by Tang Huyen

He doesn't own it. The abandoned road to the old town is there for everybody to find.

"There is nothing of value in Western philosophy" — a
sweeping assertion, and a revealing one.

Do you remember that the Buddha likens his finding
his Law (Dharma) to finding an abandoned road to
an old town? If so, anybody can perfectly find the
same abandoned road on his or her own, independently
of him, because it is there for everybody to find and he
(the Buddha) doesn't own it.

Whilst that argument is general, there are many
specific teachings in Western philosophy that are
quite close to what the Buddha teaches. Stoicism as
a single group (and most religious mystics of the
Religions of the Book are actually Stoics) is quite
close to the Buddha's teaching, in that it advocates
calm of mind, detachment, self-sufficiency, serene
acceptance of what happens, etc. I think that some
Stoic masters (and some religious mystics of the
Religions of the Book who are Stoics) are
accomplished Buddhists, though they have never
heard of Buddhism.

Even theoretical philosophers who may or may not
have obvious connection to Stoicism say many
things that are quite Buddhist, even if their whole
teachings are not quite Buddhist. I have often
quoted some of these excellent sayings:

Hegel, Encyclopaedia of Philosophical Sciences, I,
Science of Logic, third edition, 1830, §31: "The
representations of the soul, the world and God seem
at first to provide a firm support for thought [dem
Denken einen festen Halt zu gewähren]. But, besides
the fact that the character of particular subjectivity
is mixed in with them and that they therefore can
have very different meaning, they need rather to
receive the fixed determination by thought to begin
with [so bedürfen sie vielmehr, erst durch das Denken
die feste Bestimmung zu erhalten]."

Augustine, Enarratio in Psalmum 38, 7, PL, 36, 418,
CCSL, 38, 408: "In attending to it well, it is clear that
it is not; if I attach to it, it is as if it was, but if I pass
by and leave it, it is not (Plane, si adtendam bene, non
est: si haéream, quasi est; si transiliam, non est)."

John the Scot (Johannes Scotus Eriugena), On the
Division of Nature (Periphyseon), II, 614c–d: "But
these are things which are contemplated at a deeper
and truer level than they are expressed in speech,
and understood more deeply and more truly than
they are contemplated, and are deeper and truer
than they are understood to be; for they pass all
understanding. For whatever things are said or
contemplated or understood of the Holy Trinity of
the most simple Goodness are but traces and
theophanies of the Truth, not Truth itself, which
surpasses all contemplation not only of the rational
but also of the intellectual creature. For it is not
that kind of unity or trinity which can be thought of
or understood from any creature, or be shaped by
any fantasy however clear and close to the truth it
may be — for all these things deceive as long as this is
made the end of our contemplation — because it is
more than unity and more than trinity."

John's complicated hierarchy, Christian in appearance
but borrowed from Neoplatonism, can be ignored; what
is however remarkable is his assertion: "for all these
things deceive as long as this is made the end of our
contemplation" (haec enim omnia fallunt dum in eis
finis contemplationis ponitur). A French translation:
"car tout cela trompe lorsqu'on y arrête sa
contemplation."

If one understands, as John implies, that one does not
stop anywhere but passes right on, what can Buddhism
teach one? If one understands, as Hegel says, that
though the representations of the soul, the world and
God seem at first to provide a firm support for thought,
they need rather to receive the fixed determination by
thought to begin with — which means that they are mere
congealments of thought — what can Buddhism teach
one? If one understands, as Augustine says, that
whatever it is, in attending to it well, it is clear that it is
not; if I attach to it, it is as if it was, but if I pass by and
leave it, it is not — what can Buddhism teach one?

Buddhism teaches openness of mind and flexibility of
mind. The Dharma is not Buddhism's private property.
The abandoned road to the old town is there for
everybody to find.

Tang Huyen

Colophon

Posted to talk.religion.buddhism on July 13, 2005, in reply to David Raleigh Arnold ("daveA"), who had repeatedly asserted that Western philosophy has nothing of value because it fails to recognize no-self. Author: Tang Huyen. Message-ID: <[email protected]>.

The post turns on the Buddha's own simile: the Dharma as an abandoned road to an old town (from the Nidāna-saṃyukta and parallel Nikāya passages), which nobody owns and which anyone can rediscover independently. Tang Huyen then assembles three witnesses: Hegel, whose §31 of the Science of Logic argues that even the "firm supports" of thought (soul, world, God) are themselves thought-constructs; Augustine's Enarratio in Psalmum 38 on the object that is not when you attend to it properly; and Eriugena's Periphyseon on concepts as traces, not truth, that deceive "as long as this is made the end of our contemplation." Each witness converges on the same insight: thought does not reach what is. The final three-part rhetorical sequence ("if one understands as John implies... as Hegel says... as Augustine says... what can Buddhism teach one?") makes the point quietly devastating. Arnold's narrow Buddhist exclusivism is turned against itself.

Preserved from the Usenet archive for the Good Work Library by the New Tianmu Anglican Church, 2026.

🌲