i want someone can hlep me write a annotation of these few paragraphs. i got a i
ID: 442823 • Letter: I
Question
i want someone can hlep me write a annotation of these few paragraphs. i got a image as a sample.
The Master
Having briefly discussed some of the general questions regarding the figures of
Socrates and the Buddha, it remains to be seen how they emerge as characters spe-
cifically in the two works under discussion. We will focus on the following three
Matthew Dillon 527 questions: what qualities do they display as teachers, how do they relate to the
people around them, and how do they face their impending deaths? In all three
respects, both men are characterized by an extreme openness.
Dealing with Students
As teachers, this openness extends first of all to their intellectual approach. Despite
their own apparent conviction, they take pains to include interaction with their
students-this is, after all, the very essence of the dialogue form-and make clear
that no question is out of bounds.
In the Phaedo, the first three arguments for the soul's immortality follow closely
on one another, and their conclusion clearly marks an important stage in the dia-
logue; it is followed by a long silence, as most of the company are convinced (84c).
Finally, two of the main interlocutors start a conversation between themselves.
Socrates notices this, and asks:
Why, surely you don't feel my account inadequate? Of course it is still open to a number
of doubts and objections, if you want to examine it in detail. If it is something else that
you two are considering, never mind; but if you feel any difficulty about our discussion,
don't hesitate to put forward your own views, and point out any way in which you think
my account could be improved; and by all means make use of my services too, if you
think I can help at all to solve the difficulty.17 (84c-d)
In fact, after some hesitation, Simmias and Cebes make two elaborate objections so
persuasive that not only is the previous sense of agreement thrown into confusion,
but all hope of ever attaining certainty seems lost (88d). Socrates rises to the chal-
lenge. Says Phaedo to his companion:
Socrates had amazed me often in the past, Echecrates, but never did I admire him so
much as at that moment. Of course, that he had something to respond was perhaps
nothing unusual. But what astonished me most was first, how kindly and gently and
pleasantly he took the young men's argument; next, how quickly he perceived the degree
to which we were affected by their words; and finally how well he healed us and called
us back, as it were, from our flight and defeat, and turned us around to follow him and
join in examining the argument. (88e-89a)
Socrates in fact begins with a bit of misdirection: he toys affectionately with Phaedo's
hair, and playfully compares their cooperation with the mythical duo of Heracles
and lolaos. At that point he begins a serious discussion of the power of argument and
its dependence on the human factor: we must not reject logical analysis as a tool
simply because we are not adequately skilled in its use. Under no circumstances
should one follow those (evidently the Sophists) who believe that nothing is certain
and everything fluctuates as the tide (89d-90e). In particular, he questions his own
motives: in his present situation, it is to his advantage to believe in the soul's im-
mortality, and such selfishness can cloud one's judgment (91a-b). He concludes:
"Follow my advice: think little of Socrates, and much more of the truth, and if you
think what I say is true, then agree, but if not, oppose me with every argument you
can" (91c).
Socrates' humility here is partly ironic, after his fashion, but his point is of para-
mount importance: the truth is real, and logos is the best means to achieve it. And of
course he does succeed, at least on an intellectual level, in vanquishing those for-
midable objections. But his manner is almost as important as his means: gentle,
personal, unperturbed; wisdom blended with compassion.
The Buddha is likewise determined to deal with any and all questions pertaining
to his dispensation. Moments before his passing, he addresses the assembly of
monks:
"It may be, monks, that some monk has doubts or uncertainty about the Buddha, the
Dhamma, the Sangha, or about the path or the practice. Ask, monks! Do not afterwards
feel remorse, thinking: 'The Teacher was there before us, and we failed to ask the Lord
face to face!'" At these words the monks were silent. The Lord repeated his words a
second and a third time [the lines are repeated verbatim in the Pali text]. Then the Lord
said: "Perhaps, monks, you do not ask out of respect for the Teacher. Then, monks, let
one friend tell it to another." But still they were silent. (MPNS 6.5)
In fact there are no doubts. The Buddha knows that these monks have truly under-
stood, and are on their way unfailingly to liberation (6.6). But he has kept open the
possibility for dialogue until the last possible instant.
Any such dialogue would have served only to clarify what had already been
said. Earlier, the Buddha had made clear that he had withheld nothing of importance
in his teaching, apparently in contrast to other teachers of his time. In response to
Ananda's expectation of a final statement about the Order, the Buddha (referring to
himself as the Tathagata, a frequent honorific title) replies: "But, Ananda, what does
the order of monks expect of me? I have taught the Dhamma, Ananda, making no
'inner' and 'outer': the Tathagata has no 'teacher's fist'18 in respect of doctrines"
(2.25). Thus, according to this text, there is no esoteric side to the Dhamma; for
those who have followed so far, there is nothing more to add. For others, the door is
always open. On the very night of the Buddha's passing, a "wanderer" (i.e., one who
has abandoned his home in search of truth) named Subhadda attempts to receive
teaching from the Buddha, and asks Ananda for an audience. Ananda refuses:
"Enough, friend Subhadda, do not disturb the Tathagata, the Lord is weary." This
exchange is repeated a second and third time, until finally the Buddha overhears and
bids Ananda to let the man in, since he is seeking enlightenment and will quickly
benefit from the Buddha's replies to his questions (5.25).
Subhadda is indeed quickly convinced, and ordained on the spot (the usual
formalities are waived) by the Buddha himself-the last disciple to be so honored.
True to the Buddha's prediction, he swiftly attains perfection.
We should also note that the substance of Subhadda's conversation with the
Buddha concerned the "rival" teachers of the day, six of whom are mentioned by
name. The key question: "Have they all realized the truth as they all make out, or
have none of them realized it, or have some realized it and some not?" The Buddha's
response is interesting: he refuses to criticize the other teachers personally, yet
makes it clear that their doctrines will not lead to liberation:
Enough, Subhadda, never mind whether all, or none, or some of them have realized the
truth. I will teach you Dhamma, Subhadda.... In whatever Dhamma and discipline the
Noble Eightfold Path is not found, no ascetic is found [who will reach enlightenment]....
Those other schools are devoid of (true) ascetics; but if in this one the monks were to live
life to perfection, the world would not lack for Arahants [enlightened beings]. (MPNS
5.26-27)
As with Socrates, the truth admits no compromise: openness to question does not
imply that all paths are equal. But again we should note the manner in which rival
doctrines are rejected: there is no rancor, no sectarian jealousy, no ad hominem
attack. The teacher is subordinate to the Dhamma; what counts is the Dhamma's
effectiveness; it is a very practical matter.
Dealings with Others
The openness in the teacher-student relationship is extended also to those beyond
the inner circle of devotees (on the Greek side, we may contrast the extreme secrecy
surrounding the teachings of Pythagoras, Empedocles, and the Orphics19). For exam-
ple, both men behave in exemplary fashion toward those who provide their last
meals. The circumstances are of course quite different: the executioner has deliber-
ately prepared the hemlock for Socrates, while Cunda the smith is unaware that the
dish he has specially prepared for his honored guest is actually poisonous; but both
masters know that the dish is fatal.
Socrates bears his executioner no ill will; as the fellow gratefully acknowledges,
Socrates has treated him nobly and kindly, in contrast to the usual curses from other
prisoners; indeed, he knows that Socrates is not angry with him. He leaves the
hemlock and departs in tears, amid elaborate praise from Socrates (Phaedo 116c-d).
Similarly, the Buddha graciously eats his portion of the "pig-delight" (sukara-mad-
dava, the exact nature of which is unknown) offered by Cunda the smith, but
bids the others refrain, and the rest of it should be buried (MPNS 4.19). Of course,
there is no question of evil intent on Cunda's part, but the Buddha is concerned lest
the man feel guilty, and consoles him with the remark that Cunda should rather be
praised, because "the Tathagata gained final Nibbana after taking his last meal from
you!" (4.42). Since neither man feels that his impending death is an evil thing to be
avoided, it is only natural for them not to resent the proximate causes, but the sen-
sitivity with which they communicate this to the persons responsible is indicative
again of the compassion that characterizes both men.
Facing Death
Certainly one of the most inspiring features of the Phaedo is the confidence and
good humor with which Socrates faces his imminent demise-an attitude consistent
with that expressed in the Apology and Crito, two dialogues likewise set in the final
days but presumably written a decade or two earlier. In this regard Socrates yields
nothing to the supreme equanimity of the Buddha, who is of course ontologically
beyond fear and doubt. Both of our texts also deal at some length with the contrast
between the serenity of the teacher on the one hand, and the doubts and emotional
distress of his followers on the other; the latter, through human frailty, have not
realized the truth of the master's teaching. Further points of comparison are offered
by the actual deaths of the masters and the descriptions of the funeral arrangements.
Socrates' composure is stressed by Phaedo at the outset:
I felt such strange feelings when I was there. Pity didn't arise in me, as it otherwise would
at the death of a friend, because he seemed happy both in his manner and his speech, so
fearlessly and nobly did he die, such that it appeared to me that this man was not going to
Hades without divine providence, and would fare well when he arrived, if anyone ever
would. (Phaedo 58e)
Exactly what Phaedo means by divine "providence" (moira, often translated as
"fate") is not explained, but Plato certainly portrays Socrates as exceptionally pious
with respect to the traditional gods-perhaps as a corrective to his conviction on a
charge of impiety. It is in response to a repeated dream vision (which demands
"Make music, and practice!") that Socrates composes his only written works: a hymn
to Apollo (whose festival, currently in progress, has postponed the execution) and
poetic versions of Aesop's fables. In the past, Socrates has taken the vision's message
as a command to practice his own brand of "music," that is, philosophy, but now he
takes it more literally, just to be sure (Phaedo 60e-61 b). Such a reaction is typical of
"popular" piety, which presumes that we must obey the gods, but does not pretend
to understand exactly what they want from us.20 But Socrates is certain that whatever
they want, it must be for our own good. Later, as an argument against suicide, he
endorses the statement that "the gods are our caretakers and we humans are one of
the gods' possessions" (62b), and then expresses confidence that he is going to gods
who are "wise and good" (63b) and "good masters" (63c). It is interesting that not
only the existence but, even more, the goodness of the gods is taken for granted
here; his interlocutor Cebes also agrees that they are "the best overseers there are"
(62d). This is no common article of faith in fifth-century Athens, yet it is basic to the
arguments of the Phaedo, which presumes a just universe as a backdrop for the
soul's journey. Not much more is made of the master-slave metaphor as the dialogue
proceeds, however: the soul is seen as very much a free agent as it works its way to
liberation, not from the gods, but from the physical world of the body.
This is indeed one of Socrates' main points: the reason that the "the man who
has truly spent his life in philosophy is courageous when about to die, and optimistic
that he will achieve the highest good there when he dies" (64a) is because "death is
the separation of the soul from the body" (64c), and only when the soul is un-
encumbered can it be truly free and pure; it is in this sense that "those who truly
grasp philosophy pursue the study of nothing else but dying and being dead" (64a).
But it is one thing to construct rational arguments to this effect-even convincing
ones-and another to have the courage of these convictions. In the Phaedo, all wind
up agreeing with Socrates on an intellectual level that the soul is immortal, and that
he is headed for a better life, but only Socrates succeeds in acting in a manner con-
sistent with that belief. In such matters, logos takes you only so far.
The characters, especially Socrates, are aware of this gap between intellectual
agreement and true belief. At the end of a long "proof" that the soul is imperishable,
Simmias admits that while he cannot refute the arguments, both the magnitude of the
problem and human weakness leave room for doubt (107b). Earlier, when Socrates
ridicules as "childish" the fear that the soul can be blown away by the wind,
Cebes laughed, and said, "Socrates, try to persuade us as if we had that fear, or rather, not
as if we were afraid, but perhaps there is a child within us, who fears such things. So let's
try to persuade that child not to fear death like some bogeyman." "Well," said Socrates,
"you must chant a spell over him every day, until you charm it out of him." (77e)
The charm wears off quickly. Socrates twice remarks on his failure to persuade his
companions, despite his best efforts: once to Simmias (84e) and once to Crito (1 15c);
both times he does so "with a laugh," showing characteristic good humor rather
than disappointment or annoyance. He can overcome their minds with dialectic;
apparently he has no illusions about winning their hearts. Devoted friend that he is,
Crito (in some ways the counterpart of Ananda) in particular cannot learn the lesson.
Shortly after the passage just cited, he pleads with Socrates to postpone drinking the
poison: it is not yet sunset, others have put it off till late, there is still time. Such
conduct, Socrates patiently explains, is fine for others, but not for him; he has noth-
ing to gain by so doing, and would only appear ridiculous to himself; he orders the
poison brought without delay (116e-1 1 7a).
The contrast between perfect master and flawed pupils culminates at the death
scene. When the cup is brought, Socrates takes it "very gently, without trembling or
changing color or expression" (11 7b). With a prayer to the gods that his departure to
the next life be fortunate, he drinks the hemlock "very calmly and contentedly."
Phaedo then describes the entire group's gradual breakdown into tears, except for
Socrates himself, who rebukes them, adding "I have heard that one ought to die in
silence. Keep quiet and be strong!" Ashamed, they finally gain control of themselves
(11 7c-d).
The famous death scene that follows immediately presents two questions. First,
as to the manner: as the poison takes hold, it has a numbing effect on Socrates; the
chill spreads from his feet upwards until it reaches his heart; he shudders and is gone
(1 18a). The description of a gentle, painless death seems appropriate for such a man,
"the best and most intelligent and most just of all we knew," in Phaedo's concluding
words. But it is also apparently pure fiction. Comparing other ancient and modern
accounts of hemlock poisoning, Christopher Gill has documented that its effect is
quite the opposite of the peaceful, regular process described by Plato: typical
symptoms include distortion of speech, vomiting, and convulsions.21 Plato has evi-
dently sanitized the gruesome details to harmonize with the atmosphere of dignity
and consolation that he has been at pains to create. In Plato's ideal vision, the soul
sheds the body like a cast-off skin-a perfect death calculated to allay any "child-
ish" fears the reader may still entertain. Dramatically, the scene is a triumph. But in
using such license to manipulate the truth, Plato shows himself more a poet than a
philosophe.
Explanation / Answer
Buddha and Socrates have been portrayed for their characters.
Arguments are going around in between silence rolled over there, most of them accepted their arguments.(84c).
Socrates believes that they can solve others difficult, asked to main speakers.17 (84c-d)
After putting long silence both person have made confusion, and they have lost their hope for getting successful. (88d).
Socrates attitude on the situation is so good , they stop to being from inability change to ability for both young and that lead others to join the arguments. (88e-89a)
People can’t make silent on tough situations due to it will come and go automatically.(89d-90e)
It is state of believing to solve other problem by decisions (91a-b)
Believe him to support faith on truth or opposed with argument to be continued. (91c).
At last living day, all human beings showed kindly respect for dead person though socrates all does the same thing 116c-d
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.