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

[Chan Fu]

On 6/25/07, David Kotschessa <meindzai at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> If I'm getting this right, the point of Buddhism, and
> the point of the arrow analogy, is simply that
> Buddhism has a clearly defined goal.  (The cessation
> of dukkha) and that Buddhists should stay on task.  To
> me, this is what deliniates Buddhist "philosophy" from
> non-Buddhist.
>
> As for myself, I have never been able to ascertain
> what the point of "western philosophy" is.  What are
> "they" getting at?  What is their goal, and what
> happens when they get it?  Will it end their
> suffering?  If not, then what will it do, and for what
> purpose?  And so on...
>
> Not only does Buddhism have a clearly defined goal,
> but it has already reached it!  As philosophies go,
> Buddhism is finished.  There isn't anything left to
> figure out.  The task we are given is to understand
> what has already been "figured out" and to clarify and
> manifest it, and then, wierdly enough, to abandon it
> altogether.
>
> No "western" philosophy asks this of us.  They appear,
> from my perspective, to wander on relatively
> aimlessly, fascinating as they are, through
> territories which may or may not be of any value
> (relative to the goal of ending suffering).
>
> That which is of value to a Buddhist is likely to be
> something that is either a parallel to or
> reinforcement of an existing Buddhist teaching.  It's
> valuable in the sense that it may universalize and
> give some weight to a teaching.  This might provide
> needed clarification, but essentially nothing new is
> being offered except the presentation.
>
> Buddhism uses utility (does it work?) rather than
> truth (???) as a criteria for whether a teaching is
> valid.  My prediction is that philosophers will
> debate, until the sun fizzles out, on the nature of
> truth.  That is, unless they figure out that what they
> were really trying to do in the first place was end
> their suffering.   There will be a collective slap on
> the forehead when (if) they realize the time they
> could have saved, had they only oriented themselves to
> that end in the first place.
>
> -M

Aren't you the sneaky one, Dave? ;)

No - there is no cessation of dukkha. It's what runs the
universe. Without it, it would be just one frozen block
of (pick your favorite cheese).  Remember - philosophy
is philosophy, not science.  Buddhist practice is science,
if that's what you're asking. But sometimes it's pretty
bad science. There's an excellent recommendation that
applies to both buddhism and science - one of the primary
lessons - "Don't fool yourself". I should have some T-shirts
made up...