Richard, I am sorry for Dr Willemen and his loved ones. And I agree that the reality that 1) the Dhammapada is famous and 2) the Udānavarga is not, seems arbitrary. Finally, I am flattered to be mentioned in your substack.
Our little interaction about the notion of a "canon" opens out onto important questions that you begin to address in this current post. In terms of Western scholarship, the very idea of a canon is inseparable from the verbum dei (the very words of god, revealed to humanity). The relationship between truth and experience that that embodies seems to me alien to that expressed in Buddhist traditions. Thus the category of canon, as we must use it in our Western-based scholarship, applies so poorly to Buddhism that it might be best we dispensed with it altogether. Yet to do that would be to lose an important opportunity for comparison, contrast, and illumination. So we solider on.
Richard, I am sorry for Dr Willemen and his loved ones. And I agree that the reality that 1) the Dhammapada is famous and 2) the Udānavarga is not, seems arbitrary. Finally, I am flattered to be mentioned in your substack.
Our little interaction about the notion of a "canon" opens out onto important questions that you begin to address in this current post. In terms of Western scholarship, the very idea of a canon is inseparable from the verbum dei (the very words of god, revealed to humanity). The relationship between truth and experience that that embodies seems to me alien to that expressed in Buddhist traditions. Thus the category of canon, as we must use it in our Western-based scholarship, applies so poorly to Buddhism that it might be best we dispensed with it altogether. Yet to do that would be to lose an important opportunity for comparison, contrast, and illumination. So we solider on.