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

[Natalie Quli]

Franz wrote:


> 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.
>

I would feel quite content to use the word "deceptive" if I could support
that assertion with facts that proved that someone was intentionally trying
to deceive others. Without such evidence, I would not use the word. I am
totally content with pointing out discontinuities and ruptures by using
historical references that show clear before and after pictures. I don't see
any problem with that at all.


> 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?


Not even remotely. Noting discontinuities is not the same as calling
something "inauthentic" or a "distortion." All traditions include
discontinuities, and indeed some have many more discontinuities than others.
I have no problem with pointing out these discontinuities in traditions from
Japan, Sri Lanka, or elsewhere.

Kindness,
Natalie
----------
PhD candidate, Graduate Theological Union
Asst. Editor, Pacific World: Journal of the Institute of Buddhist Studies