Should scholars of Buddhism start getting into some good methodological trouble? Matthew King's In the Forest of the Blind: The Eurasian Journey of Faxian's Record of Buddhist Kingdoms says, “Yes, please.” This rabble-rousing history of Eurasian interpretations of Faxian's Record of Buddhist Kingdoms invites fellow academics—those working on Inner Asia, East Asia, and beyond—to find new ways to resist the colonial conceptual apparatus of Buddhist studies. What is this apparatus, and how does King seek to undermine it?