Pretty specific, you claimed that the Lotus Sutra stated, X, Y & Z .... Then said "Lets discuss". I asked where is X,Y & Z stated in the Lotus Sutra. Then you refused to discuss. So, perhaps in addition to being specific, perhaps a little disingenuous in wanting to discuss.

Don't know, why would you? I would point out that the video you posted seemed to be just a part of the first chapter.

I didn't ask for a quote ... I merely where in the Lotus Sutra is "no way" "non causal" or "choiceless awareness" discussed. That is, what in the Lotus Sutra supports your statement, but you refuse to provide support. Probably because what you stated showed that you did not read the Lotus Sutra. The expedient devices are discussed fairly plainly.

You seem to be unwilling to back up your claims - so, given my requests for you to support your position and your refusal to provide any support for your conjecture, yes it seems that you are not prepared.

You should be prepared to support your position, and yes, we are not in much of a scholarly atmosphere - so, we can ignore those issues for the most part and deal with them on an ad hoc basis.

They could be - depends on your situation. The point is - the methods of the monk, arhat and bodhisattva are not an end in themselves, the enlightenment is not different, it is all the same enlightenment - it is all the path to becoming a Buddha. In fact there are many teachings, each for a different personality - provisionally the methods differ, but they are all the path to becoming a Buddha. At the end of the verse section of Chapter 16, Shakyamuni states:

However, it would seem that some method is needed, as Shakyamuni states in earlier in Chap. 16:

Here, Shakyamuni is "formerly practicing the Bodhisattva path."
You can speculate on the Lotus Sutra all you want, but you should be prepared to back up what you claim - that is you should be able to provide references within the Sutra that would seem to support your speculations.

I fail to see the relevance of whether the earth was considered flat or round at the time of the Sutra. In fact those types of questions Shakyamuni probably wouldn't answer - there is the parable of the a man being shot by an arrow and wanting to know who shot the arrow, the make of the bow, the make of the arrow, etc ... before removing the arrow. When the man finally has all the information about how he was shot with the arrow he dies because too much time passed from when he was shot to the time when he removed the arrow.

That is all neither here nor there though ... if you want to have a discussion of the Lotus Sutra, what is it within the Sutra that made you think they are discussing "no way?"

BTW, this is the translation of the Lotus Sutra that I have been reading.

Sure lets discuss it, I am admitting I have no 'quote' that portrays my understanding but through dialog we might understand the sutra better.

But to be clear I said the sutra 'seems to state' xyz, but added that it might not once we look at it.

Ya but I did watch every video of the sutra in that series and took notes on the entire thing.
Well that points at the words and phrases, I'm not able to produce a specific sentence on its own that shows such a thing. This is the nature of these scripture, they cannot be understood in their parts.
Yes perhaps we should spend time accusing me of not listening to the material.

Yes and I am not prepared, I am unwilling to support my claims. Should we begin dialog about the sutra at some point?

Not sure you can ignore such issues when dealing with the meaning of a document so old as this one.
By necessary I am asking if they are needed, it seems to me that if you can find your way without them then they are not a necessity. Is that wrong to say? We can say that one might use such methods, but can we then say that they are needed?
Yes this is one of the themes it seems, that certain beings need different approaches to help them understand.
I am reading that S points out his own practicing but not that practice is a necessity in that line or surrounding paragraphs. Do I understand that wrong?


Yes thats going to be the discussion. We shouldn't continue to point out my unwillingness to produce a specific quote that supports something I claim, but instead go into it and talk about different parts.
I have to take this as you don't know, but I don't want to put those words in your mouth. I think it would be faster if you just answered the question and didn't go off about why. Its important because the directions have a different context if they refer to a flat earth or a round one. And for me to get a better understanding it would help to know. Also I would like to ask if the directions are from a compass perspective or a relational one. Did they know about north south east west or does it mean front back left right up down. I should think this is quite important, and I am not sure why you would resist such simple questions.

You simultaneously ask me these questions while refusing to engage in the explanation. I would like to explain to you, but you have to allow me to. You have stated there is no need to question the integrity of the translation. You say So are we to not investigate the meanings of certain parts? Are we to not discuss the meaning of it, yet simultaneously criticize me for not discussing it?




BTW, this is the translation of the Lotus Sutra that I have been reading.[/QUOTE]Yes this will help.



I am still curious about there views on the flat world. It is my understanding the Hindu scripts talk about a round earth, I am curious if you would agree and whether or not the LS refers to a flat earth.

I would also like to know if the 10 directions are compass directions or not, specifically what was meant in that regard.

In chapter 16 that you pointed to Buddha speaks to the great assembly and says the same thing 3 times. What is the significance of that?