GENIUS FORUMS

(I just picked up The Lotus Sutra.)

After justifying the use of expedient devices, and after an incredibly long series of highly-repetitive sections, the Buddha makes a significant remark so passingly that I nearly missed it. In four lines, he says that he leads people toward the ficticious state of nirvana in order that they may rest, and once they have rested, press them along further to Buddha-nature. "Nirvana" directly corresponds to an analogy of a magical city that is first evoked and then later whisked away. (This all happens by the end of the Third Roll of the Lotus Sutra, where I've paused my reading.)

My brother called this typical of mysticism, and passed it off as a jackass bait-and-switch move. But I'll give the Buddha the benefit of the doubt here, and put some more thought into it: was the Buddha justified in inventing nirvana, knowing it to be deception?

Lotus sutra is a Mahayana teaching and they are positing Nirvana as an inferior state to their own super duper state. This belittling of Hinyana by Mahayana is old hat.

(Currently to me) Zen looks like gimmickry with the aura of profoundness. Nowadays it has become popular due to movies such as the Matrix, which are of the same flavor.

Zen can get a little deceptive. Zen masters throughout history have used cunning language to evoke certain reactions in their listeners - confusing and potentially misleading as they may seem. "The koan," for example.

Typically, when someone realizes their innate Buddha-Nature, it's usually viewed as the key to entrance into Nirvana. (Yes, Nirvana is a real state.)

However, the Buddha could be alluding to 'whisking away the magical city' in order to further develop an understanding of all that Nirvana has to offer (as some may become overly attached to an initial understanding). He could also possibly be refering to working on reducing the ego after the initial breakthrough.

Trevor;

I’ve only read Chapter 2, Expedient Means, but here may be a response:

"Shariputra, I, now, too am also like this. Knowing that living beings have various desires to which their hearts are deeply attached, according to their basic dispositions, and by means of various causes and conditions, analogies, expressions, and the power of expedient devices, I speak the Dharma to them."

"Shariputra, this is all done so that they may attain the One Buddha Vehicle and the Wisdom of All Modes.

clyde, Buddha's own explanation (that you quoted) serves more as background for my surprise. I'll add that the Lotus Sutra, according to itself, contains the last remarks of the Buddha before he died. It comes across as a completely post hoc argument: the Buddha preaches one thing for the bulk of his life, and then turns around and says that anything he said could have been fiction -- except, of course, Buddhahood.

This makes maestro's remark that the Lotus Sutra merely displays the political strife between two sects of Buddhism compelling.

On that note, Steven, the Buddha's words are pretty out-of-character. He dispenses prophecies to near every single person in his audience, periodically shows supernatural powers, and the repetition of long passages and the use of big numbers (million quadrillion bajillion kalpas) comes across as a parody of earlier Sutras (for instance, the Diamond Sutra's use of big numbers gave the impression of someone trying to describe infinity, not trying to elaborate a complex cosmology). There's also some writing that is almost Christian in its attempt to guilt-trip the reader: "if you explain even one word of this sutra to another person, you get lots of merit. But if you denigrate even one word of this sutra, you will suffer for uncountable kalpas." I wish I were exaggerating. So, I'm going to have to go with maestro's interpretation: the Lotus Sutra belittles.

The reason why the Buddha Gautama employed expedient devices (skilful means) was that all people do not have the same capacity with respect to their ability to understanding the true nature of reality; and rather than to impede a person from advancing along the path to Buddhahood, which is the path (Tao) that we are all following, he would simplify the teaching to whatever level individual was capable of understanding. The Lotus Sutra, however, was a teaching intended for the Bodhisattvas (Enlightening Beings), and as these beings have already understood the fundamental nature of things, he revealed his skilful means, so as that there would be no confusion as to the true nature of Nirvana; this being that Nirvana, like Samsara, does not partake of a real (absolute), but merely an apparent (relative) existence.

It goes to show that much rambling metaphysics and Eastern sophistry reveal their mostly substanceless and worthless musings about nothing. They all talk of form and the nature of things, but seem very empty and hollow when you ask them for the content of such things, the real meat of things that actually matter in one's life

"the nature of things" ok, what is the nature of things?

"that everything is temporary and not self-inherent" ok, now what?

"that your ego is delusional because you care about what others think about you" ok, now I don't care what others think about me, now what?

"enlightenment is far too off for you"