Although it is tempting to characterize Buddhists who engage in scholarship and dialogue with Christians as typical, every Buddhist (and Christian) is, in one sense, atypical. All of our Buddhologies are contextually situated. Reflection on interreligious dialogue can start from one of several questions: In what place do we engage in dialogue? At what point in history? About what topics? For what reasons? With what effect? And, finally, as what do we engage in dialogue? Specifically, what are the theoretical and methodological issues we might keep in mind when scholars of Buddhism ("Buddhologists") participate in interfaith dialogue? At the outset we can define a "Buddhologist" as a scholar who engages in philological, philosophical, ethnographic, or historical study of Buddhism. Is this what we are doing in the context of "interreligious dialogue"? The expression "interreligious dialogue" connotes a conversation between adherents of different religions, and hence by definition those who participate in dialogue from the side of Buddhism can be expected to be practicing Buddhists. Of course, not all Buddhists are Buddhologists, and a Buddhologist is not necessarily a Buddhist. In fact, the International Association of Buddhist Studies abounds with lapsed Buddhists, or simply those who have traded their cushions and incense for dictionaries and tweed. The approach of Buddhists to dialogue is apt to be, and perhaps should be, confessional or apologetic, whereas Buddhologists are apt to be, and should be, detached and analytical. In this and other respects interfaith dialogue and the academic study of Buddhism are separate endeavors. Of course, to say they are separate is not to argue that they are totally unrelated, or that Buddhologists never find themselves comparing Buddhist texts, doctrines, rituals, or institutions with those of other traditions. They often do, and some may even send a comparative article off to the University of Hawai'i Press, but more often than not the envelope will be addressed to Philosophy East and West rather than Buddhist-Christian Studies. This may not necessarily be the case for the subset of Buddhologists in the Society for Buddhist-Christian Studies, however. So, exactly what hat or hats does this subset of Buddhologists wear in the arena of dialogue? Despite the connotation of "interreligious dialogue," I would hazard a guess that most of us do not attend meetings of the Society primarily as confessing Buddhists. The majority of our energies are directed Buddhist-Christian Studies 18 (1998). ? by University of Hawai'i Press. All rights reserved. 96 This content downloaded from 157.55.39.11 on Sun, 17 Apr 2016 08:13:19 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms