Reasoned Faith in the Teacher

Sile

I think it's sort of sad that "faith" has become kind of a negative concept in some Buddhist discussions (or so it seems to me). Maybe it's a subtle word difference--could "trust" is a better word? Certainly blind faith, faith which is completely unthinking, isn't advised by anyone, including the teachers. But in so many cases, faith isn't blind.

Faith or trust in a teacher is a healthy thing when you've found a good teacher. I think we can absolutely have reasoned faith in a person, in the same way we can have reasoned faith in a concept.

If Joe Schmo, whom I'd never met, asked me to jump off a bridge I'd hesitate, but if my fiance asked me to jump off a bridge, I'd assume there was a greater danger bearing down on me and it would be wise to jump. There's always the chance of being wrong, but reasoned faith in my partner tells me it's safer to err on the side of faith.

If it strikes you as interesting, I'd be interested to hear peoples' thoughts on reasoned faith in the teacher (or in people in general).

DairyLama

I think it's sort of sad that "faith" has become kind of a negative concept in some Buddhist discussions (or so it seems to me).

I think some Buddhists associate "faith" with monotheistic religion, where it can have the connotation of having to believe in something - so it's not seen in a positive light.

But in Buddhism I think faith is much more to do with confidence and trust, as you suggested. So it's about having faith ( trust / confidence ) in a person or method, not about blind belief.

Sile

I agree. As a linguist, I tend to get overexcited about the role language plays--but it sure does seem, over and over, that language and translation loom (ha) as an issue.

Think of the monks-at-poker thread, lol, for me as an ex-fundy, the very word "poker" strikes to my heart images of Devil-worshipping sinners who somehow put me and my entire family at risk with every hand.

At any rate, it would be good to examine the Sanskrit and Tibetan terms we translate as "faith" and see what meanings they carry.

PrairieGhost

I think objectless faith is the best kind of faith. It gradually transforms our experiences; also, we already have this kind of faith, and it cannot die.

Sile

Here's a paragraph from a very beautiful piece in Tricycle, excerpted from Sharon Salzburg's book Faith: Trusting Your Own Deepest Experiences:

In Pali, the language of the original Buddhist texts, the word usually translated as faith, confidence, or trust is saddha. Saddha literally means "to place the heart upon." To have faith is to offer one's heart or give over one's heart. In Pali, faith is a verb, an action, as it is also in Latin and Hebrew. Faith is not a singular state that we either have or don't have, but is something that we do. We "faithe." Saddha is the willingness to take the next step, to see the unknown as an adventure.

The promise of happiness offered by the dharma touched a place within me so deep and unknown that what it had awakened there was wild, inchoate, primal. I recognize that now as the stirring of faith.

http://www.tricycle.com/reviews/reclaiming-faith

Sile

I think objectless faith is the best kind of faith. It gradually transforms our experiences; also, we already have this kind of faith, and it cannot die.

I like the word "gradual" here. I think much of reasoned faith, almost by definition, is acquired gradually since we need time in order to reason (unless we're a very quick study?)

Sile

"To see the unknown as an adventure" appeals so much to me. It's also of course possible to see the unknown as completely frightening. Most times when I see people discussing "faith" negatively, it seems to me there is a deep fear involved, which I certainly understand. It's not just their faith in a teacher which causes them fear; they have a deep fear of human behavior in general (also understandable).

We live in a fearful world, and one which thrives on generating fear, obsessing about it, promoting it, cashing in on it...fear sells. This does nothing to help us identify healthy fear versus healthy adventure.

RichardH

The very common cynicism around this subject is really tragic. It is like people wear suits of armor. Devotion in the presence of a beautiful awakened teacher (yes they are real), without idolizing or ignoring his/her humanness.. is, IMO, essential to opening the heart.

People who have been burned by charlatans, never just say ..." Hey, I've been burned by a charlatan, that doesn't mean humans are all corrupt" Burned people are always "realists" and that is really infectious... because we have all been burned by someone, and would prefer to not get "had". We stay smart and sharp. It is tragic.

Sile

The very common cynicism around this subject is really tragic. It is like people wear suits of armor. Devotion in the presence of a beautiful awakened teacher (yes they are real), without idolizing or ignoring his/her humanness.. is, IMO, essential to opening the heart.

People who have been burned by charlatans, never just say ..." Hey, I've been burned by a charlatan, that doesn't mean humans are all corrupt" Burned people are always "realists" and that is really infectious... because we have all been burned by someone, and would prefer to not get "had". We stay smart and sharp. It is tragic.

