IS INTELIGENCE A HINDRANCE TO PRACTICE? | Zen Wisdom

QUESTION:
One often reads that Ch’an and Zen masters frown upon intelligence. Master Ta-hui (1089-1163) made fun of scholars, and modern master Suzuki Roshi said that an expert’s mind has few possibilities, whereas a beginner’s mind is limitless. On the other hand, many Westerners who take up Ch’an practice are initially lured by the intellectual richness of Buddhist philosophy. Can you explain this seeming contradiction?

SHIH-FU:
I doubt that, since the earliest days of Buddhism, there has ever been a dull or stupid genuine Ch’an practitioner. Also, I doubt that there has ever been a single person who entered the path of Ch’an practice on blind faith. Most people practice Ch’an as a result of a rational decision. Furthermore, Ch’an does not emphasize pure meditative practice at the expense of intellectual learning. An intellectual understanding of Buddhadharma, and an appropriate way of life are also foundations of Ch’an practice. If you meditate, but have no idea why you do it, at best your practice will be a shell. It could even be harmful.

Ch’an emphasizes personal experience from meditation, but it is also important to have a correct understanding of Ch’an practice and principles. Without understanding the Dharma, a person would get only limited benefit from the practice. For this reason alone, Ch’an is not averse to intelligence.

For the most part, Ch’an thought and Ch’an practice are rationally based, and Ch’an does not disregard intelligence. However, the question is why Ch’an masters often seem to put down intelligence and learning.

Ch’an masters acknowledge intelligence and learning, but emphasize that they must be transcended. Intellectual knowledge is not ultimate truth. The enlightened state that Ch’an speaks of is beyond thinking, words and symbols. It cannot be described and it cannot be understood through deductive reasoning. Ultimately, thought and language are man-made, based on symbols.

Symbols cannot explain or grasp enlightenment, and one cannot reach enlightenment solely through the use of symbols. It’s hard enough using symbols to explain the world around us, let alone as a means to attain enlightenment. Besides, each person views the world differently, with his or her own set of experiences and understanding. Ch’an masters must caution their students that enlightenment cannot be reached, described, or imagined in any purely intellectual way, whether it be by language, thought or symbol. Ordinary words are insufficient. Quoting Sakyamuni is not sufficient. Relying on the words and sayings of the patriarchs is not sufficient. These descriptions are not the reality of enlightenment itself.

Ch’an masters teach their students to leave behind all concepts, so they may experience enlightenment for themselves, directly. Most people can intellectually accept this explanation, further demonstrating that Ch’an is a rational approach.

I can whet your intellectual appetite with Ch’an philosophy. But when you practice seriously, you cannot rely on knowledge, experience and intelligence. None of it is of any use. It is impossible to practice Ch’an correctly and at the same time hold on to previous ideas. You cannot reflect on this or that saying; you cannot dwell on your experiences, wondering if you have tasted enlightenment. You must leave behind everything. It is the only way to reach enlightenment. In fact, leaving behind everything is itself enlightenment. If there is anything that you still cling to, then you cannot become enlightened. Intelligence, thoughts, words and language are all attachments that are difficult to let go. If they cannot be left behind, they become obstructions to practice.
Ironically, enlightened beings use reasoning, intelligence and language to help others practice. To communicate the benefits of Ch’an, they use tools based on knowledge and experience.

Before practice, you need learning, knowledge and experience. The more intelligent you are, the better. After enlightenment, you again need knowledge and experience. During the practice stage, learning is of no use.

Ch’an is not anti-intellectual. Most of the Ch’an patriarchs were learned and intelligent. Before enlightenment, such people had only worldly intelligence. After enlightenment, such people had true wisdom. Intelligence before enlightenment is intelligence with attachment. Wisdom is intelligence without attachment.

STUDENT:
I have heard that certain Hindu traditions regard meditation as a secondary, supportive practice, whereas intellectual study and debate of sacred texts are regarded as the superior practice. Have you any opinion on this?

SHIH-FU:
There are also Buddhist traditions like this. When Hsuan-tsang (600-664) went to India in the seventh century to retrieve sutras and sastras, he discovered two major Buddhist traditions: Yogacara and Madhyamika. Masters and disciples of these traditions constantly engaged in Dharma debates. In fact, they spent all their time in detailed intellectual analyses of Buddhist philosophy, using the ancient Buddhist logical system as the tool of their investigations. The more they engaged in their studies and debates, the more lucid their minds became, until they clearly and fully understood all Buddhist concepts and principles. Quite naturally, through such rigorous training their vexations lessened as well.

This type of practice, however, is in a sense elitist. Engaging in debates and study is easier if you live where you can do it all the time. A monastery is conducive to such practice. There is plenty of time, many fellow practitioners with similar aspirations, and few disturbances and temptations. Lay practitioners, however, cannot do this. They have other responsibilities. Only scholars and academics would have the facilities, desire and time for such practice. It is not suitable for the ordinary person.

I know a master in Taiwan who never meditates. Once I asked him, “Do you have any method of practice?”

He replied, “What do you mean by practice? I spend all of my time reading Buddhadharma, writing about Buddhadharma, thinking about Buddhadharma.

My whole life is spent in the midst of Buddhadharma. What other practice do I need?” For him the answer is none. He has a clear understanding of Buddhadharma, so he feels no need for meditative practice. His is a path quite different from that of Ch’an.

If people pursue the intellectual path and forego meditation, they also forego the spiritual experience of the practice, which directly affects body and mind. Intellectual stimulation only engages the mental faculties. People would lose the physiological and direct mental benefit from meditating. Even the Hindu traditions do not completely neglect meditation, using it as a supportive, auxiliary practice.

Furthermore, just because you are intelligent does not mean you are proficient or trained in the skills of logic and deductive reasoning. A non-scholar probably would not be suited for a practice that involves intense analysis. On the other hand, anyone can practice the methods of Ch’an.

Ch’an practice is rational, but does not require scholarly skills. If it did, there wouldn’t be many Ch’an and Zen practitioners. Even someone who has never read a textbook can practice Ch’an.

STUDENT:
You say the modern master you spoke about has a perfectly clear understanding of Buddhadharma. Is this the same as being enlightened?

SHIH-FU:
That depends on his mental state. If he has no obstructions or attachments in his mind, then he is enlightened. If he still has attachments, then at best he only intellectually understands enlightenment. This is not true enlightenment. However, there are limitless

PREVIOUS: LILI LAURITANO GRADY | Zen Wisdom
NEXT: LILI LAURITANO GRADY | Zen Wisdom