How much of dharma is upaya?

[A.J.]

For sure: "Upaya" (skillful means) was a very nice way for later Buddhists to say, "Well, we don't really agree with all the teachings of early Buddhism exactly as they are presented, and we can't say the Buddha (or whoever wrote down the South Asian version of the teachings) was 'wrong,' so we will just say that he "was making different versions of the teachings for different needs." It is a nice way of rectifying the differences.

And, in fact, different versions of the teachings ARE suited to different people, with some benefiting more from X presentation, and others from Y presentation, so it is true: Different medicines for different needs.



Choose the Buddha(s) you wish, who resonated with your needs, the medicine for you. Only a terrible physician would hand out the exact same prescription to every patient who came through the door, whether a cancer patient or someone with a broken foot.



Refrigerator is an idea, I cannot be sure if I am dreaming it; Buddhist Ice Hell (https://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/b...doc225388.html) is an idea, I cannot be totally sure if it exists or not. However, the former seems to keep my milk cold (also possibly imagined), while the latter seems to defy what I understand about the laws of physics and various other things, and though some vision of it might be had in meditation practice, I see little evidence for it, it seems as likely as not to be someone's fanciful imagining or meditative hallucination, so I am more skeptical about "ice hell" than refrigerators. The former does not keep my imaginary milk cold. Likewise, "Sunayata" seems to be something I can envision in a dream AND which seems actually to be born out with what physics, chemistry and modern brain science tells us about the inter-identity of phenomena, AND it actually seems to cure the heart of friction, conflict and suffering ... so I think it real. No, it does not keep my milk cold either, but it has other verifiable uses.

Someone else may find value in their belief in "ice hell" or flying Buddhas in the sky, and so I honor their right to find value there. Good for them if that is the "expedient" prescription that benefits them. Frankly, if you want examples of "holy lies" that are told to people in order to inspire, I say it is precisely such miracle stories ... whether of Jesus or Gautama. The wild stories of the Lotus Sutra themselves are such "holy lies," yet they have wonderful value as parables even if we don't take them literally.

(pardon more than 3 sentences)

Gassho, J

STLah

Buddhist Hell (I could not find a picture of a cold one, so we will make do with fire and brimstone):

The reasons you gave for sunyata along with my own personal investigations are why I'm inclined to think that the word (in itself only an idea) points to something real about reality.

I just mention the distinction between spiritual experiences and common sense realities because while the one requires special engagements, (involvement in a practice or some such) the other is obvious in a way that doesn't require anything special.

Cool picture... I'm thinking of floors and walls made of dry ice where the naked damned have no where to sit.


Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[Jundo]

I should be specific about my guessing around here on the Vajrayana (since I don't have much experience with it): in some tantric texts I've read strange things like the ritual consumption of excrement and sexual fluids and although those behaviors aren't that popular I figured that because sexuality along with other oddities are present in those texts that there had do be some modified understanding of the Mahayana.

Much more likely Indian Shavism ... Brahman/Hindu transgressive beliefs in the religion of Lord Shiva ... which flooded into Buddhism in the early centuries C.E.

http://www.sutrajournal.com/the-tantric-age-a-comparison-of-shaiva-and-buddhist-tantra-by-christopher-wallis

It was then wrapped in Buddhist clothes and, yes, I am sure that they could interpret some Mahayana literature in extreme ways to find that common ground.

Not my cup of tea (or bile), and I don't care much for it as a practice, but maybe it works for someone as their Upaya.

Gassho, J

STLah

[Jundo]

It does seem that upaya becomes a framework for interpreting layers of tradition that don't quite fit with the present tradition at the time because while Mahayana interpreted "Hinayana" in retrospect I'm pretty sure Vajrayana did the same thing to explain discrepancies with Mahayana.

