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 Dharma?
Hello:)
I have just published an essay on my salted.net called "What is Dharma?"
I would appreciate any criticisms, error spotting or other commentary:)
It can be read here:
http://salted.net/philosophy/what-is-dharma/
Kind wishes and peace,
Mat
I have just published an essay on my salted.net called "What is Dharma?"
I would appreciate any criticisms, error spotting or other commentary:)
It can be read here:
http://salted.net/philosophy/what-is-dharma/
Kind wishes and peace,
Mat
0
Comments
"[URL="file:///D:/My%20Writings/What%20is%20Dharma.docx#_ftnref2"][2][/URL] “Ontology” is the study of existence and being and the attempt to understand which statements are true of existing things as opposed to nonexisting things."
If you push this thought to its limit, as the Indian Buddhist logician Nagarjuna does, it goes beyond existence vs. nonexistence. Nagarjuna would say that things: exist; nonexist; neither exist nor nonexist; all of the above; none of the above; and that the whole statement is just not applicable. Indian Buddhist logic and "phenomenology" as shown in the Heart Sutra (short version is best) demonstrates that we quickly go beyond logic, semantics, and phenomenology when going into Dharma, such that Dharma is inexpressible in terms of phenomenology. Here is one adaptation of the Heart Sutra that attempts to state this clearly:
<style type="text/css"> <!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --> </style> The Short Teaching Regarding the Heart of Perfect Wisdom
The sincere practitioner Avalokitesvara
while intently practicing the Perfection of Wisdom Meditation
perceived that all of the five phenomenal aggregates are empty of inherent existence
and was thereby saved from all suffering and distress.
He told Shariputra:
Form does not differ from emptiness,
emptiness does not differ from form.
That which is form is emptiness,
that which is emptiness is form.
The same is true of feelings,
perceptions, impulses, and consciousness.
Shariputra,
all perceived phenomena are marked with emptiness.
They do not appear or disappear,
they are neither tainted nor pure,
nor do they increase or decrease.
Therefore, in emptiness there is no form, no feeling,
no perception, no impulse, and no consciousness.
There is no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind;
no color, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touch,
no object of mind,
no mind to perceive,
and so forth
until it is clear that there is no realm of mental consciousness.
There is no ignorance nor extinction of ignorance,
and so forth until no old age and death
and also no extinction of these phenomena.
There is no suffering, no origination,
no stopping, no path, no cognition,
nor is there attainment, because there is nothing to attain.
If the sincere practitioner depends on the Perfection of Wisdom Meditation,
and the mind is not a hindrance,
without any hindrance no fears exist.
Far apart from every incorrect view one dwells in the final state of seeing clearly.
In the innumerable worlds and dimensions
all sincere practitioners depend on the Perfection of Wisdom Meditation
and thereby attain the final state of seeing clearly.
Therefore know that the Mantra of the Perfection of Wisdom
is the great transcendent mantra,
the great clarifying mantra,
the ultimate mantra,
the supreme mantra
which is able to relieve all suffering,
is perfectly clear,
and is beyond any mistaken perception.
So proclaim the Mantra of the Perfection of Wisdom.
Proclaim the mantra which says:
gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha.
“Gone Beyond, gone beyond, gone completely beyond, gone to the other shore.
Clarity.
So it is.”
I'll look at it some more, but (JOKE) you might get tired of me real fast and I'm not sure when I can do it.
IMHO (JOKE) you should use Verdana instead of Arial because it's easier to read. And (JOKE) your spelling is kinda funny- you use s's where there should be z's.
Taking a phenomenological approach to Buddhism can be really difficult. People have been trying to do it for at least 2,500 years. Hang in there.
Thank you.
The word dharma means 'that which supports; that which maintains'.
When we read the scripture, various sectarians met eachother and would ask the question: "To whose dharma to you profess?".
Truth or understanding is just one of many aspects of dharma.
Thank you for your long reply.
I agree with you on the font! It's something I'm looking into changing.
Regarding "Taking a phenomenological approach to Buddhism can be really difficult. People have been trying to do it for at least 2,500 years."
I agree, it hard, and it is made harder by the clutter of scripture and comentary on scripture and cometary on commentary. This is why my project is not to ask:
"What do the scriptures say Dhrama is?" or "What do Buddhists think Dharma is?"
But rather
"What could Dharma Be, assuming it must be consistent?"
Now many many Buddhists and texts allow for the possibility of inconsistency (Some even endorse it as a part of practice). I respect the spirit of such views, but they will not satisfy me.
I need to be certain it all fits together perfectly, from the raw ontology of being right up to our cravings and ignorances.
I personally think it does and I hope the essay shows this to those who also require the consistency constraint:)
Peace, Truth and Happiness to you,
Mat
More later.
Gosh no!
As I argued very convincingly here http://salted.net/essays/was-the-buddha-a-buddhist/ that we cannot really have any notion of what Authority there is in Buddhism.
We only have first principles, which is where I wish to work from.
Frankly, I think the doctrine that purports to supernatural Dharma or anything nonfoundational is what should be given the flashing warning signs:)
Peace:)
Mat
I am absolutely no authority, nor do I have any authority; I simply start from the position of doubting everything and seeing what can be certain. That is consistency, impermanence, negativity and emptiness/interconnectivity.
If you wish to show me I am mistaken then you merely need to show me where I am mistaken in this view of Dharma:)
I want to know the truths were true before the Buddha found and taught and then others augmented.
Do you see this?
It is pure:)
Mat
In my opinion, you need to put that statement on your site and with every essay about Buddhism that you write. It would be the same with any group or set of ideas you profess to write about. Say, for instance, that you claimed affiliation with some political group or set of ideas, but what you wrote was not consistent with that group or set of ideas. It's just a fundamental contradiction. For instance, you couldn't claim to be a Social Democrat and then write that "The Invisible Hand of the Free Market Should Govern All Economic Activity".
In the same way, you can't claim to write as a Buddhist if you question the classical Buddhist teachings so radically. You are free to question the classical Buddhist teachings so radically on your own and to represent it as your own thinking and nothing more, but it's fundamentally contradictory for you to claim to be a Buddhist and do that.
You can claim that it's "Mat-Dharma", but you can't claim that it's Buddhadharma. The most courteous thing you could do for your readership is to make that clear on your site from the outset. You can't make the claim that "Dharmic Truth One is that All systems are Consistent" in the name of Buddhadharma, because that's just not true of Buddhadharma. You can make that claim in the context of "Mat-Dharma", but it's fundamentally contradictory to claim that it's Buddhadharma, because it's just not.
It's not Buddhism and it's not Dharma in the classic Buddhist sense. You are free to represent it as Mat-ism, but please don't represent it as Buddhism because it's just not Buddhism.
I'm not sure how much more time I'll be able to spend with this today, but I think it's really important that you make that disclaimer and distinction for your intended readers.
I think you miss my point:)
Mat's Dharmic Truth One is that All Systems are Consistent. But that's not Buddhism's Dharmic Truth One. That's all I'm saying.
I am not representing anything. I am stating what I can see as the self evident truths of all contingent systems.
If you like, see it as scraping Buddhism and starting again to see what we can see the Buddha discovered.
You do not know what Buddhadharma was, nor do I. We only have the clearly modified scriptural authority for that and that is internally inconsistent , historically implausible and empirically disconfirmable, as I have argued elsewhere on salted.net:)
Do you believe that the Buddha believed that all systems are consistent? That is, do you think the Buddha allowed for contradictions? Or, in less technical terms, was the Buddha a man of reason or not?
Mat
That was constructive:)
Can you answer the question? It is a simple one:)
Did the Buddha allow for contradictions?
As long as that's clear. I may not have time to engage in the whole phenomenological discussion today. For the moment, I'll grant you that I think the Buddha was a man of reason, and he wouldn't expect anyone to take anything on blind faith.
I agree. And I am not sure where we disagree then?
Maybe you are picking up on the nomenculture of the "first truth", sure, call it the zeroth truth or whatever, the point is, it is true of all systems.
So we have that, and then the other three... again... do you believe those?
I don't even know what that means:)
Spiritual practice is fundamentally a demolition. Get used to it.
You cannot answer the question, that's fine, I agree it would take reason and thought.
Do you see though that you belittle yourself when you try to belittle my my attempts to answer. Sure, you are far more enlightened than ignorant me, but maybe rather than bring negativity to this, why not just light some more incense and relax your oh so pure ego?
Mat
Buddhism as a tradition and practice is much more than this and actually has beaten you to the punch by about two thousand years on the whole idea of going beyond those scriptures and finding out for oneself what the Buddha actually discovered. Your writings hold vast evidence that you have had no experience with an actual Buddhist teacher. If you did you would see that the scriptures are support for transmitting personal experience and knowledge from teacher to student. This among other things renders your entire thesis redundant, outdated, and misinformed.
Its not very salty.
Can you, simply, tell me, what my mistakes are, rather than saying I am mistaken because I am not in accordance with the scriptures that have no accurate authenticty?
Or do you simply have faith in them?
Show me I am wrong, or simply disagree, you cannot say I am wrong just because I disagree with your view, that I consider probably mistaken:)
Put up, or go in silence;)
Mat
And
Be well with your very Buddhist Inconsitency
I belittle nothing. A delusion is a delusion, and calling it so does not make it any littler than it is.
Why is it a delusion to think that the foundation of Dharma is the Fourth Truths I mentioned?
You always refuse my questions and simply insult. Try to think for yourself and answer pllllllease!:)
Mat
I simply pointed out a simple and clear area where your argument is flawed.
brian <script type="text/javascript">vbmenu_register("postmenu_79709", true); </script>
I am thinking for myself. It's you who wants me to let you think for me...
That is not the fundamental delusion. The fundamental delusion is that you think anything you've written here could possibly be of any use, even if it were true. It's typical of analytic philosophers, thinking they can do something which matters using reason alone, with no consideration for experience. The fact is, even if every word of this essay were true, you'd still be a narcissistic asshole, and putting an end to that is what Buddhist practice is really about.
How can you possibly know anything about me when you don't read my words other than a quick scan to see if they fit with your indoctrinated and indoctrinating view?
I have to assume you are American because of your aggression and insulting manner. I hope you find a way to work through that:)
Be well,
Mat
LOL! I'm flattered. Please don't take my sense of humour and lack of seriousness me being full of my self on twitter. I am very far from the arrogant you seem to think.
It was agreeseve, negate, needles, mean spirited and very un Buddist of you to come in like that, if you start with negative you make more negative.
Be nice. I'm sure we both mean well:)
twitter.com/matripley
The point is, most people are narcissistic assholes, Buddhist practice puts an end to that, among other forms of suffering, and your ideas are completely irrelevant to this central goal, and in fact impede your personal progress towards this goal, because these ideas are a vehicle for your ego.
"You state no facts, just your opinion.
You are into the pith and skin,
Not what is deeper in the onion.
And so, as you walk the path,
Your head is a bunion."
Five Bell's Sutra:p
That's a joke, by the way:)
Does humour belong in buddhism?
Anyways, I disagree, Mr Grumpy. I think you may well be the one mistaken:)
You don't have the means, nor are there the facts, to show me you are not mistaken.
So all you can do is insult and shout sutradogma:)
Maybe try you should try doubting things, see where you end up?
I didn't know we were so popular. Seriously this isn't too much danger someone is going to mistake someone's blog for the keys to enlightenment. Not worth arguing.
I agree! Where on earth do I tout this as anything other than my attempts to see the ontology of Dharma.
It isnt worth arguing because there is no argument other than to attack the actual reasoning I have made (which would be fine) or just ignore it and be your own light.
Its not a competition...
I've decided to go with the just ignoring it and being my own light. Thank you for sharing and have a nice day.
One thing my teacher has told me is that there is no airtight theory of reality. I think whenever you try to make something like that you end up to heavy and rigid. Which my teacher has told me is a hindrance to progressing spiritually. Because our rigid views cause us so much suffering. No one view can freeze reality and describe it. They are all useful to a point but once you get attached to the view you end up suffering when it is no longer an appropriate view.
Second my teacher has stated that there are contradictions in the dharma in a way. All teachings are skillful means they are not ultimate truth imo. So you can have two teachings that appear contradictory. Because they are remedies for specific problems their purpose is not to form an airtight theory. Rather their purpose is to correct one problem.
An example of this is the idea of non-self. Which is an antidote to clinging to the idea of a self. Clinging to concepts. Clinging to views. But you can also cling to the idea of emptiness in which case you might reintroduce the idea of a self. A self that is unconditional awareness. Theres a whole debate about this and since I am nowhere near an understanding of emptiness I will just express that I do not wish to debate that topic. Here I am just using this as an example of two teachings appearing contradictory with the purpose of removing attachment to a view of self. Or a view of emptiness.
How does he or she know that?
Do you question or just accept what they say?
Why do you think that?
I agree, but is there not a foundation to reality?
Why would think there is not?
Do you not think we can even speak about it?
Understood. But I would say that your teacher is wrong because if there are two contradictory teachings then one of them must be wrong.
A Buddhist can be reasonable or unreasonable, I am only interested in debate and progressing within the bounds of reason:)
It is that simple to me:)
Don't mistake the finger for the moon :cool:
Here's an exercise for you... See where your thoughts come from.. go to.. and abide...
When you see then you should be amazed. If you say 'so what' then I would say your at a purely intellectual level.
You assume that I haven't trevelled anywhere in the practice of Buddhism, that i just sit and navel gaze about it.
You are mistaken:)
And I don't say "So what" and I do fine it amazing, as an expericne rather than intellectually etc.
I even mention these higher things in the essay.
But the essay is about the foundational blocks, not the experiences dharmically neccsitated by those blocks.
There what dharma before meditation, you know:)
Mat
Its not about right or wrong, its not an ego competition, even though many here instantly think it is as soon as there is challenge to their their orthodoxy. I see it every time I post here, pretty much.
I don't know at all I am right, I do know that I haven't been shown to be wrong. This is not because I am claiming anything about my beliefs or insights or ignorances, rather I am simply claiming that the Buddha held the view that:
All systems are consistent.
All systems are impermanent.
All systems are systems are connected.
All systems are empty.
All systems inevitably tend towards the negative.
All causes have many effects.
All effects have many causes.
All effects are causes.
That is it.
If you think he didn't hold that view then either explain why or hold that view as an article of faith. They are the only paths, are they not?
Thanks
Mat
I mention that not to correct you on something but as an avenue of investigation for you should you fancy it.
This material would not be considered foundational by most practitioners. The foundations concern death and impermanence, and the samsara of emotional reactivity and projected world views. ("Thoughts which turn the mind to dharma.")
Do you believe Dharma was true five billion years ago? ie when we can be pretty sure there was no life in the universe...
Do you think Dharma only applies to Experience?
Be nice in your answers please:)
Mat
YES
WHY?
Buddha stated that he taught only extinction of suffering..
Without an experience of suffering there is nothing to teach in dharma.