Sadly agree. In a way, there's a "cult of non-trust." No one can be criticized for being too suspicious--only for being too trusting.

I think it's part and parcel of the trend to vilify "the stranger," and what parent couldn't sympathize with that? I certainly do. But at the same time, I remember my friend (a male) telling me how bad it felt walking past woman in a car park recently, and seeing the fear and almost revulsion on her face, as she seemed to be assuming he was likely a rapist, simply because he was male.

taiyaki

I've been having a lot of trust with my teacher lately.
But I also recognize that the teacher isn't higher or lower.
The teacher is the external mirror to what truly is.

So devotion or faith is good at first, but it must move towards confidence in practice and realization. Then both teacher and student fade away and whats left is our natural condition.

person

This is from another thread I posted but I think it fits here as well.

There are three kinds of valid proof that are recognized in the Buddha’s teachings. One is direct evidence. For example, when you see a fire, you know it is a fire. Another is inference. When you see smoke, you know that if you investigate, you will find a fire. The first two examples relate to obvious phenomenon and partially hidden phenomenon. Then there is the third kind of phenomenon—those that are very hidden and not within our present capacities of perception and investigation.

In the case of very hidden phenomena, we have to rely on the valid testimonies of others. It doesn’t mean that we have to believe whatever people tell us. But in the case of the Buddha, we can judge the Buddha’s behavior, teachings, and any other aspect that we can consider. If the Buddha seems perfect on all counts, why on one single point would he suddenly become ill-willed and wish to fool us and try to lead us into error? It’s much more likely that this person—with the credible array of qualities that we can perceive and testify to—is providing a valid testimony when describing the laws of karma. Now, you might think that this is blind faith. But when we speak about the big bang theory or about particles and electrons, what are we doing? We are relying on the testimony of a certain number of scientists, because we believe that a number of independent scientists cannot all be crooks at the same time. So if they agree on a particular point, we can assume that they are providing a valid description of the laws of nature. And so we say, “Okay. It must be true.” They might have imperfect knowledge, but we agree that they are not fundamentally telling lies or inventing things out of thin air. We believe that there are sound reasons for their conclusions, which we ourselves cannot access at the moment. But we could achieve their understanding if we spent ten years learning mathematics and physics. Likewise, the Buddha never said, “This is a mystery that will always be beyond your reach. Forget about it. You just have to accept it.” Instead, he said, “Don’t accept what I say just because I say it. You can have respect for me but do what it will take to find out for yourself. In the meantime, this is what I’ve seen with my own experience. Plants have no mind. Sentient beings have a mind. And there’s karma. There are past lives. I’ve found that. You can find the same. You just have to make the effort to become a buddha.”

http://www.wisdom-books.com/FocusDetail.asp?FocusRef=64

Sile

Very much appreciate that excerpt, @person!

DairyLama

But I also recognize that the teacher isn't higher or lower.

Though if a teacher isn't "higher", then it's potentially the blind leading the blind?

federica

No.
That's not what it means.
'Moon and Finger' philosophy.

DairyLama

No.
That's not what it means.
'Moon and Finger' philosophy.

A bit too cryptic for me.

federica

OK, let's see if I can break it down for you in nice, easy bite-sized uncryptic morsels.
the reason a teacher is a teacher, is because you have examined his reputation, looked at his history, credentials, credibility and expertise, and decided "Hmmm, this guy is on the ball, is interesting, thought-provoking, and is instructing me in new ways which are beneficial to me!"

Yes...?
However, no matter what the reputation, history, credentials credibility and expertise - he is no more - and no less - of a human being deserving of compassion than you are, because everything he imparts is recycled knowledge and points you in a specific direction.
He is merely the vehicle, a component of the raft, the signpost - not the destination.
Ergo, the finger - not the moon.

Jeffrey

The teacher isn't higher. They are like a tap to tap into the water of life. They might be rusty and leaky, but you can get the water. So battered kettles are equal to leaky taps, but the tap is exhalted because the water of life is coming from that source; the wisdom and compassion, which is essentially how to judge a teacher.

taiyaki

But I also recognize that the teacher isn't higher or lower.

Though if a teacher isn't "higher", then it's potentially the blind leading the blind?

At first the teacher is higher. They appear to have something you don't. Some wisdom, some more compassion, etc.

But then you work with the teacher. You see their humanity. You see their enlightened qualities.

But then with time you realize that the teacher is you. There is no distinction. Whatever you see in the teacher is qualities you see in yourself. Again emphasis is on time.

You can know a teacher for a little bit and you'll objectively claim they are a fraud or enlightened. But with time you can learn all the shit you project onto the teacher, etc.

They are guides. The role of a teacher is in relationship to the student. Without a student there is no teacher and vice versa.

But in my opinion a true teacher will lead one to find the inner teacher within all of us.

Our experience and life is the real teacher.

I'm just putting this information out there just so people can have varying opinions.

If a teacher is not developing the students to be independent then the teacher is doing you a great disservice.

Leaving the teacher is the greatest honor to the teacher.

But until then we cling hard to the words of our teacher, both external and internal.

federica

Leaving the teacher is the greatest honor to the teacher.

Leaving the teacher - because due to our diligence and progress, there is no more they can teach us - is the greatest honor to the teacher.

taiyaki

@federica

well said!

federica

_/\_

ozen

Everything is the teacher (which we never leave) for the true student.

DairyLama

If a teacher is not developing the students to be independent then the teacher is doing you a great disservice.

I agree, but some Buddhists seem to have a strong devotion to their teacher which involves a degree of dependence - and in some traditions this is actively encouraged.

taiyaki

If a teacher is not developing the students to be independent then the teacher is doing you a great disservice.

I agree, but some Buddhists seem to have a strong devotion to their teacher which involves a degree of dependence - and in some traditions this is actively encouraged.

If thats the conditions that are required then those are the conditions. We all depend on something and someone in the beginning. Then we hopefully grow up.

Both are very important imho.

Jeffrey

@porpoise, the blessing of the teacher comes to the student. For example they are a role model. They give dharma talks. They dispell the kleshas and dismiss wrong view. To judge a teacher see how they have wisdom and compassion. A wise teacher doesn't make the student dependent so that is an oxymoron (self contradictory).

ozen

A wise teacher would make their students dependent if there purpose was to have students.

Sile

A wise teacher would make their students dependent if there purpose was to have students.

Depends on what kind of students they want to have! Overly-dependent students will have a hard time with the individual effort that is called for in Buddhism.

I'd say a wise teacher would make his/her students independent, if his/her purpose was to have students well-suited to Buddhism.

ozen

I'd say a wise teacher would endeavor to give their students the self-confidence to be wise students.

pegembara

"Trust, but Verify"

"Therefore, did we say, Kalamas, what was said thus, 'Come Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, "The monk is our teacher." Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and abide in them."

Kalama Sutta

DairyLama

A wise teacher would make their students dependent if there purpose was to have students.

Good observation. And while the teachers themselves may not set out to create a culture of dependence, the groups that form around them can sometimes promote dependence, insularity, elitism and defensiveness in the face of criticism.

ozen

Lol, show me a group of Buddhists who are not defensive in the face of criticism.

DairyLama

Lol, show me a group of Buddhists who are not defensive in the face of criticism.

Touche! But some groups are more defensive than others.

Sile

I'd say most humans are defensive in the face of criticism. Just because someone is criticizing you doesn't mean you shouldn't offer your own views in return.

RichardH

"Trust, but Verify"

"Therefore, did we say, Kalamas, what was said thus, 'Come Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, "The monk is our teacher." Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and abide in them."

Kalama Sutta

This seems to be the most quoted Sutta online. That popularity could reflect a lot of things.. some maybe not so noble. It can be a perfect cover for being stuck in "I know".. and being averse to deeply bowing.

SattvaPaul

If we are reluctant to trust the teacher, how do we overcome this? If we were to "just do it", it seems too dangerous. If we were to think about it, we can always find flaws. I guess the best thing would be to observe the teacher for a while. But what if we don't have this luxury?

ozen

"Trust, but Verify"

"Therefore, did we say, Kalamas, what was said thus, 'Come Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, "The monk is our teacher." Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and abide in them."

Kalama Sutta

This seems to be the most quoted Sutta online. That popularity could reflect a lot of things.. some maybe not so noble. It can be a perfect cover for being stuck in "I know".. and being averse to deeply bowing.

Silly question, but why would anyone need or want to cover that?

Floating_Abu

This seems to be the most quoted Sutta online. That popularity could reflect a lot of things.. some maybe not so noble. It can be a perfect cover for being stuck in "I know".. and being averse to deeply bowing.

You mean as opposed to imagining one is doing deep bowing?

Floating_Abu

but the tap is exhalted because the water of life is coming from that source; the wisdom and compassion, which is essentially how to judge a teacher.

