[Buddha-l] The Proper Scope of Buddhology

[Barnaby Thieme]

I have to agree that's a bizarre claim. No anthropology? No field work 
of any kind? No archaeology? No study of art? No study of oral 
traditions? No historiography? What about neurotheology and cognitive 
assessments of Buddhist meditators? None of this is legitimate for 
scholars of Buddhism to consider? 



Barnaby~

_________________________________



More than any time in history mankind faces a crossroads. One 
path
leads to despair and utter hopelessness, the other to total extinction.
Let us pray that we have the wisdom to choose correctly. -- Woody Allen



>
 From: franz at mind2mind.net
> To: buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
>
 Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 11:04:28 -0700
> Subject: [Buddha-l] The 
Proper Scope of Buddhology
> 
> Gang,
> 
> 
Richard rather categorically asserted
> 
> > There is 
exactly one legitimate thing for scholars of Buddhism
> > to 
study: texts. We can only go where our texts go. We can
> > 
report what our texts say, no more. Buddhist texts are silent
> 
> on near-death experiences, so as scholars of Buddhism we
> 
> would be irresponsible to speculate on what Buddhists might
>
 > have to say about such things.
> 
> I am impressed 
with the audacity of this claim, but I have to say I  
> think 
it's nonsense.
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3