[Buddha-l] Batchelor

[Joy Vriens]

Jack:
I wonder if one can ever base faith on a decision. That is why I don't
think Pascal's Wager is useful as a guideline. One can't decide to have
faith
in God because it gives you an advantage.

In fact Pascal's Pensées are only fragments which he was going to use to
write an "Apologie" for Christianity. Apparently he particularly had in mind
one of his friends, a "libertin", who he wanted to convert. I don't think
that Pascal thought that faith can be based on a decision, although a famous
quote of his does seem to say so. he also wrote : “Faith declares what the
senses do not see, but not the contrary of what they see. It is above them,
not contrary to them.”

Jack:
The Suttas make the distinction that there are two types of faith. One is
bright faith. An example is accepting the teachings of the Four Noble
Truths. Bright faith is unproven. It is a provisional faith. When I go to a
teacher to learn how to play a musical instrument, I accept what the teacher

is saying=--for the moment. Bright faith has limited value and is only a
teaching tool. The other type of faith is proved faith. This is faith that
is
based on your experience and that has soaked into your bones. An example is
observing that attachment causes suffering in your life. This proved faith
is what I call knowledge or insight. At least, that is how I see it.

Instead of "proved faith", which seems like a contradiction in terms to me,
I would propose conviction. Knowledge or insight in the ordinary sense are
not the goal, (knowledge or attainment of) release or relinquishment(?) are.
I think it's not so much about knowing reality or about insight in reality,
but about how to deal with it. But that is perhaps the knowledge you mean? I
see faith as taking a direction. If you deepen faith, you don't get to
knowledge in the ordinary sense. You go deeper into the direction you took.
It is said to be more connected to the heart, whatever that may mean. I am
not trying to be cynical here.

Jack:
To me, there are two types of thinking. One is discursive reasoning. An
example would be figuring out in your head 12,424 divided by 40. The other
is
what I observe in deep meditation. A thought arises and passes away. A
solution to a problem might appear and pass away. Here my "I" is not
thinking.

What you write about "discursive thinking" makes me think about a
conversation I had with friends. My mother language is Dutch, but I have
lived most of my life in France. I told my friends that when I think, there
seems to be no language involved anymore or I don't "see" the language.
Thinking seems faster that way. They were surprised and their surprise
surprised me. I have the impression that in the past I thought in Dutch, but
I can't remember for sure now. I can of course also talk to myself in
thought, or reason discursively, which would be in either Dutch or French.
So already in normal functioning there seem to be two ways of "thinking" for
me. As for meditation, my experience seems to be similar to yours. I will
have to leave at this for the moment. Probably write to you again next week.

Joy