text:
What is bodhisattvahood in personal practice?
I've read a lot of english language scholarship on the mahayana, probably about 150 books thoroughly, with notes, though not always with very good notes. I wanted an opinion from a broadly Mahayana perspective, so here's my story.
I was a sensitive youth, and had a number of religious like epiphanies while backpacking, before a more intense near visionary one with a basic Buddhist textbook.
But this was truncated by a frank insanity: there is schizophrenia in my family. Anyway, my psychosis is doing a good job of shrivelling up with medication and therapy. But before all that, and before I clawed back some sense of Buddhism from my relatively committed reading habits, did I have an authentic religious (or Mahayana) moment? Or was it a religious delusion and / or escapism?
How do I tell? I had taken a couple of Thai meditation classes, and since then have sat with a couple of zen groups, and attended a 7 day ch'an retreat. No-one took much interest, but then I am near broken now. I'm not asking for authentication from a web community, only:

What is bodhisattvahood in personal practice: is it OK to believe one (has or) did have that quality?
Does anyone here suppose they are a bodhisattva, without any group accreditation and with little engagement - outside their own personal striving / story / narrative?

More esoteric or indeed polemical answers, are of course weclome.

I've edited the title to better reflect the content of the question. Please roll back if the title isn't suitable. Metta

You might like to compare your story with that of Sally Clay. Many years ago I discovered her essay The Wounded Prophet and found it very inspiring. She has written a number of other reflections on madness, visionary experiences, and Buddhism.
In the literature on madness there is a similar pattern: beautiful visions which give way to a more disordered and frightening state of confusion and delusion. I'm thinking of, for example, The Faber Book of Madness, and Roy Porter's book Madness.
Clay argues for the validity of her initial visions, and she was led to this conclusion by interacting with a Tibetan Lama (I think they compared visions). While I do not practice Tibetan Buddhism, it seems to me that it might suit you better than Thai or Zen Buddhism. It is more at home with visions and unusual experiences, closer to the Shamanic roots of Tantra.
The ironic thing about a bodhisatva is that traditionally they don't think "I am a bodhisatva" or worry about if they might be one. So perhaps you are not one. But many people have transformative visions of one kind of another without becoming "special".
Sally Clay's way forward was helping other people, or in other words the bodhisatva way.

Bodhisattvahood, is not really a quality, at least not in the sense you are saying. A Bodhisattva is a being striving to reach enlightenment as quickly as possible, for the benefit of all beings.
They have a set of vows that they must take and keep. They are similar to monks, except their vows are of a different variety.
I think you are thinking of the term Ahrat, or someone who has obtained nirvana. Yet the two terms are related in a way.
The thing about a realization of Śūnyatā, at least in the teachings I have heard, is that you know, there is no doubt. This is of course a direct understanding I refer to, not an intellectual theoretical understanding. Those who experience it directly do not have to ask for a clarification.
As for your personal experience, don't get me wrong, it is your experience. What value it has is not for others to determine. You must decide what impact to let it have on you. I spent years chasing after answers after an experience I had in my teenage years, and though I learned a ton about myself, and many other things, ultimately I came to the conclusion that the experience was a dead end, and not to pursue it further.
One Rinpoche who I went to talk to about the experience advised me to just passively watch and observe if it were to happen again. He explained to me about how when he was a boy he had to reach out and touch objects to ensure that they were really there.
Now just because my experience was a dead end does not necessarily mean yours was. There are two possibilities, it was a genuine experience, or it was somehow related to your condition.
Either way, it is your mind, and you can analyze it as an aspect of yourself. Where you go from here, and what you decide to do with the experience and the memory of it though, is completely up to you.

passive is good, thanks. btw there is no doubt in delusion !!

@user3293056 sure, but after the delusion fades, is there doubt then?

i think more likely it's faded to escapism.
thanks.

Ah, well don't let escapism win. Meditation and setting out on the development of the paramitas can help to stabalize yourself until you find direction again. Also if you are interested in the Bodhisattva way of life, you can look into the vows, and try practicing them informally.
Also if you have not read it, you could read Shantideva's Guide to the Bodhisattva's way of life.

A link to a marked up version of the text in case you are interested.
http://hoavouu.com/images/file/AkMNdk9R0QgQAAoD/shantideva-bodhicaryavatara-wallace.pdf

i've looked at it before. it may seem very cynical, but i can't get my head around the perfections anymore. i lack confidence in it. i have an interest in buddhist practice and discourse, but little more. which isn't to say that what has happened hasn't helped in any way, as you said.
it's probably a gradual loss of faith, likely due to the struggle with psychosis, and however technical "faith" is

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

As a clarification- "Bodhisattva are courageous beings who have generated bodhicitta to become buddhas for the benefit of all sentient beings through engaging in a host of bodhisattva deeds, such as the Ten perfections".
If you identify yourself as a Mahayana practitioner, it implies you want to achieve nirvana not just for yourself but for the benefit of all sentient beings.
We are NOT Bodhisattva when we start out. Bodhisattva is a title given to meditators who are quite frankly at a very advanced stage.
As to any group accreditation, please be extremely vary of any such group which claims to confer such things. There are texts, especially text like Lama Tsing Khapa's Lamrim which help you to identify where you are on the path. There are clear identifiers to find out where one is on the path.
As for books I suggest, with all due respect, to read from authentic sources and good translations of acharyas' and lamas' works. The realisations in the path are not mere epiphanies. It is a transformation of the mind- GRADUAL- from a state of ignorance to state of knowledge infused with bodhicitta and wisdom. Having visions here or there is not indicative of anything. The entire path and teaching of the Buddha is to see things as they are, not as they appear to be. I again suggest very strongly to read from authentic sources and traditions.

One general tip is that Enlightenment is about understanding. It's a deep understanding that changes your outlook and reduces suffering. It is not a psychedelic drug trip like experience.
You can reflect on your experiences, analyze them, and think about them. By doing so you can conclude if they had genuine wisdom, or were simply a mystical experience.
To answer 1. A key practice in Tibetan bodhisattva is to cultivate bodhicitta. Bodhicitta is the desire to fully Awaken for the benefit of others.


text:
What is morality according to Buddhism?
What is good and bad according to Buddhism? Is there good and bad? What is it's cause? What defines good and bad? Why some people think "this same X is bad" and others think "this same X is good"? What's the cause of this difference in thinking "this same X is bad" and "this same X is good"? Are there any suttas talking about all this?

The respective key words for "good" and "bad" in the suttas are "wholesome" (kusala) and "unwholesome" (akusala):

kusala (adj.) [cp. Sk. kuśala] 1. (adj.) clever, skilful, expert; good, right, meritorious.
akusala : (nt.) demerit; sin; bad action. (adj.), unskilful.

"Wholesome" and "unwholesome" here are qualifications for action/kamma. Keeping in mind that, to the Buddha, volition is kamma (see AN 6.63) manifested by body, speech and mind.

“And what, friends, is the unwholesome, what is the root of the unwholesome, what is the wholesome, what is the root of the wholesome? Killing living beings is unwholesome; taking what is not given is unwholesome; misconduct in sensual pleasures is unwholesome; false speech is unwholesome; malicious speech is unwholesome; harsh speech is unwholesome; gossip is unwholesome; covetousness is unwholesome; ill will is unwholesome; wrong view is unwholesome. This is called the unwholesome.
“And what is the root of the unwholesome? Greed is a root of the unwholesome; hate is a root of the unwholesome; delusion is a root of the unwholesome. This is called the root of the unwholesome.
“And what is the wholesome? Abstention from killing living beings is wholesome; abstention from taking what is not given is wholesome; abstention from misconduct in sensual pleasures is wholesome; abstention from false speech is wholesome; abstention from malicious speech is wholesome; abstention from harsh speech is wholesome; abstention from gossip is wholesome; uncovetousness is wholesome; non-ill will is wholesome; right view is wholesome. This is called the wholesome.
“And what is the root of the wholesome? Non-greed is a root of the wholesome; non-hate is a root of the wholesome; non-delusion is a root of the wholesome. This is called the root of the wholesome.
-- Sammādiṭṭhi Sutta, MN 9

(the causes are also repeated and further explained in the Nidana sutta (AN 3.33)).
The above definitions are more general, based on the 3 defilements (greed/lobha, hate/dosa, delusion/moha) but the list of mental states can expand to more specific ones. For example, any of the five hindrances are also understood as unwholesome. In Theravada tradition, the Abhidhamma and Visuddhimagga lists 10  defilements.
In another exposition, the Buddha further distinguishes between four kinds of kamma (see AN 4.235):

"Monks, these four types of kamma have been directly realized, verified, & made known by me. Which four? There is kamma that is dark with dark result. There is kamma that is bright with bright result. There is kamma that is dark & bright with dark & bright result. There is kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result, leading to the ending of kamma.