For sure: "Upaya" (skillful means) was a very nice way for later Buddhists to say, "Well, we don't really agree with all the teachings of early Buddhism exactly as they are presented, and we can't say the Buddha (or whoever wrote down the South Asian version of the teachings) was 'wrong,' so we will just say that he "was making different versions of the teachings for different needs." It is a nice way of rectifying the differences.

And, in fact, different versions of the teachings ARE suited to different people, with some benefiting more from X presentation, and others from Y presentation, so it is true: Different medicines for different needs.

Part of this is also that I'm trying to pin down what sort of teacher Buddha is thought to have been, i.e. is he a spiritual philosopher propounding truths to be absolutely proven by the minds of the students or is he a pragmatist delivering remedies to treat one ailment or another depending on the audience or time?

Choose the Buddha(s) you wish, who resonate with your needs, the medicine for you. Only a terrible physician would hand out the exact same prescription to every patient who came through the door, whether a cancer patient or someone with a broken foot.

If someone living had what they took to be some sort of vision of the bardo we wouldn't be able to deny their experience per se but could question how the experience is interpreted, therefore while I am inclined by my own experience and thought to believe there is something real to the sunyata idea I recognize that experience is one thing, whereas interpretation (including the interpretation that my insightful experience is objective reality) is another.

Refrigerator is an idea, I cannot be sure if I am dreaming it; Buddhist Ice Hell (https://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/b...doc225388.html) is an idea, I cannot be totally sure if it exists or not. However, the former seems to keep my milk cold (also possibly imagined), while the latter seems to defy what I understand about the laws of physics and various other things, and though some vision of it might be had in meditation practice, I see little evidence for it, it seems as likely as not to be someone's fanciful imagining or meditative hallucination, so I am more skeptical about "ice hell" than refrigerators. The former does not keep my imaginary milk cold. Likewise, "Sunayata" seems to be something I can envision in a dream AND which seems actually to be born out with what physics, chemistry and modern brain science tells us about the inter-identity of phenomena, AND it actually seems to cure the heart of friction, conflict and suffering ... so I think it real. No, it does not keep my milk cold either, but it has other verifiable uses.

Someone else may find value in their belief in "ice hell" or flying Buddhas in the sky, and so I honor their right to find value there. Good for them if that is the "expedient" prescription that benefits them. Frankly, if you want examples of "holy lies" that are told to people in order to inspire, I say it is precisely such miracle stories ... whether of Jesus or Gautama. The wild stories of the Lotus Sutra themselves are such "holy lies," yet they have wonderful value as parables even if we don't take them literally.

(pardon more than 3 sentences)

Gassho, J

STLah

Buddhist Hell (I could not find a picture of a cold one, so we will make do with fire and brimstone):

[A.J.]

I am not sure about that. Vajrayana rests pretty much on a Mahayana foundation and, having practiced a fair amount of Buddhist tantra, seems to me to be more about a different approach to practice and realizing buddha nature through embodying the result. I remember one teacher being asked about the difference between Vajrayana and Mahayana and he responded that Vajrayana is Mahayana.




Most of Buddha's teachings arose in response to questions or situations so he gave advice specific to those. When we try to make sense of that as a unified philosophy, there may definitely appear to be contradictions. Is that upaya or tailoring advice to the situation? I don't know.




I think he is both but ultimately his aim was to relieve suffering. Sometimes he taught to do this on a relative level, just as we do now, but his aim always seems to have been to awaken people to greater truths. However, that was not just philosophy for the pure pursuit of knowledge, but a way of demonstrating the true nature of reality that frees us from the suffering of our limited way of seeing ourselves.


Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday/lah-

Philosophy in an ancient Greek sense would also have some real life uptake and as an example I'd give Plato's Cave, while on the other hand pure concern for words and merely abstract knowledge was considered sophistry, not philosophy (love of wisdom).

I should be specific about my guessing around here on the Vajrayana (since I don't have much experience with it): in some tantric texts I've read strange things like the ritual consumption of excrement and sexual fluids and although those behaviors aren't that popular I figured that because sexuality along with other oddities are present in those texts that there had do be some modified understanding of the Mahayana.

