I think we agree on principle but not wording.catmoon wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 3:41 amWell, much as I hate to admit it, Malcolm is bang on once again. The point I am getting at is that faith, as conceived in the West, has absolutely nothing in common with faith, as discussed in the dharma. Malcolm just puts a fine academic edge on the blade. BTW nicely done Malcolm.DGA wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 12:39 am
You seem to be using the word "faith" to indicate what I'd call make-believe: the act of actively believing in something in order to satisfy some imperative.
I was wondering how you might respond to this use of the word, as a gloss for sraddha:
My implication is that faith, as conceived in the West and applied to Buddhism, is wrong, counterproductive and stupid. Really, really stupid. I mean stupid as in you could cross the universe a million times and not find anything that stupid. Stupid as in, thinking of Buddhist faith in the this sense is stupider than Donald Trump with an AK47 at an abortion clinic preaching the Gospel according to Sun Yung Moon. Only stupider. You see where I'm going with this? Maybe I'm being too subtle.
Where you say faith, I would say belief.
This matters because there are Buddhist traditions in which faith is central to practice. If you don’t have clarity and trust and confidence in Amitabhas vows, you are not a pure land practitioner. I don’t think Pure Land practitioners are stupid. And that’s just one example. There are others.