FAITH, THE THREE PRAJNAS AND ALONENESS. OR, ARE BUDDHISTS BELIEVERS?

       1.0
       The reason I’ve decided to start with this question is twofold. The first pertains to understanding the view the Dharma
       presents. The second reason is to point to the function of the Dharma, and especially to the question of whether it is a
       “faith” based view. That is, are the people, like me, who subscribe to this view “believers”? But, perhaps before
       tackling those questions, we should answer another: what do we mean when we say Dharma?

       1.1
       Dharma is a Sanskriti word; it’s Páli equivalent is Dhamma. Generally, there are three usages for the word dharma.
       The first concerns what the Buddha taught. Common English usage is Dharma, with a capital “D”. The second usage
       refers to phenomena, things, and any constituent of a moment of existence. The third usage refers to truth, to things as
       they are. Thus it refers to ultimate reality. Generally, in the third instance, it is embedded in another word, such as
       dharmakaya or dharmadhathu. In summary then, the first usage pertains to what the Buddha taught, the second
       pertains to the qualities or types of phenomena and noumena, and the third usage pertains to the ultimate nature of
       phenomena. This series of essays will utilize all three definitions.

       1.2
       The Dharma is likened to philosophy; it possesses an internally coherent logic, and is concerned with the nature of
       existence and the means of apprehending phenomena. It has been likened to psychology; it is concerned with states of
       mind and offers an extensive survey of the formation of consciousness and its various displays. It considers the mind
       body relationship, especially as regards perception, and is thus concerned with topics examined by
       neuro-physiologists. There is an experiential aspect that accompanies each of these characteristics as well, so it is also
       understood to mean a path, or a way of relating to one’s life. It also displays the characteristics of a religion. Clearly
       then, we are dealing with a broad topic.

       1.3
       To return to the original question then, the concept of faith, or belief in Buddhism arises in two contexts. The first is
       within what is called the view, and the second is epistemological. View refers to the big picture, what is meant by the
       Dharma, what happens and why. We will deal with the latter type of faith in greater detail when discussing
       epistemology. It suffices now, however, to say that within epistemology, faith is the bottom rung on a three rung
       ladder. To understand the view, however, one is recommended to practice what are known as the three prajnas, or
       three intelligences. Essentially, the three prajnas are just a means of studying a topic thoroughly. They are, however,
       the recommended means in the Buddhist tradition. ii The three are hearing, contemplating and meditating.

       1.4
       In the context of the view, faith is one of eleven virtuous mental factors. About faith, the Ten Dharmas Sutra says:
       Virtuous qualities cannot grow in a person without faith, as a green sprout does not grow from a burnt seed.
       The Garland of Buddhas Sutra says: a worldly person with little faith cannot understand the Buddha’s
       enlightenment.
       And the Noble Profound Representation Sutra says: Ananda! Fuse your mind with faith. This is the request of
       the Tathagata. iii

       1.5
       Faith is defined as: ‘appreciation and belief’iv , where appreciation is understood to connote a ‘sense of feeling joyful
       or enthusiastic about something, or being inspired by it. And belief has the quality of wishing to attain something,
       having the interest enough in something that you wish to attain it yourself.’v So to summarize, faith means
       enthusiastically appreciating the qualities of something, or feeling inspired by them, and wishing to attain those qualities.
       This view of faith would seem to be capable of only taking inward directed concepts as its object. For example, one
       could look at Jesus and have enthusiastic, or inspired inspiration of his qualities, and may therefore wish to possess the
       same qualities by means of imitating Christ. This sort of faith clearly doesn’t apply to ontological, epistemological or
       historical questions, such as whether god created the universe, or if the Buddha attained enlightenment. It does pertain
       to the question: ‘Can I attain enlightenment, and if so, how?’ Or, similarly, it answers questions such as ‘That guy on
       TV is a millionaire -- can I become a millionaire? too’

