[Buddha-l] nytimes review of pbs The Buddha

[Richard Hayes]

On Apr 8, 2010, at 3:47 AM, Dan Lusthaus wrote:

> You are right. Watching the show was indeed duhkha.

One man's dukkha is another man's ānanda. I loved the production. I didn't wince even once. (Maybe I've reached he stage of being a Never-wincer.) I appreciated the way the story was told by many people whose narratives were skillfully woven together. I especially like Mark Epstein's comments, but all the different narrators impressed me. The editors did quite a good job of selecting and splicing. (I think they chose very well, although I would have loved to see Stephen Batchelor in the film.)

I taught my first undergraduate class in 1971-72 and have been talking about Buddhism ever since. After nearly forty years of speaking and writing about Buddhism, I am really sick of hearing what comes out of my mouth and what appears on my computer screen as I write. (I know, I know, you're going to ask what took me so long to get sick of what you've all been sick of for a couple of decades now.) But even though I have goten sick of hearing myself talk about Buddhism, I have never gotten sick of Buddhism. For that reason, I love to hear the kinds of things that other people say when they talk about Buddhism, and that may be part of why I loved every minute of The Buddha on PBS. 

> Duhkha indeed. Maybe mappo too.

Ah well, as Vasubandhu observed long ago, as two people sit on the banks of a river, one will see a river of ambrosia flowing by and another will see a river of blood and pus. I'll take the ambrosia. Enjoy the blood and pus, Dan.

Compassionately yours,
Richard