Chapter 3. Methods and advances in academic Buddhist studies¶

Editorial note. Contemporary English-language interpretations of Madhyamaka bear the imprint of particular lineages. Many accounts treated as standard readings are, genealogically, reformulations of Gelug readings. Appendix 2 of Volume 2 already records a point about the genealogy of Garfield's line of interpretation. A systematic account of this dimension remains for future editions to develop in this chapter.

The preceding two chapters examined changes within Buddhist traditions in the modern world. They considered the intellectual profile of Buddhist modernism and the geographical spread of Buddhism in the West. This chapter takes another perspective, considering how academic research from outside has changed our understanding of Buddhism, and how these changes have in turn affected Buddhist traditions' understanding of themselves.

The influence runs in both directions. Modern scholarship has discovered much that was unknown or unrecognized within the traditions, and these discoveries have changed some traditional accounts. Conversely, the involvement of practitioners and believers in academic research has changed the questions scholars ask. This interaction is essential background for understanding modern Buddhist studies.

1. The formation of modern Buddhist studies (nineteenth to early twentieth century)¶

Buddhist studies in the modern academic sense was a product of nineteenth-century European Orientalism.

The philological foundations. European scholars learned Pāli, Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Classical Chinese and began systematically translating and editing Buddhist texts. The Pali Text Society in London, founded by T. W. Rhys Davids in 1881, published large numbers of Pāli source texts and English translations. The French scholar Eugène Burnouf (1801 to 1852), through his work on Sanskrit Buddhist texts, laid the philological foundations of European Buddhist studies. Compiling dictionaries, collating editions, and translating texts were real technical achievements. They made Buddhist literature accessible on a large scale to non-Asians for the first time.

The framework of comparative religion. The comparative study of religion was taking shape at the same time. Max Müller's (1823 to 1900) Sacred Books of the East series placed texts from different religions side by side, implying that all religions shared some universal human spirituality at their foundation. Within this framework, Buddhism was often presented as a "moral and psychological religion" with no theology or gods, only ethics and inner cultivation. This characterization considerably influenced later Buddhist modernism (Chapter 12.1 discusses the point from another angle).

The problems of Orientalism. Edward Said's critique in Orientalism (1978) has a direct application to Buddhist studies. European scholars constructed an image of "original, pure Buddhism" that was highly rationalized and stripped of superstition. The various living Buddhist traditions in Asia were then described as degenerations and corruptions of this "original Buddhism." The problem went beyond cultural prejudice. It profoundly affected how later Asian Buddhist reformers understood themselves. They adopted this framework of "purification" to criticize their own traditions.¹

One possible misunderstanding needs clarification. This does not mean that every European scholarly description of Buddhism is unreliable. The philological achievements were real, and many historical discoveries are sound. The question is which discoveries received emphasis, which were neglected, and what framework organized them. These choices were shaped by particular historical standpoints. Distinguishing "what was discovered" from "how the discoveries were interpreted" is essential to assessing the legacy of early Buddhist studies.

2. The major disciplinary contributions of the twentieth century¶

In the twentieth century, Buddhist studies expanded in several directions from its philological foundations.

Textual criticism and historical stratification. From the mid-twentieth century onward, an important line of work subjected Buddhist literature to critical historical analysis, distinguishing earlier texts from later ones and identifying subsequent additions. This challenged the traditions' own accounts of themselves. Many stories in the Theravāda Jātaka probably postdate the Buddha. Although Mahāyāna sūtras claim to be the Buddha's words, their textual history points to their formation beginning around the start of the Common Era. The style and ideas of Tibetan treasure texts point to composition much later than their claimed dates. The purpose of these findings is to locate the texts more accurately in history, rather than to overturn their value.

Archaeology and epigraphy. Twentieth-century archaeological discoveries filled gaps that textual history could not. Material evidence such as the carvings at Sanchi, Aśoka's inscriptions (progressively discovered and deciphered from the 1830s onward), the Gāndhārī manuscripts (large numbers written in Kharoṣṭhī script that have emerged from Afghanistan and Pakistan since the 1990s), and the Dunhuang documents (discovered in 1900) provides independent evidence for Buddhist history. Sometimes it agrees with the textual traditions' own accounts; sometimes it differs markedly.²

Social and economic history. Buddhist traditions generally tell their own histories around philosophy and practice. Twentieth-century scholars began to examine the social and economic dimensions of Buddhist practice. They studied monasteries as economic centers, landowners, and actors in local politics. They also examined the role of monastic education in shaping intellectual classes and Buddhism's place in trade networks, including the relationship between merchants and its spread along the Silk Road. These studies revealed how Buddhism operated within historical social structures, beyond its existence as a system of ideas.

The maturation of comparative philosophy. In the second half of the twentieth century, comparative philosophy began to proceed more rigorously. It first examined the specific contexts, conceptual structures, and forms of argument of philosophical problems, then acknowledged real similarities and differences between traditions, rather than simply equating Eastern and Western philosophies. The "philosophical comparisons" in each chapter of this book belong to this kind of work. They explicitly mark a comparison as philosophical analogy rather than historical influence, and explain carefully where the analogy holds and where it does not.

3. Scholarly discoveries that changed the understanding of Buddhism¶

Several scholarly discoveries have profoundly affected the overall picture of Buddhist studies.

Rethinking the origins of Mahāyāna. Before the twentieth century, Western scholars offered two overlapping accounts of Mahāyāna's historical position. One treated it as a degeneration of "original Buddhism." This evaluation was shaped by Protestant influence. It held that Mahāyāna's ritualization and mythologization departed from the rational spirit of early Buddhism. The other treated it as a later development deriving in a single line from "Hīnayāna" (the schools of Buddhism), a scheme of historical evolution. In the second half of the twentieth century, the work of Paul Harrison, Paul Griffiths, Lambert Schmithausen, and others revealed the diversity and complexity of Mahāyāna's origins (see Chapter 4.1),³ changing this simple linear account. Mahāyāna emerged from the convergence of multiple religious practices and textual traditions, rather than deriving in a single line from the Buddhist schools.

The Gāndhārī manuscripts and the oldest Buddhist texts. Since the 1990s, large numbers of Gāndhārī manuscripts have emerged from Afghanistan and Pakistan. They date from roughly the first century BCE to the third century CE. This makes them the oldest surviving handwritten Buddhist texts, several centuries earlier than the oldest manuscripts previously known. Among the earliest is the British Library's collection of Kharoṣṭhī fragments, dating to about the first half of the first century CE, which their editor describes as the oldest surviving coherent group of Buddhist manuscripts. Their route into the collection deserves mention. They were acquired through the antiquities market, with no record of when, where, or under what circumstances they were discovered. The loss of archaeological context substantially diminished their scholarly value. This is the assessment their editor gives at the beginning of his book. The manuscripts reveal the diversity of early Buddhist textual traditions. Some sūtras closely resemble those in the Pāli and Sanskrit traditions; others differ markedly, indicating that the versions in early circulation were more diverse than we had thought.²

The Dunhuang documents and the history of Chinese Buddhism. The documents from the Dunhuang Library Cave, discovered in 1900, had a major impact on the study of Chinese Buddhist history. Many Buddhist texts lost elsewhere in China were found at Dunhuang. Large numbers of documents actually used in Buddhist rites brought the practices of medieval Chinese Buddhism into view. The Dunhuang documents also supplied new historical evidence for early Chan, including Chinese documents concerning the Samye debate (see Chapter 11.1).

4. Methodological debates¶

As Buddhist studies matured, significant debates about method developed within the discipline.

Insider and outsider perspectives. Must researchers be practitioners to understand Buddhism fully? Or does a practitioner's standpoint interfere with scholarly objectivity? This debate exists more broadly in religious studies, but is especially acute in Buddhist studies because many Western scholars are themselves Buddhist practitioners. Robert Sharf and others criticize appeals to contemplative experience in defense of a scholarly interpretation as a method that cannot be tested externally and will lapse into unfalsifiable subjectivism. The other side holds that such experience can offer dimensions of understanding unavailable to outsiders.

Is "Buddhism" a unity or a plurality? Early Buddhist studies often treated "Buddhism" as a unified object of research, with an "essence" or "core" waiting to be discovered. In the second half of the twentieth century, growing numbers of scholars emphasized Buddhism's historical diversity. Buddhist practices can differ enormously across regions, periods, and social classes. The work of Donald Lopez and others has forcefully challenged the assumption that there is a single "true Buddhism." The entire approach of this book reflects that line of thought. It follows the historical threads of the different traditions without making a final ruling on which is "true Buddhism."¹

Critical Buddhism. This scholarly movement arose mainly in Japan, represented by Matsumoto Shirō and Hakamaya Noriaki in the 1980s and 1990s. They criticized the widespread Japanese Buddhist doctrine of "original awakening" (hongaku), the tathāgatagarbha-style understanding that "all sentient beings are already awakened." They saw it as a fundamental departure from early Buddhism, intrinsically connected with conservatism and nationalism in Japanese history. In this line of reasoning, if everything manifests buddha-nature, then existing hierarchies and war also manifest buddha-nature and need not be opposed. They advocated a return to early Buddhism's standpoint of dependent origination and rejected any reified tathāgatagarbha. The movement provoked heated debate in Japanese scholarship and attracted attention and responses in Europe and North America.⁴

Gender studies and feminist Buddhist studies. From the 1980s onward, feminist scholars began systematically examining gender structures within Buddhist traditions. They studied the history and interruption of bhikṣuṇī lineages, representations of women in traditional texts, the actual historical roles of women practitioners (often underestimated in official histories), and gender inequality in modern Buddhist traditions. These studies both exposed historical problems and provided a scholarly basis for contemporary Buddhist reform, especially in the matter of bhikṣuṇī ordination (see Chapter 9.5, Section 4).⁵

5. How scholarship feeds back into the traditions¶

Academic research does more than describe Buddhism from outside; its findings also affect Buddhist traditions themselves.

Reorganizing the canon. Scholarly reconstructions of textual history have influenced some traditions' attitudes toward what counts as authoritative literature. Part of Master Yinshun's influence in Taiwanese Chinese Buddhism (Chapter 12.1) came from his adoption of modern historical criticism to distinguish the Buddha's original teaching, which he considered closer to the Āgamas, from later developments in Mahāyāna. This reopened debate within Chinese Buddhism over what constitutes authentic Buddhism.

Deconstructing lineage myths. Scholarly studies of how schools were founded often differ from those schools' lineage narratives. One example is the complex history of Huineng, the "Sixth Patriarch" of Chan, where the versions revealed by the Dunhuang documents differ from the received Platform Sūtra. Other examples include the historical dating of Tibetan treasure texts and the Japanese Nichiren school's claim to direct transmission from the Buddha. Scholarship repeatedly reveals that lineage narratives were often constructed later, incorporating mythologizing and political elements. Such findings sometimes trouble believers whose faith rests strictly on traditional narratives. For those more willing to understand tradition openly, they offer a richer historical picture.

Textual collation across traditions. Several Buddhist traditions preserve different versions of the same sūtra or treatise, in Chinese translation, Pāli, Sanskrit, or Tibetan, for example. Scholarly comparison and collation reveal differences among these versions and sometimes allow a more accurate reconstruction of an early text. Such comparisons are immensely valuable historically, but they pose a practical question. Which version should be authoritative? This is particularly prominent in debates over bhikṣuṇī ordination. Different Vinayas prescribe different ordination procedures, and the various sides in modern ordination debates appeal to these differences.⁶

6. The identity of the "scholar-practitioner"¶

Over the past thirty years, the identity of the "scholar-practitioner" has become increasingly common. Such a person conducts Buddhist research in an academic institution while seriously practicing within a particular tradition. This was exceedingly rare in early Western Buddhist studies. The early Orientalists were predominantly Christian scholars who kept their object of study strictly separate from their personal faith. Today, a substantial proportion of Buddhist studies scholars are practitioners or even monastics.

