Others ~ Selected Correspondence

Faith

But to the bulk of your post, although you gave me a primer in Buddhist teachings, I don’t really think you answered my basic question which is why do you think that Gautama got it right. You described the ‘principles’ without really describing why you think they are ‘right’. I assume you have found that they (the principles) are the path out of suffering. I am no expert on Buddhism, for sure.

I’ve had several indications lately that maybe I’m not speaking as clearly as I could. I have to pay some attention to that.

I would question taking anything on ‘faith’, as it is a poor substitute for finding out for oneself. The fact that millions of people take on faith the teachings of the great religions of the world, including the teachings of the Buddha, does not assure me in any way, shape, or form, that they have any validity whatsoever. By refusing to take anything on faith, and I might add, on trust or the basis of hope, is one then freed of the weight of tradition and free to begin one’s investigations into the essential nature of suffering and the elimination of suffering from one’s life. Just because millions have followed these paths before does not a priori prove anything.

A continued reliance on faith shows that one places one’s trust in a belief or a set of beliefs, whatever they may be. Personally speaking, I cannot place my faith in any system, or any method, including that of actualism.

It is quite possible to approach actualism with the same habit of mind of blind faith in what is on offer, because one wants to believe that it is possible to be free of malice and sorrow, but one then cheats oneself of the opportunity and, I might add, the hard work of doing this for oneself.

It seems to me that religions are primarily a matter of faith because the tenets and basic propositions are so patently absurd that one can only take them on faith, as a freed intelligence will quickly dismiss them as being preposterous. I only say this because it is my experience that in order to free oneself from malice and sorrow one has to chuck faith, trust, and hope on the scrap heap of history and set out in an entirely new direction. Because Richard is living in a state of Actual Freedom does nothing to give me hope and I do not have faith that if I follow his words I too will end up that way. If I take it that way, then I have made Actual Freedom into a new religion and I have made myself into a religious follower. So, I am going to find this out for myself, not dwell in the world of impassioned imagination. Gary to No 38

I am enjoying this all so much!

No 54 – Of course, if the Richard’s method does begin to produce, not just believers in actualism, but people who are effortlessly and without interruption residing in the PCE of actual freedom, we will have the confirming data that I assert is so needed at this point.

No 21 – While of course I cannot know your intention with this comment, it occurs to me that a ‘need’ for ‘confirming data’ could also be a desire for something believable to have faith in.

No 38 – There’s the rub. Without the direct experience, everything must be taken on ‘faith’. Since that’s a loaded term, let’s replace it with ‘something that sounds like it might make sense and is worth exploring further’. That resolves to common sense. And, don’t forget the repeated admonishment to prove this to yourself... that’s the bottom line. No faith required.

faith: NOUN: 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. The American Heritage® Dictionary While reading your last post, at the University Computer Lab, a fervent believer sat down beside me and we talked for hours long about spiritualism. One of the things I asked was, what did ‘faith’ mean to him? He responded: To believe before seeing. He then continued admonishing those who expect to see in order to believe. Well, Actualism does away with both of these.

After I suspended my major beliefs in spiritualism I started believing in Actualism ... hence I started doubting Actualism. I had the ‘actualist calenture’ you speak of, which has absolutely nothing to do with actualism, and this was finally dispelled with by common sense, naivety and the remembrance of a PCE ... it’s so simple that it is darn nearly impossible to comprehend whilst being a believer. Can a believer know what it is like not to believe? You might argue that it was a necessary stage that helped me to understand more about an Actual Freedom, but I factually report to you that it digressed and stalled my understanding.

If you believe/doubt in actualism then you are not following the ‘Wide and Wondrous Path’ but your own conclusion of it. I write this without any defence whatsoever, a little intimidation perhaps, for you are far too smart and would definitely leave me at a loss if I were to try to intellectually compete with you ... but I talk out of the confidence of experience. An experience that, by what I have been reading, will not be too difficult for you to achieve. Anyhow, keep writing. I’m following your posts with avid interest. No 47 to No 54

Zooming ahead to the issue of faith, you wrote recently:

Well, you did introduce the term when you wrote the following:

I checked the dictionary for its definition of the word ‘faith’ and it defines it thusly: ‘faith, n. trust, confidence // complete acceptance of a truth which cannot be demonstrated or proved by the process of logical thought, religious faith.

If faith is not the ‘right’ term, what would be more appropriate in this context?

I don’t think it is so hard because, after all, I don’t think we are talking on this list about concepts so much. We are talking about our own experiencing of this present moment of being alive, which is not a concept. Too, actuality is not conceptual, it is actual. Anything conceptual is liable to be misunderstood, misinterpreted, quibbled over, fought over, spat on, etc, etc. We are not talking about artificial or manufactured truths. Naturally, in order to describe the actual, one uses written or spoken words, which are concepts, and that is where a conceptual level of discourse enters into it all, but there is really very little in AF that is ‘conceptual’ you might say.

Yes, and I might add the evidence of one’s senses. Indeed, does it not only ‘smell’ right but can it be seen, observed, touched, heard, etc? But additionally, I would say what one calls one’s ‘knowledge base’ is often none other than the imbibed ‘truths’, half-truths, prejudices, biases, and other ‘ways of knowing’ that constitute the Human Condition. So there are alot of problems even with what one knows to be true. Actualism consists of the cracking of this hard nut of the inherited and imbibed wisdom, not only the wisdom of whatever religious or spiritual tradition one has fondly grasped on to but everything one has believed, had faith in, hoped for, etc, etc. Indeed, everything that has been near and dear to one’s heart is up for examination. No stone is left unturned, so to speak.

