"poisoned arrow" (from Buddhism)

[3bob]

- borrowing from a Buddhist story which I believe illustrates that teachings and practice of universal spiritual principles are more important than beating our heads or the heads of others against a wall.

 

"...In the ninth year after the enlightenment the Buddha was at Kaushambi, and the monk Malunkyaputra complained that the Buddha never explained whether the world is eternal or temporary, finite or infinite, or whether life and the body are the same or different, or whether arhats are beyond death or not. He even threatened to leave the community if the Buddha would not answer his questions. First the Buddha asked him if he had ever promised to explain these things; he had not.

 

Then he told the parable of a man who was pierced by a poisoned arrow, and his relatives summoned a doctor. Suppose, he said, the physician had said that he would not remove the arrow nor treat the patient until his questions had been answered, such as who made the bow, what kind it was, all about the arrow, and so on. The man would die, and still the information would not be known. Then the Buddha told Malunkyaputra that a person would come to the end of one's life before those metaphysical questions he had asked could be answered by the Tathagata. Those questions do not tend toward edification nor lead to supreme wisdom..."

 

Do you have stories along these lines to add?

[3bob]

"HOW MANY ANGELS CAN DANCE ON THE HEAD OF A PIN?

 

This question turns out to contain an infinite number of secondary questions.

 

It seems to be a mathematical question, since it begins with an inquiry with regard to number.

 

Then, it opens up the question: what is an angel? Is an angel a figure with form, but no substance, as Aquinas apparently claimed? Can two angels occupy the same point in space? Do angels take up space, or are they immaterial? Can something be infinitesimally tiny, and yet still exist? At what point is something so small that it doesn't actually exist?

 

As if these questions are not enough, it segues into an aesthetic question: what constitutes dancing? The question appears to ask us to evaluate the dancing of angels. How many angels can dance? In other words, some angels might just stand there. Other angels might do something rhythmic, such as callisthenics, but fail to actually achieve something that Simon (on American Idol) (for instance) would consider dancing. This raises yet further questions: is dancing in some sense angelic? Isn't it also devilish? Many denominations banned dancing, and for good reason, as it tends toward the lewd. Some might call this "divine" in the same sense that some people call what's good bad, and what's bad good. Is bad dancing good dancing? It would seem that every person would evaluate the dancing of any given angel differently.

 

Then the two questions have to be considered together. Can you dance and still be an angel? If so, how many angels can achieve this state? ..."

 

lol:

Edited July 21, 2011 by 3bob

[Taomeow]

Do you have stories along these lines to add?

 

In the Amazon, many native tribes used poison arrows, and every medicine man or woman studied poisons and antidotes. Toward this end, he or she asked questions. The questions were asked of the people in the know, the spirits, and natural phenomena. They were asked in a logical, analytical waking state and in a trance and in dreams. They were asked by talking to the elders and by studying the ways of the animals and by taking a brew of "teacher plants" and "doctor plants," they were asked of the seasons and of the travelers familiar with other tribes' ways -- they were asked incessantly and then all information thus obtained was integrated into a picture of reality -- this world and everything it contains and the Beyond and everything it contains -- as comprehensive as possible. Failing to ask these questions meant losing the license to practice medicine, so to speak, because the shaman not equipped to understand wasn't equipped to heal.

 

So in the situation your parable describes, the questions he or she would ask would not be meaningless as they were to the buddhist doctor -- but meaningful for to find the right antidote. So "who made this arrow," e.g., was asked to determine which poison was used -- and therefore the answer was, e.g., "the Bakairi," and the shaman would go, "aha, so if it is an arrow made by the Bakairi, they use the poison curare, so we'll treat it with this antidote before removing the arrow, otherwise the patient won't survive the procedure" -- and produce it from his or her carefully prepared medical supplies. Or the answer would be "this is a Yanomame arrow," and the shaman would say, "oh, OK, the Yanomame don't use poison on arrows shot from a bow, only on blow darts, so we can remove the arrow and treat the wound and not worry about the antidote."

 

Most native peoples of the world had a special word to call their shaman which invariably meant a man or woman of knowledge, one who knows, one who knows the real, one who knows what others don't, one who knows and understands, and so on -- incessant variations of this theme. So, the not-knowing of a buddhist adept elevated to a principle in the story would simply be chalked up to a lack of professionalism by those who know those who know.

[Immortal4life]

I don't know if it's along the same lines, but here's a great story.

 

There was a man who died and was being taken to heaven by angels. But first, they wanted to show him hell (just for the hell of it I guess).

 

The angels then took him to a place where there was a great bowl, so great that it was as big as a lake. The bowl was filled with a nutritious stew. All the way around the sides of this bowl were people. Emaciated, starving, miserable people. These people had spoons to eat the stew with, that were long enough to reach it from the shore (about 12 feet). The trouble was, while they could scoop up the stew into the spoon, they could not get it into their mouths because the spoons were so long the stew would fall off before they could get it to their mouths. So here were all these pathetic people, suffering and moaning in agony, constantly trying to eat the food that was abundantly in front of them - all in vain. Next, the angels took the man to heaven. To his surprise, he saw the same scene! There it was, a giant lake-like bowl of the same stew, surrounded by people with 12 foot long spoons. Yet something was different here - all these people were smiling, happy, and healthy looking!

