DHARMA(Sansk: support, law, virtue, duty, religious teaching), in Buddhism it is the Law of the universe revealed by the Buddha, and his Teaching, as the second jewel of the Buddhist triad (Buddha, Dharma, Sangha, or community), as well as each individual text of the Buddha's Word, in addition, it is the absolute, the true reality, the smallest particle of the stream of consciousness, quality, object of knowledge, etc. The ambiguity of the word is not accidental, it is not only the cornerstone concept of Buddhism, but also the main thing: Buddha exists thanks to the Dharma, but to say the opposite is not true. With correct comprehension, everything in this and any other world turns out to be Dharma. The term comes from the root "dhar" (to hold, carry, affirm) and literally means "support for anything." The word Dharma acquired the meaning of “religious law of society” and certain provisions of this law back in pre-Buddhist times. Then it began to be interpreted as a kind of gift revealed to seers.

The Buddha acquired this incomprehensible gift in the state of Enlightenment and for a long time could not find ways to convey it to people, since the language is too imperfect a means for this purpose, and human minds are too clogged to perceive the purity of the Law. The Buddha found one of the solutions to the problem of transmission in teaching at various levels of complexity depending on the abilities of the listeners, the second - in communicating and preaching in the simple language of local dialects, Sanskrit is only for brahmins and scholars, the third - silent and signless knowledge of the Dharma in concentration and contemplation , which was considered possible only by highly moral persons.

In his conversations with close followers and scholars, the Buddha used the term "Dharma" in at least two different ways.

Firstly, when describing the structures of an individual’s psyche and its stream of consciousness, Dharma is the smallest and further indivisible unit of analysis. In this case, the texts often resort to the plural of the word, which in Russian, I think, is better conveyed by the new formation “dharma-particle,” since this is a specific Buddhist interpretation of the term. According to the latter, Dharmas are instantly flashing and dying particles that make up the constantly changing flow (santana) of individual consciousness (chitta), distributed among classes, groups (skandha) and acting according to certain laws of their own nature, derived by the Buddha (see Abhidharma). For example, Dharmas are the qualities of manifestation of the psyche (calmness, modesty, non-anger and hatred, laziness, shamelessness), each of which is a class of moments operating in consciousness, the same is said about the structures of the psyche (memory, perception, sensation), etc. . This method of description was created by the Buddha not for the sake of metaphysics or philosophy, but for purely practical purposes to help on the Path of liberation from suffering (duhkha), from the circle of rebirths (samsara) of an individual. This help consisted in teaching followers to eradicate attachment to such persistent religious dogmas as the ideas of “eternity” and “incorruptible soul” (see Anatman, Anitya), which are obstacles to the Path.

Secondly, the founder of Buddhism also developed the traditional Indian culture understanding of the Dharma as the spiritual Law and its teachings. In this sense, Dharma is the support of the universe, the law of life and rebirth of beings, embodied in the texts of the Teaching; one comes under its refuge by taking monastic vows or worshiping the Buddha, the Law and the community. Moreover, the object of the cult is not the abstract “support of the universe” (Buddhism did not favor abstract concepts), but rather the text (later the book) of the Law. The Buddha emphasized that the true meanings of the Dharma texts are beyond language, they are comprehended in intuitive insight and given as a spiritual gift in any language by a master preacher. In this regard, the essence of Dharma is extra-signal and identical to the essence of Dharma particles comprehended in yogic contemplation (see Vipashyana), the same is true to say about individual teachings of the Law.

