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 vs Belief
fivebells
Veteran
The terms used here, "faith" vs "belief," are problematic, because theusage is not idiomatic. But I think the distinction he's drawing from them is very important for everyone no matter what their views.If you try to practice meditation by holding to beliefs, you will inevitably come into conflict with your experience. Beliefs are conditioned ways of interpreting experience. As your capacity in attention deepens, you will see beyond your conditioning, and the beliefs you hold will lead you to dismiss what you experience then, or lead you to shut it down.
0
Comments
Perhaps it could be "faith vs observation of experiences"?
IMO they are very much similar in the way most English speaking people use the words. In fact they seem interchangeable, especially when used in religious ways.
I agree with the practice though of not letting the mind form belief, but for me that includes faith, the result being an open/empty mind that sees and allows all possibilities. "To not admit a fly, but allow the parade to drive through".
I am told that in the Tibetan language there are two words that mean "to know".
One means you know because someone told you ... my sister says her husband wore his winter coat yesterday.
One means you know because you experienced it for yourself ... I saw my sister's husband wearing his winter coat yesterday.
Unfortunately, the English language makes no recognition of the distinction. Too often, belief is confused with knowing (#1), and knowing (#1) confused with knowing (#2).
"Having heard and understood the Dhamma, he has the faith to practice the Dhamma", simply means to have the confidence to practice the Dhamma. No "belief" is inferred in the use of the word faith in this context.
In the Dhamma,
Matthew
Hello.
TY
Hello back
Why practise awareness?
Because one has an underlying belief it will lead to freedom.
The Buddha in his stainless clarity taught the first spiritual power is faith or belief.
The quotee does not even understand their own mind.
Their very statement is one of belief, even if that belief is what they perceive as "non-belief".
:eek2:
Dhamma Dhatu,
As I posted above it seems you are confusing the meanings of faith. Faith in a Buddhist context really relates to confidence. One practices meditation because having heard and understood the teachings one has the confidence in the correctness of the teachings to try them out. If one practices well and with dedication this faith is soon replaced by experiential personal knowledge. It is a mere stepping stone.
(emphasis mine)
So if we take the "belief" type of faith out of Buddhism and replace it with the "confidence" type of faith we get to what the Buddha taught as the factors for enlightenment:
You see "belief" doesn't make the list.
"Keen investigation" follows from hearing and understanding the Dhamma - and having the confidence (or "faith") to put into practice that which one has learned, and thus walk the path of self discovery and liberation through gnosis.
Warmly,
In the Dhamma,
Matthew
Quotes from From "The seven factors of enlightenment" by Piyadassi Thera on AccessToInsight.org
This is still a belief.
It makes no difference. It is still based in belief.
This when was belief something inherently superstitious?
Saddha is not on many of the Buddha's lists. Your point is mute.
In AN 4.34, the Buddha states the highest saddha (faith) is in viraga (dispassion), having faith abandoning craving & attachment will lead to liberation.
This is instant enlightenment rather than the slow path of the factors of enlightenment.
In short, what was once trust is transformed into convinction via enlightenment.
It is still belief.
:buck:
I think you mean my point is "moot". However the distinction is clear in the dictionary you quoted:
"1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence"
Only one of these relates to belief in the sense most people use that word. The 1st and 3rd are the meanings implied in the Pali canon.
And yes, there are also many lists where Saddha does make it, yet in Buddhism we are principally dealing with reality so again come back to the "confidence" sense of the word rather than blind belief if the Dhamma is to be of practical value.
Warmly,
In the Dhamma,
Matthew
Faith == "sticking to the program" (nothing more)
DD: This is still a belief.
S9: Perhaps confidence is a kind of belief, but not a blind belief by any means.
If you see something works, of course it is simply a belief (not really a wild guess) that it will more than likely happen again, esp. if you do the exact same things in order to produce it.
Yet in a way, the same word “belief” holds such totally different connotations that in truth they are not really the same word at/all, even though they are spelled the same way.
Don’t you think, too, that we have confidence in the Buddha words/instructions because in having started to follow them, we can see early improvements in our own life and well being, right away? It gives us a small but promising taste of what could follow.
