QUESTIONS THAT DO NOT TEND TO EDIFICATION

                                      N'eso kallo panho (lit., "It is not a proper question")

The Buddha meets his own doubting Thomas. Is the Buddha's answer the same or different than Jesus'? "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe?" (John 20:29).

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.

Three sets of questions:

I. ON THE WORLD

Is the world eternal or is it not eternal?

Is the world finite or is it infinite?

II. ON THE SOUL

Are the soul (jiva not atman) and body identical?

Are the soul and body not identical?

III. ON THE SAINTS

Do they exist after death?

Do they don't exist after death?

Do they both exist and do not exist after death?

Do they neither exist nor not exist after death?

(Why either/or formulation of the first two questions, but neither/nor on the last?)

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.

Jayatilleke, the great Indian Buddhist scholar, maintains that the questions I & II have no answers because of the limits of empiricism, viz., there is simply no evidence to prove them. On III, however, he believes the question is meaningless on its face. Kalupahana holds that all the questions are simply not verifiable within the limits of experience.

                                    MYSTICISM AND THE MONK’S QUESIONS

If the Buddha had mystical experiences, could not he have answered these questions? Notice that in each of the four types of mysticism, if we ask what the person learns in terms of specific knowledge we come up with very little in that regard. Most mystics claim that their experience is ineffable, so they are unable to transmit anything intelligible back to the ordinary world. One might say that they have at least verified the unity of God (or the One) and the derivative or even illusory nature of the self, but they would still not be able to answer any of the monk’s questions. Does the nature mystic know any more about nature than what the natural scientists know? Does the concert pianist know more about the piece he’s playing than an expert musicologist? While he "knows how to play" the piece better than the latter, the latter knows the piece better than he does in terms of giving answers of the sort the monk asks. To put it succinctly and more technically, mystical experiences appear to be more affective than epistemological.

THE PARABLE OF THE FATALLY WOUNDED MAN

What if the wounded man insisted, before receiving treatment, on answers to all the questions surrounding his injury? He would obviously die before any answers could be found.

There is a surgeon right at hand, and it is obvious that the rational thing to do is to take the cure for his suffering.

Similarly, they who enter the religious life have already been given the Dharma as proven relief for their suffering. The Four Noble Truths is all that they need for their salvation.

CRAVING FOR VIEWS

Next to craving for permanence (desire for eternal life), craving for views is one of the greatest obstacle to liberation. Malunkyaputta has a severe case of craving for views--craving for answers to questions that cannot be answered. This is one of the subtlest form of craving and the most difficult to eliminate.

Has the Buddha not elucidated these questions because

1) there are no answers--the highest ESP faculties cannot perceive these states; or

2) the answer can be obtained, but they profit no one--they are questions that tend not to edification. They are distractions from the path of liberation.

The Buddha repeated the Four Noble Truths, and Malunkyaputta applauded the Buddha's wisdom and presumably decided to stay in the priesthood.

THE GOSPEL OF WEAK BELIEF

Both Buddhists and Taoist used their own type of dialectic (the former neither/nor; the latter both-and) to extinguish the speculative desires of their disciples.

Similarly Jesus used dialectic ("the first shall be last. . .") and indirect discourse (parables), and other figurative speech to preach the coming of the Kingdom of God.

Evangelical Jack Rogers counters Christian rationalism and correctly observes that Jesus' disciples "continually wanted certain knowledge. Jesus instead called them. . . to trustful obedience."

Both the Buddha and Jesus focussed on teaching, not on themselves? Thus avoiding making themselves into a savior? The book of John is different from the first three gospels.