Dharma, Dharmata, and Universal Law

When we consider "dharma" in the broad sense, it includes the qualities, characteristics, information, facts, and the opinions people hold about them. Take impermanence (anicca) as an example: impermanence means change, loss, non-continuation — and the characteristics and qualities discussed under that heading all belong to dharma in this sense. When we talk about selfhood, the clinging and the friction bound up in it also belong to dharma. These can be surface-level matters or they can appear as profound ones — but all of them exist, fundamentally, as concepts.

From Concept to Felt Experience: What Is Dharmata?

Dharmata is different. Take right view (samma ditthi) as an example: the quality actually present within right view — that is dharmata. If someone says that samma sati (right mindfulness) means being alert within this present moment, that statement is dharma. But when a person is actually established in right mindfulness, a dharmata arises within them — there are qualities that are felt, things that are directly experienced. For instance, the activities of the body begin to be felt; the fact of having a body begins to be felt; and the person begins to describe, from within themselves, what they are feeling. What they are describing at that point is dharmata. Dharmata is, to a large extent, personal — one should really only speak of one's own direct experience. It is dharmata that ought to be spoken of. Dharma, by contrast, can become quite confused, because it consists of opinions that differ from person to person.

Niyaya: The Universal Law Beneath It All

There is also something called niyaya — universal law or principle — and this is impersonal, the same for everyone. Take four different people: the law governing how the mind functions (citta niyama) is one and the same law regardless of who they are. It does not change from person to person. The same applies to the law of kamma, or the law governing defilements (kilesa) — these laws are singular and universal. The same is true of mindfulness, and of the qualities that ought to be felt through mindfulness, and of dharmata itself — all of these can equally be understood as forms of niyaya, universal law. No matter which of the four directions of the world someone comes from, if they speak of dharmata, or of niyaya, these do not change according to that law.

The problem today is that people are not speaking about dharmata. They are speaking dharma — mere concepts and opinions. That is precisely why conflicts arise.

Recognising True Law

How, then, does one identify true universal law? Niyaya can be recognised by distinguishing it from everything else — it does not get entangled with other things. Take water and a stone: if you understand the two underlying laws that govern them, then even without using any words, the dharmata and the niyaya present in them become distinguishable on their own. It is at the level of concepts and personal opinions that people get stuck. If one simply sees the common, underlying pattern, this confusion does not arise. That "I feel drawn to what I like" — taken as a law, this is simply a common, universal fact. Likewise, "I feel friction toward what I dislike" is also just a fact; there is no need to ask whether it is right or wrong. Looking within oneself, the common law, the common dharmata, becomes clear. Within the domain of niyaya, one is not confined to one's own personal case — it applies equally to all beings.

How did dharmata come to be revealed? Within it lies a law. What is taught as Abhidhamma is, in fact, law (niyaya). What is spoken of as "realisation" (avabodhaya) is dharmata. What we call dharma in the ordinary sense are concepts — the kind of thing found across Hinduism, Catholicism, Jainism, and every other religious tradition. These are like concepts, like the opinions people hold. Within dharma in this sense, there has always been conflict — even war. Within dharmata, by contrast, one finds peace. Within dharmata, one always shows respect to the other. But when someone speaks of a quality without knowing its underlying dharmata, it simply becomes another "dharma" — a system of belief — and from there people begin chasing after that belief system. At that point, the belief becomes their own self-view (ditthi), and they become bound within it.

When Teachings Are Hard to Grasp

When discussing laws and dharmata, teachers sometimes speak of laws and truths that are ordinarily easy to grasp, and at other times of laws and truths that are genuinely difficult to grasp. Some laws can only be understood by those capable of grasping the subject matter of the Buddha's teaching at depth — this is especially true of the subject of kamma. The laws of kamma, the laws taught by the Buddha, and the laws connected with the Four Noble Energies (chaturarya shakthi) can be difficult for some people to understand.

Some in society believe in kamma, and some do not. Rather than simply deciding whether it is true or false, what matters more is being honest with oneself and looking inward. Why do we reject something? Is it fair to reject something simply because we do not understand it? And is it right to accept something as true merely because we happen to understand it? Both approaches carry a risk: there may be things we have not yet grasped that are nonetheless true, and things we think we understand that may still be full of error.

Standing between these two extremes and looking at things this way, one eventually realises that, ultimately, there is no way in this world to fully understand, to fully realise, or to conclusively judge right and wrong. What we have built is built upon our own beliefs and the assumptions we have adopted as our foundation.

As a rule, one who cannot perceive kamma directly has no real standing to speak about it. The Buddha said that a being performs both wholesome (kusala) and unwholesome (akusala) actions out of not-knowing, because that domain of understanding is simply not accessible to an ordinary being.

The Four Noble Energies and Determining Arahantship

As another example, it is the Four Noble Energies (chaturarya shakthi) that determine, with certainty, whether someone is an Arahant or not. How can one say this with certainty? It cannot be established through the law of kamma alone, nor through the Buddha's teachings on their own — it can only be established with certainty on the basis of the Four Noble Energies. If one has the knowledge of latent tendencies and their arising (asaya-anusaya nana), this can be known — but it can only be stated with real certainty on the basis of the Four Noble Energies.

What, then, are the Four Noble Energies? There are four sources of energy that give rise to a thought: the energy of mind (citta shakthi), the energy of the universe (vishva shakthi), the energy of kamma (karma shakthi), and the energy of the Buddha (buddha shakthi). It is only by seeing the whole process — how the mind arises from these four energy sources, how it develops, how it is nourished, right up to this present moment — that one can determine whether a person is truly an Arahant.

