user20644: Buddhist Hermeneutics could be the objective study of Buddhist texts (from my limited understanding).
Is hermeneutics possible in Buddhism? There are so many allegories and parables in Buddhist texts, I feel that an objective study of these texts would be a good first step towards proper interpretation. Am I wrong?
Even if we can't make sense of all of Buddhist teaching, at least we can read the texts properly (in proper contexts).

user471: The idea of Buddhist hermeneutics can be found in the Pali Canon, as seen in the quotes below.
Traditional commentaries in Pali and other supporting texts such as the Visuddhimagga also developed as an interpretive framework. Traditionally, the Abhidhamma is said to have been taught by the Buddha, but others see it as a supporting interpretive framework too.
AN 2.23-25 (below) is useful for this topic.

“Mendicants, these two misrepresent the Realized One. What two? One
who explains what was not spoken by the Realized One as spoken by him.
And one who explains what was spoken by the Realized One as not spoken
by him. These two misrepresent the Realized One.
These two don’t misrepresent the Realized One. What two? One who
explains what was not spoken by the Realized One as not spoken by him.
And one who explains what was spoken by the Realized One as spoken by
him. These two don’t misrepresent the Realized One.”
“Mendicants, these two misrepresent the Realized One (the Buddha). What two? One
who explains a discourse in need of interpretation as a discourse
whose meaning is explicit. And one who explains a discourse whose
meaning is explicit as a discourse in need of interpretation. These
two misrepresent the Realized One.”
“These two don’t misrepresent the Realized One (the Buddha). What two? One who
explains a discourse in need of interpretation as a discourse in need
of interpretation. And one who explains a discourse whose meaning is
explicit as a discourse whose meaning is explicit. These two don’t
misrepresent the Realized One.”

The other useful thing, is the four great references of AN 4.180 (below). Please also see this answer.

Take another mendicant who says: ‘Reverend, I have heard and learned
this in the presence of the Buddha: this is the teaching, this is the
training, this is the Teacher’s instruction.’ You should neither
approve nor dismiss that mendicant’s statement. Instead, you should
carefully memorize those words and phrases, then check if they’re
included in the discourses and found in the texts on monastic
training. If they are included in the discourses and found in the
texts on monastic training, you should draw the conclusion: ‘Clearly
this is the word of the Blessed One, the perfected one, the fully
awakened Buddha. It has been correctly memorized by that mendicant.’
You should remember it. This is the first great reference.
Take another mendicant who says: ‘In such-and-such monastery lives a
Saṅgha with seniors and leaders. I’ve heard and learned this in the
presence of that Saṅgha: this is the teaching, this is the training,
this is the Teacher’s instruction.’ You should neither approve nor
dismiss that mendicant’s statement. Instead, you should carefully
memorize those words and phrases, then check if they’re included in
the discourses or found in the texts on monastic training. If they are
included in the discourses and found in the texts on monastic
training, you should draw the conclusion: ‘Clearly this is the word of
the Blessed One, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha. It has
been correctly memorized by that Saṅgha.’ You should remember it. This
is the second great reference.
Take another mendicant who says: ‘In such-and-such monastery there are
several senior mendicants who are very learned, knowledgeable in the
scriptures, who remember the teachings, the texts on monastic
training, and the outlines. I’ve heard and learned this in the
presence of those senior mendicants: this is the teaching, this is the
training, this is the Teacher’s instruction.’ You should neither
approve nor dismiss that mendicant’s statement. Instead, you should
carefully memorize those words and phrases, then check if they’re
included in the discourses and found in the texts on monastic
training. If they are included in the discourses and found in the
texts on monastic training, you should draw the conclusion: ‘Clearly
this is the word of the Blessed One, the perfected one, the fully
awakened Buddha. It has been correctly memorized by those senior
mendicants.’ You should remember it. This is the third great
reference.
Take another mendicant who says: ‘In such-and-such monastery there is
a single senior mendicant who is very learned and knowledgeable in the
scriptures, who has memorized the teachings, the texts on monastic
discipline, and the outlines. I’ve heard and learned this in the
presence of that senior mendicant: this is the teaching, this is the
training, this is the Teacher’s instruction.’ You should neither
approve nor dismiss that mendicant’s statement. Instead, you should
carefully memorize those words and phrases, then check if they’re
included in the discourses and found in the texts on monastic
discipline. If they are included in the discourses and found in the
monastic law, you should draw the conclusion: ‘Clearly this is the
word of the Blessed One, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha.
It has been correctly memorized by that senior mendicant.’ You should
remember it. This is the fourth great reference.
These are the four great references.”


user8157: The teachings of the Buddha are "literal". The first description of the teachings are they are "well-spoken". Others verses from the Pali scriptures support this, such as:

Bhikkhus, the Dhamma well proclaimed by me thus is clear, open,
evident, and free of patchwork.
MN 22
I have set forth the Dhamma without making any distinction of esoteric
and exoteric doctrine; there is nothing, Ananda, with regard to the
teachings that the Tathagata holds to the last with the closed fist of
a teacher who keeps some things back.
DN 16

For hundreds of years it appears most Buddhists are not interested in being honest about the scriptures.
For example, if an objective literal approach is taken towards the Teachings, as examples:

In the 1st Noble Truth, the Buddha said: "In summary, the five aggregates subject to attachment is dukkha". Yet maybe 0.1% of Buddhists will say all dukkha was summarised by the Buddha as attachment. Where as, the 99.9% will say life is dukkha or rebirth is dukkha rather than attachment is dukkha or birth is a type of attachment.

In the Dependent Origination, "birth" is literally defined as "the birth of various beings in a category of beings"; where the scriptures elsewhere literally define "a being" as a "view" or "convention". Yet maybe 0.1% of Buddhists will say "birth" in Dependent Origination refers to views or conventions of social or self-identities. Where as the 99.9% will say "birth" means "child-birth".

The original (Pali) scriptures literally say Dependent Origination is about twelve conditions leading to sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, despair and the whole mass of suffering. But most Buddhists will not say this. Most Buddhists will say Dependent Origination is about reincarnation or about the causality of all things in the universe.


In summary, the core teachings of the Buddha are literal and clearly defined.

user16635: You're going to find two schools of thought on this:

Fundamentalist sects will hold that the original teachings of Gautama Buddha are 'perfect', and that anything which appears to be revisionism is an aberration or misunderstanding
Progressive sects will hold that any written expression is limited and flawed, so the teachings of Gautama Buddha must adapt to changing contexts and climates as the world moves forward

Neither position is right, and neither is wrong; they reflect different worries about the preservation of the teachings, and as such are inherently dukkha. The teachings will fade away, and they will be recovered in a different form. Clinging to the future, clinging to the present, clinging to the past... the operative word is 'clinging'.
Everyone who encounters the dharma will go through a period of hermeneutics, be it formal or informal. We all try to grasp the dharma intellectually, one way or another. That intellectual struggle is a way of tending a field (clearing, hoeing, weeding) in which understanding can grow. Understanding is not something we create through these efforts — like any crop we can prep the field, but then we have to sit and wait to see what grows — but the hermeneutic process helps. Some hermeneutic paths lead to fundamentalism, some lead to progressivism, some lead elsewhere... The point to remember is that all paths are meant to lead beyond the teaching to bone-deep understanding.
Don't think of hermeneutics as objective. Hermeneutics is intra-subjective: a way of engaging in dialog with a teacher to reach a common worldview. The intention shouldn't be to learn, i.e., accumulate objective knowledge. The intention should be to see: to un-cloud our eyes and gain perspective.

