Skip to main content

Some Thoughts on Dharma Decline

Many of these blog entries have concerned my main research in political philosophy, intellectual property and technology. Now for something a little different, I thought I would write up some thoughts on another area of interest: Buddhism. For those who don't know, I've taught courses in Buddhism since I began teaching, having learned a great deal from my undergraduate advisor, Donald Hanks, and Ashok Aklujkar, a now-retired professor of Indian languages, literature and philosophy for whom I served as teaching assistant during my time at UBC. Thanks to their instruction, I developed a solid knowledge of the Indian Buddhist tradition, and I've used what they taught me to deepen and develop that knowledge to improve my teaching and my personal meditation practice.

While I don't want to write a full tutorial on Buddhist thought, I would like to discuss a notion that prevails in some traditions, and that discussion will require one to know a few basic ideas. At its core, Buddhist doctrine is directed at the liberation from suffering through a proper understanding of reality. According to the Buddha, one must investigate the causes of suffering, and once those causes are understood, one comes to understand that suffering can be prevented. There is much more to say about just these ideas, but the key thing to understand here is that the Dharma, as Buddhists refer to the Buddha's teachings, provides a roadmap to achieving these goals. The elimination of suffering can be achieved by anyone, and it does not require anything more than one's faculties of observation and analysis, strictly and carefully applied.

That being said, some Buddhist traditions contain discussions of a phenomenon known as “Dharma Decline.” The idea is fairly simple; achieving liberation (or Nirvana) is more difficult now than it was at the time of the Buddha. The argument is likewise simple. While the Buddha was alive, those who heard him and joined his assembly received instruction directly from him. He had a thorough understanding of reality and the difficulties encountered in achieving liberation, so he was capable of correcting errors in his followers. Here, the principal error is reliance on formula or ritual rather than strict observation and analysis. This error is a key concern in the Theravada tradition. Nirvana is not won through sitting a certain way of performing certain exercises alone. Instead, liberation is achieved through active critical engagement with perception, feeling, and thought. The Dharma provides exercises and encouragement to assist this engagement, but one cannot expect to simply sit and meditate in a certain way enough times and suddenly achieve liberation.

The problem is that the Dharma itself is a formula, a system. It is very easy to confuse the system for the solution, become frustrated with the practice or too absorbed in the minutia of particular exercises, and in the end fail to actively and critically analyze phenomenal reality, the reality of our experiences. While alive, the Buddha was able to steer his followers away from such errors, but after his death the assembly had to rely on those who had received direct instruction from the Buddha. Once that circle of followers had likewise died, that keen instruction and understanding is lost. Over time, as the teachings become codified, organized, and systematized, Buddhism becomes a tradition, and traditions are, in many ways, composed of forms, formula, and ritual. Followers then confuse the actual Dharma, the truth about reality and the elimination of suffering, with the rituals and traditions that accrue around the central truths. As the tradition persists, the risk grows, and the only ones capable of correcting the error are fully liberated teachers who reach the same level of understanding as the Buddha. Unfortunately, these teachers grow more rare as more time passes and the tradition becomes better established. As a result, we now live in an age of extreme Dharma Decline where fully liberated teachers are rare because only a few exceptional individuals can successfully distinguish between the formula and the truths at which the formulas are supposed to gesture.

That's the concept, and, as I said, it is endorsed by some strains of Buddhism. Notably, the Pure Land tradition teaches that Dharma Decline has become so problematic that the only route to liberation involves being reborn in the Pure Land, a special place created by the compassion of the Bodhisattva of Infinite Light (Amitabha). To be reborn in the Pure Land, one must do nothing more than call upon Amitabha for assistance.

Interestingly, Dharma Decline is an old idea in the Buddhist tradition, and it is not universally accepted. Personally, I don't think the notion of Dharma Decline holds too much water, and I'm in good company. One of the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras, the Diamond Cutter Sutra, contains a few pointed references to Dharma Decline. In that sutra, Subhuti, the Buddha's interlocutor, repeatedly asks the Buddha whether people “in the last 500 years” will be able to understand the teachings presented in the discourse. For the most part, the Buddha simply dismisses these concerns, but in one place, he gives a concrete reason. The Buddha says people in latter times “have not strengthened their root of merit under just one Buddha, or two Buddhas, or three, or four, or five Buddhas, but under countless Buddhas; and their merit is of every kind.”

