Can you have faith, but disbelieve the Buddha?
Facebook’s a funny place. You’ll post a link to a really brilliant, informative, insightful, and useful article on meditation and get very little response, and then post a picture of a dog meditating and get swamped with “likes” and comments. An example of the latter happened recently when I idly shared this cartoon on reincarnation. (It’s from speedbump.com — go visit the site, and consider buying a cartoon.)
Of course someone asked me what my own view on rebirth was, and I replied to the effect that on balance I’m not a believer. I made clear it’s not that I deny the possibility of rebirth — it just seems vanishingly unlikely that any kind of consciousness can exist outside of a brain, or be transferred from one brain to another. I guess you could say I’m an agnostic, and a skeptical one at that.
But this admission suddenly created a discussion in which it was suggested that I was lacking and downplaying faith, and had “modern rationalist prejudice” against the idea of rebirth.
I don’t really want to write too much about rebirth here — I’ll save that for another post — but I would like to say something about the nature of faith (saddha in Pali, or shraddha in Sanskrit) in Buddhism, and how having it doesn’t mean that you have to believe everything the Buddha said.
I’d also like to point out that saddha (faith) has very little to do, in the Buddhist tradition, with belief in things that you can’t verify in your experience.
Early Buddhist texts tell us that when you attain the first level of spiritual awakening (stream entry) you have have unshakable faith in three things: the Buddha, his teaching (the Dhamma), and the spiritual community (the Sangha). But it’s important to examine how each of these things is described.
First, faith in the Buddha.
The disciple of the noble ones is endowed with verified confidence in the Awakened One: ‘Indeed, the Blessed One is worthy and rightly self-awakened, consummate in knowledge & conduct, well-gone, an expert with regard to the world, unexcelled as a trainer for those people fit to be tamed, the Teacher of divine & human beings, awakened, blessed.’
The faith being advocated here is confidence that the Buddha is a realized teacher: that he has attained spiritual awakening and that he’s able to guide us to that same awakening.
Now, we can’t directly verify for ourselves that the Buddha was awakened. But we can read his words, and see the effects of Buddhist practice in others, and in our own lives, and on that basis develop confidence that there was something special about him — that he had some extraordinary insight. And we can have confidence that his teaching, in principle, can led to us having the same insight. This isn’t blind faith. It’s faith rooted in experience.
Second, faith in the Dhamma (teachings, path):
He is endowed with verified confidence in the Dhamma: ‘The Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One, to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the wise for themselves.’
I’m not going to parse this entire passage, but here, faith is confidence that the Buddha’s teaching is something that can be verified (“inviting verification … to be seen here and now … to be realized”).
The core of this confidence is recognition of the Dhamma as a verifiable process. We can’t — and this is important — verify the Dharma in its entirety right now. It has to be verified in our experience, and that takes time. Again, there’s no blind faith involved.
Third, faith in the Sangha, or spiritual community:
He is endowed with verified confidence in the Sangha: ‘The Sangha of the Blessed One’s disciples who have practiced well…who have practiced straight-forwardly…who have practiced methodically…who have practiced masterfully — [the various types of awakened individuals] — they are the Sangha of the Blessed One’s disciples: worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of respect, the incomparable field of merit for the world.’
This seems a straightforward kind of confidence: confidence that it’s a good thing to master the teachings and become spiritually awakened, that it’s a good thing to respect and honor people who have done so. This is an aspirational attitude, and also a devotional attitude, which is very important in Buddhist practice. It’s why you’ll see Buddhists bowing in front of Buddha statues (and to each other!). We need to respect and honor goodness and wisdom when we see it. But again, there’s no blind faith involved.
So this is the kind of faith that someone who is a stream entrant has, that someone who has reached the first level of awakening has. These types of faith are called “factors of stream entry” and they’re not only seen as characteristics of the stream entrant, but as means to gain stream entry itself. It has very little — nothing, really — to do with belief in things that you can’t verify in your experience. It’s all “provisional trust” in something that you intend to, and can, verify.
I’d like to come back and talk a little about the teaching of rebirth. The scriptures are full of references to rebirth and to afterlives in heaven or hell. Although some have argued that the Buddha only taught rebirth as an accommodation to the culture he lived in, I see that in itself as a leap of faith! We know something of what the Buddha said, but we can never know what he was thinking if it was different from what he is recorded as having said. It seems reasonable to accept that the Buddha believed in rebirth.
Does that mean that I should, out of faith, believe in rebirth? I don’t think it does. For one thing, I can’t verify the existence of rebirth in my own experience. I don’t remember any previous lives, and there are always going to be questions hovering over the accounts of people who say they do. I can’t 100% verify their accounts. In fact I can’t verify their accounts at all, since all I’ve ever had to go on are other people’s accounts of their accounts.
For another thing, the Buddha said other things that we know to be incorrect — or at least he’s recorded as having said those things. There is no mountain hundreds of thousands of miles high, around which four continents are arranged. Those continents do not float on water, which in turn does not rest on air. Earthquakes therefore are not caused by the air which lies under the water which lies under the continents.
