[Buddha-l] Denigrating Buddhism (Was:Social codes [was: Gandharan Buddhist Art at NY Asia Society])

[Curt Steinmetz]

On 8/18/11 4:27 AM, Franz Metcalf wrote:
> Andy et al.,
>
> You wrote,
>
>> Richard shcriefed:
>>
>>> One of my duties as an academic is to inoculate naive enthusiasts
>>> of the Buddha-dharma against the disease of fulsomeness.
>>>
>>> Richard Hayes
>> I have often surmised that exactly this is at work in the "Buddhist warfare"
>> literature that I have been dabbling in this summer. Take Buddhism down a
>> notch, show that it has bloody hands as well, but only in order to save it?  I
>> am not really sure that this noble motive is all that widespread.
> And yet I would say that your own writings on the subject of "Buddhist warfare" put you on the other side of this (false) dichotomy. That is, your published works suggest you view Buddhism as relatively pure in regards to the possibility of something like a "Buddhist just war." But here you are showing your sensitivity to the dangers of 1) an idealized peaceful Buddhism, and 2) a pretended intention to save Buddhism from itself (when in reality the true motive might be to impugn the tradition).
>
> In other words, you are--as my father used to say--too clever by half. It's no wonder you're down here with the other denizens of buddha-l, rather than in the realm of the effortless (Hindu) author gods.
>

And it really is too bad the way this false dichotomy has developed. 
Obviously there are misperceptions of Buddhism in the West, and 
obviously it would be a good idea to offer well thought out correctives 
to these misperceptions. But if the starting point involves declarations 
that people are "too fulsome" or that the view of Buddhism in the West 
is "too positive", and that the task at hand, therefore, is to roll up 
our sleeves and commence to taking Buddhism down a notch, then this 
indicates that something else is going on.

One wonders, rhetorically, do the self-appointed a-notch-down-takers 
ever attempt to state what they see the problem to be with any 
precision, or, perhaps more importantly, with some context and breadth? 
For example, does anyone ask whether or not Westerners view Buddhism 
more inaccurately than we view other religions? Or, put another way, do 
Westerners have balanced and accurate views on matters of religion, 
generally speaking, but then some unique problems can be identified 
pertaining to how Buddhism is viewed specifically?

And what about the objections raised by Bernard Faure in his own 
contribution to the anthology "Buddhist Warfare", where he points out 
such obvious and well-documented historical facts as (1) "The claim that 
Buddhism is a tolerant religion is based on the fact that Buddhist 
history does not show the kind of fanatic excesses familiar in the 
histories of Christianity and Islam." & (2) "But these cases [of 
religious violence associated with Buddhism] are the exception that 
proves the Budhist rule, and they underscore the contrast with the 
practices of Inquisition in Christianity."

Is it possible to claim (in good faith) to be promoting a more, uh, 
"fair and balanced" approach, when one studiously ignores the two 800 
pound gorillas that Faure draws our attention to? And, as Faure strongly 
implies, don't these gorillas go a very long way in explaining why 
Westerners have every reason to view Buddhism positively and even 
fulsomely, thus bringing into the question the whole project of 
"correcting" a view that turns out to have a solid, objective basis 
after all?

Curt Steinmetz