Trust

[path_of_one]

Sorry- was already moving it...

I agree, it was a bit off topic from what Sherry intended with the OP, which was individuals' testimonies of why they believed in their own religion, without debate about the validity of it all.

We spun off into a very long conversation that had little to do (directly) with the OP. So it's best to clean it out of there and let people continue to talk about their individual faiths without our banter.

[cyberpi]

Perhaps it would be good to have the minimal courtesy to ask the person who originated the thread... let alone those perhaps wasting their time conversing.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

There are varying levels of trust. I like the idea that trust is simply a willingness to be surprised.

Chris

Well said... and new information comes masked as a surprise... I submit that would also be the willingness to be informed or learn something new.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Perhaps it would be good to have the minimal courtesy to ask the person who originated the thread... let alone those perhaps wasting their time conversing.

No, the courtesy is to allow the original thought of a thread to be kept from being side tracked to other issues.

That is the courtesy that should be extended to the originator of the thread.

[path_of_one]

I didn't realize it was a waste to simply move the conversation to its own thread. I think it really was off-topic compared to Sherry's question:

What moves you so deeply inside about your chosen religion?

I can honestly say that nothing in this thread from my end has anything to do with how I'm moved inside by my chosen religions. Everything here is my ramblings on how humans in general "tick" when it comes to trust.

I have long felt I was hogging space on her thread without being on-topic, and few others seemed interested.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I didn't realize it was a waste to simply move the conversation to its own thread. I think it really was off-topic compared to Sherry's question:



I can honestly say that nothing in this thread from my end has anything to do with how I'm moved inside by my chosen religions. Everything here is my ramblings on how humans in general "tick" when it comes to trust.

I have long felt I was hogging space on her thread without being on-topic, and few others seemed interested.

this "seems" like a control issue...coming from areas that espouse "no control is best".

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

FYI- peripheral discussion about trust moved to "Trust" in the Philosophy forum. Hope to see you there!

Perhaps it would be good to have the minimal courtesy to ask the person who originated the thread... let alone those perhaps wasting their time conversing.

[Raksha]

People swear perpetual lip service to things that don't make a lick of sense in order to preserve an aura of institutional infallibility which has nothing to do with the veracity of the core principles of their faith.

Hi Chris!

I almost feel like I've hijacked this thread because I'm playing catch-up. The discussion has moved on and I'm still back at the beginning.

I've never understood why any religion would want to claim "infallibility" anyway. Seems like they're just setting themselves up that way, because no matter what they say they are all human-created institutions. Which means that sooner or later they are going to be proved fallible, even though they can spend literally centuries denying it.

--Linda

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Well said... and new information comes masked as a surprise... I submit that would also be the willingness to be informed or learn something new.

To be surprised is not a form of trust. It is to be caught un aware, and then suddenly brought into knowledge of something. Were is "trust" in that? Chris would have to expound upon his statement in order for it to make sense.

New information is just that, new information. Willingness to learn new information is not a matter of trust, but rather one has a desire to remain at their current level, or to move on to a higher level. That has nothing to do with trust.

By attempting to use "trust" as a way to get others to feel guilty or confused about their refusal to accept your way of "living" or your insistance that your way is the only way things will work out right (call it Cyberpi's law), is ludicrous, and can be seen for what it is, for miles around; "do as I say, for I am right and the rest of you are wrong"...

In short that is as guilty a behavior or a thought pattern as the rest of us.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

i suppose it depends on how a being understands the word trust. in my normal usage with regards to other sentient beings trust entails a pattern of observation, albeit brief in some cases, which allows me some insight into the character of the other being, which can be mistaken.

it seems to be a pattern recognition aspect in some manner.

metta,

~v

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

To be surprised is not a form of trust. It is to be caught un aware, and then suddenly brought into knowledge of something. Were is "trust" in that? Chris would have to expound upon his statement in order for it to make sense.

I think a harder concept is that uncertainty is in the math of both information and surprise. If there is no uncertainty then there is no information... you might have to study Shannon information theory to realize that.

I also agree with Chris that trust is a willingness to be surprised... a willingness to accept an uncertainty. In the exchange of information that would not mean a willingness to accept new information as an infallable truth. Rather the opposite: a willingness to accept that you never have all the information... open to the discovery of something new.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

New information is just that, new information. Willingness to learn new information is not a matter of trust, but rather one has a desire to remain at their current level, or to move on to a higher level. That has nothing to do with trust.

As one example out of many: I know someone who is recorded as a felon and a drug addict. He has an impossible time getting an apartment. It is easy to do a credit or background check and few people want to have a felon living on their premises. The apartment owner really has no information about the person except second hand information that they can purchase from somewhere. Out of their own greed the last thing they are going to do is to take the time to talk with the person and get a sense of where and why the accusations have been brought against them. The information written by others about the person is believed over the person. What will it take for the owner of that apartment complex to take the risk and potentially learn something new about the person. Trust? Or instead will their judgment be the judgment of others... thus learning nothing new.

Who thinks as those apartment owners think, Quahom1... that knowledge is the information that brought them better control over their little piece of the world at the expense of their neighbor? Trust is in where the control of pieces overlap.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

By attempting to use "trust" as a way to get others to feel guilty or confused about their refusal to accept your way of "living" or your insistance that your way is the only way things will work out right (call it Cyberpi's law), is ludicrous, and can be seen for what it is, for miles around; "do as I say, for I am right and the rest of you are wrong"...

In short that is as guilty a behavior or a thought pattern as the rest of us.

Whatever guilt you feel by my words is not from me. By your words, you value the trust that Trinitarian churches around the world place in you as their door is open to you. So do you value trust, or do you merely value the trust of others? What information does the church collect from you as it lets you past their door so that they can decide whether or not to permit you? Don't bother calling 'Trust' my law... you've written your own law.

[path_of_one]

If trust is a willingness to be surprised, then what is being comfortable with risk?

We trust something. A general attitude of comfort or willingness to assume risk, uncertainty, or imperfect information isn't trust, it's just our comfort level with risk. Some people are more gambling types than others. Doesn't mean they trust those on whom they take a gamble. We're able to assume risk without trust.

In an attempt to get this back to the OP and not off-topic, as it relates to religion, most peopsle trust the authorities or organizations of their religion. It isn't like they are just willing to take the risk of going to a church or the uncertainty that their religion might not be right. It's that they trust their religion or practice is right, at least for them. Two very different things.

I trust my path because I think it is right for me. I'm also willing to be surprised and resign myself to uncertainty, but that is another matter. If I was solely the latter, there would be no need for any religion at all.

[Francis king]

duhkha, misery, or misfortune... in sanskrit... this is it's translation... not suffering... although it is that, there is a better word for suffering...

the duhkha isn't anything other than your samsara... completely (sam) ones own (sa) desire (ra)...

and yet... in truth... duhkha and samsara as things, are products, and all products rely on causes...

the causes of duhkha and samsara are the causes of the "pratityasamutpada"... ( prati-before -ya- giving, funishing, sam- completely, utpada- fly, fall up ... basically, the rays you use before you fly up, or rather, the bonds of existence... these bonds are...

ignorance,
action,
consciousness,
name and form,
contacts,
sources,
feeling,
attachment,
grasping
existence,
birth,
ageing and death,

all these things make your karma, or rather, have an impact on your judgements, will influence your existence, and your perception of that existence...

then comes the four noble truths...

we all suffer, or have suffered, suffering doesn't last, there is a way to end suffering, and that's by following the noble eightfold path...

if you live right, etc, whatever your problem was, will go... it will cease... if you don't steal, you won't go to jail... if you don't get drunk you won't make a fool of yourself...if you don't bad-mouth ppl and try to be honest, generally, misery ends... they follow the noble eightfold path...

all this is based on the premise that... most people don't want religion for its own sake... they come to temple, to church, to their gods, because they suffer, and they want it to cease... because they are unhappy... generally, the duhkha is samsara... the miseries and misfortunes you're experiencing are generally of your own making, if they do these things (meditate, follow the noble eithfold path), and try and live well, you'll find the miseries and misfortunes will lessen...

then comes meditation... for you to escape the bonds and the snares and the fetters, for you to become a Buddha, one who knows insights about thinking you have to learn concentration meditation... you have to learn how to stop thinking, as, in truth, most of what you think is from somewhere else- you think in a certain groove because of upbringing, exposure and circumstance... and this is why you experience this duhkha, this misery or misfortune...

to give yourself the space to think independently of these fetters and bonds and one day become a Buddha, or knower of insights, you need to create some space, or distance, between the sense stimuli and the constant unconscious processes...so you practise meditation... not thinking meditation... samatha (sam-completely, a- negative participle- tha, thought, thinking) meditation...

giving yourself some time to think independently of all the assumed wisdoms and conditioned responses you have adopted due to your existence, via meditation, whilst behaving in a certain way; being ethical, and moral, etc, will usually guarantee that whatever duhkha and samsara you experience will be considerably diminished, and hence the third and fourth noble truths....

then maybe it ends for u... you don't need it anymore, you put it down, no big deal...

but if you don't, then it changes...

one day,practising your samatha, you reach samadhi... a state of complete insight... sunyata... emptiness, you realise what it's really all about...

or you will one day you decide to become a bodhisattva... a being who knows insights into the nature of the self ( bo- knowing dhi- insight sat-being tva-I)...

knowing the self, knowing the emptiness, knowing the natures and origins of duhkha, and knowing how to build rafts to get ppl over the ocean of samsara... how can you refuse to make a few rafts?

and so then you quest for enlightenment... you develop supramundane powers, you gather complete insights...

and then, one day after that, you become a Buddha. A conqueror of worlds

[Francis king]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Is it the trust in your own experiences or the trust in the experiences of others that you believe your husband exists... or is it the trust of your husband in you and the trust of you in him? Is a person just an experience?

no... a person has a form, exists, but, of course, has causes, origins, reasons for being... objects, subjects, concepts, exist... they do not remain indefinately, but they exist...

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste all,

i suppose it depends on how a being understands the word trust. in my normal usage with regards to other sentient beings trust entails a pattern of observation, albeit brief in some cases, which allows me some insight into the character of the other being, which can be mistaken.

it seems to be a pattern recognition aspect in some manner.

metta,

~v

Interesting, Vaj.

Do you think that trust might be a mechanism to overcome the madness and vexation brought on by attempting to conjecture about "the precise working out of the results of kamma" written about in the Acintita Sutta?

Is trust a form of conjecture, or a release from conjecture, in this respect? (Sounds like a koan...)