From I explain why I prefer discuss Buddhism intellectually but others don't seem to accept my point. Why is that?, I get that Buddhist goal is not only to get wisdom, but as 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 explains why others miss my point. It is more of Daoism I think, in which sufferings are not meant to be cessated, but to be transformed into something more useful. It's like saying "hey, sufferings are fun. Please give me more". This attitude makes sufferings not sufferings anymore, although technically you are suffering.
I think every Buddhist aware of the importance of intellect. Yet, when I especially ask for an analysis they still focus on the core goal, thus missing my point. For example, this person stops replying after I explain the Daoist point. Another example is my very previous question. At first the titular question asked for "what to do" , but then all answers focused on the reason, forcing me to change the title to "why is that" (ChrisW's answer is an exception). (Nevertheless this has a good side, as it tells me that I am missing Buddhist points too.)
There are two advantages if I can ask other Buddhists to do analysis with me:
- My understanding can be refined, and my wrongs can be corrected
- If the other person doesn't seem to understand the teachings properly, but dismiss any analysis because they misinterpret that Buddhism advocates to abandon reasoning completely, then this will be beneficial for them (cf. the snake sutta, the raft sutta)
So, why does it hard to ask other Buddhists to do analysis, rather than advising me to stop analyzing?
FWIW, my though is said to be interesting if the readers are in analytic mode.
Related: Why does Buddhism seem to have an anti-thought bias?