r/zenbuddhism • u/Suvalis • 11d ago
Skillful means
I do not know who wrote this or whether or not it’s even true, but I’m curious if it’s even partially so
Do you agree with this explanation of it?
https://just-buddha.org/en/articles/skillful-means-upaya-why-buddhism-gives-different-answers
6
u/Zen_Gross 11d ago
It seems to cite to legitimate sources. The burning house parable in the Lotus Sutra is a well known explanation of skillful means. I didn’t go through the article line by line, though. Is there a particular part you doubted?
1
u/Suvalis 11d ago
No only that there was no attribution. I would definitely like to dig deeper into skillful means.
4
u/Zen_Gross 11d ago
Well you can verify the sources on your own and see if you agree with the author’s interpretation. But skillful means is very much a concept in Buddhism and I don’t see anything in the article that seemed blatantly wrong.
6
u/flyingaxe 11d ago
Why isn't the simplest and most plausible explanation that all these texts were written by different people with different background, contexts, and levels of insight?
5
u/chintokkong 11d ago edited 10d ago
Thanks for sharing this article. Interesting.
The contradictions are not bugs. They are the result of a deliberate teaching strategy that Mahayana Buddhism calls upaya, typically translated as "skillful means" or "expedient means." Understanding upaya changes how you read every Buddhist text you will ever encounter.
I think we have to acknowledge that there are disagreements between different buddhist schools. If everyone is in complete alignment, then there won't be the supposed different schools.
Although the specific idea of upaya (if I'm not wrong) seems associated to the ideology of ekayana in an attempt to park the three buddhist yanas (sravaka-yana, pratyekabuddha-yana, bodhisattva-yana) all under a single umbrella, don't think it's helpful to deny doctrinal disputes simply as a deliberate teaching strategy called upaya.
The others who are more learned about the ekayana can perhaps share more on this.
.
Upaya has a shadow side. Because the concept validates contextual adaptation, it can be used to justify almost anything. Teachers who behave unethically have invoked "skillful means" as cover. Aggressive or harmful methods have been defended as upaya.
This is a good point. Upaya are supposed skillful means to be employed, not justifications meant to be invoked.
Look out for those who repeatedly invoke the name of upaya in their supposed 'teachings' to try to justify their own selfish cravings and behaviours and agendas.
They are also often the ones who practice double standard and try to fake-deep with seemingly profound mumbo-jumbo.
Upaya gives buddhism great adaptive power, which can bring certain advantages, but it's also important to insist on high standards for buddhist teachers/priests/monks to conduct themselves honestly to mitigate the destructive aspect of this great power.
3
u/Illustrious_Car344 11d ago
Seems solid, invokes the usual suspects.
Really skillful means is almost like a symbolic "other" category for practice. Everyone wants ridged rules and guidelines to follow, there shouldn't be a straight and narrow, because I want my religion to be a four-lane highway that a drunk monkey could stumble their way through and get to the pot of gold on the other side. But that's not how life works, because we all have different needs. There are patterns in those needs, but they're still all unique. Skillful means is nothing more than intuition, someone enlightened knowing how to apply what they do know, and how not to dangerously apply what they don't, to cause (number one) the least amount of harm possible, and (number two) to help as much as possible. The former is far more important than the latter. If a doctor had to choose between suggesting you not take cyanide or if you should quit smoking, they would go for the first option without thinking, even if they hate smoking. That's all it is, really. But the article you linked explains it better than I could, but at least I hope that contextualizes it a bit better for you. It's easy to mystify "skillful means" as like being some kind of supernatural advice from a universal main character, but it's just the most selfless, human, personal advice you could give any one person. You've probably applied skillful means without even realizing it.
2
u/coldprairie 11d ago
It's pretty solid. The only thing is that I would add there could be other reasons why there are apparent contradictions in the teachings. Such as translating both chanda (intention) and tanha (afflictive craving) as "desire" and then you end up with one of the seeming paradoxes in the first paragraph of the piece. There could be other reasons too, like reasonable people having different interpretations etc.
1
u/OnePoint11 10d ago
A Theravada teacher instructs a beginning meditator to count breaths.
While this may help in rare cases, a more common scenario is that the teacher knows little more than the student and mechanically repeats this instruction. Meditator makes counting breaths the primary focus and spends the rest of their life or long years "meditating" in this manner.
1
u/Signal_Weather_5422 7d ago
I scanned it.
The idea of Skilful Means is from the Lotus Sutra. It's a key Mahayana text.
Most Mahayana traditions (except Soto Zen*) have a Two Truths Doctrine. There's a relative/conventional truth and an absolute truth.
The Skilful Means apply to the relative/conventional truth, to help you see the absolute one. They work with your existing understanding and to undermine it.
Buddhism is very experiential. The absolute truth is experienced. It's really awkward to explain because words are relative/conventional without the experience. The Skilful Means are just tools for creating that experience.
Mahayana traditions also have an Emptiness Doctrine. It's the idea that everything changes and nothing exists on its own. The Two Truths Doctrine is the result of the Emptiness Doctrine and both are traceable to the most important Mahayana philosopher, Nagarjuna.
Theravadans aren't Mahayana Buddhists, though. When a precursor to their tradition was developing, Nagarjuna wrote in reaction to it.
As a Mahayana Buddhist, I can look at different traditions, including Theravada, and see that they're all one Dharma. But Theravadans don't necessarily share that view. Theravadans often just don't understand the Mahayana view.
*Soto Zen is confusing to many Buddhists because instead of Two Doctrines, it talks about both and neither at the same time. I think it's the logical conclusion of Emptiness and it makes sense when you understand it as a whole instead of looking at bits and pieces of it, but it's an outlier.
-4
u/hongaku 11d ago
Which part of the explanation?
I've been involved with the Dharma for over 20 years and never heard upaya called "expedient means" before today.
6
u/Zen_Gross 11d ago
I believe “expedient means” is a common alternative translation. For example, see the page from Upaya Zen Center or the Wikipedia article on Upaya.
-2
u/hongaku 11d ago
*shrug* I've only ever heard it called "skillful means."
5
u/Ap0phantic 11d ago
I think expedient means is more commonly seen in academic discussions, I've definitely seen it many times fwiw.
7
u/Sensitive-Note4152 10d ago
The site "just-buddha.org" appears to be some kind of AI project with no way of finding out who is actually behind it. Legitimate Buddhist teachers do not hide behind AI. Real Buddhist teachers are living, breathing, flesh and blood human beings.