The Dharma produced the Buddha

[nirmal]

or did the Buddha produce the Dharma?

[Blue Garuda]

or did the Buddha produce the Dharma?

'Produced' is very open to interpretation, so here's my shot at this question:

Buddha did not create Dharma, he revealed it.

Interestingly, we could question whether either the Buddha or Dharma required creation as they were part of the endless continuum of existence. Neither required the other to produce them in that case.

In another sense, to argue counter to the above, 'production' requires volition, therefore Buddha was capable of revelation, whilst Dharma was capable only of being revealed.

[Tilopa]

or did the Buddha produce the Dharma?

Could Siddhartha have achieved Enlightenment without relying upon the Dharma?

[Will]

Buddha is the Dharma. At the time of his seeking as Gautama, he did not follow or know the Dharma at first. But at some point, his mind, based on countless lives of seeking, knowing & being Dharma, began to ponder Dharmically. Then it all came back to Him.

Here is how He puts it in the Nagara Sutta:

I saw an ancient path, an ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times. And what is that ancient path, that ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right aspiration, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. That is the ancient path, the ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times. I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct knowledge of aging & death, direct knowledge of the origination of aging & death, direct knowledge of the cessation of aging & death, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of aging & death. I followed that path....

[plwk]

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .wlsh.html
"He who sees Dhamma, Vakkali, sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma.
Truly seeing Dhamma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dhamma."

http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books ... Dhamma.htm
The teaching of the Buddha is the unchanging truth, whether in the present or in any other time.
The Buddha revealed this truth 2,500 years ago and it's been the truth ever since.
This teaching should not be added to or taken away from.
The Buddha said, "What the Tathagata has laid down should not be discarded, what has not been laid down by the Tathagata should not be added on to the teachings."
He "sealed off" the Teachings. Why did the Buddha seal them off?
Because these Teachings are the words of one who has no defilements. No matter how the world may change these Teachings are unaffected, they don't change with it. If something is wrong, even if people say it's right doesn't make it any the less wrong. If something is right, it doesn't change any just because people say it's not. Generation after generation may come and go but these things don't change, because these Teachings are the truth.

Now who created this truth? The truth itself created the truth!
Did the Buddha create it? No, he didn't.
The Buddha only discovered the truth, the way things are, and then he set out to declare it. The truth is constantly true, whether a Buddha arises in the world or not. The Buddha only "owns" the Dhamma in this sense, he didn't actually create it. It's been here all the time. However, previously no-one had searched for and found the Deathless, then taught it as the Dhamma. He didn't invent it, it was already there.

At some point in time the truth is illuminated and the practice of Dhamma flourishes. As time goes on and generations pass away the practice degenerates until the Teaching fades away completely. After a time the Teaching is re-founded and flourishes once more. As time goes on the adherents of the Dhamma multiply, prosperity sets in, and once more the Teaching begins to follow the darkness of the world. And so once more it degenerates until such a time as it can no longer hold ground. Confusion reigns once more. Then it is time to re-establish the truth. In fact the truth doesn't go anywhere. When Buddhas pass away the Dhamma doesn't disappear with them.

http://www.cttbusa.org/vajra/vajrasutra.asp
“Subhuti, what do you think?
Has the Tathagata attained anuttarasamyaksambodhi? Has the Tathagata spoken any dharma?”
Subhuti said, “As I understand what the Buddha has said, there is no concrete dharma called anuttarasamyaksambodhi, and there is no concrete dharma which the Tathagata has spoken.
And why? The dharmas spoken by the Tathagata cannot be grasped and cannot be spoken.
It is neither dharma nor no dharma. And why?
Unconditioned dharma distinguishes worthy sages.”

[Cobotis]

There would be no enlightenment or want of enlightenment without Dharma... Dharma is the path... everything is dharma if one has the right view ... then it isn't anymore...

[ground]

... Dharma is the path... everything is dharma if one has the right view ...

No. To say that everything is the path actually is an expression of wrong view.

Kind regards

[nirmal]

or did the Buddha produce the Dharma?

'Produced' is very open to interpretation, so here's my shot at this question:

Buddha did not create Dharma, he revealed it.

Interestingly, we could question whether either the Buddha or Dharma required creation as they were part of the endless continuum of existence. Neither required the other to produce them in that case.

In another sense, to argue counter to the above, 'production' requires volition, therefore Buddha was capable of revelation, whilst Dharma was capable only of being revealed.

The Buddha revealed the Dharma only after he was Enlightened.He did not know of the existance of the Dharma as a prince though it was all there.
How come we know of the Dharma but are not enlightened?

[muni]

... Dharma is the path... everything is dharma if one has the right view ...

No. To say that everything is the path actually is an expression of wrong view.

Kind regards

Not the path he meant. There are in Cobotis sentence spaces ...

When there is right perception is everything Dharma.

Then there is genuine compassion for beings who are dwelling in painful misperception.

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

It's questions like that that led to the formation of the three kayas doctrine ...

[nirmal]

Buddha is the Dharma. At the time of his seeking as Gautama, he did not follow or know the Dharma at first. But at some point, his mind, based on countless lives of seeking, knowing & being Dharma, began to ponder Dharmically. Then it all came back to Him.

Here is how He puts it in the Nagara Sutta:

I saw an ancient path, an ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times. And what is that ancient path, that ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right aspiration, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. That is the ancient path, the ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times. I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct knowledge of aging & death, direct knowledge of the origination of aging & death, direct knowledge of the cessation of aging & death, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of aging & death. I followed that path....