Thus, generally speaking, it is said that wholesome actions are those that lead to a favorable rebirth and lead to nibbāna, whereas unwholesome actions are those that lead to suffering, perdition, hell.

For an interesting read in this subject, see The Roots of Good and Evil by Nyanaponika Thera.

Conceptions of what is good and evil are depend on what frame of reference you apply. Certain religious traditions that sprang up in the Middle East, the earliest of which was Zoroastrianism which most probably influenced all that followed, see life as a battle between the fundamental and external forces of good and evil:

Zoroastrianism states that active participation in life through good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. This active participation is a central element in Zoroaster's concept of free will, and Zoroastrianism rejects all forms of monasticism. Ahura Mazda will ultimately prevail over the evil Angra Mainyu or Ahriman, at which point the universe will undergo a cosmic renovation and time will end. Wikipedia

In Buddhism there is no cosmic fight between good and evil. Buddha pragmatically lays the origin of good and evil at the door of each persons individual actions. Greedy, hateful and delusional actions lead to bad results 3 Unwholesome Roots AN 3.69; Generous, compassionate and wise actions lead to good results - for you and the people around you.

In Buddhism, there is no fight between good and evil—that is the most wonderful thing in the Buddhist practice! There is no fight between good and evil. Good and evil are both organic matters. If you have understanding and wisdom, you will know how to handle both the flower and the garbage in you, you can make the Buddha be born every moment of your life, and peace and happiness will be possible. Thich Nhat Hanh

Why some people think "this same X is bad" and others think "this same X is good"?
They are applying their frame of reference to the world. For Buddha even if they think X is good but this belief leads to suffering then they are delusional.
An interesting and related topic worth mentioning here is the role of Mara. In Buddhist stories, that have their origins in the Pali Canon, relate how Buddha was tempted by Mara (a kind of demon figure) - Maara Legends in Canonical Texts. You could equate the temptation of Buddha by Mara to the temptation of Christ by Satan. The two stories are very similar. However, without the underpinnings of a cosmic battle between good and evil, Buddhism's view of what Mara is, or represents, in these stories is much more nuanced than Christianities concept of the devil. In Buddhism the general consensus is that Mara is merely the personification of all the unwholesome (akasula) qualities and so ...

Mara is not very pleasant, but if you know how to help Mara, to transform Mara, Mara will become Buddha. If you don’t know how to take care of the Buddha, Buddha will become Mara. Thich Nhat Hanh

i think Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta is a good sutta for this question.
from my study of Buddhism, what is good and bad can be determine by:
1) determine the intention.
2) Results.
3) compare it with the wise (is it blameless?).  Tons of sutta about who is wise and who isn't.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Paradox of the ego - our desire to improve vs Buddhism
There was a question on my mind lately, regarding ego. It is not paradox per se but I find it slightly paradoxical.
Because people have such a strong ego, humanity has risen above the animal level. Our ego was main reason that we progressed, our desire to improve etc.
If it wasn't for our ego, we would still be in caves, struggling and Buddhism would never exist. Isn't this paradoxical? Ego is the main reason that we came to the point where we are trying to forget our ego?

I've edited the title to better reflect the content of the question. Please roll back if the title isn't suitable. My edit is a bit clunky though so please improve or disregard. Metta

You say that it's because of ego that we've [risen above animals, progressed, left caves, invented buddhism, etc], and "ego should be forgotten". But I think this is only a paradox if you say that the purpose of humanity is to [rise above animals, progress, leave caves, invent buddhism, etc]. Also, I think "ego" is being further conflated with atman here, when you say "we are trying to forget out ego".

Our ability to meditate isn't caused by our strong ego. The truths of Buddhism could be discovered even if we lived in caves. It's even possible that they were discovered by some cave dwellers, but simply didn't get widespread recognition and eventually got forgotten about.

I think that views about the self are problematic. For example the Sabbasava Sutta is quoted as describing an "identity view" ...

This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'
As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

... where "identity view" is one of the "fetters" associated with suffering, and "eradicating" this view is one of the stages of enlightenment.

So when I read your question about "ego", I associated the word "ego" with dukkha and with desire; and so I re-read your question, substituting "suffering" and "desire" instead of "ego" into the question:

Because people have such a strong suffering, humanity has risen above the animal level. Our suffering was main reason that we progressed, our desire to improve etc.
If it wasn't for our suffering, we would still be in caves, struggling and Buddhism would never exist. Isn't this paradoxical?  Suffering is the main reason that we came to the point where we are trying to forget our suffering?

Because people have such a strong desire, humanity has risen above the animal level. Our desire was main reason that we progressed, our desire to improve etc.
If it wasn't for our desire, we would still be in caves, struggling and Buddhism would never exist. Isn't this paradoxical? Desire is the main reason that we came to the point where we are trying to forget our desire

You ask whether that's "paradoxical" and therefore the question reminds me of this question (and the answers to that question) about whether it's "paradoxical" to want to end desire: Stopping Tanha or craving. I recommend you read the answers to that question; but I won't requote those answers here.
If you phrase the question like that (i.e. "Suffering is the main reason that we came to the point where we are trying to forget our suffering") then I don't see see it as paradoxical. Phrasing it like that depends on the idea that "ego" (and/or a process related to ego for example "attachment") contributes to suffering. In the same way that there is wholesome desire and unwholesome desire, perhaps there is unwholesome ego; and to whatever extent ego contributes to suffering, to that extent we might want to forget ego.
This article, Selves & Not-self by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu, says,

The path begins with discernment — the factors of right view and right resolve — and discernment begins with this basic question about which actions are really skillful: "What, when I do it, will lead to long-term welfare and happiness?" [§8] The Buddha's teaching on not-self — and his teaching on self — are, in part, answers to this question. To fit into this question, perceptions of self and perceptions of not-self are best viewed as kamma or actions: actions of identification and dis-identification. In the terms of the texts, the perception of self is called an action of "I-making" and "my-making (ahaṅkāra mamaṅkāra)." The perception of not-self is part of an activity called the "not-self contemplation (anattānupassanā)." Thus the question becomes: When is the perception of self a skillful action that leads to long-term welfare and happiness, when is the perception of not-self a skillful action that leads to long-term welfare and happiness?

It's important to realise that ego is not something we have, but something that we do. At least in Freud's use of the word, ego is a function of the mind, not an entity. And yes it makes all kinds of things possible, not the least of which is empathy for other beings. There is a Pāḷi verse on this subject in the Rāja Sutta (Udāna 5.1; PTS: Ud 47 & Saṃyutta Nikāya 3.8; PTS: SN i.75):

Sabbā disā anuparigamma cetasā,
  Nevajjhagā piyataramattanā kvaci;
  Evaṃ piyo puthu attā paresaṃ,
  Tasmā na hiṃse paramattakāmoti.
Going around all the directions in imagination
  [Something] more dear than one's self, is nowhere found
  The self of other individuals is similarly dear
  Therefore don't harm another self that is loved.

It's not that ego is strong or weak, but that we clearly distinguish ourselves as individuals against a social background. In some places where there is less individualism, identity (and therefore ego) can be more strongly linked to one's family and/or social group. On the other hand ego allows us to see and respond to others as individuals, to communicate, to learn, and so on. Ego is effectively the process of interacting with the world. Buddhism says there are better ways to interact with the world. People who reorganise their minds to bypass ego (or however we describe enlightenment) do not there by lose their individuality. If anything they are more distinctively individual. Think of the all the arahants in the Pāḷi texts and how each of them has a distinct personality and personal strengths.
In my view, it is civilisation that upset the natural balance that humans have with nature and experience. It has made our lives immeasurably better, and considerably longer, but it has also warped our relationship to sensory experience and lead us toward the warped view that happiness is attained through sense pleasures. I was quite interested in this question a few years ago and wrote a series of essays, for example, Why do we suffer? An alternate take.

something that we do -- Is it conventionally described as a view (i.e. "identity view") rather than as an activity? But perhaps they're closely related (i.e. we 'do' because of 'how we see').

