Tag: faith

Is the Gosho* an Inspiration of Faith or a Modern Embarrassment?

Modern people would dismiss Nichiren’s “magical view,” and when we find ourselves doing that, it’s our loss.

* Gosho: The individual and collected writings of Nichiren (1222–1282).

When Skepticism Becomes a Reflex

Nichiren’s writings reflect a Kamakura-period world in which omens,1 cyclical signs,2 spiritual connection with heavenly beings, gods, or even Shakyamuni himself,3 and the reality of hell,4 were part of the shared symbolic landscape. Modern readers often react by dismissing these elements as superstition—and sometimes that skepticism is healthy. But skepticism can also become a reflex that prevents us from learning how faith functions in Buddhist practice: not as gullibility, but as a disciplined willingness to enter a teaching deeply enough to be changed by it.

The purpose of this article is to point out that modern people would dismiss Nichiren’s “magical view,” and that when we find ourselves doing that, it’s our loss. I’ve done this myself.

I doubt Nichiren would be any more welcome today than he was in his own time. I think we’d treat him like a crank, who entertained delusional ideas and offered a foolish, magical view of the world unworthy of serious consideration.

Things we’d categorize as “folk magic” like hand gestures (mudras),5 mandalas and objects of devotion like the Gohonzon,6 are presented in Nichiren’s writings and in the Lotus Sutra as gifts of spiritual significance. Modern embarrassment about these “odd” gifts is misguided. They increase our faith and we should trust them.

Nichiren’s era’s comfort with “instruments/signs” can be seen as compatible with (or even conducive to) deepening one’s connection with Shakyamuni7 and strengthening the faith needed to break free from the six paths.8

What ‘Healthy Skepticism’ Can’t Teach Us

A fair question follows: isn’t there a risk of being too believing? How much do we open to strange ideas before becoming irrationally gullible? That question matters, and I address it more fully in a separate article.9 For now, I’ll simply say this: skepticism is an important tool, and modern people are often well-trained in it. What we are less practiced in is being able to employ learning by faith.

Nichiren was a man of faith and one purpose for this essay is to defend the faith of Nichiren. Faith as a tool for learning new spiritual truth is critical for attaining Buddhahood in this lifetime. The qualifier Nichiren gives that activates the power of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo is “deep faith.”:

“If you chant Myoho-renge-kyo with deep faith in this principle, you are certain to attain Buddhahood in this lifetime.” (Writings of Nichiren Daishonin, Volume 1, page 4. Hereafter abbreviated “WND-1, page number.”)10

The Robe Problem: When the Text Sounds Absurd

In a study through my recent daily reading through the Writings of Nichiren Daishonin, I ran into a compact example of what I’m talking about. Nichiren writes  – without hesitation – about being born with a “robe.”

The monk Myōe (絹本著色明恵上人像, kenpon chakushoku Myōe Shōninzō) from Kōzan-ji, Kyoto dated to 13th century Kamakura period. Hanging scroll, 145.0 cm x 59.0 cm. Color on silk.

In his letter “Condolences on a Deceased Husband”, Nichiren wrote to the lay nun Myōhō:

“Of the six paths of existence, persons born into the first five, from the realm of hell to that of human beings, are all invariably born naked. Only those who are born into the sixth path, that of heavenly beings, are born wearing a robe. Thus, no matter what kind of sage or worthy person one is destined to be, so long as one is born as a human being, one invariably comes into the world naked. Even Bodhisattva Maitreya, who will succeed Shakyamuni in the future as a Buddha, was born in this way, to say nothing of other types of persons.” (WND-2, 765)

To a modern reader, the idea of being born wearing a robe can sound absurd. Yet Nichiren presents it plainly—as if it were simply part of how things are.

My goal here is not to reject intellectual honesty, or to deny the role of mythic realism and skillful means (upāya). Religious texts can be truth-bearing without being literal reportage. I believe it’s possible to be both intellectually honest and spiritually receptive. Still, the modern worldview trains us to process everything intellectually, and that can leave us weak in the muscles of faith and spiritual receptivity.

When reading texts written from the worldview of thirteenth-century Japan, I’ve found it useful to make a conscious choice to suspend judgment, just to see whether a passage yields insight I’d miss if I dismissed it too quickly (like a metaphorical jewel hidden in a robe, perhaps?).11

Unknowns and the Limits of “Real”

If we want to strengthen our “faith muscles,” here is one mental exercise that may help us resist the reflex to dismiss.

We should remember that in this Saha world, much lies beyond what we can directly see and measure.

Using everything that we have the ability to assemble, using all of our science, using all of our finest instrumentation, using every mechanism that we can devise, we know that approximately 68% of the energy in the universe is what is called dark energy. It’s called dark energy because we know it’s there; we haven’t a clue what it is. Using that same science and ability and instrumentation, we know that 27% of the universe is comprised of dark matter. We know it’s there because physics suggests its presence. We don’t have a clue what it is. The total of these two means that 95% of the universe we can detect is composed of things we cannot see, we cannot understand, we cannot comprehend. We detect and comprehend, at best, only five percent of all that exists using our best science and best instruments to examine the universe.12

On this world—just this world—depending upon the degree of humility that we acknowledge about our present understanding, about ~14% of Earth’s species have been described/indexed (with ~86% undescribed, estimates vary by group).13 Of the known life forms that we know about, humanity makes up no more than .001% of that life.14

I offer these examples not to equate Buddhist cosmology with modern physics, but to point to a shared humility: both acknowledge that most of reality lies beyond direct human perception.

Unknowns don’t prove any particular claim, but they do caution us against equating “unmeasured by my senses” with “impossible.” Imagine someone tells you they can see auras around people. Should I dismiss them as lying or delusional simply because I don’t see what they see? Or is it more honest to hold a middle position—neither credulous nor contemptuous—acknowledging that their experience may be real to them even if I cannot verify it with my own eyes?

Protection After Death, Accountability Now

A year after the letter to the lay nun Myōhō, Nichiren wrote again from Minobu in his “Letter to Jakunichi-bō,” and returned to the theme of a robe:

“But disgrace in this life is nothing. Of far greater concern is the disgrace that appears in the next life. Proceed to the place of practice of the Lotus Sutra, bearing in mind the time when you must face the wardens of hell, and the garment-snatching demoness and the garment-suspending demon will strip off your clothes on the bank of the river of three crossings. The Lotus Sutra is the robe that will keep you from disgrace after this life. The sutra reads, ‘It is like a robe to one who is naked.'” (WND-1, 994)

Now the “robe” becomes more than a cosmological detail; it becomes a vivid moral and spiritual image. The Lotus Sutra itself is described as a robe—protection against disgrace, and a safeguard as one faces the consequences of karma.

It’s worth considering Nichiren’s earlier statement that heavenly beings are “born wearing a robe.” If we take this statement seriously, and we also take seriously the identity of practitioners as bodhisattvas—Bodhisattvas of the Earth—then we are certainly beyond “the sixth path, that of heavenly beings” and we have indeed been born wearing “a robe”.

Nichiren continued describing this “robe”:

“Despite this fact, however, this man Shānavāsa was born wearing a wonderful robe called shāna. This robe of his was not stained by blood or other impurity. It was like a lotus flower that grows up out of a muddy pond, or the wings of a mandarin duck that are not wet by the water.

Moreover, as Shānavāsa grew older and larger, the robe bit by bit expanded in size. In winter it was thick, in summer thin; in spring it was green in color, but turned white in autumn. Since Shānavāsa was a man of wealth, he lacked for nothing, and in time he came to fulfill all the predictions that the Buddha had made concerning him. Thus he entered the Buddhist Order and became a disciple of the Venerable Ānanda. At that time, this robe that he had been wearing changed into monk’s robes of five-, seven-, and nine-strip widths.” (WND-2, 765)

I want to acknowledge the obvious possibility that some things are meant to be considered as symbolic or metaphorical. To simply label anything that seems outlandish as “mere metaphor,” can also become another way of refusing to engage. Nichiren himself does not pause to defend the claim or soften it; he writes as though it is straightforward fact.

Whether understood metaphorically (as karmic protection or spiritual identity) or literally (as an unseen dimension of existence), the image of an invisible robe invites us to reconsider how narrowly we define ‘real.’ Read symbolically or cosmologically, Nichiren’s robe references may remind us that practice itself is a form of protection—and that accountability and responsibility, not comfort, is the true garment of a bodhisattva.

The Shoulder That Bears the Work

The Lotus Sutra describes a ritual gesture that appears repeatedly: the participant bares one shoulder, kneels, and presses their palms together to honor the World-Honored One.

“At that time the bodhisattva Inexhaustible Intent immediately rose from his seat, bared his right shoulder, pressed his palms together and, facing the Buddha, spoke these words…” (The Lotus Sutra and Its Opening and Closing Sutras, p.339. Hereafter abbreviated “LSOC, page number.”)

In Burton Watson’s translation (from the Chinese), the gesture is described as baring the “right shoulder.” In a Sanskrit-based translation, the robe is explicit:

“Thereafter the Bodhisattva Mahâsattva Akshayamati rose from his seat, put his upper robe upon one shoulder, stretched his joined hands towards the Lord, and said…”15

Anciently, clothing was valuable, and most labor was manual. A bare shoulder could become calloused through work, and if scratched or cut, could heal. But a torn robe took effort and time to repair, and any injury to the garment would shorten its life. Therefore, clothing was protected from this daily labor when possible by leaving the weight-bearing shoulder uncovered.

This may suggest that in ritual, leaving the right shoulder bare was a symbol that there was still the need to carry a burden on the right side. The work was not done. In the Lotus Sutra, wherever we find this gesture of baring the right shoulder taking place, it appears to be an indication of those demonstrating the gesture that they are expressing a willingness to commit to whatever action and work may be required to attain the object of their request.16

Jewels Hidden in the Robe

From a modern “sophisticated” standpoint, it can be difficult to take seriously the world Nichiren inhabited—a world where “signs,” unseen beings, and vivid cosmological imagery were common. What important insights do we miss if we dismiss those elements as nonsense too quickly?

In our modern world view of sophistication, I think it is very difficult for us to entertain what was the common magical view of the world from the perspective of those who lived at the time of Nichiren in thirteenth-century Japan. Do we miss some important things that we might otherwise be enlightened by when we simply dismiss as nonsense strange things we read in Nichiren’s writings?

For me, there really are jewels hidden in these robes. And if you want to strengthen your own faith, I invite you to consider what might open up when you allow even Nichiren’s “odd” claims to remain on the table long enough to teach and enlighten you.

Download PDF version of this article here.

