even now there are many people, otherwise quite well-informed, who
imagine that there is an essential difference between Buddhism and
Lamaism. The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate the non-existence
of this imagined difference and to show at the same time the extent to
which the religion of the Tibetans and Mongols represents a particular
manifestation in the history of Buddhism. It seems hardly necessary to
remark that the term Lamaismis a purely European invention and not
known in Asia.
(translation of Schmidt 1836: 13–14, in Lopez Jr.
1999: 24; also pp. 218–19 and 228)
And despite English and French interpretations of KÇlacakra Buddhism, for
example, by Wilson and Rémusat respectively, scholars such as KŒrösi Csoma
and Schmidt first studied this form of Buddhism correctly. The editions,
translations, and commentaries in the series ‘Bibliotheca Buddhica’ (30 vols,
1897–1937), issued by the Imperial Academy in St Petersburg, are still of great
help, especially for students of MahÇyÇna.
It would generally be a mistake, of course, to envision the scholarly work
done in any particular country as limited to just one topic. To take the area I
know best, Romanian scholars—from Alexandru Odobescu, Grigore Tocilescu,
and Nicolae Densusianu in the second half of the nineteenth century, to Vasile
Pârvan (1882–1927) and especially Dionisie M. Pippidi (1905–1993) (see
Odobescu 1877/1961; Pippidi 1969, 1988)—have taken a special interest in
Greek, Roman and Thraco-Dacian religion, although only rarely within an
institutionalized and comparative framework. Continuing the pionering efforts
of Hasdeu and Gaster, they have studied Biblical apocrypha and pseudepi-
grapha (Demostene Russo [1869–1938], Nicolae Cartojan [1883–1944], and
Émile Turdeanu [1911–2001]). They have also studied Romanian religious
folklore (Simeon Florea Marian [1847–1907], Tudor Pamfile [1883–1921],
Artur Gorovei [1864–1951] and I.-Aurel Candrea); Near Eastern Religions
(Constantin Daniel); sociology of religion (Dimitrie Gusti [1880–1955] and
H. H. Stahl [1901–1991]), ethnology (Petru Caraman [1898–1980], cf. Datcu
1999) and ethnosociology (Paul H. Stahl [b. 1925]); and comparative myth-
ology (Romulus Vulca ̆nescu [1912–2000], cf. Ricketts 2002; Ciurtin 2000,
2003). Finally, continuing and developing the results of Eliade, Romanian
scholars of religion have studied Indian religions (Arion Ros,u [b. 1924], to a
lesser degree, Sergiu Al-George [1922–1981]), while others studied Turkic and
Ottoman Islam, at least indirectly (Mihail Guboglu [1911–1989], Aurel Decei
[1905–1976]).
Eastern Europeans have also made some ventures into more general
methodological reflections. The most notable was perhaps a statement issued
by Polish scholars and noted international guests in conjunction with an IAHR
conference held in 1989 that attempted to integrate the history of religions
within the social sciences (see Tyloch 1990).64
EUGEN CIURTIN