Can we consider any core Buddhist teaching as dogma?

Question

Can we consider the four noble truth or any other core teachings in Buddhism as dogmas that we should accept, or could be learn/understand reality only by experience and mindfulness? Is it possible to come to any other conclusions by meditating and practicing mindfulness? I see dogma as a principle incontrovertibly true. Thanks a lot.

Answer 1

The Buddha said that we should not take his word as truth if it doesn't match up with our own experience. The test, then, is this: do the Four Noble Truths match with observable experience, or are they rules to be taken on blind faith? To simplify: is this a rule, or is it merely an observation? Do we have to accept on blind faith that this is the way things are? The Buddha himself said that was not the case. Thus, it's not a dogma.

The should part of your question implies judgment. Is it a judgment to call something a truth? Could we not say that they are in fact a part of a process, and not actually true or false, but merely steps to be taken? Thus:

1. There is suffering.
2. There is identification of suffering.
3. There is overcoming of suffering.
4. There is no suffering.

...could be a guide to how to overcome suffering--and is in fact an early form of self-therapy that we might say is an early foundation for modern psychology.

The "truths" aren't actually true or false in the sense of being true or being false; they are more in the sense of being faithful to the ideal of overcoming suffering.

There is, however, a dogma I've run into in Buddhism: the dogma of having no dogmas. It's almost a rule that we should avoid having dogmas of any kind (especially in forms of Zen and Chan Buddhism, though Soto Zen tends to take this to kind of an extreme, in my experience).

So if you take a leap of faith and believe something blindly, you're somehow a "bad Buddhist". But not taking a leap of faith is also a dogma.

Fun little conundrum, isn't it? :)

Answer 2

"A principle incontrovertibly true" is not a dogma. E.g. in math the principle of associativity -- a + (b + c) = (a + b) + c -- is incontrovertibly true, so what? A principle must be "incontrovertibly true" within some domain -- otherwise it would be useless.

Instead, dogma is a thesis to be taken on blind faith, with no logical proof nor practical evidence. Another definition of dogma is a thesis mistakenly absolutized outside of domain where it is legitimately valid.

As any science, Buddhism -- the science of Liberation -- has its principles, its truths. And within the context of Buddhism they better be true -- otherwise we'd have to throw them away!

But yeah, we have to be careful not to take Buddhist truths as dogmas. Which means two things: 1) by all means try and map what it really means that e.g. "the origin of dukkha is craving" onto one's direct experience; and 2) not unwittingly absolutize e.g. the celibacy precept for monks to mean that procreation in general is bad.

Answer 3

I have been searching for the supporting text: Here is one quotation: http://thinkexist.com/quotation/do_not_believe_in_anything_simply_because_you/12103.html

“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.” Buddha quotes (Hindu Prince Gautama Siddharta, the founder of Buddhism, 563-483 B.C.)

An almost identical text is also quoted at http://www.noble-buddhism-beliefs.com/buddha-quotes.html

Shakyamuni Buddha taught monks sermons on the four noble truths and other precepts. My memories are that the Buddha encourages people to take the precepts, study them, try to incorporate them into a meditation practice and finally into one's life.

the online dictionary in google also defines dogma

"a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority {emphasis mine} as incontrovertibly true."

I have never studied or read a teacher that speaks of incontrovertible [not able to be denied or disputed]. truth in Buddhist literature. The Dalai Lama talks about monks debating all aspects of Buddhist precepts to strengthen their understanding. Discussion and debate are part of the path, including this website.

Dogma also implies a certain blind acceptance of statements without thoroughly digesting them and struggling with them. Buddhism does have principles but by swallowing them whole you will only get spiritual indigestion. Taking one principle and putting it into practice is a more effective strategy than trying to swallow the fish whole.

It is possible to come to conclusions by meditating and practicing mindfulness, but what you will find out is waiting for your experience to reveal with its fruit. The truth is not in the words, the truth is in non-attachment to everything that impedes a direct experience of what is.

Answer 4

Given this definition of "dogma"

a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true

If the four noble truths were "dogma", that would mean that statements which deny the four noble truths would not be called Buddhist, and doctrines which denies the four noble truths would not be Buddhism.

Texts like the Kalama Sutta imply that Buddhist doctrine is meant to be helpful, and good to experience:

When adopted & carried out, they lead to welfare & to happiness.

I'd like to say that Buddhist doctrine is not dogmatic, but there are places where the Buddha says that he's perfectly sure that what he says is true.

In the comments to other answers I was trying to understand, whether "dogma" is "blind faith", or whether our personal experience is that it's "incontrovertibly true", or whether Buddhist doctrine defines it as "incontrovertibly true" by definition.

There are places, times, roles for "faith" in Buddhism -- see:

• Wikipedia's article about Faith in Buddhism
• The second half of this answer (describing faith in Buddhism) and other answers to that question

I was wondering about the cause-and-effect of it:

• Do we believe it only after we experience it to be true?
• Or must we believe it even before we experience it to be true?

Looking in the Kalama Sutta to see how or whether the Buddha "proves" his doctrine, IMO the following is where that argument has a hinge. Immediately after this paragraph,

Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in doubt. When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born. So in this case, 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 qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' — then you should abandon them.

There is this:

"What do you think, Kalamas? When greed arises in a person, does it arise for welfare or for harm?"

"For harm, lord."

My guess is that's an example of dependent co-arising, of the Kalamas' previous experience (or their understanding of "greed") being combined with the Buddha's question. So they accept his doctrine.

You might agree that they were right to accept his doctrine: that their choice was skillfully made.

But I'm not sure you can call it "incontrovertibly true" that greed arises for harm and not for welfare. Some modern people might argue that people's economic desires are what drive and shape the free market. That, for example, the "greed" of the founders of StackExchange is a reason why this site exists.

You could counter that argument by saying, "that's not greed: that's right livelihood."

Still I suppose that doctrine is not "incontrovertibly true". Instead some people choose it etc., and it requires skill (right view, wisdom, etc.) to apply it properly.

I think that Vishwa Jay's answer suggests that it's a way, a guide (or several guidelines), a recipe.

Answer 5

On paper, Buddhism has no dogma, and the Kalama Sutra is often cited as evidence of this. Other teachings with a non-dogmatic flavor are...

• The Parable of the Poisoned Arrow
• The Parable of the Raft
• The Fetter of Views

However, is this true in practice? How do most Buddhist react to dogma? What happens when you walk into a Buddhist Temple (or forum) and express doubt about the Buddha's enlightenment, the nature of Nirvana, Rebirth, Karma and so on? My experience has been that dogma rears its ugly head then.

In fact, one can read some dogmatism into the Wisdom part of the 8-fold path, as some state that belief in Karma and Rebirth are a key part of wisdom. For that matter, some people treat the 4 Noble Truths as propositions to be believed. What if you were to look into your experience and find that the 4 Noble Truths don't hold? Would a typical Buddhist accept this? Would s/he instead claim that the 4 Noble Truths are some kind of law (which sounds suspiciously dogmatic)?

This should come as no surprise. Dogma is a style of thinking, not a particular body of thought. Therefore, nothing is immune. There are dogmatic people of every stripe -- Christian, atheist, Buddhist, scientific, etc... People tend to cling to views, put a premium on believing "the right" things, and react badly to skepticism.

Buddhism isn't magical. It's a philosophy (or religion, depending on your view) and the sangha is made up of people. And people have the same shortcomings everywhere. There's nothing about being Buddhist that magically makes the sangha immune to the rest of the follies that plague humanity.