In the Mahayana, Dharma takes on the distinct meaning of an absolute, identical to the highest state of Buddha, or Buddhahood (buddhatva). The emphasis in this identity is again on the practical side, i.e. on the attainability of this state, as well as on its omnipresence and omnipresence, which cannot be proven verbally, but is cognizable in a state of supreme illumination with truth (paramartha-satya), which is the merging of the object and subject of knowledge, their non-duality (advaya), unity (ekatva, eka- artha), which cannot be comprehended even by thought (acintya). This absolute received the conventional name of the Body of Law (Dharma-kaya) or the Body of Buddha (Buddha-kaya), which turned out to be more suitable for the mythological and ritual side of the Mahayana and Vajrayana. Thus, cult worship from the extra-sign text of the Dharma was transferred to a more specific object - the books of Prajnaparamita sutras, which were the first to announce the new Buddhist teaching, Mahayana.

So, the entire universe is only the absolute, Dharma, and what we discern in it and much more is an illusion (maya), a haze of manifestations of the Body of Law. Its highest manifestation can be considered the Body of a Buddha in color and form (rupa-kaya), which is either given in the form of contemplation buddhas (dhyani buddhas) to yoga masters, or in the form of living Buddha teachers, for example Shakyamuni, perceived even by ordinary consciousness. But on the other hand, one has only to remember the unity of existence, the absolute, it becomes clear that there is no difference between true reality and illusion, between nirvana and samsara. The Dharma and Buddhahood are always here and in every being.

Such ancient interpretations of the term made it possible for modern Buddhist missionaries in the West (for example, Buddhadasa) to identify the Dharma with the concept of the "Supreme God" of monotheistic religions.

Speaking about dharmas, one more important circumstance should be noted, to which the modern St. Petersburg Buddhist scholar V.I. paid close attention. Rudoy. The fact is that in many (though not all) Buddhist schools, dharmas are considered, on the one hand, as dravya sat, that is, elements endowed with ontological status, real elements, and on the other, as prajnyapti sat, that is, as only conceivable , or conventional, units of language for describing experience. That is, our experience is constituted by dharmas, but we also describe the dharmas themselves in terms of dharmas. Here we can give this, albeit somewhat crude, example: our speech consists of words, but we also describe words using words. This feature of Buddhists’ understanding of dharmas brought them closer to resolving the so-called paradox of mental processes, which European psychology began to recognize only in the 20th century: we always describe consciousness not in immanent terms (terms reflecting its inherent properties), but in terms of either the external world , or another consciousness. By introducing the concept of dharma as an ontologically relevant element of consciousness and experience in general and as an element of the language for describing consciousness (and experience), Buddhists, in essence, found one of the options for the language of description immanent to consciousness. This is the undoubted contribution of Buddhism to Indian and world philosophy.

Thus, summarizing what was said above, it should be noted that Buddhism looks at personality in education as just a name designed to designate a structurally ordered combination of five groups of instantaneous elementary psychophysical states - dharmas. This is a fairly strict formulation of the principle of anatmavada (“without self”, “without soul”), or more precisely (from the point of view of Mahayana Buddhism), only one of its two aspects - “essencelessness of personality”, because from the Mahayana point of view, all dharmas are empty - “without essence.”

Buddhist philosophical (Abhidharmic) literature contains various lists and classifications of dharmas. Thus, the school of Sarvastivadins (Vaibhashiks) contains a list of 75 dharmas, and the list of Yogacharins (Vijnanavadins) already includes 100 dharmas. If we talk about the classifications of dharmas, then, firstly, they can be classified according to skandhas (dharmas related to rupa skandha, vedana skandha). This five-fold list can be reduced to binary: 1) the dharma of the rupa skandha and 2) the dharma of all other skandhas (in accordance with the division of the personality into nama and rupa - mental and physical); in this case, the second group of dharmas receives the name dharma dhatu (“dharma element”), since the “dharmas” as members of the group “dharma dhatu” are objects for the “mind” (manas), which, as we remember from the analysis of the chain of cause-dependent origin , refers to Buddhists as sense organs (perceptual abilities).

Dharmas constantly arise and disappear, being replaced by new ones, but conditioned by previous dharmas according to the law of causally dependent origin. These constantly arising and disappearing non-substantial dharmas in their totality form a stream or continuum (santana), which is empirically discovered as a “living being”. Thus, any being, including the human personality, is understood in Buddhism not as an unchanging entity (soul, atman), but as a stream of constantly changing elementary psychophysical states. The ontology of Buddhism is the ontology of a substratumless process.

Thus, not only is it impossible to enter the same river twice, but there is no one who could try to do it twice. Essentially, every new moment there is a new personality, causally connected with the previous one and conditioned by it.

Kshanikavada is the doctrine of instantaneity, one of the fundamental teachings of Buddhism.

The doctrine of instantaneity follows directly from the concept of impermanence. It is stated that each dharma (and, therefore, the entire set of dharmas, that is, a living being) exists only for a moment, and in the next moment it is replaced by a new dharma, whose appearance is causally determined by the previous one. In fact, at every moment in time we are dealing with a new personality, associated with the previous karmic reasons and conditioned by it. So not only is it impossible to step into the same river twice, but there is no one who could do it twice.

According to Kshanikavada, the flow of dharmas that constitutes a living being is both continuous (continuous) and discrete (subject to interruption). It is like a film consisting of individual frames, which, however, the viewer does not see when watching the film - he perceives it as a continuum. In this case, two adjacent frames differ from each other very slightly, and appear to the untrained eye to be almost identical; the differences are revealed gradually. Each new life is like another episode of a beginningless series, and nirvana is like the end of a movie.

The question arises: if, according to the teachings of Anatmavada, no soul or “I” exists, what then is reborn and given a new life? The answer is quite paradoxical: nothing is reborn. Contrary to popular belief, Buddhism, unlike Hinduism, does not teach about reincarnation. A person is not an embodied soul, but a flow of states - dharm, a series of instantaneous frames.

Usually Buddhists talk about alternating births and deaths, or cyclical existence. Two examples are sometimes given here. In the first case, we are talking about billiard balls: the cue (karmic impulse samskar) hits the ball (conditional personality - pudgala), transmitting a certain acceleration and determining the trajectory. This ball hits the next one, imparting acceleration to it and determining the direction of its movement, and so on. Here only energy is transmitted, which forms the connection between the “current” existence and the “subsequent” one. In fact, every moment of our life a similar “charge transfer” occurs. At the same time, the “mind” (manas), which is based on the previous moment in time, provides memory and a sense of unity and existence of the individual.

In the second case, this mechanism is considered using the example of a kaleidoscope. A certain combination of colored glasses (that is, a set of dharmas that we perceive as a “personality”) after the movement of the kaleidoscope (a karmic effect that determines subsequent life) changes to something else. The new combination is determined by the initial position of the glasses and the karmic impulse, and manifests itself in the form of a living being (a set of glasses - dharmas), associated with the first cause and effect.

In this article we will examine such a concept as “Dharma”. How it is viewed in different traditions.

The concept of Dharma. The concept of Dharma in the Buddhist tradition

The concept of “Dharma” or “Dhamma” came to Buddhism from the Vedic tradition, just as Buddhism itself is essentially a product of Vedic knowledge. Buddha Shakyamuni was brought up in traditional Indian society with its inviolable dogmas and caste system, which was a sufficient reason for the rejection of established foundations and the beginning of the search for something new, which, in turn, led to the rejection of the caste system and subsequently led to the fact that we now refer to as a philosophical system called Buddhism.

However, despite the radical departure from the views that existed at that time, many concepts from the Vedas and Vedanta smoothly passed into the new system of knowledge. Among them is the fundamental and probably one of the most widely interpreted and most controversial among followers of dharmic religions (Jainism, Sikhism, etc.) the concept of Dharma.

In ancient India, Dharma was identical to the laws of Rita. Let us remember that the laws of Rita are natural laws of nature. Following them is fulfilling the laws of Rita. Dharma is often translated as 'the universal law of existence', 'religious duty', 'that which maintains the cosmic order'. It is also believed that Dharma is also a set of moral rules; In some spiritual traditions, Dharma is usually understood as the method as a whole.

Thus, you have already realized that the interpretation of the concept of Dharma can vary depending on the context, the source where you came across this concept, as well as the knowledge and inclinations of those who interpret this term. In the White Lotus Sutra, which was written down in the 1st century AD. e. in the Mahayana (Great Vehicle) tradition, the Buddha speaks of the Rain of Dharma, when the rain of Dharma falls on all things and they begin to develop in accordance with their own nature.

The laws of Dharma are one, but they can only be realized in accordance with the inner nature of the one who perceives the Dharma.

One of the main and fundamental definitions of Dharma is the following: “the way things really are.” In various sources we find numerous descriptions of what Dharma is, but the above looks like the most capacious and broad in meaning. It also most closely reflects the worldview of the Buddhist tradition, where the meaning is to get rid of illusion (which is our world) and move into the unconditioned, non-illusory world, the one that is the truth.

To do this, we must recognize and manifest the true nature of ourselves, and Dharma will serve as support on the path, helping us fulfill our moral duty.

The concept of Chaturdharma in Advaita philosophy

The concept of Chaturdharma, or the four types of Dharma, is developed and clearly presented in the philosophy of Advaita, one of the branches of the philosophy of Buddhism. We know from the Vedic literature that the practice of Dharma is carried out throughout life, and the periods of the life path, according to the Vedic scriptures, are called “ashrams”. In the life of an ordinary person of the Kali Yuga era, there are four ashrams, each of which is conditionally allocated 20–25 years of life: brahmachari - up to 25 years - a period of study and chastity; grihastha - from 25 to 50 years - when a person devotes his life to the world and family and material and sensual values ​​come to the fore; vanaprastha - from 50 to 70 (75) years - gradual withdrawal from business and social activity; sannyasi (last period) - 70 (75) + - when a person becomes a religious ascetic hermit and teacher for all other groups of people.

Thus, the four branches of Dharma are:

• Laws of the Universe (Rita);
• Social Dharma (Varna-dharma), belonging to a certain social group;
• Human Dharma (Ashrama-dharma);
• Personal, individual Dharma (Svadharma).

Some Advaita schools adhere to this division, and in many ways they are right in dividing the Dharma into sections, since the concept of Dharma is very deep and can be traced in various areas of life. So, for example, Varna-dharma is an expression of social status. In the Vedic era and at present in some countries it is expressed by the caste structure of society. That is, Varna-dharma is, first of all, submission to the social structure of society and the fulfillment of one’s duties in accordance with one’s social status.

You already know what Ashram-dharma is. We will devote a separate section of our article to personal Dharma, or Swadharma.

Dharma is also part of the four main Purusharthas of human life, where Dharma is the moral law, artha is responsible for worldly merits and everything material, kama as the emotional-sensual aspect of life and moksha (can also be called nirvana) brings liberation and is mainly practiced in the last two ashrams - vanaprastha and sannyasi.

What we see in all these divisions and interpretations of the Dharma largely confirms our original judgment that the Dharma permeates human existence: it can act as a universal law governing life and the development of the Universe, at more specific levels it can act as as a moral law, and can also be interpreted as a law that regulates the social activity of people and gives meaning to the life path, or, better said, structuring it, which we see in the example of Ashram-dharma.

How to know your Dharma: Dharma of a man and Dharma of a woman

How to know your dharma? This is a question many new Buddhists ask because they are likely to be influenced by modern trends and interpretations of the term. We have already mentioned more than once that the meaning of the word “Dharma” can be interpreted very differently, and even in our time it is sometimes understood as a person’s individual purpose in life.

Firstly, this is not entirely true, and there is another term for the concept of searching and finding individual purpose in life. Secondly, from the point of view of what we have already described above, it would be a great underestimation to believe that the concept of Dharma is reduced only to clarifying and finding the individual path, which is also associated with the ego and desire in general. This would initially contradict the very teachings of the Buddha, which are based on disidentification with conditioning, ego desires, etc. It is desires that keep a person from final, internal freedom and the transition to nirvana, i.e., they separate him from the transition from the world of conditioning to the world unconditionality.

Concept of Swadharma

Let us still continue the topic of individual purpose, and if it is a mistake to attribute such an interpretation to the term Dharma, then for finding one’s own purpose in life there is another concept, and it is consonant with dharma - this is Swadharma, or personal Dharma (another translation).

Initially, we do not find such a concept in the Vedas. We first learn about it from the Bhagavad Gita, when Krishna tells Arjuna that “doing your own duty, even if mediocre, is preferable to doing someone else’s duties, no matter how excellent. It is better to die in Swadharma; Paradharma is full of fear and danger.” Thus, we understand that everyone in life has a duty or obligation in accordance with his own nature. This is what a person must live and bring to life.

The following is an excerpt from a lecture by Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, which took place in Bangalore in 2013. When asked by those present how Swadharma can be interpreted, he answered as follows: “Any action that does not make you feel fear or anxiety is Swadharma. Such action, when you feel as if something is urging you to do it and without doing which you would feel restless, is Swadharma.”

The action that is performed in the greatest harmony with your inner deepest attitudes, talents and inclinations becomes Swadharma. Therefore, clarifying individual Swadharma is more about awareness and understanding of one’s own essence, inclinations and allowing oneself to act and live according to one’s inclinations.

The illegitimacy of the question of division into male and female Dharma

From all this we can conclude that questions about the existence of a woman’s Dharma or a man’s Dharma are at least unnecessary, because the ancient sacred texts did not initially give any specific recommendations regarding the differences between the Dharma of women and men. Rather, such a division was made much later in order to describe the range of duties and laws for both sexes, but a person studying the Vedas, Vedanta or Buddhism is unlikely to focus on this kind of information, since any division, categorization, etc. etc. - this is, by and large, just another additional obfuscation of reality, another illusion created by the human mind.

Our task is to reduce the number of samskaras to a minimum, and not to multiply them, creating various kinds of superstructures in a philosophical system already burdened with interpretations and comments. After all, even the above classifications of the concept of Dharma at various levels are creations of the human mind. Therefore, the goal is to try to perceive and discern the truth, to be able to see it among other tinsel, constantly keeping attention on the fact that dharma is “the way things really are.” Behind the many reflections we must see the real image, and only when we learn to see what is (and not what we want to see, or what they want to show us), then we will live in accordance with the Dharma.

So, let’s summarize some results on this vast topic, which we have just touched upon (and by no means pretend to be a complete description and presentation of the topic of Dharma). After all, as you know, Dharma is something that permeates all aspects of human life, while, according to one interpretation, Dharma itself acts as one of its main aspects. However, it may be worth listening to what the Vedas and Smritis say: that by adhering to the fulfillment of the Dharma, one moves towards unconditionality, towards Truth and therefore towards liberation.

Dharma initially presupposes a kind of “will to freedom,” which is quite accurately reflected in the presented metaphor: “The human mind is like a mirror: it does not cling to anything, it does not deny anything. He receives, but does not hold." This quote is directly related to the principle of non-attachment and emptiness (shunyata), on which the teachings of Buddhism are based, which primarily determines the state of mind. But this is a topic for another article...

Early Buddhism: religion and philosophy Lysenko Victoria Georgievna

Dharma theory - "good metaphysics"

Let's go back to the others dharmam. Classifications appear in the suttas dharm By skandham(groups), dhatu(elements) and ayatanam(bases) and determines the general principle of their relationship - pratitya-samutpada. Skandhas called "attachment heaps" due to their connection with dukkha and a thirst for becoming. The process of cognition is reflected in the classification dharm on ayatana(bases): 6 “internal organs of cognition” (five senses and manas) and their six external objects (objects of the senses and manas).

