Does the Dharma change and hopefully evolve with time? Should it?

[LuisDantas]

Does the dharma that lives in everything change or not?

Of course it does. Life is change.

Taking a Dharma is taking responsibility for it. Dharma lives in our hearts, but also in our wisdoms - or lack of same.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Of course it does. Life is change.

If life is change, is there one solid unchanging thing at the center of it all? Like Amida Buddha?

 

[LuisDantas]

Like the validity of Amida's Vow? IMO that is self-evident, yes.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Is this unchanging thing not the true dharma? The way? The Tao? It has many names.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is Dharma unmanifest. That is why it has many names. Because it doesn't belong to any

 

[Rainbow Mage]

So Luis I take it you're not talking about this dharma when you ask can the dharma change and evolve, since we agree this is unchanging?

 

[LuisDantas]

Quite frankly, I don't thing of unchanging Dharma often. I am an Atheist. Whether it does exist or not makes no difference to me, and I am not certain either way.

 

[Engyo]

Is this unchanging thing not the true dharma? The way? The Tao? It has many names.

In my tradition, we would call this the eternal buddha-nature, or buddha-field. Or in other words, the Dharmakaya.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

In my tradition, we would call this the eternal buddha-nature, or buddha-field. Or in other words, the Dharmakaya.

Yes of course I would call this Buddha-nature as well, and also Christ-consciousness

 

[zer0]

I would like some opinions.

IMO yes, it does, in practice if not in intent. And it is supposed to change and even to evolve, too, because Dharma is worthless unless it is applied, and the parameters of the world it is applied to change with time.

For example, it is now possible to spread teachings way faster, in many different ways, and to way more varied cultures than it used to be. I feel that does impact in the characteristics of the various schools and Dharmas. Historically, quite a few developed with remarkably regional outlooks, despite often having universal aspirations.

More significantly, there is also the matter that our "mundane" knowledge of psychology and social sciences has advanced a lot in the last century or so. That is a most fortunate and worthwhile resource, and all religious people will do well in taking advantage of it, including in their personal interpretations of Dharma (and of other faiths - I don't think it is any less true for Abrahamists, for instance).

Thoughts?

Do you think that it should adapt itself in order to fit the discoveries of the layman or that it should adapt itself in order to fit the discoveries of the Yogi and the Guru? I would agree with the 2nd but strongly disagree with the 1st. As in the areas of psychology, much of what they have found has merely echoed the teachings of the dharma. When I read the Vedas I feel like I am back in time reading ancient text books of Psychology and the ancient spirit of Dale Carnegie and Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud. The revolutions of Western psychology are revolutions only exclusive to the West. I found it very interesting that when I read the 1st chapter of the most RECENTLY WRITTEN textbook on Abnormal Psychology that the "Past and History" of Psychology said NOTHING NOTHING about the pursuits of the Yogis in the East. Yet it mentioned only the miniscule thoughts of the philosophers and the shamans and the apothecaries of the West. It was terrible I wanted to take the author by the arm and smack him in the face. He discounted thousands of years of what can be blatantly seen as ancient psychology for the pursuits of a Western culture which whipped people and used exorcisms and locked them in cellars and attics and basements.

The difference between the Eastern practice and the Western practice is that in the East they looked within and then looked without. In the West we tried to understand what was outside of us and are just now concerned with what the pounds of tissue are deeply secured in our skulls and this is only because we have practically given up our pursuits on understanding the outside world. So I think the Dharma should only be changed when a Guru is enlightened and either finds something new or used his own methods to attain enlightenment. And of course, the Lama's and Guru's and Yogi's of this century will be known of the next as being the masters of the dharma and they will be read just as we read the previous centuries lama's and guru's and yogi's. There is still the passing down of information from generation to generation, this is the way of all religion. It is saying "I think this is what the heck is going on. Do you think so too?" I once read a line by Thich Naht Hanh that changed my life. He said something along the lines of "We're all driving this vehicle, operating our minds, and we have no users manual. We've never been taught how to use it! Yet we must license people to use things which are one hundred times less advanced than our brain." Well religion and the Dharma, are those user manuals. Deep down, people are looking out of their pupils asking WHAT THE HECK IS GOING ON.

 

[LuisDantas]

Do you think that it should adapt itself in order to fit the discoveries of the layman or that it should adapt itself in order to fit the discoveries of the Yogi and the Guru?

Yes. Both.

The world is, after all, interconnected. There is no a priori reason to disregard whatever dharmically significant findings might be made by anyone. Religion has on occasion benefited from the findings of sociology, medicine, and even biology. There is no reason to expect that trend to stop anytime soon.

 

[zer0]

Yes but there is only one difference, which I mentioned in the bottom of my previous post. Our sciences differ from the Yogic and Dharmic practices in that we observe subjects. In the Dharmic and Yogic traditions the subject is the self. One learns through the direct experience of ones own liberation. Also, the study of what is within is more solid than that which is without (ironically). For instance, 20 years ago, black holes were thought to be absurd. Say we put that in the Dharma. Black holes are thought to be absurd. Now science tells us that black holes being absurd is absurd because they're everywhere. Or psychology even. Barely a century ago psychology told us if we stick a metal utensil in the frontal cortex and spin it around it stops us from being schizophrenic. Now we know that it just stops us from being HUMAN practically and makes us into practical drones because it causes massive brain damage. 200 years ago we locked psychologically abnormal people asylums and tortured them and starved them. If we allowed the study of what is without to change the dharma then how would we protect it from the false science which is believed to be correct?

