Indrajala wrote:That's a rather unfair assessment of academia which has contributed more to modern Buddhism arguably than any group of self-identifying practitioners in terms of quality translations, histories and so forth.
Quality translations have come almost entirely from academics who were also practitioners, which if you read my comment more carefully you will see I was not referring to. YMMV, but hagiographies have contributed far more to my practice than archeological and historical musings.
Indrajala wrote:Scholars who learn multiple languages and possess vast amounts of historical and philosophical knowledge are generally, in my opinion, far more disciplined and mentally stable than your average western Buddhist who hangs around Dharma centers.
And parents who raise children, hold a job and manage to study and practice at the same time are infinitely more stable and disciplined than any effete intellectual in the Academy. So what? The point of the practice is liberation, not winning a prize for psychological wellness or good work habits. Scholars who can not actively engage in the tradition, but instead treat it as a germ under a microscope to be picked apart for the sake of publications contribute little to Buddhist praxis. Your antipathy for other Buddhists is well known,constantly demonstrated and duly noted.
Indrajala wrote:It is really that secular academia offers a credible alternative to traditional Buddhist scholasticism, and one that arguably has a lot more going for it and is more in line with contemporary values. It is a direct threat to Buddhist scholastic institutions as they simply find it difficult to compete.
I see. Well good luck with that. If all you are looking for is a meal ticket and ego strokes, academia is definitely better suited.
Chemistry is applied theology. ― Augustus Stanley Owsley III