Buddhism, Scholar vs Practitioner
30 March 2014 [link youtube]
There's a presumed antipathy between the scholar and the practitioner; while this video opens with an example of that contrast being all-too-real, I argue that the more common conflict is one that sets scholar against scholar, and practitioner against practitioner.
Youtube Automatic Transcription
that many people talk about as if it's real,
the division, y'know, was kind of open and from a man who today is a university professor senior professor (now deceased) A.K. scholar of Buddhism, and this much younger the first time, the first time ever meeting Warder turns around and says, "Oh, so who are you?" that he didn't want to have any students (studying who, indeed, was the kind of guy who was interested most young people who are getting involved for the religion as it exists today), you between someone who presents himself as a opposed to any kind of tradition or religious some credit: he was not a fraud. almost everybody... [censored] the guy (apart from my own interaction with sad. he knew the language, and what he contributed he took away from it and, y'know, you've got up in his pulpit and basically saying, "Look, in meditation, and I don't believe in reincarnation, willing to say openly, that what he brought down-to-earth, outsider's view. and clear break between, uh, those who practice openly preach that they don't practice. big confrontation between scholars on the seems to quote or derive from the work of alive. of Charles Prebish, almost nobody has actually that somebody said at a conference that indirectly mostly was just very down-to-earth observations experience. much different from a news-reporter just showing what's going on (and, y'know, I don't mean did). in the 20th century study of Buddhism, but, very much of an outsider looking in, and, much time to unearth whatever the story was, which he did a lot of. up in the intellectual legacy of Charles Prebish, it as much more real than it is. out of the deep uncertainty that most Buddhists about what is in "the Bible" of Buddhism --and is 'the Bible'?". different for different languages, and so that are a sort of definitive, canonical Bible to those texts --neither the monks, nor the Warder (who gets to be an asshole to everyone he's the only guy who can read the texts) between, and that's why it's such a loss when even if that's the only problem. only problem, and his career was what it was. people. were really destroyed by that guy, but that's not between scholars and practitioners, but who are making their way on the basis of fraud who are getting by with fraud and those who a fraud, they live in a state of uncertainty and they live in real fear of being kicked on, precisely because they refuse to go along into institutional Buddhism. the same within academia, it's just much nastier, it involves more money, in the hands of fewer is [itself] in no way secular. religious traditions, that's true even in short history of academic institutions. century, in the 19th century in Germany, the the aisle, and all the students would stand aisle in the middle, and the professor would pulpit) and the professor would tell the students and then the professor would lecture. American and other scholars who found it shocking kind of religious, monastic, oppressive, atmosphere Socratic terms, as being a theater of ideas, his own feeling of shock when he went to France. Science, where he was expecting some level classroom. Sciences Po, in France, was of a totally hierarchical, one professor would sit at a table that was would be completely silent, the professor no questions, in a totally authoritarian way, to the end of their own PhDs, would never or in any way challenge the professor, until desk, on the stage, speaking without interruption. it with some of the professors and graduate possible for the study of politics to exist context put around it?" scholars and practitioners, y'know, both sides aspiring to be scholars, or they're at least a Buddhist monk's robes, it's one or the other. many kinds; again, Charles Prebish has written themselves as secular, if they have made the of Buddhism, they do have a connection to very different; certainly, it's hard to generalize, of Buddhist studies are, as a rule, eccentric. anything in common, even when they get married. studies, and you can very easily see the difference Buddhism. professor, [censored] today, he's an assistant tour of what was then his employer's institution, um, I think he had given this tour several and fanfare, he walked through the library pointed to the spine of the book, and made within their library. wrong. one hand, it's obvious to me, that he's so receiving this tour (even if they are PhD they are Buddhist monks) --the people on the of the claims he's making as he walks through regard him as a great scholar, because he commentary on different impressive-looking the texts he was alluding to, and who knew but, at that time, I knew what was out, I those shelves. so crude, they were so incompetent, that it to be a specialist in ancient Hebrew (in Biblical from Baghdad, and saying, "This is one of studies", [this was] the nature of the language because I realized I was talking to someone I had guessed from earlier e-mail correspondence that showed me he did not know what he was great flair. by trying to get him to slow down, and just on the spine of the book. but I know the book you're talking about, who arranged the publication of this book, and the editing of it". and so on. of how these books were put together. at all. I want to share this information with somebody audience or a critical audience, who is going will ever take an interest in these books. or reflect on, the things he was... the line that library, and gave me this prepared tour. the other professors I've interacted with an immense ego-trip, that he is what we would ashamed of the nonsense he is selling. I have spoken to are more reflective, are an undergraduate, and I would just ask simple, don't you mean the 4th century A.D., not the questions, with absolutely no ill intentions, and, uh... y'know, fly off the handle, get talking about the simplest, factual element, vs. fraud. of time inside Buddhist institutions, talking monks who are sincere about anything, there's work, and they'll tell you openly, "I don't got people in this suburb of Phnom Penh, Cambodia, and the kids are going to be orphans in 5 sincere about the social and political dimensions, of the ancient texts. said openly that what they know about Buddhist their first language was Chinese, or Cambodian, with Sri Lankan monks). ancient Buddhism relies on these Western, this had shortcomings, but they were also in English were burdened with a very different between modern problems and ancient philosophy. put an upbeat ending on such a depressing the honesty, the strength and the detachment that there's a book up on a shelf, and I don't on the spine. never end, between people who are involved openly religious practice of Buddhism), there's who will not be bought and sold, and people everyone hates Tony Warder, I even know why Richard Gombrich's character, I really do of how we're going to live with integrity.
