Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
What is missing from the Dhammapada?
thickpaper
Veteran
Question: In your opinion - What aspects of Buddhism that are not in the Dhammapada do you think would need to be taught to teach/understand/practice Dharma?
(Or, in other words, "What is the Dhammapada missing?"
Thanks in advance:)
(Or, in other words, "What is the Dhammapada missing?"
Thanks in advance:)
0
Comments
But maybe I'm wrong. I haven't read DP for a while.
I love the Dhammapada. But, it's like reading an extended version of the Biblical Proverbs. Infact, it's exactly that--a huge collection of proverbs sorted into a rough structure of catagories, but within each catagory, largely random.
Plattitudes and proverbs have their place, but the entire Dhammapada boils down to a general rule, listed as:
183. To avoid all evil, to cultivate good, and to cleanse one's mind — this is the teaching of the Buddhas.
So go forth, avoid evil, do good, develop a clean mind. Why do we need the other sutras?
Because religion is more than a list of plattitudes. HOW to you avoid evil, and HOW do you do good, and HOW do you cleanse your mind? And if the "Twins" section tells me duality is a mistake, isn't dividing the world into good and evil also a mistake? I need instruction. I need something better than a list of plattitudes and proverbs.
So this is a wonderful sutra. Just not enough to stand on its own.
As do we all, yet what instruction is missing from the DP? This is my point, the point of my post.
It has the three marks. It has the four noble truths. It has the eightfold path. It is bursting with wisdom on kindness, truth, others, introspection, morality, self-conquering and midnfullness.
What is missing?
I can see it doesn't mention the 12 Niddanas and much of that "Higher Dharma" - But nor does the Fire Sermon, The First Sermon, The Last Sermon.
In your opinion is the Ahibdamma closer to Dhamma than the Dhamapada?
Please bear in mind that I have neglected the Dhammapda for most of my life as a Buddhist and have searched in those other areas. It's quite a surprise for me to find such essence of Dhamma in that scruffy little brown book in bought in Colombo airport near a decade ago.
So I really don't want to get into a "Dhammas on the table" kind of debate:) I am just curious about specific teachings that the Dhammapada lacks.
In peace and kindness
What the Dhammapada lacks is coherency. All this wisdom is fine, but the libraries are full of wisdom. Those didn't do me any good before I found the Dharma, and this one sutra won't be good enough by itself, because the Dhammapada doesn't tell me where to start or what to do.
So all right, say I start reading it. So it says thinking someone beat me or robbed me is wrong. So how do I stop thinking that, when it's the truth? How can thinking the truth be wrong? The Dhammapada doesn't say. It plops the statement out on the paper and assumes you recognize what it's telling you. Teachings that are coherent anticipate the questions. All that wisdom sits on the paper but a real teaching leads you to discover the truth for yourself. That is what the Dhammapada is lacking. Am I explaining it any better? For some reason, I can't find the exact words I need tonight.
Unfortunately it's often taken as some kind of Buddhist Bible, which makes me shudder, because if you read this and nothing else, you won't have a particularly good grasp of Buddhism. As a result, many people have been misled about Buddhism, or turned off by it.
I think it's best appreciated as a motivational reminder of teachings you might already understand. Something worth perusing once in a while.
Put it this way: if i could only have one Buddhist book in my possession, it wouldn't be the Dhammapada. (Don't ask me what it *would* be, that's a tough choice, but i know it wouldn't be the Dhammapada).
It strikes me (now very profoundly) that the DP is the quintessential dhamma tool to enable us to teach ourselves. It presents the principles of dharma at every level (apart from the mystical). It avoids the unsimple, it lights up the path in a way that all those other books and suttras haven’t, at least for me.
Maybe that is my ignorance of dharma, hence my initial question, what is missing? You have hones down your opinion on the matter, and it seems others agree with it, but I remain in the dark as to what concepts or teaching are missing. You need to contemplate what it tells you? The passages you refer to are about the karmic feedback of negative action. It doesn’t state that explicitly, like Buddhism 101 might, but if you think about it, as an interconnected whole, how else can it be? I see what you are saying I think.
You want a teaching to lead you from the truths and along the path?
That seems fine to me, but it seems there is also skill and wisdom in the path where we “teach ourselves and be our own lights”. I think the DP stands up to that more than anything else I have read to being that kind of guidepost. Yes, I think I get what you are saying, but I remain unsure about what practice/teaching or concept is missing from the Dharmapada that is elsewhere in the Cannon.
Metta
Third noble truth: Discussion of the nature of mind to overcome obstacles is missing. Thus the reader shudders in horror that they too are evil fools.
So If we had to choose a single text to represent the Buddha's teachings, what would you recommend over the Dhamapada?
Perhaps you can shed light on what would be missing? This is something I hadn't considered. Thank you. Maybe my interest in it now is because of my fairly good understanding of dharma and it wouldn't have the weight it has now as a greenhorn. I shall ponder this!
Ok, what would it be a tough choice between? A selection would shed more light than a void!:)
namaste
Zen started when buddha handed someone a flower. And one of his disciples perceived his wisdom mind. So I would take the wisdom mind rather than a book.
Tradition and legends
The Flower Sermon
The origins of Zen Buddhism are ascribed to the Flower Sermon, the earliest source for which comes from the 14th century.[4] It is said that Gautama Buddha gathered his disciples one day for a Dharma talk. When they gathered together, the Buddha was completely silent and some speculated that perhaps the Buddha was tired or ill. The Buddha silently held up and twirled a flower and twinkled his eyes; several of his disciples tried to interpret what this meant, though none of them was correct. One of the Buddha's disciples, Mahākāśyapa, silently gazed at the flower and broke into a broad smile. The Buddha then acknowledged Mahākāśyapa's insight by saying the following:[4]
I possess the true Dharma eye, the marvelous mind of Nirvāṇa, the true form of the formless, the subtle Dharma gate that does not rest on words or letters but is a special transmission outside of the scriptures. This I entrust to Mahākāśyapa.
Thus, through Zen there developed a way which concentrated on direct experience rather than on rational creeds or revealed scriptures. Wisdom was passed, not through words, but through a lineage of one-to-one direct transmission of thought from teacher to student. It is commonly taught that such lineage continued all the way from the Buddha's time to the present.
"The Dhammapada" is like the Four Noble Truths -- it makes observations about the world around us. We are free to agree, disagree, be inspired, laugh, cry ... whatever.
What is implicit, but not explicit, is like The Eightfold Path which may find its inspiration in The Four Noble Truths, but gets down to the nitty-gritty ... something along the lines of, "If you want to end suffering, here are the tools with which to do it."
Of course there are still more detailed instructions needed. For example, you can't just say "right meditation" to someone and expect them to know what, precisely, they are supposed to do. The Eightfold Path does not say (from a Zen perspective), "Sit down, cross your legs, straighten your spine, shut up, sit still and focus the mind."
The Dhammapada can help build the intention which may (or may not) later turn into action. The Dhammapada may park the car in the driveway, but there's still the problem of where you left the keys.
So why am I not enlightened yet? Are you enlightened mat er thickpaper? I would like more help than just the dhammapada.
At the same time it is not lacking anything. That is the whole dharma. It says nothing to hold onto. Can't hold onto the dhammapada. It is empty. Yet there is nothing else needed to be said. It is sufficient. Which is to say that the mind is the treasure. You are looking for it in a book and it is there and here.
_________________________
@jeffrey -- Well, for starters, who says you're not? And if you take responsibility for saying it, then you have to acknowledge that you could not possibly know such a thing unless you were in fact enlightened. Anything else is hot air and speculation.
The "more help" you seek is all over the internet. I don't know what school of Buddhism you prefer, but there are plenty of A-B-C descriptions of how to meditate, for example. Or do prostrations. Or chant. There are even places where you can email a monk with your concerns and get a reply.
There are also places where you can purchase amulets and halos and other super-secret gizmos if that's your style. I wouldn't bother with them if I were you, but I don't imagine they'd be for sale if someone weren't convinced and others weren't making a bundle.
Never mind Buddhism for a moment. Just seriously ... what do you think?
I still need great help from a meditation teacher, and I get that.
I don't think I need help understanding simple dharma. I would need help if I wanted to try (again) to understand the ahibdharma. I think it lacks an explicit statement of interdependent causation (I don't mean the 12 Nids which I don't see as Dharma).
I think it lacks an explanation of how tanha negatively feeds-back, though it expresses the phenomena in a number of ways.
I think it lacks the structural representation of the defilements, ie how ignorance leads to hatred/greed/dishonesty... and on...
And perhaps most importantly it lacks a statement of the Dharmic doubt>clarity method we find in the Kalama Suttra.
Other than that, it seems complete to me. Hence my original post asking for what it lacks:)
Thank's for your thoughts Jeffrey.
xx
I am looking from a subjective perspective while you are assessing from an objective.
Have a look at one of my favorite commentaries at
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30374752/Dhammapada-Illustrated