"Which has primacy, Buddha or Dharma"?

General forum on the teachings of all schools of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism. Topics specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
User avatar
FiveSkandhas
Posts: 917
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:40 pm

"Which has primacy, Buddha or Dharma"?

Post by FiveSkandhas »

I was asked this question by an advanced Western philosophy student. I did not fully understand this question, because I don't know what heavy nuanced connotations the word "primacy" has in western philosophy, and on that basis I bowed out of answering it.

My instinct would be to say that Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha are the triple gem, and that is that. But the question left me with some unease.

For one, when Koṇḍañña became the first bhikkhu, if I am not mistaken, the Historical Buddha asked him to take refuge in the Buddha and the Dharma but not the Sangha, because there was no Sangha yet. Thus, can it be said that the in some way the Triple Gem was once (however fleetingly) the "Double Gem"?

Then I came across this quote by one Prof. Jikido Takasaki:
[the f]undamental structure of Buddhism may be summarized in the following way: The Buddha, having realized the Dharma by himself, preached the Dharma for the sake of others. The Dharma realized by the Buddha through introspection is said to be the law of causation (pratityasamut pada), which is explained through Buddha's voice in the form of the four aryasatyas and others.

In this structure, the ultimate value in Buddhism is fundamentally the Dharma, the truth, and the Buddha is merely a mediator who conveyed the truth to the people by means of words understandable to them. As for the religious feeling, however, the Buddha is considered to be the ultimate value, the object of worship, since he is the law-giver and the practical ideal in the sense that one should attain Enlightenment (bodhi) (i. e. to become buddha) through Buddha's instruction, the Dharma. Thus the Buddha is the first of the triratna, and the Dharma comes the second, which is used to be interpreted as the Buddha's inst ruction (buddhasasana) of which the authority is in the Buddha himself. But, again, the Buddha's authority lies in the belief that the Buddha revealed the truth, and on this belief the Buddha is called tathāgata, thus gone or come, which is interpreted as having become one with the truth or reality (tathata).
Thus seems to suggest some sort of "primacy" involving the two.

Then there are the arcane mysteries of the Dharmadatu, Dharmakaya, and Tathagatagharba, which may or may not have some bearing on the issue.

Thoughts?
"One should cultivate contemplation in one’s foibles. The foibles are like fish, and contemplation is like fishing hooks. If there are no fish, then the fishing hooks have no use. The bigger the fish is, the better the result we will get. As long as the fishing hooks keep at it, all foibles will eventually be contained and controlled at will." -Zhiyi

"Just be kind." -Atisha
Bristollad
Posts: 1121
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2015 11:39 am

Re: "Which has primacy, Buddha or Dharma"?

Post by Bristollad »

FiveSkandhas wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 7:40 am I was asked this question by an advanced Western philosophy student. I did not fully understand this question, because I don't know what heavy nuanced connotations the word "primacy" has in western philosophy, and on that basis I bowed out of answering it.

My instinct would be to say that Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha are the triple gem, and that is that. But the question left me with some unease.

For one, when Koṇḍañña became the first bhikkhu, if I am not mistaken, the Historical Buddha asked him to take refuge in the Buddha and the Dharma but not the Sangha, because there was no Sangha yet. Thus, can it be said that the in some way the Triple Gem was once (however fleetingly) the "Double Gem"?

Then I came across this quote by one Prof. Jikido Takasaki:
[the f]undamental structure of Buddhism may be summarized in the following way: The Buddha, having realized the Dharma by himself, preached the Dharma for the sake of others. The Dharma realized by the Buddha through introspection is said to be the law of causation (pratityasamut pada), which is explained through Buddha's voice in the form of the four aryasatyas and others.

