Chat about Buddhism vs. Buddhadharma

Casual conversation between friends. Anything goes (almost).
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 1118
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 5:53 am
Location: Texas

Re: Building a modern and/or western Buddhism

Post by Mkoll »

Fa Dao wrote:LOVED that episode!!
phpBB [video]
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Building a modern and/or western Buddhism

Post by dzogchungpa »

Hehe, no way he just said that.
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche
Herbie
Posts: 597
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 4:10 pm

Re: Chat about Buddhism vs. Buddhadharma

Post by Herbie »

Malcolm wrote: Can you specify/define what "buddhadharma" stands for?
Malcolm wrote: "Buddha Dharma" is a) the realization of a buddha and his or her expression of that realization.
Herbie wrote: OK, thanks.
But then those who claim that "Buddhism" or "all kinds of Buddhism" are not "Buddha Dharma" should have that knowledge directly from a Buddha and should have been able to understand the expression of that Buddha meaning exactly this. Because if they have that knowledge from a "buddhist" teaching (a teaching of any kind of "all kinds of Buddhisms") then "Buddha Dharma" would be included in "Buddhism" and would not be different from "Buddhism".
Malcolm wrote: "Buddhisms" may contain Buddhadharma or not. It really depends on whether a given school of "Buddhism" produces awakened people or not.

In other words not everything branded as "Buddhism" is Buddhadharma.
OK.
Then ...
The claim that there is a difference between "Buddha dharma" and "Buddhism(s)" has been put into perspective and "Buddha Dharma" and "Buddhism" or "any kind of buddhism" can never be taken as synonyms in an unrestriced direct sense. The relationship between "buddhism" and "buddha dharma" is actually a case by case issue depending on whether a "special kind of buddhism" ("this buddhism") has produced "awakened people" or not.
If it has not produced "awakened people" then "this buddhism" is "buddhism" but does not cover "buddhadharma".
If it has produced "awakened people" then "this buddhism" and "buddhadharma" can be taken as synonyms only in a restricted indirect sense in that none of the doctrines or teachings or rituals can be taken as evidence of "buddhadharma", none of these stand for "buddhadharma". Only the fact of having produced "awakened people" can be taken as evidence that "this buddhism" indirectly includes (not 'is') "buddhadharma". If "this buddhism" has doctrines or teachings that describe how "awakened people" behave, i.e. express themselves then it is clear that the "awakened people" produced by "this buddhism" do not necessarily behave, i.e. express themselves, in the way described by these doctrines or teachings because otherwise "buddhadharma" would be evidenced by the doctrines or teachings of "this buddhism". Therefore "awakened people" produced by "this buddhism" may or may not behave, i.e. express themselves in the way "this buddhism"'s doctrines or teachings describe. So there may arise potential conflict between "this buddhisms" doctrines or teachings and the expression of "awakened people".


"awakened" or "awakening" seems to be the key concept.


So the question as to the difference between "Buddha dharma" and "Buddhism(s)" has just been shifted to the question of identifying "awakened people" and since the ways of expression of "awakened people" cannot be determined by any buddhism how can "awakened people" be identified?
User avatar
Ayu
Global Moderator
Posts: 13259
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:25 am
Location: Europe

Re: Chat about Buddhism vs. Buddhadharma

Post by Ayu »

Simon E.
Posts: 7652
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: Chat about Buddhism vs. Buddhadharma

Post by Simon E. »

Herbie wrote:
Malcolm wrote: Can you specify/define what "buddhadharma" stands for?
Malcolm wrote: "Buddha Dharma" is a) the realization of a buddha and his or her expression of that realization.
Herbie wrote: OK, thanks.
But then those who claim that "Buddhism" or "all kinds of Buddhism" are not "Buddha Dharma" should have that knowledge directly from a Buddha and should have been able to understand the expression of that Buddha meaning exactly this. Because if they have that knowledge from a "buddhist" teaching (a teaching of any kind of "all kinds of Buddhisms") then "Buddha Dharma" would be included in "Buddhism" and would not be different from "Buddhism".
Malcolm wrote: "Buddhisms" may contain Buddhadharma or not. It really depends on whether a given school of "Buddhism" produces awakened people or not.

