I think the mistake that “smart” people make is the belief that those they deemed as lacking intelligence have limited capacity to get it. While those who are “smart” do.
In my own experience the only difference between these two groups is the opportunity and conditions of their lives.
Those who fall into the category of “smart” have had opportunities they could take advantage of because the condition of their lives where ripe for that development; whether it be nurture, nature or both.
Those who fall in the “other” category may have had or not, the opportunities as the former. The conditions of their live did not allow for the ripening of the type of intelligence one could easily identify and categorize. Intellectual intelligence isn’t the only type out there. Although it’s the one the western world praises and nurtures.
In my own experience I have found that so called smart and stupid people share common traits. They just don’t like to hang out with each other.
I have found the seemingly unintelligent, desensitized people to have good open hearts that have been battered so badly that the most intelligent thing for them to do was to close it off.
I’ve also found the seemingly intelligent, sensitive people to be open and sensitive only to those people and situations they categorized as useful for their progression; only to have missed vital things along the way.
I can go on. I can tell you my own personal discoveries on this but I know that if it doesn’t fit into the book the “smart” person want to read. He’ll bypass it ignorant of the information is inside.
As a Buddhist we have an opportunity to step out of our cocoons. The biggest decision we have to make with that is that when we do; are we going to enter a bigger group cocoon or are we going to step out into the world “as it is”.
If we choose the world then we will have to expand our ideas if this and that. We may have to experience folks and situations that are radically different then what we’ve labeled as acceptable. If we have the courage to do that we may find ourselves knowing more of ourselves and the world then we ever could have read in a book or in a “safe” environment.
Isn’t this what Buddha was trying to teach us?

Hmmm… my first question would be: how are you defining “intelligence?” As in IQ? A dictionary definition (“capacity for learning, understanding, reasoning”)? Or one of Gardner’s multiple intelligences? If so, which of the eight? Kinesthetic, perhaps, because so much of practice is body based? Interpersonal intelligence, because of Buddhism’s emphasis on compassion? Or logical-mathematical, for navigating philosophical issues? You see the dilemma.
My experience interacting with monks and nuns in Asia is that some are really fundamentally changed by the dharma and some aren’t. And this change has seemingly little to do with intelligence. Even within the Japanese sangha you site as doing the “dirty work” of practice, there are many who are really compassionate and aware individuals, but potentially just as many who are doing just what you say: dirty work. As Susuki Roshi said, “there are four kinds of horses: excellent ones, good ones, poor ones, and bad ones.”
Perhaps this is not about intelligence but about karma?

Buddhism is neither philosophy or religion but a construct, and like all social constructs those with the knowledge have the power and then have the ability to marginalize those that don’t, like you have done so effectively in this post.
“check out the big brain on Brad”

Their are many illiterate and intellectually challenged people who have benefited from the Dharma, so the reason for the title of the book can be found within the first paragraph of this article, where more often than not we make things more complicated than they are, ignoring a lotus in full bloom and focusing instead on the discarded styrofoam cup that floats on the surface of the pond.

Sorry for the misspell… I meant “There” instead of “Their”

Labeling Buddhists as intelligent and others as not intelligent by implication serves no useful purpose. This kind of self-congratulations is not helpful, it is divisive. Buddhist philosophy goes far deeper than rational thought. For example koan practice.
Often intellectualization is a stumbling block to understanding. An ivory tower Buddhist won’t get any further along the path just because of their studiousness.
Buddhism is not about personality traits such as creativity or sensitivity or confirming one’s self-perceived leadership role in changing the world. Messiahs come and go. Especially self-perceived varieties.
Not all Buddhists sit and meditate. Some follow a devotional practice such as Pure Land and can obtain the same results.
Buddhism is much bigger and far more encompassing than what is read in books or taught in classes in NYC.

Like you, I enjoy being sensitive and creative (not to mention intelligent!). It’s part of why I’m such a good Buddhist.

@NellaLou: I am confused. Where did you perceive Jerry as labeling Buddhists as intelligent and others as non-intelligent? I didn’t get that sense from this post.

Smart? Not so smart? What ideas we have.

@Chris – I haven’t marginalized or even come close to marginalizing anyone. I imagine you brought some of your own biases to reading what I wrote, and processed it as “marginalizing”. Read closer with an open mind and you’ll see it’s quite the opposite.
@NellaLou – basically same response as Chris. Read again and you’ll see that I have taken care to not do exactly what you said I do. I label no one as intelligent or not intelligent ; in Buddhism as any religion you find all spectrums of people and intelligence levels. Buddhism as practiced in the US does seem to attract a larger portion of very smart folks than not-as-smart. That’s an observation, not an opinion or label.

