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.
The authority in Buddhism would be the infallible Buddha. He can never be wrong. This is dogma. He has the monopoly on truth, if you disagree its not because he might be wrong, it is because you are wrong. You will always be wrong and that is why if one person/being is considered infallible whatever he teaches will be dogma.
It seems like the idea is, see for yourself if you find this to be truth, and if you dont then you're doing it wrong. Its a false choice. It presupposes that you are only truly seeing for yourself, in the "right" way, if you come to the same conclusion.
The authority in Buddhism would be the infallible Buddha. He can never be wrong. This is dogma. He has the monopoly on truth, if you disagree its not because he might be wrong, it is because you are wrong. You will always be wrong and that is why if one person/being is considered infallible whatever he teaches will be dogma.
It seems like the idea is, see for yourself if you find this to be truth, and if you dont then you're doing it wrong. Its a false choice. It presupposes that you are only truly seeing for yourself, in the "right" way, if you come to the same conclusion.
Ric, I think you've phrased this very well.
And it highlights the problem I have with many postings which deal with comparative religions.
For example, many people post (here and elsewhere) that Buddhism is the only "scientific" religion.
Then, they turn around say something to the effect that in other people's religion, there is no such thing as infallibility (for example, they will say that in the Catholic religion it is impossible for the Pope to be infallible...all Catholics are just wrong). But then they say that their own religion -- the supposedly most scientific -- my ultimate teacher (in this case Buddha) is infallible...and that my religion is just different and everyone else doesn't understand.
And to me, that takes away from Buddha being wise. Being wise doesn't mean you are ALWAYS correct or always have 100% of all knowledge. And if you say that, it seems to me you are getting into mysticism.
I respect Buddha's teachings. I also respect Christ's teachings. My moral code is based on both. I don't think either was magic.
Then, they turn around say something to the effect that in other people's religion, there is no such thing as infallibility (for example, they will say that in the Catholic religion it is impossible for the Pope to be infallible...all Catholics are just wrong).
Who is saying that the Pope isn't infallible? One of the main reasons for the schism between the Eastern Orthodox Church and Catholicism was precisely over the issue of Papal fallibility. The Catholics said their Pope was infallible. The Orthodox held/hold that the pontiff is human, and therefore fallible, and can be recalled, should that be necessary. In the Orthodox Church, the Metropolitan is subject to oversight and 'impeachment".
The authority in Buddhism would be the infallible Buddha. He can never be wrong. This is dogma. He has the monopoly on truth, if you disagree its not because he might be wrong, it is because you are wrong. You will always be wrong and that is why if one person/being is considered infallible whatever he teaches will be dogma.
It seems like the idea is, see for yourself if you find this to be truth, and if you dont then you're doing it wrong. Its a false choice. It presupposes that you are only truly seeing for yourself, in the "right" way, if you come to the same conclusion.
Hi ric
I'd go with Jeffrey here. We ourselves are the authority in Buddhism, not the Buddha. I bet the Buddha would quite literally have slapped you on the head if you said you take his teachings for granted and take him as the highest authority. Because then you stop your search and that's bad! The Buddha warned against that.
We could argue about the actual meaning of the word dogma, but that wouldn't get us anywhere. My point is; A lot of people put faith in the Buddha's words but only believe their own experiences (= views). That's exactly what the Buddha supported. He himself had various teachers who claimed to know the truth, but he didn't believe any of them until he himself found his own. Now, that's what I would call someone who goes against dogmas!
If one can't come to the same exact conclusions that's fine. No sincere Buddhist is going to laugh at somebody and say: "Haha, you are wrong and I am right! See it is quoted right here why I am right and you are wrong. The Buddha said it.", because for all of us the teachings gradually develop and become more clear slowly. This process also needs questioning and debate about certain aspects, so it certainly doesn't need (and have) any dogmas, or lets call it Fixed Old Rusty Views.
The Buddha. He's the one who laid down the principles.
For us to follow and find out for ourselves. Not after we die, but right here, right now.
Does Hinduism teach the caste system? Or is that a social convention that evolved over time? (I'm not up on Hinduism.) Buddhism had a caste system too, in Tibet.
Could also be a cultural thing, but I'm sure there are people who believed it just is like that, no more questioning.
By the way nothing personal against Hinduism or any religion for that matter. All religions have great teachings for the world and I know some also allow a lot of debate. I just used it as a means to explain what I interpret as a dogma and why I think Buddhism doesn't have them.
The authority in Buddhism would be the infallible Buddha. He can never be wrong. This is dogma. He has the monopoly on truth, if you disagree its not because he might be wrong, it is because you are wrong. You will always be wrong and that is why if one person/being is considered infallible whatever he teaches will be dogma.
It seems like the idea is, see for yourself if you find this to be truth, and if you dont then you're doing it wrong. Its a false choice. It presupposes that you are only truly seeing for yourself, in the "right" way, if you come to the same conclusion.
Good points and presented very well. Hoe one intreprets "dogma" is another issue.
