What Is Faith?
Acharya Prashant: Faith is not an act of thought, or memory, or conditioning. Faith is not something that you do for your protection or aggrandization. Faith just is.
You can say, “You believe in something,” but you cannot say the same thing about faith. You cannot say, “I have faith in such and such things.” If your trust has an object, then it is mere belief. Faith is when you are alright without an objective reason to be alright.
So, there is no object associated with faith. Belief is, “I will be rescued because my friend will come to rescue me.” This is the belief—I will be rescued because my friend will come to rescue me.
What is faith? “I do not bother whether I will be rescued or not. I am alright whether I am rescued or not.” So, faith therefore is not dependent on the occurrence of a person, a reason, or anything. Faith is, I said, object independent.
Faith is obviously another name for a totally fulfilled Self. When the Self is totally fulfilled, then it bothers not, or it says that my botheration has been submitted to, or surrendered to a very, very reliable, dependable force. This is faith.
Either you could say, “I do not bother at all,” or you could say, “I have given all my botherations to Ram.” And who is Ram? The one who cannot falter. The one who will not fail me or deceive me. These two are the same thing. You could either say, “Now I am not bothered at all. My friend may come to my rescue, not come to rescue. I feel already rescued.” Or another use of language is, “How to save me, this is no more my personal worry. Ram is the savior; this is his portfolio. Let him take care of me. Why should I worry?”
But in either case you see, faith is object independent. Whether you say, “I do not worry at all,” or whether you say, “Ram will take care of my worries.” Because even though in the second case you are talking of Ram, Ram is nevertheless not an object. Ram is an abstraction. Are you getting it?
Ram is an abstraction used to communicate the idea that I am no more bothered about myself. And because you wanted to communicate it in an affirmative way, so you said, “I am no more bothered about myself, my worries now belong to Ram.” That's as good as saying, “I have stopped bothering. Or the one who bothers, or the one who used to be bothered, I am no more that. I was never that. It’s just that I was in a spell for a while. Now I am out of that spell.” Are you getting it?
Questioner 1: Talking of Ram as an abstraction for positive affirmation is an example of Saṃbhūtī , can we say this?
Acharya Prashant: No, no. When Ram becomes an object for you, then it is Saṃbhūtī . But when Ram is just another name for Nirakar Brahm , then it's not. If Ram becomes an object with attributes, then it is Saṃbhūtī . Now you are imagining Ram, now you have an image of Ram, then it is a problem obviously. But when Ram is just a metaphor for that which is indescribable, then it's a different Ram.
Questioner1: So, basically, we are saying that it is indescribable, yet I am dependent on that?
Acharya Prashant: Yet I am dependent on him. That is faith. Now that's a tricky thing, that’s why faith is such a rarity. What you are saying is, “I am dependent on something or somebody not only I do not know but is actually unknowable.” Bad!
We find it so difficult to depend even on somebody we know and know a lot. Are you ever fully convinced when you have to depend on somebody who is even your family member? Are you fully at peace? Are you? So, that is the condition of those who depend on something that has a form or something that is objective. Even if that thing is tried and tested a thousand times, yet there would lurk a suspicion within you. Because there can be no absolute certainty in this world.
That fellow has remained dependable since the last ten years. What is the guarantee that he will prove dependable even today and deliver the goods? Is there a guarantee? So, some kind of a disquiet will remain within you, that is the ordinary belief. In faith, you do not even know who it is you are trusting and yet you are secure.
In ordinary belief, you fully well know the one you are trusting. “He is my brother, or my father, my wife, my boss, whatever, my organization. I know and I trust them. Yet one phone call can shatter your belief, right? While you have been trusting them for long. You say, “Well sir, you know, your support is my rock of Gibraltar, and all those big things.” But one phone call is enough to dynamite the rock, right?
Faith, you have no idea who you are trusting and yet you are alright.
Tulsi bharose Ram ke, Nirbhay hokar soye.
But who is Ram? Why should I bother? All my botherations are with Ram, so why should I bother who Ram is? Even this botheration let Ram take. Let Ram bother about who Ram is.
Tulsi bharose Ram ke, Nirbhay hokar soye.
Now he does not say, Tulsi bharose guard ke, Nirbhay hokar soye. If it is guard then Tulsi cannot be Nirbhay , and his sleep can never be deep because the guard can ditch you. If the one you are depending on is a mortal person, some objective thing of this world, then you can be anytime ditched and let down. Ram, no chance boss! Sleep peacefully.
Anhoni honi nahi, honi hoye so hoye , that's faith.
I can never be let down because there is nobody to let me down. There is no Ram in the objective sense. So, there is nobody to break my trust. What is Ram then? If I just say, “There is no Ram,” then it's quite hollow and lifeless. So, there is Ram. Ram is there, but not in the sense the guard is there. Ram is there in some other dimension. What is certain is Ram is not in the dimension of the guard.
Equally, you cannot say that there is nothing called Ram, because had there been nothing called Ram, how come Tulsi is snoring away so peacefully? So, there certainly is something called Ram, but that something is not on the same plane as the guard.
What is the proof that Ram is there? See how his snores are echoing, that’s the proof. Not one tension this man has. This is the proof that there is Ram. There is no proof of God other than the Godly man, I said that elsewhere. Getting it?
As long as the guard is there, you will get no peace, no sleep. Now there are two options: get ten guards, get the entire army, or dismiss this one guard that you have. Most people, if they are not able to sleep peacefully with one guard, what do they do? They bring in ten guards. They say now maybe we feel secure and sleep. But the thing is, if you couldn't feel secure with one, you cannot feel secure with ten. What if these ten collude? One was one, I could have even overpowered him, but now there are ten of them. Insecurity is mental. Who can stop imagination?
So, the way is, if one guard makes you insecure, don't get another one, dismiss this one. Remember that old poster? ‘Everything that you gather for your security makes you all the more insecure’ .
Questioner 2: There is this Doha that has stuck with me by Kabir Saheb.
Sukhiya sab sansar hai, khave aur soye. Dukhiya das Kabir hai, jage aur roye.
And similarly, I have also seen you being worried about things, and mission, and everything. So, on one hand you totally depend upon Ram, on the other hand…
Acharya Prashant: These are two different dimensions you see. Dukhiya das Kabir hai, jage aur roye . The Jage bit, the awakened part pertains to Vidyā or the subject within. The Roye part, which implies concern, intention, and restlessness—this pertains to worldly conduct. Are you getting it?
Within there is nothing but pure awakening, constant awakening. Externally, the being is responding to the worldly situation at hand. And the worldly situation at hand is such that it brings tears to the eyes of the mortal being. Are you getting it?
The mortal being, he is influenced by the situation of the world, because as far as the mortal part is concerned, it has to be influenced, it will be influenced. But within that mortal exterior, lives someone whose nature and work is just pure light and awakening, Jage aur Roye . In fact, because he is awakened within, therefore he is in tears outside. The once who are not awakened within are found rejoicing outside. Are you getting it?
So, it is not as if awakening necessitates a certain type of blissful external conduct. It's a fallacy. And it's a fallacy that has been promoted by not merely ignorance, but actually ill will. You see, it has been said that if you are awakened from within, then externally you would be composed, peaceful, and smiling, and all those things. If that be the reason, then why is Kabir Saheb saying here that in the middle of this happily sleeping world, he is the only one awake and tearful?
Awakening is a certain thing in all saints. This will be something common amongst them—all of them are awakened from within. Except for this, if you find anything overlapping in their external behavior or characteristics, it is merely a coincidence. There is no certainty, no guarantee that the outsides, the external behavior, or conduct, or mannerisms of awakened beings will be similar. No, not at all.
What is similar among them is inner awakening, not external conduct. But we have been made to believe that all awakened beings must display a particular type of external conduct. You know what that does? That merely enables the fraudsters to exhibit that kind of conduct and convince everybody that they too are awakened.