 

"Why? What is the difference here that these people are happy and well fed?", the man said to the angels.

 

They replied, "Have you not eyes to see?". The man looked more carefully, and observed that one person would scoop up the stew, and bring it to the mouth of another. Then someone else would scoop up stew and feed it to the other.

 

The angels smiled and said, "Here the people feed each other. Here are the people that learned the way of Love."

[goldisheavy]

In the Amazon, many native tribes used poison arrows, and every medicine man or woman studied poisons and antidotes. Toward this end, he or she asked questions. The questions were asked of the people in the know, the spirits, and natural phenomena. They were asked in a logical, analytical waking state and in a trance and in dreams. They were asked by talking to the elders and by studying the ways of the animals and by taking a brew of "teacher plants" and "doctor plants," they were asked of the seasons and of the travelers familiar with other tribes' ways -- they were asked incessantly and then all information thus obtained was integrated into a picture of reality -- this world and everything it contains and the Beyond and everything it contains -- as comprehensive as possible. Failing to ask these questions meant losing the license to practice medicine, so to speak, because the shaman not equipped to understand wasn't equipped to heal.

 

So in the situation your parable describes, the questions he or she would ask would not be meaningless as they were to the buddhist doctor -- but meaningful for to find the right antidote. So "who made this arrow," e.g., was asked to determine which poison was used -- and therefore the answer was, e.g., "the Bakairi," and the shaman would go, "aha, so if it is an arrow made by the Bakairi, they use the poison curare, so we'll treat it with this antidote before removing the arrow, otherwise the patient won't survive the procedure" -- and produce it from his or her carefully prepared medical supplies. Or the answer would be "this is a Yanomame arrow," and the shaman would say, "oh, OK, the Yanomame don't use poison on arrows shot from a bow, only on blow darts, so we can remove the arrow and treat the wound and not worry about the antidote."

 

Most native peoples of the world had a special word to call their shaman which invariably meant a man or woman of knowledge, one who knows, one who knows the real, one who knows what others don't, one who knows and understands, and so on -- incessant variations of this theme. So, the not-knowing of a buddhist adept elevated to a principle in the story would simply be chalked up to a lack of professionalism by those who know those who know.

 

Very well said Taomeow.

 

This is one of the examples of how and where Buddha screwed up. Buddha did and said more than one thing I disagree with. I don't consider Buddha to be flawless.

 

Yes, knowing the context of affliction is essential for one. Two, by promoting the curtailment of curiosity Buddha was promoting a poisonous attitude of anti-intellectualism.

 

Buddha was basically saying that mundane knowledge is utterly worthless and that all there is to do in life is to meditate, become enlightened before you die, and then whatever else you do does not matter in the least, so long as you help spread Dharma and avoid killing beings and so on. Buddha had no positive vision for life and he thought that basically life was a piece of shit on a stick. All these things I disagree with.

[innerspace_cadet]

Very well said Taomeow.

 

This is one of the examples of how and where Buddha screwed up. Buddha did and said more than one thing I disagree with. I don't consider Buddha to be flawless.

 

Yes, knowing the context of affliction is essential for one. Two, by promoting the curtailment of curiosity Buddha was promoting a poisonous attitude of anti-intellectualism.

 

Buddha was basically saying that mundane knowledge is utterly worthless and that all there is to do in life is to meditate, become enlightened before you die, and then whatever else you do does not matter in the least, so long as you help spread Dharma and avoid killing beings and so on. Buddha had no positive vision for life and he thought that basically life was a piece of shit on a stick. All these things I disagree with.

 

I agree. He named his only son "Rahula" which literally translates as "fetter" and he never ended up seeing his wife again after his quest for enlightenment. Life is meant to be enjoyed and experienced fully. With its numerous levels of hell, Buddhism can easily slide into being a fear based religion. The Tibetan Buddhist saint Milarepa's devotion to the dharma was partly based on a fear of falling into the hell realms for having practiced black magic.

[xabir2005]

I agree. He named his only son "Rahula" which literally translates as "fetter" and he never ended up seeing his wife again after his quest for enlightenment. Life is meant to be enjoyed and experienced fully. With its numerous levels of hell, Buddhism can easily slide into being a fear based religion. The Tibetan Buddhist saint Milarepa's devotion to the dharma was partly based on a fear of falling into the hell realms for having practiced black magic.

no, the buddha did see his wife and son. And they both renounced and became arhants. I think that's the greatest thing the buddha did to his family: liberate them from suffering, afflictions and delusion.

 

And who says monks don't enjoy and experience their life fully. As I see it, a lay life could be more stressful and monks life more enjoyable. That would depend tho.

 

As for hell, well its true there such realms and meditators have reportedly visited these realms, but I don't think buddhism really uses it as a fear tactic unlike some other religions "believe me or you are damned eternally" messsage

[xabir2005]

Very well said Taomeow.

