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

[Chan Fu]

On 6/26/07, Richard Hayes <rhayes at unm.edu> wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 June 2007 12:57, curt wrote:
>
> > The original intent of philosophy is simply to ask, and to the extent
> > possible answer, the question "how should I live?"
>
> Back in 1964 or so I took my first undergraduate philosophy course. The
> professor of that course said almost exactly what you wrote. In his mind,
> there was nothing at all important in philosophy other than asking oneself
> how to live. Alas, said professor answered the question by both word and
> example, showing us how to justify racism by appealing to Darwin, how to
> justify sexism by appealing to what he called "common sense", how to justify
> war by appealing to the law of the jungle, and how to have contempt for
> religion by appealing to what he called critical thinking. He called himself
> a child of the Enlightenment. He gave us all a fine prescription for how to
> live, but few of us bothered taking it to the pharmacy.
>
> Fortunately, there was another professor in the department who also believed
> that there is nothing at all important in philosophy other than figuring out
> how to live. He claimed to have no firm answers, but he showed us by example
> how to undermine racism and sexism and warfare and how to embrace religion by
> dealing with everyone with what I can only describe as a willingness to
> listen with something very close to unconditional love and respect. He was a
> Quaker.
>
> You know how students are, eh? They lack refinement and civility. So we
> students incessantly mocked the child of the Enlightenment behind his back.
> We mimicked the way he walked and the way he talked. We spoke of the Quaker
> behind his back, too, but in reverential tones, and, come to think of it,
> most of us found ourselves trying our best to imitate how he walked and
> talked.
>
> Two philosophers asking the same important question and coming up with
> different answers, I eventually learned, is pretty much par for the course.
> Even later I learned that Buddhists also get pretty much the same par for the
> same course. To this day I have a hard time telling the difference between a
> good philosopher and a good Buddhist, and an equally hard time telling the
> difference between a mediocre philosopher and a mediocre Buddhist. But hell,
> I reckon the most mediocre of us will eventually become pretty good, just by
> eventually getting tired of the results of being mediocre.

Since when did two philosophers ever ask the same question
without implying their answers in the question itself?

Is Global Warming turning NM into a tortilla chip? Or can I
still drive down and find your glowing shell in the desert
with my GPS and night vision?

"Things that matter, do. Things that don't, don't"