Buddhism and Intellectualism

[danieLion]

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

[ground]

So you are asking for opinions based on individual experiences?

I find it just appropriate.

[James the Giant]

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

[David N. Snyder]

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

[danieLion]

So you are asking for opinions based on individual experiences?

Sure.

[danieLion]

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"?

[David N. Snyder]

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.

[Cittasanto]

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.

[m0rl0ck]

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.

[James the Giant]

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.

[robertk]

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!

[tiltbillings]

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?

[danieLion]

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.

[Sam Vara]

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.

[Mr Man]

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.

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.

[manas]

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

This question can only have a subjective answer, but for myself right now it's 'just enough'. This can change, however, depending on my state of mind. Sometimes I might feel as though it picks life and our experience to bits and analyzes everthing too much, and my mind chafes a bit as if under a yoke, thinking "(many) other people just live, they don't reflect so much about life, they know almost nothing of the Dhamma, and yet they seem to be generally happier than I am! Maybe I analyze experience too much, and am missing out on just 'living'... At other times, however, my mind can get irritated that the Blessed One would not go into more details regarding what he knew of the the Universe, it's origins etc, but would not teach such things because it would not be for our benefit. Then, my intellect wants more answers than just 'it's not important knowledge, don't ponder it'! So really, it's subjective, and the mind with craving will never really be satisfied anyway, it will always find something to complain about (or is that just in my case? )

[danieLion]

...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.

There are several good reasons why materialism is a poor if not entirely invalid world view besides the typical Buddhist critiques. For instance it was likely started by the Ancient Greek pre-Socratic ontological monists like Thales (It's all water!), Anaximander (It's all one, but we don't know what it is.), Heraclitus (It's all fire!) and Parmenides (Existence is a tautology.). Even modern atomic theory, which has been seriously challenged by quantum mechanics and quantum physics (a la Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, and Erwin Rudolf Josef Alexander Schrödinger), has it's origins in the Ancient Greek pre-Socratic philosophers Leucippus and his pupil Democritus. Ontological monism was also perpetuated by Aristotle's elementalism, Neo-Platonisms and philosophical rationalists like Leibniz, Spinoza, Hegel, and Haeckel. Most recently, you will find a materialistic-monism in Francis Crick's molecular reductionism and his neuroscience colleague Patricia Churchland's eliminative materialism and physical reducitionism, a.k.a. physicalism.

The principal reason materialism is untenable, then, is because all of the above, while associated with some scientific discoveries, has not not been supported by ongoing experimental and empirical investigations into either microcosmic or macrocosmic realms. Part of the problem is the misunderstanding of some scientists about the purpose(s) of science (Einstein and Bohr debated this to point of almost despising each other). Paul K. Feyerabend (and to a lesser extent, Thomas Kuhn and Vladmir Lakatos) have outlined the reasons why methodological uniformity is not a valid basis for science and highlighted the problems scientists encounter when they bring assumptions to their experiments and analyses that someday science will arrive at Objective or Ultimate Truth.

[Cittasanto]

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.

all these verbs are muscles we use, some are more developed than others. but maybe it is a case of not liking what they feel they lack and see another with; a learnt reaction; or a behaviour based on a preference toward what they see as practice Vs. non-practice? or maybe it is all or none of these?

[manas]

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

That's my experience also. In terms of my knowledge of the Buddha-Dhamma: amongst the folk in my local community I'm like a sage, but here, I'm like the village idiot

Yep...I thought I knew quite a bit about the Buddha Dhamma...and then, I found Dhamma Wheel. It's good, though, both for humility, and for making me realize that I really ought to study more; then some of the stuff I read here would not go 'whoosh' over my head.

[LonesomeYogurt]

And you know this how?

Probably because he's encountered more than about three Western Buddhists; if you haven't heard such views expressed, then you either live in the most dedicated Buddhist community on Earth or in a hermitage.