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.
Discussion of Dharmic Terms
Hi folks,
I would like to talk about Dharmic terms with anyone who would like to:)
What I am proposing is we try to come up with a taxonomy of terms that we use in Buddhism, I think this would be helpful, at least to me.
So to start with I am suggesting that we say a term is “Dharmic” if it satisfies these six criteria:
What do you think about these?
Maybe they are rubbish, if so why?
Maybe you have more to add?
Please, just those who want to talk about this as a philosophical and/or interesting exercise:)
Thanks
Mat
I would like to talk about Dharmic terms with anyone who would like to:)
What I am proposing is we try to come up with a taxonomy of terms that we use in Buddhism, I think this would be helpful, at least to me.
So to start with I am suggesting that we say a term is “Dharmic” if it satisfies these six criteria:
- It is subject to impermanence.
- It is empty (Internally and externally interconnected)
- It can be explained in more simple Dharmic terms
- It will be part of an explanation of another Dharmic term.
- It is able to be observed in the external world.
- It is able to be experienced directly.
What do you think about these?
Maybe they are rubbish, if so why?
Maybe you have more to add?
Please, just those who want to talk about this as a philosophical and/or interesting exercise:)
Thanks
Mat
0
Comments
I think you need to clarify, expand and specify.
I wouldn't call them rubbish...I'd call them pointelss mental activities...unless you can elaborate on my previous points...
Why add anything?
What is the point of this exercise?
And I really am just asking, here...
This is a really great taxonomy already....
have a look at that, and then come back and tell me what you think....
You're welcome.
As said, this is just a suggested list of criteria, and I just came up with it today, so I really dont have the answers!:)
Do you a have any better suggestions for such criteria?
It is very easy to make a question, dont ya know;) You just need a question mark.
As said, I am looking for those who would like to work togther clarifying etc
Based on your past responses to such exercises what you have said here, that aint a job for you:)
But I implore you, please can you not censor this post.
That isnt a taxonomy. It is a brekdown. I wish to categorise dharmic terms...
have fun
mat
Do you want Dhammic terms in Pali?
Do you want Dharmic terms in sanskrit?
What is it exactly you're attempting to achieve, that you couldn't just do for yourself?
And - given that you've had 23 hits so far, on this thread, but only I have replied - maybe the confusion is not simply mine.
And please, don't make comments which bring my Moderator impartiality into question.
I never censor, edit, delete, erase or close anything unless i am given good reason to do so.
providing you abide by Forum guidelines, and post appropriately, you're fine.
you seem to have a problem with my posting on your threads.
It's my objective to participate as much as possible, it's also my job.
you'll have to get over it, because this really is your problem, not mine.
If you cannot supply responses to your chosen criteria, what hope have the rest of us got?
If I knew what you were on about, I'd supply a better framework of suggestions....
It baffles me how you have the time to think of all these matters, when in half an hour you could probably make your own criteria and be happy with that. This is wasting time, and the Buddha advised us against it.
?
What was the point of Darwin's taxonomy of finches?
Or The periodic table?
No, English:)
I disagree, but that's history. To a bright future!
Not at all! My issues is with threads getting moved into the dead zone.
Please do, but in the same way as I wouldn't hurl abject criticisms at somes meditation or moral explorations I would hope you wont at my philosophical explorations.
Why not actually try to philosophise?
Salome
Mat
LOL< Fed, In just told you I only just thought of it! Its a forum not an exams board!
I would rather wait for others responses. That is what a discussion is:) See that in the title, "discussion"? Not lecture, discussion:P
You will need to step outside of your initial negative view, methinks.
Owch and wow.
I consider it "Working hard for dharma"
Unto each their own:)
Mat
It is your nature to disagree with much of what is put to you.
I'm not looking for a bright future.
My present is bright enough.;)
It's not a dead zone, it's very much alive.
It's the threads that are found wanting, because everyone knows what you're like, now, Mat....
Not unless it's necessary....
To what end?
Again with 'Salome'.
Do you mean 'Shalom'?
Are you Jewish by origin?
And yes, again, I'm just asking.
EDIT NOTE:
45 hits and counting.
Still just you and me, mat....;)
To provide a taxonomy of dharmic terms.
I find it harder than most to swallow claims I see now justification for, its called being a skeptic, I belive the Buddha was a skeptic.
I am reading 1984 at the moment, it has echos...
No I mean Salome.
The Salome Peace Meditation
Saalome gam naan ben uurda, gan njjber asaala hesporoona!
Peace be on Earth, and among all beings!
OK, i have had a think about this and taken some notes. I have back tracked a bit in the hope it will make it easier for you to see:)
Concepts
There are many concepts in the world and minds, some of them, like "joy", "suffering", "mind", "ignorance", "causation" seem to be distinctly Dharmic. Some of them, like "spanner" and the number 7 seem to be nondharmic.
