user2194: 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.

user43: "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.

user2190: 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:

There is suffering.
There is identification of suffering.
There is overcoming of suffering.
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? :)

2194: <p>Can we consider the four noble truth or any other core teachings in Buddhism as dogmas that we <em>should</em> 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.</p>
 43: <p>"A principle incontrovertibly true" is not a dogma. E.g. in math the principle of associativity -- <code>a + (b + c) = (a + b) + c</code> -- is incontrovertibly true, so what? A principle <em>must</em> be "incontrovertibly true" within some domain -- otherwise it would be useless.</p>

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

<p>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!</p>

<p>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.</p>
 2190: <p>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.</p>

<p>The <em>should</em> 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:</p>

<ol>
<li>There is suffering.</li>
<li>There is identification of suffering.</li>
<li>There is overcoming of suffering.</li>
<li>There is no suffering.</li>
</ol>

<p>...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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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).</p>

<p><strong>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.</strong></p>

<p>Fun little conundrum, isn't it? :)</p>
