E-Learning Programs

Sorry to point out that for the parable of the Burning House in the Lotus Sutra, one should not focus on the 'Lie'.

In the parable, the great elder is the Buddha, the children and the house represent beings in samsara. The three carts are the provisional teachings expounded by the Buddha for the Sravaka, Pratyekabuddha and Bodhisattva, whereas the great white ox carriage represents the 'Supreme Vehicle of Buddhahood (meaning the teachings of the Lotus Sutra).

This parable was told by the Buddha with the intention of explaining to Sariputra the reason why he was taught in the beginning the path of arahant with the promise of liberation but now being declared by the Buddha as null and void (inferior) is because the Buddha would like to instead give him something much much better, the teachings of the Lotus Sutra (superior). Reason: the Buddha knows the condition of living beings and teaches them accordingly. In this case the Buddha is trying to appease Sariputra's feeling of being cheated (前功尽废）, hence the using of this parable.

It also reminds me about the story of two Japanese monks, Hogen and Renzo, with similar theme and intention of downplaying one sutra (Avatamsaka) and uplifting another sutra (Saddarmapundarika). A sort of internal rivalry among themselves, a very common feature in the Mahayana literature.

For more in-depth study of skillful means, please refer to the book written by Michael Pye,"Skilful Means, A Concept in Mahayana Buddhism", Second Edition, Routledge, 2003.

Lean Keat

I am writing my paper on similarities between Mahayana and Theravada and it seems to me that Buddha used similar skillful means in order to make sentient beings realize the Dharma. One of the famous examples would be the story of Kisagotami who happened to lost her newly born son and come to meet the Buddha with the intention to save him because she has tried every possible method to bring his life back. Realizing this, Buddha didn't simply repeat what others have done which is to say that her baby is dead and do the last ritual because she was not in that condition. Therefore, Buddha gave a hope that he could save her son if she does what he ask for. He simply asked her to bring a fist of mustard seed from a house where death has never taken place. After going house to house, she comes to realize that Buddha made her to go after this mustard seed not to save her child but to understand the nature of the life, which is common to one and all. Death is inevitable and applies it to her son. After this realization, she comes back and does her last ritual without Buddha saying her to do it.

As a ordinary being, we see this as lying of the Buddha but we must understand that Buddha is an awakened being who has become free from "sankhara" or mental volition and has attained the unconditioned state of mind where there is no duality of good and bad or existence or non-existence. Their nature is to serve sentient beings and this is exactly what he did as it shown in the parable of father who lied to save his sons. Therefore, there is no justification in Buddha's actions because justification is done in this duality of good and bad.

This reminds me of a 5-day Buddhist course that I attended a couple years ago. There was a discussion on observance of five precepts as this apparently was one of the reason that a group of students were hesitating in taking refuge in Triple Gem as they feared on breaking precepts. One student raised her hand and said that telling lies to get away from problems are so convenient in our daily lives. In fact, in order to come for this course, she told her spouse that she was away for some other matters because he did not seem to be supportive of her attending Buddhism classes. I personally feel that not speaking the truth at times like this is not that sinful as what she did was just to come close to Dharma and there was no harm to anyone in the process. She just didn't want to upset her spouse and so, the white lie. What's more when a person commit a lie when the intention is to save a life? For one to save a life, one needs to have a compassionate heart to begin with. With this compassionate heart, he values life and will definitely not harm a living. Given such intention, as long as the person apply some wisdom throughout, it could lead to a wholesome outcome.

However, one should always be mindful when using skillful means as I am in the opinion that committing a lie should not be a foremost method unless all avenues have been exhausted. Just like in the parable of burning house, the father told the lie only when the children did not respond to him when he called out to them about the danger.

With metta,
Sai Jo

This is a great discussion topic - thank you for posting and thanks to those who have responded!

I cast my memory back to an interview I saw with the Dalai Lama, where he was asked about always being peaceful even if someone was trying to harm you. He responded that putting up your fists in defense could be seen as acceptable because your intention was not to harm the other person, but rather to protect yourself. He went on to say that of course working out a conflict through peaceful means would be the preference.

I try and apply this type of wisdom in my daily actions and be mindful of my intention when choosing my actions and choosing my words. I just wish others would do the same. There seems to be a lot of mal-intention all around us every day.

Cheers!

-PHIL

Skilful means are often introduced as if they contradicted precepts or vinaya rules… I find this surprising.

The vinaya rules have appeared and evolved in response to circumstances. And in Buddhist traditions, we should understand better than most people that "conditions" matter. Rules are conditioned. They arose out of conditions and it would be pretty misguided to follow them blindly by not seeing how conditions in a new situation differ from the conditions when the rule was given. The difference might be seen as insignificant (rightly or wrongly) and the rule might be followed in spite of the difference; but surely we should at least consider the conditions! There is little mindfulness in blindly following a rule, any rule, no matter how good the rule is…

The vinaya rules are not the only conditioned teachings. The precepts might appear at times pretty universal and generic but they are conditioned too! What are they conditioned by? Our weaknesses! The precepts are given to us to help us overcome our weaknesses. And when the weakness ceases, the corresponding precept becomes irrelevant. Nirvana is unconditioned. One doesn't reach nirvana while still being bound by rules. And a buddha is not bound by rules precisely because the common weakness is no longer his weakness. Nirvana is the extinction of delusion i.e. of our most fundamental weakness, the one weakness most strongly leading to suffering…

Finally, precepts are usually inviting us to avoid clinging to them as unconditioned rules! As an example, "refraining from lying" is quite different from "never ever lying"! The call to refrain oneself has two characteristics: a call to be mindful of one's intention, and a compass to what frequently is the wholesome action. 'Frequently,' not 'always.' These two characteristics (mindfulness and direction) mirror insight and concentration, and one should remember that while concentration is a great tool to tame the mind and increase insight, insight is actually what gets us to nirvana. Mindfulness in the application of a rule (or a precept) is key.

So to answer question 4, this is not about justifying oneself! Justifying oneself is feeding a delusion to look good when we know we acted in a suboptimal way (no necessarily bad, but at least not as good as it might have been). It is not about justifying, which is a mental story-making and will most likely be based purely on conventions (moral conventions are still 'only' conventions!). The skilful means are about responding appropriately, thanks to seeing how things truly are. The story-making of the justification (to oneself or to others) is not the 'response', it only is a delusion and a response to the consequences of the initial response.

To give an example, if a child having a poisonous sweets. In order to prevent the child get poison, we must tell the child that the sweets is sour and bitter, so that the child will give up taking those sweets. In Buddhism, we believe in law of kamma rather than "sin" which is predetermined.If you understand law of kamma where intention plus action equal to kamma. But, you will not be able to determine what it will yield . This much depend on the total kamma "tendency" of the individual.
Where there is an example given in the notes of Theravada Buddhism, a grain of salt will make a cup of water undrinkable but it will not change the sea. Only the law of kamma will justify their actions but not others. That is why Buddha preached, do only good deeds and avoid wrong deeds so that all of us will enjoy happy life in the present and future.

Dear LC,

Amituofo.
Personally I view the committing a lie to save lives is okay. That is good intention. I don't think there is bad karma generated with this good intention. Saving lives is part of practice of compassion. Compassion is key element for the Mahayana practice.

Same for the parable of the Wise Physician in the Lotus Sutra. After the father went away out of home, he sent a note back to his country telling that he had died in the foreign country. His intention is kind with the purpose of helping his son on the illness. So that his son can be independent.

With metta,
gaik yen