All dhammas are personal, not public

[SarathW]

(buckle up...)

Got it.
So what are Dhamma and dhamma?

[Dhammanando]

OP is encouraging people to t hink and comment on what "dhamma" means with respect to the Dhamma.

What are the Pali words for Dhamma and dhamma?

Dhammo and dhammā.

That is, the singular form more often (though not always) means the Dhamma rather than dhammas. The plural more often (though not always) means dhammas rather than the Dhamma.

[Spiny Norman]

Greetings Dinsdale,

So with this view, do sense objects count as dhammas? Sights, sounds, sensations, flavours, odours, mind-objects.

As per what Chownah said, yes, but only the sense objects themselves (in contrast to the raw stimuli, from which you fabricated/sankhata the "sense object").

Metta,
Paul.

Sure, we process the raw stimuli from the sense-bases in a personal way, and use it to fabricate a mental model of what is "out there" ( and "in here" if you include the mind-base ).

But if you don't want to call the raw stimuli a dhamma, then what name do you want to give it?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Dinsdale,

But if you don't want to call the "raw data" a dhamma, then what name do you give it?

I'd probably call it "raw stimuli" if I were going to speak of it, but anything along those lines would be fine... so long as it wasn't "dhamma".

Metta,
Paul.

[Spiny Norman]

Greetings Dinsdale,

But if you don't want to call the "raw data" a dhamma, then what name do you give it?

I'd probably call it "raw stimuli" if I were going to speak of it, but anything along those lines would be fine... so long as it wasn't "dhamma".

Does the definition of "dhamma" you posted at the top of this page actually exclude the raw stimuli? Is the distinction really between fabricated dhammas and "plain" dhammas? The distinction between name and form, nama and rupa?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Dinsdale,

Does the definition of "dhamma" you posted at the top of this page actually exclude the raw stimuli?

Yes, I'm going at great lengths to make that point, as it's the point of differentiation that's either not cognized by people, or it's one they typically wish to paper over and/or grant no significance to... but here it is in the extended definition provided...

Psychologically; "mentality" as the constitutive element of cognition & of its substratum, the world of phenomena. It is that which is presented as "object" to the imagination & as such has an effect of its own: -- a presentation (Vorstellung), or idea, idea, or purely mental phenomenon as distinguished from a psycho-physical phenomenon, or sensation (re-action of sense-organ to sense stimulus). The mind deals with ideas as the eye deals with forms: it is the abstraction formed by mano, or mind proper, from the objects of sense presented by the sense-organ when reacting to external objects. Thus cakkhu "faculty of sight" corresponds to rūpa "relation of form" & mano "faculty of thought" (citta & ceto its organ or instrument or localisation) corresponds to dhamma "mentalized" object or "idea" (Mrs. Rh. D. "mental object in general," also "state of mind")

Is the distinction really between fabricated dhammas and "plain" dhammas?

What are these so-called "plain" dhammas? The only unfabricated dhamma is nibbana, so what could these "plain dhammas" be if they're neither fabricated dhammas, nor unfabricated nibbana? (Clue: Maybe it's best not to regard them as "dhammas" at all? After all, who or what compels you to regard them as "dhammas" other than past assumptions that they should be?)

The distinction between name and form, name and rupa?

I don't know what you're getting at here, but I suspect you're trying to give "rupa" a different definition and meaning to "form"?

Metta,
Paul.

[SarathW]

OP is encouraging people to t hink and comment on what "dhamma" means with respect to the Dhamma.

What are the Pali words for Dhamma and dhamma?

Dhammo and dhammā.

That is, the singular form more often (though not always) means the Dhamma rather than dhammas. The plural more often (though not always) means dhammas rather than the Dhamma.

Thank you, Bhante.
So Dhammo is singular and dhammaa is plural?
So is it Buddha Dhammo?

[Dhammanando]

So Dhammo is singular and dhammaa is plural?

Yes.

So is it Buddha Dhammo?

If you make the two words into a compound, its initial (pre-inflected) form will be buddhadhamma. When it's the subject of a sentence it will take an -o inflection: buddhadhammo.

[Spiny Norman]

Does the definition of "dhamma" you posted at the top of this page actually exclude the raw stimuli?

Yes, I'm going at great lengths to make that point, as it's the point of differentiation that's either not cognized by people, or it's one they typically wish to paper over and/or grant no significance to... but here it is in the extended definition provided...

OK. So what are the implications for practice with this view of "dhamma"? What difference does it make, practically speaking?

[chownah]

Does the definition of "dhamma" you posted at the top of this page actually exclude the raw stimuli?

Yes, I'm going at great lengths to make that point, as it's the point of differentiation that's either not cognized by people, or it's one they typically wish to paper over and/or grant no significance to... but here it is in the extended definition provided...

OK. So what are the implications for practice with this view of "dhamma"? What difference does it make, practically speaking?

Do you mean what is the difference for practice whether we exclude the raw stimuli from being a dhamma or not?

I'm just wanting to be sure I unerstand your question.
chownah

[binocular]

All dhammas are personal, not public.

Are you basically describing a phenomenological approach?

Yes... and saying there's no "dhammas" outside of that.

But you've learned English, and Buddhist terminology somehow. That either limits your "personal", or takes it for granted.

Can you please give your reasons for using the terms
personal
public
internal
external
?

No. Put another way, I'm saying that the dhammas you experience are created by you, and experienced by you.

