More Adventures in Mis-education (Updated 8/4/2009)
I wrote a post based on a news story in which I, apparently, terribly misjudged Professor Gregory Schopen and called him a crackpot. As you can see from the comments, a whole lot of people (some of whom are people I know personally and respect) took the trouble to drop by and tell me how wrong I was.
In the interest of blog honesty -- it's kind of in the blogger honor code not to delete mistakes, but leave them up as an act of contrition -- I left the post up but added an apology and retraction at the end.
This has not been good enough for a few fans of Professor Schopen, however, who have kept up an intermittent campaign of email harassment about the post after I closed comments. The last straw was from a person who wrote this:
I'm passing this on to various academics I know in the field and I'm sure they won't be satisfied. I'm also going to contact the NY Times and ask them what they think about leaving that blog post in place.
This individual actually closed the email, "Yours in the dharma."
So, I have deleted the original post (although a copy of it exists, if anyone is interested) but leaving up the comments. I hope
Comments
I come across many misinformed people every day. When people see my Mala in public, I am often asked questions about it. When I explain that I am on the path to become a Buddhist, people will laugh, ask me how “an American” can believe in such nonsense, or ask the most inane questions about Muslims or Hindus.
I live in the “Bible Belt”, amid the Southern Baptists who are very set on the fact that THEIR God is the Only God, and everyone that isn’t like them will go to Hell.
Your point of so many uninformed people is spot on. I have made a point to learn about others religious views to see how they differ from mine. If others would do the same there would be a lot less ignorance in the world. To that end, we as a species would face an entirely different existence on earth, free of hatred, and become of a mind to make life better for all, not just those of our own Faith.
Very seldom discussed, there is a major difference between the triple gem sangha of ariya savakas (noble disciples) and the monastic sangha. The former sangha is regarded as the highest sangha – the one Buddhists take refuge in – the latter is not.
Worth adding, originally an “ariya savaka” and a bodhisattva were the same insofar as both understood dhamma/dharma. Only later was the bodhisattva made superior to the savaka (Prajnaparaamita and related systems: Studies in honor of Edward Conze, p. 8).
Gregory Schopen is one of the most well-regarded scholars of contemporary Buddhism. He has changed the trajectory of modern Buddhist scholarship by advocating for the incorporation of archaeological evidence in addition to the overemphasis of literary evidence that has dominated Buddhist scholarship in the West since the early days. His conclusions are not mere speculation, but are based on his research. I wouldn’t be so quick to write him off as a crackpot.
Mujaku, I do not believe there is a difference between “ariya savaka” and the monastic sangha.
Naga, what Schopen said in that lecture was ridiculous to the point of being hallucinatory. There is no defending it. The only excuse is that the writer of the article misrepresented Schopen. As far as being a “well regarded scholar,” from what I’ve read he is considerably out of step with other scholars on many issues.
If that wasn’t so pitiful it would be hilarious. The academia have way too much time on their hands and come up with some insane ideas.
Barbara,
Gregory Schopen may be a provocative iconoclast, but he’s no crackpot. Until we see the full text of the lecture, I think we should withhold judgment. He is as witty as he is provocative, and that makes for “good” copy for the covering media; but he is a scholar of considerable substance (and MacArthur Grant recipient).
My hunch (only that since I don’t have access to the text of the lecture) is that Schopen is not saying that the early Indian sangha was a business rather than a religious institution, but rather that it was a business as well as spiritual institution (as it must have been once it aquired substantial material assets that needed to be managed). What models did the Buddha and/or early sangha use to organize their enterprise? Perhaps the use of “sangha” suggests that they employed and built upon some of the characteristics of primitive craft associations that existed at the time. Or not. It is at least plausible.
In any case, to place Schopen in the company of the other “scholars” you have rightly called our attention to this week, would be grossly unfair and misguided in my opinion.
You write a great blog; keep it coming!
With gratitude,
Shofu
Ah, the joys of religious scholarship. I am not qualified to make sound judgments about Schopen’s claims, but I do know that academics want to stand out, and therefore sometimes take positions that are designed to astound or offend their colleagues. We may not agree with Schopen, but we will now remember his name. In a way, though, it almost does not matter whether he is right or not (though I too find his thesis a bit preposterous). The important thing is what Buddhism evolved into since the time Schopen is dealing with, and what Buddhism is today. Religions evolve–possibly even ones that supposedly began as Fortune 500 corporations.
