What is the clear difference between Faith and Definite conclusion?Outline of the Canki Sutta
So, going no further than holding beliefs (meaning one understands that what one holds to be true is just a belief, has not been 'proven'), one may reasonably say:
"I have faith that such and such is the Truth,"
"The idea that such and such is The Truth is appealing,"
"I agree with the oral tradition that such and such an idea is The Truth,"
"My reason tells me that such and such is The Truth,"
"Such and such is the accepted theory concerning The Truth,"
. . . but should reserve judgment concerning the idea that "This is the One Truth, all other Truths are False."
This far one is not leaving solid ground in holding beliefs.
Difference between Faith and Definite Conclusion?
Difference between Faith and Definite Conclusion?
If someone say "Only this is true; anything else is empty" regarding Four noble truths, then is it correct?
Re: Difference between Faith and Definite Conclusion?
Can the phrase: "Only this is true; anything else is empty" be found in any sutta about the True Dhamma? If so, please quote it.
Or is the phrase: "Only this is true; anything else is empty" only found in suttas about wrong view, generally in discussions with non-Buddhists?
MN 95 appears to define "faith" as follows:Eko Care wrote: ↑Sun Apr 25, 2021 2:43 pmWhat is the clear difference between Faith and Definite conclusion?Outline of the Canki Sutta
So, going no further than holding beliefs (meaning one understands that what one holds to be true is just a belief, has not been 'proven'), one may reasonably say:
"I have faith that such and such is the Truth,"
"The idea that such and such is The Truth is appealing,"
"I agree with the oral tradition that such and such an idea is The Truth,"
"My reason tells me that such and such is The Truth,"
"Such and such is the accepted theory concerning The Truth,"
. . . but should reserve judgment concerning the idea that "This is the One Truth, all other Truths are False."
This far one is not leaving solid ground in holding beliefs.
MN 95 appears to define definition conclusion as follows:Suppose there were a file of blind men each in touch with the next: the first one does not see, the middle one does not see, and the last one does not see. So too, Bhāradvāja, in regard to their statement the brahmins seem to be like a file of blind men: the first one does not see, the middle one does not see, and the last one does not see. What do you think, Bhāradvāja, that being so, does not the faith of the brahmins turn out to be groundless?
Now something may be fully accepted out of faith, yet it may be empty, hollow, and false; but something else may not be fully accepted out of faith, yet it may be factual, true, and unmistaken.
Again, something may be fully approved of…well transmitted…well cogitated…well reflected upon, yet it may be empty, hollow, and false; but something else may not be well reflected upon, yet it may be factual, true, and unmistaken.
Under these conditions it is not proper for a wise man who preserves truth to come to the definite conclusion: ‘Only this is true, anything else is wrong'.
Therefore, it appears any idea not "realised with the body (totality of the aggregates)" cannot be Truth.He strives; resolutely striving, he realises with the body the supreme truth and sees it by penetrating it with wisdom.
The final arrival at truth, Bhāradvāja, lies in the repetition, development, and cultivation of those same things. In this way, Bhāradvāja, there is the final arrival at truth; in this way one finally arrives at truth; in this way we describe the final arrival at truth.
For example, the following ideas appear not realised with the body:
* Modern Sutta practice doesn't lead to Samadhi.
* The case that dependent origination in the Suttas refers to Rebirth is very strong.
* Ideal Wife is once-returner & non-returner
* Abhidhamma makes things really easy regarding interpretations of Dhamma
* Jataka
* Bhikkhu Nanananda converted. Disciples did not.
* We cannot accept secular Buddhism as Buddhism
* Disrespect towards commentaries leads to hell
* On the Origin of the Buddhist Arthakathás
* Chronological order of the Suttas
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
Re: Difference between Faith and Definite Conclusion?
This is a good question and I can recall asking the same question in this forum.If someone say "Only this is true; anything else is empty" regarding Four noble truths, then is it correct?
The five Bases for Holding Belief in a Truth apply to Four Noble Truths as well.
Then you have to apply the faith test: examine the teacher with the idea of determining his vulnerability to (the likelihood that his perception has been distorted by) lust, hate, and stupidity.
Once you establish the faith then you apply The Dependent Uprising of Knowing and Seeing.
