Still jumping to conclusions?

[pie'n'eal]

Still jumping to conclusions?

If we are truly investigating something we need to look at the biggest possible picture, rather than our part of it. If we start by not trusting anyone, then the investigation will be fruitless.
“I only trust myself,” comes the reply. Well, that's not saying much is it? That is your own very limited view point.
How can I trust someone who only trusts themselves?

Frank Sinatra has a lot to answer for...”I did it myyyyy way!”

The problem with being the ultimate sceptic is that you could be saying, “I am superior to others, because I believe nothing.” It's a way of covering up one's own fears and lack of confidence...
my mum used to do that!

Jumping to conclusions and disbelieving everything is a really negative way to live – as is believing in everything. Mistrusting everything is a little more than paranoid, don't you think?
We are then in danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water. There is goodness in everyone, but it does not mean I trust them, although they may still good people.

However, the question of who or what to trust needs to be addressed.

This, of course, brings us back to the question of what is real or true, and that will depend on whether are talking about the physical or non-physical realms. There is no end to changing phenomena and intrigue. Sentient being are masters at both that, and self deception.

To keep on saying... “Me good. Them bad,” is childish.
Finding fault with the others is easy, because we are all still sentient…confused...not quite there yet...not enlightened.
Finding fault with ourselves is not so easy: that takes some real work!

If there are controllers of this world, they must be laughing at people over reacting and trying to display super-insights, when it's actually just super-imagination. If we are to find the truth, we have to stop guessing, and then finding ways to justify our guesses.

Take the thread about the Dalai Lama: this is just a copy and paste...again. Kathie has just written to eight Tibetan offices of his Holiness to get clarification on the matter. We know his Holiness is interested in science, and even says that if science proves Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism must change. He works very closely with neuroscientists, looking at consciousness.

Personally, I am sure that Tibetans - and Buddhists in general - have no idea about what might be going on in the world. I've written on two Buddhist forums and I find this so. I've brought it up in retreats and I just get stared at blankly. Do I think, because of this, they are all illuminati? No, of course not! They are just ignorant of these matters.

What makes talking to the public very difficult is..............THE WILD SPECULATIONS on forums! These cloud the issues totally, and give people the ammunition to dismiss all of it as the ravings of conspiracy nutters! They stop listening! They lump us all together...yes, they too jump to conclusions!


Yours - finding me a little frustrated this morning -
Tony

[Vitalux]

Pie'n'eal you are a great asset to Avalon.
I find your insight into things quite educational.

Thank you for being you.

[turiya]

If we are truly investigating something we need to look at the biggest possible picture, rather than our part of it. If we start by not trusting anyone, then the investigation will be fruitless.
“I only trust myself,” comes the reply. Well, that's not saying much is it? That is your own very limited view point.
How can I trust someone who only trusts themselves?

Don't mean to jump to conclusions but
With all due respect...
Somehow, there seems to be something not quite right about this idea of trust.

Trust is not something found in someone else, it is not found in a relationship. Trust is a quality in you.

A man of trust... this does not mean in what he trusts, but only that he trusts. It is a part of his being.
You can take everything from him, but you cannot take his trust.
Trust is your inner growth, your consciousness at its peak. To trust is such a joy.
To distrust others has such a worry to it, has a tension to it, there is a sort of agony attached to it.

This question "How can I trust someone who only trusts themselves?" is shifting responsibility to the other.

Being dependent on whether someone else is trustworthy, is setting oneself up to be deceived, to become a victim, to complain in some way about what others are doing or are not doing. The attention is diverted away from oneself and placed onto others.
Being dependent on the trustworthiness of others is setting oneself up to be a victim.

Those that got burned by Bernie Madoff were those that, to some degree or other, wanted to be deceived.

A man who trusts simply trusts. His trust does not depend on others.
Trust is one of the great qualities of your being.

If you feel you have been deceived, then is your trust destroyed?
If so, then there was an expectation attached to your trust.
Then this was not trust. But wishful thinking on a bet that went south.