For me being infallible means that you don't give up
hehe Jeffrey, I can appreciate the sentiment but whats the point in creating your own definition of the word. Infallibility does not mean not giving up. We already have words for that, like perseverance or tenacity.
perseverence doesn't mean never giving up. But I take your point. I like to use words rather than be limited by them. Its a fine line.
but as to why I mentioned it? normal people will give up on you. but the buddhas and bodhisattvas will always forgive you. And never give up on you. So I try to be like them.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited April 2011
The four noble truths were true when shakyamuni was a twinkle in his father's eye
True> but it took someone infallible to bring them to people's attention, didn't it?
It's like my ex- once said, reading one of my Books on Buddhism. "Well, yeah, I mean, that's bloody obvious, anybody can say that and make a fast buck...."
to which I replied - "Well if it's so obvious, why didn't you say it, genius, and make us a fast buck, then?"
Reply came there none.....
The Truths may well have been there when Shakyamuni was a twinkle in his father's eye, but he was the bright spark who brought them to light.
People seem to misunderstand what dogma is. The key part of dogma is that it is a teaching that CANNOT be questioned, as in:
Dogmatic Teacher: XYZ is the truth. Student: Really? I thought it was ABC. How can i be sure it is XYZ? Dogmatic Teacher: You must simply believe! Now shut up and keep listening ..
As opposed to:
Buddha: XYZ is the truth. Student: Really? I thought it was ABC. How can i be sure it is XYZ? Buddha: Give it a go, and you'll see what i mean. Now stop listening to me blabbering on and go and try it for yourself.
I think it's the "...and you'll see what I mean" that's generating the debate. What if the student were to return and say, "I gave it a go, and ABC makes the most sense to me"? But you may have a point, in that dogmatists wouldn't ever say "Give it a go and...".
I think some of you are ascribing that to be dogmatic it has to be mean or aggressive. Thats kind of the classic picture as it will, kinda the bible thumper telling you to believe and repent or you will go to hell. Dogma has nothing to do with the way in which you are told about the "truth".
Hey Ric, sure it doesn't have to be mean or aggressive, but as you say, the cliche (and cliches always have some truth) of a dogmatic person is someone who tends to push their view on you rather harshly, and brooks no argument if you happen to differ in opinion. It's a kind of 'closed' mind set i guess. Whereas Buddha himself and the better Buddhist teachers i have read all seem to maintain a great open-mindedness, kind of like scientists who are investigating the world. Now of course they do reach conclusions and have beliefs based on these investigations, but ultimately, they are secure enough to be able to say "if you don't believe me, i really don't mind, it's up to you to try out what i'm saying for yourself. in fact, that's the ONLY way to really understand what i'm talking about."
That leads me to consider the kind of Christian who is not dogmatic, but who gently says "have you let Jesus into your heart?", and i say "no", and they ask me to try it and see, but i don't want to. Does that make me dogmatic? I don't think so, i think it just means i have already considered enough of the whole Christian "package" to see that i think it is fundamentally irrational - whereas Buddhism is pretty much rational, and thus a more inviting journey for me to take.
Buddhism (as I believe it is generally understood) is not entirely dogmatic, nor is it entirely open-minded. It holds the middle-way, so to speak.
The dogmatic element is “right view”. It has content. It holds essential concepts like the four noble truths, the moral law of karmic results and the three characteristics. The denial of these essential ideas would be seen as wrong views caused by ignorance.
The open minded part of Buddhism is “ehipassiko” or see-for-yourself. Buddhists are not forbidden to challenge the mentioned “right view”. Simply accepting Buddhist doctrine is good (if it works for you). Questioning them is fine too (as long as it works for you). The approach is pragmatic.
Ultimately the ideology is not open to change. One general concept - in Therevade at least - is the idea of decline of the Dhamma. The Buddha is supposed to have said it all and after he’s gone his teaching can only be repeated and rephrased. But these teachings will lose the connection and the world will return to barbarism. Until the next Buddha awakens.
The latter idea I find dogmatic.
(Now, I personally think right view is something else. And properly understood Buddhism is not about fixed ideas. But I wrote enough in other threads about what I think.)
"Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These dhammas are unskillful; these dhammas are blameworthy; these dhammas are criticized by the wise; these dhammas, when adopted and carried out, lead to harm and to suffering' — then you should abandon them... When you know for yourselves that, 'These dhammas are skillful; these dhammas are blameless; these dhammas are praised by the wise; these dhammas, when adopted and carried out, lead to welfare and to happiness' — then you should enter and remain in them."
Generally, it is accepted by Buddhists that Buddhism is a "come and see for yourself" religion as opposed to other religions with the "come and believe" approach. But many Buddhists (laity and monastic - world wide) take REFUGE in the Buddha-Dhamma-Sangha long before they have actually "seen" the truths for themselves. Taking refuge in the Dhamma, for example, would imply surrendering to the Buddha's teaching as a safe refuge. One has no doubts about this refuge. Does this "faith" by a beginner Buddhist qualify as "dogma" until s/he has actually realized the truths experientially? Just how many lay Buddhists (world-wide) are doing to achieve that level of "awakening" in this very lifetime? So there seems to be an element of "faith" in Buddhism, and, this could be seen by some a "dogma" depending on their interpretation of the term. Is it possible to free Buddhism completely from all traces of "faith" right from the very beginning of ones practice? I don't know.
