Is this forum a place for Buddhist Hermeneutics?

But is there really one proper interpretation? Or two? If this were so, then why would the texts have erred on the side of allegories and/or parables?

As noted above, (absolute) language is flawed and inadequate (some more so than others) in describing any spiritual experience - i.e. anything pertaining to the inner world. Anyone who has had experiences and tried to share them with others knows this. Indeed, language itself has evolved phrases to illustrate this stark shortcoming: "I'm speechless", "There are no words....", "Words are not enough...", "I'm at a loss of words", "I can't find the words to...", "A picture is a thousand words...". And even with language, we gesticulate now and then when we're at a loss of words to render an exact experience with no details spared. (Which is why telepathy is a thing, if you believe in such things).

You are missing one thing. Understanding does not come through intellectual discourse... Or words read in a book/on paper. Understanding comes through direct individual experience. Hence the teachings are really a "guide" (which explains the parables/allegories), and people that 'teach' us are not really "teachers" in the Western sense of the word, but rather "guides".

Thus, a parable being a "picture with words", and a picture being a thousand words, what better way to 'teach*' than to paint a (verbal) picture...? - Indeed, we do it today when someone does not "get" us: we use "analogies", "scenarios" or descriptions prefaced with "let me paint you a picture...".

All of Bhudda's teachings merely point us along a direction, and Bhudda's teachings were different for different people. - Because people ARE different.

Interpretations are as diverse as opinions and subjective experiences, and yet, any of them that leads (read: guides) anyone to enlightenment is a "proper interpretation".

But be aware that reading alone, or "interpretation" alone will get one nowhere. Beyond reading, there is practice. And practice is more important than reading. Or any interpretation. Bhuddism after all is a "way of life".

If we "can't make sense" of Bhudda's teachings, it might be because we spend more time reading, than we do practicing....

"Even if we can't make sense of all of Buddhist teaching, at least we can read the texts properly (in proper contexts)."

• Reading is not a prerequisite to Bhuddism, nor to enlightenment???

As for a desire for objective study of the teachings, Enlightenment is not an objective experience, It is a very subjective one, and there is no one sole path that leads to it exclusively.. Nor can we lead anyone else to enlightenment, short of pointing them the way... So, which is more important? The study of it or the experience of it?

It wouldn't be possible to become, say, a traditional Chinese of certain province by just reading and without intensive direct and physical association. Every of them would recognize one soon as a common fake.

How could one manage to become a Noble One only on words read?

This tradition is like a skill profession, requiring a student, master relation, i.e. a real threefold Refuge.

As for a/the forum: a forum can not act. As for if association with members, watch out careful and start with thinking whether a Noble One would accept being/getting bond on common and commercial rules... not to speak about virtue at forst place.

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.”

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:

1. 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.

2. 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".

3. 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.

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.