@Ethan. From the title of the post.It sets the tone for the whole post. I said others were “labeled by implication” By the comments I am not the only one who noticed this. Someone mentioned marginalization. The first two comments, expressed more delicately than mine, seem to indicate a discomfort with the whole notion and taking a position of defense of those implicated as not so intelligent. Where would people get this defensive posture if they were not reading some kind of subtle promotion of the intelligent and further a demotion or denigration of the relatively not so intelligent-however well disguised. I will limit my comments here as it’s not my blog but will give my impression in a watered down version.
The addition of the following adds to the tone of which I spoke above. The sum of the parts analogy is apt here.
“I’ve noticed that everyone I meet who is practicing Buddhism is regular smart, or really smart, and I’m wondering what’s up with that.”
(As an independent observation there is not any problem with it. A reporting of experience. In combination with the title and what follows though it perpetuates a particular stereotype and viewpoint that does marginalize those who do not currently possess these particular attributes)
“I think it’s because Buddhism require a level of intelligence, sensitivity, nuance, and understanding beyond the grasp of the average person.”
(Here is the implication boldly stated)
“Buddhism (as practiced as a daily way of life, vs. an arms-length religion), with its emphasis on self-reflection and investigation, self-selects for the more intelligent among us.”
(Implication accompanied by a huge assumption)
“It takes a certain level of wisdom to be interested in a-ha and transformation. ”
(Children are not wise when they examine a butterfly coming out of a cuccoon they are in awe. And they are certainly interested in such things. By many standards children are not that intelligent-they don’t even know how to tie their shoes! (Hey I like kids-just making a point)
“All of this takes smarts.”
(Or work or a good teacher or initiative or intuition or quite a number of other factors)
“I’m not suggesting you have to smart to be Buddhist. No more than you have to be smart to write a book, or understand Algebra or Physics.”
(The analogy of the second sentence denies the statement of the first sentence)
Everything can be learned by anyone who tries hard enough, no matter how smart (or not) you naturally are, but some huge percentage of people are going to be self-selected out of any pool that requires above-average intelligence, because the work you have to do to make up for a lack of natural intelligence is too hard.
(This assumption borders on arrogant. How does Mr. Kolber know what constitutes “too hard” for anyone else of any intelligence level?)
“Buddhism is hard even if you ARE smart – it requires constant vigilance, confronting painful issues, and making decisions that sometimes seem counter-intuitive – …”
(These requirements are not limited to those who have intelligence. Everybody does these things every day in all kinds of circumstances)
“…and if you have a hard time just trying to understand the basic concepts before you even get to the hard work, you might not stick with it, even though the benefits are out of all proportion to the work you put in, no matter how hard you have to work at it.”
(Or you might just work a little harder or find a different teacher. Or you might just be sufficiently motivated, for reasons other than intellectual conquest, to continue)
“Perfect for smart people to faff about with – or to experience true transformation. ”
(And not others? That implication again)
“…but since we also tend to be the trend-setters in culture (by virtue of our leadership through our intelligence, sensitivity, creativity, and self-absorption) perhaps our devotion to the Buddhist path will inspire others who will make the teachings more accessible to less over-analytical folks, who can do it better than we can, because they are less “Monkey Minded” than we are. ”
(I don’t even want to go there.)
“Maybe the real trick to Buddhism is to become more stupid?”
(This kind of backhanded compliment-if that’s what it is-is said as a joke? seriously? or what? It’s disconcerting because it cannot be taken seriously. And if not then it is a joke. At who’s expense? The “stupid” people? Those who cannot be included in the “hard” work of understanding Buddhism by virtue of their apparent lack of intelligence? Please see the title of the post again “Buddhism for Dummies-I Don’t Think So” )
So Ethan that is where I get the sense that Buddhists are being labeled as intelligent and others are not.
@Jerry. I have explained my position as above. I do not question your observation just certain assumptions and implications. And I do not question your good intention either.