If we are to be consistent with the personal/public distinction, what you're saying above is merely a projection that one person is making onto another person.
It's you telling me that the dhammas I experience are created by me. I, on the other hand, might not think that way. Then what?

In this context, public means that its existence is not dependent upon an observer.

So what when, for example, a monotheist says that God's existence in not dependent upon an observer (and is, with your words, public)?

My point being that so far, your line of reasoning doesn't seem to be any different from the way people from other religions teach/preach.
There is that same tendency toward projecting things onto others, in an authoritarian manner; and once using loaded terms like "personal", it all gets so much more problematic.

Nanavira talks about some of this sort of thing in his works... he talks about the vertical view (which I have referred to as "personal") and the horizontal view (which I have referred to as "public").

And it seems to me that he can avoid a number of problems that way ...

[binocular]

There is no need to aggregate each individual's kammic experiences in order to transform it to a "public" view.... there is simply the private kammic experiences of all those beings in question. In the suttas, the Buddha teaches to focus on better understanding the private view, as that is where liberation occurs - not in the public world.

But we learn (about) Buddhism from others, in the public -- in a public. It doesn't fall into our minds from the sky somehow.

The Buddha seems to have been interested in epistemology rather than ontology,

The problem is when this epistemology is told to one person by another person. As such, all interpersonal epistemological problems apply. Unless, of course, total unquestioning obedience is prerequisite (for spiritual progress).

[Sam Vara]

There is no need to aggregate each individual's kammic experiences in order to transform it to a "public" view.... there is simply the private kammic experiences of all those beings in question. In the suttas, the Buddha teaches to focus on better understanding the private view, as that is where liberation occurs - not in the public world.

But we learn (about) Buddhism from others, in the public -- in a public. It doesn't fall into our minds from the sky somehow.

The Buddha seems to have been interested in epistemology rather than ontology,

The problem is when this epistemology is told to one person by another person. As such, all interpersonal epistemological problems apply. Unless, of course, total unquestioning obedience is prerequisite (for spiritual progress).

I think a useful point here is to consider what the Buddha said of his teaching:

the Dhamma is directly visible, immediate, inviting one to come and see, applicable, to be personally experienced by the wise.

https://suttacentral.net/en/sn35.70

All interpersonal epistemological problems can apply, of course, if one wants them to. But this disarming little phrase is an invitation to lay them aside, and to see them as "our stuff". As such it deals pertinently with the issue of how and where the Dhamma is encountered, and whether one needs to have recourse to "total unquestioning obedience".

[binocular]

I think a useful point here is to consider what the Buddha said of his teaching:

the Dhamma is directly visible, immediate, inviting one to come and see, applicable, to be personally experienced by the wise.

https://suttacentral.net/en/sn35.70

1. I don't see it that way. I don't see the Dhamma, I don't know how to apply it, or experience it.
2. Christians, for example, make the same type of argument in favor of their paricular religious doctrine. It basically comes down to, "If you try hard enough, you will see that what we're saying is true. And if you don't see it as true, this only means you haven't tried hard enough, or there's something wrong with you." All kinds of people say such things.

All interpersonal epistemological problems can apply, of course, if one wants them to.

How convenient for the religious teacher/preacher! Shift the whole responsibility on the prospective listener!

But this disarming little phrase is an invitation to lay them aside, and to see them as "our stuff".

I don't find it disarming at all.

As such it deals pertinently with the issue of how and where the Dhamma is encountered, and whether one needs to have recourse to "total unquestioning obedience".

I don't think so at all.
Whether it's called "total unquestioning obedience" or "temporary suspension of disbelief" or "preliminary concession" -- it's all similar. There may be gates to the Dhamma, but it's not clear whether there are any bridges to the Dhamma.

[Sam Vara]

I think a useful point here is to consider what the Buddha said of his teaching:

the Dhamma is directly visible, immediate, inviting one to come and see, applicable, to be personally experienced by the wise.

https://suttacentral.net/en/sn35.70

1. I don't see it that way. I don't see the Dhamma, I don't know how to apply it, or experience it.

The sutta quoted gives some very clear advice on how to see it, apply it, and experience it.

Christians, for example, make the same type of argument in favor of their paricular religious doctrine. It basically comes down to, "If you try hard enough, you will see that what we're saying is true. And if you don't see it as true, this only means you haven't tried hard enough, or there's something wrong with you." All kinds of people say such things.

I'm not aware of Christians saying anything like this. It's not about trying hard enough. One can construe it that way, of course, just as one can construe the Dhamma any way one wants to. But the invitation is that one does not need to; it's not a requirement.

How convenient for the religious teacher/preacher! Shift the whole responsibility on the prospective listener!

"Responsibility" is the ability to respond. So it's a lot more convenient for the listener than it is for the teacher. We verify the Dhamma through our own opening of the heart, rather than being persuaded against our will. Without that responsibility, that ability to respond, the teaching is empty words.

I don't find it disarming at all.

Where Angulimala leads, we can follow.

Whether it's called "total unquestioning obedience" or "temporary suspension of disbelief" or "preliminary concession" -- it's all similar. There may be gates to the Dhamma, but it's not clear whether there are any bridges to the Dhamma.

In terms of that particular quote about the Dhamma, there don't need to be any bridges. If bridges were needed, the phrasing would have been "inviting one to build a bridge". But it's just "come and see".