Conference hydra::dejavu

A belief (I don't see difference between belief and faith) is the first step
for the quest of knowledge.

- Virendra

    
    Overcoming is being stranded on an island of doubt in a sea of
    fulfillment and, not knowing how to swim, building a skiff and
    sailing out to sea.
    
    Mark
    

    re: .1
    
         There is probably a closer association between faith and 
    hope than between faith and belief.  Faith has a certain submissive,
    resigned, connotation, however.  Faith is the "last resort."  Hope, on the
    other hand, doesn't imply that no other avenues are available.  Rather
    it ties in better to an expectancy and opportunity for something
    greater than what would usually happen.  Belief is opinion held
    with conviction based on all the data that has been processed.
    
    Frederick
     

    Hi Frederick,
    
    Re: .3
    
    > Faith has a certain submissive, resigned, connotation, however. 
    
    Your words describe how I used to view faith a few years ago.  
    
    Today, however, faith in my life walks hand in hand with courage.  
    Faith is the way I assert trust in my self, God, and the universe and I
    use it everyday in many ordinary situations. 
    
    It is also especially useful when it is not always clear in my mind, 
    what the best course of action might be in a given situation.  Faith, 
    having trust in the above, and courage, also enable me to move forward 
    in the face of fear and to move more quickly out of periods of personal 
    stagnation.
    
    Just fwiw.
    
    Karen.*

    re: .4 (Karendipity)
    
         Your reply does little to show me that faith doesn't still hold that
    "oh, I'm too insignificant"-kind-of plea to it.  Asserting trust
    is not faith.  Asserting trust is to be trusting, not testing.
    Faith, as spoken of by both of us, implies a lack of confidence.
    It implies that whatever is sought isn't happening, and that 
    we'll just close our eyes, cross our fingers, and "pray" that
    our "God" will rescue us.  That's faith, not hope.  Of course,
    if in your own personal dictionary you have changed the meanings
    to fit you, that's okay.  I would rather hold onto the meanings
    and change my use of the words, since most of the consensus reality
    probably holds onto the implied definition I stated.  
        Thanks for your fwiw...this is *my* fwiw.
       
    ;-)
    Frederick
    

    Frederick,
    
    > Your reply does little to show me that faith doesn't still hold that
    > "oh, I'm too insignificant"-kind-of plea to it.
    > Faith, as spoken of by both of us, implies a lack of confidence.
    
    No my friend, you are not understanding what I said correctly, for my
    experience of faith *is* an expression of confidence - *not* a lack of 
    it.  And I have faith :-) that you know me well enough to know I am 
    not of the "oh, I'm too insignificant" genre of human being.
    
    And by the way, it's important to me that you know I was not trying to
    change your mind about how you view faith.  Faith for you equates to
    insignificance, lack of confidence, and all the other things you
    mentioned in .4.  My understanding of "faith" is totally different 
    from your understanding, that's all.       
    
    :-)
    
    later,
    
    Kb.*   

I don't think faith implies "insignificance", "lack of confidence" and
such things. People usually qualify such faith as "blind faith". Faith
to me is like you are prepared to learn on a certain basis such as religion,
science or philosophy. Next step is "understanding" based on faith and the
final step is "realization" of what you have understood.

Lack of realization translates the understanding as purely speculative.

- Virendra

    Right on, Kb.*, what you have stated is close to my definition of
    'faith' as well!!!
    
    Roey
    

Faith *is* trusting.

Faith in Jesus means (in my understanding):

  1)  Jesus is *able* to keep the promises he made to you and me
  2)  Jesus has the *integrity* to stand by the promises he made
  3)  I *claim* (i.e. trust in) the promises he made to me.

I'd rather trust a promise of Jesus to me than a promise from anyone else
(because of points 1 and 2).

There was a time when I defined faith as "blind belief".  I was wrong.

Collis

    re: .9 (Collis)
    
         Thank you for helping me make my point.
    
    Frederick
    

RE: .9

Collins,

Do you understand (with reason) what Jesus promised? If so, you have passed
second step of understanding your faith. Try to realize it by practicing
what you understood in Jesus's teachings. (Please note that I regard religion
as private. To make ones argument robust, one should critically examine all
ones faith based on understanding and realization. I don't think, by making
lot more people agree with your faith will make your argument any stronger).

This scenario can be compared by an example from Science. We have a faith
or proposition that there is gravitional force between two masses. This faith 
can be understood by observing apple falling toward earth and many other 
examples. The faith can be realized in a laboratory when a force of 
attraction is observed between one heavy ball and a light ball.

- Virendra

RE .10 (Frederick)

>    re: .9 (Collis)
>    
>         Thank you for helping me make my point.
>
>    Frederick
    
Sorry, Fred. Collis helped Karen make *her* point.

:-)

Arie

    re: .11,
    
    A point of confusion about this example in my mind ...
    
>The faith can be realized in a laboratory when a force of 
>attraction is observed between one heavy ball and a light ball.
    
    	To my understanding, gravitation (and such) are hypotheses,
    possible models of how things happen, and can be *disproven* by 
    observation as well as *borne out* by observation.  
    
    	My faith, on the other hand, cannot be disproven by
    observation, it is a personal experience of knowing beyond reason.
    It can only be evolved by a similar integratory experience, not
    displaced by empirical data.
    
    In the science example, I might say that my faith is in an orderly
    universe where planets don't attract each other one day and then
    arbitrarily decide to repel each other the next day, but the details
    are always open to verifying by observation.
    
    My personal dictionary equates belief with my current hypotheses, and 
    faith with my personal metaphysics, the way I have integrated and
    consolidated my knowledge so far, and is not open to question "as
    a whole," only to possibly analysis with respect to details and
    practical implementation.
    
    I'm not sure whether that would make any sense to anyone else :-)
    
    	>Todd>

Re:  1353.11

Re:  Virendra

  >Do you understand (with reason) what Jesus promised? 

Yes.  I believe that strong reasoning is one of the gifts God has given me.

  >If so, you have passed second step of understanding your faith. Try to 
  >realize it by practicing what you understood in Jesus's teachings. 

I wish I could.  But it's just not that easy.  My human nature keeps
getting in the way, leading me to do the things I wish I didn't do (Romans 7).
For example, I know that God promises me peace if I will just turn my 
concerns over to him (Phil 4:6,7), but that doesn't necessarily make it easy 
to do.  But thanks, I will keep trying.  Fortunately, I don't have to depend
on what I do to be acceptable to God.

Collis

Re:  1353.13

As I understand faith, it is a current trusting based on our understanding
of what has happened in the past.

In the case of gravity, it is because of our observations and the awareness
that others have consistently observed the same force.  We expect gravity
to continue (and would be very surprised if it didn't).

In the case of Jesus, personally it is because of fulfilled prophecy,
miracles, and most important an empty tomb which provides a historical
basis for trusting in the promises.  Of course, there is also the evidence
of my changed lives and the changed lives and testimonies of millions
of others.

Either way, I understand faith to be a trusting that something is true
or something will happen because of our understanding of the past.

Collis

    Todd .13,
    
    Imo, both your and Virendra's reply (.11) are true.  Faith can 
    be drawn from *both* objective (empirical, scientific) and subjective
    (transcendental, transpersonal) experience.
    
    What I also understood from Virendra's response (and agree with) 
    is the need to integrate *reason with faith* to help prevent us 
    from falling into the "trap" of running our lives on "blind faith", 
    the term Collis referred to.
    
    Karen.*  
           

RE: .13

>    	My faith, on the other hand, cannot be disproven by
>    observation, it is a personal experience of knowing beyond reason.

	I don't think there is anything which can not be reasoned even
	spritual experience. Only speculations are disproven. Realized
	experiences can never be.

	Feats, miracles and even incantations came out of a very well 
	understood science called "Yoga". There is nothing mysterious 
	about it.

	Good and bad stuff are a state of mind. To understand this, a good
	moral in one culture may be considered a bad moral in another.
	So there is nothing like an absolute good or absolute bad about
	anything. If you feel good about your personal experiences, that's
	again a state of mind. Yoga is a science which controls the state
	of mind and has been used by ancient thinkers as a means to realize
	spritual experiences. Well again, that's my faith and I don't intend 
	to impose on you.

- Virendra

    re: .17, Virendra,
    
> (I don't see difference between belief and faith) 
    
    Yoga seems to have a fascinating worldview, and so do you.   The
    points I bring up are hopefully for the sake of further learning
    by exposing our different personal definitions.

