[Buddha-l] Loving your object of study

[Bob Zeuschner]

The answer is that scholarship IS the practice, and we in the West make 
a separation between scholarship vs. practice.
Bob

Katherine Masis wrote:
> Richard wrote:
>   " . . . we were all so enamoured of our object of study that we could not see it at all clearly."
>    
>   Joy wrote:
>   “Yet, at the same time, I would say that whoever is not enamoured with the object of their study doesn't see it.”
>    
>   What does "l'enamorament" mean here?  After reading Charles Muller’s and Richard Hayes’ online papers about the divide between scholars (Buddhologists) and practitioners (Buddhists), it puzzles me that the divide even exists.  I can understand Buddhists, Christians or people of any faith practicing with little or no knowledge of their faith (though I would not be comfortable in that position), but it strikes me as odd that Buddhologists would have little interest in Buddhist practice.  I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a Christian theologian--no matter how avant-garde or rebellious against institutionalized forms of worship--who didn’t have some sort of Christian practice.  Of course there are theologians who abandon their practice and their faith, but then they abandon theology as well and turn to other forms of scholarship (e.g., Karen Armstrong).  
>    
>   Katherine Masis