Allegedly we are a nation based on fixed principles articulated in The Constitution and reinforced by moral beliefs (mostly Christian). Without realizing it, we have become dogmatically oriented, unwilling to yield, or negotiate our unswerving positions, even though many policies are clearly in need of yielding.
The word dogma (δόγμα) is rooted in ancient Greek and was considered a fixed belief, or set of beliefs, that people were expected to accept without question. The concept was first applied in a religious context and was taken as a given by those who literally took the Bible. However, this framework has invaded our political realm where one can be either conservatively or liberally dogmatic, and if we are to continue as a democratic nation, this must change.
Closely associated with dogma is the principle of tolerance (the flip side of dogma). Thus these two—dogma and tolerance—frame our liberal notions (and I don’t mean being a liberal). British philosopher and scientist Karl Popper had observed significant flaws in the historical and economic practices of Karl Marx. Yet, the followers of Marx seemed to cling to his theories dogmatically or cobble together new interpretations.
In 1945 Popper published his book The Open Society and Its Enemies, in which he identified the Paradox of tolerance, saying, “Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant; if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.”
Seventy-five years later, his warning is being ignored in our nation and others throughout the world. We are tolerating the intolerant, and it is beyond time to dogmatically reject dogmas. The most insidious of all attachments is when reason becomes dogmatic.
In today’s world, being financially employed is necessary to survive and achieve the purpose of mortal life—to find your purpose and give your whole heart and soul to it, so said The Buddha. Earning a living is a poor expression of that purpose, suggesting life must be earned. The American Declaration of Independence says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
The irony of that statement is the juxtaposition of “independence” and such basic human rights as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nothing is more impossible. Independence leads to the opposite of the stated aspiration. To be independent is to be isolated, alienated, and cut off from the very dimensions to ensure the goal.
There is a difference between just living and living in fullness. Unfortunately, we have made the task of living in fullness extraordinarily difficult by insisting upon independence and thus focusing on ourselves in isolation from our true nature. This fundamental error has lead to “earning a living” instead of “living in earnest.” Deep within lies the spirit which guides us out of self-service to other-service. At a surface level, we perceive a self who strives and competes against others for what we believe will ensure happiness. It is hard to fathom a livelihood based on selflessness without giving up what we think we need in such a state of mind. But often, our employment choices create suffering for others.
Competition inevitably leads to winners and losers, which produces greed, aversion, and delusion. An isolated, independent, and competitive self is insatiable. No amount of physical gain can ever satisfy the empty hole within. Greed is the result which leads to aversion—anger that the gain doesn’t fulfill, and this leads to delusions; that more of the same will produce what a smaller amount did not. These three—greed, aversion, and delusions—are known as the Three Poisons, and they all grow from a common delusion regarding identity: the ego.
Beneath the surface level of false identity lies our true nature, which is not cut off and alienated but rather interdependent and connected. The transcendent nature of Buddha-Nature is indiscriminate and unconditional but is obscured and hidden by the ego in the same way that clouds hide the sun’s radiance. A right livelihood that grows from the soil of our true nature is naturally harmless to others since there is no difference between self and others.
It is possible to draw up a list of undesirable employment conditions that would constitute harmful occupations. The list would include such obvious prohibited occupations as those which pollute our environment, promote violence and aggression, cheating, and deceiving others. By engaging in such dishonest practices, we damage human dignity and create strife. All of these conditions, if avoided, would result in the betterment of our world. However, to practice the right livelihood while remaining in a state of ego-delusion will not bring about living in earnest. It may result in pride and a sense of becoming a good person, deserving of merit and reward, but as Bodhidharma told Emperor Wu, no merit results when focused on gain and reward without pure motives. Right livelihood, to be “right,” must be established with no gain. “Riches ruin only the foolish, not those in quest of the Beyond. By craving for riches the witless man ruins himself as well as others.”—The Buddha
Allegedly we are a nation based on fixed principles articulated in The Constitution and reinforced by moral beliefs (mostly Christian). Without realizing it, we have become dogmatically oriented, unwilling to yield, or negotiate our unswerving positions, even though many policies are clearly in need of yielding. 
