But if the arrow stands for the suffering we are enmeshed in — as it certainly seems to — then everybody has that arrow in them. And if everybody in the world has been shot with an arrow, we would be crazy not to try to learn who is doing the shooting. JimWilton said:. Without disagreeing with your central point concerning expediency, I think there is more to be learned about the teachings of the Buddha from the sutra that you cite. So, his initial teachings are like a koan — the questions that he refuses to answer exhaust the possibilities of logic and point out that liberation is not achieveable in a framework of logic and dualism.
That is probably the fundamental difference between Buddha and Marx. Marx never aspires to or believes in liberation or ultimate truth. He is entirely concerned with how to improve the lives of individuals in a relative sense by manipulating the causes and conditions of social relationships.
The Buddha might also view the Marxist approach to relative truth as being misguided as well — this would certainly be the case to the extent that Marx advocates manipulation of external social structures or violence as a part of class warfare, rather than cultivation of virtue. Of course, to divide relative and ultimate truth and to reject logic is an approach based on logic. So, the leap that is required cannot be planned ahead.
Amod Lele said:. Well, Marx definitely believes in liberation, but he means something very different by it. Bat Ben Zoma said:. Of course this is a generalization, but I have certainly heard this interpretation offered fairly frequently.
Some forums can only be seen by registered members. View detailed profile Advanced or search site with Search Forums Advanced. In the Majjhima Nikaya, is the famous story of the poisoned arrow, a response to the questions of Malunkyaputa. Buddha declines to speculate in metaphysics and rightly said, " I teach dukkha and the cessation of dukkha" For me, this is one of the most insightful of the Nikayas.
The Buddha refuted Malunkyaputa, and established what he felt to be the correct emphasis. Because it is beneficial, it belongs to the fundamentals of the spiritual life, it leads to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana.
The Buddha meets his own doubting Thomas. Is the Buddha's answer the same or different than Jesus'? Christianity is based on profound mysteries, such as the Incarnation and the redemption of Christ, of which there can be no direct knowledge. The Buddha and his enlightened disciples can know the Four Noble Truths directly, so they do not need faith.
But lay Buddhists and even unenlightened monks like Ananda are in the same position as Thomas. Malunkyaputta wants answers to the following questions or he will quit the priesthood. The Buddha reminded Malunkyaputta that he never promised answers to these questions. The Buddha asked him if he had entered the religious life under the assumption that he would get answers to these questions. If I made promises like these all my disciples would die before I answered questions like these.
This implies that the Buddha knows the answers but does not think that it is relevant to disclose them; but what can a good Buddhist know about these questions. For example, the Buddha could possibly retrocognize the very first life and perhaps confirm the beginning of time, but he cannot know anything about the future until it is actualized--therefore precluding the possibility that he could know that time ends in the "other direction.
So one way of looking at these propositions is to say that they have no truth value, so they must be negated. To deny them would involve knowledge one way or the other about their truth.
0コメント