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.
Dogmatic Beliefs
hello,
i am curious with regards to Buddhism, as I know many Buddhists, who I generally regard as very kind people.
I also generally regards them as very logical people.
However, one area of many Buddhist's faith is the areas in their belief that I believe is dogmatic and not based on their own experience.
For example, the belief of reincarnation with out full knowledge that this is true. (if this is possible).
If you are a Buddhist, please can you explain why you hold such beliefs based on no evidence and why, as I am facsinated as to why anyone would prescribe to such a belief.
Especially when considering Buddhists, as I generally regard Buddhists to be less dogmatic than many religious people who believe in the written word of various holy books without any first hand experience.
(not that I have a problem personally with any one believing in such things, I just am curious to examine why any one believes).
:rolleyes:
Otherwise
Thanks for your help and time reading.
Cheers
i am curious with regards to Buddhism, as I know many Buddhists, who I generally regard as very kind people.
I also generally regards them as very logical people.
However, one area of many Buddhist's faith is the areas in their belief that I believe is dogmatic and not based on their own experience.
For example, the belief of reincarnation with out full knowledge that this is true. (if this is possible).
If you are a Buddhist, please can you explain why you hold such beliefs based on no evidence and why, as I am facsinated as to why anyone would prescribe to such a belief.
Especially when considering Buddhists, as I generally regard Buddhists to be less dogmatic than many religious people who believe in the written word of various holy books without any first hand experience.
(not that I have a problem personally with any one believing in such things, I just am curious to examine why any one believes).
:rolleyes:
Otherwise
Thanks for your help and time reading.
Cheers
0
Comments
lots of discussion on rebirth on Buddhist forums. It's sort of the achilles heel of Buddhism.
in the Buddha's time/place the idea of past/future lives was the prevailing belief system. the evidence from the suttas seems to indicate the Buddha taught this view as well even though he remained silent on just about every other related topic.
Many who are following the path are unable to accept the truth of the proposition so they don't. Many others can so they do.
I think the more 'religious' a person becomes the more likely they are to become dogmatic and the more focused the person is on the path leading to liberation from suffering the less inclined they are to argue or debate about it.
It's just one of those things.
I think most everyone would agree that the path is open to all, regardless of beliefs on such matters.
The core teachings are simple and accessible to just about anybody, not requiring you to believe in anything that might seem "out there".
My personal view is that Buddhism is not a religion, but a philosophy and a practice. (But then again, I wasn't born into a country permeated with Buddhist beliefs covered by layers of centuries old traditions and superstitions)
All you have to do is read what one smart man (Buddha) said, listen to what teachers have to say, and, most importantly, practice those things and meditate. When time comes, rebirth and karma will sort themselves out :-)
The Buddha taught these 20 things (or whatever number of things, not important) and 15 of them turned out to be true. Therefore, the other 5 are probably true too.
Hi
I think it is a huge problem with all huge religions, including Buddhism. The Buddha said lots on dogma and how it should be dealt with.
Sure, as others have said there are concerns of dogma about rebirth but many other areas too.
Be highly dubious about everything everyone tells you about Dharma. If your doubts don't stand, if you can resolve them in yourself, then what they told you was probably what the Buddha said:)
Dharma is supremely resilient to doubt!
namaste
I, for one "believe" as you call it in reincarnation or rebirth as buddhists like to call it however my belief is likely modified based on my observation of life in general.
Here is how I see it. Rebirth is a misnomer. I say this because I have no definitive memory trains from birth to death of a life I lived prior to this one. Therefore, I am either ignorant of a previous life or have no permanent entity residing in me which could be called a soul by today's thinking(Atman in buddhist understanding).
Reincarnation is also a misnomer to me. Although loosely accurate in that this body was not "beamed" on to this earth out of nothing, I do not have any clear memories or provable facts I could put forward to argue my re-placement on this earth as mentioned above.
This finally comes down to a term I believe encompasses what might loosely be described reincarnation and that is re-integration. Nothing from before is the same in this "new body", but not all of it is different either because of the interconnected nature of Samsara.
This also is why I agree with the notion that karma can jump across "rebirths" and give one a sense of deja vu or perhaps even unfathomable behaviors(aversive or affinitive).
Hope all this hasn't confused you.
Best Wishes,:rockon:
Nanimo
I am a kind of agnostic/Buddhist/Christian/Jew/Muslim. Who believes in many of the teachings of Buddhism, but only from my own experience, and even then I know that it is possible to be fooled. Especially as I am conscious that I do not have a complete set of blue prints for existence/the universe. etc. Therefore, I view reincarnation / karma as a possibility, but not conclusive.
I think that the law of Karmic Retribution is far more complex than most people believe.
I indeed believe in cause and effect, however, only from experience / observation.
I understand that cause and effect is very complex in nature, as depicted in Indra's net or web. (like the matrix, the continually evolving continually changing highly complex multi-faceted living web of interaction formulae).
