it or not, there's nothing that separates us except our own unwillingness to give up the concept of I. When I becomes We, then there is a chance for peace and harmony. When rice is more valuable than diamonds, then there is a chance for peace, until then, the only thing we are doing is arguing about something that matters very little in the grand scheme of things.

 

Aaron

[goldisheavy]

I don't think you get it yet Gold.

 

You're entitled to your opinion.

 

As long as you continue to view things as good or bad, there will always be a reason to fight.

 

So you're saying that viewing things in terms of good and bad is bad?

 

That's the simple answer.

 

It's also a wrong answer.

 

Good and bad are constructs, they don't actually exist outside of our mind. The problems that exist, exist because people do see good and bad, yet never seem to agree on what it is.

 

Disagreements are not a problem. It's being unable to tolerate disagreement that's the problem. When disagreement is intolerable, what can you do? You have to censor your critics, kill them, or expel them from the country (out of sight, out of mind).

 

So what's the solution? Disagree as much as possible about everything! This will desensitize people to disagreements. Then it won't be a big deal anymore. Flattery, brown nosing and sucking people's cocks is how you prolong the pain.

 

So you can argue religion causes it, but I would suggest that you look at the reason why you have such a deep seated dislike for it, come to terms with it and move on, then your argument will seem less like a mission of vengeance.

 

Abrahamic religions have intolerance and bigotry encoded into their doctrinal genes. It can't be denied. Beliefs have consequences.

 

With that in mind Buddhists can and have been violent, so have Hindus, and Taoists.

 

But how many Buddhists have been violent in the name of Buddha? Further, violence is not the biggest problem with religion. Day to day repression is the biggest problem. For example, atheist being fired from jobs by Christians. Non-Muslims being side-lined in Muslim countries (to put it mildly). Women being treated as something less than a man in backwards Abrahamic countries. Fuck everything about this.

 

As long as you are working on the basis of humanity, ethics, and virtue, you will have strife and discord because people are working along principles that cause those things. The key to working in harmony with each other is returning to the Tao and allowing the innate capacity of mankind to arise and work without the limits of man made constructs.

 

Everything should be questioned. Religious doctrines must be questioned above all else because of how destructive they are to good life. It's good to question our idea about good and bad. But there is a difference between questioning and investigating and a thoughtless blanket dismissive negation.

Edited December 19, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Aaron]

You're entitled to your opinion.

 

 

 

So you're saying that viewing things in terms of good and bad is bad?

 

 

 

It's also a wrong answer.

 

 

 

Disagreements are not a problem. It's being unable to tolerate disagreement that's the problem. When disagreement is intolerable, what can you do? You have to censor your critics, kill them, or expel them from the country (out of sight, out of mind).

 

So what's the solution? Disagree as much as possible about everything! This will desensitize people to disagreements. Then it won't be a big deal anymore. Flattery, brown nosing and sucking people's cocks is how you prolong the pain.

 

 

 

Abrahamic religions have intolerance and bigotry encoded into their doctrinal genes. It can't be denied. Beliefs have consequences.

 

 

 

But how many Buddhists have been violent in the name of Buddha? Further, violence is not the biggest problem with religion. Day to day repression is the biggest problem. For example, atheist being fired from jobs by Christians. Non-Muslims being side-lined in Muslim countries (to put it mildly). Women being treated as something less than a man in backwards Abrahamic countries. Fuck everything about this.

 

 

 

Everything should be questioned. Religious doctrines must be questioned above all else because of how destructive they are to good life. It's good to question our idea about good and bad. But there is a difference between questioning and investigating and a thoughtless blanket dismissive negation.

 

Goldisheavy,

 

You're still missing it Gold. I've explained it as well as I can, so I'll leave you with Lao Tzu's explanation,

 

"How great is the difference between "eh" and "o"?

What is the distinction between "good" and "evil"?

Must I fear what others fear?

What abysmal nonsense this is!"

