[Buddha-l] Loving your object of study

[jkirk]

    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. ............................ 
   
  Katherine Masis
==============================================================
Several months ago a similar issue was discussed on another list, and some
posts seemed relevant to the point made by Katherine. I shall quote from one
such post without including the author's name (I wrote for his permission
but he hasn't replied, so protecting his identity). 

"...It appears to be less controversial to be a committed Buddhist and a
scholar of Buddhism than to be a committed Hindu and a scholar of Hinduism
in the contemporary academy.  I would add that it is also less controversial
to be a committed Hindu of South Asian descent and a scholar of Hinduism
than it is to be a committed Hindu of European descent and a scholar of
Hinduism.  My firsthand evidence for this are the numerous messages I have
received over the last couple of years commending me for my "boldness" and
"courage" in being open about my religious commitments as a lay member of
the Vedanta Society/Ramakrishna Mission.

...In terms of...Buddhism being regarded more positively by secular scholars
than either Hinduism or Christianity, my suspicion would be that the issue
here is theism.  Part of the attraction of Buddhism for many Westerners is
that it allows for a non-theistic spirituality--'Buddhism without beliefs,'
etc.--whereas Hinduism and Christianity share strong theistic commitments,
and even incarnational theologies.
These are just my preliminary thoughts on the topic you have raised....."

His remarks fitted some of my own experience when I was working in academe.

Joanna K.





  

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1137 - Release Date: 11/18/2007
5:15 PM