In order to identify some of the representative stances within the field, it may be helpful to imagine a large round table, with different groups clustered at different points. (King Asoka's Round Table?) The three largest groups are scholars of engaged Buddhism, Buddhist scholars who are engaged, and non-academic engaged Buddhist thinkers. There is no need to affix a permanent label on anyone cited below as an example of a position; at a lively gathering people move around freely.

On one side of the table are the scholars who objectify engaged Buddhism as a subject of study. The concerns of this approach include the command of pertinent sources and languages, the establishment of definitions and criteria, and the application of suitable theoretical frameworks. Those who work in this mode strive to uphold an established set of academic standards, avoiding personal views, citing sources carefully, not prejudging results, and so on. David Chappell's essay in this volume is a good example of this approach. On this same side of the table one also finds scholars of traditional bent who acknowledge some degree of personal involvement in Buddhism but choose not to write as Buddhists. Recent surveys of Buddhist scholars in North America indicate that about a quarter identify themselves as scholar-practitioners; it is estimated that another quarter are privately Buddhist.(14)

The second large group at the table consists of Buddhist scholars who are somehow engaged. Among them are academics actively involved in a Buddhist-related political cause, such as the Free Tibet movement. “Tibet has been the prime source for the teachings that constitute my own practice of Buddhism,” Jeffrey Hopkins says in these pages, “so I think that I'm obligated to help [Tibet] in whatever way I can.” Here too are scholars who are closely affiliated with a Buddhist community. Contributor Andrew Olendzki, a Ph.D. in religious studies, directs a Buddhist studies center created by the Insight Meditation Society, a practice community in Barre, Massachusetts. Kenneth Tanaka, a professor at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, is also a spokesperson for Pure Land Buddhists in North America.

The role of participant-observer often suits this group, as exemplified by Roger Corless's essay on the Gay Buddhist Fellowship of San Francisco. According to Corless, “The appropriateness of this [participant-observer approach] as a way of deconstructing the pseudo-objectivity of academic method, especially in discussions about sexuality, is now generally accepted.”(15) A different kind of participant-observation is demonstrated by Paula Green, who concludes her essay with an expression of respect for the subjects of her study:

I wish to express my enduring appreciation to Kato Shonin and Sister Clare of the Leverett Peace Pagoda, not only for their essential contributions to this chapter…but for the blessings of their presence in my life…. I bow deeply with thanks and gratitude for the moral vision of all the monks and nuns of Nipponzan Myohoji, both in the US and abroad.

Some of the Buddhist scholars who are engaged address the question, What does it mean to be both a scholar of Buddhism and an engaged Buddhist? Here academia offers precedents in the self-critical reflections of Christians who teach Christianity, or Jews who teach Judaism. Increasing numbers of academically credentialed thinkers do not hesitate to challenge or reconstruct Buddhism from within the Buddhist tradition. For example, Sallie King writes in this mode when she assesses the self-immolation of Buddhist monks and nuns during the Vietnam War:

Let me state my own conclusions, as an American Buddhist and as a Buddhist scholar, as clearly as possible. At the end of the day, the actions of [self-immolators] Thich Quang Duc and Nhat Chi Mai remain profoundly challenging. Like others, I am in awe of their courage, selflessness, and capacity to love. But I remain troubled by the lingering moral issues which, to my mind, remain unresolved…. Buddhist institutions have a duty as far as possible to prevent these actions which in many ways embody the Buddhist religion at its best.(16)

Another side of our round table is occupied by Buddhist practitioner-activist-thinkers who do not have formal ties to academia. This group demonstrates that engaged Buddhist studies can be pursued seriously and creatively from within the movement as well as from an outside perspective. Human rights, gender issues, education, and the nature of desirable societies are topics of particular concern. Several leading figures are identified in these pages: Sulak Sivaraksa, Thai activist and Nobel Peace Prize nominee; Robert Aitken, Zen teacher and Buddhist Peace Fellowship cofounder; Ken Jones, author of two books on Buddhism and society; Alan Senauke, director of the Buddhist Peace Fellowship; and Santikaro Bhikkhu, a senior disciple of the Thai scholar-monk Buddhadasa.