If we like we can try to classify these concepts. I will give a couple of pretty uninspiring examples to illustrate
Example One: A concept is "mechanic" if:
Example two: A concept is romantic if:
Those examples are probably far from complete but they should give some idea of where we can go with this in terms of discussing dharma:)
As a startuing position I would have as my criteria:
Dharma: a concept or thing is dharmic if:
So we can see, for example, that a spanner is not dharmic against these criteria. It does satisfy at 1,2,5 and 6 but not 3 and 4 . So we would say, as expected, it isnt a dharmic concept.
If we look at something like, say "Craving," we can see that it satisfied 1,2,3,4, 5 and 6. So on my suggested criteria we would say it is Dharmic.
The same seem's true of concepts like: ignorance, suffering, volition, sensation, perception, conciousness. They all seem to be Dharmic terms.
It may get a little tricky when we ask about the very basic concepts of imperminence and emptiness themsleves. Impermanence cannot be explained by more simple terms, nor can emptiness. In fact impermanence seems true of most concepts we have, its like, its predharmic!
And isnt it, in a sense before Dharma?
Doesnt all of Dharma come from the three marks, that just one mark is not of itself Dharma?
So I think there are interesting avenues we can explore if we start to analyse the very concepts that make up Dharma. this would help me and I would hope others.
I would be happy not to discuss any "controversial" dharmic concepts in these terms:)
metta
mat
It would be pointless to put a psychoanalyst in one side and a mythology expert on the other and have them debate what is 'Thanatos'. They have different frameworks and the discussion would be hollow and uninteresting.
For a follower of the Buddha, Dharma is the way out of suffering and the word of the Buddha; from a Catholic point of view, it might be the word of the devil; from a western philosopher's point of view, it is whatever western philosophy makes of it; from an historian's point of view, it might be something else, and so on.
There is no point in putting Buddha and a philosopher side-to-side to discuss what Dharma is or is not.
It is not about the word Dharma and what it means, it is about the context. You can't take a buddhist concept outside a buddhist context and expect it to hold the same meaning. There is no buddhist Dharma without the Buddha, the same way there is no "NamelessRiver ideas" without a real NamelessRiver.
Hope that makes sense.
I am not so sure of that, in your certainty about it being "pointless".
Where do you get the measure to judge which discussions are pointless?
Is not the wise way to simply try and see where you end up?
I believe all things are connected and, again, I have no measure to judge what is going to be uninteretsing before I try it.
That is the aim, yes, but that is not all there is. There is much more to dharma than our little human lives:) It conditions all things.
Should doctors not try to understand parts of biology that doesnt lead directly to them healing?
Why are so coming over so against free enquiry?
I cant think of a view more opposed to mine within Budhism than that. I really cant. i dont know if there is rebirth or devas etc, I havemy views but i can never be certain./
But I am utterly certain Buddha was a philosopher, whoever he was, and that his philosophy is the apex of human achievement that connects our humans lives with the empty reality at litterally all levels
I don't know what you could possibly think dharma is after that line:) i really don't.
Again, I completely disagree. In this universe of luck the Buddha may have been killed at birth in a flood. There would be no buddha.
There would still be Dharma.
Pretty much none whatsoever this time!:) And normally we may not agree in chats but at least we seem to facing the same direction, with what you have said here I am flabberghasted!:)
Good thinking,
Mat
It's worth noting that the Buddha was much more than that. He was also, more importantly, a practitioner of what would later become Buddhism.
Sometime's it's far more important to find out where our questions come from.
The historical Buddha is not a medical scientist. The first and the second have different basis for the work. The first seeks to teach the cessation of suffering, and inquires what leads to suffering and what leads away of suffering. The second wants to learn all the "what is" and "what isn't"s of the human body, so he can heal the body, so he studies what is appropriate for his subject matter - as does the Buddha.
A Buddha is a Buddha; a philosopher is a philosopher.
Shakyamuni's teachings are a finger pointing to the moon, but it is still Shakyamuni's finger. If another Buddha pointed to the moon, it would be with his own set of teachings (or fingers
You asked us what we thought and this is what I think. I am not picketing against free enquiry, I am exercising mine :P
Oh absolutely, at most, the "philosophy" part of the path is a fraction, and its not even one I think needs to be understood to practice:)
But it interests some of us to philosophise and without any doubt the buddha was a supreme philosopher, who's theories now are starting to be confirmed by science.
What, like art and culture, psychology or neuroscience?
Just what do you think the wisdom part of the magga is?
What is right view if not an understaning of things as they are?
What is dependent origination if not a truth about the causal workings of reality?
Buddha was a philosopher, prove to me he wasnt or drop what is the biggest dead duck you have ever peddled!