The final is taking a stand once in this very body reaches the truth
and penetrating it with wisdom, see
If you read DN1 you will see all the views mentioned there are subject of lust, hatred, and delusion.lust, hate, and stupidity.
The reason why the Four Noble Truths are not mentioned there as a view is that it has passed this test.
However, it is clear non-Ariya people grasp the Four Noble Truths with lust, hatred, and delusion as well.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
- Dhammanando
- Posts: 6512
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
- Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun
Re: Difference between Faith and Definite Conclusion?
Note that this phrase is not necessarily something that one says, nor even usually so. Rather, it's the stock way of representing something mental, namely, the fourth of the four "body knots" (kāyagantha), which is idaṃsaccābhinivesa, "adherence to dogmatic assertion of truth" (as Bhikkhu Bodhi translates it) or "insistency regarding a [dubious] proposition's alleged factualness" (as I prefer to translate it).
The Ganthasutta (SN 14.174):
And from the Atthasālinī:“Cattārome, bhikkhave, ganthā. Katame cattāro? Abhijjhā kāyagantho, byāpādo kāyagantho, sīlabbataparāmāso kāyagantho, idaṃsaccābhiniveso kāyagantho—ime kho, bhikkhave, cattāro ganthā. Imesaṃ kho, bhikkhave, catunnaṃ ganthānaṃ abhiññāya pariññāya parikkhayāya pahānāya … pe … ayaṃ ariyo aṭṭhaṅgiko maggo bhāvetabbo”ti.
Knots
“Bhikkhus, there are these four knots. What four? The bodily knot of covetousness, the bodily knot of ill will, the bodily knot of distorted grasp of rules and vows, the bodily knot of adherence to dogmatic assertion of truth. These are the four knots. This Noble Eightfold Path is to be developed for direct knowledge of these four knots, for the full understanding of them, for their utter destruction, for their abandoning.”
In the knot-group that which is called "bodily knot" fastens the mental organism in the round of births by way of decease and rebirth. The "adherence to dogmatic assertion of truth" is thus:— rejecting the word of the Omniscient One, he disposes his heart in this way:— "the world is eternal... etc."; this is true, the contrary is absurd.
(Adapted from The Expositor II 484)
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.
In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.
In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
Re: Difference between Faith and Definite Conclusion?
Okasa Bhante,Dhammanando wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 6:39 am "insistency regarding a [dubious] proposition's alleged factualness" (as I prefer to translate it.
Atthasālinī:The "adherence to dogmatic assertion of truth" is thus:— rejecting the word of the Omniscient One, he disposes his heart in this way:— "the world is eternal... etc."; this is true, the contrary is absurd.
So according to the following paragraph of chanki sutta, what if a Buddhist consider and conclude his belief is the only truth?
"But to what extent, Master Gotama, is there the safeguarding of the truth? To what extent does one safeguard the truth? We ask Master Gotama about the safeguarding of the truth."
"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.
- Dhammanando
- Posts: 6512
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
- Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun
Re: Difference between Faith and Definite Conclusion?
If he's a sotāpanna then his certitude about the Dhamma, along with any verbal expressions he makes of it, can't possibly be instances of idaṃsaccābhinivesa, for this knot is already abandoned in him.
If he's a puthujjana Buddhist, then it may or may not be.
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.
In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.
In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
Re: Difference between Faith and Definite Conclusion?
Okasa Bhante,Dhammanando wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 1:17 pm If he's a puthujjana Buddhist, then it may or may not be.
Could you please give an example for both cases that May and may not?
In which situations it becomes valid and not valid?
Vandami
Re: Difference between Faith and Definite Conclusion?
Thank you for that Bhante. Obviously, it can be very difficult to tell which category a particular person falls into, especially on line!Dhammanando wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 1:17 pmIf he's a sotāpanna then his certitude about the Dhamma, along with any verbal expressions he makes of it, can't possibly be instances of idaṃsaccābhinivesa, for this knot is already abandoned in him.
If he's a puthujjana Buddhist, then it may or may not be.
Regarding the sotāpanna, though, in the suttas they are described as "in training", and their understanding of particular issues is sometimes contradicted, for example, when they have taught something in a way the Buddha disapproves of. Is it the case, then, that it is only their "certitude about the Dhamma" that is correct, not necessarily their explanation of the Dhamma?
Mike
- Dhammanando
- Posts: 6512
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
- Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun
Re: Difference between Faith and Definite Conclusion?
