Came across a definition of dharma which suddenly illuminated it. The trouble with dharma is that it is one these multi-faceted terms which one thinks one has grasped but, in truth, has not. Picked up The World of Buddhism in the library. Richard Gombrich in the Introduction defines it as at once the way things are and the way things have to be; ultimately these two have to coincide. It can also mean phenomenon, law, the Buddha’s teaching. These last I knew, but it was Gombrich’s explanation which clarified much that I had been mulling over in my mind. Why, for example, ethical behaviour is of absolute importance. Why there is the tension between what is and what would be. It is similar to the idea of Natural Law. Once again it points out the parallels between Buddhism and Christianity. The way things are is the world of samsara, of original sin. The way things have to be is what Bhuddhists would call Buddha nature and Paul would call ‘living according to the Spirit’.
To be a human person means that one has been formed and shaped by human relationships, that relationships are the most meaningful thing in a person’s life, that personal fulfilment is only achieved through coming to know one’s relationship with Ultimate Reality. Anything that deifies the individual, absolutises him, elevates him above other individuals is unethical. It is acting contrary to one’s true nature. A saint is no more than a person who is fully human, who lives his humanity to the full.