Some thoughts on 'BE-lief'

[Kismet]

Since my last post didn't go down too well I thought I might give another shot.

This time I'm interested in the idea of: why does belief matter? Psychologically speaking, why are people prone to believe all sorts of things (miracles, gods, etc), and moreover hold onto these beliefs tenaciously, as if they were more precious than life itself?

It has occurred to me that it isn't just fanatical Abrahamics who do this. Really, we all do, to some extent at least. But what is the underpinning? Why do these things matter so much? Does it by any chance have to do with the nature of the Self?

I want to suggest that to BE-lieve is to BE. Again, Descartes said it best: "I think, therefore I am." Now, this isn't to say we are thought-based entities at the end of the day. Vedanta says we transcend the mind in actual fact, so this can't be accurate. Still, what it is an accurate description of is how we identify in average life: by what we think, and beliefs are perhaps the most expansive, most intricate and most sustaining elements in the mental landscape.

Still though, beliefs are at least one step away divorced from actual fact, from actual reality... They are an image of reality, not reality itself. My belief in my father's love is not my father's love itself... Just as my belief that water will quench my thirst is not the water itself pouring down my gullet... So what gives? Why martyr yourself, or be so insanely attached to your belief, such that you become suicidal without it?

I venture to say that: beliefs, whether they be religious or otherwise, are simply an outgrowth of the ego. The Self is in love with itself, but, channeled as it were through the ignorant human mind, it latches onto an inaccurate image of itself, and, seeing itself as finite, instead projects itself onto a belief system which is purportedly more expansive, less liable to change than the shifting human body.... Something definite. Something ideal. Something certain - a certainty which mirrors the certainty of I AM.

Science isn't good enough. Not only because it is shifting and can't capture the finality of the Self, (as dogma can) but because it is based itself on something finite and limited (the material world). The Self, being the Self, cannot help but soar over and above even science, though don't get me wrong science can be certainly deep and profound - but it isn't transcendent like religion.

So, what we are really looking at in religion is the ego, or an interpretation of the ego. This interpretation comes closest to defusing it because, we see more closely than ever how we strive with reality. We erect, I won't say fantasy, but an exaggeration of external fact. All in an effort to preserve ourselves, to find the real invulnerability, which inside each of us as the Self.... And paradoxically, religion only creates another stumbling block to the ego: it's clothes are more fantastic, more illustrious than the humble rags of the materialist - all in an effort to point in the direction of truth. Unfortunately, we need to look beyond the clothes, - at Reality pure and simple....

So, I hope this impromptu write was in any case somewhat illuminating. I'm glad I unpacked it.

[wundermonk]

Hi K:

Unfortunately, we need to look beyond the clothes, - at Reality pure and simple....

IMO, the point of contention and the very reason why people cling so tightly onto belief is that Reality tends to be perceived (assuming it can be perceived) subjectively. The question then is, are all subjective/conceptual interpretations of Reality true of Reality-in-itself? If they are not, how can one separate the wrong interpretations of Reality from the true perceptions of Reality, Reality-in-itself?

Does Reality-in-itself exist? If it cannot be analytically proven to exist, does that mean it does not exist? How is universal skepticism useful?

[Twilightdance]

This time I'm interested in the idea of: why does belief matter?

I think it matters because it is part of our brain circuitry, it is part of being human. It may have evolutionary survival benefits of some form like most other things we love or despise.

Is it possible to be without belief, to experience reality without subjective coloring and inherent conceptualization, like the Buddha had promised?

I would certainly like to believe so .

But before going too deep into the nature of reality and whether it can be experienced without subjectivity - one should have the basic capability to drop beliefs which are obviously proven wrong or highly improbable or morally ambiguous etc etc. Religious folks including Hindus seem to have great difficulty to get out of the stranglehold of such beliefs.

