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.
First question, opinions welcomed
Jerbear
Veteran
As I mentioned, I have a very difficult time with things that require faith. I was checking out about.com's Buddhist page and some felt that you could not be a Buddhist without faith. There are some things of I've learned that is not helpful or useful to me at this time. Those that are I plan on using. The philosophy of Buddhism is more close to what I've felt most of my life. So what do you all think? Since faith has been defined for me in a Christian text that asks you to play make believe in my opinion, I'm unsure what to do with this. How have you dealt with faith/reason conundrum if it has been difficult for you?
Jerry
Jerry
0
Comments
So in a nutshell, let me tell you what I have found for myself.
First of all, there is a question on just how one might define 'Faith'.
Briefly, 'faith' in a Christian context means that at one point or another, you have to suspend logic and rely on faith based on Hope, and Belief. So it's a Faith that even if something is unknowable and unseen, you are still 'required' to hang your existence and raison d'être on. You have to rely on it, and bite the bullet....even if you really have no proof. All you have, is something to cling to.
Faith in Buddhism, on the other hand, hinges on examination, investigation, research and questioning, until you have an answer that gives you a Faith in the Teachings, as defined by Confidence.
The Buddha encourages to strip everything to bits.
And then to proceed in one of three ways:
We accept the teachings, and live by them, 100%, 100% of the time.
We reject what we find, but accept 100% that for others it may be completely acceptable, and respect that,
or
We leave it aside. Let it be for a while in the 'Unsure' file, and either let it lie there, or try to find out a bit more, at a later time. It might be more understandable then, or you might be in a more receptive or able frame of mind, to see what it all means. (I have to do this a lot....
The Buddha has been likened to an able specialist physician, who administers his medicine (The Dhamma) for the benefit of all.
Now, given that there are aspects to its healing properties that are as yet hidden from us, and we may not completely understand everything about the treatment or course of medication, we still know, by virtue of the fact that the Physician has an awful lot of very satisfied patients (The Sangha) and a proven record of success, that we can safely assume that he is by and large, and extremely adept and reliable physician indeed.
So we have a Faith in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha, because it's a tried and tested system. The answers are there. And if we don't see them, or understand them, that's fine. We're not alone.... and others do see them, and understand them, and sometimes their help eases us further along the path, and at other times it just doesn't compute. But one day, it might.
And that's OK.
Now.
We all fall off the raft at some point.
It's natural.
This is part of the deal in living in the state we do - Samsara. We all of us hit a wall at some point, and think WTF....?! :hrm:
I have hit several, high, thick and really hard brick walls, as it happens.
But if, instead of charging it like a mad bull-rhino, determined to shatter it and send the bricks flying in all directions, I instead, just sit. And wait. And maybe, I wait a long while, and maybe it's a short while.
But then, one day, I notice that one of the bricks has come loose, and I see a chink of light.
The most - The MOST - important thing ever, ever, bar none - is to not be too hard on ourselves.
We should be gentle, kind, loving and Compassionate.
The Buddha doesn't want us to suffer angst, turmoil and distress at the thought of the Triple Gem. Goodness knows, we have enough suffering already, and the whole point of Buddhism is to recognise Suffering, and find a way out of Suffering.
Period.
Shall I shaddup now?
Kind Sir:
I think there really is no problem here for you except for the strait-jacket-like fears you have mentioned. But these should not be disenabling. Perhaps it's an intolerance you have for intolerance that stops you. But there are plenty worse intolerances, plenty indeed!
I rather like your analogy of faith as playing Make-Believe. Swami Ranganathananda even referred to some theistic faith-matrixes as mere artifices, as "piety-fringed worldliness:" A self-indulgence rooted in a delusion of bestowing good on others instead of on numero uno.
I like the way you equate much of what people call faith with children playing Make-Believe, because it suggests the idea of artificiality and not anything either genuine or profitable, which seems to be the case all too often; especially when religious nuts toss out all the enlightened teachings and emphasize some fringe elements that condemn other people.