For example, if it has been drilled deep into you that an awakened being walks in a particular way, wears in a particular way, carries something around the neck with beads, or rings, or some holy mark, or vermilion, or something. His eyes are half closed, he is always found chanting the holy name, he smiles in a particular way. And you have been said that a holy man will display all these characteristics. He eats this much and in this way. He has had wonderful and extraordinary experiences.
And if I am a trickster trying to dupe you into thinking that I am an enlightened being, then what will I do? You have made it very easy for me, have you not? You have made it very easy for me to trick you. I will just start exhibiting all the signs that you commonly associate with enlightenment, and you will quickly believe that I too am enlightened. Don't fall into that trap.
Enlightenment is something very, very subtle. It is so subtle that I call it non-existent. Therefore, I refute the common concept of enlightenment itself. The commonly held and displayed enlightenment is nothing but a trick. And it is a trick to cheat you. Why don't you understand?
If you will read about the lives of saints, so many of them have done so many things that will shock you. They are totally against your idea of enlightenment. It is just because you are ignorant about the life stories, and work, and behavior, and mannerisms of saints, that you continue to call them holy. Otherwise, if you measure them by your yardstick of holiness, then you will be forced to declare that none of them are holy.
It's the very strange situation where you have dreamed up standards of holiness for yourself that are so foolish that you declare all the frauds as enlightened, and all the saints you will declare as ordinary beings or even vile beings, if you came to know of the real-life stories of those saints. Just because you will think that the saints are wicked or fallen, it will do nothing to the saints, but it tells a lot about your stupidity.
We imagine a saintly figure to be some kind of superhuman, right? One, he has to be a superhuman; secondly, he needs to exhibit supernatural powers, right? How is he to be a superhuman? He is to be a superhuman by total lack of emotionality, by his total lack of experience of everything that you called as worldly or carnal. Everything that besets you and defeats you should never be seen in him. And it helps your belief if that fellow declares that he can heal wounds, or fly off his body, or do some kind of magic, this, and that.
In contrast, saints were deeply humane. You may call them enlightened, unenlightened as you please, doesn't matter. What matters is that they were humane to the core. They were concerned, they cared, they bothered and that's the essence of sainthood. The field of your concerns extends far beyond yourself, and this you can technically also call as transcending body identification.
So, the common man weeps, so does Saint Kabir. The difference does not lie in one weeping versus the other not weeping. The difference lies in the fact that the common man weeps for himself, and Saint Kabir weeps for the entire world. The field of his concern is very inclusive. Concerned he is, worried he is. He is worried just as the common man is. He weeps just as any common man or woman does. It's just that when a commoner weeps, it is because he has lost some money, or some desire has not been met. When Kabir Saheb weeps it is for another reason.
Similarly, he will display all other emotions—disappointment, anger, desire. It's just that common man desires for himself, the saint will have a much more intense and ferocious desire. And the desire of the common man is lukewarm, the saint's desire is unmatchable. Intense drive and desire he has, it's just that he is not desiring for his personal sake.
But if you look for desireless-ness in a saint, you will be deceived, because some charlatan, some trickster will display a cultivated desireless-ness and take you for a ride. He will say, “Look at me, I have no desire.” And you will say, “Wow, this is the real enlightened being. See he has no desire.” The saints had tremendous desire. It's just that when there is saintliness, then desire itself gets consecrated. By the touch of the center, the exteriors are turned holy. Are you getting it?
On the exterior, is the dance of all these worldly things, mind, desire, anger, disappointment all these things. But when at the center is Ram, then all these external things, they do not die, they become holy.
So, it's not that the saint does not have a desire, he has a desire. But his desire itself is holy. His desire will have holy effects. Do not be stupid enough to accuse him of having desires. If he doesn't have desires, why will he work for you? If he doesn't have desires, what is he doing amongst you? Why should he be found with you?
He is with you because he has desires. Don't judge him on that. The nature of his desire is dimensionally different. The nature of his anger is dimensionally different. The nature of his tears is dimensionally different. Do you get this?
