Where is the line between Buddhism and Dhamma?
Re: Where is the line between Buddhism and Dhamma?
There is no line. Buddhism = teaching of Buddha = Dhamma
-
- Posts: 2602
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 12:38 pm
Re: Where is the line between Buddhism and Dhamma?
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.
- Pseudobabble
- Posts: 938
- Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:11 am
- Location: London
Re: Where is the line between Buddhism and Dhamma?
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
"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
Re: Where is the line between Buddhism and Dhamma?
I would go further and say we need to ensure Buddhism doesn't corrupt the Dhamma.
Re: Where is the line between Buddhism and Dhamma?
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!
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Re: Where is the line between Buddhism and Dhamma?
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.
Self-conscious awareness is not a burden, other than perhaps to those who are trying something to hide, esp. from themselves.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?
You're missing some important points.I mean I am not advocating delighting in a Nuremberg rally here. Or am I bringing everything down to the superficial again?
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.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Re: Where is the line between Buddhism and Dhamma?
Could it do that? If yes, how?
Could you unpack this a bit, please?
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Re:
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?
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
Re: Re:
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.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Re: Re:
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 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2019 11:21 amYes.
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.
Re: Re:
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.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Re: Re:
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?binocular wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:35 pmThat'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.
Re: Re:
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.binocular wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:35 pmThat'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.
I would say the 5 hindrances, let alone the 4NT, satisfies that criteria.
Re: Re:
budo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2019 4:41 pmStream 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.binocular wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:35 pmThat'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.
I would say the 5 hindrances, let alone the 4NT, satisfies that criteria.