Uncertain Minds: How the West Misunderstands Buddhism

A place to discuss casual topics amongst spiritual friends.
User avatar
Lampang
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:26 pm
Location: Thailand

Re: Uncertain Minds: How the West Misunderstands Buddhism

Post by Lampang »

Right. As I said, I'm using faith in it's normal sense and you're using it in a special sense (though perhaps on this forum yours is the normal use and I'm the odd one out); we're having two different conversations and whilst I can't comment on the appropriacy of your usage, I don't see anything wrong with what I've written.
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Uncertain Minds: How the West Misunderstands Buddhism

Post by Nyana »

Lampang wrote:Right. As I said, I'm using faith in it's normal sense and you're using it in a special sense (though perhaps on this forum yours is the normal use and I'm the odd one out); we're having two different conversations and whilst I can't comment on the appropriacy of your usage, I don't see anything wrong with what I've written.
It seems that the English term "faith" has a broader set of meanings and connotations than you're acknowledging. These include trust, allegiance, fidelity, confidence, etc. Faith is from Anglo-French feid, from Latin fidēs "trust," "confidence." For example, see faith (Merriam Webster Dictionary) and faith (American Heritage Dictionary, Collins English Dictionary).
User avatar
Lampang
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:26 pm
Location: Thailand

Re: Uncertain Minds: How the West Misunderstands Buddhism

Post by Lampang »

Yes and no. I should probably have been clearer but I'm talking about 'religious faith' (as I said here: "As a product of the cultural history of the English-speaking nations, (religious) faith is conceived in this way - it's all about believing unknowable propositions") and you can't substitute anything for faith in that phrase: 'religious trust', 'religious allegiance', 'religious fidelity', 'religious confidence' - none of them make any sense. And since you said you're using 'faith' as a stand in for a Pali word which doesn't map well onto its English counterpart, it seems we're both in agreement that our uses differ.
---
Also, by saying that faith is opposed to knowledge it should be clear that confidence, trust, allegiance, etc. are not acceptable synonyms for the sense that I was highlighting (and, I'm pretty confident, the sense which most native speakers have in mind when 'faith' is used with reference to a religion or religiously-tinged propositions). After all, if I say "My mother is a faithful Christian" and "Fido is a faithful dog", I'm obviously using the word in pretty different ways.
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Uncertain Minds: How the West Misunderstands Buddhism

Post by Nyana »

Lampang wrote:Yes and no. I should probably have been clearer but I'm talking about 'religious faith' (as I said here: "As a product of the cultural history of the English-speaking nations, (religious) faith is conceived in this way - it's all about believing unknowable propositions") and you can't substitute anything for faith in that phrase: 'religious trust', 'religious allegiance', 'religious fidelity', 'religious confidence' - none of them make any sense.
I recognize that we all have our own unique personal histories, but I think that at some point it's quite helpful, and eventually necessary, to step out of the shadow of our past Judeo-Christian conditioning, etc. The Buddhadhamma has been related to and practiced very much as a religion by millions of people in Asia for well over 2000 years. This may not appeal to one's Western, post-modern sensibilities, but there's a certain tension in revisionism that should be acknowledged here. Personally, I'm skeptical of the premise that the historical Buddha and his early disciples thought and acted in ways that would be wholly acceptable to modern skeptics like Mr. Batchelor, and that this "pristine" dhamma was later corrupted by Buddhist traditions.
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Uncertain Minds: How the West Misunderstands Buddhism

Post by Sam Vara »

:goodpost:

Very nicely put.
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Uncertain Minds: How the West Misunderstands Buddhism

Post by daverupa »

sadhu
  • "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
Lampang
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:26 pm
Location: Thailand

Re: Uncertain Minds: How the West Misunderstands Buddhism

Post by Lampang »

I think that at some point it's quite helpful, and eventually necessary, to step out of the shadow of our past Judeo-Christian conditioning, etc.
Something you have achieved but I, poor benighted sinner that I am, have yet to accomplish, eh. Lovely.
The Buddhadhamma has been related to and practiced very much as a religion by millions of people in Asia for well over 2000 years.
Yes, I know. I live in Thailand. I see it every day. Mostly, it makes for pretty unpleasant viewing.
dhamma follower
Posts: 354
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:48 am

Re: Uncertain Minds: How the West Misunderstands Buddhism

Post by dhamma follower »

Lampang wrote:
I think that at some point it's quite helpful, and eventually necessary, to step out of the shadow of our past Judeo-Christian conditioning, etc.
Something you have achieved but I, poor benighted sinner that I am, have yet to accomplish, eh. Lovely.
No need to take it personally. Since this is a Buddhist forum with a topic on Buddhism, it is fair enough to rely on the definition of faith in the Buddhadhamma, instead of the common meaning anyone might bear in mind.
The Buddhadhamma has been related to and practiced very much as a religion by millions of people in Asia for well over 2000 years.
Yes, I know. I live in Thailand. I see it every day. Mostly, it makes for pretty unpleasant viewing
Again, one is not necessarily a Buddhist just because one bows in front of the Buddha's image or belongs to a Buddhist community. One might do so with or without the kind of faith as defined by the Buddha and well explained in Nana's posts.

