"Touching An Elephant."
In his book “Before He Was Buddha,” Hammalawa Saddhatissa related the following story from the Buddhist tradition:
“There was once a king who, seeking some entertainment for himself, had a number of people who had been blind since birth brought together in front of him. An elephant was then led in and made to stand in the midst of them, and they were instructed to reach out so as to feel the part of the animal nearest them. Accordingly some felt its head, some an ear, some a tusk…….. Those who felt its ample head said: ‘An elephant is like a cooking pot.’ Those who had felt an ear said: ‘Like a basket for winnowing grain.’ A tusk suggested a ploughshare, the trunk the shaft of a plough, a leg a pillar, the tail a pestle, while the man who had felt only the tuft of the tail said: ‘An elephant is like a broom.’ A great argument developed among the holders of these varying opinions and before long they came to blows, to the huge amusement of the king.”
Does this not resemble political discourse in modern America? While arguing our various viewpoints, how much can we HONESTLY say we really know, and how much of what we say is simply our most reasoned guess based upon our limited knowledge?
When I began reading books at a young age, I quickly discovered that the more I learned, the more I realized how much I don’t know. At 51, I believe I’ve learned enough to realize that I don’t know anything at all! No matter how much one knows about a subject, particularly things concerning life, it seems there is ALWAYS more to the story. (Conversely, the LESS a man knows, the easier it is for him to think he knows EVERYTHING).
In his essay “Walking,” Henry David Thoreau observed that “A man’s ignorance sometimes is not only useful, but beautiful – while his knowledge, so called, is oftentimes worse than useless, besides being ugly. Which is the best man to deal with – he who knows nothing about a subject, and, what is extremely rare, knows that he knows nothing, or he who really knows something about it, but thinks that he knows it all?”
When two different viewpoints clash, I suspect that each contains some genuine truths, along with much error. If both arguments could somehow be fused together, much like two pieces of a puzzle, perhaps the truths in each might combine to create a broader understanding of the issue at hand. In this way, we might actually find a path toward a solution, as opposed to simply raising our voices in order to shout farther past each other.