In this structure, the ultimate value in Buddhism is fundamentally the Dharma, the truth, and the Buddha is merely a mediator who conveyed the truth to the people by means of words understandable to them. As for the religious feeling, however, the Buddha is considered to be the ultimate value, the object of worship, since he is the law-giver and the practical ideal in the sense that one should attain Enlightenment (bodhi) (i. e. to become buddha) through Buddha's instruction, the Dharma. Thus the Buddha is the first of the triratna, and the Dharma comes the second, which is used to be interpreted as the Buddha's inst ruction (buddhasasana) of which the authority is in the Buddha himself. But, again, the Buddha's authority lies in the belief that the Buddha revealed the truth, and on this belief the Buddha is called tathāgata, thus gone or come, which is interpreted as having become one with the truth or reality (tathata).
Thus seems to suggest some sort of "primacy" involving the two.

Then there are the arcane mysteries of the Dharmadatu, Dharmakaya, and Tathagatagharba, which may or may not have some bearing on the issue.

Thoughts?
To me, it seems as useful as asking which has primacy: the doctor who diagnoses the problem and prescribes the medicine, or the medicine prescribed by the the doctor based on his diagnosis.

Without the medicine, the doctor can’t help. But without a proper diagnosis and the knowledge of the appropriate treatment, taking random “cures” often just amounts to poisoning oneself.
The antidote—to be free from the suffering of samsara—you need to be free from delusion and karma; you need to be free from ignorance, the root of samsara. So you need to meditate on emptiness. That is what you need. Lama Zopa Rinpoche
User avatar
FiveSkandhas
Posts: 917
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: "Which has primacy, Buddha or Dharma"?

Post by FiveSkandhas »

Bristollad wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 8:05 am
To me, it seems as useful as asking which has primacy: the doctor who diagnoses the problem and prescribes the medicine, or the medicine prescribed by the the doctor based on his diagnosis.

Without the medicine, the doctor can’t help. But without a proper diagnosis and the knowledge of the appropriate treatment, taking random “cures” often just amounts to poisoning oneself.
So...no "primacy" then?
"One should cultivate contemplation in one’s foibles. The foibles are like fish, and contemplation is like fishing hooks. If there are no fish, then the fishing hooks have no use. The bigger the fish is, the better the result we will get. As long as the fishing hooks keep at it, all foibles will eventually be contained and controlled at will." -Zhiyi

"Just be kind." -Atisha
Bristollad
Posts: 1121
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2015 11:39 am

Re: "Which has primacy, Buddha or Dharma"?

Post by Bristollad »

Well, you could argue the medicine is what actually cures you - the Dharma is what actually liberates you from Samsara. So in that case, you could say Dharma has primacy... but without the Buddha to turn the Wheel, we would have no access to the Dharma, so then you could ascribe primacy to the Buddha.

Which is the most important thing, the teacher or the teachings? This sort of suggests they are separate from each other rather than being interdependent. In other words, it's a moot point.
The antidote—to be free from the suffering of samsara—you need to be free from delusion and karma; you need to be free from ignorance, the root of samsara. So you need to meditate on emptiness. That is what you need. Lama Zopa Rinpoche
Giovanni
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2020 11:07 am

Re: "Which has primacy, Buddha or Dharma"?

Post by Giovanni »

The Three Jewels are interdependent. They are each first among equals depending from where you view them. No primacy.
User avatar
FiveSkandhas
Posts: 917
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: "Which has primacy, Buddha or Dharma"?

Post by FiveSkandhas »

Bristollad wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 9:12 am Well, you could argue the medicine is what actually cures you - the Dharma is what actually liberates you from Samsara. So in that case, you could say Dharma has primacy... but without the Buddha to turn the Wheel, we would have no access to the Dharma, so then you could ascribe primacy to the Buddha.

