Is It Good to Be Doctrinally Correct?

[Tathagata]

I say for the most part, yes. I have noticed that many here seem to advocate a form of religion/spirituality that is not based firmly in doctrine and I have seen in some instances where adherence to doctrine is actually looked down upon.

I will note however that I don't advocate a strict and narrow adherence to doctrine either because it is obvious that there are parts of scripture that seem supect and we have to discern what is in line with the overall tone of the doctrine and there are some parts that shouldn't be taken literally.

The real problem arises when you have people who claim:

"I'm Buddhist and I advocate x." but 'x' is nowhere to be found in Buddhist doctrine and is in fact in direct contradiction to multiple passages in scripture.

Or

"I'm Christian and I am against y." but 'y' is actually condoned several times in the Bible found in several passages.


Do you agree that it's better to be doctrinally correct or is it ok to stray so far from doctrine as to contradict it completely?

(Of course this is all in the context of and under the assumption that everyone discovered and came to the conclusion that they support said doctrine through means of their own free thinking.)


.

 

[PolyHedral]

It is good, vital in fact, to be factually correct. All else is a waste of time.

 

[Erebus]

Depends on the doctrine I guess. I think a certain amount of flexibility can be a good thing, but I would also say you have to adhere to the majority of a religion's doctrines before you can honestly identify with that religion.

I wouldn't call myself a Christian because I adhere to very few of their doctrines.
I wouldn't call myself a Wiccan because I adhere to only a few of their doctrines.
I call myself a Demonolater because I adhere to most of their doctrines.

 

[Engyo]

"I'm Buddhist and I advocate x." but 'x' is nowhere to be found in Buddhist doctrine and is in fact in direct contradiction to multiple passages in scripture.

Hi, Tathagata -

Have you seen the article in Tricycle yet regarding Buddhist scriptures? It's fascinating - and calls any ideas about citing scripture in Buddhist doctrinal arguments into question.

Whose Buddhism is Truest? | Tricycle

 

[Tathagata]

It is good, vital in fact, to be factually correct. All else is a waste of time.

If everything were about facts, there would be no philosophy. And yet there is philosophy, and it's valuable, and we need it, because there are things that cannot be factually known, but can be philosophically inquired and principally asserted.

How can, for example, a systemic moral foundation be dealt with in fact?


.

 

[Willamena]

It is good, vital in fact, to be factually correct. All else is a waste of time.

Depends on what the facts are alleged to be about.

To address the OP, the question depends on whether "a Buddhist" or "a Christian" (etc.) is "one who follows strict doctrine." Where people deviate from 'x' or 'y' with ideas that contradict doctrine, is it allowed that a person be "a Buddhist in this way, not in that way" etc.?

 

[bain-druie]

What Shyanekh said. We use language because we're attempting to communicate; if everyone has his or her own definition of words and concepts, language is bereft of meaning and we can't understand each other. This includes religious language.

It's a very convenient way for people to back-pedal if cornered when they can simply say, 'Oh, but I'm not THAT type of Druid [or Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, whatever], so I don't believe that part.'

On the other hand, spirituality is highly subjective and personal, so it cannot and shouldn't be micro-managed.

 

[Otherright]

I say for the most part, yes. I have noticed that many here seem to advocate a form of religion/spirituality that is not based firmly in doctrine and I have seen in some instances where adherence to doctrine is actually looked down upon.

I will note however that I don't advocate a strict and narrow adherence to doctrine either because it is obvious that there are parts of scripture that seem supect and we have to discern what is in line with the overall tone of the doctrine and there are some parts that shouldn't be taken literally.

The real problem arises when you have people who claim:

"I'm Buddhist and I advocate x." but 'x' is nowhere to be found in Buddhist doctrine and is in fact in direct contradiction to multiple passages in scripture.

Or

"I'm Christian and I am against y." but 'y' is actually condoned several times in the Bible found in several passages.


Do you agree that it's better to be doctrinally correct or is it ok to stray so far from doctrine as to contradict it completely?

(Of course this is all in the context of and under the assumption that everyone discovered and came to the conclusion that they support said doctrine through means of their own free thinking.)


.

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.

 

[Tathagata]

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.

Yeah, hey thanks for quoting one of my favorite passages from Buddhist scripture.

I find it kind of funny that people use a passage from scripture to convince me not to adhere to scripture.

You must realize what this Kalama Sutta is saying. It does not mean "disregard doctrine." It says do not believe in something for the reason that it's found in your religious book. Which is absolutely correct. However, it is NOT telling you about belief, it is a statement about REASONS for belief because he is teaching his followers to be critical thinkers rather than blind followers who don't think.


.

 

[Jordan Robert Wilson]

In adhering to a particular doctrine, you are closing your mind. People should take their own positives out of the doctrine and leave the negatives, forming their own opinion and actions which have been influenced, not dictated by, some old book written many years ago.

 

[ChristineES]

While I believe that God should come first in a God-based faith or religion, it is also a good idea to read the texts of your faith and even of faiths not your own. These texts give guidelines adherent to any faith. I also make it a practice to hear other people interpretations of these texts, and not just go by my own, because everyone will see things and understand things somewhat or even majorly different than you will.

 

[Tathagata]

In adhering to a particular doctrine, you are closing your mind. People should take their own positives out of the doctrine and leave the negatives, forming their own opinion and actions which have been influenced, not dictated by, some old book written many years ago.

I agree with this sentiment and have made statements nearly exactly what you have just said. However, there are certain ideals that are false and there are certain philosophies that are correct. And when a doctrine outlines which is which and gives good reasons to support its propositions then it's not wise to ignore it.

.

 

[Jordan Robert Wilson]

I agree with this sentiment and have made statements nearly exactly what you have just said. However, there are certain ideals that are false and there are certain philosophies that are correct. And when a doctrine outlines which is which and gives good reasons to support its propositions then it's not wise to ignore it.

.

I'm not saying ignore doctrine. If you think it is true, go for it. But don't close your mind to the possibility of it being incorrect, and don't close your mind to everything else. And, most importantly, don't follow all the doctrine if you only agree with some.

 

[Otherright]

Yeah, hey thanks for quoting one of my favorite passages from Buddhist scripture.

I find it kind of funny that people use a passage from scripture to convince me not to adhere to scripture.

You must realize what this Kalama Sutta is saying. It does not mean "disregard doctrine." It says do not believe in something for the reason that it's found in your religious book. Which is absolutely correct. However, it is NOT telling you about belief, it is a statement about REASONS for belief because he is teaching his followers to be critical thinkers rather than blind followers who don't think.


.

Right, if you find a teaching that is counter to reason, don't follow it.

 

[Riverwolf]

I say for the most part, yes. I have noticed that many here seem to advocate a form of religion/spirituality that is not based firmly in doctrine and I have seen in some instances where adherence to doctrine is actually looked down upon.

I will note however that I don't advocate a strict and narrow adherence to doctrine either because it is obvious that there are parts of scripture that seem supect and we have to discern what is in line with the overall tone of the doctrine and there are some parts that shouldn't be taken literally.

The real problem arises when you have people who claim:

"I'm Buddhist and I advocate x." but 'x' is nowhere to be found in Buddhist doctrine and is in fact in direct contradiction to multiple passages in scripture.

Or

"I'm Christian and I am against y." but 'y' is actually condoned several times in the Bible found in several passages.


Do you agree that it's better to be doctrinally correct or is it ok to stray so far from doctrine as to contradict it completely?

(Of course this is all in the context of and under the assumption that everyone discovered and came to the conclusion that they support said doctrine through means of their own free thinking.)


.

I think the only time doctrine can be contradicted is when 1. you're fully aware of it and don't claim to represent the doctrine, and 2. if it's based on your own insights, experience, etc. which clearly contradict what doctrine teaches.

So, there are instances when it can be. For example, traditional Hinduism is patriarchal, and teaches that while men and women are equal in the sense that the wife is not "property" to be done with as the husband wishes, and she has her own rights, it's strongly encouraged that a wife work at home, if she works for income at all, and that it's her duty to be gentle and shy, while the husband's duty is to be strong, be the primary source of income, etc. But my experience tells me that masculine qualities can manifest in a woman, and feminine qualities can manifest in a man. Me and my girlfriend have that dynamic; she's quite masculine, and I'm very feminine. Therefore, in this case, I defer to my experience, which likely simply contradicts that of the Sages.

But that's the thing: I see Scriptures as guidebooks and starting points, not end points and givers of doctrine to be followed completely blindly and rashly.