Why is Buddhist Faith not blind?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22441
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Why is Buddhist Faith not blind?

Post by Ceisiwr »

I like something Ajahn Sumedho said in reguards to stream-entry and arahantship


He something along there lines that you dont become a stream-winner, there is no i am a stream-winner and there is no i am not a stream-winner because thats still thinking, still self-view. Just like thinking i will become an arahant in the future is just thinking and self-view



Its there all along you just need to see it through awareness in the present moment, you dont become it so there is no i will become ..... in the future


Just thought id add that


:anjali:
:focus:
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19945
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Why is Buddhist Faith not blind?

Post by mikenz66 »

Thank you all for the thoughtful replies.

Perhaps I should have expressed my point without using loaded words such as "faith". In posing the question I'm not particularly interested in the translation of saddha, the actual mechanism of stream-entry, or how one has to let go of the concept of "I".

Furthermore this discussion is not motivated to any particular problem that I have with my practise. Discussions such as this, I feel, do little to advance my practise. However, they can be an interesting diversion and may shed light on other discussions that go on here and elsewhere.

The point I am trying to make is that, despite the statement that in Buddhist practise one should "test for oneself", the advertised goal of Arahantship (or even Stream Entry) is, in fact, unverifiable until achieved. (See, for example, MN 27 Cula-hatthipadopama Sutta, The Shorter Elephant Footprint Simile, which I quoted above.)

Personally, I keep practising because I can see that it does give improvements. I can see that my teachers are living the holy life and it appears to be working for them. I can verify certain signposts from the Suttas, Commentaries, Dhamma books and talks, and discussions with my teachers.

However, I cannot actually state that I have "verified the teachings" in the sense of verifying the ultimate goal (Nibbana). And I suspect that there are few, if any, here who can.

Of course, it is possible to "redefine" the goal as something along the lines of: "Being reasonably happy and content in this life". Well, if that's the goal, I could say that I've verified it too. However, from my reading of the Teachings, it's not...

Metta
Mike
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: Why is Buddhist Faith not blind?

Post by Individual »

mikenz66 wrote: Perhaps I should have expressed my point without using loaded words such as "faith". In posing the question I'm not particularly interested in the translation of saddha, the actual mechanism of stream-entry, or how one has to let go of the concept of "I".
Yes, because if you use the word "confidence," the question is a bit unintelligible in english, "Why is Buddhist confidence not blind?" When stated like that, as spiritual confidence, the question answers itself.
mikenz66 wrote: Furthermore this discussion is not motivated to any particular problem that I have with my practise. Discussions such as this, I feel, do little to advance my practise. However, they can be an interesting diversion and may shed light on other discussions that go on here and elsewhere.
...A very common form of false speech on Buddhist forums.
mikenz66 wrote: The point I am trying to make is that, despite the statement that in Buddhist practise one should "test for oneself", the advertised goal of Arahantship (or even Stream Entry) is, in fact, unverifiable until achieved. (See, for example, MN 27 Cula-hatthipadopama Sutta, The Shorter Elephant Footprint Simile, which I quoted above.)
This is like saying nuclear power is unverifiable until you're a nuclear scientist, with nuclear material to experiment with.
mikenz66 wrote: Personally, I keep practising because I can see that it does give improvements. I can see that my teachers are living the holy life and it appears to be working for them. I can verify certain signposts from the Suttas, Commentaries, Dhamma books and talks, and discussions with my teachers.

However, I cannot actually state that I have "verified the teachings" in the sense of verifying the ultimate goal (Nibbana). And I suspect that there are few, if any, here who can.

Of course, it is possible to "redefine" the goal as something along the lines of: "Being reasonably happy and content in this life". Well, if that's the goal, I could say that I've verified it too. However, from my reading of the Teachings, it's not...
When you practice, because you can always see there are improvements (and there are improvements), that is the ultimate goal.

From the Potthapada Sutta:
"Lord, do you teach that the summit of perception is just one, or that it is many?"

"I teach it as both one and many."

"Lord, how is it one and how is it many?"

"According as he attains successively to the cessation of each perception, so I teach the summit of that perception: thus I teach both one summit of perception, and I also teach many."
Both the grandiose, far-off idea of mystical omnipotence, all-pervasive tranquility, profound meditative attainments, and complete extinction of the self, that is the one summit of perception, but the moments in which we are merely mindful, not turning away from knowledge of suffering, all these moments are the many summits of perception.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
User avatar
Jechbi
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:38 am
Contact:

Re: Why is Buddhist Faith not blind?

Post by Jechbi »

Hi Mike,

A few other thoughts:
mikenz66 wrote:I was trying to tease out in what way Buddhist faith that attaining Nibbana is possible is different from Christian faith regarding Heaven being something attainable.
mikenz66 wrote:The point I am trying to make is that, despite the statement that in Buddhist practise one should "test for oneself", the advertised goal of Arahantship (or even Stream Entry) is, in fact, unverifiable until achieved.
I think these two statements are really best understood in terms of dukkha. Faith in the statement "attaining Nibbana is possible" points to faith in the notion that this suffering, present right now, is temporary. Christian faith, however, is not correctly summed up in the statement, "Heaven is something attainable." A statement of Christian faith would be very different. I don't think it's appropriate to offer a statement of Christian faith here, but suffice it to say that at a minimum, it would include some reference to Jesus Christ.

That's probably still all somewhat unrelated to the point you were trying to make. Without using loaded words such as "faith," I sense that your point has something to do with expectations about the future. But I wonder whether it's really precise to say that the "advertised goal" is Arahantship or even Stream Entry.

Metta
:smile:
Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
User avatar
BubbaBuddhist
Posts: 640
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:55 am
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
Contact:

Re: Why is Buddhist Faith not blind?

Post by BubbaBuddhist »

I think when we practice Mundane Right View--at least for most of us--there is an element of what could be called "blind faith," otherwise we would have no basis to put in the effort for practice. We have faith that there is merit in good deeds, that kamma works, that meditation will cultivate insight and mindfulness, etc, and that we'll cultivate deeper insight, and confidence, as we go along. I don't think any of us start along this Path with any kind of certain conviction it will work for us. Maybe for some of us it makes sense or resonates with something deep within us, but I don't think any of us could say for sure we've directly experienced the Real. I know my motive for practice have changed several times over the many years I've practiced. I don't quite remember why I started to begin with. :lol:

Of course, at some point we hope or assume we'll attain Supramundane Right View where faith in any form is superfluous. If anyone is already there, I for one would enjoy hearing about it.

J BB
Author of Redneck Buddhism: or Will You Reincarnate as Your Own Cousin?
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19945
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Why is Buddhist Faith not blind?

Post by mikenz66 »

Individual wrote:
mikenz66 wrote: Furthermore this discussion is not motivated to any particular problem that I have with my practise. Discussions such as this, I feel, do little to advance my practise. However, they can be an interesting diversion and may shed light on other discussions that go on here and elsewhere.
...A very common form of false speech on Buddhist forums.
I'm not clear what you mean here, but I've seen the "Nothing (important) is unverifiable in Buddhism" line used as an excuse to reject parts of the teaching. Sometimes blatantly, as in: "Rebirth is unverifiable, therefore it's not a core teaching", but sometimes much more subtly. I think that it might be beneficial to examine what is meant by "verify" in the various discussions that go on here.
Individual wrote: When you practice, because you can always see there are improvements (and there are improvements), that is the ultimate goal.
I don't understand the relevance of this statement. There are many practises, other then Buddhism, that give improvements.

And there is plenty of documented experience out there (and I have seen some of it for myself) that Buddhist Practise isn't just a matter of monotonic improvement. The "progress of insight" is not an easy road. See for example the "Insight Knowledges" section of this article on the development of insight by Patrick Kearney: http://www.buddhanet.net/imol/develop.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Jechbi wrote: ... I think these two statements are really best understood in terms of dukkha. Faith in the statement "attaining Nibbana is possible" points to faith in the notion that this suffering, present right now, is temporary. ...
Yes, that's a good point. The Buddha taught:
  • Suffering
  • Cause
  • Cessation
  • Path
The ultimate goal is the cessation of suffering. Not: "A bit of a reduction of suffering that makes life a little more bearable".
Bubbabuddhist wrote:Of course, at some point we hope or assume we'll attain Supramundane Right View where faith in any form is superfluous. If anyone is already there, I for one would enjoy hearing about it.
:bow:

Metta
Mike
User avatar
zavk
Posts: 1161
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:04 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Why is Buddhist Faith not blind?

