From Seeker to Scholar, and Back Again?
Jeroen
Not all those who wander are lostNetherlands Veteran
I was reading Stephen Batchelors website when I came across his biography (here) and on reading it I found it interesting that he had started out with the classic seekers questions, such as “what is the meaning of life?” Upon journeying to India and ending up in Dharmsala he found the Tibetans he encountered there to have much knowledge and an integrated spiritual practice. He became a monk and stayed with them for a number of years.
If you look at the kind of things Stephen did during that time (translations for example) you’d say he was no longer a seeker but had turned into a scholar instead. His latest book, Buddha, Socrates and Us (2025), makes a comparison between Buddhist thinking and Ancient Greek thinking, and again seems to be more a scholarly work than an example of being.
Nor is Stephen Batchelor the only one to walk this path, the Danish monk Samhita Thera also did something similar (here). It seems that enveloping the mind in knowledge is a favoured journey for someone to set out to become a monk. You are kind of expected to learn the Dhamma, but it is a seduction into knowledge which leads away from the questions which started it all.
Now it seems to me that the meaning of life has more to do with experiencing than learning from books. There is a famous quote by Alan Watts, “life is not a problem to be solved, but an experience to be lived.” Not just in the sense that one should go out and see the world, but that experiences — like sickness, success at a job and being fired from a job, the death of ones parents, an accident — bring a certain ripeness and appreciation of the meaning of living.
What do you think? Does wisdom and an understanding of meaning come automatically? Does book learning help?
Comments
This was a clarifying question for me. I've looked at teachers and practitioners who have left everything behind and devoted themselves to practice and wondered what was different about them, why did they make that move but I avoided it?
I think perhaps I'm not really a seeker. The reason I got into a spiritual practice was all about getting myself together and then finding I had an aptitude and appreciation for the practice and view. It wasn't about a quest for some ultimate meaning or enlightenment for me, and I suppose it still isn't. Maybe another way of putting it is I didn't pursue spirituality out of a passion, rather I found a level of passion about it after I gained a deep appreciation for the practice. I think these days I find a decent amount of meaning in the attempt to be an example of someone trying to live a balanced, spiritual life in the world. I can say for certain I've made, and continue to make an impact on the world around me.
Regarding knowledge, I suppose for myself I have a generally high degree of curiosity about the world and a passion for learning. But for spirituality I think its accumulation has more value for others than oneself. Its like the Buddha's leaves in the hand, we really only need a small set of knowledge to be able to go within and, as the Tibetan phrase for enlightenment San Gye, enter into a clearing away and bringing forth for ourselves. Knowledge is seen as a sort of skillful means to point the way for others. I see knowledge in this sense as a sort of toolbox, everyone has their own interests and dispositions, what helps yourself along the path might not be helpful for another and what helps one person might be an obstacle for someone else. The bigger the toolbox, the better chance of having the right tool.
One's relationship to knowledge is also key. Someone like the Dalai Lama is very knowledgeable but still deeply spiritual. Whereas there are plenty of examples of scholars with little spiritual development. Its a finger and moon problem, is knowledge concrete or ephemeral in your mind?
I'm under the impression that karma and rebirth plays a part. For some, wisdom and an understanding of meaning come simply from observing life’s flow. Ancient people acquired wisdom and a sense of meaning without having to read books or study the thoughts of others.
For most so-called modern human beings, we fill our minds with the ideas of others through reading, and then, if we are lucky, meaning if our karma allows, we too begin to study life’s flow using the knowledge gained from the books of others as reference points for our own experiential understanding.
I'd say that this is true at its core. The main thing is the skilled observation, ancient people didn't rely on accumulated knowledge, but they also had guidance, something to direct observation in a skillful way. Which, ideally, is what modern day knowledge would guide us to. I'd argue that there is much less innate wisdom in knowledge today compared to ancient wisdom traditions.
I think that is a good observation. Most wisdom traditions contain a certain teaching knowledge, they are not purely for entertainment. Whereas a lot of books today are written without such high ideals.
Knowledge come from varying sources. Spoken, written, experience.
Wisdom comes from distilling knowledge and experiences.
We read
We hear/listen
We experience
We distill, question, seek, realize - awaken
Knowledge is passive
Wisdom is active
Knowledge is limited by boundries, personal, societal, cultural...
Wisdom is limitless, posessing no boundries
Knowledge is of things, actions, history....
Wisdom is the undestanding beyond the limits of knowlege.
Observations of a common person
Peace to all
Exactly so @Lionduck
Buddhism is a wisdom tradition but we bring all the things you mentioned to it.
Not all Buddhists are awake or even wise. Yet the tools and potential is there.
https://brainwisemind.com/which-spiritual-path-is-right-for-me/