More Lotus

I'm reading The Lotus Sutra: A Contemporary Translation of a Buddhist Classic translated by Gene Reeves. I wrote a little bit about how The Lotus Sutra rewrote Buddhism in a recent post. I first learned about The Lotus Sutra from Donald Lopez Jr.. Lopez described The Lotus Sutra changing the theology of Buddhism. Reeves offers a less strict interpretation his introduction to his translation. I especially liked the following paragraph:

“It is also a very clever way to answer the question of how it is possible for one to overcome obstacles, however conceived, along the path of becoming a buddha. If ordinary human beings are completely under the sway of passions and delusions, by what power can they break through such a net of limitations? Some say that it is only by one’s own strength; one can be saved only by oneself. Others say that it is only by the power of Amida Buddha or perhaps Guan-yin that one can be led to awakening. The Lotus Sutra says that it is by a power that is at once one’s own and Shakyamuni Buddha’s. The Buddha really is embodied in the lives of ordinary people. He himself is both a one and a many.” Gene Reeves

Other religions have a similar dilemmas between God/gods and free will. Even the non-religious have a similar dilemma between determinism and free will.

Both is a great answer. It keeps responsibility on the individual, and people need to take responsibility. But it's also good to be able to let go to a high power. According to Reeves, Buddhism, like other religions, keep both ideas.

As an atheist/agnostic, I really like a solf determinism where free will and determinism are compatible. It's both!

More Dry

​It has been a while since I had a rant. I’ve almost ranted about face tattoos a couple times, but I’ll save that for a more dry day. 

More Dry

My dryer sucks. The default setting leaves clothes damp. So, before I start my dryer I have to adjust the settings which brings me to my rant. 

There are several series of settings. For example, “Time” has 20, 40, or 60 minutes. Temperature has high, medium, and low. 

But then there is a dryness series. “Damp dry.” Okay that makes perfect sense, I’d never choose that setting, but I get others might or certain materials may recommend it-I’m a wash and dry everything together guy. 

The next option for dryness is normal dry. Okay. I’d just say dry, but whatever. 

The next option! “More dry!”

Oxford Languages defines the adjective “dry” as, “free from moisture or liquid; not wet or moist.”

How can you get more not wet. You’re either moist or dry. You can’t get anymore dry than dry. It’d be like being more dead. When you are dead, you can’t get more dead. 

What really gets me is that if you want your clothes dry, you have to stoop to their stupidity and select “more dry.” Because for this asinine idiot dryer “normal dry” leaves 10-20% of your laundry damp. 

I should have used more exclamation marks and curse words. 

Until face tattoos…

Jimbo Out

My Dive into The Lotus Sutra

I'll probably read or listen to the entire Lotus Sutra. I'm especially interested in the commentaries. Below is what I'm consuming so far.

My Sources

The Lotus Sutra translated by Burton Watson: this is a free online version. The translation reads fine. This is where I read the first two chapters. It motivated me to check out the other sources below.

The Lotus Sutra: A Contemporary Translation of a Buddhist Classic translated by Gene Reeves: this is a modern translation. Reeves claims to use as few Sanskrit words and eastern terms as possible. So far I have only read Reeves' introduction. I'll update my opinion after I read some of his translation. I found his background information about the text and history to be very informative and interesting. I'm reading this from my phone on eBook through Libby.

The Lotus Sutra: Saddharma Pundarika Sutra or the Lotus of the True Law translated by Hendrik Kern: I started listening to this translation on Hoopla. It is the only audio version I have access to from my library. 

The Lotus Sutra: A Biography by Donald Lopez Jr: I didn't start this yet. But Lopez got me interested in the topic.

Exploring The Lotus Sutre: "Chapter Two: Expedient Means"

I read chapter two online here. This is a continuation of my previous post on chapter one, read it here.

The Lotus Sutra Profile

Authorship- like most ancient texts, there is no consensus as to when it was written, who wrote it, or the exact process of the ideas and composition. It was mostly likely written, edited, and complied by multiple authors, over multiple decades.

Dating- the ideas, stories, and sutras likely originated between 100 BCE-100 CE. This aligns with the emergence of Mahāyāna buddhism. It likely had oral and or textual origins in local Indian languages, like Prakrit, before being being composed in Sanskrit between 100-250 CE. 

Versions- chapters 2-9  are likely the oldest. Chapter 1 was likely a later addition. There is debate about the progression of the other chapters.

Translations-  The oldest surviving texts are Chinese translations. Dharmarakṣa (286 CE) is the oldest full Chinese translation, 27 chapters. Kumārajīva (406 CE) is the which is most influential Chinese translation; it is 28 chapters and the basis for East Asian tradition. 

Point of View- there is a third person omniscient narrator.

Frame- Chapter one was a cosmic setting. Chapter two is a lot more intimate with teacher and student. Chapter two is most likely the original beginning of oldest version of the The Lotus Sutra.  

Names and Terms 

Arhats-is one who has gained insight into the nature of existence, has achieved nirvana,^[1][2] and has been liberated from the endless cycle of rebirth.Mahāyāna considers arhatship provisional and not final.

Dharma-is a key concept in various Indian religions. The term dharma does not have a single, clear translation and conveys a multifaceted idea.In its most commonly used sense, dharma refers to an individual's moral responsibilities or duties; the dharma of a farmer differs from the dharma of a soldier, thus making the concept of dharma dynamic. In Buddhism, dharma is the truth about reality.

Mahāyāna Buddhists- meaning "Great Vehicle," is one of the two major branches of Buddhism that emphasizes achieving enlightenment for the benefit of all sentient beings, rather than just oneself. 

Nirvana- is the concept of an individual's passions being extinguished as the ultimate state of salvation, release, or liberation from suffering (duḥkha) and from the cycle of birth and rebirth (saṃsāra).^[3][4][5]

Samādhi- in the Indian religions, is a state of meditative consciousness. In a Buddhist context, samadhi is a state of intensified awareness and focus. In the context of The Lotus Sutra, this is the 

Śākyamuni Buddha- (Sanskrit: Śākya-muni, “Sage of the Śākya [clan]”) is the historical Buddha, the human teacher who lived and taught in northern India in the 5th–4th century BCE. Born as Siddhārtha Gautama (Pāli: Siddhattha Gotama). He will be the speaker of the sutra that makes up The Lotus Sutra. 

Śāriputra- one of the top disciples of the Buddha.

TLDR

"At that time the World-Honored One calmly arose from his samadhi and addressed Shariputra, saying: 'The wisdom of the Buddhas is infinitely profound and immeasurable.'" The Buddha explains how his wisdom can't be taught. His traditional teachings-the traditional teachings of the historical Buddha- were provisional teachings. But, since Śāriputra asks three times, the Buddha decides to teach his true teachings that all people are bound for Buddhahood. The following chapters of The Lotus Sutra, according to The Lotus Sutra, are the true teachings of the Buddha. 

Reading Response

The first sentence is very abrupt. I like it. It reminds me of Siddhartha by Herman Hesse: enlightenment can't be taught. This is a common Indian metaphysical idea. And then ironically, because Buddha was asked three times, the Buddha decides to explain the unexplainable.

The cosmic mytholog from chapter 1 is mostly absent in Chapter 2. This solidifies the theory that chapter 2 was added later. It's clear that the frame of chapter 2- with the teacher-student dialogue- was the original set up for the parables and teachings that follow. 

Chapter 2 reminds me of a new testament. The old teachings were not correct enough. So a new testament is created. As if the Buddha a few 100 years later after death has had an additional awakening. His traditional teachings were baby steps because people are too dumb (my words not the sutras). Now, without any explanation to how people have changed, the true teaching can be presented and taught to humans. If that doesn't make sense to you, you're not alone.

The Mahāyāna decide- discover if you want to be generous- that everyone is destined to be a Buddha. This is a nicer idea and it makes sense why a monk or follower of Buddha would struggle with this dilemma. What good is saving yourself if others are stuck in samsara? For the Christian analogy- what good is saving yourself if all your loved ones are stuck in Hell. Could one really be happy in Heaven knowing their friends and family are in Hell?

I personally like the progression of this idea. But there is a problem for first century Buddhist, the historical Buddha and traditional teachings, don't mention this idea. Nothing a few stories, parables, and teachings can't solve. Thus a likely origins of Mahāyāna Buddhism and The Lotus Sutra.

Take one of the Buddha's top students and create a dialogue between them where the Buddha explains why his previous teachings weren't the true teachings. This isn't that crazy because many Asians already agree with ideas like enlightenment and wisdom can't be verbally expressed. So there is a logic to why the 

Buddha may have intentionally taught people a lesser approach.

