It is, in fact, not surprising if some scholars in the field of Buddhist Studies feel
marginalised, because to some extent they have marginalised themselves. There is a
tendency in modern scholarship to look always for the new—scholars entering the field
are not content to tread the paths well-worn by their predecessors, even when it is clear
that the work of their predecessors needs reworking. The cry is to find something new,
something which has not been done before. I am confronted with this tendency all the
time. Prospective research students visit me or write to me and ask what they can do for
their doctoral thesis in the field of Pāli studies. I say: “What has not been done needs to
be done, and what has been done needs to be done again”. Of these the second is the
more important, because, by and large, the most important Pāli texts were published first,
when little was known about the Pāli language—there were only inadequate dictionaries
and grammars, and only a few manuscripts had come to Europe. Now more and better
manuscripts are available, and we have superior grammatical and lexicographical aids,
and so vast improvements can be made in editions and in translations based on those
editions, and in books on Buddhism based on those translations. Unfortunately, the
enquirers all want to do something new, so the study of the fundamentals is abandoned
while they go after trendy trivia which they hope will have an earthshaking effect upon
the world of Pāli and Buddhist studies when the result of their research appears.