• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Fundamentalism in Buddhism?

StarryNightshade

Spiritually confused Jew
Premium Member
Have you ever experienced fundamentalism in Buddhism?

Personally, I have barley encountered fundamentalism from an overall school, but I have from members of both Nichiren and Tibetan. Then again, I only experienced it from a few members of very large schools; so I'm not sure if it would be fair to classify the schools themselves as "fundamentalist".
 
Last edited:

ratikala

Istha gosthi
Have you ever experienced fundamentalism in Buddhism?

Personally, I have barley encountered fundamentalism from an overall school, but I have from members of both Nichiren and Tibetan. Then again, I only experienced it from a few members of very large schools; so I'm not sure if it would be fair to classify the schools themselves as "fundamentalist".


what are you classing as fundamentalism ?
 

SageTree

Spiritual Friend
Premium Member
I've experienced this with talks centred around anything relating to a Divine Essence,
or questioning if Buddha-nature is perhaps eternal.
 

dyanaprajna2011

Dharmapala
There is fundamentalism in Buddhism, but it's not really school-specific, more person-specific. However, Nichiren Shoshu (and it's offshoot Soka Gakkai) is a school that tends to be fundamentalist all the way through. But I've seen it from members of nearly all schools: Theravada, Tibetan, Pure Land, Zen. Thankfully, it's not that prevalent.
 

Breathe

Hostis humani generis
There is fundamentalism in Buddhism, but it's not really school-specific, more person-specific. However, Nichiren Shoshu (and it's offshoot Soka Gakkai) is a school that tends to be fundamentalist all the way through. But I've seen it from members of nearly all schools: Theravada, Tibetan, Pure Land, Zen. Thankfully, it's not that prevalent.
One of the most memorable, for me, Buddhist preachers was SGI.

I quote, "you believe in god? you don't need god. you need mandara. if you have any problems, go to mandara for help"

To this day, I don't know why he said it, or how one would even go about going to a maṇḍala for help... :D
 

SageTree

Spiritual Friend
Premium Member
I'm mostly stuck on the 'going to' part.... isn't that like... not that different.
 

StarryNightshade

Spiritually confused Jew
Premium Member
what are you classing as fundamentalism ?

1.) "Buddhism is the ONLY true religion".

2.) "My school is the ONLY right school in Buddhism".

3.) "You can't be a theist and a Buddhist".

4.) "This particular 'protector'/figure/demi-god/deva is the only one you should concentrate on".

5.) "Only one sutra is right. The rest are false".
 

ratikala

Istha gosthi
namaskaram :namaste


in that case unfortunately yes , but I have put that down to the individual rather than the school , but there are some schools which appear to foster an unhealthy attitude ,

as there is no structure in place to stop its adherents going of the rails .

somehow I found it ironicaly funny most of the problems I encountered seemed to fit in to the category of attatchment , ..... better to hold no veiw than attatch too strongly to what might proove to be wrong veiw :namaste


did someone say ignorance ?

In my early days of trying to learn to use the internet I got seriously attacked by the owner of a website for defending an openminded approach to buddhist teachings , ....it seamed that there was only one veiw , and only one interpretation of sutra , and that was her veiw , conclusion ........never trust an intollerant and bitter buddhist especialy one with no sence of humor :D
 

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
It is a word often used as a pejorative but it does not have to be.

" Fundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to orthodox theological doctrines" - is from the Wikipedia page on it, which interestingly seems not to refer to Buddhism.

I think it is always important, as others have alluded to, to not conflate the -ism with the -ist.
 

ratikala

Istha gosthi
namaskaram :namaste
It is a word often used as a pejorative but it does not have to be.

agreed , ...
" Fundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to orthodox theological doctrines" - is from the Wikipedia page on it, which interestingly seems not to refer to Buddhism.

but the way the word is commonly used tends to imply an overly strict adherance to the basic 'fundamental' teachings which can verge upon intollerance and lack of flexibility .
there is nothing wrong with strict adherance , as long as it is not to the exclusion of thought and reasoning . even the adherance to basic principles especialy within buddhism dictates the use of thought and reasoning .


I think it is always important, as others have alluded to, to not conflate the -ism with the -ist.

surly ' ism' is the practice , and ' ist' the one practicing it ?
 

Epictetus

Member
I've experienced literalism and sola scriptura in a Theravada forum I'm sometimes involved with. It takes, I think, three forms: (1) If it's in the Pali Canon then it must be understood literally (or close to it). (2) If it's not in the Pali Canon then it's not Buddhadhamma. (3) Rules are rules, so no bhikkhunis, for example.

Theravada people, in my experience, discourage philosophical discussion, especially about metaphysics, using the Buddha's "noble silence" as their reason. They focus on the removal of personal suffering through the practice of meditation in particular. I don't know if this is fundamentalism or, if it is, whether this kind of fundamentalism is a bad thing. It echoes the Buddha's stance as presented in the Pali Canon, but I don't know if the context and motivation was the same in the Buddha's case and ours.

The Buddha's teachings are open to critique (questioning, analysis), as he himself allowed (though not to the point of never-ending speculation and disputation). The dismissal of critique by some (many? most?) Theravadins is to me a negative form of fundamentalism. I've come across it in Zen, too, though in my experience they tend to become frivolous in dismissing philosophical questions.
 

DreadFish

Cosmic Vagabond
I've experienced literalism and sola scriptura in a Theravada forum I'm sometimes involved with. It takes, I think, three forms: (1) If it's in the Pali Canon then it must be understood literally (or close to it). (2) If it's not in the Pali Canon then it's not Buddhadhamma. (3) Rules are rules, so no bhikkhunis, for example.

Theravada people, in my experience, discourage philosophical discussion, especially about metaphysics, using the Buddha's "noble silence" as their reason. They focus on the removal of personal suffering through the practice of meditation in particular. I don't know if this is fundamentalism or, if it is, whether this kind of fundamentalism is a bad thing. It echoes the Buddha's stance as presented in the Pali Canon, but I don't know if the context and motivation was the same in the Buddha's case and ours.

The Buddha's teachings are open to critique (questioning, analysis), as he himself allowed (though not to the point of never-ending speculation and disputation). The dismissal of critique by some (many? most?) Theravadins is to me a negative form of fundamentalism. I've come across it in Zen, too, though in my experience they tend to become frivolous in dismissing philosophical questions.


I think the underlined is what I would identify as fundamentalism.

I had forgotten about the Bhikkuni thing, thats exactly what i'd refer to as fundamentalism. It's silly and the only thing it serves is sticking to the rules.
 

FashionOfMyLove

Non-Conformist
I have to admit I have been a bit fundamental at times, but that I believe that mainly to be because of my young age and the fact that I am a still relatively new to Buddhism having only been practising for 11 months or so, it will ease of eventually.
 

dyanaprajna2011

Dharmapala
I have to admit I have been a bit fundamental at times, but that I believe that mainly to be because of my young age and the fact that I am a still relatively new to Buddhism having only been practising for 11 months or so, it will ease of eventually.

This tends to happen. I've gone through stages of this myself. Mine came at the hands of thinking that if, if Buddhist compassion and ethics were somehow inculcated in the political sphere, this would make everything better. However, this goes against Buddhist compassion, so I had to give that idea up.
 

DreadFish

Cosmic Vagabond
Yeah, its quite common among new converts to any religion or philosophical school to be over zealous for a while.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
It is a word often used as a pejorative but it does not have to be.

" Fundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to orthodox theological doctrines" - is from the Wikipedia page on it, which interestingly seems not to refer to Buddhism.

I think it is always important, as others have alluded to, to not conflate the -ism with the -ist.
I think a lot has to do with preservation and traditional practices requiring a certain methodology as opposed to "spreading the gospel".
Buddhadasa comes to mind in those terms wheras he can come across as very fundamentalist, but actually the concerns lie in preservation of traditional ways carried on for many generations.
 
Last edited:

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
Yeah, its quite common among new converts to any religion or philosophical school to be over zealous for a while.
I think Buddha referred to this as generating karma that is neither bright or dark--the karma that leads to the ending of karma. (Generating enthusiasm for practice.)
 
Top