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. 

Objective Morals (aka Moral Realism)

Background

A friend and I were discussing objective morals. I thought all his claims and ideas were wrong. Of course, I liked my ideas. That lead me to look into the topic more. I looked up the leading logical arguments for moral realism, and I didn't find them very compelling compared to the arguments against moral realism.

Introduction

This is going to be a brainstorming post. I want to explain my ideas, thinking, and ask questions to guide the next phase of my inquiry.

My Biases

I don't believe in any creator, god, or religion. So the arguments built on a creator or attributes of a god are rejected because I reject the existence of those ideas. With that said, moral realism is not contingent on deism.

Evolution is one of the strongest theories in biology, if not all of science.

I believe in objective reality. Physical structures are undeniable. Ideologies and other abstract ideas are very much open for debate.

Epistemology wise, I'm a skeptic who leans heavily on 1) empiricism for knowledge that can be measured and 2) rationalism for knowledge that cannot be measured.

Logic is the best system of thinking.

The scientific method is the best system for understanding observable phenomena.

Questions (and how do we know?)

Are all, most, some, or few behaviors moral truths?

How many people have to agree for something to be a moral truth?

If people cannot agree, how do people decide what the moral truths are?

If there are moral truths, how can people know what they are? 

How do non human animals fit into the discussion?

How do psychopaths and or other sociopaths fit into the discussion?

How does the history of slavery and the abolishment of slavery prove/disprove moral realism?

How do laws prove/disprove moral realism?

If something like, do not murder, is a moral truth, how do we explain why people murder?

Even if everyone agrees murder is morally wrong, how do we know that's an objective truth and not culture?

For deist, what does it mean when a religion's god commands someone to break a moral truth?

If x is claimed to be a moral truth, does one situation where x is moral disprove x as a moral truth? 

My Priors

People do not agree.

The disagreement seems undeniable. I know that disagreement doesn't necessarily rule out moral realism, but it makes it obvious to me that people aren't going to agree. If we cannot agree, then how can we know which, if any, moral truths are true?

Let's look at killing.

A jainist might say killing a tree or plant is morally wrong. The US legal system might say killing is allowed in self defense. An army might say killing is allowed to protect and or conquer an area. Most people eat meat, so they think it is moral to kill animals for food. Hunters might hunt for sport. Many vegans stop eating meat because they decide it's morally wrong that animals have to suffer in factory farming conditions. And the list goes on. People have varying morals about killing. Maybe a moral realist would agree that killing isn't one of the moral truths.

It feels like I only need to find one black swan. Maybe this is a logical fallacy. But if a moral realist says x is a moral truth, I should only have to find one situation where x is moral.

What's Next?

Here are my next two stops. I'll add further resources as I find them. 

Moral Anti-Realism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Moral Realism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) 

“The Legendary Muhammad Ali”

She watched her eldest son, Muhammad Ali, sharpen his knife. The woman knew Ali would avenge his father’s murder. Ali and his brother received news of their rival’s location. Ali sheathed his knife in the sash of his robe.

As her sons were leaving their home, the woman said, “Keep an eye out and a knife sharp.”

“Of course, yamma,” Ali said.

The woman tore papyrus leaves, like limbs from a body, from the old books next to her oven.

The day before, Ali had found the books in a six-foot jar while digging for fertilizer. Ali hesitated to break the jar because he feared an evil spirit might be inside. When he considered there could be gold inside, he smashed the jar to pieces with his mallet. Instead, the jar contained 13 papyrus-bound books. He took them home and placed them next to his mother’s oven.

The woman continued to tear, crinkle, and burn the leaves as kindling. The leaves smoldered. The edges curled inward as they turned from brown to gray to white. She added more leaves until a flame ignited. The words, written in Coptic, an ancient Egyptian language using the Greek alphabet, became smoke, disappearing for the final time. Neither the woman nor her sons knew the monetary, historical, or spiritual value of the words being burned.

The sons returned. Their robes and beards were stained. Ali was excited to tell his mother the good news. “Yamma,” Ali said, “I chopped his limbs off and dug out his heart. We all ate it.”

She was proud of her sons. She said, “My sons, have some bread while it is fresh. I will heat water for you to wash.”

The woman tore more leaves to start another fire.

Ali said, “We have to get rid of these old books. The authorities will search the house.”

The next day, the books were taken to a local Coptic priest. Ali was arrested. The priest's brother, a schoolteacher, saw one of the books and recognized its value. The teacher took the book to Cairo and showed it to a physician interested in Coptic. The doctor alerted the Department of Antiquities (DoA). The DoA seized the book from the teacher.

The rest of the books were taken to Cairo and sold to antiquity dealers. The sales and rumors of the books increased investigations from authorities. The DoA bought one of the books and confiscated another ten. The DoA gave the books they obtained to the Coptic Museum in Cairo. The thirteenth book escaped Egypt through a Belgian antiques dealer. The Belgian tried to sell the remaining book in New York, eventually selling the remaining book to the Jung Institute of Zurich. Today, all the surviving books and fragments are at the Coptic Museum in Cairo.

What were these ancient Coptic books discovered by the heart-eating murdering Muhammad Ali? They were mostly Gnostic texts with a few other philosophical works, including an excerpt from Plato’s Republic. The majority of the texts had been lost for close to 1,500 years. Today, anyone can read all of these texts online for the price of their internet connection.

5k Warmup

I've been very focuses on my running the last several weeks. For the first time in over 15 years that I have created and followed a training plan. I have not missed a workout or run in the last six weeks. Now, that I finished my last quality workout yesterday, I have transitioned to my tapering. And I'm focusing on other aspects of the race. I made this warmup routine specific to me.  My usual warmup for workouts includes more lunges and a few other mobility/yoga poses. But I cut everything that isn't directly preparing me for running a 5k. Here is my sheet if anyone wants to copy and paste it.