SuttaCentral
@sujato perhaps you might also consider submitting a book review to the Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies?
I would do it myself but sometimes these things are best coming from someone with a degree of standing and authority…
http://www.jocbs.org/index.php/jocbs/about/editorialPolicies#focusAndScope
The Journal of Buddhist Ethics might also be a good forum.
Just putting this link in here, to Bhante Sujatos illuminating and clear essay about what the Buddha says about counterfeit Dhamma
The moderators decided to close this thread, as it seems to have run its natural course and there have no additions made in over two and half weeks.
If specific issues arise a new thread could be started, or the moderators contacted to request a reopening.
This thread is being reopened at the request of @Charlotteannun. Please focus your comments on the material in her OP essay, the EBTs and other textual matters. As you know there are PM threads where those who wish to strategise further are welcome.
Just found another review that tackles some of the same issues that Ayya Suddhamma does:
From the article conclusion:
If you have made it this far into this post, you may be asking why I’m writing about poetry on a fiction blog. I’m writing about poetry because, in this case, perhaps it should be categorized and marketed as fiction, or at the very least, poetry in response to readings of the Therīgāthā, but definitely not Buddhist. Fiction as we know it is Buddhist when it represents and inscribes Buddhist principles into the literature of any language. More often than not, these principles are represented intertextually. That is, there is a narrative thread of Buddhist sacred text or traditional story that drives the fictional plot. And fiction itself, at its best, opens a third space for grappling with life, suffering, intersecting cultures and religious adaptations. There is truth in fiction, but it is not real. Thus we approach reading fiction differently than the way we approach reading a sacred text. We suspend our disbelief for fiction so as to allow the imagery and symbolism to inform our imaginations and glean insight from and through the experiences of characters unlike ourselves. We approach sacred text like the Therīgāthā very differently. We mine sacred text for truth. This is why undertaking translation requires an exhausting goal of veracity to the original, so that, as Grass said, the language and reader are transformed, yet (and I dare say because) the meaning has not changed.
How should a reader approach this text? My first answer is, really, not at all. But if I had to assign this in a Buddhist literature class, I would ask students to read with a view to give examples of demythologization derived from decontextualization, detraditionalization, and desacralization. I would ask them to compare the different forms of patriarchy revealed in good translations of the poems of the elder nuns versus Weingast’s work and expect to hear of contemporary entitlement, sexism, and erasure. And I would ask them if, as An Tran suggests in his Lit Hub article, the Shambhala tome is a sign of the decline of the dharma.
Thanks for the link. A really great/inspiring text!
And I would ask them if, as An Tran suggests in his Lit Hub article, the Shambhala tome is a sign of the decline of the dharma.
I can only say that the response to FFW from the Sutta Central community/sangha, and from thoughtful others, like An Tran and Kimberly Beek that have posted, suggests that the Dhamma is being protected, and that this proper and healthy advocacy on behalf of the Therīgāthā is a very strong signal of the health and future integrity of the Dhamma.
Excellent reply, Bhante.
Although it’s an old post, I just read the article, and couldn’t agree more.