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

[Franz Metcalf]

Natalie et al.,

> 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.
Yes, I agree. In fact, in my previous post, before editing, I agreed  
with you in using "deceptive," but then wrote that I shied away from  
it as I have no reliable access to the intentions of even myself, let  
alone Soyen Shaku. So we both agree to eschew "deceptive." Good. But  
better still is this:

>> I believe a specialist scholar... *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.
We are getting to the root of our (vanishing) difference. And I do  
mean "root," as I think the trouble here is semantic. Not that  
semantics aren't important, Richard et al., but here I have a sense  
the difference in our *practice* is negligible, but lies only in our  
(thus far) descriptions of our practice.

When we point out a discontinuity between x and y, are we not saying,  
in effect, the discontinuity establishes that x is not y? Or, since we  
work in time, that y is no longer x? This seems unavoidable. But if  
that is so, we're forced either to take one of several positions:

1) The Buddhism of the Buddha (but when in his long career?) is  
Buddhism and anything discontinuous with it is not.

2) There is no privileged "Buddhism"; there are only many  
discontinuous streams of practice called "Buddhism" by their  
practitioners.

But, if the latter (which I'm sure we both are inclined to say is more  
true), there may be other streams *not* called Buddhism what are less  
discontinuous with the core of the-discontinuous-stream-we-call- 
Buddhism than some streams actually called Buddhism. Ah well.

But even taking the latter position, I believe scholarship is still  
value-laden and that we need to acknowledge this rather than deny it  
through a flight to a false position of objective neutrality. I'm not  
saying you're doing this--well, I am, but only insofar as we all are-- 
but I find this less than honest and less than helpful, which for me  
is the bottom line of scholarship.

Sorry, I have written this in haste and must end it now. But I'm  
sending it anyway, though it's fuzzy, just for fun.

All good wishes,

Franz