The question as to the relation of faith to direct spiritual experience is a perennial question within Christianity in particular and in the transcendental religions in general. It is heightened in dialogue between Christians and Buddhists especially.
First, it should be pointed out how dependent both traditions are upon faith and experience. The Buddhist must have great faith in his teacher, and the merit of the path or practice he follows, that it will generate the experience he seeks. The Christian must have real experiences of the Spiritual Presence as part of the fruit of faith, as Paul clearly teaches (Romans 8:9-11). Let us first agree that this is not a discussion about the whethers of faith or experience (and therefore a question of this religion or that), but the whats and hows of them in the spiritual life.
Before more can be said, however, there is a recurring mistake concerning the meanings both of faith and direct experience. Faith, for example, is nearly always misconstrued as belief in that for which one has no evidence. This is the straw-man that most Buddhist apologists love to bat down, as well as other western style atheists. However, the root words give us some guidance. The Latin, “fides,” means primarily “trust” and “confidence.” It is true that the Greek, “pistis,” meant for Plato “belief,” especially in the sense of something unverified. However, the word is technically a contraction of two words “pi-stis,” and it meant especially a physical act based upon some conviction, sustained in confidence (resonance with the resurrection as an act and the call to belief in the power of resurrection in Mark is heavy here). So, let it be pointed out the resonance of conviction, especially as courageous act in the face of something which poses an ultimate threat (death, guilt, emptiness), with trust and let us abandon the simplistic view of faith as mere belief. So, trust (especially in the sense of a covenant or agreement), conviction, courage, fidelity, are all possibilities which can avoid the misunderstanding of faith as simply belief in something for which one has no evidence.
Many Christians have taught through the ages that faith in maturity becomes its own unique kind of experience. Repentance in the new testament is translated from the Greek term “metanoia,” which means literally “go beyond (meta-) the mind (-noia) that you have.” It is like “the breathing in of a different air.” Such faith cannot be sharply distinguished from direct experience. William James has catalogued such experiences of the Spirit in Varieties of Religious Experience with such profundity that I cannot imagine anyone in the spiritual walk could read them and not identify with something within its pages.
In this way, a Buddhism which does not take up contention with the significance of faith, but demands that it must lead to direct experience, is a justified critique. The road runs both ways, however.
The Buddhist, usually, has a motive: enlightenment. His very motive undermines his potential for enlightenment, however, because enlightenment is nothing other than that appreciation for the “outrageously mundane.” The only way for him to experience it is to allow it to happen to him. Yet in meditation he is trying to have it actively. Such an image resonates strongly with the picture of faith we get when Peter steps out onto the water and begins to sink when he tenses up and looks away from Christ to the water. My friend’s father, an Episcopal priest and meditational practitioner, used to advise people that the “observer” was very subtle and difficult to recognize. When people give a concerted effort, the creeping in of disturbing thoughts cannot be avoided. To the great frustration of many a practitioner, he would correctly advise them, “do not resist those thoughts, but let them come and pass.” Faith as trust also, obviously, means this: a relaxed openness to the impact of the Spirit. What the practitioner doesn’t realize is that he is trying to have a specific experience, but enlightenment isn’t a specific experience! And yet, on the other hand, it is filled with the colour of everything that is experienced. Thus, faith as trust also means this: a relaxed openness to the impact of the Spirit.
Some Buddhists will contest this and say their initiative (the savior is not the creator) is the difference between themselves and the Christians, who have their spiritual experiences passively by grace. All I can say to those who take this view is that time and again Buddhist friends of mine have come to me finally frustrated, and all I can say to them is, “by grace, friend; rely on God’s timing, not your own.”
In my experience, this is the single most difficult thing for the Buddhist to come to terms with: God’s timing. On the other hand, in my experience the single most difficult thing for the Christian to come to terms with is that faith, if it is real, means a transformation of the self so that it becomes an open vehicle of the divine love. Yet, just when they grasp this part, they wish to take credit, and forget that it is “by grace alone.” To confess Christ and to embody the love of the Spirit are not separate realities for new testament religion. Yet, continuously, in the name of “faith,” there has been so much blood shed. We have not read John’s epistle, or Paul’s 13th chapter, or James’, or Jesus’ own sermons, with understanding. We have regressed continually to tribalistic thinking, and failed to see faith as trust for faith as loyalty to a particular group, perhaps now the catholic group, tomorrow another.
My point is this: faith and experience converge in love’s openness to the Spirit in the concrete moment. If the Buddhist and the Christian can understand this, they will both transcend their own religion in a way that would have made the founders of both pleased.
Peace and joy of God’s eternal kingdom,
GM
Christ is both human and divine.