Buddhists generally problematise the sense of "I" in a way that psychologists do not. But ahaṃkāra '"I making" is the activity that leads to sakkāyadiṭṭhi "belief in a real self". It's a problem because of another process, mamaṃkāra "making it mine" - trying to take possession of experiences that cannot be owned. But even Buddhists recognise "I" as the basis of empathy, as the verse shows.

Because people have such a strong ego, humanity has risen above the animal level. Our ego was main reason that we progressed, our desire to improve etc

As far as Buddhism is concerned, humanity began at a far elevated level, and has declined, not progressed, since then, due to the rise of greed, anger, and delusion. See The Lion's Roar on the Turning of the Wheel (Cakkavatti-Sihanada Sutta)

If it wasn't for our ego, we would still be in caves, struggling and Buddhism would never exist. Isn't this paradoxical? Ego is the main reason that we came to the point where we are trying to forget our ego?

This question presumes an ego. Within the Buddhist framework of ultimate reality, there is no ego. There are only the 6 experiences of reality, seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, smelling, and thinking. "Ego" is a concept, an artificial construct that exists only within the mind.
This question also presumes that humanity wasn't aware of its present state of suffering and seeking to alleviate it prior to the conditions of Buddhism arising being met, which according to the Buddha's teaching is not the case. The Buddha taught that Pacceka Buddha's arise during the times in human history when there is not a Buddha's dispensation to be heard and practiced, and instead achieve an enlightenment by themselves, but don't/aren't able to teach it en mass.

As I see it, there is a progression of development: pre-ego (child, animal), ego (corresponding approximately to Concrete Operations stage), mature ego (Formal Operations), Neo (self with ego temporarily not operating, like satori or other trans-personal experiences), non-self (nonduality, early "stages" of enlightenment / realization), liberation.
In this way, ego is not a paradox, any more than adolescence is. Buddhism simply urges us not to remain teen-agers forever. If someone remained a child, yes they would not have all the urges toward self-improvement that more mature people do. Or even if they did, they would not be developed enough to coherently act on them.
I heard that Ram Dass said, "Ego is like an office that we go in to when we need to be efficient." Just remember to go home and have your real life as well.

First of all as to Buddhism every being has an ego not only us humans.
If no other creature had ego will they fight for survival,no!
You need to understand one thing
Yes Buddhism has its own version of "Evolution" and it may be the only religion on the face of the earth that will ever accept evolution because other cry babies can't do it with all the unscientific lies they believe in!
But as to the evolution Buddhism believes in our bodies evolved according to the environment, not our minds.We were always mentally above those poor animals.You see "Darwin's Evolution" and "Buddha's Evolution" are two different things.As to Lord Buddha's evolution we are not from apes, Yes we were in the caves but not as dum apes.And as to Lord Buddha we had many extremely advanced civilizations before the current. As to Lord Buddha yearly versions of humans lived so long (even above 60,000 years of lie expectancy) and they had no sicknesses because everything was new.
As Lord Buddha our ability to do advanced thoughts and logic is not anything but what is given to a human by Karma.Whoever born as an animal has less karma and will not have that ability but it will still have an ego (For example look at the kingdom of monkeys the alpha male kill or bite off the penis of new born's and less powerful monkeys to own the female kind and the rights to have sex).But Buddhism deny that one day the animals can be like us,As to Buddhism it is impossible because the mind's abilities are a cause of Karma not a matter of the brain's size.
And Buddhism is not a product of some guy's ego.Buddhism is the product of a great one who was riddled by the world. The very birth of  Buddhism was born with the destruction of "Prince Siddahrtha's ego" (The price who became our Lord Buddha).
If you have any questions please leave a comment below.
May triple gems bless you!

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
How would Buddhist monks organize countries and the world?
I can't help myself not to find Buddhism utopic. A concept that can only exist for a small group of people. What is the long term plan of the Buddhism?
How would Buddhist monks organize countries, world?
e. g.:
Imagine you got 95% Buddhist countries, but ISIS pops up, how would Buddhist countries react, given that non-violence is preached?

I've edited the title to better reflect the content of the question. Please roll back if the title isn't suitable. Metta

Buddhism is an individual choice. It is like asking: What if people who believe in home-schooling organized the schools? Umm...

I don't understand what you mean by "long term plan". What kind of plan are you talking about?

Long term plan in terms of that majority of people start to accept Buddhist mentality. What kind of world Buddhists imagine in 1000 years?

I can't help myself not to find Buddhism utopic.

If one assumes that it's purpose is to make the earth a place with no violence, or to make peaceful beings not die from life-threatening attacks, it is utopic. But that assumption is incorrect.

What is the long term plan of the Buddhism?

Buddhism is not an abstract view of society. It does not put forward any grand vision of what an ideal society should be.
But within a society (a real one), it offers useful principles to guide human affairs. The utility of these are always within the theme of decreasing suffering of people.

How would Buddhist monks organize countries, world?

A monastic person is one who put aside most wordly matters, which include governing. Having them organizing countries, the world, would be to put back on their plate what they specifically put aside.
For a historical understanding of how buddhism have being put to use on government affairs, I suggest as a starting point of research the emperor Ashoka.

Imagine you got 95% Buddhist countries, but ISIS pops up, how would Buddhist countries react, given that non-violence is preached?

This is a very speculative question, which not only is something that buddhists are taught to avoid, but the policy of this community also does not promote developing such discussions. However, if this question's subject is reduced to an individual instead of countries, the dilemma might be preserved and maybe a satisfying answer can be given. So, to the reformulated question:

how a buddhist person reacts to a life-threatening situation, given that non-violence is preached?

...while it's hard to say how buddhists reacts (any attempt in my part would be factually wrong), the Buddha taught abandoning ill-will. Note I'm not saying buddhists react with non-violence. I'm saying that the Buddha drew a very strong line on this matter1 (and its up to each one to decide to live by it):
"Monks, even if bandits were to savagely sever you, limb by limb, with a double-handled saw, even then, whoever of you harbors ill will at heart would not be upholding my Teaching." (MN 21).
To conclude, Buddhism is not something that needs the agreement of everyone (or from a large group of people) to operate satisfactorily. It's not about society. It's a road for an individual to decide if that is the kind of person he or she wants to be.

1 this is not without it's nuances and polemics, say, when it comes to the use of violence in self-defense or helping others by means of harming. Without going into detail, what seems generally accepted is if the state of mind that manifested violence came from greed, hatred or ignorance, it is blameful.

I've downvoted this answer because I think it is too theoretical and too Romanticised. We have plenty of historical examples of what happens when Buddhist monks are in power, or when they get involved in politics. It's always disastrous.

I think these are both really good answers from different viewpoints. +1 to both for me. Thanks

@JayaravaAttwood you're right, allow me to clarify. I did considered a "monk" a person who would not be involved in these matters and I was completely silent about the monastics that were involved in power. My understanding is that his question is theoretical and it's more about buddhism and what happens when lots of people take it's non-violence essence to it's last consequences and dilemmas, than about people doing what they do (whether on robes or not) despite of buddhism and it's non-violence promotion.

I disagree with the use of the quote from the kakacupama sutta as the basis for the claim that Buddhists should react non-violently. The quote deals with whether or not one gives rise to ill will. That is one thing, and defending oneself against an attack but without ill will is another. Even monks are allowed to defend themselves according to the vinaya.

@Adamokkha sorry about abusing the term "non-violence". I edited in attempt to be more precise, thanks for pointing it out

We do not have to wonder about the answer to the question of "How would Buddhist monks organize countries, world?" We have plenty of historical examples of just this. There is no need to speculate. In Tibet for example.

