Faith should be logical, sensible and based to some
extent on experience. We do not accept blind-faith as
valid. Rather there are criteria for what is trustworthy
according to Buddhist Scriture.

Look at the subject of vaild cognition in the texts on
Buddhist epistemology and dialectic. In essence
we accept both deduction and induction in the
absence of direct perception. Valid and stable
is both nonconceptual and incontrovertable.

Also try on this definition of faith: trust. We generally
trust our eyes, even though sometimes there are
optical illusions; likewise we assume western science
is valid even though we know that materialism doesn't
explain everything. So is the testimony of Lord Buddha
and his disciples valid? Generally speaking, with regard to
Buddhist subjects yes. But we don't use sutras to build rockets!

Lama Yeshe pointed out many years ago that everybody believes
in something, many things. "Non-believers" often have more opinions
than believers. Sincere practitioners, however are open-minded and
not completely convinced in their culturally conditioned assumptions.
Faith, then serves as a vehicle to undermine our self-evident rationales.

Does this make sense? Karma, for example, may be a hidden phenomenon,
but we can trust the rationality of it and base our life on faith in it. Karma
is actually a more rational view than a creator-god, or nihilism. Either
God or Nihililism may cause us to do the direct opposite of "cause hapiness
for self and other."

So we need reasons to believe, we need belief when reason is insufficient
to keep us going, and we need experience to stengthen both. Make sense?

Faith is very much a part of Buddhism. Usually it is said there are 3 kinds: vivid faith, eager faith and confident faith, in "Words of My Perfect Teacher," or trusting faith, longing faith and clear faith, in the words of "Jewel Ornament of Liberation."

I am sure if you did a websearch you could find as much as you want to know.


"Blind faith" isn't really addressed in Tibetan Buddhism. While it is usually said that it is better to have well-informed bases for one's beliefs, an uninformed belief is better than none at all,

<<< understand Buddhism to advocate belief but to the extent that one finds them as self-evident truth in one's practice.. that nothing should be accepted by faith. >>>

This is a misunderstanding that is not unusual in the west, and it often has its basis in a misreading of the Kalama Sutra. If you read it carefully, you will see that the Buddha was advising those who are evaluating a teacher and teachings they have come across to initially test and evaluate. After one has accepted him or her as one's teacher, it is a different story. Bikkhu Bodhi has an online essay that is very helpful in coming to a proper understanding of this Sutra.

One the greatest scholar on madhyamika has said:
“All the formal teachings and practices are there for one thing alone:
to give us faith.”

The Very Venerable Kechen Thrangu Rinpoche

Faith has been helpful for me as an initial way of working with a concept such as karma, you pretty much have to take it on faith at first given that its a hidden phenomena but if you integrate the teachings on cause and effect into your life you begin to see change so experience with the teachings basically validates the faith. If my experience with something I had faith in did not support that faith I would eventually discard it.
The other thing I often wonder about is whether faith represents a deeper level of knowing. For example I have faith in the teachings on emptiness even though I have not yet realized it experientially. I've often wondered why it was so easy for me to develop faith in some of these teachings, whether it is because a deeper part of me senses their truth.