       1.6
       Faith is further divided into three types: Faith of Confidence, also known as Trusting Faith; Inspired Faith, or Longing
       Faith, and Aspiring Faith, or Clear Faith. Each faith has its own object (as the object of theistic religions is the
       existence of the deity). Faith of Confidence takes as its object the Truth of Causation which subsumes the Four Noble
       Truths. What this means is that one looks and sees that actions have results and that one can experience those results.
       The object of Inspired Faith are the qualities of the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha. Here, one looks at the
       qualities of the three jewels and recognizes that they are virtuous, and that they are accessible. Clear Faith arises as
       the result of the first two. And in fact, one can see the three faiths as a matter of causal relationship. Clear faith does
       not arise unless there is inspired faith. Inspired faith arises when the Faith of Confidence is present. The Faith of
       Confidence arises as a result of gaining certainty of the Four Noble Truths.

       1.7
       Looking at the first type of faith, the faith of Confidence, one must attain certainty of the Four Noble Truths. This
       certainty demands some sort of gnosis – and that knowledge in turn requires a means of acquisition. The first Noble
       Truth, the Truth of Suffering states, for example, that from start to finish, our lives are pervaded by suffering. Well, all
       of us have enjoyed the company of good friends, lovers, good food, good times etc. So where then did the Buddha,
       the Omniscient One, get the idea that existence is permeated with confusion? Does one just ‘take it on faith’ that life
       really only is a continuum of discontentment? Does one try to con oneself into believing this? If one did take that view,
       wouldn’t the result be a gloomy, pessimistic outlook?

       1.8
       Here it makes sense to recall the Buddha’s admonition to his monks: “Monks, do not accept these words just
       because I say them, or out of respect for me. But accept them like a merchant who only accepts gold after he has
       hammered it and melted it.”vi . So, we’re back to the view, back to the prajnas of hearing, contemplating and
       listening.

       1.9
       Hearing means receiving the words, getting what was said. It precedes understanding what has been said. The point is
       to get the words and to get the meaning of the words – without putting our personal spin on them. An analogy might
       be receiving an unassembled apparatus you are unfamiliar with. First you look at the list of parts, you count the parts
       and you match their shapes with the names in the diagrams or instructions; you still don’t discern their functions,
       however. Whether the apparatus will ‘work’ or not also has not yet been determined. The point of hearing then, is that
       before you can contemplate or scrutinize what has been taught – let alone put it to work, you have to receive the literal
       contents of the teaching. Were we to skip this first prajna, hearing, you might naturally presume that the concept of
       ‘faith’, as it is used in the west, was immediately translatable into a Buddhist context.

       1.10
       Contemplating, the second prajna, means just that. Having gotten the words, and understood, or at least defined, the
       meaning of the words, you can test them to determine whether they make sense, if they are true. In the case of ‘faith’
       having gotten the meaning of the words, we can analyze them and test them against our own experience or against
       reason.

       1.11
       Meditation is the third prajna. Through meditation one learns to stabilize one’s mind, to clarify it, and to strengthen it.
       These conditions enable one to look closely at the nature of mind itself. (It is here, within the domain of the experience
       of consciousness, that Buddhism, I believe, vastly outshines western science. Conversely, what Buddhists know about
       the brain is, given its 2500 year history, woefully little). It is in this way that we gain direct experience of the dharma.

       1.12
       The three prajnas may also be related to Buddhist epistemology. As mentioned before, there’s a three rung ladder. In
       its proper application, faith is the first step on a threefold path toward gnosis. So, epistemologically speaking, faith
       refers to the attitude with which we hear the teachings. It is really no different from the attitude we take in listening to a
       lecture on classical physics, for example. We accept the authority of the lecturer and we believe that if we apply a
       certain methodology we will be able to replicate the results he predicts. Or, if the presentation were more esoteric, we
       would trust that we could at least arrive, via inference, at the same conclusions the presenter has. We may not
       completely understand the topic, but we may not fully abandon it either because there is a consistent internal logic, and
       doing so might be tantamount to tossing the baby with the bath-water. In fact, it is in this way that the tenets of
       Buddhism have evolved over the centuries – they are constantly being refined, with wrong views being eliminated and
       so on. Nonetheless, there also exists a sort of ‘unquestioned faith’. Here one hears something and takes it as true on
       face value alone. This view is common amongst the great unwashed massesvii of the Buddhist world. For example, in
       Korea, many people have ‘heard’ that the Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara intervenes on behalf of devoted supplicants.
       In Thailand, young men spend at least three months of their lives in temporary ordination because many of them
       believe it will benefit their ancestors (or at least shut-up their nagging parents). But this type of ‘knowledge’ (or lack
       of) is universal, and its objects are infinite. Moreover, the attitude that accepts such ‘knowledge’ directly contradicts
       the Buddha’s admonition.

