Poll: Dhamma-niyama is...?

[pipwa]

I voted for "Other - please explain", and here's my explanation.

I think it's impossible to answer in that format. It's possible that those characteristics are just the way that the universe is, for us, at least. It is eternally thus, and in the British empiricist tradition of (I think) Hume, we can say that whatever type of universe there is, it would have to be one way rather than another, and it just happens to be that way. This precludes it evolving to have those characteristics, because evolution into something different from what it was would mean that it was never without those characteristics, and the prior lack of those characteristics actually proves that the characteristics were inherently present from the outset.

However, it's possible that the set-up was created by God, or a lesser god. If God created those processes and those phenomena, then s/he could presumably have created our minds in such a way that we cannot find out with certainty.

Hi. If we set aside the notion "the universe is eternal":

1. Are you suggesting there can be an alternate universe or alternate creation of an Alternate God that does not involve any "processes"? What will this "non-processes universe" be like?

2. Are you suggesting if all universes cease to exist, the uncreated that remains is a self (rather than not-self)?

3. Or are you suggesting if all universes cease to exist, there will be no "uncreated"?

[wenjaforever]

There are no parallel universes in the suttas. Parallel universes and time travel is a wrong view.

[Joe.c]

…

[Joe.c]

…

See now you trap in net of views due to ayonisomanasikara. See AN 4.77.

Speculation about the world …
Lokacintā, bhikkhave, acinteyyā, na cintetabbā;

yaṁ cintento ummādassa vighātassa bhāgī assa.
These are the four unthinkable things. They should not be thought about, and anyone who tries to think about them will go mad or get frustrated.”

If your foundation is not strong go back to basic 4NT or N8FP. Don’t even try to discern the higher knowledges, you will fail.

Hi. Is "experience" not a "process construction"? Is "experience" stable & not suffering?

Don’t mix the 3 lines, those lines separated with purpose. When you mix things up, then you will get more confused.

Experience is just experience without self.

Dhammaniyama is dhammaniyama. Nothing else. Don’t add or remove try to explain it other way. The statement is just that.

[Pulsar]

Not quite sure why peeps object to the content of the sutta.
AN 3.136 wrote:

"Monks, whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma:

"it" remains constant.
The statement is not saying impermanence is permannent.
It basically says the teachings of the Buddhas, do not vacillate.
It writes

steadfastness of Dhamma, its orderliness remains constant

What is Buddha's fundamental doctrine or Dhamma?
It is Dependendent Originations. When this comes to be that comes to be, as Assaji related to Sariputta at their first encounter... this dependency in a nutshell is invariable. It is steadfast, it is orderly.
My understanding is that Dependent Origination and the Four Noble Truths are truths that cannot be violated.
And these are the truths that even the Buddhas worship.
With love

[Pulsar]

wenjaforever wrote

Dhamma niyama > 4th arupa jhana

Can you bring the sutta that says Dhamma Niyama has anything to with 4th Arupa jhana?
Regards

[Pulsar]

sphairos wrote

Is impermanence permanent?

Where does the sutta say this?
The sutta says laws governing impermanence of phenomena, are steadfast, are orderly. In other words you will never find a case where worldly experience of beings are found to be steadfast, or are found to be permanent. Do you not read it this way?
With love

[Pulsar]

Joe.c. wrote

One, who create the post and voted for it, has completely missing the point of Dhammaniyama.

I just voted for it. Where did I miss the point? Can you explain?
The post is about Dhamma Niyama. The simplest explanation of it would be steadfastness, stableness, regularity (of dhamma). Do you see it as otherwise? Can you enlighten us on the phrasing, as you see it?
Dhamma here is the Laws governing the Buddha's fundamental teaching. Think of the context. Dhamma with an upper case letter refers to the doctrine, dhamma with a lover case letter refers to worldly phenomena or experience.
Regards

[Pulsar]

Joe.c wrote

Experience is just experience without self.

Is there a sutta that says this? Can I please have a look at it?
I just want to see in which context Buddha said so?
With love

[wenjaforever]

wenjaforever wrote

Dhamma niyama > 4th arupa jhana

Can you bring the sutta that says Dhamma Niyama has anything to with 4th Arupa jhana?
Regards

Can you show a sutta where avici is ever mentioned?

4th arupa beings are not eternal but they will die for the last time. They're non returners. The only thing that is eternal is dhamma and nibbana. 4th arupa is unfathomable. It's beyond perception.

