The Bodhisattva Index

" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinayana

Are yogis who assign themselves a certain bodisattva context now branded with the definition of hinayana expressed in the wiki link above?"

Hehe, from the link: "Jonathan Silk has argued that the term "Hinayana" was used to refer to whomever one wanted to criticize on any given occasion, and did not refer to any definite grouping of Buddhists.[15]"

Oh man, I hope we aren't bound by human-made classification schemes that appear to be more political than "real."

Me neither, Chris, me neither.

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

Word.

Nothing wrong with aligning one's view with a hinayana perspective. If some have used the term in a derogatory way, there's no need to use it like that. Within the vajrayana tradition I belong to, we don't devaluate the hinayana. It is a practical term, period.

It certainly helped me in my practice. I love the hinayana view, it helps me comprehend the mahayana and the vajrayana views. Without the hinayana view I'd be literally lost trying to comprehend bodhicitta, wisdom and true compassion. How could I understand compassion if I haven't helped myself?

EDIT: LocoAustriaco posted in another thread an excellent explanation (given by Lama Ole) about the yanas:

"Nothing wrong with aligning one's view with a hinayana perspective. If some have used the term in a derogatory way, there's no need to use it like that. Within the vajrayana tradition I belong to, we don't devaluate the hinayana. It is a practical term, period.

It certainly helped me in my practice. I love the hinayana view, it helps me comprehend the mahayana and the vajrayana views. Without the hinayana view I'd be literally lost trying to comprehend bodhicitta, wisdom and true compassion. How could I understand compassion if I haven't helped myself?"

How is "hinayana", the term, used here at KFD? The context here may be different, considering past expressed opinions in certain heated threads. I am seeing yogis feeling pressured not to share their inclinations due to the perceived (maybe mis-perceived) view of how certain practice goals and inclinations are referred to here in the past. This relates to what has been expressed as superior or inferior paths. I am speaking from my own experience as well. And I am now seeing it occur more frequently now with other yogis. Is this site and Kenneth's teaching aimed at only developing "bodhisattvas" or both those with other leanings too? Is there pressure to be one and not the other? I have experienced something like this pressure already. This is unclear for yogis who come to me asking questions about what to do to satisfy their inclinations, and it is unclear to me too. I think there is some confusion as to what index is seen as appropriate here, although some have bravely expressed what they want.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Mahasi Sayadaw lineage has kind of a pragmatic approach to this question. Sayadaw U Pandita's take is basically "stay the hell away from teaching unless you've attained second path," isn't it?
There's an implicit understanding there that if only arahats are allowed to teach, there won't be enough teachers to go around. In having a standard, however, the lineage makes sure people aren't, say, encouraged to go into therapy rather than to practice harder once they've hit the dukkha nyanas.

But by "2nd path", did he mean the fetter model 2nd or the pragmatic technical model 2nd path? Big difference. Mahasi followed the ten fetters model if his discourses are anything to go by. So did U Pandita.

Yeah, I see your concern Nik. We could just stick to practical definitions.

Hinayana's aim: end one's suffering. Which, also almost corresponds to the bodhisattva's "king's pure motivation": get enlightened first, before helping others.

jgroove: What about introducing a friend to two player noting? Is it necessary for a teacher to mediate or can the process of awakening be peer-to-peer?

"But by 2nd path, did he mean the fetter model 2nd or the pragmatic technical model 2nd path? Big difference. Mahasi followed the ten fetters model if his discourses are anything to go by. So did U Pandita. "

Didn't Kenneth get confirmed as 2nd path by U Pandita on a retreat?

MCTB: " A friend of mine was on a retreat in Burma and had attained to second path as confirmed by U Pandita. He was finally done with his retreat and was taken to the airport by one of the people who helped to run the monastery, who incidentally was a stream enterer. As my friend was leaving, he yelled to him across the terminal, 'Come back for number three!' meaning, 'Come back and attain third path!' Note the many ways in which what underlies this statement differs from the paradigm you would likely find in your basic Western Buddhist."

And wasn't that technical model 2nd path?

"jgroove: What about introducing a friend to two player noting? Is it necessary for a teacher to mediate or can the process of awakening be peer-to-peer?"

I think you need a teacher in the mix somewhere--if only as a resource you can consult via Skype or e-mail--for the states and stages stuff and the subtleties and questions that come up.
What you're talking about, though, sounds more like the 'spiritual friend' idea in Theravada Buddhism: You're trying to help each other deepen your awareness and move toward enlightenment. Showing someone ping-pong noting seems perfectly fine to me.
I spend a huge amount of time on a local sitting group that has been growing pretty well. As part of that, I have to give newcomers meditation instruction. Giving this instruction makes me a bit nervous--after all, I'm a prepath yogi.
However, I try to stay highly cognizant of the fact that I'm no 'teacher.' I'll say to people, 'I can show you how I approach this, but I'm not a teacher. If you'd like, I can give you some links and other resources to actual dharma teachers that you can work with.' We also give people printouts of meditation instructions written up by established teachers. Is there a Pali term for covering your &ss?

Nikolai: I'm not sure if your comments are aimed at my statements, but I'm not intending to portray a projection of my values onto others. I'm just trying to be honest that 100% Buddha doesn't make sense for me, personally, and I am genuinely intellectually curious how it makes sense for others. Maybe just a difference in personality? I don't trust the books or theories to have an answer to this - I'd like to know from real living people.

"Is there a Pali term for covering your &ss? " LOL!

"But by "2nd path", did he mean the fetter model 2nd or the pragmatic technical model 2nd path? Big difference. Mahasi followed the ten fetters model if his discourses are anything to go by. So did U Pandita. "

Good question. I've always thought the technical model came straight out of the Mahasi tradition and that MCTB 2nd path and Mahasi 2nd path were therefore the same. Not the case, then?

This discussion is amazing to me. Does it really matter? If someone e-mails me for advice or an opinion I give it freely and have never stopped to consider any of what is discussed here in this thread. And why should I? The whole Mahayana/Hinayana "debate" seems to me to be irrelevant to my individual practice and any questions that might come my way from someone else.

I guess I took the question being posed here as just a way to sort something out for one's self, not as a test or a problem of any sort relating to teaching or practical questions about practice.

What am I missing?

"
...seems to me to be irrelevant to my individual practice and any questions that might come my way from someone else.



"

Nail. Head. Hit.

I think you're missing how this is a further development of the Actual Freedom discussion, and how one should relate to actual freedom.
Under that interpretation, the discussion is as follows:
a): The community seems to be tending towards Actual Freedom being the same as Arahat in the suttas, seemingly with Kenneth's grounding of emotions as Anagami. There is still disagreement about this, i believe, as well as about the broader question of whether the path has an end.
b): (given a, above) - Should this state be attained to. Given that one's goal is helping others, would AF (100% reduction in suffering) hinder that somehow, probably by making it difficult to relate to others, or maybe by making it difficult to guide others along the path through states one can no longer experience.
c): Where did the mistake of thinking of technical 4th path as arahat start? Is this something happening only in the pragmatic dharma movement?

Lots of good points and questions here.

@Nick: Yes, your point is well taken. Best not to use the word "hinayana" in its pejorative sense. If we use it at all, it is best used as a technical word. (Although I'm beginning to regret having used it. "Theravada" would have expressed the same point.)

@APrioriKruz: I also agree with you: the word "hinayana" can be a neutral, technical word, which is how I intended it. At the BGeeks Conference last week, Shinzen Young used the word in the same way during his keynote speech.

@Beoman, Nick, and Jgroove: U Pandita most definitely uses and has always used technical model 2nd Path. I spent six months under his guidance in Rangoon and Penang, so I feel confident about the way he and his monks use the term. The passage Beoman quoted from MCTB is indeed about me, but is not entirely accurate; I attained 2nd Path not with Sayadaw U Pandita, but with another legendary Mahasi monk, Sayadaw U Kundala, also in Rangoon. And Sayadaw U Kundala did not directly say to me "you attained second Path." Instead, when I began to report cessations, he said "Ah, this is magga phala [path & fruition]." Then, upon learning from me that this was the second time through the Progress of Insight, he taught me how to access the fruitions from both 1st and 2nd Path. Other people overheard and this is how the word spread that I had attained 2nd Path. Bill Hamilton, who had studied for many years with U Pandita, further confirmed 2nd Path upon my arrival back in the states. Furthermore, I have every reason to believe that Sayadaw U Pandita uses the technical model all the way through 4th Path, but I have not spoken to him about this. In fact, I doubt that he sees a conflict between the ten fetters model and the technical one. All this is to say that comparing these models is not and will never be an exact science.

"I think you're missing how this is a further development of the Actual Freedom discussion..."

Wow. Well, okay, all I can say is that I still don't see the relevance to my practice and the questions that come my way. Those things may be relevant to a very select few people, but they're very likely to be a non-issue for the vast majority of people here.

Maybe a good pragmatic approach would be to just answer the practical questions as best we can, from our hearts, about others' mediation practices that might come our way. To get tied up in this mess of a debate (that never seems to end, BTW) and let that affect our ability to answer a few simple questions is, well, it's crazy talk.

But that's JMHO.

"c): Where did the mistake of thinking of technical 4th path as arahat start? Is this something happening only in the pragmatic dharma movement?"

This is a "do you still beat you wife?" type of question. It assumes too much. We do not know what other people meant by 4th Path.

We do not now and can never know what people long dead believed. We can speculate, but let's admit that it is speculation. We can interpret their writings in various ways and all of it can be either skillful means or great distraction depending on how dogmatic we want to be.

I think the bodhisattva motivation index can work like the 3 gears. No gear is better than other gears. We can use them according to the circumstances of our experience.

1st Gear: Sometimes I don't help others because I need to rid myself from overwhelming emotions like anger o sadness. Once I feel ok, I try to help again.
2nd Gear: Sometimes I help others while I'm still getting rid of suffering. Usually this is where I stand, this type of suffering isn't that serious. Could be just a mild anxiety.
3rd gear: Sometimes I help others while I'm suffering a lot. I usually do this if I don't have the opportunity to calm down, but this gear is short, perhaps a few seconds. I switch to 1st gear as soon as possible.

I like Kenneth's and APrioriKreuz's ideas as experiments. If one has a deep motivation to see a mass awakening and alleviation of suffering, I think it is worth thinking way outside of the box. The stuff in the old texts seems to be good for creating a select few quite advanced yogis, but what about a massive number of stream enterers?

A rough sketch of an alternate litmus test:

"When have I removed enough of my own suffering to have room in my heart to feel some of the suffering of others? If the suffering of others is overwhelming me, do I practically have the ability to ground that and be at peace with it?"

I find that the more my own suffering is ameliorated, the less I tend to be a jerk and the easier and more natural it is to help others spontaneously. So it's hard for me to respond directly to the original question, how much is enough, given that it seems, in my experience, that the more free I am the less I harm and the more I help naturally.

The other side of it is that, I can certainly see how my *pursuit* of freedom has, in the past, had not-so-great effects on others in terms of my availability etc. So there is that! Perhaps this distinction is relevant? As I see it,*skillfully* reducing my suffering is beneficial to all, period. Unskillfully *pursuing* the reduction of my own suffering can certainly be bothersome to others and, as I suppose most of us know, can actually *increase* my own suffering tremendously through filtering experience through an imaginary standard it can't (in that moment, at least) live up too! Thoughts?
-Jake

FWIW, I think viewing awakening as either a personal or interpersonal process are both equally valid. From the perspective of absolute there is no distinction between personal or interpersonal so I think you could take either stance without contradiction.