Is Intelligence the Path to Wisdom?

Introduced by Kelsang Tonglam

Notes on the 31/3/03 meeting of HKPC's Kowloon Branch

Reported by Steve Palmquist (moderator)

Tonglam gave a talk based on his handout, adding additional material for further elucidation along the way. A key distinction was made between intelligence, as an application of knowledge that often leads to problems, and wisdom, as a more developed form of knowing that always leads to harmony and peace. Wisdom needs to be identified subjectively, according to a process whereby each person finds his or her own inner teacher. The essential goal is to learn how to be happy, so anyone who is suffering can be assured that he or she is not yet on the right path. Tonglam concluded his introduction by directing our attention to the list of four discussion questions at the end of his handout.

The clarification questions focused mainly on the meaning of “intelligence”. Wisdom, Tonglam explained, is deeper and more instinctual than intellect. It involves a moral responsibility that requires a person to know what he or she wants, whereas intellect often causes us to pursue goals that are deluded and therefore end up not giving us what we want. This is why the application of intellect on its own often leads to problems and therefore to unhappiness. One participant observed that intellect is the ability to obtain knowledge and that knowledge always has a boundary, but wisdom looks beyond that boundary. Tonglam agreed, but cautioned that there are many types of wisdom. They all involve knowing how to apply knowledge (intellect) in order to get what you want.

When asked what would happen if what we think we want turns out to be unwise, Tonglam responded that we need wisdom in order to know what we want. To pursue what we want on the basis of intellect alone, in other words, is to delude ourselves; this is why it inevitably leads to problems instead of making us happy. True wisdom simply is knowing what to want in order to bring about a happy life. For example, wisdom will lift the depressed mind and calm the excited mind; intellect cannot do this, even though this is clearly what is needed in order for happiness to come about.

I then asked: Does this mean that if George Bush is happy when the US-Iraq war is over, then the war was wise, but if he is unhappy then it was not wise? Tonglam replied that we are never really at peace, because what we all really want, lasting happiness, always eludes our grasp. Someone else mentioned that the happiness of the Iraqi people would be a better test of the wisdom of this war. And another person concluded the question time by suggesting that wisdom is being content with not knowing the unknowable.

After I reminded everyone of Tonglam’s list of discussion questions, we divided into small groups. My group began by discussing the distinction between wisdom and common sense. Eventually, we arrived at a basic principle of wisdom: a wise person will not harm other people and will not act in a way that only benefits oneself. As such, we decided that moral sense is more of a requirement of wisdom than what is usually called common sense. Whether or not Einstein, an obviously intelligent person, was also wise proved to be a rather contentious issue. The key to wisdom, we decided, is how we use our knowledge, especially when we cannot get what we want: intellect just keeps on trying, no matter what, whereas wisdom knows when to stop. This gave rise to a paradox: many of the human race’s greatest achievements have been made by people who were not wise in this sense, who pursued their goal no matter what, pressing on with their intellect even if doing so caused harm to other people. Such pursuits, we decided, ought not to be undertaken unless a person can do so with a deep (and virtuous) sense of contentment. Otherwise, their intellect will be divorced from their moral sense and human suffering will be the result. In the end, we therefore decided that three distinct factors are necessary in order for wisdom to come about: intellect must be tempered by moral sense, and the two must be synthesized through a deep sense of peace.

I was so intrigued by the latter insight that I began the final joint discussion session rather uncharacteristically, by summarizing this idea from my own small group. I suggested that it implies at least a partial answer to the evening’s main question: intelligence is the doorway to wisdom, but does not in itself guarantee that we will “enter the room” of wisdom. However, the threefold account of wisdom also raises a problem: if (as Tonglam had earlier claimed) we will never achieve lasting peace in this life, then what does this imply about wisdom? One participant replied that it means we can never attain complete wisdom, but are rather always approaching it, and that this may be why Socrates called philosophy not wisdom itself but the love of wisdom.

Tonglam cautioned that appearances can be deceptive and suggested we need faith or trust in order to obtain wisdom. When one person observed that intellect and faith are antithetical to each other, I responded that faith can balance intellect, preventing it from going to an extreme that becomes harmful. Along similar lines, Tonglam commented that faith puts a necessarily subjective element into the mix. Someone commented that intelligence and stupidity are also opposites. Tonglam agreed, noting that common sense is tied to the conventions of each particular culture.

Near the beginning of his introduction, Tonglam had stated that his main objective for the evening was to encourage an increase in practical wisdom in those attending. I drew the discussion to a close by pointing out that we had (as usual) focused more on the theoretical issues than on such practical training. With that in mind, I invited Tonglam to have a last word. He took that opportunity to encourage us all to think of wisdom in a subjective way, as relating to our own individual life. He challenged each of us to develop a wish to be wise and to begin thinking of practical ways to live more wisely in every moment.

++++

The following suggestions were given for future topics:

- Is there a difference in gender for wisdom?

- God, evil, and suffering

- There is no spoon -- or is there? (cf. Matrix film)

- Life of Brian (or other similarly thoughtful films)

- Fighting for peace

Return to the home page of HKPC's Kowloon Branch.

Return to the main map of Steve Palmquist's web site.

This page was uploaded on 21 April 2003.