Bhikkhu Cintita

Category: buddhism

  • Inauguration of Series “Through the Looking Glass”

     I have been working on a literary project, a book, tentatively entitled Through the Looking-Glass: How to Become a Buddhist Monk or Nun, which describes autobiographically how and why one would do such an odd thing, in an attempt to inspire others to follow this noble pursuit. I have now begun to serialize it on this site and each new episode can be found:

    HERE.

    Two short prefaces appeared there yesterday, as downloadable pdf’s. I will post the first chapter in a couple of days, and after that chapters will appear at irregular intervals, probably averaging about two per month. I plan 16 chapters (most of which already exist in a rough form). I’ll post to this blog to announce each new episode. See what they do for you, and let me know.

     

  • Lay Buddhist Practice 1

    Uposatta Day, July 8 (Index to Series)

    Energetic and heedful in his tasks,
    Wisely administering his wealth,
    He lives a balanced life,
    Protecting what he has amassed.

    Endowed with faith and virtue too,
    Generous he is and free from avarice;
    He ever works to clear the path
    That leads to weal in future life.

    Thus to the layman full of faith,
    By him, so truly named ‘Enlightened,’
    These eight conditions have been told
    Which now and after lead to bliss.

    AN 8.54

    Lay Practice is consistently contrasted with Monastic Practice in the ancient Buddhist texts, throughout Buddhist history, and in all Buddhist countries and almost all traditions in Asia. Segmenting the religious community into a monastic and a lay component is a peculiarity of Buddhism, along with some sects of Hinduism and certain Christian sects. In the West we generally do not appreciate how deeply embedded this is in virtually all Buddhist societies in Asia, though we generally are aware that the Buddha and his closest disciples were monastics and that most of his teachings were given to monastics. Is this bifurcation necessary, or even desirable in the democratic West?

    The core of Buddhist practice, what really distinguishes Buddhism from other religious practices, is the Noble Eightfold Path. Notably, the Eightfold Noble Path makes no distinction between Lay and Monastic, each is fully capable of observing all eight noble steps and neither is exempt from following all eight noble steps in the attainment of the highest goal. So, what is it that makes Lay Practice different from Monastic Practice?

    Not a cookie-cutter religion. Practice obligations tend to be quite uniform in probably most of the worlds religions. Islam is a primary example because the daily obligations are well defined for all. Quakers are another; their governance is even highly democratic, and includes no clergy. Probably most Protestant sects can be included. I call these “cookie-cutter religions,” because a uniform definition of what is expected of the adherent, that they live according to a certain moral code, that they except a certain creed, that they follow certain daily ritual practices, would be expected to produce similar results. Of course people everywhere inevitably distinguish themselves in terms of level of commitment or laxness, but there is a lot of communal strength and conceptual appeal in the uniformity of the cookie-cutter paradigm.

    Buddhism in its pure form could never be a cookie-cutter religion. Buddhism has an unusually sophisticated and deep-reaching system of practice with many interconnected parts, and a very long and rigorous path of practice passing through many different stages of development, generally conceptualized as proceeding through many lifetimes, and culminating in complete awakening. Because of the potential extreme depth of systematic Buddhist practice it is generally defined conceptually in terms of an ideal, in terms of what the most whole-hearted, committed and fortunate will undertake but few even of them will attain, in this lifetime.

    Virtually everyone falls short of the Buddhist ideal, and to wildly varying degrees. It is recognized from the get-go that its adherents will differentiate themselves on the basis of faith, commitment, obligations and interests outside of Buddhist practice, preferences as well within Buddhist practice, zeal, opportunities for inspiration and instruction from others, and so on. As a result, some adherents will meditate, but not follow precepts, some will follow precepts and practice generosity, but fail to approach contentment in sensual matters. In short, in Buddhism there is very little uniformity of practice, and correspondingly there is little obligation to maintain some agreed standard of practice. The amount and nature of Buddhist practice are ultimately matters of personal choice and opportunity and correspondingly there is a great tolerance for a variety of personal choices.

    Setting out on the Buddhist path is like taking a hike with a large and very mixed group of people of every age, state of health, type of footwear, backpack size, degree of inebriation, and so on. Such a group will spread out along the path, with the strongest, healthiest, be-hiking-booted, light-backpacked, boldest, most persistent and most enterprising leading the way. In the middle there might be a mutually infatuated teenage couple that keeps up in spurts, but keeps getting side-tracked and disappearing from the path for minutes at a time, some chubby middle-aged people who huff and puff, along with some fit but ancient birdwatchers. Falling way back are parents and their little kids who “cannot walk another step,” a couple of people sitting on a rock drinking beer, an elderly gentleman watching fire ants devour his cane that he had to abandon upright after it sank into a soft spot in the ground, and a lady who broke a heal upon encountering the first rock. The Buddhist path is defined with the leaders at the head in mind and the rest of us try our best to keep up but straggling to varying degrees; we do what we can, and often the accomplishments of the leaders, and tales of views from lofty heights inspire us to try a bit harder. The field guides, trail maps and high-tech hiking boots are generally designed with the leaders in mind.

    No, the monastics are not necessarily the leaders. However, individually people do make practice commitments at different points in the mix, often very rigorous commitments, and Buddhism does provide standards and communal support at many different levels depending on individual commitment. The Refuges bring with them a certain incentive. There are various sets of Precepts, from five to over three hundred, that one can take for life or on special occasions. There are communal ritual practices, Dharma talks, meditation and other events to encourage structure in one’s practice. Working with a teacher can support a strong personal practice. Monastic practice is a particularly strong standard supported within the Buddhist community. The point is that Buddhism has its cookie cutters but a lot of different cookie cutters, including one that turns out nuns and monks, but also many adherents that aren’t cut to size by any of them.

    The jugglers fallacy. A normal worldling life is full of different activities and commitments, obligations and worries. Many things we do are not chosen as a part of our Buddhist practice, or might even go against good practice. For instance, we do one thing because it is a family obligation or because it is our job and the boss says we have to do it. We do another thing because it seems like fun, even though it is not conducive to serenity and is of questionable virtue. We would rather gossip, listen to loud music, watch an adventure show, make love or sleep than meditate. These are all life-style choices. We each value different things and not all of our values come from the Buddha. I am a monk, so it is a good guess that my most of my values are in line with Buddhist teachings. However, I am also the father of grown children, and am fully aware of how meaningful and rewarding parenthood can be. Most people juggle a lot of things along with their Buddhist practice.

    This issue of juggling is more thorny than most realize: Suppose we find our lives are divided between our Buddhist practice and other things at at a ratio of maybe 10%, to 90%. So, we calculate: “Hmm, if I practiced 100% I could become enlightened in 1 year. It follows that if I practice the way I am now doing, at 10%, I could become enlightened in 10 years; that seems both reasonable and acceptable.” This same logic is commonly used to compute time until completion for various tasks, for instance, for building a house when only weekends are available for working on it, or for attending night classes toward a college degree. However this logic is a fallacy when applied to Buddhist practice, what I will call the Juggler’s Fallacy. Why the logic of the Juggler’s Fallacy fails is that everything we do is relevant to our practice, potentially setting it forward or backward or into a tailspin. It doesn’t matter if we call it practice or not, nothing is ever excluded from practice, whether it is right practice, wrong practice or something in between.

    The reason nothing is excluded from practice is that karma is the stuff of our practice, which is to say, our character and destiny develop according to our intentional actions of body, speech and mind. If this were not the case, practice would be fruitless. However, we are producing karma all the time, not just during the 10% of the time that we are “practicing Buddhism.” In fact, the 90% of the time we are doing something other than “practicing Buddhism” is bound to dominate our progress. This is, for instance, why Right Livelihood is so important; 40 hours working in a slaughter house is a lot of cumulative karma in a week, enough to overwhelm one hour of daily meditation regardless how many years, or in which jhanas, we meditate. We cannot even begin to make a separation between our practice and the rest of our life. Everything we juggle in our lives influences the progress we make along the path.

    Monastic life is a life of not juggling. Monastic life is most supportive of Buddhist practice because it has nothing visibly in it, only our own untamed thoughts, that contradicts personal development, and because it has much that supports it. In fact almost every element of the monastic life is there because it is sound Buddhist practice. Even if my meditation is lax and my mindfulness sloppy, as I adhere to the monastic lifestyle, development will at least not regress. I might be like the chubby middle-aged people huffing and puffing, but will make progress. If my practice is ardent, as I adhere to the monastic lifestyle, progress along the Buddhist path will be very rapid indeed, and I could be up front strong and fit, and with high-tech hiking boots. The monastic life was carefully formulated and described in the Vinaya by the Buddha, who used elements of ascetic practices common in Buddha’s India. It is a life of renunciation, but not extreme asceticism. that pares away everything that I would otherwise have to juggle.

    The Juggler’s Life. The Lay life is the juggler’s life, and most people will prefer to juggle many things that a monastic would turn away from. To begin with people’s values are informed through many influences, not all of which are Buddhist, and those values may be difficult to give up. Secondly, people vary in faith and may not be convinced about Buddhist values or that the monastic life is as advertised. Third, many people have family obligations, debts, etc. that keep them locked into the juggler;s life. The most notable deal-breaker for most is that monastics are strictly celibate! They also minimize family responsibilities, refrain from accumulating wealth or doing any kind of business or conducting a conventional livelihood. They restrain the senses by not going to shows, listening to music, and so on. Monastic life is simple, and believe-it-or-not quite joyful, but does not enjoy universal appeal.

    Lay Practice is the art of juggling. Lay practitioners follow the Noble Eightfold Path just like monastics, but in addition must follow the extremely challenging ninth practice of Right Juggling in order to shape and balance your life in such a way that the less Buddhist aspects of your life are not overwhelming or neutralizing the benefits of Buddhist practice. Lay practice is challenging, but not limited in its potential to achieve the highest attainments of Buddhist practice. What is worrisome about the Western lay life is that so few people realize that there is an art to juggling, that if not mastered can make progress on the path all but impossible. I’ve often seen Buddhist practice accordingly end in frustration. I hope that the series I am herewith beginning will help readers master the Art of Lay Practice.

    Let me present the Art in brief, but in metaphorical terms that may be cryptic enough to keep you in suspense until next week, but suggestive enough to inspire you to think about Lay Practice between now and then.

    The Art of Juggling.

    Select. Choose your balls carefully. Choose a set of balls that feel just right for you, that are the right size, weight and appearance, and that are not too great in number.

    Reject. Get rid of balls that are defective or unjuggleable. This is a check on the result of the first step. You may have been captivated by a ball because of its appearance, for instance, but overlooked its drawbacks. Throw it out if it is really too heavy, light, small to be usable.

    Balance. Have a wholesome, balanced relationship to your balls. Don’t be captivated by, nor proud of, the new shiny golden ball as it whizzes by. Your task is to juggle it faithfully and skillfully.

    Simplify. Don’t juggle things that aren’t balls. That is, while you have, say, six balls in the air, don’t at the same time try to answer your cell phone, smoke, drink coffee or flirt with a member of the audience.

  • Faith IX

    Uposatha Day, New Moon, June 30, 2011

    Summary and Conclusion

    Modern Buddhist commentators have not settled on an English translation for the Pali word “saddha,” often choosing a word like “confidence” or “conviction” to disassociate Buddhist faith from faith as it is uncomfortably understood in Western religion, and particularly from blind faith. I have chosen to use the word “faith” because I want to underscore that there is a commonality here, and in fact one that underlies virtually all human reasoning, religious or otherwise. Faith is what we need to deal with uncertainty, when we need to know more than we in fact do. Faith is the stuff of assumptions and beliefs, but also of values and aspirations. In an uncertain world, faith is not only a prominent part of human cognition, but an essential part of human cognition, necessary for getting out of bed in the morning, brushing your teeth, selecting a bottle of fine wine, applying for a job, watching a movie or becoming a Buddhist practitioner. There is not much difference in kind, for instance, between religious faith and political opinion, and in fact blind faith is quite alive in current popular political, social and economic thought.

    However, Buddhist faith distinguishes itself within the whole realm of religious and non-religious faith. It has some affinity with scientific faith in working in close collaboration with discernment or knowing. As faith it jumps beyond what we know, but hopping rather than leaping is encouraged. Accordingly our faith will be limited as we start Buddhist practice, but it will grow as we begin to verify teachings in out own experience and begin to recognize in the Dhamma a very good track record. We are also encouraged to keep track of what we know as opposed to what we accept on faith, all the while investigating and challenging what we accept on faith to better ground it in knowing. This is why Sariputta could respond as he does in the following:

    The Buddha asked Sariputta, “Do you take it on faith that these five strengths — faith, persistence, mindfulness, concentration, and discernment— lead to the deathless?”

    Sariputta answered, “No, I don’t take it on faith. I know.”

    As our practice reaches higher levels of attainment, and we verify more and more of the Dhamma in our own experience, knowing will replace faith. In contrast to science, however, the primary criterion that we place on faith is not, “Is it true?” but rather, “Is it of benefit.” (History has shown that science might have done well to keep the same question in mind.)

    Discernment alone is sterile, has no zeal or values, it belongs to an impoverished world extending no further than our front porch. Faith alone is a bit whimsical, off the wall and often dangerous. Balancing the two entails living and acting resolutely in faith, while actively examining and trying to understand what we have faith in with a discerning mind. Doubt is a disruption of this balance when discernment eats away at resolution without offering anything better to replace our faith with. Buddhist faith is a skillful mental faculty which requires care in cultivation and development as a part of practice. In Buddhism we need to explore deep into our own minds, often into uncharted territory, including dark areas that we may have intentionally ignored. Accordingly, our faith requires an explorer’s boldness and resolution. Vow and devotion are primary manifestations of this that embrace what we choose to regard as valuable and meaningful.

    Skillful faith brings with it a delight, a sense of certitude, as the we relax into our informed choices. Our perspective flips as our values and aspirations are no longer pursued for some originating motive, but for themselves. Sir Edmund Hilary when asked why he climbed Mt. Everest could only answer, “Because it’s there!” He might of answered, “So I can get famous,” “So I can write books, give lectures and make a lot of money,” or “So I can get a date,” but he didn’t. Instead he has what it Buddhism is a noble motive, doing something for its own sake with no personal stake in the outcome. Selfless devotion, also common among hobbyists such as birdwatchers and people who make ferris wheels out of toothpicks, faith at its best, creates strong marriages and serene and unwavering Buddhist practitioners.

    Fini

    This concludes the series on faith. After much response to my request for topics I have chosen to take up “Lay Buddhist Practice” next. I will keep the other suggestions in mind, but this important topic seems to be most stimulating of thoughts right now.

     

  • Faith VIII

    Uposatha Day, Last Quarter Moon, June 24, 2011

    Wielding Faith II

    Last week we discussed faith as a quality of mind that serves Buddhism well and that it is important to cultivate and develop as a part of Buddhist practice. I described faith as representing the explorer’s mindset in that it is bold, resolute and secure. I would like to discuss in more detail what these three properties entail.

    Bold faith. This is the quality illustrated by the village chief plunging into the rising river to lead the villagers to safety. Buddhist practice likewise requires courage, starting out on the path is a bold step, undertaken without really knowing what we are getting ourselves into. And many bold steps stand before us on the way, entrusting ourselves to a teacher, attending our first long meditation retreat, examining qualities of mind and reality that we were comfortably in denial of. Small steps also require a corresponding level of boldness, such as doing your first bows (you will never understand the practice of bowing by examining it from the outside; on the other hand, maybe they are snickering at you in the other room), or trying out, even as a what-if, rebirth as a working assumption and seeing what your practice feels like in that context.

    Boldness must be tempered by discernment. The chief must have made the best assessment he could under the circumstances before plunging into the mighty waters. A seeker really should read what Buddhism is about and talk with a few wise teachers before flying to Taiwan to shave her hair off and ordain as a nun. It would be bold to drive your car like James Bond but stupid. Always investigate as much as circumstances allow.

    More problematic however is the opposite, seeking such an unachievable level of certitude that we freeze into inaction, thereby destroying a sense of adventure necessary for Buddhist practice and important in almost everything else we do in life. This makes for picky eaters, afraid of food poisoning, or of failure to balance carbs with lipoids. We will never get out of the house if we worry too much about stroke of heat, bite of frost, crash of car, sting of bee or bird dropping from tree. We see this very commonly among Westerners who will not venture beyond a very narrow range of Buddhist practices that are not too weird or unfamiliar and are fully justifiable in terms of their beginner’s notion of Buddhism. Naturally we do experience apprehension before we enter one of these steps due to the uncertainty; we don’t really know what we are getting ourselves into. However, without bold faith we fail to take the recommended step at all and further progress in our practice is closed to us. And they remain beginners. All this is Doubt, an unskillful mental factor, one of the five Hindrances to our practice.

    Bold faith is encouraged and developed by having good friends and teachers in the Dhamma, studying their examples and learning of their experience.

    As he was seated to one side, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, “This is half of the holy life, lord: admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie.”
    “Don’t say that, Ananda. Don’t say that. Admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life. When a monk has admirable people as friends, companions, & colleagues, he can be expected to develop & pursue the noble eightfold path.” – SN 45.2

    In Buddhism as in most religions various devotional and communal practices seem to serve the purpose of inspiring and strengthening faith, for instance contemplating the qualities of the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha. Overt expressions of respect likewise support a respectful mindset and encourage placing faith in wise individuals. Expressions of respect, beginning with bringing the palms together in anjali or gassho, is particularly characteristic of Buddhism.

    Resolute faith. This is the quality of wholeheartedness and consistency. Faith is a decision we make and it is important we stick with it and run with it if the benefits of our faith are to be realized. Consider the way a lion hunts (you can watch your cat Fluff doing the same, but on a smaller scale). A lion stalks a zebra because the gain is great and it has faith that it might just succeed. Once it has made its decision, it puts its entire concentration and all the strength of its body into the effort, even though most of the time it will fail. A lion hunting a mouse, where the potential gain is small, puts its entire concentration and all the strength of its body into the effort. in exactly the same way. The lion is not half-hearted because there is only a 50% chance of success of only half a meal at stake, nor quarter-hearted because there is a 25% chance or portion. The lion is always whole-hearted. This is resolution. The village chief, even if he thinks it unlikely that he and the villagers will make it alive across the river, must have that same resolution, or else it will be certain that they will not make it. Being pessimistic or disheartened are not options, once we’ve decided doubt has no place. Resolution imitates certainty. At the same time, in the common cases in which our faith is in an outcome, it produces the greatest chances for success.

