The Importance of Dogma

[Sha'irullah]

Now amongst the Dharmic faiths (Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism) there is a lot of scripture and texts. But quite a a bit of it is based on oral traditions and interpretations. Abrahamic faiths rely on orthodoxy and a stead firm reliance on the supremacy of holy doctrine.
Although I have the title Muslim stuck to my religious affiliation I personally admit I find very little need in scriptures or dogma of any kind. Mystic revelation and deistic understanding of god is more important so scriptures should not be taken literally or with the mindset that a "Holy Book' is infallible. All holy books where written with a time frame (usually thousands of years ago) and a specific culture. So ALL religious texts has limited understanding and relevance to others since they were all written in a specific language (that not everyone speaks) and within a culture that is not relevant to another's.

Do you think that dogma is important to religion? Do you think that the infallibility of your scriptures are important and must be taken with absolute authority in regards to god?
Especially amongst Hindus I would like to know if you view your scriptures as absolute and relevant to all of mankind.

 

[Madhuri]

I basically have the same understanding as you. I think that dogma can be a set-back as is taking things too literally. The words are less important than the meaning behind them.

 

[Vinayaka]

Especially amongst Hindus I would like to know if you view your scriptures as absolute and relevant to all of mankind.

Some Hindus do. Some Hindus don't. We are a billion people, clustered in as many mindset groups as all the Abrahamics combined.

 

[Jainarayan]

Do you think that dogma is important to religion? Do you think that the infallibility of your scriptures are important and must be taken with absolute authority in regards to god?

Not to my way of thinking. In the beginning of my conversion to Hinduism I was caught up in the do's and don't's, must do this ritual, must do this puja, must, must, must, because people said scriptures said so. But then you find other people, scholars and teachers who say "pfft, that's not what it means".

Especially amongst Hindus I would like to know if you view your scriptures as absolute and relevant to all of mankind.

In a way, because they have truths that transcend cultures and religious faiths. But so do all scriptures. All scriptures have truths and errors. That's somethng Gandhi even said. Are they equal in their truths and errors? Not in my opinion.

 

[Maya3]

I dont think they should be taken litteraly, like you said they were written by a certain group of people in a certain geogrhafical area thousands of years ago, we have evolved a lot since then.

Maya

 

[Secret Chief]

The pointing finger is not the moon. However the finger is used to point at the moon, so it is not to be rejected. The moon is reality, and therefore beyond concepts, and therefore beyond words.

 

[crossfire]

The pointing finger is not the moon. However the finger is used to point at the moon, so it is not to be rejected. The moon is reality, and therefore beyond concepts, and therefore beyond words.

Frubal! :bow:

(after I spread some more around....)

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Frubal! :bow:

(after I spread some more around....)

I got him one too.

To answer the question, I think Magog did a superb job of explaining the Buddhist viewpoint. The scriptures are a useful guide, to help on on the path, but not the be-all end-all of the religion. Unlike most religions, which have at least a part of their scriptures as a type of divine revelation from a higher being, the Buddhist scriptures are the teachings of a man who reached enlightenment by his own power. There's a great deal more flexibility in the way one approaches and interprets them than in other religions.

 

[mohinishaktidevi]

I think that dogma can be a set-back

The Musical 'fiddler on the roof' has a song "Tradition".

'Parampara' and 'sampradayas' are Tradition.

But what I find mind boggling is that so many westerners where annoyed that Hare Krishnas were seen at the airports asking for donations in return for Bhagavad gitas and other scriptural tracts.

But now so much brain power is invested in reading and learning the Quran by security minded institutions in the west.

What is always seems to happen with dogma is that no one bothers to read what it says.

Leave Dogma behind and actually read what it says in our scripture for our selves.

 

[Treks]

From what I can tell, dharmic scriptures are more about God and less about the mundane than the scriptures of non-Dharmic religions. I think most of the dogma is cultural or comes along with a certain groups traditions or interpretations.

Obviously in Sikhi the Guru Granth Sahib is held in highest esteem, but not as an 'infallible guide to science of the world, politics, and culture' as I've seen (personally) the Abrahamic scriptures sometimes attribute to themselves. Guru Granth Sahib is very concerned with the individual and their relationship to the Creator and about being a good person, which I think transcends time and space.

Within each religion and scripture we should be able to find these gems of timeless divine wisdom, which is the core truth, common to all of us.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Not to my way of thinking. In the beginning of my conversion to Hinduism I was caught up in the do's and don't's, must do this ritual, must do this puja, must, must, must, because people said scriptures said so. But then you find other people, scholars and teachers who say "pfft, that's not what it means".

In a way, because they have truths that transcend cultures and religious faiths. But so do all scriptures. All scriptures have truths and errors. That's somethng Gandhi even said. Are they equal in their truths and errors? Not in my opinion.

People become confused as to how a person can view all(technically most) gods as singular. No religion is one or alike but the deity most often is unless you are a devil-worshiper which is a whole other story.
All understandings of god arose in a culture and even the Quran mentions this. Islamic Tawhid literally translates to unify or oneness. So from this my "unifying" monotheism is established.

 

[Vinayaka]

People become confused as to how a person can view all(technically most) gods as singular. No religion is one or alike but the deity most often is unless you are a devil-worshiper which is a whole other story.
All understandings of god arose in a culture and even the Quran mentions this. Islamic Tawhid literally translates to unify or oneness. So from this my "unifying" monotheism is established.

There are two kinds of monotheism: exclusive, and inclusive. Exclusive is the Abrahamic version, no other Gods except mine, (excluding all other gods)

Inclusive is the dharmic version ... One Supreme God, which also is inclusive of other Gods (some say 'gods')

I cannot say for sure if I think Siva is the same as the Abrahamic God because I don't know enough about the Abrahamic god.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Dogma tends to set a firm structure. It can provide a first initial step in a particular direction, but not always practical givin the fluidity and dynamics of life and living.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I have mixed feelings on the subject of Dogma. The importance of formulating an orderly, rational, and coherent system of thought and belief is very important to any path. At the same time, my ideal is that my coherent thought system is self destructive. Thought is to be torn apart. The search is for That which is beyond thought.

 

[Jainarayan]

I cannot say for sure if I think Siva is the same as the Abrahamic God because I don't know enough about the Abrahamic god.

As I've said repeatedly in the past, having been on both sides of the fence, I think I have a unique perspective. The true, and I mean true aspect of the Abrahamic God is not unlike Shiva and/or Vishnu as having unbounded love and being within the hearts and souls of every being, desiring the "salvation" or liberation of all souls, not barbecuing them in hell. I've never read the Qur'an, but I'll wager that the same can be said of Allah.The concept of the angry old man in the sky with the long white beard is akin to the stories told to naughty children about the boogie man. It's ******** propagated by ignorant and controlling people. But people cling to them.

Jesus said that not a sparrow falls from the sky without God knowing about it (but God did not kill the bird). In the Sermon on the Mount he says that as evil as men can be, what father would hand his son a serpent instead of a fish, or a rock instead of bread? "Therefore, evil as you are, if you know how to give good things to your children, how much more good things will your Father in Heaven give to you?" The stories in the Old Testament about an angry vengeful and bloody God are rejected by modern biblical scholars as nothing more than being taken out of context of the times and environment, and being heavily influenced by other Mesopotamian myths.

I know you don't believe Jesus existed, but someone came up with what he said, so his existence or non-existence is really a non-issue. A good book I always recommend is The Sermon on the Mount According to Vedanta by Swami Prabhavananda. It's a short and to-the-point encapsulation of the description of God. Swami Prabhavananda, Paramahansa Yogananda, Swami Vivekananda, Sri Ramakrishna, and others of those lines are often denounced as "universalists", but they have some pretty interesting insights. Even reading some excerpts from their writings can put things into perspective.

So why did I not stay with Christianity? Because I don't hold with the mainstream tenets. Congregations that have my views are either non-existence or few and far between. Don't misunderstand that I'm trying to do anything other than dispel some of the bad press the Abrahamic God has gotten over the milennia.

 

[Vinayaka]

Well I do remember some discussions with Christians on it. One was in the early 70s while hitchhiking. When I said, "God is this road," I almost got dumped out for being blasphemous. So not all Christians share your perspective. I think, in Hindu terms, Abrahamism is very dualistic.

Yet another time, a 'liberal' Catholic, and a fundamentalist, (both colleagues,) and I were having a discussion. The catholic thought it was the same God, but she never asked of my understanding of God, the fundamentalist made it very clear I was worshipping Satan and going to hell, and I basically just observed, saying very little. So I leave it up to others to think a lot about it, if they wish. In day to day sadhana, it affects me very little in my quest to merge with Siva.

 

[Jainarayan]

There are a lot of very liberal Catholics. In fact they are drifting so far from church dogma the RCC is making tv adverts to "come home". The fundies give everyone a bad name.

