[Buddha-l] Subject: the poignancy of Donald Lopez (Franz Metcalf)

[Natalie Quli]

Hi Lovely list,

Richard wrote:

As an academic scholar teaching Buddhism,
> I see my task as involving, in principle at least, passing on
> information of everything that proclaims itself to be Buddhist. As a
> Buddhist, I am not especially drawn to Aum Shinrikyo. But as a professor
> in a secular university that has courses on Buddhism, I cannot and
> should not pass judgment on what is authentically Buddhist and what is
> not. In this, I agree with Natalie Quli (I think -- I have learned from
> her that I have misrepresented quite a bit of what she says).


Well in this case I would totally agree. Aum Shinrikyo may be horribly
deranged, but they do claim continuity with Buddhism and can demonstrate
some of those continuities as well. They may be creepy or evil, but creepy
and evil does not mean inauthentic. It's just one more layer of discourse in
a tradition that changes over time. From a secular perspective one discourse
is no more authentic than another, but perhaps it is less popular, has more
discontinuities, etc.

Franz wrote:

> Promoting this is a game that's been
> skillfully played from the time of Soyen Shaku and Anagarika
> Dharmapala through the present day of HH the XIVth Dalai Lama. This is
> not in itself a bad thing; it's just distorting. I think even Natalie
> Quli would agree that this is distorting, though it comes from an emic
> Buddhist position.
>

Sorry, I still don't consider this distortion. It's transformation, it's
discontinuity, perhaps it's even deceptive, but as a scholar I'm not going
to call it a distortion. Buddhism changes, and sometimes those changes are
the result of cultural influences, behaviors, or attitudes that I don't
like. Oh well. My job isn't to find and advocate authentic Buddhism, it's
just to describe self-proclaimed Buddhists and their worlds.

Cheers,
Natalie