In other words not everything branded as "Buddhism" is Buddhadharma.
OK.
Then ...
The claim that there is a difference between "Buddha dharma" and "Buddhism(s)" has been put into perspective and "Buddha Dharma" and "Buddhism" or "any kind of buddhism" can never be taken as synonyms in an unrestriced direct sense. The relationship between "buddhism" and "buddha dharma" is actually a case by case issue depending on whether a "special kind of buddhism" ("this buddhism") has produced "awakened people" or not.
If it has not produced "awakened people" then "this buddhism" is "buddhism" but does not cover "buddhadharma".
If it has produced "awakened people" then "this buddhism" and "buddhadharma" can be taken as synonyms only in a restricted indirect sense in that none of the doctrines or teachings or rituals can be taken as evidence of "buddhadharma", none of these stand for "buddhadharma". Only the fact of having produced "awakened people" can be taken as evidence that "this buddhism" indirectly includes (not 'is') "buddhadharma". If "this buddhism" has doctrines or teachings that describe how "awakened people" behave, i.e. express themselves then it is clear that the "awakened people" produced by "this buddhism" do not necessarily behave, i.e. express themselves, in the way described by these doctrines or teachings because otherwise "buddhadharma" would be evidenced by the doctrines or teachings of "this buddhism". Therefore "awakened people" produced by "this buddhism" may or may not behave, i.e. express themselves in the way "this buddhism"'s doctrines or teachings describe. So there may arise potential conflict between "this buddhisms" doctrines or teachings and the expression of "awakened people".


"awakened" or "awakening" seems to be the key concept.


So the question as to the difference between "Buddha dharma" and "Buddhism(s)" has just been shifted to the question of identifying "awakened people" and since the ways of expression of "awakened people" cannot be determined by any buddhism how can "awakened people" be identified?

You are moving firmly into the area of ' prapanca ' imo. The tendency for discursive thought to expand exponentially.
Its much more simple than that. Before its expression into modern European languages there was no suggestion of an 'ism' or an 'ist'
There was Buddhadharma and there were those to attempted actualise it. It was not seen as a defining philosophy.
It was/is something you did/do.
If you do it it leads to such and such.
You either are swimming or you are not. Diagrams won't help. Neither will extensive philological musings on the origins of river names.
“You don’t know it. You just know about it. That is not the same thing.”

Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to me.
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21938
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Chat about Buddhism vs. Buddhadharma

Post by Grigoris »

Herbie wrote:OK.
Then ...
The claim that there is a difference between "Buddha dharma" and "Buddhism(s)" has been put into perspective and "Buddha Dharma" and "Buddhism" or "any kind of buddhism" can never be taken as synonyms in an unrestriced direct sense. The relationship between "buddhism" and "buddha dharma" is actually a case by case issue depending on whether a "special kind of buddhism" ("this buddhism") has produced "awakened people" or not.
If it has not produced "awakened people" then "this buddhism" is "buddhism" but does not cover "buddhadharma".
If it has produced "awakened people" then "this buddhism" and "buddhadharma" can be taken as synonyms only in a restricted indirect sense in that none of the doctrines or teachings or rituals can be taken as evidence of "buddhadharma", none of these stand for "buddhadharma". Only the fact of having produced "awakened people" can be taken as evidence that "this buddhism" indirectly includes (not 'is') "buddhadharma". If "this buddhism" has doctrines or teachings that describe how "awakened people" behave, i.e. express themselves then it is clear that the "awakened people" produced by "this buddhism" do not necessarily behave, i.e. express themselves, in the way described by these doctrines or teachings because otherwise "buddhadharma" would be evidenced by the doctrines or teachings of "this buddhism". Therefore "awakened people" produced by "this buddhism" may or may not behave, i.e. express themselves in the way "this buddhism"'s doctrines or teachings describe. So there may arise potential conflict between "this buddhisms" doctrines or teachings and the expression of "awakened people".


"awakened" or "awakening" seems to be the key concept.