"Until 1959... around 98% of the population was enslaved in serfdom. Drepung monastery, on the outskirts of Lhasa, was one of the world's largest landowners with 185 manors, 25,000 serfs, 300 pastures, and 16,000 herdsmen. High-ranking lamas and secular landowners imposed crippling taxes, forced boys into monastic slavery and pilfered most of the country's wealth – torturing disobedient serfs by gouging out their eyes or severing their hamstrings." The Guardian. 11 Feb 2009.

Other Buddhist countries are no better. Buddhist monks are currently leading the ethnic cleansing in Burma for example - openly and actively encouraging the murder of Muslims. Buddhist monks supported the government of Sri Lanka in their genocidal war against the Tamils (who had only started fighting after decades of persecution and injustice). Even the happy Bhutanese are persecuting Nepalese refugees - not forgetting that in nominally Buddhist Nepal there was a decades long civil war. Japanese monks encouraged the imperial ambitions of the Japanese government in the early 20th Century, supporting the invasion of China and what they call The Pacific War (aka World War II). Pacifism was finally imposed on Japan not by Buddhist monks, who had been there for 14 centuries supporting one militaristic government after another, but by American generals and nuclear weapons (as sick as that was).
Of the modern countries that are notionally Buddhist or have a majority of Buddhists, we have Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia (Jesus, Cambodia!), Korea (Nth and Sth), China, and Japan. A brief look at the history of these countries is not encouraging when it comes to the political influence of centuries of Buddhism. The characteristic government of a Buddhist country in practice would on average be a repressive totalitarian state. The worst of them are also militaristic and imperialistic.
Just going on the real politik of Buddhist states that we know about, in a world that was 95% Buddhists and ISIS popped up we would almost certainly just systematically slaughter them. But since we would almost certainly have suppressed their religion and ethnically cleansed their region to begin with, they probably wouldn't have popped up.
No one who has even a beginners knowledge of the facts of history in Buddhist countries could sustain a Utopic illusion. But most of us prefer to remain ignorant and keep our illusions. The best chance for world peace is the real tolerance that comes with secularism! Compare also Stephen Pinker's book The Angels of Our Better Nature, which not uncontroversially, tries to prove that violence has decreased with the spread of rationalist secularism.

The answer is simple: the people that you wrote about are not Buddhists. As Jesus said, he would deny people who were not actually doing what he said, for the right reasons.

That is not an answer because they were Buddhists. That's the whole point. We talk big, but we never live up to it when given power.

@nocomprende That sounds like a No true Scotsman argument.

@ChrisW By God, they are not Scotsmen, either! : ) You can't just go around calling yourself something and not live up to it. I might be in a garage, but that doesn't mean I can call myself a car. We have to revoke these peoples' right to abuse language. Don't call them Buddhists if they clearly are not.

Show me anyone who actually lives up to the bodhisatva idea? Or anyone who has never broken a precept. By this criteria there are no Buddhists in the world. Which does simplify the answer considerably!


text:
Why do Bodhisattvas postpone enlightenment?
I've read that one understanding of Bodhisattvas is that they postpone their enlightenment until all sentient beings have entered Nirvana? That's always struck me as odd. Why would this be necessary? Surely the Buddha was enlightened and he worked for the benefit of all beings too. Or is that an incorrect understanding of what a Bodhisattva is?

added mahayana tag as this question is in such a context.

Is this a duplicate of "Does Mahayana Buddhism discourage attaining enlightenment under the Gautama Buddha Sasana?"?

This question (more or less) was asked a year ago. I recently gave a fairly fully answer to it.


text:
Hypocrisy of Buddhism
Aren't Buddhists (with Buddhist I refer to an ideal Buddhist or Buddhists monk) actually not doing enough to prevent harm in this world?
So, Buddhists don't have any attachment to things and work towards reduction of suffering in the world. Given the focus and discipline dedicated Buddhist has, they could use this to become successful businessmen for example and use that money/power to help people. But many don't, they seem very passive from what I have read so far.
In a sense Buddhist not trying to accumulate money/power and use it to help people and change world, is hypocritical?

@Rico Interesting question. In one explanation of Bhagavad Gita (which is Hinduism, and Prince Gautama was Hindu Prince), the person said a we should do good action without worrying about results. Example was a wealthy, kind, generous King who lived ages ago who provided for his people, and protected them from attacking countries.

Hang on. What do you mean by "Buddhists"? You're making some very, very broad generalisations here on the basis of "reading" what? This question seem unfocussed and vague. Can you make it more specific? Can you give specific examples of what you mean? Which Buddhist are you referring to?

@Riko You may like to read my answer to another question at http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/10937/715

Buddhist master, Ajahn Brahm, answered a similar question as follows in an interview with Rachael Kohn:

Rachael Kohn: I know that your message is often about happiness, and how the point of life...is all about changing one’s attitude, not
  really about changing the world. And yet you would know that that kind
  of an attitude can also be breeding a certain indifference to the
  world...Does Buddhism ever teach a resistance to things which are
  dangerous, which are bad, which are evil?
Ajahn Brahmavamso: Yes, we teach a resistance to anger, we teach a resistance to jealousies, we teach a resistance to stupidity. Those
  are the things which we should really be resisting, you know, the
  anger and the feelings of revenge, the hurt, the grief, the guilt
  inside of us, all those negative emotions which make our world. Those
  are the things which we want to resist, to understand, to overcome, by
  letting go.

In other words, Buddhists claim that harm in this world arises because of greed, hatred, and delusion; they seek to eliminate these sources of harm within themselves and to educate others so that they may do the same. So, on this view, Buddhists are addressing the root causes of suffering in themselves and others and helping people in this way--the most effective way. As the passage above implies, an ideal Buddhist is far from passive internally and, although she may appear to be so externally, one could argue that she is simply skillful/technical in her approach to the suffering of others.
In summary, Buddhists want to use wisdom, rather than money and power, to help others. According to them, this is the most effective way to do so, and the only way to get to the cause of the problem; using power and money to alleviate worldly problems can be a temporary, palliative solution at best. The Buddha often compared himself to a doctor, treating the causes of suffering rather than exclusively treating the symptoms.

Had to join this community just for the purpose of up-voting this.  Very well put.

Buddhist not trying to accumulate money/power and use it to help people and change world, is hypocritical?

Hypocrisy is defined as:

1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
(source)

So, the above behaviour would only be considered hypocritical if the Buddhist in question actually pretended to possess intentions and behaviours relating to "accumulating money/power and using it to help people and change world". Some Buddhists actually do claim to possess such intentions; some are hypocritical, some are, in my experience, not, as they do actually "accumulate money/power and use it to help people and change world". I imagine the Dalai Lama would be a well-known example of the latter.
It is not hypocritical, for example, to "not hold any attachment", as you claim generally to be a quality of Buddhists, and yet not accumulate... etc.
It is also not hypocritical to "work towards reduction of suffering in the world" and yet still not accumulate... etc. Many Buddhists believe that the accumulation of money and (worldly) power are detrimental to one's ability to truly effect change.
Finally, many Buddhists have no interest in changing the world; they see the world as inherently unfixable, and strive simply to be free from its seductive pull. So, it is a straw person argument to suggest that all Buddhists are hypocrites for claiming to uphold a belief in changing the world while not acting on said belief. Many Buddhists hold no such belief, and many who do act upon it.

This is a very complex question. You start by positing an "ideal Buddhist", which cannot really exist by virtue of all Buddhists generally being human, thus flawed.
You are asking about how a Buddhist goes about reducing suffering in others - or put the other way, acting on the kindness and compassion that they practice will, hopefully, bring into being.
There are different "venues" in which this might take place. The majority of Buddhists, I would say, are ordinary people, not entrepreneurs. Thus, their kindness and compassion will flow to those they have immediate contact with. They may decide to help run a small meditation class, or may just resolve to be kinder to their kids. In the end, if as a result of their practice there is more kindness in the world, then this is a good thing.
Some people have a more entrepreneurial spirit, or perhaps have skills that might let them create organisations that improve the lives of a larger number of people. There are a number of Buddhist run charities, such as The Karuna Trust or Rokpa, charities set up by Buddhists to try and solve some of the world's problems. There are many more than these two examples.
In ancient times, an example to note is King Ashoka who, after realising the folly of his ways, used his influence to improve the lives of others.
But it is important not to discount the simple kindness of listening to a colleague who is struggling, or sharing with those interested some of the lessons learned through one's own practice. These also change the world.
As Buddhists, we must all seek to find the most effective means to act out that desire to make the world a better place, and the choices we make will each be very individual to our sensibilities, talents and circumstances.