However, I can not honestly say that this net or web of cause and effect is carried from one life to the next, as I honestly can not say that I have knowledge of this.
But that's just me. I am perhaps more skeptical than most, this is because i believe this is the only way that you really gain true knowledge.
Thanks for everyone's comments though. I appreciate all advise and guidance.
Although, I do not agree with Unlikelybdst in that I should seek a teacher to listen to.
I do think that this idea is good to learn meditation, but not good in order to ascertain the true nature of the universe, existence, self/ego etc.
From what i know of the (famous) historical Buddha's life, he went through the process of trying out and testing the popular religions of the time, in his search for these same answers, before braking away from all these different religions to form his own practice which allegedly resulted in his own enlightenment before forming his own teachings.
Personally, I can accept a teacher for meditation, however, I am very cautious when it comes to the idea of having a Guru or spiritual teacher, apart from in the loosest sense.
As have had some insight to this type of relationship in several different religions which has made me very skeptical with regards to these types of relationships as they seem to be prone to being exploitative in nature, and if not exploitative in nature, are often ego traps for all parties involved.
Labels are easily abused. So, no labels or hierarchy. Just practitioners and equality.
Thanks for all replies. Thanks for all help.
But it's not dogmatic on my part. I'm perfectly willing to be proved wrong. Faith is a funny thing though.
Mtns
yeah, we are - alone together
I would say not good if you expect the teacher to give you the truth, because that is simply not possible. The truth must be found for oneself. However, if the teacher is seen simply as a guide and not a "god", then it can be beneficial.
Whether their proof is enough for me to believe, I am not so sure.
Thats just how I am.
I just need to know completely to put my stamp of authority on it. (which, I guess only means something to me, as I would expect other searchers to also be as thorough as I am in their examination).
This process is kind of protection in some ways, to falling prey to delusion or becoming mixed up with a religious group who has no real 1st hand experience as evidence to the beliefs
(I mean, there are loads of religions out there that have followers who blindly believe what ever is written in their Holy books. Religions in the worst can be a malicious tool of manipulation that rewards their founders finacially or in power).
After being married to a Jehovah Witness in the past, I pretty much have had enough of all organized religions, especailly totalitarian ones that base all their beliefs on dogma.
You'll never know completely. Someone else on this board wrote that when asked what happens after death, His Holiness Dalai Lama (we abbreviate that as HHDL here) said "I really have no idea". It has to be a "best guess". Just for myself, I think HHDL believes in rebirth, especially of the Dalai Lamas, and his tradition subscribes to the Tibetan Book of the Dead, which is a "guide" to negotiation the bardo or transitional realm in order to find a set of parents that will be appropriate to be reborn with. So HHDL apparently believes in rebirth but does not profess to know for sure. According to the stories, all he remembers about his life as the 13th Dalai Lama is that he seemed to know where his false teeth were located in the summer palace, and he was able to choose the genuine belongings of the 13th Dalai Lama from among other similar items while he was being examined as a possible candidate for the reincarnation when he was about two. And that's it. That's all HHDL has to go on as far as rebirth/reincarnation. Speaking only for myself, if that belief in rebirth/reincarnation is good enough for him, it's good enough for me, but that's just me.
You will never know completely.
Can't it be observed that when anything "dies", we return to the most basic of form, basically fertilizer, to sustain life as a whole? We do, in fact, change form, or at least what we perceive as form. And regarding karma, can't it be observed that our actions can be seen in how others treat us, or what brings about our suffering?
The tree may be a dud.You can not know until the tree flowers,and the bud sets.After this you will see tiny little apples appear-then you will know-this tree will bear fruit.For some of us,and maybe we are people who were not brought up on dogma,the idea of rebirth(Theravada)or reincarnation(Vajrayana)is not so difficult.To assert that without scientific proof we are falling into the trap of dogma is being slightly dogmatic.
Welcome to the club :wavey:
Communism, fascism, Americanism, etc can all be dogmatic and have all been dogmatic. We just happen to not call these things religions.
Not-a-Buddhist, but I'd like to answer if you don't mind.
Reincarnation and rebirth are two words that carry a lot of conceptual baggage with them, imo. You can ask ten different people to explain and you'll get ten different answers. Belief and faith, too, are the same way.
Quite simply, asking after the mechanics of what happens and how it happens is an unanswerable question. It's simply not given for us to know. I've not done a lot of reading about the Buddhist view of 'what' returns, but I get the impression that it is not a discrete ego, or self-awareness, or a set of memories, and I think that's probably why it could seem dogmatic - most people assume that it is something definable and discrete and quantifiable that returns.
One of the definitions of 'dogma' is "an authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true" and there is very little in Buddhism that I consider to be an 'absolute truth' that needs to be accepted and embraced blindly.
It's given that the Buddha warned against accepting things blindly (can someone kindly post that? I can never find it when I'm looking for it :eek: ) and to accept the idea of rebirth/reincarnation without examining it is to fall prey to dogmatism.
