Where is the line between Buddhism and Dhamma?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 927
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am

Re: Where is the line between Buddhism and Dhamma?

Post by seeker242 » Sun Jun 16, 2019 11:45 am

There is no line. Buddhism = teaching of Buddha = Dhamma

justindesilva
Posts: 1038
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 12:38 pm

Re: Where is the line between Buddhism and Dhamma?

Post by justindesilva » Sun Jun 16, 2019 1:31 pm

budo wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:28 pm
The suttas
We as buddhists read suttas and accept damma through the damma that is perceived through salayatana say apo tejo vayo patavi or water air or fire earth. That is the conventional truth. Lord Budda who cleary sensed the fear of understanding conventional truth explained that damma should be seen in depth with " mula paryaya sutta". This sutta explains the meaning of apo tejo vayo patavi should be understood with the meaning of absolutes.
This sutta draws the line of buddhism ( conventional truth ) and real damma.
Pl. down load mula paryaya sutta and read for clarity.

User avatar
Pseudobabble
Posts: 937
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:11 am
Location: London

Re: Where is the line between Buddhism and Dhamma?

Post by Pseudobabble » Sun Jun 16, 2019 8:48 pm

DooDoot wrote:
Sat Jun 15, 2019 12:18 pm
binocular wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:27 pm
Where is the line between Buddhism and Dhamma?
Dhamma is natural truth or natural law. Buddhism appears to be a social construct, generally a "religion".
:goodpost:

Dhamma seems to me to be a description of how to see, and operate according to, the laws of reality and human involvement in it, in a way which leads away from suffering.
"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.'" - Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta


'Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return.' - Genesis 3:19

'Some fart freely, some try to hide and silence it. Which one is correct?' - Saegnapha

Phena
Posts: 477
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 6:40 am

Re: Where is the line between Buddhism and Dhamma?

Post by Phena » Mon Jun 17, 2019 12:59 am

I would go further and say we need to ensure Buddhism doesn't corrupt the Dhamma.

binocular
Posts: 6688
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Where is the line between Buddhism and Dhamma?

Post by binocular » Mon Jun 17, 2019 10:45 am

SDC wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:55 pm
Srilankaputra wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:11 pm
Sotapanna
Perhaps not precisely, but I think you’re on the right track.

I think the answer is “understanding”. That is really the line.
Stream entry comes with a particular understanding, among other things. That's the whole point of stream entry.

I find that Srilankaputra gave the most concise and precise reply. Given all the varieties that surround the definition of the terms "Buddhism" and "Dhamma", the OP wondered if there would be a neat way around those varieties. And apparently, there is one!
Every person we save is one less zombie to fight. -- World War Z

binocular
Posts: 6688
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Where is the line between Buddhism and Dhamma?

Post by binocular » Mon Jun 17, 2019 11:03 am

Dan74 wrote:
Sat Jun 15, 2019 5:26 pm
Is that what it takes? What is really there to take or not take for granted?
binocular wrote:
Sat Jun 15, 2019 3:57 pm
Taking for granted that one is in the right religion, the right lineage, the right group.
Bowing, kneeling, chanting, prostrating -- none of that is going to make some particular religious choice the right religious choice. If it would, cults would be full of happy, perfectly functional, and most of all, enlightened people.
Like much of the flow of life, playing with children or a walk in the forest, prostrating in the temple hall or offering Dana, the experience of it, the participation, the communion, do not need to be burdened by self-conscious awareness or a critical observer keeping a respectful distance, do they?
Self-conscious awareness is not a burden, other than perhaps to those who are trying something to hide, esp. from themselves.
I mean I am not advocating delighting in a Nuremberg rally here. Or am I bringing everything down to the superficial again?
You're missing some important points.
Such as the difference between cultist submission and what could be termed "healthy spirituality".
Then you're not accounting for the different modes of practice that people take up, depending on their particular circumstances. For example, someone who has relatively easy access to a Buddhist community will develop a different mode of practice in contrast to someone who has no such access and is left mostly to themselves.

To say that both are supposed to live up to the same devotional standard, with the same external expression and the same motivation is ... well, I don't know what exactly it is, other than that it is characteristic for religious group mentality.
Every person we save is one less zombie to fight. -- World War Z

binocular
Posts: 6688
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Where is the line between Buddhism and Dhamma?

Post by binocular » Mon Jun 17, 2019 11:04 am

Phena wrote:
Mon Jun 17, 2019 12:59 am
I would go further and say we need to ensure Buddhism doesn't corrupt the Dhamma.
Could it do that? If yes, how?
Could you unpack this a bit, please?
Every person we save is one less zombie to fight. -- World War Z

binocular
Posts: 6688
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Post by binocular » Mon Jun 17, 2019 12:18 pm

SDC wrote:
Sat Jun 15, 2019 3:41 pm
So maybe that is the line: Buddhism is access to the opportunity to understand the Dhamma.
When can a person be said to have that access?
Every person we save is one less zombie to fight. -- World War Z

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 5080
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re:

Post by SDC » Mon Jun 17, 2019 6:52 pm

binocular wrote:
Mon Jun 17, 2019 12:18 pm
SDC wrote:
Sat Jun 15, 2019 3:41 pm
So maybe that is the line: Buddhism is access to the opportunity to understand the Dhamma.
When can a person be said to have that access?
Everyone has access to the opportunity. Not everyone sees it as an opportunity for Dhamma though. For many, it is an opportunity for involvement, for identity, for community and companionship. These things are critical though. DW is a community. Posting here is an opportunity for all of those things. So everyone here sees the value in that even if they want to pretend they don't. People want to have a place. They want their ideas to have a place.