       1.13
       Contemplation is somewhat analogous to the second rung of the epistemological ladder. Tibetan Buddhists, in
       particular, rely heavily on logic, inference and concept to establish the validity of the teachings. It is understood that the
       logic, or the inferences are not the thing – but that they may be a means to direct perception, the third rung.viii Direct
       perception is just that. Pure perception, unfettered by subject/object duality. It represents the quality of awakened
       mind. It is, also the epistemological ideal to which all other endeavors are directed. To summarize then, the means by
       which we who are not awakened buddhas is first by hearing something from another person. We accept what we’ve
       heard about an object, to the point that we can test it intellectually and establish, at least through inference, whether it
       is true or possible. Here faith, as defined above is at work. We trust, on the basis of scriptural authority, or that of our
       teachers, that if we engage in the necessary meditative practice and study, we can, in principle, verify the findings of
       the Buddha or our teachers empirically, or at least inferentially. Finally, through meditation, or practice, we can have
       direct experience or knowledge of the object.

       1.14
       If nothing else, the three prajnas signify that the Buddhist path requires one to actively participate in one’s liberation.
       Indeed. The Buddha’s final words were “Monks, work out your own salvation!”. Because Buddhism is a non-theistic
       tradition, it means that one is all alone with regards to one’s salvation. No god will intervene to save one, no
       bodhisattva will do the work for you. Thus the question of belief, if it arises at all, is instantly turned back on the
       questioner, to become, ‘Do I have the ability to do this? Am I willing to do this?’ As one begins to hear the Dharma
       then, one begins to relate it to one’s life. From that a sense of confidence arises. As one begins to bring the dharma
       into ones life as a result of practice, one has the experience of the dharma and one’s confidence increases further. This
       may be analogous to living in a foreign country and not speaking the language. At a certain point, after failing to
       procure food, after consistently getting on wrong buses and trains – and being stranded in the middle of nowhere, after
       not being able to get electricity or water turned on, one finally accepts the idea that if they understood the language,
       the amount of suffering in their life would drop tremendously. Then one has to ask? ‘can I do this? How can I do
       this?’ For anyone who has ever learned a foreign language, you know you have to get the words, then figure out what
       they mean. Having done so, you gain a little confidence and this is reinforced experientially when one marches out to
       the local fruit stand and successfully acquires bananas and proper change. As one continues to learn the language, the
       richness of the culture in which one lives begins to be revealed. All the noises, all the signs which previously were just
       a mess of noise and twisted iconography begin to yield information and the world becomes an inviting place! So faith
       seems to mean having confidence as a result of understanding what is going on, and trusting in ones experience of
       what one is doing.

       1.15
       Finally, it seems to make some sense to explain faith in the context of my own experience. There is much that I’ve
       read about, such as beings who fly through the air, or transferring consciousness’ about which I am thoroughly
       incredulous. It is understood, however, that these abilities are byproducts of meditation and are not goals in and of
       themselves. This is for the simple reason that they don’t pertain to liberation from suffering. On the other hand, as a
       result of my own limited study and practice, I have discovered inferentially that cyclical existence is a possibility that
       can’t be ruled out, and experientially, that what the Buddha taught vis. the subject-object relationship and the Four
       Noble Truths is indeed true. This is a very interesting point to me. As a result of having applied the three prajnas to the
       question of the nature of my existence, I’ve reached an inferential and, albeit short lived, experiential understanding of
       the emptiness of a self-existing Tim A. Meantime, some folks on the board have arrived at an inferential understanding
       of the absence of a self as a result of hearing and contemplating the monist/materialist view of consciousness. But – the
       key difference is the latter group have no faith in their ability to overcome the attachment to that self which results in
       behavior that can only be explained or justified by anything except a belief in that self. In other words, although many
       believe there is no self, that self is purely the physical mechanics of the brain, people still behave as though there were
       a self. We like, we dislike, we covet, we avoid and so on. If we truly believe there is no self, why then do we suffer?
       What other reason could there be except they have no faith in the qualities of non-self, or in their own ability to
       experience that non-self?
 