    The thing with the realized experience is that while it helps my
    understanding, and it can be specifically cultivated (such as your Yoga 
    example) I don't think a realization experience (whatever that may 
    actually be) translates directly into language.

    IMO, it seems that when we try to interpret a realized experience, it 
    comes out as a belief, sometimes almost an arbitrary belief (or perhaps a 
    statement of dogma) rather than a pure experience.  That belief is then 
    subject to scrutiny and proof or disproof, and subject to causing strife and
    argument (or seeding creativity, depending on how attached we are to
    the belief and willing to examine it).  
    
    The *experience itself* is, to me, the faith, and is not susceptible to 
    proof or disproof.  Only its interpretation is thus subject, just like
    the other types of belief, which result from observing the world
    directly, learning from others, and making creative deductions,
    are all happily subject to proof and disproof in the sincere quest
    for knowledge.
    
    	That is to say, faith in God might not be a belief in God, but
    an (the) experience of His presence in our life.  Similarly, faith in 
    the goodness of humanity might be an experience of that goodness, rather 
    than a reasoned belief that "people are good," which if taken literally 
    is full of language meanings and assumptions that are probably relatively 
    easy to disprove on any given day :-) .   The faith part often drives 
    life in a practical, foundational way.  The belief part is just temporary 
    housing for the flow of ideas.  Then again, I may be wrong :*), or
    making a picky distinction.

    	love, light, and power,

    	>Todd>

    Todd .18,
    
    > The experience, itself, is to me the faith...
    
    Thanks for an enlightening note Todd!  *Experience* is the essence
    of the faith in my life as well.
    
    Karen.*

    I read a story once about a man from the netherlands, who was working
    for a relief agency in Africa. Shortly after he received a letter
    of commendation from the queen, he came upon the scene of an accident.
    He stopped to help a young man who was injured by a fallen tree.
    The injured man was in extreme pain and begged the white man for
    some powerful medicine. All he had with him was a few aspirin which
    he gave him, but the man still begged for something stronger. The
    WM was a loss for something to do. Finally, he said, I hve this
    letter from the Queen! He took it out an placed it on the injured
    man's chest and immediately the injured man was relieved. After
    that the letter enjoyed a reputation for awhile as a healing device!
    
    	the point of all this is that belief even in a lie is a very
    powerful substance. Certainly the letter had no power except from
    the faith placed in it. I think this explains why so many people
    settle for belief in lies. The destruction of faith is a dangerous
    thing. Unless one builds faith in something better, more damage
    than good is done by destroying belief. Unfortunately, lies tend
    to be found out, resulting in damage to faith.
    
    Jesus said that if you had faith as a grain of mustard seed you
    could move mountains. He not talking about size, so how much faith
    does a grain of mustard have? It simply takes hold of the resources
    that are provided in its invironment such as warmth, moisture, and
    nutrients to fulfill its potential. It doesn't know ahead of time
    whether it will succeed, yet it goes ahead and grows.
    
    
    

    Then have faith in yourself.... and you can move mountains.

    Karen,
    	What you said was beautiful.  It most closely says what my metaphor
    tried to visually demonstrate.  What you refer to as faith perhaps is
    "knowledgeable acceptance."  Never-the-less, knowledge gained from
    experience is the highest form of awareness. Ouspenski refers to "real
    faith" as "belonging to the higher emotional center. In our ordinary
    emotional center there  can only be imitation faith.  Real faith means
    not only emotion, but also knowledge." 
    
    Fred,
    
    	You intellectuallize very well.  The Words can only take one
    so close to the truth.  There comes a time that one must put aside the 
    words and get down to business and do the work. This in a word is  what 
    Faith is: getting down to business and doing the work (experiencing).
    
    
    The following is related to an earlier entry concernig the
    transformation of the various masters teaching an inner truth to the
    present outer search that is generally practiced today:
    
    "As time went on, and people started to practice less, they began to
    mistake the words for the experience.  Different schools arose, arguing
    over concepts.  It is as if in attempting to explain the light on ta
    full moon night one points up at the moon.  To look at the finger, 
    rather than the moon, is to misunderstand the pointing.  We should not
    confuse the finger for the moon, no confuse the words pointing to  the
    truth for the experience itself."
    
