Today is marked with a combination of snow and rain. It's a family day. Lots of parents with their kids are on the subways, heading to different places to celebrate the meaning and joy of family. Quite a few stores remain closed throughout the day, giving some parts of Mississauga an eerily deserted feel. It certainly feels like a Sunday, but a very sleepy one.
In the Lotus Sutra, there are many stories of family to convey Buddhist concepts, as well as the relationship between humans and Buddha nature. One of the most famous of these stories is the parable of a father who tries to save his children from a burning house. The children are so preoccupied and unable to understand that they are in danger, so the father devises these colorful carts to lure his children out of the fire. In W.E. Soothill's version, I read the following admonishment from Buddha to Sariputra:
Sariputra! Even as that elder, though with strength in body and arms, yet does not use it, but only by diligent tact, resolutely saves his children from the calamity of the burning house, and then gives each of them great carts adorned with precious things, so it is with the Tathagata (p.91)
As I am reading this text, I wonder, what is it that the parable is intended to correct in the way the arhats were practicing? I believe that what Buddha may be suggesting is that all teachings are expedient means which are done in a spirit of wisdom to help awaken beings according to their own causes and conditions. To extend the analogy a bit further, the carts in this parable are never final answers: they are more like tactful ways to awaken the children from their lack of understanding. But no matter how fancy the cart is, it can never 'stand in' for the truth. It is literally an attractive 'vehicle' which leads the children out of danger. As long as I see the teachings as expedient means, I don't confuse them with any absolute truth. So, what Buddha might have been addressing is the confusion between a method and what the method is pointing to. He is admonishing the arhats not to get too attached with their method of seeing into the emptiness of the self, since this is only a skilful means to help free them from attachment to a sense of self. Yet this too is not quite true mind because there is still a subtle discrimination between 'self' and the phenomena around the self.
I can think of other, more commonplace, examples of how this teaching might be useful. In daily life, there seem to be two main types of discrimination that occur. One is between that which we find 'pleasant' and that which is 'unpleasant'. When I like to do something, I engage in it more out of desire, while avoiding what I dislike. Another sort of discrimination is that between what we think is 'good' and 'bad'. I might decide, for example, to go on a special diet because I was told that eating certain foods are good for me, while others are not. Or I might decide to associate with people who 'make me a better person', while avoiding those whom I deem might corrupt my character. But while these distinctions might (supposedly) help me to live a wholesome life and live longer, there is still a discrimination between self and not-self, "me" and "world" embedded in that judgment. That discrimination might lead to all sorts of confusing ideas, such as deciding to go on a fad diet to maintain a desired weight, or deciding to avoid certain experiences for fear that they will 'corrupt' me. It's just another kind of 'self' even though it is packaged as 'pure or wholesome self'.
But what I believe is taught in Buddhism is that all phenomena are created by the mind. There isn't really a good or bad phenomena at all. It is only one's judgments that make it so. While Buddha taught methods to 'still' the mind or 'quiet' the mind, that teaching is a skillful means to help people realize that mind isn't really an object that can be 'calmed'. As long as I get stuck on a fixed or rigid notion of who I need to be, vexations are bound to arise in mind, and that creates a ripple effect into the whole experience of being. As long as there is any kind of discrimination, there is bound to be this vexation, as a person tries to seek 'good' experiences and influences and avoid 'bad' influences. However, if I see that the teachings are only a guideline and not a strict rule, I can relax my tendency to try to control the experience itself. I then have the space to be able to see what is unfolding for me, and not be so quick to say that one way is better than another. One can work within a variety of different settings with different kinds of beings, and not be afraid of 'losing the path' or becoming 'corrupted' by external events.
Soothill. W.E (1987), The Lotus of the Wonderful Law or The Lotus Gospel. London: Curzon Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment