Do only Buddhists have Saddha (conviction)?

[SarathW]

Do only Buddhists have Saddha (conviction or faith, confidence?)?

In the following video, Venerable Pemasiri mentioned that only Buddhists have Saddha.
However, in Ariyapariyesana Sutta Buddha said that his teachers also have conviction.

"I thought: 'Not only does Alara Kalama have conviction, persistence, mindfulness, concentration, & discernment. I, too, have conviction, persistence, mindfulness, concentration, & discernment. What if I were to endeavor to realize for myself the Dhamma that Alara Kalama declares he has entered & dwells in, having realized it for himself through direct knowledge.' So it was not long before I quickly entered & dwelled in that Dhamma, having realized it for myself through direct knowledge. I went to him and said, 'Friend Kalama, is this the extent to which you have entered & dwell in this Dhamma, having realized it for yourself through direct knowledge?'

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

[Ontheway]

I think the Saddha demonstrated by nonBuddhists here refer to the confidence in wholesome qualities.

While Saddha mentioned in the Buddha's teachings is refer to the confidence in Triple Gems, the ultimate embodiment of Truths.

[Sam Vara]

There is also the view - I think Ajahn Thanissaro has advanced it - that the five faculties/strengths are developed forms of characteristics found in most people in everyday life. We all have conviction regarding things of this world (in the same way that we all have persistence, an untrained modicum of mindfulness, etc.) and that this becomes spiritually useful when rightly directed. It's just a matter of having the right type of faith in the right type of things.

[Mumfie]

In the following video, Venerable Pemasiri mentioned that only Buddhists have Saddha.

I haven't listened to the talk, but it's an odd thing to say, especially for an Abhidhamma-grounded Buddhist.

In the Abhidhamma saddhā is a mental factor present in every wholesome state of mind. Therefore to say that a non-Buddhist can't have it is to claim that only Buddhists ever experience wholesome states of mind! This would be untenable, for it would mean, for example, that the Buddha's non-Buddhist audiences wouldn't have been capable of understanding and appreciating his teaching until they had gone for refuge. But in the suttas it's the other way round: the Buddha's listeners are moved to go for refuge because they've understood and seen the value in his teaching – something that depends upon a wholesome state of mind and therefore upon saddhā.

Is the thera perhaps limiting his claim to say, the saddhābala (which is indeed defined as faith in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha)?

[robertk]

To add to what Mumfie said, saddha, confidence, arises with every kusala citta.
So any act of genuine giving, for example, must have saddha as one of the cetasikas.
Obviously non-Buddhist do acts of giving and other meritorious deeds.

[SarathW]

Two types of faith have been described in Buddhist teaching;

Blind, irrational, baseless or rootless faith (amulika saddha)
Confidence based on reason and experience (akarawathi saddha)

The Buddha strongly discouraged blind devotion and, of the two types of faith, namely blind faith (amulika saddha) and confidence based on reason and investigation (akarawathi saddha), it is the latter that is considered relevant and necessary in Buddhism given its non-theistic foundation.

https://drarisworld.wordpress.com/2016/ ... -buddhism/

It appears Buddhism teaches about two types of faith or confidence.
What is the source reference (or Sutta Reference) for this division?

Perhaps the Saddha in other religions could be Amulika Saddha as per Ven. Pemasiri.
I think only a Sotapanna has the Akarawathi Saddha hence the Saddha of other Buddhists could be Amulika Saddha.
It is important to note that the Arahants do not have Saddha as it is replaced by wisdom on attaining Arahantship.

[Mumfie]

It appears Buddhism teaches about two types of faith or confidence.
What is the source reference (or Sutta Reference) for this division?

"Faith supported by reasons, rooted in vision and firm" (niviṭṭhā mūlajātā patiṭṭhitā saddhā) is from MN47.

"Rootless faith" (amūlikā saddhā) is from MN95.

Popular but ill-founded claims to the effect that these are important technical terms, that they enjoy a prominent position in the suttas, that the Buddha is much exercised over making a distinction between the two, and that the distinction is a central plank of his teaching, are all of much more recent origin. They seem to be a mid-20th century Sri Lankan protestant Buddhist invention, with Jayatilleke and his heirs being the chief culprits.