Regards,

D.F
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Uncertain Minds: How the West Misunderstands Buddhism

Post by Nyana »

Lampang wrote:Something you have achieved but I, poor benighted sinner that I am, have yet to accomplish, eh.
Oh c'mon now, that wasn't implied.
User avatar
Viscid
Posts: 931
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 8:55 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Uncertain Minds: How the West Misunderstands Buddhism

Post by Viscid »

With regard to faith, I think we're confused of its meaning partly because we're committing Ken Wilber's (please don't groan) pre/trans fallacy-- if I understand it correctly:

As westerners, we have a wholly different experience of Buddhism from those who were born into a Buddhist culture, we did not come to Buddhist practice due to social pressure from those around us, and yet much of our outward practice is indistinguishable from theirs. When a westerner bows to a Buddhist statue, or says they have faith in the Buddha, it may be an expression of something altogether different from when a native Buddhist does so. Westerners have had tremendous exposure to a plethora of religious and philosophical beliefs, and have made a very conscious decision to practice [Theravada] Buddhism. Yet, if both Western Buddhists and Native Buddhists are practicing according to the texts and to teachers, you cannot distinguish this difference in either word or action. When a Native Buddhist says he has 'faith' in the Buddha, it is not equal to the 'faith' that someone who actually 'gets it' has, but being the same word we mistake it as such.

Our humility, perhaps, prevents us from making the distinguishment between a "pre-rational" Buddhist from a "trans-rational" Buddhist.
"What holds attention determines action." - William James
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Uncertain Minds: How the West Misunderstands Buddhism

Post by danieLion »

Lampang wrote:
danieLion wrote:I can't speak for Ñāṇa, but the idea that "devotional practices are justified in terms of their efficacy" is not not the implication I drew from this.
What implications did you draw?
The disconnect between faith and knowledge is not necessary, and in some cases essential.
danieLion wrote:the dichotomy between faith and knowledge is false
Lampang wrote:Why? As far as I can see, reference to faith which involves knowledge doesn't make sense.
Thanissaro Bhikkhu wrote:Thus, for every listener, faith in the Buddha's Awakening was a prerequisite for advanced growth in the teaching. Without faith in the fact of the Buddha's knowledge of Unbinding, one could not fully accept his prescription. Without faith in the regularity of the Dhamma — including conviction in the principle of kamma and the impersonality of the causal law, making the path open in principle to everyone — one could not fully have faith in one's own ability to follow the path. Of course, this faith would then be confirmed, step by step, as one followed the teaching and began gaining results, but full confirmation would come only with an experience of Awakening. Prior to that point, one's trust, bolstered only by partial results, would have to be a matter of faith [MN 27].

Acquiring this faith is called "going for refuge" in the Buddha. The "refuge" here derives from the fact that one has placed trust in the truth of the Buddha's Awakening and expects that by following his teachings — in particular, the principle of skillful kamma — one protects oneself from creating further suffering for oneself or others, eventually reaching true, unconditioned happiness. This act of going for refuge is what qualifies one as a Buddhist — as opposed to someone simply interested in the Buddha's teachings — and puts one in a position to benefit fully from what the Buddha taught.

The Buddha employed various means of instilling faith in his listeners, but the primary means fall into three classes: his character, his psychic powers, and his powers of reason. When he gave his first sermon — to the Five Brethren, his former compatriots — he had to preface his remarks by reminding them of his honest and responsible character before they would willingly listen to him. When he taught the Kassapa brothers, he first had to subdue their pride with a dazzling array of psychic feats. In most cases, however, he needed only to reason with his listeners and interlocutors, although here again he had to be sensitive to the level of their minds so that he could lead them step by step, taking them from what they saw as immediately apparent and directing them to ever higher and more subtle points. The typical pattern was for the Buddha to begin with the immediate joys of generosity and virtue, followed by the longer-term sensual rewards of these qualities, in line with the principle of kamma; then the ultimate drawbacks of those sensual rewards; and finally the benefits of renunciation. If his listeners could follow his reasoning this far, they would be ready for the more advanced teachings.

We often view reason as something distinct from faith, but for the Buddha it was simply one way of instilling faith or conviction in his listeners. At several points in the Pali Canon [e.g., DN 1; MN 95] he points out the fallacies that can result when one draws reasoned conclusions from a limited range of experience, from false analogies, or from inappropriate modes of analysis. Because his teachings could not be proven prior to an experience of Awakening, he recognized that the proper use of reason was not in trying to prove his teachings, but simply in showing that they made sense. People can make sense of things when they see them as similar to something they already know and understand.

Thus the main function of reason in presenting the teachings is in finding proper analogies for understanding them: hence the many metaphors and similes used throughout the texts. Faith based on reason and understanding, the Buddha taught, was more solid than unreasoned faith, but neither could substitute for the direct knowledge of the regularity of the Dhamma and of Unbinding, for only the experience of Unbinding was a guarantee of true knowledge. Nevertheless, faith was a prerequisite for attaining that direct knowledge. Only when the initial presentation of the teaching had aroused faith in the listener, would he/she be in a position to benefit from a less-adorned presentation of the content and put it into practice (my emphases).
Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... html#intro" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
danieLion wrote:Both these quotes smack of ethnocentrism
Lampang wrote:Again, perhaps you could explain what you're getting at.
You're trying to understand Buddhism from a cultural perspective that's very foreign to Buddhist cultures.
metta
*Edit: Impolite comment removed. Apologies.
Last edited by danieLion on Fri Jun 15, 2012 6:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Uncertain Minds: How the West Misunderstands Buddhism

Post by tiltbillings »

Mod note: Gentlemen, Please be polite or your msgs will cease to be, as per the TOS which you agreed to by posting here. Also, no posting stuff in a language (in this case Thai) not readily understood by most here without an accurate translation.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Uncertain Minds: How the West Misunderstands Buddhism

Post by Cittasanto »

danieLion wrote: Re: The MEDITATION comments. While knowing Peacock thinks "meditation" is the worst translation of the practices the Buddha taught has some validity, you'll find him (and Batchelor) using the term all the time--not to mention, they both meditate frequently.

metta
Hi Danial,
do you care to explain this validity?

If you are thinking of the term Bhavana, do note that is not the term I bring up, or the term that should be translated as meditation (my mentioning was in responce to the claim that there is "no word for meditation", which is false)
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Uncertain Minds: How the West Misunderstands Buddhism

Post by danieLion »

Cittasanto wrote:
danieLion wrote: Re: The MEDITATION comments. While knowing Peacock thinks "meditation" is the worst translation of the practices the Buddha taught has some validity, you'll find him (and Batchelor) using the term all the time--not to mention, they both meditate frequently.

metta
Hi Danial,
do you care to explain this validity?

If you are thinking of the term Bhavana, do note that is not the term I bring up, or the term that should be translated as meditation (my mentioning was in responce to the claim that there is "no word for meditation", which is false)
Hi Cittasanto,

Did I claim there's "no word for meditation"? If I did, that was dumb of me because my Pali skills and knowledge of the Pali tradition are minimal. Peacock's averse to it because he thinks it alludes to Christian traditions. It seems like a personal problem of his to me (he hates the use of the word "enlightenment" too, saying, "That was a political movement is Europe.")

When I first encountered Batchelor and Peacock was a little starry eyed, I'll admit. BUT, my main beef with them and their like right now is how irrelevant they are. They seem to be operating under the assumption that deconstruction is the latest, cutting edge, academic tool. But by the time they got around to applying it critically to the Pali tradition, it was already yesterdays news. Why? For better or worse we live in an increasingly global culture and deconstructing anything is just a few keyboard taps away. In this context, presentations like this appear archaic to me. Yet they act like their findings our it's the latest discovery.

When Buddhists talk to each other about meditation, I don't think is much of an issue. However, when I tell people who don't know words like bhavana, jhana, samatha, vipassana, anapansati, satipatthana, etc..., and I tell them I meditate, they usually don't know what the hell I'm talking about. For years I'd say to my wife (she's not a Buddhist), "I'm going to go meditate" before I found out she assumed mediation just means "emptying your mind."

Now, I try and get more specific, e.g., I'm going to do mindfulness of in and out breathing, or Qigong, or walking meditation. I say this because my wife's former understanding is typical. In western/modern culture, meditating is often synonymous with wasting your time, yet I've found with people like my wife, that even a little technical explanation helps them understand that when we meditate per the Buddha's instructions there's a whole lot of actual work involved.
metta
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Uncertain Minds: How the West Misunderstands Buddhism

Post by ground »

Buddhismis is this ... buddhism is that ...
"He grows disenchanted with the intellect, disenchanted with ideas, disenchanted with consciousness at the intellect, disenchanted with contact at the intellect. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect, experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain: He grows disenchanted with that too. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Post Reply