Shi Huifeng wrote:Just received my very impressive copy of <The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism>, after briefly flicking through it, maybe it should be renamed <The Princeton Dictionary of Western Buddhism>, or something like that. Well, fair enough, it is in English. But some very major content from Chinese Buddhism is totally overlooked, for example, and some other rather minor things of interest to the Western scholar are well detailed. Ho hum....
As for content, it was a brief flick through, as I said. But, being who I am, I thought that I'd look up the name of what is most likely the largest Chinese Buddhist organization in the late 20th century to the present (apart from the 中國佛教協會 that is), ie. Fo Guang Shan / Buddha Light International. Not a mention.
Nor a mention of the founder, Ven. Hsing Yun, despite being a huge force in the modern revival of Buddhism in Taiwan, Mainland China, and the entire Sinosphere, and major moving force behind "Humanistic Buddhism".
Nor a mention of Ven. Yinshun, one of the most influential scholar-monks of modern Chinese Buddhism, another of said movement.
Or Tzu Ch'i / Ciji.
Or Ven. Sheng Yen.
It's like the sources for Chinese Buddhism stop around 1950 or something...
But, then we have a whole half page for Evans-Wentz.
Looks like they also left out Mou Zongsan.
There is a Chogyam Trungpa, nearly half a page. No Hsuan Hua / Xuanhua?
Ven Xuyun gets a quarter page, and Laiguo... zip.
Part of the problem is the somewhat ineffectual connection between contemporary Chinese Buddhist scholars and the West. Much better these days, by and large, but in the mid to late 20th cty, a rather glaring hole. Two intellectual worlds with few standing in between to bridge the gap. </rantoff>
Alas, I don't have the many hours that would be required to do a full review. I also don't want to sound sour about it, either. Much of the other material looked very solid and sound. I think it's more modern Chinese, that is the problem. The classic stuff seems to be there. This may reflect a fairly well known trend in Western Buddhist studies, which looks at much Chinese material from a Japanese (or less likely, Korean) point of view. So, the later material, which didn't influence the Japanese seems to be skipped over.
But just check the size of the Chinese, Japanese and Korean cross reference material in the back. The latter two are larger than the former. Now, I don't want to begrudge the latter two, but on sheer length of history, geographical size, etc. surely Chinese Buddhism should have more material, no? This really does seem to be a hole in Western Buddhist studies, as far as I can see. </rant2off>
mikenz66 wrote:Shi Huifeng wrote:There is a Chogyam Trungpa, nearly half a page. No Hsuan Hua / Xuanhua?
That's your avatar, isn't it Will?
mikenz66 wrote:... big difference between Buddhist studies in the West and other areas, such as science or engineering, is that the academics generally are not practitioners. ...
By the way, isn't the Fo Guang Shan Dicitionary in the process of being translated into English?
WuMing wrote:Introduction of the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism at the University of the West
Huifeng wrote:WuMing wrote: By the way, isn't the Fo Guang Shan Dicitionary in the process of being translated into English?
Do you mean the Fo Guang Buddhist Dictionary? If so, then no, not at this point at least.
Though we are translating a 22 volume Illustrated Encyclopedia of Buddhist Arts, coming out this year 2014.
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 3 guests