Stories of the Lotus Sutra - Chapter 1: The Enchanting World of the Lotus Sutra

[Chikyou]

Reading this chapter uncaged something in me - I’ve always been an extremely imaginative person; but over time, I’ve been subtly discouraged from that until, while I didn’t become less imaginative, I kept it to myself. My imagination is a playground where I explore ideas, try out concepts or words or actions and figure out my values in different situations. But despite my love of science-fiction (where people get paid a lot of money to write and act stories that do all these things in fantastical environments) I’ve sort of been ashamed of it.

Yet here i am, studying one of the most fantastical spiritual texts ever written, beloved by many, for hundreds of years. Realizing that the fantastical has real value, real power, not just to me in secret, but to many.

It stood out to me too that Reeves asserted that the Indian people would surely have known how small Vulture Peak really was and so that was a “cue” that this is a fantastical story not to be taken literally. I think this is fascinating, because I grew up around people who took the fantastical literally when it comes to religion and so my “default mode” is to think religion = literal belief in fantastical stories. This is challenging that at every turn.

Gassho,
SatLah,
Chikyō

[MikeH]

First, thanks Jundo for the photos, which brought this week’s reading alive for me. And thanks, everyone who has posted so far, for helping me think through this first chapter.

I’m trying to read the Lotus Sutra along with the Commentary, and my first thought this week was, honestly, I would have put this sutra down immediately and for good if it weren’t for this reading group and for the commentary, which are both extremely helpful. It’s too challenging a work for me without the help and encouragement of others. I guess this is another proof of the importance of sangha.

I'm generally sceptical about using the imagination as a tool. My main concern is probably my experience with people who imagine talking with god and making poor moral decisions, firmly believing god commanded this or that. What are the guardrails? When is it imagination in the service of buddhahood, and when is it just feeding my own ignorance?

Hokuu’s comment here resonated. I often feel the same way, and this worry arose for me while reading Reeves. Plato, who gets a hard time in this chapter, prioritized universals because they are shared, stable, and reliable as a basis for lasting scientific knowledge…unlike (or so Plato thought) the ever-changing, relative world of imagination/sensation that is celebrated by Reeves, and allegedly by the Lotus Sutra.

But this science/imagination dichotomy made me think of the movie Contact, where the scientist and space explorer Ellie (Jodie Foster) beholds another world and says, “they should have sent a poet.” Her point seems to be that sometimes poetry is the truer description an experience than any scientific account. I bet, for example, only poetry could capture the fullness of the experience described in the sutra, or any present day experience, on Holy Eagle Peak.

what I learned: the various values of sangha and reading widely
a question: the first chapter of the Lotus Sutra is pretty long compared to the commentary of Reeves—what other themes might be in the sutra?

gassho
satlah
Mike

[Bion]

[QUOTE=Taikyo;n565016]

Well, think of the Sandokai, which we chant often: it speaks precisely of the identity of relative and absolute, or the harmony of difference and equality. Not two different things, not one either, in a conventional sense. Here's a talk from Jundo on it :

https://treeleaf.podbean.com/e/february-2018-zazenkai-talk-sandokai-the-identity-of-relative-and-absolute/

I would have to listen to Zazenkai's talk a few more times to grasp it better.

I chose one verse from Sandokai
"Light is also darkness, But do not think of it as darkness. Darkness is light; Do not see it as light. Light and darkness are not one, not two, Like the foot before and the foot behind in walking."

I tried to write my own verse. I hope that I understood the meaning behind the verse from Sandokai:

Illuminated by the light, I boldly step forward.
Shrouded in darkness, I surrender myself and trust.
Light and darkness caress my cheek,
Saying: everything is fine.

Ah, you've got a way with words! One great thing to look into regrding this light and dark duality, is how it is used in the Sandokai and in Zen in general. One would intuitively say light means clarity, brightness, vision, awakening and dark has a negative connotation, it maybe speaks of blindness, sleeping, fear. In the Sandokai, however they are turned upside down! That's a fun thing to play with!

I’m trying to read the Lotus Sutra along with the Commentary, and my first thought this week was, honestly, I would have put this sutra down immediately and for good if it weren’t for this reading group and for the commentary, which are both extremely helpful. It’s too challenging a work for me without the help and encouragement of others. I guess this is another proof of the importance of sangha.

