(wiki: transcription checking) How to avoid falling into Early Buddhist fundamentalism / a very short transcript of a part of a Venerable Sujato’s Workshop

A super lovely saying! :slight_smile: I’ll take it to heart immediately.

5 Likes

The term “fundamentalism” was not originally intended to be a pejorative, and indeed was coined by supporters themselves.

So, it’s not about trying to recreate some imagined pristine past. Ok, that’s what fundamentalism is. It’s about trying to learn from what the buddha said, so that we can integrate that and apply that in the most effective way that we can in the present. So, it’s very important to remember this.

I think this is well-said!

1 Like

I agree.
Nowadays, it seems fashionable, especially in academia, to encourage students: “don’t just memorize, understand” or “rote memorization is useless” - with a subtle insinuation to devalue memorization.
But I have also found the development of memory to be useful, particularly in terms to attempting to memorize the entire the Dhamma-Vinaya as a preliminary step - which happens to be encouraged by the Buddha, as you pointed out.

Touche.
I think it’s unfortunate though.
I like the phrase “learn/stick to the fundamentals” - and by extension of this, “fundamentalism.”
I do not like dogma, which is based on blind faith and not evidence-based.

It seems like there could be:
harmful fundamentalism: learning/sticking to fundamentals which are harmful
beneficial fundamentalism: learning/sticking to fundamentals which are beneficial

Even in the case of Christian and Muslim fundamentalism, many of the fundamentalist stick rigidly to beneficial principles such as not drinking or generosity, etc., which may fly in the face of modern secular western cultural values and emphasis such as drinking and “white” lies.

Thus, it seems to me that fundamentalism should be taken on a case-by-case basis to evaluate whether is actually harmful or merely appears that way by those who wish to have the freedom to do socially acceptable forms of harmfulness (drinking, white lies, etc.).

Interesting. :thinking:

1 Like

Lol sometimes fundamentalists stick rigidly to teachings not even found in their respective religious texts (Christian fundamentalists who don’t drink would be a good case in point, actually, or Muslims who require women to veil their face).

Yeah, the term was originally coined by conservative American Protestants who wanted to defend the “fundamentals” of the faith against the liberalization of Christianity. “Five fundamentals” were emphasized as prerequisites for being a true Christian — See here.

1 Like




Agreed with the above all.

In that regard, I want to be, still need to be, and have to be a hardcore fundamentalist, in this meaning of the word.

That said, imo, fundamentals will naturally be solidified with the practice of Dhamma conducive to wisdom (or so and so) which inturn enables decent solutions without needing to embark on breaching of those fundamentals; for example, easily comes up with an acceptable solution without even needing to tell those “white lies”.

And, in that perspective, I think I can’t totally agree with the following, of course, as far as Dhamma is concerned.





:anjal:

1 Like

Regarding OP:

There is a clearly audible “a” [not “an”, I think], in:

we don’t fall into 'a' … Early 
Buddhist fundamentalism. 

which I had previously changed to … [an] in “Final” version.



What I would like to ask is:

  1. Is that “a” just a filler word?

(or)

  1. If it is not a filler word, should I change the “a” to “an”.

On repeated listening, I get a sense that it may not be a filler word, and that “a” was used as “an”.



Together with @Javier’s explanation of:

Let me edit (as of now):

from …

fall into ' [an] ' Early Buddhist

to …

fall into ' a[n] ' Early Buddhist



It serves two things, imo.

  1. preserving Bhante’s “a”
  2. and ‘legitimately’ making it into “an”

like those modifications make by cunning journalists :smile:

According to the merriam-webster.

The word “fundamentalism” cannot be reduced to an abstract linguist form, implying a “doctrine [based on] the fundamentals”. This was, indeed, the meaning as used by the first “fundamentalists”. But in this they were, as in most things, wrong. In fact their “fundamentals” included such dogmas as the literal virgin birth of Christ, a belief of dubious soteriological relevance that was unknown to the majority of early Christian sources.

The current usage is determined by context and time, as is all language. Especially in the context of religion, fundamentalism refers to the tendency of many religious followers to insist on the letter over the spirit. It is common in Buddhism, despite the fact that the Buddha himself clearly opposed it.


Consider two mechanics, Jack and Jill. Someone brings a Toyota Camry in, complaining that it’s running rough. A quick look under the hood reveals the source: an oil pipe has gotten loose and has to be reconnected. As a certified Toyota franchise, they are careful to do the right thing, and check the genuine Toyota manual before starting work. The manual says to connect the pipe to the outlet, so Jack starts to do that.

“Umm, Jack,” says Jill, “the oil has to go in, so surely it must connect to the inlet.”

“No, the manual definitely says the outlet. Haven’t you read it?”

“Yeah nah, I’ve read it, I just think it’s a mistake.”

