https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuyD...D3B644FFD26CDE

That is the link I used to get and overview of the writings.

This is mainly a continuation of dialog from this thread http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...board-1301219/

I don't necessarily expect new comers but they are welcome.

One of the main points of the sutra seems to be the ultimate truth may be taught by expedient means. Basically saying, although no way, or non causal way is the highest or truest way, many beings need help or explanation which can come in different causal or 'expedient' forms.

I would like to explore however, if that is the true content of the sutra, and if it is or isn't, whether or not it is an agreeable claim.

I have more to comment on about specific parts of the sutra but I will wait to see that I understand the main component and its relation to the subject of the previous dialog.

Where in the sutra is the talk about "no way" or "non-causality"?

'no way' is to instantaneously enter choiceness awareness which is also non causal.

Really it is the difference between a direct way, and an indirect way. Or if we take K as right in saying 'no method', but we agree that a teacher or guru is important for the laymen who cannot understand such directness.

So expedient means, are used to nudge a person towards the higher understanding.

Non causal is the same as 'trance' (was used in this translation) or dharma or buddha way, or I think it was called the ultimate, in that time in the causal sense is transcended.

It seems to be the sutra is about the use of expedient means to point towards understanding.

What does the '10 directions refer to'?

You didn't answer the question, you claimed the Lotus Sutra talks of "no way" and I asked you where in the sutra this was discussed. You then proceeded to try to shoehorn your opinion without answering my question.

I will ask again - you claimed that the Lotus Sutra discusses "no way" "non-causality" and you just added "choiceless awareness", where in the Lotus Sutra is "no way" discussed? Where in the Lotus Sutra is "noncausal time" discussed? Where in the Lotus Sutra is "choiceless awareness" discussed?

Are you asking me where there are English words in a Sanskrit document?

Oy ... are you trying to avoid the question? You made claim that "no way" or "non causal way" are in the Lotus Sutra. You stated:

So, I am asking you - where is the talk of "no way" or "non causal way" in the Lotus Sutra?

Then, in your first dodging of my question, you mention:

So, you claimed to have referenced three things in the Lotus Sutra:

1. No Way
2. Non Causal Way
3. Choiceless Awareness

I have asked you where these three are referenced in the Lotus Sutra.

I have never purposefully dodged a question of yours from mal intent. I answered your question directly but it seems you don't like the answer.

if you are asking where those words are in the sutra they are not.

But I am suggesting that the ultimate or dharma in the sutra is a method-less way for the buddha, and it is non causal and a state of choiceless awareness.

I again I just answered your question, I am not sure if you accept that as an answer.

What the sutra says is such ultimate attainment can be passed through expedient means. Which is causal, or a method, or a way or a path.

this for example is saying only the way of no way, except there are ways of way when teachers are explaining this to other beings that don't understand 'no way'

No you didn't answer the question directly or indirectly. However, I will accept your present answer that "no way," "non-causality" and "choiceless awareness" are not discussed in the sutra and your admission to speculating.

In light of the fact that you agree such statements regarding a way of "no way" are not in the Lotus Sutra, how do you support you contention that the Lotus Sutra is discussing a way of "no way?" From which chapter are you quoting?

As far as I understand the Sutra was not written in english.

Is that discussion when you roll your eyes? Assuming it wasn't written in English, why are you asking me to quote where English phrases are written?

It's a shame you are using the Lotus Sutra to troll - it is really the only conclusion that makes sense, given that you were presumably quoting the Sutra above. The quote reads like English to me.

The eye rolling seemed like a perfect means of communicating a simple idea, that you are unwilling or unable to back up your interpretation and are hiding behind ridiculous statements. So yes the eye roll is dialog in that I communicated my response- even if you don't like the response.

I am not sure I put quotes up but I am sure I had no intentions of quoting the sutra. I do have notes on the sutra so we can discuss different aspect of it when you are ready to engage in such dialog.

It just seems 90% of our dialog is spent with you confirming your own invalidation of my worth, and that we can have much more rapid dialog if we just dropped such actions.

You quoted something... Why don't you point out the part of the Sutra (not your notes) that you believe support your interpretation.
You do this yourself - I just point it out to you. If you are willing to approach the Sutra without your agenda, then maybe you will gain an appreciation.

You are simultaneously suggesting I quoted the Sutra while asking me to quote the Sutra.

yes you spend most of the dialog pointing at my apparent worthlessness,


Just show me where I quoted the Sutra so we can agree that I have little worth.


As far as I can understand a main feature of the Sutra is to justify expedient means.

This is painful. Do you believe there is a specific passage or section that supports your claims? If so, please direct us to that.

Maybe I should pm you until we are satisfied I am giving you a real answer.

The lotus Sutra and other such works cannot so easily be broken down into parts.

The nature of such scriptures themselves are to help explain larger works and ideas. If they could be shortened they would and sometimes are re written shorter.

As for my claim that first the sutra is about the validation of expedient means, I would be quite surprised to learn that Nek doesn't agree.

As for my claim that non expedient means refers to choiceless awareness (which is non causal and has no path), we should have to examine the sutra for this meaning, which is the intention of both the sutra and this thread (quite ironic when you consider the roots of these two words).

If i am reading your tone wrong, and you are simply asking for a starting point, i'd like to ask what the 10 directions refers to.

I have no idea what the Lotus Sutra is, but it occurs to me that this is exactly what you did in your OP.

Isn't it true you didn't come for dialog on the sutra but instead to have conflict, point faults, and be right?

In my op i suggested it "seems" such and such way, but upon a proper inspection one can see the truer meaning.

I am not sure how to put the logic to you in such a way that it will show you cannot quote a part of the sutra to show the meaning but perhaps you can intuit it from this explanation.

Sutras are explanations of things that are very difficult to explain, so it would follow that you cannot quote their meaning.

Should I assume you are finished with dialog on the op, and will later reference yourself and others on being correct in pointing out my faults? Is it that if we put so much static in this dialog that we can later say that I derail my own threads by addressing your derailments?

Well, that is certainly a response.

Is this? I realize technically it is, but of course I mean is it a valid attempt at participation?

Oy ... The Lotus Sutra is set out in 28 Chapters and is the second sutra of a trilogy, the preceding being the Innumerable Meanings Sutra, the subsequent being the Sutra of Meditation on the Bodhisattva Universal Worthy.

Yes, the Lotus Sutra talks about a Buddha's use of expedient means. That wasn't at issue though ... I outlined your claims and merely asked where you see support for the claims you made. You have done nothing to reference any support of your claims - as I have said before, it is your mere opinion and speculation.

I'll just come right out and say it, The Sutra tells you want the provisional means are, voice hearers (asectic monks), arhats and bodhisattvas - no need to speculate about choiceless awareness, non-causality or whatever it is you wish to shoehorn in to the Sutra.

The big deal here is that up until the Lotus Sutra the methods and fruits of the Monks, Arhats and Bodhisattvas were taught as an end in themselves. Now Shakyamuni is stating that the methods and fruits are just a means, a provisional method - that all these methods are the same "enlightenment." Not only that, but enlightenment is now not just reserved for a select few monks, arhats or bodhisattvas, but Shakyamuni states there are as many expedient devices leading to enlightenment as there are psychological dispositions, i.e., anyone can become enlightened.

N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, NW, above and below

You asked for a quote of proof that the sutra says exactly what I suppose it to mean. This is not possible for what I understand to be obvious reasons, and furthermore if it were it would defeat the purpose of this discussion. As I understand the reason we talked about starting such a thread was to discuss the sutra's meaning, not post a certain quote and be done with it. Scripture like this are known to not have that quality.

Well should we discuss it and see or just leave it at that?

And who was it before that could not become enlightened through transformation and change?

Does this refer to a flat world or round?

You made specific claims. To jog your memory:

All I asked for was support from the Sutra to support your claims, but you are not willing to give that support. I suspect, because you really have not read the Lotus Sutra.

Its OK to provide support for your positions. Again, my suspicion is you don't want to put the leg work in to have any kind of meaningful understanding of the Sutra - perhaps because it might not confirm what you want it to confirm. There is no need to go through any convoluted logic to twist meanings, its best to just let the words speak for themselves, whether you are working with a translation or not.

People who were not part of the three vehicles - here that means people who were not ascetic monks, arhats and bodhisattvas. Though it was not like they couldn't be enlightened, people just didn't know that the three vehicles were provisional.

Why does it matter?

How specific am I being if I say 'It seems...' followed by 'lets discuss it and see if that isn't or is the case'

I listened to the videos I posted, not sure why you would feel I would lie about such a thing.

This is not what you asked for, you asked for a quote where the lotus says such things. An interpretation of such a work cannot be proved in a quote, that is what discussion is for.
so you suggested that we discuss the scripture, but well before we get into any dialog about it you have decide I am wrong, and therefore unprepared?

So then I should take your meaning and not my own. And we should ignore the issues of translation, and therefore time and context (as language suffers to both of these). And we should ignore the bias of the translators, and the contributors to such works over time?



So then the 3 vehicles are not at all necessary?


Well I have a few questions to clarify to understand the Sutra, I am sincere and intent against your observations that I am not, yet instead of giving simple direct answers that allow us to continue you continue to question my questions and point out that I have no interest in give this real thought and time.

Furthermore I might explain why it matters and do so easily as we answer such questions like 'does this refer to flat or round earth?'