Dharma and Logos

[GrowingSmaller]

"Dharma" means something like the essential nature of a thing, like water being wet or fire being hot. It also means cosmic law or principle.

Similarly "logos" means or meant the principle, order, structure or rationale of a thing.

The concept of logos (i.e. the now capitalised "Word" of God) is thought to have possible come to John via the teachings of Philo of Alexandria, a Greek influnced Jew IIRC. Note logos is a Greek originated term, and is cognate with logic and "ologies" like biology, geology etc.

Some like to contrast the Hindu/Buddhist/Jain group of relgions with the Abrahamic theistic ones.

In Buddhism a Buddha can be seen as a "dhamra jewel" for instance - the embodiment of the right view and right teaching etc. Could Jesus likewise be a "dharma jewel" too?

I dont mean to tread on sacred ground, btw, just to hightlight similarities.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Sorry but you have made a number of errors here.

Logos is a very technical term in Greek philosophy which means etymologically 'word' or 'account' but often meant 'reason' or 'discourse', but is used in variant senses. To peripatetic Philosophers it means a reasoned argument similar to the modern idea of a 'theory'. To sophists it simply meant a debate.
Stoicism adopted it as a term for the animating principle of the Universe, a similar idea perhaps to the Tao. This specific use is associated with the Logos Spermatikos, which is often applied to the Christian Logos incorrectly, but is more a generative Neoplatonic and Gnostic principle or perhaps analogous to Shaw's Life-Force or the Force of Star Wars.

The term Logos was adopted into Hellenistic Jewish thought of which Philo is an example, but Philo's use of the term is vastly different from the Christian one. Philo had two logoi, the logos phophorikos and endiathetos, or the uttered word and the word within. Philo's Logos was an intermediary divinity to allow distinction between imperfect matter and Perfect Form, it held within it the perfect Platonic Forms from which we derive our ideas of things in Platonic theory. It is there to bind together the divine and the mundane.
The phophorikos was the wilful creation while the endiathetos is the innate form of something.

The Christian Logos is God in self-revelation and redemptive action. It is God presented to Man. This concept is very much different from the more Plato-derived use of Philo and more related to the Stoic Anima Mundi while rejecting the Stoic Logos Spermatikos entirely. The Logos is not the embodiment of the Forms to Christians, but God himself active within and without. While the Stoic Logos influenced Philo as well, the Christian Logos and Philo's Logos can be considered cousin-concepts derived from a common Hellenistic usage. They are not the same nor even very similar.

The Logos is a premise, the reason behind the rhetoricians stance if you will. It is how truth is derived, either through arguments a priori which refer back to it or a posteriori derived from it. This is the connection of how the various Logoi concepts are all related, they are in essence reasoned arguments of why things act a certain way or are so.
To Philo, we innately see a tree as a tree because the Form of an idealised tree is innate in the Logos and uttered in creation thus bridging the divine and matter.
To Aristotle, the Tree can be described and therefore if we apply a consistent description, we have the Logos for that object.
To Stoics, the Tree acts tree-like and grows tree-like because it follows its universal destiny, its Tao if you will (to borrow a related but somewhat different idea).
To Christians however, Christ is the Logos. The tree becomes a tree and grows tree-like because of Divine will that it be so. It is similar to how God turns water to wine everytime grape juice is fermented (even though he used natural processes) and once at Cana spectacularly did it as well. It is close to the old idea of Providence.

Dharma as I understand it, is the cosmic Law or signifies the right way of living. In Vedic times it was what is in accord with the Rta or metaphysical order of the universe. It is more a fixed statement or idea as it is for instance applied to the teachings of Buddha or the Jain Tirthankara. It is more a model of living than the argument of the nature of existence implied whenever Logos is used in Greek philosophy and derived Christian, Sufi or modern uses of the term.

I am far more familiar with the term Logos than the Indian terms, but I would venture that Logos is perhaps closer to the Rta of Vedic thought than the dharma/karma dichotomy. But even this term does not do the idea of Logos justice, which is more epistemological and 'behind-the-scenes'. The Logos is the Logic begind an argument, the principle behind a statement from which it is derived, be that statement Existence itself or merely a proposition in a sentence.
Dharma is the injunctions or method to live according to Rta or to achieve Nirvana etc., functionally it is a very different concept, perhaps closer to the idea of Commandments or the Gospel or 'living in harmony with destiny', than to the concept of Logos.

Alternately, I have never heard Dharma explained as the "essential nature" of something before, but this is not what is implied by Logos either as I hope I explained adequately above. This sounds closer to the idea of Platonic Forms if anything, but I'll have to look into this alternative definition of Dharma to comment further.

 

[cloudyday2]

Here is my understanding of the origins of the Logos term. Apparently there are OT texts (some canonical and some non-canonical) that speak of Wisdom being with God and aiding in the Creation. When a person speaks an idea, that idea can be imagined as a distinct thing. So when God spoke, a new thing called Wisdom was now with God. This Wisdom became the purpose of everything that was created. Wisdom was like the breath of God that was breathed into everything to give it life and purpose. Translated to Greek philosophy, Wisdom became Logos.

That is my understanding FWIW. I'm more fuzzy about the meaning of dharma.

EDIT: The OT text I was thinking about is the "Book of Wisdom/Wisdom of Solomon" described here ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Wisdom ). This influenced Philo's ideas on Logos, and some even mistakenly believed that Philo was the author of the text. Somewhere I read that early Christians read the "Book of Wisdom" as a catechism. The wikipedia article describes how portions of the book seem to mesh with Christianity.

