authentic learning, serious scholarship and the exchange of ideas, yet he could sit for hours casting horoscopes, reading palms and expostulating with the ancient mysteries." In his essay Great Buddhists of the Twentieth Century (Windhorse Publications: 1996), controversial British writer and teacher of Buddhism, and personal friend of Conze's, Sangharakshita writes that "Dr. Conze was a complex figure, and it is not easy to assess his overall significance.... He was a self-confessed élitist, which is usually something people are ashamed of nowadays, but he wasn’t ashamed of it at all.... Nor did he approve of either democracy or feminism, which makes him a veritable ogre of ‘political incorrectness’." Nevertheless, Sangharakshita summarizes Conze's legacy as a scholar of Buddhism as follows: Ji Yun, Librarian of the Buddhist College of Singapore, describes Conze's legacy as follows: However, while religieux continue to idolize Conze, his work has attracted much criticism from within academia. Greg Schopen wrote: "Conze's notes to his edition reproduce all the errors in Chakravarti's edition, and there are a number of cases in which Conze's notations in regard to the Gilgit text are wrong or misleading." Jonathan Silk has described his edition of the Heart Sutra as "chaotic". His Heart Sutra edition was subsequently shown to contain a number of mistakes. Conze's translation of the Large Prajñāpāramitā Sutra was met with mixed reviews, though as Schopen concluded in his review, “there is both much to criticized and much to be praised” and that “a review of this kind tends to settle rather heavily on the former.” In his now infamous article, Buddhist Hybrid English: Some Notes on Philology and Hermeneutics for Buddhologists, Paul Griffiths singled out Conze’s Large Sutra translation, to illustrate what he meant by "Buddhist Hybrid English", saying, "Dr. Conze's translation bears only the most tenuous relationship to the English language in terms of syntax, and is full of unexplained technical terminology" (1981). However, Griffith is also making a broader point: "I chose this example not because Dr. Conze's translations are worse than anyone else's; in fact they are better than most. Rather, it illustrates with a concrete example the kind of gibberish that is all too often produced by the Buddhological community in the sacred name of translation" (1981: 30). Griffith's entertaining article is, however, largely rhetorical. After conceding that Conze understands these texts "better than anyone," he then faults Conze for his decision to translate them