It's funny, because the idea is quite simple. But, I guess, the idea didn't spread well enough, so later Mahāyānas added the cosmic mythology of chapter one along with additional sutras and an updated theology.

The problem I see is blatantly obvious. Who is stopping some other group from sending The Buddha's Last messenger? They would have to present a better message. But otherwise, that's it. Which leads to my last response.

The Lotus Sutra only has authority through its message. The cosmic assembly of Chapter 1 increases the stakes and scope, but it doesn't really add any additional proof. It doesn't even claim to have hundreds of other eye witnesses. It shows everyone who's anyone is there, and then two of the top dogs further explain the significance. But that's it. It's not very convincing, especially for a modern reader.

In conclusion, reader, you can start a new religion or significantly modify an existing one. You just need a convincing theology. No evidence or proof is really needed. People will create the evidence and proof to justify their beliefs.

Chapter three coming next!

Exploring the Lotus Sutra: The Introduction (Chapter 1)

Background

I came across Donald S. Lopez Jr. here (I listened on my podcast app). Then I became interested in The Lotus Sutra after I heard this episode (which I also listened to on my podcast app).

Those two podcast episodes led me to start reading The Lotus Sutra. I was especially interested in reading the parable of the burning house. When I looked it up, I saw it was chapter three, so I decided to read chapters one and two first. Since then, I've become more interested as a read more about the work. 

My resources here.

Introduction

I'm going to at least read Chapters 4, 15, and 16. But I'll likely at least listen to the entire text. I already read the first two chapters. I'm going to write reading responses for each chapter I read. The info will reflect the questions I had and ideas I looked up while I read. I will also share whatever ideas I'm motivated enough to write about.

I have some Buddhism background, and my information I looked up reflects that. A reader new to Buddhism will likely need to look up more terms and ideas.

The Lotus Sutra Profile

Consensus- like most ancient texts, there are no consensus as to when it was written, who wrote it, or the exact process of the ideas and composition. The ranges below are cover scholarly consensuses of dates.

Ideas- the ideas, stories, and sutras likely go back to the 1st century BCE to 1st century CE which aligns with the emergence of Mahāyāna buddhism. It likely had oral or textual origins in local Indian languages, like Prakrit, before being being composed in Sanskrit.

Textual Origins- it was like first written in Sankrit between 100-250 BCE. Like many other religious texts, it shows signs of being compiled over time. The two main main chunks beings chapters 2-9 and chapters 10-21. The oldest versions are Chinese translations: Dharmarakṣa (286 CE) oldest full Chinese translation, 27 chapters and Kumārajīva (406 CE) which is most influential, 28 chapters (basis for East Asian tradition). Chapter 1 was likely a later addition.

Point of View- there is a third person omniscient narrator.

Frame- there is the ultimate cosmic gathering. The narrator describes it in detail. The narrator drops a lot of names in the first chapter. I don't think readers need to know most of them. 

Names and Terms (these descriptions are copy and pasted from Google's AI Overview)

Śākyamuni Buddha- (Sanskrit: Śākya-muni, “Sage of the Śākya [clan]”) is the historical Buddha, the human teacher who lived and taught in northern India in the 5th–4th century BCE. Born as Siddhārtha Gautama (Pāli: Siddhattha Gotama). He will be the speaker of the sutra that makes up The Lotus Sutra.

Bodhisattvas- A bodhisattva is a being who has generated the vow to become a Buddha but delays final enlightenment out of compassion, working to liberate all other beings first.

Mañjuśrī (Wisdom)- Mañjuśrī is a prominent bodhisattva in Mahāyāna Buddhism who represents transcendent wisdom. 

Śāriputra- is a Chief disciple known for wisdom (in the early tradition). Will later become central in Chapter 3 (Burning House Parable) and Chapter 5.

Samadhi is a Sanskrit word meaning "concentration" or "union," referring to a state of deep meditative absorption in both Buddhist and Hindu traditions. 

Mahāyāna Buddhists- meaning "Great Vehicle," is one of the two major branches of Buddhism that emphasizes achieving enlightenment for the benefit of all sentient beings, rather than just oneself.