So the question as to the difference between "Buddha dharma" and "Buddhism(s)" has just been shifted to the question of identifying "awakened people" and since the ways of expression of "awakened people" cannot be determined by any buddhism how can "awakened people" be identified?
"Can" "you" "please" "stop" "putting" "apostrophes" "around" "every" "term", it is "pointless" and "annoying".
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Chat about Buddhism vs. Buddhadharma

Post by Malcolm »

Herbie wrote: So there may arise potential conflict between "this buddhisms" doctrines or teachings and the expression of "awakened people".
Yes, for example, the conflict between Hinayāna and Mahāyāna, and the conflict between Yogacara and Madhyamaka, and so on. A great deal of the hermeneutics in Buddhism involves negotiating the disparity between "buddhisms" and Buddhadharma.
"awakened" or "awakening" seems to be the key concept.
Yes, Buddhadharma means "The realization and teaching of those who are awake."
So the question as to the difference between "Buddha dharma" and "Buddhism(s)" has just been shifted to the question of identifying "awakened people" and since the ways of expression of "awakened people" cannot be determined by any buddhism how can "awakened people" be identified?
That is something we all have to work out on our own.
User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Chat about Buddhism vs. Buddhadharma

Post by dzogchungpa »

Simon E. wrote:You are moving firmly into the area of ' prapanca ' imo.
Horrors. :smile:

I beleive it was Richard Hayes who first suggested that 'prapanca' is just the Buddhist word for 'bullshit':
http://www.buddha-l.org/archives/2008-F ... 09389.html
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Chat about Buddhism vs. Buddhadharma

Post by Malcolm »

dzogchungpa wrote:
Simon E. wrote:You are moving firmly into the area of ' prapanca ' imo.
Horrors. :smile:

I beleive it was Richard Hayes who first suggested that 'prapanca' is just the Buddhist word for 'bullshit':
http://www.buddha-l.org/archives/2008-F ... 09389.html
Yes, I like that. The definition of ultimate truth is "emptiness free from the four extremes of bullshit."
User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Chat about Buddhism vs. Buddhadharma

Post by dzogchungpa »

Malcolm wrote:
dzogchungpa wrote:I beleive it was Richard Hayes who first suggested that 'prapanca' is just the Buddhist word for 'bullshit':
http://www.buddha-l.org/archives/2008-F ... 09389.html
Yes, I like that. The definition of ultimate truth is "emptiness free from the four extremes of bullshit."
Nisprapanca = bullshitlessness. :thumbsup:
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche
Herbie
Posts: 597
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 4:10 pm

Re: Chat about Buddhism vs. Buddhadharma

Post by Herbie »

Simon E. wrote: You are moving firmly into the area of ' prapanca ' imo. The tendency for discursive thought to expand exponentially.
...
Whatever ' prapanca ' stands for, as far as my perspective is concerned I am exploring and I am appreciating the inspiration I have gotten. I would say that thinking leads to focus.
Sherab Dorje wrote: "Can" "you" "please" "stop" "putting" "apostrophes" "around" "every" "term", it is "pointless" and "annoying".
You are exaggerating. If a term does not belong to my set of potential linguistic expressions I am using apostrophes to express that the term I am using is actually a quote from another source.
Malcolm wrote:
So the question as to the difference between "Buddha dharma" and "Buddhism(s)" has just been shifted to the question of identifying "awakened people" and since the ways of expression of "awakened people" cannot be determined by any buddhism how can "awakened people" be identified?
That is something we all have to work out on our own.
OK. That leaves enough degrees of freedom.
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21938
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Chat about Buddhism vs. Buddhadharma

Post by Grigoris »

Herbie wrote:You are exaggerating. If a term does not belong to my set of potential linguistic expressions I am using apostrophes to express that the term I am using is actually a quote from another source.
All terms are from another source unless you made them up yourself, which is highly unlikely.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
Simon E.
Posts: 7652
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: Chat about Buddhism vs. Buddhadharma

Post by Simon E. »

It depends what you mean by focus.
By Buddhadharma we seek by various means to maintain 'one pointedness of mind ' which is a state of relaxed concentration on what his to hand. Thoughts more often than not are an obstacle to one pointedness.
This is not to downplay the role of reason..the discursive mind is a very valuable tool But it is unlikely to bring us to awareness in the Buddha's usage of the term.
“You don’t know it. You just know about it. That is not the same thing.”

Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to me.
Post Reply

Return to “Lounge”