I think some of you are ascribing that to be dogmatic it has to be mean or aggressive.
It's not about how the message is delivered, it's about the fact that you're expected to agree with the teachings, even after you examine them on your own.
The dogmatic element is “right view”. The denial of these essential ideas would be seen as wrong views caused by ignorance.
The open minded part of Buddhism is “ehipassiko” or see-for-yourself. Ultimately the ideology is not open to change.
As C_W mentioned earlier, this is what Stephen Batchelor found; to question rebirth and reject it as a teaching was "wrong view". You can see-for-yourself, but you're supposed to end up agreeing with your teacher. Batchelor's experienced was eye-opening for me.
About faith in Buddhism, in my experience we are often told to have faith that the teachings and methods will bear fruit, faith that following the teachings will lead to Enlightenment (this can require faith over lifetimes, if one doesn't become enlightened in the current lifetime), faith that the teachings about our current circumstances being the result of past life actions are true and are a valuable guide to making choices in the current lifetime, faith that the ceremonies will deliver (health, enlightenment, development of compassion, whatever the goal of any given ceremony is) etc. There's lots of faith in Buddhism. Faith isn't just for beginners, it's for advanced practitioners hoping the practices will deliver "as advertised", and bring them to enlightenment.
I think some of you are ascribing that to be dogmatic it has to be mean or aggressive.
It's not about how the message is delivered, it's about the fact that you're expected to agree with the teachings, even after you examine them on your own.
The dogmatic element is “right view”. The denial of these essential ideas would be seen as wrong views caused by ignorance.
The open minded part of Buddhism is “ehipassiko” or see-for-yourself. Ultimately the ideology is not open to change.
As C_W mentioned earlier, this is what Stephen Batchelor found; to question rebirth and reject it as a teaching was "wrong view". You can see-for-yourself, but you're supposed to end up agreeing with your teacher. Batchelor's experienced was eye-opening for me.
About faith in Buddhism, in my experience we are often told to have faith that the teachings and methods will bear fruit, faith that following the teachings will lead to Enlightenment (this can require faith over lifetimes, if one doesn't become enlightened in the current lifetime), faith that the teachings about our current circumstances being the result of past life actions are true and are a valuable guide to making choices in the current lifetime, faith that the ceremonies will deliver (health, enlightenment, development of compassion, whatever the goal of any given ceremony is) etc. There's lots of faith in Buddhism. Faith isn't just for beginners, it's for advanced practitioners hoping the practices will deliver "as advertised", and bring them to enlightenment.
I think there are some excellent points in both these posts.
I agree that dogmatic does NOT mean that there is some mean or aggressive aspect to it...for example the punishment of excommunication from the Catholic church. Yes, what you have expressed in what bothers me -- "that you're expected to agree with the teachings, even after you examine them on your own". That's dogma. If you don't agree with some teaching, it's not the teaching that's brought into question...it's something wrong with you. That's dogma. That supposes that no SERIOUS and INTELLIGENT "student" has ever walked away from Buddhism and taken a different path. That supposes that ever SERIOUS and INTELLIGENT "student" of Buddhism believes exactly the same about every aspect of Buddhism (gee, I say sarcastically, I guess that's why there's no divisions in Buddhism). Really, when "you're expected to agree with the teachings, even after you examine them on your own", there is no real freedom of thought within the Buddhist community...it's a facade.
I also admire in the above posting the realization that there is FAITH involved in Buddhism. Too many try to deny that FAITH is an important factor in Buddhism. And, there's nothing wrong with FAITH, unless you can't recognize that it is FAITH and not FACT.
I look at some of the dogmatic postings here in this forum and essentially see Westerners who have a societal background in Judeo-Christian religions trying to attach the same dogmatic approach to Buddhism, while pretending to themselves that they are not trying to do so. I think that's understandable, yet misguided.
I also admire in the above posting the realization that there is FAITH involved in Buddhism. Too many try to deny that FAITH is an important factor in Buddhism. And, there's nothing wrong with FAITH, unless you can't recognize that it is FAITH and not FACT.
Thanks, Vin. having said all that, though, I'd like to add that "faith" in buddhism is different from "faith" in Christianity, where you're expected to blindly accept belief in all manner of supernatural beings
A lot of Christians don't just say "you have to believe". There are Christian apologists who argue rationally each point. One thing I have learned is that you can argue anything.
I also admire in the above posting the realization that there is FAITH involved in Buddhism. Too many try to deny that FAITH is an important factor in Buddhism. And, there's nothing wrong with FAITH, unless you can't recognize that it is FAITH and not FACT.
