The way of the lotus

·期刊原文
The way of the lotus: critical reflections on the ethics of the 'Saddharmapundarika Sutra.'

by A.L. Herman
Asian Philosophy

Vol.7 no.1

Mar.1997

Pp.5-22

Copyright by Journals Oxford Ltd.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edward Conze once observed of the thirty-eight books constituting
the Prajnaparamita Sutras that their central message could be summed
up in two sentences: (1) One should become a Bodhisattva (or
Buddha-to-be), i e. one who is content with nothing less than
all-knowledge attained through the perfection of wisdom for the sake
of all beings. (2) There is no such thing as a Bodhisattva or as
all-knowledge or as a being or as the perfection of wisdom or as an
attainment. [1] It seems to me that Conze was profoundly correct, as
far as he went, and that what he said of the Prajnaparamita literary
corpus might apply to other Mahayana Sutras, as well. One test of
this broad application of Conze's observation to the whole of the
Mahayana scriptural tradition lies in a close reading of one of the
Mahayana Sutras from that tradition, the Saddharmapundarika Sutra,
"the scripture of the lotus blossom of the wonderful law", or the
Lotus Sutra. The Lotus Sutra not only makes Conze's point, as I
shall try to show, but it goes further in offering a new middle path
between the two summary sentences above. In doing this it brings
forth a practical ethical-religious way for Buddhists and others to
follow who will be caught in the sufferings and terrors of the 21st
century. We shall refer to this way as "the way of the Lotus" or
"the Lotus way". In what follows I want to attempt three things.
First, using Edward Conze's summary sentences above, I identify and
explicate three ways to liberation in the Lotus Sutra, viz. the way
of ethics and attachment, i.e. "the Bodhisattva way" ("One should
become a Bodhisattva..."); next, the way of emptiness and
unattachment, i.e. "the Buddha way" ("There is no such thing as a
Bodhisattva..."); and, finally, the Lotus way wherein the
Bodhisattva way and the Buddha way combine to form a single and
powerful new way of liberation. This third way is indirectly
referred to in the remark which Edward Conze makes in his summary of
the Prajnaparamita immediately following his previous two sentences:
"To accept both of these contradictory facts is to be perfect". [2]
To accept the Bodhisattva way together with the Buddha way yields
the Lotus way. Second, I demonstrate the significance of the Lotus
way as a practical way of solving moral problems for Buddhists and
others in the 21st century. Third, and finally, I raise and attempt
to answer and solve several questions and puzzles about the Lotus
way as a way to peace and liberation for Buddhists and others in the
21st century.
Full Text: COPYRIGHT 1997 Journals Oxford Ltd.
I. The Bodhisattva, Buddha, and Lotus Ways of the Saddharmapundarika
Sutra
The Saddharmapundarika Sutra probably dates from sometime in the
first or second centuries of the Christian era. We know that it
already existed by 255 CE when it was first translated from Sanskrit
into Chinese. But from what source-language that Sanskrit text was
taken is not known. Recently, several Sanskrit manuscripts of the
Lotus were found in Nepal, Central Asia, and Kashmir but these texts
contain discrepancies that mark them as quite different from the
best and most authoritative Chinese version of the Sutra that we
possess. That Chinese version is dated from 406 CE and it is by the
Central Asian translator-scholar-monk Kumarajiva (344-413). It is
that version from which the Saddharmapundarika Sutra has come to be
known throughout the Asian world that has made it one of the most
influential works of religious literature the world has ever known.
[3]
The Lotus Sutra is a devotional text ranking in beauty and
significance with the Bhagavad Gita of Hinduism and the Gospel of
St. Matthew of Christianity. Like those two previous works it
establishes its warrant as a sacred scripture by doing two essential
things. First, it presents us with a Saviour doctrine wherein
devotees are urged to dedicate themselves to the person and the
message of a divine being in human form in order to achieve
liberation; second, it establishes its legitimacy by attacking rival
and competing traditions. Just as Lord Krsna assaulted both brahmins
and the Vedas [4], and Jesus of Nazareth assailed certain
conservative Jews and the Mosaic law, [5] so also the Buddha in the
Lotus censures Theras or Elders and among them the Arhats whom he
characterises as "rubbish", together with their beliefs and
practices, which he refers to as "partial, shallow, and selfish".
[6] In the process, all three persons reveal a new doctrine
characterised by devotion, faith and love toward themselves as
Saviours. Thus the Buddha announces a new doctrine, a new way or
yana wherein inter alia, the supernaturalism and the transcendence
of the eternal Buddha will be celebrated. [7]
The aim of the Lotus Sutra would seem to be to find a permanent and
ultimate spiritual foundation on which human religious aspirations
can find legitimate grounding and expression. To this end the Sutra
sets out to claim, first, that all previous messages of the Buddha
are now null and void and are to be superseded by a new testament;
second, this new way, the Bodhisattvayana, is open to everyone, nuns
as well as the followers of the Lesser Vehicle, and that by
following this new way antepenultimate Bodhisattvahood is possible
for everyone; third, that the new way is established on the words of
the eternal Buddha, a Krsna-Christ-like figure, transcending time
and history, who now offers a guide to the devotional practice for
securing penultimate Buddhahood and, as it turns out, something
else, ultimately, even beyond that.
But these three claims of the Lotus Sutra can be restated in terms
of the two other claims that dominate the Sutra viz. become a
Bodhisattva because that is the way to Buddhahood, "the Bodhisattva
way", as we shall call it; and there is no such thing as a
Bodhisattava, "the Buddha way". Let us explore these two ways to
peace and liberation and then turn to that other ultimate "something
else".
I. 1. The Bodhisattva Way to Action
The Sutra establishes the rules by virtue of following which one can
become a Bodhisattva. These are rules of appropriate and
inappropriate behaviour promulgated by the Buddha-to-be followed by
all those who would follow the Mahayana path to Bodhisattvahood. It
is important to realise, as the Buddha constantly reminds his
listeners gathered by the millions to hear the new law, that this
Bodhisattva way will not lead directly to Buddhahood, the
penultimate goal, but only to Bodhisattvahood, the antepenultimate
goal.
The Bodhisattva way is found throughout the injunctions for
behaviour and meditation in the Noble Eightfold Path which tend to
parallel, in several ways, the moral and religious injunctions of
the Mosaic decalogue and Jesus of Nazareth's Sermon on the Mount.
