In the Avatamsaka Sutra of Buddhist Scripture (viewable here), the Seventh Perfection of a Bodhisattva is stated:
Being 'expedient` means being unattached. For example, once there was a child crawling toward a well which was flush with the ground. If the child had continued, it would have fallen into the well. The Buddha saw this, but he knew that if he had called the child back, it would not have listened, but would have continued to crawl forward. And so he made a fist with one hand, held it out, and called, 'Child, come back! I have candy in my hand for you! I have candy. Do you like candy?' When the child heard that there was candy, it turned around and came back. There was no candy in the Buddha's hand after all. But was the Buddha lying? No. That is an example of a an expedient method. He used his empty fist to save the child because there was no other method that would have worked at that point. The doors of expedients are countless. In general, whatever method will save a person is the dharma-door you should use.
The idea that a teacher should use whatever method he/she believes will work seems unique in a religious context. While the idea isn’t unique in the context of a secular educational system (e.g. visual vs. reading learner), most religions have a holy text (Bible, Torah, Koran) that is seen to be the final word on the religion, and one must be saved by that holy text. This Buddhist idea of “expedient teachings” preaches a quite different method of salvation.
One of my favorite movies is “The Peaceful Warrior,” about a college gymnast with Olympic aspirations. He meets a man, whom he calls Socrates, who offers to “train him to become a real warrior - someone who uses his mind and his body in ways that most people would never have the courage to.” There is a single “fight” scene in the movie, which consists of Socrates (also called “big Buddha” by another character) deflecting one of the main characters punches. No martial arts are taught, no intense training is given. The only thing Socrates does is show him what can be done, and tell him to sit on an old Plymouth until he has something worthwhile to tell him. Socrates didn’t want him to become a “warrior,” or even a better gymnast: he wanted him to be able to live in the moment, to be able to carry water and chop wood. The final scene of the movie is the main character doing a gymnastics routine, and Socrates’ voice asking him, “Where are you? What time is it? What is the most important thing?” His answers are “Here. Now. This moment.” We understand that he has achieved some form of enlightenment, even though that word was never used. Socrates never mentioned Zen, or Buddhism, or enlightenment, or Dharma. Why? Because that would not have caused his pupil to become enlightened. He used the “candy” of a warrior and a world-class gymnast to save him from the well.
Another “expedient teaching” in Buddhism is the idea of a Bodhisattva. A bodhisattva is one who has achieved enlightenment and gained unlimited understanding, but stays on the earth to help others to the same level. The problem is, these people technically don’t exist. They exist only for people to strive for, a goal to be attained, a reason to seek enlightenment. If a man can be saved by telling him that if he works hard enough at becoming enlightened, he will become one of these infinitely wise beings, then it is no falsehood to tell him that he can become so. By becoming enlightened, he will surpass whatever the “bodhisattva” idea could offer him, but he could never have reached enlightenment except by the idea of a bodhisattva.
One of my favorite movies is “The Peaceful Warrior,” about a college gymnast with Olympic aspirations. He meets a man, whom he calls Socrates, who offers to “train him to become a real warrior - someone who uses his mind and his body in ways that most people would never have the courage to.” There is a single “fight” scene in the movie, which consists of Socrates (also called “big Buddha” by another character) deflecting one of the main characters punches. No martial arts are taught, no intense training is given. The only thing Socrates does is show him what can be done, and tell him to sit on an old Plymouth until he has something worthwhile to tell him. Socrates didn’t want him to become a “warrior,” or even a better gymnast: he wanted him to be able to live in the moment, to be able to carry water and chop wood. The final scene of the movie is the main character doing a gymnastics routine, and Socrates’ voice asking him, “Where are you? What time is it? What is the most important thing?” His answers are “Here. Now. This moment.” We understand that he has achieved some form of enlightenment, even though that word was never used. Socrates never mentioned Zen, or Buddhism, or enlightenment, or Dharma. Why? Because that would not have caused his pupil to become enlightened. He used the “candy” of a warrior and a world-class gymnast to save him from the well.
Another “expedient teaching” in Buddhism is the idea of a Bodhisattva. A bodhisattva is one who has achieved enlightenment and gained unlimited understanding, but stays on the earth to help others to the same level. The problem is, these people technically don’t exist. They exist only for people to strive for, a goal to be attained, a reason to seek enlightenment. If a man can be saved by telling him that if he works hard enough at becoming enlightened, he will become one of these infinitely wise beings, then it is no falsehood to tell him that he can become so. By becoming enlightened, he will surpass whatever the “bodhisattva” idea could offer him, but he could never have reached enlightenment except by the idea of a bodhisattva.
Is it allowable to tell someone an untruth in this context to save them? If yes, what happens if they do not reach enlightenment? If no, do you simply shove the same texts at them over and over and hope that they get it?
Always tell the truth. Even if you have to make it up. ~Author Unknown