So in this way, confidence is built on personal experience, and also we are inspired to continue. This type of belief or confidence is not second handed, and because of this it is not so easily shaken by the first difficulty.
Respectfully,
S9
DD: This is instant enlightenment rather than the slow path of the factors of enlightenment.
S9: Realization/Enlightenment isn’t even instantaneous. Even that is too slow for the “Ever Immediate Now.”
When we are finally ‘Realized,’ we see the whole idea that we were not ‘Awake,’ yet, was the lie. We see that we are all Buddhas, and always have been Buddhas, right along. We only dream that we are not. Or at least that is what Gautama said.
Sleep doesn’t change into Waking. Sleep is like a cloud blocking our vision of the “Ever Present Wakefulness of Pure Consciousness.”
Peace,
S9
Faith is personal and belief is for the whole group of people who adhere to the same dogmas...
Could you provide some evidence and link for this, please, Sub9
.
I would say you are confusing Gautama with Ramana Maharshi.
Please kindly stop replying to my posts with your Hinduism chatter. :rolleyesc
Both still rest on cognitive knowledge that that deals with mental processes and behavior. Mostly, faith and belief is referring to "Gradual" school" whereas Implicitness and absoluteness is towards "Sudden" school.
The only difference is that by nature some men are quick-witted, while others are dull in understanding. Those who are enlightened realize the truth in a sudden, while those who are under delusion have to train themselves gradually. But such a difference will disappear when we know our own mind and realize our own nature.
Whatever word we use, be it 'belief', 'faith', 'trust', 'conviction' or 'confidence', learned Buddhists have always held there are two kinds of faith (saddha), namely, blind faith & bright faith.
:smilec:
Sloppiness with language does not make a great friend on the path. "'belief', 'faith', 'trust', 'conviction' or 'confidence'" - all mean differing things, and often different things to different people.
Sharon Salzberg writes eloquently and informatively on the issue:
Here she delineates belief and faith perfectly:
Belief is based on assumption/acceptance of unexamined concepts.
Faith is different: "suspension of disbelief" - i.e. acceptance of something transitionally, in order to investigate it's voracity, based on confidence/trust that it may be beneficial - and this confidence or trust is based on an encounter with a person or teaching that seems to work or have benefit - and it is a transitional state until you have experienced and proved it's efficacy for yourself through experience.
It is worth noting that disbelief in something, if unexamined, is no different to belief in something. Thus the suspension of disbelief is the suspension of a form of belief that leaves you open to explore.
These may - or may not - be the "blind" and "bright" faith you are referring to - but suspension of disbelief is not the same thing as belief, in any way whatsoever.
Warmly,
In the Dhamma,
Matthew
Faith - by Sharon Salzberg
Now, hear me out...
Whichever word that we use, to have either faith (confidence), faith (belief), or belief of any form is the realm of the conceptual. It is the mundane, not the supramundane.
That being said, whether this faith/belief is bad or good is subjective. The deeper the understanding of the concepts, and the greater the effort involved, the closer one moves from belief... to faith... to realization, insight, self-knowledge. Wisdom.
All of our attachments, including that which we believe, are conditioned. Continue to study and to practice; to see rightly that which blinds us from the true nature of all reality, of all phenomena and ourselves. Come to know that the nature of reality is selfless, and then understand your own selfless nature; this is our path. This is why many are here.
Not going to get you yelled at by me
However, I would suggest you make your mind up and delineate with a little more finesse. If "any form of faith is belief", then there can not be "movement" from belief to faith. You can't move - and stay in the same place - at the same time.
Warmly,
In the Dhamma,
Matthew
If you take faith to mean blind belief, I would put that low on the scale. If you take faith to mean confidence (born of understanding, study, experience, etc.), I would put that high on the scale.
The scale, and belief itself, becomes unnecessary when wisdom is acquired. This is all subjective of course; there is no literal scale. I'm only trying to convey the progression.
Blind Faith/Belief -> Belief -> Faith/Confidence -> Realization; Wisdom
~
Here, faith is supported by reasoning or direct experience. It is bright faith rather than blind faith.
It is having a taste of freedom and 'pouring on the fuel' of more & more abandonment.