Which is the most important thing, the teacher or the teachings? This sort of suggests they are separate from each other rather than being interdependent. In other words, it's a moot point.
What about pratyekabuddhas? Supposedly this is a class of being that realizes enlightenment on their own, outside the Sangha and without a teacher. They naturally come to the truth by their own means. Then there is a similar concept in Zen: Mushi-dokugo, awakening alone without a teacher.
"One should cultivate contemplation in one’s foibles. The foibles are like fish, and contemplation is like fishing hooks. If there are no fish, then the fishing hooks have no use. The bigger the fish is, the better the result we will get. As long as the fishing hooks keep at it, all foibles will eventually be contained and controlled at will." -Zhiyi

"Just be kind." -Atisha
Bristollad
Posts: 1121
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2015 11:39 am

Re: "Which has primacy, Buddha or Dharma"?

Post by Bristollad »

FiveSkandhas wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 10:18 am
Bristollad wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 9:12 am Well, you could argue the medicine is what actually cures you - the Dharma is what actually liberates you from Samsara. So in that case, you could say Dharma has primacy... but without the Buddha to turn the Wheel, we would have no access to the Dharma, so then you could ascribe primacy to the Buddha.

Which is the most important thing, the teacher or the teachings? This sort of suggests they are separate from each other rather than being interdependent. In other words, it's a moot point.
What about pratyekabuddhas? Supposedly this is a class of being that realizes enlightenment on their own, outside the Sangha and without a teacher. They naturally come to the truth by their own means. Then there is a similar concept in Zen: Mushi-dokugo, awakening alone without a teacher.
Pratyekabuddha is "...an ARHAT who becomes enlightened through his own efforts without receiving instruction from a buddha in his final lifetime."
"A pratyekabuddha is also distinguished from the śrāvaka by the duration of his path: the pratyekabuddha path is longer because he must accumulate the necessary amount of merit to allow him to achieve liberation without relying on a teacher in his final lifetime."
Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism

Even those who go on to become solitary realisers have had teachers in previous lives.

Reading about Mushi-dokugo, the example given was Nonin, and he had studied with the Tendai but became dissatisfied and started his own school. So he did have teachers in that life.
Last edited by Bristollad on Sun May 30, 2021 10:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
The antidote—to be free from the suffering of samsara—you need to be free from delusion and karma; you need to be free from ignorance, the root of samsara. So you need to meditate on emptiness. That is what you need. Lama Zopa Rinpoche
User avatar
FiveSkandhas
Posts: 917
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: "Which has primacy, Buddha or Dharma"?

Post by FiveSkandhas »

Thank you for the above clarification.
"One should cultivate contemplation in one’s foibles. The foibles are like fish, and contemplation is like fishing hooks. If there are no fish, then the fishing hooks have no use. The bigger the fish is, the better the result we will get. As long as the fishing hooks keep at it, all foibles will eventually be contained and controlled at will." -Zhiyi

"Just be kind." -Atisha
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "Which has primacy, Buddha or Dharma"?

Post by Malcolm »

FiveSkandhas wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 7:40 am I was asked this question by an advanced Western philosophy student.
Short answer: the Buddha, because the Buddha possesses the dharmakaya, cf. the Ratnagotravibhanga.
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 8883
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: "Which has primacy, Buddha or Dharma"?

Post by Astus »

Even the Buddha revered the Dharma as his teacher (SN 6.2). The Uttaratantra Shastra (3.21) calls the Buddha the ultimate refuge, it also practically combines all three into one, as Dzongsar JK Rinpoche commented: 'But ultimately, Buddha is not other than the Dharma and the Sangha, because the ultimate Dharma is the absence of attachment. And that’s what Buddha has achieved. And since Buddha is the result of end point of all the bhumis, the Buddha is also the essence, the quintessence of the Sangha.'
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "Which has primacy, Buddha or Dharma"?

Post by Malcolm »

Astus wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 1:45 pm Even the Buddha revered the Dharma as his teacher (SN 6.2). The Uttaratantra Shastra (3.21) calls the Buddha the ultimate refuge, it also practically combines all three into one, as Dzongsar JK Rinpoche commented: 'But ultimately, Buddha is not other than the Dharma and the Sangha, because the ultimate Dharma is the absence of attachment. And that’s what Buddha has achieved. And since Buddha is the result of end point of all the bhumis, the Buddha is also the essence, the quintessence of the Sangha.'
One, your reference to SN 6.2 is far too narrow, since in the Pali canon the Buddha has also declared in various places he had no teacher at all, and that he had teachers in past lives.

