faith
today an article appeared in the sunday times about an alleged Buddha tooth relic in a Singapore temple. i'm going to paste that article here, so please bear with me if you've already read it. so here goes.
The Sunday Times received 20 letters from readers after it reported last week that doubts have been cast on the authenticity of the Buddha tooth relic in a temple here.
Dental specialists had said that they believed the tooth, said to have been found in Myanmar and given to the temple, belonged to a herbivorous animal.
At least 16 letter-writers were upset. One of them was private tutor Brandon Lee, 35. He had sponsored more than $4,000 worth of statues and tiles in the new temple at Chinatown, and now says: 'I never doubted them. But think about it...if Myanmar had a real tooth, the discovery would have made big news.'
Readers suggested that the temple should let dental experts examine the tooth. They said that with so much donated to the temple's construction, there should be some transparency.
More than 60,000 donors have given the temple $45 million and 270kg of gold. The gold was later melted and rebuilt into a 3.6m-high stupa to house the tooth relic.
The Venerable Shi Fazhao is not in Singapore and hence unable to respond to queries, said temple aides. But he had earlier ruled out conducting DNA tests on the tooth.
The temple also took out advertisements in The Straits Times, Lianhe Zaobao and Shin Min Daily News last week in which he said: 'We should stand firm on our own faith towards the sacred relics.'
Besides the tooth relic, the temple will also house a museum exhibiting Buddhist artefacts. The relic itself is said to have been discovered by a Myanmar monk, the late Venerable Cakkapala of Bandula Monastery, in 1980, when he was restoring a collapsed stupa in Mrauk-U, Myanmar.
In a commentary published in Lianhe Zaobao on Monday, columnist Goh Choon Kang said that while it is important for those who doubt the authenticity of the tooth to have their say, there is no need to get to the bottom of the authenticity issue. He said that believers will believe and those who don't believe, won't. What is important is for Buddhism to meet the challenge of remaining relevant to society; not this quibbling over what is real and what is not.
Professor John Strong, an authority on Buddhist studies and author of Relics Of The Buddha, said the issue of historical authenticity of Buddha relics 'is pretty much an impossible one to resolve'. However, citing the Buddhist belief that relics are 'alive' and can multiply, he said: 'I have no doubt that the Singapore relic is religiously authentic.'
Indeed, one debate on online forums such as Stomp is whether scientific authenticity even matters in matters of faith. Some say the relic should not be judged scientifically. 'The whole premise of faith is that you must believe - you don't ask if it's real,' said Mr Toh Puay Yong, a 42-year-old accountant.
interesting situation, don't you think? without going into the facts of the situation, or disputing whether it really is "Buddha's tooth", let me talk a little about faith.
i think it's one thing to have faith without doubting, but it's another to have faith without discerning. as someone who subscribes to a religion, i claim to have faith in my God. yet i can't simply claim that i have faith in something that gives me no basis for it. it's a completely logical process, yet something that a lot of people who consider themselves religious don't think about.
it's rather alarming to observe how there is so much reluctance when it comes to getting the artifact tested by experts for authenticity. it goes beyond the matter of whether or not one believes that it is true, because any fool can simply say he believes that an item is genuine or that there are dinosaurs living on a remote island in this world. but if the relic is indeed genuine, a simple test would prove it so, and wouldn't that help to strengthen faith and perhaps even attract new believers, rather than testing believers' faith? don't tell me every single Buddhist believes that the tooth is real beyond any reasonable doubt, because i certainly wouldn't believe that. reluctance implies something doesn't it? ahem.
faith without doubting has a very logical basis. everyday we watch the sun rise, now that it's night, i would not be faulted for having faith that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. in fact, i'd be considered mad to actually have doubts that the sun would rise at all. faith without discerning is totally different, like if i told my neighbour that i am here to destroy the planet and bring all who believe in me to a new earth, he'd be stupid to follow me without any form of discernment.
asking believers to stand firm in their faith regarding the tooth is all very well and good. but how firm can faith stand under the constant bombardment of criticism from outsiders, especially when the actions of the temple do not deflect but rather invite more. saying you believe without asking is real, however, does not prove that you have a stronger faith than most. it just shows you don't want to accept anything that may compromise your beliefs, which is too closed-minded for my liking.
so just let the experts examine the tooth. they don't even have to do DNA testing, i'm sure observation and comparison would give a pretty good basic idea of what it really is or isn't. especially since believers have been pouring in money and gold as donations, don't they deserve to know if the relic is genuine? shouldn't someone in the civil service (scoffs) be at the very least concerned about this and have done something about it?
what about my own faith, you ask? if there are any doubts about the authenticity of Christianity and my beliefs, i suggest you pick up the book The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. his series of books is excellent, and i think it shows quite concisely that Christianity is truly founded in fact, archaeological, historical and so on. the thing is, i've done my research, i've read my books, and i'm sure that it's true. many other believers may claim the same things about their individual faiths, but things i've experienced myself and seen with my own eyes about God can never be fully described in a blog post or a book. ultimately how much faith you have boils down to the individual and his experiences. but basing that faith on fact and logic is necessary to sustain it. i suggest that if the temple wishes to sustain its faith, it should do something positive with regards to that relic, if not, it'll just end up as blind faith.
i'm just glad that the faith i have is well placed =)