It is shifting into the 4th gear of abandonment (rather than plodding along in 1st gear), powered by faith.
:smilec:
Even what the rebel regards as "belief" can have efficacy:
Please note here faith is a spiritual power.
Sariputta does not say here, due to realisation, faith ceases.
Certainly not.
Faith is a requirement of the path, just like faith in one's legs is a requirement for deciding to walk.
It follows the quotes above from an enlightened Buddha (rather than from one such as yourself caught up in myriad forms of blind belief) show your view expressed above is inaccurate or "sloppy".
Nowhere in these quotes is faith regarded as "suspension of disbelief". Faith is not only belief but convinction born of personal experience.
Often we take our faith in myriad things so much for granted that we are not even aware it is there.
Best wishes
Now tell us, what kind of "faith" is Sharon referring to above?
Blind faith or bright faith?
Ask her.
Your six posts do nothing to change my understanding or deepen it. Maybe if you had condensed them into one it might have helped but I don't know. Mainly they seem to point to exactly the difference I am pointing out between "blind belief" and "faith/confidence" - due to hearing, understanding or experiencing the voracity of the teachings or a teacher.
In the Dhamma,
Matthew
I do not see the "deepening" claimed. I do not see understanding of saddha as a path factor.
Faith is not a transitional state but a spiritual power that is always engaged. The suttas state:
The Dhammapada states the following about the arahant:
The Pali states about the mature practitioner:
Dhamma Dhatu,
There was no deepening claimed. I stated that your six posts did not deepen my understanding but seemed to point at the very distinction I had drawn between blind belief and faith as confidence.
Warm regards,
Matthew
Conviction on the other hand, like Irreverent Buddhist has said is based upon what we ourselves have witnessed and/or experienced so far.
Is conviction Nirvana…of course not.
Are the Sutras that some quote constantly as proof that they know something actually Nirvana…Nope!
We are all in the same boat (Aka Mind) traveling on the same Ocean (AKA Awareness) looking for Ultimate Freedom. We will ALL enter Nirvana/Ultimate Freedom empty handed (AKA no hopes/faith/beliefs/or even convictions will pass through "the eye of that needle.")
Warm Regards,
S9
Reading the suttas gives us a reliable indication of what the teachings and practices of "Buddhism" are actually about. As we are a Buddhist group, it is very fortunate that we have
some members with a good knowledge of the suttas.
People posting here are clearly in different stages of understanding, so they are not 'all in the same boat' as each other, some are in speedboats, whilst someone like yourself is sitting in a large washing-up bowl,
Sub9 dear!:D
I'm not keen on boats and deep water myself ,nor am I looking for anything, so I'm just relaxing and having a little fun, sitting on a rock and dangling my toes in a cooling sandy pool ....;)
Love and peace,
Dazz
.
Whilst it is merely an opinion, it is stated like it is absolute truth.
It is like claiming one knows better than what is written in the suttas.
This is little to do with conviction in the Buddha-Dhamma.
As Dhamma-Dhatu quoted, the Buddha advised the condition for the arising of faith is suffering.
We can have conviction the sky is pink or pigs can fly or there is an Ultimate Self.
This kind of conviction is completely divorced from Buddha-Dhamma.
Another statement of someone claiming they know what Nirvana is that is contrary to what is described in the suttas.
Certainly Nibbana is not faith, just as Nibbana is not mind or awareness.
But for Nibbana to be realised, faith is required until it is finally.
Even then, faith still functions. Faith is the solidification of all of the insight that has resulted in the mind releasing attachment, defilement & craving.
No. We are certainly not.
Hope is not faith. Nibbana is the absence of hope. The path to Nibbana from the very beginning is the absence of hope.
Right belief is right view. The Buddha advised the condition for right liberation is right knowledge or right insight.
Those infatuated with and holding 'Mind', 'Awareness', etc, as 'Ultimate Freedom' are not in the same boat.
The Buddha taught liberation via wisdom, via knowing, via dispassion.
Nibbana is not AKA Mind. Nibbana is not AKA Awareness. Nibbana is the end of lust, hatred & delusion.
Without the foundation of right understanding, without a path, how can 100% enlightenment occur?
Until, until?
Enlightened words speak from the suttas, as fresh & clear as when they were first spoken.
Yet you are still waiting "until"....????????
For Buddha, enlightenment was not-self. For Buddha, 'Ultimate Self' and 'Ultimate Awareness' cannot result in enlightenment.
Enlightenment comes from not grasping at mind, seeing that mind is the same as anything other phenomena, namely, impermanent, unsatisfactory & not-self.
Buddhists hold:
</PRE>
This is not the same as Hinduism dear friend.
</PRE>
:smilec:
</PRE>
</PRE>
.
I've just realised the main problem is you don't understand English all that well. You don't know what "conviction", "belief" and "faith" mean, for example, and the distinctions between them - in English (not your idea of it). This is not a personal attack, it's simple truth.
Everything you have said in this thread appears to be due to a misunderstanding as to the meaning of "conviction". You even contradict yourself about the subject.
Make you mind up.
Just to make life easy .. what you call "blind faith" in English means blind belief or just "belief". What you call bright faith means "confidence" or "trust" or "faith" (in the Buddhist context but NOT in other religions).
One, the first, is based on nothing, except ignorance and imagination or fear. The other, the second, is based on some experience(s) that give(s) reason for confidence, trust or faith.
In the Dhamma,
Matthew
DD: It is like claiming one knows better than what is written in the suttas.
S9: Reading the sutras, and parroting them on a thread, does not prove that you fully understand where the sutras are pointing.
Until you use the sutras more like a map, than a doctrine to be memorized and preached, I believe that you have missed the whole point of the sutras.
We must follow Buddha’s excellent example, and seek a personal experience of what can only be indicated through his words.
Warm Regards,
S9
I am truly amazed that you feel able to make such criticisms of Dhamma Dhatu's knowledge and understanding of the suttas, Sub9.
Can you demonstrate that you have full knowledge of the suttas yourself to make these remarks ? Indeed do you have a good understanding of even one sutta from the Pali Canon which you can demonstrate?
Yet more judgemental comments about DD do you no favors at all I'm afraid. Acquire some of his experience first ....and then try having an intelligent debate for the first time, is my advice.
Kind regards,
Dazzle
.
Buddhism is based in the Pali language. It is not based in the oft vaguaries of English.
"Conviction" is a word used by one Pali translator.
When the Buddha discussed dhamma, he used terms such as wrong view (miccha ditti) & right view (samma ditti). He used the term saddha (faith) & its various types such as blind, reasoned, unshakeable, etc.
Every dhamma can fall within the distinctions of right (samma) & wrong (miccha). (Right & wrong that accord with Nibbana.)
If I am asked the question: "Do you believe there is rebirth?", I reply "no" because my "belief" is all conditioned things are impermanent.
That the term "belief" is used here is due to the questioner, who speaks in English. The questionnaire is not speaking from Pali. The questioner is asking a question in a generalised manner in a language not based in spirituality and my answer about my "beliefs" is based in my "views".
Matthew. How would you respond if the questioner asked: "What is your view about rebirth?"
For example, my answer to this question about my "view" could be based in my mind's realisation. In Buddhism, "view" can be enlightened view.
Would you think the term "view" here has a different meaning to that of "belief"?
The suttas do not point let alone speak of notions such as "Ultimate Self", "Ultimate Mind", etc.
To the Buddha, all forms of mind were like chicken shit. He was disenchanted with every form of mind. This disenchantment formed the basis of his mind's liberation.
So your point is unrelated to the suttas.
Your point & our disagreement is based in two matters, namely, your infatuation & enchantment with mind & the suttas disenchantment with mind.
This is not a matter of theory but a matter of mental state & experience.
What you regard as enlightenment from your experience is not what is described clearly & plainly in the suttas.
Each of us can at least be humble enough to accept sometimes our experience does not accord with what is described in the suttas.
Who do we think we are? Fully enlightened Buddhas?
Hindu notions such as Ultimate Self, Ultimate Presence & Ultimate Mind are not the Buddha’s excellent example. The Buddha spoke of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, not-self & dispassion.
As I suggested, the suttas do not "indicate". To hold such views is called "slandering the Tathagatha".