Thanks, Vin. having said all that, though, I'd like to add that "faith" in buddhism is different from "faith" in Christianity, where you're expected to blindly accept belief in all manner of supernatural beings
Do you mean like the various levels of hell and heaven and hungry ghosts? Oops...my mistake...that's Buddhism. :hair:
You're not required to believe in the six karmic realms. You find your own practice with or without the help of a teacher. In fact contemplation of the six karmic realms would be fruitful even if you disagreed with them for the purposes of seeing your own mind and beliefs clearly. Beliefs are one of the things we attach to and beliefs are used as stepping stones rather than final destinations.
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".
A dogma typically does not waver in the face of reality that is contrary to the dogma. It's only a dogma if you let it be a dogma.
I would say that the Buddha encouraged us to find reality for ourselves, and brought with him the 4 noble truths and 8 fold to use as a guide to do this.
In essence, "Find for yourself that life is dissatisfaction. Find for yourself there is a way out of that dissatisfaction."
Do you mean like the various levels of hell and heaven and hungry ghosts? Oops...my mistake...that's Buddhism. :hair:
haha! Thanks, Vinlyn. But are those hell realms just Vajrayana, or are they pan-Buddhist? And are they taken to be real, or are they symbolic(I forget), like all the deities in TB aren't considered real, they're just symbols for our own afflictions, or for compassion, etc. In Christianity, hell, etc. are taken as real.
Dakini, my lama says there is infinite variation of suffering in a multiverse. There may not be 6 literal karmic realms but it lays out how we can suffer. And it may not mean infinitely large just infinite variety, as there are infinite variety of people. And again you are not required to believe the same thing as your lama. My lama works with students who are Christian and so forth and she is not Christian anymore. The lama does not tell the student what they 'should' be experiencing, but rather the lama shows the student how to investigate their own experience. If the student isn't getting to a certain point, no its not like that at all. The student doesn't have to get to a certain point or truth.
. And again you are not required to believe the same thing as your lama.
You're not? That sounds like one mellow lama you have, Jeffrey. Actually, I think the hell realms are supposed to be real. The dieties aren't, but the hell realms and the bardo are. That's cool that your lama works with Christians, Jeffrey. How do they manage with the Buddhist teachings? Your lama must be selective in what she chooses to teach them. This is interesting.
"You're not? That sounds like one mellow lama you have, Jeffrey. Actually, I think the hell realms are supposed to be real. The dieties aren't, but the hell realms and the bardo are. That's cool that your lama works with Christians, Jeffrey. How do they manage with the Buddhist teachings? Your lama must be selective in what she chooses to teach them. This is interesting."
Hmmm I don't imagine any lama requires you to believe any certain thing. I think most lamas who have attained a realization of non-clinging would be that way. Not to mention having realized compassion and ethics and skillful means.
A hell realm is real in the sense that it is a great deal of suffering. It is not limited to a suffering in this part of the multiverse. And it is not real as having inherently existing characteristics. In fact it is just an appearance for sure it is not reality. It is a cloud over the sun of love. Anger is a distortion of the clarity of 'no'.
The christians who take the course I am taking or go to the retreats receive the same teachings. In their interviews with the lama she gives them an honest answer if they have questions about how buddhism fits with christianity. There have been questions which appear in the buddhism connect e-mailing, which you could receive. For example one mailing she replied to a student that studying buddhism and christianity together is difficult because they are two separate branches from the same tree (reality) and that it is difficult to be on two different ones at once.
I have a friend who often refers to christ in the same sentence as bodhisattvas in the sangha.
The christians who take the course I am taking or go to the retreats receive the same teachings. In their interviews with the lama she gives them an honest answer if they have questions about how buddhism fits with christianity. There have been questions which appear in the buddhism connect e-mailing, which you could receive. For example one mailing she replied to a student that studying buddhism and christianity together is difficult because they are two separate branches from the same tree (reality) and that it is difficult to be on two different ones at once.
I have a friend who often refers to christ in the same sentence as bodhisattvas in the sangha.
I find this fascinating.
Hmmm I don't imagine any lama requires you to believe any certain thing. I think most lamas who have attained a realization of non-clinging would be that way. Not to mention having realized compassion and ethics and skillful means..
Some do require you to believe in rebirth, for example. That's what motivated Stephen Batchelor to write his books. But I've heard of teachers who are very flexible, so there seems to be a variety in teacher 'style'.
Do you recall what the lama did when Steven Bachelor said that rebirth was not true? I could understand the lama disagreeing, but that is a normal garden variety disagreement. Did any lama actually disband Bachelor from a sangha?
My lama often disagrees with me but then she says that I may have a further response to her to further the topic. And of course I can always drop the topic and believe what I want. She doesn't police my beliefs.
One example I think of is that my teachers meditation instruction is to let go into space on the outbreath. One of her students said that he felt better letting go on the in breath and was insistent. She explained why she instructed the way she did but said that it was ok for him to do it on the in breath. There might be more to the story and what she said, but the point is that she didn't say 'no this is the way to do it you have to do it my way'.