Dogmatism, imo, keeps us from attaining wisdom, and therefore is what I've heard people refer to as being 'unskillful'.
Just my $0.02.
Jali
I assume that IF any part of me survives after this body dies, then I might at that time have an answer to my question of whether or not there is life after death.
I only know two things:
1. So far, my practice of Buddhism has shown me that some of its "claims" are true, and it is therefore possible that some more of those "claims" (including rebirth) are true, and
2. When I was an infant, still in my crib, I had a vivid dream that I still remember clearly, in which I was in another body, another culture. Seeing as this dream occurred in 1949, long before the advent of TV, I am at a loss for explaining the accuracy of its content. Queries to my family over the years have yielded no clearer understanding on possible sources (my mom & older sister practiced yoga, so it was easy to query about possible rebirth issues). Perhaps it was a fading "memory" of a past live, but equally possible it has its origin in some other mechanism or exposure that I have not identified. I do not know. But because of this dream, I do not discount the possibility of rebirth. We each have to assess our attitudes based on our own experiences, and to remain aware that it is easier to experience something than it is to understand it.
I disagree. I am not sure how you can make that statement.
I understand that some peoples dogmatic beliefs may be threatened by my questions. I appoligies for any discomfort experienced.
If your reply has been written for some type of philosophical debating victory. Then, sorry mate. I did not enter a contest.
Just enquiring into the truth.
Please read the dictionary definition below and explain further your statement that requiring evidence is dogmatic as i think it is contradictory in nature.
Cheers.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dogmatic
The Buddha was not dogmatic, perhaps just many of his followers (or offshoot followers).
As with most religions. The details often get twisted, distorted and manipultated and people end up practicing incorrectly or following blindly just because "its how we have always done it" or because "its in this or that book".
I understand that surrendering to other's authority often gives you a more peaceful life as you get into less conflict.
However, if you take this path. you will not find the truth of "what is".
sure, i understand. And not believing in reincarnation because you have no experience of it isn't dogmatic.
Believing in Reincarnation without experience is dogmatic, doesn't matter how good your analogy is, apple trees, moon beams what ever.
I know lots of hard core Buddhist that do believe in reincarnation with out real life experience (when i say lots, i mean probably 10 or so...lol).
Believing in the possibility of reincarnation isn't dogmatic, its just being open minded of the possibilities.
Dogma isn't so much about what you believe but about what someone tries to make some else believe, even when make is polite encouragement rather than coercion.
Believing in Reincarnation without experience is dogmatic, doesn't matter how good your analogy is, apple trees, moon beams what ever.
Again, not really. I may believe in rebirth for many reasons, that wouldn't make me dogmatic on this point.
My take on this point is (now) that it really doesn't matter what any Buddhist believes about rebirth. To a degree, all that we should be interested in on this point is what the Buddha believed about rebirth.
namaste
I am sorry, I disagree. From what i understand of Dogma, Dogma refers to a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof.
Someone is said to be dogmatic when they stubbornly adhere to insufficiently proven beliefs.
As for believing in what Buddha taught. I think that one must remember that when Buddha taught. he reminded his follower to test for themselves.
(well, that's what the books said. I, haven never knowingly met the historical Buddha).
I think that over the last 2,000 years, many variation of teachings have cropped up. Which explains why there are so many types of Buddhism.
I would suggest it is more like the appendix or wisdom teeth !!
If there's anything in the universe that you can ever know *completely*, please let us know about it! You'll be the first. We'll call CNN to cover it
This. Know it to a level that satisfies you, but also know that you can never know it "completely" unless you are a buddha.
Some links and articles on reincarnation below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF3KqGpxXvo<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EWwzFwUOxA<o:p></o:p>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdmMEKPFDTY&feature=related<o:p></o:p>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZiU9eATbY8&feature=player_embedded<o:p></o:p>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eI3sL01ytbo&feature=player_embedded<o:p></o:p>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JSseLczR9M&feature=player_embedded<o:p></o:p>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKspwdBWtCU&feature=player_embedded<o:p></o:p>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoCnaL62NRc&feature=player_embedded<o:p></o:p>
http://www.godwin-home-page.net/Short-Pieces/Rebirth/Rebirth.htm<o:p></o:p>
In disagree with your disagreement:) Dogma isnt necessarily about religion at all:) I am, for example, very dogmatic about the value of Gmail:p
Absolutly!:) That is a cornerstone of Buddhism that is often lost, IMHO.
namaste
If I don't take the dog out for a walk, it will crap on the floor. I know this completely. Call CNN!
1-While the original meaning of dogma may be to do woith a blind adherence to a religious belief,the term dogma has now and for some time been used in a much wider context.
2-I do not feel uncomfortable about your question,nor do I believe that I am trying to
win some sort of philosophical debate.Thre is nothing to win here.
I used my analogy to try and show how it is that sometimes I look for answers.
You asked a question and I replied from my own personal point of view.
If somehow my answer has caused you offence I apologise and withdraw from the thread.
With metta