In the case of puthujjanas other than oneself I don't think one can know for sure whether or not their expressions of certitude arise from idaṃsaccābhinivesa. Nor is there any need to know this, nor any value in knowing it. Idaṃsaccābhinivesa in oneself is the thing to watch out for.
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.
In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.
In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
- Dhammanando
- Posts: 6512
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
- Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun
Re: Difference between Faith and Definite Conclusion?
I can't immediately think of any case where a sekha disciple is said to explain something wrongly - in a manner that's directly contrary to Dhamma. It wouldn't surprise me if they sometimes teach something that's right as far as it goes but which turns out to be suboptimal or inappropriate for the person addressed, for this can happen even with asekhas; like the time Sāriputta gave a brahmin a teaching that led him to rebirth in the Brahmā world, not realising that the brahmin actually had the potential for stream-entry.mikenz66 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 9:36 pm Regarding the sotāpanna, though, in the suttas they are described as "in training", and their understanding of particular issues is sometimes contradicted, for example, when they have taught something in a way the Buddha disapproves of. Is it the case, then, that it is only their "certitude about the Dhamma" that is correct, not necessarily their explanation of the Dhamma?
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.
In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.
In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
Re: Difference between Faith and Definite Conclusion?
Okasa Bhante,Dhammanando wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:49 am I can't immediately think of any case where a sekha disciple is said to explain something wrongly - in a manner that's directly contrary to Dhamma. It wouldn't surprise me if they sometimes teach something that's right as far as it goes but which turns out to be suboptimal or inappropriate for the person addressed, for this can happen even with asekhas; like the time Sāriputta gave a brahmin a teaching that led him to rebirth in the Brahmā world, not realising that the brahmin actually had the potential for stream-entry.
How about Venerable Ananda saying "admirable camaraderie is a half of the holy life " (SN 45.2 Upaddha Sutta)
and "“It is wonderful and marvellous, venerable sir, how this dependent arising is so deep and appears so deep, yet to myself it seems as clear as clear can be.” (DN 15: Mahānidānasutta )
Vandami for your answers so far.
-
- Posts: 1784
- Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm
- Location: United States
Re: Difference between Faith and Definite Conclusion?
Faith is believing in something that may or may not be true based on any or no evidence. A definite conclusion is believing in something that you know is correct based on unmistakable proof (not just an array of evidence).
Secular example:
Belief in the Big Bang is faith
Belief that in invisible devas living in the sky is also faith
Believing the sky is blue is a definite conclusion, except for people who are blind or color blind.
Buddhist example:
Belief in the Buddha is faith
Belief in karma is faith
Belief in the suttas is faith.
Belief in nibbana is faith
Attaining abhinna powers and realizing the truth of the Buddha, karma, whatever suttas that were accurate etc. is a definite conclusion, as is an arahant who realizes nibbana for his/herself.
Faith is not a bad thing, everyone needs a degree of faith to get anywhere and not have this extreme nihilism about anything that can't see with thier own eyes. Knowing that you cant make a definite conclusion about everything, you have to be judicious and decide how much non-definitive evidence you require to take something on faith.
Secular example:
Belief in the Big Bang is faith
Belief that in invisible devas living in the sky is also faith
Believing the sky is blue is a definite conclusion, except for people who are blind or color blind.
Buddhist example:
Belief in the Buddha is faith
Belief in karma is faith
Belief in the suttas is faith.
Belief in nibbana is faith
Attaining abhinna powers and realizing the truth of the Buddha, karma, whatever suttas that were accurate etc. is a definite conclusion, as is an arahant who realizes nibbana for his/herself.
Faith is not a bad thing, everyone needs a degree of faith to get anywhere and not have this extreme nihilism about anything that can't see with thier own eyes. Knowing that you cant make a definite conclusion about everything, you have to be judicious and decide how much non-definitive evidence you require to take something on faith.
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism" - the 14th Dalai Lama
"The Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma that cannot be stopped by brahmins, devas, Maras, Brahmas or anyone in the cosmos." -Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta
"The Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma that cannot be stopped by brahmins, devas, Maras, Brahmas or anyone in the cosmos." -Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta
Re: Difference between Faith and Definite Conclusion?