  1. “Why do I say this? Both the Buddhist and non-Buddhist writings make clear that omens will always appear before a certain destined event actually occurs. Thus, when the spider spins its web, it means that some happy event will take place, and when the magpie calls, it means that a visitor will arrive. Even such minor occurrences have their portents. How much more so do major events!” (Writings of Nichiren Daishonin, Volume 1, page 439-40. Hereafter abbreviated “WND-1, page number.”) ↩︎
  2. “In these twenty-seven years, however, Nichiren was exiled to the province of Izu on the twelfth day of the fifth month in the first year of Kōchō (1261), cyclical sign kanoto-tori, and was wounded on the forehead and had his left hand broken on the eleventh day of the eleventh month in the first year of Bun’ei (1264), cyclical sign kinoe-ne. He was led to the place of execution on the twelfth day of the ninth month in the eighth year of Bun’ei (1271), cyclical sign kanoto-hitsuji, and in the end was exiled to the province of Sado.” (WND-1, 996-97) ↩︎
  3. “From this time forward, the great bodhisattvas, as well as Brahmā, Shakra, the gods of the sun and moon, and the four heavenly kings, became the disciples of Shakyamuni Buddha, the lord of teachings.” (WND-1, 251) ↩︎
  4. “If I remain silent, I may escape persecutions in this lifetime, but in my next life I will most certainly fall into the hell of incessant suffering.” (WND-1, 239) ↩︎
  5. “Their hands form the mudra gestures, their mouths repeat the mantras, but their hearts do not understand the principles of Buddhism.” (WND-1, 169) ↩︎
  6. In Nichiren Buddhism, the Gohonzon most commonly takes the form of a calligraphic mandala—a scroll inscribed with Chinese and Sanskrit characters. Nichiren inscribed it to embody the essence of the Lotus Sutra and the law of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo (the fundamental chant in this tradition).
    “Never seek this Gohonzon outside yourself. The Gohonzon exists only within the mortal flesh of us ordinary people who embrace the Lotus Sutra and chant Nam-myoho-renge-kyo. The body is the palace of the ninth consciousness, the unchanging reality that reigns over all of life’s functions. To be endowed with the Ten Worlds means that all ten, without a single exception, exist in one world. Because of this it is called a mandala. Mandala is a Sanskrit word that is translated as ‘perfectly endowed’ or ‘a cluster of blessings.’ This Gohonzon also is found only in the two characters for faith. This is what the sutra means when it states that one can ‘gain entrance through faith alone.’ …
    Make every possible effort for the sake of your next life. What is most important is that, by chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo alone, you can attain Buddhahood. It will no doubt depend on the strength of your faith. To have faith is the basis of Buddhism. Thus the fourth volume of Great Concentration and Insight states, ‘Buddhism is like an ocean that one can only enter with faith.'” (WND-1, 832) ↩︎
  7. In the sense that Nichiren meant when he wrote: “From now on I will accept and uphold this king of the sutras, the Lotus of the one truth, and revere the Buddha, who in the threefold world is alone worthy of honor, as my true teacher.” (WND-1, 134)
    and
    “Above all, be sure to follow your original teacher so that you are able to attain Buddhahood. Shakyamuni Buddha is the original teacher for all people, and moreover, he is endowed with the virtues of sovereign and parent. Because I have expounded this teaching, I have been exiled and almost killed.” (WND-1, 748) ↩︎
  8. six paths: The realms of hell, hungry spirits, animals, asuras, human beings, and heavenly beings. “Path” here means the path a life follows in the process of transmigration; it also indicates a realm or state of existence. The six paths were viewed traditionally as realms within which unenlightened beings repeatedly transmigrate. ↩︎
  9. See my article “Living Polar Bears and Dead Frogs – My Learning Model”  ↩︎
  10. See my article Buddhist Definition of Faith for my study of “What Does It Mean to Have ‘Deep Faith?’” ↩︎
  11. See parable of jewel in robe, Lotus Sutra chapter 8, (The Lotus Sutra and Its Opening and Closing Sutras, p.190. Hereafter abbreviated “LSOC, page number.”) ↩︎
  12. What is Dark Matter?, NASA Science ↩︎
  13. How Many Species Are There on Earth and in the Ocean?, PLOS Biology ↩︎
  14. This supports Nichiren’s teaching that being born a human in this Saha world is as rare of a thing as specks of dirt on a fingernail. (See WND-2, 132) ↩︎
  15. The Lotus Sutra Saddharma-Pundarika, The Lotus of the True Law – The Ancient Mahayana Buddhist Text, Complete translated by H. Kern, Pantianos Classics, first published 1884. P.180 ↩︎
  16. Between the two English translations from Sanskrit and Kumarajiva (Chinese) that I used, reference to “shoulder” occurs in four instances in the first half of the Lotus Sutra (what Nichiren refers to as “theoretical teaching”, and in seven instances in the second half (what Nichiren identifies as “essential teaching”). Nearly twice as many instances are found in the “essential teaching” half of the Lotus Sutra. ↩︎

Jay’s Learning Model Revisited

The purpose of this model is to have a tool that can be used to evaluate a faith-based approach to learning.

This model is an updated version of the one originally published on September 9, 2020. See blog post Living Polar Bears and Dead Frogs – My Learning Model.

The purpose of this model is to have a tool that can be used to evaluate a faith-based approach to learning. There are two key statements that formed the inspiration behind the model.

The first statement is:

“A position that begins with an inflexible1 conclusion and seeks ‘evidence’ to support it is impervious to reason”

Steve Cuno

This statement forms the top and bottom of the model separated by the horizontal axis, with “rigid” at the top and “flexible” at the bottom. As the statement describes, it is rather impossible to learn anything new unless one is flexible enough to receive it.

The second statement is:

“And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.”

D&C 88:118

This statement forms the left and right of the model separated by the vertical axis, with “faith” on the right. On the left I have placed the word “belief”. Not because “belief” is the opposite of “faith,” but because the purpose of the model is to emphasize that the preferred method of learning new truth is through “faith.” But as not everyone can easily approach learning from a place rooted in true faith, then (as the scripture indicates) the next best method is to approach it through study that can then lead to, or draw one toward, true faith.

To best comprehend what the model is communicating, it is important to understand that for the purpose of this model faith is being defined as something that is more than belief; a principle of action that requires one to act on belief in order to produce faith. Faith is being defined as a principle of power through action, in which one puts those beliefs into action and thereby acquires power. One can spend a lifetime as a “believer”2 without ever developing faith. Before belief can turn into faith, action is required. Without some action consistent with belief, a disciple cannot move along from mere belief to developing faith. It is action, obedience, and living in conformity to God’s will that yields faith.3

The movement from “belief” on the left toward “faith” on the right represents a section of points along a spectrum. Somewhere to the left of “belief” would include “doubt” and “unbelief”. To the right of “faith” would move one toward “knowledge”. Though he is not using the same vocabulary, Paul describes the process in these words:

“…suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope.”

Rom 5:3-4. NIV
  1. The word “inflexible” has been added to the original statement so that it more correctly reflects truth. ↩︎
  2. Not in the sense used in Evangelical Christianity describing a saved brother or sister, but in the sense being described in the model. ↩︎
  3. “Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, for you are receiving the end result of your faith, the salvation of your souls.” (1 Peter 1:8-9. NIV) ↩︎

Buddhist Definition of Faith

What Does It Mean to Have “Deep Faith”?

In Nichiren Buddhism the most important of Buddha’s teachings is found in the Lotus Sutra.

The twelfth century Japanese Buddhist priest, Nichiren, taught that one can attain Buddhahood in this lifetime by chanting what is essentially the title of the Lotus Sutra, “Nam-myoho-renge-kyo.”

The Japanese title of the Lotus Sutra (daimoku) depicted in a stone inscription.

The qualifier Nichiren gives that activates the power of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo is “deep faith.”:

“If you chant Myoho-renge-kyo with deep faith in this principle, you are certain to attain Buddhahood in this lifetime.”

(Writings of Nichiren Daishonin, Volume 1, page 4. Hereafter abbreviated “WND-1, page number.”)

What Does It Mean to Have “Deep Faith”?

To answer this question, and to avoid imposing ideas from my own culture and background, I sought to understand faith from the Buddhist point of view by turning to the Lotus Sutra. From my research I was able to identify this following definition based on a study of “faith” as found in the Lotus Sutra:

Faith is something that needs to be developed and cultivated1. It causes one to change direction.2 It is a principle of power.3 Failure to have faith is destructive,4 meaning that faith is a constructive force. The overbearing and arrogant ones lacked it.5 Doubt and perplexity are its opposite.6 It was through “faith alone”7 that Shariputra was able to gain entrance. Being able to comply with the sutra was because of faith in the Buddha’s words, not because of “any wisdom of their own”.8

