The prison of beliefs.

[cold]

" Freedom is another word for nothing left to lose"

[Jonesboy]

If you consider that you are a Buddhist then you have conceptualized yourself in past.

If you are a practicing Buddhist you are not A Buddhist.

 

Of course for convenience we may say "I'm Buddhist" and understand the difference.

 

In temple the above can be seen clearly - those in belief and those few in practice - it is stark.

Trying to split hairs

 

If you are practicing anything it is a belief in those practices until of course meditation and life become one and the same. Then it is a being.

 

You believe in those practices and do those practices.. it is still a belief that those practices will do something.

Edited May 9, 2017 by Jonesboy

[Spotless]

Faith is another word for belief.. no matter how rosy you try to make it.

Incorrect - unless you are using the hijacked version that is changing the very meaning of the word - in fact it is such a complete hijack that I would not be surprised if dictionaries fairly soon define it muchbas you have stated.

 

I have not painted a rosy picture - the addiction to concretizing and bonding to "completing conceptualizations" (beliefs) is the illusion - it is the cause of all suffering.

 

Non-grasping is the same as Faith. Faith is such a dirty word for so many that for those repulsed by it - simply insert "non-grasping".

It is often counter productive to use it in conversation just as the word God simultaneously pushes many buttons (positions) and creates uneasy waves in people's otherwise somatic frequencies.

 

I used the word Faith specifically in a sort of reaching out to the heart based and to those more settled in Western theology.

Particularly in light of the other word / concept that we are discussing here.

[Spotless]

Trying to split hairs :)If you are practicing anything it is a belief in those practices until of course meditation and life become one and the same. Then it is a being.You believe in those practices and do those practices.. it is still a belief that those practices will do something.

Try to see -

 

You do not have to believe in a practice - it should express itself through you or not - no belief is required. Belief is a hindrance.

 

One can try something without belief in it - one can try it for a lifetime - in complete earnest - yet no belief is required.

In fact - it is belief in it that can lead to dissatisfaction with it for no other reason than it is inherently in the past.

[Michael Sternbach]

Why is belief 'in the past'?

[Brian]

" Freedom is another word for nothing left to lose"

Beat me to it.

[Jonesboy]

Try to see -

 

You do not have to believe in a practice - it should express itself through you or not - no belief is required. Belief is a hindrance.

 

One can try something without belief in it - one can try it for a lifetime - in complete earnest - yet no belief is required.

In fact - it is belief in it that can lead to dissatisfaction with it for no other reason than it is inherently in the past.

That sounds nice but that is really not true.

 

You don't have to believe in a practice but once it starts to change your life do you not believe it then? To continue to do a practice or a set of practices or to follow a tradition is to believe in the continued results one feels from those practices.

 

Belief isn't a bad thing

Edited May 9, 2017 by Jonesboy

[Marblehead]

Belief is always belief in nothing - it is always in past which does not exist - it is always a belief in illusion.

I don't have enough time right now but I will do my best to respond to this this evening.

[Jonesboy]

Incorrect - unless you are using the hijacked version that is changing the very meaning of the word - in fact it is such a complete hijack that I would not be surprised if dictionaries fairly soon define it muchbas you have stated.

 

I have not painted a rosy picture - the addiction to concretizing and bonding to "completing conceptualizations" (beliefs) is the illusion - it is the cause of all suffering.

 

Non-grasping is the same as Faith. Faith is such a dirty word for so many that for those repulsed by it - simply insert "non-grasping".

It is often counter productive to use it in conversation just as the word God simultaneously pushes many buttons (positions) and creates uneasy waves in people's otherwise somatic frequencies.

 

I used the word Faith specifically in a sort of reaching out to the heart based and to those more settled in Western theology.

Particularly in light of the other word / concept that we are discussing here.

Bhakti literally means "attachment, participation, devotion to, fondness for, homage, faith or love, worship, piety to (as a religious principle or means of salvation)".

 

Bhakti, faith, belief... it is all the same

[liminal_luke]

Thanks Spotless!  The image of watching the sunset and feeling momentarily swept away (or rather, momentarily stepping outside of belief) and resting in presence, made it clear for me.  Well, at least it feels clear.  I´m reminded of the Zapchen practice of wow -- consciously entering into a state of awe.  

[Michael Sternbach]

I maintain that it is not possible for a human being to function without beliefs, just like a computer can't run without a program.

 

Not to say that humans are computers, of course, but this is a valid analogy, IMO.