But to pick it up as an opportunity to access the Dhamma means an additional dimension of work which is related to, but separate from the public involvement. The Buddha even described the one aspect as Discipline and the other as Dhamma. You have your involvement which requires an attitude in a certain direction and then you have your personal situation which requires another.

Are you asking how someone knows they have access to the Dhamma?

binocular
Posts: 6688
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Re:

Post by binocular » Tue Jun 18, 2019 11:21 am

SDC wrote:
Mon Jun 17, 2019 6:52 pm
Are you asking how someone knows they have access to the Dhamma?
Yes.

Prior to stream-entry, one doesn't know whether something one has access to is the Dhamma or not. All pre-stream-entry proofs are ambiguous, equivocal. They could be proofs of Dhamma, or not.
-- That's just following the implications of the definition of stream entry.
Every person we save is one less zombie to fight. -- World War Z

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 5670
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Re:

Post by Sam Vara » Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:47 pm

binocular wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 11:21 am
SDC wrote:
Mon Jun 17, 2019 6:52 pm
Are you asking how someone knows they have access to the Dhamma?
Yes.

Prior to stream-entry, one doesn't know whether something one has access to is the Dhamma or not. All pre-stream-entry proofs are ambiguous, equivocal. They could be proofs of Dhamma, or not.
-- That's just following the implications of the definition of stream entry.
It's also following the implications of every other knowledge-claim one might make. What standards of proof do you normally require in life?

binocular
Posts: 6688
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Re:

Post by binocular » Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:35 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:47 pm
It's also following the implications of every other knowledge-claim one might make. What standards of proof do you normally require in life?
That's not the issue. If, by definition, one cannot be unequivocally sure of the Dhamma until stream entry, then it is so. I'm not going to argue with definitions.

But there is no shortage of Buddhists who claim to have proof of Dhamma long before they have attained stream entry, who severely criticize others for being "of little faith". That's one of those situations where Buddhist apologists clash with Buddhist doctrine.
Every person we save is one less zombie to fight. -- World War Z

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 5670
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Re:

Post by Sam Vara » Tue Jun 18, 2019 4:22 pm

binocular wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:35 pm
Sam Vara wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:47 pm
It's also following the implications of every other knowledge-claim one might make. What standards of proof do you normally require in life?
That's not the issue. If, by definition, one cannot be unequivocally sure of the Dhamma until stream entry, then it is so. I'm not going to argue with definitions.

But there is no shortage of Buddhists who claim to have proof of Dhamma long before they have attained stream entry, who severely criticize others for being "of little faith". That's one of those situations where Buddhist apologists clash with Buddhist doctrine.
What do they mean when they say they have "proof of Dhamma"? They might just mean they have proof that it is right for them, or that practising works. Could you cite a couple of real examples so we are better able to see what they mean?

budo
Posts: 1752
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:16 am

Re: Re:

Post by budo » Tue Jun 18, 2019 4:41 pm

binocular wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:35 pm
Sam Vara wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:47 pm
It's also following the implications of every other knowledge-claim one might make. What standards of proof do you normally require in life?
That's not the issue. If, by definition, one cannot be unequivocally sure of the Dhamma until stream entry, then it is so. I'm not going to argue with definitions.

But there is no shortage of Buddhists who claim to have proof of Dhamma long before they have attained stream entry, who severely criticize others for being "of little faith". That's one of those situations where Buddhist apologists clash with Buddhist doctrine.
Stream entry aside, if you do something that improves your life, and that something that you're doing is unique to the dhamma, then you owe that to the Buddha, or whoever compiled the suttas.

I would say the 5 hindrances, let alone the 4NT, satisfies that criteria.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 5670
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Re:

Post by Sam Vara » Tue Jun 18, 2019 4:52 pm

budo wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 4:41 pm
binocular wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:35 pm
Sam Vara wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:47 pm
It's also following the implications of every other knowledge-claim one might make. What standards of proof do you normally require in life?
That's not the issue. If, by definition, one cannot be unequivocally sure of the Dhamma until stream entry, then it is so. I'm not going to argue with definitions.

But there is no shortage of Buddhists who claim to have proof of Dhamma long before they have attained stream entry, who severely criticize others for being "of little faith". That's one of those situations where Buddhist apologists clash with Buddhist doctrine.
Stream entry aside, if you do something that improves your life, and that something that you're doing is unique to the dhamma, then you owe that to the Buddha, or whoever compiled the suttas.

I would say the 5 hindrances, let alone the 4NT, satisfies that criteria.
:goodpost:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], binocular, Google [Bot], Laurens, manas, mikenz66 and 329 guests