The category of 'experience' has been central to modern Buddhist studies, with scholars often assuming that monastic practice and meditation aim to produce specific religious or mystical experiences. This has led to a phenomenological interpretation of Buddhist technical terms related to stages on the path, treating them as if they describe distinct states of consciousness experienced by historical practitioners. The author argues that this approach may be misguided, questioning whether such a focus on subjective experience accurately reflects Buddhist traditions.
A history of shamanism remains elusive. The article examines four scholarly approaches—prehistoric rock art, cultural myth origins, memory studies, and cultural resistance movements—and finds each inadequate. Focusing on early Chinese shamanism, it critiques these options and then turns to the frameworks of Mircea Eliade and Roberte Hamayon as two alternative pathways. The author proposes a third way between them, aiming to construct a viable history of shamanism without relying on the rejected approaches.