- Appropriate Means
- as an Ethical Doctrine in the Lotus
Suutra
Gene Reeves
Rikkyo University
Tokyo, Japan
reeves@gol.com
Contents
Abstract
In this paper I claim that upaaya or hooben in the Lotus Suutra,
contrary to how it has often been translated and understood, is an ethical doctrine, the
central tenet of which is that one should not do what is expedient but rather what is
good, the good being what will actually help someone else, which is also known as bodhisattva
practice. Further, the doctrine of hooben is relativistic. No doctrine, teaching,
set of words, mode of practice, etc. can claim absoluteness or finality, as all occur
within and are relative to some concrete situation. But some things, doing the right thing
in the right situation, can be efficacious, sufficient for salvation.
As for the use of "expedients" in translations of upaaya or hooben:
in the Lotus Suutra translations Hurvitz uses "expedient devices,"
Murano "expedients," and Watson "expedient means." In the earlier
translation from Sanskrit, Kern used "skillfulness" repeatedly, including in the
title for the second chapter, but in a footnote he equates this with "able
management, diplomacy, upaayakau"salya." He then goes on to say that
"Upaaya means an expedient," followed by some other silly things
(p.30). Other authorities can be cited. In Outlines of Mahayana Buddhism (1907),
D.T. Suzuki says "The term upaaya literally means expediency," (p. 64)
and later, in reference to the Lotus Suutra, explains that the term "is very
difficult to translate into English but "literally means 'way,' 'method,' or
'strategy'" (p. 261 n). And then, in another footnote, says that upaaya
means "expedient, " "stratagem," "device" or
"craft"(p. 298). Other, more recent authorities can be cited. Franklin
Edgerton's, Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Dictionary (1953) gives "skill in
expedients" for upaayakau"salya. Peter N. Gregory, in the glossary of
the recent Inquiry Into the Origin of Humanity gives "expedient means"
for upaaya, and in the entry for the Lotus Suutra says that it is noted
for "its teaching of expedient means" (p.218). It should be clear that the use
of "expedient" and its variants for the Lotus Suutra's upaaya
and hooben is well established.
What is wrong with "expedient"? Briefly, it is deeply rooted in an ethical
frame of reference which is about as diametrically opposed to the ethical perspective of
the Lotus Suutra as one can get. The Random House Unabridged Dictionary
has as its second definition of "expedient": "conducive to advantage or
interest, as opposed to right." Moreover, "expediency" is defined as
"a regard for what is polite or advantageous rather than what is right or just; a
sense of self-interest." Though one could argue that this term does not have to carry
such freight, the fact of that matter is that it is deeply embedded in a Biblical ethics
which is essentially deontological because it is rooted in notions of divine commandment
and human obedience. In 1 John 11:49-50 for example, we find:
And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that year, said to them,
"You know nothing at all. Nor do you consider that it is expedient for us, that one
man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation perish."
And in several places in the King James version, Paul uses the term
"expedient" to mean "profitable" to oneself. The Bible, of course, has
had a major impact on what terms mean in English.
Thus, a very basic meaning of "expedient" is an act that is done despite
principle in order to benefit oneself. It is rooted in an ethics and in a vision of
reality in which there is a radical, unbridgeable gap between principles and
self-interest. Principles, though they may be internalized, are given by God, Nature, or
the metaphysical structure of reality. Principles are law-like, and thus disobedience
requires just punishment. To do the expedient thing is to ignore or go against what is
right in order to gain some selfish benefit.
But this is exactly what, according to the Lotus Suutra, hooben
cannot be. It is part of the very definition of hooben in the Lotus Suutra
that it is always for the benefit of someone else. Not in this suutra, or in any other
that I know of, is there even a single example of hooben in which the doer
forsakes some principle for his or her own benefit.
Of course, within a Buddhist utilitarian and teleological ethics the good done for
someone else may also benefit the doer. In Christianity one finds notions of an ideal of
completely selfless love, agapé. To some extent, such notions are related to
Greek ideas of God as being so perfect and complete that he cannot possibly want nor need
anything. But from most Buddhist perspectives, certainly from the perspective of the Lotus
Suutra, this is a false ideal. For example, in the story of the rich father and poor
son, the Buddha-substitute, the father, feels that his own life is incomplete so long as
the son is away from him.
'If I could only get my son back and entrust my wealth to him,' he thought, 'how
contented and happy I would be, with no more anxiety!'(1)
So, there are at least two things wrong with "expedient" as a translation of hooben.
On the one hand, use of it presupposes a contrast with principle (law, divine command,
etc.) which is not generally applicable in East Asian Buddhism. On the other hand, it
carries negative connotations of action for one's own benefit which are incompatible with
the whole thrust of the Lotus Suutra (2).
"Expedient" is not, of course, the only translation of hooben. The
most extensive, and in my opinion best, study of upaaya is Michael Pye's Skilful
Means. But even Pye, after conducting a nearly exhaustive study of the terms upaaya,
upaayakau"salya, and fang pien and defending "skilful
means" as the best translation for these terms, says, "Of course translations of
Mahayana texts in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit may want to follow the vocabulary more closely
and use simply 'means' or 'expedient' for upaaya"(3).
I have no major problem with "skillful means" as a translation of upaaya/hooben.
It might even be the best overall translation for Buddhist texts in general, but I am not
persuaded that it is the best possible translation for the hooben of the Lotus
Suutra.
The dharma in stories
The Lotus Suutra is, perhaps above all, a book of stories. It contains
approximately 26 stories that are used as teaching devices. It does not avoid teaching
doctrine directly, but if we want to understand what the Lotus Suutra teaches we
had better pay attention to its stories, and not merely to lines within them, or to lines
which explain them, but also to the overall thrust and function of those stories within a
religious tradition.
It is not incidental that the original Lotus Suutra probably began with the
chapter on upaaya, and then, in the next chapter told a story, the parable of the
burning house, to illustrate and explain it (4).
Moreover, this "Parable" chapter is immediately followed by the adhimukti chapter (5), which is built around another story, the story
of the rich father and the poor son. Actually, as we have it now, the whole suutra, or at
least the first twenty-two chapters of it, is a story about a time when the Buddha was on
the mountain called "Vulture Peak" and preached the Lotus Suutra.
Return to Contents
Hooben as skillful and appropriate
It is true that in all of these stories in which hooben is demonstrated, some
skill is involved, sometimes even a special skill. The best illustration of a special
skill being utilized is a story, from which the chapter gets its title, about a physician
who goes to the Himalayas to collect four special herbs to use in special ways in order to
cure a man who has been blind from birth. It is interesting that this story is not
included in the Chinese version of the Suutra (6).
Skill is involved in most of these stories. But what kind of skill? A father gets his
children out of a burning house by promising them a reward. Another father gets his kids
to take an antidote for poison by pretending to be dead. Still another father guides his
unambitious son toward greater and greater responsibility. A tour guide conjures up a
phantom city in order to give people a needed resting-place during a hard journey. A man
sews a jewel into the garment of his poor friend. A very powerful king holds back an
extraordinarily precious and unique jewel that he kept in the topknot of his hair until he
sees a soldier of great merit. None of these acts is especially skillful. They are clever
perhaps, but not especially skillful, at least in the sense of requiring some special skill (7). And, while some of the characters performing
these acts are stand-ins for the Buddha, it is not at all evident that all are. Some
think, as does Michael Pye, that it is of prime significance that buddhas use skillful
means. And, indeed, it is very often the case in Lotus Suutra stories that it is
a Buddha or Buddha stand-in who uses appropriate means. However, I do not think teaching
us about Buddhas is what is primary. Rather bodhisattva practice, and therefore
the practice of appropriate means, is intended primarily for us, the readers. Remember too
that the chief example of a doctrine which is a skillful means is the doctrine or story of
the Buddha's entry into nirvana—and it is a doctrine or story which, from the
perspective of the Lotus Suutra, has misled lots of people into thinking that the
Buddha is no more.
What we are told repeatedly in the suutra is not that these acts are skillful,
though they may be, but that they are appropriate, appropriate to the condition of the
hearers. It is because people are different and their situations are different that the
buddhas, as the rain nourishes the great variety of plants according to their different
needs, feed the dharma according to what is needed. One could argue, of course, that
knowing that an appropriate thing is needed and being able to perceive the situation well
enough to figure out an appropriate action is itself skillful. And so it is. However, it
is nevertheless the case that what is emphasized is not so much the skill as it is the
appropriateness. This is why I think "appropriate means" is the best translation
for hooben in the Lotus Suutra.
What is it that makes something appropriate? At the end of the story of the burning
house, the Buddha asks "Saariputra whether the father has lied or not, and
"Saariputra responds that the father had not lied, and would not have lied had he
given the children even very tiny carriages. Why? Simply because the device worked. The
kids got out of the house in time to save their lives. Two things are relevant here: the
device worked, and it worked at saving lives.
Return to Contents
Hooben as practical
Apparently, some people think that Buddhist ethics is primarily a matter of what is
inside oneself; that it is primarily a matter of consciousness and compassion.
Nevertheless, there is hardly a hint of this in the Lotus Suutra. The ideal, in
the Lotus Suutra too, is a combination of wisdom or insight, compassion, and
practice. The entrance to the Great Sacred Hall at the headquarters of Rissho Kosei Kai,
for example, is dominated by huge pictures of three bodhisattvas:
Ma~nju"srii, Maitreya, and Samantabhadra, representing wisdom, compassion, and
practice, and the three parts of the Lotus Suutra in which these three are
thought to be prominent. In the Lotus Suutra itself and in Lotus teaching, the
three are interdependent and perhaps in one sense equally important. It can, for example,
be said that practice can lead to enhanced wisdom and compassion. But it is clear that the
flow has to be primarily the other way, toward practice as a consequence of wisdom and
compassion. Thus, in contemporary jargon, the Lotus Suutra is very results
oriented. Of course it is important that the father of the kids in the burning house and
the father of the poor son are concerned about their children and want to save them, and
it is important that they are smart enough to figure out a way to save them, but it is
most important that they are successful in saving the children.
The story of Devatta is very instructive here. Its message is that even our enemies,
regardless of their intentions, can be bodhisattvas for us if we regard them as
such. In this suutra, Devatta, the embodiment of evil in so much Buddhist literature
outside of the Lotus Suutra, is thanked by the Buddha for being helpful.
"Thanks to my good friend Devadatta, I was able to develop fully the six paramitas,
with pity, compassion, joy, equanimity," etc. The Buddha learned from his experiences
with Devadatta, making Devadatta a bodhisattva, but we are not told that this was
in any way a function of what Devadatta himself intended. Good intentions may be good in
their own right, but they are not what are all-important, or even most important in a bodhisattva.
What is more important is effectiveness, effectiveness in leading others to the
Buddha-way, and thus to their salvation.
It is their "only" salvation because outside of the Buddha-way there is, and
can be, no other way. If an act is salvific, it is good, if it is good, it is bodhisattva
practice, and if it is bodhisattva practice, it is included in the Buddha-way.
Whatever else it is, the Buddha-way is good and includes everything good, that is,
everything that leads to salvation.
To say that an act has good consequences, however, is not to say that it is necessarily
good in every respect. An act of good consequences may stem from evil motives. The
consequence does not make the motive good. The fact that Devadatta became a bodhisattva
for the Buddha does not mean that Devadatta's motives are thereby somehow transformed from
evil to good. The Lotus Suutra emphasizes consequences and the practice of the bodhisattva
way for the purpose of saving living beings. But, it also makes repeated reference to the
importance of planting good roots—supporting the view that good deeds tend to lead to
good ends. In this sense, the ethics of the Lotus Suutra is not purely
teleological.
Return to Contents
Salvation as the Buddha-way
There is ample ambiguity in the Lotus Suutra about the nature of salvation. We
are told that the Buddha has vowed to save all the living. But the nature of that state,
variously termed Buddhahood, supreme enlightenment, etc., is not unambiguously
clear. But if we look at the stories that present themselves as being about salvation, the
matter is not, or at least not always (8), so
complicated. Lives are saved. In some cases, they are saved from fire or poison, literally
from death. In other cases, they are saved from a mean existence, from poverty and from an
attitude that is complacent about poverty. In all cases, what is involved is a failure to
achieve one's potential to be a bodhisattva and Buddha.
Return to Contents
What does it mean to be a Buddha?
There are obviously many ways of reading the Lotus Suutra, including, I
suppose, several legitimate ways, by which I mean ways reasonably consistent with or based
upon the text itself. Without trying to argue for such an interpretation here, I will
simply share with you that I see the text as being primarily soteriological. That is, I
think its main purpose is not to teach Buddhist doctrines or refute other interpretations
or forms of Buddhism, but to affect the readers' heart, and especially behavior, in a
particular manner. There are, for example, numberless claims in the suutra to the
effect that anyone, be they poor, not very bright, female, even evil, absolutely everyone
without exception is destined to become a Buddha. I take it that this is not just a
proto-Buddha-nature doctrine, though it is that, and not just a metaphysical assumption,
though it does express an underlying metaphysics. What is intended primarily, I think, is
that you and I understand that we can become buddha-like because we have that capacity
already within us simply by virtue of being alive. This capacity or potential is in
everyone. It does not have to be earned and it cannot be taken away. But it does need to
be developed.
Return to Contents
The Buddha-way as bodhisattva practice
The way in which you and I can develop a Buddha nature is by following the Buddha-way,
doing what Buddhas have always done, namely, the way of bodhisattva practice. It
is absolutely central to the Lotus Suutra, I think, that "Saakyamuni Buddha
is, first of all, a bodhisattva. We are told that he has been doing bodhisattva
practice, helping and leading others, for innumerable kalpas. Whenever the
enormously long life of the Buddha is described, it is not meditation that he has been
doing, at least not primarily, but teaching and leading and changing others, thus turning
them into bodhisattvas.
Because all the living have various natures, various desires, various activities,
various ideas and ways of making distinctions, and because I wanted to lead them to put
down roots of goodness, I have used a variety of explanations, parables, and words and
preach various teachings. Thus I have never for a moment neglected the Buddha's work. Thus
it is, since I became Buddha a very long time has passed, a lifetime of unquantifiable asa.mkhyeya
kalpas, of forever existing and never entering extinction. Good children, the
lifetime which I have acquired pursuing the bodhisattva-way is not even finished
yet, but will be twice the number of kalpas already passed (9).
But the Buddha and those with the title of Bodhisattva are not the only bodhisattvas.
"Sraavakas are also bodhisattvas. That is why there are plenty of them in
every paradise, or paradise-like, Buddha land described in the Lotus Suutra. Most
"sraavakas, of course, do not know they are bodhisattvas, but they
are none-the-less.
What you are practicing
[the Buddha says to the disciple Kashyapa]
Is the bodhisattva-way.
As you gradually practice and learn,
Every one of you should become a Buddha (10).
And, of course, most importantly, you and I are bodhisattvas. No matter how
tiny our understanding or merit, no matter how trivial our practice, we are, perhaps to
some extent, already bodhisattvas. And we are called to grow in bodhisattvahood
by leading others to realize that potential in themselves.
This is why I think so many stories about bodhisattvas are taken up in the
latter part of the Lotus Suutra, no doubt added later. These stories round out,
so to speak, the teaching of hooben with which the suutra begins. The
term hooben is used sparingly in these chapters, because by the time we encounter
it we should already understand that hooben is what bodhisattvas do.
In the Lotus Suutra, it is not, as in some texts, just advanced or seventh
stage bodhisattvas who use hooben. Though there are frequent references
to the stage of non-regression in the Lotus Suutra, there are none at all to the
ten-stage bodhisattva doctrine found, for example, in the Avata.msaka Suutra.
While the doctrine of hooben is primarily what makes Lotus Suutra
ethics teleological, the understanding of bodhisattva practice as doing the work
of the Buddha to save all the living is also teleological. If a bodhisattva was
only trying to improve his own character as an end in itself, he would not be a bodhisattva,
as the very meaning of "bodhisattva" in the Lotus Suutra is
one who effectively contributes to the salvation of others. Certainly, rules and
principles should guide that practice, but it must finally be judged by the results.
Return to Contents
Bodhisattvas as role models
I think there can be no question but that many of the stories about bodhisattvas
are included to provide role models for human beings. They play a role in the ever present
tension between what already is and is yet to be. To the extent that we have even lifted a
single finger to point to the truth, we are already bodhisattvas. But how much
more so those who faithfully follow the Lotus Suutra, that is, devote their lives
to bodhisattva practice. And to encourage us in that direction there are stories
of wonderful bodhisattvas.
