Maya, or Mara, means delusion. Upaya means "expedient means" or "skillfulness." Both refer to the fact that our sense impressions are not as accurate in respect to the world outside of our "minds" as we'd like them to be. The former deals with the situation, and the later deals with how to deal with that situation. Mara is "illusion"/"delusion" it is the poisonous things that deceive us and mislead us. It is "Samael" -- the poisoner. It is the "Satan" -- the enemy other. It is the process of alienation itself. The misery that we experience is a result of "mara", and paradoxically it is this misery that serves as a goad to enlightenment.
The Lotus Sutra is a main source of the Buddha's teachings on "upaya." The Buddha brilliantly recognized that the power and utility of all teachings comes from the same creative source. Not from the teachings themselves, but from the creativity that they spark in people. The Buddha's expedient means are aimed at guiding people along the path to enlightenment.
And this is the beginning to the answer to Mike's question:
"Who gets to decide which are the lies and fables, and who is actually facing the truth? One person may sincerely believe that they are squarely facing the truth, but to another that person is living in a dream-world. Who is the arbiter of truth, or whose yardstick should be used?"
Because the Buddha's expedient means are judged by whether or not -- in fact -- people get to an enlightened state. And the Lotus Sutra provides us with one yardstick for understanding the yardstick involved. In the "Vanishing City Chapter," The Buddha teaches of a travellor for whom the road has become weary and of his magic city. Both the creation and the destruction of "Magic cities" is the work of skillfulness. The dreams and fables are only worth holding onto to the extent that they actually guide people along the way to the "magic mountain" of enlightenment. When they no longer do so it is time to break camp.
Upaya can be understood as being like the dream of a Cathedral. One man might envision such a thing and talk of it to a few. Another man may draw plans and talk about them with others who might offer improvements. Yet another may decide to start building. It may take years to build such a building. The "visioner" may later take credit for "creating" the Cathedral, but it is the product of something that is more real than one person. It is the creativity of the entire community at work. And if the Cathedral is actually built, it's result becomes a "testament" to the truth of that vision. If it is built and later falls on people's heads, that is a testament to the weakness of those visions.
The same analogy applies to religion. People build religious systems out of similes and parables, stories and beliefs. Many of these stories and beliefs are objectively fiction. Like the vision of the Messiah I talked about. Yet like the vision of a Cathedral, they form a goal to work towards. You want an enlightened world, then you take such a dream and work to refine it and build towards that future. In the hands of a skilled teacher, tragedy becomes lesson, myth metaphor for life, the fables sources for principles to live, and doctrinal texts source for those principles.
Every Cathedral takes generations to build, and the foundation of a particular Cathedral follows a plan that is both the product of a higher power (the sum being more than the individual parts) and yet subject to revision. And so if we are fundamentalist enough we can see that the roots of Buddhism and Judaism are in a critique (and selective adoption) of the pagan and chaotic religions notions developing before them. That Christianity and Islam represent a generalization of notions borrowed mainly from Judaism, but also from other sources -- following the same pattern. And that therefore, the founders of those religions have to be seen as creative architects. We live in the houses they designed, like it or not. We have a variety of yardsticks. All of which are inherited from them.
And of course those houses are on fire....
Posted by cholte at June 24, 2004 12:42 PMThanks Chris for a profound topic.
As Shakyamuni said to Shariputra “the wisdom of the Buddhas is infinitely profound and difficult to understand”.
I have read where Maya is the delusion of the dualistic world where everything is relative and the ego rules and, Upaya is variously termed as the tactful, skillful, and according to Kirkegaard, the way for the Buddha to “deceive us into truth”. It is often the way we create a delusion to be able to come to terms with a delusion. BS baffles brains?
Well worth a stimulating discussion IMHO. It will be interesting to see how other readers respond to this very interesting posting.
Chris says: “The Lotus Sutra is a main source of the Buddha's teachings on "upaya." The Buddha brilliantly recognized that the power and utility of all teachings comes from the same creative source. Not from the teachings themselves, but from the creativity that they spark in people.”
This seems to be a very strong point of the Lotus Sutra. As Burton Watson says in his intro to the Lotus Sutra “ Buddhism has always insisted that its highest truth can never in the end be expressed in words, since words immediately create the kind of distinctions that violate the unity of Emptiness. All the sutra can do, therefore, is to talk around it, leaving a hole in the middle where truth can reside.”
My wonderful practice relies on the Lotus Sutra’s mystic powers, continually strengthening my faith. ‘Difficult to understand’, but, thankfully, it has proved itself in so many ways.
Best Regards
Barry
Posted by: Barry at July 2, 2004 06:23 AM