The significance of "belief"

T

Tariki

Well-Known Member
Messages
324
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
UK
Personally, I experience myself as living within a cosmos..........rather than a chaos. Ultimately all things have significance. This seems instinctive to me, and perhaps I have my parents to thank - not via any particular belief they had themselves which was passed on to me, more in their love and total acceptance that they demonstrated in so may ways as I grew up. Anyway, beyond this I seem to have no "belief"....and even struggle to understand the concept.

Maybe this is one of the reasons that I have gravitated towards Pure Land (Shin) Buddhism................where each individual seems left alone to decide whether the stories of Amida - and his vows - are understood as mythic or taken literally. Understood as being in a certain sense the "story of everyone" who begins a path of understanding - or the story of another that has significance for ourselves. Whatever.................

"Belief"

A case in point. On many a Buddhist forum I have argued against the need to "believe" in rebirth..........even karma. (And often been told that in is necessary, even obligatory.........that the dharma cannot be understood without such things) My own arguments have centered around the way belief as such acts as a sedative to true experience. Another human being is seen to suffer. Another human being is blown up by a bomb. Another human being is diagnosed with cancer. And..........."well, this is their karma". Almost as if they deserve it in some way. All is explained!

This is repugnent to me. It just seems to involve "judgement"...and the "explanation" itself seems to deaden a true response that needs to come from sheer human empathy for the suffering of another........a living response of action and commitment.

How do others here understand "belief"?

Does it deaden a living response to circumstances.......or help in understanding? And what is the difference between belief and faith? To me, "belief" seems more a "clinging to"............faith more a "letting go" (and perhaps, "letting God" - or Amida!)

And the famous words from the gospels..........the King James version.........in the response to the words of Jesus that all things are possible for those who believe.........the words of the father who said "Lord I believe. Help thou my unbelief" ! (Just how existential and "real" can you get?)

I would appreciate the thoughts of others, from whatever angle, from whatever faith - and never mind any drift in the thread towards other thoughts.......

Thank you
Derek
 
Hi Derek-per usual, i tend to agree with the point of view you express. It takes enormous faith to go through life with minimal beliefs, but it seems that the more open the heart-mind, the fewer beliefs we seem to have/need. Beliefs-i believe:) -can act as a sedative to prevent the difficult life experiences from doing their necessary work of prying open our being to greater Being. I like the quotation I found not long ago from the religion writer Karen Armstrong who had said religion isn't so much about what you believe as it is about being changed. i go through my own phases of struggle in that regard-particularly as re wanting "certain answers" vs. just letting go & truly trusting. Currently my small despair has pried open a bit more (literal blind) trust on my part & I hope it stays that way for awhile as it may allow a bit more productive opening & needed change in my approach to being. Best wishes all, Earl
 
Beliefs are our thoughts about reality with relation to our perception of that reality.



From a more religious and spiritual standpoint, however, beliefs are what define the way I relate to the divine, and how I think the divine relates to me.



I think the trouble arises when people allow their “beliefs” to become stagnant when their experience of life pushes them to redefine their relationship with the divine. Often it seems people will cling to their beliefs when their life experience shows their beliefs to have errors within their logic. I, personally, find that my beliefs must remain to some degree mutable, and by that I mean I must be willing to change them in the face of information or experience that would prove that those beliefs are in wrong. If I don’t except that I can be wrong, I’ll never be able to spiritually grow to greater understandings of the universe.
 
sword and silver said:
Beliefs are our thoughts about reality with relation to our perception of that reality.



From a more religious and spiritual standpoint, however, beliefs are what define the way I relate to the divine, and how I think the divine relates to me.



I think the trouble arises when people allow their “beliefs” to become stagnant when their experience of life pushes them to redefine their relationship with the divine. Often it seems people will cling to their beliefs when their life experience shows their beliefs to have errors within their logic. I, personally, find that my beliefs must remain to some degree mutable, and by that I mean I must be willing to change them in the face of information or experience that would prove that those beliefs are in wrong. If I don’t except that I can be wrong, I’ll never be able to spiritually grow to greater understandings of the universe.
Click to expand...

