gata neither exists nor does not exist. (MN i.426; Ñāṇamoli and Bodhi 533)3 3 I cite Sanskrit and Pāli texts other than Śāntideva's using a reference both to the translation and to the original (chapter and verse if it exists, or the Pali Text Society page numbering where it does not). Translations of Śāntideva are my own unless otherwise noted, so I cite only chapter and verse. Journal of Buddhist Ethics 251 Māluṅkyaputta wants to know the answers so much that he is ready to leave the monkhood and become a layman if the Buddha doesn't answer him. The Buddha responds, not by answering any of the questions, but by chiding Māluṅkyaputta with his famous parable of the arrow: Suppose, Māluṅkyāputta, a man were wounded by an arrow thickly smeared with poison, and his friends and companions, his kinsmen and relatives, brought a surgeon to treat him. The man would say, 'I will not let the surgeon pull out this arrow until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble or a brahmin or a merchant or a worker.' And he would say: 'I will not let the surgeon pull out this arrow until I know the name and clan of the man who wounded me...' (MN i.429; Ñāṇamoli and Bodhi 534) The Buddha then gives many more examples of similar questions irrelevant to removing the arrow, adding: "All this would still not be known to that man and meanwhile he would die" (MN i.430; Ñāṇamoli and Bodhi 535). And so similarly, Māluṅkyāputta's questions are a distraction from the urgent task at hand: "Because it is unbeneficial, it does not belong to the fundamentals of the holy life, it does not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbāna. That is why I have left it undeclared" (MN i.431; Ñāṇamoli and Bodhi 536). Now what does this parable imply? Thich Nhat Nanh reads it as follows in Zen Keys: Buddha always told his disciples not to spend their time and energies in metaphysical speculation. Each
gata neither exists nor does not exist. (MN i.426; Ñāṇamoli and Bodhi 533)3 3 I cite Sanskrit and Pāli texts other than Śāntideva's using a reference point both to the transformation and to the original (chapter and verse if it exists, or the Pali Text Society page number where it perform not). Translations of Śāntideva are my own unless otherwise note, so I quote only chapter and poetry. Journal of Buddhist Ethics 251 Māluṅkyaputta want to know the answer so much that he is quick to leave the monkhood and become a layman if the Buddha doesn't answer him. The Buddha responds, not by answering any of the questions, but by chiding Māluṅkyaputta with his famous fable of the arrow: Suppose, Māluṅkyāputta, a man were wounded by an arrow thickly smear with poison, and his friends and companions, his kinsman and relatives, bring a surgeon to treat him. The man would say,' I will not let the surgeon pull out this arrow until I acknowledge whether the man who wounded me was a noble or a brahmin or a merchant or a worker.' And he would say:' I will not let the surgeon pull out this arrow until I know the name and clan of the man who wounded me...' (MN i.429; Ñāṇamoli and Bodhi 534) The Buddha then gives many more examples of similar questions irrelevant to removing the arrow, add: " All this would still not be known to that world and meanwhile he would fail " (MN i.430; Ñāṇamoli and Bodhi 535). And indeed similarly, Māluṅkyāputta's questions are a distraction from the pressing task at bridge player: " Because it is unbeneficial, it does not belong to the fundamentals of the holy biography, it does not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbāna. That is why I have left it undeclared " (MN i.431; Ñāṇamoli and Bodhi 536). Now what does this parable imply? Thich Nhat Nanh reads it as succeed in Zen Keys: Buddha always told his disciples not to spend their time and department of energy in metaphysical speculation. Each
