Fundamentalism

[Jhanananda]

Every religion has its fundamentalists.  Fundamentalism in religion rarely reflects a cogent and logically true form of that religion, nor is it ever contemplative or tolerant.

Fundamentalism in Christianity is reflected by the born-again movement which interprets their religion based upon an incorrect translation of John 3:16 as:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." King James

However, the stanza actually reads:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his chosen Son, that whosoever believeth in him (which refers to following his Nazirite lifestyle) should not perish, but have everlasting life."

The chosenness above refers to Jesus being a messiah, which means that he was chosen, not by the people, but by God for following his Nazirite lifestyle, and his "way truth and life" was the Nazirite lifestyle.  However, Fundamentalist Christians incorrectly interpreted the Gospels to read that Jesus was not a Nazirite, but someone who was raised in a fictitious town called "Nazareth" and one need only believe he is the "only begotten son of god" full stop, and they will not tolerate an alternate interpretation. Fundamentalist Christians have been aggressively marketing their warped version of Christian doctrine for nearly 2,000 years at the expense of burning at the stake anyone who did not agree with them.

Fundamentalism in Buddhism is the same way.  They embrace a skewed interpretation of Buddhist doctrine and they will not tolerate an alternate interpretation.  I have been hounded for 12 years by Fundamentalist Buddhists, like Mike Olds, who simply cannot tolerate an alternate interpretation of Buddhist doctrine that contradicts their own deeply flawed interpretation.

If fundamentalists, like Mike Olds, could be content with their version of Buddhist doctrine, without the deeply emotional need to attack and harass those who do not subscribe to their belief system, then they would not be fundamentalists; and maybe the world would be a better place.  At least mystics would not be harassed from every quarter.

[Jhanananda]

The three major branches of fundamentalism are:

Christian fundamentalism, also known as fundamentalist Christianity, or fundamentalism,[1] refers to a movement begun in the late 19th and early 20th century British and American Protestant denominations among evangelicals who reacted energetically against theological and cultural modernism.[2] Fundamentalists argued that 19th century modernist theologians had misinterpreted or rejected certain doctrines, especially biblical inerrancy, which evangelicals viewed as the fundamentals of Christian faith.[3] A few scholars regard Catholics who reject modern theology in favor of more traditional doctrines as fundamentalists.[4] Scholars debate how much the terms "evangelical" and "fundamentalist" are synonymous.

Fundamentalism is a movement manifested in various denominations with various theologies, rather than a single denomination or systematic theology. It became active in the 1910s after the release of the Fundamentals, a ten-volume set of essays, apologetic and polemic written by conservative Protestant theologians to defend what they saw as Protestant orthodoxy. The movement became more organized in the 1920s within U.S. Protestant churches, especially Baptist and Presbyterian. Many such churches adopted a "fighting style" and combined Princeton theology with Dispensationalism.[2] Since 1930, many fundamentalist churches in North America and around the world have been represented by the Independent Fundamental Churches of America (renamed IFCA International in 1996), which holds to biblical inerrancy, the Virgin birth of Jesus, substitutionary atonement, the literal resurrection of Christ, and the Second Coming of Christ, among other doctrines.

Evangelicalism

The first important stream was Evangelicalism as it emerged in the revivals of the First Great Awakening and Second Great Awakening in America and the Methodism movement in England in the period 1730-1840. They in turn had been influenced by the Pietism movement in Germany. Church historian Randall Balmer explains that:

    "Evangelicalism itself, I believe, is a quintessentially North American phenomenon, deriving as it did from the confluence of Pietism, Presbyterianism, and the vestiges of Puritanism. Evangelicalism picked up the peculiar characteristics from each strain – warmhearted spirituality from the Pietists (for instance), doctrinal precisionism from the Presbyterians, and individualistic introspection from the Puritans – even as the North American context itself has profoundly shaped the various manifestations of evangelicalism: fundamentalism, neo-evangelicalism, the holiness movement, Pentecostalism, the charismatic movement, and various forms of African-American and Hispanic evangelicalism.[20]

Dispensationalism

A second stream was Dispensationalism, a new interpretation of the Bible developed in the 1830s in England. Darby's ideas were disseminated by the notes and commentaries in the widely-used Scofield Reference Bible, published in 1909. Dispensationalism was a millenarian theory that divided all of time into seven different stages, called "dispensations", which were seen as stages of God's revelation. At the end of each stage, according to this theory, God punished humanity for having been found wanting in God's testing. Secularism, liberalism, and immorality in the 1920s were believed to be signs that humanity had again failed God's testing. Dispensationalists believed that the world was on the verge of the last stage, where a final battle will take place at Armageddon, followed by Christ's return and 1,000 year reign.[21]
Princeton Theology (biblical inerrancy)
See also: Biblical inerrancy
See also: Biblical literalism

