user151: From my perspective, the Buddha's Teaching is reductive and subtractive. It's experiential and fundamental for knowing how to die well. It's good for transcending the ego by dissolving into all to find freedom from suffering.
The object is not to gain anything. Intellectual knowledge can help but little intellect is required. Sometimes intellect  can get in the way. 
One can start a practice by just practicing.
Nobody want's to avoid the labor of hard thought because the practice isn't to think, it's to experience. It's Satipatthana. It's understanding the difference between words or other concepts and experiential reality.
Does the Buddha's teaching require much intellect? What is anti-intellectualism in Buddhism?

user10100: Buddhism is middle way between intellectual self-affliction extreme and  intellectual sensual pleasure extreme. 
So, buddhism is anti-intellectual self-affliction extreme and  anti-intellectual sensual pleasure extreme. But buddhism is  the middle way intellectualism.

The object is not to gain anything. Intellectual knowledge can help
  but little intellect is required. Sometimes it can get in the way.

I can completely say according to tipitaka history that most of ariya in tipitaka are intellect, high experience, high profile, and intelligence, before they enlighten to be ariya. And for someone who has a very low profile, he has to take a very long time to practice himself for enlightenment.
If you learn commentary and abhidhamma, you maybe say "how many millions of required life for tipitaka study and practicing?" 
But deplorably, the most people can take just an easy part of tipitaka, so you can feel like you asked above.
However, whatever you stared from,  little intellect or big intellect, must develop to be big intellect for enlightenment, no exception. That is the reason that why the buddhist have to practice. We practice to be intellect enough for an enlightenment.

user12386: I think the question is a little too broad and vague. Binary, duality questions and standings are not useful. Please read Narjarguna. It’s not his or that,,,.
A work or teaching’s value is in its fruits. Look at the results.
I feel positing Buddhism is not intellectual is ridiculous, and shows a lack of any understanding of the Indian context of the arising of Buddhism, not to mention Buddhist teachings in general. Nothing could be more scientific and analytical the Buddhism. Because the object of study is human consciousness and life, and not gravity that can be epresse mathematically, does not mean it is not scientific. Robert Wright’s new book Why Buddhism is True is on this topic.
All said, there is a significant strain of anti intellictualism in the US, but those whose IQ is 3 digits, should not be shamed to have intelligence and use it.

user43: I don't think Buddhism is inherently anti intellectual. Theravada's Abhidharma, Late Indian / Early Tibetan Mahayana preserved and developed by Gelugpa - are highly intellectual, to name a few.
It's an old adage in Buddhism that Dharma is medicine for the mind, and particular form the teaching takes depends on student's disposition.
There are certainly schools that grew out of concern that some students obsess over concepts and don't see the forest behind the tree. These schools, like many lineages within Tibetan Kham's Kagyu and Nyingma emphasize personal practice and insist on simple no-nonsense pithy instructions passed in private from generation to generation.
Some schools like Ch'an were born as radical response to then increasingly obsessive and speculative intellectualism, true, but Ch'an is far from being the largest or the most influential school. Perhaps the most famous in the West, exactly for its irrational presentations.
The truths that Buddhism teaches are complex and subtle, but in my opinion totally explainable. It's only a matter of time I think until western culture develops enough insight into things Buddhism taps into, and creates an authentically western intellectual representation of them.
We see it already in various forms of literature on topics as diverse as self-help, emotional intelligence, philosophy of mind, bundle theory, hierarchy theory, and others.    

151: <p>From my perspective, the Buddha's Teaching is reductive and subtractive. It's experiential and fundamental for knowing how to die well. It's good for transcending the ego by dissolving into all to find freedom from suffering.</p>

<p>The object is not to gain anything. Intellectual knowledge can help but little intellect is required. Sometimes intellect  can get in the way. </p>

<p>One can start a practice by just practicing.</p>

<p>Nobody want's to avoid the labor of hard thought because the practice isn't to think, it's to experience. It's Satipatthana. It's understanding the difference between words or other concepts and experiential reality.</p>

<p>Does the Buddha's teaching require much intellect? What is anti-intellectualism in Buddhism?</p>
 10100: <p>Buddhism is <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">middle way</a> between <strong>intellectual self-affliction extreme</strong> and  <strong>intellectual sensual pleasure extreme</strong>. </p>

<p>So, buddhism is anti-intellectual self-affliction extreme and  anti-intellectual sensual pleasure extreme. But buddhism is  <strong>the middle way intellectualism</strong>.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The object is not to gain anything. Intellectual knowledge can help
  but little intellect is required. Sometimes it can get in the way.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I can completely say according to tipitaka history that most of ariya in tipitaka are intellect, high experience, high profile, and intelligence, <strong>before they enlighten to be ariya</strong>. And for <strong>someone who has a very low profile, he has to take a very long time to practice himself for enlightenment</strong>.</p>

<p><strong>If you learn commentary and abhidhamma, you maybe say "how many millions of required life for tipitaka study and practicing?"</strong>  </p>

<p>But deplorably, the most people can take just an easy part of tipitaka, so you can feel like you asked above.</p>

<p>However, whatever you stared from,  little intellect or big intellect, must develop to be big intellect for enlightenment, <strong>no exception</strong>. That is the reason that why the buddhist have to practice. <strong>We practice to be intellect enough for an enlightenment.</strong></p>
 12386: <p>I think the question is a little too broad and vague. Binary, duality questions and standings are not useful. Please read Narjarguna. It’s not his or that,,,.</p>

<p>A work or teaching’s value is in its fruits. Look at the results.</p>

<p>I feel positing Buddhism is not intellectual is ridiculous, and shows a lack of any understanding of the Indian context of the arising of Buddhism, not to mention Buddhist teachings in general. Nothing could be more scientific and analytical the Buddhism. Because the object of study is human consciousness and life, and not gravity that can be epresse mathematically, does not mean it is not scientific. Robert Wright’s new book Why Buddhism is True is on this topic.</p>

<p>All said, there is a significant strain of anti intellictualism in the US, but those whose IQ is 3 digits, should not be shamed to have intelligence and use it.</p>
 43: <p>I don't think Buddhism is inherently anti intellectual. Theravada's Abhidharma, Late Indian / Early Tibetan Mahayana preserved and developed by Gelugpa - are highly intellectual, to name a few.</p>

<p>It's an old adage in Buddhism that Dharma is medicine for the mind, and particular form the teaching takes depends on student's disposition.</p>

<p>There are certainly schools that grew out of concern that some students obsess over concepts and don't see the forest behind the tree. These schools, like many lineages within Tibetan Kham's Kagyu and Nyingma emphasize personal practice and insist on simple no-nonsense pithy instructions passed in private from generation to generation.</p>

<p>Some schools like Ch'an were born as radical response to then increasingly obsessive and speculative intellectualism, true, but Ch'an is far from being the largest or the most influential school. Perhaps the most famous in the West, exactly for its irrational presentations.</p>

<p>The truths that Buddhism teaches are complex and subtle, but in my opinion totally <em>explainable</em>. It's only a matter of time I think until western culture develops enough insight into things Buddhism taps into, and creates an authentically western intellectual representation of them.</p>

<p>We see it already in various forms of literature on topics as diverse as self-help, emotional intelligence, philosophy of mind, bundle theory, hierarchy theory, and others.    </p>
