Reading chapters on Buddhism in multiple textbooks, that I've found the complete text of online, sounds like research to me.
Reading passages in multiple books isn't convincing research.
For example, there are many science textbooks which state that butterflies emerge from cocoons. Many teachers also teach their students that butterflies emerge from cocoons.
What would YOU call research, tom?
Peer review.
By the same token, EnaG is not convincing research/proof.
And, no peer review is not research, in that it does not provide new information but refines old information.
I also don't see how the cocoon argument plays into anything. It's almost as bad at the Qunatum Field Theory argument you often espouse.
The main problem with your Wunatum Field Theory, is that you assume that A. it is considered "the theory" and that b. very little of it has been verified.
I'm rather sure both assumptions of those are wrong, and you have never cited any valid sources to support either of those claims, rendering the QFT argument ineffective.
This cocoon argument follows the same path, but is far more non-sensical. Butterflies have been observed to emerge from cocoons (I myself saw this happen in person) for as long as they have existed, yet you talk as if this i untrue (without providing any proof for your claim) and fail to provide a valid counter-theory.
So you have yet to provide any conclusive argument that dispells books as a form of research.