Second, no, the UT really doesn’t “practically combine all three refuges into one.” It points out that the Dharma and the Sangha are compounded and impermanent. This is the context in which Maitreya declares the Buddha to be the true refuge, Dzongsar’s apologetics notwithstanding.
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14454
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: "Which has primacy, Buddha or Dharma"?

Post by Queequeg »

Buddha said something along the lines, he who sees me sees dharma; he who sees dharma sees me.

To see a distinction is to view from a certain view with materialist bias, which is likely from a western philosopher. I don't think the questioner would have the perspective to understand the answer as a Buddhist might answer a Buddhist.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
Matt J
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:29 am
Location: Denver, CO

Re: "Which has primacy, Buddha or Dharma"?

Post by Matt J »

I'm going with the Buddha, especially once you consider the inner meanings and esoteric correlations. When I took refuge in a Theravada lineage, I was told that the Buddha was not only the source of the teachings, but also my own potential to realize them.
"The world is made of stories, not atoms."
--- Muriel Rukeyser
User avatar
Nemo
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: "Which has primacy, Buddha or Dharma"?

Post by Nemo »

The Buddha was not a God. He was simply Buddhi, Awake. Due to the difficulty in sharing his realization he codified a system of rules to facilitate becoming realized. Dharma is not the awakened state. It is what an enlightened being does naturally. The awakened state is accessible by all beings without prejudice. He was not selling anything or demanding control of people's lives.
The Cult of Buddha sometimes gets other ideas.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9437
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: "Which has primacy, Buddha or Dharma"?

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Buddha, Dharma, Sangha, ultimately
Three aspects of the same thing.
You can’t say one is more important than the other without downplaying their combined significance.

It’s like asking which side of a triangle makes it a triangle.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 8883
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: "Which has primacy, Buddha or Dharma"?

Post by Astus »

Malcolm wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 2:13 pmOne, your reference to SN 6.2 is far too narrow, since in the Pali canon the Buddha has also declared in various places he had no teacher at all, and that he had teachers in past lives.
Apart from the Jataka, Buddhavamsa, and Cariyapitaka, there aren't many discourses dealing with the idea of the past lives of the Buddha. On the other hand, the instruction to take the Dharma as one's refuge is repeated several times: DN 16, DN 26, SN 22.43, SN 47.9, SN 47.13-14.
Second, no, the UT really doesn’t “practically combine all three refuges into one.” It points out that the Dharma and the Sangha are compounded and impermanent. This is the context in which Maitreya declares the Buddha to be the true refuge, Dzongsar’s apologetics notwithstanding.
The Buddha is called the ultimate refuge for its permanence, thus actually meaning the dharmakaya. In a similar fashion is Dharma itself described in the Pali Canon, that it is true and present regardless of a buddha arising or not arising (SN 12.20, AN 3.136; cf. MMK 18.12).
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "Which has primacy, Buddha or Dharma"?

Post by Malcolm »

Astus wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 9:16 pm
The Buddha is called the ultimate refuge for its permanence, thus actually meaning the dharmakaya.
The Uttaratantra states:

Buddha alone is a refuge
because the Muni possesses the dharmakāya.


We agree that dharmakāya is termed permanent in this case. We also have to ask, what is buddhahood? The UT states six qualities:

Buddhahood that possesses two benefits
is uncompounded, naturally perfected,
is not realized through external conditions,
and possesses wisdom, love, and power.


It then continues:

[Buddhahood] is uncompounded because its primal nature
is free from beginning, middle, and end.
Because [it] possesses the dharmakāya of pacification,
it is called "naturally perfected."
Because [buddhahood] is not realized through external conditions
it is personally realized.
As such, because those three aspects are realized,
[buddhahood] is wisdom;
because the path is demonstrated, the mind [of buddhahood] is loving,
and its power is abandoning all suffering and affliction
through gnosis and compassion.