Post by zavk »

Hi Mike,

I really appreciate your position. What you have written about your experience of 'verifiable faith' vis-a-vis your own experience of practice speaks to my own experience. I too feel that it would benefit our dhamma practice if we develop some sensitivity towards the notion of 'verified faith' vs. 'blind faith'. Reading the responses so far, I'd like to speculate further:

Along with most others, I would say that Buddhist faith is not 'blind faith'. But I don't want to say that it can only be 'verified faith'. I say this because we all talk about the limits of thought and how Awakening is beyond concepts, how Awakening is unconditioned, unthinkable, etc. So, a general way of understanding Awakening is that it involves the opening up of experience to something wholly 'other'.

To experience something that is totally 'other' to what we presently know and feel raises the question of expectation. Can we really experience this 'otherness' if it falls within our expectations? How can it be considered 'other' if it does? So I guess this is why people say that unlike other kinds of faith, Buddhist faith does not involve expectation.

However, I want to qualify that assertion. I would in fact say that to experience the wholly 'other' we cannot avoid having expectations. For 'otherness' to erupt into our experience, it has to come in such a way that it totally and utterly exceeds, disrupts and dismantle expectations. There must be some level of expectation to which the unthinkable must exceed. I don't think Buddhism totally denies expectation. Suggestions in the Satipatthana Sutta about how one can attain awakening in 7 years or the various suggestions about stages of arahantship can be read as certain kinds of expectations. However, the important thing to note is that those very same teachings also warn against expectation.

The kind of expectation that we have in Buddhism is no doubt one that emerges out of the context of our own experience and which is always measured against the dhamma. But, I see this as a kind of expectation that always acknowledges the utter vulnerability of its own position. In short, it is a kind of expectation that has a willingness to 'let go'.

I think it was Alan Watts (his unskilful behaviour notwithstanding) who said, 'Belief clings, faith lets go'. To the extent that 'blind faith' involves unquestioned beliefs, it is a certain kind of clinging. However, to the extent that 'verified faith' only accepts what rational thought can 'prove', it also risks sliding into a kind of clinging. Maybe what is needed is a certain middle path between 'verified faith' and 'blind faith'.

But I don't want to rely on some sentimental notion of the 'middle'. I don't want to suggest that we should simply have faith in the middle path as if the middle path is somewhere 'out there' waiting to be discovered. As the Buddha has said himself, the middle path is extremely subtle and difficult to discern. As I understand it, the middle path is not simply some median point between two poles, because whatever two poles there are (good/bad, eternalism/annihilationism, normal/abnormal, etc, etc), they are not fixed. The middle path is always in flux, shifting and contingent. The middle path unfolds itself when we are receptive to the flux and contingency of experience (I think Genkaku touches on this in his response above). For me, that receptivity to flux and contingency engenders a kind of faith. It is a kind of faith that emerges from a willingness to continually seek the ever-shifting middle path. A kind of faith not in the middle path, but from the middle path.

All in all, I would say that Buddhist faith is not blind, because it requires us to 'verify' the dhamma within the context of our experience. But I would also say that Buddhist faith is not ultimately verifiable, because it requires us to acknowledge and be receptive to an 'otherness' that we cannot possibly foresee, an 'otherness' that we cannot possibly inscribe within the domain of 'the expected' or 'the verifiable'. If I really have to give it a label, I'd call it a kind of 'radical faith'. That is, until a better understanding comes along....

:namaste:
In good faith,
zavk
With metta,
zavk
User avatar
kc2dpt
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: Why is Buddhist Faith not blind?