Regarding upaya in the O.G. dharma I'm open to what could possibly fit that category and it does seem to open an interpretive door for cases where we might otherwise find the idea that Buddha is communicating objective truth unpalatable such as his meditations in the Pali Canon encouraging his listeners to see the world, the body, and people as disgusting and vile.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[Kokuu]

I'm pretty sure Vajrayana did the same thing to explain discrepancies with Mahayana.

I am not sure about that. Vajrayana rests pretty much on a Mahayana foundation and, having practiced a fair amount of Buddhist tantra, seems to me to be more about a different approach to practice and realizing buddha nature through embodying the result. I remember one teacher being asked about the difference between Vajrayana and Mahayana and he responded that Vajrayana is Mahayana.

Buddhist teachings that had an element of upaya from the get go (which would be helpful because there appears to be some contradictions even in the Pali Canon).

Most of Buddha's teachings arose in response to questions or situations so he gave advice specific to those. When we try to make sense of that as a unified philosophy, there may definitely appear to be contradictions. Is that upaya or tailoring advice to the situation? I don't know.

Part of this is also that I'm trying to pin down what sort of teacher Buddha is thought to have been, i.e. is he a spiritual philosopher propounding truths to be absolutely proven by the minds of the students or is he a pragmatist delivering remedies to treat one ailment or another depending on the audience or time?

I think he is both but ultimately his aim was to relieve suffering. Sometimes he taught to do this on a relative level, just as we do now, but his aim always seems to have been to awaken people to greater truths. However, that was not just philosophy for the pure pursuit of knowledge, but a way of demonstrating the true nature of reality that frees us from the suffering of our limited way of seeing ourselves.

Apologies for running well over three sentences (again!).


Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday/lah-

[A.J.]

Hi Andrew

The way I personally relate to this story is more one of the different approach to ethics (sila) between the Mahayana and early Buddhist schools. The Lotus Sutra very much makes a shift between these two ways of thinking and I see the sutra as setting out the Mahayana path in a number of ways, demonstrating the vast depths of buddhahood in space and time beyond that conceived in early Buddhist teachings.

In respect of the Burning House parable, I see it as a way of showing that upaya cenbe more important than rigid adherence to the precepts, in which Mayahana ethics moves from a rules-based system to one in which the motivation to practice for the benefit of all beings is more important.

But it may also point to the fact that the Buddha sometimes uses upaya for the benefit of all beings also. I can't think of a particular example at the moment. Might you be able to point to one (I haven't read the entirety of the thread so you might already have)?

Mostly, I see that what might be considered upaya in the teachings is more a case of relative teachings vs ultimate teachings, although really those two are in essence inseparable.

Anyway, that is my own particular reflection on that story but I would certainly not wager my house or it (burning or otherwise!) to be the correct or complete one.

Gassho
Kokuu

It does seem that upaya becomes a framework for interpreting layers of tradition that don't quite fit with the present tradition at the time because while Mahayana interpreted "Hinayana" in retrospect I'm pretty sure Vajrayana did the same thing to explain discrepancies with Mahayana.

Right now I can see upaya as 1. providing a retrospective framework for certain teachings thereby allowing developments and 2. providing an adaptable flexibility to teachers and schools of Buddhism to accommodate dharma to culture/students... but I am trying to brainstorm for 3. Buddhist teachings that had an element of upaya from the get go (which would be helpful because there appears to be some contradictions even in the Pali Canon).

Part of this is also that I'm trying to pin down what sort of teacher Buddha is thought to have been, i.e. is he a spiritual philosopher propounding truths to be absolutely proven by the minds of the students or is he a pragmatist delivering remedies to treat one ailment or another depending on the audience or time?

