This is your brain on Madhyamaka....

[Thug4lyfe]

Academic discussions on the internet forum is very difficult for Buddhism. Since there's pretty 0% members of the Sangha involved.

[gad rgyangs]

Academic discussions on the internet forum is very difficult for Buddhism. Since there's pretty 0% members of the Sangha involved.

its actually because theres pretty much 0% of actual scholars involved. Our own Ven. Huifeng is about the only one who ventures into the murky waters of e-sangha type boards. Namdrol is as good as a academically-trained scholar except he doesn't like to give useable references unless you twist his arm.

[Thug4lyfe]

Venerable Huifeng rulz

[Mr. G]

Academic discussions on the internet forum is very difficult for Buddhism. Since there's pretty 0% members of the Sangha involved.

Being in the Sangha is not a magic bullet in providing good academic discussion.

its actually because theres pretty much 0% of actual scholars involved. Our own Ven. Huifeng is about the only one who ventures into the murky waters of e-sangha type boards. Namdrol is as good as a academically-trained scholar except he doesn't like to give useable references unless you twist his arm.

In addition to Namdrol and Ven. Huifeng, I would add the following in no particular order:

Jnana
Huseng
Astus

I'm sure there are others I've missed.

[Malcolm]

Namdrol is as good as a academically-trained scholar except he doesn't like to give useable references unless you twist his arm.

No, definitley not. I am a traditionally trained acarya. I don't have the temperment for the rigors of academic writing.

N

[Indrajala]

Academic discussions on the internet forum is very difficult for Buddhism. Since there's pretty 0% members of the Sangha involved.

Most academics in Buddhist Studies are not monastics.

[Mr. G]

I don't have the temperment for the rigors of academic writing.

What do you mean Namdrol?

[gad rgyangs]

In addition to Namdrol and Ven. Huifeng, I would add the following in no particular order:

Jnana
Huseng
Astus

I'm sure there are others I've missed.

Ph.D.s in Buddhist studies?

[Malcolm]

I don't have the temperment for the rigors of academic writing.

What do you mean Namdrol?

It requires discipline.

N

[Thug4lyfe]

That section of the forum should be more accurately called "frivilous discussion of Buddhism by fans"

[Huifeng]

I don't have the temperment for the rigors of academic writing.

What do you mean Namdrol?

It requires discipline.

N

[Indrajala]

Academic discussions on the internet forum is very difficult for Buddhism. Since there's pretty 0% members of the Sangha involved.

its actually because theres pretty much 0% of actual scholars involved. Our own Ven. Huifeng is about the only one who ventures into the murky waters of e-sangha type boards. Namdrol is as good as a academically-trained scholar except he doesn't like to give useable references unless you twist his arm.

In my humble opinion most academically-trained scholars get too much hype about their abilities and qualifications. A PhD degree doesn't really mean anything, even if it comes from a supposedly high quality university somewhere.

[gad rgyangs]

Academic discussions on the internet forum is very difficult for Buddhism. Since there's pretty 0% members of the Sangha involved.

its actually because theres pretty much 0% of actual scholars involved. Our own Ven. Huifeng is about the only one who ventures into the murky waters of e-sangha type boards. Namdrol is as good as a academically-trained scholar except he doesn't like to give useable references unless you twist his arm.

In my humble opinion most academically-trained scholars get too much hype about their abilities and qualifications. A PhD degree doesn't really mean anything, even if it comes from a supposedly high quality university somewhere.

you mean like how a robe or a geshe degree doesn't really mean anything, even if it comes from a famous monastery?

[Indrajala]

you mean like how a robe or a geshe degree doesn't really mean anything, even if it comes from a famous monastery?

As they say robes don't make the monk.

I think degrees don't make the scholar.

[gad rgyangs]

you mean like how a robe or a geshe degree doesn't really mean anything, even if it comes from a famous monastery?

As they say robes don't make the monk.

I think degrees don't make the scholar.

glad to see your view is balanced. i must say, however, when it comes to critical thinking, in general, western trained scholars run rings around any traditionally trained scholars, imo. without critical thinking, one is indistinguishable from a fundamentalist. and the hallmark of the fundamentalist is lack of critical thinking. the best of both worlds is occasionally obtained by those with both trainings: Georges Dreyfus, Matthieu Ricard, Thupten Jinpa, to name a few.

[Indrajala]

you mean like how a robe or a geshe degree doesn't really mean anything, even if it comes from a famous monastery?

As they say robes don't make the monk.

I think degrees don't make the scholar.

glad to see your view is balanced. i must say, however, when it comes to critical thinking, in general, western trained scholars run rings around any traditionally trained scholars, imo. without critical thinking, one is indistinguishable from a fundamentalist. and the hallmark of the fundamentalist is lack of critical thinking. the best of both worlds is occasionally obtained by those with both trainings: Georges Dreyfus, Matthieu Ricard, Thupten Jinpa, to name a few.

It depends on what your purposes are.

If you want to trace the development of Buddhism, then western academia is key.

If you want to become enlightened and liberate yourself from samsara, then pursuing a geshe degree coupled with practice is a better option.

[gad rgyangs]

It depends on what your purposes are.

If you want to trace the development of Buddhism, then western academia is key.

If you want to become enlightened and liberate yourself from samsara, then pursuing a geshe degree coupled with practice is a better option.

its not that "western academia" is the key, rather, uncompromising pursuit of truth is the key. this requires not taking anything for granted, not sleepwalking, which unfortunately can occur in either academia or shedra if one simply believes everything one is told and just parrots the words of others, thinking that doing so is the same as realization. questioning everything like a western academic and practicing like a yogi would be my Rx for success.

[gregkavarnos]

...questioning everything like a western academic and practicing like a yogi would be my Rx for success.

Everything??? I think you would find that it would generate too much doubt in order for one to concentrate on their yogic practice. I believe that one needs a balance between faith and questioning/reasoning otherwise all you are doing is reinventing the wheel. Do you think you have enough time to reinvent the wheel?

[Mr. G]

Academic discussions on the internet forum is very difficult for Buddhism. Since there's pretty 0% members of the Sangha involved.

Being in the Sangha is not a magic bullet in providing good academic discussion.

its actually because theres pretty much 0% of actual scholars involved. Our own Ven. Huifeng is about the only one who ventures into the murky waters of e-sangha type boards. Namdrol is as good as a academically-trained scholar except he doesn't like to give useable references unless you twist his arm.

In addition to Namdrol and Ven. Huifeng, I would add the following in no particular order:

Jnana
Huseng
Astus

I'm sure there are others I've missed.

I forgot to add Anders Honore (he hasn't been posting as much)

[daelm]

he also has a website http://www.jesusisbuddha.com/

This is a good thing.

If you actually click on it, he proves Christianity is from Buddhism.

unfortunately, he seems to get there by numerical analysis. i stopped half way down the first page when i failed to get past "...Assuming, moreover, that the reader agrees with me that 108-100 as well as 666-888 are basic lucky numbers for the authors or editors of the New Testament, the next question - also not seriously faced by scholars before now - has to do with the historical background. Why was 108 considered, so to speak, their lucky number?".

he reads like a classic shizophrenic, up to and including the use of idiosyncratic pseudo-mathematical formulations to describe himself and his ideas.


d