    Without resolution we visit our original decision over and over. Imagine you are at a crossroads, out of water, you need to get to the spring. Which path to take? Once you make choice you should embrace your choice, plunge into it and proceed, exactly as if you really knew what you were doing. The alternative is doubt, apathy and despair that will sap your energy, make you unwilling to struggle through the brambles and overgrowth, climb up hills, ford the streams, retrace if you lose the path and persevere on what may be a long journey. Worse than that, you might decide to turn back to return to the crossroads, no wiser, and much more tired than you were before, about which decision is correct. Again, this is Doubt, the last of the Five Hindrances.

    Resolute Faith is encouraged and developed through Vow, or its little sister Devotion (both word are variants of the same root). Precepts are vows to behave ethically. We establish our meditation practice by committing to a schedule of practice and then displaying resolution. Vow is not how we close options, it is how we manifest them at the most fundamental level, it is how we give our lives form, create the world we choose to live in, bring meaning into our lives. Realizing this opened up dimensions in my practice that I did scarcely knew were there, and led eventually to my bold and resolute ordination as a monk.

    Secure Faith. The bold step of entering into Buddhist life is traditionally marked by a ceremonial expression of faith call the Triple Treasure, Triple Gem or Three Refuges, by uttering the words,

    I take refuge in the Buddha.
    I take refuge in the Dharma.
    I take refuge in the Sangha.

    When we place our faith in this way, we allow our actions, our values, our mindset, to be informed by these three sources of guidance. Hopefully we do that boldly and resolutely. The word “refuge,” however, refers to this third aspect of Buddhist faith, our opportunity to abide in this faith serene, seeing clearly and selfless. Dogen wrote, “Just as a child throws himself into his father’s arms, we should throw ourselves into the Three Treasures.” Just as a child relies on her parents to protect her from an uncertain world she barely comprehends, we can enjoy the same sense of security in our Buddhist faith.

    This is not a matter of reassurance, a type of faith used to override discernment when things look bleak. In many religions reassurance takes the form of faith in an external agent or force that is at work with our interests in mind, much like parents in real life. God, Jesus, angles and nature spirits often serve in this role. For the Buddha we are the agents responsible for our own destiny through our practice, and yet in Mahayana Buddhism people often call on Avalokiteshvara (Guan Yin) for protection from dangers, and in Theravada chant special suttas, the Parittas, to offer such protection, much as Catholics use images of saints for different forms of protection. Because of their strong appeal it was inevitable that these would creep into Buddhism. But secure faith, or refuge, is another matter.

    Rather secure faith arises when bold faith and resolute faith play right into the hands of Buddhist practice. In Buddhist practice we develop serenity, which lead to equanimity and samadhi, which support clarity of perception and selflessness. Faith not only enables us to enter into Buddhist practice, but also gives us a boost in the direction just described. Under natural circumstances serenity, clarity and selflessness are illusive because we engage the world seeking personal advantage. This keeps the mind in a state of agitation as schemes are laid, options considered, obstacles encountered and dealt with, justifications forged, outcomes fretted over, perspectives shifted in service to selfish motives. Buddhist faith replaces this with a framework that informs behavior based on other principles. Faith determines what is appropriate and resolution holds you to that. The scheming, misleading, fretting, waffling and the rest in the name of personal advantage becomes irrelevant, simply wheel-spinning. We tend to spin our wheels anyway, given the chance, but without the imperative to do so, we have the tools within Buddhist practice to quickly remove this tendency. We can relax into our faith with clarity and selflessness; problems disappear.

    Vow is the easiest place to see this principle at work, and they can be wholesome vows of any sort, not necessarily connected with Buddhist practice. For instance, solidly married people, who take their vows seriously, generally find an ease in life much greater than single people on the prowl. They are almost always sexually or romantically attracted to others, but backed by resolution they are out of the habit of doing anything about it. If they succeed reasonably well in letting go of the impulses that might pop them out of their vows, their path becomes clear of underbrush and rubble and they can let go of self-interest. They experience a sense of liberation, not by getting to do what to some degree they might want to, but by not needing to.

    Let me give two more examples that underscore the way this works. First, ritual has a natural meditative quality, which probably explains why it is almost universal in religious practice. Ritual prescribes a fixed and formalized set of behaviors in a certain context. No matter what impulses may be running around in our heads, they become irrelevant to the performance of a ritual. This makes ritual an opportunity to let go of these wheel-spinning impulses and settle down into the ritual with mindfulness, selfless, serene, clear and secure. Often, especially at the beginning, self-serving impulses may arise actually in close association with the ritual, for instance concern of mis-performance and making a fool of ourselves in front of an audience or showing off and trying to make a good impression on someone. But ultimately, with routine, about the time the ritual should be getting really boring, the ritual remarkably starts doing itself: The incense offers itself, the bows do themselves, the bells ring themselves. Mindfulness and clarity are the, the mind is silent, and the self simply disappears. This quality of rituals is exploited to good effect in East Asian Buddhism, for instance in Zen. For Dogen even meditation practice is treated as a ritual.

    The second example has to do with the process of dying. A common phase in the dying process is denial, sometimes holding onto unreasonable hopes, for instance in a new breakthrough miracle drug that has just been developed. During this difficult phase the mind is agitated, exploring options internally, rebelling against doctors, in the interests of self-preservation. The fortunate enter a new phase when they totally give up any hope and face their impending death head-on. The change in their disposition can be quite remarkable: the troubles lift, they relax, their sense of humor returns and they become quite light-hearted. They have transitioned from uncertainty to certainty. Although the certainty does not bring good news, it does make the agitation, rebelling, hoping for a miracle, superfluous. They have the opportunity at that point to let go of the struggle and ease for a short while into a peaceful, aware unproblematic existence. This is like finding a refuge in faith, except the refuge in this case is in discernment, certainty, knowing. Recall the resolute faith imitates certainty.

    Next week I will summarize and conclude this discussion of Faith.

  • Faith VII

    Uposatha Day, Full Moon, June 16, 2011

    Wielding Faith I

    We live in a world of overwhelming uncertainty, and at the same time we need to live our lives, set goals, act in the world. There are some things we know, or pretty reliably know, from direct experience, but really not very much. The rest of what we have to go on is this guesswork we call faith. This world is pregnant with possibilities, and indeed of two kinds: First there are all the propositions that might turn out to be true or to be false. How do we choose? Second, as active agents we have a degree of creative control over the world, there are things we can will to be true or false. What do we value? As we all know we can make some really dumb choices on both counts. This is why we must learn the skill of faith.

    One of the first things we can do is extend the range of the known by relying on others, but that requires putting our faith in someone else. We all do this. Faith in others occurs in all areas of human interest. What news sources do we put your faith in? Which friends are reliable sources of information about movies to watch? In the corner of our world of possibilities we have science, concerned at an expert level with expanding the range of the known. Do we have faith in those guys?

    Even upon expanding the range of the known in this way, we do not have enough information to act in the world. What is worth doing? We do have basic instinctual drives, for instance for nourishment, procreation, and so on, that are wired into us. I don’t suspect most animals need to think about what are the worthwhile things to do in the world (“Fish gotta swim and birds gotta fly …”), and many people are the essentially the same (“… and I gotta love one man ’til I diiiiee”). But humans can question these motivations on the one hand, and look for higher or more satisfactory motivations on the other. Buddhism does this all over the place. At this level the realm faith becomes an adventure, inviting exploration, pregnant with possibilities.

    So we populate our worlds with values, with what is worthy, or unworthy, of our attention. Scientists value solving mysteries, discovering truth; this is part of their faith and they allow that to inform their life’s activities. Christians value obeying God’s will. Others value sensual pleasures. The U.S. Marine Corps values courage and honor (according to some billboards I’ve seen), whereas the Army seems to value being all that you can be. Many of the Burmese I know who live in America express surprise at American values, “Everyone seems to just care about money.” As we choose values, we are still in the realm of uncertainty but with creative control, however still unable to predict the consequences of acting according to those values, along with the beliefs or working assumptions we’ve acquired. Our values get us into a lot of trouble, and conflict with each other, when we try to manifest them. There is a world of possibilities to explore.

    The Buddha took great care to ensure that Buddhist faith is skillful. Faith at the most fundamental level is placed, as we have seen in the Kalama Sutta, in the value welfare and happiness and the avoidance harm and suffering, for all beings. (Buddhism is about virtue to the core.) The rest of faith must support this value. We have seen that this places a strong constraint on faith that protects us from its abuses. It is also important to put our faith in the wise and then have faith in what they seem to know, and he provides criteria for recognizing the wise.

    Additionally the Buddha asks us to put as much reason and discernment behind faith as possible, so that faith comes for the most part in little hops rather than in great leaps, to see for yourself, and if your vision is blurry now to keep trying so that you will see in the future. In the Inquirer Sutta (MN 47) he even provides the example of faith in his own enlightenment and walks through what direct evidence the disciple can discern to support this hop of faith. Eventually reason and discernment should replace Buddhist faith entirely as these develop. Although the Buddha accepts that before that point we need to work with working assumptions on faith, he asks us to be clear that we don’t confuse faith with discernment, that we know where we stand. He also accepts that working assumptions have a practical value independent of whether they are actually true or not. In the Incontrovertible Teaching Sutta (MN 60) he explores the value of the working assumption in more detail than we have here.