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[Kokuu]

Now, specifically in regard to the Lotus Sutra, in the parable of the burning house the father gets his children to safety by lying to them, so I figured since it is a parable perhaps certain Buddhist teachings aimed at getting you out of the burning house are in fact untruths which nevertheless you will come to appreciate once you see the house is burning down, but this is my own speculative reflections trying to authentically engage this story... so what would you read the parable as relating to?

Hi Andrew

The way I personally relate to this story is more one of the different approach to ethics (sila) between the Mahayana and early Buddhist schools. The Lotus Sutra very much makes a shift between these two ways of thinking and I see the sutra as setting out the Mahayana path in a number of ways, demonstrating the vast depths of buddhahood in space and time beyond that conceived in early Buddhist teachings.

In respect of the Burning House parable, I see it as a way of showing that upaya cenbe more important than rigid adherence to the precepts, in which Mayahana ethics moves from a rules-based system to one in which the motivation to practice for the benefit of all beings is more important.

But it may also point to the fact that the Buddha sometimes uses upaya for the benefit of all beings also. I can't think of a particular example at the moment. Might you be able to point to one (I haven't read the entirety of the thread so you might already have)?

Mostly, I see that what might be considered upaya in the teachings is more a case of relative teachings vs ultimate teachings, although really those two are in essence inseparable.

Anyway, that is my own particular reflection on that story but I would certainly not wager my house or it (burning or otherwise!) to be the correct or complete one.

Apologies for running well over three sentences.

Gassho
Kokuu

[A.J.]

Sunyata is like Rocky Road ice cream. Ya know it when one tastes it.

I have been to the grand canyon, so I believe it exists (might still be a dream or a false memory).

I am doubtful about the Bardo, although it might be and I will drop you a post card if I get there. (I believe that Bridgette Bardot was a real actress because I saw some films with her ... although they are just on a screen, and I never met her).

I think that there is an AJ (at least provisionally so), that Mickey Mouse is only a cartoon character (although a real cartoon character), but that rabbits with horns are fantasies alone.



I don't know any honest and sincere Buddhist teachers (i.e., not including the fake conmen and such) who would intentionally lie to a student. I might use words of encouragement or promise good things to keep people practicing, but I mean it. Some Buddhist folks might tell all kinds of magic tales to their students in order to encourage them or make a point (like about the miracles of a Buddha with his aura and golden skin) and maybe the teacher just means it as encouragement ... but I think that usually the teacher believes it too. I try to avoid such things.



Dogen said that we never put the raft down, nor is the raft really ever picked up, and that the "other shore" is actually this shore and the very middle of the river all along. This is his vision of ongoing practice enlightenment.

Now, I suggest that you drop the question in this thread for now, it has been about as answered as it can be. Go sit some more, beyond truth or upaya, sunyata or no sunyata, A.J. or no A.J.

Gassho, J

STLah

If someone living had what they took to be some sort of vision of the bardo we wouldn't be able to deny their experience per se but could question how the experience is interpreted, therefore while I am inclined by my own experience and thought to believe there is something real to the sunyata idea I recognize that experience is one thing, whereas interpretation (including the interpretation that my insightful experience is objective reality) is another.

To reiterate such a distinction is not the same as saying people may just as well not exist or perhaps Mickey Mouse is real because there is a difference between recognizing the subjectivity of spiritual experiences versus the common sense objectivity that people like ourselves fill the world.

Now, specifically in regard to the Lotus Sutra, in the parable of the burning house the father gets his children to safety by lying to them, so I figured since it is a parable perhaps certain Buddhist teachings aimed at getting you out of the burning house are in fact untruths which nevertheless you will come to appreciate once you see the house is burning down, but this is my own speculative reflections trying to authentically engage this story... so what would you read the parable as relating to?

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[Jundo]

I don't consider the obvious existence of people to be quite comparable with the provability of sunyata.

Sunyata is like Rocky Road ice cream. Ya know it when one tastes it.

I have been to the grand canyon, so I believe it exists (might still be a dream or a false memory).

