Hinayana, Mahayana or Vajrayana

This is a difficult area to discuss because the terms have several meanings. Context becomes critical -- and that's kind of the issue. Yes, the key to a person's practice includes engaging with the world as it manifests. No question. And the more skillful the practitioner, the more experienced, the more that person will see. The view grows, becomes vertically deeper and horizontally broader. I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

Still, phenomenologically, we see what we want to see, what we are used to seeing, what we grow up seeing. Given the nature of nature that's how we have to live as our senses and our brains cannot process the totality of the thing. Think about it -- there are scales of existence we cannot see, electromagnetic waves we cannot detect, things too far, things too close, too big, too small. These are all part of what we call reality but we see it through a lens that consists of what we know. This tells me that the traditions, the "yanas," are tools, practices and paradigms (skillful means) developed by human beings over time meant to get us all to the same end. As a professor of mine was fond of saying, "There are many roads to the top of the mountain."

It's really just beautiful and amazing that so many humans created so many ways of finding awakening. And we're not done

"there is always that point where these kinds of discussions move one step ahead of my ability to continue to understand what is being said and this is that point in this discussions.
I mean, to me, of course when I write about something called 'no fixed view" the writing is to conceptualize what I am talking about but I always think that that is a given and that the reader will know that I am referring to a non-conceptual real experience that we can then talk about.
What am I missing? I think we have to kind of use our imaginations here a little bit and not get too hung up on the intellectual aspect. "

I would just say that when in third gear, there isn't any view to be had, things are as they are. The cyprus tree in the yard and all of that.

"
This is a difficult area to discuss because the terms have several meanings. Context becomes critical -- and that's kind of the issue. ... The view grows, becomes vertically deeper and horizontally broader. .
. Think about it -- there are scales of existence we cannot see, electromagnetic waves we cannot detect, things too far, things too close, too big, too small. These are all part of what we call reality but we see it through a lens that consists of what we know. "

These are very clear points, Chris. We could use the metaphor of water and waves again. When I say reality, I mean mostly the wetness that is the same all throughout the great ocean. This's so for all waves, but within the perspective of any given wave only part of the totality of Ocean appears explicitly in any moment.
"Seeing one, knowing all."
This is the famed omniscience of a Buddha according to Dzogchen: the simultaneous seeing of each locally appearing wave in its pragmatic dimension-- how it relates interdependantly to other local waves, and the totality beyond explicit perception-- and in its ontological dimension, its true nature, which is ever the same without negating practical differences.
The latter are noticed through filtering out vast quantities of information and highlighting what is immediately relevant to the perceiver in the context of some concrete project: finding food, teaching dharma to another, driving a car-- or being socialized into a given community!
This simultaneity and inseparability of "relative and absolute" is what omniscience means (according to this tradition), not knowing all the "facts that are the case" about all the endless universes! Much more reasonable, you know?
In other words, we see concrete beings through the lens of what we DO (to slightly rephrase your point above), and this is true regardless of whether we are seeing these beings in their True Nature also.

What a lovely thread. We explore together.

"There's no place to plant your feet."-Stuart Lachs

Walk, move, dance,
Squirm.
There is no place to plant your feet.
When free-fall is home,
Unpack your bag.

Kenneth

"What a lovely thread. We explore together.

"There's no place to plant your feet."-Stuart Lachs

Walk, move, dance,
Squirm.
There is no place to plant your feet.
When free-fall is home,
Unpack your bag.

Kenneth"

Music to my ears, Kenneth

I have been practicing Vipassana for quite some years myself, but switched to Vajrayana around 1.5 years ago. Now I'm following two different teachers. One is focusing a lot on tantric practice, the other is actually Dan Brown himself teaching Mahamudra meditation in a pointing out style. Pointing out really means pointing out. During retreat, you're sitting practicing meditation while he tells you exactly what to do during the meditation. Immediately after the meditation, there is an open student/teacher conversation in the group where you're talking about what you did during the meditation, how it worked for you, whether you had any problems etc.

I must openly say that Dan and the selected teaching style is one of the most amazing teachers I have met so far. I wouldn't say that I am totally in love with him as a person (you can like him or not, I really don't mind), but his teaching skills are beyond anything compareable. I have seen people in his retreat totally new to meditation progressing in their meditation at a speed that I wouldn't believe to be possible at all - just because it was pointed out to them so clearly and precisely what they had to do, and the simply followed the instructions.

Concerning the ages old "Which one is the best?" question, it is interesting to know that Dan Brown has official teacher permission in the Therevada Tradition as well as in the Vajrayana Mahamudra tradition. But nowadays he does not teach Vipassana at all. As far as I understand him, the reasons are very subtle. It's absolutely not that he disregards the Vipassana-Tradition, but there are some very subtle points in the meditation practice that really do make a difference between the results of the different practices. It seems that in the Vajrayana-Mahamudra tradition the moments of enlightenment are somehow experienced from a different "frame of mind", and this does seem to make a difference.

For instance, practicing Vipassana properly, you come to a deep insight on the three marks of existence (anatta, dukkha, anicca). Beyond that there's nothing more. This is something of a "via negativa" (not meant in a judging but a descriptive way). Thus, Vipassana leads to a letting go of fetters and diminishes suffering. In the Mahamudra tradition however, when doing properly, not only do you come to an insight into the three marks of existence, you additionally confirm that basically everything is "empty awareness" (rigpa). So it's something of a "via negative + positiva" (again, not judging but trying to describe the approach taken). "Empty awareness" however is a thing that does not and cannot exist according to the older Therevada tradition. It would not make much sense to say something like that for a Vipassana student.

So there is an importance but very subtle difference here between different Buddhist schools: Vipassana denies something (existence of self, permanence etc.) and then does nothing more, Mahamudra first denies the same thing (existence of self, permanence etc.) but then additionally confirms something else (that everything arises as ripga, namely empty awareness). That's a very important difference. From my own experience in both traditions I must conclude that, from the point of view of the resulting insights, it indeed does make a point of view what path you take. Experiencing everything as empty awareness arising really IS a different insight that I never got (or probably could have gotten) through Vipassana meditation. Simply because the meditation instructions are different.

Be aware that I am absolutely not saying that one of the two is some kind of "faster track to insight" or leads to "greater compassion" or whatever - all of that's pure nonsense. I personally am thankful beyond words for all that I have learnt from my Vipassana practice and teachers. Also I don't want to propagate anything. All I want to say is that there is actually really something to the difference between different Buddhist yanas or paths, but it's pretty subtle. (And by the way, I still don't like the term "Hinayana". It's a term born out of ignorance and stupidity.)

Freestyle baby. Mix n' Match.

My own practice is evidence that practicing vipassana CAN get one to the deep realization of emptiness. In other words, what Orasis said. There are many roads to the top of the mountain, all different.where it goes wrong is in the assumption that one practice is somehow innately "better" than another.

"Better for whom" vs. "Better than what".

It's always about the practitioner, rather than the practice.

This being the case in my experience.

Cheers,
Florian