Huseng wrote:tobes wrote:But no one else has really bothered to actually take issue with Batchelor's interpretative argument......by engaging with it sufficiently and offering a refutation.
Besides maybe in Japan if it got translated, almost nobody in Buddhist Asia would find his argument worth addressing as it would come across as so arrogant and incomprehensible as to merit no serious consideration.
I'm not kidding. If you tried to pitch such ideas around the monastery here in Taiwan, people would just smile and nod, and just feel sorry for you having such wrong views. If you tried teaching such ideas as legitimate in a classroom here, you'd be politely asked to stop.
Again, it just isn't worth the effort. He's a cultural imperialist who seems to assume the little natives in India were too stupid to get the real truth, so had to be given a watered down culturally-appropriate version. His appropriated version of Buddhism has little in common with how it is actually understood in Buddhist cultures. To stand up and write them all off as ignorant little natives while presuming to have a better idea than all of them is nothing more than hubris coupled with an unrecognized superiority complex. People like him just project their own cultural values and philosophical ideas onto Buddhism and then argue their version is right while those of the natives are completely wrong. They like to point out "cultural influences", but fail to point out their own biases given their background, but then that background is unquestionably regarded as the default from which all others can be judged.
I actually think you're the one adopting an orientalist position on this ~ you posit a distinction between Asia and the West, in which the former has the authentic and true ideas, and the latter is perniciously appropriating and falsifying those authentic and true ideas.
This is a very naive and problematic construct, which bears little relationship to a reality which is far more complex.