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

[David Kotschessa]

--- Richard Hayes <rhayes at unm.edu> wrote:

> On Monday 25 June 2007 16:01, David Kotschessa
> wrote:
> 
> > 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?
> 
> If one reads Greek philosophy, all these questions
> are answered quite 
> thoroughly. Indeed, the answers are pretty similar
> to answers to those 
> questions found in ancient Indian philosophy.

Then what are the answers?  10 words or less, and
dont' use the word "truth." :)

For those of us who don't do philosophy for a living
(or work in a philosophy factory as my dad would say)
these answers don't avail themselves readily.   That
is to say, they are not clearly defined.  In your
extensive pouring (of mindfulness over texts) you may
have come across these answers, but I can get them
very clearly stated on the first page of an
introductory text on Buddhism.

> > Not only does Buddhism have a clearly defined
> goal,
> > but it has already reached it!
> 
> Buddhism can't reach any goals at all. It is a
> system of theory and practice, 
> and systems can't do much of anything. 

Which means it's finished.  It's a "system" because
there isn't really anything that can be added to it.  

> People who
> apply systems may do 
> something. It is alleged, for example, that a small
> number of people who 
> follow Buddhism reach the goal, but I personally
> have never seen any evidence 
> that this allegation is true.

I'm not here to bother about the verification of
"awakends." Buddhism as a "system" cannot be developed
further.  Nothing has been added to Buddhism since the
Buddha died.  In most cases the teachings have been
stripped down.  In other cases it has been pimped into
oblivion with symbols and colors and festivals and
chants.  But the system more or less remains in tact.
The practice is left to the practitioner, for better
or worse.

 
> > No "western" philosophy asks this of us.
> 
> This claim suggests to me that either you have not
> read widely enough in 
> Western philosophy or you do not consider Greek or
> medieval philosophy 
> Western.

The greeks often used doubt as a starting point, but
they build philosophical systems on top of it.  They
usually ended up with a finished product.  I might
except the cynics.

For example, I have heard people say that Socrates
would have made a good Buddhist or "Zennie".  I don't
believe his doubt ran deep enough.  He started with "I
don't know," but then turned it into a system of
inquiry, and built some rather zany theories on top if
it.  

The history of doubt goes on like this.  Descarte
presents the biggest fiasco in the history of doubt in
his Discourse on Method.  He starts off OK, gets off
track with his "cogito," which then snowballs into his
badly presented proof of God.  He ends off no better
than when he had started.

We might say that many Buddhists have done the same
thing, but if they do not end with doubt then they
still have work to do.

> > Buddhism uses utility (does it work?) rather than
> > truth (???) as a criteria for whether a teaching
> is
> > valid. 
> 
> This is the claim of Pragmatism, too. So are you
> suggesting there may be an 
> affinity between Buddhism and Pragmatism? You
> certainly wouldn't be alone in 
> making that claim. There is a large and growing
> literature on that very 
> topic.

I am not read on it but it sounds good to me.

> > 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.
> 
> Strange as it may seem, ending suffering is not, and
> need not be, everyone's 
> goal. Most modern philosophers are not especially
> interested in that goal. 
> Neither, for that matter, are most linguists,
> archeologists, mathematicians, 
> political scientists, baseball umpires, and cordon
> bleu chefs. So it may be a 
> bit silly to say that all these people are doing
> badly what you think they 
> ought to be doing. Why not give credit where credit
> is due, acknowledge that 
> many of these people are doing rather well what they
> actually are trying to 
> do, and acknolwege that your interests are so
> restricted that you fail to 
> appreciate anyone who does not pursue your goals?

It's not that they aren't doing well at what they are
doing, it's just that most of the end product usually
has the same unsatisfactory aftertaste.  

Linguists, archeologists, mathematicians, political
scientists, baseball umpires, and cordon bleu chefs
have their intermediate goals concerning their
respective fields, but they ultimately want what that
will bring them.   Most people don't know it or aren't
clear on what they want as the Buddha was.  Even if
they did, this knowing and this clarity aren't enough.
 The Buddhas discipline to weed out all the other
"leaves in the forest" is something I always stand in
awe of.  

-DaveK


> -- 
> Richard Hayes
> Department of Philosophy
> University of New Mexico
> _______________________________________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
> 



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect.  Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7