[Johann]

To add to what Mumfie said, saddha, confidence, arises with every kusala citta.
So any act of genuine giving, for example, must have saddha as one of the cetasikas.
Obviously non-Buddhist do acts of giving and other meritorious deeds.

Yes, good householder. Saddhā comes from Saddha, sacrifices, giving, giving up, letting go. Yet liberating Saddha, the first factor of the lokuttara-paṭiccasamuppāda (magga phala) gives up everything in the world, starting with body, stops to try to hold it under control. It requires seeing Dukkha-sacca, requires to know the release, having heard the Dhamma of the Arahats.

Saddha in this Sasana means:
* Confidence in Effect of actions,
* Different fruits of related actions,
* That one is heir of ones actions,
* Confidence in liberation.

If speaking from liberating surrender (saddha, or also Sila, or Satipaṭṭhānā), such is exclusively found in this Sasana, and in no other. What every sacrifices, Saddha, which is not that of Noble disciples, is giving (what ever, bodily mental possessed) for a trade in the world.

There is no contradiction when saying that the Buddhas teacher relayed on Saddha, yet without knowing, even seeking for real escape (4 Noble Truth).

Only a Noble Disciple, becoming by hearing the good Dhamma with proper intention, has Saddhā of which is a path-element (complete in virtue), and able to develop the path.

Dukkha -> Saddhā -> Pāmojja -> Pītī -> Pasāda -> Sukha -> Samadhi... Vimutti -> Vimuttiñāṇa.

And yes, nobody let's go of anything when not seeing Dukkha in it, when regarding it as under ones control, a refuge, me, mine. People without Saddha are bound to suffer, as hard they ever may try.

Common charity, giving up, letting go, virtue, mindfulness, acts always within mixed kamma (intention), for the sake of another world, worldly benefit. That is why Dana or Sila, without seeing Dukkha and escape, will never lead beyound world, on the path.

Again, vicikiccha (doubt) is only abound by Noble Ones, not by common folk. Saddhā (toward liberation) is exclusively one of Ariyapuggala.

"Faith, faith,..." they say. But what is meant by "faith" What is a person of faith??

There is the case that a person has conviction that deeds by body, speech and mind make a different. Having convicion that his actions make a different, he thinks before he acts.

Furthermore there is the case that a person has conviction that things (all phenomenas), results have causes. Having conviction that results have causes, he thinks before he acts.

Forthermore there is the case that a person has conviction that beings are the owner, the heir of their actions. Having conviction that beings are the heirs of their actions, he thinks before he acts.

Forthermore there is the case that a person has conviction that liberation/awakening is possible and that liberated/awakened exist. Having conviction that awakining is possible and that liberated exist, he thinks before he acts.

Knowing that he does not forget and acts according to his faith, his mind is at peace.

Having experianced the peace of mind, his conviction naturally grows, and once having experianced the results of his deeds, how they arise, how they decay, he is no more able to fall away from conviction.
This is what is meant by a person of faith.

So was it said and for that reason was it said.

[Johann]

Two types of faith have been described in Buddhist teaching;

Blind, irrational, baseless or rootless faith (amulika saddha)
Confidence based on reason and experience (akarawathi saddha)

The Buddha strongly discouraged blind devotion and, of the two types of faith, namely blind faith (amulika saddha) and confidence based on reason and investigation (akarawathi saddha), it is the latter that is considered relevant and necessary in Buddhism given its non-theistic foundation.

Faith of sotapanna-magga is still a "blind faith", so it's not so that people are actually required to simple have "blind" faith. Only when Phala arises one does no more act on "blind faith", as certain Vimutti has been gained.

But if taking "hearing the good Dhamma with proper attention" as root, mūla, such wouldn't be wrong. Yet to go for that, even right here, requires "blind faith". Only who knows liberation, it's path, isn't required to follow the training simply on "blind faith".

Faith-follower, Dhamma-follower, althought bond to gain insight before death, still act on "blind faith", but got the mūla, hearing the good Dhamma.

[justindesilva]

I think the Saddha demonstrated by nonBuddhists here refer to the confidence in wholesome qualities.

While Saddha mentioned in the Buddha's teachings is refer to the confidence in Triple Gems, the ultimate embodiment of Truths.

If we refer to faith with followers of theistic religions or believers of god then it is not fair to refer to the same meaning of saddha.
Faith in god means trust in god. Trust in god means expecting results for prayers to god. And they will not behave to create kusala citta as explained in abhidamma.
They (christians) will be guided by ten commandments and moslems with faith will be guided by the quran .

[SarathW]

It appears Buddhism teaches about two types of faith or confidence.
What is the source reference (or Sutta Reference) for this division?

"Faith supported by reasons, rooted in vision and firm" (niviṭṭhā mūlajātā patiṭṭhitā saddhā) is from MN47.

"Rootless faith" (amūlikā saddhā) is from MN95.

Popular but ill-founded claims to the effect that these are important technical terms, that they enjoy a prominent position in the suttas, that the Buddha is much exercised over making a distinction between the two, and that the distinction is a central plank of his teaching, are all of much more recent origin. They seem to be a mid-20th century Sri Lankan protestant Buddhist invention, with Jayatilleke and his heirs being the chief culprits.

Thanks. Are you saying these two Sutta are not important?

MN47
https://suttacentral.net/mn47/en/bodhi? ... ight=false

MN95

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

[Mumfie]

Thanks. Are you saying these two Sutta are not important?

No, not at all.

What I'm saying is that in the hands of Jayatilleke (and other promoters of the notion that the Buddha was actually a philosopher of the empiricist school) the phrase mūlajātā saddhā in the one sutta and amūlikā saddhā in the other, are given a grossly exaggerated importance.

[Ceisiwr]

Thanks. Are you saying these two Sutta are not important?

No, not at all.

What I'm saying is that in the hands of Jayatilleke (and other promoters of the notion that the Buddha was actually a philosopher of the empiricist school) the phrase mūlajātā saddhā in the one sutta and amūlikā saddhā in the other, are given a grossly exaggerated importance.

I haven’t read his work, but I know Sujato is a fan. I have read that Jayatilleke claimed that faith gets turned into knowledge in the Dhamma, whilst the suttas say that the Arahants still have faith (as well as knowledge).

[SarathW]

Thanks. Are you saying these two Sutta are not important?

No, not at all.

What I'm saying is that in the hands of Jayatilleke (and other promoters of the notion that the Buddha was actually a philosopher of the empiricist school) the phrase mūlajātā saddhā in the one sutta and amūlikā saddhā in the other, are given a grossly exaggerated importance.

I haven’t read his work, but I know Sujato is a fan. I have read that Jayatilleke claimed that faith gets turned into knowledge in the Dhamma, whilst the suttas say that the Arahants still have faith (as well as knowledge).

No there is a Sutta to support that Arahant do not have the faith. I can't recall the Sutta.

[justindesilva]

Two types of faith have been described in Buddhist teaching;

Blind, irrational, baseless or rootless faith (amulika saddha)
Confidence based on reason and experience (akarawathi saddha)

The Buddha strongly discouraged blind devotion and, of the two types of faith, namely blind faith (amulika saddha) and confidence based on reason and investigation (akarawathi saddha), it is the latter that is considered relevant and necessary in Buddhism given its non-theistic foundation.

Faith of sotapanna-magga is still a "blind faith", so it's not so that people are actually required to simple have "blind" faith. Only when Phala arises one does no more act on "blind faith", as certain Vimutti has been gained.

But if taking "hearing the good Dhamma with proper attention" as root, mūla, such wouldn't be wrong. Yet to go for that, even right here, requires "blind faith". Only who knows liberation, it's path, isn't required to follow the training simply on "blind faith".

Faith-follower, Dhamma-follower, althought bond to gain insight before death, still act on "blind faith", but got the mūla, hearing the good Dhamma.

In vattupama sutta lord budda with the cloth simile, explained that by abandoning 16 defilements faith in budda damma sangha is achieved. Then by virtue of compassionate mindfulness etc. marga phala is achieved.
Here it is worth to note that faith is achieved by clearing the 16 defilements. And this faith is on qualities of budda, damma and sangha while it is not the physicals of buddha and sangha.