trust -- what is it?

genkaku · February 2015

I apologize for not putting this in a newbuddhist format, but I am lazy. This morning I was writing about "trust" on my blog and wondered what anyone here might think about it. Here are the thoughts I wrote:

I'll probably never arm-wrestles the topic into a newspaper column, so I guess I will let it out of the starting gate here ... in the privacy of my own slovenly home... the question of trust.

As far as I can figure out, there is an unremitting desire to feel the warming waters of trust. It soothes the soul. It warms the cockles. In the midst of uncertainty trust is relaxed and at peace with something or someone. Trust is a place or time where doubt is erased and comfort kicks in. I'm talking gut-level stuff here, not dictionary stuff.

An Internet dictionary offers this partial approach:
-- a feeling of confidence in someone that shows you believe they are honest, fair, and reliable
-- confidence that something is safe, reliable, or effective
Trust. Cops want it and so do criminals. Politicians court and sometimes lie in order to cement it. Spouses and religious devotees may lay claim to it. Farmers and stock brokers and young mothers and old codgers all seek out little and large homesteads of trust. To trust may prove dangerous, but the alternative of distrusting each and every segment of life that comes down the pike is both exhausting and impossible.

There's just got to be something trustworthy and even if there's not, still ... well ... I guess each picks his or her own version. Buddhists trust, for example, that all things change and their sometimes smug assertion is hard to contradict. But is it trustworthy?

A resting place. Someplace that requires no energy. A bit of peace. Just one small moment that devolves drip by drop into this moment -- a point at which the matter of trust is irrelevant.

There have been people I trusted. And on the sociological big screen, I used to trust the U.S. Supreme Court and the magazine "Consumer Reports." Maybe the Buddhist "enlightenment" is worth trusting, but how could I know that without first being enlightened?

It's a strange duck, trust.

rocala · February 2015

Trust as a subject is one huge minefield. We tend to forget that it is also a two way street.
Recently I went to work without money or bank card. I was stuck, hungry and in a bad mood. A young colleague, with a reputation for his bad temper, came to me at my break time, gave me his cash card and pin number and said take what you need and pay back when you can.

What ever trust is, I think I would sooner get stung now and again than just let it go.

karasti · February 2015

We run into problems with trust because by definition, it is something that is hard to make work solely in the present. It requires a basis in the past, and an expectation for the future. We all know how both of those turn out, lol.

I still think it is useful, but I do try to let go of the expectation portion when I can. It's hard. When someone exhibits the same unskillful behavior over and over again, it's pretty hard to trust them to do the right thing the next time. But I've found (and here I am talking about working with my kids, not criminals or anything like that) that if you go out of your comfort zone of "you broke my trust! How can I trust you to not do that again?" and extend the trust even if maybe their past behavior doesn't indicate they deserve it, you get some nice surprising results. People have the expectation when they break trust that it'll take an eternity to gain it back and it gives them (I think) a sense of "why bother?" but when immediately given a blank slate to start with the next time that chance comes up, they jump at the chance.

It's easy to say that when I am talking about my son lying about his homework and telling me he did it when he didn't. It's another thing when we feel mortally wounded by a spouse who was unfaithful or a best friend who stole from us. But perhaps the gift of not with holding trust until an undetermined magical time and place is best for both people. Not saying I could do it.

silver · February 2015

I've come to consider things like trust and truth, like shining, sparkling chimera. We 'trust' trust and truth, as if they are solid - something one can bank on, once we've decided to put our hopes, faith and trust in someone or something. After being around as long as I have, I've come to realize it can be like investing in the stock market. There will be surprises - the ones we recall most readily are the downward trends. I've learned a few lessons, but lessons in what? There's the rub.

vinlyn · February 2015

Well put, @Silver!

The person I trusted most in this world in my whole life stole $15,000 from me.

So, over time, I have learned not to trust the emotion (and that's what I have come to think "trust" is -- an emotion) of trust. Let's face it, we can't even trust ourselves...as any dieter knows.

I thought it was interesting, @Genkaku, your mention of the police and trust. If there is any group who isn't getting the concept of "trust" right now, it is the police. They think they deserve trust simply because of the badge, regardless of what their actions may be. They think they can demand trust. And by god, if they don't get it, they'll force it down our throats anyway. And everything they do just makes trust disappear more everyday. I am hopeful that one of these days they will realize that trust for any institution -- including law enforcement -- is something that has to be earned every day, every week, every year, and even then is still very fragile.

federica · February 2015

Never trust anyone who states they want to be a Politician.