A third stream was Princeton Theology, which responded to higher criticism of the Bible by developing from the 1840s to 1920 the doctrine of inerrancy. This doctrine, also called biblical inerrancy, stated that the Bible was divinely inspired, religiously authoritative, and without error.[22][23] The Princeton Seminary professor of Theology Charles Hodge insisted that the Bible was inerrant because God dictated its contents to the men who wrote it. Princeton theologians believed that the Bible should be read differently from any other historical document, and also that Christian modernism and liberalism led people to hell just like non-Christian religions.[21]

Orthodox Christianity is a collective term for the Eastern Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodoxy. These branches of Christianity use the term "orthdoxy" (from Greek: orthos + doxa, meaning correct belief) to express their belief to have an unbroken connection to the faith, doctrine and practices of the ancient Christian church. These two branches are the Eastern Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodoxy. The adjectives "Eastern" and "Oriental" are used by outsiders to differentiate the two groups; their adherents call themselves simply "Orthodox Christians". The two groups have been divided by their disagreements over the nature of Christ since the 5th century, and they are currently not in communion with each other,[1] but they maintain many identical doctrines, similar Church structures, and similar worship practices. There have been a number of recent talks aimed at reunification, and a great deal of agreement has been reached, but no concrete steps have been taken towards formal unity as yet.

Vaishnava HinduismVaishnavism (Sanskrit: वैष्णव धर्म, IPA: [ʋəiˈʂɳəʋə ˈd̪ʱərmə]) is one of the major branches of Hinduism along with Shaivism, Smartism, and Shaktism. It is focused on the veneration of Supreme Lord Vishnu. Vaishnavites, or the followers of the Supreme Lord Vishnu, lead a way of life promoting differentiated monotheism (henotheism), which gives importance to Lord Vishnu and His ten incarnations.

The oldest religious text in Vedic, Rigveda, describes Lord Vishnu as the Supreme Deity in Vishnu Sooktham (1.22.20):

    om tad visnoh paramam padam sada pasyanti surayah
    — diviva caksur atatam

    "Just as the sun's rays in the sky are extended to the mundane vision, so in the same way the wise and learned devotees always see the supreme abode of Lord Vishnu."

    tad vipraso vipanyavo jagrvam sah samindhate
    — visnor yat paramam padam

    "Because those highly praiseworthy and spiritually awake devotees are able to see the spiritual world, they are also able to reveal that supreme abode of Lord Vishnu."

Principal historic branches

Bhagavatism, early Ramaism and Krishnaism, merged in historical Vishnuism,[7] a tradition of Historical Vedic religion, distinguished from other traditions by its primary worship of Vishnu.[8] Vaishnavism, is historically the first structured Vaishnava religion as "Vishnuism, in a word, is the only cultivated native sectarian native religion of India."[9] Although it is usual to speak of Vishnu as the source of the Avatar, this is only one of the names by which the god of Vaishnavism is known. The other names include Narayana, Vasudeva and Krishna; each the name of a divine figure with attributed supremacy, which each associated tradition of Vaishnavism believes to be distinct.[10] For example, in the Krishnaism branch of Vaishnavism,[11] such as the Gaudiya Vaishnava, Nimbarka and Vallabhacharya traditions, devotees worship Krishna as the One Supreme form of God, and source of all avatars, Swayam Bhagavan, in contrast to the belief of the devotees of the Sri Sampradaya.[12]

Initiation

Vaishnavas although follow a process of initiation (diksha), given by a guru, under whom they are trained to understand Vaishnava practices gives more importance to the acceptance of the Supremacy of Lord Vishnu by men and women. At the time of initiation, the disciple is traditionally given a specific mantra, which the disciple will repeat, either out loud or within the mind, as an act of worship to Vishnu or one of his avatars.

Attitude toward scriptures

Vaishnava traditions refer to the writings of previous acharyas in their respective lineage or sampradya (see below) as authoritative interpretations of scripture.[18] While many schools like Smartism and Advaitism encourage interpretation of scriptures philosophically and metaphorically and not too literally,[citation needed] Vaishnavism stresses the literal meaning (mukhya vṛitti) as primary and indirect meaning (gauṇa vṛitti) as secondary: sākṣhād upadesas tu shrutih - "The instructions of the shruti-shāstra should be accepted literally, without fanciful or allegorical interpretations."[18][19]

Pure Land Buddhism (simplified Chinese: 净土宗; traditional Chinese: 淨土宗; pinyin: Jìngtǔzōng; Japanese: 浄土仏教[1], Jōdo bukkyō; Korean: 정토종, jeongtojong; Vietnamese: Tịnh Độ Tông), also referred to as Amidism[2][3][dead link] in English, is a broad branch of Mahāyāna Buddhism and one of the most widely practiced traditions of Buddhism in East Asia. Pure Land is a tradition of Buddhist teachings that are focused on Amitābha Buddha.