The suttas say that a SotapannaTRobinson465 wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:37 am Attaining abhinna powers and realizing the truth of the Buddha, karma, whatever suttas that were accurate etc. is a definite conclusion, as is an arahant who realizes nibbana for his/herself.
1. definitely concluded some Dhammas
2. has Unshakable faith (on the rest of the Dhammas)
The dichotomy is some thinks that one needs to be a Sotapanna in order to say something definitely about the Dhamma. For an instance, some would say, it is unwise to talk definitely about Dhamma as monks do in their Dhamma talks. If he ordained, he might try to stay away from talking Dhamma and spreading Dhamma thinking that he doesn't definitely know whether the Dhamma is true or not. (I've not seen such a monk yet, except two or three who has tried to do it in the beginnig but were unsuccessful to continue the position due to the force of abbots, other monks and lay donators)
The Buddha advised and recommended monks to preach Dhamma. Then the questions arisen is :
Did the Buddha expect puthiujjana monks to bahave like they have finished? How to reconciliate it with Canki sutta?
If a monk is protective and thinks I've not finished with Dhamma in order to preach it as the truth, how can he manage the monk-duties and monk-life?
Even in the case where a protective monk preaches "this is the Dhamma as I believe" (without saying "this is definitely the truth"), still he is committing the Kamma of motivating/converting others. (This Kamma is grave Akusala if the Dhamma is wrong, and is Kusala otherwise)
Yes, it is directly mentioned in many suttas.TRobinson465 wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:37 am Faith is not a bad thing, everyone needs a degree of faith to get anywhere
The objective quantity/percentage of eveidence required is unclear to many. Subjectively, some might decide they need higher quantity while some say smaller.TRobinson465 wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 2:37 am Knowing that you cant make a definite conclusion about everything, you have to be judicious and decide how much non-definitive evidence you require to take something on faith.
Do you have any idea about this matter (sufficient objective quantity of evidence)?
Re: Difference between Faith and Definite Conclusion?
Can I put in this way?
Before I get to know Buddhism, I believe that Buddha is a remarkable spiritual teacher that is beneficial to us.
After getting know the teachings, I know that the Buddha was the Supreme Enlightened Teacher.
Before I get to know Buddhism, I believe that Buddha is a remarkable spiritual teacher that is beneficial to us.
After getting know the teachings, I know that the Buddha was the Supreme Enlightened Teacher.
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.
https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.
https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
Re: Difference between Faith and Definite Conclusion?
It seems to me that the relevant distinction isn't
faith -- definite conclusion
but rather
faith -- definite conclusion that all else is worthless.
Whereby "faith" should actually be understood in terms of 'faithfulness, loyalty' rather than 'hoping, but not yet being sure'.
I base this in reference to the Cetana Sutta; in that faithfulness, loyalty is an act of will; but when a person has met certain conditions and requirements, such an act of will is not necessary anymore.
I don't think it's about having external, objective evidence, but, rather, in developing certain qualities in oneself which then make it possible to see things a certain way, including seeing evidence.
This is the kind of reasoning one finds praised in Western secular academic textbooks on informal logic (and from there, quoted elsewhere).So, going no further than holding beliefs (meaning one understands that what one holds to be true is just a belief, has not been 'proven'), one may reasonably say:
"I have faith that such and such is the Truth,"
"The idea that such and such is The Truth is appealing,"
"I agree with the oral tradition that such and such an idea is The Truth,"
"My reason tells me that such and such is The Truth,"
"Such and such is the accepted theory concerning The Truth,"
. . . but should reserve judgment concerning the idea that "This is the One Truth, all other Truths are False."
Many people tend to project this standard unknowingly and uncritically onto other fields of potential knowledge.
Do you know of any old-fashioned native Asian Buddhists who state such things as you quote above? I don't know that many such people, but I've never seen them say such things. For them, it's about making oneself different, making oneself qualified to see the Truth of the Dhamma; not about trying to find some kind of external, objective proof or evidence that would convince them of the truthfulness of the Dhamma as taught by the Buddha. Ie. they start off by believing that what the Buddha taught is the Truth, and that it is on them to get to the point of realizing that truth for themselves (to change themselves accordingly). They don't do Buddhism in order to discover whether it is true or not; they do Buddhism in order to make themselves true to it.
Western Buddhism is the perfect ideological supplement to rabid consumerist capitalism.
Glenn Wallis
Glenn Wallis