    If you walk around the monastery where I live in Texas you will find various cottages (kutis) for retreatants, each one named after a Buddhist value. There is Metta (kindness), Karuna (compassion, that is where I dwell), Mudita (joy in the good fortune of others), Uppekha (equanimity), Sila (virtue), Pannya (wisdom), Samadhi (concentration), Sacca (truth), Khema (security), Dana (generosity) and Satipatthana (establishment of mindfulness). These are all personal qualities that are encouraged in practice. We will someday have about fifty cottages, but will not run out of Buddhist values and will probably at some point have a cottage named Saddha (faith).

    Faith is on many of the Buddhist lists, such as the Five Faculties and the Five Strengths. Faith is also said to become unshakable when one attains stream-entry. Faith is a condition leading through ease, joy, serenity, and concentration. The opposite of faith, doubt (vicikiccha) is likewise on the lists of Five Hindrances and Ten Fetters. However, according to our discussion so far, faith as a value might seem a bit out of place. First, faith as a general component of human reasoning is as likely, maybe more likely, to be unskillful as skillful; it often gets us in a peck of trouble. Second, including it as a value among values would seem redundant, like including “Obey all rules” as a rule among rules. So why do we value faith?

    Saddha in Buddhism is generally taken in the sense of skillful faith, specifically the Buddhist take on faith. Moreover faith is a personal quality subject to cultivation and development in itself, one that has an energy, an emotive property of its own. I’ve described faith as opening up a world of possibilities for us to explore.

    In brief, faith in Buddhism is the explorer’s mindset, with these properties:

    Faith is bold. It carries discernment as far as it can, wide open to the possibilities, then makes its decision and plunges forth.

    Faith is resolute. It sticks with its decision as if it were certain, unless it discerns a serious blunder.

    Faith is secure. It relaxes into its resolution, does not waffle or argue with itself, it is a refuge.

    Doubt, on the other hand, is the home-body’s mindset. It is wimpy, wishy-washy and nervous. It falters in an uncertain world. This is why in Buddhism faith is a virtue and doubt a hidrance. As states of mind faith and doubt are subject to Right Effort, we try to ensure the arising of faith that has not yet arisen and the maintenance of faith that has already arisen. We try to guard against the arising of doubt that has not yet arisen and to remove the doubt that has already arisen. Devotional practices aid us in the effort.

    Thanissaro Bhikkhu in his essay “Faith in Awakening” describes what is at stake:

    As in science, faith in the Buddha’s Awakening acts like a working hypothesis, but the test of that hypothesis requires an honesty deeper and more radical than anything science requires. You have to commit yourself — every variation of who you feel you are — totally to the test. Only when you take apart all clinging to your inner and outer senses can you prove whether the activity of clinging is what hides the deathless.

    The Buddha also spoke (AN 4.34):

    Those who have joyous faith in the highest, the highest fruit will be theirs.

    In our next and final week I want to take up the psychology of faith in a bit more detail, and in fact to discuss these three properties of being bold, resolute and secure, why these properties are important and how they play out in Buddhist practice.

  • Request for Uposatha Day Proposals

    Dear readers,

    During the last year or so I have posted to this blog every Uposatha Day. I’ve run several series of posts on such topics as the Noble Eightfold Path, History of Buddhist Cultural Adaptation, Karma and Rebirth, Buddhist Religiosity, Not-Self, and now Faith. And before all that I was posting a travel log from Burma. I want to ask my readership: What would you like me to write about in the coming months?

    Incidentally, I am working on another literary project, a book, tentatively entitled Through the Looking-Glass: How to Become a Buddhist Monk, which describes autobiographically how and why one would do such an odd thing, in an attempt to inspire others to follow this noble pursuit. It started with my Burmese writings and has gotten out of hand. I am thinking of serializing it here, posting a chapter irregularly every couple of weeks, separate from Uposatha Day postings.

    Anyway, let me know what Buddhist topics you might like to hear about.

    In the Dhamma,

    BC

  • Faith VI

    Uposatha Day, First Quarter Moon, June 9, 2011

    Kalama Sutta Workbook

    Last week we discussed the Buddha’s advice on faith offered in the Kalama and Canki Suttas, what or who to believe in. In very brief summary:

    Don’t place faith blindly in:

    (1) Religious tradition (when this is conveyed without knowing).

    (2) Inference and logic (when this gets abstract).

    Do place your faith in:

    (3) What is skillful, blameless, leading to welfare and happiness.

    (4) What is approved by the wise (those who are said to know, and who are above any greed, hate or delusion that could lead them to mislead).

    I would like, in this post to consider some examples. These examples are not limited to Buddhism or even to religion; I think the Buddha’s advice is quite far reaching. Religion is a Western concept in any case; whereas in the West we seem to organize human affairs into neat disciplines, such as religion, philosophy and science, at the Buddha’s time these distinctions would not hve been intelligible. My strategy will be simply to introduce an example of faith, and the comment on it from what I understand as the Buddha’s perspective, then move on to the next example.

    Faith in the Buddha’s Enlightenment. This is said to be the basis of all Buddhist practice, so it is a good starting point.

    Clearly faith in the Buddha’s enlightenment is communicated in a religious tradition (1), attested in ancient scriptures that have been communicated from generation to generation. Although the Buddha’s enlightenment can by no means be proven, it has been reproduced in the direct experience, that is, knowledge, of practitioners throughout the history of Buddhism into the present day. In this sense it is outside the criticism of the blind leading the blind. Although enlightenment is relatively rare nowadays (and those who are enlightened will rarely tell you so), the glimpse of enlightenment available to many adepts, those whose understanding allows them to verify the reality of the ultimate goal if not actually achieve it. Such adepts are called stream enterers.

    Faith in the Buddha’s enlightenment is beneficial as an incentive to practice, and practice develops qualities that are skillful, beneficial and blameless (3). There are many very wise people who approve of faith in the Buddha’s enlightenment (4). Of course one should take great care that one understands the motives of teachers we have direct contact with, however we can also consider the testimony of many publicly known teachers, like the Dalai Lama, and many historical figures.

    The Buddha discusses the difference between faith and knowing with respect to this specific object of faith in the Simile of the Elephant’s Footprint (MN 27). The simile is that of a woodsman who initially sees a footprint, then bank scrapings and so on, accumulating evidence about what it is he is chasing, but should not conclude that he knows what he is after until he actually sees it. So faith lives alongside healthy skepticism. We will see next week that neither entail absence of doubt.

    In summary, faith in the Buddha’s enlightenment is a working assumption that arises from faith in certain people of wisdom, that is properly recognized as faith and not knowledge until such time as it may be seen directly in one’s own experience, and which is verifiably skillful and beneficial even if not verified to be factual. Similar things could be said about the many other foundations of Buddhism, such as the Four Noble Truths and the Triple Gem.

    Religious Fundamentalism. This is a phenomenon first identified in certain sects of Christianity, but also well attested in Islam and Judaism, and probably found in many minor faiths as well. I am alarmed that much that characterizes religious fundamentalism seems to be replicated in the New Atheism (e.g., of Christipher Hitchens and Sam Harris). We should be on guard for any leaning in this direction within Buddhism, for the following reasons.

    Fundamentalism generally involves a strict unyielding interpretation of scriptural authority, seemingly with little recognition of the not so subtle difference between knowing and faith, literal and figurative. It is therefore subject to the fallacy of the blind leading the blind (1). Interestingly even the scriptural authority is often bogus. It seems subject to readily generating inferences to create a world view that often seems at odds with what the original scriptures were reasonably trying to say (2). For some reason this often takes the form of a strict demarcation of Good and Evil as forces at work in opposing populations.

    Fundamentalist faith tends to be placed in leaders who don’t rank among the wise, insofar as they tend to display a lot of hatred and anger, often greed for fame and wealth, and sometimes an insanely deluded worldview (4). Religious fundamentalism responsible for a great deal of harm, including militant violence (3). In sum, Fundamentalism suffers under the Buddha’s criteria, at least in its most visible forms, in every possible way. This might be why the tendency to fundamentalism has been so weak in Buddhism.

    Political and economic discourse is full of -isms that are often accepted on faith with an uncritical fervor characteristic of religious fundamentalism. Often they go back to a scriptural source (like Das Kapital or Wealth of Nations) (1). Interestingly the views attributed to the source are often bogus (Karl Marx announced famously in his later years that he was not a Marxist, Adam Smith, contrary to what most people think, was clear about the essential role of government in regulating business to protect the proper functioning of the free market from the cleverness of big businesses, and to provide an infrastructure that is necessary but unprofitable for the private sector). Often an viewpoint evolves that sees such perfection in theory that the needs of actually people are overlooked (2).

    Harm results as loyalty to, or confidence in the benefit of, the theory overrides the compassion that would respond to observable needs (3). The various -isms are often promulgated by pundits who display hatred and anger, mislead, and have greedy motives, or are employed by those with greedy motives (4). For Buddhists this message should be clear: Be very careful and sparse in your views and hold them lightly, seek out the truly wise, and never, never, never let go of compassion.

