Therapy by Raft or Ladder

The Buddhist Simile of the Raft and the Pyrrhonist Simile of the Ladder

In the Alagaddupama Sutta there’s the famous Buddhist parable of the raft. Here’s my paraphrase of the parable:

"Monks, I will teach you the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto.

"Suppose a man were traveling along a path by a river. He comes to a point where the terrain becomes rough, difficult, and risky to pass, but he can see that the terrain on the other side of the river is clear and easy to pass through. There is, however, no bridge, ferry, or ford for getting to the other side of the river. It occurs to the man that he could build a raft and use it to help him cross the river. He constructs the raft and crosses the river. Seeing how useful the raft has been to him, he considers carrying it along with him on his journey.

The Buddha then asked his disciples if they thought this was a good idea. All of them think it’s a bad idea. Everyone, including the Buddha, agrees that the man should abandon the raft, whereupon the Buddha says, “In the same way, monks, I have taught the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas."

In the sutta, the parable is preceded by a parable about the right way to grab onto a snake, and the risks of doing it incorrectly, and before that, by a story of a monk who had misinterpreted the Buddha’s teaching.

The parable is followed by a comparison of the views of someone who doesn’t understand the Buddhadharma, who thinks that their feelings, perceptions, and thoughts define them, and the one who understands correctly, who doesn’t think their feelings, perceptions, and thoughts make up who they are. Because of this, they are not agitated.

The meaning of the sutta is debated. The first part of the sutta seems clear: the Buddha warns that his teachings can be misunderstood, producing bad results. The second part, about the raft, is what is debated. One interpretation - the one advanced here - is that the Buddha said that at a certain point in following his teachings, students will find the teachings have served their purpose and should be put down. The teachings are a means, not an end.

It’s possible that Pyrrho heard this parable when he was in India. The parable of the raft has long been one of the more popular Buddhist teachings. While we don’t have evidence of a parable about a raft in Pyrrhonism, we have a similar simile involving a ladder. This simile is remarkable not only because of its similarity to the Buddhist raft parable, but also because of the absence of similar parables among other philosophies and religions. It seems to be a uniquely Buddhist/Pyrrhonist idea. If the Pyrrhonists did not directly borrow the idea from Buddhism, then it would seem that it has arisen from similar premises.

Here’s the Pyrrhonist simile:

Just as it is not impossible for the man who has ascended to a high place by a ladder to overturn the ladder with his foot after his ascent so also it is not unlikely that the Pyrrhonist, after he has arrived at the demonstration of his thesis by means of the arguments proving the nonexistence of proof, as it were by a step-ladder, should then abolish this very argument. (Sextus Empiricus, Against the Logicians, 481)

Both Buddhism and Pyrrhonism are ways of life. The traveler who makes the raft does so to follow the Buddha Way. The traveler who climbs the ladder does so to follow the Pyrrhonist Way. Ladders and rafts allow one to go to places one would not ordinarily be able to get to. In both the Buddhist and Pyrrhonist similes, once one has arrived, the tool that allowed one to arrive is recognized as no longer being needed and may be discarded.

Perhaps these two similar similes may be used to illuminate each other.

Later in the Alagaddupama Sutta the Buddha says,

Monks, where a self or what belongs to self are not pinned down as a truth or reality, then the view-position - 'This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity.’ - Isn't it utterly and completely a fool's teaching?

…Therefore, monks, whatever isn't yours: Let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term welfare and happiness. And what isn't yours? Form (body) isn't yours: Let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term welfare and happiness. Feeling isn't yours. Perception. Thought fabrications. Consciousness isn't yours: Let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term welfare and happiness.

Readers of Stoic philosophy may notice here that the Buddha has said something similar to what’s known as the Dichotomy of Control. As Epictetus put it,

Some things are within our power, while others are not. Within our power are opinion, motivation, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever is of our own doing; not within our power are our body, our property, reputation, office, and, in a word, whatever is not of our own doing. (Enchiridion 1)

There’s a difference in that the Buddha focuses on what is ours, and Epicetus focuses on what is under one’s control. Epictetus and the Buddha agree that our body isn’t ours or under our control, nor are other forms (e.g., property). The Buddha, however, says that consciousness and thought fabrications are not us; whereas Epictetus thinks that opinion, motivation, desire, and aversion are under our control.

The basic idea of the Dichotomy of Control is not uniquely Stoic. It is common among other Greek philosophies. Here, it can be seen to be common with Buddhism, too. Everyone seems to agree that one’s long-term welfare and happiness depend on recognizing this idea - although the exact formulation of the idea isn’t agreed upon.

So, what does this have to do with the raft?

The Buddha’s teachings are thought fabrications. However useful they may be, as thought fabrications, they, too, must eventually be let go of.

The same thing is going on in Pyrrhonism. Pyrrhonist practice involves using a toolbox of thought fabrications to wean one’s thinking away from firm beliefs in non-empirical things. Once one has achieved that using this toolset, any sort of belief in even the tools in that set may then, too, be given up.

But that happens at a particular point. One abandons the raft after one has crossed the river. One kicks away the ladder once one has scaled it. Until then, the raft and the ladder are of critical importance.

Just as with Buddhism, Stoicism, and Epicureanism, Pyrrhonism aims to be therapeutic. It’s not just an epistemological stance, as some might have it. Pyrrho explicitly presented his ideas as a way to achieve eudaimonia (Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, 14.18), and Sextus Empiricus affirms this,

We say that the causal origin of the Pyrrhonist Way is the hope of attaining ataraxia. (Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Pyrrhonism, I.12)

For the person who is troubled does not want to find out what is more troublesome and what less troublesome, but desires to be released from trouble. It will only be possible to avoid this, then, if we show to the person who is disturbed on account of his avoidance of the bad or his pursuit of the good, that there is not anything either good or bad by nature, ‘But these things are judged by mind on the part of humans,’ to quote Timon. But such a teaching is certainly peculiar to Pyrrhonism; it is Pyrrhonism’s achievement, therefore, to procure the happy life. (Sextus Empiricus, Against the Ethicists, 139-140)

These therapeutic effects don’t just happen on their own. Just as getting to the other shore requires a raft, or to a higher level requires a ladder, there’s a method. Once the method is successfully deployed, it is no longer needed. Until then, its use is critical. For Pyrrhonism, famous parts of its ladder are the Ten Modes of Aenesidemus and the Five Modes of Agrippa.

In addition to the simile of the ladder, Pyrrhonism has another simile that explains this situation more fully. Here it is, along with the context in which it was put.

…it is necessary for this to be understood first of all: we absolutely do not firmly maintain anything about their [the Pyrrhonist sayings] being true, especially since we say that they can confuted by themselves, as they are included among the cases to which they apply – just as cathartic drugs not only flush out the bodily humors but expel themselves as well. Also, we do not put them forward as sharply expressing the points with which they have to do, but we employ them imprecisely and, if you like, not strictly correctly … not even these slogans are said to have signification absolutely, but only relatively, that is, relative to the Pyrrhonists. In addition, it must be borne in mind that we do not apply them to all things in general but only to things that are non-evident…. (Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Pyrrhonism I.206-208)

Cathartic drugs do not work just by sitting on the shelf. They must be ingested.