Talk:Faith in Buddhism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Religion / Interfaith   
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Interfaith work group.
 
WikiProject Buddhism (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Faith in Buddhism, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

The article is now inserted into Refugee (Buddhism) article as a major section. The previous version of the article was lost because it was not placed in Buddhist theology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vapour (talkcontribs) 14:42, 13 Apr 2006

NB: this article is within the purview of Dharmic Traditions and not just Buddhism.
B9 hummingbird hovering (talkcontribs) 07:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I made a note about this on the Hinduism WikiProject. Hopefully, someone can fix this. [1]   Zenwhat (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Wording[edit]

Terms like 'buddhadharma' and 'buddhavaccana' while certainly well attested and appropriate in some fora are not appropriate tone for an encyclopedia article. Try to stick to terminology that is accessible to *all* readers and which facilitates the easy finding of information (which is, presumably, the purpose of writing such an article in the first place). For the latter reason in particular, I'd put forth that the article should be renamed to Sraddha (Buddhism) with Sraddha (Buddhadharma) a redirect, if anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.46.253.42 (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

cryptic Yamamoto citations[edit]

There are a number of citations to a work by Yamamoto, but it is not clear what work they refer to. Finally, this work is cited:

The Words of St. Rennyo: Complete Translations of the Rennyoshonin-Goichidaiki-Kikigaki and the Anjinketsujosho, tr. and annotated by Dr. Kosho Yamamoto, The Karinbunko, Tokyo, 1968, p.158

but it is not clear if that applies to the previous citations or is a new one. (It looks like a new one from the content of the text.) Moonsell (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Sorry. Found the reference after all, in the " Literature" section at the end. Moonsell (talk) 10:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Faith (śraddha) in Hinduism[edit]

Not sure what this last section is doing in this article, however poetic. It doesn't seem to relate to the rest coherently. Moonsell (talk) 11:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Blind Faith[edit]

The Kālāma Sutta never mentions faith, let alone blind faith.

In fact if you look closely at the Canon faith (saddhā) almost always arises upon hearing a dhamma discourse, and never from experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.1.194 (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes this is true, the whole section on the Kalama Sutta in this article should be entirely removed and is nothing more than a lie. Also the Kalama Sutta exclusively refers to non-Buddhist disciples. The Kalamas were a group of people who were not Buddhist disciples.
Although they entirely agree with everything the Buddha says, and at the end they become his disciples, without any alteration in their stated beliefs or in the instructions give them. You too must read the text more carefully and set aside your pre-conceived ideas about what it is saying. Jayarava 10:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

--96.255.71.164 (talk) 04:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I see that someone has removed whole swathes of information on faith in Buddhism - referenced and cited information, at that - and replaced it with a much shorter article. This kind of behaviour is outrageous and is utterly unacceptable on Wikipedia: people may have spent days or weeks collecting and collating data and references for an article, and then to have it all expunged in one fell swoop constitutes nothing short of an act of vandalism. DISCUSS before making such huge changes! Please restore the removed information, while keeping the additions, by all means. Best wishes - Suddha (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

"utterly unacceptable"? But completely predictable. Just change it back if you don't like it. Jayarava 10:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Reading the section on "faith is not blind" only reinforces the fact that what is being described is precisely blind faith in all kinds of supernatural entities and forces. This whole article is evangelistic and very far from representing a neutral point of view. It is in fact Buddhists writing about their beliefs from within their own belief framework, and it is full of Buddhist jargon. Any non-Buddhist reading this would find it incomprehensible. Scrap it and start again I say. All those "days and weeks" have produced a totally substandard and highly biased account of Buddhist Faith, which contains the kind of circular logic that we Buddhists seem to revel in. Jayarava 10:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Aveccappasāda[edit]

The name of this aticle, or this section, should be changed to śraddhā in Buddhism, because it does not deal with faith more broadly. What about the word aveccappasāda? Jayarava 09:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahaabaala (talkcontribs)

Neutral Point of View[edit]

This article looks as though is has been written by Buddhists for Buddhists, in the sort of self congratulatory and superior way that we Buddhists think of ourselves. It's quite embarrassing. I think this is especially obvious in the section entitled "Faith is Not Blind". Clearly faith as described here is blind, and the self deception of the authors is staggering.

The statement "faith in the reliability of the Buddha as a truly awakened spiritual friend and faith, conviction and confidence in the three jewels (triratna)." is something only a Buddhist would accept, especially the "truly awakened" part. "Truly Awakened" clearly is an article of faith for Buddhists. Again how can a statement like "Faith as understood in this sutra is belief in the teachings of the Buddha and in the Buddha's own eternality." be anything but blind faith? Eternality is an article of faith. A third example is the phrase "the essence of ultimate truth". That Buddhism provides believers with access to "ultimate truth" is an article of faith. The authors cannot even see that they are operating within worldview which is founded on blind acceptance in these articles of faith. So the article lacks any sense of objectivity about the nature of these views. The point of view is relentlessly Buddhist of a particularly fundamentalist type.