    Boldly plunging into the rushing river. This is a theoretical example I introduced in the onset of this series. Because this serves well, I think, to improve our understanding of the boldness of faith, let me restate the example:

    The flood waters are rising and huts at the river’s edge are already being swept away. The villagers panic as they recognize the foolishness of building their village against a sheer cliff. Most of them begin running frantically back and then forth along the river bank. The chief, on the other hand, grabbing up his youngest daughter in one hand and his embellished staff of authority in the other, shouts, “Follow me, gang!” and plunges into the water. Many others follow immediately. Still others, the more timid, wait until they ascertain the chief’s ascent up the opposite river bank, but many of these are swept away in the still rising waters for having hesitated.

    Faith here does not have a scriptural basis (1). It also involves a judgment call, but no complex inferences or derivation of a viewpoint (2). Interestingly, if the chief were to get caught up in thinking about what he is doing he might get cold feet (the other kind of cold feet), lose his boldness and fail to act in the required way.

    As I have told the story, welfare and happiness results as a result of this leap of faith (3), at least for most of the villagers. However, at the time the chief made his decisions that was not a predictable result. What is telling about this example is the degree of uncertainty in contrast with the urgency of a decision. Even if the result was less fortunate, the alternative of not making a decision would almost certainly lead to at least as much harm and suffering. Passivity would have been death. This is a clear case, for the rest of the people, of following the wise (4). We can presume if the chief did not have a reputation for wisdom many more would have perished.

    Faith in Rebirth. Rebirth in its relationship to karma raises skeptical eyebrows in the West, sometimes through the roof. It is perhaps the sole core supposition of Buddhism that elicits this response, and even in the Buddha’s day seems to have been a matter of contention.

    In the Buddha’s day it did not have the best scriptural pedigree; apparently it is not part of early Vedic thought. And the Buddha tinkered quite a bit with the model of rebirth current in his day. Today, of course, it falls under the authority of the Buddhist scriptures (1). But for the Buddha that is not good enough.

    The importance of rebirth for Buddhism in in terms of the what it does for the timescale of Buddhist training, and the development of the human character that ensues. A human life is very brief and progress within a human life is typically limited. When we conceive of the practice and the fruits of the practice extending indefinitely into the future, the significance and urgency of our practice is multiplied a thousandfold. This is the benefit of faith in rebirth (3). It is not so important that we know that rebirth is actually true as that we accept it as a working assumption or a mindset that informs our practice. At the end of the Kalama Sutta the Buddha takes up this very issue and tells the Kalamas:

    “‘Suppose there is a hereafter and there is a fruit, result, of deeds done well or ill. Then it is possible that at the dissolution of the body after death, I shall arise in the heavenly world, which is possessed of the state of bliss.’ This is the first solace found by him.

    “‘Suppose there is no hereafter and there is no fruit, no result, of deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself.’ This is the second solace found by him.

    In other words, we have everything to gain and nothing to lose by living and practicing with rebirth in mind. This is analogous to plunging into the rushing river. Or, for that matter, in praying to God, just in case. It is also analogous to borrowing, spending, repaying and earning money, even though money does not exist except as a conceptual construct. Rebirth is also approved by the wise, beginning with the Buddha, and remarkably continuing to the present day in the teachings of many Western practitioners of advanced attainment (4).

    The important point here is that the criteria the Buddha placed on faith is a pragmatic one; it is not one of verifiable truth, even while he sees faith evolving into knowing with the progress of one’s practice. Faith is something we can try on for size, loose fitting clothes we can check out to see what the style and the fit do for us. In contrast to narrow restrictive rigid belief, the kind fundamenalists endorse, Buddhist faith is expansive. Salzburg in her book on Buddhist faith writes,

    Faith, … is … an active, open state that makes us willing to explore. While beliefs come to us from outside—from another person or a tradition or a heritage, faith comes from within, from our alive participation in the process of discovery.

     

    Alan Watts similarly once wrote, “Belief clings. Faith lets go.”

    But will faith in rebirth someday intersect with knowing? Do the enlightened see rebirth directly? If you are at the point in your practice in which this matters, you do not need someone else to answer this. But the question is an interesting one and, though speculative, perhaps usefully explored by those who cannot help but reject it out of hand. Luckily for you I’ve written a previous series of posts on the matter, I suspect with more philosophical speculation and pondering of views than the Buddha would endorse. They are linked from this page.

    Consumerism. David Loy calls consumerism the dominant religion in Western society. It provides us with a set of values and principles that inform our behavior at the deepest level. The result has been that it has tended to displace conventional religions, and conventional religions have often responded by adapting (modernizing) their teachings to fit a consumerist mindset. This has been a struggle for Buddhism in Asia as societies modernize. Consumerism is based in the faith that, in spite of what the wise have consistently told us throughout history, we can buy happiness.

    Some scriptural passages is Buddhism and Christianity and presumably other religions extol abundance or material comfort (1). In the story of Buddha’s enlightenment it is significant that the Buddha just prior to his enlightenment backed off of severe ascetic practice and indulged in the luxury of being well fed. This is the origin of the Middle Way, tuning one’s practice like a lute to be not too tight and not too loose. However this has little to do with the volume of modern consumerism, and Buddhist scriptures underscore repeatedly the dangers of greed, lust, seeking wealth and fame, all of that. Consumerism has so embedded itself in modern thought that the desirability of economic growth is generally a given in economic theory and policy. By inference this then becomes a further justification of consumerism, since it is on the basis of ever increasing levels of consumption that economic growth is possible (2).

    That consumerism is skillful, harmless and leads to well-being and happiness is a natural assumption given that unexamined human impulses seem to work on that principle. However almost any other evidence points the other way if we bother to look at it (3). Consider, who do you know who is truly happy? Something quite striking in my experience is how much happier people are in Burma, one of the poorest countries in the world, than typical middle class Americans. Buddhist monastics, that font of wisdom (4), bely the faith of consumerism in that their lives are based on the exact opposite assumption, yet they are as a group the happiest people I know.

    In summary, the Buddha gives us some handy criteria for evaluating where we should place our faith. I have presented a small set of examples to illustrate these wise teachings. These examples could be multiplied at will. Next week, perhaps the end of this series, in a post I thought I would call Wielding Faith, I want to consider faith as a kind of energy or power that is cultivated for its own sake in Buddhist practice, one that has an emotive component, is a motivator of practice, and offsets the Hidrance of Doubt.

     

  • Faith V

    Uposatha Day, New Moon, June 1, 2011

    The Buddha on Faith

    The ideals which have lighted my way, and time after time have given me new courage to face life cheerfully, have been Kindness, Beauty, and Truth. The trite subjects of human efforts, possessions, outward success, luxury have always seemed to me contemptible. — Albert Einstein.

    The Buddha had a lot to say about faith, but the broadest overview is afforded by two discourses delivered in response to people not already on the Buddhist path. These are the Kalama Sutta and the Canki Sutta. The first concerns a people called the Kalamas who live in a town called Kesaputta. They are confused by the bewildering variety of religious views and the certainty of their advocates. The sutta suggests that the immediate source of confusion are the questions of karma and rebirth, which confuses people to this day, but the Buddha’s answer answers a far more general question, How does one know where to place one’s faith? The Buddha was, apparently, the latest in a series of religious teachers to pass through Kesaputta, so they challenged him:

    “Lord, there are some priests & contemplatives who come to Kesaputta. They expound & glorify their own doctrines, but as for the doctrines of others, they deprecate them, revile them, show contempt for them, & disparage them. And then other priests & contemplatives come to Kesaputta. They expound & glorify their own doctrines, but as for the doctrines of others, they deprecate them, revile them, show contempt for them, & disparage them. They leave us absolutely uncertain & in doubt: Which of these venerable priests & contemplatives are speaking the truth, and which ones are lying?”

    This is a question that makes perfect sense in modern America, in fact not only in the religious realm but, with a little tweaking of the wording, in others as well; consider politics. Here is the Buddha’s oft-quoted response.

    “Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in doubt. When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born. So in this case, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, “These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering” — then you should abandon them.

    The last part of this is later stated in its positive form:

    When you know for yourselves that, “These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness” — then you should enter & remain in them.

    The Buddha then introduces by way of example greed, Aversion and Delusion (the Three Poisons in Buddhism) and non-greed, non-aversion and non-delusion as qualities to test, and the Kalamas agree that each of the first group leads to harm and suffering, while the each of the second to welfare and happiness. Along similar lines the Buddha then extols the qualities of kindness, compassion, appreciation and equanimity (the Brahmaviharas in Buddhism) as sources of welfare and happiness.

    The “don’t go by” list and the “when you know for yourselves” lists should be studied carefully. They use reason and discernment, in the midst of uncertainty, to sort out faith.

    The “don’t go by” list can be broken into two primary parts: The Buddha disparages unquestioned faith in religious tradition on the one hand, and in inference and logic on the other.

    Against religious tradition. The Buddha’s position is states as, “don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, …, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’” In the Canki Sutta (MN 95) a whippersnapper of a brahmin, a sixteen-year-old master of the Vedic literature, asks the Buddha directly:

    “Master Gotama, with regard to the ancient hymns of the brahmans — passed down through oral transmission & included in their canon — the brahmans have come to the definite conclusion that ‘Only this is true; anything else is worthless.’ What does Master Gotama have to say to this?”

