Htydjtk

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.

But after I explain my point, it seems that it goes into one ear and out another. Why is that? Is it actually bad to use intellect? Telling me to not using intellect sounds like asking me to think about the shore when the job is to paddle. I just want to find a way to paddle more efficiently.

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

^{Related: intellectualism or anti-intellectualism and Buddhism}

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 quotations, 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!

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

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."

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.

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]

In the post in question:

• You use the parable of the elephant as an example (which is in a sutta about sectarian disputes)


• You say that "Buddhism is strongly about this interaction between cognitive psychology and cognitive linguistic"

When I first read that I think that's an unorthodox and unrecognisable summary of Buddhism, or at least, it is so from the perspective of the suttas.

See also comments under this question, I think you assume that Nagarjuna's Middle Way is Buddhism -- and 'that "dharma has no self-nature" is a basic foundation in Buddhism' -- which I think isn't so.

I don't want to say that "Nagarjuna isn't Buddhism" but I think there's a school (Theravada) for whom Nagarjuna isn't canonical and to whom a statement like "dharma has no self-nature" is a bit far-fetched, possibly heretical, maybe novel at best, I don't know -- anyway, who aren't familiar with Nagarjuna's doctrine.

I think that a more-orthodox (according to the suttas) summary of Buddhism might be something like:

• The Buddha taught about "suffering and cessation" (of suffering)


• The way (to end suffering) has components including "ethics, mindfulness, and wisdom"

I think that's maybe the shortest summary.

I find it hard to see that definition in "interaction between cognitive psychology and cognitive linguistics ... to identify incorrect sememes", so I sympathise with those who disagree with it as a definition. But I for one had never heard the word "sememe" before this, so maybe that definition makes more sense to you than it does to me. But perhaps you're not wrong, either, and that what you're saying reflects Buddhist doctrine that "right view" is important, and so is "seeing things as they truly are".

Still if that (i.e. "right view") is all you're talking about, I think that Buddhism is more than that.

Incidentally I don't see that the suttas identify "illusion of transparency" as a cause of dispute -- more likely conceit (e.g. "my view is superior to yours"). You might be onto something with "naïve realism", I think that papañca is identified as the cause of (e.g. sectarian) disputes, defined e.g. here and here, and "reification" might be part of that.