American Institute of Holistic Theology (AIHT)

I couldn't disagree more. Those who obtain a 6-12 month PhD, then use the letters professionally, have an ethical problem. Their PhD is a threat to every genuine PhD in that it diminishes/demeans (in the eyes of many) the legitimacy of real PhD.

 

Well, there is hardly a standard for a religious education. Who you really want to impress is whoever is responsible for clergy formation in a given Church; for UOC-USA, that appears to be Bishop Daniel, who also runs St. Sophia's (which makes sense, because St. Sophia's program IS the approved standard for clergy formation in that church). Demonstrably legitimate. (besides, the traditional "accreditation" standard is hierarchical oversight, and since the Church is canonical, so is it's seminary). It certainly helps that sister Churches run many accredited schools all over the world, and you can compare the programs.

It appears likely that New Seminary, sort of, meets the similar standard. Now, if you argue that the Interfaith "faith" is not legitimate in itself, you might be onto something; however, there's no one who can conclusively make this call. I personally have little reason to have anything to do with that school or its graduates, but it's not the same as declare it "fraudulent". They do need to revise or remove that ridiculous "Accreditation" page; it's either ignorant or millspeak.

It's harder to figure out what was the deal with AIHT, since the website is down. If indeed it had degrees in fields of "Health", "Psychology", or "Counseling", it would suggest the school is substandard. There are, indeed, "standards" in these respective fields. Same concern with Sedona.

 

My point concerned unaccredited schools.

Neuhaus had written this:

And I stated my very strong preference for #2, for the idea that some schools without accreditation can nevertheless be very good.

Neuhaus posted this objection to that idea.

I argued that there are alternative measures of academic credibility besides accreditation. These include faculty listings, syllabi, publications (and their quality), recognition by respected figures in the subject area, facilities, collaborations, and awards and grants won.

I personally give those kind of considerations more weight than accreditation. (Perhaps because at this point in my life I'm more interested in education than in employment credentials.)

And I provided an example of a currently non-accredited school that I believe is impeccably credible, in large part because it performs very well in most of these areas.

 

For many of the same reasons that Christians earn degrees in things like theology or church history I guess.

 

It's true that the goal is reached through practice, not through study. But... and this is important... study is an integral part of the practice. It's just that it isn't an end in itself. (I'd be willing to bet that isn't dissimilar to the place of studying theology and doctrine in the Christian tradition.)

I think that some of the Western idea that Buddhism is all meditation and no study is the result of the influence of Zen in the West. Zen can sometimes be rather anti-intellectual in that way. But it isn't really typical of Buddhism in general.

In Buddhism, the goal is reached by traversing the 'Noble Eightfold Path'. The very first of the path factors is 'Right View', which isn't something that one does and then crosses off the list. Right understanding needs to exist throughout the journey. Theravada, the variety of Buddhism that I'm most attracted to, is very textual, based squarely on the Pali canon and its traditional commentaries such as Buddhaghosa's Visuddhimagga. It is the thousands of discourses that serve to clarify the meaning, content and practice of the other seven path factors, such as 'right action' and 'right mindfulness'. The Buddha's discourses largely exist to expound on the path-factors and the discourses need to be carefully studied. They shouldn't just be shrugged off.

Here's an introductory level text that explains the relationship of Buddhist meditation to the textual tradition:

https://www.amazon.com/Spirit-Buddhist-Meditation-Sarah-Shaw/dp/0300198760

The Tibetans, who preserve the late Indian Buddhist tradition of Buddhist scholasticism, place great emphasis on Buddhist philosophy, mostly Madhyamaka it seems, and monastic training often involves the memorization of "root texts" and their commentaries, as well as an at-times highly ritualized practice of debate.

