Not necessarily. What you’re describing is dogmatic militancy.
Fundamentalism is adhering to any basic set of beliefs, usually no matter what. These beliefs are considered fundamental to the belief system. For instance, a Christian might hold that a belief in Jesus Christ as the son of God is fundamental to what it means to be a Christian; i.e. if you don’t believe that, you cannot consider yourself a Christian.
Strictly adhering to the doctrine of non-violence—for example—could be considered fundamentalism.
Of course, fundamentalism, dogmatism, fanaticism, and militancy tend to go hand in hand, but not always. You could be fundamentalist and dogmatic and never harm a fly. You could consider your viewpoint to be the correct one, but allow others the right to hold their own (misguided) views of the world.
fundamentalism (noun):
a religious movement characterized by strict belief in the literal interpretation of religious texts, especally within American Protestantism and Islam.
the beliefs held by those in this movement.
strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.
militant (adjective)
vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause:militant reformers.
There’s a difference between a doctrine of non-violence and being non-violent. An awakened being doesn’t adhere to a non-violent ideology.
They are the free-expression of non-violence by being it - in human form - through life and, living.
The Dhamma isn’t an ideology - it’s a revolution in awareness. It’s that which sustains.
Ideology is a form of violence whether it’s imposed from outside or, it’s imposed from inside. To conform to a model of behaviour is not the same as seeing the truth and, living it.
You can program a computer to make music but it won’t be able to understand or appreciate ‘what it is’?
From AN2.51 we have the definition of an assembly with unprincipled speech:
And what is an assembly with unprincipled speech?
It is an assembly where the mendicants take up disciplinary issues, whether legitimate or not. But they don’t persuade each other or allow themselves to be persuaded, nor do they convince each other or allow themselves to be convinced. Unable to persuade or convince each other, they can’t let go of their opinions. They obstinately stick to that disciplinary issue, insisting that:
‘This is the only truth, other ideas are silly.’
This is called an assembly with unprincipled speech.
Its counterpart is the assembly with principled speech:
The better of these two assemblies is the assembly with principled speech.
It’s also worth noting, in the context of this forum itself, the difference between:
An assembly educated in fancy talk, not in questioning, and
an assembly educated in questioning, not in fancy talk.
I generally think of fundamentalism as a hermeneutic strategy, that is, as an approach to reading texts. A fundamentalist hermeneutic would say something like “this text is correct in all respects, and the best way to read it is as literally as possible.”
This introduces all kinds of problems, though, because what a reader understands to be “literal” is necessarily going to change depending on his or her cultural background. A literal reading of the Christian Bible is going to produce a different Christianity in the present-day United States than the Christianity we would see from a different fundamentalism in, say, 16th-century Germany.
Fundamentalism can be militant, or not. It depends very much on both the text and the cultural baggage that informs it.
Relatedly, I would love to read more about Buddhist hermeneutics. I could probably come up with a list by Googling, but recommendations from the community here would almost certainly be more valuable.
I had to look that word up. It means interpretation.
I think that Bhante Sujato’s post on his glossary might be of value to you in your search, especially since it also shows Bhikkhu Bodhi’s interpretation phrase alongside Bhante Sujato’s.
I meant that in Discuss & Discover we often use uncommon, esoteric vocabulary. It wasn’t particularly directed at any one person or thread, but it was funny since much of the world would find posts here to be “fancy talk”. We are Buddhist nerds it would seem. I mean, I just learned what “hermeneutics” means, right?
It may be uncommon and esoteric in one person’s vocabulary but, not in those who are contributing in this way.
It’s probably best to simply allow free expression without having to pass judgement on others because they don’t use the language you are familiar with.
It’s not the first time you’ve mentioned this fancy-talk stuff. I got the impression you weren’t all that amused but felt it was elitist or, such like. I don’t think it’s anything of the sort. We are not ‘Nerds’ we are talking about things that we find interesting in the way we choose to express ourselves.
This goes too far. People still need to ground themselves in a belief before they can transcend it. I’m not advocating a dogmatic fixation to views, but views of some kind are necessary in the beginning; we aren’t born Awakened so we establish right view until we can get beyond it. What’s right, what’s wrong? What should I do? What shouldn’t I do? That’s my understanding anyway. There’s a reason the Buddha criticized wrong views.
All conditioned experience is impermanent, suffering, not-self. This includes the Path, and yet we follow it. Why? Because we use it to get somewhere. Once we arrive, we can let it go because we don’t need it anymore.
I have indeed learned a lot more words here than I have elsewhere. And yet as I learn these new words I continually wonder why we use them. I myself understand the joy of using such words. For example, I like to use “entanglement” myself because I have read physics articles and am fascinated that there could be such a thing. I’m not sure the use of fancy words makes anybody here an elitist. We all use them. Yet part of me does wonder about this, especially after just having read what the Buddha said about fancy talk. Should we question more and fancy less?
It was a bit of a wakeup call to me to read the Buddha’s words just now that a questioning assembly is better than a fancy talk assembly. And you have indeed questioned me as I have questioned us collectively. By definition we are a questioning assembly!
So yes, I will resign myself to continually looking up hermeneutics and exegesis as everybody joyfully sprinkles them about. We do exercise each others vocabulary here.
The Buddha had a tough time discovering the teachings and he said it was like finding a ancient city covered in creepers and he had doubts if it was possible for people to understand it. The dhamma has to be studied before moving on to directly experiencing the truths. Otherwise however much meditation we do we will be floundering in the dark.
Actually, maybe not. Although “fundamentalism” does technically mean just operating on basic principles, it has come to have an association with single-minded dogmatism in conventional use. Since we are using a living language to express ourselves, we really cannot shy away from that current interpretation.
Specificially, if ideology and the enforcement of ideas is the chosen intention for a “fundamentalist”, then there is indeed an attachment, a craving, a “form of violence” of the natural freedom. In this conventional understanding, fundamentalism is indeed suffering.
But whatever is produced by choices and intentions is impermanent and liable to cessation. --MN121
Yep, and we will keep on floundering to one degree or another until we uncover the lost city. We can read the travel-brochures but it ain’t the same thing as hitting the street and, taking in the air.
The brochures are just to keep us cool and, it gives us something to talk about - IMO.
I am sorry for the fancy talk. I do not mean to confuse or frustrate anyone here. I have a lifelong interest in religious history, and for someone who has this interest, “hermeneutics” is a very useful word to know.
Why not say “interpretations” instead? Because hermeneutics is something slightly different. Anyone can interpret, using any method at all. A hermeneutic is a systematic method of interpreting, one that can be thought of as more like a philosophy for guiding how one reads. For example:
A secularist hermeneutic might approach EBTs by disregarding anything that can’t easily be studied by science. But there’s a lot that can be studied, including the brain effects of mindfulness, the sociology of giving, and the game theory that touches on nonviolence.
A fundamentalist hermeneutic might say that, yes, there absolutely were thousand-spoked wheels on the soles of the Buddha’s feet, just as clear as if they were a tattoo. Or more, I guess. And that his hair only ever curled in one direction, and that he taught the bhikkhus how to walk through walls. In this philosophy of reading, anything that might be given a literal meaning must be given a literal meaning.
An allegorical hermeneutic might say that for all those matters that seem to be in doubt, we should explore the symbolism as the most profitable source of meaning – the wheel obviously had a special symbolism in the EBTs, so the wheels on the Buddha’s feet may or may not have been literal, but the key is to recognize their symbolic function.
And so on. I would still be very interested to read more about these different approaches.
Ahhhh. Thanks for explaining. This is quite helpful.
I’m not sure how to deal with a fundamentalist hermeneutic since that would not lend itself to questioning. I would have to simply have faith in those wheels.
One of the difficulties I see with distinguishing between a secularist and allegorical hermeneutic is that Buddhism is based on subjective experience. I would therefore say that any interpretation of the suttas must acknowledge that subjectivity in relation to secularist/allegorical hermeneutics.
We can’t adopt either a secularist or an allegorical hermeneutic, especially when discussing the formless realms. For example, with the dimension of infinite space, are we able to correlate that in any secularist way with the physics assertion that space is infinite and beyond what we will ever see? Perhaps. But adopting that secularist hermeneutic we would lose the subjective perception of infinite space. A similar argument could be addressed against a purely allegorical hermeneutic since we have scientifically convinced ourselves that space is indeed infinite.
Perhaps we need a middle ground hermeneutic.
Bhante Sujato’s translations do indeed use such a middle-ground hermeneutic. Bhante Sujato’s brilliant choice of simple words with broad meaning supports a wide variety of consistent personal subjective interpretations. For example, a precise use of “joy, rapture and bliss” throughout his translations affords each listener a challenge of discernment with no loss of fidelity. We as readers are challenged by Bhante Sujato’s hermeneutic to be quite precise in our own interpretations and to distinguish quite carefully between these three terms of “joy, rapture and bliss.” In this manner, his consistent and delicately ambiguous translations are actually quite precise as a whole thanks to his hermeneutic. I’m not sure what to call this type of hermeneutic? Pedagogical hermeneutic?
(sorry for the massive edits. I am struggling with my new word. )