Post by kc2dpt »

Mike,

In any journey we take, until we reach the destination we do not know we will reach that destination. Every journey involves some element of faith. (or hope?)

Blind to me suggests having no clue that one is actually even headed in the right direction, that there even is a destination.

Let's consider visiting San Francisco. I have it on good word that San Francisco is west of New York, that there's roads that will get me from here to there. I can go over the directions and see they make some sort of sense. I've also got good reason to think SF really exists - guidebooks, people who have been there and talk about it, people who have traveled the route I'm thinking of taking, etc. Still, I might not get there. My car might break down, I might get lost, I might lose interest in the trip entirely.

Compare this to visiting Atlantis.

I think this perhaps illustrates the difference between blind faith and non-blind faith.

Th goal of Buddhism is ending suffering. The described path to get there makes sense to me. I can see an immediate reduction in suffering, which indicates I'm probably heading in the right direction. I read about and have met people on the path who's apparent suffering seems outrageously low.

Compare this to everlasting bliss hanging with Jesus and his dad.

Though I think if someone asks you whether Buddhism involves blind faith... best I think to start by asking them to define "blind faith".
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
User avatar
Jechbi
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:38 am
Contact:

Re: Why is Buddhist Faith not blind?

Post by Jechbi »

mikenz66 wrote:The ultimate goal is the cessation of suffering. Not: "A bit of a reduction of suffering that makes life a little more bearable".
:thumbsup:
Peter wrote:Blind to me suggests having no clue that one is actually even headed in the right direction, that there even is a destination.

Let's consider visiting San Francisco. I have it on good word that San Francisco is west of New York, that there's roads that will get me from here to there. I can go over the directions and see they make some sort of sense. I've also got good reason to think SF really exists - guidebooks, people who have been there and talk about it, people who have traveled the route I'm thinking of taking, etc. Still, I might not get there. My car might break down, I might get lost, I might lose interest in the trip entirely.

Compare this to visiting Atlantis.

I think this perhaps illustrates the difference between blind faith and non-blind faith.
Good post, though I think it might oversimplify the notion of salvation as some Christians view it. Some Christians might argue that there are signposts along the way in their journey, just as you've described in yours, and that they have a pretty good clue about whether they're headed in the right direction.

Notions of "heaven" might still be flavored with wrong view, but then so are many of our views about Nibanna, truth be told.

:smile:
Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: Why is Buddhist Faith not blind?

Post by Individual »

mikenz66 wrote: I don't understand the relevance of this statement. There are many practises, other then Buddhism, that give improvements.
There is no practice other than the Noble Eightfold Path which brings improvement. Practices other than Buddhism can only bring improvement to the extent that they teach the Noble Eightfold Path.

DN 16
And the Blessed One spoke, saying: "In whatsoever Dhamma and Discipline, Subhadda, there is not found the Noble Eightfold Path, neither is there found a true ascetic of the first, second, third, or fourth degree of saintliness. But in whatsoever Dhamma and Discipline there is found the Noble Eightfold Path, there is found a true ascetic of the first, second, third, and fourth degrees of saintliness.54 Now in this Dhamma and Discipline, Subhadda, is found the Noble Eightfold Path; and in it alone are also found true ascetics of the first, second, third, and fourth degrees of saintliness. Devoid of true ascetics are the systems of other teachers. But if, Subhadda, the bhikkhus live righteously, the world will not be destitute of arahats.
Peter wrote: Let's consider visiting San Francisco. I have it on good word that San Francisco is west of New York, that there's roads that will get me from here to there. I can go over the directions and see they make some sort of sense. I've also got good reason to think SF really exists - guidebooks, people who have been there and talk about it, people who have traveled the route I'm thinking of taking, etc. Still, I might not get there. My car might break down, I might get lost, I might lose interest in the trip entirely.

Compare this to visiting Atlantis.
If you're going to San Francisco...
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19945
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Why is Buddhist Faith not blind?

