The point is, that such an admonishment is an intellectualization itself. Therefore presenting this as you do, is to represent Buddhism as hypocritical. — Metaphysician Undercover

It doesn't seem hypocritical to use reason to point to the limits of reason. As example, it wouldn't be hypocritical to use reason to point out that say, doing reason on this forum 24 hours a day probably wouldn't be healthy.

And yeah, I still think your reactions are odd — Coben

Such reactions are perhaps odd, taking no position there, but they are utterly normal and routine on philosophy forums.

I'm out. — Coben

I hear ya, and often feel that way myself. There is another option too, just ignore stuff that doesn't interest us.

But if you think they're hypocrites, I am not upset. — Coben

I don't think they're hypocrites, that's why I objected to your representation, which appeared to represent them as hypocrites.

Honestly this all seems extremely defensive. — Coben

When someone enters a thread, like you did, with explicit instructions of how the subject of the thread ought to be approached, then it's natural that those who believe otherwise would be defensive.

But long analytical discussions would be discouraged. — Coben

We do not pretend that our participation in this forum is an act of practising Buddhism. What is at issue here is your assertion that participation in this forum is inconsistent with Buddhist principles.

A librarian can shush people, even rather loudly (at least they used to do this) and be hypocritical only in an extremely binary interpretion of what they are doing, trying to make an environment conducive the activities libraries were once meant for. Yes, they made a noise. Does that use of noise reduce the overall noise and create a better environment for study and reading. I think it might. If the teacher of Buddhism compassion kills a person for killing a bird, ok, get out the you hypocrite signs. — Coben

Do you agree that there is a difference between talking and thinking, and that intellectualizing is a form of the latter, not the former? So this is not an apt analogy, because telling people not to talk, so that others can think, is not the same as telling people not to think (intellectualize). if we are telling people not to think, the reasons for this would be completely different, perhaps even opposite, from the reasons for telling people not to talk.

There are other non-verbal ways such things are discouraged. And sure, most adherents might have a conceptual insight about intellectualizing. If they begin to minimize their intellectualizing, that's a net gain. It's pragmatic, not some absolute moral stance that intellectualizing is bad. Longer sequences of it are problematic. It's what they have discovered or at least think they have and they try to minimize it. I don't think that's hypocrisy if some abstractions come up in the process. — Coben

If the goal is to minimize intellectualizing, then this is a different goal than is the goal of minimizing discussion. The reason for this goal might be as I described, to dispense with the bad habits of thought, in order to produce new, clean ways of thinking. And if this is the goal, the bad habits of thought might be the listening to others, and formulating ideas based on what others say. This would be intellectual laziness, letting others think for you. The good habits, on the other hand, might be to think things out for yourself, and make up your own mind, your own decisions. Then it would appear like the goal is to minimize discussion, when in reality the goal is to minimize the influence which others have over you through the means of discussion.

And yeah, I still think your reactions are odd, or better put, as I said above, defensive. Or perhaps you're critical of Zen Buddhism and you want me to admit I think it is hypocritical also. I don't. My issues with Buddhism have to do with the goals and practice, not with some perceived hypocrisy. — Coben

That the reply is "defensive" should not seem odd to you, for the reason explained. I am far from a scholar of Zen Buddhism, but it appeared to me like your issues with its "goals and practice", might really stem from misunderstanding. If a practice aims to help one find true understanding from within one's own person, rather than through some external instruction, then to portray that practice in terms of a system of instruction shows a misunderstanding.

It doesn't seem hypocritical to use reason to point to the limits of reason. As example, it wouldn't be hypocritical to use reason to point out that say, doing reason on this forum 24 hours a day probably wouldn't be healthy. — Hippyhead

The "limits of reason" is not the issue here.

The "limits of reason" is not the issue here. — Metaphysician Undercover

No clue what you're talking about.