I cannot remember one time where a Politician said something, stood by it, meant it, and carried through.

vinlyn · February 2015

I actually have a lot of sympathy for dedicated politicians. I take, for example, Colorado, which -- like several states -- has an fairly evenly split electorate. How, as the governor (for example) do you represent a constituency where roughly half the people want virtually no gun control, and roughly half the people want gun control? And that's where the problem comes in -- since it is impossible to represent a divided constituency, the politician begins to think (perhaps subconsciously), "I can't actually represent the people, so how can I win?"

karasti · February 2015

I think sometimes (certainly not always and maybe not even often) politicians might enter the arena with good intentions of following through. I think sometimes they are surprised by things they cannot control that prevent them from realizing what they promised, and also, by things deep in the political systems that they perhaps did not know about when they made those promises. I think Obama has a good heart. I think he had good intentions. He certainly didn't do all bad, but he promised things he did not follow through on. But is that inability to do so entirely his fault? Or is it largely due to having a congress that fought him just on principle despite how good of ideas he had? They weren't going to let him succeed even if it means dragging the entire country down. I think that happens on a lot of levels, not just presidential. It even happens on our school board, LOL.

genkaku · February 2015

At least one state, Montana, put up a good fight when the Supreme Court ruled in the 2010 case, Citizens United, that unfettered corporate donations to politicians and political constituencies did not invite corruption. With plenty of history to back themselves up, Montana said it would continue to enforce a state law barring any such giving... Montana would ignore the Supreme Court decision.

Then, in 2012, the Supreme Court ruled against Montana.

Given the congressional track record since then, I would rather trust the loser in this case than I would the winner.

federica · February 2015

The trouble with 'dedicated Politicians' is two-fold:

One, they're as rare as hen's teeth, and two, they quit their morals and principles and toe the party line. "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts, absolutely".
As Billy Connolly once famously said, "Anyone actively wishing to be a politician should automatically be excluded from the running."

I don't trust anyone to say they can never be bought or corrupted. History will demonstrate that even the most ardent, righteous and well-intentioned people will, if "the price is Right" be swayed from their original intentions.

Always has been, currently is, and I believe, ever will be.

vinlyn · February 2015

Yes, power corrupts...usually. You can take that too far. For example, as moderator, you have power. Are you corrupted? As Principal I had power. Was I corrupted? What does corrupted even mean; I doubt we could all agree on that.

But the saving grace of "absolute power corrupts, absolutely", is that very few have "absolute power", and those who do so often lose it (just ask Dick Nixon about that). Does the President have absolute power? Nope, as the Republicans have proven. Does a senator have absolute power...well, if so, which one of the 100 has it?

The problem with the saying is that is that it has been tossed at everyone with any level of authority, even though virtually everyone has some other boss that can overturn them. To be honest, even though the saying is accurate, it has become so overused that it is now a cliche and incorrectly used.

federica · February 2015

No-one's tried to bribe me yet.

vinlyn · February 2015

I don't think that corruption, which is a spoiler of trust, only involves bribery.

I was just thinking that in the United States I can only think of one group that holds absolute power (sort of) -- the Supreme Court. On everyone else there are checks and balances.

lobster · February 2015

Maybe the Buddhist "enlightenment" is worth trusting, but how could I know that without first being enlightened?

Study of the source.

The integrity of contemplatives, spiritual adepts, masters of their lower self are there in all traditions. They offer a similar explanation of what is referred to as awakening, realisation, enlightenment, remembering ones true nature etc.

So do we have faith/trust that they are genuine or are they just deluding themself and others?

I am fully confident and trust people's capacity to recognise genuine insight, real seeking and not be taken in by doubts and lack of experience/knowledge. Certainty grows that Dharma is a genuine way. Faith or trust develops in the line or lineage stretching back to the Buddha . . .

. . . then of course we have the enlightened like me and Buddha fielded @Jeffrey who might not be all we allege but are heading in a trusted direction . . .

I trust we knew that . . .

karasti · February 2015

I find it sad that our politics is a career at all. That's not what it was ever intended to be, it was supposed to be Joe Blow representing the other Joe Blows by taking a term of service to represent his community and fellow citizens. Yes, it makes it hard to trust that they have our well-being and interests at heart when they are basically as sponsored as athletes. Can't bite the hand that feeds you even if it isn't in the best interest of the people. Hard to trust them, but it's what the system has created. Voters but into it to the point they think someone not operating that way is doing something wrong. The system needs sweeping changes but they aren't forthcoming, at least not in the US.

That said, I think I might actually trust my fellow voters less than I trust the politicians. Too many people I know actually choose their votes based on their age, gender, or looks. I certainly don't trust most of them to choose a candidate based on actual investigation or observation. But again, who gets hurt by my not trusting of the citizenry? Mostly only myself.

vinlyn · February 2015

Not only that, Karasti, but to be honest, the more democracy there is, the worse things get. I point to California as a prime example. The voters don't always know best. After all, the majority -- at one time -- approved of slavery and sending Japanese Americans to concentration camps.