I am doubtful about the Bardo, although it might be and I will drop you a post card if I get there. (I believe that Bridgette Bardot was a real actress because I saw some films with her ... although they are just on a screen, and I never met her).

I think that there is an AJ (at least provisionally so), that Mickey Mouse is only a cartoon character (although a real cartoon character), but that rabbits with horns are fantasies alone.

I'm wondering if there are upaya more similar to the story in the Lotus Sutra where the father literally lies to his children to get them out of the burning house.

I don't know any honest and sincere Buddhist teachers (i.e., not including the fake conmen and such) who would intentionally lie to a student. I might use words of encouragement or promise good things to keep people practicing, but I mean it. Some Buddhist folks might tell all kinds of magic tales to their students in order to encourage them or make a point (like about the miracles of a Buddha with his aura and golden skin) and maybe the teacher just means it as encouragement ... but I think that usually the teacher believes it too. I try to avoid such things.

I know in Zen you don't go from one shore to the other, but in that old Buddhist story about crossing shores, I believe the man discards the raft at the end.

Dogen said that we never put the raft down, nor is the raft really ever picked up, and that the "other shore" is actually this shore and the very middle of the river all along. This is his vision of ongoing practice enlightenment.

Now, I suggest that you drop the question in this thread for now, it has been about as answered as it can be. Go sit some more, beyond truth or upaya, sunyata or no sunyata, A.J. or no A.J.

Gassho, J

STLah

[A.J.]

Let me add that there may be some teachings that are more "upaya" than actually true. I entertain the view that, quite possibly, very literal views of post-mortem rebirth (e.g., through Karmic effects causing us to come back as puppy dogs, humans or as gods or in hell etc.) are a kind of nice story or fable or somebodies fantasy meant to get people to act morally. Tales of a Buddha who could perform miracles, did not need to eat or pee really, could read minds etc. might be somebody's well-meaning religions imagination.

That is very different from something like sunyata which, like the Grand Canyon, I feel is really there and worth a visit even if both are just names on something much grander which cannot truly capture the full reality which must be experienced by an actual visit.

Gassho, J

STLah

So there we have examples of upaya meaning stories or ideas that are not actually true meant to get you to act ethically. Since the parable in the Lotus Sutra involves escaping a burning house do you think there are upaya (again, meaning stories or ideas that are not actually true) meant to get you toward liberation?

I know in Zen you don't go from one shore to the other, but in that old Buddhist story about crossing shores, I believe the man discards the raft at the end.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[A.J.]

Well, as far as I know, there may be no A.J. there either, and if that is the case, then I am wasting a heck of a lot of time answering his questions. Nonetheless, I must assume that there is an A.J. there, at least provisionally, and I am experiencing so, so I am also experiencing my answering, and that it is worthwhile to do so.

I believe I listed in my first response several of the teachings that seem true enough that they can be experienced and, by such experience, change our experience of life and be liberating ... the transcendence of self, impermanence and emptiness and the flowing wholeness which sweeps in so, the cure for Dukkha ... and so many more, such as Master Dogen's teachings of "being-time," the Precepts, and many more; each, like the A.J. I experience, is as real as real can be (at least provisionally), worth knowing and is life changing. How they are taught and expressed as "upaya"? I already answered that in my top post above.

Gassho, J

STLah

(a bit more than three lines)

You can be relatively sure that I exist because you know within a fair probability that other people like yourself exist in the world, whereas spiritual insights are of a more esoteric nature and though I am inclined by experience to trust them, I don't consider the obvious existence of people to be quite comparable with the provability of sunyata. I don't want to be stuck on this example in itself since I am basically just wondering more generally if there are Buddhist insights that might be more psychological rather than metaphysical.

I liked your list of basic Buddhist truths as well as your example of upaya where you interpret upaya as an adaptation of basic Buddhist truths, however I'm wondering if there are upaya more similar to the story in the Lotus Sutra where the father literally lies to his children to get them out of the burning house.