@NellaLou
Do you mean I should non-distinguish between exemplary and ordinary, effort and non-effort, right path vs. not-right path. And yes I do border on arrogant. If I didn’t I wouldn’t believe my thoughts were worth sharing here.
Do you really think everybody maintains constant vigilance, confronts painful issues, and makes counter-intuitive decisions based on commitment to compassion? I don’t think it makes those who do special or anything, but I don’t think everyone does it. Everybody suffers though and we dedicate our practice to helping everyone, no matter who they are or what circumstance they are in, reduce their suffering.
That’s why I practice. I’m not very good at it yet, but I keep practicing.

Hey Jerry.
I wish to respond to your response.
“Do you mean I should non-distinguish between exemplary and ordinary, effort and non-effort, right path vs. not-right path.”
There are distinctions to be made in all things. How they are made, the reasons for them and the anticipated results may require a certain amount of consideration as well. Everything has a broader context. In this instance it is not for me to say what should or should not be done in future by you or anyone else in a given circumstance.
“And yes I do border on arrogant. If I didn’t I wouldn’t believe my thoughts were worth sharing here.”
Me too sometimes.
“Do you really think everybody maintains constant vigilance, confronts painful issues, and makes counter-intuitive decisions based on commitment to compassion?”
If you had written “based on commitment to compassion” in the original piece it would have changed the meaning. I could only go by what you wrote originally not an intended meaning. Most people confront painful issues at some point. And have to make counter-intuitive decisions. Some do maintain constant vigilance for completely unrelated reasons. The added phrase makes some difference.
“I don’t think it makes those who do special or anything, but I don’t think everyone does it. Everybody suffers though and we dedicate our practice to helping everyone, no matter who they are or what circumstance they are in, reduce their suffering.”
I quite agree with all you say there.
“That’s why I practice. I’m not very good at it yet, but I keep practicing.”
Me too.

@Jerry – I think you brought some of your own biases to my comment. If you acquire an open mind you might see the errors of your post.

@Chris I most definitely brought my own biases to your comment. Part of why I practice is to gain a more open mind. I don’t know when that will happen but I look forward to it and will let you all know when it does.

To NellaLou I want to say that I agree with all of your points and I am glad you made them. Jerry what I took from the post was that first, you may not be familiar with the “for Dummies” series of books. They are really not written for those with less intellect. In my experience they are written to bring clarity to complex topics by cutting through the extraneous nonsense and getting to the heart of the subject matter. Second the nature of your post seems to perhaps confirm the need for a “For Dummies” book on Buddhism.
Given enough time and examination any topic can be made so complex that the average human is made to feel inferior because they do not fully understand its complexity. You can indeed spend lifetimes studying all there is to know about Buddhism, and all there is to explore in meditation and practice, but mindfulness and interbeing are at the heart of Buddhism, and while these concepts have immense depth, they are at their heart beautiful in their simplicity and really any dummy can understand them enough to practice and benefit from the practice.

Once we realize we are all Dummies, no matter how much meditation and practice that we have done…then we are safe.
Like Socrates, who said, “I know that I know nothing.”
gassho

@Robert – exactly. I totally agree. I think there’s a historical reason for why Buddhism in the west has such a scholarly tinge – may be because of how and by whom it was brought to the “masses” in the 50′s and 60′s (via intellectuals and artists, mostly). This trend continues today. I’d love to figure out how to make the core of the teachings more appealing and accessible to everyone so that, as you say, “any dummy can understand them enough to practice and benefit from the practice”.
Maybe I didn’t clarify – check out the “for Dummies” book on Buddhism – it overcomplicates things as much as anyone else. 300 pages on how to sit still, be quiet, and recognize the difference between space and not-space in your own mind – oy.

Plot enough Buddhists on a graph of “smartness” or “creativity” or height, for that matter (however you measure the first two; it doesn’t matter to my point), and you get what? A bell-shaped, or normal distribution, curve. Plot enough non-Buddhists, and you get another bell-shaped curve. Statistically speaking, no difference. (So bust that myth that lefties are smarter than those on the right. Even though we are.)
Now, take a small sample like the NYC IPD Buddhists and, sure, maybe the curve is skewed to the left (the mean is less than the median). This is likely due, as Jerry has observed, to self-selection. Self-selection is itself a function of numerous attributes, some more important than others, like geography, age, education level, and SES.

Well… I think I need to pull out my “Collected Works of Shakespeare” here and turn to the immortal play “As You Like It” Act 5 Scene 1
“The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.”
When I read this post I was instantly reminded of the conversations I often hear over the cubicle wall of engineers talking amonst themselves and patting themselves on the back for being so “smart.” Really, I used to be the same way. After all, I do in fact have a degree in “Rocket Science.” I figured that only smart people can cut it in engineering (on only really smart people can make it in Aero) and so engineering “self selects” for the smartest people. I’ve seen, after 5 years in school and 2 years in industry that this is certainly not the case. Those who become engineers aren’t necessarily smart but they certainly think they are.
I’m a little allergic to labeling folks as “smart” or otherwise. I’m not sure it’s of any benefit and tends to lead to divisions and defensiveness (thus the response to your post). From what I’ve seen in my experience, Buddhism tends to attract people who have the desire to make themselves better, the courage to follow through on tough teachings and a certain independence of thought and belief. They tend to be people who don’t want to leave their “salvation” to a higher power and would rather take a more active role in becoming a better person. That doesn’t necessarily mean they’re “smart” so much as willing to try something new and different. Those who end up sticking with the practice are the ones who have seen it impact and improve their daily life. I agree with NellaLou on this one… I think your New York is showing.
Okay, so.. does Buddhism attract “smart” people? Maybe it does and maybe it doesn’t but once we start labeling ourselves as “smart” ones I think we’ve lost the ball and are acting more like the fool than like the wise. (BTW, I’m not calling you a fool at all, its just allusion to the above quote
Good post, it gets people thinking about what preconceived notions they have about themselves or others.

@Evelyn – I am a fool and I am a smart person – you can call me whatever you want, as they would be all be accurate.
I am definitely fascinated by the response, considering I took care to make no judgment about smart or not-smart. The post is about my accurate observation that most of the Buddhist’s I’ve met in person and online are smart. They are what they are. Judging from the comments a lot of folks seem to take issue with discriminating between smart and not smart. I’m not sure why. I am very smart at some things, and not very smart at others. That’s just how it is. No judgment.
Your point about the misconception that engineering self-selects for smart people but is actually achievable by anyone who works at it is not a criticism; I make exactly the same point in my post. You don’t have to be “smart” to do anything – and being “smart” isn’t a guarantee you’re good at anything either. But I do disagree with Mu’s theory that practicing Buddhists (as compared to those who turn to Buddhism only for paid rituals around birth and death) would be an even bell curve. Mu, do you have some statistics that would support this claim? It does not corroborate with my personal experience.

@ALL:
I wonder if we would be a bit less PC about the smart/dummy split if we reframed it from Buddhist/NonBuddhist to Contemplative/NonContemplative so as to avoid some of the “pat on the back” tendencies. I do think that Buddhist practice and study, if done earnestly and open-mindedly, tends to lead us to be better students of life, the universe, and everything, and therefore I would argue not that smart people are attracted to Buddhism, but that genuine buddhist practice tends to make people better students of their experience, and therefore – Buddhism makes you smarter! :~)
Also, @MU regarding the progressive/conservative intelligence gap, have you seen the very clear survey data that showed after the 2004 election that there was a MUCH higher instance of Kerry voters knowing what each candidate’s stated positions on various policy issues were than Bush voters? The numbers were actually startling when I saw them.
We could say facts are subjective, but not the candidates positions. Kerry voters knew the policy views of the man they were voting for and against, Bush voters, not so much. They were using their gut, to quote Stephen Colbert. I have not seen data, but I am fairly certain there was a similar trend in 2008 among McCain voters.
To me, the hallmark of a contemplative person is that she views her life as a practice, an ongoing, passionate exploration of truth. This person is a serious student of life, and I would argue tends to fall into dogma less, and is curious to always learn more, practice more.
A non-contemplative is somewhat akin to a fundamentalist, and takes the world as given and lashes out at new perspectives without looking at them experientially. We all have both tendencies in us (and based on some of the comments in other threads, many Buddhists seem to take a non-contemplative approach too, but I would argue that the general Buddhism tendency is to undermine dogman and increase open-minded intelligence :~) I just think it would be overly PC to say that Buddhist practice doesn’t inspire more contemplation and less fundamentalism as a GENERAL, non-solid trend. Buddhist history has certainly seen less wars and crusades than other traditions, for example.
So, it’s not all “pat on the back” to say that those who are inspired to learn are more inquisitive and contemplative and open to learning – contemplatives – get smarter. Those who sit around watching Nascar all weekend when we could be learning about our mind and the world – do we really want to say they are just as smart? Really? Let’s take off the Buddhist PC hat for a moment there (I own one too)

@Jerry: I am also a bit surprised at how much your article was read into on an “implicit” level. Maybe it’s just because I know you personally and know you diss people more rarely than almost anyone, but there seems, in a few comments, (if we are going to look at the “implicit” level) to be a discomfort with talking about intelligence in general. Perhaps it is because we grew up in a society that did not allow for there to be various types of smart until recently (as one commenter mentioned).
But when we start saying “there is no smart, there is no dumb,” that just seems lazy to me.

