Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:43 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 7:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:38 pm
Posts: 1500
In another topic Namdrol wrote that:

Namdrol wrote:
That would be the difference between Buddhism-as-a-religion and Buddhism-as-Dharma. It is sometime very difficult to differentiate that. So, we are heavily pressured to believe that we are not swans, and are not capable of separating the milk of Dharma from the water of religion.


What does that mean?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 7:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
shel wrote:
In another topic Namdrol wrote that:

Namdrol wrote:
That would be the difference between Buddhism-as-a-religion and Buddhism-as-Dharma. It is sometime very difficult to differentiate that. So, we are heavily pressured to believe that we are not swans, and are not capable of separating the milk of Dharma from the water of religion.


What does that mean?



The former is a morass of intellectual opinions, views and beliefs. The latter is something that one has integrated into one's personal experience.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 7:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:38 pm
Posts: 1500
Namdrol wrote:
shel wrote:
In another topic Namdrol wrote that:

Namdrol wrote:
That would be the difference between Buddhism-as-a-religion and Buddhism-as-Dharma. It is sometime very difficult to differentiate that. So, we are heavily pressured to believe that we are not swans, and are not capable of separating the milk of Dharma from the water of religion.


What does that mean?



The former is a morass of intellectual opinions, views and beliefs. The latter is something that one has integrated into one's personal experience.


You're basically saying that the difference between Buddhism-as-a-religion and Buddhism-as-Dharma is that the latter is practiced and the former is not?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am
Posts: 1782
I guess "Buddhism-as-a-religion" stands for wholesome fabrications, wholesome thoughts and believes, conceptuality, views and dialectics.

For "Buddhism-as-Dharma" I would apply the ambiguity of the term "dharma" meaning "the teaching" and meaning "phenomenon". Combining both entails sort of " the teachings displaying itself through phenomena" and refers to a direct approach not based on conceptuality, non-discursive.


Kind regards


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
shel wrote:

You're basically saying that the difference between Buddhism-as-a-religion and Buddhism-as-Dharma is that the latter is practiced and the former is not?


Well, no, because there are many religious practices one can do, blindly, like making donations to a monastery because some Lama told you to accumulate merit. What I am saying is that Buddhism-as-Dharma is integrated into your personal experience. It means you know why are doing what you are doing when you are doing it. No blind faith.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
TMingyur wrote:
I guess "Buddhism-as-a-religion" stands for wholesome fabrications, wholesome thoughts and believes, conceptuality, views and dialectics.

For "Buddhism-as-Dharma" I would apply the ambiguity of the term "dharma" meaning "the teaching" and meaning "phenomenon". Combining both entails sort of " the teachings displaying itself through phenomena" and refers to a direct approach not based on conceptuality, non-discursive.


Kind regards


However you would like to parse to yourself as long as it is not some intellectual theory.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:38 pm
Posts: 1500
TMingyur wrote:
I guess "Buddhism-as-a-religion" stands for wholesome fabrications, wholesome thoughts and believes, conceptuality, views and dialectics.

For "Buddhism-as-Dharma" I would apply the ambiguity of the term "dharma" meaning "the teaching" and meaning "phenomenon". Combining both entails sort of " the teachings displaying itself through phenomena" and refers to a direct approach not based on conceptuality, non-discursive.


Kind regards

Again basically logos/praxis.

I guess my critique is that this difference is not the least bit difficult to see.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
shel wrote:
TMingyur wrote:
I guess "Buddhism-as-a-religion" stands for wholesome fabrications, wholesome thoughts and believes, conceptuality, views and dialectics.

For "Buddhism-as-Dharma" I would apply the ambiguity of the term "dharma" meaning "the teaching" and meaning "phenomenon". Combining both entails sort of " the teachings displaying itself through phenomena" and refers to a direct approach not based on conceptuality, non-discursive.


Kind regards

Again basically logos/praxis.

I guess my critique is that this difference is not the least bit difficult to see.


You might be surprised.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:38 pm
Posts: 1500
Namdrol wrote:
shel wrote:
TMingyur wrote:
I guess "Buddhism-as-a-religion" stands for wholesome fabrications, wholesome thoughts and believes, conceptuality, views and dialectics.

For "Buddhism-as-Dharma" I would apply the ambiguity of the term "dharma" meaning "the teaching" and meaning "phenomenon". Combining both entails sort of " the teachings displaying itself through phenomena" and refers to a direct approach not based on conceptuality, non-discursive.


Kind regards

Again basically logos/praxis.

I guess my critique is that this difference is not the least bit difficult to see.


You might be surprised.


No, I wouldn't. I see people failing to meet the practice of their religion all the time. It's quite noticeable.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
shel wrote:

No, I wouldn't. I see people failing to meet the practice of their religion all the time. It's quite noticeable.


I misread your statement.