TLDR

The setting is a grand cosmic assembly. Everyone and their mother is there, including and not limited to: sons of gods; dragon kings; human, divine, and mythic creatures; and 80,000 bodhisattvas. It's a really big deal. The Buddha preaches "the Great Vehicle sutra entitle Immeasurable Meanings." This preaching is mentioned, but the Buddha isn't quoted and doesn't speak yet in the text. Next, the Buddha enters, "into the samadhi of the place of immeasurable meanings, his body and mind never moving." Then numerous miraculous signs prove it. Someone asks what's up, so Mañjuśrī (Wisdom) vouches for the occasion. All this sets the stage for chapter two when the Buddha will speak.

Reading Response

Chapter 1 is most likely added late in the creation of The Lotus Sutra. It can be read as more of a prologue. In addition, the composition of The Lotus Sutra likely evolved over years in multiple stages, in multiple languages, and with unknown number of authors, revisers, and editors. The differences in themes, style, narrative structure, and theology prove the progression and evolution over time. The exact details are unknown, but one thing is certain, the ideas do not date back to the historical Buddha. These ideas are close to 300 after the Buddha's death.

I missed the significance of the samadhi when I read it. This place of immeasurable meanings sets off the miracles to come. The framing is wild. You have to respect the length the authors (I'm assuming the text had authors who revised the text over years) of the text go through to prove themselves. The Lotus Sutra is attempting to undermine the historical and traditional teachings of the Buddha. How does one do that? You can start by proving the significance of the occasion.

Christians also do this. How many eyewitnesses saw the resurrected Jesus? Zero to five depending on how generous one wants to be. There is only one person, who has survived history, that reports having saw Jesus after his death. It's Paul. he says:

[Jesus] appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. (1 Corinthians 15:4–8)

This is only one eyewitness. Paul is claiming others witnessed it. But that is not 500 plus eyewitnesses. That's a report of 500 eyewitnesses.

I'm not saying Paul was lying. I'm saying one can't just believe Paul because it's in the New Testament. And The Lotus Sutra proves my point!

It's so extreme and mythical that I doubt many readers would or will take it seriously. But the authors go through great details to prove their authority. It's worth reading the chapter to read what I mean. As I mentioned above, the narrator is dropping so many names and numbers of people. Thousands of followers, 80,000 bodhisattvas, Kings, and Gods are all present for the cosmic event centered around the Buddha. The miracles further solidify the occasions. Then after Maitreya asks a questions. Manjushri explains the significance. The Buddha is going to give the great Law.

It all comes together.

But, did it happen?

According to The Lotus Sutra, it did. I know Christians have more reliable and historical information. And I'm focusing on a shallow argument. My main point is addressing the idea: why would Christians make this up? One can't just make up eyewitness accounts for people who could refute the claim. So there is logic to believe Paul is stating a fact. Still, there is only one eyewitness and reports of other eyewitnesses.

The Lotus Sutra is written 100s of years after the Buddha allegedly died and gave his teachings. Mahāyāna Buddhists want to expand the Buddha's teachings. They think it isn't enough to save yourself, you need to save everyone else too. But that's not what the Buddha taught. How can one rectify this problem? One can create a cosmic assembly where the Buddha gives the true teachings, and that is the The Lotus Sutra.

I don't mean to say the authors are being deceitful. Maybe one of the monks had this experience mediating about the topic. Maybe the original authors and readers knew the story was using literary and mythic devices. I don't know the authors' intentions or readers' responses, not to mention the evolution of the ideas. There is a book The Lotus Sūtra: A Biography by Lopez Jr. which provides the scholarly responses.

Similarly, other great men, like Cesar or Alexander, were given attributes to signify their greatness. Titles like Son of God were used historically to show that a figure was great.

Back to Christianity, Christians believed Jesus was the messiah. This led them to continue to follow Jesus after his death. This may have led them to see visions of Jesus and add attributes regarding who Jesus is and was. Using literary devices is definitely part of the story, pun intended. 

Back to The Lotus Sutra, its obvious. The Lotus Sutra is myth building. The Lotus Sutra presents a wild cosmology that isn't historical. The introduction isn't trying to prove this cosmic event literally happened. It's trying to prove the scope and significance of the message. 

The introduction of The Lotus Sutra is a great example of how mythology is used literately and not literally. For Christians out there that can't comprehend how or why a New Testament author could present something false, I recommend The Lotus Sutra.

Read my second post here.

Why read the Bible?

A friend asked me why I'm interested in the Bible.

So many reasons. Here are 10 not in any order:

1. The Bible is one of the, if not the most, influential books ever written. And I've never read the entire book Bible. I plan to read it at least two times through. 
2. I argue about religion, mostly Christianity, with a few friends. Those friends maintain a flow of my interest.
3. The Bible is fascinating.
4. The more I learn, the easier the Bible gets to read and understand. The more I understand, the more engaging the Bible is. I'm more knowledgeable than ever before. For most of my adulthood, I didn't have the skills or background to engage in the Bible. I'm able to read the Bible more like I could a contemporary text.
5. I don't get how some people can literally believe the Bible is historically and theologically accurate. I get why most people believe it, but then there are some people where it doesn't make sense. Trying to empathize and understand how people can believe the Bible is interesting to me. It fits into broader questions and answers about why people believe what they believe. I have some conclusions here, but I'll save those for another post.
6. The Commentaries on the Bible are very interesting. I like the commentaries even better than the primary sources. I find it very engaging to read and consume the commentaries. I prefer to pair them together. Sometimes sandwhiching the two. I'm currently listening to a Great Courses lecture series and a podcast series while doing a slow read of the Old Testament. The lectures and podcast complement each other very well.
7. I'm a natural born know it all. I dislike being wrong. Learning more means I'm wrong less, allowing me to signal how smart and well read I am.
8. Learning is fun.
9. The Bible is entertaining.
10. Reading the Bible will increase my writing. I'll have a lot deeper range of metaphors and allusions to utilize for creating meaningful literature. 

If I spent more time, I could find many more reasons. 

Response to Ep 50

Introduction

After editing and producing Ep 50 of Jimbo Radio. I wanted to make a couple responses that I would have like to said during the episode. Listen here. 

Making Shit Up

I should rephrase. The people who created religions and progressed the ideas were not just "making shit up." They were mostly genuine. People follow their intuitions and resources they have available. People for most of human history had excellent reasons to believe, think, and create what they did. We still do. 

But with all the information I have available to me. There are way better explanations than what the greatest thinkers of antiquity came up with.

When I read Genesis (I'm rereading it now), it's stories. Similar to reading Homer. There are combinations of literary, mythical, allegorical, and, in general, creative techniques at hand. The words and ideas were most likely crafted over time. Changing a word here or rephrasing there to make it more poetic, easier to remember, etc. Like with Genesis, There is a Priestly creation account that is allegedly a later addition than the garden narrative. The Priestly account is like a prologue someone added later for a reason. Either way, two separate stories are combined into one work. And it's not hard to imagine why or how scribes could revise here and there to create a more unified piece. There is a lot more to this story too. See a review of Who Wrote the Bible by Richard Elliott Friedman for a fuller analysis.

Fine Tuning

It would be a way greater sign of God if we lived in a universe that wasn't suitable for life!

There are good and bad arguments on both sides. This is another example of people can find reasons and logic to support whatever they want to believe (not whatever, but many views can find something to support what they want). Here is a one stop shop for more philosophical engagement on the topic.

Child Birth: Eve vs Evolution

Why do women suffer during childbirth? 

I'm going to give two explanations. One from religion and one from evolution. This question must have bothered people for thousands of years. Having sex is pleasurable under most conditions. And then childbirth for most of human history is an event where women can die and suffer greatly (modern healthcare has changed the game). Stories help people understand why women suffer so much to keep our species propagating.

1) Women suffer during child because God is punishing all women for Eve's disobedience.

To the woman he [God] said, “I will make your pangs in childbirth exceedingly great; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” - Genesis 3:16

2) Because humans have big brains and stand upright, women have a bio-mechanical challenge. How does one get a baby out of the birth canal? One solution is small helpless babies that takes a year to walk. But that isn't enough. Childbirth still creates strong contractions that compress blood vessels and create strong and intense pain signals. Women pay the price for big brains and bipedalism, both great tradeoffs for humans as a species. 

One of these stories is just obviously way better at explain why women suffer during childbirth. 

Pain Is Good

More on pain, pain is a helpful signal. There is a condition called congenital insensitivity to pain (CIP). If you're unfamiliar with the condition, the wiki link has a short video that captures the tragedy of painlessness. Once again, evolution and biology provide excellent explanations and stories.