What to do when I am discussing Buddhism intellectually but others advise me not to?












1















In this Reddit post Is Buddhism about cognitive linguistics and cognitive psychology?, I am advised that practice is far more important than intellectualizing. I understand that the core teaching of Buddhism is to stop clinging on dharma, and I would miss the main point of it if I don't practice it, but I'm not sure if intellect is less important than it. Sure, after you get to the opposite shore, you want to left your raft behind, but when you are still paddling in the middle of the river, you should take care of it.



So if I am new to Buddhism, is it bad to using intellect? What to do when I want to discuss it intellectually, but someone says that I should not using it? It sounds like asking you to think about the shore when your job is to paddle.



I am reading Nagarjuna's Middle Way if that matters.






Related: intellectualism or anti-intellectualism and Buddhism










share|improve this question



























    1















    In this Reddit post Is Buddhism about cognitive linguistics and cognitive psychology?, I am advised that practice is far more important than intellectualizing. I understand that the core teaching of Buddhism is to stop clinging on dharma, and I would miss the main point of it if I don't practice it, but I'm not sure if intellect is less important than it. Sure, after you get to the opposite shore, you want to left your raft behind, but when you are still paddling in the middle of the river, you should take care of it.



    So if I am new to Buddhism, is it bad to using intellect? What to do when I want to discuss it intellectually, but someone says that I should not using it? It sounds like asking you to think about the shore when your job is to paddle.



    I am reading Nagarjuna's Middle Way if that matters.






    Related: intellectualism or anti-intellectualism and Buddhism










    share|improve this question

























      1












      1








      1








      In this Reddit post Is Buddhism about cognitive linguistics and cognitive psychology?, I am advised that practice is far more important than intellectualizing. I understand that the core teaching of Buddhism is to stop clinging on dharma, and I would miss the main point of it if I don't practice it, but I'm not sure if intellect is less important than it. Sure, after you get to the opposite shore, you want to left your raft behind, but when you are still paddling in the middle of the river, you should take care of it.



      So if I am new to Buddhism, is it bad to using intellect? What to do when I want to discuss it intellectually, but someone says that I should not using it? It sounds like asking you to think about the shore when your job is to paddle.



      I am reading Nagarjuna's Middle Way if that matters.






      Related: intellectualism or anti-intellectualism and Buddhism










      share|improve this question














      In this Reddit post Is Buddhism about cognitive linguistics and cognitive psychology?, I am advised that practice is far more important than intellectualizing. I understand that the core teaching of Buddhism is to stop clinging on dharma, and I would miss the main point of it if I don't practice it, but I'm not sure if intellect is less important than it. Sure, after you get to the opposite shore, you want to left your raft behind, but when you are still paddling in the middle of the river, you should take care of it.



      So if I am new to Buddhism, is it bad to using intellect? What to do when I want to discuss it intellectually, but someone says that I should not using it? It sounds like asking you to think about the shore when your job is to paddle.



      I am reading Nagarjuna's Middle Way if that matters.






      Related: intellectualism or anti-intellectualism and Buddhism







      practice






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked 13 hours ago









      OokerOoker

      1518




      1518






















          5 Answers
          5






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3














          You should always keep in mind the differences between the Buddha's dispensation, and the teaching of, let's say, Socrates, Plato and other Hellenistic philosophers, which were, apparently, contemporaries of the historical Buddha.



          While Greek philosophers were trying to use their intellect to understand the world surrounding us, sometimes as a means for living a better life, and others just for the sake of knowing more, the Buddha was part of a living tradition of ascetics and mystics that were trying to get free from Samsara (this latter concept having multiple descriptions and definitions, according to the tradition telling the story).



          The Simpasa Leaves sutta point to the general direction of Early Buddhism: deliverance from suffering. All the efforts, both practical and intellectual, were directed to that very end; all the teachings, debates and analyses had Dukkha and the end of Dukkha as its axis.



          https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.031.than.html



          Intellect is an essential part of Buddhism, as well as critical thinking and empirical endeavours. Your views about the world inform to and are the basis of your perceptions and thought, which in time are the ground for your intentions and actions. And that's why the cultivation of the mind is so important to the Path. But this cultivation is not a mere absoption of information, but a practice for understanding suffering, the causes of suffering, the ending of suffering and the path leading to it. Everything else goes beyond the point.



          This is why it's so hard to classify Buddhism as a religion or as a philosophy. It has a bit if both, while being none. If comparison have to be made, Stoicism would be a good point to start if you are looking to the west, and early Daoism, if you look to the East. Both paths were pretty practical, both in reflexion and in deeds.



          EDIT: This post from a discussion on DhammaWheel might shed some light on the question of the involvement of Buddhism in matters that may fall outside the "original dispensation" (on quotes, because we'll never know for sure if the NikayAgamas contain the original teachings just as the historical Buddha taught them).



          https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?p=500754#p500754



          Have a wonderful day!






          share|improve this answer


























          • This nails it. Thank you so much. If I see the sufferings as interesting and see it with a curious eye, then does it make sense to intellectualize the teachings? From the Daoist perspective, you can always transform your sufferings into an opportunity that you are long seeking for.

            – Ooker
            4 hours ago



















          2














          This is just from a personal perspective



          In my early 20s my engagement with Buddhism was exclusively reading books and intellectualising about it. Fairly quickly I ran into the sand with it as I just couldn't see the difference between nihilism and Buddhism. It was only years later when I joined a Buddhist group and built up a regular meditation practice that I was able to move past this and engage again with Buddhism.