[Pulsar]

I remember reading a scripture about the young Buddha. After his realization, he sat wondering who or what he should worship.
It is these steadfast laws of Dahmma that deserved worship, he concluded.
Here is an excerpt from Garava sutta, SN 6.2 or one of its Chinese parallels. SA2101 and SA 1188.

Then I thought to myself,
"I should now approach, offer, respect, sincerely honor, and respect the Dharma I have realized.
What is the reason for this?
All the Buddhas of the past have been close to, followed, offered, respected, and honored this Dharma, and all the Buddhas of the future and present will also be close to, followed, offered, respected, and honored.
I shall now also approach, follow, offer, respect, and honor the Dharma as all the Buddhas of the past, future, and present.

Or with a slightly different phrasing

"All those who have attained enlightenment in the past, and all those who will attain it in the future
And the present Enlightened Ones, in relation to the removal of many sorrows.
All have dwelt, dwell, and will dwell in respect for the right Dharma.
This is the condition of the Dharma of all Buddhas.
Therefore, those who love themselves and
expect greatness
should respect the righteousness of the Dharma and remember the Buddha's teachings."

Regards

[pipwa]

Not quite sure why peeps object to the content of the sutta.
AN 3.136 wrote:

"Monks, whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma:

"it" remains constant.
The statement is not saying impermanence is permannent.
It basically says the teachings of the Buddhas, do not vacillate.

Hi. The quote says: "whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands". Therefore, the word Dhamma cannot refer to the teachings of the Buddhas because what stands & is steadfast exists whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas.

[Pulsar]

pigwa wrote

"whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands".

Can you think of any other property that anyone else detected (Jesus? Mohamed?) and offered us a way out of the predicament of Samsara?
Latter was Buddha's main interest, Do you not agree?

This property that is detected by the Buddhas is an unassailable truth.
It came to to be known as Buddha's Dhamma or Buddha's doctrine. Why? Buddhas are able to point it out of the darkness, and shine a light on it, Sutta on the city, so we can help ourselves to get rid of the mess
we are in. Buddha cannot do it for us.
Can you name another human who has pointed out this truth of Dependency and shown a way out of it? via Four Noble Truths?
If you cannot, is it not fair to say, that it is their doctrine, if they based their teachings on these unassailable truths,
that are found independent of them.
My time is limited, if there are errors in my post I shall correct them later, provided I am allowed 5 hours
to correct my typos etc. Often I lose that ability within 3 hours.
With love

[Ceisiwr]

Greetings,

"Monks, whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All processes are inconstant.

"The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, & makes it plain: All processes are inconstant.

"Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All processes are stressful.

"The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, & makes it plain: All processes are stressful.

"Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All phenomena are not-self.

"The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, & makes it plain: All phenomena are not-self."

Metta,
Paul.

A condition is something that relies upon another for it's existence. Since it relies upon another, it cannot be self-existent. Since it is not self-existent, it cannot be permanent. Not being permanent, it has to be impermanent. Since this is a matter of logic, it's always true.

Since all conditions are impermanent, they cannot bring lasting satisfaction by definition. Since this is also a matter of logic, it's always true.

The last one is more difficult, since it's not entirely clear what sense of "dhammā" is meant here. Does it mean "all things" or does it mean "all teachings"? I've heard arguments from both sides. If we take the first interpretation then "all things" are empty of self-nature due to dependency. As they are dependent they have no substance, and seeing that lack of substance is nibbāna. Since nibbāna is equivalent with seeing the lack of substance, it too is without self. On the second reading, since teachings are mere concepts they have no self nature. To say they do would be akin to saying 1 + 1 = 2 is a self, which is absurd.

[wenjaforever]

A condition is something that relies upon another for it's existence. Since it relies upon another, it cannot be self-existent. Since it is not self-existent, it cannot be permanent. Not being permanent, it has to be impermanent. Since this is a matter of logic, it's always true.

Since all conditions are impermanent, they cannot bring lasting satisfaction by definition. Since this is also a matter of logic, it's always true.

The last one is more difficult, since it's not entirely clear what sense of "dhammā" is meant here. Does it mean "all things" or does it mean "all teachings"? I've heard arguments from both sides. If we take the first interpretation then "all things" are empty of self-nature due to dependency. As they are dependent they have no substance, and seeing that lack of substance is nibbāna. Since nibbāna is equivalent with seeing the lack of substance, it too is without self. On the second reading, since teachings are mere concepts they have no self nature. To say they do would be akin to saying 1 + 1 = 2 is a self, which is absurd.

Nice. Very well said. The best explanation in this thread

Thus nibbana is annihilation

Dhamma niyama IMO is the law that governs the other 4 lower laws.