[Buddha-l] Schopen lauded

[Blumenthal, James]

The author of the article, Ajay Singh, makes an intentionally provocative and arrogant, yet misguided claim.  He says,

"Schopen probably knows more about classical Buddhism than the entire line of reincarnated Dalai Lamas."

 Schopen is a historian; the Dalai Lamas are/were not.  They are/were masters of their particular traditions/lineages.  Thus the claim is like comparing apples and oranges (not to mention that it may or may not be a true statement). Shall we disregard Schopen's historical work because he presumably does not hold a candle to the Dalai Lamas in terms of progress towards or achievement of enlightenment?  Obviously I do not have any knowledge about Schopen's religious inclinations or mental states and do not presume to comment on them in my analogy.  I am only attempting to make a point about their irrelevance for evaluating his historical work, much like the comparison with the Dalai Lamas that the author makes.

 Singh's statement is a good example of the type of academic arrogance that is so offensive to traditions (and the general public) and renders the academicians all but irrelevant to communities most inclined to find their work interesting and potentially useful.  Why somebody would insert such a claim into an article about academic Buddhist scholarship is bewildering to me.

Jim Blumenthal


James Blumenthal
Department of Philosophy
Oregon State University
102-A Hovland Hall
Corvallis, OR 97331