 

[cloudyday2]

One of my current ideas is that I pray each morning for God to help me learn something. My theory is that God respects our free will, so the only way for God's will "to be done on Earth as it is in heaven" is for me to learn why God's will is best - that way my free will is harmonized to God's will - as opposed to my free will being overruled by God's will. In other words, I must become less foolish, so that I want the same things that God wants - instead of merely being obedient/subservient to God. (Of course blind obedience is probably useful too at times.)

So essentially Wisdom is the means to bring God's will into effect on Earth. If Jesus is the Logos/Wisdom, then He is the key to the Kingdom of Heaven, because He makes it possible for God's will to be done on Earth as it is in heaven.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Here is my understanding of the origins of the Logos term. Apparently there are OT texts (some canonical and some non-canonical) that speak of Wisdom being with God and aiding in the Creation. When a person speaks an idea, that idea can be imagined as a distinct thing. So when God spoke, a new thing called Wisdom was now with God. This Wisdom became the purpose of everything that was created. Wisdom was like the breath of God that was breathed into everything to give it life and purpose. Translated to Greek philosophy, Wisdom became Logos.

That is my understanding FWIW. I'm more fuzzy about the meaning of dharma.

EDIT: The OT text I was thinking about is the "Book of Wisdom/Wisdom of Solomon" described here ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Wisdom ). This influenced Philo's ideas on Logos, and some even mistakenly believed that Philo was the author of the text. Somewhere I read that early Christians read the "Book of Wisdom" as a catechism. The wikipedia article describes how portions of the book seem to mesh with Christianity.

I would just point out that in Gnosticism, especcially the syzygy of Valentinian, Sophia or Wisdom is often paired with the Logos. In these systems usually Sophia became entrapped in the demiurge's creation and is the vehicle whereby the Logos leads followers to escape it. (This is why it was called Gnosticism from gnosis or knowledge needed to become wise and utilising this secret knowledge to escape the imperfect creation back to the Pleothora.) Such syncretic systems certainly associated the Logos with Wisdom and a lot of wisdom literature remained quasi-canonical in the eyes of some bishops for a long time, but this is more an artifact of a shared Hellenistic culture in my opinion.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

One of my current ideas is that I pray each morning for God to help me learn something. My theory is that God respects our free will, so the only way for God's will "to be done on Earth as it is in heaven" is for me to learn why God's will is best - that way my free will is harmonized to God's will - as opposed to my free will being overruled by God's will. In other words, I must become less foolish, so that I want the same things that God wants - instead of merely being obedient/subservient to God. (Of course blind obedience is probably useful too at times.)

So essentially Wisdom is the means to bring God's will into effect on Earth. If Jesus is the Logos/Wisdom, then He is the key to the Kingdom of Heaven, because He makes it possible for God's will to be done on Earth as it is in heaven.

I quite like this idea, although I disagree with the Logos being equated to Wisdom itself and it is a bit too auto-soteriological for my tastes.

 

[Steve Petersen]

There may to be a connection between the Memra and the Logos.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10618-memra.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Wow thanks to all for the answers.

 

[ananda]

In Buddhism a Buddha can be seen as a "dhamra jewel" for instance - the embodiment of the right view and right teaching etc. Could Jesus likewise be a "dharma jewel" too?

It's hard for me to see that, considering how far apart the Buddha's and Jesus' teachings are from each other.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Ijn the mahayana schools, there are loads of buddhas, using "expedient means" IIRC (the idea is the aim is enlightnment but the teachings vary, i think).

I read some Christian theology and theres the idea of "handmaiden" philosophy, like Greek thought being used to expand on and relate to the Christian bible.

We're at a global village leven now, and for instance 25 years ago I heard froma a mahayana teacher that Muhammed and Jesus (peaces) were both bodissatvas.

 

[ananda]

... Muhammed and Jesus (peaces) were both bodissatvas.

Interesting you say that, because in the earliest Buddhist suttas, bodhisattas are unenlightened beings who are simply on their way to becoming future Buddhas, e.g.:

"The Blessed One entered, sat down on a seat made ready, and addressed the bhikkhus thus ... 'Bhikkhus, before my enlightenment, while I was still only an unenlightened Bodhisatta, I too, being myself subject to birth, sought what was also subject to birth; being myself subject to ageing, sickness, death, sorrow, and defilement, I sought what was also subject to ageing, sickness, death, sorrow, and defilement.'" (MN 26)

 

[Uber Genius]

Philo's use of the term is vastly different from the Christian one.

Good get. Lots of bad historical references to reliance on Philo. You piece did an exemplar job of highlighting the tie to Platonism. Thx.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

"I know of Philo therefore I rule debates." -1

awww thats so unfair.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Interesting you say that, because in the earliest Buddhist suttas, bodhisattas are unenlightened beings who are simply on their way to becoming future Buddhas, e.g.:

"The Blessed One entered, sat down on a seat made ready, and addressed the bhikkhus thus ... 'Bhikkhus, before my enlightenment, while I was still only an unenlightened Bodhisatta, I too, being myself subject to birth, sought what was also subject to birth; being myself subject to ageing, sickness, death, sorrow, and defilement, I sought what was also subject to ageing, sickness, death, sorrow, and defilement.'" (MN 26)

Thats true they were regarded as imperfect bodishatvas.