DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Anatta Analysis derail: Roles of reason and jhana practice in enlightenment

**standaman** · 08-25-2011, 08:50 PM

I didn't imply that. What I'm saying is, direct experience is not the same as intellectual reasoning. That doesn't mean reading and listening to Dhamma is trivial

Sorry if it looked like I implied that you meant that. I wasn't trying to make a straw man. Maybe I misunderstood your point in asking whether or not intellectual understanding was sufficient.

If I can push a little further, what's the difference between direct experience and reasoning, anyway? Ultimatley, there is the direct experience of the mental activity that we call reasoning. Distinguishing between the perception of intellectual mental activity from, say, vision or hearing, seems a bit ungrounded to me. Who or what is doing the experiencing of any of it?

If, by intellectual effort alone, one understands that Self is an illusion and is thereby released from that illusion and all that it incurs, in what way is that insufficient? I may never be able to say definitively whether or not intellectual understanding is sufficient, because I've already done so much meditation on the topic, but at the same time, that experience makes me question the conventional distinction between the experience of intellectual mental activity and the experience of, say, the breath, the experience of which is just as mental, ultimately. The function of the brain is to think just as that of the lungs is to breathe, and detached observation of either seems to me to be of equal (potential) value.

Another way of approaching the question is that, if reading and studying the suttas guides our meditative experience in crucial ways, then how can either be said to be less sufficient than the other? Seems more likely that both are required. Maybe the Buddha arrived at anatta independently, but he wasn't working in intellectual or meditative isolation, either. The suttas describe some of his intellectual effort on the way to his 'Eureka!' moment.

Ultimately, of course, one person's direct experience is not available to others. No matter what we do, we have to describe experience in language, which is an intellectual activity. In my mind, intellectual activity is the raft that takes you across the river, and clinging to it after the crossing is pointless. Nevertheless, you need it to cross the river.

Again, sorry if I've misunderstood your point and am responding to something you never intended in the first place.

08-25-2011, 08:50 PM	#15
standaman Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 870 Senior Member	I didn't imply that. What I'm saying is, direct experience is not the same as intellectual reasoning. That doesn't mean reading and listening to Dhamma is trivial Sorry if it looked like I implied that you meant that. I wasn't trying to make a straw man. Maybe I misunderstood your point in asking whether or not intellectual understanding was sufficient. If I can push a little further, what's the difference between direct experience and reasoning, anyway? Ultimatley, there is the direct experience of the mental activity that we call reasoning. Distinguishing between the perception of intellectual mental activity from, say, vision or hearing, seems a bit ungrounded to me. Who or what is doing the experiencing of any of it? If, by intellectual effort alone, one understands that Self is an illusion and is thereby released from that illusion and all that it incurs, in what way is that insufficient? I may never be able to say definitively whether or not intellectual understanding is sufficient, because I've already done so much meditation on the topic, but at the same time, that experience makes me question the conventional distinction between the experience of intellectual mental activity and the experience of, say, the breath, the experience of which is just as mental, ultimately. The function of the brain is to think just as that of the lungs is to breathe, and detached observation of either seems to me to be of equal (potential) value. Another way of approaching the question is that, if reading and studying the suttas guides our meditative experience in crucial ways, then how can either be said to be less sufficient than the other? Seems more likely that both are required. Maybe the Buddha arrived at anatta independently, but he wasn't working in intellectual or meditative isolation, either. The suttas describe some of his intellectual effort on the way to his 'Eureka!' moment. Ultimately, of course, one person's direct experience is not available to others. No matter what we do, we have to describe experience in language, which is an intellectual activity. In my mind, intellectual activity is the raft that takes you across the river, and clinging to it after the crossing is pointless. Nevertheless, you need it to cross the river. Again, sorry if I've misunderstood your point and am responding to something you never intended in the first place.
	Quote