          For me there are two activities




          1. Practising Buddhism - meditation, ethics and wisdom

          2. Being interested in Buddhism - reading books about it and wondering about the finer philosophical points


          Nothing wrong at all with the second one but for me it isn't helping me practise and realise the end of suffering. Practicising and heavy intellectualising are different. I read that when it comes to wisdom - a good grasp of the 4 noble truths and the eightfold path is good enough. Once you are there then get working on your ethics and meditation. You can come back to the intellectual stuff (much) later.



          As I say - this is just my own personal experience. Others will have a different view and I know that traditions such as Tibetan are a lot more keen on the intellectual stuff.



          Cheers






          share|improve this answer


























          • Was it nihilism because the Dhamma takes you towards not-self, but your natural (non-practising) tendency takes you towards identity views? Was it a kind of dissonance? And then meditation helped you reduce this dissonance?

            – ruben2020
            3 hours ago













          • @ruben2020. Not so much. I've always being reasonably comfortable with not-self. It was more reading about the emptiness of all things and the lack of inherent existence in everything. Also no metta practice and general ignoring of compassion. That's how I remember it now anyway

            – Crab Bucket
            3 hours ago











          • So dissonance is everyday life and we don't even see it as suffering. Do you think that our discussion actual makes us suffer?

            – Ooker
            2 hours ago



















          1














          Here's a very suitable sutta for this question. Self-explanatory.



          From Dhammaviharin Sutta (AN 5.73):




          Then a certain monk went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having
          bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to
          the Blessed One, "'One who dwells in the Dhamma, one who dwells in the
          Dhamma': thus it is said, lord. To what extent is a bhikkhu one who
          dwells in the Dhamma?"



          "Monk, there is the case where a monk studies the Dhamma: dialogues,
          narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous
          exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question &
          answer sessions. He spends the day in Dhamma-study. He neglects
          seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to internal tranquillity of
          awareness. This is called a monk who is keen on study, not one who
          dwells in the Dhamma.



          "Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
          & studied it and teaches it in full detail to others. He spends the
          day in Dhamma-description. He neglects seclusion. He doesn't commit
          himself to internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk
          who is keen on description, not one who dwells in the Dhamma.



          "Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
          & studied it and recites it in full detail. He spends the day in
          Dhamma-recitation. He neglects seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to
          internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk who is keen
          on recitation, not one who dwells in the Dhamma.



          "Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
          & studied it and thinks about it, evaluates it, and examines it with
          his intellect. He spends the day in Dhamma-thinking. He neglects
          seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to internal tranquillity of
          awareness. This is called a monk who is keen on thinking, not one who
          dwells in the Dhamma.



          "Then there is the case where a monk studies the Dhamma: dialogues,
          narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous
          exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question &
          answer sessions. He doesn't spend the day in Dhamma-study. He doesn't
          neglect seclusion. He commits himself to internal tranquillity of
          awareness. This is called a monk who dwells in the Dhamma.



          "Now, monk, I have taught you the person who is keen on study, the one
          who is keen on description, the one who is keen on recitation, the one
          who is keen on thinking, and the one who dwells in the Dhamma.
          Whatever a teacher should do — seeking the welfare of his disciples,
          out of sympathy for them — that have I done for you. Over there are
          the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, monk.
          Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message
          to you."







          share|improve this answer































            0














            It was against the rules for monks to speak without knowing if something is true or false.



            If you yourself don't understand or know something then it's just the same as lying or misleading others.




            ‘If a monk falsely claims for himself a superhuman quality, knowledge
            and vision worthy of the noble ones, saying, “This I know, this I
            see,” but after some time—whether questioned or not, but having
            committed the offense and desiring purification—should say: “Not
            knowing I said that I know, not seeing that I see; what I said was
            empty and false,” he too is expelled and excluded from the
            community.’” (Uttarimanussadhamma Pli Tv Bu Vb Pj 4)




            What is the point in discussing something without experiencing it? What is the point of mere words if the world is empty of a sammasambuddha, paccekabuddhas, arahants, or those near-enlightened beings who have attained higher jhanas and developed iddhi?



            The goal in Buddhism is to achieve arahantship here and now not merely read about it or discuss it.



            After you experience something and actually know it yourself then speak about it. From direct experience you should also be able to correctly reason things.






            share|improve this answer
























            • I think I have experience mindfulness, but not really into it. Is that good? What do you think?

              – Ooker
              4 hours ago





















            0














            How many years do you already hang around in Dhamma areas and still not grasp the basics?



            As it is with chosing teachers. Good if following those who let it rain.



            Only one who walks arives and the villagers just wast their times, discussing what they are to lazy to do and see for themselves.



            [Given not for trade exchange, stacks, Buddh-ism and intellectual "sex" but for liberation]






            share|improve this answer










            New contributor




            Samana Johann is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.




















              Your Answer








              StackExchange.ready(function() {
              var channelOptions = {
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "565"
              };
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
              createEditor();
              });
              }
              else {
              createEditor();
              }
              });

              function createEditor() {
              StackExchange.prepareEditor({
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
              convertImagesToLinks: false,
              noModals: true,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: null,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              imageUploader: {
              brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
              contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
              allowUrls: true
              },
              noCode: true, onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              });


              }
              });














              draft saved

              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function () {
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbuddhism.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f31152%2fwhat-to-do-when-i-am-discussing-buddhism-intellectually-but-others-advise-me-not%23new-answer', 'question_page');
              }
              );

              Post as a guest















              Required, but never shown

























              5 Answers
              5






              active

              oldest

              votes








              5 Answers
              5






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              3














              You should always keep in mind the differences between the Buddha's dispensation, and the teaching of, let's say, Socrates, Plato and other Hellenistic philosophers, which were, apparently, contemporaries of the historical Buddha.



