P258


        I trust  I will  not  appear  to be thin-skinned  in
        making a brief response to Professor  Steven Heine's
        review  of my The Karma  of Words: Buddhism  and the
        Literary   Arts  in  Medieval  Japan  (reviewed   in
        Philosophy  East and West, July 1985, pp.  319-320).
        Two points may sufficiently illustrate his method of
        criticism and my reason for objecting to reading and
        reviewing that tends to be a hit-or-miss affair.  He
        complains, first, that in one of the chapters  in my
        book, "...much  time is spent  on a refutation  of a
        Platonic  view of Japanese Tendai, an issue outdated
        for  Buddhist  scholars."  This  approach,  however,
        seriously  misrepresents  my argument.  I agree that
        students  of Buddhism  are  not  likely  to  mistake
        Tendai for a form of Platonism.  But that is not the
        point at all.  The problem addressed  in one chapter
        of  my  book  was  not  occasioned  by  scholars  of
        Buddhism, but  by some  of the  West's  scholars  of
        medieval  Japanese  literature, persons  who in fact
        have made and continue  to refer  to Tendai  and the
        literature  it  influenced  as "quasi-Platonic."  My
        discussion  cites  them and goes on to show how this
        mistaken  philosophical   equivalence   skews  their
        readings of important  poetry and critical treatises
        of the medieval period.


            A second instance of applying  unusual standards
        is Mr.  Heine's complaint about "the quotations that
        introduce  the chapters  which, with  one exception,
        come  from  Western  sources  and, standing  without
        commentary    as    to    their    relevance,    are
        self-defeating."  Only  the reader  of my book  will
        realize  that what he refers to here is really  what
        in the book-world  is usually called "epigraphs."  I
        for  one  have  never   seen  explanatory   comments
        appended to the epigraphs  of a book or chapter.  To
        tell  the truth, I hope  I never  will.  Such  would
        steal away all the fun most readers usually  find in
        trying  to  decipher  exactly  what  nexus,  however
        subtle,  the  author  of  a  book  saw  between  his
        selected epigraphs and his main text.  Epigraphs  to
        my  knowledge   are  always   oblique;   my  use  of
        quotations  from Western  writers  in a book dealing
        otherwise with an Eastern tradition was based on the
        expectation  that most readers would recognize  this
        and know how to handle it.

            Persons   interested   in  a  more   substantive
        exchange  concerning  issues involved  might wish to
        see "Paradigms  and Poems: A review of LaFleur's The
        Karma  of Words," by James  H.  Sanford, in the  The
        Eastern Buddhist 17:2 (Autumn 1984) and my response,
        "Paradigm  Lost, Paradigm  Regained: Groping for the
        Mind  of Medieval  Japan,"  in The Eastern  Buddhist
        18:2(Autumn 1985).