Skilful Means
When I started to study Buddhism, reading introductory books, I noticed apparent contradictions. There is a Theracada precept about not visiting places of music or entertainment yet Tibetan Buddhism is very musical. Zen monks are vegetarian yet Tibetan ones eat meat. The basic rule of "anatta" says that there is no indidual soul yet Tibetan lamas are "re-incarnated".
"Skilful Means" is a term used in Buddhism for the presentation of the Dharma (teaching) in a way that will be clearly understood by the listener or will help them on the path to enlightenment by clearing away their delusions. In some ways it could be considered as telling a "white lie", an untruth or half-truth that will be to their benefit in the long term.
But what it the point of it? Surely it is against the precepts to 'tell that which is not true'? If the Dharma is the 'ultimate Truth' why present something that is different?
Well maybe it is because our teachers re being compassionate? We are brought up to believe that we are individuals with and individual 'self' or 'ego' or 'soul' and with individual needs and thoughts and characteristics. We have preconceptions of things. Particularly in the modern western world we want to know and understand the intellectual or scientific answer to things, and we do not like things that do not have an "answer". Most importantly we do not like to be told that we are wrong!
It happens in our schools. When we are young we are taught simplified versions of complicated stuff. I found it very confusing to be told in Maths and Science that the things we were taught last year were wrong and now we are going to learn the real version. One year electricity flowed from positive to negative and the next year it flowed from negative to positive. One year chemical reactions were not reversible, the next year some were reversible, and the next year they were all reversible. My teachers were lying to me. And my children's' teachers are still lying! Or are they presenting a simplified version of a complicated story? [I get quite annoyed about the dumbing down of science because Scientists think that the public is too thick to understand the truth..... but that is another story!]
And it happens in Buddhism too. To present the 'Truth' about the nature of the 'Self', for example, although it is a very simple concept, is expecting the listener to take a huge leap. To tell someone that there is 'no self' and all they have to do is give up believing in the 'self and they will be immediately enlightened is just too much. And even if we the listener can see the logic in it we are still likely to say "Yes, very clever, but I........!" Or we find it so challenging that we will argue with it or just ignore it. So it can be presented in smaller steps. And in any case having an intellectual understanding of something is not the same as practising it. "Yes I know being overweight is unhealthy, but I just want to finish this box of chocolates before I start my diet!" or "Yes I know all about no-self but I will never achieve it in my lifetime!"
Perhaps that is why the Tibetan form of Buddhism seems to concentrate on karma and re-incarnation and Pure Land Buddhism teaches that you will be reborn in the Western Heaven that is just one lifetime away from enlightenment? If the individual thinks that the task is impossible they will not start it.
If the In Zen koans are used under the careful supervision of a Master not to test the student's ability but as a means of cutting through intellectualism, conquering a long list of koans is not the aim.
I remember reading in a book (by John Blofeld I think) about a western Buddhist discussing the Dharma with a Chinese Pure Land Buddhist Priest. The westerner said that meditation was the pathway to enlightenment and that the priest was peddling an inferior form of Buddhism. The preist replied that his followers were peasent farmers and if he told them to meditate to become enlightened they would say 'I can't meditate', 'where would I find them time' or 'if only it was that easy!' So they are encouraged to recite a mantra when they are doing their work and they do it. And the westerner says 'but reciting a mantra is a way of meditating!'
Maybe all religions do it. Perhaps that is why there is anthropomorphism in religion? We create "God" in our own image, because that is easier to understand! Not a lot of people take up the 'mystic', direct route to the 'Truth' or achieving union with the Ultimate. Most people follow the more popular paths of do little bits (praying, chanting/signing, good deeds, charity....) when they get the chance, in the belief that it will lead to something better.
Which is right and which is wrong? Neither - if both means lead to the same end ....! All we can say is 'I prefer this way' or 'this makes sense to me'. To think that our way is better and others are wrong leads to fundamentalism, and occurs because of our own insecurity.
Perhaps the apparent contradictions exist if you study Buddhism, when you practice Buddhism they matter las and less!
Mike Horne. December 2000, revised May 2001.