[Buddha-l] Re. scholarship and philosophy

[Robert Ellis]

Dear Franz,

I'm glad we are agreeing on some central points, but I would disagree with one of the conclusions you draw from the impossibility of neutrality in scholarship of Buddhism:

>> There is simply no such thing as objective scholarship in the humanities. In fact it is in recognizing our engagement, our subjectivity, and attending to the data that subjectivity provides us that we do our best human science work.<<

If you agree that objectivity is personal, then there is indeed objectivity in the human sciences. The lack of a God's-eye view of things does not entail?a lack of objectivity, but rather that we can be freed to think of objectivity as?personal and incremental rather than in terms of?propositions that map?onto reality. Recognising our degree of subjectivity is itself a move towards objectivity, given that objectivity is founded on habitual awareness of conditions.?

?>>*Some* scholars in Buddhist studies do discourage good work (philosophical or not) because they define the field too narrowly. Studying Buddhism primarily through the lens of psychology, I have fought against this narrowness my whole career. But some other scholars are actively promoting self-reflective and philosophically engaged Buddhist studies by their grad students. I could name many names here; these professor are not hard to find. Several, indeed, are active on this list.<<

If that's true, it's good to hear. However, my experience has been?different. I don't know where you're located (by your use of the word "professor" I'd guess it's the US), but my experience has been in the UK, where I found it impossible to pursue a philosophical approach within Buddhist?Studies. It was also difficult enough pursuing an approach inspired by Buddhist insights in Philosophy, but at least I managed to do so to Ph.D. level.

It's also possible that we mean different things by "philosophically engaged Buddhist?Studies". Do you mean that some professors/ influential scholars?allow their students to make some comparisons with Western philosophy or psychology as a supplement to a basically scholarly approach? That has been going on for some time, and even very conservative scholars, such as Damien Keown, do this.?Or do you mean that they allow a?completely philosophical (or psychological)?approach? I have been engaged in the latter, attempting to do philosophy in a Buddhist-inspired way, but even found that my papers were rejected by journals purely for reasons of classification, because it wasn't Buddhist Studies?and it wasn't analytic or continental philosophy.

I'd be interested to hear from any?subscribers to this list who have been following, or supporting, a completely philosophical approach, as opposed to?a mixed?philosophical/ scholarly one.
?
>>Further, I don't see why you are setting up a dichotomy of advocacy and method. I see things as grayer than you, perhaps. Or, better, I agree the issue is method: whether we include in our method data generated from our personal experience.<<
?
I certainly didn't intend to imply such a dichotomy. I just wanted to point out that it is not just a question of neutral scholarship vs. advocacy as suggested by the "Buddhist theology" debate you referred me to in the Journal of Global Buddhism. (How on earth did we get saddled with such a misnomer as Buddhist theology?). Personally, I am not doing "Buddhist theology", but a type of normative moral philosophy inspired by certain insights gained from Buddhism. There does seem to be a crucial difference between these approaches which needs pointing out. Although they may both use personal experience, the philosophical approach I am taking does not take any Buddhist doctrines for granted in the way one would expect any type of theology to take central religious?assumptions for granted.

Best wishes,
Robert


Robert Ellis

website: www.moralobjectivity.net