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

[Richard Hayes]

On Tuesday 26 June 2007 09:25, David Kotschessa wrote:

> Then what are the answers?  10 words or less, and
> dont' use the word "truth." :)
  
Live thoughtfully, be happy and help heal the world. That's only nine words 
and it pretty much summarizes what the Stoics, Cynics, Epicureans, Academics 
and Paripatetics were all about. It's about the same nine words that 
summarize the teachings of the Buddha (and several dozen other Indian 
river-crossers).

> 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.

Long before I had ever heard a word of Buddhist teachings, I got similar 
answers stated on the first page of any number of works of Greek philosophy. 
I've never encountered anything in Buddhism that I haven't also found in many 
other places said just as well. 

> > 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.

Exactly when did it get finished? Was it finished when Gotama addressed the 
Ajivika who shrugged and walked away? Or when he addressed the five bhikkhus? 
Or the moment Gotama died? Or when the bhikkhus agreed on what his teachings 
were? Or with the questions of Milinda and Nagasena's answers? Or with the 
writings of Buddhaghosa? Or those of Nagarjuna? Or Vasubandhu? Or 
Dharmakirti? Or Candrakirti? Or Santideva? Or Tsong kha pa? Or Zhiyi? Or 
Linji? Or Dogen? Or Shinran? Or Nichiren? Or Hakuin? Or Chinul? Or Stephen 
Batchelor? Are you suggesting that none of these people added anything at 
all? If so, do you have any interesting theories as to why their works 
survived and are still studied?

> Nothing has been added to Buddhism since the
> Buddha died.

When does a buddha ever die?

> 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. 

Sort of like the Buddha? Then how do the ancient Buddhists differ from the 
ancient Greeks?

> 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.

I think you may be thinking of his disciple, Plato.

> 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.

So, if there is still work to do, the system is not complete after all it 
seems. 

> 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.

Aftertaste, like taste itself, is neither satisfactory nor unsatisfactory in 
itself. It takes a person with preconceived notions and biases to make a 
taste unsatisfactory.

>  The Buddhas discipline to weed out all the other
> "leaves in the forest" is something I always stand in
> awe of.

Your sense of doubt seems to have failed you just when you most needed it. 
After all is said and done, you turn out to be a fideist, a propagandist with 
a bunch of mostly ill-informed and completely unexamined prejudices. It is 
only with luck that such a mentality will get near the goal the Buddha said a 
handful of people might reach, and it is surely a miracle when such a 
mentality helps other mentalities reduce their misery.

-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico