What is a belief? Who is believing?

[Eugene I]

It's easy to see why that is not the case - if you tell me to make a list of my color preferences, and I write on my list all the colors which exist and say they are all equally preferable to me, then neither one of us has gained anything of value from the exercise.

That is because you relate the value to a "preference". But their value may not have anything to do with any preference whatsoever, it all depends on how we define values. From some perspectives the values may be related to preferences, and there is nothing wrong with that. But from other perspectives the values can be defined differently and may have nothing to do with preferences. For example, in math the values of mathematical statements have nothing to do with any personal preferences. Also, even when values are related to preferences, the preferences may vary widely, and so the values associated with them.

But let's say we still do want to restrict the list of values to some "meaningful" and "valuable" ones. What do we do then, for example, with the value of the "non-dual" perspective, and its truth? Or with the value of "pantheistic" indigenous perspective and its truth? Such value of the "non-dual" perspective is a value for me and aligns with my preferences, but not a value for you and does not align with yours. Do we include it or exclude it? And if we do exclude it, then on what grounds?

[AshvinP]

It's easy to see why that is not the case - if you tell me to make a list of my color preferences, and I write on my list all the colors which exist and say they are all equally preferable to me, then neither one of us has gained anything of value from the exercise.

That is because you relate the value to a "preference". But their value may not have anything to do with any preference whatsoever, it all depends on how we define values. From some perspectives the values may be related to preferences, and there is nothing wrong with that. But from other perspectives the values can be defined differently and may have nothing to do with preferences. For example, in math the values of mathematical statements have nothing to do with any personal preferences. Also, even when values are related to preferences, the preferences may vary widely, and so the values associated with them.

But let's say we still do want to restrict the list of values to some "meaningful" and "valuable" ones. What do we do then, for example, with the value of the "non-dual" perspective, and its truth? Or with the value of "pantheistic" indigenous perspective and its truth? Such value of the "non-dual" perspective is a value for me and aligns with my preferences, but not a value for you and does not align with yours. Do we include it or exclude it? And if we do exclude it, then on what grounds?

That is not what anyone means by "values" and "goals". We are referring to specific targets we are aiming at and want to reach; modes and states of being which we prefer over others. An intellectual proposition like "reality is non-dual" is not what we are referring to as a "value" or "goal" (aside - I would claim my perspective is more non-dual than yours, for reasons discussed on other threads). Like I said before, everyone can make their own list of values-goals and they do not have to be the same as mine, but I suspect that, if such an exercise was done, there would end up being a large overlap between all of our lists at the level of "highest possible" value or goal. And any one person's list would be just as rank ordered as anyone else's.

[Eugene I]

That is not what anyone means by "values" and "goals". We are referring to specific targets we are aiming at and want to reach; modes and states of being which we prefer over others. An intellectual proposition like "reality is non-dual" is not what we are referring to as a "value" or "goal" (aside - I would claim my perspective is more non-dual than yours, for reasons discussed on other threads). Like I said before, everyone can make their own list of values-goals and they do not have to be the same as mine, but I suspect that, if such an exercise was done, there would end up being a large overlap between all of our lists at the level of "highest possible" value or goal. And any one person's list would be just as rank ordered as anyone else's.

I would think that if you really collect all such lists from all people and try to find some values and goals common to all of them, you will likely find that such common list is empty. There are people on the planet who would even deny any values of "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control". So, I don't think the method of defining the "global" and "universal" values based on the list of ones common for all people even practically works.

[AshvinP]

That is not what anyone means by "values" and "goals". We are referring to specific targets we are aiming at and want to reach; modes and states of being which we prefer over others. An intellectual proposition like "reality is non-dual" is not what we are referring to as a "value" or "goal" (aside - I would claim my perspective is more non-dual than yours, for reasons discussed on other threads). Like I said before, everyone can make their own list of values-goals and they do not have to be the same as mine, but I suspect that, if such an exercise was done, there would end up being a large overlap between all of our lists at the level of "highest possible" value or goal. And any one person's list would be just as rank ordered as anyone else's.

I would think that if you really collect all such lists from all people and try to find some values and goals common to all of them, you will likely find that such common list is empty. There are people on the planet who would even deny any values of "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control". So, I don't think the method of defining the "global" and "universal" values based on the list of ones common for all people even practically works.

That's an odd claim - why do so many spiritual traditions across the world impart similar if not identical values? I have a hard time thinking many people would deny they value love, joy, peace, etc. relative to other values.

Here's another way to think about it - the Big 5 personality traits were derived by surveying many people and statistically analyzing the data. The researchers did not set out with specific traits in mind. So my claim is similar to that - if we surveys thousands of people who identify as spiritual across cultures, a common set of values-goals would develop (there's a good chance something like this has already been done). In fact, I imagine the Big 5 personality traits are correlated with those values-goals as well.

[Eugene I]

Well, ok, but how about such value-goal as "non-dual" state (the realization of the unconditional aspects of consciousness), which is one of the most fundamental in the Eastern traditions but mostly ignored in the Western ones? If you separate the "people who identify as spiritual" into the adepts of the Eastern and Western traditions, you will now see certain key values-goals that do not overlap between those groups at all.

[AshvinP]

Well, ok, but how about such value-goal as "non-dual" state (the realization of the unconditional aspects of consciousness), which is one of the most fundamental in the Eastern traditions but mostly ignored in the Western ones? If you separate the "people who identify as spiritual" into the adepts of the Eastern and Western traditions, you will now see certain key values-goals that do not overlap between those groups at all.

Well the original point was that mere belief does not serve any spiritual goal akin to "reuniting with our Source", and I think we agree on that. My answer to the OP's question of "what is a belief?" was that it is a mode of being which has become a hindrance to the goal of pyscho-spiritual development.

Now I am not sure what we are discussing - whether "all goals are created equal?" I don't think so and for pretty obvious reasons. And as we have discussed many times before, I do not view there to be a fundamental split in Eastern and Western traditions. I see them as working towards the same spiritual goals in different manners. There are versions of each which exclude the others (in the West, the super-exclusionary ones are also the ones which emphasize mere belief), but I do not subscribe to those versions.