Yes, people do pray to Kwan-yin for help and Kwan-yin takes on whatever form is needed
to be helpful. But while that story may present the hope of divine blessing, it is there
primarily to show us what we should be. If Kwan-yin has a thousand arms with a thousand
different skills with which to help others, we too need to develop a thousand skills with
which to help others.
Return to Contents
Bodhisattva ethics
What, then, does it mean to be a bodhisattva? In the Lotus Suutra, it
means using appropriate means to help others. And that, finally, for the Lotus Suutra,
is what Buddhism itself is. It is an enormous variety of means developed to help people
live more fulfilling lives, which can be understood as lives lived in the light of their
interdependence. This is what most of the stories are about:
someone—father-figure/buddha, or friend/buddha, or guide/buddha—helping someone
else gain more responsibility for their own lives.
Even if you search in all directions,
There are no other vehicles,
Except the appropriate means preached by the Buddha (11).
Thus, the notion of appropriate means is at once both a description of what Buddhism
is, or what Buddhist practice primarily is, and a prescription for what our lives should
become. The Lotus Suutra, accordingly, is a prescription of a medicine or
religious method for us—at once both extremely imaginative and extremely practical.
It is in this sense that appropriate means is an ethical teaching, a teaching about how
we should behave in order to contribute to the good. It is prescriptive not in the sense
of a precept of commandment, but in the sense of urging us, for the sake both of our own
salvation and that of others, to be intelligent, imaginative, even clever in finding ways
to be helpful.
Return to Contents
Hooben as provisional
Ways of being helpful are not, at least primarily, grounded in principles. The Lotus
Suutra has very little to say about precepts, though it does not reject them. In
chapter fourteen (Carefree Practice) the Buddha provides four sets of prescriptions which bodhisattvas
should follow, one having to do primarily with outward behavior, one with speech, one with
attitudes and one with intentions. But these are to be understood, I think, not as
commandments but more like counsel or rules of thumb. Principles, at least in the
strongest sense, are eternal, God-given, or at least implanted permanently in the nature
of things. The hooben of the Lotus Suutra, in contrast, are provisional.
Once used, they may no longer be useful, precisely because they were appropriate for some
concrete situation. The kids will not return to the burning house to be saved again. Once
his children have drunk the antidote to poison, their father need not again tell them that
he has died. This is because these stories involve discoveries, made rapidly or gradually.
And once something has been seen or discovered, it cannot be un-seen or un-discovered,
though it might, of course, be rediscovered or be discovered again independently. So the
means by which it is discovered is always provisional, viable in some point in time. Once
the father has guided his son to maturity, he can die in peace, no longer needed. Once a
raft has been used to cross over to the other shore, we no longer need the raft and we
would be seriously burdened by trying to take it with us over land (12).
In such provisionality, there is a scriptural basis, not so much for a critique of the
tradition, but for the continuing development, the continued flowering of the Dharma. And
this is why the Lotus Suutra provided an important basis for the transformation
of Buddhism in a Chinese context. From the perspective of the Lotus Suutra, the
transformation of Avalokiteshvara into Kwan-yin is not a corruption of Buddhism but a
flowering.
The story of the conjured city is very instructive here. It is about nirvana, certainly
one of the central doctrines of traditional Buddhism. And what does this story say about
nirvana? It says that the teaching of nirvana was a teaching device to enable people to
get a bit of rest before continuing on the Buddha-way, like an elegant rest area on a
highway. The Buddha did not go away into some extinction. There is no place and no time
where the Buddha is not, or where he is not becoming enlightened. The Buddha's entry into
nirvana, we are told, is part of a story, used to get people to be more responsible for
working out their own salvation.
The Lotus Suutra tells us in many places that it is new, that people who hear
and receive it, gain something unprecedented, something they never had before. But the
teaching of appropriate means is not so much a new teaching as it is a new way of
understanding all Buddhist teachings. Notice that the Lotus Suutra does not
propose throwing away the term nirvana or the story of the Buddha's nirvana. Rather it
puts nirvana in a new light. It relativizes it, making it subordinate to the larger
purpose of becoming a Buddha, i.e., of doing bodhisattva practice.
Return to Contents
The embodied dharma
As I understand hooben in the Lotus Suutra, it would be a serious
mistake to think that hooben are lesser teachings which can now be replaced by
some higher teaching (13). All appropriate and
effective teachings are hooben, in endless variety. There is a larger purpose
that they serve; they are, after all, means not ends. The encompassing purpose or truth
that they serve is not another teaching. It is a Dharma that can only be found embodied in
concrete teachings, including actions which are instructive, just as the Buddha can only
be found embodied in "Saakyamuni, and in you and me.
One of the ways, I think, in which the Lotus Suutra and its teaching of hooben
is ethical is by being radically world-affirming. By this, I mean simply that it is this sahaa-world
which is "Saakyamuni Buddha's world. It is in this world that he is a bodhisattva
and encourages us to be bodhisattvas (14).
This world is our home, and it is the home of "Saakyamuni Buddha, precisely because
he is embodied, not only as the historical Buddha, but also as the buddha-nature in all
things. Thus, things, ordinary things, including ourselves and our neighbors are not
primarily to be seen as empty, though they are; not primarily to be seen as phenomenal,
though they are; not primarily to be seen as illusions, though in one sense they are; not
primarily to be seen as evil even though they may be in part. It is in dharmas
(things/"conventional" existence) that the Dharma is. It is in transient,
changing things that the Buddha is (15). They are,
therefore, to be treated with as much insight and compassion and respect as we can muster.
It is perhaps something of an irony that the suutra which affirms a cosmic
"Saakyamuni Buddha, one who is in every world and every time, does so not to reject
the historical "Saakyamuni or the temporal world, but to affirm their supreme importance(16). And their importance is nothing more or
less than that this world is where we, having been taught by the historical Buddha, are
called to embody the life of the Buddha in our acts and lives. This is why a part of the
every day liturgy of Rissho Kosei Kai is the doojoo-kan: "Know that this
place is where the Buddha attained perfect enlightenment. In this and all places the
buddhas accomplish perfect enlightenment...."(17).
It is relevant in this connection to notice that there is little use of the notion of
emptiness ("suunya or "suunyataa) in the Lotus Suutra.
Of course, all things are empty. But it is because they are empty that there is space, so
to speak, for the development of one's buddha-nature. If things were substantial, they
could not truly grow or change. But because they are without substantiality, they can be
influenced by and have influence on others. Undue emphasis on emptiness is rejected
because it can easily become a kind of nihilism in which nothing matters. In the Lotus
Suutra, everything matters. The Buddha works to save all beings. Even poor Never
Disrespectful Bodhisattva, who goes around telling everyone that they are to
become Buddhas, though initially not very successful, eventually "converted a
multitude of a thousand, ten thousand, millions, enabling them to live in the state of
supreme enlightenment"(18). And this is to say
nothing of the fact that he later became the Buddha "Saakyamuni!
In one sense, I suppose, the Lotus Suutra does not provide us with an ethics
at all. It does not tell us what to do in any particular situation. It suggests that if we
devote ourselves to bodhisattva practice; take refuge as appropriate in the
Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha; thus entering the Buddha-way; we will find resources
within ourselves and in others for dealing creatively with our ethical issues, for
working, for example, for world peace, for a better society, for greater cooperation among
peoples of different cultural and religious traditions. The Suutra does not say that this
way will ever be easy. However, it does claim that in it is to be found great joy.
Return to Contents
Notes:
1 Cf. Watson p. 82. Here and elsewhere in this paper quotations from
the Lotus Suutra are my own, based primarily on Yukio Sakamoto and Yutaka
Iwamoto, Hokekyoo 3 vols. (Iwanami, 1989). For convenience, page references are
given to The Lotus Suutra, translated by Burton Watson (Columbia U.P.,
1993). Return to text
2 Unfortunately, for my purposes at least, both the Chinese fang
pien and the Japanese hooben can have, especially outside of Buddhism,
connotations of convenient for oneself. Perhaps that is a source of the
"expedient" translations. Return
to text
3 Michael Pye, Skilful Means: A Concept in Mahayana Buddhism.
London: Duckworth, 1978, p. 14. There would be ample justification for translating upaaya
as "means." In which case upaayakau"salya would be something like
"skill in means." But, while this distinction apparently is important in the
Sanskrit text, there is no comparable distinction in Kumaarajiiva's translation into
Chinese. Return to text
4 It is not exactly pertinent here, but I do want to point out that,
while there are stories in the Lotus Suutra where it can fairly be said that
cheating or deception is advocated as hooben, this is not the case in the story
of the burning house which is the prime example of hooben, that is, it is the
story the Buddha uses to explain hooben. Usually, I think, this is simply a
matter of not paying enough attention to what the text actually says. For example, in an
unpublished paper, one scholar says that the father broke his promise by only giving the
children one vehicle after promising them three, and that this is because he only had one
vehicle to give. Of course, the text plainly says that he gave them much more than he had
promised because he realized that his wealth was so great he could afford to be more
generous. And, though the text is not entirely unambiguous on this, the easiest way to
read it is that he gave each of them a great vehicle. It clearly does say that the father
has countless numbers of such great vehicles. Michael Pye even retells the story in such a
way that the father lies by telling the children that the carts they want are waiting for
them outside when in fact they are nowhere to be seen (Pye, op. cit., p. 37). The text, on
the other hand, does not say that there were no small carriages. Rather, the over-joyed
father, reflecting on his great wealth, thinks it would be unfair to give the children
small and inferior carts. Someone else, I'm not sure who, to support his view that the
story advocates deception, once argued that if I, as a Dean were to offer him a position
for $40,000 and then, after he arrived, told him that since we had just received a large
grant would pay him $140,000 instead, I would be guilty of deception! On any fair reading
of the text itself, there are no grounds for saying that this story advocates cheating or
deception. Return to text
5 How adhimukti got to be the Chinese hsin chieh (shinge
in Japanese reading), and thus 'faith and understanding' or possibly 'faithful
understanding' in English is itself an interesting question. It is generally assumed to be
a translation. The trouble with this is that adhimukti does not mean faith and
understanding, but something more like disposition or attitude. It is a reference to the
son's attitude toward his own life. Therefore, it seems that Kumaarajiiva, rather than
translating, may have devised a new chapter title. Though it is used in a scattering of
places throughout the suutra, the term does not appear at all in Chapter Four
itself. Return to text
6] While everyone says that there are other translations from Sanskrit
to Chinese, especially that of Dharmarak.sa, I have never actually seen one or compared
one with the translation of Kumaarajiiva, on which, so far as I know, all Japanese
versions and all English translations are based, save Kern's. In any case, the influence
of Kumaarajiiva's translation has been so pervasive in East Asia that, from an historical
point of view, it is the basic locus of what we call the Lotus Suutra. As far as
I am concerned, Kumaarajiiva's translation is the Chinese version, i.e. the only
Chinese version we need be concerned about. Return to text
7 There are, of course, plenty of stories in the later chapters in
which special, even magical, skills are required: assembled buddhas display their divine
powers by extending their tongues up to the heaven of Brahma and emitting a magnificent,
many colored light which illuminated the entire universe from the pores of his bodies; Bodhisattva
Medicine King rides a platform of seven treasures into the sky to pay tribute to the
Buddha who was living there; Gadgada"svaara (Wonderful-Voice) Bodhisattva
made eighty-four thousand gold and silver Lotus flowers and other valuables appear not far
from where "Saakyamuni Buddha was sitting on Mount Gridhrakuu,ta, and later went to
the sahaa-world on a flying platform of seven treasures; the sons of King
"Subhavyuuha (Wonderfully Adorned) use a variety of wonders in the sky in order to
purify their father's mind and enable him to understand the Dharma and practice the