20644: <p>Buddhist Hermeneutics could be the objective study of Buddhist texts (from my limited understanding).</p>
<p>Is hermeneutics possible in Buddhism? There are so many allegories and parables in Buddhist texts, I feel that an objective study of these texts would be a good first step towards proper interpretation. Am I wrong?</p>
<p>Even if we can't make sense of all of Buddhist teaching, at least we can read the texts properly (in proper contexts).</p>
 471: <p>The idea of Buddhist hermeneutics can be found in the Pali Canon, as seen in the quotes below.</p>
<p>Traditional commentaries in Pali and other supporting texts such as the Visuddhimagga also developed as an interpretive framework. Traditionally, the Abhidhamma is said to have been taught by the Buddha, but others see it as a supporting interpretive framework too.</p>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/an2.21-31/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 2.23-25</a> (below) is useful for this topic.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Mendicants, these two misrepresent the Realized One. What two? One
who explains what was not spoken by the Realized One as spoken by him.
And one who explains what was spoken by the Realized One as not spoken
by him. These two misrepresent the Realized One.</p>
<p>These two don’t misrepresent the Realized One. What two? One who
explains what was not spoken by the Realized One as not spoken by him.
And one who explains what was spoken by the Realized One as spoken by
him. These two don’t misrepresent the Realized One.”</p>
<p>“Mendicants, these two misrepresent the Realized One (the Buddha). What two? One
who explains a discourse in need of interpretation as a discourse
whose meaning is explicit. And one who explains a discourse whose
meaning is explicit as a discourse in need of interpretation. These
two misrepresent the Realized One.”</p>
<p>“These two don’t misrepresent the Realized One (the Buddha). What two? One who
explains a discourse in need of interpretation as a discourse in need
of interpretation. And one who explains a discourse whose meaning is
explicit as a discourse whose meaning is explicit. These two don’t
misrepresent the Realized One.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The other useful thing, is the four great references of <a href="https://suttacentral.net/an4.180/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 4.180</a> (below). Please also see <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/39639/471">this answer</a>.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Take another mendicant who says: ‘Reverend, I have heard and learned
this in the presence of the Buddha: this is the teaching, this is the
training, this is the Teacher’s instruction.’ You should neither
approve nor dismiss that mendicant’s statement. Instead, you should
carefully memorize those words and phrases, then check if they’re
included in the discourses and found in the texts on monastic
training. If they are included in the discourses and found in the
texts on monastic training, you should draw the conclusion: ‘Clearly
this is the word of the Blessed One, the perfected one, the fully
awakened Buddha. It has been correctly memorized by that mendicant.’
You should remember it. This is the first great reference.</p>
<p>Take another mendicant who says: ‘In such-and-such monastery lives a
Saṅgha with seniors and leaders. I’ve heard and learned this in the
presence of that Saṅgha: this is the teaching, this is the training,
this is the Teacher’s instruction.’ You should neither approve nor
dismiss that mendicant’s statement. Instead, you should carefully
memorize those words and phrases, then check if they’re included in
the discourses or found in the texts on monastic training. If they are
included in the discourses and found in the texts on monastic
training, you should draw the conclusion: ‘Clearly this is the word of
the Blessed One, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha. It has
been correctly memorized by that Saṅgha.’ You should remember it. This
is the second great reference.</p>
<p>Take another mendicant who says: ‘In such-and-such monastery there are
several senior mendicants who are very learned, knowledgeable in the
scriptures, who remember the teachings, the texts on monastic
training, and the outlines. I’ve heard and learned this in the
presence of those senior mendicants: this is the teaching, this is the
training, this is the Teacher’s instruction.’ You should neither
approve nor dismiss that mendicant’s statement. Instead, you should
carefully memorize those words and phrases, then check if they’re
included in the discourses and found in the texts on monastic
training. If they are included in the discourses and found in the
texts on monastic training, you should draw the conclusion: ‘Clearly
this is the word of the Blessed One, the perfected one, the fully
awakened Buddha. It has been correctly memorized by those senior
mendicants.’ You should remember it. This is the third great
reference.</p>
<p>Take another mendicant who says: ‘In such-and-such monastery there is
a single senior mendicant who is very learned and knowledgeable in the
scriptures, who has memorized the teachings, the texts on monastic
discipline, and the outlines. I’ve heard and learned this in the
presence of that senior mendicant: this is the teaching, this is the
training, this is the Teacher’s instruction.’ You should neither
approve nor dismiss that mendicant’s statement. Instead, you should
carefully memorize those words and phrases, then check if they’re
included in the discourses and found in the texts on monastic
discipline. If they are included in the discourses and found in the
monastic law, you should draw the conclusion: ‘Clearly this is the
word of the Blessed One, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha.
It has been correctly memorized by that senior mendicant.’ You should
remember it. This is the fourth great reference.</p>
<p>These are the four great references.”</p>
</blockquote>
 8157: <p>The teachings of the Buddha are &quot;literal&quot;. The first description of the teachings are they are &quot;well-spoken&quot;. Others verses from the Pali scriptures support this, such as:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Bhikkhus, the Dhamma well proclaimed by me thus is clear, open,
evident, and free of patchwork.</p>
<p><a HREF="https://suttacentral.net/mn22/en/bodhi#sc65" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 22</a></p>
<p>I have set forth the Dhamma without making any distinction of esoteric
and exoteric doctrine; there is nothing, Ananda, with regard to the
teachings that the Tathagata holds to the last with the closed fist of
a teacher who keeps some things back.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">DN 16</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>For hundreds of years it appears most Buddhists are not interested in being honest about the scriptures.</p>
<p>For example, if an objective literal approach is taken towards the Teachings, as examples:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>In the 1st Noble Truth, the Buddha said: &quot;<em>In summary, the five aggregates subject to attachment is dukkha</em>&quot;. Yet maybe 0.1% of Buddhists will say all dukkha was summarised by the Buddha as attachment. Where as, the 99.9% will say life is dukkha or rebirth is dukkha rather than attachment is dukkha or birth is a type of attachment.</p>
</li>
<li><p>In the Dependent Origination, &quot;birth&quot; is literally defined as &quot;<em>the birth of various beings in a category of beings</em>&quot;; where the scriptures elsewhere literally define &quot;a being&quot; as a &quot;view&quot; or &quot;convention&quot;. Yet maybe 0.1% of Buddhists will say &quot;birth&quot; in Dependent Origination refers to views or conventions of social or self-identities. Where as the 99.9% will say &quot;birth&quot; means &quot;child-birth&quot;.</p>
</li>
<li><p>The original (Pali) scriptures literally say Dependent Origination is about twelve conditions leading to sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, despair and the whole mass of suffering. But most Buddhists will not say this. Most Buddhists will say Dependent Origination is about reincarnation or about the causality of all things in the universe.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>In summary, the core teachings of the Buddha are literal and clearly defined.</p>
 16635: <p>You're going to find two schools of thought on this:</p>
<ul>
<li>Fundamentalist sects will hold that the original teachings of Gautama Buddha are 'perfect', and that anything which appears to be revisionism is an aberration or misunderstanding</li>
<li>Progressive sects will hold that any written expression is limited and flawed, so the teachings of Gautama Buddha must adapt to changing contexts and climates as the world moves forward</li>
</ul>
<p>Neither position is right, and neither is wrong; they reflect different worries about the preservation of the teachings, and as such are inherently dukkha. The teachings <em>will</em> fade away, and they <em>will</em> be recovered in a different form. Clinging to the future, clinging to the present, clinging to the past... the operative word is 'clinging'.</p>
<p>Everyone who encounters the dharma will go through a period of hermeneutics, be it formal or informal. We all try to grasp the dharma intellectually, one way or another. That intellectual struggle is a way of tending a field (clearing, hoeing, weeding) in which understanding can grow. Understanding is not something we <em>create</em> through these efforts — like any crop we can prep the field, but then we have to sit and wait to see what grows — but the hermeneutic process helps. Some hermeneutic paths lead to fundamentalism, some lead to progressivism, some lead elsewhere... The point to remember is that all paths are meant to lead <em>beyond</em> the teaching to bone-deep understanding.</p>
<p>Don't think of hermeneutics as objective. Hermeneutics is intra-subjective: a way of engaging in dialog with a teacher to reach a common worldview. The intention shouldn't be to <em>learn</em>, i.e., accumulate objective knowledge. The intention should be to <em>see</em>: to un-cloud our eyes and gain perspective.</p>
