There is a point in the definitions of credulity and faith when they are almost the same. For example, credulity is the readiness to believe based on slight or uncertain evidence. Faith, by comparison, is unquestioning belief in something for which there is no proof or evidence. Faith appears to be the older word. This is understandable insofar as the word is generally used in the context of religion which in the case of Buddhism, is more of a science of spirit or Mind for which there is no material evidence since spirit is different than matter. By analogy, Buddhism would be the study of radio waves whereas the natural sciences would study the radio and its various parts.
Our modern scientific and technological age has no use for religion since it is based upon faith. Buddhism is accepted as long as it doesn’t demand faith in a beyond or the transcendent. Ironically, this same age requires a great deal of credulity on the part of the individual in which persuasion arguments are more than often confused with arguments of fact. In the persuasion argument reasons—often clever or fallacious—are given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is either right or wrong. We observe this in the big bang theory, in neuroscience which is a multidisciplinary branch of biology, and the social sciences.
Technology has also given us a false confidence in science as if using an iPhone proves the universe was created during one explosion a little over 13 billion years ago. But this is just credulity on our part to accept this as settled. The big bang theory is basically a gravity driven model of the universe which takes no account of the electrical force which is 39 orders of magnitude (a thousand billion billion billion billion times) stronger than gravity. Where did the powerful force of electricity come from? Recently, some of Albert Einstein’s manuscripts in which the physicist debunked the idea of a big bang surfaced. He believed that the universe expanded steadily and eternally.
Technological facts certainly don’t add up to proof that the big bang happened or consciousness is a product of our brain. Science is not infallible. Nor is its place to criticize rebirth and postmortem survival and least of all that Mind/spirit (G., Geist) is the matrix of all matter according to the Lankavatara Sutra and Max Planck the physicist. One must even be careful of reliance on skepticism. It is an unproven philosophical claim about the limits of what we can know.
Buddhism doesn’t rest solely upon faith like most religions. It aims at direct knowledge of the unconditioned, that is, the winning of nirvana. In the Nigantha Nataputta Sutta we learn that faith leads to knowledge (jñāna) that comes as a result of the dhyānas.
Aren't most of today's so called "practitioners" or "Buddhists" or whatever, just like Nataputta? To me it seems like everybody loves to praise the Blessed One, and often make quite a ruckus in doing so, and also, most will eagerly claim to be followers of the World-Honored One's teaching, but at the same time they remain strangers to the study of dhyana, and by not studying dhyana they in turn distort and misinterpret the dharma. People waste such prescious energy on foolish talk and endless bickering. Nobody really wants to look straight at the gem :-(
Posted by: Adasatala | May 18, 2018 at 07:48 AM