Why is Buddhist Faith not blind?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
culaavuso
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: Why is Buddhist Faith not blind?

Post by culaavuso »

Mkoll wrote:
randall wrote: Bhikkhu Bhodhi's note brings to attention that the dhamma follower, and the faith follower both are not freed from lower realms, whereas the noble one's who reached a path does make a mention of them being freed in each of their sections.
Can you provide a reference for that note please?
The note is note 346 to SN 55.24 found on page 1813 of the Connected Discourses of the Buddha. The note itself is on page 1958.

The note points out that the stream winners and beyond are described as being "freed from hell" (parimutto nirayā) while regarding the faith-follower and dhamma-follower they are said to "not go to hell" (agantā nirayaṃ). It also emphasizes that while the faith-follower and dhamma-follower are said to have faith as one of the five faculties, only the stream winners and beyond are said to have "confirmed confidence" (aveccappasāda) or "unwavering devotion" as it is translated in Maurice O'Connell Walshe's translation linked above.
randall
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 3:13 pm

Re: Why is Buddhist Faith not blind?

Post by randall »

thanks culaavuso, you beat me to it.

Another thing to point out is that perhaps why the stream winner and so on can have such strong confidence is because after gaining a path and fruit they were able to drop the first three fetters (1) personality-belief (2) skeptical doubt (3) clinging to rite and rituals. This is also mentioned in the sutta.
Last edited by randall on Wed Oct 15, 2014 5:09 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: Why is Buddhist Faith not blind?

Post by Mkoll »

culaavuso wrote:
Mkoll wrote:
randall wrote: Bhikkhu Bhodhi's note brings to attention that the dhamma follower, and the faith follower both are not freed from lower realms, whereas the noble one's who reached a path does make a mention of them being freed in each of their sections.
Can you provide a reference for that note please?
The note is note 346 to SN 55.24 found on page 1813 of the Connected Discourses of the Buddha. The note itself is on page 1958.

The note points out that the stream winners and beyond are described as being "freed from hell" (parimutto nirayā) while regarding the faith-follower and dhamma-follower they are said to "not go to hell" (agantā nirayaṃ). It also emphasizes that while the faith-follower and dhamma-follower are said to have faith as one of the five faculties, only the stream winners and beyond are said to have "confirmed confidence" (aveccappasāda) or "unwavering devotion" as it is translated in Maurice O'Connell Walshe's translation linked above.
Thanks. I wonder what "not go to hell" means here ...
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6493
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Why is Buddhist Faith not blind?

Post by Dhammanando »

randall wrote:would it be proper to say that faculties are faculties and "everybody has them" (as shown in the Dhammasangani) but when, over a period of time if these faculties are directed and cultivated with the Buddhas Dhamma one gains an understanding and then becomes one that is on the right path, so to speak, but if not practiced can still fall back due to not reaching a path/fruition?
Yes, that sounds about right to me.
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
theend
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 10:47 am

Re: Why is Buddhist Faith not blind?

Post by theend »

Dhammanando wrote:
pulga wrote:
Ñāṇavīra: As faculties the five items, saddhā, viriya, sati, samādhi, and paññā, [...] are totally absent from the puthujjana (ibid. ii,8 <S.v,202>).
It seems to me that Ñāṇavīra's claim can be derived from the sutta passage he cites in support of it only by committing the most elementary of formal fallacies. The passage —from the Paṭipaṇṇaka Sutta— states that anyone who wholly lacks the five faculties is a puthujjana; from this Ñāṇavīra concludes that anyone who is a puthujjana must wholly lack the five faculties. This is like arguing that since all wingless birds are flightless, therefore all flightless birds must be wingless. But as any ostrich, emu or penguin might have told Ñāṇavīra, to reason so is to commit the sentential fallacy of affirming the consequent.
Bhante, I don't see that your reasoning applies here, because we are not talking about an isolated passage. Before the puthujjana is even mentioned, the Sutta in question lists eight types of individuals who possess the five faculties in weaker and weaker degree, and none of them is a puthujjana. Only then a "total lack" of these faculties is mentioned and ascribed to the puthujjana. Given that context, I don't see any "fallacy" in the conclusion that it was the Buddha's intention to distinguish "noble ones" from "worldings" in terms of the five faculties (or lack thereof).

Apart from that: If the Buddha wanted to draw a line between those who possess the five faculties (in weaker and weaker degree) and those who wholly lack them, I would expect him to not only mention the "no-faculty-puthujjana" when there is a "five-faculty-puthujjana" as well.
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Why is Buddhist Faith not blind?

Post by daverupa »

Could we call faculty (indriya) the common human trait, and power (bala) the development of that by noble persons?
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Why is Buddhist Faith not blind?

Post by Sam Vara »

daverupa wrote:Could we call faculty (indriya) the common human trait, and power (bala) the development of that by noble persons?
That certainly makes sense. But doesn't the term indriya mean something like "leader", and already imply a certain level of development?
The term indriya, faculties, applied to this group as a whole is derived from the name of the ancient Vedic god Indra, ruler of the devas, and the term accordingly suggests the divine-like quality of control and domination. The five faculties are so designated because they exercise control in their own specific compartments of the spiritual life. As the god Indra vanquished the demons and attained supremacy among the gods, so each of the five faculties is called upon to subdue a particular mental disability and to marshal the corresponding potency of mind toward the breakthrough to final enlightenment.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... ay_22.html
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: Why is Buddhist Faith not blind?