    --THE EXPERIENCE OF INSIGHT, Joseph Goldstein.
    
    "As long as there is opinions and views, we can never experience the
    truth.  Do not seek truth, only cease to cherish opinion."
    
    
    Ernie
    

    re: Ernie (.22)
    
          Thanks, but as for intellectualizing, at least to the point
    of regurgitating, I certainly take a back seat to others in here.
    I suggest you could use a pointer or two in doing something other
    than intellectualizing, yourself.  
          I am not beyond the experiential.  My experiences are definitely
    reflecting my beliefs, moreover.  But I must say, my experiences
    around the use of the word "faith" are definitely negative.  As long
    as this topic centers around that word, then I give it a "thumbs down."  
    I have read nothing by anyone in here that has convinced me or inspired
    me to want to use that word in any positive context in any of my
    vocalized discourses.  That's all...
    
    Frederick
    

    what's in a word anyway?
    
    shrug,
    
    Kb.:-)

    Fred,
    	I apologize for "ruffling your feathers." (:'>  On the contrary, I
    experience almost completely.  I thought my new personal name
    demonstrated that. (:'>  I never thought life could be so "unbearably
    exciting."  I mean experiencing life as one continuous 'nonlocalized'
    orgasm is intellectualizing excessively?  Me thinks not.
    
    Love,
    Ernie
    

    re: Ernie
    
         Somehow, Ernie, I never get the impression that you are
    doing what you suggest.  You have demonstrated excitement over
    intellectual accomplishments, and that's fine, of course, but
    otherwise I have seen little to convince me of your true feelings.
    IN other words, without putting you on the spot more than you
    are, intellectualizing seems more your angle than mine...maybe
    I'm projecting, however.  As for this topic, I have lots of hopes
    and desires...and I will not reduce them downward, to the extent
    that it reads as though my fingers are somehow metaphysically
    crossed "Oh, great cosmic Santa Claus, I have faith in you, for
    only you can do it!" for I know better than that.  My reality
    is my responsibility, not anyone else's.  If I succeed, I will
    share the success...if I fail, it is my failure, for I'm the only
    thing in my universe or reality keeping me from success.  Having
    faith, as I already suggested, means that there is some doubt that
    this is the case.  I may doubt myself, but I don't doubt my belief
    in reality creation.  
         Perhaps it is for you, too, as it is for Karen, in that you 
    can use the words interchangeably.  I cannot and willnot and have
    so stated.  Everyone is free to do as they wish; however, I don't
    mind pointing out some potential pitfalls for various beliefs and
    attitudes, should I see them.  
         Are you trying to tell me that you "experience" life as a 
    continuous orgasm, Ernie?  Me thinks not.  Me thinks that you have
    intellectually decided that that sounds good and nifty and will 
    get you some clever guy votes and that you would desire it to be
    that way some day.  Maybe I'm "wrong" or maybe my experience of
    orgasms is different from yourS?
    
    Frederick

    Frederick,
    
    >I may doubt myself, but I don't doubt my belief
    >       in reality creation.  
    
    This is a delightful turn of phrase !  What do you mean by reality
    creation, and why do you believe in it, if you don't mind my asking ?
    
    	>Todd>

    Ah well, fwiw Frederick, I do not use the words faith and trust
    interchangeably.  I use Webster's definition of faith:
    
    "Belief in the truth, 
     value, 
     or trustworthiness 
     of someone or something."
    
    If you look up trust, amongst other things it also defines it as having
    faith in something.... so much for the english language :-).
    
    Anyway, my distinction between trust and faith, is that faith is the
    highest experience I have of trust, as *for me* there are degrees of
    trust.  There is only one degree of faith.  It doesn't really matter 
    to me if you agree or disagree with my definition or usage of either 
    word, I just wanted to set the record straight.
    
    Let me ask you this though, if I may.  Do you believe there is a 
    God or "something" equivalent?  Or are you creating your universe
    all by your lonesome?
    
    Karen

    re: .27 (Todd)
    
         First off, that was poorly written, so ambiguous meanings
    are likely.  What I meant to say was that I often have doubts about
    what I am doing or in why I am doing whatever (self-awareness, or
    perhaps self-confidence, etc.) but that my belief in the way
    reality functions is no longer in doubt for me.  It is clear
    that I am at the helm, no matter how consciously or not.
    
    re: Karendipity-do-dah, dippity ay.
    