Dharma is true of all points in all possible realities. If you dont believe this, fine, but i don't see how you can be anywhere near the dharma that fills my life.
Spacing out is the moon.
But experiencing clearly the sixteen stages of Anapanasati is not the moon but groundedness.
If you look at the 12 links you will see some are not linked in a 'cause and effect' fashion.
Don't know what magga is, sorry.
(i) the ethical distinction of kamma into the unwholesome and the wholesome; (ii) the principal cases of each type; and (iii) the roots from which these actions spring. (Mundane Right View)
(Superior Right View) The right view of the Four Noble Truths develops in two stages. The first is called the right view that accords with the truths (saccanulomika samma ditthi); the second, the right view that penetrates the truths (saccapativedha samma ditthi). To acquire the right view that accords with the truths requires a clear understanding of their meaning and significance in our lives. Such an understanding arises first by learning the truths and studying them.
This right view that penetrates the Four Noble Truths comes at the end of the path, not at the beginning. We have to start with the right view conforming to the truths, acquired through learning and fortified through reflection.
I don't know how to do that. How do you prove someone is not a philosopher?
Yes. I just think it will be hard for us to explain it better than a Buddha can.
I remain undecided on those:) I certainly dont see them as being the definition of dependent origination that some do.
They just dont really seem to make sense to me, that may well be my igornace of them but its also possible that its mistaken to see them as they are:) But that isnt a debate for this thread:)
Its the path:)
yes, I am familar with the distintion, and find it useful.
Prove they are not interested on wisdom? Look, I am happy to say, "I may be a total ass on rebirth" I may well be, I may be the biggest ignoramus to ever read a suttra. Happy to accept that. But I just wont accept the buddha was not a philosopher.
That is the very definition of absurd, iup there with, newton was not a scientist or mozart not a musician.
his primary concern was to teach the origination of suffering and the cessation of suffering.
we're very happy with that state of affairs.
If you wish to discuss Buddhism in a philosophical sense, then make more sense.
But don't expect huge feedback here.
We really can't be asked to play your games by rules that move the goalposts all the time.
(20 responses, 166 hits. see what I mean?)
I believe we cannot know even if he existed, was a she or a they, so for me such bold claims as to what his objectives were are not as steadfast as in your mind.
I am not asking you to agree with me, I am very very very certain that will never happen, probably on anything I say.
I am tying, your not helping, your just ignoring my attempts to explain, as p[er my last reply to you in this thread.
I spent a fair while trying to show you and all you dont even acknowledge. Its a shame.
You seem more interested in bulling me to shut up rather than talk to me.
Let us have another go, try and be a Buddhist about this.
Dharma
Starting suggestion, a concept or thing is dharmic if:
If we look at something like, say "Craving," we can see that it satisfied 1,2,3,4, 5 and 6. So on my suggested criteria we would say it is Dharmic.
The same seem's true of concepts like: ignorance, suffering, volition, sensation, perception, conciousness. They all seem to be Dharmic terms.
What do you think?
Do you understand?
If you don't understand, where not?
Mat
By conditions I mean it increases, entails, reduces, ceases etc
Mat
What is a "dharmic thing"?
Actually I am chilled, still, my point remains:)
I dont know but my first suggestion is a thing that satisfied these Criteria:
So if we take terms we can check them against the criteria and see. IO think it works pretty well, as said I am not sure about how the Three Marks fit in but that is to be expected.
So we can see that tanha, karma, skhanda, rupa are dharmic terms. Try it yourself, am I mistaken?
And equally we can see that The Number Nine and "spanner" and "neutron" are not dharmic terms.
Again, am I mistaken here?
Why would this be a pointless enquiry?
Thanks,
Mat
They have their methods to determine whether something is Dharmic or not, and they have 'lines of though' on how to do that, but it's mostly through finding documents and archeological sources and comparing them to each other.
As for something that sums up Buddhism in basic tenets I would have to say you would end up with the four noble truths. Whatever is connected to them is Dharma. (Dharma is goal oriented).
If you are looking for the basis of phenomena wouldn't that be the five aggregates?
However, there is one person that came close to an analysis of reality in the way you are trying to do: Nagarjuna.
Try this: http://www.stephenbatchelor.org/verses2.htm
That is there way, that doesn't have to be our way does it?
I would agree, of course:) But that isnt what I am looking at here but rather the individual terms and their place within the dharmic system.
I am not and yes it would:p
I am virgin buddhist:)
Hey no problemmo:)
These sound a bit like 2 of the 3 characteristics ( anicca and anatta ).
Does that help?:)
P
Yes, they are, natch:) As is Dukka in my amended version:
I don't know if these three characteristics are themselves satisfying the criteria, though:)
Mat