Buddhist Aretology

To be sure, “aretology” (also called “aretaics”) is said to be “[t]hat part of moral philosophy which treats virtue, its nature, and the means of attaining to it.” It is thus only too natural that one also talks of “Buddhist aretology” inasmuch a greater part of Buddhist doctrine deals precisely with this topic, and in fact with a great degree of sophistication. I am thinking of the Buddhist ideas of śīla (or śīlapāramitā), adhiśīla, saṃvara, samaya, and so on. I intend to return to this page and add points as and when I find time. For now, I wish to merely record and reserve the term “Buddhist aretology” that I need.

Buddhist Hermeneutology

1. RĀ 4.94: Like teaching alphabet and grammar!
2. RĀ 5.87ab: lung rigs ad sensum.
3. RĀ 4.77cd: Rule and exception!
4. RĀ 4.75; 2.42: Bitter pill.
5. RĀ 4.72; 3.64: Ends justify means.

Buddhist Philosophology

For some reason, I always feel something odd and pretentious when we attempt to study past Buddhist philosophers such as Nāgārjuna and present ourselves as “Buddhist philosophers.” Inwardly and silently I always tend to protest “Nāgārjuna is a Buddhist philosopher,” and we are students who try to understand his thought based on extant works of his. The fact that we try to make sense (or nonsense) of Nāgārjuna’s thoughts does not make us Buddhist philosophers. We can, for sure, study Buddhist philosophy, history of Buddhist philosophy, intellectual history of Buddhist philosophy, but not call ourselves “Buddhist philosophers.” But just the other day I stumbled upon a term “Philosophology.” This is a term used, for example, by Robert M. Pirsig, in a philosophical novel of his (i.e. Robert M. Pirsig, Lila: An Inquiry Into Morals. New York: Bantam Books, 1991). There he is supposed to have stated “Philosophology is to philosophy as musicology is to music.” I have not read the novel myself. Yes, this is the term I want. We need to distinguish “Buddhist philosophology” from “Buddhist philosophology.” Academics engaged in the study of past Buddhist philosophy are rather “Buddhist philosophologists,” and not “Buddhist philosophers.” Of course, nobody would forbid us to be “Buddhist philosophers.” Nobody would forbid a musicologist to play music and be a musician. But the roles and responsibilities of a musicologist and of a musician must clearly be distinguished.