Journal of Indian Philosophy
The ten essays and the response essay to them brought together in this issue of the Journal of Indian Philosophy invite us, even challenge us to take up anew and afresh the question of how to think about textuality per se in the study of Buddhism. At the same time, their lessons ramify far beyond this shared topic. Although texts are generally foundational and indispensable for work the Humanities, reflection on and specification of what we mean by 'text' is too-rarely undertaken. Whenever we try to conceptualize textuality, or even whenever we pause in our investigations to reflect on the nature of texts, we quickly become aware that many of our ideas about textuality or about the nature texts are more inchoate than we initially assumed, as the many questions that commonly arise in textual studies suggest: How does a text 'live'? What is the function of a text? Can a text be reduced to its content? What happens when a text is voiced aloud and heard? Is it the same as when a text is read silently? There are also conceptual conundrums in basic observations that authors had different agendas and interests in the texts they created than the agendas and interests of those who received these texts; that traditions display evidence that texts were reworked in the course of time, and that the modes of composition and reworking are often very different from each other; and that the historical presuppositions prevalent today are different from those of people in the past and maybe especially from those of people for whom the texts we study were most meaningful. Moreover, the later impact of some texts exceeds what people first received, while other texts are forgotten despite being initially welcomed. All this means that a text as an object of study is not easily relatable to text as a conceptual generalization. Nor are texts as objects of study easily relatable to the dynamics of