[Buddha-l] The arrow: its removal and examination

[curt]

Katherine Masis wrote:
>   
>
> .... I bring this up because for 15-plus years I was a
> member of a very harsh, anti-intellectual and
> hierarchical Zen group based in the U.S.  To quash
> sincere inquiry, intellectual or otherwise, was
> standard fare at that place.  The justification given
> was precisely the proverbial removal-of-the-arrow
> versus examining it.  So whenever I hear that, I feel
> wary.
>
> For some of us, removing the arrow is the work of a
> lifetime (if not myriads of lifetimes).  While we’re
> at it, I see no problem with inquiring about the
> nature of the arrow, where it came from and why it was
> shot.  Must its removal and examination be exclusive
> of each other?
>
>   

The parable of the arrow needs to be totally abandoned in my opinion. 
First of all - it is just plain bad advice. The more questions you ask 
health care professionals the better your chances for survival. And 
health care providers who don't like it when you ask questions should be 
avoided. A parable should work on the literal level - this one doesn't.

Second of all, the parable is usually interpreted to mean that fixing a 
problem doesn't require understanding the problem, which is bull-hockey. 
In fact, if you think about it (which, apparently, you are not supposed 
to do) the parable assumes that the attending physician has expert 
knowledge - it is only the patient who is supposed to lie still and not 
worry his or her pretty little head about "medical stuff that you 
wouldn't understand" or whatever.

Third, a preference for pragmatism (as opposed to curiosity just for the 
pleasure of learning) is a sign of low intelligence. A good doctor is a 
smart doctor, so I would much prefer to be treated by a doctor who WANTS 
to understand what is wrong with me, as opposed to one who could easily 
be replaced by a fairly simple computer program.

- Curt