 

This is one of the examples of how and where Buddha screwed up. Buddha did and said more than one thing I disagree with. I don't consider Buddha to be flawless.

 

Yes, knowing the context of affliction is essential for one. Two, by promoting the curtailment of curiosity Buddha was promoting a poisonous attitude of anti-intellectualism.

 

Buddha was basically saying that mundane knowledge is utterly worthless and that all there is to do in life is to meditate, become enlightened before you die, and then whatever else you do does not matter in the least, so long as you help spread Dharma and avoid killing beings and so on. Buddha had no positive vision for life and he thought that basically life was a piece of shit on a stick. All these things I disagree with.

if you could remember all your past lives and the tremendous amount of suffering involved like buddha, you would see the urgency to be liberated from suffering. My home tenants, a couple, were trained in jhanas and could remember countless past lives and its tremendous suffering. Now he and his wife is always going for retreats in hope of liberating from samsara.

 

So get enlightened first as first priority. The others can wait. That is: ideally and logically speaking, on the basis of the endless sufferings we gone through and might go through again in samsara, one should put in great effort in hopes of liberation as your top priority. Unfortunately unless you are trained in absorptions, you have to take this by faith.

 

Practice like your head is on fire is the advice of the Buddha.

Edited July 21, 2011 by xabir2005

[goldisheavy]

if you could remember all your past lives and the tremendous amount of suffering involved like buddha, you would see the urgency to be liberated from suffering. My home tenants, a couple, were trained in jhanas and could remember countless past lives and its tremendous suffering. Now he and his wife is always going for retreats in hope of liberating from samsara.

 

So get enlightened first as first priority. The others can wait. That is: ideally and logically speaking, on the basis of the endless sufferings we gone through and might go through again in samsara, one should put in great effort in hopes of liberation as your top priority. Unfortunately unless you are trained in absorptions, you have to take this by faith.

 

Practice like your head is on fire is the advice of the Buddha.

 

Here's what you are missing. If natural propensity to be curious and to investigate is cut off in an arbitrary manner, such as, "Trust me, I know what I am saying, follow me and ignore whatever else you think you should know," then the mental faculty responsible for inquiry is damaged.

 

The situation is like this. Someone comes up to me and says, "I need help. I want to get to an oasis." I reply, "I know the way." The person says, "You only ever talk of going south, but what is in the northern direction? Can you tell me?" I then break the person's legs so that he can't go north and say, "It's OK, I broke your legs so that you can't go north, I'll carry you south myself." After saying that, I just leave south and the poor guy is left to die because I broke his legs and when I said I'd take him south myself, I lied, because I can't walk for anyone else. Everyone has to walk on their own.

 

Similarly, one needs to have a huge dose of curiosity and huge desire to deeply and honestly investigate issues. "Honestly" means investigating in a way that is accurately relevant to your person. This means dogma is poison. If I just tell you "you don't want to know this, trust me" then I am interfering with honesty. Because honestly the person wants to know something, but I am telling the person they need to remain ignorant in some ways in order to absorb my way. That's very bad.

 

Secondly, just now you've indulged in fear mongering. You're saying if I could only remember my past lives, I would be scared, and this fear would be a proper motivation for me. Shame on you. You are a disgrace.

 

You can't really intend to liberate beings from fear and promote fear at the same time. If I don't have fear, it is wrong to attempt to instill fear in me. If it were not wrong, then it would be OK for me to walk up to you, stick a knife at your throat and tell you that if you don't listen to me, I will cut your head off. How is that OK? It's not. But that is exactly what you are doing by fear mongering.

Edited July 21, 2011 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

Here is an example of an appropriate conduct for anyone who imagines oneself being a Buddhist. Instead of exploiting anxiety and fear, it is to be alleviated immediately. Here's an example:

 

The Buddha then said to the venerable Upali, "Upali, go to the Licchavi Vimalakirti to inquire about his illness."

 

Upali replied, "Lord, I am indeed reluctant to go to that good man to inquire about his illness. Why? Lord, I remember that one day there were two monks who had committed some infraction and were too ashamed to appear before the Lord, so they came to me and said, 'Reverend Upali, we have both committed an infraction but are too ashamed to appear before the Buddha. Venerable Upali, kindly remove our anxieties by absolving us of these infractions.'

 

"Lord, while I was giving those two monks some religious discourse, the Licchavi Vimalakirti came there and said to me, 'Reverend Upali, do not aggravate further the sins of these two monks. Without perplexing them, relieve their remorse. Reverend Upali, sin is not to be apprehended within, or without, or between the two. Why? The Buddha has said, "Living beings are afflicted by the passions of thought, and they are purified by the purification of thought."

 

"'Reverend Upali, the mind is neither within nor without, nor is it to be apprehended between the two. Sin is just the same as the mind, and all things are just the same as sin. They do not escape this same reality.

 

"'Reverend Upali, this nature of the mind, by virtue of which your mind, reverend, is liberated - does it ever become afflicted?'