Hi sword of silver,

I agree wholeheartedly with your post.

Thanks
Kelcie:)
 
Fitting how when I seem to be going through something, there is some conversation here that will throw me back on track.

Welcome to CR, Sword and Silver. ;)

Thank you for opening the thread, Tariki. :D
 
sword and silver said:
Beliefs are our thoughts about reality with relation to our perception of that reality.



From a more religious and spiritual standpoint, however, beliefs are what define the way I relate to the divine, and how I think the divine relates to me.



I think the trouble arises when people allow their “beliefs” to become stagnant when their experience of life pushes them to redefine their relationship with the divine. Often it seems people will cling to their beliefs when their life experience shows their beliefs to have errors within their logic. I, personally, find that my beliefs must remain to some degree mutable, and by that I mean I must be willing to change them in the face of information or experience that would prove that those beliefs are in wrong. If I don’t except that I can be wrong, I’ll never be able to spiritually grow to greater understandings of the universe.
Click to expand...

i agree with this.

though i choose the bible & Jesus as my source of light & truth & have found it to be infallable for me, i do not adhere to all the doctrine & religion that has come out of it. when i see a person (religious leader) or hear a doctrine exalted as infalllable & absolute, especially one that has been used to force others to believe a certain doctrine through history, (as in war & murder because others believed different) that is going to be my last choice as a belief.
if i cannot admit there may be a flaw in a belief, wether it be mine or another, then i have choked the Word & my very own belief. i do believe logic & faith should work together, not against each other, though the logic may not be readily seen by all. this would of course include science to a degree. not the theories as a belief, but physical evidence beyond a doubt.

this would apply to the bible also, for what is there. as in, not adding or making up phrases that are not in there to satisfy someones dogma- including science & other theories.

elevated conclusions should draw closed like effects, thus leaving an open door to explore farther with a solid foundation behind us.
for me, i do not see where the bible itself has failed, yet this is where religion and doctrine fails. ESPECIALLY when the questions get too deep & they resort to phrases, & absolute, AND appointing someone who has the only right belief- even when it does not add up. IMO

so, the way i understand belief is quite different from ANY organized religion i have ever seen to date & refuse to follow & join any of them. as far as i can see, every religion with an extra written doctrine, on the market today eventually runs into the great wall of china which they cannot get around, and they themselves have built it!

...and people are fed up with it:)
 
truthseeker said:
Fitting how when I seem to be going through something, there is some conversation here that will throw me back on track.

Welcome to CR, Sword and Silver. ;)

Thank you for opening the thread, Tariki. :D
Click to expand...

a totally fitting conversation
 
Hi Derek -

How do others here understand "belief"?

I think a first recognition is that 'belief' assumes many things.

I would suggest people can only 'believe' in those things they 'understand,' even if they understand something to be a mystery.

As our understanding can be limited, partial or circumscribed, so too our beliefs. Many people 'believe' and 'understand' that smoking us bad for them, but they continue to smoke.

People are not finally judged for what they understand, nor, by the same token, for what they believe, but for what they do (ie they might profess a belief but do nothing about it). Thus if a man does 'good,' even though his beliefs might be minimal (there must be enough of something there to designate his action as 'good' which itself implies a moral dimension), he will be judged according to what he does - the parable of the 'good samaritan,' teaches this: in the eyes of God the man who stops to help his neighbour is justified, whereas the action of the priest who passes by is not ...

Similarly, if a man does 'good' for an immoral reason, ie helps another purely for financial reward, then the action is not good, because the motive is not good.

Does it deaden a living response to circumstances ... or help in understanding?

It depends upon what one believes, but I would say the latter. My faith helps me understand the world.

And what is the difference between belief and faith?

Philosophically 'faith' is a mode of belief. We can believe in things we know, and things we don't know. Hence there are those who have faith in science and therefore no requirement of God, etc. We can 'know' science, by its exemplary proofs, but the assumptioin that science can provide all the answers is an act of faith.

To me, "belief" seems more a "clinging to"............faith more a "letting go" (and perhaps, "letting God" - or Amida!)

