Is faith an illusion of the mind?

[steve]

The tree is a tree and that's just the way trees always have been, are now, and always will be (as long as humans don't kill them all).

 

If that's not a statement of faith, I don't know what is.

[Marblehead]

If that's not a statement of faith, I don't know what is.

Hehehe.  You just won't give up, will you?

 

Oaky, I have faith that my facts have been verified to be true.

.

[the1gza]

The problem is that people have too much faith in their perceptions as reality. For example, what we call science is actually just a human form of orienting to the world according to our perceptions. Granted, I would agree that it addresses more general human perceptions than certain religious paradigms, but overall this is based still on perception. Because perception is relative, the idea of gaining absolute knowledge through it... that's just ridiculous. Again, we are dealing with perceptual bandwidths that are extremely narrow... eyesight has spectral range from 390 - 700 nm. How, how can we call what we perceive to be a greater "fact" than what someone else claims to be a "fact"?

Science, or general material science, is a religious paradigm, whether folks like it or not. The "gods" are microscopes, measurement, and the scientific method of assessing data. Like religions, people are extremely fastened to their beliefs when they discover something, and it can take Herculean efforts to change certain perspectives. Even though we didn't even need lab-coat science to tell us that carbon-based fuel might be unhealthy, it took nearly a century after the stuff was implemented before people could agree that it was bad. Despite the fact that coal miners have had historically small lifespans, and coal shovelers (what I call people who used to shovel coal into coal-powered vehicles) would drop like flies before even reaching their 20s, nobody thought it was a problem until the Almighty Whitecoat told them it was bad. Doesn't that sound like religion to you, where people completely ignore their own ability to discern things because some figure of power does not tell them?

 

People have been dying from alcohol and cigarettes for years, and even with no laboratory equipment, you can tell a cigarette is bad for you just by the reaction your body has when you smoke. The first drag of a cigarette is almost always accompanied by some of the worst hacking coughs of your life, and continued smoking can produce all sorts of multicolored mucus being coughed up. Your first drink of liquor, as well as several others afterward, are accompanied by the most colorful wrenched faces you can make, and the physiological signs are obviously unhealthy both in immediate inebriation, and prolonged aftereffects. Yet, folks didn't start thinking this was bad for you until "science" said it was... c'mon now.

 

So when we are talking about religion, I feel people underestimate just how religious we are in things we do. Religion isn't a religion because it isn't real, religion is religion because it follows a way of dogmatic perceptual dependence that rarely ever is challenged without extreme resistance from "the flock". In many ways, religion reflects our animalistic natures; the need to follow a mode of living that exists without our input in it. However, science acts in the same fashion, and has just as many holes to it as any religion does. The difference with science is that it relies on perception that everyone thinks is real. However, we can't even say that these perceptions are consistent between everyone, let alone the billions of other species on the planet. How can we call something empirical fact when we haven't even entered perception outside of the normal human ranges? If we viewed things with the vision of a hawk, shit would be far different, the information in our books, and even our mode of operation, wouldn't even resemble what we do now. Now there's not problem with relying on a certain mode of perception to move about the world, that's completely fine. But when that perception is highlighted as the superior, or even absolute mode of discerning reality... that's not just silly, that's plain foolish.

 

This is why I say that it's all faith-based, there isn't anything we can honestly say is more factual than something else. Just because we have a general mode of perception that believes something is real does not mean that it is more real than another perception. Again, if we could perceive the world from the eyes, ears, mouth, nose, or skin of another species, then this would be an entirely different story. But this is only reality according to humans, not reality according to everything. And that's perfectly fine, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that whatsoever. But if we are trying to find what we call empirical truths (which may be a useless idea in the first place), we can't honestly point to something like "science" as the answer without being biased zealots like any anything religious fanatic we might criticize. We all got faith in something that is "wrong" or "untrue" in another perceptual frame. We just have "faith" in the truths we find, and those who can keep that faith unshaken, or can learn to evolve so that they can find something that is the "truth" for them... those are the ones that get the good stuff out of life. Folks trying to find empirical truth that "everyone" needs to follow... that's a pretty good recipe for continuous debate-banter.

[steve]

Hehehe.  You just won't give up, will you?

You made me an offer I couldn't resist...

 

 

Oaky, I have faith that my facts have been verified to be true.

.

Me too

[Marblehead]

You made me an offer I couldn't resist...

I guess I will have to be more careful in the future.

 

I said:  Oaky, I have faith that my facts have been verified to be true.

 

 

You said:  Me too

And therefore I would ask:  What need is there of faith when we have the truth first hand?

[steve]

I guess I will have to be more careful in the future.

I'd rather you be open and honest than careful, like you usually are.

 

 

And therefore I would ask:  What need is there of faith when we have the truth first hand?

This takes us to the comments made by "the1gza."

 

It is my opinion that believing that "we have the truth first hand" is a type of faith.

In fact, the presumption that we "have the truth" is generally a mistake, IMO.

Our brain creates an image which it then interprets, then reifies that image and equates it with reality. 

Your experience of the tree is quite different from that of other people and other lifeforms - it is not truth, just perception.

[Marblehead]

I'd rather you be open and honest than careful, like you usually are.

I am always honest.  But one must understand that my bullshit sounds just as honest as my truths do.

 

Sometimes I don't prefix my BS with "Hehehe".

 

 

It is my opinion that believing that "we have the truth first hand" is a type of faith.

Yep.  That my well be your opinion.  But it is not mine.

In fact, the presumption that we "have the truth" is generally a mistake, IMO.

I have made mistakes before.  No fear here.

 

Our brain creates an image which it then interprets, then reifies that image and equates it with reality. 

Your experience of the tree is quite different from that of other people and other lifeforms - it is not truth, just perception.

While this is true, I suggest that what is reified in our brain is the only thing of importance.  We operate at the level of the brain.  It cannot be otherwise.  So the next time I go out to my ponds and see my fish flying in the air all I will be able to say is, "Seems my fish have learned to breathe air and fly."

 

Anyhow, just be.  No faith required.

[the1gza]

I guess the thing is what is even the definition of faith here? Even "faith" is going to mean something different... there's a huge stigma of faith being an ideal strictly relegated to religious thought based on things we cannot readily see. For me, faith is not relegated to that, so I feel there's going to be issues with communication because the definitions and associations to terms can vary greatly.

[Marblehead]

I guess the thing is what is even the definition of faith here? Even "faith" is going to mean something different... there's a huge stigma of faith being an ideal strictly relegated to religious thought based on things we cannot readily see. For me, faith is not relegated to that, so I feel there's going to be issues with communication because the definitions and associations to terms can vary greatly.

I think that this can be said to be a given.  Six pages and there still is no agreement to definition.

[Stosh]

What else is new?

[Marblehead]

What else is new?

Nothing much.  Same ole shit, just a different pile.

[the1gza]

That's why I prefer conversations where people talk about what they do, and what they learned from that. This way, it's direct experience learning that gives a more organic element that just trying to reason theories about things that probably span beyond our language to express. I mean, folks are gonna do what they are gonna do, I just find that work-based knowledge is far more useful to people than mulling over matters that are based largely on conceptualization. That's just me though 

[Marblehead]

 That's just me though 

Me too.  Sure, I talk a lot about theory.  It's neat to speculate.  But when it comes down to my physical life I rely on my experiences almost totally.  What others say is possible doesn't get considered often.

 

Unsupported faith will break your heart and your pocketbook.  There are lots of people out there who will take advantage of others in a heartbeat and think they are doing the right thing.

[the1gza]

I would say I got a lot of faith, and yet I don't get had by many gimmicks out there. Primarily, I tend to be very cerebral, which honestly can be a downside when it comes to putting one's foot down into a practice. However, it did lead me, eventually, to the right type of practice for me, because I stayed faithful to what I felt. Even though millions of people claimed otherwise, and thousands of years of history regurgitated, I felt keen that what I felt was real. By accident, or by necessity rather, I stumbled into picking up my practice (currently working with Stephen Chang's revitalization works) as a last -ditch effort. Turn's out it was vastly more powerful for me than any Yoga I was doing, which fascinated me despite it's doctrines being so out of context for me it was too ridiculous to laugh at (even though I laugh at it all the time). So the faith was very worthwhile, even though I had no consistent basis for it other than what I felt.

 

It's my experience that people often lack discernment. Due to that, what they have faith in generally has little power for them, because it can often lacks not only experience, but discernment. Many "science" people, for instance, claim to believe in "science", and yet have never practically conducted a laboratory experiment a day in their lives. But because outing off several scientific theories can be considered "smart" in society, they trick themselves into thinking they have done better justice to scientific exploration than the religious types in churches. They don't even possess the discernment to realize that science is a mode of active exploration, not regurgitation of someone's discoveries as their guiding light in life. That's religion, even if it can be perceived by the status quo individual.

 

The same can be said for the church/mosque/synagogue/temple/"insert-holy-building-here" enthusiast. Despite many religious teachings saying that the connection with God has to be tangible and a way of life, most folks only follow the most bare minimum ideas of a religion, if even that well. For example, I was raised in a Hebrew home, and it wasn't until I was 20 that I realized, "Hold on, where in the fuck does it say that I got to read these set of prayers in the Torah?" The Torah is honestly extremely relaxed when it comes to worship, and most of the time you are supposed to be partying on holidays. Yet, Talmud, which is nothing but a Torah commentary, gives all these ridiculously rigid guidelines that have nothing to essentially do with the Torah.

 

Yet, Jewish culture, at least European-style Jewish culture, does nothing but worship Talmud like it is "Torah - 2.0". When I pointed this out to my family, which took me about 3 years to build up the courage for (being raised in a profusely religious family is one thing, but being raised in a profusely religious family that is also militantly Afro-centric... yeeaa), it was a 2-month battle which led me to leaving the religion entirely. I couldn't get with something where people would say that they followed one thing, and yet prioritized something that literally had nothing to do with the thing they followed. I can't even say they have faith in the religion, because they are prioritizing things that are labeled meaningless my that religion. The lack of discernment in the pseudo-spiritualist, like the pseudo-scientist, was the key factor.

 

I'm obviously not a master of discernment, after all, it took me years to get out of my Yoga obsession to accept something that fit me a lot more suitably. However, I have enough to know that it is a deciding factor in whether or not your faith really produces something that is truthfully worthwhile. Whether or not it is supported... you will never get the support that is important to you until you try it. Like you said, what others say is possible means little to you, even if it is something that can supposedly be viewed by the naked eye. I haven't viewed an atomic structure with my own eye, and most of the people I "learned" the theory from haven't either. So until then, I will use that idea because it makes conceptual sense, but it is not something I will rule myself by. Many people tell me that life is hard, and that good things come from hard work. Yet, the only time I ever produced anything of value was when my work was fun and seemed to complete itself through my hands. It was truthfully easy, yet all my attempts with hard work have ended in explosive, traumatic failure. So no matter how important that ideal is to others, that shit is useless to me.

 

Even the Stephen Chang, which is more than challenging enough, is still easy for me despite the fact that it is challenging, despite the fact that I got some work ahead of me before I master anything in that book. Yet, I easily find myself wanting to do ore of it, whereas I couldn't wait for my Yogic sadhana to be over.My health, energy control, and energy awareness experienced more strides in 3 days of less than 30 minutes of work per day than I did spending 5 hours/day with Yoga. I still think Yoga is great, it's just not something that I would recommend to anyone who doesn't feel a strong pull towards it. And for me, it just wasn't worthwhile at this time of life at all, because its priorities were 100% against the priorities I had experienced working for ME well.

