[Buddha-l] Another query

[Richard Nance]

> It is surprising to me that Buddhist thought has not made it into cultural
> studies circles in any strong, direct  way. 

Well, it's occasionally made inroads, but there are significant
obstacles. If you want to engage in the study of Buddhism in an
academically responsible way, it helps if you've spent years learning
languages that are difficult, reading texts that are difficult, and
thinking long and hard about their implications. Much of the work that
I've read in cultural studies tends to avoid precislely these sorts of
difficulties, in favor of sweeping and often jargon-laden
pronouncements. Consider, for example, the following piece:

http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/2/western.php

In case you're unfamiliar with Slavoj Zizek, let me assure you: in
cultural studies circles, he's as big as they come.

And he know it: comments like "What was and is absolutely foreign to
Tibet is this Western logic of desire to penetrate the inaccessible
object beyond a limit, through a great ordeal and against natural
obstacles and vigilant patrols" reveal a level of hubris that staggers
the imagination. Zizek has never read a word of Tibetan; he has
absolutely no idea what he is talking about. Somehow, this just
doesn't seem to matter to him -- or to those who idolize him. Which
is, well, disconcerting for those of us who care enough about Buddhism
(and accuracy in scholarship) to spend the time and energy on trying
to get things right.

Best wishes,

R. Nance