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.
Meaning of dogma
Jeffrey
Veteran
I am not sure what the meaning of dogma is. I think that it means lack of an open mind. What do you think?
0
Comments
The "incontrovertibly true" part is what most people are talking about when it comes to religious dogma. Example of dogma: Christian dogma of trinitarianism.
When people talk about Buddhism being non-dogmatic there aren't any absolute truths you must accept in Buddhism. I believe the Buddha said to investigate before you accept his teachings, as opposed to this is the truth and do not dispute it.
Obviously, just from browsing this forum, you can see that every single aspect of Buddhism is disputed, haha.
Me telling you 3+3=6 is not dogma.
Me telling you the buddha did/didn't believe in rebirth is dogma.
Its very common on this forum; I have been guilty of it many times.
We can just be skillful and aim not to. Though, like all dharma practice, that is hard.
rape does not lead to wholesome states of mind, but that is an assumption because I've never raped anyone.
but the golden rule applies still. I wouldn't want to be raped, thus I wouldn't rape another.
dogma is merely acceptance of a certain ideology or belief system, but closing off the rest. the trick is to accept a belief system, but
to truly challenge it by seeing all the evidence (other belief systems) and keeping an open mind. our knowledge should be constantly changing and challenged via in real life situations.
the mark of an intelligent person is how many contradicting views they can bring to one topic.
a dogmatic person may only have one view on how things are.
Or if I tell you that there is no three. Because each thing is unique? For example there are not 3 apples. Each apple is different and it is a projection to call it an apple. If the apple evolves into an orange there is no clear boundary where digitally it ceases to be an apple and is now an orange. The only boundary is a definition which is clearly a mental label and is itself dogma by your definition.
to see truth is to be undogmatic for truth itself is constantly changing and evolving. what may be truth in one moment, may not be in another. but if your basis of truth is universal, then those truths are worth holding onto. but even then they are references to the non dual. so it's better to stay objective and act according to the given circumstance rather then asserting a framework on everything.
don't hold onto views then you see clearly. when you see clearly, wisdom arises naturally.
such wisdom is not dogmatic because such wisdom arises from the clear seeing.
so the emphasis must be put on clear seeing and not holding onto views for then in each moment wisdom will arise.
that wisdom will arise in relation to the moment.
when you hold onto a view, you are only limited to that view.
So far 2 conditions to be dogma
1) it cannot be proven true
2) it is taken as absolute
So we need clarification on what absolute means.
We also need a real world way to solve disputes where we do not agree on proof. Otherwise we can just call eachother dogmatic till the cows come home.
by seeing clearly the natural expression of wisdom arises.
whether be it a compassionate action or wise words. it all depends. there is no "framework" or "belief".
just in seeing clearly wisdom spontaneously arises.
the goal of buddhism is to get rid of the three poisons, by cultivating positive states of mind, thus the innate buddha nature functions. out of that function we can discern and see clearly. out of seeing clearly, arises wisdom.
out of wisdom, arises natural action.
what the potential manifests as expression is infinite. infinite in that it is dependent on the given circumstance.
The Christian church is not open to questioning the trinitarian doctrine. In other words, it is a closed case.
When you say "I had a good day", are you open to discussing that it may have actually been a bad day? If so, then it is no longer dogma. Typically dogma is applied to authoritative positions though. Thus, it is often tossed around in authoritative areas (politics, religion, corporations, etc.).
In a way, it means to be close-minded. However, the word implies a bit more since it also includes authority.
Thats usually what I mean by dogma.
some may express loving-kindness, where others might express a penetrating intellect.
the enlightened mind is the ability to see clearly and from that wisdom manifests based on the individual capacity and natural inclinations.
of course other expressions can be cultivated.
lol this has nothing to do with the OP sorry. just on a flow man!
And here I thought we were merely defining a word. You took it much deeper.
thus a dogmatic mind is merely a mind that clings to a certain view point, which is fine but that which is closed will never evolve. since all things are empty, they will change. since things will change, view points will change.
the view isn't important. it's all about seeing clearly then wisdom or expression arises. that wisdom can be challenged, etc and one may draw other conclusions. so again it is a constantly evolving and learning process.
sure you may realize emptiness, but how does emptiness function in the world? how do you interact with people? to be dogmatic really limits your functioning. its all about being opened minded people!
And if the party who holds the belief is 'the law' or 'a judge' then not to rape could in fact be dogma. So maybe some dogma is good?
