Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

Is Buddhism anti-intellectual, under-intellectual, or just intellectual enough?

So you are asking for opinions based on individual experiences?

I find it just appropriate.

I'm sure I remember a sutta about balancing intellect and experience, or study and practise... I can't remember what it was though.

James the Giant wrote:I'm sure I remember a sutta about balancing intellect and experience, or study and practise...

"There are Dhamma-experts who praise only monks who are also Dhamma-experts but not
those who are meditators. And there are meditators who praise only those monks who are also
meditators but not those who are Dhamma-experts. Thereby neither of them will be pleased, and
they will not be practicing for the welfare and happiness of the multitude, for the good of the
multitude, for the welfare and happiness of devas and humans."
Anguttara Nikaya 4.46

ground wrote:So you are asking for opinions based on individual experiences?

Sure.

David N. Snyder wrote:

James the Giant wrote:I'm sure I remember a sutta about balancing intellect and experience, or study and practise...

"There are Dhamma-experts who praise only monks who are also Dhamma-experts but not
those who are meditators. And there are meditators who praise only those monks who are also
meditators but not those who are Dhamma-experts. Thereby neither of them will be pleased, and
they will not be practicing for the welfare and happiness of the multitude, for the good of the
multitude, for the welfare and happiness of devas and humans."
Anguttara Nikaya 4.46

So the Buddha's recommeding "just intellectual enough"?

danieLion wrote: So the Buddha's recommeding "just intellectual enough"?

Whatever floats your boat . . . to get you to the other side. The teachings (especially enunciated in the Abhidhamma) recognize that there are different personalities / temperaments and it is not necessarily a one-size-fits-all. Bahiya was able to attain enlightenment with a simple instruction. For someone else it might be better through much study and analysis.

danieLion wrote:Is Buddhism anti-intellectual, under-intellectual, or just intellectual enough?

I personally see Buddhism being intellectual enough.
But there is almost a snobbery among some who discount what someone says based on the perception as too how much they meditate, and I am sure there is a vice versa equality in snobbery with those who are eloquent & detailed in the was they can express a topic for those who are not.

Intellectual views are just like any other views. If you hold them tightly they will weigh you down. You have to take them for what they are, provisional constructs with limits. When you start mistaking them for reality or ultimate truth and when you cant give them up when needed, at least temporarily, they are a big problem.
For instance, many "buddhists" are materialists who just repaint their western intellectual materialism a nice buddhist saffron color and then carry on with business as usual. In that case intellectualism is a problem and buddhism is just ideological cruft.

m0rl0ck wrote: For instance, many "buddhists" are materialists who just repaint their western intellectual materialism a nice buddhist saffron color and then carry on with business as usual.

That's me, yep!
Except I don't carry on with business as usual. The game has changed.

many "buddhists" are materialists who just repaint their western intellectual materialism a nice buddhist saffron color and then carry on with business as usual

love it!

m0rl0ck wrote: For instance, many "buddhists" are materialists who just repaint their western intellectual materialism a nice buddhist saffron color and then carry on with business as usual.

And you know this how?

Cittasanto wrote:

danieLion wrote:Is Buddhism anti-intellectual, under-intellectual, or just intellectual enough?

I personally see Buddhism being intellectual enough.
But there is almost a snobbery among some who discount what someone says based on the perception as too how much they meditate, and I am sure there is a vice versa equality in snobbery with those who are eloquent & detailed in the was they can express a topic for those who are not.

Some Buddhists, including some here at Dahmmawheel, come off to me as very anti-intellectual and at times even demonstrate some kind of ingrained provincialism. I don't think intellectualism is a wonderful thing, per se, and I've been labeled an intellectual all my life. Maybe I am, maybe I ain't. Like Thanissaro says, when you define yourself, you limit yourself. And like Albert Ellis and David D. Burns, following Korzybkski's "is of identity verb conjugation" thesis, point out, your do not equal your verbal identifications. Yet we find some Buddhists wanting to very much define themselves by partitioning themselves off into camps or clubs, all of which claim the most authentic or closest to "original" Buddhism. This only perpetuates clinging to views of self.

danieLion wrote:Is Buddhism anti-intellectual, under-intellectual, or just intellectual enough?

Personally, I have found it to be all three, according to how I felt and how my mind was working at the time, and which bits of Buddhism I was considering, and how I might have defined "intellectual". And it didn't stay any one of these for very long.

danieLion wrote: Some Buddhists, including some here at Dahmmawheel, come off to me as very anti-intellectual and at times even demonstrate some kind of ingrained provincialism.

I think that is, genrally speaking, a misconception or a non-constructive view.

danieLion wrote: Yet we find some Buddhists wanting to very much define themselves by partitioning themselves off into camps or clubs.

Isn't this what you are doing?

My experience of Dhammawheel is that sometimes the level of intellectualism is very high, almost to the point of being intimidating.