I agree @Jeffrey, but perhaps it takes one to know one. Karma, and other such things would also come into play I suspect, so perhaps not everyone is so fortunate. Continuing one's own practice regardless of one's fortune in teacher encounterances is probably important for genuine practitioners also.

Floating_Abu

Everything is the teacher (which we never leave) for the true student.

That's probably true, but probably also rather rare.
I have the blessing to know a few, but the treasures are meek.

Zero

peoples' thoughts on reasoned faith in the teacher (or in people in general).

The 'teacher:student' relationship appears constantly in human relationships - in the process of transmission of information there is a donor and recipient - the donor is the teacher - the roles are not fixed - at any point in time in an interaction, one party will be a 'teacher' and one a 'student' - the process of information exchange is continuous.

Buddhism as a doctrine is not innate to us - it must be learnt from a source - so evolves the burden of the teacher in the cycle of information exchange - the teacher here has to assume a fixed role which inevitably conflicts with the fluctuating roles in natural information exchange - it is a tough condition.

Our brains are hard wired for 1-0 decisions - mostly to preserve our life - opposing extremes are created just so we have choice to decide, in the event that it gives us a slightly better chance - the brains learns with a combination of innate and learnt software - it's a fuzzy logic machine - inbetween the 1 and 0, the brain fills in a host of permutations and likely outcomes - thus everyday calculations involve 'faith' - this is the condition of tackling probability head on - a process that is continuous information exchange - Faith is a constant byproduct of the information exchange that creates our reality.

RichardH

This seems to be the most quoted Sutta online. That popularity could reflect a lot of things.. some maybe not so noble. It can be a perfect cover for being stuck in "I know".. and being averse to deeply bowing.

You mean as opposed to imagining one is doing deep bowing?

As opposed to actually bowing before a teacher.. being chastened, and not coming on like a fount of wisdom...

RichardH

"Trust, but Verify"

"Therefore, did we say, Kalamas, what was said thus, 'Come Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, "The monk is our teacher." Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and abide in them."

Kalama Sutta

This seems to be the most quoted Sutta online. That popularity could reflect a lot of things.. some maybe not so noble. It can be a perfect cover for being stuck in "I know".. and being averse to deeply bowing.

Silly question, but why would anyone need or want to cover that?

It's not a silly question. The buck stops here... Only I can realize practice firsthand, no one can do it for me.. and only this heart and mind can "verify". But at the same time "I know" is about as stuck and I can get. One saying heard a lot with Kwam Um folks is "don't Know".. only I can "don't know" firsthand in practice.

That is basically what I mean...

driedleaf

People sometimes put others down for having too much or too little faith. Sometimes people are envious over it. Trust, faith, and saddha are not negative words. People are just negative sometimes over silly things.

RichardH

If we are reluctant to trust the teacher, how do we overcome this? If we were to "just do it", it seems too dangerous. If we were to think about it, we can always find flaws. I guess the best thing would be to observe the teacher for a while. But what if we don't have this luxury?

IMHO ... it is a matter of this.. " A thief can only see a Saint's pockets" . I'm like a broken record with that saying.. but it is IMHO.. so true. If I am not to be trusted.. I will live in an untrusting world. If I am a thief.. sooner or later I will be surrounded by thieves... and see a thieving world. That doesn't mean trust can't be violated... but if we are aware of our own "saint"... even while being all too human, we will see the Saint in others. Devotional practice is dualistic.. but it is part of Buddhism, the part many new Buddhist would prefer to put aside, because it has a squirm factor, and reminds them of Mom and Dad's church. But cultivating devotional practice toward what we know in a heart of hearts is the the highest value.. wisdom and compassion manifest, is a part of Buddhism.. its heart. Without it Buddhism is heartless... then we have to be very clever and certain.. untrusting, wearing a suit of armor.

SattvaPaul

IMHO ... it is a matter of this.. " A thief can only see a Saint's pockets" . I'm like a broken record with that saying.. but it is IMHO.. so true. If I am not to be trusted.. I will live in an untrusting world. If I am a thief.. sooner or later I will be surrounded by thieves... and see a thieving world. That doesn't mean trust can't be violated... but if we are aware of our own "saint"... even while being all too human, we will see the Saint in others. Devotional practice is dualistic.. but it is part of Buddhism, the part many new Buddhist would prefer to put aside, because it has a squirm factor, and reminds them of Mom and Dad's church. But cultivating devotional practice toward what we know in a heart of hearts is the the highest value.. wisdom and compassion manifest, is a part of Buddhism.. its heart. Without it Buddhism is heartless... then we have to be very clever and certain.. untrusting, wearing a suit of armor.