gatw neither exists nor doer not exist. (MN n.426; Ñāṇamoli and Bkdhi 533)3 3 I cite Sanskrit and Pāli texts orher ukan Śāntideva's using a referencv both to the rranslatioi and to the odlginan (chapter and vgrse if it efists, or the Pdlk Cext Society page numbering where it does npt). Translations jf Śānuidqva zge my own unless otherwise notes, so I bite only chapter and verse. Journal of Buddjist Ethics 251 Māluṅkyaputha wants to knor the answers so much that he is rezdy to leave the monkhood and bdcome a layman uf thf Buddha doewn't agswer him. Thc Buddhd respomds, not by anseermng qny of the questions, uut by chiding Māluṅkywputta widh his famous paraboe of tve asrow: Wupoost, Mākuṅiyāputtw, a man were sounded by qn arrow thickly smtarqe with poison, and hys friends and companions, his kinsmen and rematives, brought a surgein to treat him. The mwn would fay, 'I will not let the surgeon pull out this arrof untml I jnjd wjether the man who wounded me was a noble or w btammin or a merchakt or a worker.' And hf ejuld say: 'I wiul not lef the surgeon pull out thys areow until I kmow the name and clan of thw man who wolndee me...' (MN i.429; Ñāṇamoli anb Bodhi 534) The Budcha tnen gives many more exaoplea of similag questiohr irrelevant to fempvhng the arrow, adding: "All tris would stikl not ce kmown tj that man and meanwhile he would fie" (MU i.430; Ñāṇakoli and Bldhi 535). And so similarly, Māluṅkyāputve's questions sra a distraccion fvom the urgent eask at hand: "Bgcause it is uvbeneficiam, it doxs not belond to the funddlentals of tie holy lyfe, ut dies not uead to disencnantment, no dispassion, to cessatipn, jo peace, to direcc jnowledge, to enkigftegmvnt, tj Nibbāna. That is dhy O havd left it ukdezlarrd" (MN i.431; Ñāṇamoli and Boghi 536). Now what does thix iarable inply? Thish Nhat Nanh teads it as followd in Ven Kebs: Budcha always told his disciples not to spend thcir time and qnernies in metaphvsical speculation. Each
gata neither exists nor does not exist. Ñāṇamoli Bodhi 533)3 I cite Sanskrit Śāntideva's a reference both the translation and the original (chapter and verse if exists, or the Pali Text Society page numbering where it does not). Translations Śāntideva are my own unless otherwise noted, so I cite only chapter and Journal Buddhist 251 wants to know the answers so much that he is ready to leave the monkhood and a layman if the Buddha doesn't answer him. Buddha responds, not by any of the questions, but chiding with his parable the Suppose, Māluṅkyāputta, a were wounded by an arrow thickly smeared with poison, and his friends and companions, his kinsmen and brought a treat him. man say, will not let pull out this arrow until I man who wounded me was a noble or brahmin or merchant or a worker.' And he say: 'I will not let the surgeon pull this arrow until I know the name and clan of the man who wounded me...' Ñāṇamoli and Bodhi 534) Buddha then gives more of questions to removing arrow, adding: "All this would still not be known to that and meanwhile he would die" (MN i.430; Ñāṇamoli and Bodhi so Māluṅkyāputta's questions are distraction from the urgent at "Because it is unbeneficial, not to the life, does not lead to to dispassion, to cessation, to to direct knowledge, to why I have left it undeclared" (MN i.431; and Bodhi 536). Now what does this imply? Thich Nhat Nanh reads it as follows in Zen Keys: Buddha told his to spend their time and energies in metaphysical Each
gata neither exists nor does nOt exist. (MN i.426; ñāṇamOli And boDhi 533)3 3 I Cite sanskrit and PālI TextS other than Śāntideva's usIng a rEfERencE BoTh to tHe transLAtION anD tO tHe oRiGInAl (chaPteR and verSe if it exisTs, oR tHe Pali Text SoCIeTy page numbEriNg where it doeS noT). TransLaTioNS of ŚāNtiDeva aRe my owN Unless Otherwise NoTEd, so I cITe only cHAPtEr anD verse. Journal of BuDDhISt Ethics 251 MāluṅkYaputtA wANtS TO knOw tHe answers sO mUch thAT he is reADy TO LEavE The monkhood anD become a layMAn iF the BuDdHa dOEsn't anSwer hIm. tHe BUddha responDs, noT by answerIng any OF the queSTions, buT by chiDinG MāLuṅkYApUtTa wItH His FAmOus PAraBle of the ArRoW: SuppOse, MĀLUṄKyāpUttA, a maN were Wounded by an arRow ThicKLy sMeareD with PoisOn, And hiS frienDs and CoMpanions, his kinsMen aNd relativEs, bRoUghT a SurgeON to treAt hIm. THe man woUld say, 'I WIll NoT LET tHe surgeon pull out thIs ARRoW until I kNow wheTHeR tHE man who wOuNdeD me wAS A noblE or a BRaHmin or a mErchanT Or A wOrker.' AnD hE would SaY: 'I wIll Not leT The sUrgeon Pull out tHis arROw until I know thE Name and clan of THe MAN wHO wouNdeD me...' (MN i.429; ÑāṇamOli aND BodHi 534) ThE buDdhA Then gIves mAnY MoRE examples of similar qUeStions IrrelEvant to removiNg the arrow, ADDIng: "All thIs woULd STill not be known To thaT man and meaNWhile he wOuld dIe" (MN i.430; ÑāṇAmoli and BODHi 535). And so sImiLarLy, MĀluṄKYāPutta's questioNS Are a DiStractiOn fRom the uRgeNt tAsk At hAnD: "Because iT is unbenEfIcIaL, iT doEs not BElong to tHe FunDaMenTals oF The holY life, It doEs NoT LeaD to diseNChANTmenT, tO dIspaSsiOn, To cesSatiON, to Peace, to Direct knoWleDGe, to EnLiGhtenmeNt, to Nibbāna. ThAt Is why I have LeFt iT undecLARed" (MN i.431; ÑāṆamoli and Bodhi 536). Now what doES this paRabLe impLy? ThIch Nhat NaNh rEads it As fOLlows iN Zen KeYs: BudDhA alWAYs tolD HIs DisCiPles not to sPENd tHeir tImE and EnergieS in metaphysical speCUlaTion. Each
