[Buddha-l] Scholarship and philosophy

[Richard Nance]

On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 6:13 AM, Robert Ellis <robertupeksa at talktalk.net>wrote:


>  Philosophical argument, unlike scholarly argument, allows basic
> assumptions to be questioned.


This is a basic assumption worth questioning. You're welcome to define your
terms stipulatively if you wish, of course -- but a scholar such as Gregory
Schopen would almost certainly balk at the suggestion that he's doing
philosophy (and he's done quite a bit to question basic assumptions in the
field of Buddhist Studies). I know of very few scholars in the field, in
fact, who do _not_ proceed by checking and rechecking their assumptions and
adjusting those assumptions in light of new findings.  This is how
scholarship works -- or how it's supposed to work.
.

> I also find the situation bizarre if you compare Buddhist Studies to
> Christian theology. Christian theologians refer to texts, but a large
> portion of their discussions?are philosophical or theological, and deeply
> engaged with examining the core assumptions of Christian belief. Why is such
> an approach so often rigidly excluded from discussion in Buddhist Studies?


The first step in rectifying the situation, it seems to me, is to avoid
buying into the idea that the pursuit of scholarly rigor and the pursuit of
philosophical rigor are incompatible pursuits. You haven't quite said this
-- but some of your remarks above (e.g., the attempt to oppose scholarly
argument to philosophical argument) lead me to think that you may assume
something like this. Don't. It's a myth. One can, after all, approach
Buddhism endeavoring to be responsible to both philological* and
philosophical insights. Some very fine recent work in Buddhist Studies
arguably attempts to do just this sort of thing.

Best wishes,

R. Nance
Indiana

* I'm assuming that your worry over the scholarly can be unpacked as a worry
over an approach that privileges philological acumen. My apologies if I'm
misreading your point.