[Buddha-l] Protestant Buddhisms

[Richard Nance]

Richard Hayes wrote:

> Speaking of Protestant Buddhism, Gregory Schopen made the observation
> about twenty years ago that there is nothing much more Protestant than
> the supposition that allegedly early canonical texts (scriptures, if I
> may used that term) contain all the truth in a tradition and that later
> developments, insofar as they deviate from the scriptural norms, are
> therefore decadent innovations. 

Well, maybe. But in the article that presents the classic version of
Schopen's "Protestantism" argument ("Archeology and Protestant
Presuppositions in the Study of Indian Buddhism"), his complaint isn't
that scholars have focused on early texts to the exclusion of later
ones; it's that they have focused on texts (whether early or late) to
the exclusion of archaeological and epigraphical sources.  Although
he's coopted the term "Protestant Buddhism" from Obeyesekere, the spin
he gives to it seems to me to be rather different.

Schopen attributes the cause of this exclusive focus to an unconscious
ideological bias inherited from Protestantism. This raises an
interesting question: would Schopen object to Buddhist presuppositions
contributing to our heuristics for interrogating Indian Buddhism?

Where would we locate these presuppositions?  Should we rule out texts
as a source? I'd assume that Schopen would not want to insist that
anything be ruled out up front. But if we include Buddhist texts, then
it quickly becomes obvious that presuppositions quite similar to those
Schopen decries as "Protestant" are observable in Indian Buddhist
textual sources.  Such sources are, in fact, *chock full* of evidence
that some Buddhists have placed great emphasis on the crucial
importance played by texts and textual learning (often encountered and
discussed orally) to progress on the path.

Schopen's qualm cannot, therefore, be that assumptions held by
scholars of Buddhism about where to look for "Buddhism" do not embody
the views held within the tradition itself, to the extent that we're
able to recover such views. So the issue of "Protestantism," at least
as Schopen uses it, seems to me to be something of a red herring
(though a useful one for his purposes: surely his article would have
packed a lot less rhetorical punch--and probably have ended up being a
lot less influential--had it been entitled "Archaeology and Buddhist
Presuppositions in the Study of Indian Buddhism").  Schopen's real
point may well be that any view that locates a religious tradition in
the texts of that tradition imports outmoded assumptions that are
inappropriate for scholarly work. Is Schopen right about this? I
suppose the answer one gives to that question will depend a lot on
what one understands the vocation of a scholar to require.

Best wishes,

R. Nance