              While Greek philosophers were trying to use their intellect to understand the world surrounding us, sometimes as a means for living a better life, and others just for the sake of knowing more, the Buddha was part of a living tradition of ascetics and mystics that were trying to get free from Samsara (this latter concept having multiple descriptions and definitions, according to the tradition telling the story).



              The Simpasa Leaves sutta point to the general direction of Early Buddhism: deliverance from suffering. All the efforts, both practical and intellectual, were directed to that very end; all the teachings, debates and analyses had Dukkha and the end of Dukkha as its axis.



              https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.031.than.html



              Intellect is an essential part of Buddhism, as well as critical thinking and empirical endeavours. Your views about the world inform to and are the basis of your perceptions and thought, which in time are the ground for your intentions and actions. And that's why the cultivation of the mind is so important to the Path. But this cultivation is not a mere absoption of information, but a practice for understanding suffering, the causes of suffering, the ending of suffering and the path leading to it. Everything else goes beyond the point.



              This is why it's so hard to classify Buddhism as a religion or as a philosophy. It has a bit if both, while being none. If comparison have to be made, Stoicism would be a good point to start if you are looking to the west, and early Daoism, if you look to the East. Both paths were pretty practical, both in reflexion and in deeds.



              EDIT: This post from a discussion on DhammaWheel might shed some light on the question of the involvement of Buddhism in matters that may fall outside the "original dispensation" (on quotes, because we'll never know for sure if the NikayAgamas contain the original teachings just as the historical Buddha taught them).



              https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?p=500754#p500754



              Have a wonderful day!






              share|improve this answer


























              • This nails it. Thank you so much. If I see the sufferings as interesting and see it with a curious eye, then does it make sense to intellectualize the teachings? From the Daoist perspective, you can always transform your sufferings into an opportunity that you are long seeking for.

                – Ooker
                4 hours ago
















              3














              You should always keep in mind the differences between the Buddha's dispensation, and the teaching of, let's say, Socrates, Plato and other Hellenistic philosophers, which were, apparently, contemporaries of the historical Buddha.



              While Greek philosophers were trying to use their intellect to understand the world surrounding us, sometimes as a means for living a better life, and others just for the sake of knowing more, the Buddha was part of a living tradition of ascetics and mystics that were trying to get free from Samsara (this latter concept having multiple descriptions and definitions, according to the tradition telling the story).



              The Simpasa Leaves sutta point to the general direction of Early Buddhism: deliverance from suffering. All the efforts, both practical and intellectual, were directed to that very end; all the teachings, debates and analyses had Dukkha and the end of Dukkha as its axis.



              https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.031.than.html



              Intellect is an essential part of Buddhism, as well as critical thinking and empirical endeavours. Your views about the world inform to and are the basis of your perceptions and thought, which in time are the ground for your intentions and actions. And that's why the cultivation of the mind is so important to the Path. But this cultivation is not a mere absoption of information, but a practice for understanding suffering, the causes of suffering, the ending of suffering and the path leading to it. Everything else goes beyond the point.



              This is why it's so hard to classify Buddhism as a religion or as a philosophy. It has a bit if both, while being none. If comparison have to be made, Stoicism would be a good point to start if you are looking to the west, and early Daoism, if you look to the East. Both paths were pretty practical, both in reflexion and in deeds.



              EDIT: This post from a discussion on DhammaWheel might shed some light on the question of the involvement of Buddhism in matters that may fall outside the "original dispensation" (on quotes, because we'll never know for sure if the NikayAgamas contain the original teachings just as the historical Buddha taught them).



              https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?p=500754#p500754



              Have a wonderful day!






              share|improve this answer


























              • This nails it. Thank you so much. If I see the sufferings as interesting and see it with a curious eye, then does it make sense to intellectualize the teachings? From the Daoist perspective, you can always transform your sufferings into an opportunity that you are long seeking for.

                – Ooker
                4 hours ago














              3












              3








              3







              You should always keep in mind the differences between the Buddha's dispensation, and the teaching of, let's say, Socrates, Plato and other Hellenistic philosophers, which were, apparently, contemporaries of the historical Buddha.



              While Greek philosophers were trying to use their intellect to understand the world surrounding us, sometimes as a means for living a better life, and others just for the sake of knowing more, the Buddha was part of a living tradition of ascetics and mystics that were trying to get free from Samsara (this latter concept having multiple descriptions and definitions, according to the tradition telling the story).



              The Simpasa Leaves sutta point to the general direction of Early Buddhism: deliverance from suffering. All the efforts, both practical and intellectual, were directed to that very end; all the teachings, debates and analyses had Dukkha and the end of Dukkha as its axis.



              https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.031.than.html



              Intellect is an essential part of Buddhism, as well as critical thinking and empirical endeavours. Your views about the world inform to and are the basis of your perceptions and thought, which in time are the ground for your intentions and actions. And that's why the cultivation of the mind is so important to the Path. But this cultivation is not a mere absoption of information, but a practice for understanding suffering, the causes of suffering, the ending of suffering and the path leading to it. Everything else goes beyond the point.



              This is why it's so hard to classify Buddhism as a religion or as a philosophy. It has a bit if both, while being none. If comparison have to be made, Stoicism would be a good point to start if you are looking to the west, and early Daoism, if you look to the East. Both paths were pretty practical, both in reflexion and in deeds.



              EDIT: This post from a discussion on DhammaWheel might shed some light on the question of the involvement of Buddhism in matters that may fall outside the "original dispensation" (on quotes, because we'll never know for sure if the NikayAgamas contain the original teachings just as the historical Buddha taught them).



              https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?p=500754#p500754



              Have a wonderful day!






              share|improve this answer















              You should always keep in mind the differences between the Buddha's dispensation, and the teaching of, let's say, Socrates, Plato and other Hellenistic philosophers, which were, apparently, contemporaries of the historical Buddha.



              While Greek philosophers were trying to use their intellect to understand the world surrounding us, sometimes as a means for living a better life, and others just for the sake of knowing more, the Buddha was part of a living tradition of ascetics and mystics that were trying to get free from Samsara (this latter concept having multiple descriptions and definitions, according to the tradition telling the story).



              The Simpasa Leaves sutta point to the general direction of Early Buddhism: deliverance from suffering. All the efforts, both practical and intellectual, were directed to that very end; all the teachings, debates and analyses had Dukkha and the end of Dukkha as its axis.



              https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.031.than.html



              Intellect is an essential part of Buddhism, as well as critical thinking and empirical endeavours. Your views about the world inform to and are the basis of your perceptions and thought, which in time are the ground for your intentions and actions. And that's why the cultivation of the mind is so important to the Path. But this cultivation is not a mere absoption of information, but a practice for understanding suffering, the causes of suffering, the ending of suffering and the path leading to it. Everything else goes beyond the point.



              This is why it's so hard to classify Buddhism as a religion or as a philosophy. It has a bit if both, while being none. If comparison have to be made, Stoicism would be a good point to start if you are looking to the west, and early Daoism, if you look to the East. Both paths were pretty practical, both in reflexion and in deeds.



              EDIT: This post from a discussion on DhammaWheel might shed some light on the question of the involvement of Buddhism in matters that may fall outside the "original dispensation" (on quotes, because we'll never know for sure if the NikayAgamas contain the original teachings just as the historical Buddha taught them).



              https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?p=500754#p500754



              Have a wonderful day!







              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited 10 hours ago

























              answered 12 hours ago









              Brian Díaz FloresBrian Díaz Flores

              34318




              34318













              • This nails it. Thank you so much. If I see the sufferings as interesting and see it with a curious eye, then does it make sense to intellectualize the teachings? From the Daoist perspective, you can always transform your sufferings into an opportunity that you are long seeking for.

                – Ooker
                4 hours ago



















              • This nails it. Thank you so much. If I see the sufferings as interesting and see it with a curious eye, then does it make sense to intellectualize the teachings? From the Daoist perspective, you can always transform your sufferings into an opportunity that you are long seeking for.

                – Ooker
                4 hours ago

















              This nails it. Thank you so much. If I see the sufferings as interesting and see it with a curious eye, then does it make sense to intellectualize the teachings? From the Daoist perspective, you can always transform your sufferings into an opportunity that you are long seeking for.

              – Ooker
              4 hours ago





              This nails it. Thank you so much. If I see the sufferings as interesting and see it with a curious eye, then does it make sense to intellectualize the teachings? From the Daoist perspective, you can always transform your sufferings into an opportunity that you are long seeking for.

              – Ooker
              4 hours ago











              2














              This is just from a personal perspective



              In my early 20s my engagement with Buddhism was exclusively reading books and intellectualising about it. Fairly quickly I ran into the sand with it as I just couldn't see the difference between nihilism and Buddhism. It was only years later when I joined a Buddhist group and built up a regular meditation practice that I was able to move past this and engage again with Buddhism.



              For me there are two activities




              1. Practising Buddhism - meditation, ethics and wisdom

              2. Being interested in Buddhism - reading books about it and wondering about the finer philosophical points


              Nothing wrong at all with the second one but for me it isn't helping me practise and realise the end of suffering. Practicising and heavy intellectualising are different. I read that when it comes to wisdom - a good grasp of the 4 noble truths and the eightfold path is good enough. Once you are there then get working on your ethics and meditation. You can come back to the intellectual stuff (much) later.



              As I say - this is just my own personal experience. Others will have a different view and I know that traditions such as Tibetan are a lot more keen on the intellectual stuff.



              Cheers






              share|improve this answer


























              • Was it nihilism because the Dhamma takes you towards not-self, but your natural (non-practising) tendency takes you towards identity views? Was it a kind of dissonance? And then meditation helped you reduce this dissonance?

                – ruben2020
                3 hours ago













              • @ruben2020. Not so much. I've always being reasonably comfortable with not-self. It was more reading about the emptiness of all things and the lack of inherent existence in everything. Also no metta practice and general ignoring of compassion. That's how I remember it now anyway

                – Crab Bucket
                3 hours ago











              • So dissonance is everyday life and we don't even see it as suffering. Do you think that our discussion actual makes us suffer?

                – Ooker
                2 hours ago
















              2














              This is just from a personal perspective



              In my early 20s my engagement with Buddhism was exclusively reading books and intellectualising about it. Fairly quickly I ran into the sand with it as I just couldn't see the difference between nihilism and Buddhism. It was only years later when I joined a Buddhist group and built up a regular meditation practice that I was able to move past this and engage again with Buddhism.



              For me there are two activities




              1. Practising Buddhism - meditation, ethics and wisdom

              2. Being interested in Buddhism - reading books about it and wondering about the finer philosophical points


              Nothing wrong at all with the second one but for me it isn't helping me practise and realise the end of suffering. Practicising and heavy intellectualising are different. I read that when it comes to wisdom - a good grasp of the 4 noble truths and the eightfold path is good enough. Once you are there then get working on your ethics and meditation. You can come back to the intellectual stuff (much) later.



              As I say - this is just my own personal experience. Others will have a different view and I know that traditions such as Tibetan are a lot more keen on the intellectual stuff.



              Cheers






              share|improve this answer


























              • Was it nihilism because the Dhamma takes you towards not-self, but your natural (non-practising) tendency takes you towards identity views? Was it a kind of dissonance? And then meditation helped you reduce this dissonance?

                – ruben2020
                3 hours ago













              • @ruben2020. Not so much. I've always being reasonably comfortable with not-self. It was more reading about the emptiness of all things and the lack of inherent existence in everything. Also no metta practice and general ignoring of compassion. That's how I remember it now anyway

                – Crab Bucket
                3 hours ago











              • So dissonance is everyday life and we don't even see it as suffering. Do you think that our discussion actual makes us suffer?

                – Ooker
                2 hours ago














              2












              2








              2







              This is just from a personal perspective



              In my early 20s my engagement with Buddhism was exclusively reading books and intellectualising about it. Fairly quickly I ran into the sand with it as I just couldn't see the difference between nihilism and Buddhism. It was only years later when I joined a Buddhist group and built up a regular meditation practice that I was able to move past this and engage again with Buddhism.



              For me there are two activities




              1. Practising Buddhism - meditation, ethics and wisdom

              2. Being interested in Buddhism - reading books about it and wondering about the finer philosophical points


              Nothing wrong at all with the second one but for me it isn't helping me practise and realise the end of suffering. Practicising and heavy intellectualising are different. I read that when it comes to wisdom - a good grasp of the 4 noble truths and the eightfold path is good enough. Once you are there then get working on your ethics and meditation. You can come back to the intellectual stuff (much) later.



              As I say - this is just my own personal experience. Others will have a different view and I know that traditions such as Tibetan are a lot more keen on the intellectual stuff.



              Cheers






              share|improve this answer















              This is just from a personal perspective



              In my early 20s my engagement with Buddhism was exclusively reading books and intellectualising about it. Fairly quickly I ran into the sand with it as I just couldn't see the difference between nihilism and Buddhism. It was only years later when I joined a Buddhist group and built up a regular meditation practice that I was able to move past this and engage again with Buddhism.



              For me there are two activities




              1. Practising Buddhism - meditation, ethics and wisdom

              2. Being interested in Buddhism - reading books about it and wondering about the finer philosophical points


              Nothing wrong at all with the second one but for me it isn't helping me practise and realise the end of suffering. Practicising and heavy intellectualising are different. I read that when it comes to wisdom - a good grasp of the 4 noble truths and the eightfold path is good enough. Once you are there then get working on your ethics and meditation. You can come back to the intellectual stuff (much) later.



              As I say - this is just my own personal experience. Others will have a different view and I know that traditions such as Tibetan are a lot more keen on the intellectual stuff.



              Cheers







              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited 4 hours ago

























              answered 8 hours ago









              Crab BucketCrab Bucket

              13.1k544123




              13.1k544123













              • Was it nihilism because the Dhamma takes you towards not-self, but your natural (non-practising) tendency takes you towards identity views? Was it a kind of dissonance? And then meditation helped you reduce this dissonance?

                – ruben2020
                3 hours ago













              • @ruben2020. Not so much. I've always being reasonably comfortable with not-self. It was more reading about the emptiness of all things and the lack of inherent existence in everything. Also no metta practice and general ignoring of compassion. That's how I remember it now anyway

                – Crab Bucket
                3 hours ago











              • So dissonance is everyday life and we don't even see it as suffering. Do you think that our discussion actual makes us suffer?

                – Ooker
                2 hours ago



















              • Was it nihilism because the Dhamma takes you towards not-self, but your natural (non-practising) tendency takes you towards identity views? Was it a kind of dissonance? And then meditation helped you reduce this dissonance?

                – ruben2020
                3 hours ago













              • @ruben2020. Not so much. I've always being reasonably comfortable with not-self. It was more reading about the emptiness of all things and the lack of inherent existence in everything. Also no metta practice and general ignoring of compassion. That's how I remember it now anyway

                – Crab Bucket
                3 hours ago











              • So dissonance is everyday life and we don't even see it as suffering. Do you think that our discussion actual makes us suffer?

                – Ooker
                2 hours ago

















              Was it nihilism because the Dhamma takes you towards not-self, but your natural (non-practising) tendency takes you towards identity views? Was it a kind of dissonance? And then meditation helped you reduce this dissonance?

              – ruben2020
              3 hours ago







              Was it nihilism because the Dhamma takes you towards not-self, but your natural (non-practising) tendency takes you towards identity views? Was it a kind of dissonance? And then meditation helped you reduce this dissonance?