My point however is a little different. There is a kind of Buddhism that is religious and so on. But it misses the point of the dharma's essence.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:38 pm
Posts: 1500
Namdrol wrote:
shel wrote:

No, I wouldn't. I see people failing to meet the practice of their religion all the time. It's quite noticeable.


I misread your statement.

My point however is a little different. There is a kind of Buddhism that is religious and so on. But it misses the point of the dharma's essence.


You suggesting that the point of 'religious' Buddhism is not the cessation of suffering?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
shel wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
shel wrote:

No, I wouldn't. I see people failing to meet the practice of their religion all the time. It's quite noticeable.


I misread your statement.

My point however is a little different. There is a kind of Buddhism that is religious and so on. But it misses the point of the dharma's essence.


You suggesting that the point of 'religious' Buddhism is not the cessation of suffering?


Yes, because it is entirely focused on externalities.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 9:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:38 pm
Posts: 1500
Namdrol wrote:
shel wrote:
You suggesting that the point of 'religious' Buddhism is not the cessation of suffering?


Yes, because it is entirely focused on externalities.

"Externalities" is a little vague. If you know that the point of religious Buddhism is not the cessation of suffering then you must know what the point of religious Buddhism is, so what is the point of religious Buddhism?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 10:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
shel wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
shel wrote:
You suggesting that the point of 'religious' Buddhism is not the cessation of suffering?


Yes, because it is entirely focused on externalities.

"Externalities" is a little vague. If you know that the point of religious Buddhism is not the cessation of suffering then you must know what the point of religious Buddhism is, so what is the point of religious Buddhism?


Higher rebirth, primarily. Also success in business, and so on.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 10:43 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Posts: 2808
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA
Stroking-of-ego?

Or is that not even Buddhism-as-religion, much less Buddhism-as-Dharma?

_________________
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 11:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 12:49 am
Posts: 543
If you do a practise and you dont know why you are doing it you've got religion.
If you do a practise and can explain the benifits of doing so and demonstrate the benifits of having done so you've got Dharma. :twothumbsup:

_________________
Abandoning Dharma is, in the final analysis, disparaging the Hinayana because of the Mahayana; favoring the Hinayana on account of the Mahayana; playing off sutra against tantra; playing off the four classes of the tantras against each other; favoring one of the Tibetan schools—the Sakya, Gelug, Kagyu, or Nyingma—and disparaging the rest; and so on. In other words, we abandon Dharma any time we favor our own tenets and disparage the rest.

Liberation in the Palm of your hand~Kyabje Pabongkha Rinpoche.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 11:21 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Posts: 2808
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA
I would carry it one step further, Caz...or modify it thus:

If you're doing a practice but don't know why you're doing it, this is not even truly Buddhism-as-religion, because you have not understood, even conceptually, what you're "wasting your time on"....(though, I believe, it is likely that merely doing the practice creates a connection).

If you are doing a practice, and can explain "why" you're doing it, you likely have understood Buddhism-as-a-religion, especially if you can contextualize the practice in terms of a larger structure, purpose, meaning, etc.

If you have actualized the practice, to any degree, and ultimately, if you have brought the practice to fruition, you have "Buddhism-as-Dharma." It is highly likely that, until Enlightenment is attained, even those on the Bhumis have both Buddhism-as-a-religion and Buddhism as Dharma. But only those who have reached the limit, come to the end, can really "demonstrate" fully "Buddhism-as-Dharma."

_________________
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 11:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:38 pm
Posts: 1500
conebeckham wrote:
... only those who have reached the limit, come to the end, can really "demonstrate" fully "Buddhism-as-Dharma."

I don't know of anyone who has "come to the end," do you? which means that everyone is practicing religious Buddhism, right?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 02, 2011 1:30 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Posts: 5771
Might this distinction also be explained as that between:

on one side, a set of practices & imperatives one inherits from one's milieu growing up or takes up socially and, later, practices mechanically and uncritically (that is without reflection or question), toward ends that are taken for granted as good or desirable also without question or reflection

on the other side, a set of practices taken up intentionally and critically with an eye on an aim that is also taken up intentionally and critically

_________________
Need help getting on retreat? Want to support others in practice? Pay the Dana for Dharma forum a visit...

viewtopic.php?f=114&t=13727


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 02, 2011 2:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:38 pm
Posts: 1500
Jikan wrote:
Might this distinction also be explained as that between:

on one side, a set of practices & imperatives one inherits from one's milieu growing up or takes up socially and, later, practices mechanically and uncritically (that is without reflection or question), toward ends that are taken for granted as good or desirable also without question or reflection

on the other side, a set of practices taken up intentionally and critically with an eye on an aim that is also taken up intentionally and critically

Being that right effort, right view, etc. are part of the path, it would seem to boil down to:

Religious Buddhism = bad practice.

Dharmic Buddhism = good practice.

Is this an agreeable distinction?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: conebeckham, Dan74, Inge, yan kong and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group