 

"'Never,' I replied.

 

"'Reverend Upali, the minds of all living beings have that very nature. Reverend Upali, passions consist of conceptualizations. The ultimate nonexistence of these conceptualizations and imaginary fabrications - that is the purity that is the intrinsic nature of the mind. Misapprehensions are passions. The ultimate absence of misapprehensions is the intrinsic nature of the mind. The presumption of self is passion. The absence of self is the intrinsic nature of the mind. Reverend Upali, all things are without production, destruction, and duration, like magical illusions, clouds, and lightning; all things are evanescent, not remaining even for an instant; all things are like dreams, hallucinations, and unreal visions; all things are like the reflection of the moon in water and like a mirror-image; they are born of mental construction. Those who know this are called the true upholders of the discipline, and those disciplined in that way are indeed well disciplined.'"

 

"Then the two monks said, 'This householder is extremely well endowed with wisdom. The reverend Upali, who was proclaimed by the Lord as the foremost of the upholders of the discipline, is not his equal.'

 

"I then said to the two monks, 'Do not entertain the notion that he is a mere householder! Why? With the exception of the Tathagata himself, there is no disciple or bodhisattva capable of competing with his eloquence or rivaling the brilliance of his wisdom.'

 

"Thereupon, the two monks, delivered from their anxieties and inspired with a high resolve, conceived the spirit of unexcelled, perfect enlightenment. Bowing down to that good man, they made the wish: 'May all living beings attain eloquence such as this!' Therefore, I am reluctant to go to that good man to inquire about his illness."

 

In this example Vimalakirti could have played on the fear of the two monks. Instead of playing on the fear he immediately delivered them from fear. That is the right conduct.

[xabir2005]

Faith does not prevent inquiry. Of course the inquiry should be of the right kind - certain things are simply pointless to pursue, such as "how many aliens are there in planet x" - irrelevant questions like these are unlikely to help our lives, and are based on a load of assumptions such as the existence of planet x. We may simply not be able to find out about extraterrestrials planets with our current technology (and certainly not from our direct experience unless you are talking about psychic powers but I digress), or we might, but this is better left for the scientists who are into this field. On our part, speculative questioning is best put aside or at least placed down at the bottom of your "priority list" - there are simply more important things to do in life, including getting enlightened. If you like to inquire, choose the right questions, start with essential ones like "who am I" and one shall attain self-realisation.

 

Also, faith in rebirth does not prevent you to pursue in understanding rebirth. In fact faith in rebirth should spur you into a quest of investigating rebirth and karma. In the same way that faith in enlightenment shall set one on a journey to gain enlightenment himself. It simply is not enough for a sincere seeker to believe that there is a thing called enlightenment: if he has faith in buddha and countless of enlightened practitioners, he would of his own accord walk the path towards enlightenment, towards true insight and experience.

 

But if you do not believe that enlightenment is possible, or you place it in a "doubtful" category of things, why would one spend years seeking enlightenment and inquiring? Therefore know that basic faith is necessary and actually complements true inquiry.

 

In zen there are three criterias for great realisation: great doubt, great faith, and great perserverance. Great doubt is the urge to inquire and resolve issues such as "Who am I?" Great faith is faith in buddha's teachings, faith in the enlightenment of the buddha and masters and faith in one's ability to be enlightened. While great perserverance is great persistence, never give up attitude. All these factors are necessary for enlightenment.

 

P.s. Telling facts as they are is not the same as incalcating fear. Telling a lazy student that they are going to fail their exams if they don't buck up is simply telling him facts in hopes that he can have a sense of urgency. It would be irresponsible if the teacher didn't warn him. Likewise telling us that we will get trapped in samsara if we don't practice is simply telling facts as they are. It would be irresponsible if the Buddha didn't warn and encourage us.

Edited July 21, 2011 by xabir2005

[3bob]

In the Amazon, many native tribes used poison arrows, and every medicine man or woman studied poisons and antidotes. Toward this end, he or she asked questions. The questions were asked of the people in the know, the spirits, and natural phenomena. They were asked in a logical, analytical waking state and in a trance and in dreams. They were asked by talking to the elders and by studying the ways of the animals and by taking a brew of "teacher plants" and "doctor plants," they were asked of the seasons and of the travelers familiar with other tribes' ways -- they were asked incessantly and then all information thus obtained was integrated into a picture of reality -- this world and everything it contains and the Beyond and everything it contains -- as comprehensive as possible. Failing to ask these questions meant losing the license to practice medicine, so to speak, because the shaman not equipped to understand wasn't equipped to heal.

 

So in the situation your parable describes, the questions he or she would ask would not be meaningless as they were to the buddhist doctor -- but meaningful for to find the right antidote. So "who made this arrow," e.g., was asked to determine which poison was used -- and therefore the answer was, e.g., "the Bakairi," and the shaman would go, "aha, so if it is an arrow made by the Bakairi, they use the poison curare, so we'll treat it with this antidote before removing the arrow, otherwise the patient won't survive the procedure" -- and produce it from his or her carefully prepared medical supplies. Or the answer would be "this is a Yanomame arrow," and the shaman would say, "oh, OK, the Yanomame don't use poison on arrows shot from a bow, only on blow darts, so we can remove the arrow and treat the wound and not worry about the antidote."

 

Most native peoples of the world had a special word to call their shaman which invariably meant a man or woman of knowledge, one who knows, one who knows the real, one who knows what others don't, one who knows and understands, and so on -- incessant variations of this theme. So, the not-knowing of a buddhist adept elevated to a principle in the story would simply be chalked up to a lack of professionalism by those who know those who know.

 

Very interesting information Taomeow but I don't feel it is in the same context as the Buddhist analogy. For instance and in correlation if we take the first chapter of the TTC we find the sentence, "Names can be named but not the Eternal Name", one way I interpret that is that a shaman who can only work with named things both in this world and in 'astral' worlds is still limited to those names and worlds; along that line and in the "inner chapters" there is the story of the shaman who after using all his knowledge and names could still not fathom or understand the spiritual master or adept that he met. (I don't have that quote handy right now nor do I mean to belittle the powers that shamans use in goodness to help people) Anyway to me the Buddhist analogy is saying that to pursue and even to know all such names could take untold lifetimes and efforts yet one would still not haved attained the complete fulfillment beyond where such names first arise.

Edited July 21, 2011 by 3bob

[3bob]

I don't know if it's along the same lines, but here's a great story.

 

There was a man who died and was being taken to heaven by angels. But first, they wanted to show him hell (just for the hell of it I guess).

 

The angels then took him to a place where there was a great bowl, so great that it was as big as a lake. The bowl was filled with a nutritious stew. All the way around the sides of this bowl were people. Emaciated, starving, miserable people. These people had spoons to eat the stew with, that were long enough to reach it from the shore (about 12 feet). The trouble was, while they could scoop up the stew into the spoon, they could not get it into their mouths because the spoons were so long the stew would fall off before they could get it to their mouths. So here were all these pathetic people, suffering and moaning in agony, constantly trying to eat the food that was abundantly in front of them - all in vain. Next, the angels took the man to heaven. To his surprise, he saw the same scene! There it was, a giant lake-like bowl of the same stew, surrounded by people with 12 foot long spoons. Yet something was different here - all these people were smiling, happy, and healthy looking!

 

"Why? What is the difference here that these people are happy and well fed?", the man said to the angels.

 

They replied, "Have you not eyes to see?". The man looked more carefully, and observed that one person would scoop up the stew, and bring it to the mouth of another. Then someone else would scoop up stew and feed it to the other.

 

The angels smiled and said, "Here the people feed each other. Here are the people that learned the way of Love."

 

That's a good teaching! Imagine how fast many of the problems in this world could be turned around if more of us used it.

[3bob]

Very well said Taomeow.

 

This is one of the examples of how and where Buddha screwed up. Buddha did and said more than one thing I disagree with. I don't consider Buddha to be flawless.

 

Yes, knowing the context of affliction is essential for one. Two, by promoting the curtailment of curiosity Buddha was promoting a poisonous attitude of anti-intellectualism.

 

Buddha was basically saying that mundane knowledge is utterly worthless and that all there is to do in life is to meditate, become enlightened before you die, and then whatever else you do does not matter in the least, so long as you help spread Dharma and avoid killing beings and so on. Buddha had no positive vision for life and he thought that basically life was a piece of shit on a stick. All these things I disagree with.

 

I don't belong to a Buddhist sect but from even my partial studies of the Buddha's teachings you are rudely wrong on many points!

[3bob]

I agree. He named his only son "Rahula" which literally translates as "fetter" and he never ended up seeing his wife again after his quest for enlightenment. Life is meant to be enjoyed and experienced fully. With its numerous levels of hell, Buddhism can easily slide into being a fear based religion. The Tibetan Buddhist saint Milarepa's devotion to the dharma was partly based on a fear of falling into the hell realms for having practiced black magic.

 

yea it's hard to get much productive work done or to learn much when (however it comes about) you are being crushed beyond anything you've ever known , smothered, tormented, raped, etc... or worse yet when you see same happening to your loved ones. (thus and again hard for learning anything except about such horrific states)

[Otis]

My read on the above question: the field of inquiry that is most useful for me, is to pay attention to how "I" (the ego) functions. Because the habits of consciousness that make up my reality are so "of course", so built-in to how I make sense of the world, that I need to examine these habits, in order to see what assumptions I am making. So I need to examine (and surrender) my fears, my biases, my risk-assessment, my social and self-assumptions, my need to be right, etc.

 

What I/my ego doesn't need is to figure out "how things actually are". Instead, when I examine inside, I realize that "actual" is forever outside of my/the ego's view. As long as I am trying to pin down reality, and have the "right viewpoint" on the world, then I am missing the point of emptiness, which is that my need to be right is one of my biggest traps.

 

However, none of this precludes being curious. Being curious about what science has to say about the world, what others think, what different traditions bring. And so, I hungrily devour documentaries and books on science, nature, history, philosophy. I push my own limits, and always seek to grow beyond what I have known. This is not to know the right thing, but rather to open my eyes to what others have to share.

 

Dogma is the opposite of curiosity, and the death of awakening. Choose dogma, or certainty about the world, and I choose to be locked into "rightness", rather than free to explore the unknown. But if I stay curious and questing, both about the outside world and the inner, then I am free to grow, until the day I die.

[3bob]

Faith does not prevent inquiry. Of course the inquiry should be of the right kind - certain things are simply pointless to pursue, such as "how many aliens are there in planet x" - irrelevant questions like these are unlikely to help our lives, and are based on a load of assumptions such as the existence of planet x. We may simply not be able to find out about extraterrestrials planets with our current technology (and certainly not from our direct experience unless you are talking about psychic powers but I digress), or we might, but this is better left for the scientists who are into this field. On our part, speculative questioning is best put aside or at least placed down at the bottom of your "priority list" - there are simply more important things to do in life, including getting enlightened. If you like to inquire, choose the right questions, start with essential ones like "who am I" and one shall attain self-realisation.

 

Also, faith in rebirth does not prevent you to pursue in understanding rebirth. In fact faith in rebirth should spur you into a quest of investigating rebirth and karma. In the same way that faith in enlightenment shall set one on a journey to gain enlightenment himself. It simply is not enough for a sincere seeker to believe that there is a thing called enlightenment: if he has faith in buddha and countless of enlightened practitioners, he would of his own accord walk the path towards enlightenment, towards true insight and experience.

 

But if you do not believe that enlightenment is possible, or you place it in a "doubtful" category of things, why would one spend years seeking enlightenment and inquiring? Therefore know that basic faith is necessary and actually complements true inquiry.

 

In zen there are three criterias for great realisation: great doubt, great faith, and great perserverance. Great doubt is the urge to inquire and resolve issues such as "Who am I?" Great faith is faith in buddha's teachings, faith in the enlightenment of the buddha and masters and faith in one's ability to be enlightened. While great perserverance is great persistence, never give up attitude. All these factors are necessary for enlightenment.

 

P.s. Telling facts as they are is not the same as incalcating fear. Telling a lazy student that they are going to fail their exams if they don't buck up is simply telling him facts in hopes that he can have a sense of urgency. It would be irresponsible if the teacher didn't warn him. Likewise telling us that we will get trapped in samsara if we don't practice is simply telling facts as they are. It would be irresponsible if the Buddha didn't warn and encourage us.

 

Xabir, I'd like to second all of the above for or as related to important and essential principles! (which btw I feel could also be applied in most types of spiritual paths besides only Buddhism)

[goldisheavy]

Faith does not prevent inquiry. Of course the inquiry should be of the right kind - certain things are simply pointless to pursue, such as "how many aliens are there in planet x"

 

Asking how the world comes about is not an irrelevant question.

 

- irrelevant questions like these are unlikely to help our lives, and are based on a load of assumptions such as the existence of planet x.

 

Then that's the time to suggest that assuming things you don't know is unhelpful. Point out assumptions inherent in the question.

 

We may simply not be able to find out about extraterrestrials planets with our current technology (and certainly not from our direct experience unless you are talking about psychic powers but I digress), or we might, but this is better left for the scientists who are into this field. On our part, speculative questioning is best put aside or at least placed down at the bottom of your "priority list" - there are simply more important things to do in life, including getting enlightened. If you like to inquire, choose the right questions, start with essential ones like "who am I" and one shall attain self-realisation.

 

Also, faith in rebirth does not prevent you to pursue in understanding rebirth. In fact faith in rebirth should spur you into a quest of investigating rebirth and karma. In the same way that faith in enlightenment shall set one on a journey to gain enlightenment himself. It simply is not enough for a sincere seeker to believe that there is a thing called enlightenment: if he has faith in buddha and countless of enlightened practitioners, he would of his own accord walk the path towards enlightenment, towards true insight and experience.

 

But if you do not believe that enlightenment is possible, or you place it in a "doubtful" category of things, why would one spend years seeking enlightenment and inquiring? Therefore know that basic faith is necessary and actually complements true inquiry.

 

In zen there are three criterias for great realisation: great doubt, great faith, and great perserverance. Great doubt is the urge to inquire and resolve issues such as "Who am I?" Great faith is faith in buddha's teachings, faith in the enlightenment of the buddha and masters and faith in one's ability to be enlightened. While great perserverance is great persistence, never give up attitude. All these factors are necessary for enlightenment.

 

P.s. Telling facts as they are is not the same as incalcating fear. Telling a lazy student that they are going to fail their exams if they don't buck up is simply telling him facts in hopes that he can have a sense of urgency. It would be irresponsible if the teacher didn't warn him. Likewise telling us that we will get trapped in samsara if we don't practice is simply telling facts as they are. It would be irresponsible if the Buddha didn't warn and encourage us.

