Dogma is a concerning topic, and by dogma I refer to those ideas and instructions given by a religious body to its adherence. Those who follow the path of dogma strive to be obedient, to follow the rules regardless of their logic, morale or ethic in the modern context. Even if the rules are ideas one may agree with (if left to ponder them), the fact there is a control mechanism issuing proclamations on behavior removes individual choice and this removes personal gnosis (which is the key to spiritual advancement). One might argue, “there is personal choice, you can chose to obey or not,” but in reality the stakes are always high with dogma: if one disobeys they may face shunning, removal, punishments or more. Such is not free choice but coercion.
As dogma has been defined, so too must gnosis. Gnosis is a Greek word for the concept of knowledge. In spiritual terms it is usually considered a type of experiential understanding. When one has a direct perception or experience of spirituality, that is itself gnosis. This is why the text Liber Nigri Solis has written, “gnosis is the death of faith and the birth of power.” Where faith hopes, gnosis knows.
Perhaps one of the kindest religions today is that of the Eastern variety. Yet there is often a reminder of what “the Prophet,” master or guru has said, and since he has said it, his will invalidates the will of the believer. Therefore if the leadership says that one can not be a member of Freemasonry (or any “secret society”), then you must conform to that idea (whether you agree with it or not). These are examples of dogma.
What makes a belief dogmatic is in the excepting of it. If one reaches the same conclusion for themselves (and this is key, for your own reflection), that is another matter entirely and lacks dogma. For example, if one were to sit in conscious quietude and find spiritual inspiration that led to giving up caffeine (as a practice), such a decision is SELF GENERATED – and therefore not dogmatic. However, if that person then insisted that those who follow their teachings adopt the same rules, it would now become dogma.
Dogma is the insistence of obedience to someone else’s gnosis. When done, it removes one’s own personal growth (even if one would have agreed in time), as the choice is not made by the individual – but by the master/guru/leader.
If one follows dogma, the best one can become is the revealer of the dogma (the master, guru, Prophet, etc.) However, it seems we are called to be greater than this, we are called to be our own selves finding the light of the path.
This doesn’t dispel the idea of obeying. It simply reminds us not to forge a foundation that was entirely built by another. When your feelings, deep down, pull to a different direction than the leadership – that is when you are choosing to walk in your own way. What a challenge for a group to maintain order, and yet allow individual gnosis to blossom.
One way this is handled is how the Golden Rosycross handles the issue: They have two levels of membership. The outer membership is very casual, with little to no restrictions. The inner order (the pupil) does have restrictions on diet. If your personal gnosis is in alignment with that restriction, then the process is smooth and compatible, if not, then you can remain a casual member. In this way there is no dogma. They also have no “master” or “guru,” so there is no magnetic leader or hierarchy of leadership that can make demands of others.
To date, the most accepting to personal gnosis I’ve witnessed with a group, is that of the Golden Rosycross. Others may exist, and I hope they do. It is the best way to approach the spiritual path, as ultimately it is a personal walk. As an individual we decide to let go of things (people, music, art, media) and pick up new things (people, music, art, etc). Being told, with rigid instruction, is the dogma of control – which to me, lacks the freedom necessary to blossom into the Light of the Beloved.