              – ruben2020
              3 hours ago















              @ruben2020. Not so much. I've always being reasonably comfortable with not-self. It was more reading about the emptiness of all things and the lack of inherent existence in everything. Also no metta practice and general ignoring of compassion. That's how I remember it now anyway

              – Crab Bucket
              3 hours ago





              @ruben2020. Not so much. I've always being reasonably comfortable with not-self. It was more reading about the emptiness of all things and the lack of inherent existence in everything. Also no metta practice and general ignoring of compassion. That's how I remember it now anyway

              – Crab Bucket
              3 hours ago













              So dissonance is everyday life and we don't even see it as suffering. Do you think that our discussion actual makes us suffer?

              – Ooker
              2 hours ago





              So dissonance is everyday life and we don't even see it as suffering. Do you think that our discussion actual makes us suffer?

              – Ooker
              2 hours ago











              1














              Here's a very suitable sutta for this question. Self-explanatory.



              From Dhammaviharin Sutta (AN 5.73):




              Then a certain monk went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having
              bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to
              the Blessed One, "'One who dwells in the Dhamma, one who dwells in the
              Dhamma': thus it is said, lord. To what extent is a bhikkhu one who
              dwells in the Dhamma?"



              "Monk, there is the case where a monk studies the Dhamma: dialogues,
              narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous
              exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question &
              answer sessions. He spends the day in Dhamma-study. He neglects
              seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to internal tranquillity of
              awareness. This is called a monk who is keen on study, not one who
              dwells in the Dhamma.



              "Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
              & studied it and teaches it in full detail to others. He spends the
              day in Dhamma-description. He neglects seclusion. He doesn't commit
              himself to internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk
              who is keen on description, not one who dwells in the Dhamma.



              "Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
              & studied it and recites it in full detail. He spends the day in
              Dhamma-recitation. He neglects seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to
              internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk who is keen
              on recitation, not one who dwells in the Dhamma.



              "Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
              & studied it and thinks about it, evaluates it, and examines it with
              his intellect. He spends the day in Dhamma-thinking. He neglects
              seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to internal tranquillity of
              awareness. This is called a monk who is keen on thinking, not one who
              dwells in the Dhamma.



              "Then there is the case where a monk studies the Dhamma: dialogues,
              narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous
              exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question &
              answer sessions. He doesn't spend the day in Dhamma-study. He doesn't
              neglect seclusion. He commits himself to internal tranquillity of
              awareness. This is called a monk who dwells in the Dhamma.



              "Now, monk, I have taught you the person who is keen on study, the one
              who is keen on description, the one who is keen on recitation, the one
              who is keen on thinking, and the one who dwells in the Dhamma.
              Whatever a teacher should do — seeking the welfare of his disciples,
              out of sympathy for them — that have I done for you. Over there are
              the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, monk.
              Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message
              to you."







              share|improve this answer




























                1














                Here's a very suitable sutta for this question. Self-explanatory.



                From Dhammaviharin Sutta (AN 5.73):




                Then a certain monk went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having
                bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to
                the Blessed One, "'One who dwells in the Dhamma, one who dwells in the
                Dhamma': thus it is said, lord. To what extent is a bhikkhu one who
                dwells in the Dhamma?"



                "Monk, there is the case where a monk studies the Dhamma: dialogues,
                narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous
                exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question &
                answer sessions. He spends the day in Dhamma-study. He neglects
                seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to internal tranquillity of
                awareness. This is called a monk who is keen on study, not one who
                dwells in the Dhamma.



                "Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
                & studied it and teaches it in full detail to others. He spends the
                day in Dhamma-description. He neglects seclusion. He doesn't commit
                himself to internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk
                who is keen on description, not one who dwells in the Dhamma.



                "Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
                & studied it and recites it in full detail. He spends the day in
                Dhamma-recitation. He neglects seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to
                internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk who is keen
                on recitation, not one who dwells in the Dhamma.



                "Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
                & studied it and thinks about it, evaluates it, and examines it with
                his intellect. He spends the day in Dhamma-thinking. He neglects
                seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to internal tranquillity of
                awareness. This is called a monk who is keen on thinking, not one who
                dwells in the Dhamma.



                "Then there is the case where a monk studies the Dhamma: dialogues,
                narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous
                exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question &
                answer sessions. He doesn't spend the day in Dhamma-study. He doesn't
                neglect seclusion. He commits himself to internal tranquillity of
                awareness. This is called a monk who dwells in the Dhamma.



                "Now, monk, I have taught you the person who is keen on study, the one
                who is keen on description, the one who is keen on recitation, the one
                who is keen on thinking, and the one who dwells in the Dhamma.
                Whatever a teacher should do — seeking the welfare of his disciples,
                out of sympathy for them — that have I done for you. Over there are
                the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, monk.
                Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message
                to you."







                share|improve this answer


























                  1












                  1








                  1







                  Here's a very suitable sutta for this question. Self-explanatory.



                  From Dhammaviharin Sutta (AN 5.73):




                  Then a certain monk went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having
                  bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to
                  the Blessed One, "'One who dwells in the Dhamma, one who dwells in the
                  Dhamma': thus it is said, lord. To what extent is a bhikkhu one who
                  dwells in the Dhamma?"



                  "Monk, there is the case where a monk studies the Dhamma: dialogues,
                  narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous
                  exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question &
                  answer sessions. He spends the day in Dhamma-study. He neglects
                  seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to internal tranquillity of
                  awareness. This is called a monk who is keen on study, not one who
                  dwells in the Dhamma.



                  "Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
                  & studied it and teaches it in full detail to others. He spends the
                  day in Dhamma-description. He neglects seclusion. He doesn't commit
                  himself to internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk
                  who is keen on description, not one who dwells in the Dhamma.