This is not complex. What is complex: is to accept that: simplicity is not stupidity. It is intelligence, often. The point that you can improve the best, the closest one to you, where you have much power is... yourself. Change yourself. Improve yourself. As one particle amongst billions. But change it. Not to be a martyr, but to turn on a light.

Paraphrasing Einstein, you can't solve a problem with the same paradigm that creates it. Just to put it in the context, you can't solve greed using wealth, and you can't solve desire using power. You can't "save the world" from suffering by the means that creates suffering.
From another perspective, the only way to lessen the suffering of the world is lessening your own suffering. Paraphrasing Gandhi, be the change you want to see in the world. If you seek wealth and power, you are just feeding the status quo.
And lastly, if you are able to transcend the common state of mind, you are far from passive. Although your personal revolution might be small in the face of all humanity and faint near powerful people, it is a great step in means of example and legacy.
I think Buddhism isn't about radical revolutions, but small incremental improvements.

good quote by Einstein.

The job of Buddhism is to teach the dharma and prove its truth by being a living example of it which involves many acts of social charity and offering comfort and hope to the lost and suffering souls of this world, Getting too wrapped up in being an institution out to save the world and right all its wrongs would corrupt it, History is full of people who caused untold suffering by imposing their " moral world view" to make the world a " better place" The value add of the Buddhist spiritual path is that it fixes you and makes you happier which translates into one less dangerous moron in the world, I mean who else are you ultimately responsible for,,,YOURSELF


text:
Buddha's past lives in the Jatakas
In multiple Jataka stories, the Buddha tells of his different past lives, multiple of which occurred under King Brahmadatta. Am I missing something here? How is it that the Buddha was living multiple past lives, all during the lifetime of one king?
for example :
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/j1/j1010.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/j1/j1008.htm

It doesn't say that it is the same king Brahmadatta. It's probably a different king with the same name or a descendant of the original Brahmadatta. Just like king Edward the 1st/2nd/3rd/4th/5th...
Samsara is very long and it's not unlikely that the Bodhisatta met many kings with similar names ruling the same land. Once there was a Brahmin who wanted to bury his corpse in a place where no other person has been buried. He found a large tree with roots sunk deep into earth. He thought "surely there can be none buried here". But when he was ready to uproot the tree, the Buddha told him that he had been buried in the same place with the same name for fourteen thousand times in his previous lives.

You are missing something important. But you are also adding something. What you are adding is that you are taking the Jātaka's literally. What you are missing is that these are simple morality stories that are not meant to be taken literally. They illustrate principles. In fact they are not even particularly Buddhist since many of the stories occur in both Jain and Vedic literature as well. They are just a way of conveying values in a way that uneducated people can appreciate.
Modern treatments of religion veers away from taking the words of religious texts on face value. There is no reason, except for uncritical acceptance of religious stories, to believe that anything preserved in a traditional text is "the word of the Buddha". When the material involved supernatural beliefs such as rebirth then we have even less reason to take such texts on face value. In the case of the Jātakas the very strong implications of personal continuity between lives conflicts with the fundamental metaphysics of Buddhism which deny the possibility of any kind of personal continuity. Such continuity as might be discerned is entirely impersonal. The fact is that this metaphysic produces unworkable morality and so early Buddhists maintained a doubt standard - arguing vociferously against personal continuity in more theoretical texts, and tacitly allowing for strong forms of personal continuity in morality stories. The contradiction is never acknowledged in traditional texts, never noticed by modern Buddhists, and seldom discussed even by scholars of Buddhism.
Apart from the outright doctrinal clashes and the supernatural elements, especially of the Jātakas, there is the kind of historical conflict that is embedded in the question: events that are supposed to have happened in a particular time frame that physically cannot have happened in that time frame.
The Jātakas as a body of literature use miracles and other supernatural occurrences to create compelling narratives for the communication of Buddhist values. Until the twentieth century the Jātakas remained some of the most revered Buddhist texts and the main vehicle for communicating morality in tradition Theravāda countries. However, precisely because of the supernatural elements the texts have never been as popular or significant in the West.
As long ago as 1748, philosopher David Hume wrote:

"...no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish..."

Certainly the testimony of the Jātakas fails this simple test. It would certainly not be miraculous if the Jātakas turned out to be fictions. However we can re-evaluate the stories as myths which use people in unusual circumstances, performing incredible deeds of magic and supernatural power, in order to convey values. According to Evolutionary Psychologist Justin Barrett imbueing a story or character just enough counter-intuitive properties makes the story memorable and interesting. A figure like the talking wolf in the story of Little Red Riding Hood was probably never intended to be taken literally. Even if we reject the idea of a talking wolf, the story retains a certain fascination as a act of story telling. A story need not be the literal truth to elicit an emotional response.
Thus taking the Jātakas at face value as literal accounts of history are naive at best. The question could only arise as part of a literalist/fundamentalist worldview in which miracles are in fact routine rather than miraculous. But this is far from tenable outside of a religious milieu which allows members to reinforce false beliefs and rewards members for reciting them. As another modern Psychologist, Daniel Kahneman, has said:

“We know that people can maintain an unshakable faith in any proposition, however absurd, when they are sustained by a community of like-minded believers.”

For anyone with a Western education the question of the literal truth or reality of the Jātakas seldom arises, because miracles and magic are rightly not part of our worldview. The major contribution of the European Enlightenment was to free people from the tyranny of religious dogmas and ordinary superstitions. Which we largely see as an important element of the progression of civilisation. That some Buddhists abandon reason to embrace the magical thinking and superstitions of Classical Buddhism is a quirky feature of modern Buddhism, but fortunately not very widespread. Most Buddhists are content to read the Jātakas and myths - fictional stories which communicate a set of important values.

Where did the Buddha say they are not to be taken literally? Just because other religions describe similar stories doesn't discount that they too could be telling the stories of the Boddhisatva's past lives, no?

Where did the Buddha say anything at all?

The various places he was situated during his life, I would imagine.  Where did the Buddha say they are not to be taken literally?

I'm simply asking what reason you have to make this assertion. The Buddha's teaching as I can, and many others can attest to, is verifiable as credible through the practice which he taught. Therefore, I have no reason to doubt the word of the Buddha unless it is shown through experience to not be useful or can reasonably discredited as inauthentic.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

@JayaravaAttwood. It's appreciated that you take your time to answer the question. What is not appreciated is the use of rudeness and belittling language such as "If a literalist reading is all you want or can handle, then wait for another literalist to come along and answer the question.". There is no need for that on Buddhism SE. Please refrain from using that kind of language in the future. Thank you.

I think you fail to draw an important distinction between the extreme implausibility of the Jatakas, which I agree should probably not be taken literally, and the doctrine of rebirth, which probably should (why this is so would be another discussion). Even further, the claim that there is 'no reason' to believe that anything preserved in traditional texts can be attributed to the Buddha is an extreme, skeptical conclusion.

@JayaravaAttwood just to reiterate what Lanka says. Could you please read the be nice policy. It's important to a great many people that they feel safe and respected  on the site. Many Thanks

My apologies if my attitude towards literalism has offended other users. It always strikes me as incredible incongruent in a religion that claims to eschew blind faith. I'm not sure that tolerance towards such attitudes does anyone any favours. If being "nice" means pandering to fundamentalists, then I'll struggle with that. I think it's dangerous. But by all means, let someone with the privileges delete the offending comment - I don't seem to be able to.

@JayaravaAttwood thanks for the comment. I really appreciate it. I think realistically we have all kinds of views on the site and many of them are literalist/traditional/not what i think etc... I honestly think one can be true to ones opinions, be nice and not pander to fundamentalists. Please feel free to bring the issue up on meta or in chat. I personally want the site to be as broad as possible and if I'm honest - i want it to "be nice". I'll delete the comment as well. Thanks

No, being nice doesn't mean "pandering to fundamentalists", it means, for example, not labelling others as a means of argumentation, and not making claims about what others are "able to handle". It is fine to dispute claims, but giving your opponent respect in a debate is just simple etiquette.

http://meta.buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1650/what-doesn-it-mean-to-be-nice


text:
Scholarship and Buddhism
What role if any does academic scholarship play in Buddhism? Should Buddhists be concerned with what scholars say, or can we safely ignore them? How should we resolve conflicts between tradition and academia?
For specific conflicts I can cite some of my own work. See for example my discovery that karma and dependent arising are mutual contradictory: See Does Karma Break the Rules? and Sarvāstivāda Approach to the Problem of Action at a Temporal Distance. I have subsequently discovered that Nāgārjuna also thought so (MMK 17.1-6). Or my discover that all theories of karma are internally inconsistent: ; or the conflict between metaphysics and morality; or the assertion made by Sean Carroll that no afterlife of any kind is possible (including rebirth).

One of my teachers explicitly warned me: do not put too much trust in books written by Buddhist scholars unless they are also Buddhist practitioners themselves.
In hindsight, having attained "independence of others in regards to Buddha's message", I now see why: Buddhist texts are ambiguous enough that correct interpretation of the points made (as opposed to the literal meaning) requires understanding of Buddhist path as a whole, in context of personal practice -- what's known as "ground, path, fruition".
Back when I was a baby-Buddhist, I used to study all kinds of materials, written by both practicing teachers and scholars alike. Now I see that most of the scholar work that focused primarily on translation have been correct, while many of scholarly interpretations of Buddhism were rather mistaken.
Not that translation is quite possible without some measure of interpretation. But there seems to be a difference between following a text and following your own train of thoughts. If you think about it, the purpose of writing is very different between the two cases. A realized teacher does not write to express his or her understanding. That's not the goal. A teacher writes in order to "deliver" the students (professional slang for "to get them to Realize"). Whereas a scholar writes to explore and explain a particular thread of reasoning they invented that seems to explain Buddhist artifacts in a cohesive and logically consistent manner.
It is not unheard of for a scholar to slip into metaphysics (how things supposedly are) as opposed to soteriological methodology (how to achieve the Goal in practice). The tradition refers to this difference as "Buddha-eye" vs. "Dharma-eye". Buddha-eye is the enlightened perspective. The elements of it may or may not be helpful to a given student at a given point in time. Whereas Dharma-eye is the perspective presented to student by the teacher, whose concerns as I said above, are primarily didactic.
Now, don't get me wrong, many lineages have professional scholars within the tradition. "Traditional" does not always equate with "sloppy" you know. I've known of teachers in both Theravada and Mahayana schools who did care about careful choice of words, precise phrasing, and clear reasoning. It is just that in the world of realized teachers conveying information is always secondary to the real objective. To entertain you with a metaphor, not every student can handle pure spirit, so teacher ought to mix in the additives according to student's capacity. Such additive, known as upaya or skilfull mean -- basically a useful simplification -- is something non-existent in the work of a pure scholar.
Let's not assume scholarly works are 100% truth either. I've seen so many cases of scholars misrepresenting evolution of Mahayana as progressive loss of the original meaning -- that every time I see a new one I don't even cringe anymore :)
I'm telling responsibly, unless one clearly sees that elusive Truth the Buddha has found under the Bodhi tree, one should be very careful making assumptions about a particular Buddhist school or individual teacher being authentic or a "mere religion".
To conclude this post which is already getting too long, the answer to your question I'm afraid is "it depends". The further the scholar is from putting the teaching to his or her personal practice, the likelier they are to misunderstand what Buddhism is really about, the more they're prone to skewing the message, the less we can trust them. The more the scholar is also a practitioner, the more credibility they can have in our eyes. After all, the proof is in the pudding - and how can you trust a cook who's never tried his own recipe?

What role if any does academic scholarship play in Buddhism?

It's beneficial to know ones way around the Pali canon and to have knowledge about the different doctrines and suttas.
If one is a teacher then one would have to do some level of studying the canon in order to teach others what the content is. It might also be beneficial to learn how to read the Pali language in order to get the "full" meaning of the words. It's not uncommon that pali words loose part of their meaning when tranlated into other languages.
So it's important to study but that studying cannot stand alone. It must be combined with practice in meditation in order to fully understand what has been studied.
I remember hearing a story about a young monk (or maybe he wasn't yet a monk) that were described as not being very bright. He could not read and had a hard time understanding what has been taught to him. He was simple and pure. One day a teacher told him to just go and observe his mind. He did that and he won Nibbana in no time while the other hard-studying student with clever minds took a lot longer to win Nibbana because their heads were filled with intellectual knowledge.
Unfortunately i do not remember where i heard the story and i do not know if i have used the correct words to describe it. But the essence of the story is that one does not need to have a large amount of intellectual knowledge to win Nibbana. To win Nibbana practice is needed and that can be gained by simple instructions from a teacher.

Should Buddhists be concerned with what scholars say, or can we safely ignore them?

It comes down to what the goal of the Buddha's teaching is, i.e. to achieve freedom from suffering. To win Nibbana one has to practice insight meditation. Studying is simply not enough since the intellect cannot penetrate reality to it's core. Intellectual knowledge (book knowledge) will only get one so far. Experiental knowledge (insights into reality) is needed in order to fully understand the immense deepth of doctrines such as anatta.
These concepts cannot be grasped by the intellect. They are too profound. They must be experienced directly through insight meditation. Nibbana cannot be won by studying.
I like to use the onion-simile for illustration. Imagine we have an onion with it's many layers and a core. Intellectual knowledge can only penetrate the top layers of the onion while experiental knowledge can penetrate all the layers and into the core of the onion, i.e. Nibbana.
Whether or not the words of scholars should be ignored is really up to the individual being. If we take the perspective of gaining freedom from suffering then the words can be ignored if they do not have a direct relation to the decreasing of suffering, the winning of Nibbana or can be tested in insight meditation.

How should we resolve conflicts between tradition and academia?

By doing insight meditation one gets a point of reference to reality. When one has seen for oneself how reality functions then there is no need for academic discussion. Buddhism is not like philosophy where there are multiple opinions or views on a topic. We can go and test everything in insight meditation and thereby gain the right understanding of reality.
It is not like other religions where there is only faith. In Buddhism faith is balanced and guided by wisdom so that it does not become blind faith.

There are many more aspects to the questions. I have only brought up a few which i found important in the relation between Intellectual buddhism and Practical buddhism.
EDIT: The story i told above is not the correct one. Bhante has provided the true story.
It's the story of Cula-panthaka. He was a monk who could not remember a single stanza and because of that he was ordered to leave the Order. He was very sad about this and on his way out of the monastery he met the Buddha who comforted him and gave him a clean piece of cloth and said "Sit with your face to the East," and "repeat the words 'rajoha-ranam' and wipe your face with the cloth". Cula-panthaka did what the Buddha told him and wiped his face with the cloth. He saw that the cloth became dirty and then concentrated his mind on the impermanence of all things. The Buddha gave him a discourse telling about the importance of getting rid og impurities and other evils. At the end of the discourse Cupa-panthaka attained arahantship with knowledge of all the Pitakas.

The DPN references are quite confused, but this seems to be a commentarial story.

I'm not sure my question was well enough formed for a really satisfying answer to emerge. But the answers do bring to mind the Mahācunda Sutta (AN 6.46) which I translated and commented on some years ago in this article, Meditation & Scholarship.
My article comments that this sutta describes "two kinds of monks" i.e. those 'keen on dhamma' (which Bikkhu Bodhi thinks means 'a scholar') and those 'keen on meditation'. According to the sutta the two groups disparaged each other, but instead they ought to train themselves to see both groups as equally valuable:

The meditator is of value because:

...ye amataṃ dhātuṃ kāyena phusitvā viharanti
    ...they dwell having touched the deathless state with the body.

The scholar is of value because:

gambhīraṃ atthapadaṃ paññāya ativijjha passantī
    they see, they penetrate with wisdom into the depths of texts.

The Mahācunda Sutta is a plea for tolerance of different temperaments leading people towards the Dhamma in different ways.

It's sometimes difficult to avoid but (unless the question is tagged [tag:reference-request]) in general it's better if answers aren't only links to external articles. Ideally an answer should make some sense even if the reader doesn't read the link (and more sense if they do read the reference), i.e. the linked reference should be as well as (not instead of) an answer. One way to do that is for the answer to summarize what's in the link; another is for the answer to put the link in context i.e. explain why it's an answer to the question.

I hope you don't mind, I edited you answer to add a little summary of the article (please feel free to edit or 'rollback' my summary if you don't like it). I'm especially unsure of the last sentence I chose; i.e. it's a quote from the article but maybe not exactly the right hook that explained why you wanted to reference that article in this context (another hook might be the fact that some perceived division into at least two groups has existed since time immemorial, i.e. that it's a historical division).

I think, the use of the term "scholar" here with reference to the bottom verse ("...they penetrate wisdom...") is a bit misleading. In the verse there is meant a certain attitude towards life/towards the dharma, while "scholar" means a certain profession and (contemporarily) has associations with a certain amount of "general respect". Of course being a profession means to be woven into the money-generating network (its ugliest outcome seems to me that "publish or perish"-paradigm). The comment-box is too short for a discussion, but perhaps you might remember the story where ...

the Buddha himself refused to take the food of a farmer when given as payment for the teaching of the dhamma. A person might be a "scholar" and a (practicing) "buddhist" as well; for instance I like the scholarly aspect in the person Thich Nhat Hanh very much - and this gave me a certain special key to trust, that it would be worth to penetrate his work (and life!) with any effort. (Addition: some years ago I'd put my thoughts about this in a fictive "sutra" on the "bibliothecarians of the holy words", but in german and I doubt I can make it nicely into english...perhaps someone else?...)

Academic research is the raw material for my practice.
I'm a secular Mahayana Buddhist. I'm skeptical of the traditional lineages. I don't think they transmit any single person's system and there is no particular reason to think any current one of them is better than the others. Also I'm not bothered by the fact that I have "non-negotiable cultural demands"-- the sexism, authoritarianism and the cultural conservatism are nonstarters. I can't in good consciousness sign up to be a Buddhist in any orthodox organization. But here I am!
As a independent secular Buddhist, I have a project more than an orthodoxy to follow. I'm constructing my own Buddhism. The raw materials are modern day authors and academic scholars.
What Sources I Use
Some secular Buddhists believe that the historical Buddha was a crypto-Enlightenment era progressive and that his true words are in the Pali texts. I find the original texts to be unreadable jumbles. The real signal in the noise is the numerous commentaries, especially from the scholars because have the least incentive to put words into the mouth of the Buddha. Stephen Batchelor's work on reconstructing the politics and intrigue drenched life of the Buddha are highly influential for me, for example, I think it is important to think about how Mahakasyapa & other early leaders of the Sangha may have made rules because they needed to keep order in the ranks & not because it was in accord with the Dharma.
The things that brought me to Buddhism in the first place were the Mahayana ideals of universalism, interconnection, social concern for the sick & poor, ahimsa and so on. So my next source is Chinese Buddhism, despite the celestial Buddhas and immortality cults. Again, I can't read it in the original and the most important thinkers, the Huayen, have no modern teachers. Chan & Zen have completely eclipsed Huayen, so the only modern masters of Huayen are the scholars who aren't usually self identifying Bodhisattvas let alone self identifying Buddhists! Jan Nattier and to a lesser extent Donald Lopez are my guides here. I try to read the original Sutras as translated by Cleary and the English translations of the Taisho, but my goodness, standards of acceptability of a text have changed so much.  Without the scholars to explain what the original authors were driving at and what mistakes the translators made, these sutras would only be useful for bird cage liner.
I'm also influenced by Tom Pepper, Glenn Wallis-- I learn more from the criticism and the apollogia that I learn from emotional appeals to orthodoxy.
In the case of Shingon, the value of academia is to figure out what Esoteric Buddhism is at all. The material is officially secret, but the academics aren't paying attention to abiseka and creating a "media blackout" on the content of Shingon or esoteric Buddhism in general.  I haven't much decided what to do with ritual, but what ritual I do adopt is influenced by the academics, not the traditional teacher's books that pretty much assume you are an illiterate peasant and at best can aspire to be reborn as a monk and follow the five precepts.
The other thing I use academic Buddhism for is the game "are they a believer or not" The best you just can't tell.

Academic scholarship in Buddhism is useful for understanding the history and origin of scriptures, doctrines, schools or traditions, linguistic styles etc. For e.g. for dating of scriptures, I would always trust academic scholarship over tradition.
However, academic scholarship is not useful for understanding Nirvana and the enlightenment of the Buddha. There are three reasons for this.
Firstly, parts of the scripture may be ambiguous or incomplete, without reading other parts. And even then, the connection may not be obvious.
Scholarship without insight may not be useful here because the scripture was not written like a peer-reviewed academic paper. By "insight" here I mean insight into the workings of the mind-body system, and not insight into the written texts.
For e.g. I was once confused how for an arahant, ignorance has been completely destroyed, but a living arahant clearly still has formations, consciousness, name-and-form, six sense bases and feelings. Isn't ignorance the condition for these, according to dependent origination? Iti 44 and SN 22.48 hold the answer to this. The clinging aggregates are destroyed when ignorance is destroyed, but this does not apply to the non-clinging aggregates. This is the case of Nibbana with fuel remaining.
Another example is the famous mistranslation of viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ as "consciousness that is invisible" or "consciousness without surface" from MN 49, when viññāṇaṃ in this context really means "that which can be cognized", referring to Nibbana, and not "consciousness". Only when it is interpreted as Nibbana does it become consistent with Ud 8.1, Ud 8.2, Ud 8.3 and Ud 8.4.
Secondly, parts of the scripture may be ambiguous or incomplete, without insight born from practice. Why? Because they may be like a riddle.
For e.g. in this question, I asked why sniffing a flower is considered stealing. The selected answer clearly displayed understanding born from insight. It was not about the precept of stealing, but rather it was about perfection (parami or paramita) in the practice of the precepts, for a full time professional practitioner (i.e. a monk or nun).
Thirdly, the Buddha may have taught different things to different people, depending on their specific needs and this was his employment of skillful means (upaya).
For e.g. in this answer, I explained that the teaching on rebirth-of-self based on karmic consequences is directed to persons with self view, who are novice practitioners struggling with virtue. For advanced practitioners like Bahiya, it is "all phenomena is not self" (sabbe dhamma anatta) - in which neither self nor consciousness is reborn, nor permanent.
This is based on MN 117 which tells us that there is a Noble Right View and a Right View with effluents or taints, siding with merit.

"There is such a criterion, monks, whereby a monk... could affirm the
attainment of enlightenment... What is that method?
"In this, monks, a monk seeing an object with the eye recognizes
within himself the presence of lust, hatred or delusion, knowing
'Lust, hatred or delusion is present in me,' or he recognizes the
absence of these things, knowing 'There is no lust, hatred or delusion
present in me.' Now, monks, as regards that recognition of the
presence or absence of these things within him, are these matters to
be perceived by faith, by persuasion, by inclination, by rational
speculation, by delight in views and theories?"
"No, indeed, Lord."
"Are not these matters to be perceived by the eye of wisdom?"
"Indeed, Lord."
"Then, monks, this is the criterion whereby a monk, apart from faith,
apart from persuasion, apart from inclination, apart from rational
speculation, apart from delight in views and theories, could affirm
the attainment of enlightenment: 'Birth is destroyed, the holy life
has been accomplished, what was to be done is done, there is no
further living in this world.'"
[Similarly for ear, nose, tongue, body (touch), mind.]
SN 35.152