I think Batchelor left on his own (I haven't found that part yet). Here are some of his comments that eventually lead to his decision to leave the Tibetan monastery, and try Zen (he was still committed to Buddhism). "Geshe Rabten told us to subject the texts we studied to rational scrutiny and critique, but he also insisted that the authors of those texts were fully enlightened beings. It dawned on me that we were not expected to use logic and debate to establish whether or not the doctrine of rebirth was true. We were only using them to prove what the founders of the tradition had already established to be true. In the end, reason was subordinate to faith." "When I told Geshe Rabten of my difficulty in believing in rebirth, he was shocked. The idea that one might subject such a doctrine to rational analysis simply in order to test whether or not it was true was, for him, "nyon-pa", crazy. He furrowed his brow and stared at me with a troubled and uncomprehending expression. Finally he said, "This is a Buddhist monastery. If you don't believe in rebirth, then how are we any different from all those people out there?"
I don't mean to turn this into a rebirth thread. I, myself, have no problem with rebirth. This is about dogma. The Geshe wasn't flexible on rebirth. Maybe teachers can allow themselves to be patient with lay students, but when teaching monks, they may have a different standard.
Heres something my teacher said. It is from the perspective that the teachings in buddhism are accurate, but the message also is that you don't have to believe in them all. Instead you are advised to practice what you do understand while not deciding irrevocably to limit yourself to what you do understand for all time.
I think its too much to expect that the teacher will say "oh yeah rebirth thats just bs" They of course don't believe that and also it would be detrimental to their students who do believe in rebirth. There are beliefs involved in the mandala of buddhism but you can be a friend of the mandala without accepting everything it contains. Just as you can participate in a political party even though you do not agree on every issue.
A student writes:
I read a recent teaching with great interest; it could almost have been me that asked the question you replied to. You may not remember me, I came to see you at the Hermitage about a year ago, we talked about me going for refuge, and I expressed concerns about the rituals involved. I have since left the Sangha, and feel a bit adrift.
However, I am feeling more positive that I have found the beginnings of my path. I have been reading a lot by Steven Batchelor and feel that a genuinely agnostic approach is right for me at this time.
I do feel that the work you are doing is so good and I love the simple approach of Discovering the Heart of Buddhism, I started to get a bit concerned about some of the aspects of Trusting the Heart of Buddhism.
Is there a place for someone like me within the Sangha, when, if I'm going to be true to myself, can't accept the rituals and prayers etc?
Lama Shenpen replies:
Yes I remember you. I hope you will find a place in the Sangha for yourself that feels right for you. The important quality that we all need is an open mind and deep respect for the Buddha's teaching. Then we listen to the teachings and ponder them for ourselves and notice where our sticking points are.
If we have respect for the Buddha’s teachings and admit to ourselves that we do not as yet understand them, we can simply practise what we can understand and sometimes maybe open out a bit more to what we cannot. There is no need for us to force ourselves to do practices such as rituals just because everyone else does. Neither do we have to exclude ourselves from the Sangha just because there are rituals and practices that others - maybe the majority - do that we are not drawn to and which we cannot understand the point of. It may help you to know that many students come into Buddhism highly sceptical about teachings such as rebirth, karma and ritual (me included).
My advice to you is not to limit yourself by deciding before you start to reduce the Buddha’s teaching to something you already think and believe …. somehow trying to push it into the straightjacket of your preconceived ideas. The Dharma is realised through giving up all 'views' which might perhaps be translated as preconceived ideas in this context. Just because in our modern western society it is regarded as normal to not believe in past and future lives, in the efficacy of rituals and in supernormal powers, beings outside the field of our senses and so on, doesn’t mean that these views are proven, true or even particularly rational. They are part of our conditioning..... that is why they seem so normal and sensible - that is why they are easier to accept.
There is much to ponder here and I hope you decide to stick around long enough to feel the benefit of keeping an open mind on all these things.
Do you mean like the various levels of hell and heaven and hungry ghosts? Oops...my mistake...that's Buddhism. :hair:
haha! Thanks, Vinlyn. But are those hell realms just Vajrayana, or are they pan-Buddhist? And are they taken to be real, or are they symbolic(I forget), like all the deities in TB aren't considered real, they're just symbols for our own afflictions, or for compassion, etc. In Christianity, hell, etc. are taken as real.
I think you make a very good point, of course. Although I think that in Christianity today there are more and more people who discount the literality of things and entities in the Bible. For example, there are many who don't believe there is literally a Devil.
And, in Buddhism, there are many who literally believe in things such as the levels of heaven and hell and hungry ghosts. They discuss them fairly frequently in some Buddhist websites/discussion boards.
And, in Buddhism, there are many who literally believe in things such as the levels of heaven and hell and hungry ghosts. They discuss them fairly frequently in some Buddhist websites/discussion boards.
I think you're right, now that I think about it. I've never heard of the realms as being figurative or symbolic, unlike the deities. And there are still plenty of Christians who believe in a literal devil and hell. I haven't heard anyone describe them any other way, really. I should ask around...
The Da Lai Lama in an interview stated that he believed that the karmic realms were psychological. I forget what buddhist teacher said this, but one said that they were not places, but states of mind. If 7 people are in the same room. One, a buddha, might be in nirvana. Another might be in a hell room. And another might be in a human realm. This seems about right. Though I think that neglects how we share suffering, but I think we do it from our own planes sort of. Our own basis of degree of freedom.
The Da Lai Lama in an interview stated that he believed that the karmic realms were psychological. I forget what buddhist teacher said this, but one said that they were not places, but states of mind. If 7 people are in the same room. One, a buddha, might be in nirvana. Another might be in a hell room. And another might be in a human realm. This seems about right. Though I think that neglects how we share suffering, but I think we do it from our own planes sort of. Our own basis of degree of freedom.
I agree with this. But I think some Tibetan practitioners, and apparently some Western ones as well, take them to be real, or both psychological (during any given lifetime), but also realms that await the "consciousness" after death. Otherwise, why talk about a bardo state?
oh, oops, I forgot this is the dogma thread. I don't think teachers require people to believe in the realms, I haven't heard that. This was some sort of a digression that a comment by Vinlyn started. Still, it would be interesting to see what teachers say... And that bardo concept seems pretty basic, don't you think? I'd like to do a project sometime, of polling lamas on a number of questions, like karma/rebirth, etc.
I don't believe my stream of consciousness will continue after death. But since I don't choose my stream of consciousness I don't believe that it is myself. As far as myself I believe that is non-grasping spacious love and compassion and I don't believe that love and compassion will die whether they have a body to manifest or not.
after comparing current scientific knowledge with buddhist cosmology, one can conclude that the narakas and the deva realms are planets in wich suffering is much more or much less common than in our planet. because of the most used definitions of god and eternalism in other religions, it is not possible to conclude that heaven and hell are actually planets.
so, buddhism is not dogmatic because it is possible to compare it with current knowledge and make conclusions without fear of ANY authority.
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."
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."
Actually, just to refute the specific point...I've touched things labeled "wet paint" lots of times and the paint had already dried.
''Nope... doesn't qualify as far as I'm concerned. For one thing, there's no hierarchy, no Pope to tell me I have to do this or that or that I can't do this or that. Buddhism leaves it to me to decide.''
Unless you become a monk and follow the dharma down to the tee
Comments
The authority in Buddhism would be the infallible Buddha. He can never be wrong. This is dogma. He has the monopoly on truth, if you disagree its not because he might be wrong, it is because you are wrong. You will always be wrong and that is why if one person/being is considered infallible whatever he teaches will be dogma.
It seems like the idea is, see for yourself if you find this to be truth, and if you dont then you're doing it wrong. Its a false choice. It presupposes that you are only truly seeing for yourself, in the "right" way, if you come to the same conclusion.
And it highlights the problem I have with many postings which deal with comparative religions.
For example, many people post (here and elsewhere) that Buddhism is the only "scientific" religion.
Then, they turn around say something to the effect that in other people's religion, there is no such thing as infallibility (for example, they will say that in the Catholic religion it is impossible for the Pope to be infallible...all Catholics are just wrong). But then they say that their own religion -- the supposedly most scientific -- my ultimate teacher (in this case Buddha) is infallible...and that my religion is just different and everyone else doesn't understand.
And to me, that takes away from Buddha being wise. Being wise doesn't mean you are ALWAYS correct or always have 100% of all knowledge. And if you say that, it seems to me you are getting into mysticism.
I respect Buddha's teachings. I also respect Christ's teachings. My moral code is based on both. I don't think either was magic.
I'd go with Jeffrey here. We ourselves are the authority in Buddhism, not the Buddha. I bet the Buddha would quite literally have slapped you on the head if you said you take his teachings for granted and take him as the highest authority.
We could argue about the actual meaning of the word dogma, but that wouldn't get us anywhere. My point is; A lot of people put faith in the Buddha's words but only believe their own experiences (= views). That's exactly what the Buddha supported. He himself had various teachers who claimed to know the truth, but he didn't believe any of them until he himself found his own. Now, that's what I would call someone who goes against dogmas!
If one can't come to the same exact conclusions that's fine. No sincere Buddhist is going to laugh at somebody and say: "Haha, you are wrong and I am right! See it is quoted right here why I am right and you are wrong. The Buddha said it.", because for all of us the teachings gradually develop and become more clear slowly. This process also needs questioning and debate about certain aspects, so it certainly doesn't need (and have) any dogmas, or lets call it Fixed Old Rusty Views.
With metta,
Sabre
Could also be a cultural thing, but I'm sure there are people who believed it just is like that, no more questioning.
By the way nothing personal against Hinduism or any religion for that matter. All religions have great teachings for the world and I know some also allow a lot of debate. I just used it as a means to explain what I interpret as a dogma and why I think Buddhism doesn't have them.
Metta,
Sabre
The Buddha's 4 Noble truths are Infallible. Such infallible teachings cannot by logic, come directly from someone who isn't infallible.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/piyadassi/wheel001.pdf
but as to why I mentioned it? normal people will give up on you. but the buddhas and bodhisattvas will always forgive you. And never give up on you. So I try to be like them.
but it took someone infallible to bring them to people's attention, didn't it?
It's like my ex- once said, reading one of my Books on Buddhism.
"Well, yeah, I mean, that's bloody obvious, anybody can say that and make a fast buck...."
to which I replied -
"Well if it's so obvious, why didn't you say it, genius, and make us a fast buck, then?"
Reply came there none.....
The Truths may well have been there when Shakyamuni was a twinkle in his father's eye, but he was the bright spark who brought them to light.
Dogmatic Teacher: XYZ is the truth.
Student: Really? I thought it was ABC. How can i be sure it is XYZ?
Dogmatic Teacher: You must simply believe! Now shut up and keep listening ..
As opposed to:
Buddha: XYZ is the truth.
Student: Really? I thought it was ABC. How can i be sure it is XYZ?
Buddha: Give it a go, and you'll see what i mean. Now stop listening to me blabbering on and go and try it for yourself.
That leads me to consider the kind of Christian who is not dogmatic, but who gently says "have you let Jesus into your heart?", and i say "no", and they ask me to try it and see, but i don't want to. Does that make me dogmatic? I don't think so, i think it just means i have already considered enough of the whole Christian "package" to see that i think it is fundamentally irrational - whereas Buddhism is pretty much rational, and thus a more inviting journey for me to take.
This has been quite a meandering post.
Buddhism is more about "someone said this, and after understanding it we agree".
It holds the middle-way, so to speak.
The dogmatic element is “right view”.
It has content. It holds essential concepts like the four noble truths, the moral law of karmic results and the three characteristics. The denial of these essential ideas would be seen as wrong views caused by ignorance.
The open minded part of Buddhism is “ehipassiko” or see-for-yourself.
Buddhists are not forbidden to challenge the mentioned “right view”.
Simply accepting Buddhist doctrine is good (if it works for you).
Questioning them is fine too (as long as it works for you).
The approach is pragmatic.
Ultimately the ideology is not open to change.
One general concept - in Therevade at least - is the idea of decline of the Dhamma.
The Buddha is supposed to have said it all and after he’s gone his teaching can only be repeated and rephrased. But these teachings will lose the connection and the world will return to barbarism. Until the next Buddha awakens.
The latter idea I find dogmatic.
(Now, I personally think right view is something else. And properly understood Buddhism is not about fixed ideas. But I wrote enough in other threads about what I think.)
"Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These dhammas are unskillful; these dhammas are blameworthy; these dhammas are criticized by the wise; these dhammas, when adopted and carried out, lead to harm and to suffering' — then you should abandon them... When you know for yourselves that, 'These dhammas are skillful; these dhammas are blameless; these dhammas are praised by the wise; these dhammas, when adopted and carried out, lead to welfare and to happiness' — then you should enter and remain in them."
Sorry for the rambling... and and repeats...
About faith in Buddhism, in my experience we are often told to have faith that the teachings and methods will bear fruit, faith that following the teachings will lead to Enlightenment (this can require faith over lifetimes, if one doesn't become enlightened in the current lifetime), faith that the teachings about our current circumstances being the result of past life actions are true and are a valuable guide to making choices in the current lifetime, faith that the ceremonies will deliver (health, enlightenment, development of compassion, whatever the goal of any given ceremony is) etc. There's lots of faith in Buddhism. Faith isn't just for beginners, it's for advanced practitioners hoping the practices will deliver "as advertised", and bring them to enlightenment.
I agree that dogmatic does NOT mean that there is some mean or aggressive aspect to it...for example the punishment of excommunication from the Catholic church. Yes, what you have expressed in what bothers me -- "that you're expected to agree with the teachings, even after you examine them on your own". That's dogma. If you don't agree with some teaching, it's not the teaching that's brought into question...it's something wrong with you. That's dogma. That supposes that no SERIOUS and INTELLIGENT "student" has ever walked away from Buddhism and taken a different path. That supposes that ever SERIOUS and INTELLIGENT "student" of Buddhism believes exactly the same about every aspect of Buddhism (gee, I say sarcastically, I guess that's why there's no divisions in Buddhism). Really, when "you're expected to agree with the teachings, even after you examine them on your own", there is no real freedom of thought within the Buddhist community...it's a facade.
I also admire in the above posting the realization that there is FAITH involved in Buddhism. Too many try to deny that FAITH is an important factor in Buddhism. And, there's nothing wrong with FAITH, unless you can't recognize that it is FAITH and not FACT.
I look at some of the dogmatic postings here in this forum and essentially see Westerners who have a societal background in Judeo-Christian religions trying to attach the same dogmatic approach to Buddhism, while pretending to themselves that they are not trying to do so. I think that's understandable, yet misguided.
I would say that the Buddha encouraged us to find reality for ourselves, and brought with him the 4 noble truths and 8 fold to use as a guide to do this.
In essence, "Find for yourself that life is dissatisfaction. Find for yourself there is a way out of that dissatisfaction."
Hmmm I don't imagine any lama requires you to believe any certain thing. I think most lamas who have attained a realization of non-clinging would be that way. Not to mention having realized compassion and ethics and skillful means.