  1. “Persons will be able to develop minds of faith, abruptly changing their direction.” (The Lotus Sutra and Its Opening and Closing Sutras, p.27. Hereafter abbreviated “LSOC, page number.”) ↩︎
  2. Ibid. ↩︎
  3. “Among the other kinds of living beings there are none who can comprehend it, except the many bodhisattvas who are firm in the power of faith. (LSOC, 58)
    “These people will possess the power of great faith, the power of aspiration, the power of good roots.”     (LSOC, 204)
    “If the thus come one knows that the time has come to enter nirvana, and knows that the members of the assembly are pure and clean, firm in faith and understanding…”     (LSOC, 173)
    “Shariputra, you should know that the words of the various buddhas never differ. Toward the Law preached by the buddhas you must cultivate a great power of faith.”     (LSOC, 59)
    From these above passages we learn that faith is a principle of power. It requires firmness and is associated with understanding. ↩︎
  4. “If a person fails to have faith but instead slanders this sutra, immediately he will destroy all the seeds for becoming a buddha in any world.” (LSOC, 110) ↩︎
  5. “There are monks and nuns who behave with overbearing arrogance, laymen full of self-esteem, laywomen who are lacking in faith.” (LSOC, 67) ↩︎
  6. “When the buddha preached this sutra, the sixteen bodhisattva shramaneras all took faith in it and accepted it, and among the multitude of voice-hearers there were also those who believed in it and understood it. But the other thousand ten thousand million types of living beings all gave way to doubt and perplexity.” (LSOC, 171) ↩︎
  7. From the Simile and Parable (chapter three) we learn from the Buddha’s words to Shariputra:
    “Even you, Shariputra, in the case of this sutra were able to gain entrance through faith alone. How much more so, then, the other voice-hearers. Those other voice-hearers—it is because they have faith in the Buddha’s words that they can comply with this sutra, not because of any wisdom of their own.” (LSOC, 109-10)
    Nichiren explains this passage:
    “This passage is saying that even Shāriputra, who was known for his great wisdom, was, with respect to the Lotus Sutra, able to gain entrance through faith and not through the power of his wisdom. How much more so, therefore, does this hold true with the other voice-hearers!” (WND-1, 132)  ↩︎
  8. Ibid. ↩︎

Living Polar Bears and Dead Frogs – My Learning Model

We learn best from experience that captures our imagination…

[Note: I created an updated version of this model on 19 June 2024 titled Jay’s Learning Model Revisited.]

“A position that begins with an inflexible conclusion and seeks ‘evidence’ to support it is impervious to reason”

This is a quote that I have adapted from something written by Steve Cuno over five years ago. He has since removed the statement from his site, but not before it left it’s impact on my mind. I added the word “inflexible” to the statement so that it more correctly reflects truth.

This quote was the impetus for the creation of the following model. I’ve developed this tool to help explain how I prefer to confront new information that I am faced with.

At the top I have labeled “rigid”, and the bottom I have identified with “flexible”. A person can find themselves leaning toward one extreme or the other on any given subject. Dividing this line in the middle, on a horizontal axis, to the far left I have given the label “skeptical”, and to the far right, “accepting”. When presented with new information one can approach any given topic with a perspective ranging from being skeptical about it to being more inclined toward believing and accepting it. It is valuable to consider where you fall in this spectrum when confronted with new information.

The top of the model can be epitomized with this quote from Mark Twain:

“Loyalty to petrified opinion never broke a chain or freed a human soul.”

Or this one:

“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you in trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

The top left quadrant I have identified as “blind skepticism” while the top right is labeled “blind faith”. Either way, it should be evident that neither method is considered a good approach to learning. A sincere student of truth should seek to orient him or herself toward the flexible end of the model. The bottom left quadrant I have designated “open skepticism” while the bottom right is “open faith”.

