In a passage taken from Culomolunkya Suttais number 63 in the Majjhimanikaya. Buddha is speaking here:
Suppose, Malyunkyaputta, a man were wounded by an arrow thickly smeared with poison, and his friends and companions brought a surgeon to treat him. The man would say,” I will not let the surgeon pull out the arrow until I know the name and the clan of the man who wounded me, whether the bow that wounded me was a longbow or a crossbow, whether the arrow that wounded me was hoof-tipped or curved or barbed.” And all this would still not be known to that man and meanwhile he would die. So too, Malyunkyaputta, if anyone should say, “I will not lead the noble life under the Buddha until the Buddha declares to me whether the world is eternal or not eternal, finite or infinite, whether the soul is the same as or different from the body, whether or not an awakened one continues or ceases to exist after death.” That would still remain undeclared by the Buddha and meanwhile that person would die.
His Agnostic point of view regarding unprovable theological dogma closely matches mine.
It is this sort of find that continues to draw me to the Buddhist philosophy. Other than the resultant preservation of Siddhartha Gautama's wisdom in seeking awakening and his subsequent sharing of that wealth, I regret the religious nature of the philosophy's use today. I don't believe Buddha was religious or wished to create a religion - still I find great beauty in his wise words.
Just wanted to share this morning.
Jeff