         "all by my lonesome?"  No, but that whatever extends
    beyond me isn't outside of me, rather within.  This counters
    the way most people view "their creator", I think.  I am a piece
    of something much more aware than I am.  As I become more aware
    of who/what I am, as I see more of the parts that comprise myself,
    I become and come closer to being that source, or the larger part
    of myself.  No, I don't do it alone, but I cannot acknowledge the
    totality of the creation, either, at this point.  But I cannot
    co-create anything if I cannot create alone.  The co-creators within
    have already created.  IT is I who have not consciously done so.
    But as that becomes more real, as I allow myself to make it real,
    then I can have dominion and move forward to truly co-create.
    Do I need to trust (or have faith in) them?  NO, I need to have 
    trust in myself.  They have already demonstrated their power.
    Now I must trust myself enough to recognize that they are more of
    me.  Not to await their decisions, but to make my own decisions.
    Not to pray for a miracle, but to make one happen.  Not to sit around
    to see what they have in store, but to decide what I want to have
    in store for myself.  Not to be a pawn, but to be responsible.
    Does this make it clearer?
    
    Frederick
    

    Fred,
    	You can continue to thinks what you want about me.  You can
    continue to place what ever personal value you want to my words,  If
    you refuse to believe them there is nothing I can or care to do about
    it.  I know what I feel and that is the only thing that counts for me.
    Ask Nikki, she has had to put up with my joy and "mirth" for awhile now
     since she sits only a few cubicles away from me.  (:'>  I had heard
    about the Laughing Buddha and always wondered what he had to laugh
    about, now I know. No, he laughs at no particular one, he only laughs at
    the continuing uncovering of illusion. 
    
    
    ERnie
    

    re: .29, (Frederick)
    
>They have already demonstrated their power.
>    Now I must trust myself enough to recognize that they are more of
>    me.  Not to await their decisions, but to make my own decisions.
>    Not to pray for a miracle, but to make one happen.  Not to sit around
>    to see what they have in store, but to decide what I want to have
>    in store for myself.  Not to be a pawn, but to be responsible.
    
    Thanks for your interesting clarifications and comments.  This is very close
    to how I was intending to define "faith" (i.e. an experience of
    demonstrated power, not necessarily in anything external or
    supernatural !).   "Religion" as such has no real personal meaning to me 
    except as an umbrella used by groups of people to represent what they
    think of as a common faith, but in reality is individual experience
    under a common set of symbols and doctrine.   
    
    For some reason, I can't see any practical difference between the two 
    ideas of personal responsibility and Christian Faith, even though
    I'm not personally any kind of Christian and never was.  
    
    If beliefs are temporary structures used for gaining knowledge (?),
    and we create our own reality over time, with help (?), and presumably 
    we also create our own "purpose," then I don't see why prayer could not be 
    part of taking personal responsibility, a symbolic form of power and a focus
    of intention.  Just so long as that is not the *only* thing you
    do to create or transform reality, but an adjunct.   I don't mind
    someone praying in my behalf when I'm hurt, so long as they send for the
    doctor and give appropriate first aid, too !  :-)   
    
    	kind regards,
    
    	>Todd>

Todd,

Given your framework, I agree that Christianity is meaningless.

Collis

    
    	Well, I've read a few replies here and the one that comes closest
    to what I (try to :'}) understand as "faith" is .20 -
    
    	Faith == Belief without evidence. No experience involved,
    applicable to any context; an emotional decision.
    
    	I've heard or read that this is Jesus's most fundamental thing
    He wanted to get across. He was so upset because he couldnt get
    His followers to believe - even with plenty of evidence! How would
    they possibly have faith with none?
    
    	Perhaps the letter in .20 was such strong medicine simply because
    the recipient simply believed it so, without any "evidence" that
    it was anything other than a piece of paper. It was a lie - so what?
    It mattered not what it was, it mattered what the person believed
    it was.
    
    	Maybe you can move a mountain with the faith in a mustard seed,
    instead of sitting around thinking "I've never moved a mountain
    before" or "all these guys died trying" or all the other evidence
    you could stack up in the "against" coulumn in your head -
    
    	It's easy to apply "faith" in a positive context, because faith
    is positive in context - you just pick one, anything. Could be Jesus,
    or could be "career as a computer programmer". The moment you think,
    "what evidence do *I have* of Jesus in my life, so I can believe?"
    you've lost your faith.
    
    	Joe

    Collis,
    
> Given your framework, I agree that Christianity is meaningless.
    
    	Ouch.  Words are such damn treacherous little demons.  I'm not
    *sure* that was what I intended to convey, since meaning, like belief, 
    seems to be contextual in the framework I was using.  I seem to be able 
    to attach *meaning* to anything consistent with the rest of my values and 
    beliefs-of-the-moment, just as I can *believe* just about anything given 
    the right context.  But then I might just be more gullible than most :*) 
    (?) .
    I think in that framework that whatever is useful for the current purpose 
    is meaningful, and Christianity has certainly proven useful for a great 
    many people for a large variety of purposes.  Therefore, it is not 
    meaningless, just a different order of abstraction from the literal
    "Faith" notion that I believe belongs MORE to the realm of Personal
    Experience, where is is real and not just a symbol.   At a different 
    order of abstraction, religions seem to me to be more of a useful 
    "consensus model" of personal faith, like a language of faith rather
    than a Faith in themselves, as the literal usage sometimes appears,
    And since I'm on a quote kick this week ...
    
    	"Those who rule the symbols, rule us."
    
    		Alfred Korsybski
    
    The practical result for me of this philosophy is the principle of tolerance
    for the grand diversity of beliefs with which people express their own
    personal faith.
    
    	peace,
    
    	>Todd>

    re: .33 (Joe)
    
          I'm not clear about the meaning of your last statement, 
    'The moment I think, "what evidence do *I have* of Jesus in my life, so 
    I can believe," you've lost all faith.'  Do you mean that the only
    way to have faith is with Jesus?  That without Jesus there can be
    no faith?  That Jesus and faith are synonymous?
          If so, I guess I'll never have faith.  But I'll never let go
    of hope, dreams, aspirations, desires, or any other positive futures.
    
    
    Frederick
    

    
    re .35 (frederick)
    
    	No, I was only pointing out that by the action of questioning
    the evidence, or ascertaining if any even exists, is when you start
    to lose "faith". The context I chose was just so typical; as far
    as perhaps many people's ponderings go: "why should I believe in
    Jesus when I have nothing besides peripheral evidence that He is
    the true savior?" - or whatever. It's like "who am I to think I
    could be a computer programmer when I see nothing in me that says
    I could do it?"
    
    	When you have faith, you believe regardless of the presence
    of substantiating evidence.
    
    	Joe

Re:  .35

Joe,

My experience and the experience of many that I know is exactly the 
opposite that you describe.

I'll stick with myself here.  It was exactly when I questioned the evidence
and determined to ascertain what did exist that my faith grew.  It is
because I continue to question and research that my faith continues to
grow.

I can show you *many* people who don't (and essentially never have)
question(ed) their faith.  In my experience, it is exactly these people
that have *not* grown that are likely to "fall away" from what they
believed.

I still think that "believe" or "trust in" are good synonyms for faith.
My faith (whether it is in this chair that holds me or in the ability of
my car to bring me to work or in the ability and willingness of Jesus to
save me from hell are *based* on evidence and experience.

Collis

    re: .37 (Collis)
    
         "Our experiences are worlds apart"
    
         ...with mine, too.
    
    Frederick
    

    "Faith, the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not
    yet revealed" (or something to that effect.)

    This was a popular interpretation I grew up with. In the first
    instance, physical evidence may not exist, but the act of having this
    faith supposedly cultivates in the individual a required spiritual
    quality/attribute, and the individual begins to experience the benefits
    of having this faith. These "benefits" experienced, become the evidence
    for the individual. 

    An example would be someone walking over hot coals, or piecing their
    skin without feeling pain or bleeding . Reasoning would not help you
    much in these cases, but the flaw in the philosophy here, is that the person
    about to launch himself over the hot coals probably saw someone doing
    it previously. 

    Still, the experience is not within the individual's repertoire of
    experiences until he takes those first steps ? If successfully navigated
    the evidence thus gained leads to a strengthening of faith, even
    though, logically, we would expect the skin to burst into blisters at a
    certain temperature ? This principle applies, no matter what the
    teaching.
    
