The Bodhisattva Index

At what point would you be willing to let go of the desire for further enlightenment and instead focus on helping others reduce their suffering? What if you could reduce your suffering by 50%? Would that be enough? Or perhaps 80%? Maybe it's 97% or 100%.

Some people are so generous that they dedicate themselves to helping others even though they have not left behind any of their own suffering. My mother was like that. And yet her own suffering was somewhat relieved whenever she saw someone else's happiness.

Some people maintain that nothing less than 100% reduction in their own suffering will suffice. They believe that they will be more effective at helping others when they are completely free. This would be consistent with a Hinayana ideal of enlightenment. Others believe that they are most effective in helping others while they are still able to viscerally experience another's suffering, so for them the ideal might be to postpone final enlightenment "until all sentient beings are free," which is of course the bodhisattva vow.

What is your bodhisattva index?

Reduced by 90% from current, quick estimate, but see below.
I believe there's at least two questions here. At what point would you be willing to let go of further enlightenment in order to help others (my answer: how would my letting go of further enlightenment help others? Other than time, that is). And at what point of enlightenment would you be most effective at helping others (is some ability to relate to others lost on the path? - i don't know - i guess it depends on how you plan to help others).

Excellent topic. I think I was able to help people after I reduced 60 to 70% of my emotional suffering. This was before the first three jñanas. Out of the Three Trainings (morality, concentration and wisdom) all I did for a year and a half was just moral training (learning to be honest, abandoning harmful habits, learning how to listen, cultivating humbleness, etc.)

After that, not only was I capable of feeling empathy, but also of meditating. Before that, forget it, it was too hectic.

Honestly, I think I'm more interested in 100% for me. Perhaps that will change.

"Put on your own oxgen mask first"

I can't think of any answer to this that question can be acted on practically.

I'm pretty sure nobody here would withhold an act of compassion because they weren't sure they were free yet.

If truly compassionate acts could only be done by people who had realized non-self, then this world would be barren indeed- it'd be much more like one of the helll-realms than I think it is.

Maybe if I get one of those "Divine Eye" thingys that lets me see every ramification of every thought or action, I'll eat my words, but for now, I figure all any of us have to go on is the slightly-tarnished radiance of our wisdom in the moment of need.

Timely blog post from Brad Warner. bit.ly/oevpRF

"Honestly, I think I'm more interested in 100% for me. Perhaps that will change.

"Put on your own oxgen mask first""

Mu, I see you helping people all over this forum. You've helped me a great deal!

I love helping others. I plan on continuing to do so. I don't see it as an impediment to my practice or my practice as an impediment to helping others. I am hoping to take it as far as it will go (100% reduction of suffering for me if possible)

Great question, and it'll be interesting to see the sorts of responses that appear.

Helping others reduce their suffering has been at the heart of this whole thing for me since the start, and only in the last year has the question of my own suffering really come into view. My recent decision to get rid of "me" a'la AF/Arahat (10 Fetters model) is something which I am doing for the benefit of those around me, and for anyone I am likely to come into contact with, as it removes this identity which still lays claim to this experience of life as it happens, and as a result causes suffering for me and everyone else. I also hope that by taking this final step I will be able to "return to the marketplace" and help others further, contribute more to a shared understanding of the goals of pragmatic dharma and the actualists and reduce the suffering of as many people as I possibly can.

I totally understand the Bodhisattva vow and considered this to be the way I wanted to go until I really thought about it; if I'm cycling through the ñanas then for a percentage of the time (Dark Night) I'll be unlikely to be of much help to anyone and am more likely to be an arsehole to people, whereas if affect is eliminated then I will have optimized my ability to be of help to others in both daily life and within our online communities far more regularly. Right now I'm looking into training in counselling so that I can make helping people my entire life as it really is something which brings me a lot of happiness, and I do not see this as being something which is incompatible with AF/Arahatship.

I don't know if that's really answering the question, but it's another typically rambling response from me anyway....Ha!

Peace y'all.

Heh, yeah. I'm stoked that you posted this. I've been thinking about this all day.

I am always up for helping people no matter what my level of suffering is. But as far as becoming someone who dedicates his life to helping people I believe I am waiting for the 100% reduction. Untill then the majority of my energy is spent trying to get that done.
.

The framing/scaling of the index is a little bit tricky and could be made more concrete. One scale would be net giving/taking of energy. I've been in very bad places where my energy projection was totally needing/taking. Now I am pretty happy and the net energy is giving.

The only thing that keeps me from helping others along a scale of developmental enlightenment is that I feel the need to have a sufficient amount of experience before I can offer the right kind of help. I need the experiential insight before I can re-conceptualize and explain that experiential insight. Otherwise I am simply repeating something that I heard from elsewhere and don't know whether or not it is true.

If what the index is really asking is what percentage of the time do I feel the need to be Buddha before I can stop focusing on my own project to help others, I'd have to say anywhere between 30-70%. With my young kids, the idea of 100% just makes no sense to me - they don't want a supreme enlightened master, they want their Daddy.

Oops. Re-reading this "let go of further development" - I guess I'd have to go with the 80/20 rule and just roll the dice and see how much of the last 20% happens just through the ongoing practice of living. As they say $4 and enlightenment will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

I teach Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and I used to train with the best in the world - the best thing that happened to me was getting booted out of the nest and having to find my own way and start teaching others. As Rohan said at the BG conference - every teacher is rubbish for their first two years and then they become amazing

I have a paradigm which I admittedly fail to live up to 100%, but I think it is practical:

I would gladly delay any enlightenment to address any suffering from which I was already enlightened.

I think there are levels of suffering and once you "escape" one level, you are duty bound to elevate others to that level. The only thing that keeps me from being a saint is that I will not go out and search for suffering, but address it when I see it. The latter sentence can be seen a huge cop out, but it's the only way I know to have balance in my life. I also don't live up to this paradigm either -- sometimes I find myself searching out people to help!

" With my young kids, the idea of 100% just makes no sense to me - they don't want a supreme enlightened master, they want their Daddy."

Nicely said Justin, a great point well made.

: )

"With my young kids, the idea of 100% just makes no sense to me - they don't want a supreme enlightened master, they want their Daddy."

What do you want?

"What do you want?"

I want to be deeply, genuinely, human and fully experience the beauty of this perfect mess called "life".

Interacting with adults, its usually sufficient to just not be an ******* - so "happy and harmless" should work well. With little children, one of their basic necessities is unconditional love from their caregivers and I don't think treating them as an illusory vibration in the infinite display of consciousness is going to be so great for their development

"I want to be deeply, genuinely, human and fully experience the beauty of this perfect mess called "life". "

Me too

Although, in my opinion, I don't think that goal is in any conflict with supreme enlightenment. After all, the bodhisattva ideal is deeply related to beings.

"Me too

Although, in my opinion, I don't think that goal is in any conflict with supreme enlightenment. After all, the bodhisattva ideal is deeply related to beings."

So I'll throw my ignorance on the table. I would think the ideal of 100% on this index would point to no suffering nor very little chance of future suffering or all Buddha all the time. I know compassion and loving-kindness are *compatible* with the awakened mind, but practically speaking would they continue to spontaneously arise if you're not dipping back into the relative occasionally? What is the pragmatic version of the Bodhisattva ideal? Its a bit too abstract for me to understand in practical terms how you can live *fully* in the absolute and the relative simultaneously.

(edit: I'm not trying to debate theory here, I'm genuinely interested in the development and practice of the Pragmatic Bodhisattva)

"(edit: I'm not trying to debate theory here, I'm genuinely interested in the development and practice of the Pragmatic Bodhisattva)"

Ha! I love the phrase "pragmatic bodhisattva"!

Pragmatism -- since I have no illusions about being 100% "done," and expect that spiraling process to end sometime in about 300 years, if ever, I'll help anybody, any time

"I know compassion and loving-kindness are *compatible* with the awakened mind, but practically speaking would they continue to spontaneously arise if you're not dipping back into the relative occasionally? What is the pragmatic version of the Bodhisattva ideal? Its a bit too abstract for me to understand in practical terms how you can live *fully* in the absolute and the relative simultaneously.

(edit: I'm not trying to debate theory here, I'm genuinely interested in the development and practice of the Pragmatic Bodhisattva)"

Maybe we can go back to what villum pointed out:

1. At what point would you be willing to let go of further enlightenment in order to help others? I think one could do that once suffering isn't distracting (certain amount of freedom from emotional suffering and physical suffering). If one experiences subtle uneasiness, perhaps one could still help others regardless of that subtle unpleasant feeling.
2. At what point of enlightenment would you be most effective at helping others? (is some ability to relate to others lost on the path?) This is where it gets interesting. Why would enlightenment, or the path to enlightenment, mean the loss of the ability to relate to others? I don't think this is the right direction at all. If that were to be the case, in my opinion, we'd be falling into nihilism: a complete annihilation of communication, empathy, connectedness, etc. If that's our definition of enlightenment, then I don't want to get enlightened. If, on the other hand, "supreme enlightenment" means being here, manifested as a complete selfless nature, and by "selfless" I mean the dissolution of ignorance (I am this, I am not that), then I do want that. What would that mean in terms of relating to others? continued below.

A selfless nature would mean:
- Its not about me, its about all of us.
- Since there is no self, there are no obstacles to act in a selfless way.
- Reduction of self importance
- Genuine empathy, genuine communication. Up until, perhaps 1st path, there was so much noise
- Etc.

So, to answer villum's second question, at what point would you be most effective at helping others? Maybe when one is able to discern the self as an illusion and simply open.

Why would openness mean being catatonic?

I figure that I'll be far better able to help people if I myself am not suffering at all. That way it will be guaranteed that 'I' have no stake in helping them, and am actually helping them instead of helping myself. Think of a parent who gets upset when his child wants to pursue a career path that the parent disapproves of. the parent wants what's best for his kid, but he projects, thinking what's best for the parent is what would also be best for the kid. The result is an unhappy parent and an unhappy kid.

EDIT: Let me put it another way, though. I don't think considering it in terms of "% of suffering left" is the correct way to think about it. It's a binary thing: either 'i' am here, or 'i' am not. either 'i' am 'becoming' or 'i' am 'not'. So long as 'i' am around, regardless of how 'enlightened' 'I' am or how calm 'I' can 'be' at all times, 'i' am still susceptible to the core faults of any 'being', namely, ignorance, which goes all the way up the chain of D-O and leads to suffering. so long as 'i' am, so, too, 'ignorance' is, and 'suffering' as well. until 'i' am gone, 'i' don't consider 'me' fit to dedicated 'my' life to help others reduce suffering... and, once 'i' am gone, it will no longer be necessary, as that will simply be the thing to do, effortlessly.

Kenneth said: "Some people maintain that nothing less than 100% reduction in their own suffering will suffice. They believe that they will be more effective at helping others when they are completely free. This would be consistent with a Hinayana ideal of enlightenment."

"Hīnayāna (हीनयान) is a Sanskrit and Pāli term literally meaning: the "Deficient Vehicle", the "Abandoned Vehicle", or the "Defective Vehicle". The term appeared around the 1st or 2nd century." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinayana

Are yogis who assign themselves a certain bodisattva index now branded with the definition of hinayana expressed in the wiki link above? You might want to consider the possible detrimental outcomes of this, Kenneth. More and more yogis contact me for help in ending their suffering as they fear talking about it openly at KFD. This is not a good situation (the fear of talking openly about it) and certainly not in the spirit of pragmatic dharma.