This change of identity brings real tensions. Academic research requires falsifiable arguments, open questioning, and criticism unrestricted by religious faith. Buddhist practice traditions often require trust in the teachings and one's teacher, and respect for lineage authority. When both commitments form part of the same person's identity, they can pull in different directions on particular questions.

There is currently no generally accepted answer. Individual researchers use their own judgment to balance the two roles. Some explicitly distinguish their standpoint as a scholar from their standpoint as a practitioner. Others believe the two identities can enrich each other. Still others hold that true scholarly objectivity does not exist in the first place. On this view, every researcher has a standpoint, and what matters is making it transparent rather than pretending to be objective. This book regards the last position as the most honest. That is also why it consistently distinguishes statements from judgments with markers such as "this book holds" and "this book's position."

7. Digital humanities and open resources¶

In the twenty-first century, digital technology has changed the infrastructure of Buddhist studies.

Large digital collections. SAT (the University of Tokyo's open database of the Chinese Buddhist canon), CBETA (the Chinese Buddhist Electronic Text Association), GRETIL, BDRC (the Buddhist Digital Resource Center, the institutional form of Gene Smith's legacy), and Access to Insight (English translations from Pāli), among others, have made precious texts once accessible only in particular libraries available worldwide. This has greatly lowered the barriers to Buddhist research and changed the social composition of those able to participate in it. The latter claim is this book's judgment of an observable phenomenon; it has not been quantified.

Corpus linguistics. Digitized texts make it possible to analyze a corpus by counting word frequencies, tracing conceptual developments, and comparing textual similarities. Quantitative methods can help test questions that long depended on specialist reading and memory, such as when a word first appeared or whether a passage might derive from the same source as another.

Accelerating interdisciplinary collaboration. Cognitive science and meditation research combine to study meditators' brains through neuroimaging. Historical linguistics and Buddhist textual studies use computational linguistics to trace textual change. Researchers also bring digital mapping to the study of the geography of Buddhist transmission. These collaborations supply new quantitative evidence for questions that previously allowed only qualitative description. Progress is rapid, and the results so far are only a beginning.

8. Its place in intellectual history¶

Modern academic Buddhist studies contributes to this book in two ways.

Direct use. Much of the material on which this book relies comes from scholarship since the twentieth century. This includes analyses of textual strata in early Buddhist history, accounts of Mahāyāna's multiple origins, assessments of the historical significance of Gāndhārī manuscripts, and critical reconstructions of how the various schools were founded. Without this work, the historical reconstruction undertaken here would not be possible.

Critical inheritance. At the same time, this book does not accept any scholarly interpretive framework uncritically. Every chapter deliberately distinguishes what can be stated securely, what is inferred, and the position this book adopts. Through this distinction, the book attempts to combine the scholarly methods of historical criticism and textual analysis with philosophical judgment whose standpoint is explicitly marked. The most honest approach uses modern scholarly tools while acknowledging its own interpretive position, without pretending that scholarly objectivity can eliminate every philosophical presupposition.

The next chapter turns to developments since 1990.

Appendix. Influential scholars and institutions in contemporary Buddhist studies¶

The following list introduces representative scholars in the principal fields of Buddhist studies today, briefly describing their institutional backgrounds and main arguments. It is a guide, without claiming to be exhaustive. Those marked "deceased" have left works that remain central references in their fields.

1. Early Buddhism and textual history¶

2. Buddhist philosophy (Western academic approaches)¶

3. East Asian Buddhism¶

4. Tibetan Buddhism¶

5. Modern Buddhism and sociology¶

6. Science and Buddhism¶

7. Major research institutions and resources¶

Further reading¶

• Rupert Gethin. The Foundations of Buddhism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. (A model of a comprehensive scholarly introduction to early Buddhism: texts and schools, pp. 35–58; the Four Noble Truths, pp. 59–84; no-self and dependent origination, pp. 133–162; Abhidharma and Mahāyāna, pp. 202–252.)

References¶