Was Buddha deceiving others to get them on the path? I understand that the Buddha used different teachings styles, depending on the audience/people that were listening. Also, I understand that there seems to be a ,superficial', easier accessible Buddhism and a more advanced, transcendental one.

In the light of this, I am wondering if it is seen as ethically correct, that the Buddha taught some people differently than others, especially by using, I would say, manipulative techniques.

There are two examples I'd like to bring up. 

One is the parable of the burning house, in which the Buddha promises playthings to get the children out of the burning house.
..."Then straightaway, intentionally devising a lie, he announced to the children, "I have various precious playthings, one for each of you, here outside the door.  For one, a goat-drawn cart.  For one, a deer-drawn cart.  For one, an ox-drawn cart.  Come out, all of you!  For your sakes I have made these carts, following the desire of your own thoughts."

Thereafter, he is offering them even more valuable carts than promised (the Dhamma I assume). But he used the first promise to lure them out of the house. Of course, as it is a parable, it can be interpreted in varying ways. However, in this case he intentionally lied to the children in order to get them to the right path. Isn't that manipulative?

The second example is about Karma and re-birth. After reading about the topic from different sources and books, it seems to me that the mechanism of Karma and re-birth primarily serves as to bring the common people to act ethically (good karma, bad karma, different realm of re-birth). However, in my understanding there is actually no self that can be re-born, as the 5 aggregates dissolve at the moment of death (where there is actually no death also). When there is no self, nothing can die nor be reborn, nor can there be a ,bookkeeping' of good and bad karma. Therefore, it seems that the teachings here bring the karma and re-birth theory up only to attract the common people and have them behave in line with Buddhist ethics. However, in fact after realising that there is no self, this whole construct becomes redundant (Simpler vs. more advanced Buddhism?).

I would be very happy to read your view on this, as this issue has kept bugging me for a while. I am convinced that there is a justification in this method, which makes it ethically acceptable (does the end ever justify the means?). Also, please point out if my line of thought is flawed.

Thank you so much.
Please point out if my line of thought is flawed.


It is an established principle since the time of the Buddha there are two types of teachings: 


mundane, worldly or moral teachings (lokiya dhamma) 
supramundane, transcendent or noble teachings connected to emptiness (lokuttara dhamma) 


The moral teachings bring moral (non-harming) benefits but do not remove attachment. 

These teaching exist because the majority of people are unable to remove attachment. 

Therefore, your line of thought is certainly flawed because how can it be expected of  most people to give up attachment towards sexuality, reproductive drives, partners, children &amp; family? 

If you expect all people to give up attachment &amp; realise not-self, when they are actually incapable of doing so, it is you rather than the Buddha that is deceiving people. 

Please refer to MN 117 (linked).


  Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions [of becoming];
  there is right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a
  factor of the path. MN 117


Please also refer to MN 12 &amp; MN 26 (below): 


  Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is the world with its many and different elements. That too is a Tathagata's power...
  
  Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is how beings have different inclinations. That too is a Tathagata's power...
  
  Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is the disposition of the faculties of other beings, other persons. That too is a
  Tathagata's power...
  
  MN 12





  Then, having understood Brahma's invitation, out of compassion for beings, I surveyed the world with the eye of an Awakened One. As I did
  so, I saw beings with little dust in their eyes and those with much,
  those with keen faculties and those with dull, those with good
  attributes and those with bad, those easy to teach and those hard,
  some of them seeing disgrace &amp; danger in the other world. MN 26




As for 'rebirth', the Buddha did not deceive or lie. Again, this is a long established principle.

The Buddha used certain well-defined words &amp; it is not the Buddha deceiving people but people interpreting the Buddha's words in different ways that generate various ideas about 'rebirth'. 

The commentaries state: 


  The Awakened One, best of speakers,  Spoke two kinds of truths:  The conventional and the ultimate.  A third truth does not obtain.
  
  Therein:  The speech wherewith the world converses is true.  On account of its being agreed upon by the world.  The speech which
  describes what is ultimate is also true,  Through characterizing
  dhammas as they really are.
  
  Therefore, being skilled in common usage,  False speech does not arise in the Teacher,  Who is Lord of the World,  When he speaks
  according to conventions.
  
  (Mn. i. 95)