The discussion that followed called attention to the gap existing between Buddhists and Buddhologists. The profusion of titles, repetitious nature of the content, and staggering sales volume of popular titles as opposed to scholarly ones were phenomena that most of the Buddhologists present found puzzling. An analogy for both the phenomenon and the resulting frustration on the part of Buddhologists was offered by Luis Gomez, founder of Michigan s Buddhist Studies Program who sees a parallel with the field of psychiatry and the competition psychiatrists feel with practitioners of alternative therapy, which is sought by an overwhelming majority of psychiatry patients. Nearly all those on the panel, when asked, were able to trace their early interest in Buddhism to an encounter with a particular book, some popular, such as Three Pillars of Zen, and some classical, such as The Bhagavad Gi ta. Moreover, most had been drawn to a profession involving Buddhism in some way through a personal engagement with its traditions, teachings and values.
Translations fall somewhere in between.
The most popular books the books that catch the acquisitions editors eyes are the ones that are suspicious, that use new techniques of the humanities to undermine the authority of the tradition. The present style is to tell the Buddhists what they really meant. Alan Thomas argued that academic presses don t want to undermine the dharma, but that Buddhist studies at this point needs to develop a discourse of theology that can be read by those outside the Buddhist community.