The Buddha’s area of expertise was spiritual psychology. Evidently, he didn’t know any more about geography, geology, and cosmology than any other educated Indian of his time. Although I recognize the Buddha as a sure guide to overcoming greed, hatred, and spiritual delusion, I’ve no reason to believe that he had any special insight into what happens after death.
Most importantly, though, it makes no difference to my practice to be skeptical of the reality of rebirth. I’m going to make the most of this life, whether or not I’ll be reborn. In fact, I’d argue that thinking it’s probable that this is the only life I’ll have gives me more of a sense of urgency about practicing. In fact the Buddha’s recorded as saying that his disciples can have the assurance that “if there is no fruit [in future lives] of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.”
If that was good enough for the Buddha, then that’s good enough for me.
4 Responses to “Can you have faith, but disbelieve the Buddha?”
Leave your comment below
About this entry
You’re currently reading “Can you have faith, but disbelieve the Buddha?,” an entry on Bodhipaksa's blog, bodhi tree swaying
Published: Jan 23 2012
If we regard Buddhism as a combination of a philosophy, psychology and religion, then we can get a surprising amount of mileage from the first two aspects before we have to start invoking religious faith: http://rational-buddhism.blogspot.com/2011/05/rational-buddhism.html
Interesting post. I have had several such question on this subject from others and sometimes to myself. I thought of sharing my ideas – and I’m sorry if you think I’m just repeating what you already known.
It is interesting that you had to spend such a long time explaining to your friends whether or not you have faith. But here is the deal: to get started on the path to nibbana, one needs to start with dukkha. Until one experiences dukkha, one cannot even desire deliverance from dukkha. But just that is not enough. According to the Upanisa Sutta where this transcendent sequence to deliverance from suffering is explained, we need faith for us to start on the path. But from what you seem to say, faith comes only after stream entry. That poses a major problem. If we can have faith only after stream entry and stream entry can happen only if we start on the path and that is possible only if we have faith, it sounds like a chicken and egg problem. It is obvious we need to build faith slowly, and develop it, but how can we do it?
For this reason I think that it would not be right to say that stream entry is when one gets faith. Stream entry is when all doubt regarding the Noble eightfold path would melt away. It is a higher stage in faith. Because doubt regarding the path will melt away one would no longer feel even remotely unhappy that one will no longer return remain stuck in samsara. Let’s face it, although we have some interest in the Dhamma, a lot of people practicing it sometimes question themselves “Why do I really need nirvana? Why not simply learn a little meditation and remain a little cool?” There are also some who wish they could be englightened and simultaneously rich, or marry the woman they passionately desire, etc. This is the expression of doubt. When all desire to even have an existence in samsara is completely burned out, that is stream entry. In fact if you understand the literal meaning of the word “Shrota Prajn~a” in Sanskrit or sotapan~na in Pali one would see how this meaning fits perfectly well with what I just described.
But I have another view when it comes to faith itself. Faith is not regarding the teachings of the Buddha as a person. What is actually required is a different sort of faith:
1. Faith in free will: This is quite deceptively simple. Faith in one’s own ability to freely decide what is the right thing to do is a precursor to the faith in one’s ability to see if action of one type is good or bad. One does not really need scripture, or authority or some God to tell us what morality is all about. But regardless of what one accepts here, the basic faith required is that we do have free will and that we can direct our will appropriately. When I say this I don’t mean to make an ontological statement that “there exists a mental property called will”. I simply mean to say that we have the capacity to exercise free will. A lot of people suspend everything to God’s will or the will of nature etc. Even in science, the basic assumption is that it is possible for us to make controlled observations. That is an element of faith in one’s capacity for free will.
Further, this also means that we take responsibility for our actions, by recognizing that none of what we have got is possible if we never had will. We would take responsibility for our actions, recognizing that it is due to our will that the results have come about. This is very important for it brings to focus on volitions, rather than on external bodily actions.
2. We can and should be able to identify what is morally just with our own intelligence. It seems that this should be easy to have. But a lot of people think of teleological, deontological and eudaimonial roots for ethics. While the last one comes pretty close to what the Buddha taught, the actual thing the Buddha taught us to consider is whether our actions would cause suffering or alleviation from suffering. The whole world is to be viewed in terms of the four noble truths and if we do it all the time in life, we won’t need a rulebook of ethics to follow. We will know the principle from which all moral and ethical rules arise. We have the ability to identify suffering very easily – this is not rocket science. To know if someone else is suffering is not hard – it is not impossible to imagine ourselves in someone else’s shoes. So the ability to discern what sort of actions lead to suffering and what sort don’t lead to suffering is right within us. Accepting this is a rather important aspect of faith and I don’t think I can overemphasize it.
As you have paid very close attention to the Kalama Sutta, you may notice that the Buddha ascertained that the Kalamas had the ability to identify suffering and lack of suffering by using his maxim regarding skillful and unskillful actions. He did not simply say that “think for yourself” or “look for what the ‘wise’ would praise”. He demonstrated his maxim on how to identify moral action on the basis of the understanding of suffering with several examples. In other words he showed people that they do have the ability to decide if their actions are moral or not and they don’t need someone else to guide them.
3. We need faith that we do have the capacity to know things as they are, or to know the law of nature without intervention from some divine entity. This is a very important aspect of the Dhamma that a lot of people ignore and this is why it is highly scientific. The Dhamma aligns with science because both strive to identify natural explanations for the phenomena in the world – and what faith requires us to accept is that we have the ability to know this for ourselves without the aid of some other person, or some other teacher or some other entity. This particular aspect of faith does not mean that a teacher is of no value, but that a teacher is only one that can point to the truth, knowledge of reality is something we have to realize ourselves. Furthermore, it also suggests that even if there is no teacher, we can know the laws of nature on our own, through our own investigation and appropriate attention. This aspect of faith is essential, not just because it says that we CAN know reality, it also implies that we HAVE TO know reality first hand. This emphasis on direct knowledge is scientific, but more importantly, it is precisely because of this emphasis that the Buddha laid on the Dhamma, that it was even effective. The Dhamma could not be effective if people accept that one can know things oneself and yet accept someone else’s declarations. We have to have enough faith in ourselves as to decide how much we are willing to accept somebody’s claims.
In fact this particular faculty is something the Buddha himself demonstrated. When he went to learn from Alara Kalama and others he did not immediately accept that Alara Kalama is a realized being, even though that’s what Alara Kalama claimed. Further, when he did attain to the same mental states that Alara Kalama had attained, he did not accept that this was the final goal. He had the honesty to question himself even further. This requires immense faith in oneself – that “even if I have confirmed someone’s findings, I do still have the ability to see further unsolved problems that perhaps I will have to resolve on my own.” Many of us will be satisfied once we confirm someone else’s findings.
This aspect of the Dhamma ensures that nobody on the path limits himself just because he attains the stages that his own teacher attained and fools himself that there is nothing further than that – not until he is truly fully liberated.
4. Finally, the last piece of faith required is faith in one’s ability to train one’s mind to such a point of clarity that we have transformed it totally, removed all possible defilements, and with clear knowing we can remain aloof from all suffering altogether. This is a giant leap of faith. One needs to accept that it is possible to alleviate suffering for oneself from the root. When the odds are stacked against us, it is hard to have this faith. But it is essential. If you don’t have the faith that you have the makings of a great athelete, you will never strive for it and you will never win the athletic gold. In fact, the world’s greatest stories of self determination show how faith has been employed by people to achieve their goals, despite a mountain of odds being stacked against them. In the same way, the path to enlightenment is hard, long and ardous. But with determination, we will be able to get there. This is a very big leap of faith, yet it is essential for nibbana.
If you notice, none of these require you to believe in the Buddha as a teacher. They only require you to have faith in yourself. Further more, nowhere are you required to have “faith” in any doctrinal aspects of the Dhamma, such as rebirth.
You don’t have to believe the Buddha. I have also had a lot of doubts regarding this doctrine, despite the fact that I am born in a Hindu family where ideas of reincarnation are easily accepted – in even staunchly believed.
But an examination of what the Buddha said is due. He only talked of birth as something sustained by the production of new consciousness and new becoming. He said that at the time of death if there is any clinging, then consciousness, sustained by clinging leads to further consciousness in accordance to one’s volitions. This is something that is happening every single moment even in our present life. In this sense therefore we are constantly reborn. Then what is death and what is birth? In the current life, consciousness is sustained by both the body and by our volitions. If the body dies, consciousness is sustained by clinging. This is something he said, but we have no obligation to believe him on any of these things.
In fact I have not been able to identify consciousness as separate from volition as yet in my meditations. So the question of whether consciousness is sustained by volitions or not etc. is not even important for me right now. So for now, I have suspended belief in this.
And like you I have also found solace in the four assurances at the end of the Kalama Sutta.
Last point regarding this consciousness sustenance point:
If clinging is also not present (and the body is dead), then no further consciousness can be produced and that is parinibbana – no further birth at all.
Until that time, when the body is alive but clinging has been destroyed, the only difference between a living arahant or Buddha and the rest of us, is that his consciousness is only sustained by his body and some volitions required to be able to live. At this point, the arahant can make one last relegation of volition – the will to live – when he gives up this will also, he can choose to let the body die on its own and his consciousness is sustained only so long as the body has to live. Hypothetically, he can do it any time he wants. In theory there is no limit to how long a Buddha can let his body remain alive. But I think realistically, he can do it so long as the body has the requisite conditions to survive. He can choose when he wants to give up living.
Buddhist Disclaimer 1: I have no clue if any of these things is even remotely true. I have not gotten enlightened. I am simply relating what I understand from the Pali Canon. Please investigate for yourself.
I haven’t yet read all of your comment (it’s late, I’m tired, the comment’s very long) but I wasn’t implying that only a stream entrant had faith. You can’t become a stream entrant without faith. What a stream entrant traditionally has is, as I said above, “unshakable faith” in the three jewels. Before stream entry, faith comes and goes.