Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Is There Dogma In Buddhism?
compassionate_warrior
Veteran
Do the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path qualify as dogma? What about traditions that tend to require a belief in rebirth?
Dogma: "established belief or doctrine held by a religion".
Dogma: "established belief or doctrine held by a religion".
0
Comments
"a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true"
so no, there's no dogma in Buddhism.
If you're a Buddha, you don't need the 4 noble truths or the 8 fold noble path. They also manifest differently in different versions of Buddhism, so they are not written in stone and have a relative meaning dependent upon where you are at on your personal path and dependent upon if you are practicing Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana or Dzogchen interpretation.
If you are not ready at all for the 4 noble truths and are only ready for Christianity or Islam, or Confucianism, this doesn't mean you will go to hell, it just means you will evolve according to a different view of virtue, but you will still evolve. Maybe a high up Christian becomes a Buddhist in their next life? I often wonder how many of the Catholic saints who were really evolved became Buddhist in another realm or in a future life? I don't know??
Like I said, the 4 noble truths and 8 fold path are prescriptions and antidotes for psychological suffering, not commandments from an ideation of an omnipotent entity who thinks he willed the universe into manifestation and who will damn us if we don't read his words written in stone.
Ya dig?
The 4 noble truths and 8 fold path originate dependently and are empty of inherent existence, so are not dogmas, they are prescriptions.
By this definition, Buddhism most certainly is not dogmatic. On the contrary, Buddha urged his followers to test the truth of everything he said for themselves rather than take him merely on his words.
Having said that, there are certainly some Buddhists who take dogmatic views.
"Don't strain. Simply let go of your Opinions".
people still ponder them. And find the Buddha was right.
so people still try it for themselves. Which is what the Buddha taught.
It's not dogmatic to point something out to somebody when it's a caution about wasting time doing the impossible.
If I say to you, "If you sit on that park bench, which has just been painted, you'll get wet paint all over your clothes" it's not dogma, is it? it's a precautionary warning.
But so many people have to find out for themselves....and they touch the paint, just to see if you're telling the truth. And lo! You were. But now, they have paint on their fingers.....
"See? I did tell you! But would you listen? No. And now? - You know for sure."
Dogma, by definition, is NOT to be questioned.
If the Buddha had ever dictated that something was to be accepted without question, Buddhism would not be what it is today.
What is it?
That's up to you to define.
It's not a dogmatic statement.
"a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true"
by this definition there is dogma such as the imponderables. It doesn't say in the definition that one may not question authority.
The suchness of buddhism is a raft.
Define 'raft'.....
Just kidding.
:om:
No matter that some things may be questioned through personal understanding and interpretation, DD will always, but always metaphorically put his Dhamma-Money where his Dhamma-Mouth is.
For that I Thank you, DD.
it is not both nor is it other than these two
impossible to analyze escaping all description
and realized by the self alone
it is peace
namo to this light of stainless wisdom whos rays banish darkness
the fault arising from attachment to the various sense desires
Metta to all sentient beings
Well not all Buddhist have this interpretation of picking and choosing to accept only parts of the Buddhas Dharma and in my opinion and others (see link) teachings such as the Kalama Sutta are misinterpreted.
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/kalama1_l.htm
Of course it is everyone's right to believe in what they want and I have will say now that I completely respect everyone's beliefs. But if someone labels them self Buddhist and chooses to then not accept a core teaching of the Buddha such as karma or rebirth, then do they not then practice their own Dharma and not the one Buddha taught ?
Metta to all sentient beings
Re-birth is a difficult concept for many to absorb, and as such, is interpreted in many different ways. I think maybe one of the limitations is also the linguistic interpretation of the original suttas and teachings.
language is a difficult method of communication, if the translation is open to question.
I mean, we have people on here interchanging Re-birth and reincarnation, which in essence actually mean 2 different things entirely.
With this simple transposition of words, is it any wonder confusion, doubt and question arises in the mind of the seeker?
There's always the possibility of people making up their own versions of the teachings - or indeed of later interpretations having done the same thing and added extras and embellishments which were'nt originally taught by the Buddha. So potentially there can be a lot of confusion in todays "Buddhism"
DD always takes us back to what the Buddha taught...and I thank him for that too.
_/\_
There are no dogmas, but the Buddha taught something called Right View. Those who didn't want to follow his teachings he called unwise, not out of a lack of respect (for example, he had great respect for his former teachers), but simply because they had Wrong View.
Now you can't twist Buddhism into everything you want. For example if somebody says there is a personal God, that would be respected, but not considered a Buddhist attitude because that would be Wrong View. Or if you would say there is an eternal heaven after death, that would be not Buddhist.