In LDS scripture we read:

And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith. (D&C 88:118)

What this tells us is that the preferred method of learning is by faith. But “as all have not faith”, then seek diligently to learn from best books etc., while still striving to employ faith in the process. In other words, learning from a skeptical frame of mind is still a useful model, as long as you can remain flexible and allow your thinking to be influenced by truth. Be willing to let go of what is false. Always approach learning with the intent to move toward the bottom right of the quadrant in the above model.

Another example of this idea is given by Alma in the Book of Mormon. What Alma is asking us to do (in Alma 32) is something different than how we are taught in school. Alma was saying, “Hey, why don’t you just experiment with this thing, and plant it as if you believed it. Plant it as if you had faith in it. So forget about the pros and cons, accept the Book of Mormon at face value, and let the Book of Mormon define itself; let the Book of Mormon be the source from which you evaluate whether or not it enlightens you, whether or not it appeals to your heart, to your soul, and to your mind.” Or, if you are not Mormon, use the Bible, or whatever other Holy Book that you trust as foundational to your faith.

For the non-Mormon Christian audience, we see ample evidence from the Bible that support these ideas as well.

For we walk by faith, not by sight. (2 Cor 5:7, see also 1 Thes 2:13)
Apply thine heart unto instruction, and thine ears to the words of knowledge. (Proverbs 23:12)

There are a number of ways that faith can be defined. In the context of this model, I’m defining faith as a principal of action. Faith is the moving cause of all we do. The principal that excites or gives energy to any activity or pursuit, mental or physical, is motivated by what I am referring to here as faith. Would you exert yourself to pursue any activity unless you believed it would return the desired result? As Napolean Hill defined it in his book Think and Grow Rich:

Faith is the ‘external elixir’ that gives life, power, and action, to the impulse of thought.

To this I would add that faith, as a moving cause of action, is not limited to temporal concerns, but applies to spiritual concerns as well.

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. (Heb 11:6)

For these reasons I submit that the preferred method of learning is by faith, but that as long as you can be flexible in your approach, a skeptical frame of mind is still a useful model for discovering truth.

The top of the model could be represented simply with a period. The period closes the sentence. A period makes a statement, dot, the end. No more to be said, no more to learn, no more divine wisdom to be gained.

The bottom of the model, on the other hand, could be represented with a question mark. A question mark opens. It’s only when we ask questions that we get answers.

On the left is a skeptical approach to learning. Many fear (and justifiably so) being taken advantage of. The critical approach is employed to protect against this. The right side of the model represents an accepting or believing approach. This may seem counterintuitive to the skeptic, but it is precisely this approach that is encouraged in many religious texts and spiritual practices.

Read the following statement by Hugh Nibley and consider the top of the model where you see “blind skepticism” and “blind faith”:

If I come down and say, “I just saw a polar bear in Rock Canyon,” what are you supposed to say? “If you say you saw a polar bear in Rock Canyon, Brother Nibley, I believe you.” Well, that’s terrible. I don’t want to hear that. That takes all the wind out of my sails. I want you to go up and see for yourself. Or you might say, “Of course, there’s no polar bear. You didn’t see anything of the sort. No polar bears are found below a certain latitude. Polar bears just aren’t found in these regions, so you didn’t see any polar bear.” Well, I might have; there might have been one that escaped from the zoo. But you don’t know. The thing for you to do is not just take it because I say so, or not to reject it because you are being scientific and you don’t think it can be possible. Find out for yourself.

Hugh Nibley, Teachings of the Book of Mormon, Semester 2, pg 351-352

The bottom quadrants of the model encourage exploration and application. As John Seel writes:

We learn best from experience that captures our imagination and which we subsequently reflect upon analytically: hand, heart, and head.

The New Copernicans, page 23

The left bottom quadrant is where I would place the working principal of knowledge, as oppose to wisdom to the right. By way of illustration, there is value in the knowledge gained by dissecting a frog to learn about its organs, muscles, and bones. But approaching it from the bottom right quadrant, there is much wisdom gained from appreciating the beauty of the living frog – hearing its song, observing how it moves, or trying to capture its color on canvas.