Law, Dharmata, and Personal Identity

Apart from purely physical matters, everything within the domain of living things in this universe is built upon a certain balance, a certain law, and factors that fit relative to one another. Within the system relevant to this world of beings, we construct laws such as merit (kusala) and cause-and-effect (hetu-phala dharma). When a new law is formed like this, even though the underlying system remains as it always was, that new law begins to operate in harmony with it. In other words, in addition to what already worked in balance within the whole, something new begins, and that new thing starts operating according to laws relevant to it. That is something constructed separately; the other is a matter belonging to beings. Then, within things such as association with wise companions (kalyana mitta), a separate cause-and-effect law forms accordingly, and that network begins to operate according to it. Within the noble path (arya patipada), the network operates in a manner suited to that path. It is exactly in this way that the thirty-one planes of existence come into being.

Seen through dharmata, the way karmic streams operate when a tiger kills and eats a hare is not the same as when a human kills and eats a hare — because, relative to kamma operating within the same plane of being, the impact of kamma occurring between the human plane and the animal plane is far greater. As for the karmic plane of the hare and the tiger, that karmic stream is aligned within a single network of its own.

Someone once asked the Buddha: "I gave food to a person. Is the act of my giving that person's merit? Is the merit I gained for myself mine? Or was it my kamma being exhausted in that moment? Or was it that person's kamma?" The Buddha's answer was simply: "Do not look at it from the standpoint of being, person, and self."

The problem only arises when we insert "I" and "you" into the picture. Set aside "I" and "you," and there is no such problem at all — only dharmata is operating. But we look at things through what is already lodged within us. If we did not, the true nature of things would be felt directly. Right now, we see through what we have already stored inside ourselves. Sometimes we see through feeling — and that is where the confusion arises. When cause and effect are seen as they are, in the present moment, everything is right there.

Wisdom, or panna, means seeing dharmata. To the vision of knowledge (jnana darshana), both dharmata and niyaya (law) become accessible. As dharmata becomes accessible, the underlying laws gradually become accessible too. In truth, once a sufficient portion of the law is understood, what remains to be seen is not so significant — because the law itself is singular.

In the blowing of the wind, in water, in the sun, in a tree, in oxygen and hydrogen — there is a dharmata. In just the same way, there is a dharmata within our heart, within the brain, within the functioning of consciousness, within selfhood, and within kamma. Even within what we call "Buddha," there is a dharmata.

Dissolving, Not Denying

All of this exists as dharmata. But the difficulty is that these dharmata connect with one another, and once connected, dharmata begins operating as a whole. Yet within that operating dharmata, the notions of being, person, and self take shape. Or notions like existence, samsara, "someone," "something" take shape. Only the dharmata that is Buddha has the capacity to loosen and dissolve these knots and entanglements.

As an example: dirt in clothing can be broken down and removed using soap. In the same way, these dharmata can be dissolved and removed through the dharmata that is Buddha. Starting from mindfulness, as the dharmata that is Buddha grows, this dissolving happens. None of these dharmata simply cease to exist. Even when these dharmata are dissolved by the dharmata that is Buddha, these dharmata continue operating — but the notions of being, person, self-view, "something," "someone" are no longer present there. All the dharmata operate, but none of them settle into a fixed self anywhere.

Dharmata, Niyaya, and Reactions: A Worked Example

It is worth clearly understanding the distinction between dharmata and niyaya here. "Dharmata" is something like a reaction. For example, methane (CH4) is a dharmata, and oxygen (O2) is a dharmata. The combustion reaction between the two produces carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O). It is niyaya — law — that governs how that combustion reaction between these two dharmata produces carbon dioxide and water.

When someone speaks while grounded in dharmata, they are speaking from within the range accessible to the mind — and speaking in terms of dharmata, the mind can understand it. Speaking from the standpoint of niyaya (law) is something understood by Buddha-knowledge. The reaction that occurs here is not accessible to the ordinary mind. The mind can, to some extent, grasp the two dharmata — methane and oxygen — but the reaction between them is not accessible to the mind.

The class of matter (dhatu) that arises when the behaviour of these two dharmata is built up according to law is what becomes the "element." The dominant quality that arises within that matter is called the "great element" (maha dhatu). These two dharmata have two different qualities; the great elements of the two also take two different forms.

Law arises on the basis of dharmata — without dharmata, there is no law as a mere abstract concept. Take a person who is mentally disturbed: the dharmata that gives rise to that disturbance exists within their mind, and the law relevant to that dharmata is correctly called "disturbance." According to that same dharmata, if the person were not disturbed, that in itself would be the real problem.

A Few Points Worth Keeping in Mind

• Personhood and selfhood are still present within an understanding of dharmata; it is only once that understanding matures into direct knowledge (jnana) that a sense of "my own" ceases to be constructed.
• There are a number of ways in which the understanding of dharmata can come to a person as direct experience — for instance, seeing that a certain dharmata is a certain way, and actually feeling that dharmata; this can bring about great sensitivity, though that sensitivity need not itself be selfhood.
• Another stage is when dharmata itself becomes "self" — once that happens, its opposite (adharma) enters in; if one is not released from that dharmata, one simply becomes intoxicated by it.
• At still another stage, a person may settle into acting from dharmata alone as a fixed position — at which point they can no longer see clearly where they themselves stand.
• As dharmata begins to be understood, a teacher who gives guidance on meditation subjects (kammatthana) will, from time to time, continue to point this out.