Yet at the same time we need to cross busy streets sometimes. There is risk.
you have all these belief structures that you attain from buddhism and even from your own experience.
but they are just mental objects.
what use is a mental object if it is already realized. if it is realized then it will be apparent in every situation.
thus in zen koans are used to stop discursive thinking to come to a simple state of mind/consciousness. from there we can see clearly into the nature of reality and wisdom spontaneously arises.
the path is simply engineered so that we can have healthy states of mind and from there develop concentration then eventually insight.
but holding onto to an insight is like taking a shit on a buddha. the buddha in his compassionate action wanted to free you from dogma and a belief system. freedom is freedom from dualistic mind and thus attain the ability to gain insight from reality by seeing clearly.
Incidentally, much on the dogma here comes prefixed with:
"My teacher says..."
or
"This Suttra says..."
Don't let your dogma run over your karma, to paraphrase another...
For example I might say that the buddha believes in rebirth.
On the other hand my teacher told me to limit myself to: I believe, I heard, I read, I think. Not I know.
Yet I might state buddha believed in rebirth yet what I mean might be that in the Pali Canon 'buddha' believed in rebirth.
everything that is needed for liberation is very obviously straightforward. i'm talking about "attainable" liberation, not some esoteric liberations that is impossible in this life time.
so really there isn't much to believe or be dogmatic about. in actually it is examining your assumptions, beliefs and dogma, which can bring about a positive insight.
throw down everything, even the throwing down. what is left?
now for some thats not enough. some people need to seek truth for themselves. so those who are sincere will see that having an open mind is the best way and most practical way towards truth. what do i really know? i know that i don't know.
so dogma in essence is empty. is serves a certain function for some people and some people need more than that function. its neither wrong or right, it just is what it is.
the person sharing a view may be dogmatic but ultimately they are empty.
whether the person is clinging to a view is impossible to know for they could be just spitting out what they know as true based on their experience.
thus it is up to us to be opened minded and to be able to discern from useful and not useful information. what is useful is highly subjective. but in some respect the buddhist teachings are universal, so it is all about getting rid our own assumptions.
but like everything take it with a grain of salt. grasping to views is just the product of an insecure mind.
Just because a person has a dogmatic view does not make the religion dogmatic. It would be hard to have dogma in Buddhism without a central authority.
Now, by the way, in terms of a "central authority", in Thailand there is a Supreme Sangha, and a degree of oversight by the Thai government.
What is dogma?
Let's go back to the Greek word, Doxa, which is "glorified opinion," or "glory," or "opinion." I like "glorified opinion" more. In a general sense it is akin to the Latin "fama," (Fame) derived from the Greek ønµí, "I say," meaning what is said about.
In other words, I am saying that Fame and Dogma, etymologically, are on the same level, namely glorified reports. The salient difference being that Dogma is doctrinal, whereas Fame (Legend) is assumed to be subjective by most observers. When we say that someone is being dogmatic we do usually mean that his position is trumped up and not susceptible of much objectivity. But that is not to say that dogma in itself is bad. There's dogma in any and every system. The trick is to accept the dogma that you find useful, but not to think it applies to everybody and everthing in the same way. As my teacher used to say, "It's OK to have religious dogmas, but not to BE dogmatic.
“Dogmata are found in religions such as Christianity and Islam, where they are considered core principles that must be upheld by all followers of that religion. As a fundamental element of religion, the term "dogma" is assigned to those theological tenets which are considered to be well demonstrated, such that their proposed disputation or revision effectively means that a person no longer accepts the given religion as his or her own, or has entered into a period of personal doubt.”
I think Buddhism has some core principles which a person can not dispute without risking “expulsion”. My list of Buddhist dogmata would be:
- The four noble truths
- The eightfold path
- The three characteristics
- Emptiness
- Compassion
I don’t think I could deny those core principles without risk of being disqualified as a non-buddhist.
Buddhism is tolerant in the sense that it asks us to test the teaching rather than taking it on authority.
But that doesn’t mean Buddhism allows its followers to right-out deny its core principles.
But that doesn’t mean Buddhism allows its followers to right-out deny its core principles."
However, I do know that the Supreme Sangha in Thailand sometimes expels or disqualifies monks from being monks. Of course, they can't prevent the thought process, and thereby can't prevent one from "thinking like a Buddhist" and acting like a Buddhist, and thereby being a Buddhist.
It does not have an effective Buddhist version of the Inquisition.
That is both good and bad.
It means we can all do and say what we want (good).
It means that any idiot can shave his head put on robes and sell himself as a monk and a Buddhist teacher (bad).
I do believe that in the process of Buddhism, there are dogmas.
Which simply means that there are core principles which a person can not dispute without risking “expulsion” or “disqualification”, which is not as bad as being burned on the stake of course, but which does mean there are Buddhist dogmas.
A monk saw him and asked him why he did that. When the two explained the monk said "you spit, I'll bow"