To All Philosophy People: The Question of Belief.

[FreakDaddy]

Answer to your question: Yes, you can not have belief.

Somehow you are linking cognition with beleif in your mind, and while I probably understand why, that is indeed a false conclusion. I had a roshi once give a lecture and make the following statement, "thoughts are the sickness of man". And I thought, "what thought is the sickness of man, what exactely is he talking about?" So at dokusan (private meeting between roshi and student), I asked him, "What did you mean by saying thought is the sickness of man?" He clarified himself and said, "I don't mean just thoughts. Thoughts come and go from you your mind all the time. What I mean is that belief is the sickness of man." I instantly agreed with him.

While we all have beliefs, I can see quite clearly that the purpose of reflection, or attempting to 'know the self' is the process of unraveling beliefs accumulated throughout one's life. In theory there should be a point where mind just 'see's things as they are', and doesn't add anything to them (read belief).

If some or all of this doesn't make sense, then just ask a quesition.

[etgryphon]

Thanks for the incite...

-Gryph

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
Answer to your question: Yes, you can not have belief.

Somehow you are linking cognition with beleif in your mind, and while I probably understand why, that is indeed a false conclusion. I had a roshi once give a lecture and make the following statement, "thoughts are the sickness of man". And I thought, "what thought is the sickness of man, what exactely is he talking about?" So at dokusan (private meeting between roshi and student), I asked him, "What did you mean by saying thought is the sickness of man?" He clarified himself and said, "I don't mean just thoughts. Thoughts come and go from you your mind all the time. What I mean is that belief is the sickness of man." I instantly agreed with him.

While we all have beliefs, I can see quite clearly that the purpose of reflection, or attempting to 'know the self' is the process of unraveling beliefs accumulated throughout one's life. In theory there should be a point where mind just 'see's things as they are', and doesn't add anything to them (read belief).

If some or all of this doesn't make sense, then just ask a quesition.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I had to look up what a roshi is. I guess it would be the same as a pastor for me.

I think I see what you are saying. Now, I don't know much about Buddhist philosophy, but isn't that what a buddhist is striving for. The absence of interpretation (read belief) in all things and just understand the true nature of all things.

But, I question whether that really removes the element of belief. I think a better term would be "interpretation" or "opinion" of a cognative element. Because it would see that the moment that you truly understand the true nature if a object of cognition, you have to believe that it is in fact the truth.

-Gryph

[hurlyburly]

[ QUOTE ]
But, I question whether that really removes the element of belief. I think a better term would be "interpretation" or "opinion" of a cognative element. Because it would see that the moment that you truly understand the true nature if a object of cognition, you have to believe that it is in fact the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a thought that acceptance of the true nature is distinct from belief, but I'm having trouble articulating it any better than that. Something along the line that belief colors future expectations whereas acceptance does not.

Sorry if I missed the mark.

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But, I question whether that really removes the element of belief. I think a better term would be "interpretation" or "opinion" of a cognative element. Because it would see that the moment that you truly understand the true nature if a object of cognition, you have to believe that it is in fact the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a thought that acceptance of the true nature is distinct from belief, but I'm having trouble articulating it any better than that. Something along the line that belief colors future expectations whereas acceptance does not.

Sorry if I missed the mark.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see what you are saying but I do not think that it negates your assumptions of future events. To get back to Sklansky math, if you know the true nature of an object of cognition then you have accepted it to occur 100% of the time. So if the event comes up at a future date then you will assume that it will occur 100% of the time. You still have to believe that it will occur 100% of the time.

Now, to get to the whole buddhist principle now that you have excepted the true nature of an object of cognition then does it really matter to you? Probably not. TI is what it is. No use thinking about it again.

If that is what you are saying then...I agree with that statement.

-Gryph

[Bodhi]

[ QUOTE ]
I instantly agreed with him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hence, you repay your teacher badly.

[ QUOTE ]
belief is the sickness of man

[/ QUOTE ]

This idea needs some clarification. As it stands now, either man would be better off behaving like a plant, or you are speaking about a certain sort of belief. The attitude smacks of asceticism and resentment.

[Bodhi]

What is the true nature of an object? Is there such a thing?

You can answer affirmatively only if you believe that there is truth outside of a language. But when you look at a tree, and say "that's a tree," are you giving an interpretation of your visual impression? Can you derive or infer a proposition from a tree?

The only inference that takes place is, "it's daylight out," "I am not hallucinating," "It's green and brown and tall..." therefore, that's a tree.

A proposition can only be derived or inferred from another proposition. Only a proposition can make another proposition true.

The non-linguistic world is mute.

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
What is the true nature of an object? Is there such a thing?

You can answer affirmatively only if you believe that there is truth outside of a language. But when you look at a tree, and say "that's a tree," are you giving an interpretation of your visual impression? Can you derive or infer a proposition from a tree?

The only inference that takes place is, "it's daylight out," "I am not hallucinating," "It's green and brown and tall..." therefore, that's a tree.

A proposition can only be derived or inferred from another proposition. Only a proposition can make another proposition true.

The non-linguistic world is mute.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good questions. I agree. My response was to the question of essense of an object of cognition.

I think only the creator of an object of cognition can real truly define it's "true nature". The moment we try to communicate to another this "true nature", we are hinderd by perception and a linguistic constuct that is flawed by said perceptions.

So one could state that it is impossible to ever understand the "true nature" of any object of cognition that you were not the sole creator.

-Gryph

[hurlyburly]

I take it to mean beliefs surrounding spirituality, like genuflecting when you enter a church or sacrificing a goat to get rain for crops. Believing something or even in something is different than having a system of beliefs.

So when his teacher said "belief is the sickness of man" my interpretation is "conformity for the sake of inclusion is wrong, we should use our noodles to determine what is best and why and be self-assured enough follow our own conclusions".

[Bodhi]

Well now... if that's the case then I certainly need to change my interpretation. How did you get that from the OP? Any text that should have clued me in?