Buddhist Doctrines vs. Dogmas
I cringed a bit when I stumbled onto a religion forum discussing the proposition "Buddhism is compatible with any other religious belief: Why or why not?" However, most of the responses are well informed, I thought. I especially liked this response (and the LOLcat signature line).
Several of the commenters emphasize the role of dogma in the Abrahamic religions and observe that Buddhism generally is "softer" about doctrines, letting people come to their own understanding of many issues. This is generally true, but I think it's important to remind ourselves why it is true.
Belief in the truth of doctrines is enormously important in the Abrahamic religions. Doctrines themselves are considered authoritative because they are thought to have come from God, and the grace of God is the source of all blessings and salvation.
But the historical Buddha realized Suchness -- I'm coming to appreciate that term -- through his own efforts, and the doctrines he taught are guiding means for others to realize Suchness. Salvation is found in this realization, not by the grace of something separate from yourself. Simply believing in some doctrine of prajna is pointless; only insight is transformative.
For this reason, in most dharma centers no one is going to stand over you and tell you that you must believe this and not that. They'll tell you only to hold beliefs very lightly and be ready to let go of them when insight tells you to let go. This is true not because Buddhism is softer about doctrines, but because this is the nature of Buddhism.
This approach seems to give some westerners the impression that doctrines are optional. Well, they are optional in the sense that Buddhism itself is optional, but if you choose to practice Buddhism the doctrines are very important.
Barbara, I have to say I do not agree with the thrust of this post. I’m not so interested in your defense Buddhism against dogmas, doctrines, schools of thought; other lions, tigers and bears oh my.
More interested in a road to travel and the example of fellow travelers.
More light please less huffing and puffing.
Steve, this is a Buddhism blog, not a generic New Age Mush blog. You are welcome to accept or reject anything presented here, as it pleases you, but the purpose of the site is to explain and explore Buddhism. And that’s what I do.
There are a number of blog posts which I disagree with Barbara either in part or in whole (the Grandma Scenario is a big one for me), but I agree with this post completely. Debate about the nature of the path can be just as useful as walking the path. It can prevent someone from getting lost completely.
Of course, not everyone will be interested in such debates, and those that are not interested are free to skip it and read the next article that doesn’t involve debate.
Personally, I find the subject of the co-mingling of Buddhism and of religions fascinating. Several weeks ago, I saw Robert Thurman speak at Naropa. He discussed this phenomena and spoke about how it is beneficial to Buddhists because 1) any mindfulness practice brings great benefit, whether you are Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, etc and 2) anyone who kinda-sorta considers himself a Buddhist (a JuBu, ChrisBu, HinBu, etc) just helps to raise our “numbers” and better establish Buddhism in the West. Anyone who has searched for Buddhists on a singles site knows that the numbers just aren’t there. (Obviously I’m paraphrasing. Mr. Thurman is more than welcome to tell me that I wasn’t being mindful enough during his lecture).
Barbara, on the other hand, seems to take the stand that such a mixing of philosophies can have a negative impact on Buddhism. There’s usually a large amount of hand-waving that has to happen in order for Buddhist philosophies and other philosophies to happily co-exist. If that hand-waving becomes commonly accepted truth, then one is no longer practicing Buddha-Dharma, but some hodge-podge which brings temporal happiness as everyone gets along a little bit better, ultimately no one gets enlightened.
So I say “Debate away, Barbara!”
Basic Buddhist dogmas:
(1) All functioning phenomena and persons lack inherent existence and are ultimately ‘unfindable’ upon analysis. Their existence depends solely upon
(i) causes
(ii) structural relationships with other phenomena, and
(iii) mental imputation.
(2) Since functioning phenomena and persons exist dependently upon causes and changeable structural relationships, they are necessarily impermanent.
(3) However, out of mistaken understanding (ignorance), the mind regards phenomena and persons as being permanently and inherently pleasant or unpleasant, and develops aversion and attachment towards the things or persons ‘in themselves’. All emotions which are contaminated by aversion and attachment are ultimately aspects of suffering.
(4) Only a mind that has fully realised the lack of inherent existence of all phenomena and persons will be free from suffering.
… any more?
Actually I’m not sure that dogma is actually the right word. If we regard the Buddha as a doctor, then the Four Seals (above) are the diagnosis, and the Eightfold Path is (part of) the treatment.
During our weekly dharma study one of the questions that sometimes crop up is whether there is a possibility of Christianity and Buddhism merging. The only instance where something close to a merger happened (and as far as I know) is Zen (Buddhism and Taoism). Buddhism did not merge with Hinduism (although some followers acknowledge the Buddha as an incarnation of Krishna or Vishnu) and developed as a separate Path on its won.
The difficulty of Christianity or even Judaism and Islam standing on equal footing with Buddhism is the unshakeable belief of the Abrahamic religions in a Supreme Being. The other day I was discussing meditation with a Catholic colleague of mine and he (a very intelligent person) could not grasp the emptiness principle (“where is God”) or the fact that during meditation you concentrate on the breath; he still want to meditate on God. He is a sincere follower of his religion, but it became clear to me that whilst one cling very strongly onto a God, it would be difficult to approach or consider Buddhism on its own terms. In the West we would have to realise (and accept) the fact that Buddhism and the other Abrahamic religions would have to co-exist as two separate “religions”. During a brief visit to Kuala Lumpur I noticed interestingly the relatively peaceful co-existence of Buddhism and Islam.
All peaceful co-existence (whatever its nature) is good for me.
The only instance where something close to a merger happened (and as far as I know) is Zen (Buddhism and Taoism).
Even then, what eventually was created was a Buddhist school enhanced by Taoist philosophy.
Barbara,
Sorry no advocacy her re generic New Age Mush, I think you don’t understand my comment or set-up a straw man argument.
Let me be al little clearer. I don’t think Buddhism needs attack/defense journalism. You seem determined to defend something against someone.
In my view Buddhism needs nothing, doesn’t need anyone, surely doesn’t need journos sniffy or otherwise tarting up columns with attack/defend victimology.
It might be valuable to hear about your practice, but not your current column. If you have something to say please speak plainly into the microphone.
Steve Har — I don’t see where you see “attack/defend victimology.” I was essentially agreeing with some comments on another blog, just clarifying a point. I’m not allowed to clarify points?
I also disagree, very strongly, that Buddhism doesn’t need defenders. Three-fourths of what I see written about it on the web is downright wrong or misleading, and this is where a lot of people are getting their information. Most of my readers seem to appreciate the corrections.
It might be valuable to hear about your practice,
Probably not, actually. It’s not that remarkable.
but not your current column. If you have something to say please speak plainly into the microphone.
I have plenty to say, and when something needs to be said (in my judgment), I do say it. If this blog doesn’t interest you, you may take your eyes elsewhere.
In re: Basic Buddhist Dogmas
Sean, I’m not sure I agree with your characterization.
1) Dependant Origination doesn’t really mean a lack of inherent existance. Things are, even if they provisional.
2) I’ll agree about the impermanence thing.
3) While delusion is a foundation of suffering, emotion is not. You don’t have to be a robot to be a Buddha.
4) Nichiren says, “Suffer what there is to suffer and enjoy what there is to enjoy.” Even the Buddha experiences suffering and joy; being a Buddha means being fully human, experiencing all the joys and sorrows but with understanding and appreciation. “Then you’ll know the true joy of the Law!”
If this isn’t your understanding, that’s fine; this is where I’m at after 30+ years of practice. Seems to me that it’s not a dogma of Buddhism after all.
That all phenomena lack intrinsic existence or identity is a foundational teaching of Mahayana Buddhism. In fact, it is the most basic differentiation between Mahayana and Theravada, which understands anatta (”no self”) somewhat differently. I believe the Lotus Sutra acknowledges emptiness but does not emphasize it as much as some of the other Mahayana sutras.
We don’t really talk about this kind of stuff as such; we’re mostly interested in practical Buddhism and integrating it into our lives. The theory is there, but it’s not emphasized. Matter of fact, I’d have to think more about it to explain it in terms of Nichiren’s writings.