Leap of Faith from Dharmakara Boda

This is a post written by Venerable Dharmakara Boda at Buddha Forum.


What is a "leap of faith"? Is it something required in Buddhism? Also, is it really any different than "blind faith"? 

The implication of taking a leap of faith can, depending on the context, carry positive or negative connotations, as some feel it is a virtue to be able to believe in something without evidence while others feel it is foolishness. It is a hotly contested theological and philosophical concept. For instance, the association with "blind faith" and religion is disputed by those with deistic principles that argue reason and logic, rather than revelation or tradition, ect.

First, lets's examine "leap of faith" from two different positions, then later we'll examine what the various meanings associated with it actually means. 

To begin with, the Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu:

The Buddha's doctrine of kamma takes the fact of skillful action, which can be observed on the ordinary sensory level, and gives it an importance that, for a person pursuing the Buddhist goal, must be accepted on faith. According to this doctrine, skillful action is not simply one factor out of many contributing to happiness: it is the primary factor. It does not lead simply to happiness within the dimensions of time and the present: if developed to the ultimate level of refinement, it can lead to an Awakening totally released from those dimensions. These assertions cannot be proven prior to an experience of that Awakening, but they must be accepted as working hypotheses in the effort to develop the skillfulness needed for Awakening. 

This paradox -- which lies at the heart of the act of taking refuge in the Triple Gem -- explains why the serious pursuit of the Buddhist path is a sustained act of faith that can become truly firm only with the first glimpse of Awakening, called stream-entry. It also explains why a strong desire to gain release from the stress and suffering inherent in conditioned existence is needed for such a pursuit, for without that desire it is very difficult to break through this paradox with the necessary leap of faith.

All well and good, but when the question of whether or not a leap of faith is neccessary, the Ven. Thubten Chodron took the opposite position:

Buddhism does not require that. We can see this from the Buddhist definition of what exists. What exists is defined as "that which can be known." If it cannot be known, then it does not exist, for example, rabbit horns, turtle hair, or chicken lips. We can imagine human lips on a chicken; we can imagine a cartoon drawing of lips on a chicken; but we can never see chicken lips on a chicken because there is no such thing. It does not exist because it cannot be known.

This implies that everything that exists can be known. It is possible for our minds - namely, our mental activity of awareness of phenomena - to encompass everything. There are statements in the scriptures saying that the absolute is beyond the mind and beyond words. Firstly, I do not like to translate the term as "absolute" in English because it gives the connotation that it is beyond us, as if it were something up in the sky. Instead, I prefer to translate it as "the deepest fact about things." The deepest fact about things does exist. It is beyond mind and beyond concepts and words in the sense that it is beyond our usual ways of perceiving things. Language and conception imply that things exist in black and white categories. Good person, bad person, idiot, genius - the implication of using language is that things actually exist in such well-defined, independent categories: "This is a dumb person. He cannot do anything correctly." "This is a great person." Perceiving reality is seeing that things do not exist in these fantasized, impossible ways, in black and white categories. Things are more open and dynamic. Someone may not be able to do something now, but that does not mean that he or she is exclusively an idiot. The person can be many other things - a friend, a parent, and so on.

Thus, when we say that the deepest fact about things is that they exist in a way that is beyond mind and beyond words, we are referring to the fact that things do not exist in the ways that concepts and language imply they do. Our minds are capable of encompassing that.

It is not that our minds cannot encompass certain things so we must make a leap of faith to believe in them. Buddhism never demands us to have blind faith. On the contrary, Buddha said, "Do not believe what I say just out of respect for me, but test it out yourself, as if you were buying gold." That is true on all levels.

The logic of a particular point may not be immediately obvious to us. However, we do not reject something just because initially we do not understand it. By patiently learning and investigating, something that we previously did not understand can start to make sense.

So who's right and who's wrong or could it be that there is no right or wrong answer?

The key to this question actually rests in the word "saddha", typically translated as "faith", but it's more along the lines of "confidence" than "faith". What kind of confidence do I speak of? The kind of confidence which only comes from understanding, practice, and result (pariyatti, patipatti, pativedha), the kind of confidence which has absolutely nothing to do with a leap of faith.

What is a leap of faith? It's defined as an act or instance of accepting or trusting in something that cannot readily be seen or proved, really no different than "blind faith", which is defined as a belief without true understanding, perception, or discrimination.

Now, for the $100,000 question: Does a "leap of faith" sound like the type of understanding, practice, and result reflected in the word "saddha"? Or is a leap of faith nothing more than a sociocentric request that we behave like lemmings jumping off a cliff?