[Buddha-l] buddha-l gathering

[Erik Hoogcarspel]

JKirkpatrick schreef:
>  
> On Dec 1, 2009, at 6:12 PM, Joanna Kirkpatrick wrote:
>
>
>
>   
>> I find it just utterly boring.
>>     
>
>
> However, you ignore my main point, which was that the Kalila wa
> Dimna and one of its ancient sources, the Panchatantra, are both
> more interesting material (to me--I did not refer to the interest
> of the "others" you mention) than the Christianised Buddha story;
> and provided reasons. 
> I obviously should have added, for those unaware of this
> well-known fact, that both it and the Panchatantra have undergone
> decades of research on the migration of stories through various
> traditions, although perhaps leaving a tinier paper trail.     
>
> Jehosasvaha!
>
> JK
>   
Please Joanna, maintain your grumpyness it's healthy, and a good read. But interest is a relational and relative term as Richard already mentioned. Karl Marx proved that the behaviour and thoughts of people are not only determined by texts. Things are terribly important and the more so if they have a lot of meaning. A philosopher of science called Bruno Latour invented the Actor Network Theory, a theory that studies the influence of networks caused by things. Now relics were very important and in this case they forged a  bond between Buddhism and Catholicism. Perhaps it could the occasion to the start of a new Buddholicism. 
The journey of Indian tales through the Arab countries to Europe and the Americas is also a fascinating subject, but it's a different field of interest. I think it's difficult to compare the influence of the relic in question with the Tales of 1001 Nights or other stories that became familiar in the West.

Erik

Info: www.xs4all.nl/~jehms  
Weblog: http://www.volkskrantblog.nl/pub/blogs/blog.php?uid=2950 
Productie: http://www.olivepress.nl