It is wonderful that we can be a nurturing space for one another. There is no expectation, in any direction, to like or dislike, or to agree or disagree with the sutra, but exploring it together adds new layers to our understanding and offers fresh perspectives. Who knows where we'll end up by the time we're done! Also, Contact is a great movie!!!

Gassho
sat lah

[Shinsoku]

Commenting late is tough because I feel like this has been touched on by a few of us already, making this contribution unnecessary, but I’ll share anyway.

The people who first heard this sutra almost certainly knew Eagle Peak. They would have known there was no way all those beings could physically fit there. So right from the start, the sutra is tipping its hand: this isn’t a news report. It’s doing something else.

We could say, sure, this is mythic language—a story pointing at something true rather than recording something factual. That’s fine. But I can also imagine Jundo saying something like this: that the moment on Eagle Peak is not confined to one time or one gathering, but is all moments brought to life by you and by everyone—living as Eagle Peak, on Eagle Peak. If we allow ourselves to consider time the way Zen sometimes does—not as a straight line, but as something gathered into the present—then the image begins to shift.

If this moment really is all time, and all time is right here, then maybe that small ledge doesn’t have a capacity problem after all. Over all time, everyone fits. The monks, the bodhisattvas, the dragon kings… and us now.

So I think the opening scene is reminding us that when the Dharma is being taught—really taught—the whole universe is in attendance. And it always has been.

Thank you all for the wisdom.

Gassho,
Shinsoku
st/lah

[Maro]

First, thanks Jundo for the photos, which brought this week’s reading alive for me. And thanks, everyone who has posted so far, for helping me think through this first chapter.

I’m trying to read the Lotus Sutra along with the Commentary, and my first thought this week was, honestly, I would have put this sutra down immediately and for good if it weren’t for this reading group and for the commentary, which are both extremely helpful. It’s too challenging a work for me without the help and encouragement of others. I guess this is another proof of the importance of sangha.

gassho
satlah
Mike

And Bion added on that: It is wonderful that we can be a nurturing space for one another. ... Who knows where we'll end up by the time we're done!


I have made a separate file in my computer with the title : Points made by the Sangha on the forum and there I copy paste the reflections offered by you and then I go back to each one of them and I reflect - it feels to me as if I am colouring the black and white drawing of my inevitably limited perceptions :-)

Thank you very much dear friends - now imagine being hugged !

Gassho
Maro
satlah

[Bion]

Commenting late is tough because I feel like this has been touched on by a few of us already, making this contribution unnecessary, but I’ll share anyway.

Oh, please don't think that! The comment isn't late or unnecessary. I love this line from you "So I think the opening scene is reminding us that when the Dharma is being taught—really taught—the whole universe is in attendance. And it always has been."

I have made a separate file in my computer with the title : Points made by the Sangha on the forum and there I copy paste the reflections offered by you and then I go back to each one of them and I reflect - it feels to me as if I am colouring the black and white drawing of my inevitably limited perceptions :-)

Oh, that's a great thing. I plan on doing something siimilar! You alwats have good ideas and good reflections!

Gassho
sat lah

[Maro]

Bion offered helpful suggestions for study and my attention was peaked on three of his questions:

1. Is there something in the commentary that resonates, lingers, or troubles you?
2. What is one thing I’ve learned from this? and
3. What is one question I would ask about this?

1. There are two small paragraphs at the end of the chapter that resonated and lingered but did not cause any trouble.

In other words, the imagination, which makes it possible to soar above the realities of everyday existence, also makes it possible to function more effectively in this world.

Having experienced the fantastic cosmic world, having experienced a unity of heavens and earth, Giovanni then finishes what he started out to do that day. He walks to the dairy and brings a bottle of milk home to his mother.

2. I am not sure whether I can come up with a clear answer to what is it that I have learnt. However there is something that goes: “FANCY THAT!!!! Who would have thought it?”. Imagine the grand amazement one feels upon receiving a completely unexpected present – having ruled it out beforehand as almost impossible. The present being the lack of trouble with the lack of separation. Hearing, as if it is happening now, the voice of my first teacher from the Tibetan tradition, saying that the only reason we study the ultimate reality is so that we come to understand the conventional reality. We study the lack of inherent existence of everything so as to come to understand the way things truly exist.
It doesn’t sound very Zen in the wording but it leads to the same effect: what else is there than buying a bottle of milk for your mother, or tie your shoes and go out into the day to buy bread? Or as Jundo Roshi puts it in this talk on Sandokai (thank you for the suggestion to listen to it), “Live your life well”

3. What is the question I would ask? I am not sure. But I have a serious suspicion that it is going to be one that challenges my almost life-long default mode of questioning “what is it that prevents … x, y, z …”
For instance, “what if nothing is preventing nothing?”
(that sounds more Zen but still, michty me … what a question for my narrative of a life to grapple with ...)


Thank you friends


Gassho
Maro
sat/lah

[Koriki]

I do appreciate Reeves trying to set the stage for our reading with an appreciation for the value of fantasy tales. You don't have to look very far to see that we like good stories and we clearly seem to prefer ones in which there are explosions, monsters, or superhuman acts. For spiritual stories, perhaps the idea is that if they catch our attention we might remember them better. They are a great teaching tool. Instead of just telling someone the answer, we seem to accept the information better in a more indirect way through stories. Likewise in therapy, stories about how someone else worked through a similar situation are often used to gently guide the person to a healthier outcome. Personally, when I'm reading Buddhist texts I am not only working on my own spiritual transformation, but I am hoping to find some good stories for my chaplaincy toolbox.

The description of omens that occurred before the Buddha's sermon seems to me to reflect the after the fact importance of his teaching. It's as if someone saw that, given the enormous impact he had on the world, this is what should have happened. When I look back at several decisions I have made in my life that seemed fairly minor at the time but turned out to be life changing, in my mind's eye there probably should have been all kinds of supernatural events occurring as I made that choice which would have signified the great importance of those events later in my life. Likewise, when there is a death of someone important in my life it feels like there should be a total eclipse combined with a worldwide power outage for a few minutes, with the whole world coming to a halt.

Gassho,
Koriki
s@lah

[Kinshu]

Hello friends!
So, I read chapter 1 and understood Reeves' interpretation, or at least I think I understand it so far. He explains that we shouldn't take the text literally and that we should filter the teaching, basically.
But even so, I allowed myself to imagine a little more (I remind you that I am also reading the sutra in its entirety).
Could it really be that there weren't thousands and perhaps billions of beings on Vulture Peak?
If I go to my garden with a shovel, and give just one blow to the earth and observe, I will be able to see more than a dozen different kinds of small plants, many insects, earthworms, thousands of grains of earth, countless bacteria and chemical substances, this perceived only with my 5 senses, besides what may still exist there that I cannot perceive, and that humanity will only discover in a thousand years, and perhaps almost everything there is alive and lucid in some way, besides all of that being myself. Perhaps Vulture Peak was quite crowded, or perhaps not; it could have been just Ananda, Sariputra, Rahula, and the Buddha... and so, perhaps he was alone.
We can also consider that Buddhism has always syncretized with local deities, adding other entities to the Hindu pantheon; we see this in Tibet, Thailand, and Japan. In Japan, before the Meiji era, every Shinto temple was also a "Buddhist" temple, and in the Soji-ji temple itself, there is a huge Daikokuten altar in the administrative area.
Furthermore, all the deities mentioned have parallels with deities from diverse cultures; we can even compare them with deities from Brazilian and even Amazonian popular culture.

For example:
Hāriti, the old black men.
Nagas, entities of fresh waters and waterfalls, Oxum.
Indra, Xango.
Warriors, Ogum and his soldiers.
The Ten Daughters Rākshasa - the "pomba-giras".
Asuras - the Exus.

What I mean here is that perhaps the monks who authored the sutra, citing oral sources, were perhaps saying something like: you don't need to change your faith, you just need to stay in reality. Bring your gods here, and even your demons...

I'm not sure if I managed to express my thoughts clearly here.

What I learned: Don't be so literal and absorb the message of the sutra.

Question: What if it's not so abstract?

