Guest guest Posted July 13, 2003 Report Share Posted July 13, 2003 Sri Lotusaware wrote: "The map is not the territory." When that is understood and grasped fully the places where Buddhism, Advaita, Taoism, etc. agree become much more profound. Every "ism" has its jargon and most of the dogma is about protecting the jargon specific to that group. Actually a discussion of dogma is mostly an intellectual exercise which may keep us from direct experience. Dogma is about making maps without real reliance on territories, and in fact, detracts from explorations of the territory. Greetings Lotusaware, What you say about dogma has in an element of truth. However that element of truth only applies to a debased journalistic use of the word 'dogma'. In its primary meaning 'dogma' refers to a doctrinal system and not merely any arrogantly held opinion. In the C.O.D. the definition of 'dogmatic' is given as " a. of dogma(s) doctrinal; based on a priori principles, not on induction..." Examples of dogma would be the doctrine of reincarnation, karma, the Trinity, Avatar, Incarnation, Monotheism, Immaculate Conception etc. The process seems to be - a vaguely held inchoate pattern of belief over ages and sages seems to settle down into a fixed form which comes to be a tenet of a religion. The elaboration of its inner workings and the establishment of its coherence with the rest of the tenets of that faith is generally the work of Pandits, Mullahs and theologians. The shifting sands of these discussions are often referred to as doctrine ie.'what is taught'. It is when 'dogma' becomes confused with science, which has an inductive base, that the trouble begins. Its true purpose, I believe, should be a way of focussing on the mystery beyond The Trinity (Tripura Rahasya). We need something on which to initially fix our attention. Becoming absorbed in that we live in it and pass beyond it. I think its finally a good thing but if we quarrel over it we have missed the point. Best Wishes, Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2003 Report Share Posted July 13, 2003 Greetings Michael, advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...> wrote: > It is when 'dogma' becomes confused with science, which > has an inductive base, that the trouble begins. Its > true purpose, I believe, should be a way of focussing > on the mystery beyond The Trinity (Tripura Rahasya). > We need something on which to initially fix our > attention. Becoming absorbed in that we live in it and > pass beyond it. I think its finally a good thing but > if we quarrel over it we have missed the point. > > Best Wishes, Michael. Thank you for making most excellent points, in particular about induction and transcendence. To view dogma as a point of focus is most productive. My primary concern derives from my experience of those who make dogma a "box" into which consciousness and "reality" are supposed to fit, in exactly the terms in which the dogma is expressed. A proper view in my opinion is given by the Buddha in the Kalama Sutra in which he says in paraphrase, "Examine this, if it fits your needs live in it, if not, move on finding that which is better for you." One may need to live in a box for a while until one outgrows it, then one needs to be free to move beyond its limitations. Your concept of dogma as being a point of focus is most open, then the "dogma box" has doors and windows, open to larger realities than the words and labels. Thank you for point this out. lotusaware Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2003 Report Share Posted July 14, 2003 >"lotusaware" <lotusaware > Re: Dogma >Sun, 13 Jul 2003 02:03:11 -0000 >Go visit the : Sanga and Dhamma-List >Read their posts for a while. >Then go visit the Abhidhamma Group. >You can then answer the question yourself. >The primary area on which many will agree, and which will take the >mystery out of the teachings which create so much "dogmatic" >discussion is simply... >"The map is not the territory." I guess I could answer my own question but I was really asking for an Advaitin point of view. Many western Buddhists cite dogmatism as one of their reasons for leaving Christianity so I thought it was ironic that western Advaitins say the same thing about Buddhism. I also think that many western Buddhists would not see themselves as dogmatic, hence the importance of perspective, ie that it is helpful to hear other points of view. >ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva > Dogma >Sun, 13 Jul 2003 15:13:53 +0100 >Greetings Lotusaware, >What you say about dogma has in an element of truth. >However that element of truth only applies to a >debased journalistic use of the word 'dogma'. In its >primary meaning 'dogma' refers to a doctrinal system >and not merely any arrogantly held opinion. In the >C.O.D. the definition of 'dogmatic' is given as " a. >of dogma(s) doctrinal; based on a priori principles, >not on induction..." > >Examples of dogma would be the doctrine of >reincarnation, karma, the Trinity, Avatar, >Incarnation, Monotheism, Immaculate Conception etc. Michael is of course right that the orginal meaning of the word dogma is something like 'tenet' and that the derogatory sense of dogma implies a certain close-minded attitude to the tenets of one's own religion. So I guess there is a fine line - I mean when does a tenet become a dogma in the derogatory sense? If one avers one's own religious tradition - Advaita or anything else - to be the highest truth, how does one avoid the accusation of dogmatism? Again it's a kind of balance - I mean open-mindednes is probably considered a postive quality but then open-mindedness to (as in welcoming) erroneous views would not be good! Charles _______________ Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.