Inaugural Reflections for the Journal of Buddhist Philosophy

Field: Arts and Humanities (Social Sciences)

Inaugural Reflections for the Journal of Buddhist Philosophy Dale S. Wright I am honored by the invitation to inaugurate this first volume of the Journal of Buddhist Philosophy by reflecting briefly on the charge that the editors of the journal have articulated for themselves and on the meaning of this historic beginning. This journal, the editors claim, “is dedicated to the academic discussion of Buddhist philosophy.” Its goals are twofold: (1) “to foster and provide a forum for the academic discussion of Buddhist philosophy” and (2) “to allow Buddhist philosophy as an independent discipline to engage in conversations with buddhology, comparative philosophy, and Buddhist critical reflection.” What does it mean, first of all, to call this discussion “academic”? When a discussion is criticized or dismissed as being “merely academic,” the critique is based on the frequently voiced view that theoretical thinking is so far removed from practical decision making that it is rendered “useless” for those real-world purposes. The element of truth in this view is that ordinary life is rapidly impermanent, always pressing ahead and refusing to slow down so that “all things” can be considered and debated. Academic discussions step back from this immediate pressure in order to reflect with a systematic rigor that is impossible in the full flow of ordinary life. Their task is to think carefully about, to debate, and to articulate what one ought to think on the issue at hand, all things considered. The Academy is the [End Page 5] institution that is by definition dedicated to careful, critical thinking and free, open questioning. Its mission is to follow the path of questioning wherever that path leads. “Academic” therefore, means theoretical analysis undertaken with state-of-the-art rigor and depth. The Journal of Buddhist Philosophy aspires to become just such an academy, an online academy connecting scholars and thinkers all over the world for the purpose of enhancing and deepening discussions of Buddhist philosophy by stepping back out of the pressures of practical life long enough to think carefully and critically. There are no credentials required for such engagement other than the capacity to do so, however acquired. Anyone up to the challenge is invited to join in the discussion. Our account so far still begs a basic and important question, one very familiar to historians and philosophers today. When members of the Journal’s “academy” engage in academic discussion of “Buddhist philosophy,” are they describing how Buddhists have philosophized in some other time and place or are they themselves philosophizing? Does this journal, in other words, have descriptive or normative intentions? Are we concerned here with the history of Buddhist philosophy or with the current, state-of-the-art practice of it? Although it is important to distinguish normative from descriptive engagement—and anyone engaged in the discussion of Buddhist philosophy should understand which of these concerns is guiding his or her own thinking—in my judgment these two enterprises belong together. Each orientation to Buddhist philosophy depends on the other. On the one hand, without careful, critical attention to its own historical roots, the philosophical articulation of Buddhism is naive, lacking a sophisticated point of departure. In fact, without that historical grounding somewhere in the Buddhist tradition, we begin to wonder why any philosophy should be considered “Buddhist” at all. On the other hand, however, whenever the historical description of Buddhist philosophy is isolated from real-life normative questions—questions of cogency, coherence, and truth that we face today—it begins to lose its point, its reason for being. In the final analysis, the raison d’être of the study of the history of philosophy is our own enhanced capacity to think philosophically here and now. So if it appears that the Journal of Buddhist Philosophy encourages both of these concerns, this is as it should be. The Journal may, therefore, find that it operates along two poles, one aimed at descriptive truth about the history of Buddhist philosophy, and the other aimed at whatever normative truth the practice of Buddhist philosophy makes possible in our time. While there are certainly occasions that require the separation of these two concerns, such separation will always be both artificial and temporary...