Buddha-way; The Bodhisattva Samantabhadra rides around in the sky on his
six-tusked, white elephant to protect anyone who keeps the Suutra in the five
hundred years after the Buddha's extinction. Return to text
8 One complication for my interpretation is the very important story of
the Naaga Princess in Chapter 12. Except for the fact that she has been an excellent
teacher and "carried out all of the practices of a bodhisattva in an
instant," there is not much hint of her being a bodhisattva. It is precisely
for this reason that Accumulated Wisdom (Prajñaakuu.ta) Bodhisattva has great
trouble accepting the girl as a candidate for Buddhahood. Return to text
9 Cf. Watson 226–27. Return to text
10 Cf. Watson 106. Return
to text
11 Cf. Watson 71. This is why I think Pye is quite correct in
insisting that "'Buddhism' as a specific religion identifiable in human history, is a
skilful means" (Pye, op. cit., p. 5), or "Almost anything in the whole range of
Buddhist teaching and practice can be described as fang-pien or skilful
means" (Pye, op. cit., p. 36). Return
to text
12 But it is never the case, as Pye claims, that we are told to turn
around and destroy the raft. "The idea [of skillful means] entails that every item of
Buddhist communication has incorporated within it the requirement that it should
eventually be dismantled"(Pye, op. cit., p. 130). Return to text
13 I am well aware of the fact that many have read the Lotus
Suutra through the eyes of Naagaarjuna. It seems quite clear that T'ien-T'ai Chih-i
did this to some extent. (See Paul L. Swanson, Foundations of T'ien-T-ai Philosophy:
The Flowering Of The Two Truths Theory In Chinese Buddhism (Asian Humanities Press,
1989)). It is also the case that there are a few, but only a few, passages in the Lotus
Suutra that can be cited to support such a reading. Though this is not the place to argue
for it, I think there is an abundance of evidence, taking the suutra as a whole,
that it is viewed as much more pluralistic than this. In it's view there are many, many
truths, all of which serve, more or less well or badly, the one purpose of leading people
to salvation. But that one purpose is not another truth, not a different kind of truth,
and certainly not a higher form of truth. Its superiority lies solely in its great
inclusiveness, not as some kind of higher truth or reality, but as the Dharma that is
always and everywhere embodied in many concrete teachings, practices and acts. As far as I
can tell, Naagaarjuna virtually never uses the term upaaya. For him there are two
kinds of truth: relative truth (samv.riti-satya) on the one hand and ultimate
truth (paramaartha-satya) on the other. The Chinese equivalent of this ultimate
truth, chen ti (shintai in Japanese pronunciation), does not appear
anywhere in the Lotus Suutra, I think. Return to text
14 Elsewhere I have tried to show that the Lotus Suutra is
almost entirely indifferent to cosmology as such, but uses traditional Buddhist cosmology
to elevate "Saakyamuni Buddha to cosmic status and making him central to the entire
cosmos, which in turn elevates the status of his sahaa-world, which is the world
in which we, along with all of his bodhisattvas, are called upon to do his work
of saving the living. Thus, in this Suutra, even cosmology serves a
soteriological and, in that sense, ethical purpose. Our acts are cosmic in scope because
they are in the world of the "Saakyamuni Buddha who is cosmically influential.
One wonders whether it was the Lotus Suutra which Kenneth Inada had in mind
when he wrote: "Be it said once and for all that Buddhist philosophy cannot admit or
submit to any ideas with cosmic dimensions. If such were ever the case, then it would be .
. . [a] certain outlandish and corrupted form of Buddhism which in all eventuality would
have little or no real meaning for those who earnestly pursue the true basic
doctrines" (Nagarjuna (Sri Satguru Publications, 1993) p. 11)).
Return to text
15 Though he fails to understand why "emptiness" does not
have a prominent role in the Lotus Suutra, this kind of affirmation of the
concrete is well described by William LaFleur in a discussion of medieval Japanese poets
in "Symbol and Yuugen: Shunzei's Use of Tendai Buddhism" in The Karma of
Words: Buddhism and the Literary Arts in Medieval Japan (U. of Calif. P., 1983). This
can also be seen very clearly in the storyteller and poet Kenji Miyazawa. See, for
example, A Future of Ice: Poems and Stories of a Japanese Buddhist: Miyazawa Kenji,
translated by Hiroaki Sato (North Point Press, 1989). Return to text
16 Part of what world affirmation involves in the Lotus Suutra
is, as Nichiren correctly saw, what we might call 'taking time and history seriously.'
See, "The Selection of the Time" in The Major Writings of Nichiren DaishoninVol.
3 (Nichiren Shoshu International Center, 1985) 79ff., or in Selected Writings of
Nichiren, Philip B. Yampolsky ed. (Columbia U.P., 1990) 181ff. Return to text
17 Kyøden: Suutra Readings. (Risshoo Koosei Kai, 1994) p.
9. Return to text
18 Cf. Watson 268. Return
to text
Source: http://jbe.la.psu.edu/global.html