But one can't have faith in Amida without believing in Him. The issue you raise is faith outstrips belief.

+++

A case in point. On many a Buddhist forum I have argued against the need to "believe" in rebirth ... even karma. (And often been told that in is necessary, even obligatory ... that the dharma cannot be understood without such things)

Your correspondants are correct. One cannot say, "I believe in Buddhism, but Buddha was wrong on these points..." Buddhism is the content of its dharma, and the dharma manifests itself in Buddhism. If one rejects one aspect of revelation, one rejects the revelation as such.

My own arguments have centered around the way belief as such acts as a sedative to true experience.

What we believe determines how we interpret experience.

Today, as I write, as I am sure you know, a child in Africa dies every three seconds. What prevents me from walking away from this keyboard and spending my every fibre of effort in trying to save them is the real 'sedative.' I suggest the sedative is not an aspect of belief, nor faith, but of the ego.

Culture is the sedative. Culture is the ego's representation of the world. We spend many times more dollars on cosmetics than we do on aid to our neighbour.

Other people believe that they are called to try and save the child, and they act accordingly. The doctor who identified the SARS virus knew ther risk of continuing to treat his patients. He placed himself and his patients in isolation. He contracted the virus and died. Hadly, I might suggest, a sedative - even though the man was a comitted Christian and defined himself in terms of his belief.

This is repugnent to me.

That the Divine should visit misfortune on a person for something another person did (and a previous incarnation is in all respects another person) is unthinkable to God also.

The Doctrine of Karma is the Law of Cause and Effect. Where some might find error in the doctrine is it its expression. I believe in Cause and Effect, I believe in Sin, but I do not believe that God arranges for a quarter of a million wrongdoers to be on the coast of the Indian Ocean so He can wipe them all out in one economic tsunami.

I do believe the world is a place governed by Cause and Effect, but also by Change and Contingency, it is a place where '**** happens' and for no other reason than according to the laws of chance, accidents must and (eventually) will happen. Someone will win the lottery, and their good fortune is in no way a measure of their virtue.

So karma visiting ill upon an individual is an over-simplification, it does not allow for all the laws at play. Christianity acknowledges this, and I think that doctrinally so does Buddhism (I stand to be corrected). I think the karma of which you speak is a populist misconception.

It's not a case of bad faith or bad belief, but lazy thinking regarding right faith and right belief. It's how we 'explain' this to ourselves that our thinking might be faulty, and in its fault it is 'sedative' in the aspect of its 'comfortability'.

Any 'belief' becomes an opiate when it becomes a means of avoidance.

In Christian terms this sedative is a lack of love.
In Buddhist terms its a lack of compassion.

The love of self supercedes thy neighbour, and the ego supplies all the sedative we need to justify it to ourselves.

The widespread rejection of religion is largely a mark of this process. That classic statement 'I am spiritual but not religious' (which translates as 'I am by nature a good person and therefore am not obliged to do anything about it') is likewise a testament to the modern world and sedative thinking.

Huston Smith called the world's sacred texts 'the winnowed wisdom of the human race' which I think is a wonderful statement. If we reject the teachings, we are rejecting wisdom...

And any man who thinks he can do it for himself, without the benefit of tradition is, as lawyers say, 'a man who has a fool for a client.'

Just some thoughts on the topic...

Thomas
 
Thanks to everyone for the response. I have been away for over a week - on holiday soaking up the Scottish "sunshine" !

Thanks again

Derek
 
To carry on the discussion........

The point has been made that "beliefs" are best when they are mutable...open to change........not set in stone. And someone has also said that "what we believe determines how we interpret experience". These two thoughts seem to react against each other, in the sense that the "interpreted experience" does not lie dormant but in fact returns to confirm and solidify the belief that gave rise to it. To my mind this would result in a form of dialectic.......belief..........giving rise to experience..........belief therefore "confirmed"........belief stronger...........the next experience far easier to recognise and identify with. "Mutability" can be lost in a sea of mutual confirmation!