This is a great post, but it’s not clear if you’ve actually read the book “Buddhism for Dummies” or if you’re simply reacting against its title. All of the Dummies/Idiots books I’ve read have been really good, once you get past the titles and the inane blurbs on the covers.

I suppose it does boil back down to the question: “what is smart?” Really. This whole debate may just be a big mis-understanding, which is why definitions are important.
When I initially read “smart” I read it as someone who knows a lot and could do fairly well on Jeopardy. By that reckoning, I’ve definitely met dumb Buddhists. If you’re saying that “smart” means having an open mind and willing to do the hard work then maybe I’ve been agreeing with you this whole time and didn’t quite see it until now. I just happen to be of the opinion that you don’t need to be “highly intelligent” to have an open mind and my experience has been that Buddhists tend to be open-minded more so than what I would call “highly intelligent” or “smart.”
I think people see words like smart and dumb and it brings up all sorts of stuff from the schoolyard.
So I’ll ask Jerry directly: what do you define as “smart?”

Great post, thanks Jerry. The comments are a good read, too. Thanks, y’all.
@Eth: I like how you put it, that buddhism makes you smarter. You hit the nail on the.. on the head!
While the rhetorical sorting by level of intelligence did make me squirm a little, I understand and relate to that question: How does one person, in light of life’s struggles, come to inquire about the nature of life through a contemplative approach, while another person tries to end their suffering through a solidifying, fundamentalist approach? (also, just ’cause I squirmed, I think it is quite useful to look into this “intelligence” question)
I can relate to the approach out there (and in here) of the confused, grasping, ignorant, attempting-to-put-out-a-fire-with-gasoline for sure, and have tried that approach over and over. The thing that makes me smart (if I want to go there) is that I see how I fail when I deal with life that way. Maybe the brilliance of a contemplative path comes out of experience of failure: It’s the combination of presence of mind and failure that leads to insight. Maybe a quality of failure is that it kind of begs for us to pay attention, or to apply our wits! (so if failure÷smarts=contemplative livin’, then what’s the.. square root of failure? (okay, I went to art school…* ) So, maybe what makes someone less “smart” is the extent to which they rise to the occasion when life gives them lemons.
Thing is, until we are fully awake, all of us, not just the charicatures we talk about who are slaves to their confusion in their own (possibly quite American) ways, are running on somewhat cruddy fuel, that is, we are at least partly motivated by ignorance. For me, the idea is not to get too hung up on what, exactly, the ratio of shit to shine is, but to know that I have to keep investigating just how the chemistry of that mixture works (is the ignorance dissolved in the brilliance, like salt in water, or is the confusion/wisdom more like a salad dressing?). It is also much more interesting to notice what happens, on ever subtler levels, when this motivation takes effect.
Anyhoo, I think we’re all a little bit stupid, but through this heartrending science of Buddhism I’m starting to take the bad connotation out of the word “stupidity”, and the charge out of my experience of stupidity. I am also seeing that “smart” isn’t what I had thought, either. That said, I do cultivate my version of intelligence at every turn, but I certainly could do it without my helper and companion, and sometimes opposing pugilist, Ignorance.
Way to turn language on its head, and do the same for us.
love,
Laura
*by the way, can we get some math people to do some dharma calculus, or make some cool equations? I think that’d be neat.

practice + virtue = dharma

practice – virtue = mara

Before one can add or subtract fractions, the fractions need to have a common denominator — within Buddhism that common denominator is the practice of virtue.
The Buddha summed up the whole of his teaching in one one gatha (or verse): to cease from all evil actions, to generate all that is good, and to cleanse one’s mind, that this was (and still is) the constant advice of the Buddhas.