 

Wrong. When you're talking about exams, that's just bringing up ordinary circumstances of this life that are known and verifiable by all. Bringing up past lives, future lives or hells with the intent to scare people is fear mongering. These things cannot be verified and even Buddhas know them only on inference while on Earth because Buddhas only experience the current moment, the now, just like everyone else. Although for Buddhas such things are strong inferences like yesterday for us is a strong inference, still, the condition of an ordinary being has to be respected.

 

Fear mongering is a practice of magnifying the perception of fear using unfair and manipulative tactics with the idea to use fear as motivation.

 

Fear is a poor motivator for two reasons. First on the path of wisdom fear will begin to weaken. As soon as fear weakens, if fear was your main motivator, your progress will stop. Second, when someone is motivated by fear, the goal is to get to a place of less fear. If nirvana is sought as a merely less crappier place than this one, it short sells enlightenment. It expresses the path in purely negative terms. So we're not going toward something fun, great and awesome, but we are just avoiding something that sucks. That's not good.

 

Beings should be liberated from their fears, and yes, exams shouldn't be feared either. Failing exams shouldn't be feared. People should study science and other subjects out of love and not out of fear. If fear is the only reason you live and do things, something is very wrong with you and your life, and what you need is not more fear or to buck up, you need a life, value and worldview re-examination.

 

As for faith, I agree that faith is a good quality when one has faith in the good possibilities. When one has faith in a cynical outcome, then faith is of no help. Either way, telling someone "this is not the question you should be asking" is not going to increase faith. It's going to make you sound like a dick though, unless you can explain why not, such as pointing out assumptions and engaging in a meaningful non-evasive dialogue where you meet the concerns head to head instead of dodging them or shuffling them aside.

 

If you claim to know infinite past lives and the destinies of all men, and you make all other kinds of grandiose claims, then it's absolutely correct to demand answers to all manner of questions. If you can't answer something simple, such as "how this world comes about" then it correctly throws all your grandiose claims in question. And people are right to be skeptical because this world is full of crackpots. It's one thing to trust in the possibility of enlightenment, and it's another thing to think that some random dude with pretty robes has the answer for you. Having no faith in Gotama does not imply having no faith in enlightenment.

Edited July 21, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Todd]

Very well said Taomeow.

 

This is one of the examples of how and where Buddha screwed up. Buddha did and said more than one thing I disagree with. I don't consider Buddha to be flawless.

 

Yes, knowing the context of affliction is essential for one. Two, by promoting the curtailment of curiosity Buddha was promoting a poisonous attitude of anti-intellectualism.

 

Buddha was basically saying that mundane knowledge is utterly worthless and that all there is to do in life is to meditate, become enlightened before you die, and then whatever else you do does not matter in the least, so long as you help spread Dharma and avoid killing beings and so on. Buddha had no positive vision for life and he thought that basically life was a piece of shit on a stick. All these things I disagree with.

 

These are interesting points, and I am not at all well versed at all in Buddhist sutra/thought, but just going on what is contained in the story above, there is another view that might be interesting.

 

I find the structure of the story quite interesting. The buddha tells of a man who was shot by a poisoned arrow, and then a physician comes and starts demanding answers to a lot of questions before he will consent to treat the man. I was a little confused by this structure, since it did not seem to fit with the situation of the disciple demanding answers to a lot of questions from the buddha. I basically wrote it off to poor logic of people 2500 years ago until I read your post. Then it became clear that there is another way of seeing it, and that the structure of this story could be intentional.

 

By having the physician be the one demanding all the answers, the buddha is placing the bulk of responsibility for the ending of ignorance on the disciple. If the analogy is symmetrical to the current situation, the disciple is the physician, with the power to alleviate suffering, but he refuses to do so until he receives answers. Further, the person afflicted by the poisoned arrow is the buddha. This helps to dissolve any perceived separation between the asker and the buddha.

 

Beyond this, the basic message appears to be "First things first". There is a way to end suffering and receiving answers from another to certain metaphysical/existential questions is not that way. It is not that these questions should not be considered, but that received answers to them are A: not actual answers and B: not the thing that can end suffering. The implication is that one can consider these questions later if so desired, preferably in one's own experience (since received answers are not actual answers), but there is something that can be done immediately, which is much more vital than demanding and receiving answers from another.

 

In Christian terms, "Seek ye first the kingdom of heaven, and his righteousness, and all things will be added unto you."

 

 

 

[goldisheavy]

Todd,

 

As Taomeow has pointed out you cannot cure poison without knowing what it is. So asking at least one or two questions about the arrow is not out of place. So the example shoots itself in the foot, so to speak. If the example used an ordinary unpoisoned arrow, it would fit the narrative better. If the arrow is unpoisoned, of course you just yank it out, clean the wound, bind it, and you're done. If the arrow is poisoned, you can yank the arrow, but that alone will not save the man.

 

The burden is always on the disciple anyway. It's the disciple who contemplates and inquires. It's the disciple who meditates. It's the disciple who gets tense or relaxes. It's the disciple who discovers the root of the problem, whatever the problem is. Other people are accessories to the disciples own work.

 

Spiritual burden is unlike the physical burden. If you carry a heavy rock and I am stronger than you, I can just take the rock off you and carry it for you. Spiritual burden, unlike the rock, cannot be mechanically separated from the person it afflicts. Since you are so fond of quoting the Bible, "Everyone must carry their own cross" or whatever (I have no interest in the Bible whatsoever).

 

EDIT: I don't think the expression about the cross is in the Bible. It's a common expression in the USA, apparently.

Edited July 21, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Todd]

All the physician needs to do is look. The arrow is right before him. He does not need the patient to give him a verbal description of what he can see with his own eyes. Presumably, if he knows enough about the different tribes (assuming there even are different tribes in this example) to know what antidote to use for what tribe's poison, then he would recognize the different arrows that they use as well.

 

 

The only point that I am trying to make is that there is another way of seeing this narrative as basically empowering the disciple, showing him the necessity of seeing things for himself instead of receiving verbal descriptions of them from others, and making him aware of both his power and responsibility in terms of resolving whatever essential difficulties he may have. Presumably the monk had been hanging around long enough to become frustrated that his questions weren't being answered, and yet his essential difficulties had not been resolved. The buddha might be suggesting that the reason that his difficulties had not been resolved by this time is because he was waiting for verbal answers, instead of taking the attitude of the physician who takes stock of the situation and responds as best he can.

 

The point that anti-intellectualism makes enemies of our own minds, and can keep us from recognizing the nature of our minds (which is not other than our nature) is well received here. I appreciate that you make it.

 

(I have no interest in the Bible whatsoever)

 

I know. I was being provocative.

Edited July 22, 2011 by Todd

[Todd]

In some ways the fact that the arrow is poisoned strengthens the narrative. Poison speaks of something deeper than the surface, something that can only really be seen in its effects, that keeps working though the obvious initial cause has been removed. To resolve it requires accessing knowledge of both the poison and the antidote. The buddha suggests that the physician knows these things already, and by extension the monk knows these things already. He must look deeper and act deeper, but both are already accessible to him. He already has the knowledge that he needs to act (whether through the teachings he has already received, or via his own faculty of investigating and knowing).

[goldisheavy]

In some ways the fact that the arrow is poisoned strengthens the narrative. Poison speaks of something deeper than the surface, something that can only really be seen in its effects, that keeps working though the obvious initial cause has been removed. To resolve it requires accessing knowledge of both the poison and the antidote. The buddha suggests that the physician knows these things already, and by extension the monk knows these things already. He must look deeper and act deeper, but both are already accessible to him. He already has the knowledge that he needs to act (whether through the teachings he has already received, or via his own faculty of investigating and knowing).

 

Todd, if there were a discipline such as mental gymnastics, you'd be a gold medalist.

 

You're really stretching things in a huge way here. Are you desperate to rescue Buddha's image?

 

Doc knows best, just let the doc handle it. I get it. "Doctor it hurts when I lift my arms." "Don't lift them." I think there is a good reason why we are told to "seek another opinion" when consulting doctors. Experts do not all agree on everything, and I am not even going to get into the problems with expertise itself.

 

Actually things brings to mind something that really happened to me. I went to a doc once with my eye problem and he was telling me how it could happen. He said it could be hereditary. I said, "Nope, no such thing in my family history." He said, "It could happen if you have scratched your eye before and it never healed properly." I said, "Nope, this never happened." At this point the doctor got angry and told me that I probably just don't remember getting scratched and that he knows better than me how these things go. He was a fucking jackass. I wish I could spit in his face. He just wanted his 15 mins with me to be over and he didn't give a shit about my problem. Just wanted to charge my insurance and get a move on. I was just slowing his beautiful day down with my irrelevant questions and interjections. I even wanted to tell him the history of my condition and he just waived it all away, he knows better, he studied such things. He's got it.

Edited July 22, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Todd]

Todd, if there were a discipline such as mental gymnastics, you'd be a gold medalist.

 

 

You're really stretching things in a huge way here. Are you desperate to rescue Buddha's image?

 

 

 

 

Its only stretching if you're committed to your view of things, or think that the two views need to connect. They start from different assumptions.

 

Doc knows best, just let the doc handle it. I get it. "Doctor it hurts when I lift my arms." "Don't lift them." I think there is a good reason why we are told to "seek another opinion" when consulting doctors. Experts do not all agree on everything, and I am not even going to get into the problems with expertise itself.

 

This criticism would be more valid if the Doc was not also the patient. If you criticize the doc/patient's ability to access expertise, then you are damning knowledge and intervention as a whole, which is the opposite of your initial position.

[goldisheavy]

 

Its only stretching if you're committed to your view of things, or think that the two views need to connect. They start from different assumptions.

 

Such as?

 

This criticism would be more valid if the Doc was not also the patient. If you criticize the doc/patient's ability to access expertise, then you are damning knowledge and intervention as a whole, which is the opposite of your initial position.

 

My position is that overall Buddha was a good doctor who said and did many helpful things. But once in a while he would have a brain fart. And he wasn't perfect.

 

What's your position?