Hi Will
Buddha is the Dharma but He is never placed over the Dharma.The arrangement of shrines follows this, and the sacred Tripitaka is never placed below the figures of the Buddhas. It is placed above or to one side. The Dharma is the central Jewel of the Triratna and according to Tibetan tradition it is more precious than the Buddha though it is not wrong to say that the Buddha is the Dharma
Worldly laws too could be called the Dharma.Would you agree?

[ground]

... Dharma is the path... everything is dharma if one has the right view ...

No. To say that everything is the path actually is an expression of wrong view.

Kind regards

Not the path he meant. There are in Cobotis sentence spaces ...

When there is right perception is everything Dharma.

Then there is genuine compassion for beings who are dwelling in painful misperception.

Ahm ... no you are wrong, if everything would be Dharma then the Buddha would not have had to teach it.

But please, muni, please accept once and for all that we will never agree regardless of what subject is being discussed. Really there have been quite some trials so far but all of them failed.

So please abstain from commenting on any of my posts. There is no common ground on which both of us may discuss anything.


Kind regards

[muni]

There is an open forum with many people of different schools on internet, not "you and me" need any focus, but everyone.

[Blue Garuda]

Ahm ... no you are wrong, if everything would be Dharma then the Buddha would not have had to teach it.

Really?

Are you stating that a person with 'right perception' does not comprehend all things clearly, as Dharma?

Buddha did not have to teach Dharma to beings who were already fully enlightened, he chose to reveal it to those who wished to become so.

You seem to be seeking to address something which Muni did not write.

[Tilopa]

The Buddha revealed the Dharma only after he was Enlightened.He did not know of the existance of the Dharma as a prince though it was all there.

How can you be so sure? Gautama Buddha is the 4th 'wheel turning buddha' to appear since the beginning of this world so dharma precedes his awakening. He also practiced the path in previous lives as told in the Jataka tales so obviously he relied on the dharma to become enlightened.

[ground]

Ahm ... no you are wrong, if everything would be Dharma then the Buddha would not have had to teach it.

Really?

Are you stating that a person with 'right perception' does not comprehend all things clearly, as Dharma?

Does comprehend things as they are, but "things as they are" are not Dharma in the sense of the teachings. Dharma in the context of this thread is clearly the truth that manifests as the teaching.

Buddha did not have to teach Dharma to beings who were already fully enlightened, he chose to reveal it to those who wished to become so.

Because he was the only enlightened one, yes.

You seem to be seeking to address something which Muni did not write.

But then muni did address something commenting on my post that I did not write either.

Kind regards

[Blue Garuda]

Buddha did not have to teach Dharma to beings who were already fully enlightened, he chose to reveal it to those who wished to become so.

Because he was the only enlightened one, yes.

How do you know Buddha was the only enlightened being?

I'd find it hard, for example, to describe the near-contemporary Mahavira as unenlightened.

Are you speaking of before, during or after Shakyamuni taught, and what evidence caused you to conclude that?

[ground]

Buddha did not have to teach Dharma to beings who were already fully enlightened, he chose to reveal it to those who wished to become so.

Because he was the only enlightened one, yes.

How do you know Buddha was the only enlightened being?

He himself taught so.

I'd find it hard, for example, to describe the near-contemporary Mahavira as unenlightened.

I don't know Mahavira.

Are you speaking of before, during or after Shakyamuni taught, and what evidence caused you to conclude that?

The context was the time He was teaching.

Kind regards

[Blue Garuda]

Buddha did not have to teach Dharma to beings who were already fully enlightened, he chose to reveal it to those who wished to become so.

Because he was the only enlightened one, yes.

When did Budda describe himself as the only enlightened being? I thought he refused such self-focused descriptions and stated that he was 'awake'. When did he label himself as 'enlightened' and when did he state this as his exclusive condition?

If you don't know of Mahavira how may you pronounce that he was not enlightened?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahavira

How do you know that Mahavira, as I used that example, did not know of the Dharma? As he slightly predates Buddha, you don't allow for the possibility that others became enlightened and knew the Dharma. History tends to recall those who gained fame.

If Buddha did not 'produce' the Dharma, as it already existed, how do you know others had not also encountered it? You are aware of every being alive at that time?

In truth, we only know of tales which point to Shakyamuni as one who revealed the Dharma and gained fame and a following. To assert that he was the only one aware of the Dharma is impossible unless you are omniscient.

[conebeckham]

Both answers are correct.

Then again, there is, nor ever has been, nor ever will be, production.

(It depends on who you talk to.... _

The Sanskrit word "Dharma," which is "chos." in Tibetan, as defined as a collection of teachings, a corpus of texts, a Spiritual Tradition, can be said to have arisen due to the kindness of the Buddha. From one perspective, it was only after Sakyamuni attained enlightenment, and then overcame his reluctance to teach, that he began propagating the Dharma as we know it. Of course, this is one perspective. We could talk about the Tantras, and their "arrival" in this world....or we could talk about the Prajnaparamita Sutras...or we could even talk about the Terma Traditions, or the Nyingma Mind-to-Mind Transmission......but I think it is acknowledged that all Buddhist Traditions look to the "exoteric" event of Sakyamuni's life as the "beginning" of the transmission of Dharma in this Saha World, from the point of view of ignorance and temporality.

From another point of view, "chos." or "Dharma" also means "Reality, or that which is Truly Existent." (It can also mean a "Phenomena," and this can lead to what "an Existent" is, and to the mode of being of phenomena, etc...). From this perspective, we can say that the Dharmakaya, the Sphere of Actual Reality, That Which is Ultimately Real, is the Source from which all manifests.

Perhaps I'll just leave it there...it's a provocative question, though.