Return to Question

As the core goal of Buddhism is to cease sufferings, any task that not relevant to it will be unawarely ignored, and any task that hindering it will be strongly rejected. Analysis/intellect can either be irrelevant to the goal (as in, don't forget that the finger is not the moon), or an obstacle that Buddhists have spent all their life to fight (as in, it's the source of proliferation). However, in some cases where analysis is necessary to remove an attachment, automatically rejecting intellect means (1) their attachment is not removed, and (2) they don't think they have attachment at all. Or as someone puts it, they seem to have anti-thought bias, and I think anything they say would be thought-terminating clichés at that point.

How to fight this bias? How to make them realize that before you see the moon, as least you should have the finger? How to present them an analysis and they accept to read it as it is, rather than questioning anything irrelevant?

Related:

• intellectualism or anti-intellectualism and Buddhism
• I explain why I prefer discuss Buddhism intellectually but others don't seem to accept my point. Why is that?
• How to ask other Buddhists doing analysis, rather than advising me to stop analyzing?
• How does philosophy not fall into the confirmation bias?

As the core goal of Buddhism is to cease sufferings, any task that not relevant to it will be unawarely ignored, and any task that hindering it will be strongly rejected. Analysis/intellect can either be irrelevant to the goal (as in, don't forget that the finger is not the moon), or an obstacle that Buddhists have spent all their life to fight (as in, it's the source of proliferation). However, in some cases where analysis is necessary to remove an attachment, automatically rejecting intellect means (1) the attachment is not removed, and (2) they don't think they have attachment at all. Or as someone puts it, they seem to have anti-thought bias, and I think anything they say would be thought-terminating clichés at that point.

How to fight this bias? How to make them realize that before you see the moon, as least you should have the finger? How to present them an analysis and they accept to read it as it is, rather than questioning anything irrelevant?

Related:

• intellectualism or anti-intellectualism and Buddhism
• I explain why I prefer discuss Buddhism intellectually but others don't seem to accept my point. Why is that?
• How to ask other Buddhists doing analysis, rather than advising me to stop analyzing?
• How does philosophy not fall into the confirmation bias?

As the core goal of Buddhism is to cease sufferings, any task that not relevant to it will be unawarely ignored, and any task that hindering it will be strongly rejected. Analysis/intellect can either be irrelevant to the goal (as in, don't forget that the finger is not the moon), or an obstacle that Buddhists have spent all their life to fight (as in, it's the source of proliferation). However, in some cases where intellect is necessary to remove an attachment, that means they would have a trouble for this. Or as someone puts it, they seem to have anti-thought bias. In that case, I think anything they say would be thought-terminating clichés in Buddhism.

How to fight this bias? How to make them realize that before you see the moon, as least you should have the finger? How to present them an analysis and they accept to read it as it is, rather than questioning anything irrelevant?

Related:

• intellectualism or anti-intellectualism and Buddhism
• I explain why I prefer discuss Buddhism intellectually but others don't seem to accept my point. Why is that?
• How to ask other Buddhists doing analysis, rather than advising me to stop analyzing?
• How does philosophy not fall into the confirmation bias?

As the core goal of Buddhism is to cease sufferings, any task that not relevant to it will be unawarely ignored, and any task that hindering it will be strongly rejected. Analysis/intellect can either be irrelevant to the goal (as in, don't forget that the finger is not the moon), or an obstacle that Buddhists have spent all their life to fight (as in, it's the source of proliferation). However, in some cases where analysis is necessary to remove an attachment, automatically rejecting intellect means (1) their attachment is not removed, and (2) they don't think they have attachment at all. Or as someone puts it, they seem to have anti-thought bias, and I think anything they say would be thought-terminating clichés at that point.

How to fight this bias? How to make them realize that before you see the moon, as least you should have the finger? How to present them an analysis and they accept to read it as it is, rather than questioning anything irrelevant?

Related:

• intellectualism or anti-intellectualism and Buddhism
• I explain why I prefer discuss Buddhism intellectually but others don't seem to accept my point. Why is that?
• How to ask other Buddhists doing analysis, rather than advising me to stop analyzing?
• How does philosophy not fall into the confirmation bias?

As the core goal of Buddhism is to cease sufferings, any task that not relevant to it will be unawarely ignored, and any task that hindering it will be strongly rejected. Analysis/intellect can either be irrelevant to the goal (as in, don't forget that the finger is not the moon), or an obstacle that Buddhists have spent all their life to fight (as in, it's the source of proliferation). However, in some cases where intellect is necessary to remove an attachment, that means they would have a trouble for this. Or as someone puts it, they seem to have anti-thought bias. In that case, I think anything they say would be thought-terminating clichés in Buddhism.

How to fight this bias? How to make them realize that before you see the moon, as least you should have the finger? How to present them an analysis and they accept to read it as it is, rather than questioning anything irrelevant?

As the core goal of Buddhism is to cease sufferings, any task that not relevant to it will be unawarely ignored, and any task that hindering it will be strongly rejected. Analysis/intellect can either be irrelevant to the goal (as in, don't forget that the finger is not the moon), or an obstacle that Buddhists have spent all their life to fight (as in, it's the source of proliferation). However, in some cases where intellect is necessary to remove an attachment, that means they would have a trouble for this. Or as someone puts it, they seem to have anti-thought bias. In that case, I think anything they say would be thought-terminating clichés in Buddhism.

How to fight this bias? How to make them realize that before you see the moon, as least you should have the finger? How to present them an analysis and they accept to read it as it is, rather than questioning anything irrelevant?

Related:

• intellectualism or anti-intellectualism and Buddhism
• I explain why I prefer discuss Buddhism intellectually but others don't seem to accept my point. Why is that?
• How to ask other Buddhists doing analysis, rather than advising me to stop analyzing?
• How does philosophy not fall into the confirmation bias?