 

[Vinayaka]

I think a lot of times people are polite, and this veils what they truly think. (I'm an example. Rarely does anyone find out what I really think. There's no real point in getting into shouting matches or having hurt feelings all around.) Most people have enough common sense to not discuss religion much. So often we have to sit down and have a real discussion. For example, as the saying goes, "when push comes to shove ..." So I really think that if you get right down to the nitty gritty, Abrahamic and Dharmic concept of God is quite different. It's just so tough to do that for all the aforementioned reasons. I had another colleague who I knew was Pentecostal. She knew I was a Hindu. For personal and professional reasons, and out of total respect for each other as teachers and educators and friends, any serious religious discussion may have terminated our fantastic friendship. So there was an unspoken rule that we each followed to the tee.

Certainly the goals of life are very different in the two, many other concepts are different (burial versus cremation, vegetarianism, etc, etc,) so I have no real reason to believe our concepts of God aren't very different as well.

 

[Sha'irullah]

As I've said repeatedly in the past, having been on both sides of the fence, I think I have a unique perspective. The true, and I mean true aspect of the Abrahamic God is not unlike Shiva and/or Vishnu as having unbounded love and being within the hearts and souls of every being, desiring the "salvation" or liberation of all souls, not barbecuing them in hell. I've never read the Qur'an, but I'll wager that the same can be said of Allah.The concept of the angry old man in the sky with the long white beard is akin to the stories told to naughty children about the boogie man. It's ******** propagated by ignorant and controlling people. But people cling to them.

Jesus said that not a sparrow falls from the sky without God knowing about it (but God did not kill the bird). In the Sermon on the Mount he says that as evil as men can be, what father would hand his son a serpent instead of a fish, or a rock instead of bread? "Therefore, evil as you are, if you know how to give good things to your children, how much more good things will your Father in Heaven give to you?" The stories in the Old Testament about an angry vengeful and bloody God are rejected by modern biblical scholars as nothing more than being taken out of context of the times and environment, and being heavily influenced by other Mesopotamian myths.

I know you don't believe Jesus existed, but someone came up with what he said, so his existence or non-existence is really a non-issue. A good book I always recommend is The Sermon on the Mount According to Vedanta by Swami Prabhavananda. It's a short and to-the-point encapsulation of the description of God. Swami Prabhavananda, Paramahansa Yogananda, Swami Vivekananda, Sri Ramakrishna, and others of those lines are often denounced as "universalists", but they have some pretty interesting insights. Even reading some excerpts from their writings can put things into perspective.

So why did I not stay with Christianity? Because I don't hold with the mainstream tenets. Congregations that have my views are either non-existence or few and far between. Don't misunderstand that I'm trying to do anything other than dispel some of the bad press the Abrahamic God has gotten over the milennia.

Abrahamic God has gotten over the milennia.[/QUOTE]
Well one of the names of Allah is Ar Raman which means The Compassionate and another is As Salaam which means The Peaceful. I would not consider the god in the Quran angry or associated as a man with a white beard. Even fundamentalist Christians don't display their god like this all the time. People will always use the verses of their holy books that fit their agenda. Using fear to acquire people to a way of thinking is a very old trick and not exclusive to religion either.

 

[Jainarayan]

There are big differences, yes. From where I sit, from a historical perspective, not scriptural, most of those differences need not have arisen, except for what I consider cultural. Of course now it is what it is because of the agenda of those in control of the early church, and the memes passed down through the centuries.

Burial v. cremation, vegetarianism v. meat-eating: those are primarily cultural. Remember, where the Abrahamic religions grew was in a harsh desert climate that relied heavily on animals for sustenance, specifically goats and sheep, much as the Tibetans, even being Buddhists rely on the yak for meat as well as wool, milk, butter, yogurt. Wood for cremation was scarce in the Middle East, and was primarily used for fuel. Now, I'm only putting those things into a historical context. I do not believe there is anything scriptural for or against any of those, except for the OT animal sacrifices. Even though the RCC condemned cremation for centuries, in the last few decades, it has declared it is no longer impermissible. See, so much dogma is man-made.

I agree that polite people keep their thoughts to themselves. At least to the extent they don't proselytize. There's the old saying that there are three things to never discuss: religion, politics and other men's wives. But there's no reason to not compare and contrast politely. I was at a birthday party today where I was chatting with a husband and wife; she is a practicing Jew, he is a practicing RC. When they go to church, she sits or stands there quietly; when they go to synagogue for holidays, he wears a yarmulke and fades in respectfully. I take umbrage with Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons and other evangelicals asking me if I've found God, and can they help me to find him. Why? Was he misplaced? I had a running conversation on another board with a very fundamentalist and literalist Christian. Neither one of us was going to sway the other, so we agreed to disagree. Even after he said he respected my religious beliefs, "as far off as they are". But we respect each other and having gotten that out of the way, we don't talk about it anymore.