The doctrine of Expedient Means in Buddhism is clearly one of the reasons this whole self-propagating meme complex (ie: religion) has lasted so long. It goes like this:
If you're a master you can lie to your students, or obscure the way to the Final Truth, or get away with a lot of shit that would normally be a no-no, IF your teaching methods are the best for advancing your particular student along their personal enlightenment path.
If the most expedient means to teaching your disciple is to punch him in the face, and as a result of said punch he gets this epiphany, then you did it right! Even though violence, as a general rule, is not cool. So under this doctrine, a whole lot of priests got a whole lot of flexibility in teaching their particular schools. Certain Zen Masters got to paint silly political cartoons for the masses in between their calligraphic masterpieces for their temples, because a little wry, well-directed humor in a public forum could nudge thousands along their way to a little real epiphany that they wouldn't otherwise get.
Or, as another - more classical - example: The Buddha is eternal. However, he allowed his followers to think he was dead, because his perceived absence inspired in them a longing for the Buddha, and so they pursued his teachings and advanced down their spiritual paths with great vigor.
That was the most expedient means towards the next stage of their enlightenment.
UNFORTUNATELY.... and this is a paper I could maybe write someday... with the advent of good record-keeping, good communication, and other accoutrement of the information age, Expedient Means might be losing its effectiveness as a tool for mass education. After all, us students can just go on the internet and find out, hey, SPOILER: Buddha's not really dead! Or even maybe trace the path some monk walked from koan to koan, riddle to riddle.
Then again, that might just mean that Expedient Means is most effective where it's always been: within a one-on-one education between master and disciple. The master can see the whole path, can indeed see multiple paths, and also perceive their essential unity. The disciple can only see the breadcrumbs laid before him by the master, and must follow them to the best of his ability. Even if they seem to lead him away from the final truth at first step.
If you're a master you can lie to your students, or obscure the way to the Final Truth, or get away with a lot of shit that would normally be a no-no, IF your teaching methods are the best for advancing your particular student along their personal enlightenment path.
If the most expedient means to teaching your disciple is to punch him in the face, and as a result of said punch he gets this epiphany, then you did it right! Even though violence, as a general rule, is not cool. So under this doctrine, a whole lot of priests got a whole lot of flexibility in teaching their particular schools. Certain Zen Masters got to paint silly political cartoons for the masses in between their calligraphic masterpieces for their temples, because a little wry, well-directed humor in a public forum could nudge thousands along their way to a little real epiphany that they wouldn't otherwise get.
Or, as another - more classical - example: The Buddha is eternal. However, he allowed his followers to think he was dead, because his perceived absence inspired in them a longing for the Buddha, and so they pursued his teachings and advanced down their spiritual paths with great vigor.
That was the most expedient means towards the next stage of their enlightenment.
UNFORTUNATELY.... and this is a paper I could maybe write someday... with the advent of good record-keeping, good communication, and other accoutrement of the information age, Expedient Means might be losing its effectiveness as a tool for mass education. After all, us students can just go on the internet and find out, hey, SPOILER: Buddha's not really dead! Or even maybe trace the path some monk walked from koan to koan, riddle to riddle.
Then again, that might just mean that Expedient Means is most effective where it's always been: within a one-on-one education between master and disciple. The master can see the whole path, can indeed see multiple paths, and also perceive their essential unity. The disciple can only see the breadcrumbs laid before him by the master, and must follow them to the best of his ability. Even if they seem to lead him away from the final truth at first step.