Sammā diţţi vs. Mityā diţţi...

Blind faith is something that's generally frowned upon in Buddhism. To quote Ven. Rahula in his What The Buddha Taught,

"Almost all religions are built on faith - rather 'blind' faith it would seem. But in Buddhism emphasis is laid on 'seeing', knowing, understanding, and not on faith, or belief. In Buddhist texts there is a word saddhā which is usually translated as 'faith' or 'belief'. But saddhā is not 'faith' as such, but rather 'confidence' born out of conviction."

So how do we develop saddhā? How can we be sure that our convictions are true? How can we be sure that we have understood the Dhamma the way it was intended to be interpreted? Misinterpretation is the cause of so many rifts in other religious groups that the need for right understanding (sammā diţţi; antonym: mityā diţţi) is apparent.

I like to think that I understand quite a bit of basic Buddhism...but the more and more I think about it, the more the question "what if I have understood this concept through rationalisation and not through sammā diţţi?" takes over my mind. It is an unnerving thought. Naturally it is more an issue in concepts that are difficult to comprehend (such as reincarnation), but it is an issue nonetheless.

It's not that I'm doubting what has been taught - that will not happen. However, in my quest to better my understanding of my own convictions, I feel slightly 'exposed' to question. I guess this is part of the process of understanding but still, I am confused.

Any advice is greatly appreciated.

Sabbe sattā bhavantu sukhitattā!