If someone were to say karma doesn't exist, the Four Noble Truths don't exist, the 8-fold path is non-sense etc, the same analogy applies. It would be respected, but it is Wrong View. Now only by walking the path can you acquire Right View, but that does require faith in the Buddha's words.
So no dogmas that you have to believe or you are expelled forever from Buddhism
With metta,
Sabre
people believe that simply because the texts were not written at the time of the Buddha, that they are unreliable and unauthentic.
In fact, the memorised word is far more reliable. If you look at the way the suttas are presented, they are repetitive, and some may say, drearily so.
But they are repetitive, because they were memorised. And they were committed to memory by monks working with each other.
They tested each others' ability to recall the Buddha's teachings verbatim.
In much the same way as an actor is able to memorise great swathes of script, and be prompted if they forget their lines, so Monks memorised the Buddha's teachings word-perfectly.
Watch a Shakespearian actor in a play.
Night after night, his rendition will not alter.
Night after night, he will deliver the same lines, with the same passion and accuracy as the night before, and the night before that.
if he errs or strays, the prompter will jog his memory.
Thus it is that the suttas are accurate and trustworthy.
in addition to that, we are exhorted to ensure for ourselves that the teachings are reliable and sound.
What could be better than this?
(this was a post on a Buddhist forum. It might even have been E-sangha, but I've never forgotten it.)
Bikkhu Pesala, on another forum, says this: The whole thread, in fact, is of good use.
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=7946&p=125297#p125297
Through much repetition of chants and pujas when I was an offline Vajrayana practioner I can still recite at least 3 whole pujas accurately in Tibetan -amongst other things... even though it wasn't my original intention to be able to do that!
Thich Nhat Hanh in his commentary of the diamond sutra in a pop book said dharma is not dharma. That is how it is dharma. He meant that the teachings that liberate are composed of things which are not the teachings. And that is the true teaching.
I agree with this. Including the words 'said to have'.
There's too much of the Pali canon that makes perfect sense and is difficult to argue against, except in the sense of semantics.
I don't think so much of his teachings would be so enduring if there was not some kind of verbatim transmission.
Compare this to the hundreds of different Biblical publications that we have been given over the centuries, and I can't help thinking the Pali canon stands up to better scrutiny.
The key is in the examination and accuracy of the teaching the sutta is attempting to impart.
other aspects of the canon, I do find questionable, for example, some views on Bikkhunis. I would surmise that some aspects of these instructions were later additions and not part of the Buddha's intentions at all. But again, that is a topic for a different thread. And it has been discussed before, so I really don't need or feel it necessary to repeat it here.
Is the Buddha infallible?
I think if you say yes, then it is dogmatic. You cant argue or disagree with someone who is never wrong. Also if dealing with disagreement boils down to, "you just have wrong view" I think that also qualifies as dogmatic because unless you agree you will always have "wrong view".
I am actually interested in knowing what you guys think, is Buddha infallible ?
For me and what I was trying to get at with the Thich Nhat Hanh reference, is that any teaching that is liberating is useful. It doesn't matter where it came from. You can say it came from an awakened heart. And it is ego for me to say how another should teach, because for them they find their own special meaning and place and expression.
And that buddhas teachings have been more enduring than Christianity. Are you saying that Christian teachings are not enduring? Or that they do not make sense and thus haven't come from a Christ consciousness?
In my opinion, the Buddha wasn't.
Again, he sincerely advised all who listened to him, to seek answers for themselves, and to not take his words for it.
This has been going on for nearly 3000 years, and enduring still.
no other piece of work is so reliable, and so logical, and so clear-cut and unambiguous.
So I think it is fair to say from your perspective Buddhism is dogmatic, borrowing the definition from someone above "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true".
There are certain things most Buddhist believe and they call this right view indeed. But you have to make the difference between 'belief' and 'view'. If you can see that you see it doesn't come down to a dogma, because because right view is something that is developed as a factor of the path. It is called Right View for a reason and not Right Faith or Right Belief.
You can't just have right view and become enlightened straight away. That would be quite nice, now wouldn't it?
But -with all respect to other religions- what I would call dogma are things like castes in certain types of Hinduism or God in other religions. These aren't views you develop slowly, it's just told to believe. And if you don't believe it you aren't a Hindu/Christian or whatever, the whole religion falls apart.
So I would say are there dogmas in Buddhism: No, as long as you don't make them yourself.
Sabre
Must be old age creeping in.
What year is it.....? :crazy: