[Buddha-l] The Proper Scope of Buddhology

[Franz Metcalf]

Gang,

Richard rather categorically asserted

> There is exactly one legitimate thing for scholars of Buddhism
> to study: texts. We can only go where our texts go. We can
> report what our texts say, no more. Buddhist texts are silent
> on near-death experiences, so as scholars of Buddhism we
> would be irresponsible to speculate on what Buddhists might
> have to say about such things.

I am impressed with the audacity of this claim, but I have to say I  
think it's nonsense.

What is legitimate for "scholars of Buddhism" to study is Buddhism.  
This by definition. Richard, if we agree on that, you must be  
asserting that Buddhism is isomorphic with its texts. I deny that.  
Buddhism, as all other religions, includes its texts but is not  
exhausted by them. As an example (the first one to come into my head),  
we cannot reduce meditation on the breath to the Maha-satipatthana  
Sutta. The sutta is foundational to the current practice, but the  
practice does exist apart from it. Indeed, the practice existed  
*before* the text. Can you give an argument why the study of breath  
meditation practice would be illegitimate? Are you saying it is not  
"Buddhism?" Are we not allowed to, say, investigate early Buddhist  
meditative practice, relating it to other Indic religious practices?  
Can we not attempt to illuminate the life of the Buddha, the origins  
of the sangha, the First Council? All these thing are avant la lettre  
and yet are part of Buddhism, no?

Perhaps you are using "study" in some restricted sense that  
philosophers know and I don't. Or perhaps you share the opinion that  
those studying anything other than texts are not really "scholars."  
You certainly would not be alone in that view.

Franz
(who is clearly not a scholar of distinction)