[Buddha-l] Another query

[StormyTet at aol.com]

ST:Thank you for this article and also the critique. 
 
RN: 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. 
 
ST: Point taken. One of the issues that Zizek brings up is the hybrid  nature 
of western Buddhism -- or popular conceptions of Buddhism in the West. If  he 
had not gotten into a polemic regarding Tibet, would you agree with his  
assessment that popular Buddhist practice in America is fetishistic?  Is  your 
critique based solely on his pretensions to know the Tibetan  mind/history?  I 
guess I am wondering about this because I feel as if  he has not gone to far in 
speaking to the popular conceptions of Buddhist  thought and practice in the 
West -- that hybrid  form.   
 

RN: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_ 
(http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/2/western.php) 
 
ST: This piece and this flavor of cultural studies is very postmodern.  There 
is a strong marxist bent in my department and so this is not the type  of 
stuff my profs would seek to indoctrinate with.  I find myself intrigued  with 
Zizek to some degree, though I am not comfortable with his idea that  western 
buddhist practice is just a crutch to allow us to get by in this mad  world. It 
deconstructs in a manner that I don't dig simply because I am not sure  it is 
helpful. In this sense its, to me, what you called hubris and playing with  
words just to play. Masturbatory in the worst sense.

RN: In case you're unfamiliar with Slavoj Zizek, let me assure you:  in
cultural studies circles, he's as big as they come.
 
ST: From what I understand, many cultural studies departments in America  are 
pretty Marxist, but perhaps I am just seeing this through a frame because of  
the culture of my department.

RN: 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.
 
ST: I frankly do not know what he is trying to say there at all and I can  
see why he would be irritating. In my opinion, where he failed as a cultural  
critic was going beyond the hybridity which he knew, to speak of a culture in  
which he had little knowledge of. 
 
Thanks for pointing this out and sharing the article,
 
Stormy Tetreau




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20050723/2e4761ea/attachment.htm