 

It appears reality is really in the eyes of the perceiver... at least me in my experience.

[Marblehead]

 

It appears reality is really in the eyes of the perceiver... at least me in my experience.

Nice speech.  Hehehe.  Yeah, I hear you and know what you are saying.  Not the same conditions but the concepts are very similar.

 

I'm sure it was difficult for you to break from the Jewish religious traditions.  Maybe a little disappointing for your family too.  But we need be who we are or we will never have inner peace.

 

And as I mentioned before, I understand that faith is an important aspect in the life on many people.  It's just that my life hasn't needed faith.  It did need determination and the willingness to do the work though.  I have no regrets in that regard.

 

Good that you found a practice that you feel is good for you.

 

And true that the faith of many "religious" people is misplaced.  That's one of the reasons why they are never contented with their physical life and are looking forward to the imagined life they will have after death.

 

But still, I continue to suggest that faith is an illusion if one is not willing to do the work.

 

Oh, I also agree with you regarding the educated who know much but can't do a freakin' thing well because all they have done is learn what others have said and they have never lived their own life.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

Studies, research, and schollarly pursuits are all taken on faith.

Experimentation, experience, and exposure are knowledge.



This is the sum total of everything regarding faith as an illusion of th mind, which it is.  but that is not to say you might have accurate or even perfectly correct delusions illusions: It simply means that you don't KNOW what you have taken on faith until you have EXPERIENCED IT FIRST HAND.

Edited March 6, 2015 by Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan

[the1gza]

Studies, research, and schollarly pursuits are all taken on faith.

 

Experimentation, experience, and exposure are knowledge.

 

 

 

This is the sum total of everything regarding faith as an illusion of th mind, which it is.  but that is not to say you might have accurate or even perfectly correct delusions illusions: It simply means that you don't KNOW what you have taken on faith until you have EXPERIENCED IT FIRST HAND.

Yup. pretty much what I'm sayin'. Until you work it, you are going off faith, which is completely fine. Hell, I don't know how you can't have faith and be someone who tries something new. We all take some ideas into us that we don't work directly, at least not immediately. In my opinion, that's faith, at least until you work it. Even if you doubt it (and many "faithers" have far more doubt than they admit), if you can accept it as possible enough for you to explore, there is a faith element that says, "Yea, this can work!" If there wasn't any faith, I don't feel you could believe something was real, or not real. Even with it having preceding people who work that theory or interest... until you do it, that belief is grounded in something that is rather faith, or contains very similar elements. I just feel that too many people claiming faith have relegated it to something in the "unseen" realms, so we aren't aware how prevalent and normal it is to have faith. Most of us believe we will wake up tomorrow alive, and that's certainly not a guarantee by a longshot (at least for most of us, there are some who can "guarantee" that).

[Marblehead]

 Most of us believe we will wake up tomorrow alive,

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to wake up dead.

[Stosh]

I think I would've liked to be Jewish. I like the slang , the food , the community. 

I probably would've cherry picked at the faith part though. 

 

Hmmm

Dao bums really could use an official glossary. 

[the1gza]

Well the thing with Jews is something I already stated: their true faith is in concepts of what the Torah is rather than just simply living by those precepts in your own way. Like I said, the worship of Jews is based on rabbinical interpretations of what the right type of practice is: how to pray, how to celebrate holidays, etc.,. Much of this has nothing to do with the Torah at best, and in many ways is terribly counterintuitive. I mean, go to a synagogue service, and there seems to be anything BUT celebration in the air. Funny thing is, in Torah, only priests really handled temple work because they were trained in various methods of prayer that put them in tangible contact with "God". The regular person, however, would do better to be playing music, eating food, and perhaps get butt-in-the-air drunk. 

 

I can say this happens just as much with science, in a sense that people claim to have "proven" things because of their investigations. Yet, the notion of proof would mean the a phenomena would flourish in the same way every single time regardless of a perceptual framework. Yet, we know that this is impossible because the only species conducting such experiments are humans, who have their own fixed perceptual ranges that are unique to not only humans, but certain types of humans. So what is observed by a human scientist may have no bearing whatsoever on a cat, dog, insect, plant... none of these perceptions are taken into account when investigating scientific inquiries. So all that is proven is that a certain situation is perceived to happen in a certain way based on a particular perceptual range. That's not proof of any holistic happening, a happening that is the same for everything regardless of perceptual range.

 

We can see it in everything that people do, including spiritual work. Taoism and Yogic thought talk about a similar, if not same "Inifinity force" that permeates everything yet is beyond all boundaries and definitions. Yet, Taoist cultivation theory is abound with "natural laws" that must be adhered to in order to get to a Tao state of being. Likewise, the same can be said with Yoga; all sorts of techniques and avenues must be taken, and in fact several forms of denial are taken for the sake of "purity", which is the "true nature" of Samadhi. So Brahman is everything, and yet things are impure and therefore not conducive for it... what? The Tao is beyond definition, and yet it can only be reached by definitive adherence to definitive laws... c'mon now.

 

I feel that perhaps the problem with faith is that people don't have faith in what they say they believe in. Surely an approach to unlimited existence should have an unlimited number of approaches to it, and yet these sciences toward the unlimited follow strict, defined ideals and practices that are in no way more "unlimited" than taking farts. Are they ineffective? No, not by a longshot, but the superior exclamations are things that are still based off of what a few humans experienced. Likewise, despite the claims for superiority, those who have practiced often fail to get to the goals they want to achieve anymore than those who take vastly different routes. So for it's claimed superior nature, it's not very much superior to anything. 

 

Science, in my opinion, is vastly more stagnant than it could because one's got to fight "The Clergy of the Whitecoat Proofs" just to establish something new as being scientifically valid. Like I mentioned with cigarettes, no rocket science was needed to demonstrate just how harmful these things were, and yet it took 30 years of hard research for it to be accepted by the human populace scientifically. Moreover, if something has not been discovered yet, it goes through brick walls of criticism based not on discovery, but based on adherence to previous perceptions. So folks can't accept a way of healing someone that isn't established as "real" by the medical community, even though that medical community was founded on learning to see things that were previously unseen. 

 

I won't hide that I fail to see that humans have achieved much of anything impressive on the general level. I feel that is mostly because people lose faith in their unknown goals for a predisposition to having faith in only what they can perceive right now. I feel that is the basis of stagnation, and that a belief in something new, that hasn't been perceived yet, is what allows humans to actually do what the things that allow them to reach their potential. Whether it be learning to cultivate energy, or learning to train your muscles to become stronger, you gotta have some belief that you can experience something that you haven't experienced yet. That, to me, is faith plain and simple. It is an "illusion" of the mind, but it's an illusion that is as real as every other "illusion" we perceive here.

[the1gza]

And my sermons are officially done... praise Jesus (hey, I'm not Hebrew anymore).

[Marblehead]

And my sermons are officially done... praise Jesus (hey, I'm not Hebrew anymore).

Hehehe.

 

All praise to Zoroaster!

 

But do keep your faith if that is the only thing you have to hold on to.

 

And then, most of us feel we need a better life.  Having faith that it is possilbe keeps a lot of people going even after their battery is dead.

[Stosh]

And my sermons are officially done... praise Jesus (hey, I'm not Hebrew anymore).

All hail the vented sermon :-)

And as the song goes

Where do we go from here ?

[Marblehead]

 Where do we go from here ?

There's a good chance someone will want to add an opinion.

[3bob]

mind taken as real in itself or as master within itself is the grandest and greatest illusion... but mind taken as a tool for Spirit to deal with form or categories is real...

 

further, true faith and hope spring from the reality of Spirit, while illusion springs from mind when taking itself as master or in trying to enslave Spirit to its mental manipulations and veils. Lasting and quintessential Freedom will never be found in mind, thus only in Spirit.

Edited March 8, 2015 by 3bob