Regarding the words of Thomas re the Buddhist "revelation".............."Revelation" seems a strange word to me and slightly incongruous in relation to the Dharma as I understand it. Buddhists speak more of "turnings of the wheel".........and not all Buddhists accept as legitimate every turning! For me the heart of the dharma is drawn from the words of the Buddha........."I teach this and this alone...........suffering and the ending of suffering" This state "beyond" suffering can be variously named..........."nirvana"....."enlightenment"........."true reality".......even "Buddha nature". The dharma views our delusional attachment to "self" as the main reason that we remain in a state of ignorance and therefore of suffering, and why we are unable to realise "true reality".

The Buddha's teachings, as I understand them, encourage "free enquiry" rather than allegiance to any belief as such..............

"Do not be satisfied with hearsay or with tradition or with legendary lore or with what has come down in scriptures or with conjecture or with logical inference or with with weighing evidence or with liking for a view after pondering over it or with someone else's ability or with the thought 'The monk is our teacher' But when you know in yourselves 'These things are wholesome, blameless, commended by the wise, and being adopted and put into affect they lead to welfare and happiness' then you should practice and abide in them."

And in Majjhima Nikaya sutta 2, the Buddha refers to "unwise attention" as relating to and thinking such thoughts as "Was I in the past?"....."What was I in the past?"........"Having been what, what did I become in the past?".........."Shall I be in the future?"............."What shall I be in the future?" etc etc. The Buddha than declares that all such thoughts lead to the very affirmation of the delusional self that lies at the heart of suffering, and therefore of enlightenment. In my experience "rebirth" - as explicit belief - encourages the very "attention" and thoughts that the Buddha declares to be unwise. This is my own experience, others are free to believe exactly as they wish according to their own.

Others have claimed - on other forums - that we need to contemplate the sufferings of infinite lifetimes in order to encourage pratice. Again, this is not my own way. Personally I would rather encourage a deep existential awareness of our own suffering now, in this lifetime..........awareness of how the sense of "self" and our allegiance to it infiltrates every moment and destroys its beauty and its "givenness/suchness". Do we realy need to imaging the oceans of tears we have shed for loved ones in infinite past lives.........the mountains of bones of our previous existences.........before our practice can deepen? Surely our own tears now are deep enough.........for loved ones we have known and remember. It just seems to me that there is some sort of failure here to live - and experience - our life NOW.

Anyway, whatever,just one or two quotes from the words of Krishnamurti regarding "belief".................not quoted for any other reason but for future discussion.....

"We don't need a belief in sunshine...............But we demand a belief when we want to escape from a fact into an unreality...."Belief is merely an escape from the fact of confusion.".............."Belief is corruption" (!)

Derek
 
Just to throw in another quote from Krishnamurt, taken from his book "The First and Last Freedom"......

"There is the Hindu belief, the Christian belief, the Buddhist - innumerable sectarian and national beliefs, various political ideologies, all contending with one another.............One can see........that belief is separating people, creating intolerance; is it possible to live without belief? One can find that out only if one can study oneself in relationship to a belief. Is it possible to live in this world without a belief - not change beliefs, not substitute one belief for another, but be entirely free from ALL beliefs, so that one meets life anew each minute? This, after all, is the truth: to have the capacity of meeting everything anew, from moment to moment, without the conditioning reaction of the past, so that there is not the cumulative effect which acts as a barrier between oneself and that WHICH IS"

..........to study oneself in relationship to a belief..........

Is it possible to live without belief? Would this be a goal worth pursuing? Or do beliefs define us in a positive way?

"Most of the time, we tend to think of boundaries as only negative - that which keeps us out or in. But boundaries are important for their positive function; they define us. By setting limits in a way that gives identity, telling us who we are and are not, they make it possible to fit, to belong, and so to feel - and be - good. Without boundaries we would not exist, any more than we can be present in any place other than in the skin that is in a way our 'home' " (From "The Spirituality of Imperfection")

Thanks

Derek
 
Is it possible to live without belief?

No, I don't think so. The world as we perceive it shapes our beliefs, and our beliefs shape the world that we perceive. When you turn on a tap, what happens? When you flick a switch? These are things people 'believe' in - but in a passive sense, it requires nothing of them.

I think it was Aristotle who said 'a life unexamined is worth nothing' - or words to that effect.

On the negative side, yes it is. Look at the western world. It seeks purely for its own creature comfort - that's a world without belief. I think the idea of the West being Christian is a nonsense - the West is a place with a lot of Christians in it, but there is not one nation that can honestly say it lives according to the Christian ideal.

Would this be a goal worth pursuing?

Absolutely.

Or do beliefs define us in a positive way?

They can do. Look at 'medicins sans frontiers,' look at the saints and sages. They define the positive aspects, whereas the majority of humanity is neutral, or unconsciously negative.

I do believe philosophy often flies in the face of common sense when it talks of 'freedom from belief' etc. The unrepentant serial rapist is untroubled by any belief that he might be doing wrong - his own gratification is paramount. The career criminal never gives a moments' thought for the suffering he causes in the pursuit of his own comforts.

Philosophy sometimes (it seems to me) discusses such issues against the backdrop of some imaginary perfect world - as if philosophical notions are free of any taint of reality. In their eyes 'freedom from belief' allows some paradigmatic release, whereas the cold reality is anarchy and chaos.
 
Please forgive me if I repeat someone I just dont have time to read all. Anyways


The bible states (if yah dont mind):
Belief:
James 2:19-20
19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe--and tremble!
NKJV
Faith:
Heb 11:1
11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
NKJV


Honestly Belief is the 1st step to Faith. Its like Love is the 1st step to Charity. You can simply believe their is a God, and leave it at that. Or you can have faith in this God to teach you all things and provide for you. Or lets look at love, you can love a begger and show compasion by giving him money, but to have Charity you will take him in, and help him to start a new life.



Faith
NT:4102
pistis (pis'-tis); from NT:3982; persuasion, i.e. credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly, constancy in such profession; by extension, the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself:

KJV - assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.


Belief
NT:4100
pisteuo (pist-yoo'-o); from NT:4102; to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), i.e. credit; by implication, to entrust (especially one's spiritual well-being to Christ):

KJV - believe (-r), commit (to trust), put in trust with.

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

Again even looking at webster Faith is just a stronger form of belief.
 
I was wrestling with this issue once upon a time. I had a dream and in it a voice said to me "Beliefs are monsters all their own." This clarified the point I was looking for. A belief is sort of a necessary evil because in the physical world there are many things we cannot know. While we hold a belief, it is important to understand we do so at a cost. Each belief consumes and absorbs other mental material, it requires space, and produces waste. It is like keeping a pet. The more significant a belief, the greater the resources it needs to stay alive. For example, I am a staunch Theist. As a result, that belief roams freely in my mind and destroys what it may to keep itself alive. I'm quite unwilling to see it expire.

In simple terms, if you put a very new, fledgling idea in the same room with a very strongly held belief, who do you think will survive a conflict between them? Such is the nature behind the responses you get from others with your new ideas.

It is believed by many (and I am one) that a person should hold very few strong beliefs and keep everything else loose & adapative. A rigid mind full of Tasmanian Devils isn't likely to learn new things very easily. On the other hand, there is a reason people give a lot of care and attention to strong beliefs, and it might be useful for you to understand fully before thinking them unworthy of the effort.
 
MattWolf said:
I was wrestling with this issue once upon a time. I had a dream and in it a voice said to me "Beliefs are monsters all their own." This clarified the point I was looking for. A belief is sort of a necessary evil because in the physical world there are many things we cannot know. While we hold a belief, it is important to understand we do so at a cost. Each belief consumes and absorbs other mental material, it requires space, and produces waste. It is like keeping a pet. The more significant a belief, the greater the resources it needs to stay alive. For example, I am a staunch Theist. As a result, that belief roams freely in my mind and destroys what it may to keep itself alive. I'm quite unwilling to see it expire.

In simple terms, if you put a very new, fledgling idea in the same room with a very strongly held belief, who do you think will survive a conflict between them? Such is the nature behind the responses you get from others with your new ideas.