A hell realm is real in the sense that it is a great deal of suffering. It is not limited to a suffering in this part of the multiverse. And it is not real as having inherently existing characteristics. In fact it is just an appearance for sure it is not reality. It is a cloud over the sun of love. Anger is a distortion of the clarity of 'no'.
The christians who take the course I am taking or go to the retreats receive the same teachings. In their interviews with the lama she gives them an honest answer if they have questions about how buddhism fits with christianity. There have been questions which appear in the buddhism connect e-mailing, which you could receive. For example one mailing she replied to a student that studying buddhism and christianity together is difficult because they are two separate branches from the same tree (reality) and that it is difficult to be on two different ones at once.
I have a friend who often refers to christ in the same sentence as bodhisattvas in the sangha.
My lama often disagrees with me but then she says that I may have a further response to her to further the topic. And of course I can always drop the topic and believe what I want. She doesn't police my beliefs.
"Geshe Rabten told us to subject the texts we studied to rational scrutiny and critique, but he also insisted that the authors of those texts were fully enlightened beings. It dawned on me that we were not expected to use logic and debate to establish whether or not the doctrine of rebirth was true. We were only using them to prove what the founders of the tradition had already established to be true. In the end, reason was subordinate to faith."
"When I told Geshe Rabten of my difficulty in believing in rebirth, he was shocked. The idea that one might subject such a doctrine to rational analysis simply in order to test whether or not it was true was, for him, "nyon-pa", crazy. He furrowed his brow and stared at me with a troubled and uncomprehending expression. Finally he said, "This is a Buddhist monastery. If you don't believe in rebirth, then how are we any different from all those people out there?"
I don't mean to turn this into a rebirth thread. I, myself, have no problem with rebirth. This is about dogma. The Geshe wasn't flexible on rebirth. Maybe teachers can allow themselves to be patient with lay students, but when teaching monks, they may have a different standard.
I think its too much to expect that the teacher will say "oh yeah rebirth thats just bs" They of course don't believe that and also it would be detrimental to their students who do believe in rebirth. There are beliefs involved in the mandala of buddhism but you can be a friend of the mandala without accepting everything it contains. Just as you can participate in a political party even though you do not agree on every issue.
A student writes:
I read a recent teaching with great interest; it could almost have been me that asked the question you replied to. You may not remember me, I came to see you at the Hermitage about a year ago, we talked about me going for refuge, and I expressed concerns about the rituals involved. I have since left the Sangha, and feel a bit adrift.
However, I am feeling more positive that I have found the beginnings of my path. I have been reading a lot by Steven Batchelor and feel that a genuinely agnostic approach is right for me at this time.
I do feel that the work you are doing is so good and I love the simple approach of Discovering the Heart of Buddhism, I started to get a bit concerned about some of the aspects of Trusting the Heart of Buddhism.
Is there a place for someone like me within the Sangha, when, if I'm going to be true to myself, can't accept the rituals and prayers etc?
Lama Shenpen replies:
Yes I remember you. I hope you will find a place in the Sangha for yourself that feels right for you. The important quality that we all need is an open mind and deep respect for the Buddha's teaching. Then we listen to the teachings and ponder them for ourselves and notice where our sticking points are.
If we have respect for the Buddha’s teachings and admit to ourselves that we do not as yet understand them, we can simply practise what we can understand and sometimes maybe open out a bit more to what we cannot. There is no need for us to force ourselves to do practices such as rituals just because everyone else does. Neither do we have to exclude ourselves from the Sangha just because there are rituals and practices that others - maybe the majority - do that we are not drawn to and which we cannot understand the point of. It may help you to know that many students come into Buddhism highly sceptical about teachings such as rebirth, karma and ritual (me included).
My advice to you is not to limit yourself by deciding before you start to reduce the Buddha’s teaching to something you already think and believe …. somehow trying to push it into the straightjacket of your preconceived ideas. The Dharma is realised through giving up all 'views' which might perhaps be translated as preconceived ideas in this context. Just because in our modern western society it is regarded as normal to not believe in past and future lives, in the efficacy of rituals and in supernormal powers, beings outside the field of our senses and so on, doesn’t mean that these views are proven, true or even particularly rational. They are part of our conditioning..... that is why they seem so normal and sensible - that is why they are easier to accept.
There is much to ponder here and I hope you decide to stick around long enough to feel the benefit of keeping an open mind on all these things.
I hope this answer is helpful
And, in Buddhism, there are many who literally believe in things such as the levels of heaven and hell and hungry ghosts. They discuss them fairly frequently in some Buddhist websites/discussion boards.
after comparing current scientific knowledge with buddhist cosmology, one can conclude that the narakas and the deva realms are planets in wich suffering is much more or much less common than in our planet.
because of the most used definitions of god and eternalism in other religions, it is not possible to conclude that heaven and hell are actually planets.
so, buddhism is not dogmatic because it is possible to compare it with current knowledge and make conclusions without fear of ANY authority.
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."
Unless you become a monk and follow the dharma down to the tee