Buddhism and the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow
First the Parable of the Prejudicial Porpoise: If it looks like a fish, and acts like a fish, it still might be a mammal, or a shark. Now I don’t spend a lot of time composing parables, or sutras, but if the shoe fits, then I’ll wear it. The point is that things are not always what they seem, and the wise man with limited funds might help himself a bit by defining his circumstances carefully.
The Buddha once said, of course, that the important thing is not whether the criminal was a man or a woman, nor what he or she was wearing, but stopping the flow of blood in the wound, so that the victim can resume a normal life as soon as possible. But sometimes all that extra knowledge can pay off, such as what kind of poisons are involved, the age of the victim, or the exact location of any projectile or sharp-edged object.
So, with all due respect to the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow, Gulamalukya Sutta, and its prohibitions warning again abstract metaphysical abstractions, there is no prohibition against useful knowledge. In this respect Buddhism is in perfect sync with Science and unforgiving to sometimes useless metaphysics.
As always the Middle Path pays off, that Goldilocks ‘sweet spot’ that sometimes defies categorization, and that is at least part of the point. Precise definitions are inherent to Science but sometimes useless to logic. Can’t decide? Split the difference. Make the big decisions later. The important thing is to do something Now, even if it seems almost like nothing…
streaming consciousness... 
Reply