It is believed by many (and I am one) that a person should hold very few strong beliefs and keep everything else loose & adapative. A rigid mind full of Tasmanian Devils isn't likely to learn new things very easily. On the other hand, there is a reason people give a lot of care and attention to strong beliefs, and it might be useful for you to understand fully before thinking them unworthy of the effort.
Click to expand...



Well, I must say, I rarely see this level of self-awareness, thank you for a refreshing reply!

Peace

Mark
 
This Sunday's reading (RC Mass) was topical to this discussion:

"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." (Romans 12"2)

'Being conformed to this world' is a life without belief, the mind (and the self) assumes the shape in which it finds itself, without question, as water assumes the shape of the recaptacle in which it is contained. This is the person of no belief, or one who is open to everything, and thus prey to whatever novelty comes along. A Magpie.

'but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind,' means not simply believing in something, but aligning one's being according to what one believes. This requires a degree of discrimination, and thus self-determination. An eagle.

Should we then distinguish between 'belief' and 'will'?

Many people believe that smoking is injurious to health, yet continue to smoke, not because they don't believe they are harming themselves, but they lack the willpower to stop. They kid themselves into believing that it won't happen to them, because actually they 'enjoy' smoking more than the 'enjoy' the discomfort of giving it up.

Lukewarm beliefs will only ever produce lukewarm results, so the question is no what or whether one believes, but what or whether one does anything about what one believes. As Christ said, "these people honour me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me."

Thomas
 
Very insightful Thomas. I think there is a big difference between belief and will. Schopenhauer believed that will was all there was,and that it was the only force worth considering. Others including the late Ernest Holmes taught that will could only be a directing force, and further that it was the power of God acting through a law of mind that brought about changes. This coincides with what you say about smoking. Will power alone never really brought about changes that are needed to overcome an addiction. Those of us who have used the twelve steps to deal with severe addiction to drugs, alchohol and even smoking know that willpower never worked for us, but it did point us in the right direction. What the Christians call "Grace" did. Dr. Gerald May author of Addiction and Grace showed how this works using a scientific model.


As to belief? Joseph Campbel in Hero with a Thousand Faces says that "the condition of those who have neither an inner call nor an outer doctrine is truly desperate"

Now, what does this mean? I believe that those who have neither belief in the form of an inner call to search for their truth or a religion of sorts to practice fall prey to existential angst. While this may come in the form of a Dark Night of soul as St. John taught, a prolonged despair can only lead to destructive thought, and behavior.

Peace

Mark
 
Thank you to everyone for their contribution to this topic.

There does seem to me to be a difference between a faith/trust/belief that ultimate reality - however conceived - is in some sense "compassionate/loving".................and those other beliefs that become more specific.......(for instance, that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us full of grace and truth"..............or that "Christ/Jesus will come again in the clouds to gather the elect to himself"...........

It does seem to me that trust in the compassionate nature of ultimate reality is all that is strictly necessary for the mind/heart to open.........and remain open to experience, wherever it may lead. Beyond this, belief can divide and bring conflict between people.............create unnecessary complications.

Maybe I need some work myself on uncovering the exact difference between "belief" - as such - and "opinion". An ancient Buddhist master has said..........."if you wish to know the truth, only cease to cherish opinions" This indicates that conditioning as "opinion" can cloud our experience of reality - distort reality according to the dictates of our "self".....an untransformed self, seeking only confirmation to remain secure and untroubled.

Someone has mentioned St John of the Cross, and the dark night of the soul............One of my own favorite quotes from St John of the Cross is "If you wish to be sure of the road you tread on, then close your eyes and walk in the dark". It does seem to me that there are various ways that "belief" can hinder the stripping of the self that certain paths of spirituality call for. The self strives to keep control and determine its own destiny........hindering the true call of grace. ( It just popped into my head, the words of that ancient "mystic" Mick Jagger........"You don't always get what you want, but sometimes you get what you need". There is great truth in these words!)

And Eckhart............"Nothing that knowledge can grasp or desire can want is God. Where knowledge and desire end, there is darkness. And there God shines"

In terms of transformation, I remain ambivalent towards "beliefs"........once again, this is my own experience.

Thanks again

Derek
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top