Post by acinteyyo »

Dhammanando wrote:
pulga wrote:
Ñāṇavīra: As faculties the five items, saddhā, viriya, sati, samādhi, and paññā, [...] are totally absent from the puthujjana (ibid. ii,8 <S.v,202>).
It seems to me that Ñāṇavīra's claim can be derived from the sutta passage he cites in support of it only by committing the most elementary of formal fallacies. The passage —from the Paṭipaṇṇaka Sutta— states that anyone who wholly lacks the five faculties is a puthujjana; from this Ñāṇavīra concludes that anyone who is a puthujjana must wholly lack the five faculties. This is like arguing that since all wingless birds are flightless, therefore all flightless birds must be wingless. But as any ostrich, emu or penguin might have told Ñāṇavīra, to reason so is to commit the sentential fallacy of affirming the consequent.
At the moment I can't fully aggree with your argument, Bhante. I'm not sure about its validity. From your argument follows that there are purhujjanas which are endowed with the faculties at least to some extent. But as I read the Ekabījīsutta and the Sālāsutta one who has mastered the faculties is an arahant and one who is endowed with the faculties to some extent, (less than the arahant) is defined as being a sekha, whereas from the PaṭipaṇṇakaSutta then follows that one wholly lacking the faculties is defined as being a puthujjana. I admit, the Suttas leave room for there being someone endowed with the faculties to a minor dagree as dhammanusari and saddhanusari but it's not clearly stated.
Anyhow one cannot be a puthujjana and a sekha at the same time.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
pulga
Posts: 1502
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: Why is Buddhist Faith not blind?

Post by pulga »

theend wrote: Bhante, I don't see that your reasoning applies here, because we are not talking about an isolated passage. Before the puthujjana is even mentioned, the Sutta in question lists eight types of individuals who possess the five faculties in weaker and weaker degree, and none of them is a puthujjana. Only then a "total lack" of these faculties is mentioned and ascribed to the puthujjana. Given that context, I don't see any "fallacy" in the conclusion that it was the Buddha's intention to distinguish "noble ones" from "worldings" in terms of the five faculties (or lack thereof).

Apart from that: If the Buddha wanted to draw a line between those who possess the five faculties (in weaker and weaker degree) and those who wholly lack them, I would expect him to not only mention the "no-faculty-puthujjana" when there is a "five-faculty-puthujjana" as well.
Well said. Your interpretation rings true.
"Dhammā=Ideas. This is the clue to much of the Buddha's teaching." ~ Ven. Ñanavira, Commonplace Book
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: Why is Buddhist Faith not blind?

Post by acinteyyo »

Seconded
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19944
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Why is Buddhist Faith not blind?

Post by mikenz66 »

pulga wrote:
theend wrote: Bhante, I don't see that your reasoning applies here, because we are not talking about an isolated passage. Before the puthujjana is even mentioned, the Sutta in question lists eight types of individuals who possess the five faculties in weaker and weaker degree, and none of them is a puthujjana. Only then a "total lack" of these faculties is mentioned and ascribed to the puthujjana. Given that context, I don't see any "fallacy" in the conclusion that it was the Buddha's intention to distinguish "noble ones" from "worldings" in terms of the five faculties (or lack thereof).

Apart from that: If the Buddha wanted to draw a line between those who possess the five faculties (in weaker and weaker degree) and those who wholly lack them, I would expect him to not only mention the "no-faculty-puthujjana" when there is a "five-faculty-puthujjana" as well.
Well said. Your interpretation rings true.
So are we left with a matter of interpretation here? Anyone who has any inkling of the faculties, no matter how minuscule, is by definition not a puthujjana? That's an interpretation that doesn't seem to completely defy logic. A low bar, though...

:anjali:
Mike
pulga
Posts: 1502
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: Why is Buddhist Faith not blind?

Post by pulga »

mikenz66 wrote: So are we left with a matter of interpretation here? Anyone who has any inkling of the faculties, no matter how minuscule, is by definition not a puthujjana? That's an interpretation that doesn't seem to completely defy logic. A low bar, though...
I wouldn't call it a low bar. A sekha understands what it means to be liberated, and though he is fettered he has faith that such a thing is possible.
"Dhammā=Ideas. This is the clue to much of the Buddha's teaching." ~ Ven. Ñanavira, Commonplace Book
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: Why is Buddhist Faith not blind?

Post by Mkoll »

pulga wrote:A sekha understands what it means to be liberated, and though he is fettered he has faith that such a thing is possible.
Isn't there a difference between "faith" and "confirmed faith"? Wouldn't the sekha have "confirmed faith" of awakening whereas the worldling has "faith"?
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: Why is Buddhist Faith not blind?

Post by acinteyyo »

pulga wrote:
mikenz66 wrote: So are we left with a matter of interpretation here? Anyone who has any inkling of the faculties, no matter how minuscule, is by definition not a puthujjana? That's an interpretation that doesn't seem to completely defy logic. A low bar, though...
I wouldn't call it a low bar. A sekha understands what it means to be liberated, and though he is fettered he has faith that such a thing is possible.
I neither would call it low bar. The Suttas seem to suggest that it actually is quite easy to get a foot on the path and become a trainee (sekha). To fullfill the training to arahantship is something else, of course.

I 've never quite understood why many buddhists seem to believe that any attainment of maga or phala is nearly impossible while on the other hand openly discussing and talking about Dhamma, about their various meditative experiences or the development of insight or gaining faith and still believing themselves to be an outsider, worldling, run-of-the mill person. If one earnestly takes on the training on the path to awakening, what else is he or she if not a trainee on the path in hope for realizing some kind of fruit of his or her training?

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Why is Buddhist Faith not blind?

Post by retrofuturist »

:goodpost:

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Post Reply