From Glasenapp's point of view, the desire to reduce dharma to a certain numerical list appears in the Abhidharmic literature. In the suttas, the same dharmas often appear under different names. Glasenapp believes that the development of the concept dharm into the concept of the elements of being belongs to the time of compilation of the Abhidharmic texts. In the suttas the idea of dharmah is presented in the most general and elementary form, as an explanation of the impermanence and variability of things. The idea that dharma is the bearer of its own properties - also a property of a later period. But Glasenapp does not dispute the opinion that already in the suttas dharma was a metaphysical concept (see: Lysenko, 1994, p. 204).

S. Shaer argues with his conclusions, who believes that in early Buddhism the concept dharma acted only as a synonym for the absolute, analogous to the Atman-Brahman of the Upanishads, and the theory dharm is a Hinayana doctrine that has no precedent in the canon. The American researcher F. Edgerlon also spoke out strongly against the “metaphysical” nature of the early Buddhist theory of dharmas (see: Lysenko, 1994, p. 204).

In a word, we are again faced with contrasting interpretations of Buddhism, which, in the spirit of the Buddha, can well be called “extremes.” What position should we take in this dispute? Material for reflection on the term “dharma” in early Buddhism is provided by the Critical Pali Dictionary, which collects evidence from the Pali canon, especially the Nikayas. The article “dhamma” provides interpretations of Buddhaghosa: (1) “good quality”, “virtue”; (2) “Buddha’s sermon”, “moral instruction”; (3) “cosmic law”, (4) “condition”, “causal antecedent”; (5) “phenomenal” as opposed to noumenal” (translation by the authors of the dictionary). It is easy to notice that in most meanings the Buddhist dhamma remains within the connotations of the pan-Indian term dharma: righteousness, virtue, the general order of the universe, doctrine and moral instruction. Actually, only (4) and (5) - “condition” and “phenomenal as opposed to noumenal” can perhaps be considered a Buddhist innovation. As for the difference between Dharma(teachings of Buddha) and dharma as an element, it is expressed either grammatically (through the singular or plural), or can be reconstructed from the context. Again, only from the context can we conclude whether we are talking about dharmah as a description language or dharmah as elements of reality. A clear distinction between dharm and their names can only be found in abhidharmic texts. But even in the third “basket” of the Buddhist canon, the question of reality dharm not yet installed. Its production should apparently be associated with the period of development of Sarvastivada - a school that, as is clear from its name, argued that “everything (all dharma) exists" (sarva-asti). In other words, dharma real in the present, past and future. She was opposed by Sautrangika, who argued that only dharma present.

Before this period, Buddhism hardly knew the problem of reality dharm, therefore, in my opinion, it would be premature to talk about their ontological status in early Buddhism. This also applies to the dispute among Buddhist scholars about whether there were dharma"metaphysical", "psychological" or "ethical" concepts. Buddhist theory dharm cannot be called either “metaphysics”, or “psychology”, or “psychological ethics”, or “ethical psychology”. But at the same time, it is equally reckless to deny it metaphysicality. psychological or ethical on the basis that it simply captures the fact of variability and, perhaps, is a kind of phenomenology of the process.

In fact, if the meaning of the doctrine of dharmah boils down only to the fact that everything is impermanent and one should not get attached to anything in this changing world, is it really so important what flashes outside the window of this train in which we travel through life, what landscapes flash by! It is pointless to delve into the understanding of flashing pictures. Why do we care what's outside the window? The only thing that has value is the final destination - nirvana.