Hey, Brother, when I can't quite wrap my mind around something, I let it go. "Not for Me, not for me is this thing here," I say.
If Faith is a virtue, then it is in part a gift and egoism about it would seem to contradict its main purport. And if unwavering faith at all times is a spiritual prerequisite, then the Lord Jesus and the Buddha would be damned.
The older I get I believe more and more in the idea that those who worship a god are at root only worshipping an element of themselves. So, don't worry — Be happy!
But to answer your question, how do I deal with the Faith/Reason interface?
Firstly, there are difficulties in these matters for all thoughtful people. Not being a complete loss, I have had plenty of my own. However, Vedanta, Buddhism and enlightened Christianity have helped me see outside the child's box of toys, to tie into your excellent analogy.
I simply tie Faith and Reason together and form a circle of considered devotion: I ground my life, my love and my work on the joyful realization that by responsibly living and caring for others I am living in the power, soaking up the power, and exuding the power that sustains or embodies a glowing ember in the heart of being. (Something like that, in brief. WHY NOT do one's work joyfully and with pleasure, so as to claim the day for one's very own rather than to wish all one's days wasted away?).
I do not take much religious imagery literally, since I realize that its Poetry is a higher form of knowledge, and is therefore on a different level entirely from our temporal world's, and is thereby absolutely untranslatable back-and-forth between the realms or strata of reality. No need to say I believe or disbelieve. I can only hold so many thoughts on my mind at one time.
What to believe? Believe in Thyself and to thine own self be true.
We test and check the bungee rope but, launching ourselves out into the void, we leap in faith.
In the long run, we need to examine our various faiths and, using discernment, discard the unskilful, retaining and strengthening those that support us on the Noble Eightfold Path - or whatever path we have chosen.
For me, faith is not a static state but a dynamic one, evolving and changing.
Be kind. Be kind to yourself and to others. See the other guy's point of view and if you can't, at least feel sorry for them for having such outrageous views and wonder what experience in their life has led them to be so wrong / twisted / full of hate.
How you live your life is far more important than whether you worship a god, follow the Buddha or believe in green men from outer space.
If you have experienced the uplift and joy of being in the moment, in the Light then it doesn't matter what you call it. That is the force that will guide you to be the best human being you can be.
What happens when you die doesn't matter -it is how you live that matters.
As I see it.
I believe most western buddhists have also rejected "christian" things.. With buddhism , though, you cannot reject anything, so you will have to go back to what you reject and embrace it sooner or later..
I do not think that faith in and of itself is a negative thing, I see it more as a motivating factor; but I do think that faith without reason can be an unskillful motivating factor when it comes to our actions, i.e., acts leading to harmful results. People who kill thousands of other innocent people out of faith is certainly one example of how I think faith can be an unskillful motivating factor. Nevertheless, is faith, as opposed to skepticism, always going to lead to such behavior? On the issue of faith in Buddhism, for example, while there is certainly room for skepticism toward matters of faith, there is also a limit to that skepticism. The Buddha often stated that faith in a teacher is what leads one to learn from that teacher, to put their teachings to the test to see what results they will bring; and the only valid basis for faith is the instruction that, when followed, brings about the end of one's own mental defilements (DN 11).
As Thanissaro Bhikkhu explains, "The Buddha never placed unconditional demands on anyone's faith ... We read his famous instructions to the Kalamas, in which he advises testing things for oneself, and we see it as an invitation to believe, or not, whatever we like. Some people go so far as to say that faith has no place in the Buddhist tradition, that the proper Buddhist attitude is one of skepticism. But even though the Buddha recommends tolerance and a healthy skepticism toward matters of faith, he also makes a conditional request about faith: If you sincerely want to put an end to suffering — that's the condition — you should take certain things on faith, as working hypotheses, and then test them through following his path of practice" (Faith in Awakening). In other words, one must have at least a modicum of faith that an end to suffering is possible, otherwise one will not bother working toward that goal.
One must also understand what faith means in this context. In the Pali Canon, the word saddha can be translated as "confidence," "conviction," or "faith." More specifically, it is a type of confidence, conviction, or faith that is rooted in understanding as well as what we would conventionally refer to as faith in the West, i.e., confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. To give an example, for one to truly take refuge in the Buddha (as a teacher), one has to take his awakening on faith until they too have achieved that particular goal. Until then, they have no way of verifying the experience of awakening until they have experienced it for themselves. Therefore, while saddha by itself is not a sufficient condition for arriving at the end of suffering, there are elements of faith that are important to the practice. The question is, does this type of faith lead to unskillful or negative behavior?
Biased as I am, for me the answer is no. For one reason, taking the doctrine of kamma on faith, as a working hypothesis, has the potential to lead to skillful actions. As Thanissaro Bhikkhu explains in Faith in Awakening, "...instead of an empirical proof for his teaching on karma, the Buddha offered a pragmatic proof: If you believe in his teachings on causality, karma, rebirth, and the four noble truths, how will you act? What kind of life will you lead? Won't you tend to be more responsible and compassionate? If, on the other hand, you were to believe in any of the alternatives — such as a doctrine of an impersonal fate or a deity who determined the course of your pleasure and pain, or a doctrine that all things were coincidental and without cause — what would those beliefs lead you to do? Would they allow you to put an end to suffering through your own efforts? Would they allow any purpose for knowledge at all?"
To put it another way, if I ask a person who I feel to be wise, which should be determined by careful observation and analysis of their words and deeds per AN 4.192, "What when I do it will be for my long-term welfare and happiness," and their answer leads me to place faith in putting forth the effort to abstain from killing, abstain from stealing, abstain from lying, abstain from sexual misconduct, abstain from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness; to cultvating wholesome mental states (e.g. compassion, equanimity, etc.) and abandoning unwholesome mental states (e.g., greed, hatred, etc.); to developing alertness, mindfulness, and wisdom through various forms of meditation, will this type of faith lead to unskillful actions that harm myself or others? In most cases, if the effort is genuine, the answer is no. Therefore, in a pragmatic sense, faith is not inherently detrimental to oneself or society.
Therefore, while I think that having a healthy skepticism towards matters of faith, or anything else for that matter, is an important thing to have, I also think that there are limits to that skepticism if we are sincere in following the Buddha's advice to the Kalamas, i.e., there are times when one should be able to admit that they lack knowledge in a particular area and, in essence, be willing to place their faith or trust in others who do have that knowledge. Nevertheless, this kind of faith or trust should not be "blind" in the sense that one is willing to do anything whatsoever without a modicum of questioning because that kind of faith can have the potential to lead to unskillful actions. In other words, I think that it is healthy for people take an honest look at their beliefs and what their beliefs motivate them to do. I think that this kind of self-awareness can eventually dispel a lot of the harm that misguided faith can engender.
That being said, one does not have to fully subscribe to concepts that they do not find helpful in the practice, especially if they are more interested in the purely practical applications of Buddhism such as the fourth Noble Truth, i.e., the Noble Eightfold path, which consists of right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. For two excellent overviews of the Noble Eightfold Path as it is presented in the Pali Canon, please see "The Noble Eightfold Path: The Way to the End of Suffering" and this section of Wings to Awakening. In addition, for a detailed overview of the Four Noble Truths, I would suggest taking a look at the short essay "The Nobility of the Truths," as well as the lengthier anthology "The Four Noble Truths: A Study Guide." All in all, my advice would be to simply disregard whatever you feel uncomfortable with for the time being.
Jason
And Catweasel's popped back in too...!
This calls for a celebration!
Hya Catweasel! Comment va la France - ?
Feel free to chat (not 'Cat'!) in a new Thread!!
*Back on Topic* - !!
roubia.net
Well, I think everyone has hit on the main points, but I'd like to throw in my opinion for some emphasis via redundancy and maybe a slightly different take. I was also raised as a Christian where "faith" meant "i guess". Saying "I believe in God" really meant "I'm going to choose to follow the unproven assumption that there God exists in the sense portrayed in the Bible and that the Bible is fact for no real reason in particular other than I get some sort of intangible satisfaction out of doing so". As far as my path in Buddhism has gone, it has meant confirming it's tenants and explanations in my own personal experience through living and practicing. It's like the metaphor the Buddha used of how, when taking money, you test it by biting it, etc. to see it's really the precious metal it's supposed to be. How much more important is this form of testing with accepting a system of Truth.
Additionally, for myself, the issue comes down with the ever present desire of people to be happy. It is my personal belief that every action we take is chosen in order to relieve some form of stress or achieve some form of happiness. So, do we trust our impulsive desires? I know I do more often than I'd like to admit. I've currently kinda put Buddhism on the back burner to be honest. I kinda hit some walls in my personal life that I realized were more important to me right now than achieving the goal of Buddhism. Turns out that day to day suffering and feelings are more directly influential to my actions than religious notions that I haven't personally realized directly. So I guess I struggle with faith in this sense. Honestly though, this is to be expected until one reaches the stage of 'stream-winner', seeing as doubts about the teaching are present in the practitioner up to that point.
Anyway, what I would say is not to worry so much about faith, to be honest. Just do what makes sense to you and what you honestly believe is best for you.
metta
_/\_
Hi Not1Not2,
This is precisely the point at which we need, I believe, to start. Metaphysics is fun but life is to be lived - and to the fullest. For some people, a 'practice' enables and empowers that fullness of life; for others it stifles.
As a gardener, I read books about design and soil conditions, plants, etc. but that doesn't get the beds weeded or the roses pruned.
Jason, thanks for the links. Already read "Faith in Awakening" and found it helpful.
Catweasel, walking on water is no big deal. It just depends on how much water you're talking about
The Rabbi's wife quietly sat in the corner of the parlour, sewing....
Isaac arrived, and complained that as a shopkeeper, he was heartily sick and tired of Simon coming to his shop, and complaining about the clothes, the colours and the prices, and never buying anything. Every week, on the same day, there he was. Always coming in and complaining, moaning... but never buying a single item! His patience was running low... his other customers were being put off... he didn't open a shop for this kind of treatment, especially from one of his fellows!
"D'you know what?" Answered the Rabbi, "You're right!"
Simon arrived, and began to explain that he was a lonely old man, and he came to Isaac's shop for a bit of company, on the way to buy his weekly loaf of bread, but Isaac was so hostile. The minute he walked into the store, he scowled at him, and gruffly asked what he wanted... Well, it was hardly the way to greet a friend.... so he'd pretend he didn't like the merchandise, that the colours were too garish - well, for a man of advanced years, they were... and that they were too expensive... which on his pension, they also were.... but it was difficult to be kind and civil, when somebody treated you so rudely....
"D'you know what?" Answered the Rabbi, "You're right!"
Once he had left, the Rabbi's wife turned on him.
"Joshua, really! What kind of a Rabbi are you? You offered to arbitrate, and find a peaceful way to reconcile these two men - and what do you do - ?! You swing between the two, tell both of them you agree with them - and resolve nothing! What kind of a reputation does that gain you?! That you prevaricate! That you are incapable of making your mind up about anything! That you are a man with no opinion!!"
"D'you know what?" Answered the Rabbi, "You're right!"
The moral of the story is:
Do not keep searching for the Truth - just let go of your opinions.
At my sutra study class today, one of my fellow students shared the best parenting advice he'd ever received. It was: "Put down the book, and pick up the baby!"
As to the original question - my own teachers tend to replace the term 'faith' with 'confidence.' I quite like that, the term confidence doesn't have the same anti-intellectual undertones as faith does. Having confidence in my practice, my teacher and my meditation method has carried me through a lot of tough times, when I felt like giving up. But I have good reasons for being confident - either it's worked for me in the past, or it's advocated by wise and trustworthy people, or it's just sensible advice! Quite a bit different from blind faith.
a) trust (see Rom. 3:25 - although punctuation is important in the translation of the A.V.)
b) trustworthiness (see Matt. 23:23)
c) what is believed, the contents of belief (see Acts 6:7)
d) an assurance (see Acts 17:31)
e) plighted faith, as in a marriage (see 1 Tim 5:12)
In the Authorised Version translation, the Greek word elpis (see Heb. 10:23) is mistranslated and actually means "hope".
I know this has little to do with the Buddhist tradition but it interests me that the churches appear to have reduced pistis to a single, anti-intellectual meaning, a relatively modern reductionism. It arises, I think, from the fact that most Christians no longer learn Latin or Greek. One may be drawn to ask, as in crime, "cui bono?"
Thank you for pointing that out. Most of the time, faith is taught as presented in Heb. 11:1 "Now faith is being sure what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" (NIV). Many times people are chastised for not having enough faith for something, like it was a quality one had to muster up on their own. This did not say you did not have to play some part in it, but when you had done whatever you could and still hear from others "Maybe you did not do enough" or "You just need more faith", it seemed more as someone trying to hold on to something that may not work in the first place. It seemed to be an unknown quality that the individual believer must conjure up.
I do appreciate the verse that you gave for looking up. What do you think of the whole field of apologetics? Should this be continued in PM's as it is getting a bit technical?
I, for one, find this subject interesting. Feel free to continue it here.
Jason
I am deeply suspicious of the idea that "it didn't work because you didn't have enough faith". I find no evidence to support such an idea in the gospels, nor any useful yardstick by which to measure faith.
I think that we need to read Saint Paul as a person whgo spent his life trying to understand the mysterious message that Jesus left. Like the rest of us, some of his conclusions are limited or, even, wrong.
I know that may seem a strange idea but take the example of slavery. Paul (like Jesus himself) does not condemn it. Indeed, he appears to support it as an institution. Over the centuries, we have changed our view on this and it was Christians who drove the campaigns to abolish, first of all, the trade and, ultimately, the practice itself. Paul was wrong.
Thank you both for airing your views. Such genial discussion is always food for thought, and extremely informative. In addition to which, the fact that you are able to discuss such matters in such a companionable way, is music to our ears. :thumbsup:
Hi Jerbear,
I've also met Buddhists who cultivate this philosophy. It seems to be a by-product of group dynamic where there is a strong leader figure or guru involved.
Like me, I see that you would never ever buy that line from anyone.
You already have what you need. Buddhism is about finding things for yourself, not about blind faith. Better to investigate what Buddha actually taught than to prostrate in front on some holy sutra or statue.
Ask questions, be critical, test it against your own experience and life. Does it accord with these things or not? Too many people feel that they have to 'live up to a religion' but I turn it around. Does the religion live up to you? Does it accord?
Regards
Kris
Simon,
Paul was an interesting character. I was reading something this morning about him that I can't recall from the NT as I have not read it in a few years. This artilcle stated that Paul never mentioned any thing Jesus said or did re:miracles. He always referred to him in the sense of being the messiah or the Christ. I realize he was quite passionate about what he believed and sometimes went overboard (hehehehe) with it. One thing I try to keep in mind when reading the letters of Paul is the time frame it happened in. It was less than 200 years ago, slavery was acceptable in the US. Civil rights in the last 50 years with some struggle still. That's why I really think one must decide for themselves what is acceptable from the OT/NT and have a clear conscience about it.
