What is dogma? - Approaching dogma and dogmatism

The concept of dogma has come up recently on a number of occasions, portrayed both in negative light, as narrow-minded insubstantiality, and in positive light, as an article of true faith and orthodoxy.

A dictionary definition of the word reads as follows (M-W Online):


Evidently we use the term in a plurality of ways, and often end up misunderstanding each other. How do we perceive dogma? How do we relate to dogma?

The entry for dogmatism is also relevant:


That vividly captures the negative aspects we often associate with the word dogma.

I believe one can have faith in dogma, when defined as "a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church (or a body of sages, such as the Gosvamins of Vrindavan)", without being dogmatic as defined above.

How do we approach dogma without being dogmatic? Approaching dogma while challenging dogmatism is often taken as a challenge of the dogma itself.

If such negative associations did not exist, I would translate the word "siddhanta" as dogma.

Dogma is about the realm of chosen beliefs of a community. Dogmatism is about trying to impose those beliefs.

A community has to be voluntary. Since dogmas are by definition somewhat unverifiable, they cannot be imposed. Appeals to authority are inevitably problematic.

In a modern, multicultural world, this is especially true.

As far as this website is concerned, it explores dogma, but I would rather it were not dogmatic in approach.

This means that we should be sensitive to the beliefs (or non-beliefs) of others who participate in this community. Respect other people's God-given life experience that has led them to the conclusions they have come to.

We should not try to impose our own beliefs through bullying of any kind.

If you really think that you have some insight that will be the salvation of others, then find out a method that will communicate this insight. Master the techniques of persuasion and detachment. Read Dale Carnegie or something.

On the other hand, it may be necessary to impose rules to preserve the community. This is another realm that has nothing to do with dogma, but everything to do with "law and order."

Acceptance of dogma should be based on the recognition of its value through understanding its essential import and the rationale behind it. There is little merit in accepting dogma because it is expected of one. Such acceptance carries little integrity with it.

By demanding people to conform to the established dogmata, by making them feel they are expected to accept what is presented, are we are creating fragile individuals. That is, if they accept the dogma to begin with.

Personally my mood is to encourage people to freely explore matters of philosophy and theology, to encourage them to seek the highest understanding available. I personally have deep faith in the precepts of Caitanya and his followers, and believe that people will find them deep and beautiful. I believe people will truly appreciate the dogma they have presented only it is carefully studied and its great merits are recognized. Acceptance without understanding, though certainly better than nothing at all, is unlikely to carry one all that far.

I agree: Though Chaitanya Vaishnavism has dogmatic traditions and expectations, we have to take an attitude that is more in conformity with our age.

I equate the dogmatic attitude with kanishtha adhikara. Many of us who have been through Iskcon are well aware of the cult mentality of the true believer.

Historically, all things change. Vaishnava dharma is no different. There is no reason to think that we are bound to every last principle that was written down in the tenth, fifteen or even twentieth century. We are endowed with reason to illuminate the realizations of the spirit. These have come to us through our parampara, but if the parampara is to live, we must infuse it with life through our own living realizations, which come to us through study, our experience in the real world, meditation or spiritual practice, and discussion.

Dogma is pejoratively those beliefs that are held without such background.

I'm not sure how available I will be for continued discussion, but this is a very interesting topic and I thought I throw my two cents in anyway.

Following the definitions outlined by Jagat:

It seems that unless one remains open-minded about one's own beliefs--willing to queston and continually explore those beliefs--one runs the risk of becoming dogmatic. It appears that as one progresses in spiritual understanding those beliefs expand and perhaps take on new meanings, which may naturally lead one to re-examine what he or she previously thought. Aspects of personally held truths that we thought we had a grasp on suddenly have new dimemsions. Being open about these possiblities and dogmatic (in the unsympathetic proselytising sense) at the same time hardly seems possible.

Enemy of religion

“There is little of what we call dogma in the Buddha's teaching. With a breadth of view rare in that age and not common in ours he refuses to stifle criticism. Intolerance seemed to him the greatest enemy of religion.”

Dr. S Radhakrishnan, "Gautama The Buddha"

Proselytization can take place in a more organic fashion than the "total conversion" model. Where the community is one that places emphasis on personal growth and sharing values, it should expand.

Those with condescending attitudes are often dismissive of the beliefs of others and the personal experiences that brought them to their present beliefs. Being unsympathetic certainly doesn't make others particularly receptive to the things one may have to share.

Can anyone explain to me the rationale behind the endless line of substances forbidden to take according to the various scriptures (mushroom, eggplant, this or that bean, onion, garlic, eggs, carrots, tea, chocolate, ad infinitum)? No matter how hard I try, I simply see no difference between the spiritual stage of people who eat carrots and who don't, so I tend to see these regulations as dogmas, unless of course I receive some convincing and rational explanation.

Agreed. The "all or nothing", "with us or against us" approach is ineffective and above all, impersonal. It fails to create an environment for genuinely open and honest exchanges between persons.

Now let's be careful with the use of the word dogma, Openmind. If such a thing is well established, proven and sensible, it is still dogma, or a doctrine. Dogma does not only mean something we believe without a rational reason.

Basically everything the Gosvamins wrote are dogma (1a) and (2), since (1a) definite authoritative tenets, and (2) a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church (tradition).

However, whether they are (1c), a points of view or tenets put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds, depends largely on the context. If you use the word dogma exclusively in that sense, I would suggest you specify it as "unfounded dogma" or something along those lines to not obfuscate the meaning.

I don't have a problem with the word dogma, I think Jagat is right, it means the central teachings. The word cult can have negative connotations though many good organizations can be deemed cults...

I do have a problem with dogmatism. As the definition describes
1 : positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or arrogant
2 : a viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently examined premises

#1 makes one feel that the dogmatic person is unreasonable. Discussion no longer honors ideas. Discussion with a dogmatic person does not increase our understanding, inform us or broaden our outlook on the subject of conversation. It just makes us uncomfortable and shuts down the exchange of ideas.

#2 implies the kanishta mentality. As Bhaktivinoda puts it, the komala shraddha has tender faith. Generally one with such tender faith has a very small grasp of the philosophy and promotes their viewpoint as absolute in order to protect that tender faith. One professor I recently had made the point that as we become more and more educated we realize that we know less and less. That is why I think the madhyama is (again Bhaktivinoda) "plagued with religious doubt". Their conviction does not have a false layer to stand on and shout down at others.