[PareKeect]

I think if plwk could let us know what he considers to be the 'orthodox' position it would be helpful and avoid confusion. (for me at any rate!) Well, the one challenge you have raised here on an 'orthodox' position.

And why I have left that blank is because in our times today, in the context of 'Buddhism', there are the three major traditions, each with their own views and positions of what is orthodox and heterodox or what the latter is labeled commonly as 'heresy'.
Heck, within each of these Traditions, there is a further branching out on the matter with its own diversity. Unless one takes an all inclusive view that anything not found in the Three is 'heresy'? The first ones to jump at that would probably be those who strictly adhere to one Tradition alone! LOL

Then to adherents of a particular tenet/sect/view, that tenet/sect/view alone is seen as most supreme and taken as a 'gold standard' in how they see themselves and others as well as phenomena around them. Kinda like saying that the Hilton is the best of all in the hospitality industry until the Fourseasons and Hyatt comes along to contest that claim...

That's why this thread is sitting in 'Beyond Belief', hearing from everyone what they think on this matter, what I think is unimportant: how this issue of 'heresy' (thanks to Element & Lazy Eye who brought up the terms of 'dhamma' and 'adhamma') is viewed in 'Buddhism' (as explained above) in this matter and what do they do with others who think and practice differently than themselves, as not all of us come from the same point of view nor experience, so trying to champion one particular view as the 'orthodox' or 'heterodox' aka 'heresy' would be a sticky matter at the very least.

For example, I am not sure if you would have recall this from your days spent with Tibetan Vajrayana: to someone who is following the Sravaka Path, the Vinaya's Pratimoksha is most supreme in matters concerning sila but the stand taken by someone who follows the Bodhisattva or Tantric Path would have a differing view as to which set of rules would be most expediently used for the welfare of a sentient being.

Some would see/interpret that as superseding the Vinaya's Pratimoksha and hence 'heretical' but to the latter, it is in the best interest for the sentient being's scenario, hence there is no abrogation nor 'conflict' with the former, taking into account the spirit of the precepts in exceptional cases.

Another would be those who assert that rebirth and karma are not taught by the Buddha or dismissed as irrelevant altogether. To the 'majority' of the Buddhist world, this may be viewed as the 'heresy' of a 'fringe' group but the 'fringe' group would assert otherwise. And even within the 'fringe' group, they have variances on the same matter. Would the fringe group be any less 'Buddhist' then? Are the majority a bunch of misguided champions of the 'wrong orthodoxy'?

Heresy is only possible with attachment to a view. Interesting...
So when the Buddha rebukes certain persons like in the Sutta raised by stuka and elsewhere in the Pali Suttas or in works like Lankavatara where Mahamati is being told on what is/not Tathagatagarbha or that the prevailing worldly views on Nirvana are not what He taught, what comes across your mind? I recall one response to this on the now defunct E-Sangha was 'such intolerance and fundamentalism'.

So, is 'heresy' defined as deviation from the context of an upheld text? tradition? interpretation? group, the majority or fringe in Buddhism?
What do you do with those who think differently?