Malcolm wrote:Queequeg wrote:
I made two points here that are not contradictory.
1. The sutra itself does not support your contention that Shakyamuni's life span is mere upaya to inspire faith. To arrive at that position one must introduce assumptions not found in or supported by the text.
Everything is interpretable. Your notion that the text must be taken literally is an assumption you are introducing to the text, which is not supported by the text itself and is directly contradicted by the text:
- The Buddhas teach the Dharma
With myriads of uncountable skillful means,
According to the capacities of sentient beings;
The inexperienced cannot understand this.
You misrepresent my position. Commentaries can be very helpful for opening up and revealing meanings that might not be readily apparent in the literal text. However, there are limits to interpretation. Commentary on a primary text can't contradict the text. It can't say, "The text means East" when the text literally reads, "West." At that point, the commentary and text have parted ways and the commentary can't be called commentary.
Further, I actually agree with you that the Lotus is upaya, from beginning to end. I just don't find the upaya you identify supported by the text. The text cannot be interpreted in any arbitrary manner to say the exact opposite of what it literally says. If those are the rules you follow, then there is no longer any basis of discussion. It doesn't matter how well reasoned and footnoted a commentary is - if it directly contradicts the text, something has to give and generally, the Buddha's words win.
My comment is based on Prthvibandhu's commentary.
I confess, I know nothing of Prthivibandhu beyond what Google tells me. Where can I find it?
The Lotus dates from First c. BCE ~ First c. CE. It was first translated into Chinese in 286 CE. It was again translated in 406 by Kumarajiva (344-414 CE), and this is the most popular version in East Asia. The Lotus was among the most highly regarded sutras in China from its first introduction. Indian commentaries on it would have been avidly sought, and indeed, there are commentaries attributed to Nagarjuna and Vasubandhu in Chinese (whether they are authentic is up for debate).
The views on the Lotus that you presently dispute were taught by Zhiyi (538-597 CE), though he suggests that they were his teacher's.
As best I can gather, Prthivibandhu dates from the 7th c., later than Zhiyi.
This raises a question about when the interpretation you attribute to Prthivibandhu would have first been in circulation in India. To say, this is how the Indians interpreted it, is a rather broad statement that glosses the fact that this appears on its face to be a rather late Indian view on the text. It also glosses the fact that "Indians" were far from monolithic in their views.
All that said, there isn't enough evidence to properly weight your claim.
Its inconclusive.
This is how the sūtra was commonly understood by Indian exegetes. In other words, Śakyamuni, in this sūtra, is attributing to himself the qualities of a sambhogakāya which are commonly understood to the audience of bodhisattvas. Since only eighth through tenth stage bodhisattva are privileged to see the Sambhogakāya in Akaniṣṭha, he is in this passage making a statement about the inseparability of the three kāyas. Further, to understand this passage in question, one must also understand it in reference to the statement about the purity of the Sahaloka in the Vimalakirti-nirdesa sūtra.
I can see the truth in pretty much everything here except the part about attributing qualities of sambhogakaya to himself. If the three bodies are inseparable, then that makes no sense. He doesn't need to attribute - he has those qualities. What he did at the assembly in the air is demonstrate these qualities.
As for only bodhisattvas being able to see this, the first half of the sutra addresses this issue by declaring that everyone is irreversibly on the Buddha path, that everyone, whether they realize it or not, are bodhisattvas, certain to attain Buddhahood without fail, that all are, wittingly or unwittingly, are being led along the path of Buddhahood.
There are many ways to unpack a sūtra's meaning — the literal meaning of the words is generally the least useful and interesting.
That seems like a disposition that would cause one to risk disregarding the profound implications of the text. "The text? Phooey. The commentaries are really where its at!"
The text does not "resist" conformity, as you put it. The idea of the three wheels, for example, or that sūtras are to be understood in light of when in Buddha's career he supposedly taught them is actually the basis for your entire exegesis of this sūtra — but that idea is also not supported in the sūtra. Where did the Buddha say, "You can disregard everything I have said in the past?"
That's not quite right.
The "Three Wheels" comes from the Lotus Sutra.
Kern translates:
"By means of one sole vehicle, to wit, the Buddha-vehicle, Sariputra, do I teach creatures the law; there is no second vehicle, nor a third... Yet, Sariputra, when the Tathagatas, &c., happen to appear at the decay of the epoch, the decay of creatures, the decay besetting sins, the decay of views, or the decay of lifetime, when they appear amid such signs of decay at the disturbance of the epoch; when creatures are much tainted, full of greed and poor in roots of goodness; then, Sariputra, the Tathagatas, &c., use, skillfully, to designate that one and sole Buddha-vehicle y the appellation of the threefold vehicle."
Upaya Chapter (Ch. 2).
And its not because of the period in the Buddha's life that it was taught that the Lotus is revered, though, the sequence of teaching is critical. Its because of the content. When Zhiyi talks about the Fifth period teachings as Perfect and Sudden, it is because of the substance of the teachings, not the particular time of the teaching.
The sequence, though, is important to the Lotus. As the Lotus explains, all the other teachings were to prepare for the teaching of the Lotus; all the other teachings were this Ekayana, the Buddhayana, even though the Buddha called it by various names. All the upaya are Buddhayana. The Sutra states this over and over in various ways, through the various parables, through the whole structure of the text itself.
Among the stories related in the text to make this point that the Lotus is the crowning teaching of the buddhas, it recounts how the Lotus is the last teaching by other buddhas as well, at least those who teach it - not all buddhas teach the Lotus - how the teaching of this Sutra by Shakyamuni follows the previous patterns of its teaching.
As to your final point - who is saying that all the other teachings should be disregarded? Some Nichiren Buddhists may believe that. Not all, by any means. It is unanimous, though, that the Lotus teaches the correct view through which all other teachings should be understood. This is not Nichiren's innovation, or Zhiyi's. This is found in the text of the Lotus Sutra.