Here are those eight rules of the Noble Eightfold Path recommended
as worth following if one would become a Bodhisattva:
Right views is to know suffering, the origin of suffering, the
cessation of suffering, and the path that leads to the cessation of
suffering.

Right intentions are the intentions to renounce the world and to do
no hurt or harm.
Right speech is to abstain from lies and slander, from reviling, and
from gossip.
Right acts are to abstain from taking life, from stealing, and from
lechery.
Right vocation is that by which the disciple of the Noble One
supports himself, to the exclusion of wrong modes of livelihood.
That completes the first five rules that we might denominate "the
ethical path". This is followed by three more rules enjoining "the
meditation path". The meditation path is concerned with the stages
of mind training, viz. concentration, meditation (deeper
concentration), and samadhic deeper meditation. I quote the three
remaining rules only in part:
Right endeavour [effort] is when...[one] brings his will to bear...,

struggles and strives with all his heart to stop bad and wrong
qualities [from arising to consciousness, i.e. one exerts whole-hearted
concentration].
Right mindfulness is when realizing what the body is--what feelings
are--...and what the mental states are--...[one] dwells ardent,
alert, and mindful in freedom from the wants and discontents attendant on any
of these things [i.e. one plunges into meditation, i.e. deep
concentration].
Right samadhi is when emptied of lusts and wrong dispositions...[one

arrives by stages to deeper and deeper trance states, i.e. one
enters into ecstatic samadhic states]. [8]
In a sense, the Bodhisattva way reads like a decision procedure for
solving a difficult problem, suffering, in order to arrive at a
solution, nirvana. It is, on another level, a physician's
prescription for liberation from suffering. The Buddha of the Lotus
Sutra, our physician to all patients in suffering, appears to
confirm this algorithmic approach to the problem of bondage as he
explains his method of the upayas. [9] To all of those who approach
him with love, faith, and devotion, to all those worthy of
liberation, the Buddha employs various methods of upaya, i.e.
"divine cunning" or "liberative tactics", in order to bring about
their Bodhisattvic "nirvana".
Here, for example, is such a skill-in-means, being employed by the
Buddha in the famous parable of the phantom city.
The myth of the phantom city. The Buddha begins by explaining his
employment of upaya at critical moments in a disciple's journey to
liberation:
The Thus Come One [the Buddha] in his use of expedient means
penetrates deeply into the nature of living beings. He knows how their minds
delight in petty doctrines and how deeply they are attached to the five
desires. [10]
And because they are like this, when he expounds nirvana, he does so
in such a way that these persons, hearing it, can readily believe and
accept it. [11]
Prior to this introduction to upaya the Buddha had recounted how
when he had preached the Lotus of the Wonderful Law to instruct the
Bodhisattvas about their next stage in liberation, all had
understood except "...the other thousand ten thousand million types
of living beings [who] all gave way to doubt and perplexity". [12]
But those monks and Bodhisattvas who had heard and understood the
Lotus have now left the Bodhisattva way and entered, as the Buddha
recounts it, the Buddha way:
They heard the Law [the Lotus Sutra] from us and attained
anuttara-samyak-sambodhi ["supreme-perfect enlightenment, the
enlightenment of a Buddha"]. Some of these living beings are now
dwelling in the ranks of the voice-hearers ["those who follow the
teachings of Hinayana Buddhism"]. But we have constantly
instructed them in anuttara-samyak-sambodhi, and these persons
should be able, through this Law, to enter into the Buddha way, albeit
gradually. [13]
Having made the point that not only can Bodhisattvas but also
voice-hearers be carried up to the Buddha way by proper
upaya--though, he admits, the latter may be a little slow--the
Buddha now turns to the myth of the phantom city.
Suppose, the Buddha says, there is a stretch of bad road some five
hundred yojanas (25,000 miles?) long beyond which lie some rare
treasures. Some people want to reach those treasures but the way,
like "the bad road of birth and death and earthly desires", is
"long, steep and difficult, wild and deserted, with no inhabitants
around, a truly fearful place". The people have a wise leader who
now notices that the group is becoming disheartened. We cannot go
on, they tell him, we want to turn around and go back.
The leader, a man of many upayas, expedients, thinks to himself,
"What a pity that they should abandon the many rare treasures they are
seeking and want to turn around and go back!" With this thought the wise
leader now ...resorts to the power of expedient means and when they have gone
[several thousand miles] along the steep road, conjures up a city.
He says to the group, "Don't be afraid! You must not turn back, for
now here is a great city where you can stop, rest, and do
just as you please. If you enter this city you will be completely at
ease and tranquil. Then later, if you feel you can go on to the place
where the treasure is, you can leave the city."
The group is overjoyed. They press on and enter the phantom city
conjured by their wise leader and experience the promised ease and
tranquility.
The leader, later perceiving that the group is rested, now wipes out
the phantom city and says to the people:
You must go now. The place where the treasure is is close by. That
great city of a while ago was a mere phantom that I conjured up so that
you could rest! [14]
Now what is going on here and how does it relate to the three ways
to liberation? The Bodhisattva way, the way of samsara, is the way
of the world where moral behaviour and love and compassion toward
fellow beings is commanded for all. The Bodhisattva way is the way
fraught with pain and difficulties, the path with sickness, old age
and death bestrewn everywhere. It is the path where incentives to
right action, upayas to liberation, are needed and necessary. It is
the path where phantom cities, Pure Lands, can make the moral
choices easier and more bearable. The law of the Buddha becomes the
guide along this most difficult path as we attempt to follow the
Noble Eightfold Path and become Bodhisattvas. In addition, the moral
precepts for practice at this stage often go beyond the First Noble
Five as the Buddha counsels:
One should not associate with
persons of overbearing arrogance or
those who stubbornly adhere
to the Lesser Vehicle....
Monks who violate the precepts,
arhats who are so in name only,
nuns who are fond
of jesting and laughter,
or women lay believers
who are profoundly attached
to the five desires
or who seek immediate entry
into extinction--
all these one should not
associate with. [15]
The Bodhisattva path is strewn with prescriptions and admonitions
but the reward, the heavenly promise of peace and tranquility, makes
obedience to the law of the Buddha all worthwhile. The upaya of the
Buddha keeps us on the path to the next stage of liberation.
I.2. The Buddha Way to Emptiness
But the phantom city is a phantom. It is just as empty of reality as
the Bodhisattvas, themselves, who have reached the city. The ethical
law of the Buddha is now replaced by the metaethical law of
emptiness. We are told that beyond the phantom heavenly city of the
Bodhisattva there is another place beyond good and evil, beyond
opposites, beyond feelings, beyond attachments:
Because all phenomena
are uniformly empty, tranquil,
without birth, without extinction,
without bigness, without smallness,
without overflows, without action.
And when one ponders in this way,
one can feel no delight or joy.
Through the long night
with regard to the Buddha wisdom,
we were without greed, without attachment,
without any desire to possess it.
Through the long night
we practiced the Law of emptiness,
gaining release from the
threefold world [the worlds
of desire, form, and the
formless, realms inhabited
by unenlightened beings
who transmigrate within them]
and its burden of suffering and care. [16]
Even though the Buddha way leads to a higher stage of liberation, it
cannot be the final way for Buddhists but only a penultimate way.
The Buddha way contains one danger recognised by the Buddha and that
is this: when the disciple sees that all is empty, there may be a
temptation to remain totally in a state of inaction thereby leaving
all those who follow this way in a state or condition of nihilistic
rejection of the world. In other words, the metaethical insight of
the Buddha way can lead to abandonment of the world and not merely
abandonment of attachments to the world.
The Lotus Sutra seems quite clear in explaining the Buddha way. Here
is the Buddha's disciple, Shariputra [sic], describing his ascent to
this sunya path:
Formerly I was attached to erroneous views,
acting as teacher to the Brahmans.
But the world-Honored One,
knowing what was in my mind,
rooted out my errors and preached nirvana.
I was freed of all my errors
and gained understanding of
the Law of emptiness.
At that time my mind told me
I had reached the stage of
extinction, but now I realize
that that was not true extinction. [17]
Shariputra concludes by stating what he believes his future to be as
a Buddha, a knower of the true way of emptiness:
I am certain I will become a
Buddha, to be revered by heavenly
and human beings,
turning the wheel of the
unsurpassed
Law and teaching and converting
the bodhisattvas. [18]
Shariputra has a long way to go it seems but he does recognise the
two stages and ways in this cosmological, soteriological scheme.
But the danger that the abandonment of desire can lead to the
abandonment of both the world as well as the teaching and converting
of Bodhisattvas, remains. The Buddha way, by itself, appears to tend
in that very direction. [19] So what is going on here with the
nirvana of the Buddha way?
According to a possible Chinese Taoist misunderstanding (according
to Hurvitz, at least) of nirvana the ultimate goal of the Buddha way
and of the Lotus, itself, is the production of zombie-like Beings
incapable of action because incapable of overcoming the divine
torpor of being desireless and passionless in heaven. The
conclusion, of course, is that another way beyond the Buddha way
must be found to avoid the possible nihilistic conclusion that now
threatens. The Lotus Sutra will provide that third way.
One has to be careful, at this point, in dealing with the Sunya-fied
Buddha way, not to take Edward Conze's second summary statement,
"There is no such thing as a Bodhisattva", too literally; that is to
say, there may be something else going on here that goes beyond
ordinary meanings. For Conze and for the Buddha ethics of the Buddha
way, there is, after all, no such thing as a Buddha either; neither
is there any such thing as an ethics, nirvana, nor anything else to
which one can cling. The Buddha ethics is really a sunyata ethics,
an ethics of emptiness, and here again one must be wary. It might be
asked, "can one have an ethics of emptiness? Can one have an ethics
prescribing acceptable behaviour where there are no rules onto which
one can fasten one's concerns or commitments?" That is to say, "can
one have an ethical rule where there are no rules? Is it possible
for the non-rule, the non-ethics, to become the rule, to become the
ethics?" I am going to try to show that one can. Let us go slowly
and creep carefully into this one.
An eschatological ethics. When Jesus of Nazareth announces that the
end of the world is at hand, he goes on to state that there are
those present and listening to his words who will live to see it all
come to pass as the Son of Man returns and on that last day makes
judgment on all. We have here the unusual conditions for an ethics
that has come to be called "an eschatological ethics". Such an
ethics stands above ordinary recommended norms of behaviour, beyond
an ordinary ethics. It says, in effect, "Do not make plans for the
future because there is no future. Should you marry, get a divorce,
build a house, carry out sacrifices, etc?" An eschatological ethics
answers, "Not if it depends on time and results, on the future, and
on the fruits or results of your actions being right or wrong. There
is barely enough time to get your affairs in order, much less follow
the Mosaic law." Jesus of Nazareth counsels:
Take heed, watch, for you do not know when the time will come.
It is like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts
his servants in charge, each with his work, and commands the
doorkeeper to be on watch. Watch therefore--for you do not know when the master
of the house will come in the evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow,
or in the morning--lest he come suddenly and find you asleep. And what
I say to you I shall say to all: Watch. [20]
But a watch ethics, like sunyata ethics, it must seem, is no ethics
at all.
What can you do where there is no time left to do it in? Well, for a
start, you can let go of the ethics of Moses (see note [5]), compose
yourself, and have faith, the Christians counsel. Eschatological
ethics may have no normative ethics, but it is still an ethics, a
watch ethics. That is to say, eschatological ethics says that you
cannot do anything to reach some goal or other (there is no time)
but you can let go of all of your other goals and then watch and
wait with patience and hope. Eschatological ethics like Buddha
ethics are metaethical ways to salvation or liberation. But the
danger remains that this watch ethics will end up as misunderstood
wu wei, inaction (see note [19]), and with that a new bondage would
result.
A predestination ethics. A similar ethics is also found in the later
Christian tradition. St. Paul establishes the foundation for this
ethics of emptiness when, assuming God's foreknowledge of events, he
argues that all human effort towards salvation is useless. Salvation
depends not on human effort but on God's mercy alone:
For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to
the image of his Son.... And those whom he predestined he also called;
and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified
he also
glorified.
St. Paul then poses this question:
What shall we say then? Is there justice on God's part? [21]
A good question. For we have done nothing to warrant either
salvation or damnation; nor can we do anything now to gain salvation
and avoid damnation. We are all "vessels of wrath made for
destruction"--it is a glorious miracle that any at all are saved. So
what must we do in order to be saved then? "Nothing", is the answer:
for there is nothing that we can do, except perhaps watch and wait
with patience and faith.
A predestination ethics, like an eschatological ethics, is no ethics
at all. Both lack the moral rules that any ethics must have, either
because the rules do not exist (predestination ethics) or because
the rules no longer apply (eschatological ethics). And, without
rules, both of these ethics have become watch ethics, i.e. ethics
without prescriptions or decision procedures. As watch ethics each
stresses the futility of human effort, either because there is no
time or because there is nothing that one can do anyway. But, and
here is the new insight of both watch ethics, each invites the
listener or reader to let go. In letting go each mirrors, as we
shall see, the Buddha ethics of the Lotus Sutra.
A Buddha ethics. The Buddha ethics, like the watch ethics of Jesus
and St. Paul, states that there is a meta-rule of behaviour which,
if followed, will lead to salvation and transformation. The
meta-rules of both Jesus and St. Paul seem to say, in effect, that
there is no rule so let go--and that is precisely the meta-rule of
the Buddha way of the Lotus Sutra.
Chapter 14, "Peaceful Practices", of the Lotus Sutra is a fine
compendium of all three of the ways that we are discussing and it
will serve as a bridge from the Buddha way to the Lotus way. It is
here that we find the Bodhisattva way and the Buddha way woven
skillfully together to yield what we shall refer to as "the Lotus
way" to liberation. The Buddha begins by discoursing on the
Bodhisattva ethics with its do's and don't's for those on the
Bodhisattva way:
They should not associate closely with non-Buddhists, Brahmans or
Jains,
or with those who compose works of secular literature or books
extolling
the heretics, nor should they be closely associated with Lokayatas
or
Anti-Lokayatas [materialists or their enemies]. They should not be
closely
associated with hazardous amusements, boxing or wrestling,
or with actors or others engaged in various kinds of illusionary
entertainments, or with chandalas, persons engaged in raising pigs,
sheep,
chickens or dogs, or those who engage in hunting or fishing or other
evil
activities. [22]
A familiar enough list worthy of a St. Augustine, a Tertullian or a
St. Jerome. But then matters suddenly shift as the Buddha leaves off
the advice and admonitions for those on the Bodhisattva way to those
prepared for the Buddha way, the way of sunyata:
Next, the bodhisattva or mahasattva should view all phenomena as
empty, that being their true entity. They do not turn upside down, do not
move, do not regress, do not revolve. They are like empty space, without
innate nature, beyond the reach of all words. They are not born, without
true being. They are without volume, without limits, without hindrance,
without barriers.
Reminding his listeners that all is anitya and subject to
pratityasamutpada the Buddha concludes:
It is only through causes and conditions that they exist, and come
to be turned upside down, to be born. Therefore I say that one should
constantly delight in viewing the form of phenomena as this. This is what I
call the second thing that the bodhisattva or mahasattva should associate
himself with. [23]
The first thing was, of course, what the Buddha called "the
practices of the Bodhisattva" in the older verse section of the
chapter. These practices are "the first set of rules for the
Bodhisattva to abide by". [24] The second thing is "the position the
wise man [he who knows through prajna] associates himself with". The
Buddha's advice to those wise men who would follow the Buddha way is
quite clear:
Place yourself in quiet surroundings,
learn to still your mind,
remain tranquil, unmoving,
like Mount Sumeru.
And what is it that one discovers in this non-action meditation? One
sees that all is empty, that there is nothing to cling to. This
verse section of the Lotus then repeats what the prose section had
offered earlier:
Look upon all phenomena
as having no existence,
like empty space. [25]
The old problem of inaction now looms, once again, of course. But
the Buddha does not leave our Bodhisattva immobile, sessile,
zombie-like, resembling a mountain. He moves his Bodhisattva-Buddha
on to the third way, to the Lotus way:
If a bodhisattva will at times
enter a room
and with the correct mental attitude
will view phenomena according to
the doctrine [of emptiness]
and then rising from his meditation,
will for the sake of the ruler,
the princes, ministers and people,
the Brahmans and others,
unfold, propagate, expound
and preach this sutra,
then his mind will be tranquil
free of quailing and timidity. [26]
Let us look more closely at the Lotus way as the ultimate `something
else' constituting the acceptance of the two previous ways (viz.
become a Bodhisattva, and there is no such thing as a Bodhisattva)
that entails a `rising' and a `preaching'.
I.3. The Lotus way to unattached action. If the chief cause of
bondage and suffering faced by the authors of the Prajnaparamita
texts, as well as the Mahayana literary corpus, was grasping, desire
and attachment, then finding a solution to that problem must have
been uppermost in their minds. If attachment to things and views in
this world as well as to things and views in the Pure Land of the
Buddhas was solved by the discovery through prajna that this world
as well as heaven were phantoms, then a new problem resulted, the
problem of inaction. That is to say, the Bodhisattva way solved the
problem of attachment to worldly values by the promise that if you
worked at these attachments hard enough a heavenly reward would
result. But this Bodhisattva way then entailed a new attachment,
viz. to heaven, to the upayas, and to becoming a Bodhisattva. Enter
the Buddha way with the realisation that all is empty, that there is
nothing to become attached to, that the city was a phantom since
everything is sunya. But this Buddha way then led to yet another
attachment, viz. to inaction, to meditation and solitude, and to
letting the suffering world go its own way. The solution to these
problems of attachment, to worldly and heavenly values and to
inaction, is about to be proclaimed.
The new way, the Lotus way, will involve, to paraphrase Edward
Conze's words, the acceptance of both of the two previous ways and
in the process it will solve the problems of attachment. The letting
go within the Lotus way will be a letting go of things, views, and
inaction, as well as a letting go of emptiness, itself.
The language that the Lotus Sutra uses to describe the Lotus way is
most frequently couched in terms of "preaching the Law". Chapter 14,
"Peaceful Practices", of the Lotus Sutra had opened with a question
by the Buddha's chief Bodhisattva disciple, Manjushri [sic]:
...World Honoured One, in the evil age hereafter, how should these
bodhisattvas and mahasattvas go about preaching this sutra? [27]
The Buddha answers, as we have seen above, by recounting, first, the
Bodhisattva way and then the Buddha way as almost necessary
prerequisites for the preaching. But as we have also seen, the
former leads to bondage to phantoms and the latter leads to
inaction. Again and again, the Buddha uses the language of
unattachment in the context of preaching the Law. It is the language
wherein the Buddha says of that preaching, "one must expect nothing
from it" (p. 197), "one should not delight in speaking of the faults
of other people or scriptures", and "not display contempt for other
teachers of the Law or other people's tastes or shortcomings" (p.
201). Instead in the "preaching of the Law",
The bodhisattva should at all times delight
in preaching the Law in a tranquil manner. [28]
The attitude is what counts here, of course. It is the heart of the
Lotus way, after all, and whether one calls it "acceptance", as
Conze does, or "unattachment", as the Bhagavad Gita does, or
"embracing the will of God" as the Christians do, the result is the
same, viz. letting go.
So what is it to "preach the Law"? "Preaching the Law", or
"preaching the Lotus Sutra", must be seen in the widest possible
sense. Such "preaching" entails any action performed by a human
being; it is not merely beating the air. [29] That such a wide
context is precisely what the Buddha had in mind is easily seen in
the final chapter to the Lotus. "Preaching" entails a doing together
with a host of attitudes:
If there are those who accept, uphold, read, and recite this sutra,
memorise it correctly, understand its principles, and practice it as
the sutra prescribes, these persons should know that they are carrying
out the practices of Universal Worthy himself.
As if to underscore the point that "preaching" entails both an
attitude together with an action, the Buddha repeatedly counsels
throughout this final chapter, "accept, uphold, read, and recite the
sutra...and practice it as the sutra prescribes", [30] with the
final phrase about practice repeated at least five more times. The
Saddharmapundarika ends with the attitude (of the Buddha way) and
the practice (of the Bodhisattva way) brought together as the
narrator intones: "Accepting and upholding the words of the Buddha,
[the heavenly company] bowed in obeisance and departed".[31]
The most insightful parallel to the nature of the Lotus way's
synthesis of attitude and action comes through the words of Lord
Krsna to the warrior Arjuna in the Gita:
Let your concern be with action alone and never with the fruits of
action.
Do not let the results of action be your motive [the problem of the
Bodhisattva way], and do not be attached to inaction [the problem of
the Buddha way].
Firmly fixed in yoga perform your actions, renouncing attachments,
indifferent to success and failure. This balanced indifference
[samatva]
is called karma yoga [i.e. karma yoga is the Lotus way]. [32]
Let us pursue this possible identity between karma yoga and the
Lotus way a bit further. If such an identity could be established,
it would be of enormous use in dealing with the issue of practical
problems that we shall be investigating in part III. It might lead
us to conclude that Hindus and Buddhists, or followers of Jesus of
Nazareth and St. Paul, could all meet the problems of the 21st
century in very similar ways.
The Buddha says of the Bodhisattva who preaches the Lotus Sutra that
he must have a "tranquil mind" and be free of "quailing and
timidity" (p. 201). Leon Hurvitz translates the same passage and
describes the "preaching" Bodhisattva as one whose "heart is
tranquil and subject to no panic". But then Hurvitz honestly admits
that he has trouble with the Chinese at this point and turns to the
Sanskrit for explication. His endnote on this matter as he quotes
the Lotus is worth repeating since it provides further evidence, it
seems to me, that the Lotus and the Gita are both bent on precisely
similar paths:
For whosoever, keeping my posture and attitudes [iryapatha], shall
become a mendicant monk after I am at peace
shall explain this scripture in the world, and he shall have no
attachment... he shall rise up and teach' it with thought
unattached. [33]
That is the message of the Lotus: there is nothing to cling to,
everything is empty, so preach the Lotus, i.e. do your work, without
clinging, clutching, and grasping to anything including the Lotus!
But now we must ask, "What is the nature of that work that one must
do without attachment, and how is it to be carried out?"
II. The Lotus Way and Practical Ethics
If the Lotus way of the Lotus Sutra and karma yoga of the Bhagavad
Gita are similar, if not identical, ways of liberation from bondage
and suffering through unattached action then whatever use or
insights we have from one we ought to have for the other. If the
work in the world or the preaching of the Lotus came to the same
thing then it remains to apply the techniques of unattachment to
that work or that preaching and see what happens.
I would suggest that what the Lotus Sutra and the Bhagavad Gita are
proposing as ways to liberation are precisely what has been proposed
in similar philosophies and religions where letting go,
unattachment, is essential to reaching their own versions of
ultimate happiness. As a consequence, and fortunately, not only are
the Lotus way and karma yoga rather common to other philosophies and
religions as ways of solving practical human problems (the bright
side) but, unfortunately, both are open to the same kinds of
problems, puzzles, and questions that come from those other uses of
letting go (the dark side). In what follows, let us explore the
bright side first and then conclude with the dark side in part III,
below.
The Lotus way invites us to engage in action (the Bodhisattva way)
but to do it with unattachment, remembering that everything is
ultimately empty (the Buddha way). But a similar invitation might
easily be found in the maya way of the Upanisads (where everything
is a product of the magical power of Brahman, so let go of the
unreal!), in the eschatological way of Jesus of Nazareth (where time
is short, so pray that God's will be done and let go of your own
will!), in the acceptance view of the Stoics (where a divine
Providence rules over everything, so let go and accept that
Providential rule!), in the predestination way of St. Paul (where
God has already decided your eternal future, so let go of your
useless efforts to save yourself!), in the fatalism way of Islam
(where everything is the will of Allah, so accept it and let go!),
in the lila way of Sankaracarya (where everything is the play or
sport of God and you are part of that play, so let go!), in the
bhakti way of the Bhagavad Gita (where you are in the hands of a
loving and caring God, so let go!), in the wu wei way of Taoism
(where learning to imitate nature by letting go of your selfish,
personal desires leads to spontaneous and attachment-free action),
in the pralaya way of Sankaracarya (where the world is coming to an
inexorable end in this, the Kali yuga, so let go!), and, finally, in
the epoche way of skepticism (where judgments about transcendental
matters can only lead to further bondage and suffering, so let go!).

Chief among those philosophers who have regarded letting go as a way
to ultimate liberation was the great 2nd century CE Buddhist
philosopher, Nagarjuna, the founder of Madhyamika. Nagarjuna's
wonderfully enigmatic but profound assertion that between samsara
and nirvana there is no difference whatsoever will serve as a point
of comparison to the Lotus way. [34] One obvious parallel between
Nagarjuna and the Lotus is found in seeing that in Nagarjuna's
assertion he is talking about the non-difference between the
Bodhisattva way (samsara) and the Buddha way (nirvana). That neither
way, alone and by itself, can offer the way to liberation, that each
is, ultimately, to be sunya-fied within Nagarjuna's philosophic
system, that each must be accepted and neither should be clung to
nor grasped at since each is empty. But that means, does it not,
that when one is working in the world, i.e. preaching the Lotus, one
ought to remember that whatever one does (for the Lotus) or whatever
view one adopts (for Nagarjuna) must be done or adopted without
attachment and grasping? If there is an ethic in Madhyamika, it is
probably the ethic of the Lotus way.