Thank you for this.. So true. Yet, developing this trust and devotion after years of wearing a suit of armor, perhaps because we've been hurt in the past by others.. it's not easy. Sometimes it's even difficult to make sense of it.

Sile

IMHO ... it is a matter of this.. " A thief can only see a Saint's pockets" . I'm like a broken record with that saying.. but it is IMHO.. so true. If I am not to be trusted.. I will live in an untrusting world. If I am a thief.. sooner or later I will be surrounded by thieves... and see a thieving world. That doesn't mean trust can't be violated... but if we are aware of our own "saint"... even while being all too human, we will see the Saint in others. Devotional practice is dualistic.. but it is part of Buddhism, the part many new Buddhist would prefer to put aside, because it has a squirm factor, and reminds them of Mom and Dad's church. But cultivating devotional practice toward what we know in a heart of hearts is the the highest value.. wisdom and compassion manifest, is a part of Buddhism.. its heart. Without it Buddhism is heartless... then we have to be very clever and certain.. untrusting, wearing a suit of armor.

Thank you for this.. So true. Yet, developing this trust and devotion after years of wearing a suit of armor, perhaps because we've been hurt in the past by others.. it's not easy. Sometimes it's even difficult to make sense of it.

Strongly agree. Add to that the commercial promotion of fear and violence as commodities, and even someone without a personal reason to distrust can become distrusting.

ozen

It [Kalamas sutra] can be a perfect cover for being stuck in "I know".. and being averse to deeply bowing.

Silly question, but why would anyone need or want to cover that?

It's not a silly question. The buck stops here... Only I can realize practice firsthand, no one can do it for me.. and only this heart and mind can "verify". But at the same time "I know" is about as stuck and I can get. One saying heard a lot with Kwam Um folks is "don't Know".. only I can "don't know" firsthand in practice.

That is basically what I mean...


I suppose that I didn't understand your language? Are you saying that people try to cover or hide their "I know"-ness and aversion to deeply bowing? If so, I don't understand why anyone would do that. It seems to me that if someone believed that they had all the answers, and they were prideful (and averse to deeply bowing?) of it, the last thing they would do is try to conceal it.

Maybe it would help if you said what your understanding of "deeply bowing" is.

ozen

Uh, I didn't do my tags right.

zenff

People sometimes put others down for having too much or too little faith. Sometimes people are envious over it. Trust, faith, and saddha are not negative words. People are just negative sometimes over silly things.

But on the other hand there is a real problem to it when people idolize the teacher.
The teacher isn’t made of wood or bronze. All those people bowing with glazing eyes and telling him how special he is. It will drive any sane person mad.
In every organization there has to be checks and balances. When we transfer all power to the one great Leader it can go wrong. It even must go wrong. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I’m not the first person to make that observation. It’s not my personal bump on the head turned into a general rule.

Can we have both?
Can we open our hearts to the teacher and at the same time restrict their power and point out their mistakes? Can we compromise?

Floating_Abu

This seems to be the most quoted Sutta online. That popularity could reflect a lot of things.. some maybe not so noble. It can be a perfect cover for being stuck in "I know".. and being averse to deeply bowing.

You mean as opposed to imagining one is doing deep bowing?

As opposed to actually bowing before a teacher.. being chastened, and not coming on like a fount of wisdom...

Well you have certainly displayed it - ask your teacher about it some time too: anonymously if you wish.

Deep bowing can often just be another mask, but truth is far from manifest.

Best wishes,
Abu

Floating_Abu

ozen's post with tags --

It [Kalamas sutra] can be a perfect cover for being stuck in "I know".. and being averse to deeply bowing.

Silly question, but why would anyone need or want to cover that?

It's not a silly question. The buck stops here... Only I can realize practice firsthand, no one can do it for me.. and only this heart and mind can "verify". But at the same time "I know" is about as stuck and I can get. One saying heard a lot with Kwam Um folks is "don't Know".. only I can "don't know" firsthand in practice.

That is basically what I mean...

I suppose that I didn't understand your language? Are you saying that people try to cover or hide their "I know"-ness and aversion to deeply bowing? If so, I don't understand why anyone would do that. It seems to me that if someone believed that they had all the answers, and they were prideful (and averse to deeply bowing?) of it, the last thing they would do is try to conceal it.

Maybe it would help if you said what your understanding of "deeply bowing" is.