    The Buddha begins his answer with a counter question:

    “Tell me, Bharadvaja, is there among the brahmans even one brahman who says, ‘This I know; this I see; only this is true; anything else is worthless?’”

    “No, Master Gotama.”

    The Buddha is concerned here with discernment, direct seeing, knowing for oneself, in contrast to accepting something purely on faith. He then explains the problem of religious tradition with the analogy of the blind leading the blind, each great teacher taking the word of the preceding teacher rather than seeing the truth directly for himself, such that no one no matter how far back you look actually knows, sees with his own eyes. He concludes that brahmins can reliably discern, “I have faith in this,” and preserve truth, but not “Only this is true; anything else is worthless.”

    This applies to Buddhism as well. One can preserve a belief, for instance, for many generations, without anyone directly knowing it is true. And in practice this happens. The difference is the emphasis the Buddhism as a matter of principle puts on turning faith eventually into directly seeing for oneself. The Buddha is not disparaging faith, only emphasizing that it should be recognized for what it is. For instance, a student of the Buddha might have in faith the belief that suffering arises from craving, but not yet be able to see it directly for herself. Nevertheless, the faith functions as a working assumption which is to be investigated and even challenged, until it is seen directly. Buddhism is preserved as long as there are in every generation people who know the core teachings directly. Others follow along in faith. Modern science also operates under a remarkably similar application of faith.

    Against inference and logic. The Buddha’s position is stated as, “don’t go by … logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, …” In the Canki Sutta the Buddha declares,

    Some things are well-reasoned and yet vain, empty, & false. Some things are not well-reasoned, and yet they are genuine, factual, & unmistaken. Some things are well-pondered and yet vain, empty, & false. Some things are not well-pondered, and yet they are genuine, factual, & unmistaken. In these cases it isn’t proper for a knowledgeable person who safeguards the truth to come to a definite conclusion, ‘Only this is true; anything else is worthless.’

    Keep in mind, the Buddha was a very clear and rational thinker and wielded this skill himself to promote understanding; he could not have meant to disparage all rational thought. I think, rather, the principle here is, Keep it Simple. A common expression of the Buddha was, “a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views.” First, inference and logic produces conclusions that are no better than the premises one starts with, which themselves are mostly based in faith. Moreover there is a strong tendency to move systems of thought toward abstraction to get them to work and thereby away from what is directly discernible, and then to become so infatuated with systems of thought that they become your reality. Finally, we seem to be very adept at rationalization, that is, reverse-engineering our reasoning to derive the conclusions we were already determined to derive for unreasonable purposes. At some point reasoning overwhelms and obscures discernment.

    For instance, it is advisable when considering a political issue — maybe a congressman has introduced a bill and you are pondering whether to endorse it personally — to keep in mind: Who are the stakeholders? Who suffers if it is enacted? Who suffers if it is not enacted? Is there a mechanism that will be there counter the suffering? In view of compassion, ideology — whether Marxist, capitalist, libertarian, or whatever — often becomes remarkably specious.

    The “when you know for yourselves” list also can be broken into two parts. The Buddha recommends entering and remaining in any quality that is both skillful, beneficial or blameless on the one hand, and approved by wise people on the other.

    In favor of benefit. The Buddha’s position is stated as, “When you know for yourselves that ‘These qualities are unskillful … blameworthy … when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering‘… then you should abandon them,” and, “When you know for yourselves that ‘These qualities are skillful … blameless … when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness‘… then you should enter & remain in them.”

    “When you know for yourselves …,” shows that the Buddha trusts the determination of this substantially to individual discernment. This, along with the mistrust of religious tradition, gives the Kalama Sutta its reputation as a license to free thought, or even to design your own religion. Notice, however, that the criteria are rather rigorous. First, “knowing for yourselves” is a strong obligation that few are capable of. Furthermore, this recommends that faith should be based on purely ethical criteria; in fact, no mention is made that you must discern that something is true, only that we discern it to be virtuous. The various terms used here are described in many places in the Suttas, but the Buddha’s advice to his own novice son, Rahula, is probably the best known source (MN 61). Skillfulness has to do with not being rooted in Greed, Hate and Delusion. The harm and suffering means for self and other, which in the Buddha’s ethics coincide remarkably.

    In favor of approval by the wise. The Buddha’s position is stated as, “[If]… these qualities are criticized by the wise … then you should abandon them,” and, “[If]… these qualities are praised by the wise … then you should enter & remain in them.”

    If we have let loose traditional doctrine, who are these wise guys? Since benefit has such a strong criterion for discernment, sometimes in matters that are deep and hard to see, and the untrained mind has such poor discernment, few of us can determine what to abandon or to remain and abide in on our own, unless we have great attainment in the practice. We need help. The problem the Buddha pointed to in traditional religious faith is that it loses its grounding in knowing. The wise are exactly those grounded in knowing, those who see things as they really are, who discern directly and accurately, not people who merely memorize scripture. Recall the Buddha’s recommendation in the Mangala (Blessing) Sutta:

    Not to associate with fools,
    to associate with the wise,
    to honor those who are worthy of honor.
    this is the highest blessing.

    The question then becomes, How do we recognize the wise? This includes the perennial question, How do we find a teacher? The Buddha gives this answer in the Canki Sutta:

    “There is the case, Bharadvaja, where a monk lives in dependence on a certain village or town. Then a householder or householder’s son goes to him and observes him with regard to three mental qualities — qualities based on greed, qualities based on aversion, qualities based on delusion: ‘Are there in this venerable one any such qualities based on [ greed / aversion / delusion] that, with his mind overcome by these qualities, he might say, “I know,” while not knowing, or say, “I see,” while not seeing; or that he might urge another to act in a way that was for his/her long-term harm & pain?’ As he observes him, he comes to know, ‘There are in this venerable one no such qualities based on [ greed / aversion / delusion] … His bodily behavior & verbal behavior are those of one not [ greedy / aversive / deluded ]. And the Dhamma he teaches is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. This Dhamma can’t easily be taught by a person who’s [ greedy / aversive / deluded ].

    Once again the Buddha underscores the importance of Greed, Aversion and Delusion and their opposites in discerning human intentionality. These are powerful criteria. For instance, consider that a teacher might be acting under the motivation to secure wealth or reputation, or sex, all instances of Greed and all conflicts of interest in his teaching role. If a teacher harbors prejudice or ill-will toward someone or some group of people, or fear of competing doctrines (all Aversion), or has fixed understandings and strong dogmatic views (Delusion) this should raise red flags. Probably less visible is the depth of the teachers understanding, but time and experience in working with a teacher will either establish confidence or, if the student feels she has repeatedly been unable to verify what is being taught in her own experience then confidence might diminish. Faith in the teacher is a kind of faith and therefore one that should be evaluated ultimately in terms of whether the student is developing in a skillful, harmless way for the benefit and happiness of all.

    Notice that in the Buddha’s exposition he has not proved anything wholly in terms of reason and discernment. To accept the Buddha’s account of faith itself requires faith, for instance faith in virtue as a worthy human value, faith in the unskillfulness of greed, aversion and delusion and the skillfulness of non-greed, non-aversion and non-delusion. In modern terms, these faith in these few elements bootstrap the rest of faith. This is a reasoned and discerning understanding of faith.

    Next week I would like to provide examples of this systematic accounting of faith, as a kind of workbook to go along with this main text. In the following week I intend to discuss Wielding Faith, that is, how it is used as a faculty, with a strong emotive element, in support of our practice and development.

  • Faith IV

    Uposatha Day, Last Quarter Moon, May 25, 2011

    Origins of Faith

    It is important for us to understand the nature of faith because faith, like fire, is a powerful thing and we cannot get away from it; it is a source of great benefit when it directs our actions skillfully; it is highly toxic when it leads us woefully astray. It also serves as an instrument with which to manipulate others, and to be manipulated, for benefit or harm.

    Most of what we believe, most of which we are devoted to, is a matter of faith. None of us actually know enough for it to be otherwise. We all like to think of ourselves as rationalists, but even a cursory examination of what we believe or put our hearts into reveals that not much arises purely from reason and discernment.

    We are, on the other hand, rationalizers: We think we discover a rational basis for our beliefs and devotions after the fact, that is, after they have already arisen on some other basis. Have you ever noticed that you personally are one of those rare people who has the uncanny ability to be right, right in your social and political insight, in your understanding of religion, and so on? Have you ever noticed that others, in spite of their faulty and sometimes totally wacky notions, nevertheless almost always erroneously think they are right? This, I speculate, is the result of rationalization of personal faith, applied to our own but not to others’.

    This is not to say that faith is beyond rational thought, nor that rational thought is beyond faith. In fact rational examination of faith might reveal where it gets us into trouble and where it is likely to yield benefit. But the relationship between faith and reason is complex. I would like this week to consider how faith arises. We will quickly see that the causes and conditions are quite diverse. I thought this might be a useful exercise before we let the Buddha cut to the chase. For one thing many of these conditions have evolved since the Buddha’s time. This will be a fairly random set of observations on my part. I invite readers to follow my lead and post their own observations.

    Family. Much of our faith is simply absorbed from our elders in the family. If the older generations are conservatives, we become conservatives, if they are racists, we become racists, if they place great value on the sanctity of marriage, so do we, if they put stock in education and reading, so do we, if they have great faith in Science or believe in the literal word of the Bible, so do we. This kind of faith is acquired by the youngster prior to the development of an active faculty for discernment or reason, and yet can remain strong and unquestioned throughout his life. This is not to say that one of the other factors below will not later override our early faith, but generally this will be done with difficulty and often traumatically. Family faith is also not necessarily a hazard; it is a means to communicate the acquired wisdom of many generations.

    First impressions. First impressions lead to what looks like simple inductive reasoning yet is based on only the one instance, not enough to be considered truly rational. For example, suppose you meet an Eskimo for the first time, and he insults you, steals a can of salmon from your cupboard when you are not looking, accepts a beer from you but then passes out on your floor, lets his sled dogs eat your hamster, etc. Most likely the belief, “Eskimos are jerks,” will set in. Of course your personal experience might not be remotely typical, you only have met one Eskimo, yet that belief can become so entrenched that only repeated encounters, and repeated disregard of evidence, will finally dislodge the belief that Eskimos are all jerks. By the same token, it is much easier to convince someone of the veracity of Global Warming on a hot day than on a cold day.

    Herd Instict. If everyone around us believes something or values something, we generally fall into line. When I was young everyone I knew was anti-establishment and wanted to make love not war, and sure enough, that became my profile. If every time we turn on the radio someone or other is denouncing President Obama as a Muslim Marxist-Fascist, then pretty soon we start to believe he is like this, even without evidence or explanation, even without knowing what a Marxist or a Fascist is beyond bad names you call someone you don’t like. Many of our social values seem to be instilled this way, such as belief in America (for my American readers, Uganda for Ugandan readers, etc.), Democracy, Liberty, Human Rights, Free Enterprise, Capitalism, Fairness, etc. Interestingly many of these, like the Self, become values of great devotion without discernible referents. For instance, many patriotic Americans seem not to like or even want to be nice to the bulk of other Americans, hate the American government, don’t like nature much and so don’t appreciate the great natural beauty of the vast American landscape, yet cling with both hands to some abstraction called “America.”

    Respect. We tend to follow the example of people we encounter and for one reason or another respect or revere. If our teachers are adherents of the Chicago School of Economics, we also become adherents. If our best friend puts a lot of value in personal appearance, we might also lean in this direction. If we meet someone who devotes all of their energy to helping the poor and disadvantaged, we might embrace that role ourselves. Many of us choose role models at some point to try to emulate. Respect or veneration opens us up to the knowledge, beliefs, views and values of another. Without respect for our teachers we could not learn, without respect for scholarship our worlds are much smaller, without respect for T.V. pundits we would lost the opportunity to be so misinformed. Respect is itself a form of faith, of putting our heart on someone or a human institution or source of information.

    Viewpoints and Values. Most of our viewpoints and values arise in one of the other ways listed here. However once a viewpoint or value is adopted, as in the case of the first impression, it becomes a condition for additional points of faith, often derived in part by reasoning. An American patriot, or one who believes America is “good,” generally ends up with faith in many other propositions, such as America’s foreign policy is benevolent, America’s democracy is exemplary, America is the source of most international foreign aid, Americans are brave, America has been given a special role by God on the world stage, America is above international law. Similarly faith in the Free Market or the Capitalist system as a force of good commonly supports additional points of faith, that it maximizes efficient allocation of resources, that government or popular oversight is unnecessary, that people get rich in proportion to the good they produce for the world, and so on. Of course a scientific theory also gives rise to many consequences, but it is incumbent on the th eorists that these be testable, grounded in discernment.

    Viewpoints are particularly pernicious, and it is no wonder the Buddha was particularly unsupportive of them. In Buddhism “view” and “Wrong View” (ditthi and micchaditthi) are generally taken as synonyms, except for the few things specified as “Right View” (sammaditthi). We tend to think of them as the stuff of rational thought, which is true, but they also arise in the midst of great uncertainty, that is, at least partially out of faith, and then not only spawn many other beliefs of diminishing certainty, but tend to justify themselves as they become the lens through which we interpret reality. So, for instance, with faith in the Free Market one no longer sees rich people or profiteers, but captains of industry (and, I suppose, their families), one tends to view long commutes in massive smog-choked traffic in positive terms as opulence afforded by an efficient market, all the while confirming one’s faith. With faith in a despot, or in the dictatorship of the proletariat, one no longer sees opposition to government policy as legitimate, but rather intrusions of the forces of decadence or even malicious foreign influence. Of course sweeping viewpoints, like “Whatever the Bible says is true,” or “Whatever the Government does is bad,” spawn many absurdities, and indeed people end up believing the darnedest things. Both science a Buddhism are relatively disciplined about viewpoints, but otherwise the well-placed viewpoint is an uncommon thing.

    Greed. Greed and Hatred are the major emotional factors driving out behavior outside of what we believe or value, and function even in a world of pure discernment and reason. As the Buddha pointed out, they are great distorters of reality, that is, sources of ungrounded belief. Our neediness typically gives rise to its own justification. The greed of the elite is accompanied by faith in privilege, or in distorted views of the contribution it is making to society, such as civilizing primitive people, or creating wealth that drives the economy for the benefit of all. Grasping after prestige or personal identity tends to produce strong opinions simply as a means of showing off an imagined aptitude for discernment. Thwarted greed tends to produce anger toward human obstacles, which then spins off elements of faith. Lust produces the notion, “He/she is the most beautiful man/woman in the world,” at least until the next day.

    Hatred. Along with greed, hatred tends to promote faith in Good and Evil, forces let loose in the universe that happen to correspond remarkably well with our own sense of personal comfort level. Anger induces us to make unfounded attributions of intentionality. In fact scapegoating is a common attribute of anger; anger will build up like an electrical charge in a cloud, then quite arbitrarily look for a lightning rod, a damp tree or some schmo flying a kite to discharge on.

    Aversion toward what might be a well-founded discernible or rational belief, suggested by a faithful source of evidence, can lead to faith in the opposite of that belief. This is denial. In spite of all the symptoms or the lab tests, one denies that a love one is dying of cancer. In spite of environmental and social decay and collapse, one denies that the economy can’t just carry on how it has always carried on. This is the distorting effect of hatred.

    All of the forgoing might give the impression that faith is a very powerful yet confused and often frightening force. This is verified when you consider what a confused and often frightening place the world is. But notice that this is not confined to religious faith, which can also be confused and often frightening. However religion has become a scapegoat of choice, it is the schmo flying a kite that we most like to discharge our ire on.

    Manipulation. It gets worse. Faith, in modern times had been supplemented by another powerful yet confused and frightening force.

    My mother, in her eighties and not always of clear mind, one day received in the mail a notification that she was the first prize winner in a sweepstakes. She was instructed to reply and verify that she was who she thought she was, and to claim her eye-poppingly large prize. She had enough faith in the goodwill of the sweepstake organizers and in her own propensity for unsolicited good luck that she replied. She also had faith in the desirability of receiving such an influx of wealth (a faith belied by empirical studies of the fates of lottery winners). This naturally led to an exchange of more correspondence and ultimately a request for payment of some small fee so that the funds could be released from a foreign account, and in good faith she paid the small fee. The funds however were never released, and instead a barrage of similar notifications began arriving in her mailbox, notifications that she had won this or that.

    What I found particularly novel is that she began receiving phone calls and letters from psychics, who reported spontaneous visions or favorable signs that came to them out of the blue concerning this elderly woman in San Francisco, whom they out of kindness undertook to forewarn so that she be prepared for fabulous wealth. My mother also began to receive notifications from banks confirming the movement of large sums of money into mysterious accounts. In her state of twilight discernment, she viewed this as confirmation of her faith that she was about to become enormously wealthy, as soon as a couple of fees had been paid to comply with government regulations.

    She was not only paying small fees right and left but even began friendly correspondence with the various psychics who had contacted her, who for the most part seemed to be real people advising real clients. Pretty soon my mother was receiving a stack full of notices in her daily mail, and her retiree back account was nearly drained.

    Several aspects of this experience are striking. One is the essential role of faith in the goodness of other people’s intentions. I had before this incident admired my mother for her innocence in this regard. Like friendship, this is a faith that tends to inspire good intentions in others, and certainly helps keep one’s own intentions in line. Losing this faith, I dare say, is the first step in losing one’s own integrity, yet at the same time it is a kind of gullibility. Second is the unscrupulousness evident in the exploitation of that faith, … and of the elderly. My brother’s reaction to these events is that people like that should be taken out and shot. The worst part is that the wanton exploitation by another of this faith leads to cynicism. Third is the level of organization assembled in order to provide many sources of evidence for the illusion of forthcoming winnings, suggesting metaphors of dark forces at work with long arms.

    Unfortunately this is the nature of our times. The same thing happens to manipulate public opinion and influence public policy. Some newsworthy event, such as a major oil spill or a major uprising in Uzbekistan, occurs that naturally calls into question in the public mind some business enterprise or political concern, and demands a neutralizing response. Within a day editorials are being written, pundits and politicians are offering their views and corporations are issuing statements, with such remarkable consistency that the neutralizing response becomes publicly acceptable, no matter how absurd.

    What’s more, the science of public manipulation has become quite sophisticated and is at constant work manufacturing faith in carefully constructed illusions, justifying wars with no inherent merit, promoting growth of an unsustainable economic order, dulling responses to impending crises, and of course inducing people to buy things they don’t need with money they don’t have, all for the worst of human intentions. And religious organizations have not been exempt from the mass marketing paradigm, or perhaps I should write “religious” organizations, because religiosity may often be part of the illusion.

    It is a task of Buddhism to bring order to faith. It is not to eliminate it; that would be to eliminate thought, to eliminate meaning. It is to make faith skillful, to encourage those aspects that bring about beneficial results and to discourage those that bring about harm, to make our faith more rational and less delusional.

  • Faith III

    Uposatha Day, Full Moon, May 17, 2011
    Faith Part III: Devotion

    Not to associate with fools,
    to associate with the wise,
    to honor those who are worthy of honor.
    this is the highest blessing.

    To reside in a suitable locality,
    to have done meritorious actions in the past,
    to set oneself on the right course.
    this is the highest blessing.

    Vast-learning, handicraft,
    a highly-trained discipline,
    pleasant speech.
    this is the highest blessing.

    Supporting father and mother,
    cherishing wife and children,
    peaceful occupations.
    this is the highest blessing.

    Liberality, righteous conduct,
    the helping of relatives,
    blameless actions.
    this is the highest blessing.

    To cease and abstain from evil,
    forbearance with respect to intoxicants,
    steadfastness in virtue.
    this is the highest blessing.

    Reverence, humility,
    contentment, gratitude,
    opportune hearing of the Dhamma.
    This is the highest blessing.

    Patience, accommodation,
    seeing renunciants,
    religious discussions at due times.
    This is the highest blessing.

    Self control, the holy life,
    perception of the Noble Truths,
    The realization of Nibbana.
    This is the highest blessing.

    He whose mind does not flutter
    by contact with worldly contingencies,
    sorrowless, stainless, and secure.
    This is the highest blessing

    — Mangala Sutta

    Belief is the smaller part of faith, devotion is the greater part. Recall that faith informs our activities and decisions on a basis other than what we know, on a basis other than discernment and sound reasoning. Our undermost motives will be found neither in beliefs nor in knowledge, but rather in where we decide to place our hearts. This is in what we embrace as values, whom and what we respect, what aspirations we set for ourselves, the meanings we discover in things, our understanding of how we meet each new day. Without this kind of faith there is nothing to get you out of bed in the morning.

    The opening quote is from the famous Mangala Sutta in which the Buddha enumerates thirty-eight blessings, values that have been cherished by Buddhists ever since, personal attributes or activities to be encouraged in daily life. Looking around in our very pluralistic culture, you have to be struck by how extreme the variations in people’s values are. I could compose a Mangala Sutta that negates virtually every blessing the Buddha lists and produce something very consistent with quite conventional modern American values. In fact, … I think I will: …

    Not to associate with the meek,
    to associate with celebrities,
    to watch others grovel.
    this is the highest blessing.

    To reside in splendor,
    to have accumulated great wealth,
    to look stunning.
    this is the highest blessing.

    Vast-earning, craftiness,
    a highly-trained staff,
    biting speech.
    this is the highest blessing.

    Not having to support father and mother,
    not burdened by the nagging of wife and children,
    undemanding occupations, shopping.
    this is the highest blessing.

    Conservatility, being right,
    elevating oneself,
    blam    ing others.
    this is the highest blessing.

    To enjoy what the wise discredit,
    wine, women and song,
    getting what one wants.
    this is the highest blessing.

    Being awesome,
    getting more, instant gratification,
    being a cut above the rest.
    This is the highest blessing.

    Never being put on hold,
    sneaking intoxicants,
    avoiding religious discussions.
    This is the highest blessing.

    Control, the worldly life,
    vague references to the Noble Truths,
    Acting like you’re enlightened.
    This is the highest blessing.

    He who tirelessly achieves personal advantage
    under all worldly contingencies,
    admired, dominant, and secure.
    This is the highest blessing.

    A complete list of Buddhist values that supplement those of the Mangala Sutta would have to include the Brahma Viharas of Kindness, Compassion, Appreciation of others’ good fortune (I’ll be darned if anyone has found a good English word for this; it is simply “mudita” in Pali) and Equnimity; the objects of the Three Trainings of the Noble Eightfold Path of Wisdom, Virtue and Serenity; the objects of Right Resolve of Renunciation, Kindness and Generosity; the opposites of the Three Poisons, which would be non-Greed, non-Hatred and non-Delusion; and so on. Other values, many non-Buddhist, that people embrace, are Fatherhood, Motherhood and Family, Personal Charm, Nation, Race, Class, Friendship, Loyalty, Honesty, Aggressiveness, Hard Work, Personal Responsibility, Leisure, Freedom, Health, Youth, Old Age, Mother Earth, Power, Duty, Pride, Fun, Sexuality, Democracy, Free Market Capitalism, Human Rights, the Bill of Rights, Intelligence, Not Being Too Smart, Having Cool Shoes, Happiness, Fame.

    It is often observed that Christianity in particular puts a stronger effort on belief than most other religions although on devotion as well. Karen Armstrong maintains, however, that that is a misunderstanding. In English, in any case, the word “belief” comes from a source that meant hold dear, and is actually related to the world “love.” This is a meaning more closely related to devotion than certitude regarding a propositional truth. Her suggestion is that where it occurs in the King James Bible it should be read with its earlier meaning. In any case, you can quickly see that religions, though each advocates some set of values, are not the only, or even primary source of values. Many are culturally determined even for the non-religious, some such as happiness, safety and health are virtually universal.

    Values, unlike beliefs, are strictly speaking beyond the reach of discernment or reason; they are not true nor false, though they can be evaluated only in terms of other values.You can embrace any value you want without fear of illogic, though sometimes embracing two values can lead to contradiction. My brother, who is quite irreligious, delights when a group of door-to-door evangelicals visits because of a game plan he has discovered. They inevitably try to establish a connection by appeal some value that the bathrobed or pajamaed host is likely to share, such as, “Don’t you despair of the level of violence in today’s world?” to which my brother pauses pregnantly, looks into the distance with a contemplative demeanor then replies wistfully, “No.” They never have a counterargument.

    However, embracing values does have consequences for our behaviors and states of mind, and to a large extent is a consequence of human psychology and evolutionary history. In this way values are subject rational understanding, and that understanding can inform our choice of values. For instance, you might value drinking with buddies but discover that it leads to drunkenness, addiction, irresponsibility and ultimately impinges adversely on family and happiness, which you value even more. If you are wise you will give up the value you place in drinking with friends. Essentially one of the things the Buddha did was to work out rationally the consequences of the range of potential values, the factors of mind, personality and social intercourse to isolate those that together are conducive to well-being. The Buddha described his teachings as as “Against the Stream” because they come up with a set of values that are often counter to uninformed human nature, though grounding these in a very reasoned way in human psychology.

    Related to values is the respect or devotion we place on certain people, institutions and practices. Respect for the wise, for those you want to emulate, for instance, for Martin Luther King, Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, or Sarah Palin, and for those we choose to care for, is an important part of personal development. Respect for the Buddha, the Dhamma and Buddhist teachers is the starting place of Buddhist practice. Respect for the various Buddhist practices includes their encouragement and support in others. Friendship is a kind of mutually shared faith in each other.

    A life without these devotional aspects of faith in various forms, most typically not religious, is unthinkable. It would be a life devoid of meaning or worth. Even with them it has plenty of trouble acquiring meaning or worth. A property of devotion and values is wholeheartedness, which includes steadfastness or unwavering adherence. One of the ways we establish or strengthen wholeheartedness is through vow, sometimes performed publicly and ceremonially, so that if you forget your vow your friends will be sure to remind you. A major vow is what initiates marriage. I entered an important turning point in my own Buddhist understanding and practice upon reading in Uchiyama Roshi’s Seven Points of Zen Practice in Opening the Hand of Thought,

    Live by Vow, and root it deeply.

    I had before that early time, after a failed marriage, simply thought of vow as the un–strategic error of cutting off my options, of burning my bridges behind me. So the encounter with this short phrase shocked me at first but subsequently my thoughts kept returning to it;it would not let go. I began to realize that what was truly worthwhile in my life, including my incipient Buddhist practice, was already cobbled together from many vows big and small, most of which were implicit. The mass of small implicit vows is how I understand devotion (“devotion” is simply an inflection of the root “vow”). An option, after all,  becomes useful only once the alternatives are cut off. Understanding this seems to open my mind to embrace the many aspects of Buddha’s teachings more readily as a matter faith

    Next week, rather than jumping directly into the Buddha’s Kalama Sutta and the supplementary Canki Sutta, I would like to discuss where all these different and varying kinds of faith, whether in the form of belief or devotion; in the area of religion, science, politics, entertainment; useful or problematic, come from. Why do we get it into our heads, in the absence of proper evidence, discernible and reasoned, to take something on faith? Given that we understand that we all inevitably do it, what is it that informs or inspires our faith? If this whole discussion of faith seems a bit confused, you can look forward to the clear light of understanding that the Buddha shines on this dark and misunderstood realm.