The matter of faith

[Malcolm]

I say that we only really have faith in that which we ourselves know.

The less we ourselves know, the less faith there is.

If we know that someone is an awakened person, than as the Eastern Gatehouse shows, we can have confidence in what they say.

N

[KevinSolway]

If we know that someone is an awakened person, than as the Eastern Gatehouse shows, we can have confidence in what they say.

Yes, but you would only know that they were awakened if you yourself were awakened. So you would only trust them inasmuch as you can trust yourself.

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

utterly lacking nuance ...

Hm ... is it irony to say that something lacks nuance "utterly"?

Hehehe

[Kunga Lhadzom]

I say that we only really have faith in that which we ourselves know.

The less we ourselves know, the less faith there is.

If you KNOW (by experience), then faith is not required.
Faith is when you trust fully, someone/something outside of your experience (lack of experience)...because you have faith in them, that they are not liars, but truthful.

It is not possible to KNOW EVERYTHING 100% of the time.


http://www.shindharmanet.com/writings/faith.htm

[Will]

This a good little survey re: faith - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_in_Buddhism

[Malcolm]

If we know that someone is an awakened person, than as the Eastern Gatehouse shows, we can have confidence in what they say.

Yes, but you would only know that they were awakened if you yourself were awakened. So you would only trust them inasmuch as you can trust yourself.

No, this is false inference.

You can infere someone's awakening, or lack thereof, much in the same manner as a fire can be inferred from the presence of smoke.

N

[catmoon]

I say that we only really have faith in that which we ourselves know.

The less we ourselves know, the less faith there is.

I have faith that the teachings are reasonably accurate and there is rebirth. I don't claim it to be knowledge, but rather a belief I hold. Doesn't this contradict your first statement?

[KevinSolway]

I say that we only really have faith in that which we ourselves know.

The less we ourselves know, the less faith there is.

I have faith that the teachings are reasonably accurate and there is rebirth. I don't claim it to be knowledge, but rather a belief I hold. Doesn't this contradict your first statement?

I reckon that your faith would be immeasurably greater if you actually knew it to be true.

[KevinSolway]

If we know that someone is an awakened person, than as the Eastern Gatehouse shows, we can have confidence in what they say.

Yes, but you would only know that they were awakened if you yourself were awakened. So you would only trust them inasmuch as you can trust yourself.

No, this is false inference.

You can infere someone's awakening, or lack thereof, much in the same manner as a fire can be inferred from the presence of smoke.

Yes, strictly speaking you can infer, but you can't accurately infer very far from what you already know. The more you stretch the inference, the more likely you are to be mistaken. And there is always some degree of guesswork involved with inferences, which can lead to grief.

To take an extreme example, a person who has almost no idea what a fire is, or how to detect it, can make all sorts of mistaken inferences.

[catmoon]

I say that we only really have faith in that which we ourselves know.

The less we ourselves know, the less faith there is.

I have faith that the teachings are reasonably accurate and there is rebirth. I don't claim it to be knowledge, but rather a belief I hold. Doesn't this contradict your first statement?

I reckon that your faith would be immeasurably greater if you actually knew it to be true.

That is surely true.

edit: or is it? If I knew it to be true, what need would there be for faith?

[Dechen Norbu]

If one has certainty, one doesn't need faith. If one has faith, one can't have certainty. They are mutually exclusive. You either have one or the other. Knowing something for sure is having certainty, so there's no faith involved. Faith is believing something to be true based on intuition, reasoning, inference and so on (or wishful thinking in the worst case), not direct knowledge.

[KevinSolway]

If I knew it to be true, what need would there be for faith?

"There is nothing more difficult to believe in than the truth" is an ancient Chinese saying, I just made up myself.

It is also said, "Truth is a flower in whose neighbourhood others must wither."

[Kunga Lhadzom]

Sometimes the others wither from toxic fumes

[Acchantika]

If I knew it to be true, what need would there be for faith?

"There is nothing more difficult to believe in than the truth" is an ancient Chinese saying, I just made up myself.

It is also said, "Truth is a flower in whose neighbourhood others must wither."

"Truth can never be told so as to be understood, and not be believed." ~ Blake

[Kunga Lhadzom]

But a Lotus can only grow from the mud.

(Experiencing suffering/hardships can be fruitful sometimes, in that you can learn the most from those hard experiences, and flourish from them. )

[KeithBC]

Yes, but you don't know who is wise until such time that you have wisdom - at which time you are wise yourself, and you can heed your own advice.

I disagree. Most people who pay even a little bit of attention to what is going on around them can tell a wise person when they meet one.

Om mani padme hum
Keith

[KeithBC]

I reckon that your faith would be immeasurably greater if you actually knew it to be true.

That is surely true.
edit: or is it? If I knew it to be true, what need would there be for faith?

It is true, but it devolves to a trivial case that is not worth discussing.

Om mani padme hum
Keith

[Will]

I say that we only really have faith in that which we ourselves know.

The less we ourselves know, the less faith there is.

I have faith that the teachings are reasonably accurate and there is rebirth. I don't claim it to be knowledge, but rather a belief I hold. Doesn't this contradict your first statement?

I reckon that your faith would be immeasurably greater if you actually knew it to be true.

Her point is, I think, that knowledge supplants faith. If one knew "it" to be true, then faith is not relevant.

[KevinSolway]

Yes, but you don't know who is wise until such time that you have wisdom - at which time you are wise yourself, and you can heed your own advice.

I disagree. Most people who pay even a little bit of attention to what is going on around them can tell a wise person when they meet one.

When you meet someone whom you believe to be wise, is it not because you recognize in them a truth which you have within yourself? Perhaps the person appears to have a clearer conception of that truth, or has triggered a clarification of your own truth. Nevertheless, the truth is your own.

[KeithBC]

When you meet someone whom you believe to be wise, is it not because you recognize in them a truth which you have within yourself? Perhaps the person appears to have a clearer conception of that truth, or has triggered a clarification of your own truth. Nevertheless, the truth is your own.

The one you recognize may be your own. But having judged him as wise, it is useful to pay attention to what else he has to say.

Om mani padme hujm
Keith