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

[David Kotschessa]

--- Chan Fu <chanfu at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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? ;)

Hey Fuey.  I was taking a break from posting to groups
but couldn't manage to keep my yap shut for the period
that I had given myself to do so.  

> 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).  

This may or may not be true, but I'm talking of
Buddhism and not Fuism.

> 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...

Buddhism can be presented as philosophy (love of
wisdom) if you use a different definition of wisdom
than most people use.  But I am inclined to think that
yes, it is probably more of a science.  

-DaveK



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469