I do not mean to trivialise the Lotus way by pointing to its many
parallels throughout history. What the parallels all have in common
with the Lotus way, it seems to me, is simply that they all suggest
that we "lighten up!" and get some perspective on our lives and the
world. Each of these ways reminds us that we can become uselessly
concerned about things which we either cannot prevent or change
anyway (we lack the power) or which we ought not to change (we lack
the wisdom). As a result, we are reminded through the Lotus way that
we are bound up continually by desire and ignorance; and when we
"preach the Lotus", we must learn to do it with the greatest
humility. Letting go is, after all, precisely that: behaving in the
world without attachment to those things which increase desire and
foster ignorance. The way to peace is the Lotus way, a way that
leads to liberation for the agent and happiness for the world. What
else is there?
III. Some Problems and Questions
There are three minor puzzles to which the foregoing discussion of
the Lotus way of the Lotus Sutra would seem to lead. The first
problem is methodological, the second is ethical, and the third is
conceptual. I believe that the Buddhists have a proper response to
each of these puzzles and after presenting each problem I shall try
to lay out in two instances that response.
III. 1. The Lotus Way--A Methodological Problem
A critic of the Lotus way might very astutely ask, "Granted that
letting go is the way to approach works and views, how do I learn to
let go? All I can see is that too much letting go lands me in
inaction and abandoning the world and that's no good; and too little
letting go keeps me right where I am now, grasping and clinging, and
that's no good either. So how do I get around this antinomy of
grasping? Can it be learned?"
A good question to be sure. Is there a middle way between too much
unattachment and too little, and how do we get it? The Lotus Sutra
suggests a way, the Buddha way, and I am going to reiterate what was
said earlier. The Buddha way is the way of meditation, really, and
it may be that through dhyana yoga, some sort of prajna is achieved
wherein the wise person realises either that letting go can happen
or that it has happened. The other philosophies and religions that
parallel the Lotus way have all indicated their own versions of
dhyana yoga. Some call it bhakti yoga, prayer, watching and waiting,
calm acceptance, epoche, or whatever. The point is that the mind is
stilled and quieted and calmed, one gains perspective at such
moments, and the middle path is taken. I do not know how else to say
it. Dhyana yoga, the Buddha way, is the mind's way of counting to
ten before some great decision is to be made, some great venture is
to be undertaken.
Or consider this quite different example. The story is told of
Apelles (350-300 BCE), the court painter to Alexander the Great.
Apelles was attempting to paint a foaming mouth on one of his
pictured horses. It never seemed to come out right. He would paint,
step back, see it was wrong, sponge it away. Again and again he
tried and each time he failed. Finally, in disgust he gave up, let
go, throwing his wiping sponge at the foamless mouth. And lo! there
it was. The painted foam was perfect. [35] This is an example of wu
wed, spontaneous natural action, preceded, in this case, not by
prayer or meditation but by an equally practical
perspective-achieving act. The intent, once again, is to act without
attachment or grasping. It lies between painting no foam at all or
continually painting in frustration. Throwing, in this case, was an
act of the middle way, of the Lotus way.
III.2. The Lotus Way--An Ethical Problem
A critic might very well object that the Lotus way is inadequate as
an ethical view because it lacks the passion and even attachment
that is necessary to drive action. If I have no passion, no desire,
then I would never engage in action and we are back to the problem
of inaction all over again. When I want to "preach the Lotus", I
have some end in view. I want to make money, achieve knowledge, gain
someone's love, admiration or attention, build a house, repair a
car, bake a cake, pass a test, make peace with North Korea or the
Catholics or the Palestinians or other Buddhists or what-have-you.
But I cannot do any of these things without desire, energy, and
passion. But the Buddha way empties me of all passion--now I am
unattached, indifferent and care-less. What kind of an ethics is
this?
Another good question to be sure. I would only say that the Buddha
way of the Lotus way does not empty us of passion, emotion, and
desire. What it does, as we have seen above, is to teach us or to
give us the insight of dhyana to let go of passion, emotion, and
desire. They are still there but we are not dominated by them now.
Let me illustrate this with a story from my early academic career. I
shared an office with an older faculty member who had developed a
hand washing compulsion. Over the years it had begun to interfere
with his teaching since he had to leave the classroom at least twice
each hour to wash up. The chairman of the department put my
colleague's classes near the men's lavatory and even gave him a
reduced teaching load to try to modify his anxiety and thereby
modify the compulsion. All to no avail. Finally, the dean of the
college got complaints from students and in a conference with my
friend and the chair he was urged to get help from psychiatrists in
the medical school. When I knew him, he had already been in analysis
for about 2 years. Meanwhile the hand washing behaviour continued. I
asked him one day if he felt that the psychiatrist was helping him.
Oh, yes, he said, very much. But Morrie, I said, you still have to
wash your hands and you still have to leave your classroom several
times each hour. How can you say you have been helped? True, Morrie
said, I still have to wash my hands; but, you know, it doesn't
bother me anymore.
I would suggest that with the Lotus way what is changed is not the
passion, emotion, and desire; that may all still be there together
with much of the behaviour that accompanies such failings. What is
changed, however, is the attitude, the perspective, that the Buddha
way gives to the Lotus way that allows us to say that those
feelings, if they are present, do not bother us anymore. The
motivation for action is still there, preaching the Lotus continues,
and the ethical way is maintained.
III. 3. The Lotus Way--A Conceptual Problem
A critic might very well question the concept of, and the entire
program of, upaya as so hopelessly relative as to be totally
meaningless within the Lotus way. Consider the following: There is
an interesting parallel between the concept of `deconstruction' and
the doctrine of upaya (`skill-in-means', `useful means', `divine
cunning', `liberative technique', or `tactics') as described by the
Buddha in the Lotus. Recall these passages:
Because the Buddha can see the desires that are in the minds of
living beings, he guides and protects them, and for this reason does not
immediately preach to them the wisdom that embraces all species.
[36]
...the World-Honoured Ones preach the Law in accordance with what is
appropriate. [37]
...he adjusts to the person's power when preaching [38]
And in accordance with what each is capable of hearing, he preaches
the Law for them in an immeasurable variety of ways.... [39]
Deconstruction, as I understand it, is taken to be the relationship
between a reader and a text such that three things would seem to
follow. First, the reader is said to produce the text by reading it
which means, of course, that there can be as many texts as there are
readers; second, the reading and the text that is produced by it are
conditioned by the reader's own cultural and social background and
training; third, the consequence of both of the above conditions is
that the meaning of the text is never fixed or stable which means,
of course, that there can be not only as many texts as there are
readers but as many meanings as there are such readers and texts.
Now what is going on with deconstruction is precisely what is going
on with upaya since whatever holds for the written text can also
hold for the aural message. The Buddha preaches his message and each
hearer hears it, i.e. deconstructs it, as his or her own message of
the way to liberation according to his or her own cultural and
social background and training. The consequence is, of course, that
the listener hears what the listener is trained to hear with the
result that there may be as many messages, identical, similar,
contrary or contradictory as there are auditors.
The meaning of the Buddha's message is not only never fixed or
stable but it never can be fixed or stable. Any upaya is necessarily
a logical consequence of pratityasamutpada and it must ultimately
lead to problems for Buddhologists. For consider:
(1) If there are as many messages as there are auditors then there
would be no message at all. The Four Noble Truths would or could
conceivably end up as the Fourteen Noble Truths or the Fourteen
Thousand Noble Truths. Upaya as deconstruction would seem to end in
some difficulty.
(2) If upaya as deconstruction is the case then blaming anyone who
does not get the message is useless since there is no the message.
But then what is the point in the Lotus of the Buddha or others
blaming the Theras for not getting it when there is no it to get?
(3) If the aim of the upaya doctrine as presented in the Lotus is to
defend the notion that the Buddha teaches in conformity with the
mental capacity of his auditors then, while this may be good
pedagogy under some conditions, this leads to problems under the
deconstruction interpretation of upaya. First, it is technically
impossible for the Buddha to take into account the mental capacities
of all of his auditors in large groups, so it is nonsense to say
that everyone's needs are there being met; second, for the face to
face, one on one, encounters with an auditor, it means that the
Buddha would run the risk of preaching contradictory or contrary
messages to each auditor whenever the nature or content of the
message is made to be a function of the auditor's experience as the
deconstruction interpretation of upaya suggests; for under the
conditions where the auditor controls the message, i.e. where the
auditory tail wags the oratory dog, a stark relativity of the
message obtains and this means, once again, that there need be no
message at all (see problem 1, above): from profusion for many at
one time or for one at many times there can only come confusion.
The conclusion to all of the above three problems, the critic
concludes, is probably this: while upaya may still be good pedagogy,
the claims made for it in the Lotus always bid us keep our critical
wits about us.
I leave the perspicacious reader to render the appropriate Lotus way
response to the above conceptual problem.
NOTES
[1] CONZE, EDWARD (1960) The Prajnaparamita Literature,
(s'Gravenhage, Mouton), p. 15.
[2] Ibid. As if in confirmation of Conze's three summary sentences
of the Prajnaparamita, Zenryu Tzukamoto in summarising the views of
both Chih-i (538-597 CE), the founder of Tien-T'ai (Tendai in Japan)
sect of Buddhism, and the Lotus Sutra, which is "the core Chih'i's
system", states: "It is, so to speak, the Chinese expression of the
Buddhist theories of the Indian Nagarjuna. Chih'i's doctrines are an
expression of the appropriate application of three kinds of mental
activity. The first is the act of direct affirmation, called
establishment or illumination. Second is the act of denying the
first, called abolition or obstruction. And last is the act of
embracing, then surpassing the first two, called the double
illumination and double obstruction." HURVITZ, LEON (Transl.) (1956)
Buddhism in China and Korea, in KENNETH W. MORGAN (Ed.), The Path of
Buddhism, Buddhism Interpreted by Buddhists (New York, The Ronald
Press), p. 201. The present paper is merely a pursuit of Conze's and
Tzukamoto's observations into the realm of practical ethics.
[3] For more on the history and background of the Saddharmapundarika
Sutra and its place in the Mahayana tradition, see WATSON, BURTON
(Transl.) (1993) The Lotus Sutra (New York, Columbia University
Press), pp. ix-xxix; and HURVITZ, LEON (Transl.) (1976) Scripture of
the Lotus Blossom of the Fine Dharma (New York, Columbia University
Press). Hurvitz' early translation for the same publisher is meant
for an audience of scholars and specialists containing as it does a
remarkably successful attempt to relate the earlier Sanskrit text to
the later Chinese text. Watson's later translation has an educated
lay audience in mind and it is the text that I shall be using in
what follows.
[4] See B.G. II.46, 52, 53; VI.1, 46; VIII.28; IX.20, 21; XI.48, 53.
For example, repeating this quotation from the Mundaka Upanisad
I.2.12, Lord Krsna tells Arjuna: "When you escape from this tangle
of delusion then you shall ascend to the level of indifference
[nirveda, which also means `disgust'] as to what should be heard and
has been heard in the Vedas." B.G. II.52.
[5] See The Gospel According to Matthew 5.17 48. Even though Jesus
of Nazareth says, "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and
the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them"
(Matthew 5.17. Revised Standard Version), it is clear that his
notion of `fulfillment' goes far beyond the usual sense of that
concept and embraces `abolition' clearly and plainly: "You have
heard that it was said [in the Mosaic law and tradition "not to
kill", "not to commit adultery", "to divorce only under certain
conditions", "not to swear falsely", "an eye for an eye", "hate your
enemy"]...but I say unto you" [followed by a systematic rejection of
each of the above admonitions].
[6] Despite Burton Watson's attempt to put a good face on it, the
Buddha's mood in the Lotus is clearly not one of
whatever-turns-you-on acceptance of either Theras or Thera doctrine.
Watson states, "In some Mahayana texts Shariputra and the other
close disciples of the Buddha who represent the Lesser Vehicle...are
held up to ridicule or portrayed as figures of fun. But the
prevailing mood of the Lotus Sutra is one of compassion..." (p.
xvii). This assertion is difficult to support given what the Buddha
repeatedly says throughout the Lotus about the pratyekabuddhas, the
self-enlightened, and the sravakas, the voice-hearers, and other
representatives of the Lesser Vehicle. In putting them down in order
to exhalt the new Bodhisattvayana, the Buddha seems to be something
less than `compassionate'. For example, in Chapter 2, "Expedient
Means", the Buddha addresses Shariputra, "The wisdom of the Buddhas
is infinitely profound and immeasurable. The door to this wisdom is
difficult to understand and difficult to enter. Not one of the voice
hearers or pratyekabuddhas is able to comprehend it" (p. 23). On the
slowwittedness of the Theras see also pp. 27, 28, 29, 30, 36 and 49.
For example, when five thousand Thera monks, nuns, laymen, and
laywomen rise from the assembly and leave in protest to the Buddha's
remarks, they are described as "overbearingly arrogant". The Buddha
lets them go and then says to Shariputra, "Now this assembly of mine
is free of rubbish" (p. 30). Actually, both Watson and Hurvitz (p.
29) have "trees and branches" in place of "rubbish", but it is plain
what the Buddha meant about these "persons of overbearing
arrogance".
[7] See COOK, FRANCIS H. (1978) in CHARLES S. PREBISH (Ed.), The
Sutra Pitaka in Buddhism: A Modern Perspective (University Park, The
Pennsylvania State University Press), p. 57.
[8] Majjhima-Nikaya, iii, 250-252, in CHALMERS, LORD (1927) Further
Dialogues of the Buddha, II, Sacred Books of the Buddhists, VI
(London, Oxford University Press), pp. 298-299.
[9] "He is like a skilled physician who uses an expedient means to
cure his deranged sons" (Lotus Sutra, 16, p. 231).
[10] The desires associated with the five sense organs, viz. eyes,
ears, nose, tongue and body, are wealth, sex, food and drink, fame,
and sleep. In the heavenly world, the rewards to good men and good
women who uphold and accept the Lotus Sutra will be new surfeits and
benefits associated with these five organs of sense. Such rewards
constitute, presumably, satisfaction without desire. See Lotus
Sutra, 19.
[11] Lotus Sutra, 7, p. 135.
[12] Ibid., p. 133. It is paradoxical that that very sermon that he
had preached is now the very sermon that contains the story of that
preaching. "The paradox of time", as we might call this puzzle,
makes the past into the present and vice versa, which erases time
altogether and becomes, as a result, another upaya.
[13] Ibid., p. 134. Emphasis added. The point is that there is a way
beyond the Bodhisattva way and that for some that way will be more
difficult than for others.
[14] Ibid., pp. 135-136.
[15] Lotus Sutra, 14, pp. 198-199. These verse passages of the Lotus
Sutra represent the older and more ancient portions of each chapter
even though, oddly enough, the prose passages are placed,
achronologically, before the verse passages in the text.
[16] Lotus Sutra, 4, p. 93.
[17] Lotus Sutra, 3, pp. 49-50.
[18] Ibid., p. 51.
[19] Leon Hurvitz appears to acknowledge this threat in his
commentary on the following verses in his translation of the Lotus:
In no long time he [the virtuous teacher of the Law] shall arrive
at the Platform of the Way,
Gaining the no-ado that has
no outflows
And broadly benefiting men and gods.
Hurvitz comments: "The `no-ado that has no outflows' is supreme
enlightenment that leads to nirvana. It has `No outflows' in the
sense that it does not conduce to reincarnation. `No-ado' (wu wei)
is a Taoist term taken over by the Ch. Buddhists, first to mean
nirvana, later to mean asamskrta [non-forcing, non-causing elements
producing no karmic results].... Wu wei implied for the Taoists that
all action is bad, that the Sage who really understands Heaven's
will [or Fate or the Will of God in the Hindu and Christian
traditions] can sit perfectly motionless and let things take care of
themselves There can be little doubt that the first Chinese to be
attracted to Buddhism misunderstood nirvana to mean just that."
Hurvitz, op. cit., Lotus Sutra, 17, p. 256 and note.
[20] The Gospel According to St. Mark, 13. 33-37. Revised Standard
Version. See also the Gospels According to Mark, 9.1, 13.29-31;
Matthew, 3.2, 4.17, 10.23, 24.3; and Luke, 12.40, 21.6. See also St.
Paul's letters, First Thessalonians, 5.2; Romans, 6.12-15; and First
Corintheans, 6.10-19 for more on the pervasiveness of this moral
apocalypticism.
[21] St. Paul's Letter to the Romans, 8.29-30, 9.14. Revised
Standard Version.
[22] Lotus Sutra, 14, p. 197.
[23] Ibid., p. 198.
[24] Ibid., p. 201.
[25] Ibid., p. 200.
[26] Ibid., p. 201. Emphasis added.
[27] Ibid., p. 196.
[28] Ibid., p. 202.
[29] Meister Johannes Eckhart (1260-1327), the great German priest,
mystic and theologian, says in one of his sermons: "St. Paul said to
Timothy, 'Beloved, preach the word'. Did he mean the outward word
that beats the air? Nay, surely! He meant the in-born, hidden Word
that lies secreted in the soul...". Eckhart, like the Lotus Sutra,
saw no difference between the active life and the contemplative life
since "each perfects the other": That is the Lotus way. PFEIFFER,
FRANZ (1947) Meister Eckhart, C. DE B. EVANS (Transl.) Vol. I,
(London, John M. Watkins), p. 16. In order to hear this Christian
Nagarjuna at his very best, see Eckhart's sermon on "The Poor in
Spirit" where he idealises the truly poor man as one who "wills
nothing, knows nothing, has nothing" (p. 218).
[30] Lotus Sutra, 14, pp. 322-323. Emphasis added.
[31] Ibid., p. 324.
[32] B.G., II. 47 48.
[33] Hurvitz, op. cit., p. 384, n. 9.
[34] Mulamadyamikakarika, ch. 25.19. An absolutely grand translation
and commentary on this greatest of Nagarjuna's works is: KALUPAHANA,
DAVID J. (1986) Nagarjuna, the Philosophy of the Middle Way (New
York, State University of New York Press). I have always thought
that while Nagarjuna may not have composed the Lotus Sutra and while
it may not have influenced him, it is not unfair to suggest, given
the proximity of the dates for each, with the Lotus set around 200
CE and Nagarjuna set around 150-250 CE, that there was a common
source predating each of them from which each drew a common
inspiration on the matter of the ways to liberation.
[35] R.G. BURY (Transl.) Sextus Empiricus, (1939) 4 volumes,
Outlines of Pyrrhonism (Harvard University; Loeb Classical Library),
Vol. 1.29, p. 21.
[36] Lotus Sutra, 5, p. 100.
[37] Ibid.
[38] Ibid.
[39] Ibid., p. 99.
A.L. Herman, Department of Philosophy, University of Wisconsin,
Stevens Point, W154481, USA.