Now coming back to the original proposition. Does belief help (even if sometimes plainly wrong)? I think yes. I think there have also been scientific studies which show how religious prayers can lead to less stress (although how religious beliefs and prayers can also lead to suicide bombings is apparently more obvious to me). It might be a matter of balance. 2 weeks back I was spending much time looking at video's of orthodox priests, of the greek orthodox church, who sometimes spend all their life in seclusion practicing 24*7 the "Jeebus, please have mercy on me" prayer. Can the Jeebus ghost really save them - very unlikely. But does this prayer having a strong effect on their mind to the extent that they are more at peace, radiate some qualities which some may characterize as divine or even display some psychic potentialities - probably yes. I would be very interested to understand how belief and associated practices helps and harms inner state of human beings as Neuroscience investigates this area more.

[silence_speaks]

Mind is conditioned and thats how it can be.
Mind is bound to remain conditioned. There is nothing that can be done about this. Because thats its nature. Just as we do not complain: i ate food yesterday and again I feel hungry now !! we do not complain as thats how its supposed to be. Thats the way of the stomach ... to digest.

same way, we do not complain... i left a stone in air and it fell down. What else can we expect ? Similarly, mind is conditioned and "limited" ... thats expected and nothing can be done abt it.

So now, what we require is to just see "myself" as none of the "conditionings" Thats all. And this also has to be seen at the level of the mind alone. Coz mind is our only instrument to "See".


We cannot "See" unconditionally at all. Because, mind is "conditioned" and there is really no way to "remove" this conditioning which is encoded into the neural system.

[silence_speaks]

So Belief basically does not matter at all. I believe there is a heaven, someone else believes there is no heaven ... thats all fine. Because neither I nor the other person have an advantage.

But when it comes to "me" ... and who am i ? Am I a belief ? Please see this ? I have to precede any belief, because only after "I AM" can there be a belief.

So Mind and mental conditioning is what it is. And we are using our reasoning in coming to this conclusion also. That too is a limited faculty, based on "what we see" and always what I see is conditioned and limited. And that is the only available faculty we have !!


However when we talk about "Self" , the question is, how do we know "I AM". If " I AM " a part of the mind, then I remain conditioned and limited as well. If "I AM" that which "Shines" the mind, then I remain unconditioned and the conditionings of the mind are not to be superimposed on the Self. That the mental conditionings are getting superimposed on the Self is the sole problem.

[philosoraptor]

Pranams. There seem to be two issues here, one being Descartes principle of irreducible consciousness and the second being the nature of faith.

Regarding the first, it is my recollection that Descartes was merely trying to say that one's existence/reality must be accepted as a given, since if one doubts this, then nothing else can be proven and all inquiry into the nature of reality becomes pointless.

The second points bears much closer scrutiny. It is true that human beings, due to faith, often erect ideological principles as a way for rationalizing certain behaviors. Those principles often reflect the biases or limitations of the people formulating them. In other words, they are not genuine attempts to record and linguistically/mathematically explain certain facets of reality (as for example, Newton's three laws of motion), but rather are unfounded assertions of what constitutes reality which we must accept or reject on faith. Such acceptance does not serve any of us well. In other words, it cannot be the case that because we have "faith" in something, that it therefore must be true. One can have faith in something that is wrong.

For us as Hindus following Vedaanta, we are supposed to put aside personal beliefs and accept explanations about reality from a source that does not have the limitations of human authorship. In other words, such a source must be unauthored (apaurusheya). Veda is traditionally understood to be apaurusheya. This is the only point that we all accept as a given. One could argue that this is accepted based on faith, and is thus as questionable as any other article of faith. However, in the traditionalists' defense, the Veda was known to be apaurusheya for a long time in multiple different traditions. One could argue that it is not apaurusheyatva that has to be proven, but rather authorship which must be proven.