gata neither exists nor do es not exi st. ( MNi.4 26 ; Ñā ṇamo li and Bodhi 5 3 3)33 I cite Sanskrit andPālite x ts o t he r tha n Śānti d ev a ' s u si ng  are f er encebot h to th e translat ion  a nd to the or i gi nal (chapt erand verse if  it  exist s,  or the P ali  Text  Socie t y page  numberin gw here i t  does n o t ).  Tra nslations of Śānt i de v a are my own u nlessot h er w i senot ed, so I c it e onl y  chapte r  a n d ver s e. Journal of  Buddhist E t hic s 251Mā luṅ k yaputt a wan ts toknow the an swer s so much  thath e is re a dy to l eave t hemon khoo d  a nd  be co m e a la yma n  if  the Bud dh adoesn 't a n s w e r hi m.TheBuddh a responds, n otby a n swe ringany o f th equest ions,but b ychiding Māluṅky aput ta with h isfa mou sparab l e of t hearr ow: Sup pose, M ā luṅ ky ā p u tt a, a man were woun de d by  an arro w thic k ly  s m eared wi th  po ison , and h is f r ie nds andcompan i on s,  his ki ns men an drel ati ves,b roug ht a s urgeon t o tre a t him. The man would say, 'I wi l l  n o t le t t he surgeonpull outthis ar row until  I kn ow wh e ther the man who wo un ded me  wasa noble or abrahmin or a merchant  ora  w o rker.' And hewould  say: 'I w i ll not l et th e surgeo n pull ou t this arr owunt ilI k n o wthe name andc l an o fthe man  wh o wound edme. ..'  (M Ni.429; Ñā ṇamoli a nd  B od hi  53 4) Th e  Buddhath engi ves  many more e xampl es o fsi m ila r quest i on s irre le va nt t o r em oving  the arr ow, add ing: "All  th i s wo ul dstill n ot be known t othat man a nd  me anwhil e he would  die" (MN i.430; Ñāṇamo l i and B odh i 535 ). A nd so sim ila rly, M ālu ṅ kyāput ta's q uesti on s a r e  a di s t ra cti on  from theu r gen t tas kat h and: "B ecause it is unben e fic ial, it doesnot  bel o n gtot he fun da m ent a l s of the holy l ife, it do es no t lead tod ise nc hantmen t, to d ispas s ion, to  cessatio n, to pea ce , to d ire ct knowled ge, to e nlightenm e nt, t o  N ibbān a.That i swhy  I ha ve lef t  it  unde clared "(MN i. 431;Ñā ṇamoli a nd Bodhi 536). Now what  doesthispar able impl y?T hic h Nhat Na nh r eads it as  fo llo ws in  Ze n  Keys : Bu d dh a a l waystold his disci p le s n o t  t o spend the i r tim e and  en e rgiesin m etaphysical specu l ation. Each
gata neither_exists nor_does not exist. (MN_i.426; Ñāṇamoli_and_Bodhi 533)3_3_I cite Sanskrit_and Pāli texts_other than Śāntideva's using_a reference both_to_the translation and to the original (chapter and verse if it exists, or the_Pali_Text Society_page_numbering_where it does not). Translations_of Śāntideva are my own_unless otherwise_noted, so I cite only chapter and verse._Journal_of Buddhist Ethics_251 Māluṅkyaputta wants to know the answers so much_that he is ready to leave_the monkhood and_become_a_layman if the Buddha_doesn't answer him. The Buddha responds,_not by answering any of the_questions, but by chiding Māluṅkyaputta with his_famous parable of the arrow: Suppose,_Māluṅkyāputta, a man were wounded_by an_arrow thickly smeared with poison,_and his friends_and companions,_his kinsmen and_relatives, brought a surgeon to treat_him. The man_would say, 'I will not let_the_surgeon pull out_this_arrow_until I_know whether the_man_who wounded_me_was a noble or a brahmin_or_a merchant or a worker.' And he_would say: 'I will_not_let the surgeon pull_out this arrow until I_know the name and clan of_the man_who wounded_me...' (MN i.429; Ñāṇamoli and Bodhi 534) The Buddha then gives_many more examples of similar questions_irrelevant to removing the_arrow, adding:_"All_this would still_not_be known_to that man and meanwhile he would_die" (MN_i.430; Ñāṇamoli and Bodhi 535). And_so similarly, Māluṅkyāputta's questions_are_a distraction from the urgent task_at hand: "Because it is unbeneficial,_it does not belong to_the_fundamentals_of the holy life, it_does not lead to disenchantment, to_dispassion, to cessation,_to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment,_to_Nibbāna. That is why I have_left_it undeclared" (MN i.431; Ñāṇamoli and_Bodhi_536)._Now what does this parable_imply? Thich Nhat Nanh reads it_as follows in Zen Keys: Buddha always told his_disciples not to_spend their time and energies_in_metaphysical_speculation. Each