@Ethan
Even though NellaLou patiently listed why a certain view was taken and you admit to your bias; you still present the idea that the readers didn’t understand what was actually written.
It’s understandable that Jerry may not have presented his view on the subject clearly. It happens often in blogs. So what’s the problem with just accepting what was said instead of taking it on an implicit level that the readers have issues discussing intelligence?
@Evelyn and Ethan.
From what was written above it doesn’t seem that the readers have issues with discussing intelligence at all. We’ve all stated our opinion using our particular means of expression.

Btw @Laura & Dharmakara.
Mathematical explanation suggested and offered are great ideas.

Damaris, my comment was not in that vein at all, and was certainly not directed at NellaLou. It was a general feel throughout about 6 commenters that discussions of intelligence are somehow judgmental. I am certainly not calling anyone out by name, and I never said anything that said readers MISunderstood Jerry’s comments. I just noticed a particular bent in the reaction, much like NellaLou noticed something implicit in the article. I do not think I was dismissing or not accepting a single comment above.
I am very interested in the discussion of intelligence, especially in the definition I proposed above (contemplative/noncontemplative). I am interested in things like the progressive/conservative split in politics, for example, where uncomfortable as it might be, a lot of data actually backs up the idea that progressives are at least better informed than conservatives about policy.
I’m not really sure why my comment rubbed you the wrong way, as it wasn’t an attack on anyone at all, and I apologize if you took it that way. I would like to be able to propose noticing trends in comments, the same way as other readers notice “implicit” assumptions.

Jerry, the central limit theorem explains why data like that of “intelligence” will cluster around a mean, and will normally distribute. In the social sciences, Gaussian distribution is the accepted explanatory model for data that would, e.g., involve comparing contemplatives/noncontemplatives with respect to the variable of intelligence.
We have to be very careful with data. For example, contra Ethan’s claims, most studies I have seen confirm a robust correlation between income level and knowledge level, where the slightly lower average income of Democrats translates to a lower knowledge of current political affairs.

@ Ethan
You’ve assumed that I’ve been rubbed the wrong way. Why?
I’m not. I was just pointing something out.
I also didn’t say you where directing anything toward NellaLou.
????

I don’t see a problem with folks here discussing intelligence. Seems to be several thousand words devoted to the topic by numerous people. Nor do I see a problem with accepting the fact that people have varying levels of varying kinds of intelligence just like any other attribute such as creativity, physical beauty, athletic ability etc. It’s just a verifiable fact.
The problem that I attempted to explicate was the expression of an in-group mentality which could from various viewpoints (as comments suggest) be seen to be rather elitist. It has nothing to do with a lack or over-abundance of political correctness. Nor has it anything to do with “there is no smart, there is no dumb,” lazy attributions. It has to do with elitism. Applauding one attribute, at the expense of a lack of said attribute, to reinforce a stereotype and a social hierarchy that is unfair, untrue, lacking in broader social and historical context, and downright narrow-minded.
In America, among white, upper middle-class convert Buddhists first contact with Buddhism as philosophy is likely due to the numerous advantages that race and class enjoy and this includes a liberal education. That does not preclude others, who have not yet had exposure, from experiencing the Dharma in future. Nor does it indicate that Buddhism as philosophy is the domain of any particular class or type including those with above-average intelligence. The article above explicitly (forget implications for now) states: “All of this takes smarts.” and “I think it’s because Buddhism require a level of intelligence, sensitivity, nuance, and understanding beyond the grasp of the average person” It doesn’t get more explicit than that.
Intelligence as measured by current standards, both in psychology and especially within the mythology or popular “trendsetting” mass media is an incredibly culture and class bound concept.
What I and perhaps others are pointing to is that such statements, link Buddhism with a certain high level of intelligence as if they are somehow conjoined. As if a high level of intelligence is a necessary condition of understanding Buddhism. It is not. And to explicitly state that it is, singles out the Buddhist as something special not only in terms of religious choice, since we are talking mainly of converts here, but in terms of a valued social attribute such as intelligence. It is co-opting Buddhism to the elitist classes and furthering the divisions of privilege.
Substitute the words money, beauty, status or any other indicator of privilege for the word intelligence in some of those sentences and see
how that reads.
@Ethan
“but that genuine buddhist practice tends to make people better students of their experience, and therefore – Buddhism makes you smarter! :~)”
It only makes you an expert on your own experience and its analysis.
“So, it’s not all “pat on the back” to say that those who are inspired to learn are more inquisitive and contemplative and open to learning – contemplatives – get smarter. Those who sit around watching Nascar all weekend when we could be learning about our mind and the world – do we really want to say they are just as smart? Really? Let’s take off the Buddhist PC hat for a moment there (I own one too)”
Education and intelligence are tied in a false relationship in the above statement. What you are stating is your personal preference. And the way you are stating it is in terms of a value judgment. You value philosophy and mental investigative activity. Not a problem but when you label others as being not as smart for not enjoying the same proclivities as you then a value judgment is made that denigrates all those who do not enjoy your tastes in activities. And what you are propagating is a stereotypical perspective that those who do not enjoy the same preferences as you are somehow not as smart. And therefor, since intelligence is a commodity valued in today’s social status-conscious hierarchy to laud yourself as smarter due to your preferences and to rank yourself as smarter, meaning higher on that very same social scale than someone with different tastes is elitist, and devaluing to the other.
And on that point sometimes I sit around and watch cricket matches all day when I could be at the local monastery debating obscure philosophical points of Dharma. Does that make me less smart than you? Less devoted to the Dharma? A bad Buddhist?

