[Buddha-l] The state of buddha-l: a brief report

[Dan Lusthaus]

In an effort to demonstrate how silly academics are, compared to buddha-l's 
high-decorum antics, Richard proposed to give you a sampling from the list 
Indology, which, like its name suggests, is concerned with matters having to 
do with India.

The sampling is introduced thus:


> This is just in from INDOLOGY, where Dipak Bhattacharya writes:
> "Personally, I am certain that Papaver somniferum L. is not known
> before the second millennium AD in India.  One can see how confused
> medical authors are about it, even as late as the commentators on
> Sarngadhara's Sarngadharasamhita (ca 1400).  The Sanskrit name is a
> transparent borrowing from Greek."

Only a philistine would fail to recognize this is pulled out of context from 
an ongoing discussion. Why, one might ask, would anyone be intereseted in 
the provenance of a medical herb in India? Answer: Lots, if one is trying to 
identify what was going on in Indian medicine at various times, and how our 
classification of plants, etc., does or does not overlap with Indian 
classifications of various periods.

What someone who is not a subscriber to the Indology list would not realize 
based on Richard's introduction, is that his misattribution kle"sa is still 
acting up. The message he (partially) sites was not written by D. 
Bhattacharya, but composed by Dominik Wujastyk, who is not only the main 
list operator for Indology, but a noted scholar on Sanskrit Grammar and in 
more recent years has turned his attention to classical Indian medicine 
(numerous articles, and a book published by Penguin, UK). His explanation 
arose in response to a query. Thank goodness that sort of information is so 
easily accessible!

One of the things that academic lists do very successfully (let's see how 
buddha-l stacks up) is act as an international virtually instantaneous 
resource for nagging research questions. What happens when you are working 
on something, and the usual reference materials at hand cannot solve a 
problem? And where ever you turn for the necessary information you are 
drawing a blank. (The issue may be a major or minor point, but when you are 
working on it, everything is "important" and may be unexpectedly 
crucial.)Scholars have discovered that on the academically well-attended 
lists, where many, perhaps most of the leading scholars in the field are 
subscribers, one can pose the question online, and quickly discover:

(1) this is a recognized issue, that has not yet been solved as far as 
anyone knows;
(2) there are resources available, perhaps a bit off the beaten path, that 
address exactly that problem (with citation info).
(3) there are several ways to tackle the issue, with multiple suggestions 
from the best hunches in the business.
(4) you are a dumb twerp for not recognizing that this is so basic and 
obvious you are wasting everyone's time (though, unlike buddha-l patter, 
that is usually conveyed in diplomatic tones).

Buddha-l used to have lots of Buddhist scholars... There are only a very few 
of us who remain -- Lord Buddha only knows why. Obviously buddha-l can be 
very inhospitable to scholarship.

To complain that one finds that kind of discussion on an Indology list is 
analogous to complaining that one finds definitions for words in a 
dictionary. How stiffling! Words should be allowed to run free and trip up 
Republicans...

Ok. Richard. Your turn. Misattribute something.

Dan