“What, so you think you know better about Toyotas than, ohh I don’t know, Toyota?”

“That’s not what I’m saying, it’s just that the oil has to go in. Maybe there’s a typo or something in the manual?”

“Yeah, right. Listen, just do what the manual says. No-one ever got fired following the manual!”

So they connect the oil pipe to the outlet, start it up; and oil explodes all over the engine.

They look at each other. “Hey I know,” says Jack, “let’s connect it to the inlet.”

“Great idea,” says Jill. :roll_eyes:


Now the thing is, in mechanics, it’s easy to tell if the answer is right. Well, relatively easy. The thing either works or it doesn’t.

In Dhamma, or spiritual progress generally, things are a lot more subtle, and progress is harder to measure. That’s why fundamentalism is so tempting. At least you can be sure that you have the letter right, or so fundamentalists believe, and often spend inordinate amounts of time invested in.

The problem is that fundamentalism is really bad at even this much. Fundamentalist readings of ancient scripture are invariably shallow and rigid; but they are very often just plain wrong as well. Why? Because fundamentalists resist learning. They have it right already, and are willing to build infinite rabbit warrens to defend their theses. The deeper they dig, the further they get from the light.

13 Likes

Thanks a lot for the comprehensive explanation, Venerable. :pray:t2:




Still I cannot sure the letters are right, let alone punctuations :cry:; however, I think they are, at least, acceptable and quotable now :anjal: :anjal: :anjal:

Etymology of fundamental, fundamentals (much older)

and fundamentalist, fundamentalism.

Lol I can tell you’re a fan of John Shelby Spong, Bhante :slightly_smiling_face:. That’s fine, but let me give a word in defense of the Christian fundamentalists on this point — the virgin birth is in the New Testament gospels of Luke and Matthew. This gives it the same historical attestation as the Beatitudes, which few liberal Christians would reject. I think that’s the point the fundamentalists were making — liberal Christians (or at least many of them) were rejecting miracles like the virgin birth on modernist/rationalist grounds (e.g., “It couldn’t happen! It’s scientifically impossible!” etc.), as well as theological creeds, while accepting aspects of Jesus’ life that accord with their “social gospel” message. Here is a good blog post on this topic by a Christian who self identifies as neither fundamentalist or liberal. Another way of thinking of it is that the fundamentalists’ opponents are like the Christian equivalent of Buddhists who deny/downplay rebirth and emphasize “social justice”-oriented aspects of the Buddha’s teachings (like his denial of caste).

IMO both camps are flawed insofar as they are trying to create their religion in their own image….a tendency we ALL have to check ourself against. Of course, not all Christians (or even most necessarily) fall neatly into the “fundamentalist” or “miracle-denying liberal” camp. Likewise, I hope Buddhists are able to carve out a middle ground as well. It’s good that Buddhists aren’t hamstrung with the yoke of scriptural inerrancy, at least (tbh for me scriptural inerrancy was always the weak point in the fundamentalist worldview, because it requires circular reasoning).

1 Like

But the Beatitudes are not listed among the “fundamentals”. Which is the point, theologically speaking. Whether the virgin birth is real or not is one thing, whether it is textually supported is another, but whether it is a “fundamental” teaching is quite another.

All around me I see spiritual teachers telling people to be kind. I don’t need special evidence to conclude that it’s likely that a teacher in the past also had a similar message.

On the other hand:

  1. I have never seen nor heard reliable evidence for a virgin birth in the present day.
  2. Virgin birth contradicts much of what we know of human biology and genetic inheritance, which is a well-established and rigorous science. Therefore,
  3. The hypothesis that that virgin birth happened in the past requires special pleading.

This is empiricism, not reading biases into sources. Don’t forget: I used to be a hard-core annihilationist, and I changed my mind because I concluded that the evidence pointed to something different.

I am perfectly happy to apply exactly the same standard to the question of rebirth in Buddhism.

  1. There are thousands of cases of people who appear to have reliable memories of past lives. I have met and spoken with several such people myself.
  2. There is no robust or established science of consciousness.
  3. To conclude that rebirth is a plausible hypothesis does not require special pleading.
6 Likes

@sujato — You gave an argument for saying why YOU don’t believe in the virgin birth, and why you think the evidence for rebirth is more persuasive. Fair enough. But that doesn’t mean the fundamentalists are “wrong” (your word choice) to argue that the virgin birth is a fundamental of the Christian faith. They have their reasons, namely scriptural support and the creeds of the Christian community going back centuries. Whether or not these are good reasons for actually believing something is a different matter, but those may in fact be valid criteria for determining whether or not something is “fundamental” to a religion.

A question to you: suppose there were no scientific evidence for rebirth (including anecdotal evidence of past lives, etc.). Would you consider rebirth a fundamental of the Buddhist faith (this is a genuine question, not rhetorical)? Assume all the Nikaya references to rebirth are still there. I’d argue it still would be (though in that situation I’d be less likely to be a Buddhist). IMO the “fundamentals” of a religion aren’t those that “are best supported, according to our Post-Enlightenment era criteria” but “those that have been widespread and accepted from the early days of the religion.”

1 Like

Also, the Manichaeans and many Gnostic sects also believed in the virgin birth, indicating a cultural sprachbund of “Virgin Birth Belief” among early Christian populations as diverse as the Valentinian, the Sethite, the Manichaean, and the Pauline, these sects spanning from “mostly confirming with modern orthodoxy” to “utterly heterodox.” Clearly, much like the 32 marks, the dubious story of the virgin birth “meant something” to these early communities.

4 Likes

An interesting comparison. The 32-marks might be a good example of an early Buddhist teaching that “early Buddhist fundamentalists” would insist on taking seriously and literally, but non-fundamentalists would be content to dismiss (or at least interpret non-literally).

2 Likes

Rebirth (samsara) is part of the early Buddhist adaptations of general Indian religious beliefs, but not a fundamental of the Buddhist faith. The term samsara is not found in the fundamental teachings of early Buddhism, such as the four noble truths, conditioned arising. Instead of samsara, it is better to say “dukkha” is the central focus of the early Buddhist teachings.

It seems the criteria for “fundamentals” of a religion do not fit in well in the Buddhist tradition. Buddhism is also not regarded as a religion in the general definition of religion, such as belief in and worship of God/gods or any external superhuman controlling power.

1 Like

Taṇhā dutiyo puriso,
dīghamaddhāna saṃsaraṃ;
Itthabhāvaññathābhāvaṃ,
saṃsāraṃ nātivattati.
Craving is a person’s partner
as they transmigrate on this long journey.
They go from this state to another,
but don’t get past transmigration.

(AN 4.9)

There’s possibly a reason these early communities might have taken the virgin birth seriously/literally even if they were “non-fundamentalists,” namely, it fulfills a prophecy in the Septuagint, the dominant recension of the Torah among Hellenized Jews of the period in question, and that prophecy was likely very important for them both geopolitically (freedom from Rome) and in terms of how they viewed their salvation.

It is possible the 32 marks were involved in a similar prophecy, but no proof of that.

3 Likes

I think the idea of the 32 marks is not a fundamental of the Buddhist faith, though it is mentioned in the Pali text. The Dhammas (of the Buddha) contributing to bodhi/enlightenment are the foundation of Early Buddhism.

I think the idea is that they are supposed to prove that the Buddha was a remarkable, rare and “wheel turning” spiritual leader.

However I will note that according to Analayo, the 32 marks were originally seen as imperceptible to the average person, and required very special religious training to detect. And of course, there is contrasting evidence from the Ebts which depict the Buddha as looking just like any other bald Indian monk and thus others cannot tell him apart from other Bhikkhus.

4 Likes

I recently read a Biblical studies monograph that argues something along similar grounds— that for Jews living in the Roman Empire, fulfillment of prophecy was considered far more persuasive than physical proof (which could be chalked up to sorcery, fraud, trickery, etc.). The monograph was focusing, not on the virgin birth, but on the resurrection and the way the gospels accounts emphasize scriptural citations to “prove” the case for it. Here is an excerpt:

As we have seen in Chapter 3, the vast majority of proto-orthodox apologists refrain from
appealing to the physical proofs. One reason for this was the notion that miraculous events such as Jesus’s resurrection were in themselves unreliable as proofs. 6 The main problem was that naysayers and skeptics could dismiss miracles, including Jesus’s resurrection, as nothing more than illusion or sorcery.7 Therefore, rather than reciting the physical demonstrations from Luke and John, the apologists appealed to the fulfillment of prophecy, which they held to be a superior form of proof. Here again we are confronted with the gap between ancient and modern worldviews. Modern readers whose worldview entails the presupposition of a closed universe may too readily assume that the physical demonstrations in Luke 24:39-43 would have themselves been sufficient proof, whereas ancient readers who believe in a variety of supernatural phenomena might assess these elements in Luke’s narrative differently.

(from “The Doubt of the Apostles and the Resurrection Faith of the Early Church” by J.D.Atkins)

It’s a good warning about how we need to be careful about projecting our modernist biases on the ancients — they might have had completely different criteria for what was considered important. Perhaps this discrepancy in worldview can result in discrepancies about what is considered “fundamental” to a religion or not.

Interesting thoughts.

3 Likes

I am sure you realise that this is not in line with what EBT scholars say, and the topic of many discussions here . However, by stating it in this fashion it sounds as though you are declaring it to be a truth rather than your opinion.

Metta

For anyone interested in an overview here is a link

5 Likes