Discussion How do you react to this Buddhist story?

[Forever Sleep]

To summarize- a man finds himself in a situation where he is clinging to a vine hanging from a cliff, with a hungry tiger at the top and beneath him. Along the vine are also black and white mice nibbling away.

The story represents life and the forever presence of death. The mice represent the passing time of night and day.

In the story, the man spots a strawberry growing within arm's reach. The strawberry is the best tasting thing he has ever had.

I suppose the story reminded me of a scene in the film: 'Fight Club'. Spoiler here: The main characters drag a guy from out of a convenience store/ petrol station and threaten to shoot him in the parking lot. They ask him what he originally intended to do with his life and, on hearing that he wanted to be a veterinarian, they tell him that he must start to proceed towards that dream and that they will be watching to see that he does so.

On leaving the man, one character says how cruel they just were. The other denies that- pointing out how good breakfast will taste to that man.

Is that even true though? Does it really matter how good the strawberry tastes to the guy dangling off the edge of the cliff? Even if he enjoys the strawberry in that monent, aren't his arms aching from holding on to the vine so tightly? Isn't his heart still pounding in his chest looking down or up at the tigers circling? Surely- he can't remain in that state of denial forever.

If I was the one holding onto that vine, watching the mice nibbling away at the top, feeling the strands of the vine snapping one by one, I kind of think I'd just want the whole thing overwith. I'd be tempted to just let go of the vine. Maybe I'd enjoy a last strawberry but, why hang about and suffer when the inevitable end will likely be bad?

Maybe the same goes for 'Fight Club'. There would be an initial euphoria of eluding death. But then, the poor guy has to get himself through 4-6 years of study before he can fulfil his dream. All while fearing the nutter with the gun is watching him.

I don't think I'm built for the Buddhist mindset. I can achieve it in a given moment but- if I let those moments dominate my life- I neglect to do all the shit we need to do to pay for those strawberries. I suppose too- what comfort is a strawberry when you are contemplating being ripped to shreds and eaten alive by a tiger?

I suppose, being anti- natilist too- I wonder why would- be parents think that's a good situation to put a sentient being in to begin with.

 

[froggirl9000]

 

[MeltingBrain]

If the vine was a beautiful spacious garden with many fruits and good company it might be worth it.
Just hanging on to the vine to a slow and torturous death is no way to go.

 

[rainatthebusstop]

Mind you that I don't get religions or philosophy when I say this but this is a story by and for people who wanna live. Like the strawberry might taste great but a moment of bliss in a lifetime of suffering is just cruelty.

When you wanna torture someone, you break them faster by giving them moments of respite or hope before taking that away. When you want the person to really feel the pain of the rope snapping you give them a strawberry

 

[webb&flow]

A similar parable is invoked in the course of Leo Tolstoy's Confession.

This very imaginative parable, is ultimately an analogy.

Our life is not necessarily dangling from a cliff 100% of the time with a tiger overhead 100% of the time.

This analogy has no evidence, and is ultimately just a description of feeling. People who point at this as the ultimate truth of life are taking random ideas as ultimate truths.

Analogies and thought experiments can be used to coax you into a specific conclusion. This is why philosopher Daniel Dennett referred to them as intuition pumps.

Ultimately, this parable is very pessimistic, painting an insanely bleak view of live that makes a strong try at a purely Epicurean outlook.

It completely excludes so many other sources of meaning and good feeling in life: love, helping people, philosophy itself, making art, experiencing beauty, craft, nature, whatever one can do. Reducing it all to a fucking strawberry is an insult to life. Suckin' on a ding-dong. Life is more than suckin'. There is biting and chewing and spitting and laughing; solemn gazes into grand vastnesses, curious little looks into small things that shimmer and twitch.

Maybe this parable is appealing to people who want to exclude all the beauty and work and awe and journey in life, to adopt a purely Epicurean outlook. What makes us happy is not just strawberries, that taste, but all kinds of gardens and natures, that embrace. There are endless kinds of happiness: They cannot merely be reduced into "explanations of each other". The taste of a kiss is not the same as the sun's golden hour: the taste of music is different from the taste of a paintbrush, or the ink from a pen, the graphite from a pencil, the sweet smell of spring, the crunch of fall leaves, the shimmers of crystall'd snow, hot sun on cold grass—there are entire ventures to be had, places to stay and places to experience, and one wants to reduce all this insane awe into just a few simple creatures, a cliff, and a strawberry. It is a bastardization of stupefying proportions. Just because a parable is ancient does not make it correct.

What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
—Carl Sagan

Can a single one of you show me why this "parable" (AKA intuition pump) is anything more than a thinly veiled device to promote hedonism and rejection of life? That ALL pains are necessarily indomitable, like a tiger, that ALL pleasures are petty and small, like a single strawberry, and that life MUST be precarious, ALL the time‽ I do not deny life is often precarious. But there are some calms! To say we constantly hang off the edge of a cliff 24/7 with no reprieve is merely to paint a picture of life, confusing the map for the territory.

I can make an analogy as easy as this supposedly wised-up "saint" who may've made this here parable we debate today. Life is like a wilderness, with both dangers and pleasures lurking in every direction. Tigers lurk, but gardens and fruits also lay in possibility. We must be vigilant to watch what we can, so we may avoid what would tear us apart, and meet with what will truly bring us back together again. And all the while, true beauty lives in this wilderness too: in those shimmers of the sun that splash, dance across the water—in the trees that sway gently in the breeze; in the humming of wildlife and the swirl of quiet air. All of this, to witness. And it is scattered across the wild—yes, with distance from us—but it is possible to journey. There are things that bind us, yet there are also things that free us. Life is not one scene, but a great variance of them.

And you can tear apart my analogy as swiftly as I have made it. But there are some things you cannot in good conscience deny. Especially this one fact. Life is a complex thing that is not accurately bastardized into oversimplified singular scenes…

That is no country for old men. The young
In one another's arms, birds in the trees,
—Those dying generations—at their song,
The salmon-falls, the mackerel-crowded seas,
Fish, flesh, or fowl, commend all summer long
Whatever is begotten, born and dies.
Caught in that sensual music all neglect
Monuments of unageing intellect

—W.B. Yeats. Sailing to Byzantium

Should we accept as the final word on the matter what someone else has just tossed us? Why are we not ready to critique the parable? The person who made it is no more "infallible" than we. We may make better parables- more fit for our own lives and worlds!

This parable is astoundingly insufficient for explaining the complexity of modern life. It is feeble and oversimplifying, and deserves no respect, for it blatantly mischaracterizes the complex operations and courses of life.

Why should we not reject this parable as some random idea that popped into some random head, with no evidence or reasoning to support it? It is practically propaganda, in its anemic proof.

And this is not to blame you for posting it, OP… I only blame whoever originally wrote this damn thing, came up with this horrendous analogy. I think we are far far better off, both truth-wise and witness-wise, rejecting such insults and blatant mischaracterizations of life itself.

 

[K14~♡]

I thought Buddhism is about being free from suffering by letting go of everything you're clinging to, yet this story features a man holding onto a vine. It's all symbolic but I thought that looks a little contradictory haha

I wonder if detachment also includes letting go of life

Anyway, I think this is a story where the interpretation is up to the reader, whichever way it hits them.
In my opinion, it's just a story to remind people that death is inevitable. I don't think it's necessarily saying that you should keep holding on solely for the blissful moments of life. The strawberry could represent anything, whether it's just simple fleeting happiness or everything that is dear. There could be a sweet present in front of you, but no matter which way you go, the inevitability of death is there.

Anyhow, I agree with webb&flow that this is too simplified to represent life and its struggles and happiness

I don't think I'm built for the Buddhist mindset.

I don't think this is what the Buddhist mindset is anyway, and this parable alone isn't a good representation of it. Though I'm not really knowledgeable about Buddhism so who am I to say that ┐⁠(⁠´⁠ー⁠｀⁠)⁠┌