FUNDAMENTALISM (an essay by Adi Da)
Ken, I don't think you will agree with this, but you inspired me to post it!
All the characteristic exaggerations and inherent limitations of negative "fundamentalism"-such as arbitrary (and altogether ego-serving) belief, false (or "manufactured") enthusiasm, the strange gleefulness of exclusivist "insiders", a general confinement to the exoteric mentality (and especially to an obsessive and limiting concern for merely life-ordinary-or social, and political-matters), a general lack (or, at best, a very selective use) of discrimination, the tendency toward moralistic (and even rather militant) righteousness (or even fanaticism), the tendency toward irrational (or, at least, grossly and intrusively manipulative) propagandizing, and so on-are (or should be) obvious to, and consistently eschewed by, every serious (and discriminating) student (or studier) of the Great Tradition, whether the truly negative "fundamentalist" tendency is found in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other religious tradition.
However, the characteristic exaggerations and inherent limitations of negative "fundamentalism" should also be obvious to, and consistently eschewed by, everyone who lives in the common, daily world of mankind in general-for that negative "fundamentalist" tendency is now (and until it is Out-Grown by true sanity and true respect) everywhere evidenced even in the non-religious (or secular) domain of popular culture, the "media" of entertainment, sports, advertising, news, and education, the enterprises of politics, business, protest, and social activism, and so on, and on. Therefore, there is as much negative "fundamentalism" in anti-"fundamentalism" as there is in "fundamentalism" otherwise (and, similarly, there is as much negative "cultism" in anti-"cultism", or "'cult'-bashing", as there is in "cultism" otherwise). Just so, there is as much negative "fundamentalism" (and negative "cultism") in the "establishment" and in the secular domain as there is in the non-"establishment" and in the religious domain.
Is every (especially non-"establishment") "authority", and every (especially non-"establishment") "charismatic" leader, a (to use the common "media" term) "fundamentalist cult-figure"? And is every such "authority" or "charismatic" leader to be (as profoundly uninformed-and, sometimes, even badly intentioned-"media" commentators have sometimes been prone to suggest) indiscriminately equated with a "Hitler", and with every other kind of grotesque, obscene, and desecratory symbol of evil, or of the unacceptable "other", or of the non-person? In that case, what was (or is) Moses, Jesus of Nazareth, Muhammad, Mahavira, Gautama Shakyamuni, Ramakrishna, Swami Vivekananda, Francis of Assisi, Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, Mahatma Gandhi, or any president of the United States, or any leader of any country, or even any legitimate military leader, or any business leader, or any company executive, or even any one of "influence" at all? Are they "fundamentalist cult-figures"? In that case, Walt Disney, at the head of all his happily "programmed" theme-park employees, could likewise (and just as absurdly) be called a "fundamentalist cult-figure"-even Mickey Mouse as well, to "whom" even all of mankind is "programmed" to respond with the smile of simple human happiness!
Indiscriminate and "fundamentalistically" negative and disrespectful references to religious persons and religious groups as "fundamentalist" (or, otherwise, indiscriminate and "fundamentalistically" negative and disrespectful use of the "media" button-word of "cult" in relation to religious persons and religious groups) is current common practice in the common world of bad intentions. Therefore, discrimination, and fundamental true respect for one and all (including all the positively intentioned "fundamentalists", and all the positively intentioned "cults", whether religious or non-religious, and all the positively intentioned "charismatic" leaders, whether of greater or of lesser "influence"), must, through a renewal of both private (or most personal) and public self-discipline, replace every negative intention. And genuine (and positively intended) information, and every kind of inspired and inspirational communication, must everywhere replace mere (and, especially, negatively intended) propaganda and worldly conformist glibness.
Positive "fundamentalism" (in the sense of serious, and strict, and positively intentioned adherence to a set of fundamental, right, and positive principles, or to a body of worthy ideas, or to some worthy person, and so on) is not an evil-nor is there any evil in positive "cults", or positively intentioned (and perhaps-but not necessarily-"unorthodox", or unconventional) groups that cultivate (and wish to Grow, and Out-Grow, by means of) great devotion to a positive idea (or person, or activity, or thing). Indeed, positive adherence to fundamental, right principles (and, thus, positive "fundamentalism") and positive cultivation of right association with positive ideas, persons, activities, and things (and, thus, positive "cultism") is, truly (and necessarily), what is meant by the ideals and practices everywhere (supposedly) greatly valued, and which are called "civilization" and "culture". And truly negative (or badly intentioned) "fundamentalism" (and truly negative, or badly intentioned, "cults") will, in any case, become unnecessary and obsolete only in the truly civilized, and truly democratic, culture of Man, which is the compassionate culture of cooperation, tolerance, and peace.
Namaste!
Jim |