Many Buddhists interpret dharma as phenomena in which essence and appearance are indistinguishable, and on this basis they claim that this distinction is generally unknown to Buddhists. But is it? Dharma are indeed devoid of essence, understood as something unchanging and constant, but the very understanding of the world and oneself as a flow dharm - Isn't this understanding at the essence level? Does an ordinary person perceive dharma? If the idea of ​​them were a simple reflection of the nature of mental experience, as follows from the interpretations of some Buddhist scholars, then any person would have an innate ability to perceive everything that happens to him in terms of dharm. However, we know that this is not so - for an ordinary person, subject to samsara, such an ability still needs to be developed. If Buddhist theory dharm defined as “phenomenology of the process,” then this is not the phenomenology of the ordinary psyche. Buddhists certainly made a distinction between what we ordinary people perceive and what “really” is. This means that they saw in the doctrine of dharmah the true picture of reality, which is revealed only to a consciousness “awakened” from samsaric sleep and free from all “obscurations.” The most important term yatha-bhutam.“the suchness of things”, or “reality as it is”, or “the natural course of events” - and encodes, from my point of view, the difference between true reality, or reality dharm, from what an ordinary person sees. This is not yet metaphysics in the sense of a well-developed speculative picture of the world, but it is no longer a simple reflection of the state achieved in meditation (non-Buddhists also practiced similar methods of meditation, but did not develop the doctrine of dharmah).

To perceive the world as it is, i.e. to perceive the same world (the object of knowledge does not change), but with a “purified” consciousness, you must first break the usual mechanisms of perception and thinking. And in order to break them, you need to understand how they are structured and what needs to be changed in them. In addition, it is important to imagine what ideal of “correct” perception is to be achieved. Therefore, you need to have knowledge about the “darkened” psyche and some kind of program for its transformation. Why did this require an idea of dharmah - changeable and discrete? Scientists who reflected on the origins of the doctrine of dharmah, it seemed most likely that it arose from introspection, a person’s self-observation of his own consciousness. Indeed, our psyche, if we try to observe it, is a flickering - sometimes disorderly and chaotic - of states, images, thoughts, emotions, etc. However, as I already noted, the theory dharm does not automatically follow from these observations as their logical generalization. It’s one thing to see a change of images and thoughts (like landscapes outside a train window), another thing to observe the alternation dharm. In the latter case, we are dealing with the same images and thoughts, but only in an extremely detached, impersonal, neutral and objectified form with an emphasis on only one thing - their variability. But in order to see this way, one must already have a certain a priori attitude, which deprives the immediate content of our ordinary experience of value. This is what makes it difficult to name a theory dharm purely psychological. The psyche was of interest to Buddhists not as a subject of psychology in the modern scientific sense, but only as an object of “saving” transformation, that is, soteriology. Buddhists understand the structure of the “clouded” consciousness only as a machine of enslavement in samsara(they are not interested in any other psychological problems) and are described in negative terms (“obstacles”, “obscurations”) - i.e. they are concerned not so much with what our psyche actually is, but with what it should not, or, on the contrary, d ol wife be in prospect of liberation.

ONE more consideration prevents the theory from being considered dharm psychological par excellence. It was not just the psyche that was studied, but the “psyche-world” system. Returning to our man on the train, from the Buddhist point of view he is not an isolated subject observing an object, but a unity the observer and the landscapes he observes in the perspective of approaching the final destination. A completely unknown projection of the view of the human psyche emerges. It is important to understand exactly this, but what to call it is a secondary matter. The best thing, in my opinion, is not to rush into classification labels, but to try to understand how the system, conventionally called “psyche-world” by me, is built in Buddhism?

Let us turn to the classifications of dharmas according to dhatu And ayatanam, which, as we know, were already known to the early Buddhists, and perhaps introduced by the Buddha himself. Term d X atu often used as a synonym for the pan-Indian concept mahabhuta -"great element" (earth, water, wind and fire). However, more characteristic and more terminological (in the sense of special Buddhist terminology) is its use as a synonym for the word l oka(“world”) in the following triadic classification: kama-dhatu(sensory world) rupa-dhatu(“world of forms” or “world of images”, “imaginative” - A.V. Paribok) and arupa-dhatu(“the world of non-forms”, “the ugly” - A.V. Paribok). Here dhatu denotes three levels of an individual’s spiritual progress, corresponding to the three Buddhist universes: the cosmos of ordinary, sensory consciousness (zero level), the cosmos of forms and their relationships, and, finally, the formless and ugly cosmos. But the most important thing is the classification dharm at 18 dhatu. In it the term dhatu usually translated as “element”. 18 dhatu includes 3 groups dharm: 6 objects (hanging). 6 sensory abilities (indriya) And 6 awarenesses (vijnana). Objects are seen, heard, touched, smelled, tasted and perceived; sensory faculties - sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste, manas, or mind; awareness - vision awareness, hearing awareness, smell awareness, taste awareness, awareness Manasa. Thus, perceived objects, the instruments of their perception and awareness of the fact of perception are included in a single system, all elements of which are consistent and coordinated. In this case, awareness is always directed towards the object, the object is perceived indriyas. action indriya is also controlled by consciousness. The same can be seen in the classification dharm on ayatana(“bases”), where sensory abilities (indriyas plus manas) are also included with objects in a single system.

Without going into a detailed analysis of these classifications, for which the Nikayas provide too little material, I will only mention the basic principles of their construction. Firstly, this is the awareness of the interdependence and unity of “internal” and “external” as an important strategic factor in achieving nirvana. Secondly, the orientation of the general strategy of “liberating” restructuring of the individual is not so much on cognition or perception (sense organs and their objects), but on awareness (six awarenesses) of the activity of the entire psychophysical complex. Thirdly, the absence of sharp boundaries between “external” and “internal” dharmas. This is not about the opposition of “internal” and “external” as subjective and objective, but rather, so to speak, about the “subjectivity” of the objective and the “objectivity” of the subjective. After all, an object is not just an object, but “visible”, “audible”, etc., i.e. an object “colored” by a certain sensory ability. Such an object is characterized “subjectively” - by the organ that perceives it, while consciousness, on the other hand, is described “objectively” - by its object. Finally, the unity of “internal” and “external” in an individual is ensured by a similar “texture” - both consist of dharm. And this is the most important thing. It doesn’t matter that these are certain sense organs that act in one way or another, what is important is that they are dharma.

What is it to be dharma? Be dharma- means to have a beginning and an end, that is, to be something impermanent (anitya), devoid of essence (anatma), or, in other words, not to represent something separate, self-sufficient. Then, it means to be passive and enduring (duhkha). Finally, to be dharma - it means to be among others dharm. In this sense dharma - this is not being, but “event”, the articulated existence of phenomena, a series of not separate states, but interconnected “events”, significant only in that it determines another event, i.e. First of all, the fact of impermanence. Happiness is followed by misfortune, birth is followed by death, death is followed by rebirth, and so on ad infinitum.

Thus for early Buddhism dharma- is primarily a symbol of impermanence, and impermanence is a symbol of endless dissatisfaction, duhkhi, but at the same time there is also the possibility of eliminating this dissatisfaction and freeing oneself from samsara as such. If everything is impermanent and changeable, then a person’s fate can be changed by changing every moment of his life, influencing every dharma. Once this process begins, it becomes clear that it is amenable to controlled change. To carry out this control and systematic restructuring of the psyche, various classifications were created dharm on dhatu, ayatana, skandha. In other words, these classifications arose as systematic guides to meditation, and only later, during the period of Buddhist schools, they became the subject of theoretical interest. In this sense, I agree with E. Conze, who emphasized that the theory dharm is essentially a meditation technique. However, recognition of this circumstance does not mean that it cannot be interpreted from a metaphysical, psychological or general philosophical point of view. Moreover, as Buddhism developed, it began to acquire more and more theoretical intrinsic value, which is especially noticeable in Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakosha, in the center of which, undoubtedly, are the theoretical, philosophical aspects of the doctrine of dharmah.

Since meditation plays such an important role in early Buddhism, a story about the early period of the Buddhist tradition cannot be complete without a special conversation about Buddhist meditation.