>What exactly does it mean to "believe in God"?

Can someone explain to a deaf person what music is? Somethings are beyond explanation, experience is the only explanation.

What is "There could be God who is in charge of the world", is this a belief, is it a belief in God?

Is it faith then?
How is faith put into words?

Faith isn't certainty. So shouldn't this be reflected in the way one speaks?

You obviously have some initial faith otherwise you wouldn't be here. But it's so far clouded by uncertainty due to lack of realizations coming from service.

The Role of Faith
The subject of bhakti-yoga involves many detailed considerations that lie beyond the scope of this article. Here we shall simply conclude by making a few observations about the role of faith in sanatana-dharma, in modern science, and in the theory of evolution. Since sanatana-dharma is based on verifiable observations, it does not depend on either blind faith or speculative argumentation. But faith is required in any difficult undertaking, and sanatana-dharma is no exception.
For example, before studying modern chemistry the prospective student must have faith that the many experiments upon which the subject is based actually work. He cannot know this in advance, and without such faith he would not be motivated to carry out the arduous work needed to master the subject. Normally, the student will begin with a certain amount of initial faith, and this faith will grow as he acquires more and more practical experience. The same process works in sanatana-dharma. (Sadaputa das, BTG 16-05, 1981)

Therefore, we should understand both what faith is and what our own faith is. Besides the three types of faith listed above, the scriptures define faith as initial (sraddha) and fixed (nistha). Sraddha, according to Prabhupäda, is shown by a person who is willing to wander into the temple and who is able to feel good about what is going on there. It sounds almost like a kind of favorable curiosity. That initial faith is enough to bring us into the association of devotees.
Nistha means conviction that cannot be changed. Prabhupäda writes that a devotee with such faith feels that if he can attain Krsna consciousness, all his desires will be fulfilled. There is nothing more important than the development of Krsna consciousness. A devotee with nistha may not have attained the goal but is fixed on its importance and value.
The dictionary defines faith as “unquestioning belief in God; unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence.” Faith is trust in God—in His actions and promises. This is the kind of faith required for a devotee. Although we can provide scriptural evidence to support our Krsna conscious conclusions about the nature of the soul, the nature of God, transmigration, and so on, we have little empirical proof that any of it is true. Somehow or other, however, we have become willing to accept the authority of guru and scripture on faith, and we have molded our life’s principles around their teachings.
(Satsvarupa d. G., BTG 36-3, 2002)

The first refers to the experience of the practitioner, whose spiritual growth is observable.
The second refers to the inadequacy of anumana. Therefore it suggests to adopt the first approach.

What would you suggest?
I don't see any problem. We underwent a process of entangling ourselves in matter and now we need to undergo a reverse process, getting attracted to spiritual level.

It is because of the lack of good association and influence of modes of passion and ignorance. As you get free from the modes by sadhana and in good association, you will notice that God is a concrete reality. We all need that (not just you baker).

VEDA:

I don't analyze or deconstruct faith. I've only posted texts about two types of faith.

I wasn't aiming my comment about analysis or deconstruction specifically at you.[br]

[br]But now that we speak of it - Personally, do you or did you analyze how your own faith comes about, what state is it in?[br]

[br]I know some people avoid such analyses on principle - "I just don't go there, I just don't think about such things".[br]
Others seem more analytical types. They also seem to be more stressed out than the former.[br]


[br]

There are also two types of sense of self - real (atma) and unreal (ahankara). The real can't be lost, the unreal has to be lost thru the method of bhakti yoga.

If the real sense of self cannot be lost, then whence the fear of losing it when one analyzes one's sense of self (at least some people have this fear)?[br]

What you say above could be taken to imply that this fear exists when one's sense of self is actually unreal (impermanent, subject to change - such as identifying with the body, emotions, thoughts, possessions) - and analyzing or deconstructing that which is impermanent leads to its destruction or reveals its insufficiency. - And nobody wishes to end up destructed or revealed as insufficient. (If one wishes to maintain a worldly ego, one must be careful not to think about it too much.)[br]

[br]Although mere analysis and deconstruction seem to lead to madness, unless one accompanies them with some positive activity. Hence it is instructed in some spiritual traditions "Abandon the bad, and cultivate the good" or similar. This is where bhakti yoga comes in, right?

> Personally, do you or did you analyze how your own faith comes about, what state is it in?

When I joined Beliefnet I took the belief evaluation test and scored 83 while:
80 - 89
Confident Believer ? You have little doubt you've found the right path
90 - 100
Candidate for Clergy

I didn't take it again since but my later realizations significantly enhanced my faith.

> If the real sense of self cannot be lost, then whence the fear of losing it when one analyzes one's sense of self (at least some people have this fear)?

From maya. We lose our gross body and when we consider it our self, we're afraid.

> "Abandon the bad, and cultivate the good" or similar. This is where bhakti yoga comes in, right?

This is already the level of material dharma.

Come to think of it, the biggest part of my problem with belief in God is when it comes to communicating with others about it.

Other person: Do you believe in God?
I: What do you mean? What do you mean by "believe" and "God"?

From here on, the other person's response has usually been one or more of the following:

Other person:
- It's a simple question: Do you believe in God? This is all I am asking you.
- There is no need to get all mental about this.
- You are apparently an atheist, since you refuse to simply answer this simple question.
- God is easy to believe in for the simple, but hard for the crooked.


Such non-communicative attempts at communication are very frustrating for me. Perhaps it's just my karma - perhaps in a previous lifetime, I was a member of the Holy Inquisition, quizzing people on heavy religious topics while there were pulled up by the arms tied behind their back.

There really was an almost funny moment some few months ago. A newcomer came to our Thursday BG readings in the temple. He was posing interesting questions, and in the process of answering them, one devotee challenged him, "Do you believe in God?" I was feeling uneasy, maybe also because it sounded like a demand to take one side or another and it sounded so simplistic or even irrational. The guy actually answered: "I really can not rationally put this question into a framework. You see I just finished two years Masters in Philosophy in Trinity College, and this question really does seems to be making very little sense to me." (By that time Ananda, who confronted him with the "Do you believe" seemed disappointed..) The guy proceeded: "I am may understand it and take it how you can experience 'God' or whatever you have under that name." And after a pause he added: "I guess I am looking for this experience, on what is this supernatural for me, many people would speak of it, but is it like a..." and than he appeared to be suggesting an impersonal concept or realization. I honestly felt that it is a better start, than someone saying "I believe in God" as if he knows what God means to him in full or his faith is that developed to realize Him personally.

The word belief does not imply experience, however before one can experience god it is necessary to believe. What is also interesting is that one has to accept the possibility of the existence of god before one can deny the existence of god just as you cannot argue a negative against a positive without acknowledging the possibility that the positive maybe true.

>>Not necessary. To experience God in full you need full faith or developed sraddha

One won't have full faith or Sraddha if you don't believe or accept the possibility of god which is the same as belief or in other words you cannot have Sraddha and be an atheist at the same time and to experience god in FULL as defined in the Bhakti Rasamrta Sindhuh needs more than Sraddha, that is the very first stage and Sraddha is gained by association of saintly persons and listening to the injuctures of the Scriptures. To experience god in FULL one has to achieve Prem that has been defined in Rupa Goswami's Bhakti Rasamrta Sindhuh.

Fear of death is not an experience of God its simply an experience in your own fears. Near death experience is an actual experience in leaving your body momentarily and many (not all) people who have had these do at minimum believe in an after life.

manasi_seva:

The word belief does not imply experience, however before one can experience god it is necessary to believe.

... believe what?[br]


[br]The formula of "first believe it is true, then you will know it is true" seems backwards to me. Do the Vedas actually ever propose such a formula?[br]

[br]Can the exact process of how sabda affects the hearer be analyzed?[br]

Baker: Me thinks you might be anal(ytical) retentive.

manasi seva - experience God you firstly have to believe or have faith, faith is called Sraddha this is the very first step in the ladder of Bhakti.

But before believe or faith should not there first be a cause or a provocation
within the mind followed by the heart then inquire followed by some realization
then believe develops followed by faith and as the faith becomes stronger and
firm, surrender to god takes place. Experience of god should come sometime
after that.

In the case of those born in a God conscious family the child is to taught to
believe followed by inquire followed by strong believe , firm faith ,surrender to
God and experience.

Generally ,is this not how it takes place.

We may all think this and we may all think that, but at the end of the day this is a science, and it has been carefully delineated in the Bhakti Rasamrta Sindhuh, if you accept the teachings and follow Rupa Goswamis instructions you will be taken from Sraddha to Prema, Srila Prabhupada and all the previous acharya's are all preaching the teachings of Rupa Goswami.

How each individual comes to the point of faith is usually quite unique and different, we can all look back and think about our own personal journey and how we came to Krishna Consciousness and it serves to remind us of the causeless mercy of the Gaudiya Vaisnavas, Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and for those of us in the west we are all in eternal debt to Srila Prabhupada our saviour and guiding light in these times of darkness.

Seek out the mercy of the Gaudiya Vaisnavas, it is by service and surrender to the Gaudiya Vaisnavas that the key is turned in the lock, they hold all the secrets to the hidden treasure of the sweet absolute.

We can see people of all kinds of gunas, jnana and vijnana among devotees.

> Can the exact process of how sabda affects the hearer be analyzed?

Imho, it works like sowing. Some seeds fall on hard ground, etc. and the result won't come. Others fall on fertile ground (result of ajnata sukriti) and produce sraddha, etc. We discussed this earlier.

> devotees engage in discussion about religious topics on the assumption that such discussions are beyond the modes, unaffected by them.

Krsna katha topics are beyond the modes but the speakers may not be. Therefore it's recommended to listen to as pure devotees as available. To give a material analogy, a mahabhagavata is like a hifi sound system while a beginner is like an ordinary tape recorder. Difference in sound quality is obvious.

