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] 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!