    In Christs teachings, it is possible for the reasoning person to obtain
    a high level of faith, but it is the harder of the two paths, for you
    are opened to much doubt but it could lead to a very strong foundation.
    True, the ones who make it through the reasoning path are not easily
    put off when the ground gets shaky.
    
    Faith signifies a "letting go" of the earthbound systems.  

    There are many paths... "Even if we fall, we were born to fly..."
    
    ?????

    Brian

    
    	Okay, "belief without conclusive evidence"...a "personal visit"
    
    	I can understand that when you already believe, it's easy to
    bolster your beliefs with evidence, making your beliefs - and your
    faith - stronger. My guess is that initially, one doesn't say "Gee,
    there sure are a lot of churches around!" and decide to have faith
    in God based on "the evidence".
    
    	My guess is that initially, one can decide to have faith in
    Christ without having, say, the overwhelming evidence of a personal
    visit by Him to do so. One can decide to have this faith without
    such evidence or such an experience. One can do this simply because
    they want to, that is their choice and their own personal decision.
    
    	After making this decision, the evidence of "Christ at work"
    or whatever becomes much more clear and understandable, than it
    was beforehand? Like, you can see what you were missing out on?
    
    	Joe
    

RE: .40 (UTRTSC::MACKRILL "Brian @Utrecht")

	Well said Brian. I like that. - Virendra

    I always liked this one:
    
    "Faith is a bird that sings in the darkness
            because it *feels* the light."
    
    Peace,
    Richard

RE: <<< Note 1353.43 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Mission of Mercy" >>>

{    I always liked this one:
    
    "Faith is a bird that sings in the darkness
            because it *feels* the light."
    
    Peace,
    Richard }

Nothing wrong with this as long as faith knows the difference between
darkness (ignorance) and light (knowledge). There is a saying in Sanskrit:

	"Tamso ma jyotira gamah".

O Lord! take me from drakness (ignorance) to light (knowledge). It is a
good faith indeed!!

- Virendra

               
    Good heavens - Ernie, I know exactly what you mean by your personal
    name!  Are you familiar with Gurudev's works by chance (a.k.a. Amrit
    Desai)?  I'm so happy for you - that's wonderful.
    
    Hi Joe Jas!  Long time no see.
    
    Virendra - I just got back from the Kripalu Center.  See you in the
    Yoga topic as time allows.  I have some wonderful firsthand
    realizations to share...and I only went to their Welcome Weekend.  (;^)
    
    Jai Bhagwan [I honor the spirit within you],
    
    Cindy

    From The Experience of Insight , Joseph Goldstein:
    
    There are several different kinds of faith which may arise.  The least
    skillful is that trust or devotion in someone or something simply
    because it makes us feel good.  We get a pleasant feeling, a high, and
    so put our faith in that person or thing.  It is easy for that kind of
    devotion to become blind.  A higher kind of faith arises when we
    experience and appreciate certain qualities in a person such as wisdom
    and love and compassion.  This kind of confidence is helpful because
    the appreciation is a recognition of wholesome qualities of mind which
    inspire us to develop those same qualities in ourselves.  
       There is also the faith and devotion that comes from our own
    experience of the truth.  As we begin to experience on deeper levels
    how the mind and body are working, we feel a tremendous joy and
    confidence in the Dharma.  It is not based on blind feelings nor
    appreciation of qualities in another but comes from insight into the
    nature of reality. And this leads to the highest confidence of mind
    which comes from the experience of enlightenment.  By penetrating to
    the ultimate truth, faith becomes unshakeable.
        As the Buddha was dying, Ananda asked who would be their teacher
    after his death.  He replied to his disciple; "Be lamps unto
    yourselves.  Take yourselves to no external refuge. Hold fast to the
    truth as a lamp.  Hold fast to the truth as a refuge. Look not for a
    refuse in anyone besides yourselves.  And those, Ananda, who either now
    or after I am dead, shall be a lamp unto themselves, shall take
    themselves to no external refuge, but holding fast to the truth as
    their lamp, holding fast to the truth as their refuge, shall not look
    for refuge in anyone but themselves, it is they who shall reach the
    very topmost heights; but they must be anxious to learn.  
    
    
    
    
    Ernie