Here is what I am currently proposing as an outline for discussion and study. It is, of course, revisable.
 

       1. Why is there dharma?
       (a) The main reason to study it.
       (b) Other reasons to study it.

       2. What The Buddha taught
       (a) Views of mind and views of reality.
       (b) The Buddha’s admonition

       3. How should we regard this view?
       (a) Is Buddhism scientific?
       (b) Is it philosophical?
       (c) Is it experiential?

       4. Buddhist Epistemology
       ? Direct perception
       ? Inference
       ? Faith

       5. The conflict between Buddhist subjectivity and monist objectivity.

       6. Buddhist view of mind/consciousness
       ? The Five skandhas
       ? Dependent origination and karma

       7. Buddhist ontology
       ? Three Modes of Existence
       ? First Turning
       ? Second Turning
       ? Third Turning

       8. The Heart Sutra
 

       Again, the intent here is to come at what the Buddha taught, neither from the point of view of a lay practitioner, with its
       emphasis on (and experience and insights arising as a result of) meditation, nor from the point of view of the man in the
       street whose heard of “karma”, for example. Instead, I’d like to present it in such a fashion that the critical thinker, the
       western logician or skeptic could conclude, to the satisfaction of him/herself, and to the satisfaction of the insider (i.e.
       me) that yes, this makes sense, or no, it doesn’t make sense from the point of view of what we know about the
       mind/reality as a result of science or philosophy. ( I furthermore accept that in the end, as regards particular aspects of
       the discussion there may be no final conclusion, and we may profess agnosticism. )

       However, it is not my intent or desire to show that dharma and science, for example are in harmony or arrive at the
       same conclusions. To do so would dishonor the aspects of each tradition which are unique, and from which the other
       might come to a richer understanding. Just for example, as far as I know, despite 2,500 years of looking at mind,
       Buddhists have just about nothing to say about the brain. Conversely, although neural scientists have only begun
       looking at the brain, what they know about consciousness is very very little.

       I hope then, that by proceeding with this outline, we can accomplish this.
       My reasoning is that we begin by asking what is the reason that there is such a thing as dharma? And then look at why
       we would even want to consider it at all.

       If we conclude that its raison d’erte is valid and we accept the reasons for study, then we proceed to look at what the
       Buddha actually taught. The reason for this is straightforward. We can’t consider it unless we know what it is.
       However, I’m throwing in a caveat. I don’t want to get into a discussion about whether it is true or not at this
       particular stage. Instead, I’d like to stick with what in Buddhism is known as the three prajnas, or three means of
       receiving the dharma. They are: hearing, contemplating and meditating. So then, hearing means just getting the
       words. It means receiving the contents of the package and checking the inventory. What it avoids is putting your own
       spin on the meaning of words. For example, whereas we in the west have a reasonably similar idea of what we mean
       when we say consciousness. It would be a mistake, however, to believe that that concept translates directly into the
       dharmic lexicon. Just as Jimi is always pointing out the disparity in meaning between words in the King James version
       of the bible, and those of Greek, or Aramaic origin, we must keep in mind the differences in nuance between, Pali,
       Sanskrit, Tibetan and English. So, the point then of the hearing stage is get the words, and then establish what they
       mean. Another caveat is that there are different schools of Buddhism and I will be presenting the view of the Kagyu
       lineage of Tibet. It may or may not make sense to explain the features of this view, or the distinctions between
       schools.

       The contemplation stage is where, having gotten the goodies, and being on the same page with regards to what the
       words mean, we scrutinize the meaning. We test it against our experience, against what we know about the world, or
       against logic. And this is exactly what the Buddha admonished his followers to do.

       In Buddhism, a person who studies but does not practice is likened to a wealthy man who does not spend any of his
       money – especially on himself. And the one who meditates but doesn’t study is analogous to the blind man on a great
       plain who has no idea where he is or where he’s going. Thus practice and study are regarded as the two wings of a
       bird. However, I’m not going to ask or suggest that anyone meditate. I’m only pointing out that meditation is critical,
       for if anything, Buddhism offers a means for training the mind. This will come out in discussions of epistemology, and
       of subjectivity.

       As my outline indicates, I think we need then, to establish the framework, or the view by which we actually consider
       what has been presented, in terms of dharma. Given the background of the board’s denizens, it rather makes sense to
       me that we consider whether dharma should be, or could be considered from a scientific point of view, from a
       philosophical view or that of logic – or if it simply relies too much on subjectivity and experience and therefore should
       only be considered thusly. This section is intended as a nod toward the skeptics. After all, what other views are there?

       Well, there is one other, which may or may not be unique, and that is the Buddhist epistemology. It rather makes
       sense, at least to me, that f we’re going to scrutinize the dharma, we should at least be familiar with the means by
       which it claims to know what it claims to know. If those means are accepted as valid, we go on. If not, those means
       may be deemed to be only as good as those arrived at through western philosophy, or not even as sound. Frankly,
       not being proficient in the topic, I am a bit doubtful about the presentation. Nonetheless, it seems important.

       It will be clear, indeed, it already seems clear, that Buddhism is very subjective, and that science is quite objective.
       Frankly, I do believe this is a topic for very rich discussion. Even without Buddhism, just to consider topics such as
       logical empiricism, or the views of Thomas Kuhn (let alone the metaphysical underpinnings of these views) is more
       than enough fodder for discussion. But when we begin to consider the western view of subjectivity – which given the
       history of the development of science from Descartes onward is truly fascinating – and contrast it with the enormity of
       buddhist scholarship on the topic, I’m certain we will learn a lot.

       In the preceding sections, therefore, I hope to present what the Buddha taught, then ways of knowing, and
       consideration of our own ways of knowing. That having been done, we can actually get into the meat of the dharma.

       I’d like to present the Buddhist view of mind – which of course ties back to what was first presented as dharma.
       However, to fully and finally understand the meaning of mind, one must have a grasp of buddhist ontology. So that will
       be presented.

       Finally, as the crown of it all, we will then look at the Heart Sutra, bringing to bear everything we’ve considered
       heretofore. Then, with our understanding of Buddhist epistemology, and everything we bring from our own
       backgrounds, we can scrutinize that view of mind, and draw our final, or (since meditation has not been included –
       and it is integral to understanding the dharma experientially) provisional conclusions.

       Tim A