 

I would suggest that as long as you have your own hate and intolerance, then no one will take anything you say as being honest, unless they feel the same hatred. I'd also suggest letting that go.

 

Aaron

 

edit- It would be dishonest for me not to admit I've felt the same way you have and that I've expressed it the same way you have, but at some point I woke up and realized that there was no point to it, that there was something wrong on a deeper level than just religions and dogma.

Edited December 19, 2010 by Twinner

[Otis]

Aaron, Goldisheavy: frankly, I agree with both of you.

 

I think all of Gold's critiques of religion and thoughtless belief are right on target. Institutionalized provincialism (whether in the form of religion, tradition, expectations, etc.) is one of the great sources of misery and conflict in the world.

 

I also think that Aaron is right about his "accept the world as it is" point. How can I find peace in the world, if I am always focused on "what's wrong" with the world?

 

Isn't it possible to embrace both points of view? That we can see and point out what is wrong with our society, without being emotionally embattled by it?

 

I don't think that acceptance means "don't do anything about it." It just means, "don't struggle against life". So my steps in life are to 1. accept the world as it is (yin), and then 2. do what is within my power to change my environment for the better (yang). I think that is what Thich Nhat Hanh was advocating with Engaged Buddhism, and what Gandhi and MLK were practicing with Nonviolent Resistance.

[strawdog65]

Aaron, Goldisheavy: frankly, I agree with both of you.

 

I think all of Gold's critiques of religion and thoughtless belief are right on target. Institutionalized provincialism (whether in the form of religion, tradition, expectations, etc.) is one of the great sources of misery and conflict in the world.

 

I also think that Aaron is right about his "accept the world as it is" point. How can I find peace in the world, if I am always focused on "what's wrong" with the world?

 

Isn't it possible to embrace both points of view? That we can see and point out what is wrong with our society, without being emotionally embattled by it?

 

I don't think that acceptance means "don't do anything about it." It just means, "don't struggle against life". So my steps in life are to 1. accept the world as it is (yin), and then 2. do what is within my power to change my environment for the better (yang). I think that is what Thich Nhat Hanh was advocating with Engaged Buddhism, and what Gandhi and MLK were practicing with Nonviolent Resistance.

 

 

Otis, Gold, and Aaron.

 

I have been following this and agree that you all have valid points of view.

The determining factor of how you as an individual choose to practice

your accepted philosophy and actions, is at what stage you are in your life.

 

I will echo what been said about having an outright dislike and almost

disgust for any organized mono-theistic religion. It was how I felt for

a long time, but it is not so anymore.

 

A big part of the reason for my own change of heart, has been the

realization that I am judging, I am using my own standard to say something

is wrong to me. But who am I to say this thing is wrong for someone else?

It is for them to decide what their "truth" is, and my judgment is not necessary

or of use.

 

Maybe it's an age related realization, I don't know. What I do know is,

I have my own path before me which is my "truth", and that I don't care what

others think of my beliefs. With this thought in mind, do you not see the utter

futility of feeling such dislike for something you have no choice in?

 

Our actions, our deeds in the society of mankind are much more important

than our belief of a God. When people act of good conscience and contribute

positive acts to the world they live in, it matters not what they believe.

 

If you wish to live in a world, and search for what is wrong within it,

you will always find what you search for.

 

Acceptance is not giving up, it is knowing which fights to fight and when.

Flow with what is now, and use the direction you are moving to make changes

along the way. It is the wise use of your own flow of life,

without the wasted effort of constant struggle.

 

I think the middle ground (if there is one) is to accept religion for the good

influence it can be on the actions of others. And to accept that your own

perception of what is of no use, is no use to the person with a belief contrary

to your own. Therefore, do what YOU will that is your path, but accept that the

paths of others contribute as well, and should be accepted without judgment

by you, because who are you to judge? No one is impartial, everyone picks sides,

non interference and concentrating on your own path is what you can do.

 

There is more than one path to the ultimate unifier that is Tao.

 

 

Peace!

[goldisheavy]

Aaron, Goldisheavy: frankly, I agree with both of you.

 

I think all of Gold's critiques of religion and thoughtless belief are right on target. Institutionalized provincialism (whether in the form of religion, tradition, expectations, etc.) is one of the great sources of misery and conflict in the world.

 

I also think that Aaron is right about his "accept the world as it is" point. How can I find peace in the world, if I am always focused on "what's wrong" with the world?

 

Very good question. This comes down to technique and the depth of view.

 

If your view has depth to it, then you can easily see that some things are relatively wrong, while at the ultimate level, nothing is wrong at all. So you can see that while right and wrong are subjective, some ideas about right and wrong are more wholesome than others. To admit this is to be at peace with your own nature. If you pretend you have no preferences, that's obviously a pretentious preference in and of itself. So if you think there is no difference between good and evil, all that means is that you decided that differences are evil.

 

So in the end it comes down to whether or not you want to be an extremist. Differences will always be there. But how extreme do you want to be about them? There is a range of possible reactions that's available. I believe responding to things I consider wrong with criticism is very healthy and appropriate. Physical violence is not appropriate. Censorship and exclusion is not appropriate. So I may criticize some viewpoints that a person holds, but ultimately I don't wish the person harm or failure in life. I think that's a fairly level-headed approach.

 

And deep down I know there is no substantial difference between any two things or any two viewpoints. But knowing this, I do not fall into nihilism and indifference.

 

But would I wear myself ragged? Well, if I wanted to right all the wrongs in one day, I'd certainly go insane. If I wanted to right all the wrongs in the span of my life, I'd wear myself ragged. But if I am OK to right what wrongs I can over the period of 3 billion years, if that's my mindset, well, obviously I am in no hurry then, right? I can right one wrong one day and then nap for 3 days. I can forget about right and wrong for 3 months and then remember it and clean some things up for a few weeks then take another break. When you have this kind of long-haul mindset, you're don't have your panties twisted into a bunch all the time. You can alternate standing up for what's right with rest and relaxation and play.

 

Thus, you don't wear yourself ragged for one, two, you don't fall into nihilism, and three, your ultimate insight is not disturbed by dualities. Best of all worlds.

 

Isn't it possible to embrace both points of view? That we can see and point out what is wrong with our society, without being emotionally embattled by it?

 

Exactly! Well said! Who said that it must be a strenuous battle? Imagine it like a big cake that's the size of the solar system and you're taking a few bites of that cake every day or two. You can be eating such cake for billions of years before it's all gone, but we've got time. There is no hurry. Eat what you can, then nap or play.

 

I don't think that acceptance means "don't do anything about it." It just means, "don't struggle against life". So my steps in life are to 1. accept the world as it is (yin), and then 2. do what is within my power to change my environment for the better (yang). I think that is what Thich Nhat Hanh was advocating with Engaged Buddhism, and what Gandhi and MLK were practicing with Nonviolent Resistance.

 

Well said, well said.

Edited December 19, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Aaron]

Hello folks,

 

The point is that every opinion you have is constructed and given to you. It is not a part of your innate nature, but rather something you learned as you grew older. When you decide that something is wrong or right, it is either because you've learned it is wrong or right, or you have come to that decision based on your experiences. With that in mind, the nature of experience deems that the same two people can experience the same thing and come to different conclusions about its nature.

 

What I am saying is that making a judgement about something is the beginning of disharmony, that what one should do is accept it for what it is. There is a higher form of living, one that springs from Tao. If one is living in Tao then they will be able to transcend the ideas of humanity, virtue, and ethics and act in a way that is beneficial for Tao. That doesn't mean that he harms nothing, but rather that he is more focused on the results of his actions, rather than the morality and ethics involved in them.

 

When I say good and evil are the root of discord, what I am saying is that as long as one places values upon something, they will continue to have something to fight over. Asking everyone to agree on the same thing is impossible, because by the very nature of existence, we are not guaranteed to experience the same thing in the same way as everyone else. With that being said, what one should strive for is a state of detachment where one is not attached to morality or ethics, but rather what springs from the innate state within us.

 

Aaron

Edited December 19, 2010 by Twinner

[Encephalon]

Hello folks,

 

The point is that every opinion you have is constructed and given to you. It is not a part of your innate nature, but rather something you learned as you grew older. When you decide that something is wrong or right, it is either because you've learned it is wrong or right, or you have come to that decision based on your experiences. With that in mind, the nature of experience deems that the same two people can experience the same thing and come to different conclusions about its nature.

 

What I am saying is that making a judgement about something is the beginning of disharmony, that what one should do is accept it for what it is. There is a higher form of living, one that springs from Tao. If one is living in Tao then they will be able to transcend the ideas of humanity, virtue, and ethics and act in a way that is beneficial for Tao. That doesn't mean that he harms nothing, but rather that he is more focused on the results of his actions, rather than the morality and ethics involved in them.

 

When I say good and evil are the root of discord, what I am saying is that as long as one places values upon something, they will continue to have something to fight over. Asking everyone to agree on the same thing is impossible, because by the very nature of existence, we are not guaranteed to experience the same thing in the same way as everyone else. With that being said, what one should strive for is a state of detachment where one is not attached to morality or ethics, but rather what springs from the innate state within us.

 

Aaron

 

I understand the 'transcend moral and cultural relativism' part of your argument, but living in accord with the Tao is not a transcendence of ethics. I think the argument can be made that living in accord with the Tao is the pinnacle of ethical behavior inasmuch as unethical behavior is not tenable in a state of oneness. I suspect that your intuitive grasp of Tao is more refined than your formal understanding of ethics, to your credit. I think most of us would agree that there's plenty of inner work to be done before this becomes a pressing concern, yes?

 

I know we're all budding cognitive scientists in here, but since you argue that all our opinions come from an external source, what are your sources of information?

Edited December 19, 2010 by Blasto

[goldisheavy]

Hello folks,

 

The point is that every opinion you have is constructed and given to you. It is not a part of your innate nature, but rather something you learned as you grew older. When you decide that something is wrong or right, it is either because you've learned it is wrong or right, or you have come to that decision based on your experiences. With that in mind, the nature of experience deems that the same two people can experience the same thing and come to different conclusions about its nature.

 

What I am saying is that making a judgement about something is the beginning of disharmony, that what one should do is accept it for what it is. There is a higher form of living, one that springs from Tao. If one is living in Tao then they will be able to transcend the ideas of humanity, virtue, and ethics and act in a way that is beneficial for Tao. That doesn't mean that he harms nothing, but rather that he is more focused on the results of his actions, rather than the morality and ethics involved in them.

 

When I say good and evil are the root of discord, what I am saying is that as long as one places values upon something, they will continue to have something to fight over. Asking everyone to agree on the same thing is impossible, because by the very nature of existence, we are not guaranteed to experience the same thing in the same way as everyone else. With that being said, what one should strive for is a state of detachment where one is not attached to morality or ethics, but rather what springs from the innate state within us.

 

Aaron

 

Aaron, you're wrong. The reason you're wrong is that you see it as a black or white issue. And it's not. To you, you either have values or you don't. Wrong. Not to mention you're a hypocrite who doesn't follow your own words. Look how consistently and stubbornly you post the same message multiple times in a row without hearing what's being said to you. So obviously you have some values you're willing to defend and fight for. Look at yourself. If you want to lie to me, it's OK, but don't you ever lie to yourself.

[Aaron]

I understand the 'transcend moral and cultural relativism' part of your argument, but living in accord with the Tao is not a transcendence of ethics. I think the argument can be made that living in accord with the Tao is the pinnacle of ethical behavior inasmuch as unethical behavior is not tenable in a state of oneness. I suspect that your intuitive grasp of Tao is more refined than your formal understanding of ethics, to your credit. I think most of us would agree that there's plenty of inner work to be done before this becomes a pressing concern, yes?

