Robert Sharf's 1995 article in Numen, a leading peer-reviewed journal for the academic study of religion, is a standard critical source examining how the rhetoric of pure, unmediated meditative experience functions within modern Buddhist modernism, arguing that the claim of direct experience is itself a rhetorical and historically situated construction rather than a transparent report of what meditation reveals. Its strength is that it is a peer-reviewed article by a recognized scholar of Buddhism in a major journal in the field. Its limit is that it is a single article making one argument about one strand of modern Buddhist discourse, not a comprehensive survey of meditation practice across traditions, so a claim about a specific tradition's own understanding of meditative experience needs a source addressing that tradition directly.
Facts
Citation
AuthorRobert H. Sharf
PublisherNumen
Publication Year1995
URLhttps://brill.com/view/journals/nu/42/3/article-p228_2.xml
Source Typepeer-reviewed article
Assessment
Reliability Tier1
Published in Numen, a leading peer reviewed journal for the academic study of religion, Robert H. Sharf's article by a recognized scholar of Buddhism, peer reviewed university-level scholarship. NotesRobert Sharf's scholarly article on Buddhist modernism and the rhetoric of meditative experience.
Claims Backed By This Source (24 claims)
This source backs 24 claims across the atlas. As facts: 16 well-attested, 2 scholarly debate. As cited relationships: 1 holds. Plus 5 entities citing it as a general reference with no single fact or relationship attached.
Disposition By Topic
- Sources, 8 claims: 8 well-attested.
- Historical Figures, 5 claims: 1 well-attested, 1 scholarly debate, 1 holds, 2 general references.
- Articles, 3 claims: 3 well-attested.
- Disciplines, 3 claims: 1 well-attested, 1 scholarly debate, 1 general references.
- Subcategories, 3 claims: 2 well-attested, 1 general references.
- Practices, 2 claims: 1 well-attested, 1 general references.
Reader Challenges (0 open reader challenges)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.
View At A Past Year
The atlas records no dated fact of its own for this entry, so there is no other year to choose.