Faith in Buddhism

[Aupmanyav]

Buddha was catering to all kinds of people, those who could think for themselves and those who could not. For the latter, he said have faith in Buddha and Dhamma. To the former, he gave the 'Kalama Sutta':

"Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing (anussava), nor upon tradition (paramparā), nor upon rumor (itikirā), nor upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna), nor upon surmise (takka-hetu), nor upon an axiom (naya-hetu), nor upon specious reasoning (ākāra-parivitakka), nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over (diṭṭhi-nijjhān-akkh-antiyā), nor upon another's seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya), nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no garū).

Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and abide in them."

 

[Gambit]

FYI, this is the Merriam entry on faith in the context of religion; 2. strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

That applies to Buddhism.

Faith in Buddhism is expressed in the act of taking refuge. In this, it centres on the authority of Buddha as a supremely awakened being, by assenting to his unsurpassed role as teacher of both humans and gods. It also honors the truth of his spiritual Doctrine (Pali: dhamma), and accepts the community of spiritually developed followers (Pali: saṅgha)

(source: Wikipedia: Faith in Buddhism)

 

[Gambit]

No, fair person. The bottom line is instead that meanings matter and that stubborn opposition to secularism is foolish.

Faith matters in Buddhism. The Buddhist aspirant has faith.

Faith in Buddhism is expressed in the act of taking refuge. In this, it centres on the authority of Buddha as a supremely awakened being, by assenting to his unsurpassed role as teacher of both humans and gods. It also honors the truth of his spiritual Doctrine (Pali: dhamma), and accepts the community of spiritually developed followers (Pali: saṅgha). Faith in Buddhism can be said to function as a form of motor, which propels the Buddhist practitioner towards the goal of awakening (Pali: bodhi) and nirvana.

(source: Wikipedia: Faith in Buddhism)

 

[Gambit]

Your meaning of "appropriate" is rather unproper.

Whatever.

 

[Gambit]

Thus ignoring the actual situation.
That is not acting in good faith, though, nor is it correct usage of a dictionary.
Sort of underscores the issue, come to think of it.
Are you a lawyer, perchance?
Now, that. That resides somewhere between unashamed wishful thinking and just lying.

Your post above is nothing more than an ad hominem attack, which in this context qualifies as a logical fallacy because it is inappropriate. It is inappropriate because I supported my claim with documentation. I'm afraid you don't have the luxury of simply ignoring that fact.

 

[Gambit]

You were so confident based on a bad article that I couldn't resist.

You have already acknowledged that you have little interest in Buddhism. Therefore, you're not in a position to express an informed opinion on the subject matter of this thread.

 

[Gambit]

Buddha was catering to all kinds of people, those who could think for themselves and those who could not. For the latter, he said have faith in Buddha and Dhamma. To the former, he gave the 'Kalama Sutta':

"Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing (anussava), nor upon tradition (paramparā), nor upon rumor (itikirā), nor upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna), nor upon surmise (takka-hetu), nor upon an axiom (naya-hetu), nor upon specious reasoning (ākāra-parivitakka), nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over (diṭṭhi-nijjhān-akkh-antiyā), nor upon another's seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya), nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no garū).

Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and abide in them."

In regards to the Kalama Sutta, Wikipedia also states "even though one's own experience and judgement is emphasized in accepting Buddha and Buddhism, one should also heed to the counsel of the wise, meaning a Buddha or a Buddhist teacher well versed in the Buddhist teachings." (source: Wikipedia: Faith in Buddhism (Kalama Sutta)

 

[Willamena]

In regards to the Kalama Sutta, Wikipedia also states "even though one's own experience and judgement is emphasized in accepting Buddha and Buddhism, one should also heed to the counsel of the wise, meaning a Buddha or a Buddhist teacher well versed in the Buddhist teachings." (source: Wikipedia: Faith in Buddhism (Kalama Sutta)

Everyone who wishes to be a student must trust a teacher.

 

[Aupmanyav]

In regards to the Kalama Sutta, Wikipedia also states "even though one's own experience and judgement is emphasized in accepting Buddha and Buddhism, one should also heed to the counsel of the wise, meaning a Buddha or a Buddhist teacher well versed in the Buddhist teachings." (source: Wikipedia: Faith in Buddhism (Kalama Sutta)

What is wrong in heading to the advice of the wise (and elders, they have the experience of life) when one finds it reasonable? Don't we read scriptures for knowledge?

 

[Gambit]

Everyone who wishes to be a student must trust a teacher.

Agreed. Everyone who wishes to function in life must exercise some element of faith.

 

[Gambit]

What is wrong in heading to the advice of the wise (and elders, they have the experience of life) when one finds it reasonable? Don't we read scriptures for knowledge?

I never argued that there is anything necessarily wrong with it.

 

[Willamena]

Agreed. Everyone who wishes to function in life must exercise some element of faith.

...Or trust.

 

[Gambit]

...Or trust.

Agreed.

 

[LuisDantas]

Your post above is nothing more than an ad hominem attack, which in this context qualifies as a logical fallacy because it is inappropriate. It is inappropriate because I supported my claim with documentation. I'm afraid you don't have the luxury of simply ignoring that fact.

You are failing to understand what an ad hominem is.

 

[LuisDantas]

Faith matters in Buddhism. The Buddhist aspirant has faith.

I very much doubt you have a functional understanding of which meaning of faith it is supposed to be, though. The evidence points decisively against it, beginning with your own language and statements.

 

[Gambit]

You are failing to understand what an ad hominem is.

Wikipedia defines an "ad hominem" as "responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments. When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized.[2]"

You were casting aspersions against my character (alleging that I was not "acting in good faith" and "lying") instead of actually responding to the content of my argument - namely, that faith plays an important role in Buddhism - a role that I supported with appropriate documentation.

 

[Gambit]

I very much doubt you have a functional understanding of which meaning of faith it is supposed to be, though. The evidence points decisively against it, beginning with your own language and statements.

I furnished you with both the dictionary's definition of "faith" and Wikipedia's definition of "faith in Buddhism." The evidence speaks for itself.

 

[LuisDantas]

Wikipedia defines an "ad hominem" as "responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments. When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized.[2]"

My point precisely.

You were casting aspersions against my character (saying that I was not "acting in good faith" and "lying") instead of actually responding to the content of my argument - namely, that faith plays an important role in Buddhism (a role that I supported with appropriate documentation).

No, you did not. You don't realize that?

 

[Gambit]

My point precisely.

I have yet to see you make any point.

 

[LuisDantas]

I am tempted to believe you.