By analyzing the exact process of how sabda affects the hearer I meant whether it can be (or should be) explained or described in terms of "first one believe it is true, and then one gets knowledge" or something like that. Whether there is (or should be) a meta-analysis of the process, whereby the concepts and terms of this meta-analysis are neutral, objective, non-specific to the particular religious or spiritual path - as if there existed an objective epistemology that could be applied in the process of attaining any ontology.[br]
I have mentioned this before.[br]
[br]
I listen in when people talk about how they came to their spiritual path and the instructions they give for choosing a path and developing it. And in this, there sometimes does seem to be the assumption that there exists such a neutral, objective meta-analytical process on the grounds of which one then chooses between Christianity, Hinduism, humanism, atheism or whichever.[br]

[br]On the one hand, the existence of such an objective epistemology is appealing because it gives one a sense of self-sufficiency, an assurance that one has chosen their path freely and objectively, exclusively by one's own effort.[br]
[br]On the other hand, the existence of such an objective epistemology would mean we are capable of being fully independent of God or everyone and everything else, which is an absurd proposition, as anyone can witness it is blatantly untrue.[br][br]

VEDA:

Krsna katha topics are beyond the modes but the speakers may not be. Therefore it's recommended to listen to as pure devotees as available. To give a material analogy, a mahabhagavata is like a hifi sound system while a beginner is like an ordinary tape recorder. Difference in sound quality is obvious.

How do I stop feeling guilty for being choosy?

- See attached image. Not sure how appropriate that was ...

VEDA:

> a neutral, objective meta-analytical process on the grounds of which one then chooses between Christianity, Hinduism, humanism, atheism or whichever.[br]

One can evaluate any philosophy acc to:[br]

1. sambandha/abhidheya/prayojana content[br]
2. prevailing guna(s)[br]
3. karma-jnana-bhakti content (used by Ravindra Svarupa P. in some of his theological papers)

But from the Christian, humanist, atheist and possibly other perspectives, such criteria are already part of a specific philosophy/religion/worldview, they are not universally considered neutral or objective.[br]

[br]There is a paradox inherent in the instructions one often receives as to which religion/philosophy to choose: on the one hand, one gets told one should apply "objective, neutral citeria", and then when one proposes some criteria, they can always get dismissed as already biased and part of a religion/philosophy.[br]Isn't this strange![br]

[br]That this paradox exists, could suggest that "choosing a religion/philosophy" is at least to some extent an artificial proposition, based on the assumption that human choices take place in a momentuous, all-or-nothing, black-or-white, life-and-death manner. Perhaps the "choice between Christianity and Hinduism" exists only as an abstraction in the field of psychology, sociology, anthropology and perhaps religiology - but whereas in the life of an actual person, there can be observed no single moment where a person would momentuously decide for one path to the exclusion of all others and instantly become a completed practitioner of said path.[br]
[br]Which would then also imply that trying to instantly carry out such a decision between paths is artificial, and even impossible, wherefore one shouldn't attempt it.[br]

(Which ties in with the Vedic notion that there is only one religion, one the path of which one gradually progresses.)[br]



[br]

Do you feel guilty? Listening to various people (prospective gurus included) and choosing to whom to listen preferably is a normal way.

Yes, I feel guilty for being selective. Some people are very eager that I would "finally decide" one way or the other, and I feel very pressured by them, to the point of paralysis.

> such criteria are already part of a specific philosophy/religion/worldview, they are not universally considered neutral or objective.

I disagree. Maybe the sanskrit terms make you think so but when translated it's clear that these criteria (maybe with exception of k-j-b which _could_ be understood as specifically Vedic) are applicable universally. E.g. gunas are reflected in three primary colors (blue, red, yellow), triple classification of human physiognomy in classical Greek medicine, etc.

Hashama:

Baker .... I haven't followed closely the progression of questions that you have asked here but I had a thought this morning and it's that when it comes to faith --- I CHOOSE to believe in God; whereas another may CHOOSE not to believe in God. So I think that faith is something that we choose or choose not to have -- just as I may choose to wear a watch or choose not to.

How do you think you have arrived at the point of seeing the issue of belief in God as so non-complex, as a simple either-or decision?

[br]I have always thought one would need to be enlightened first to become capable of such clarity and decisiveness.

> How do you think you have arrived at the point of seeing the issue of belief in God as so non-complex, as a simple either-or decision?
> I have always thought one would need to be enlightened first to become capable of such clarity and decisiveness.

It's simple in the sense that there are only three logical choices you have: 1) you believe, theist; 2) you don't believe, atheist; 3) you're not sure, agnostic. There is a fourth category - those who have never thought about it. Every person in the world is in one of these four positions.

For me, I followed my conscience for many years declaring myself an agnostic, but the uncertainty in such a fundamental question was driving me crazy so I studied, researched, completed a degree in Philosophy and Religion and eventually decided that based on the comparative arguments for and against the existence of God, I could in good conscience accept the existence of God.

They do not know what means 'free'.