[Buddha-l] Subject: the poignancy of Donald Lopez

[Franz Metcalf]

Natalie et al.,

On Jan 19, 2010, at 4:06 PM, Natalie Quli 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.

I would be happy to compromise with you and go with "deceptive" or  
"discontinuous." But can you? If your job as a Buddhologist is "just  
to describe," I think you can't allow yourself the freedom to be  
evaluative. Thus "deceptive" is out, though maybe "discontinuous" is  
still in.

Still, I do think I can evaluate, indeed am *called* to evaluate  
contemporary Buddhist or would-be Buddhist forms based on their  
overlap with past Buddhist forms. Richard wrote that he could "not  
pass judgment on what is authentically Buddhist." You agreed. But I  
believe a specialist scholar of contemporary Japanese Buddhism, with a  
solid background in Buddhist history and Japanese New Religions *can*  
assert that Aum Shinrikyo is in some ways continuous with Buddhism and  
in some ways not. Are you seriously saying such a scholar cannot do  
so? If it's only Buddhologists who cannot do so, no wonder I decided  
to be trained as a psychologist and anthropologist instead!

Without the ability to do more than describe, what is the use of  
Buddhology? This question is applicable to and debated in various  
human sciences. I'm sure you've read some of these debates, and it  
seems you've taken a position fairly well out on one side. I'd like to  
hear (when you have time) what makes you comfortable out there.

Good wishes,

Franz