Yrurtj

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}

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!

This is just from a personal perspective

In my early 20s my engagement with Buddhism was exclusively reading books about 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

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.