 

I know we're all budding cognitive scientists in here, but since you argue that all our opinions come from an external source, what are your sources of information?

 

There are several chapters that tell us the Te is not ethics, but something else. Te is what springs forth from harmonious action with the Tao, so if one is to believe what the Tao Teh Ching says, then one can assume that if one is living in harmony with Tao, then their actions will be influenced by Te, rather than virtue, ethics, and morality.

 

To answer your question, you and I are the sources of information. The fact that you and I can be standing in the same spot witness the same act and describe it differently to someone that asks. We may give a similar description, but rest assured it wont be exact. That's the point, no one is going to see something exactly as someone else. This is why the Tao Teh Ching asks the question, "What is the difference between Eh and O?" And "Must I fear what others fear?" Because they are explaining that opinions vary and because they vary, I should remember that the only valid experience is my own, however, if I am willing to be objective and listen to what others have to say, then I can begin to view their opinions as well.

 

When I say what the ideal is, that doesn't mean that one should not act ethically or virtuously, that would be ridiculous. We live in the midst of humanity, not obeying its rules causes disharmony. What I am actually saying is that one who is aware of the Tao and practicing Tao will understand on an intuitive level what actions are correct and incorrect, given a specific circumstance. That understanding is not based on his previous experience, so much as allowing the Tao to spring forth in their actions.

 

Aaron

Edited December 19, 2010 by Twinner

[Aaron]

Aaron, you're wrong. The reason you're wrong is that you see it as a black or white issue. And it's not. To you, you either have values or you don't. Wrong. Not to mention you're a hypocrite who doesn't follow your own words. Look how consistently and stubbornly you post the same message multiple times in a row without hearing what's being said to you. So obviously you have some values you're willing to defend and fight for. Look at yourself. If you want to lie to me, it's OK, but don't you ever lie to yourself.

 

We obviously view the same discussion differently. My first suggestion, don't resort to name calling to win an argument, it's a sign that one is desperate. Second, the answer to your question is right in front of you. If you open your eyes you will see it.

 

Aaron

 

Edit- Lastly, please don't take this personally. On an intellectual level I can understand what you're saying, I just don't agree with what you've said. If you wish to advocate your own beliefs, then you will allow me to disagree and practice the "live and let live" philosophy.

Edited December 19, 2010 by Twinner

[goldisheavy]

We obviously view the same discussion differently. My first suggestion, don't resort to name calling to win an argument, it's a sign that one is desperate. Second, the answer to your question is right in front of you. If you open your eyes you will see it.

 

Aaron

 

Edit- Lastly, please don't take this personally. On an intellectual level I can understand what you're saying, I just don't agree with what you've said. If you wish to advocate your own beliefs, then you will allow me to disagree and practice the "live and let live" philosophy.

 

What a joke. So you know exactly what I mean, but you don't have an honest response.

 

It's not black or white. You can care a little while avoiding the folly of trying to change the world in a week. Don't be a coward who takes the easy way out due to fear. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

 

A brave man dies once, and a coward dies many times.

Every man dies, but few live.

Edited December 19, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Aaron]

What a joke. So you know exactly what I mean, but you don't have an honest response.

 

It's not black or white. You can care a little while avoiding the folly of trying to change the world in a week. Don't be a coward who takes the easy way out due to fear. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

 

A brave man dies once, and a coward dies many times.

Every man dies, but few live.

 

Hello Goldisheavy,

 

With your last exchange, our exchange is over. My entire response has been in response to what you've said, you fail to recognize it as such, that's on you and not me. I don't need to carry on a conversation with someone who can't remain civil. Deal with your anger and come back to me, then we can continue to talk. As a word of advice, anger eats you up and prevents you from seeing the truth, even when it's staring you in the face. Until you are able to see things objectively, you'll never be prepared to receive the truth if you do happen upon it.

 

Aaron

Edited December 20, 2010 by Twinner