Post by mikenz66 »

Individual wrote:
mikenz66 wrote: I don't understand the relevance of this statement. There are many practises, other then Buddhism, that give improvements.
There is no practice other than the Noble Eightfold Path which brings improvement. Practices other than Buddhism can only bring improvement to the extent that they teach the Noble Eightfold Path.
I think you are misinterpreting the Sutta you quote. It says that only the Noble Eightfold Path can lead to Arahantship, not that only the NEP can lead to improvement.

Many other paths develop morality, concentration, etc. Other paths can lead to heavenly realms. The Buddha's teachers were reborn into the formless realms, for example.

Of course, the Buddhist view is that Samsara cannnot be transcended, and suffering ended, without the whole NEP, but there's no reason that a Christian, Moslem, Jew, Hindu, etc, can't be just as effective at developing the Sila aspects of the Path as a Buddhist.

Metta
Mike
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: Why is Buddhist Faith not blind?

Post by Individual »

mikenz66 wrote:
Individual wrote:
mikenz66 wrote: I don't understand the relevance of this statement. There are many practises, other then Buddhism, that give improvements.
There is no practice other than the Noble Eightfold Path which brings improvement. Practices other than Buddhism can only bring improvement to the extent that they teach the Noble Eightfold Path.
I think you are misinterpreting the Sutta you quote. It says that only the Noble Eightfold Path can lead to Arahantship, not that only the NEP can lead to improvement.
I think your implication in that assertion is wrong, that there is such a thing as meaningful "improvement" apart from the path to Arahantship.
mikenz66 wrote: Many other paths develop morality, concentration, etc. Other paths can lead to heavenly realms. The Buddha's teachers were reborn into the formless realms, for example.

Of course, the Buddhist view is that Samsara cannnot be transcended, and suffering ended, without the whole NEP, but there's no reason that a Christian, Moslem, Jew, Hindu, etc, can't be just as effective at developing the Sila aspects of the Path as a Buddhist.
We mostly agree, but I wouldn't say simply sila. There's no reason that a Christian, Moslem, Jew, Hindu, etc., can't be just as effective at developing any aspect of the path as a Buddhist, except that by doing so, they may come to be judged as heretics by some of their peers.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19945
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Why is Buddhist Faith not blind?

Post by mikenz66 »

Greeting Individual,

Your understanding appears to differe from mine, and what I understand teachers such as Bhikkhu Bodhi to be saying. See for example:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... ay_24.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
To the extent that a religion proposes sound ethical principles and can promote to some degree the development of wholesome qualities such as love, generosity, detachment and compassion, it will merit in this respect the approbation of Buddhists. These principles advocated by outside religious systems will also conduce to rebirth in the realms of bliss — the heavens and the divine abodes. Buddhism by no means claims to have unique access to these realms, but holds that the paths that lead to them have been articulated, with varying degrees of clarity, in many of the great spiritual traditions of humanity. While the Buddhist will disagree with the belief structures of other religions to the extent that they deviate from the Buddha's Dhamma, he will respect them to the extent that they enjoin virtues and standards of conduct that promote spiritual development and the harmonious integration of human beings with each other and with the world.
My opinion is that having the view that "other paths are not much good" is an impediment to progress.

Metta
Mike
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22441
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Why is Buddhist Faith not blind?

Post by Ceisiwr »

My opinion is that having the view that "other paths are not much good" is an impediment to progress.
Depends on what ones goal is, e.g. if one wants eternal life (or think they can have it at) a religion such as christianity would be a good path while buddhism would seem not so much good (i.e. teachings of Anatta, anicca)


For me the Abrahamic religions are "not much good" since its about desire for exsistence, they do have noble qualities to them in some teachings but morality is all they offer me in this life with a promise of eternal life after


To someone else, the abrahamic religions are good because of the moarlity it offers and the promise of eternal life, while buddhism is "not so good" since its about ending craving and clinging, which would seem threatening to someone who delights in life and is looking for eternal life
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19945
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Why is Buddhist Faith not blind?

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Craig,

What I was trying to say is that for a Buddhist to have the attitude that "all other paths are worthless" is not helpful.

See also the Canki Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"If a person has conviction, his statement, 'This is my conviction,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. I describe this as the safeguarding of the truth. But it is not yet an awakening to the truth.
Metta
Mike
Post Reply