Thus, what we are going for refuge in is the actual realization of a buddha, who has benefited themselves and is capable of benefitting us, and not some abstract doctrine we ourselves have not realized. Unlike the Dharma and the Sangha, it is uncompounded and permanent. Which is why the UT states unambiguously:

Because of being abandoned, because of being deceptive,
because of nonexistence, and because of being fearful,
the two kinds of Dharma and the noble assembly
are not the supreme, permanent refuge.

In a similar fashion is Dharma itself described in the Pali Canon, that it is true and present regardless of a buddha arising or not arising
That, however, is not the dharmakāya as defined here.
avatamsaka3
Posts: 879
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2019 6:11 am

Re: "Which has primacy, Buddha or Dharma"?

Post by avatamsaka3 »

Ask them to define primacy. And the tradition they're talking about.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9437
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: "Which has primacy, Buddha or Dharma"?

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Of course, there is an obvious sequence.
The Buddha speaks the Dharma which is heard by the Sangha, who follows those words as teachings to practice. I don’t think there can be a different arrangement of those three things

My point was, primacy in terms of what? Primacy within what context? If you separate the it’s like making a distinction between 1, 2, and 3 dimensions. Yeah, you can do that, and say that a single dot comes first, but in order to have any real depth you need all three.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 4604
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: "Which has primacy, Buddha or Dharma"?

Post by Aemilius »

Astus wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 9:16 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 2:13 pmOne, your reference to SN 6.2 is far too narrow, since in the Pali canon the Buddha has also declared in various places he had no teacher at all, and that he had teachers in past lives.
Apart from the Jataka, Buddhavamsa, and Cariyapitaka, there aren't many discourses dealing with the idea of the past lives of the Buddha. On the other hand, the instruction to take the Dharma as one's refuge is repeated several times: DN 16, DN 26, SN 22.43, SN 47.9, SN 47.13-14.
Buddha speaks in several sutras about the infinite past, this obviously includes himself, like for example: Timsa sutta, Assu sutta, White Lotus sutra, Diamond sutra, Mahavastu, Aggañña sutta, and the Large Sukhavati vyuha sutra.

Timsa sutta: "The Blessed One said, 'From an inconceivable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. What do you think, monks? Which is greater, the blood you have shed from having your heads cut off while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time, or the water in the four great oceans?' "

There are also sutras where he speaks about seeing the past lives of himself and others and seeing the manifestation and destruction of the universe, like the Brahmajala sutta:
"some recluse or a brahmin, by means of ardour, endeavour, application, diligence, and right reflection, attains to such a degree of mental concentration that with his mind thus concentrated, [purified, clarified, unblemished, devoid of corruptions], he recollects his numerous past lives: that is, (he recollects) one birth, two, three, four, or five births; ten, twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty births; a hundred, a thousand, or a hundred thousand births; many hundreds of births, many thousands of births, many hundreds of thousands of births. (He recalls:) ‘Then I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance; such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such my span of life. Passing away thence, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance; such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such my span of life. Passing away thence, I re-arose here.’ Thus he recollects his numerous past lives in their modes and their details.
A certain recluse or brahmin, by means of ardour, endeavour, application, diligence, and right reflection, attains to such a degree of mental concentration that with his mind thus concentrated he recollects his numerous past lives: that is, (he recollects his past lives throughout) one aeon of world-contraction and expansion (expansion and contraction of the Universe) , throughout two, three, four, five, or ten aeons of world-contraction and expansion. (He recalls:) ‘Then I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance; such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such my span of life. Passing away thence, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance; such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such my span of life. Passing away thence, I re-arose here.’ Thus he recollects his numerous past lives in their modes and their details."
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
Post Reply

Return to “Mahāyāna Buddhism”