Yet why take anything on faith? It seems to me that there are not degrees of faith.

All faith is what I would call ‘blind’ because (remember) it consists of complete acceptance of a truth that cannot be demonstrated.

Not only that. It implies the suspension of common sense.

Indeed. Not a bad idea at all.

I wouldn’t call it abhorrence, as that implies a negative emotional state akin to disgust and horror. Faith is simply unnecessary. I must say, however, that I found the investigation into faith, trust, and hope to be extremely fascinating and rewarding.

One of the things I initially discovered was that words and terms describing trust, faith, and hope are so incredibly commonplace in one’s speech and way of communicating with other human beings. I have sometimes found it extremely difficult to communicate what I am trying to say in terms that do not in some way imply that there is a wishful hoping for or a longing for or a trust that such- and-so is going to happen. I wonder if you have ever noticed this too? Gary to No 38

Well, you did introduce the term when you wrote the following:

I checked the dictionary for its definition of the word ‘faith’ and it defines it thusly: ‘faith, n. trust, confidence // complete acceptance of a truth which cannot be demonstrated or proved by the process of logical thought, religious faith.’

Understood. But I must say it pretty much looks like the same thing to me. In other words, additional definitions you provided define faith as a matter of belief in or trusting another person, idea, and so forth. In fact, the #3 definition you provide above so much as states this as ‘firm and earnest belief, on probably evidence of any kind’. So we really are talking about a matter of belief and trust here.

*

I don’t think it is so hard because, after all, I don’t think we are talking on this list about concepts so much. We are talking about our own experiencing of this present moment of being alive, which is not a concept.

Too, actuality is not conceptual, it is actual. Anything conceptual is liable to be misunderstood, misinterpreted, quibbled over, fought over, spat on, etc, etc. We are not talking about artificial or manufactured truths.

Naturally, in order to describe the actual, one uses written or spoken words, which are concepts, and that is where a conceptual level of discourse enters into it all, but there is really very little in AF that is ‘conceptual’ you might say.

Yes, and I would be quite interested in what you are discovering for yourself, without the action of believing or trusting that such-and-so is true or not. That’s the thrill of it all in my opinion. Leave off all the intellectual discourse and find out for yourself whether what’s on offer makes any sense or not. In doing this, there’s simply no need to have faith in others, believe in others, or trust that the concepts are true.

*

Yes, and I might add the evidence of one’s senses. Indeed, does it not only ‘smell’ right but can it be seen, observed, touched, heard, etc?

I understand. What I was referring to was the facticity of one’s own sensory input. This makes judging the sincerity and authenticity of the proponent’s pretty much an exercise in futility.

*

But additionally, I would say what one calls one’s ‘knowledge base’ is often none other than the imbibed ‘truths’, half-truths, prejudices, biases, and other ‘ways of knowing’ that constitute the Human Condition. So there are a lot of problems even with what one knows to be true. Actualism consists of the cracking of this hard nut of the inherited and imbibed wisdom, not only the wisdom of whatever religious or spiritual tradition one has fondly grasped on to but everything one has believed, had faith in, hoped for, etc, etc. Indeed, everything that has been near and dear to one’s heart is up for examination. No stone is left unturned, so to speak.

Having faith and losing faith are flip sides of the same coin. The underlying issue is the whole process of believing. One can look into the whole process of believing. Indeed, tearing apart the edifice of belief that one has built up in a lifetime is a daunting process, and for me, one which continues up to today. In the beginning, I had the sensation that my head was going to split apart – I physically had the feeling of being torn apart. But eventually the whole process settled down, enabling greater and more frequent delight in simply being here.

*

Not only that. It implies the suspension of common sense.

I really don’t recall that far back. I suppose one was spoon- fed these studies, and others, and that there may have been something like a faith. But I think that comes later in the maturation process. I think as one grows older one begins to reflect on how one’s teachers, parents, coaches, etc. did or didn’t measure up when one was younger. For me personally, that process began in adolescence when there was that typical adolescent rebellion against what I was being spoon-fed by society. But I jumped from belief to belief, never examining the process of believing itself. Never was the act of believing examined for, for its pitiful fruits.

Again, you are resorting to belief when you say: ‘...I believe that you and the others in this group have something important to say.’ Why does belief enter into it at all?

As for trusting me, by all means, don’t trust me: it’s a lot easier that way and your trust will not be putting a burden of expectation on me.

To whatever end ... learning perhaps?

Ok. Sorry. I’ll put down the stick. But really, whether you believe or don’t believe, accept or don’t accept, is not the important thing. The important thing is whether you are freeing yourself from your own malice and sorrow. I don’t ‘trust’ anyone because I have seen and grasped that to trust others is to invite betrayal (a deliberate use of what Richard says about trust – not because I am a Richard-follower but because I have looked at that statement with both eyes open, taken it in, and found it to be so). Gary to No 38

Actualism Homepage

 Actual Freedom Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless

Web page designed by The Actual Freedom Trust