It's true that monastics haven't traditionally learned this material in Western-style universities, which didn't exist. But sometimes their monasteries were run almost as if they were universities. See the extraordinary description of Tibetan monastic education here:

The Tibetan and Himalayan Library

Especially this page which discusses the curriculum:

The Tibetan and Himalayan Library

Ultimately there are examinations and degrees are indeed awarded:

The Tibetan and Himalayan Library

In addition to all this monastic scholasticism, Asian religious doctrine and history interest Western scholarship just as the Christian, Jewish and Islamic traditions do. Here's a recent UC Berkeley doctoral dissertation that may or may not be important (it interests me) that explores the intellectual context in which the Buddha lived and the history of some of the ideas (like the workings of karma) from which he may have drawn.

http://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/etd/ucb/text/Bausch_berkeley_0028E_15359.pdf

 

I'm sure that hierophant knows more than me about all this. I just read the sutras and try to follow the Eightfold Path as best I can. Right now I'm reading the Diamond Sutra.

Diamond Sutra – A New Translation of the Classic Buddhist Text

 

I don' have a link right now, but you are absolutely correct. There are oft-quoted texts by Church Fathers to this effect.

 

Post that link please. Funny to me that those who claim education is not needed study, educated men.

I was debating this very topic with a member the other day. He claimed one could just study from works online and get a great education, no classroom needed.

I asked him to show me who he was reading and all the authors he was studying had attended seminary.

 

Buddha and Confucius did not go to school nor studied books but yet influenced a large amount of population of the planet with their spiritual teachings. Much more than us would ever dream even with all our PhDs from accredited schools.

Nicholas Tesla never graduated nor had formal education but yet he was perhaps one of the most influential scientist of all times.

Tesla, Confucius and Buddha believed that we don't get knowledge by reading books but by tapping into the universal mind.

So yes, it is possible to learn more by other nonconventional means than just attending Universities.

 

Fair enough, there is nothing wrong with getting a MSc in Eastern Religions but Eastern spiritual teachers do not learn as us western teachers by reading books and writing research papers but by other means. They do not grant degrees nor titles as their teaching are about humbleness and this would contradict the granting of ego based titles.

PhD, Doctorates, DD, MDiv and any other title given by churches or religious schools are really just symbolic and have not much value in the secular world. To the regular population you are just a preacher or priest end of story.

Being a pastor from an online church such as the Metaphysical ministry of the University of Sedona or the Universal Life Church is just ridiculous as you have no services that are offered face to face, probably not many real members that follow beliefs, etc but they only exist with the purpose to make money from some popular but yet not very structured theology.

The system was created to respect the freedom of religion but it takes only few wise ones to profit from this and make all churches look bad. I honestly believe that the AIHT had a good program and had the intention to train people in spiritual non religious subjects but for some reason it went out of business. It seems to me that they were not in the business of providing non sense degrees as University of Sedona like MBA in Business Metaphysics or PhDs in Metaphysical Psychology that would deceive the general public.
I strongly believe that authorities will start looking closely into UoS and alike schools and forbid them to grant degrees that appear secular such as counseling, psychology, business, etc.

 

I have seen frequent references to sayings to this effect on some websites I no longer frequent, and not in English. Here is an expression of some of these ideas (Vladimir Lossky was prominent Russian Orthodox theologian in exile): Theology and Mysticism in the Tradition of the Eastern Church

 

This story comes from the current issue (Winter, 2016) of Tricycle, The Buddhist Review.

"Gelugpa Graduates

Tenty nuns have ecently become the first Tibetans to receive their Geshema degrees in Buddhist Philosophy from the Gelugpa School of Tibetan Buddhism. The degree, equivalent to a doctorate, was previously only given as a Geshe degree (Geshe being the title for men). The Department of Religion and Culture of the Central Tibtan Administration reported over the summer that all 20 female candidates had passed their lengthy examination, a process that takes four years and includes four 12-day periods during which the nuns take written and oral examinations. The exams cover material from the five great canonicle texts and other material the candidates have learned over the course of 17 years of study."

There is no need for "either/or" It an be both.

 

Quackwatch

This is NOT an accredited school!! Beware. Read the history of its founder and the school's history (the link is below):

https://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/Nonrecorg/bernadean.html