A hermeneutics of contemplation

The term "hermeneutics" when I read it, tends to turn me off to any further reading of the subject especially when it comes to Buddhism.  Sure, I understand it is about interpretation and explanation of texts especially the Bible.  It was D. E. Schleiermacher (1768–1834) who established pretty much the discipline of hermeneutics and with it the problem of the hermeneutic circle in trying to understand the whole text by its parts and the parts by the whole.   

I think most of us are unaware that we put ourselves into a hermeneutic circle when reading Zen Buddhist texts, especially, koans. But what other way is there?  And most of us would like to leap out of this circle or just leap into something more than discursively thinking about Zen; trying to fit its odd, almost indescribable shape into a square hole that we are already familiar with.  With Buddhism, it seems to me, that it's shape is more describable and lends itself more the the hermeneutic project which combines with history.  But this opens it up to the hermeneutics of suspicion which denies any absolute whether divine or the unconditioned, in the example of nirvana.

Given the age we live in which is trying to shed itself of all religions, the hermeneutics of suspicion has found a home in "secular Buddhism," which assumes that religious consciousness, generally, always operates at a primitive, unscientific level—sort of at the level of magical thinking, and because of this, Buddhism needs to rid itself, as much as possible, of its mumbo jumbo such as rebirth. 

With such an eagerness to toss out the dirty bath water more often than not, the baby gets thrown out, too.  There is always a probability, in the example of Buddhism, that the hermeneutics of suspicion will not grasp the religious sense of the Buddha's awakening and it further implications.  The other problem is that the Buddhists who deploy the hermeneutics of suspicion assume that they understand what enlightenment involves which is not about awakening to the transcendent.

The hermeneutics of suspicion might be good for such matters as exploring the dangers of the military industrial complex (MIC) where a certain amount of mistrust of government is called for.  But as far as Zen Buddhism and Buddhism are concerned, this kind of hermeneutics will not work.  It is only by contemplation that Buddhism can be understood in its fullest sense; and from this we might conceive of a hermeneutics of contemplation in which Buddhism can only be understood through a personal revelation of universal spirit or Mind.  From this revelation, everything else falls into place including karma and rebirth—and even koans.  Here we can say the proof is through the revelation, itself, which is the culmination of an introspective science.

Comments

[Mr.Nobody]

I see my error, it was in engaging with those who aim for nothing more than this, while mistakenly thinking they desired to learn about true contemplation. I suppose in this age, many will have to be termed, unteachable; icchantikas, and left alone.