[Buddha-l] Loving your object of study

[Gruenig, Hans Werner]

Hello Denizens,

Regarding this jhana/intellect/service reference cited by Richard:

(1) I'm not sure the sutta has been identified yet.  Richard, will you provide the quote with a book/page# reference?

(2) I stumbled into another sutta entitled "Scholars and Meditators" (AN VI, 46) in which Mahacunda tells monks who are meditators and scholars to stop judging each other.  Excerpt:

"Therefore, friends, you should train yourselves thus: 'Though we are Dhamma-experts, we will praise also those monks who are meditators.' And why?  Such outstanding men are rare in the world who have personal experience of the deathless element (Nibbana).
"And the other monks, too, should train themselves thus: 'Though we ourselves are meditators, we will praise also those monks who are Dhamma-experts.' And why?  Such outstanding persons are rare in the world who can by their wisdom clearly understand a difficult subject." (Thera & Bodhi, _Numerical Discourses of the Buddha_, BPS 1999, p.164)

Of note here: this appears to suggest that it is the meditators and not the scholars/dhamma-experts who access Nibbana.

(3) Jack, I agree with the distinction you have articulated (with the 'learning to swim' vs. 'applying scholarship to swimming' metaphor) which echoes Curt's Yogi Berra quote on theory vs. practice.  In the current discussion, to avoid the 'category mistake' it strikes me as useful to delineate (not to mutual exclusion) roughly:
(a) intellectual inquiry which aims for and impacts one's own liberation;
(b) intellectual inquiry which doesn't aim for or impact one's own liberation;

It is possible to engage in (b) passionately as a scholar (or speculative philosopher) and not practice the dharma.  It is possible to engage in (a) as a seeker and not practice scholarship.  The fact that we can use terms like "observing" and "analyzing" to describe activities in both (a) and (b) does not make (a) and (b) the same -- or even the named activities the same.

In terms of (a), we might also want to delineate:
- speculative theoretical reflection;
- application of cognitive insights and meditations;
- deconstructive meditations;
- other applications of the intellect.
Thus even within (a), not all "intellectual" approaches to liberation are of the same method or caliber or produce the same (typical) results.

(4) My Theravada, Zen, and Dzogchen teachers/traditions have indicated to varying degrees that (a) is helpful but limited and insufficient for a complete experience of liberation.  Theravada Buddhists often delineate three levels of wisdom which are of increasing value:  heard wisdom (taken to heart), intellectually reasoned wisdom (taken to heart), and directly perceived liberating wisdom which arises through a path which includes sustained  (partly non-intellectual) mindfulness and meditation practices.  Dzogchen and Zen teachers often point to the vital possibility of experiencing non-conceptual wisdom beyond the reach of intellectual activity.  In all of these traditions, teachers have indicated that liberation occurs through direct perception, not reasoning alone. 

Success via a purely intellectual path of liberation may be possible for some, but essential aspects of many Buddhist traditions (e.g., important folds of the 8 Fold Path; shikantaza; Dzogchen; etc.) appear inaccessible to those on the purely intellectual path.  Because "the thicket of views" can quickly become an impediment -- and because all major advances in my own practice have come through practices which included essential non-intellectual components -- I remain tentatively cautious about an "intellect only" path.

Two Rupees,
-Hans Gruenig.