How much of dharma is upaya?

[A.J.]

Oh, it is not black and white, for while there are certain Truths of our Path that are to be conveyed ... of self and the transcendence of self, of impermanence and emptiness and the flowing wholeness which sweeps in so, of Dukkha and the cure for Dukkha ... there are 10,000 ways to express so, to try to get it across, to make it good music suited to different ears, to call on imagery and stories, suttas and sutras, poetry and prose, parables and similes, detailed explications or simply drawing enso circles in the air, or a shout or a Koan or ... or ....

A novel such as "Moby Dick" is fiction, and yet it seeks and succeeds to convey Truths about the human condition, thus is as true as true can be. Where does one end or begin?

Gassho, J

STLah

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

[Jundo]

My question relates to the role of upaya in the Sutras because I'm wondering how much the teachings of Buddha can be said to be communicating what is true about reality versus communicating skillful means for pulling the arrow of dukkha out.

There is the old burning house story in the Lotus Sutra as a parable for pragmatism in teachers, but also the Mahayana relegated the Suttas of the "Hinayana" to being merely upaya because Buddha's listeners were not ripe to hear the full truth.

I'm curious to know in your opinion which of Buddha's teachings are actually true (in the philosophical sense of intended to communicate reality even if they themselves are only a finger pointing to the moon) versus which aspects of the dharma may be utilitarian and how one might tell the difference.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah

Oh, it is not black and white, for while there are certain Truths of our Path that are to be conveyed ... of self and the transcendence of self, of impermanence and emptiness and the flowing wholeness which sweeps in so, of Dukkha and the cure for Dukkha ... there are 10,000 ways to express so, to try to get it across, to make it good music suited to different ears, to call on imagery and stories, suttas and sutras, poetry and prose, parables and similes, detailed explications or simply drawing enso circles in the air, or a shout or a Koan or ... or ....

A novel such as "Moby Dick" is fiction, and yet it seeks and succeeds to convey Truths about the human condition, thus is as true as true can be. Where does one end or begin?

Gassho, J

STLah

[A.J.]

My question relates to the role of upaya in the Sutras because I'm wondering how much the teachings of Buddha can be said to be communicating what is true about reality versus communicating skillful means for pulling the arrow of dukkha out.

There is the old burning house story in the Lotus Sutra as a parable for pragmatism in teachers, but also the Mahayana relegated the Suttas of the "Hinayana" to being merely upaya because Buddha's listeners were not ripe to hear the full truth.

I'm curious to know in your opinion which of Buddha's teachings are actually true (in the philosophical sense of intended to communicate reality even if they themselves are only a finger pointing to the moon) versus which aspects of the dharma may be utilitarian and how one might tell the difference.

Gassho,

Andrew,

Satlah