Edited May 10, 2017 by Michael Sternbach

[Jonesboy]

To me beliefs aren't bad. It is the attachment to them where one runs into trouble.

[liminal_luke]

If you are practicing anything it is a belief in those practices until of course meditation and life become one and the same. Then it is a being.

 

 

 

Bhakti literally means "attachment, participation, devotion to, fondness for, homage, faith or love, worship, piety to (as a religious principle or means of salvation)".

 

Bhakti, faith, belief... it is all the same

 

I believed exactly the same thing Jonesboy, but I think I understand a little more now.  Let me try to put my understanding into words, and Spotless can correct me if I´ve got it wrong.

 

Suppose you´ve decided to do a Bhakti devotion practice.  You go to a Bhakti retreat, do intensive practice, and experience a moment of intense devotion. In that moment of pure practice you aren´t thinking "Bhakti is a great practice, this is really good for me."  Your sense of devotion is so all-encompassing there´s no room left over for that thought.  You are completely swept away by the sense of Bhakti. You are in it. 

 

Sometime later you might stop and think about the practice.  You might say...Gee, this practice is really working, I am really getting benefit. But in the moment that you´ve stopped and made this evaluation, are you still feeling the devotion in the same way?  Probably not.  You´ve stepped outside of the practice in order to come up with a belief about it. That belief, while it might motivate you to continue the practice at some later time, is actually separating you, however subtly, from the practice itself.  

Edited May 9, 2017 by liminal_luke

[Brian]

To me beliefs aren't bad. It is the attachment to them where one runs into trouble.

I might add that​ beliefs unplumbed seem exponentially more troublesome than thoroughly examined ones (in part because the latter are generally taken more lightly).

[Jonesboy]

I believed exactly the same thing Jonesboy, but I think I understand a little more.  Let me try to put my understanding into words, and Spotless can correct me if I´ve got it wrong.

 

Suppose you´ve decided to do a Bhakti devotion practice.  You go to a Bhakti retreat, do intensive practice, and experience a moment of intense devotion. In that moment of pure practice you aren´t thinking "Bhakti is a great practice, this is really good for me."  Your sense of devotion is so all-encompassing there´s no room left over for that thought.  You are completely swept away by the sense of Bhakti. You are in it. 

 

Sometime later you might stop and think about the practice.  You might say...Gee, this practice is really working, I am really getting benefit. But in the moment that you´ve stopped and made this evaluation, are you still feeling the devotion in the same way?  Probably not.  You´ve stepped outside of the practice in order to come up with a belief about it. That belief, while it might motivate you to continue the practice at some later time, is actually separating you, however subtly, from the practice itself.

Thank you,

 

What you are saying is one is being swept away in the energy of it.

 

True being doesn't matter if one is thinking or not. Thoughts don't hinder anything. They are non attaching.. just energy which is you. There is no being swept away to different levels of being.

 

If one is still thinking that one has to have a silent mind they are still missing half of the puzzle.

 

Expressing that state of being to others is a what? To them it is a belief because they haven't experienced it or are it. That expressing or thinking or talking doesn't take one out of the present moment either.

Edited May 9, 2017 by Jonesboy

[Michael Sternbach]

To me beliefs aren't bad. It is the attachment to them where one runs into trouble.

Yes, the attachment to beliefs that have outlived their purpose.

[silent thunder]

so many types of prisons

so many types of slavery

I dearly appreciate the scenes between Rosencrantz, Guildenstern and Hamlet.

This little exchange is so densely packed with layered meanings for me...

incredible stuff.  time to reread it again.

Guildenstern:

Prison my Lord?

Hamlet:
Denmark is a prison.

Rosencrantz:
Why then your ambition makes it one. 'Tis too narrow
for your mind.

Hamlet:
O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a
king of infinite space—were it not that I have bad dreams.

Guildenstern:
Which dreams indeed are ambition, for the very
substance of the ambitious is merely the shadow of a dream.

[Andrei]

I maintain that it is not possible to function for a human being without beliefs, just like a computer can't run without a program.

 

Not to say that humans are computers, of course, but this is a valid analogy, IMO.

 

So very good analogy, except there are so many people around here and in the world that they believe the programs can run without a hardware and without any energy spent to maintain the hardware in function.

 

i.e. ghosts, spirits, immortals, demons etc.

[Brian]

so many types of prisons

so many types of slavery

I dearly appreciate the scenes between Rosencrantz, Guildenstern and Hamlet.

This little exchange is so densely packed with layered meanings for me...

incredible stuff. time to reread it again.

Guildenstern:

Prison my Lord?

Hamlet:

Denmark is a prison.

Rosencrantz:

Why then your ambition makes it one. 'Tis too narrow

for your mind.

Hamlet:

O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a

king of infinite space—were it not that I have bad dreams.

Guildenstern:

Which dreams indeed are ambition, for the very

substance of the ambitious is merely the shadow of a dream.

One of my favorite sections in my favorite play!

 

Are you familiar with Tom Stoppard's "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead"?

[Brian]

So very good analogy, except there are so many people around here and in the world that they believe the programs can run without a hardware and without any energy spent to maintain the hardware in function.

 

i.e. ghosts, spirits, immortals, demons etc.

Cloud-based computing...

 

 

[liminal_luke]

Thank you,

 

What you are saying is one is being swept away in the energy of it.

 

True being doesn't matter if one is thinking or not. Thoughts don't hinder anything. They are non attaching.. just energy which is you. There is no being swept away to different levels of being.

 

If one is still thinking that one has to have a silent mind they are still missing half of the puzzle.

 

Expressing that state of being to others is a what? To them it is a belief because they haven't experienced it or are it. That expressing or thinking or talking doesn't take one out of the present moment either.

 

I agree.  Thoughts are not necessarily a hindrance, and a silent mind is not a necessity.  That´s an advanced position --very Dzogchen -- but nevertheless true.  No getting anything past you, is there?

 

I initially struggled with Spotless´s post because he seemed to be making all sorts of assertions and, at the same time, maintaining that they weren´t beliefs.  They sure sounded like beliefs to me.

 

Here´s what I think now.  For a beginner, it´s more difficult to maintain awareness of presence while thinking.  Perhaps that´s why many spiritual traditions focus on quieting the mind.  It´s not that thoughts are bad, just that it is harder to be in a state of non-grasping while thinking. Most people who experience the thought "this Bhakti practice is really beneficial" will grab onto that thought in a way that separates them from the practice itself.  But perhaps someone whose really stabilized in the experience of Bhakti can experience a thought as just another happening.  The thought just bubbles up, maybe it even gets written down in a Daobums post, but nobody attaches to it.  There´s nobody separate from the thought whose there to believe in it,  Thought happens; thoughts without a thinker.  Experienced in the radiant NOW with the same awed awareness normally reserved for a sunset or a kiss. 

Edited May 9, 2017 by liminal_luke

[Andrei]

Cloud-based computing...

 

 

Cloud based computing needs an internet, a network of computers connected together

Inside that network is set up a virtual reality and everyone who enters that reality needs an account and pays a price

 

Same with any other religion, once you connect with peers with same beliefs they install in you programs so that you become one of their supporters, so that you maintain that reality

[C T]

Beliefs need validation; 

Validations stunt faith. 

 

 

Vastly different in terms of scope, and yet simple to see. 

Edited May 9, 2017 by C T

[Geof Nanto]

And what should a person with beliefs do chancing upon one who has (allegedly) raped a small child? 

 

CT, I think you’re reading something into my example that is not there.  

 

I was very reluctant to enter this discussion, not because I don’t think it’s important, rather I think it’s supremely important for anyone on a spiritual path. My immediate thought on reading the OP is that it is possible to transcend belief.  But that doesn’t mean I don’t also live in this relative world and function within a complex set of beliefs.  

 

The problem I find with these discussions for which there is no simple or single answer is that I get trapped by both the limitations of my own expression and the subsequent interpretations (often misinterpretations) of my intent by others. 

 

I note this is a common problem as this article makes clear about Jung’s regret over his famous assertion, “I don’t need to believe, I know.”  The article is very relevant to this discussion and also to the entrapment of giving short answers to complex questions.  (Please note that when Jung speaks of God he is referring to an ultimate mystery, and I know from other of his writings that his view is not fundamentally different from classical Daoism.  However he expresses it using the concepts of Abrahamic theology rather than the Chinese cosmology that Daoism uses.)

[C T]

 

CT, I think you’re reading something into my example that is not there.  

 

I was very reluctant to enter this discussion, not because I don’t think it’s important, rather I think it’s supremely important for anyone on a spiritual path. My immediate thought on reading the OP is that it is possible to transcend belief.  But that doesn’t mean I don’t also live in this relative world and function within a complex set of beliefs.  

 

In total alignment with the above, Yueya. 

 

My apologies if the comment appeared haughty. It wasn't meant that way.