Don't be trapped by dogma, which is living with the results of other people's thinking

From a speech by Steve Jobs:

a. Don't be trapped by dogma, which is living with the results of other people's thinking.

If the sentence is to work syntactically, dogma has to be the antecedent of which.

Dogma is defined in LEXICO as:

A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

He believes that when living in a certain society you should become a real part of it by sticking to its rules, dogmas and principles.

So, dogma essentially is a set of principles determined by (i.e., results of) other people's thinking. Also, from the LEXICO example, sticking to its dogma seems to correspond to living with the results of other people's thinking.

All in all, dogma itself seems to refer to "the results of other people's thinking" rather than "living with the results of other people's thinking".

If so, how come the antecedent of which can be dogma? Or should it be?

Solution 1:

Supplementary relatives allow wide range of antecedents, including clauses. (CaGEL p1035):

Pat is afraid of snakes, which doesn’t surprise me at all

The antecedent of the relativised element in the example given is:

Don't be trapped by dogma, which is living with the results of other people's thinking.

So he's saying that being trapped by dogma is living with the results of other people's thinking.