4.2.1. Faculty of Faith (Saddhindriya or Śraddā)

[Full title: The Five Faculties (pañcindriyani; Sanskrit: indriya)—The Faculty of Faith (Saddhindriya or Śraddā)]

The saddhā is explained in the Āpaṇa sutta of Saṃyutta Nikāya under the following:

Venerable sir, the noble disciple—one deeply neither dedicated to the Tathāgata and has deep faith in him—would notbe perplexed with nor doubt the Tathāgata or the Tathāgata’ s teaching.

And, venerable sir, when he has again and again strived in this way, again and again recollected in this way, again and again concentrated his mind in this way, again andagain knows [understands] with wisdom in this way, that noble disciple wins deep faith thus: ‘As regard those things that I have previously (only) heard about, now I dwell having touched themwith the body [personally experienced them] and, having penetrated them through with wisdom, I see.’

That faith of his, venerable sir, is his faculty of faith.^[1]

There are two kinds of faith (saddhā):

(1) “rootless faith” (amūlaka-saddhā), baseless or irrational faith, blind faith,^[2]

(2) “faith with a good cause” (ākāravati-saddhā), faith founded on seeing;^[3] also called aveccapasāda.^[4]

In “rootless faith,” the qualifier rootless (amūlaka) is explained in the texts as “not seen, not heard, not suspected”.^[5] In other words, it is blind faith, especially common in God-centered religions and personcentered cults. This first kind of faith, generally speaking, is essentially a sublimation of desire in its various forms, or more simply, faith is sanitized desire. Often faithin someone or something (a product, religion, etc.) arises in one when one thinks that such a person or such a thing has fulfilled one’s desire, or come up to one’s expectations. The greatest flaw in such a faith is that the object of faith is outside ofo neself, which as such is easily controlled and manipulated by those who define that object of faith or whoever wields power over the belief system. In fact, such a faith or belief system is neither religious nor spiritual; it is a political system of sorts since it is power-based. Political systems are ephemeral and can provide only worldly benefits at best.

The second kind of faith—the faith with a good causes—is also called “wise faith” (aveccappasāda). While rootless faith is founded on an external object (God, guru, product, etc.); wise faith is an internal feeling. It begins with an overpowering experience (saṃvega) of true reality, especially an encounter with impermanence or a near-death experience that leads one to ask life’s basic questions. The kind of questions that arise here would decide the quality of faith in the person. If the question is framed by“what” (What is this?) or “who” (Who created all this), one presumes a “thing” or a “being” merely as mental constructs. These are closed questions that keep one in a transcendental loop, a saṃsāric cycle, where no meaningful questions can be asked, and no answers can be found.

A better question here is “why” (why suffering?), which initiates a series of questions that can go as far as “the source,” as it were. The source here refers to spiritual ignorance, not knowing true reality, and falling on unwholesome emotions and mental constructs. The most revealing formulation of this situation is found in dependent arising (paṭiccasamuppāda).

Saddhindriya is to some extent synonymous with saddhā. But there are two kinds of saddhā, namely:

1. Pakati-saddhā, ordinary faith
2. Bhāvanā-saddhā, faith developed (or matured) by meditation

The faith and confidence (saddhā) that leads ordinary men and women to perform acts of almsgiving (dāna), morality (sīla) and “surrogate” (or rudimentary) meditation (bhāvanā)—is called ordinary faith (pakati-saddhā). Here, as was shown in the simile of the madman, although such saddhā is to some extent a controlling faculty, its control does not extend to the capacity of controlling the unstable minds of ordinary folk in the work of meditation (bhāvanā). Control is exercised over the instability only to the extent of leading to acts of almsgiving, morality and rudimentary meditation.

Without faith and confidence, the mind never inclines to kusalakamma (wholesome volitional actions), for ordinarily it takes delight only in evil acts. This holds true also for the effort to attain to the purification of virtue (sīla-visuddhi) or to engage in the study of the sacred texts. This is how ordinary wholesome acts (pakati-kusala-kamma) are produced by the control of ordinary faith which is undeveloped by genuine meditation (abhāvita).

In the work of attending to a subject of meditation (kammaṭṭhāna) for the practice of tranquility and insight, ordinary faith has not sufficient control over the mind as the mind is apt to recoil and rebound from that faith and to turn elsewhere. In meditative work, ordinary faith is not sufficient.

It is developed faith that prepares the seed-bed, so to say, for the acquisition of great strength and power through the practice of meditation, such as mindfulness of breathing.

In the context of the “requisites of enlightenment” it is developed faith that is called saddhindriya, the controlling faculty of faith. In the field of meditative exercises, it represents the disappearance of unstable and oscillating attention and the appearance of a clear and steady mind. The mind’s attention can be steadily fixed only on those objects which it finds clear and befogged. The practice of body contemplation such as mindfulness of breathing is the preparation of the seed-bed for bhāvanā-saddhā, i.e., faith and confidence developed and matured by meditation. If the mind is fixed on the contemplation of the body, such as the out and in-breaths, it amounts to the attainment of developed faith. If then the work is continued in the field of tranquillity and insight the ability to destroy the three planes of personality belief can be acquired even within this life.

The work of samatha and vipassanā needs for their proper performance, reliance on a teacher who is very learned in the Dhamma.

Kattha saddhindriyaṃ daṭṭhabbaṃ? Catūsu sotā pattiyaṅgesu ettha saddhindriyaṃ daṭṭhabbaṃ.

Where should one look for the faculty of faith? One should look for it in four constituents of stream-entry.^[6]

This means that the faculty of faith predominates in the four constituents of stream-entry. These four are:

1. Unshakeable faith in the noble qualities of the Buddha, such as arahaṃ, sammā-sambuddho, etc.

2. Unshakeable faith in the noble qualities of the Dhamma, such as “well proclaimed” (svākkhāto), etc.

3. Unshakeable faith in the noble qualities of the Sangha, such as “of good conduct” (supaṭipanno), etc.

4. Completely or perfectly endowed with the foundation (or proximate cause: padaṭṭhāna) of supramundane concentration (lokuttara-samādhi), which is purification of morality (sīlavisuddhi).

These are the four factors that ensure the attainment of sotāpattimagga-ñāṇa (knowledge pertaining to the path of stream-entry) within the compass of this life.

In the Sutta passage^[7] “buddhe aveccappasādena samannāgato”, avecca-ppasādo means “unshakeable faith.” It is the faith (saddhā) of those who have attained access concentration (upacāra-samādhi) while reflecting on the noble qualities of the Buddha. Upacāra-samādhi here means steady and fixed attention achieved while reflecting on the noble qualities of the Buddha. When one encounters such steady and fixed attention, one must know that the control by faith is predominant. Such a person is one who attains mastery over his mind in the matter of faith in the noble qualities of the Buddha. The same holds true in regard to the noble qualities of the Dhamma and Sangha.

“Foundation of supramundane concentration” (the fourth constituent of stream-entry) means the “permanent morality ending with right livelihood as the eighth precept” (ājīvaṭṭhamaka-niccasīla) which can enable one to attain supramundane concentration in this very life. When that sīla is unbroken and pure, it is free from the defilements of taṇhā, māna (conceit), and diṭṭhi (wrong view), and in such case one must understand that saddhā is prominent in that sīla. Inability to observe the requirements of the sīla is called “breaking” it. Although the sīla may be technically unbroken, if it is observed amidst ordinary worldly conditions, it is said to be “impure”. In accordance with the saying “the worth of a bull can be known only on the ascent from the bed of a stream to the banks,” lay-persons and bhikkhus who profess to be followers of the Buddha can know whether or not the turbulance and distractions latent in their minds have disappeared, (i.e., whether or not they have obtained mastery over their minds) only when they arrive at these four constituents.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

SN 48.50/V, p. 225

[2]:

MN II, p. 170

[3]:

MN I, p. 320

[4]:

SN 12.41.11/ II, p. 69

[5]:

Vin II, p. 243

[6]:

SN, Indriya Saṃyutta, Sutta

[7]:

MN, 9, Sammādiṭṭhi Sutta