It would change the dharma from a science of direct experience to one of indirect experience. It could prove dangerous.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Funny enough I was asking myself a similar question late last night and I don't have an answer at this point.

I am not clear on what Dharma actually is for us today.

Good to see I'm not the only person who's confused on this issue. How can one uphold dharma and what is the right dharma for us to adhere to? =S

Are you referring to something specific?

 

[Kriya Yogi]

Dharma is doing and being the best you can possibly be in whatever God has chosen for you in your current circumstance. If you're a teacher then be the best teacher you can be. If you're a hindu and that brings you closer to God then be the best Hindu you can be. You will know if things are meant for you if God opens more doors for you in that dharma. The key is trying to act Self realized in everything you do until you finally are.

 

[Sharon Saw]

My understanding of Dharma is that everything is impermanent - so Dharma can change according to the times and needs of the people. There is the profound wisdom path and the extensive method path and the methods of learning, teaching and application will definitely change over time. There will be people who will applaud change and those who are steadfastly against it such as the traditionalists.

My Guru, H.E. Tsem Tulku Rinpoche is often considered as "controversial" because he is cracks jokes and teases his students all the time in his dharma talks, which are freely available on youtube. The traditionalists think a monk should NOT act like that - shock horror - but Rinpoche's style makes him appealing to many who would not have been attracted to spirituality otherwise. Although Rinpoche's method is very modern, the content of his teachings are highly traditional and is consistent with what is taught at the monastery he is from, Gaden Shartse. To me, that is how we ensure that we do not change the contents at our whim but we can always change the presentation to make sure the teachings are more palatable to more people.

 

[Sweetvoice]

Dharma (Cap D), as the truths of things as they really are will never change. Otherwise, that cannot be the Truth. I.e, the four noble truth cannot change regardless of life cycles.

dharma (small letter d), can change and evolve to adapt with the times. eg, the fifth precept of no-drinking alcohol may be taken off, if all alcoholic beverages are non-existent. Or the method of teaching the Dharma may change to suit the individual capacity, which is what account for the different schools of buddhism. For me, even the other non-dharmic faiths are evolved methods to eventually (in its own time) reach the desired enlightenment of Buddhahood.

 

[redcom11]

I believe that by definition dharma is not static. and the reason for that is that it is inward looking. and since every individual is different dharma must change case by case. the ritualistic part of dharma may remain static (mantras, shlokas, mythology, etc.) but the spiritual part has never been, or will be, in my opinion, static. and current social realities will have to be taken into consideration for the practice to be relevant and effective, at least when one is taking their first tentative steps in this direction. perhaps later with a more developed spiritual character, one will become indifferent to outside realities.

also, our spiritual progression is not a flat line. as we live longer and learn more, our perspective changes. how many times have you heard people say, "this is a great book, every time I read it i learn something new' or something to that effect. the book is not really changing, perspective experience, etc. these are the things that change. so i guess from that point of view dharma is fluid too.

but whether dharma changes as a doctrine or religion or belief system, i guess various sects and off shoots have been doing it all the time. and i guess, if it works for you then great. good luck.

the thing i love about this philosophy is that i don't need to seek anyone's go ahead to interpret and apply it to my life. i do seek direction and clarification now and then, but then settle for what i think works best for me at a given point in time. how wonderful

 

[TenjikuZero]

I would like some opinions.

IMO yes, it does, in practice if not in intent. And it is supposed to change and even to evolve, too, because Dharma is worthless unless it is applied, and the parameters of the world it is applied to change with time.

For example, it is now possible to spread teachings way faster, in many different ways, and to way more varied cultures than it used to be. I feel that does impact in the characteristics of the various schools and Dharmas. Historically, quite a few developed with remarkably regional outlooks, despite often having universal aspirations.

More significantly, there is also the matter that our "mundane" knowledge of psychology and social sciences has advanced a lot in the last century or so. That is a most fortunate and worthwhile resource, and all religious people will do well in taking advantage of it, including in their personal interpretations of Dharma (and of other faiths - I don't think it is any less true for Abrahamists, for instance).

Thoughts?

I have yet to see a definition of Dharma...There are only personal opinions and views...and naturally it would be impossible to find a definition of Dharma.

Dharma by nature roughly translates into something like "the way" , "way of life" , "duty", etc etc. The only thing all these words have in common is that they are all dependent on the practitioner. Human beings are unique...not only in our appearances, but also in the way we think. Therefore it stands to reason that one person's Dharma would only apply to him. It cannot be expected to apply to another without any modification. It would be like expecting everyone to wear blue uniform..even though people have preferences for different colours.

Due to this nebulous and transitory nature of Dharma, the question "does Dharma evolve with time" appears a moot one. When Dharma itself is change incarnate, how can we expect it not to change? Dharma is what you define your Dharma to be. You are its first and final arbiter and no one else. It is your Dharma to stand by your Dharma even if the entire world ridicules your personal (flavour?) of Dharma to be wrong

:nasmaste