A man of trust simply lives out of his trust; whatever happens does not matter.
If he is being deceived continuously, then too, it does not matter.
Deception is not part of his being. Trust is.
Nothing happens to his trust. His trust is something invincible, and that gives integrity.

turiya

[pie'n'eal]

Hello Turiya,

You are right.
As always words can be taken several ways, so it always depends on context. There is an Ego trusting, and an Essence trusting. If we talking from a spiritual point of view, then inner faith or trust is very important, it's an inner confidence. It goes together with compassion and intelligence.

This thread is about ordinary consciousness and forums, and ego hysteria.

Tony

[Kelly]

Haha, i dont mind admitting, im almost permanently confused, confusion is natural for me, ive been confused for years and years, but sometimes, just sometimes, i can see clearly enough to glimpse through the confusion, to see something amazing, me!

[Rocky_Shorz]

trust like forgiveness can only be given...

you cannot take either from another...

[pie'n'eal]

Trust is a complex subject. There needs to be with it an element of proof, and understandable inference.
One could say 75% proof, 20% inference and 5% trust. If someone is explaining something, we need some proof that it might work..we can prove it for ourselves (75%worth).
This is because we have not practiced it yet. The 20% is a bit of theory, which help to convince us, and so by now we trust (5%) to have a go.

Here I'm thinking of electrical wiring, but it works for spiritual teachings as well!

In spiritual practice that 5% for me is Devotion. That is the mystery and very profound side of 'being'.

[crested-duck]

Trust is like faith/spirituality, it's a personal and different thing for everyone,depending on their life experiences. I always start out trusting, then give away enough rope for one to hang themselves with it by abuseing that trust.----Screw me once and shame on you, screw me twice and shame on me.....but trust must be the common starting ground.....Rob

[pie'n'eal]

I trust everyone has Buddha Nature.
I trust a snake might strike.
I trust a liar to lie.
I trust a thief to steal.
I trust an ego to react.

I trust I have been all of these things.
I trust that when I remember, I will know.

[araucaria]

Posted by pie'n'eal (here)
I trust everyone has Buddha Nature.
I trust a snake might strike.
I trust a liar to lie.
I trust a thief to steal.
I trust an ego to react.

I trust I have been all of these things.
I trust that when I remember, I will know.

Hi
We are drifting into the territory of Sartrian inauthenticity here. To trust a liar to lie is to stroke his “être pour autrui” (being-for-others). In other words, he is a liar because that is how other people see him (another form of “fumping to conclusions” perhaps), and he sticks with that. His “existence” – telling lies – becomes assimilated with his “essence” – who he really is.


This can be a very vicious circle. The only way out is to bank on other people’s authenticity, i.e. to refrain from thinking in terms of liars and so on and seeing the real people who may lie from time to time or even most of the time, which means giving them the chance to tell the truth.

[pie'n'eal]

Posted by araucaria (here)

Posted by pie'n'eal (here)
I trust everyone has Buddha Nature.
I trust a snake might strike.
I trust a liar to lie.
I trust a thief to steal.
I trust an ego to react.

I trust I have been all of these things.
I trust that when I remember, I will know.

Hi
We are drifting into the territory of Sartrian inauthenticity here. To trust a liar to lie is to stroke his “être pour autrui” (being-for-others). In other words, he is a liar because that is how other people see him (another form of “fumping to conclusions” perhaps), and he sticks with that. His “existence” – telling lies – becomes assimilated with his “essence” – who he really is.


This can be a very vicious circle. The only way out is to bank on other people’s authenticity, i.e. to refrain from thinking in terms of liars and so on and seeing the real people who may lie from time to time or even most of the time, which means giving them the chance to tell the truth.

Ok, perhaps they are not liars, just mistaken.
An exaggeration is still not the complete truth!
I definitely trust people to exaggerate themselves,
it's what being human is all about!

I trust I do not hold it against them.

[Ultima Thule]

I´ve found that once a person developed his/her intuition somewhat and is sometimes right in their intuitive insights about a certain situation, it is very tempting to go from there to trusting ones intuition in all cases, without actually checking whether those insights have ongoingly been accurate - thus in many cases replacing insight with the very imagination you mentioned Tony. I´ve seen this at times in other people and realized at times this taking place in myself, what a tricky business! A (portion of ) truth is mistakingly mixed up to be THE truth.

UT