If we accept what is apaurusheya as authoritative, we get around the limitations of constructing religious ideologies under the influence of our individual egos. But then, a second problem arises. So many Vedaantists interpret the apaurusheya Veda in different but contradictory ways, and they can't all be correct in their understanding on every, different, irreconcilable point. Then, the task for the saadhaka is to sift through those interpretations that are unfounded, inconsistent, or require assumptions too numerous to count, in favor of interpretations that are consistent and require fewer interpretations. There is no getting around interpreting the Veda. But one has to interpret with the intent of getting at its actual message. An interpretation that superimposes one's own understanding is not really the kind of interpretation for. We want the one that most likely resembles the Veda's original message. No one ever said life would be easy. :-)

[devotee]

Namaste Kismet,

I was thinking over your "Belief". Let's see this way :

Belief = Be + Lief ==> Be + Life messed up (Lief is nothing but "life" not in order)

So, if "Be" is there even a messed up life gets its meaning !

OM

[mradam83]

Since my last post didn't go down too well I thought I might give another shot.

This time I'm interested in the idea of: why does belief matter? Psychologically speaking, why are people prone to believe all sorts of things (miracles, gods, etc), and moreover hold onto these beliefs tenaciously, as if they were more precious than life itself?

It has occurred to me that it isn't just fanatical Abrahamics who do this. Really, we all do, to some extent at least. But what is the underpinning? Why do these things matter so much? Does it by any chance have to do with the nature of the Self?

I want to suggest that to BE-lieve is to BE. Again, Descartes said it best: "I think, therefore I am." Now, this isn't to say we are thought-based entities at the end of the day. Vedanta says we transcend the mind in actual fact, so this can't be accurate. Still, what it is an accurate description of is how we identify in average life: by what we think, and beliefs are perhaps the most expansive, most intricate and most sustaining elements in the mental landscape.

Still though, beliefs are at least one step away divorced from actual fact, from actual reality... They are an image of reality, not reality itself. My belief in my father's love is not my father's love itself... Just as my belief that water will quench my thirst is not the water itself pouring down my gullet... So what gives? Why martyr yourself, or be so insanely attached to your belief, such that you become suicidal without it?

I venture to say that: beliefs, whether they be religious or otherwise, are simply an outgrowth of the ego. The Self is in love with itself, but, channeled as it were through the ignorant human mind, it latches onto an inaccurate image of itself, and, seeing itself as finite, instead projects itself onto a belief system which is purportedly more expansive, less liable to change than the shifting human body.... Something definite. Something ideal. Something certain - a certainty which mirrors the certainty of I AM.

Science isn't good enough. Not only because it is shifting and can't capture the finality of the Self, (as dogma can) but because it is based itself on something finite and limited (the material world). The Self, being the Self, cannot help but soar over and above even science, though don't get me wrong science can be certainly deep and profound - but it isn't transcendent like religion.

So, what we are really looking at in religion is the ego, or an interpretation of the ego. This interpretation comes closest to defusing it because, we see more closely than ever how we strive with reality. We erect, I won't say fantasy, but an exaggeration of external fact. All in an effort to preserve ourselves, to find the real invulnerability, which inside each of us as the Self.... And paradoxically, religion only creates another stumbling block to the ego: it's clothes are more fantastic, more illustrious than the humble rags of the materialist - all in an effort to point in the direction of truth. Unfortunately, we need to look beyond the clothes, - at Reality pure and simple....

So, I hope this impromptu write was in any case somewhat illuminating. I'm glad I unpacked it.

Namaste,

Very interesting conundrum, I often wonder this very thing.

I am of the mind-set that there must be something that every human must exist for be that a religion or something like a sport.

I think that the human mind needs something to be fixated on just to keep us wanting to live - otherwise, if we were not passionate about something then we wouldn't want to live for much else. I do think it's a lot about a survival mechanism.

Pranams.

[John]

Mind may be ignorance but there are satvic aspects of mind, like sadhana, that help rid it of itself, like using a thorn to remove a thorn, then both are discarded.

Those who don't need to start with a belief and can stare naked from the beginning are very rare, so it is said.