Barbara, I’m not only a practitioner but a scholar of Buddhism, teaching Religious Studies and East Asian Studies. Your characterization of Gregory Schopen as a renegade is simply off. Schopen is among the most respected of all Buddhologists working in the field; his work has for decades helped us to come to terms with the considerable gaps between how we imagine Buddhism and how it has actually been practiced. Rather than a crackpot, Schopen’s works are required texts for passing comprehensive exams in Buddhist Studies, and his ideas are taken seriously by people throughout the field (most of whom are also practitioners, in many cases ordained Buddhist monks, nuns, or priests, or former monastics). Schopen’s work is meticulously researched and referenced, and rather than cherry-pick sources, he does the EXACT opposite, calling our attention to sources that have been overlooked in our romantic constructions of Buddhism but that have always been laying right out there in front of our faces if we cared to look at them. To some extent, your resistance to his findings is our fault, the fault of previous Buddhist Studies scholars, who mischaracterized the allegedly ascetic nature of Buddhism. It is we who cherry-picked, and Schopen has the unenviable job of correcting inaccurate notions that we’ve become deeply attached to. Schopen has taught us much, and his evidence is undeniable. He will carry the day eventually (actually, his work is already considered mainstream, if cutting edge), and we’ll all be confronted with our attachments of how we wish Buddhism was vs. how it actually was and is. It is unfortunate that, based on one media (not academic) article rather than a familiarity with the scope of Schopen’s decades of amazing scholarship, you’ve descended into character assassination of one of the most widely respected Buddhist researchers. Also, I don’t think you’ve understood his point clearly, Schopen doesn’t argue that the sangha was an economic enterprise, only that it was clearly modeled on economic enterprises of the Buddha’s day and that it was very much involved in economic transactions (we know beyond any doubt that Indian monks and nuns accumulated significant wealth, after all, since they had their names inscribed as donors for all sorts of Buddha statues and stupas across the subcontinent).
I thought the lecture I heard very reasonable and balanced, and I did not get the feeling that he was talking about “Buddhism as a business” … but only about an institution that had to have a business side.
Professor Schopen also said that he is not talking about what “the Buddha” taught (because we do not have any writings from “the Buddha”), but only about rules and stories related in writings both created and describing situations centuries later, containing “a version of Buddha” saying and doing various things in the author’s mind.
I did not find anything so surprising in the talk, although it may be a surprise to folks without a background in the history of monasteries. The fact is that they had hundreds of mouths to feed, buildings to construct and maintain, roofs to replace. They were kind of like “spiritual condominiums” in their need for maintenance and financing. So, there were always questions of accounting, elections of officers and directors, legal titles, property management, loans to be made and received, assets to be invested for profit, fund raising and such. Some of the great Buddhist writings by Buddhist monastics are precisely on those topics.
In fact, look closely to the realities of social structure in India and China and Japan and you literally had monasteries being supported on the backs of serfs and slaves growing rice on lands run by the monasteries, often owned by the monasteries with monks managing the serfs directly. Or financed by soliciting donations, or selling funeral and other ceremonies to lay people. “Begging in the streets” was probably rarely, if ever, the main source of financial resources for the Buddhist clergy. (That is one of several reasons that the “protestant minister” model is attractive to me as the future course of Buddhist clergy in the West … ministers, often with other “Right Livelihood” careers, teaching Zen harmoniously therewith. This may be a means appropriate to create an economic base for Buddhist activities in our capitalistic societies, far removed from the agricultural and traditional societies from which our traditions came.). Handling money is not a problem if necessary for operation of the monastery, if done ethically … and if money is a means, and not the goal.
And, yes, the monks in India and China and Japan and Tibet (even now, and in European Christian monasteries too) probably had a fairly comfortable lifestyle compared to the average person in centuries past … heck, sitting around all day, reading, discussing, eating pretty good food … with some labor in there somewhere.
Gassho, Jundo
At the time I wrote this the lecture itself was not publicly available in any form. Since then a number of people who have read or seen it have told me I over-reacted, and I will concede that and apologize to Gregory Schopen.
whatever the dispute is, do not get discouraged Barbara.. you are helping thousands of people with your blog, so keep up the good work !
And thanks for drawing our attention to this lecture by Prof. Schopen (never heard of him until today..)