       1.16
       Conversely, while it is stated somewhere in the Pali Canon that the world is flat, I don’t think there are any Buddhists
       who hold that view – why? Because it’s been shown to be false. What is important to bear in mind is that what we are
       working with here is mind and how it relates to phenomena. It is about our experience of ourselves. This is
       problematic for the skeptic because of the implicit emphasis of subjective experience. Subjectivity is a topic for
       another discussion, however. Still, three points might be made at this time. The first is that there is a uniformity of
       experiences amongst practitioners going back over two millennia, so what one is likely to experience subjectively is
       predictable. Secondly, there are many experiences which can arise, but which, while fantastic, are just by products
       and of no benefit to realization. The danger is that one might impute some meaning to them. We encounter examples
       of this all the time on the board: some folks believe in ADC’s, whereas Russel (in a recent post) pointed out that for
       two days after his father died, he heard the voice of his dad telling him to take care of his mother – but did not chalk
       up the experience to the paranormal. The Buddhist response would be that such an experience 1) has no bearing on
       one’s realization and should be disregarded on those grounds, and 2) holding to such an experience will hinder one
       more than it could ever help one. The third point is that Buddhism is less concerned with how change happens,
       whether it through channels posited in Buddhist texts or as a result of physiological events that are explained by
       western science. Instead, they are concerned with how to change. Therefore, most Buddhists, or at least western
       ones, would (and do) accept the results of scientific endeavors. They may not, however, accept the metaphysical
       underpinnings which are implicit in the technology. More on that in future posts, however.

       1.17
       For the next Installment, I may deviate from the proposed outline and go straight into the Heart Sutra. The sutra, I
       believe, will provide ample opportunity to get into many of the points on the outline.
       _____________________________________________

       End Notes

       iThough my understanding is that the Buddhadharma was first recorded in Pali, (hundreds of years after the Buddha’s
       death) it was translated from Sanskrit by the Tibetans. Because the tradition from within which I write is also Tibetan,
       I will be relying Sanskrit and Tibetan words.
       iiOne should not assume that one can attain some level of realization only through the three prajnas – nor only through
       the Buddhadharma. Indeed, the pretekyabuddhas attained some level of realization that is superior to that of some of
       the Hinayana schools without hearing the dharma at all.
       iiiThe Jewel Ornament of Liberation; Gampopa; translated by Khenpo Konchog Gyaltsen Rinpoche. Snow Lion 1998
       ivAcharya Sherab Gyaltsen; Lorig & the Sciernce of Valid Cognition; Nitartha Institute 1997.
       v Ibid.
       viPáli Canon
       vii”great Unwashed masses” was a literary flourish on my part. however, Shanks pointed out that this suggests
       Buddhism is a religion. I would not disagree that it is practiced as a religion my millions of people to varying degrees.
       However, I would be reluctant to say that that was all it was. First of all, the Buddha didn’t invent Buddhism – that is,
       starting a religion was the last thing on his mind, I’m sure. Instead, he taught a means of freeing oneself from suffering
       by examining one’s own mind and one’s own actions. That it has degenerated to ‘religion’ is, to me at least, a
       comment on its adherents – but also a comment on its observers. Here I mean that pigeon-holing Buddhism as “no
       different” from all other religions completely ignores its contributions to logic, philosophy and, especially, the study of
       mind.
       viiiWithin the four Tibetan schools of Buddhism, the Gelugs hold the view that conceptualizations may be used to
       achieved a nonconceptual mind. The Kagyu and Nyingma lineages, of which I am a holder, take the view that such
       conceptualizations serve the purpose of deepening one’s understanding, which indirectly facilitates nonconceptual
       mind.

       Tim A