                  "Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
                  & studied it and recites it in full detail. He spends the day in
                  Dhamma-recitation. He neglects seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to
                  internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk who is keen
                  on recitation, not one who dwells in the Dhamma.



                  "Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
                  & studied it and thinks about it, evaluates it, and examines it with
                  his intellect. He spends the day in Dhamma-thinking. He neglects
                  seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to internal tranquillity of
                  awareness. This is called a monk who is keen on thinking, not one who
                  dwells in the Dhamma.



                  "Then there is the case where a monk studies the Dhamma: dialogues,
                  narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous
                  exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question &
                  answer sessions. He doesn't spend the day in Dhamma-study. He doesn't
                  neglect seclusion. He commits himself to internal tranquillity of
                  awareness. This is called a monk who dwells in the Dhamma.



                  "Now, monk, I have taught you the person who is keen on study, the one
                  who is keen on description, the one who is keen on recitation, the one
                  who is keen on thinking, and the one who dwells in the Dhamma.
                  Whatever a teacher should do — seeking the welfare of his disciples,
                  out of sympathy for them — that have I done for you. Over there are
                  the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, monk.
                  Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message
                  to you."







                  share|improve this answer













                  Here's a very suitable sutta for this question. Self-explanatory.



                  From Dhammaviharin Sutta (AN 5.73):




                  Then a certain monk went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having
                  bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to
                  the Blessed One, "'One who dwells in the Dhamma, one who dwells in the
                  Dhamma': thus it is said, lord. To what extent is a bhikkhu one who
                  dwells in the Dhamma?"



                  "Monk, there is the case where a monk studies the Dhamma: dialogues,
                  narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous
                  exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question &
                  answer sessions. He spends the day in Dhamma-study. He neglects
                  seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to internal tranquillity of
                  awareness. This is called a monk who is keen on study, not one who
                  dwells in the Dhamma.



                  "Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
                  & studied it and teaches it in full detail to others. He spends the
                  day in Dhamma-description. He neglects seclusion. He doesn't commit
                  himself to internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk
                  who is keen on description, not one who dwells in the Dhamma.



                  "Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
                  & studied it and recites it in full detail. He spends the day in
                  Dhamma-recitation. He neglects seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to
                  internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk who is keen
                  on recitation, not one who dwells in the Dhamma.



                  "Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
                  & studied it and thinks about it, evaluates it, and examines it with
                  his intellect. He spends the day in Dhamma-thinking. He neglects
                  seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to internal tranquillity of
                  awareness. This is called a monk who is keen on thinking, not one who
                  dwells in the Dhamma.



                  "Then there is the case where a monk studies the Dhamma: dialogues,
                  narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous
                  exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question &
                  answer sessions. He doesn't spend the day in Dhamma-study. He doesn't
                  neglect seclusion. He commits himself to internal tranquillity of
                  awareness. This is called a monk who dwells in the Dhamma.



                  "Now, monk, I have taught you the person who is keen on study, the one
                  who is keen on description, the one who is keen on recitation, the one
                  who is keen on thinking, and the one who dwells in the Dhamma.
                  Whatever a teacher should do — seeking the welfare of his disciples,
                  out of sympathy for them — that have I done for you. Over there are
                  the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, monk.
                  Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message
                  to you."








                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 2 hours ago









                  ruben2020ruben2020

                  14.8k31242




                  14.8k31242























                      0














                      It was against the rules for monks to speak without knowing if something is true or false.



                      If you yourself don't understand or know something then it's just the same as lying or misleading others.




                      ‘If a monk falsely claims for himself a superhuman quality, knowledge
                      and vision worthy of the noble ones, saying, “This I know, this I
                      see,” but after some time—whether questioned or not, but having
                      committed the offense and desiring purification—should say: “Not
                      knowing I said that I know, not seeing that I see; what I said was
                      empty and false,” he too is expelled and excluded from the
                      community.’” (Uttarimanussadhamma Pli Tv Bu Vb Pj 4)




                      What is the point in discussing something without experiencing it? What is the point of mere words if the world is empty of a sammasambuddha, paccekabuddhas, arahants, or those near-enlightened beings who have attained higher jhanas and developed iddhi?



                      The goal in Buddhism is to achieve arahantship here and now not merely read about it or discuss it.



                      After you experience something and actually know it yourself then speak about it. From direct experience you should also be able to correctly reason things.






                      share|improve this answer
























                      • I think I have experience mindfulness, but not really into it. Is that good? What do you think?

                        – Ooker
                        4 hours ago


















                      0














                      It was against the rules for monks to speak without knowing if something is true or false.



                      If you yourself don't understand or know something then it's just the same as lying or misleading others.




                      ‘If a monk falsely claims for himself a superhuman quality, knowledge
                      and vision worthy of the noble ones, saying, “This I know, this I
                      see,” but after some time—whether questioned or not, but having
                      committed the offense and desiring purification—should say: “Not
                      knowing I said that I know, not seeing that I see; what I said was
                      empty and false,” he too is expelled and excluded from the
                      community.’” (Uttarimanussadhamma Pli Tv Bu Vb Pj 4)




                      What is the point in discussing something without experiencing it? What is the point of mere words if the world is empty of a sammasambuddha, paccekabuddhas, arahants, or those near-enlightened beings who have attained higher jhanas and developed iddhi?



                      The goal in Buddhism is to achieve arahantship here and now not merely read about it or discuss it.



                      After you experience something and actually know it yourself then speak about it. From direct experience you should also be able to correctly reason things.






                      share|improve this answer
























                      • I think I have experience mindfulness, but not really into it. Is that good? What do you think?

                        – Ooker
                        4 hours ago
















                      0












                      0








                      0







                      It was against the rules for monks to speak without knowing if something is true or false.



                      If you yourself don't understand or know something then it's just the same as lying or misleading others.




                      ‘If a monk falsely claims for himself a superhuman quality, knowledge
                      and vision worthy of the noble ones, saying, “This I know, this I
                      see,” but after some time—whether questioned or not, but having
                      committed the offense and desiring purification—should say: “Not
                      knowing I said that I know, not seeing that I see; what I said was
                      empty and false,” he too is expelled and excluded from the
                      community.’” (Uttarimanussadhamma Pli Tv Bu Vb Pj 4)




                      What is the point in discussing something without experiencing it? What is the point of mere words if the world is empty of a sammasambuddha, paccekabuddhas, arahants, or those near-enlightened beings who have attained higher jhanas and developed iddhi?



                      The goal in Buddhism is to achieve arahantship here and now not merely read about it or discuss it.



                      After you experience something and actually know it yourself then speak about it. From direct experience you should also be able to correctly reason things.






                      share|improve this answer













                      It was against the rules for monks to speak without knowing if something is true or false.



                      If you yourself don't understand or know something then it's just the same as lying or misleading others.




                      ‘If a monk falsely claims for himself a superhuman quality, knowledge
                      and vision worthy of the noble ones, saying, “This I know, this I
                      see,” but after some time—whether questioned or not, but having
                      committed the offense and desiring purification—should say: “Not
                      knowing I said that I know, not seeing that I see; what I said was
                      empty and false,” he too is expelled and excluded from the
                      community.’” (Uttarimanussadhamma Pli Tv Bu Vb Pj 4)




                      What is the point in discussing something without experiencing it? What is the point of mere words if the world is empty of a sammasambuddha, paccekabuddhas, arahants, or those near-enlightened beings who have attained higher jhanas and developed iddhi?



                      The goal in Buddhism is to achieve arahantship here and now not merely read about it or discuss it.



                      After you experience something and actually know it yourself then speak about it. From direct experience you should also be able to correctly reason things.







                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered 4 hours ago









                      MischievousSageMischievousSage

                      72436




                      72436













                      • I think I have experience mindfulness, but not really into it. Is that good? What do you think?

                        – Ooker
                        4 hours ago





















                      • I think I have experience mindfulness, but not really into it. Is that good? What do you think?

                        – Ooker
                        4 hours ago



















                      I think I have experience mindfulness, but not really into it. Is that good? What do you think?

                      – Ooker
                      4 hours ago







                      I think I have experience mindfulness, but not really into it. Is that good? What do you think?

                      – Ooker
                      4 hours ago













                      0














                      How many years do you already hang around in Dhamma areas and still not grasp the basics?



                      As it is with chosing teachers. Good if following those who let it rain.



                      Only one who walks arives and the villagers just wast their times, discussing what they are to lazy to do and see for themselves.



                      [Given not for trade exchange, stacks, Buddh-ism and intellectual "sex" but for liberation]






                      share|improve this answer










                      New contributor




                      Samana Johann is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.

























                        0














                        How many years do you already hang around in Dhamma areas and still not grasp the basics?



                        As it is with chosing teachers. Good if following those who let it rain.



                        Only one who walks arives and the villagers just wast their times, discussing what they are to lazy to do and see for themselves.



                        [Given not for trade exchange, stacks, Buddh-ism and intellectual "sex" but for liberation]






                        share|improve this answer










                        New contributor




                        Samana Johann is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.























                          0












                          0








                          0







                          How many years do you already hang around in Dhamma areas and still not grasp the basics?



                          As it is with chosing teachers. Good if following those who let it rain.



                          Only one who walks arives and the villagers just wast their times, discussing what they are to lazy to do and see for themselves.



                          [Given not for trade exchange, stacks, Buddh-ism and intellectual "sex" but for liberation]






                          share|improve this answer










                          New contributor




                          Samana Johann is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.










                          How many years do you already hang around in Dhamma areas and still not grasp the basics?



                          As it is with chosing teachers. Good if following those who let it rain.



                          Only one who walks arives and the villagers just wast their times, discussing what they are to lazy to do and see for themselves.



                          [Given not for trade exchange, stacks, Buddh-ism and intellectual "sex" but for liberation]







                          share|improve this answer










                          New contributor




                          Samana Johann is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.









                          share|improve this answer



                          share|improve this answer








                          edited 2 hours ago





















                          New contributor




                          Samana Johann is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.









                          answered 2 hours ago









                          Samana JohannSamana Johann

                          134




                          134




                          New contributor




                          Samana Johann is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.





                          New contributor





                          Samana Johann is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.






                          Samana Johann is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.






























                              draft saved

                              draft discarded




















































                              Thanks for contributing an answer to Buddhism Stack Exchange!


                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                              But avoid



                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function () {
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbuddhism.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f31152%2fwhat-to-do-when-i-am-discussing-buddhism-intellectually-but-others-advise-me-not%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                              }
                              );

                              Post as a guest















                              Required, but never shown





















































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown

































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown







                              Popular posts from this blog

                              Magento 2 controller redirect on button click in phtml file

                              Polycentropodidae