@NellaLou, last thought then I’m outtie: I never claimed my definition of intelligence should be anyone else’s. I was only stating how I like to pursue the matter, and yes, many people say Buddhism has definitely opened up their intelligence in this kind of way
I don’t hang out at monasteries nor do I watch cricket, so it would be noncontemplative of me to say one was better than the other. :~)
But if we follow your thought to the end, do we not come to the place where it is impossible to say anything about anything?
Is the claim that smoking crack makes you dumber, for example, just an arrogant value judgment? Is there really nothing we can say about intelligence? Are we just left with total subjectivity? What about ethical standards? What about those who do have clearer perception of how things work? What about all the different types of creative intelligence that can be verified? Does it all just really amount to point of view?
MU – I didn’t follow you. I think we are addressing separate things.
I have a specific survey about the 2004 election which talks about how well-informed people are based on who they voted for. You seem to be talking about the fairly obvious link between income and education. Can you be more specific? I actually think democrat politicians tend to be less savvy than their republican counterparts (the republicans are greatly outnumbered in congress right now, yet somehow still seem to get their way on issues – that is really brilliant!). Also, please let’s not correlate democrats with progressives :~)

I am not talking about objective verifiable reality. Of course smoking crack is not the brightest idea in the world. I am talking about subjective value judgments applied to groups of people. Value judgments, especially in broad terms, by their nature value the judge and devalue the other.
In some circumstances this is called for, such as I do not want the local chef taking out my appendix just because he is good with a knife. My judgment of the ability of the chef is directly relevant to my health. But in other circumstances, like this forum tying value to a specific attribute, when such attribute is NOT a requirement to “do the job” of Buddhism, speaks to a subjective bias. Bias in this instance is exclusionary not based on objective issues or necessity but only on personal preference.
I guess I’m done here too.

I just returned from Karme Choling, taking some Shambhala levels with Dan Hessey, an older ,very experienced teacher, studied with CTR in the 70′s, etc.
He said the most interesting thing. He said to the class of 55 people from all over the world , that there was no coincidence that we ended up here,in this room, in this shrine, on this path….. that people who come to meditation and Buddhism have literally “hit the end of the road” That somehow, somewhere in us we recognize that all that thinking was not getting us what we needed, nor was it helpful to others.
That all the storyline and layer upon layer of manufactured thoughts was “just not working anymore”
I think that is it. That simple, that profound.
Do you have to be intelligent to be a Buddhist ??, nah, just an awareness and an intention for simplicity and heart in a very confused and troubled world.

I have explored Buddism on and off for a few years. Apparently not long enough. Utilitarianism, Catholicism, Southern Baptist, Methodist, etc. I used to say “My Mom was Catholic, My Dad Methodist and I’m confused.”. I must say, what you all are missing in this conversation (or have lost track of) is the hope and promise that this belief gives. Dial it down a bit. Do we all need to be as smart, educated or literate as you? I may be a novice but you all do seem to be elite. I really am drawn to this way of thinking and this way of life, this belief. But really, you are turning me off with how superior you sound. I’m sure it’s just me and my insecure self – or is it? I am a good hearted person with good and accepting morals but you all are overwhelming me. Is there a better site that I should visit?
No ill will intended.
Bridget

Thanks Abdrea. Music to my ears.

Wow this is way off base. It is very revealing that this author is clearly not a buddhist.
It is not about intelligence it is about recognizing cognitive states. The author is tangled up
in a cognitive state. This is not a qualified author.