The quotes are all very interesting and probably useful, but they do not tell the story that the religious Buddhist thinks they tell (some of the texts are patently misunderstood, but that is original research on my part). The texts are full of magical thinking, and supernatural entities and forces. This is no different from any other kind of religious faith. There is no discussion of how this looks from the outside, or any consideration that this is just what Buddhists believe. Perhaps because another article of faith we Buddhists cling to is that our belief system is based on Reality and Truth. Buddhists understand Buddhism to be the ultimate truth about the universe, and that anyone who does not agree is delusional.

This whole articles needs looking over by someone who is not a Buddhist to see if it is comprehensible in a framework that does not accept the Buddhist articles of faith. I suspect it is not, and therefore it is not acceptable in Wikipedia terms. At the very least it should repeatedly use phrases like "Buddhists believe that...".

Jayarava 10:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahaabaala (talkcontribs)

  • I could not agree with you more! It is so amusing to me that Buddhists think they do not have blind faith when so many things in the Doctrine (such as trans-reincarnational karmic effects, or eternal Nirvana, or the power of preaching and teaching the Lotus Sutra to help liberate one from ongoing suffering) require as much blind faith for one lifetime (or more) as teachings of any other religion. Take the figure of the Buddha, for example: how do we know that he could see all the lives, past and present, of all beings? Simply because he said so? Is not believing this an example of 'blind faith'? Personally I do not think there is necessarily anything wrong with faith: so much in spiritual matters does require it as a working hypothesis at least. Anyhow, I think you are right when you say that the article should more frequently state, '(Some) Buddhists believe that ...'. Best wishes. From Suddha (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Is faith even a good word to use?[edit]

I don't think it is. This article grafts a Christian understanding of faith onto a very different tradition. Lumping everything under the same category as though Christian theology can provide the universal categorical template for all other traditions is wildly misleading, reductive, and, frankly, colonialist (though I imagine all of this is unintentional - it's our inherited intellectual/ideological habit).

For instance, the Tibetan word that is often translated as "faith", དད་པ་ (dad pa), really means something much closer to "devotion", and refers most commonly to the confidence a student has in their lama, not a faith in particular tenets of Buddhism. I'd guess that our contemporary use of "faith" comes out of a protestant understanding of the word, which simply does not apply to Buddhism (or any other tradition, I'd wager).

We might be tempted to impose our understanding of faith, as in when we say that "Buddhists have faith in the truth of reincarnation", etc., but I don't think that this is an accurate way of understanding the tradition. Do we say that we have faith that the world is round? No, we say that we know it. How do we know it? For most of us, we accept it based on tradition and authority (i.e. most people believe that the world is round, but have no firsthand experience to prove it other than their confidence in what others have said).

We should think of the Buddhist confidence in reincarnation, karma, etc. in the same way: they are facts to them, not articles of faith. Faith implies that there is some room for doubt, but the Buddhist (except Western converts) aren't going to doubt these facts anymore than we doubt gravity.

This is not to say that articles should be written from the faith perspective, but that they should represent their subject matter as accurately as possible.

In my opinion, this whole article should be axed and Buddhism should not be included under the faith article that redirects here.

Joechip123 (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

  • You make some good points. The Sanskrit word 'sraddha' and its cognate form in Pali do, however, denote 'faith' or 'belief', and it is quite clear that followers of the Buddha were expected to have faith in the accuracy of his transcendental knowledge and visionary doctrines (the Awakening experience, after all, was a visionary one of a paranormal nature). This stress on belief or faith in the truth of the Dharma and the Buddha as its flawless propagator is especially marked in the Mahayana. Most people, for example, have not experienced Nirvana or Parinirvana, so it remains an article of faith that such a deep and blissful state/realm that is described as 'inconceivable' (acintya) actually exists. No, this entry on Faith in Buddhism should not be deleted,in my opinion (not least as it counters the widespread erroneous view that Buddhism is wholly rational and logical, which it certainly is not); but perhaps a section could be added expressing the ideas you have advanced. Best wishes to you. Suddha (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

straddha - Advaita Vedanta[edit]

It should be noted that straddha is a fundamental criteria for students of orthodox Advaita (non-dual) Vedanta (literally, the end of the Vedas). (Advaita: uh dwite tuh, in Sanskrit, generally, the vacara, V, is pronounced as a W when it follows a consonant). Its meaning is much deeper than simple open mindedness. It is the capacity to look upon the teachings, consisting mainly of the Upanishads, very small sections found at the end of each of the four Vedas, Bhagavad Gita, and commentaries by Sri Shankara, as sacred. For students who are believers in "God," e.g., for Christians the sanctity given would be the same as is given to the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. For "non-believers," the sanctity could be the same as is given to the belief that every act has an effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomasananda (talkcontribs) 06:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)