the division, y'know, was kind of open and from a man who today is a university professor senior professor (now deceased) A.K. scholar of Buddhism, and this much younger the first time, the first time ever meeting Warder turns around and says, "Oh, so who are you?" that he didn't want to have any students (studying who, indeed, was the kind of guy who was interested most young people who are getting involved for the religion as it exists today), you between someone who presents himself as a opposed to any kind of tradition or religious some credit: he was not a fraud. almost everybody... [censored] the guy (apart from my own interaction with sad. he knew the language, and what he contributed he took away from it and, y'know, you've got up in his pulpit and basically saying, "Look, in meditation, and I don't believe in reincarnation, willing to say openly, that what he brought down-to-earth, outsider's view. and clear break between, uh, those who practice openly preach that they don't practice. big confrontation between scholars on the seems to quote or derive from the work of alive. of Charles Prebish, almost nobody has actually that somebody said at a conference that indirectly mostly was just very down-to-earth observations experience. much different from a news-reporter just showing what's going on (and, y'know, I don't mean did). in the 20th century study of Buddhism, but, very much of an outsider looking in, and, much time to unearth whatever the story was, which he did a lot of. up in the intellectual legacy of Charles Prebish, it as much more real than it is. out of the deep uncertainty that most Buddhists about what is in "the Bible" of Buddhism --and is 'the Bible'?". different for different languages, and so that are a sort of definitive, canonical Bible to those texts --neither the monks, nor the Warder (who gets to be an asshole to everyone he's the only guy who can read the texts) between, and that's why it's such a loss when even if that's the only problem. only problem, and his career was what it was. people. were really destroyed by that guy, but that's not between scholars and practitioners, but who are making their way on the basis of fraud who are getting by with fraud and those who a fraud, they live in a state of uncertainty and they live in real fear of being kicked on, precisely because they refuse to go along into institutional Buddhism. the same within academia, it's just much nastier, it involves more money, in the hands of fewer is [itself] in no way secular. religious traditions, that's true even in short history of academic institutions. century, in the 19th century in Germany, the the aisle, and all the students would stand aisle in the middle, and the professor would pulpit) and the professor would tell the students and then the professor would lecture. American and other scholars who found it shocking kind of religious, monastic, oppressive, atmosphere Socratic terms, as being a theater of ideas, his own feeling of shock when he went to France. Science, where he was expecting some level classroom. Sciences Po, in France, was of a totally hierarchical, one professor would sit at a table that was would be completely silent, the professor no questions, in a totally authoritarian way, to the end of their own PhDs, would never or in any way challenge the professor, until desk, on the stage, speaking without interruption. it with some of the professors and graduate possible for the study of politics to exist context put around it?" scholars and practitioners, y'know, both sides aspiring to be scholars, or they're at least a Buddhist monk's robes, it's one or the other. many kinds; again, Charles Prebish has written themselves as secular, if they have made the of Buddhism, they do have a connection to very different; certainly, it's hard to generalize, of Buddhist studies are, as a rule, eccentric. anything in common, even when they get married. studies, and you can very easily see the difference Buddhism. professor, [censored] today, he's an assistant tour of what was then his employer's institution, um, I think he had given this tour several and fanfare, he walked through the library pointed to the spine of the book, and made within their library. wrong. one hand, it's obvious to me, that he's so receiving this tour (even if they are PhD they are Buddhist monks) --the people on the of the claims he's making as he walks through regard him as a great scholar, because he commentary on different impressive-looking the texts he was alluding to, and who knew but, at that time, I knew what was out, I those shelves. so crude, they were so incompetent, that it to be a specialist in ancient Hebrew (in Biblical from Baghdad, and saying, "This is one of studies", [this was] the nature of the language because I realized I was talking to someone I had guessed from earlier e-mail correspondence that showed me he did not know what he was great flair. by trying to get him to slow down, and just on the spine of the book. but I know the book you're talking about, who arranged the publication of this book, and the editing of it". and so on. of how these books were put together. at all. I want to share this information with somebody audience or a critical audience, who is going will ever take an interest in these books. or reflect on, the things he was... the line that library, and gave me this prepared tour. the other professors I've interacted with an immense ego-trip, that he is what we would ashamed of the nonsense he is selling. I have spoken to are more reflective, are an undergraduate, and I would just ask simple, don't you mean the 4th century A.D., not the questions, with absolutely no ill intentions, and, uh... y'know, fly off the handle, get talking about the simplest, factual element, vs. fraud. of time inside Buddhist institutions, talking monks who are sincere about anything, there's work, and they'll tell you openly, "I don't got people in this suburb of Phnom Penh, Cambodia, and the kids are going to be orphans in 5 sincere about the social and political dimensions, of the ancient texts. said openly that what they know about Buddhist their first language was Chinese, or Cambodian, with Sri Lankan monks). ancient Buddhism relies on these Western, this had shortcomings, but they were also in English were burdened with a very different between modern problems and ancient philosophy. put an upbeat ending on such a depressing the honesty, the strength and the detachment that there's a book up on a shelf, and I don't on the spine. never end, between people who are involved openly religious practice of Buddhism), there's who will not be bought and sold, and people everyone hates Tony Warder, I even know why Richard Gombrich's character, I really do of how we're going to live with integrity.