I adore the Diamond Cutter Sutra, and I often tell my class that it is my favorite Sutra in the Buddhist tradition. As such, I've read that line many times, but I recently came to a clear understanding of it. In that passage, the Buddha denies the reality of Dharma Decline not because his teachings will persist, but because the Dharma will be realized by others. Liberated teachers will leave behind their instructions, their philosophy, their views on the Dharma. As more time passes more and more of these teachings will be built up, recorded, and passed along. In the time of the Buddha, only a small set of the human population had access to his teachings (for obvious reasons). Today, anyone seeking the elimination of suffering has the benefit of the Buddha's teachings as well as the teachings of Nagarjuna, Vasubandhu, Hui Neng, Dogen Zenji, Hakuin Ekaku, Alan Watts, Jack Kornfield, Ajahn Chah, Thich Nhat Hanh, and countless other wise and dedicated Buddhist teachers. In addition, we have improved our ability to communicate with one another and increased our knowledge of other cultures and their mystics. As such, we also have the benefit of Rumi, George Fox, Lao Tzu, Confucious, and countless other mystics, philosophers, and teachers of compassion, peace, and critical introspection. Contrary to the expectations of Dharma Decline, those who pursue the elimination of suffering have the benefit of so many teachers that they may more easily recognize the truths at the heart of the Dharma. At least, that's how I read those lines. I leave the rest to you.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

RPG Systems: An Analogy with UI Design

The current game in our weekly role-playing group is Deadlands. The previous game was Shadowrun. Both rule systems lie closer to the “chunky” side of the spectrum. Shadowrun has a particular reputation for its complex and somewhat cumbersome rules, and while Deadlands has less overall complexity, the system has a degree of granularity that interrupts play more often than it enhances narration. I enjoy role-playing games because I like participating in a good story. The rules system provides a set of constraints for the characters, the setting, and the conflicts. They help give the narrative structure, a background against which the story will take place. Too few rules, and telling an interesting and well-developed story becomes difficult. Too many rules tend to get in the way of individual scenes or events. With the right balance, it’s possible for the game master, usually me, to be sufficiently fluent in the rules system to resolve any conflict without extended consultation of on

The Incredible Lightness of Collaborative Consumption

Last week, we had to exchange our defective futon frame for a new one. The store didn't want to cover transport cost in either direction, so we had to figure out how to get our re-boxed frame from Mountain View to Los Altos. If we had a car, it would not have been very simple since we were aiming to buy a small sedan, nothing that can easily carry the frame and its box. Fortunately, we have a car sharing service that gives us access to a range of vehicles, including a van stored down the street from my building. After work, I grabbed the van, picked up the frame at our place, and then Tara and I drove to the futon to make the swap. I dropped off Tara and the new frame at our place, and then headed back to campus. On returning the van to its parking space, I hopped on a shuttle back to downtown Mountain View. We were able to do all of this because we're not tied to a specific vehicle for all of our transportation needs. The last car we owned was a van, and it came in handy o

Carless in California

For various reasons, we do not own a car despite living deep in American car country. The reasons are largely financial; the cost of living in downtown Mountain View crowds car ownership out of our budget. We pay more to live in a pedestrian friendly neighborhood, so we are less able to afford a car. At the same time, I don't need a car to get to work, and Tara doesn't drive, so any car we had would sit in the carport most of the week. Combine that waste of resources with a reluctance to contribute to the Bay Area's traffic congestion, and forgoing car ownership doesn't sound all that bad. Car sharing services allow us to grab a vehicle as long as we plan ahead a bit. The Caltrain provides access to San Francisco. There are convenience stores and cafes in walking distance, so we don't feel the absence of a car too often. Last night was one of the few times where I did. After getting home from work, we wanted a dinner cheaper than nearby delivery options. The n