Gasshô
Kinshū
sat/lah

[Hoseki]

I want to thank Jundo for the beautiful photos.

Reading the beginning of the first chapter, I was surprised by the author’s astonishment at the presence of such a large assembly gathered to hear the Lotus Sutra on a small mountain peak. In ancient India, at the same time when the Puranas were also composed, it was entirely natural within the cosmology of the people of that time that celestial beings would be present at important gatherings and events (as Gene Reeves himself enlists them). Their presence conferred great significance upon the occasion. According to the Puranic stories, such beings do not belong to this world and require no physical space—they hover somewhere above, with a perfect view.

But what intrigues me even more, as mentioned further in the reading, is the idea of a “two‑truth theory”: the distinction between conventional truth and ultimate truth. It is an idea I would like to explore—how to balance them in everyday life. On the one hand, imagination can be a powerful tool to open a broader view; on the other hand, there is always the danger of becoming lost in an imaginative world if it is mistaken for the truth.

Gassho
Taikyo
sat/lah

Hi,

If you’re interested in the Two-Truth theory, you should check out the Madhyamaka school, and in particular Nagarjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Root Verses on the Middle Way). It’s also worth noting that Soto Zen comes further downstream from Madhyamaka, so it won’t align perfectly with Soto Zen practice or teaching.

Zhiyi, the fourth patriarch of the T’ien-t’ai tradition (and often considered its founder), builds on the Two-Truth theory to create a Threefold Truth, which, in my view, aligns more closely with Soto Zen.

The Two-Truth theory basically says that things lack inherent existence and arise through dependent origination. Dependent origination means that all things come about because of causes and conditions, each of which has its own causes and conditions. The further you trace these conditions, the more diffuse their influence on any particular thing becomes.

For example, we might say, “Hoseki has a gassy stomach today.” This could be due to something he ate, a local cause connected to the state of his stomach and the food itself. We could trace the causes further, to the farm where the food was grown, the weather that season, and so on, but eventually, these distant causes become practically irrelevant. If Hoseki’s goal is to avoid future stomach discomfort, worrying about the weather during the time the beans were grown isn’t useful.

Thinking of things as isolated from the wider causal network is therefore practical: it allows us to focus on the causes that matter in everyday life. But when we talk about emptiness, we are describing things in terms of their fundamental existence rather than their functional role. The idea, as I understand it, is that understanding emptiness intuitively helps reduce grasping. Since all things, including ourselves are empty, there is nothing to cling to and no “self” to do the clinging.

Zhiyi’s Threefold Truth differs by incorporating both conventional and ultimate truths while introducing a third perspective: their integration. There is often a temptation to treat Nagarjuna’s ultimate truth as more primordial than the conventional, which can lead to undervaluing the conventional. Zhiyi avoids this by emphasizing that both truths are essential aspects of reality. Emptiness and convention, when seen together, constitute the middle way and reflect the buddha-nature inherent in all things.


Note: in full disclosure I did use Chatgpt to edit my post. It fixed many a typo and help tighten up the language a bit. The original had many more sentence fragments and parenthesis.


Gassho,

Hoseki
sattoday/lah

[Hosui]

Zhiyi, the fourth patriarch of the T’ien-t’ai tradition (and often considered its founder), builds on the Two-Truth theory to create a Threefold Truth, which, in my view, aligns more closely with Soto Zen...

Zhiyi’s Threefold Truth differs by incorporating both conventional and ultimate truths while introducing a third perspective: their integration. There is often a temptation to treat Nagarjuna’s ultimate truth as more primordial than the conventional, which can lead to undervaluing the conventional. Zhiyi avoids this by emphasizing that both truths are essential aspects of reality. Emptiness and convention, when seen together, constitute the middle way and reflect the buddha-nature inherent in all things.

Hoseki
sattoday/lah

We're coming at this from a similar angle, Hoseki, and I love the contrast you're making. Thanks for sharing.

Gassho
Hosui
Sat/lah today

[Bion]

Hoseki Hosui Again. we're returning to the Sandokai: "to be attached to things is primordial illusion, to encouenter the absolute is no yet enlightenment". One can't be mentally stuck in one or the other as if they were separate entities.

Gassho
sat lah

[Seikan]

This chapter did a great job at piquing my interest in the rest of the book. The whole notion of using fantastical stories to stoke the imagination in such a way as to make the teachings resonate more deeply with the listener is certainly what I would call "skillful means".

And I also love how Reeves talks about the concept of "enchantment". I've long had an interest in the idea that we need look no further than the ordinary world to find all that is extraordinary.

On to chapter two!

Gassho,
Seikan
stlah

[Chikyou]

Hello friends!
So, I read chapter 1 and understood Reeves' interpretation, or at least I think I understand it so far. He explains that we shouldn't take the text literally and that we should filter the teaching, basically.
But even so, I allowed myself to imagine a little more (I remind you that I am also reading the sutra in its entirety).
Could it really be that there weren't thousands and perhaps billions of beings on Vulture Peak?
If I go to my garden with a shovel, and give just one blow to the earth and observe, I will be able to see more than a dozen different kinds of small plants, many insects, earthworms, thousands of grains of earth, countless bacteria and chemical substances, this perceived only with my 5 senses, besides what may still exist there that I cannot perceive, and that humanity will only discover in a thousand years, and perhaps almost everything there is alive and lucid in some way, besides all of that being myself. Perhaps Vulture Peak was quite crowded, or perhaps not; it could have been just Ananda, Sariputra, Rahula, and the Buddha... and so, perhaps he was alone.
We can also consider that Buddhism has always syncretized with local deities, adding other entities to the Hindu pantheon; we see this in Tibet, Thailand, and Japan. In Japan, before the Meiji era, every Shinto temple was also a "Buddhist" temple, and in the Soji-ji temple itself, there is a huge Daikokuten altar in the administrative area.
Furthermore, all the deities mentioned have parallels with deities from diverse cultures; we can even compare them with deities from Brazilian and even Amazonian popular culture.

For example:
Hāriti, the old black men.
Nagas, entities of fresh waters and waterfalls, Oxum.
Indra, Xango.
Warriors, Ogum and his soldiers.
The Ten Daughters Rākshasa - the "pomba-giras".
Asuras - the Exus.

What I mean here is that perhaps the monks who authored the sutra, citing oral sources, were perhaps saying something like: you don't need to change your faith, you just need to stay in reality. Bring your gods here, and even your demons...

I'm not sure if I managed to express my thoughts clearly here.

What I learned: Don't be so literal and absorb the message of the sutra.

Question: What if it's not so abstract?

Gasshô
Kinshū
sat/lah

The idea that the Bodhisattvas might be insects hadn’t occurred to me. Now, I’m not about to use this idea as an invitation to start taking the sutra literally, but it does draw my attention to an assumption that I was making, that, aside from the mystical beings pointed out directly (the centaurs and such), everyone present was human. If the Buddhas were from so many other worlds, as described in the sutra, why would I assume that? It’s logical to imagine all manner of Buddhas were present, not just human ones. Does the ant not also have Buddha-nature?

Gassho,
SatLah,
Chikyō

[Kinshu]

Hello Chikyou!

So nice to exercise our imagination! Isnt it? Lol
I don't have such in-depth knowledge, but I imagine that all sentient beings can have "Buddha-nature," but it seems to me that we must go through the human species to become Buddhas. Shakyamuni was in the human species when he attained enlightenment. Certainly, the ant accumulates karma, but its mind is too limited to become a Buddha, although there are certainly ants much smarter than me! Lol
Also, perhaps there are still beings that we don't know...and how could the authors describe them?
I'm not saying I believe in extracorporeal beings, I'm just trying to get into the mood of the sutra, let myself imagine and relax, going with the flow...

Gasshô
Kinshū
sat/lah

The idea that the Bodhisattvas might be insects hadn’t occurred to me. Now, I’m not about to use this idea as an invitation to start taking the sutra literally, but it does draw my attention to an assumption that I was making, that, aside from the mystical beings pointed out directly (the centaurs and such), everyone present was human. If the Buddhas were from so many other worlds, as described in the sutra, why would I assume that? It’s logical to imagine all manner of Buddhas were present, not just human ones. Does the ant not also have Buddha-nature?

Gassho,
SatLah,
Chikyō