[N]otice that there is not much use of the notion of emptiness (śūnyā or śūnyāta) in the Lotus Sutra. Of course, all things are empty. But it is because they are empty that there is space, so to speak, for the development of one’s buddha-nature. If things were substantial, they could not truly grow or change. But because they are without substantiality, they can be influenced by and have influence on others. Undue emphasis on emptiness is rejected because it can easily become a kind of nihilism in which nothing matters. In the Lotus Sutra everything matters. The Buddha works to save all beings. Even the poor Bodhisattva Never Disrespectful, who goes around telling everyone that they are to become buddhas, though initially not very successful, eventually “converted a multitude of a thousand, ten thousand, millions, enabling them to live in the state of supreme enlightenment.” And this is to say nothing of the fact that he later became the Buddha Śākyamuni!
A Buddhist Kaleidoscope; Gene Reeves, Appropriate Means as the Ethics of the Lotus Sutra, Page 389

One of the ways, I think, in which the Lotus Sutra and its teaching of hōben is ethical is by being radically world-affirming. By this I mean simply that it is this sahā world which is Śākyamuni Buddha’s world. It is in this world that he is a bodhisattva and encourages us to be bodhisattvas. This world is our home, and it is the home of Śākyamuni Buddha, precisely because he is embodied, not only as the historical Buddha, but as the buddha-nature in all things. Thus, things, ordinary things, including ourselves and our neighbors, are not primarily to be seen as empty, though they are; not primarily to be seen as phenomenal, though they are; not primarily to be seen as illusions, though in one sense they are; not primarily to be seen as evil even though they may be in part. It is in dharmas (things/ “conventional” existence) that the Dharma is. It is in transient, changing things that the Buddha is. They are, therefore, to be treated with as much insight and compassion and respect as we can muster.
A Buddhist Kaleidoscope; Gene Reeves, Appropriate Means as the Ethics of the Lotus Sutra, Page 388

Ways of being helpful are not, at least not primarily, grounded in principles. The Lotus Sutra has very little to say about precepts, though it does not reject them and in chapter 14 (Carefree Practice) the Buddha provides four sets of prescriptions which bodhisattvas should follow, one having to do primarily with outward behavior, one with speech, one with attitudes, and one with intentions. But these are to be understood, I think, not as commandments but more like counsel or rules of thumb. Principles, at least in the strongest sense, are eternal, God-given, or at least implanted permanently in the nature of things. The hōben of the Lotus Sutra, in contrast, are provisional. Once used, they may no longer be useful, precisely because they were appropriate for some concrete situation. The children will not return to the burning house to be saved again. Once his sons have drunk the antidote to the poison, their father need not again tell them that he has died. This is because these stories involve discoveries, made rapidly or gradually. And once something has been seen or discovered, it cannot be unseen or undiscovered, though it might, of course, be rediscovered or be discovered again independently. So the means by which it is discovered is always provisional, viable in some point in time. Once the father has guided his son to maturity, he can die in peace, no longer needed. Once a raft has been used to cross over to the other shore, we no longer need the raft and we would be seriously burdened by trying to take it with us over land.

In such provisionality there is a scriptural basis, not so much for a critique of the tradition, but for the continuing development, the continued flowering of the Dharma. And this is why the Lotus Sutra provided an important basis for the transformation of Buddhism in a Chinese context. From the perspective of the Lotus Sutra the transformation of Avalokiteśvara into Kwan-yin is not a corruption of Buddhism but a flowering.
A Buddhist Kaleidoscope; Gene Reeves, Appropriate Means as the Ethics of the Lotus Sutra, Page 387

What … does it mean to be a bodhisattva? Basically, in the Lotus Sutra it means using appropriate means to help others. And that finally, for the Lotus Sutra, is what Buddhism itself is. It is an enormous variety of means developed to help people live more fulfilling lives, which can be understood as lives lived in the light of their interdependence. This is what most of the stories are about: someone — father-figure/buddha, or friend/buddha, or guide/buddha — helping someone else gain more responsibility for their own lives.

Even if you search in all directions,
There are no other vehicles,
Except the appropriate means preached by the Buddha.

Thus, the notion of appropriate means is at once both a description of what Buddhism is, or what Buddhist practice primarily is, and a prescription for what our lives should become. The Lotus Sutra, accordingly, is a prescription of a medicine or religious method for us — and, therefore, at once both extremely imaginative and extremely practical.
A Buddhist Kaleidoscope; Gene Reeves, Appropriate Means as the Ethics of the Lotus Sutra, Page 386

I think there can be no question but what many, at least, of the stories about bodhisattvas are there to provide role models for human beings. They play a role in the ever-present tension between what already is and what is yet to be. To the extent that we have even lifted a single finger to point to the truth, we are already bodhisattvas. But how much more so those who faithfully follow the Lotus Sutra, that is, devote their lives to bodhisattva practice. And to encourage us in that direction there are stories of wonderful bodhisattvas.

Yes, people do pray to Kwan-yin for help, and Kwan-yin takes on whatever form is needed to be helpful. But while that story may present the hope of divine blessing, it is there primarily to show us what we should be. If Kwan-yin has a thousand arms with a thousand different skills with which to help others, we too need to develop a thousand skills with which to help others.
A Buddhist Kaleidoscope; Gene Reeves, Appropriate Means as the Ethics of the Lotus Sutra, Page 386

The way in which you and I can develop our buddha-nature is by following the Buddha-way, doing what buddhas have always done, namely, following the way of bodhisattva practice. It is absolutely central to the Lotus Sutra, I think, that Śākyamuni Buddha is, first of all, a bodhisattva. We are told that he has been doing bodhisattva practice, helping and leading others, for innumerable kalpas. Whenever the enormously long life of the Buddha is described, it is not meditation that he has been doing, at least not primarily, but teaching and leading and changing others, thus turning them into bodhisattvas.

Because all the living have various natures, various desires, various activities, various ideas and ways of making distinctions, and because I wanted to lead them to put down roots of goodness, I have used a variety of explanations, parables, and words and preach various teachings. Thus I have never for a moment neglected the Buddha’s work.

Thus it is, since I became Buddha a very long time has passed, a lifetime of unquantifiable asamkhyeya kalpas, of forever existing and never entering extinction. Good children, the lifetime which I have acquired pursuing the bodhisattva-way is not even finished yet, but will be twice the number of kalpas already passed.

But the Buddha and those with the title of bodhisattva are not the only bodhisattvas. Śrāvakas are also bodhisattvas. That is why there are plenty of them in every paradise, or paradiselike Buddha-land described in the Lotus Sutra. Most śrāvakas, of course, don’t know they are bodhisattvas, but they are nonetheless.

What you are practicing
[the Buddha says to the disciple Kāśyapa] Is the bodhisattva-way.
As you gradually practice and learn,
Every one of you should become a buddha.

And, of course, most importantly, you and I are bodhisattvas. No matter how tiny our understanding or merit, no matter how trivial our practice, we are, to some extent, perhaps tiny, already bodhisattvas. And we are called to grow in bodhisattvahood by leading others to realize that potential in themselves.
A Buddhist Kaleidoscope; Gene Reeves, Appropriate Means as the Ethics of the Lotus Sutra, Page 384-385

There are obviously many ways of reading the Lotus Sutra, including, I suppose, several legitimate ways, by which I mean ways reasonably consistent with or based upon the text itself. Without trying to argue for such an interpretation here, I will simply share with you that I see the text as being primarily soteriological. That is, I think its main purpose is not to teach Buddhist doctrines or refute other interpretations or forms of Buddhism, but to incline the reader’s heart, and especially behavior, in a certain way. There are, for example, numberless claims in the sutra to the effect that everyone, be they poor, not very bright, female, even evil, absolutely everyone without exception is destined to become a buddha. I take it that this is not just a proto-buddha-nature doctrine, though it is that, and not just a metaphysical assumption, though it does express an underlying metaphysics. What is intended primarily, I think, is that you and I understand that we can become Buddha-like because we have that capacity already within us simply by virtue of being alive. This capacity or potential is in everyone. It does not have to be earned and it cannot be taken away. But it does need to be developed.
A Buddhist Kaleidoscope; Gene Reeves, Appropriate Means as the Ethics of the Lotus Sutra, Page 384

The story of Devadatta is very instructive [in the discussion of Hōben]. Its message is that even our enemies, regardless of their intentions, can be bodhisattvas for us if we regard them as such. In this sutra, Devadatta, the embodiment of evil in so much Buddhist literature outside of the Lotus Sutra, is thanked by the Buddha for being helpful. “Thanks to my good friend Devadatta, I was able to develop fully the six pāramitās, with pity, compassion, joy, equanimity,” etc. The Buddha learned from his experiences with Devadatta, making Devadatta a bodhisattva, but we are not told that this was in any way a function of what Devadatta himself intended. Good intentions may be good in their own right, but they are not what is all important or even most important in a bodhisattva. What is more important is effectiveness, effectiveness in leading others to the Buddha-way, and thus to their salvation.

It is their “only” salvation because outside of the Buddha-way there is, and can be, no other way. If an act is salvific it is good, and if it is good it is bodhisattva practice, and if it is bodhisattva practice it is included in the Buddha-way. Whatever else it is, the Buddha-way is good and includes everything good, that is, everything that leads to salvation.
A Buddhist Kaleidoscope; Gene Reeves, Appropriate Means as the Ethics of the Lotus Sutra, Page 383

Apparently, some people think that Buddhist ethics is primarily a matter of what is inside oneself; that it is primarily a matter of consciousness and compassion. But there is hardly a hint of this in the Lotus Sutra. The ideal, in the Lotus Sutra too, is a combination of wisdom or insight, compassion, and practice. The entrance to the Great Sacred Hall at the headquarters of Risshō Kōsei-kai in Tokyo, for example, is dominated by huge pictures of three bodhisattvas: Mañjuśrī, Maitreya, and Samantabhadra, representing wisdom, compassion, and practice, and the three parts of the Lotus Sutra in which these three are thought to be prominent. In the Lotus Sutra itself and in Lotus teaching, the three are interdependent and perhaps in one sense equally important. It can, for example, be said that practice can lead to enhanced wisdom and compassion. But it is clear that the flow has to be primarily the other way, toward practice as a consequence of wisdom and compassion. Thus, in contemporary jargon, the Lotus Sutra is very results-oriented. Of course, it is important that the father of the children in the burning house and the father of the poor son are concerned about their offspring and want to save them, and it is important that they are smart enough to figure out a way to save them, but it is most important that they are successful in saving the children.
A Buddhist Kaleidoscope; Gene Reeves, Appropriate Means as the Ethics of the Lotus Sutra, Page 382-383

What we are told repeatedly in the sutra is not that these acts are skillful, though they may be, but that they are appropriate, appropriate to the condition of the hearers. It is because people are different and their situations are different that the buddhas, as the rain nourishes the great variety of plants according to their different needs, feed the Dharma according to what is needed. One could argue, of course, that knowing that an appropriate thing is needed and being able to perceive the situation well enough to figure out an appropriate action is itself skillful. And so it is. But it is nevertheless the case that what is emphasized is not so much the skill as it is the appropriateness. This is why I think “appropriate means” is the best translation for hōben in the Lotus Sutra.

What is it that makes something appropriate? At the end of the story of the burning house, the Buddha asks Śāriputra whether the father has lied or not, and Śāriputra responds that the father had not lied, and would not have lied had he given the children even very tiny carriages. Why? Simply because the device worked. The children got out of the house in time to save their lives.
A Buddhist Kaleidoscope; Gene Reeves, Appropriate Means as the Ethics of the Lotus Sutra, Page 382