Pure Land oriented practices and concepts are found within basic Mahāyāna Buddhist cosmology, and form an important component of the Mahāyāna Buddhist traditions of China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, and Tibet. The term "Pure Land Buddhism" is used to describe both the Pure Land soteriology of Mahāyāna Buddhism, which may be better understood as "Pure Land traditions" or "Pure Land teachings," and the separate Pure Land sects that developed in Japan. In Japanese Buddhism, Pure Land teachings developed into independent institutional sects, as can be seen in the Jōdo-shū and Jōdo Shinshū schools.[4]

Early history
Statue of Amitābha Buddha seated in meditation. Borobodur, Java, Indonesia.
Book open to the traditional Chinese version (with Japanese annotations) of Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra.
Mount Lu, where the Chinese Pure Land tradition was founded.

The Pure Land teachings were first developed in India, and were very popular in Kashmir and Central Asia, where they may have originated.[5] Pure Land sutras were brought from the Gandhāra region to China as early as 147 CE, when the Kushan monk Lokakṣema began translating the first Buddhist sūtras into Chinese.[6] The earliest of these translations show evidence of having been translated from the Gāndhārī language, a prakrit language related to Sanskrit.[7] There are also images of Amitābha Buddha with the bodhisattvas Avalokiteśvara and Mahāsthāmaprāpta which were made in Gandhāra during the Kushan era.[8]

In the Buddhist traditions of India, Pure Land doctrines and practices were disseminated by well-known exponents of the Mahāyāna teachings, including Nāgārjuna and Vasubandhu.[9] Although Amitābha is honored and venerated in Pure Land traditions, this was clearly distinguished from worship of the Hindu gods, as Pure Land practice has its roots in the Buddhist ideal of the bodhisattva.[10]

The Pure Land sūtras are principally the Shorter Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra, Longer Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra, and the Amitāyurdhyāna Sūtra. The shorter sūtra is also known as the Amitābha Sūtra, and the longer sūtra is also known as the Infinite Life Sūtra. These sutras describe Amitābha and his Pure Land of Bliss, called Sukhāvatī. Also related to the Pure Land tradition is the Pratyutpannabuddha Saṃmukhāvasthita Samādhi Sūtra, which gives an early description of the practice of reciting the name of Amitābha Buddha as a meditation method. In addition to these, many other Mahāyāna texts also feature Amitābha Buddha, and a total of 290 such works have been identified in the Taishō Tripiṭaka.[11]

The Pratyutpannabuddha Saṃmukhāvasthita Samādhi Sūtra does not enumerate any vows of Amitābha or the qualities of Sukhāvatī, but rather briefly describes the repetition of the name of Amitābha as a means to enter his realm through meditation.

    Bodhisattvas hear about the Buddha Amitābha and call him to mind again and again in this land. Because of this calling to mind, they see the Buddha Amitābha. Having seen him they ask him what dharmas it takes to be born in the realm of the Buddha Amitābha. Then the Buddha Amitābha says to these bodhisattvas: "If you wish to come and be born in my realm, you must always call me to mind again and again, you must always keep this thought in mind without letting up, and thus you will succeed in coming to be born in my realm."

A characteristic of mainstream religion is fundamentalism, devotion, and often an emphasis upon repeated prayer, such as: the Jesus prayer in Orthodox Christianity, rosaries in the Catholic Church, and mantra repetition in the Indic religions.

Whereas, a characteristic of mystics is they are contemplatives, which means they practice meditation, but with the intention of cultivating religious experiences.

[Soren]

However, the stanza actually reads:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his chosen Son, that whosoever believeth in him (which refers to following his Nazirite lifestyle) should not perish, but have everlasting life."

I have seen you claim this before, can you explain the reasoning behind this alternative translation, or direct me to an article you have written?

[Jhanananda]

However, the stanza actually reads:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his chosen Son, that whosoever believeth in him (which refers to following his Nazirite lifestyle) should not perish, but have everlasting life."

I have seen you claim this before, can you explain the reasoning behind this alternative translation, or direct me to an article you have written?

It is not my work.  Just Google "john 3:16 controversy," as I did, or check this link What does ‘μονογενης υιος’ mean?.  I do not buy his irrational conclusion, but he nonetheless discusses the debate with reasonable depth.

[pj]

I though this was a relevant article by a philosopher whose works I am just beginning to investigate:
http://www.johnhick.org.uk/jsite/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=55:buddha&catid=37:articles&Itemid=58

In some sense, he too rejects fundamentalism by suggesting a more practical framework for viewpoints; That is, Hick states that different religions can be just different manifestations of the path to freedom/liberation/god..etc, and that holding too fast to "fundamentalism" can lead a once viable religion towards its downfall.  (In that it tries to justify its path by claiming to know the unknowable and that those who deny these claims are condemned to suffering) 

I could be reading more into this article than is there though.

Also, I find it amusing that this philosopher's name is Hick.

[Jhanananda]

Hello PJ, I must have missed this post from you.  I agree that religions tend to fail when they become fundamentalist; however, to me it is not so much about them trying to explain the unexplainable, but ever religion has its fundamentalists, and most of them reject the contemplative life, and/or the fruit there of.