Faith and Reliability

[SDC]

Continuation of discussion from this thread.

I think you are making two mistakes here:
1) you are addressing me as he spoke person for this whole forum, which is not the case ("tell us", who is "us"?)
2) you are assuming that most people here agree with your assessment (which is in part mine as well) while I believe they do not. You joined the conversation late and people were and are probably not agreeing with you (and me) on several matters

With metta

Pascal

I simply meant, did you ever offer the participants of this discussion a reason why you thought the conclusion of this investigation matters?

I actually assume most people DO NOT agree with my assessment.

Your entire premise is mangled. It takes for granted many levels of cohesion among those involved with Buddhism that are simply nonexistent. Perhaps there are people who need to believe in historical figure who is responsible for all of this, but that is far from the significance described in the suttas about how this Path was discovered, and how that person is to be discovered and understood.

I would just like to know what you are offering and why? If you're being honest, then sure, you arrived at the obvious conclusion that there is no proof that one historical figure is responsible for this situation, but why do you think that matters to people? And no, it is no our choice what to do with this conclusion. I want to know where you think it applies.

We are merely discussing if there is evidence enough about the claims of the historical origins of the Suttas
If this discussion is not interesting for you, just go somewhere else to discuss other topics

With metta

Pascal

Now we are in a new thread.

Can you please tell me why you think these historical origins should matter?

[Pascal2]

Continuation of discussion from this thread.

I simply meant, did you ever offer the participants of this discussion a reason why you thought the conclusion of this investigation matters?

I actually assume most people DO NOT agree with my assessment.

Your entire premise is mangled. It takes for granted many levels of cohesion among those involved with Buddhism that are simply nonexistent. Perhaps there are people who need to believe in historical figure who is responsible for all of this, but that is far from the significance described in the suttas about how this Path was discovered, and how that person is to be discovered and understood.

I would just like to know what you are offering and why? If you're being honest, then sure, you arrived at the obvious conclusion that there is no proof that one historical figure is responsible for this situation, but why do you think that matters to people? And no, it is no our choice what to do with this conclusion. I want to know where you think it applies.

We are merely discussing if there is evidence enough about the claims of the historical origins of the Suttas
If this discussion is not interesting for you, just go somewhere else to discuss other topics

With metta

Pascal

Now we are in a new thread.

Can you please tell me why you think these historical origins should matter?

I deeply apologize.
I have limited time available from my job and I can not follow all discussions.

So I have to give up on this one

[SDC]

Is it possible to practice without faith? Is it possible to gauge reliability prior to any development in Dhamma?

In the suttas it is said that one goes forth out of faith. That a person will proceed after having simply been inspired by the message in the suttas. As lay people, we don't go forth, but we do take up the precepts as a first step without any definitive evidence that what is found in the suttas is what it claims. We are simply inspired, intrigued and interested in the possibility, but generally not in possession of the skills necessary to acquire the Right View at the outset.

What role does faith play and for how long?

Late here. I'll post some suttas tomorrow.

[SDC]

I deeply apologize.
I have limited time available from my job and I can not follow all discussions.

So I have to give up on this one

*peace sign*



Very interesting to see how you respond when the scope of a discussion is no longer under your control.

[Lucas Oliveira]

For saṃvega to be an effective drive to practice, it must be accompanied by another emotion called pasada, a “clarity and serene confidence.” Pasada is what keeps saṃvega from turning into nihilistic despair by providing a sense of confidence that there is a way out, namely nibbana.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%83vega

Verse 2. Happiness Follows The Doer of Good

Mind precedes all knowables,
mind's their chief, mind-made are they.
If with a clear, and confident mind
one should speak and act
as one's shadow ne'er departing.



Explanation: All that man experiences springs out of his thoughts. If his thoughts are good, the words and the deeds will also be good. The result of good thoughts , words and deeds will be happiness. This happiness will never leave the person whose thoughts are good. Happiness will always follow him like his shadow that never leaves him.
http://www.buddhanet.net/dhammapada/d_twin.htm

Maṭṭha­kuṇḍa­lī­vatthu

Manopubbaṅgamā dhammā,
manoseṭṭhā manomayā;
Manasā ce pasannena,
bhāsati vā karoti vā;
Tato naṃ sukhamanveti,
chāyāva anapāyinī.

https://suttacentral.net/dhp/pli/ms

Manasa ce Pasannena: clear mental state with calm confidence. Pasannena / Pasada is a mental and emotional attitude that comprises a deep feeling encompassing the same time and intellectual appreciation, a satisfaction, a clarity of thoughts, a serenity and a confidence.

http://www.acessoaoinsight.net/dhp/dhp1.1.php

We are not here just because of faith.

We are here because Buddhism works.

Pasāda is a close relative of pasanna, in which the qualities of “seeing” and “knowing” that serve as essential aspects of the insight knowledge of vipassanā are a fundamental part of the meaning.
.
There is a major shift that occurs with this seeing: a clearing and brightening of the heart and mind which gives rise to mental purity of a kind in which faith and trust grow and becomes established, together with happiness, joy, devotion, pious and virtuous dedication, calmness, and peacefulness. These are linking qualities between tranquility (samatha) and insight (vipassanā), a fertile ground for the deepening of both. All of these qualities spring forth in a way that may be religiously characterized as an experience of grace, reconciliation, and even sanctification, that is, a primary first step in entering into the path of holiness.
https://pt.scribd.com/document/12354148 ... ce-and-its#

https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/sa ... ryone/7362

[Bundokji]

I did not read the other thread. I have very little interest in academic or historical approach to the teachings.

