The Parable of the Burning House

Opening Statement

I will make some comments on the famous Parable of the Burning House, which is told in Chapter 3 of the Lotus Sutra (see Footnote 1).  But first, some thoughts on the role that lies play in Buddhism.

If the Buddha would ever have to lie to assure my enlightenment, I would rather never become Enlightened. On the one hand, it is written that the Buddha never lies. However, toward the end of Chapter 16 of the Lotus Sutra, there appear these two sentences spoken by the Buddha:

• "They [the buddhas] act in order to save living beings, so what they say is true and not false" - p268.

• "In view of the circumstances, however, no one can say that I have been guilty of lies or falsehoods'" - p270.

Regarding the first sentence, "what they say" is true or false irrespective of the motive for "what they say." That is, motive has nothing to do with the truth or falseness of a statement.

Regarding the second sentence, "circumstances" have nothing to do with one being "guilty of lies." If someone wants to call an object black (even though it is really white), he is lying regardless of any "circumstances."

And finally, we have this quote:

QUOTE:  And the Nirvana Sutra also says, "If all the desires and delusions of all the men throughout the major world system [one major world system equals one billion worlds] were lumped together, they would be no greater than the karmic impediment of one single woman. UNQUOTE: [Source: Major Writings of Nichiren Daishonin, Vol. 3, p. 20]

I believe the Buddha made such a statement hoping his disciples would rise up in protest, saying, "That's not true!" In other words, to test his disciples. But, alas, they didn't protest and therefore failed his test.


The Parable of the Burning House

The Buddha tells this parable, in which he appears in the role of a rich man. He then explains to his disciples that the burning house is a metaphor for the everyday, ordinary world. If one refuses to leave this burning house, then he won't be able to escape its dangers and won't be able to transcend that world.

The parable begins on page 91 of the Lotus Sutra, the opening paragraph containing these lines:

QUOTE:

...his wealth was beyond measure. He had many fields, houses, and menservants. His own house was big and rambling..

:UNQUOTE:

By "his own house," it's safe to assume that's the house he lived in, though the preceding sentence says "He had many...houses..." Maybe his sons lived in one or more of those other houses. In his "own house" lived 500 people and an assortment of dangerous creatures. In addition, this house was in a state of severe disrepair. His 50 sons had gone into this house and were so distracted by the games they were playing, they didn't perceive they were in mortal danger because of a fire that was engulfing the house.

The rich man (the Buddha) runs into the burning house, trying to explain to his sons that they should get out before they get killed. But they ignore him, being absorbed in their games. Then the rich man tells his sons that there are fabulous, jewel-encrusted animal-drawn carts outside the house, one for each of them. But they have to leave the house immediately in order to claim them. Which they eagerly do.

The Buddha explains that this house owner is so wealthy, that he could give one such cart to every person in the whole country and still not exhaust his wealth. So that made me ask a couple of questions:

• If he was so rich, why didn't he post guards to prevent his sons from entering this dangerous, ramshackle house?

• If he was so rich, why didn't he raze this house after building a new one for the 500 people that lived there? Or he could have built two replacement houses - one for the 500 and one for the various monsters that lived there.

But since that rich man (symbolically representing the Buddha) didn't do that, if any of the sons had died in the fire or been devoured by the monsters living there, the Buddha would have been at fault. I found it interesting that the house represented the mundane world, which the Buddha owned. Not only "owned," but had allowed to reach a state of decrepitude which had made it into a firetrap

On page 94, the Buddha says, "He [the Buddha] is born into the threefold world, a burning house, rotten and old, in order to save living beings from the fires of birth, aging, sickness and death..." Not only is he "born into the threefold world," but since he owns this house and is responsible for its condition and could have replaced it, then the Buddha should be held responsible for any death or injury which might occur in a house he failed to replace.

Maybe the mundane world has the problems it has due to the unexpiated karma of the Buddha himself. Which is why he feels such a strong sense of obligation to return to such a world to make pure that which he bears some responsibility for having made impure.

I have no idea if this is the case, but his ownership of the house and neglect in replacing it made these thoughts occur to me. Of course, maybe I'm dead wrong about this, since it can also be argued that most metaphors are flawed.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, just another member of the

Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and

Former Candidate for US President (2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Footnote 1:

All references to the Lotus Sutra above, which cite page numbers, refer to:

The Lotus and its Opening and Closing Sutras,
translated by Burton Watson,
published in 2009 by the Soka Gakkai.

This link will connect you to an on-line version of the Lotus Sutra, also translated by Burton Watson, which lacks page numbers:

http://nichiren.info/buddhism/lotussutra/text/chap03.html