Merging Faith and Reason

Post Reply
plwk
Posts: 2932
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:41 am

Merging Faith and Reason

Post by plwk »

Image
“What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem?” scoffed the early church writer Tertullian, and in so uttering drew the battle lines between reason and faith for nearly two millennia in the West. His rhetorical question has become synonymous with the struggle by scholars and religious devotees of many traditions to reconcile two apparently contradictory instincts: the urge to rationalize and dispute versus the impulse to surrender and adore.

This tension between rationalism and faith has noticeable echoes in Pure Land Buddhism, which has often been misunderstood (even by Buddhist masters) as being suitable largely for emotional, unthinking practitioners. But if the journey of Thomas Hon Wing Polin is anything to go by, it is perfectly possible for rationalists to be persuaded of the power of Amitabha Buddha’s 18th or fundamental vow: that all beings can be reborn in his Pure Land if they invoke his name sincerely.

More here
steveb1
Posts: 728
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:37 am

Re: Merging Faith and Reason

Post by steveb1 »

Well-written article in that it clearly explicates his spiritual journey. But I don't see it explicitly describing a rational-irrational conflict regarding the acceptance of Pure Land Buddhism. What is "rational" - defining the term in its modern secular connotation - about an ancient Monk Dharmakara who became a bodhisattva who became a primal, grace-bestowing Buddha by fulfilling a great Vow? To "rational" ears, it sounds like sheer fairy tale. "So some mythical guy in a mythical time in a mythical universe wished well to humankind and made a wish-fulfilling but impossible-to-achieve vow, and subsequent adherents believe that this vow redeems them and grants them enlightenment? They are obviously deluded and have substituted reality for their own central wish-fulfilling fantasy. Typical of religionists the world over."

The article never really addresses the central Pure Land issue, which is the Pure Land adherent's acceptance of the transcendent, all of it, from the Mahayanist pneumatology/cosmology/ soteriology, to Amida Buddha/his work/his Vow(s)/his grace/his granting of Shinjin, the Pure Land's "westerly" existence itself, the transcendental disposition of the Pure Land adherent within the Pure Land, and his/her possible returning to Samsara in bodhisattva form ... etc.

Unless there are forms of rationalism that accept the noncorporeal, autonomous Transcendent - as far as I know, there are none, but I may be mistaken - then Amida and his Pure Land will remain impossible for the assumptively materialist-reductionist rationalistic mind. Shinran Shonin, speaking from within the mind of faith, realized this and spoke of Amida and Shinjin as "inconceivable". Surely inconceivable to the rational mind, for all the obvious reasons. But even inconceivable to the recipients of a grace that can only be described as "a raft from the Other Shore". Perhaps some kinds of "inconceivability" can be squared with rationalism - for instance, the little I have read of Bertrand Russell seems to indicate that he had a respect for the unknown, as expressed in his conception of "neutral monism". But for rationalism in general, it would seem that the transcendence found generally in the Mahayana and specifically in the Pure Land schools, must be rather problematic, to say the least.
Admin_PC
Former staff member
Posts: 4860
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:17 pm

Re: Merging Faith and Reason

Post by Admin_PC »

Maybe I'm wrong, but what I got from that article was that he knew empirically that there were benefits to the practice (ie. seeing his wife). This empirical evidence would normally be enough to satisfy his rational mind. In other words, the fact that there were observable results that he witnessed & considered beneficial from the get-go means that there was a rationale for engaging in the practice. Unfortunately, when he looked into the presentation of the mixed-practices school(s) for himself, he only found internal inconsistencies. These internal inconsistencies only fed his skepticism, leaving him with a mind full of doubt and confusion. He couldn't resolve the empirical evidence with the internal inconsistencies of the presentation of the mixed-practices school(s) and so he didn't experience the benefits he observed in his wife. It seems like once he finally found an internally consistent presentation/doctrine (ie. the Pure Land teachings of ShanTao), then he could finally satisfy his rational mind and experience the benefits of Pure Land practices. It would probably be correct to say that part of this method involves suspending the rational mind in order for the technique to work (for the very reasons mentioned regarding the details described in the sutras), but I'm not sure that it would be significantly different than the suspending of the discursive mind that is required for Ch'an meditation. Certainly, he required an internally consistent doctrine to satisfy his rational mind before he could really engage the practice, and as I pointed out at the beginning there were rational reasons to engage in the practice that he observed in his wife which caused him to be interested in the first place. So, I think it'd probably be incorrect to say that he gave up rationality for something wholly irrational. Sorry if this is confusing, I've had a very difficult time wording this post.
steveb1
Posts: 728
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:37 am

Re: Merging Faith and Reason

Post by steveb1 »

Your wording is just fine - thank you for your insights.
:)
Post Reply

Return to “Pure Land”