Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Faith and hope
Simonthepilgrim
Veteran
This is a continuation of the thread on Marxism in the Lotus Lounge forum:
I entirely agree, Palzang. It would have been terminally disappointing if so great a scholar as HHDL should fall intothe trap of confusing two methods. Indeed, as I keep repeating, what he said to us was: "Lord Jesus is your door; Lord Buddha is my door." What the Christian Testament omits is a clear and graduated practice, other than generalities: "turn around", "be transformed", "pray always". Where the Buddha goes further is in the detailed description of an ongoing life-practice as well an 'ontology'.
An image has stayed in my head, since reading the description of HHDL's first meeting with Fr Thomas Merton. Two of them, in that overdecorated sitting-room in HHDL's bungalow, pushing the chairs back so that each could sit, one in simple white, the other in patched maroon, together, sharing their traditions and their practice. They are like two honest archaeologists working on the same site, with different approaches but both open to each other's view of the truth.
Perhaps it is something lacking in me. I hear convinced Christians, Muslims and Buddhists speak about "respect" for other methods. But I hear, too, the subtext of their method saying "You are wrong" to all others. I can tell a pupil, with all proper respect, that they have got a sum wrong or that they have applied the wrong formula or that their translation is inaccurate, but, until I have a clear, replicatable method that can be demonstrated to work in a verifiable and significant way, I must acknowledge the need for a pre-existing 'faith'.
And there's the rub, isn't it?
It's the area where Christians shout but Buddhists get a bit tongue-tied. In a desperate attempt to be all things to all people, and, especially, the constituency that Christianity is losing, i.e. the science-educated sceptics, Western Buddhism tends to play down the need for and enabling role of 'faith'. I think this is a pity, because Buddhism could have some very valuable contributions to make. Currently, 'faith' appears, over here in the UK/US West, to be a term which the Christians have hijacked and ascribed a very particular meaning to. Look at the work of the great evangelical writers and the primacy of 'faith' as the single, vital 'justifying' event, freely given by the god Father is central. This definition of 'faith', as a free gift, makes it something that human beings receive rather than arousing it in themselves. It ceases to be an emotion, like love or hope. But we rarely use the term in that very particular sense. The word is usually used in a limited and, more importantly, conditional sense. It is more a matter of 'positive hope' than of absolute certainty.
Both Christianity and Buddhism are 'missionary faiths', from the example set in the stories of their Founders. Both, it seems to me, contain descriptions of who we are and why we are that way. They also propose various remedies for the 'ills' that they describe. Shot with an arrow, I do not ask if the doctor is holistic, naturopathic or a vet! True, but, presented with my chronic heart disease, I try out different doctors, shamen, druids, whoever, and test for myself their claims.
So, as I said earlier, it is something in me. Like poor old Thomas, I have to get blood and gore all over my own hands before I'll believe.
On the other hand, I do a great job of hoping, and it is in this area that I find valuable input from many different sources and traditions.
Palzang wrote:
When the Dalai Lama attended an interfaith conference at Gethsemane in Tennessee, he said that while it was interesting to compare faiths, in truth Buddhism was not the same as Christianity despite many similarities. I think that what he was saying is that Buddhism can take one farther than other religions. That may not be PC to say, but I think it's what he was saying.
I entirely agree, Palzang. It would have been terminally disappointing if so great a scholar as HHDL should fall intothe trap of confusing two methods. Indeed, as I keep repeating, what he said to us was: "Lord Jesus is your door; Lord Buddha is my door." What the Christian Testament omits is a clear and graduated practice, other than generalities: "turn around", "be transformed", "pray always". Where the Buddha goes further is in the detailed description of an ongoing life-practice as well an 'ontology'.
An image has stayed in my head, since reading the description of HHDL's first meeting with Fr Thomas Merton. Two of them, in that overdecorated sitting-room in HHDL's bungalow, pushing the chairs back so that each could sit, one in simple white, the other in patched maroon, together, sharing their traditions and their practice. They are like two honest archaeologists working on the same site, with different approaches but both open to each other's view of the truth.
Perhaps it is something lacking in me. I hear convinced Christians, Muslims and Buddhists speak about "respect" for other methods. But I hear, too, the subtext of their method saying "You are wrong" to all others. I can tell a pupil, with all proper respect, that they have got a sum wrong or that they have applied the wrong formula or that their translation is inaccurate, but, until I have a clear, replicatable method that can be demonstrated to work in a verifiable and significant way, I must acknowledge the need for a pre-existing 'faith'.
And there's the rub, isn't it?
It's the area where Christians shout but Buddhists get a bit tongue-tied. In a desperate attempt to be all things to all people, and, especially, the constituency that Christianity is losing, i.e. the science-educated sceptics, Western Buddhism tends to play down the need for and enabling role of 'faith'. I think this is a pity, because Buddhism could have some very valuable contributions to make. Currently, 'faith' appears, over here in the UK/US West, to be a term which the Christians have hijacked and ascribed a very particular meaning to. Look at the work of the great evangelical writers and the primacy of 'faith' as the single, vital 'justifying' event, freely given by the god Father is central. This definition of 'faith', as a free gift, makes it something that human beings receive rather than arousing it in themselves. It ceases to be an emotion, like love or hope. But we rarely use the term in that very particular sense. The word is usually used in a limited and, more importantly, conditional sense. It is more a matter of 'positive hope' than of absolute certainty.
