Is faith an illusion of the mind?

[gabrielnb]

Is faith an illusion of the mind?

 

Or I'm being pessimist (or realistic), considering that zen budism stands for the direct experience of reality and, therefore, faith is a product of mind?

 

And hope? Kind of "game" that universe plays with oneself? Destiny, karma? Who knows for sure?

[Seeker of Wisdom]

Well, what do you mean by faith? If it's blind belief in something without any experience or logic behind it, that's dumb. If it's more of a 'this is a good working hypothesis' conviction based on some logic and experience, that's what gets people really practising. Until through practice it matures, merging with wisdom to become gnosis.

[thelerner]

Not an illusion, at least no more then any other emotional concept.  I like to think of it as a tool of the mind.  Emotions are powerful both on a mental and physical level.  Still gotta control them and not be swept away. 

 

When the going gets rough, having some faith and hope, can get you through hard times. 

[vonkrankenhaus]

Faith is not an illusion of the mind to a tiny mustard seed - it's a fact.

 

Do we have the faith of a mustard seed?

 

And not every seed grows.

 

Knowing this, the mustard seed has Hope.

 

The mustard seed is not into psychological concepts, so Hope and Faith are equal to the mustard seed.

 

Having full humility, which is true audacity, the mustard seed simply expresses its nature, which is all nature.

 

-VonKrankenhaus

[Anderson]

I think i have died and went to conceptual hell

[soaring crane]

I have no idea what Buddhists think of this but for me faith is a condition, a state of being, and prerequesite to many things, starting with the ability to let go. Without faith, you cling. With it, it's all que sera sera ...

 

And I think maybe faith's evil twin is belief. You can't have both. Belief is doubt and faith is no doubt.

[doc benway]

I have no idea what Buddhists think of this but for me faith is a condition, a state of being, and prerequesite to many things, starting with the ability to let go. Without faith, you cling. With it, it's all que sera sera ...

 

And I think maybe faith's evil twin is belief. You can't have both. Belief is doubt and faith is no doubt.

 

"Just as taking refuge opens the gateway to all teachings and practices, it is faith that opens the gateway to taking refuge."

The chapter on taking refuge in Words of My Perfect Teacher by Patrul Rinpoche has an extensive discussion of the central importance of faith in Tibetan Buddhism.

 

That said, it is certainly an illusion of the mind - from the perspective of the natural state, what isn't?

[Cheshire Cat]

I divide my reality into two categories:

1. things that I can control and change
2. thing that I can't control nor change;

 

That which falls into the first category is under the influence of Faith: for example, if I know that I can stop thoughts for a while and I've seen improvements with time, then I develop Faith that I can perfect my mind to a greater extent;

 

But to develop some sort of Faith into stuff which falls into the second category, it would be equal to the cultivation of delusions.

For example, God, Karma, rebirth and even the Tao fall into the second category.

[GrandmasterP]

I read somewhere that..

 

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

 

There's ambiguity for you.

If we take 'substance' and 'evidence of' that implies factual non illusory.

Whereas taking those other factors...

'Things hoped for' and 'things not seen'

That implies ( to me) the illusory- intangible.

 

Not sure that answers your OP question though.

Edited February 24, 2015 by GrandmasterP

[soaring crane]

 

That which falls into the first category is under the influence of Faith: for example, if I know that I can stop thoughts for a while and I've seen improvements with time, then I develop Faith that I can perfect my mind to a greater extent;

 

I like your delineation, but it doesn't agree with my sense of what faith is (not that it need do that in the least). Maybe I just don't understand the example. I read it more like a description of being confident that past experience is going to produce future results. It seems more closely related to belief (?).

 

Steve wrote

 

That said, it is certainly an illusion of the mind - from the perspective of the natural state, what isn't?

 

I guess I just don't any connection to the illusion concept. I don't feel faith as being a process of the mind at all. It feels much  more substatial than that.

[Marblehead]

Hope and faith are illusions.

 

Thus spake the Materialist.

[soaring crane]

There's a German word that better describes what I sense when I sense "faith": Urvertrauen

 

The "Ur-" prefix indicates "the original state" and I assume is related to the "Or-" in origin / original.

 

"-vertrauen" means "trust"

 

And this is the German definition:

aus der engen Mutter-Kind-Beziehung im Säuglingsalter hervorgegangenes natürliches Vertrauen des Menschen zu seiner Umwelt

 

A person's natural trust in his environment that develops during the nursing period of the intimate mother-child-relationship.

 

We use it to mean unwavering trust in the universe and all that is a part of it. The absolute absence of fear or insecurity. It's not a thought, it's a condition, a state of being, simplified and uncluttered, like a baby. I think its a (the) central theme of the Daodejing. But this is the Budddhist discussion, so I want to leave it at that.

[Marblehead]

There's a German word that better describes what I sense when I sense "faith": Urvertrauen

 

The "Ur-" prefix indicates "the original state" and I assume is related to the "Or-" in original.

 

"-vertrauen" means "trust"

 

And this is the German definition:

aus der engen Mutter-Kind-Beziehung im Säuglingsalter hervorgegangenes natürliches Vertrauen des Menschen zu seiner Umwelt

 

A person's natural trust in his environment that develops during the nursing period of the intimate mother-child-relationship.

 

We use it to mean unwavering trust in the universe and all that is a part of it. The absolute absence of fear or insecurity. It's not a thought, it's a condition, a state of being, simplified and uncluttered, like a baby.

That is a damn good assessment!!!

[soaring crane]

That is a damn good assessment!!!

 

German to the rescue, lol.

 

btw, I added a couple lines to the end of my post, might interest you...

[Marblehead]

German to the rescue, lol.

 

btw, I added a couple lines to the end of my post, might interest you...

Addition noted.  I'm trying to be nice and honest at the same time.  Not always easy.

[doc benway]

I divide my reality into two categories:

1. things that I can control and change
2. thing that I can't control nor change;

 

That which falls into the first category is under the influence of Faith: for example, if I know that I can stop thoughts for a while and I've seen improvements with time, then I develop Faith that I can perfect my mind to a greater extent;

 

But to develop some sort of Faith into stuff which falls into the second category, it would be equal to the cultivation of delusions.

For example, God, Karma, rebirth and even the Tao fall into the second category.

I'm a bit surprised that you listed Karma among the things you cannot change.

Karma is simply the actions you take, the choices you make, which under your control as much as anything.

Those actions have consequences, often unexpected, which are directly related to your actions, hence there is some degree of control there.

 

 

I guess I just don't any connection to the illusion concept. I don't feel faith as being a process of the mind at all. It feels much  more substatial than that.

My point really is that from the perspective of the natural state, there is nothing that is not a process of mind. 

Nothing is more substantial than mind as it is mind that creates the illusion of substance.

 

 

There's a German word that better describes what I sense when I sense "faith": Urvertrauen

 

The "Ur-" prefix indicates "the original state" and I assume is related to the "Or-" in origin / original.

 

"-vertrauen" means "trust"

 

And this is the German definition:

aus der engen Mutter-Kind-Beziehung im Säuglingsalter hervorgegangenes natürliches Vertrauen des Menschen zu seiner Umwelt

 

A person's natural trust in his environment that develops during the nursing period of the intimate mother-child-relationship.

 

We use it to mean unwavering trust in the universe and all that is a part of it. The absolute absence of fear or insecurity. It's not a thought, it's a condition, a state of being, simplified and uncluttered, like a baby. I think its a (the) central theme of the Daodejing. But this is the Budddhist discussion, so I want to leave it at that.

Wonderful post - I would agree that this is a very good word to try and capture the meaning of faith as I use it.

I once read a distinction between belief and faith that I think came from Osho. 

It went something like this -

Belief is the fervent hope that an explanation one has not personally verified is the truth.

Faith is the willingness to let go of belief and accept that what remains is the truth.

[Cheshire Cat]

I like your delineation, but it doesn't agree with my sense of what faith is (not that it need do that in the least). Maybe I just don't understand the example. I read it more like a description of being confident that past experience is going to produce future results. It seems more closely related to belief (?).

 

It's more toward "trusting oneself".

To understand what you can do and have faith in your own action.

[Cheshire Cat]

I'm a bit surprised that you listed Karma among the things you cannot change.

Karma is simply the actions you take, the choices you make, which under your control as much as anything.

Those actions have consequences, often unexpected, which are directly related to your actions, hence there is some degree of control there.

 

My actions are ... my actions.

karma is something that one have to believe in, in order to be buddhist.

 

Karma is more about curses and blessings from unknown lives: if it were under my control, I would be a great King today

[vonkrankenhaus]

Re:

-----

"The mustard seen has faith? Has hope? Interesting!"

-----

 

Yes, it does, and yes, it is.

 

All seeds.

 

It is a relative condition, and the seed acts because of immortality in this condition.

 

Human being eats these seeds.

 

THAT is something interesting.

 

-VonKrankenhaus

[doc benway]

My actions are ... my actions.

karma is something that one have to believe in, in order to be buddhist.

 

Karma is more about curses and blessings from unknown lives: if it were under my control, I would be a great King today

 

We'll simply have to agree to disagree.

Karma has nothing to do with belief, in my opinion, it is simply the direct observation that actions have relatively predictable consequences. The Buddhists (and others) certainly have developed it into a very complex and comprehensive view but that is not necessary to engage with if it doesn't fit our view of things.

One does not even need to believe in reincarnation to see the workings of karma, it's evident in everything we do.

[Yasjua]

I think faith is something people cultivate through action and perseverance of character to ascertain the validity of their relationship to a higher power or a higher knowledge.

 

I have seen faith work wonders in my life by exposing me to experiences that are outside of my mind's comfort zone. Faith in this view is not an illusion of mind, but the antithesis of mind and illusion.

 

My current point of view, however, is that there is no mind (or faith) except in relationship to a phenomenological subject that emerges as the center-point of a self-contemplating, wish-fulfilling brain-body-psyche system.

 

I am aware in my own life of the ghost of a prior psychological subject imprinted on my memory and on my circuits, but I do not see one operating as a real entity in my actual life anymore. I see urges and systems of imprinting that condition behavior - reproductive and digestive urges, hormonal and psycho-nervous circuits that create and condition perception and activity. Somehow the absence of this character (or rather its reification through thought and belief) is intimately connected with the absence of mind.

 

So is faith an illusion? I don't know. I think mind is an illusion that pertains to the operation of the subjective entity. I believe faith always has something to do with that subjective entity and its relationship to something, whether that be a God, or a concept, or a teaching, or anything else. I think questioning its reality or unreality is the wrong approach. The question should be regarding its efficacy. If faith does something, either for you or someone else - if it helps you live your life more fully, experience new realities and thoughts, get through a difficult time in life, then faith is "real" enough and I say, faith away, my friend.

 

On the other hand, if you "have faith" like some people I know, and use faith to insulate yourself from the realities you're refusing to face, then Fuck your faith. 

 

What I think is that you should love yourself and not rely on faith, particularly in something or someone else, to get you somewhere or get you through something, but not everyone is going to love and truly respect themselves on such a high level as to not need various external crutches and modes and functions of consciousness that make them feel safe or 'okay.'

Edited February 24, 2015 by Yasjua

[silent thunder]

Hope and faith are illusions.

 

Thus spake the Materialist.

I get where you're coming from and I agree to a point...

I offer this addition/distinction...

 

They are concepts (illusory in nature), yet the affects of which on consciousness, are myriad and potent.

[Cheshire Cat]

We'll simply have to agree to disagree.

Karma has nothing to do with belief, in my opinion, it is simply the direct observation that actions have relatively predictable consequences. The Buddhists (and others) certainly have developed it into a very complex and comprehensive view but that is not necessary to engage with if it doesn't fit our view of things.

One does not even need to believe in reincarnation to see the workings of karma, it's evident in everything we do.

 

I can easily agree to the observation that actions have consequences, but I know that the concept of karma is tightly related to the concept of reincarnation. Reincarnation is a kind of irrational religious Faith.

Thus, it falls into the second category.

One can't really talk about karma without mentioning reincarnation because it's a concept born with it: how could you  explain otherwise that the bad Joe may be immeasurably rich while the good John may be poor?

You have to say that it's karma from previous lives.

 

To believe that actions have effects isn't to believe in karma: to believe in karma means to believe that negative actions attract negative action... and positive actions attract positive actions.

But this is not the reality of things: I've seen this many times.

 

Actions may have consequences and you can't predict their natures by examining the nature of the causes (good things may happen to the devil and shit may happen to the angel).

It's a basic concept: why do we need a sanskrit word for it?

[Chang]

We do not need to believe in reincarnation to believe in the law of cause and effect, though the concept of reincarnation does blend in nicely with the concept of karma.

 

I cannot but believe that you have rather lost sight of the wood for the trees here as karma is simply a word that may mean many different things to different people and is at once more simple and more complex than we may understand.

 

We do not need to use a sanskrit word to describe this concept nor do we need to have any faith in this law for it to effect us. Whether we have "faith" in these laws or not we will still find ourselves subject to them.

[Cheshire Cat]

We do not need to believe in reincarnation to believe in the law of cause and effect, though the concept of reincarnation does blend in nicely with the concept of karma.

 

I think that your dancing with the concept so that it may adhere to the general accepted western view.

1. The law of cause and effect says that action has consequences.
2. The law of karma says that good actions bring good consequences.

They are not the same.

 

The law of karma is rarely verified THEREFORE to make it works, one must believe that the "good consequences" will be there in the future life.