I am taking the same approach to Buddhism. There are things that would be considered "milk" and others "meat" to borrow a Pauline expression. I would choke on meat right now. I "choked" a year and a half ago. One thing you do when you choke is stop eating and clear the airway. Same thing here.
What about apologetics? Do you think they serve a purpose to Christianity and if so, what and how?
Please do not imagine that I am ignoring your repeated question about apologetics. I am reflecting on how best to respond. May I ask what specific aspect of apologetics you want to examine?
Indeed. The Lord Jesus suggested that if anyone had faith the size of a mustard seed, that one could say to a mountain, "Be Moved," and it would be moved. That speaks volumes to me about the arrogance of the presumption of any faith that excludes accepting others as equals.
There is so much that we could say about apologetics, particularly in regard to the way in which it has changed over the centuries since Plato's Apologia, but I think it is good to start there. The whole point of Socrates' defence is that he is ignorant - as in all the other dialogues, too. So his apologia does not defend a belief but a stance or position on 'knowing' itself.
Of course, what you are referring to is quite different and is, IMHO, better described as 'cant', just as it was at the end of the 18th Century. This canting rant (or ranting cant) is hardly worthy of the name of "apologetics", be it from believers or from non-believers. Because I am persuaded that scribblers such as Dawkins are as much at fault as, say, the evangelical ranters.
These modern 'apologists' would do well to consider the truly great writers such as Saint Augustine or, more modern, C. S. Lewis or G. K. Chesterton.
In the true sense of the word, the stories of Jesus' or the Buddha's teaching words can be deemed an apologia, a defence of a vision of truth.
I am not at all surprised that the arguments for the existence of God are unsatisfactory to you. They only 'work' if you start from a belief and work backwards. Look at what the great Saint Anselm of Canterbury says: It has also always struck me that the Christian 'apologists' are usually, if not always, arguing for the status quo or a backward step. Augustine and those before him argued for a Christian Roman Empire; modern apologists argue for the preservation of the capitalist state. Few, if any, argue that the 'Father' of the New Testament is best discerned in the action in favour of the poor and disinherited - except, that is, the Quaker writers.
Good apologetics will always, I believe, leave us with a paradox, a dilemma. So, for example, Dawkins, defending a mechanistic view, leaves us unsatisfied about the order, symmetry and apparent 'designedness' of the cosmos - and so he should. Having said that, it should be noted that Dawkins ended an interview with Paxman by saying "We're not put on this Earth to be happy". Put on this Earth? By what, by whom and who says? He, himself, is caught in his own paradox. And the Christian writers much the same when it comes to the problem of "why bad things happen to good people".
The real answer to the apologists is the via negativa or the mystical approach, closer to Anselm or Eckhart.
Remember, too, that it is the emptiest pots that ring the loudest!
I did read a recent addition to C. S. Lewis argument "Liar, Lunatic or Lord". Lewis presupposes that the Bible is the Word of God. This person didn't and suggested a 4th L or "Legend". Since little is said about a historic Jesus, he argues, then it could be that Jesus is a legend as presented in the NT.
Simon,
Just finished reading Plato's "Apology". I think his saying he was ignorant was a ruse. He would ask people all these questions and then come to the point that he realizes they were just blowing smoke. The real proof of his innocence was that he had not corrupted the youth of Athens as he was accused of. There were people in the audience he refers to that he had taught. He stated that their moral character had not suffered because of what he taught. He also pointed out that the 3 accusers (Meletus, Anytus and Lycon) knew also that he had not corrupted them. They were jealous or angry that Socrates had pointed out that he was more interested in the attainment of knowledge/wisdom and that many others were more interested in power, money and prestige.
In his questioning of Meletus, he shows that no one could know what his motives were for teaching the youth since except for what he told them were his motives. And one of my personal favorites, how do you know what I believe and can say so when I've said otherwise? He really did make them look foolish in the end. Good reading though I will probably reread it as I'm sure there were points that I missed.