The faith in the Buddha, in my view, is the gradual end of bad faith in that which is unreliable. Faith in the Buddha is not a blind belief, but utilizing memory to understand bad faith. To expect permanence in the ephemeral is a bad faith. To expect real happiness in the unsatisfactory is bad faith. To expect substance in that which is empty is bad faith. If we are to define faith in the Buddha in positive terms, it would be not expecting results very fast. Seeking immediate gratifications is usually the kamma of bad faith, hence those who stick around and put effort until they begin to experience the positive results first hand are lucky.

Historical accuracy has an important role to play in worldly affairs and in our system of justifications. However, when the whole system of justification is structured in a way that our own very existence can be questioned, then seeking reliability and certainty should be sought using a different approach.

[samseva]

We are not here just because of faith.

We are here because Buddhism works.

x10

[binocular]

Can you please tell me why you think these historical origins should matter?

Because they are an anchor to reality as we know it, and as such offer grounds for believing that what some narrative tells us is in fact possible in our reality.

Otherwise, we end up like Don Quixote.

In the suttas it is said that one goes forth out of faith.

And in those contexts, "faith" can also mean faithfulness, loyalty; ie. it doesn't have an epistemic connotation.

As lay people, we don't go forth, but we do take up the precepts as a first step without any definitive evidence that what is found in the suttas is what it claims. We are simply inspired, intrigued and interested in the possibility, but generally not in possession of the skills necessary to acquire the Right View at the outset.

Adhering to some principles of a particular philosophy/religion can have nothing to do with faith (in an epistemic sense of "let's see if this is true"), but can be a matter of a person feeling attracted to a particular ideology, for ideological reasons. People sometimes join religions/spiritualities for the same reasons that people join political parties. IOW, their joining has nothing to do with "discovering whether the teachings are true or not".

[The2nd]

Is it possible to practice without faith? Is it possible to gauge reliability prior to any development in Dhamma?

In the suttas it is said that one goes forth out of faith. That a person will proceed after having simply been inspired by the message in the suttas. As lay people, we don't go forth, but we do take up the precepts as a first step without any definitive evidence that what is found in the suttas is what it claims. We are simply inspired, intrigued and interested in the possibility, but generally not in possession of the skills necessary to acquire the Right View at the outset.

What role does faith play and for how long?

Late here. I'll post some suttas tomorrow.

Nicely said.

Faith is necessary on this path, because we cannot know for sure that the Buddha actually teaches freedom from suffering until we commit 100% to his instructions and attain that freedom.

We need faith, until we become confident.

Of course, this faith is not a blind faith, but one that is coupled with clear rational thinking e.g "The Buddha seems correct, and nobody else does, therefore I will place my faith in his instruction which I have deeply thought about."

[binocular]

Faith is necessary on this path, because we cannot know for sure that the Buddha actually teaches freedom from suffering until we commit 100% to his instructions and attain that freedom.

We need faith, until we become confident.

Do you think that this is what "faith" means to people who were born and raised into traditionally Buddhist culture (ie. the vast majority of Buddhists)?

[SteRo]

Can you please tell me why you think these historical origins should matter?

Because they are an anchor to reality as we know it, and as such offer grounds for believing that what some narrative tells us is in fact possible in our reality.

Otherwise, we end up like Don Quixote.

Those questioning faith here in this forum section have already ended up like Don Quixote.

[SteRo]

As to the topic "Faith and Reliability"


The faith that is the object of the 1st link* is based on reliability/reliance but is not hope. Why? Hope has no evidence but reliability/reliance is based on evidence.

The doctrine says:

And what is the supporting condition for faith? 'Suffering' should be the reply.

What is the evidence here that faith is based on? It is attenuation of that doctrinal "suffering".

And what is the supporting condition for reliability/reliance? Attenuation of that "suffering" should be the reply.

If faith would actually be exclusively hope then that doctrinal "suffering" would not have been attenuated through contacting the doctrine. Therefore the faith that is the object of the 1st link* arises only if upon contacting the doctrine that "suffering" is at least momentarily attenuated. This attenuation is the key experience, the evidence, necessary for the arising of faith based on reliability/reliance which is different from hope.


*

Transcendental Order

Faith (saddha)
...

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... 7.html#sut

[binocular]

The doctrine says:

And what is the supporting condition for faith? 'Suffering' should be the reply.

What is the evidence here that faith is based on? It is attenuation of that doctrinal "suffering".

And what is the supporting condition for reliability/reliance? Attenuation of that "suffering" should be the reply.

Do you know anyone whose faith actually is in accordance with this standard?

[SteRo]

The doctrine says:

And what is the supporting condition for faith? 'Suffering' should be the reply.

What is the evidence here that faith is based on? It is attenuation of that doctrinal "suffering".

And what is the supporting condition for reliability/reliance? Attenuation of that "suffering" should be the reply.

Do you know anyone whose faith actually is in accordance with this standard?

It is about investigating into the doctrine, not about reading the mind of persons.

[The2nd]

Faith is necessary on this path, because we cannot know for sure that the Buddha actually teaches freedom from suffering until we commit 100% to his instructions and attain that freedom.

We need faith, until we become confident.

Do you think that this is what "faith" means to people who were born and raised into traditionally Buddhist culture (ie. the vast majority of Buddhists)?

Definitely not, for most traditional buddhists, faith means blind devotion.