Both Christianity and Buddhism are 'missionary faiths', from the example set in the stories of their Founders. Both, it seems to me, contain descriptions of who we are and why we are that way. They also propose various remedies for the 'ills' that they describe. Shot with an arrow, I do not ask if the doctor is holistic, naturopathic or a vet! True, but, presented with my chronic heart disease, I try out different doctors, shamen, druids, whoever, and test for myself their claims.
So, as I said earlier, it is something in me. Like poor old Thomas, I have to get blood and gore all over my own hands before I'll believe.
On the other hand, I do a great job of hoping, and it is in this area that I find valuable input from many different sources and traditions.
0
Comments
True, on the thread about rebirth, most people are of the opinion that "belief" in rebirth is a matter of faith that flies in the face of so-called scientific proof. However, that is wrong view, imho. When I talk about rebirth, it isn't because it's something I believe in. It's rather something that I have experienced the truth of through teachings I have received and through my own practice and experience of life. To me, there is no question but that it is true, and it isn't just because the Buddha said so. The teachings that I have received from my teachers on this subject (and others, of course) are very logical and don't involve suspending disbelief at all. They're solidly based in reality and our own experience. I would even contend that someone who claims to be a Buddhist based on faith in the Buddha's teachings or whatever really needs to examine their path because it's built on sand. The only way to have a solid practice (and I'm not saying mine is particularly solid, mind you) is to really get in there and do the work, examine the teachings, relate them to your own life and experience, and realize the truth in them. If you don't do that, then you're wasting your time.
As you said, Buddhism does have a graduated practice that will lead you to enlightenment if you just follow it. Again, it doesn't involve faith per se. Of course, you have to have confidence in the teacher and the teachings, you have to have had the experience that what the Buddha taught is the truth, but I wouldn't call that faith. For me, anyway, it was that these teachings resonated at a very deep level like nothing else I'd ever heard. I remember my first encounter with Trungpa Rinpoche, which was actually an article in the Chicago Reader about his upcoming public talk where they interviewed him. It was like reading my own mind. He was putting into words what I had always felt was right, even though I probably couldn't have put it into words on my own before that. It was like the clouds parting and the light shining through. If you want to call that faith, I suppose you could, but that wasn't my experience of it. I'd call it awakening.
Anyway, I guess my point is that there is no real alternative, at least in Buddhism, for introspection, examining one's own faults, studying the teachings and applying them to your own life, and so forth. In other words, it's hard work, and there's no short cuts. You can sit around and blather all day expressing your opinions about rebirth or whatever and how silly they are, but in the end they're just the opinions of an ignorant sentient being who really has no clue. What good is that? Like the old saying, opinions are like a**holes - everybody has one, and it stinks. It's only logical to follow the teachings of one who was able to realize his own enlightened nature. Who else would you listen to?
Palzang
Are you saying that it is only logical to follow Buddhism and nothing else? If that is the case, I have to disagree. I personally see it as logical to view each religion I can and take truth from each one, not necessarily prescribing to any of them particularly.
No, that's not what I meant. I feel that all of the major world religions (save one) has had an enlightened founder. All are paths worth following if they speak to you.
Palzang
I feel that this world seems to place faith on things not worth the faith, while that which really should deserve faith never gets it - so much for blind faith.
One should use logic - but in a way so as to make it seem like faith. One argument can split into many stands and variations of interpretations and solutions. What determines your line of argument and thought often is logic - but to me personally, there are some things in this world where it is better to argue using logic after having faith.
There are many issues that can be reasoned into two stands, each as strong as the other and subjective to the individual. In such cases, as the observer, I often see faith, more than anything, as partaking in this subjective debate for each side.
Well it seems sadly as though this may be in violation of any formal rules of debate to use faith, but unconsciously, I see faith as being in the game of logic more often than not.
When I am thinking about a particular human issue, I consider all possibilities that may come as a result of it. Yet when I choose to advance my argument, I always find myself choosing the one that is the most ideally the best - not necessarily benchmarked by how convincing it may be, but rather more of a humanitarian approach, where I consider the individual experience of my fellow opponent-in-argument as more important than my own, and also if I am discussing methods to pull a friend back together from some form of mental self-torture, I always place hope in that I as his friend should help him get back - no matter how hard, how hopeless it seems.
It does not always work, yet I always follow this approach. Even as I know that not everyone has the same story, I also understand that not everyone is ever-hopeful. Still I follow my own weighing criteria to sieve out unsatisfactory arguments I construct, and I cannot provide you with a clear explanation of why I do what I think.
Ever had those times when all forms of evidence/arguments were against your cause, and all you thought was that, "No - it can't be true." and you reassure yourself with a more friendly thought? Sadly, that denial itself often is used in the wrong places, and again I stress that faith and hope ought to appear where they ought to appear. :rockon: