with as many dead people that have been hung on trees you would figure some of them would learn to climb.
Scholarship vs wisdom
- Thread starter rcscwc
- Start date
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I'm not sure that teachers can do that. They can suggest, they can insist and exhort, but ultimately everyone has to walk their path for themselves.
In much of Buddhism (there are lots of very different Buddhist traditions) teachers aren't supplying students with values and they aren't really telling them what to believe. Instead, they are giving students things to do.
Those things can be simple or advanced, depending on the student. For beginning-level lay householders it might be adoption of the 'pancasila', the five lay precepts. (To refrain from killing, stealing, lying, sexual improprieties and use of mind-clouding intoxicants.) For advanced monks, it might be the most advanced forms of meditation.
Classical Buddhism is presented in outline form in the famous 'Eightfold Path'. In a sense, all of the rest of the Buddha's discourses in the Pali canon are just elaborations on different parts of it. It's kind of a graded series of ever-deeper actions, beginning with simply having an interest in Buddhism. Then it graduates to right-speech, which might be said to be 'talking like a Buddhist'. That makes 'right action' easier in which one begins to act like a Buddhist as well. Broadening that out to how you live your entire life leads to 'right livelihood'.
The thing to notice is that all of this is basically ethical so far. It's all about expanding the scope of 'right' external behavior. (Where 'right' is defined as productive of positive results for yourself and for others.) Now the task is to internalize it. Of course, acting outwardly has already had a profound transformative impact on one's internal process, which is the whole point.
One needs to have a motivation to begin. The inner work basically consists of mindfulness of how cognitive and (especially) affective states arise and subside. Most Buddhist meditation isn't really concerned with entering exotic trance-states. (Westerners often associate the word 'meditation' with trance.) It's just about watching and non-judgementally observing what's already happening right here, right now, externally and internally. Finally, students develop the ability to intervene and make changes in their own inner process by focusing their attention on states that are positive and productive.
In other words, Buddhism is all about practice. It's about doing something, then seeing what kind of result the action has in your life. In the early Buddhism of the Pali canon at least, it's far less important what one believes about heavens or gods, or about science for that matter. This Buddhism is more psychological than metaphysical, it's all about our inner states and their arising and subsiding.
Good teachers from poor teachers? The good teachers' teachings work when their students try them.
Last edited:
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
This is still true, isn't it? Buddhism does not have a very strong vector of supernaturalism, and many of its adherents don't believe in it at all.
In general today's Buddhist leaders embrace science because it is a fabulous tool to use in one's search for the truth. Of course science as we know it is only about 500 years old so they could not have had that attitude in the early days, but they did in general hold scholarship in high regard, didn't they?
/snicker
anglo-centric garbage
buddhists have been playing this science game far longer than your piddling "500 years"
anglo-centric garbage
'Nyāya' (Skt. "recursion", with the semantic amplification of 'syllogism, inference') is the name given to one of the six 'orthodox' (astika) schools of Sanatana Dharma, which may be understood as "the school of logic." The Nyaya is founded in the Nyaya Sutras, attributed to Gotama (2nd century CE). Buddhist logic inherited much of the architecture of Nyaya's methodology, but where the Nyaya recognised a set of four pramanas—perception, inference, comparison and testimony—the logic of Buddhadharma only recognized two: perception and inference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_logicbuddhists have been playing this science game far longer than your piddling "500 years"
Compaision and testimont are useful in stablishing the truth. Nayaya broadly classified testimony as shruti and smiriti, respectively written and verbal testimony. Without testimony a crime can NEVER be established, eye witnesses are not always available. Ruling out testimony will trashing all the existing sceintific treatises. If verbal testimony of class teacher is ruled out, we might as well say good bye to our education system.
In Pachatantra, Visgnu Sharma instructs his pupils relying heavily on analogy and testimony. Just like rat was able to..... so should you.
Gangesh, about 1200 CE, established Navya Nyaya, Neo Nyaya. By that time Buddhism was nearly finished in India, but Gangesh did not hesitate in utilising Buddhist logic theories too.
Heaven- O.E. heofon "home of God," earlier "sky," possibly from P.Gmc. *khemina- (cf. Low Ger. heben, O.N. himinn, Goth. himins, O.Fris. himul, Du. hemel, Ger. Himmel "heaven, sky"), from PIE base *kem-/*kam- "to cover" (cf. chemise). Plural use in sense of "sky" is probably from Ptolemaic theory of space composed of many spheres, but it was also formerly used in the same sense as the singular in Biblical language, as a translation of Heb. pl. shamayim.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=heaven
The wise one is the one who can peirce My chemise.
The scholar is the one who sees the words, but refuses to make a move.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=heaven
The wise one is the one who can peirce My chemise.
The scholar is the one who sees the words, but refuses to make a move.
Wisdom = Never run with scissors.
But what if you're in a hurry to cut something?
But what if you're in a hurry to cut something?
SomethingClever
Registered Senior Member
love the tiger story
what I gathered:
wisdom sees the big picture, the value/worth of each action, each situation. The wise man sees life in the seed.
The scholar or intellectual is skilled at creating complexity within subjects that are ultimately irrelevant.
what I gathered:
wisdom sees the big picture, the value/worth of each action, each situation. The wise man sees life in the seed.
The scholar or intellectual is skilled at creating complexity within subjects that are ultimately irrelevant.
Wisdom is based on integration of knowledge and experience and compression to the simplest state. It provides a portable set of mental tools.
Scholarship is more about differentiation and expansion instead of compression. For example, a scholar may expand and differentiated a tiny area of knowlwdge into a thesis.
An interesting side effect has to do with the differences within the outward personality; each project the nature of their data handling into their outward persona. The wise man is humble but deep reflecting the dense simplicity of his accessment. The scholar tends to be more inflated in terms of self worth; differentiate and inflate themselves.
Both are useful to evolving knowledge, with integration of wisdom harder to do, which is why there are more scholars than wisemen.
Scholarship is more about differentiation and expansion instead of compression. For example, a scholar may expand and differentiated a tiny area of knowlwdge into a thesis.
An interesting side effect has to do with the differences within the outward personality; each project the nature of their data handling into their outward persona. The wise man is humble but deep reflecting the dense simplicity of his accessment. The scholar tends to be more inflated in terms of self worth; differentiate and inflate themselves.
Both are useful to evolving knowledge, with integration of wisdom harder to do, which is why there are more scholars than wisemen.
I think the dude was having a good earthy and earthly sense of reality, which his late friends did not.
Last edited:
It is not a good-evil conundrum.
Every school of Indian philosophy is presented to the general layman as pragmatism, or at least a dose thereof. But theoretical side too remains.
Take that arrow case. Hinduism recognises normal dharma as well as EMERGENCY dharma, where the your very survival is at stake.
The arrow can be dealt with at various levels:
1. Ordinary man is interested only that the arrow should be removed and his wounds cleaned and bound. Hospitals receive such case 24x7x365. Dr., I am dying/suffocating. Save me.
2. Physician might be still interested in the aroow: What type, poisonous or not, etc for maybe longe term treatment or for fiuture refrence.
3. POLICEC MIGHT BE interested in any criminal angle involded.
You might add other perspectives too.
@rcscwc --
Everything that lives survives on death, there's no possible way to avoid it. You may not eat meat but the fruits and vegetables you do eat(plus whatever else) were alive at some point, they had to die so that you could eat them. Thus death sustains you too.
Even things which don't directly kill(that would include you too, but not humans in general) still sustain themselves with death. The bacteria in your gut feed off the same food you do, something which died. Even photosynthetic species like plants(and maybe algae too, not sure on that one) require death to survive, they absorb vital nutrients that they can't construct themselves from the corpses(and fungi) that form the soil around them.
Hence why I've never bought that "I don't eat meat because I don't want to take part in killing" line so many vegans use(not saying you are, though your post could be interpreted that way). It's not the killing that bothers them, we know this because they're still alive(unless they truly weren't aware that plants are alive) so they must not mind death enough for it to throw them off their appetite. No, what truly bothers them is the suffering of livestock, which is a good thing in my book, I just like a little honesty about it.
Don't worry, you don't need a tree, just get a scientifically inclined skeptic. "Studies" have shown that one hundred percent of "ghostly phenomenon" either disappear or are explainable in the presence of a skeptic. I've been told by several woos that it's their lack of faith that does this, maybe we could make the entire world "ghost proof" if we just convince everyone to give up their faith in the supernatural. I can think of one or two other things that might help as well.
Everything that lives survives on death, there's no possible way to avoid it. You may not eat meat but the fruits and vegetables you do eat(plus whatever else) were alive at some point, they had to die so that you could eat them. Thus death sustains you too.
Even things which don't directly kill(that would include you too, but not humans in general) still sustain themselves with death. The bacteria in your gut feed off the same food you do, something which died. Even photosynthetic species like plants(and maybe algae too, not sure on that one) require death to survive, they absorb vital nutrients that they can't construct themselves from the corpses(and fungi) that form the soil around them.
Hence why I've never bought that "I don't eat meat because I don't want to take part in killing" line so many vegans use(not saying you are, though your post could be interpreted that way). It's not the killing that bothers them, we know this because they're still alive(unless they truly weren't aware that plants are alive) so they must not mind death enough for it to throw them off their appetite. No, what truly bothers them is the suffering of livestock, which is a good thing in my book, I just like a little honesty about it.
Don't worry, you don't need a tree, just get a scientifically inclined skeptic. "Studies" have shown that one hundred percent of "ghostly phenomenon" either disappear or are explainable in the presence of a skeptic. I've been told by several woos that it's their lack of faith that does this, maybe we could make the entire world "ghost proof" if we just convince everyone to give up their faith in the supernatural. I can think of one or two other things that might help as well.
Wisdom creates a mixture of common and ingenuity and therefore can anticpate and/or shape the unknown future. Scholarship can approximate this through the knowledge of what already is. In case of the fable, the scholars learned the procedures to reform the tiger, but lack the sense to understand the future of their action. The wise man saw the future and lived to tell the tale.
An analogy is a master carpenter who can make any situation work. He is like the wise man of wood. The scholar leans the procedures to do most things, but may have a problem when he reaches things not in his book.
An analogy is a master carpenter who can make any situation work. He is like the wise man of wood. The scholar leans the procedures to do most things, but may have a problem when he reaches things not in his book.
At school I was taught the difference between the two via the following:
The scholar knows how fast a man will hit the ground if they jump out of an aircraft at 1,000 feet.
The wise man packs a parachute.
The unintelligent and unwise man lets everyone know how little they know.
The intelligent but unwise man lets everyone know hoe much they know.
The unintelligent but wise man keeps his stupidity to himself.
And the man blessed with intelligence and wisdom keeps his intelligence to himself.
So be wise and shut the **** up!
And my favourite:
"Wisdom without scholarship is useless.
Scholarship without wisdom is dangerous."
It's not my quote - but I can't for the life of me recall who it was atributed to. :/
The scholar knows how fast a man will hit the ground if they jump out of an aircraft at 1,000 feet.
The wise man packs a parachute.
The unintelligent and unwise man lets everyone know how little they know.
The intelligent but unwise man lets everyone know hoe much they know.
The unintelligent but wise man keeps his stupidity to himself.
And the man blessed with intelligence and wisdom keeps his intelligence to himself.
So be wise and shut the **** up!
And my favourite:
"Wisdom without scholarship is useless.
Scholarship without wisdom is dangerous."
It's not my quote - but I can't for the life of me recall who it was atributed to. :/
Well the first item that comes to mind to reply on has to be.....
anyone with true wisdom would NOT use or refer to any symbol, sign, or example that infers that one race may be better than another. True wisdom would be without judgement against the potential of any example of free thought as to truth. A swastika, as an example, shows an inbred, limited, and uneducated point of view.
anyone with true wisdom would NOT use or refer to any symbol, sign, or example that infers that one race may be better than another. True wisdom would be without judgement against the potential of any example of free thought as to truth. A swastika, as an example, shows an inbred, limited, and uneducated point of view.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Samuel Johnson said something similar:
"Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful."