[Buddha-l] Question for academic teachers of Buddhism

[Richard Nance]

Jack --

I haven't heard the CDs you've mentioned, so I can't speak to the
points you're raised directly. I would be surprised, however, if David
Eckel were actually to paint a negative picture of cessation; he's a
very well-informed guy. Are you sure that he's not voicing a view he
takes to be manifested by certain previous scholars, or voicing
unfounded assumptions that he thinks the members of his audience might
already have?

As to teaching Buddhism in a university setting: it's important to
bear in mind that an academic lecture isn't a dharma talk, nor is it
meant to be. The borders between the two genres might at times grow
somewhat fuzzy, but the distinction is, it seems to me, a useful one
to make. The point of an academic class in Buddhism is not to provide
information on how to be a better Buddhist -- it's to provide
information on Buddhism (histories, practices, cultural settings,
influential figures, doctrines, etc.), and encourage students to think
carefully and critically about this information. If a student wants to
apply this information -- or apply critical thinking -- to the task of
becoming a better Buddhist, I certainly wouldn't encourage him or her
*not* to do so. But that's not the point of the class.

Students come in many different types. Some are seekers; others are
skeptics; still others are fundamentalists of one stripe or another --
 one does occasionally encounter forms of Buddhist fundamentalism. An
effective teacher will need to find a way to engage all of these and
get them thinking, and thinking critically, about the material on
offer. That's not an easy task (at least for those teachers who have
yet to attain Buddhahood). What one student finds appealing, another
will find quite off-putting.

But the goal, again, is greater understanding of --and critical
engagement with -- course concepts. This can happen whether or not the
teacher counts himself or herself as a Buddhist, and whether or not
students count themselves as Buddhists. In other words: being a
Buddhist (or not being a Buddhist) implies nothing about one's
effectiveness as a teacher -- or student -- of Buddhism in an academic
setting. No doubt, some students strongly believe that only Buddhists
should teach classes on Buddhism ("it takes one to know one"); others
strongly believe the opposite ("you can't understand something until
you've achieved some distance on it"). Both of these assumptions are
problematic, and an academic teacher who insists on positioning him or
herself as an insider (or outsider) to the tradition is, it seems to
me, cheating his or her students of a valuable opportunity to reflect
on the conditions under which they are tempted to grant -- or to
withhold -- judgments of authority.

But enough out of me. Off to Atlanta for the IABS conference...

Best wishes,

R. Nance
Indiana