P.S. I appreciate your interacting with questions. Questions are a big part of my personal practice.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[Jundo]

Let me add that there may be some teachings that are more "upaya" than actually true. I entertain the view that, quite possibly, very literal views of post-mortem rebirth (e.g., through Karmic effects causing us to come back as puppy dogs, humans or as gods or in hell etc.) are a kind of nice story or fable or somebodies fantasy meant to get people to act morally. Tales of a Buddha who could perform miracles, did not need to eat or pee really, could read minds etc. might be somebody's well-meaning religions imagination.

That is very different from something like sunyata which, like the Grand Canyon, I feel is really there and worth a visit even if both are just names on something much grander which cannot truly capture the full reality which must be experienced by an actual visit.

Gassho, J

STLah

[Jundo]

Yes, I think there is an experience of sunyata to be had by meditation. Since this is an experience that happens through the brain it necessarily runs into the same ontological issue of being unable to scientifically prove that an experience in the brain corresponds to an outer reality, which is why I offered that particular topic as an example.

The concept of upaya creates a context in which Buddhist teachings are not necessarily true though they may be helpful (like the father who lies to his children to get them out of a burning house in the Lotus Sutra) so I'm wondering in your estimation which Buddhist teachings may be to a greater or lesser extent thought of as upaya?

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

Well, as far as I know, there may be no A.J. there either, and if that is the case, then I am wasting a heck of a lot of time answering his questions. Nonetheless, I must assume that there is an A.J. there, at least provisionally, and I am experiencing so, so I am also experiencing my answering, and that it is worthwhile to do so.

I believe I listed in my first response several of the teachings that seem true enough that they can be experienced and, by such experience, change our experience of life and be liberating ... the transcendence of self, impermanence and emptiness and the flowing wholeness which sweeps in so, the cure for Dukkha ... and so many more, such as Master Dogen's teachings of "being-time," the Precepts, and many more; each, like the A.J. I experience, is as real as real can be (at least provisionally), worth knowing and is life changing. How they are taught and expressed as "upaya"? I already answered that in my top post above.

Gassho, J

STLah

(a bit more than three lines)

[A.J.]

Well, Emptiness/Sunyata are real ... but those are just words (one in English, one in Sanskrit) that convey a mental model of something vaguely like actual "emptiness." One actually has to sit Zazen and practice to experience Sunyata (which experience, of course, is still through our brain).

It is something like saying that "ice cream" and "sweet" are just two words that convey some mental image or memory of what sweet ice cream tastes like ... but one actually needs to taste the rocky road, with one's own tongue, beyond words or definitions, to know the rocky road.

Gassho, J

STLah

Yes, I think there is an experience of sunyata to be had by meditation. Since this is an experience that happens through the brain it necessarily runs into the same ontological issue of being unable to scientifically prove that an experience in the brain corresponds to an outer reality, which is why I offered that particular topic as an example.

The concept of upaya creates a context in which Buddhist teachings are not necessarily true though they may be helpful (like the father who lies to his children to get them out of a burning house in the Lotus Sutra) so I'm wondering in your estimation which Buddhist teachings may be to a greater or lesser extent thought of as upaya?

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

[Jundo]

It almost sounds to me like every single Buddhist teaching could possibly be upaya. I tend to think ideas like sunyata are trying to actually communicate something about the nature of reality, but maybe that also is only a tool? Is it possible for every bit of dharma to be upaya?

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

Well, Emptiness/Sunyata are real ... but those are just words (one in English, one in Sanskrit) that convey a mental model of something vaguely like actual "emptiness." One actually has to sit Zazen and practice to experience Sunyata (which experience, of course, is still through our brain).

It is something like saying that "ice cream" and "sweet" are just two words that convey some mental image or memory of what sweet ice cream tastes like ... but one actually needs to taste the rocky road, with one's own tongue, beyond words or definitions, to know the rocky road.

Gassho, J

STLah