As the elder used to count: Good teacher are those knowing, learned, in one Pitaka, better those in two, better those in three, better then 'learned' are those with Jhana. Better then them, a Stream-enter. Better a Once-returner... No-Returner... Arahat.
How ever, the Sublime Buddha acknowledged those who are just 'learned', 'scholars', and always encouraged his Noble disciples to see the benefit of those as well.
As in regard of pulling Dhamma-Vinaya into the play and trade-ground of Academic, making a living with it, that's not only for the sake of corruption but simply thief, encourages to disrespect and marxist values and serves for the harm of many.
Even approach and ways to sit, to be able to receive Dhamma, are fundamental, and approaching the Juwels like a entertaining or feedfull study object, handling it in most worth circumstances and relations, actually kills those not seeing the basic fault away, let them die off like foolish children who sacrificed their parents for assumed way to liberality in ways of gain to consume.
This Dhamma-Vinaya, if pulled into houses, does like a snake caught at it's tail. Right here it jumps biting into your face.
As for modern scholar monks... one can guess as doing improper sample of basicly wrong.
Did good householder Jayarava, good Brahman, actually made any liberating progress all the years he wasted away with Academic-scholars not having really build up relation to the Gems, not having met the fourth heavenly messenger yet, still not found sufficent faith, to give up house/stand? Easy a life useless spend in desire of accumulation and gain, yet Sañña, Viññāṇa subject to decay, nothing that follows one after breaking up of the body, already now near statistical endline as well. Why not seeking the real treasures and focus at least on what ever high merits after having entered the Stream.

TL;DR: scholarship is essential, as long as (and only if) it is well-informed.
You say "See for example my discovery that karma and dependent arising are mutual contradictory: See Does Karma Break the Rules?"
When I read your article I noted a lack of breadth of scholarship.
The (famous) scholar Je Tsongkhapa wrote extensively about this apparent discrepancy in great depth, in his 15th Century opus, the Lam Rim Chenmo. Tibetan scholars have been continually and actively debating the nuances around his arguments for the last six centuries (as the subject is a part of the Geshe studies training).
You are aware of some part of the Madhyamaka tradition, which Tsongkhapa relies upon for this.  As you must know then, following the MMK 24:18,

Whatever is dependently co-arisen / That is explained to be emptiness.

Therefore, according to the Madhyamaka, emptiness and paṭicca-samuppāda correlate. (I recommend both the Lam Rim translation committee and Jay Garfield's text on the MMK for further clarification).
In another of his works (three principle aspects of the path), he points out that if karma, interdependence  and emptiness appear to conflict in our mind, then we can conclude that our views of emptiness and of karma are faulty.

You have yet to realise the thought of Buddha
As long as the two ideas seem to you disparate:
The appearance of things - infallible dependant arising;
And emptiness – beyond taking any position.

At some point they come together and no longer alternate
Just seeing that dependant arising never fails
Brings realisation that destroys how you hold onto objects
And then your analysis with view is complete.

In addition the appearance prevents the extreme of existence
Emptiness: the extreme of non-existence, and if..
You see how emptiness shows in cause and effect
You'll never be defeated by wrong views.

This gives us one of his tests for correct view:
The view of karma is correct when it strengthens one's understanding of emptiness, and at the same time the correct understanding of emptiness strengthens one's understanding of karma.  If this is not the case, then the view of one (or both) is mistaken.
The way you describe the solution for this in the Madhyamaka is not correct - it is how some academics described it, within the Gelug - but this isn't a Madhyamaka solution - as you point out, it's an Abhidharma mechanism. Madhyamaka isn't big on metaphysics, for good reason.
I cannot continue at length here - life intervenes. However, there is no contradiction or mistake between karma, emptiness, or paṭicca-samuppāda unless you hold onto mistaken view, in which case they definitely appear to be contradictory - and this is not a new thing - it's been discussed by scholars since at least the 4thC CE.
If one wishes to contribute to the scholarship encompassed by "Buddhism", one must learn - at minimum, Pali, Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Chinese. Then one must study a lot of texts, interacting with living scholars of these traditions.
Again, it's important to recognise the scope of your investigation: If you wish to examine the mechanism of karma, for instance, you must start by differentiating the views held by many different traditions.  Even within Tibet (that which I know most - but still not much - about) the mechanism of karma is described many different ways according to the tradition and the textual lineage. When it comes to the details and nuances, it's even harder: Even the different colleges within the universities (eg Gomang/Loseling/Deyang/Shagkor etc of Drepung) each have different interpretations and, within those interpretations, there are the textbooks and commentaries which are updated and revised and edited every decade or so – since the 12th century.
Buddhism is so rich with scholarship of its own that western scholars don't really know how to start addressing it: It's easy enough to find professors of Buddhist studies that mingle source texts from different colleges, universities, schools, traditions, and cultures - but such 'scholarship' is generally bereft of significant value.  Peer review falls short because the maturity of Buddhist studies is so incredibly poor that peers can get away with anything. (Some areas, admittedly, are better than others - it might be that some Pali scholarship is pretty good, but I know nothing about that).  Likewise, peer review really only 'works' for maths and the sciences, but that's another story.
So, in the end, the question reminds me of the apocryphal story of the journalist and Mahatma Gandhi:

J: What do you think of Western civilisation?

G: I think it would be a good idea.

What role if any does academic scholarship play in Buddhism?

I can't answer well, but I don't want to 'just leave a comment' instead of answering, so ...
To reference one example, it was nice to see people happily welcoming this answer. It's based on the comparison (by some academic scholars I presume, i.e. at the university of Hamburg) of a sutta with its Chinese equivalent. And the comments to this answer to the same question are interesting too: i.e. various people seem to be aware that the texts may have changed or been misinterpreted over time.
Another example of evident scholarship was this answer, which references this article, Atammayata (The Rebirth of a Lost Word): in that case the word was "recovered" by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu (I'm not sure whether you want to exclude someone like him, when you ask about "academic scholarship").

Scholarship is far more accurate than anything you will encounter, even from accredited teachers, and certainly on-line. Peer review, my friend.
But it will not substitute for a teacher, and you may well end up putting the entirely wrong emphasis on things without one.
However. hostility to academia (like anti tax sentiment) in Buddhism - which is ingrained on-line for some reason - seems just as much about a struggle for ignorance and power, as it is wisdom and practice.

"I received a phone call from someone who was doing a thesis on using Buddhist teachings and practices in the workplace. He wanted to ask me some questions as part of his thesis. One of the things that bothered me about his questions was that he would ask first about Buddhist teachings and then about Buddhist practices, as if they were two different things. But they’re not. Everything is part of the practice. Even the more abstract and theoretical teachings are meant to be used for pragmatic purposes when appropriate. After all, right view is part of the path. It’s something to do, to develop, to be applied. When it’s done its work, you let it go."

~ Thanissaro Bhikkhu "The Practice of Right View" https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/Meditations5/Section0018.html

When a supernova explodes it is seen at a distance in time and space.

SN12.22:1.8: When this exists, that is; due to the arising of this, that arises.

When the supernova ceases, it is not seen at a distance in time and space.

SN12.22:1.9: When this doesn’t exist, that is not; due to the cessation of this, that ceases.

One of the oddest things discovered by mathematics is the Fourier Transform, which illuminates the equivalence between a supernova (impulse function) and and infinite sum of infinite sine waves. This is very real and all those fancy electronic gadgets we all have used are built using this understanding. Today's entire world is built on the mathematical equivalent of when this is that is.
So where does the conflict arise?
The conflict arises in the assumption of identity. It arises from Identity View. It arises from thinking "I am here, not there". And that conflict is addressed directly in the Buddhist practice.
When scholarship starts out with the axiom "I am", it tends to find lots of conflicts in Buddhism. Like Euclid's parallel line postulate, the axiom "I am" is chosen and not a fundamental truth. In Buddhism, we have specifically:

DN34:1.2.11: What one thing should be given up?
DN34:1.2.12: The conceit ‘I am’.

Buddhist scholarship that dispenses with and avoids the "I am" axiom can often be very helpful to Buddhists since the scholars have taken great effort with their research to understand and convey the shared wisdom of our past in a manner that aligns with Buddhist teachings.
Scholarship about Buddhism that asserts the axiom "I am" will, in contrast, often be less useful to Buddhists since it asserts an axiom that is abandoned by Buddhists.
In projective geomety, there are no parallel lines as assumed by Euclid. And projective geometry is used extensively in our modern world.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/