The Bodhisattva Index

"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."

Exactly-- our human being is individually unique, socially relational, material-energetic (forms, processes, dependant origination), spiritual (openness, stillness, silence) all at once-- and more, right? I see separating these aspects out as a function of linguistic-representational mind, not a feature of the as-it-is-ness of our actual experience (which includes language and representations, even if the latter can never really do justice to as-it-is-ness). That's why I find conceptual dualisms like relative/absolute to be problematic if taken too seriously. A while back I decided that setting intentions to "free myself" (i.e., hinayana in the "technical" rather than pejorative sense as a category of motivation according to vajrayana) or "free all beings" (bodhisattva motivation) are equally based on the same abstraction, and don't really speak to my deeper insights anymore. When I feel moved to set an intention now, the phrase that comes up is "for the benefit of all". And that's my motivation for practice.

"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.
"

My posts were not directed at anything you posted, Justin. I thought it best to air what has been happening concerning some yogis not feeling 100% comfortable talking about their goals, inclinations, and leanings concerning Dharma practice due to the perceived (by them) prejudices they thought were expressed here. This is reminiscent of the mushroom culture pragmatic dharma railed against, IMO.

It seemed directly related to which ideals/goals (bodhisattva or something else) one adheres to and whether they have been 'seemingly' criticised or not by others. It effects people's motivations to stay and post at KFD as they no longer feel it a place that is conducive to their practice. If it isn't, well, this is fine. But I think it needed to be clarified for other yogis.

@Kenneth, Thanks for the clarification. Would you say your teachings and website are for yogis regardless of their leanings? Or does a student/poster need to adhere to a more Mahayana end of suffering postponing slant? This would help clear up a lot of confusion I'm seeing.

"@Kenneth, Thanks for the clarification. Would you say you teach yogis regardless of their leanings? Or does your student need to adhere to a more Mahayana slant. This would help clear up a lot of confusion I've seen. "

"Would you say you teach yogis regardless of their leanings? Or does your student need to adhere to a more Mahayana slant. This would help clear up a lot of confusion I've seen." -Nick

I take anyone who comes along and tell 'em everything I know (or think I know). If I agree or disagree with what they think they know, I tell 'em that too. For me, the core principles of pragmatic dharma can be summed up like this:

1. "Enlightenment is possible." (Which entails defining enlightenment, within reason. As we have seen again and again, it's an ongoing affair and sometimes messy.)

2. "I know, 'cause it happened to me." (At whatever level it happened/is happening. This points to the need for transparency. Just tell it like it is and trust that it's almost always better to tell than to withhold information.)

3. "Here's how..." (This is where you tell people how to get free as best you can tell it.)

I don't think there is one monolithic, one-size-fits-all enlightenment or end point. At least, I've never seen any evidence for this. People are unique individuals and they manifest their enlightenment in individual ways.

I also think it's crucial to keep in mind the the final chapter has not yet been written. By that I mean that no one who still has a pulse is as enlightened as they can be. The idea of a static enlightenment, where you somehow fall off a cliff into something that has no room for improvement is neither appealing nor credible to me. The final chapter has not yet been written for any of us.

Other random thoughts:

Trust in the wisdom of the well informed individual to determine how to best serve themselves and others in this moment.

Only the individual has the power to own their liberation and be free of authority or concepts.

No institution, teacher, or map has the power to enlighten someone else.

If 100% "perfection" is attained in anything other than a momentary sense, it has to, by definition, be BS. The best map probably ends with "..." or "?".

A question that has been at the back of my mind for a while now - Are we defining Arahatship as 5th stage or 7th, or even 8th stage on Kenneths updated map?

Now, if we really get to the core of the bodhisattva vow, the vow in itself is a potent practice. If we go for "From this moment on, I will dedicate myself to help every being achieve enlightenment" and if we comprehend the meaning of these words in terms of practice (without selfish altruism, codependence and hypocrisy), the selfless nature will be revealed.

I was talking to Kenneth the other day about buddha nature and he uttered (correct me if I'm wrong kenneth) something like "I'm not important" while trying to describe the nature and the way of abiding in buddha nature. In a way, that's exactly how the bodhisattva vow feels like: I'm not important, all of this is important. And this is a huge step because it means we are not ruled by our desires, fears and misconceptions, we can now act for the benefit of everything around us. This does not mean we stop attending our lives, chores, work tasks, etc. Since I'm not important, I can function in a very healthy and productive way.

So all these practices (dedicating and sharing the merit for the benefit of all beings, bodhisattva vow, giving rise to bodhicitta, etc.) all lead to "Im not important": a true selfless nature, free of eternalism or nihilism.

"In a way, that's exactly how the bodhisattva vow feels like: I'm not important, all of this is important."

Beautiful stuff. Note, however, that these statements can only be interpreted correctly from the non-dual perspective. Reading this from a materialistic perspective sounds like a lot of moralistic BS and could be highly confusing. It seems that this practice is actually quite advanced and only really makes sense if non-self and unity in this moment has been realized.

I don't know... "I'm not important" can also feed into a very judeo-christian tendency toward martyrdom. Or BS as orasis says.

Everything is really important. It just isn't desparate.

orasis: Absolutely, non-dual all the way. It has to be practical, pragmatic, completely verifiable, otherwise it is not efficient compassion.

betawave: right! Not to be taken literally.

Getting back to the origin of this thread, I don't think that the Bodhisattva path is about stopping halfway to take care of others, instead of completing one's own path beyond technical 4th path.

The Bodhisattva path is very demanding and goes beyond the ideal of arhathood (not technical 4th path, but 10 fetters model arhathood). Strait from the beginning, after and initial partial or abiding awakening, or just before enterence into parinirvana, the aspiring Bodhisattva is asked to vow to delay his entry into Nirvana to train and perfect the Six Paramitas, aiming for a higher ideal called Buddhahood, which involves the perfection of the Three Kayas, and not only the Dharmakaya, which is the aim of the Arhat from the point of view of the Mahayana.

Amongst those Six Paramitas, Dana Paramita (perfection of giving) does involve giving to others. Yes. This is one of the paractices amongst other like the perfection of effort & perseverence, the perfection of concentration and the perfection of wisdom to name a few.

One may therefore have to leave the Christian "Martha and Maria debate" aside and realize that it is not about giving up one's own practice to become a teacher or a nurse, but about doing more (for endless kalpas) on the way to Buddhahood.

@ Alex. Nice description of the Bodhisattva and far more appealing than giving up personal progress to help people.

Howabout helping people all the way along one's path and at the same time progressing equally as well as the help you give? Why stop progressing?

Helping can lead to insights into one's own personality, their own practice, what is lacking and needs to be tweaked. This was my own experience. I continue to help the many yogis contacting me and via the HP blog.

I do not understand the need to "give up" something other than self-centredness ("me"). Is there the idea that one loses something important needed to help others at some point in progress? Is this related to the loss of generating affect?

I am now talking from my experience (1). The sublime abodes, without a sense of "me", are affectless. The universe is inherently virtuous. Some may hold a view that "affect' must be present for certain things to occur. These projections cause wrong views. Compassion is inherent in the 5th jhana perspective. It is affectless. The actualists talk of an actual caring. This is what they refer to. It was a pleasant surprise to chant metta phrases in my head and see the 5th jhana perspective naturally become the principal focus. All beings on the bus I was traveling filled up that space, no sense of "me" at all present. Instant recognition and acceptance of other beings.

Appreciation is inherent in the 6th jhana's perspective. It is affectless. Sympathetic joy being its affect equivalent.
Equanimity, the affectless unshakeable kind, is inherent in apperceptive awareness and is quite obvious when taking the 7th jhana's perspective. Good will/metta? There is no urge to harm another being at all. There is inherent virtue and good will in apperceptive awareness.

(1) I cannot generate any affect for the past 17 or so days.

Anyone care to chime in on the issue of HOW to help people? Doesn't this get very tricky, very quickly? I can see how a person who had made significant progress in perfecting the paramitas would be of help to others almost intrinsically, whereas someone who had not made such progress, but had taken the bodhisattva vow, could end up laying his trip on other people, doing unskillful stuff, etc., in ways that were harmful. I think Trungpa talked about "idiot compassion." What about the do-gooder syndrome?

@nikolai & jgroove: self-obsession seems to be what prevents the flow of selfless lovingkindness. Buddhist practice is essentially about seeing through the illusion of self. The lesser we are identified with an illusory sense of self, the more true compassion seeems to follow effortlessly. As long as a sense of self remains, compassion is "suffering with", caring for others because their suffering make us suffer.

And, yes, Nikolai, at least for me your HP blog has been the most helpful source of information during these weeks. Kenneth's recent videos and everybody's posts have also been invaluable. I take the opportunity to thank everyone on this forum.

But I guess this thread is about muddier waters: when and how to take action even if you can't claim to have ended self-obsession. This isn't an abstract issue for me. In Oct. 2009, I co-founded an insight meditation group in Atlanta. I had just read MCTB, and wanted to help other people discover the pragmatic dharma perspective and also to learn more about insight practice myself.
This group has grown well. There are now about 20 or 25 people coming each week. I've played a couple of talks by Kenneth and I try to weave in what I've learned from him when I can, but my general sense is that what's in the wheelhouse for most who come to this group is more of the IMC/IMS mainstream, i.e. talks by Tara Brach or Gil Fronsdal.
I've passed along MCTB to more than one yogi who seemed like someone who might be interested in it. But thus far, nobody's responded with any kind of enthusiasm or interest. All along, I've been working toward stream entry, to no avail. I've been thinking about starting some kind of pragmatic dharma subgroup, but on the other hand, some other part of me feels that I should just leave people alone and focus on my own practice, on ending this self-obsession.
I give meditation instruction, play dharma talks, make comments during discussions--but all of it comes from a place of, at best, partial and fleeting awakeness. I do feel that we're helping people with the group. A dude who was about to go into the Army came up to me, after having attended a few of our meetings, and said "thank you sooo much for this. Learning to meditate has been so huge for me at this time."
But what about the dark night? What about what's not being said? How hard should one push the KFD perspective? Should it be pushed at all? We have traditionalists in our group. I don't want them pushing their perspective on me or others. But probably, they feel a similar urge to speak out. [cont]

[cont. from above]
So in terms of action, what do other yogis on this forum actually DO to help others? Do you participate in face-to-face sanghas? Do you just focus on helping advanced yogis through forums like this? Are you posting flyers around town, etc.? How do you negotiate some of these dynamics?

"[cont. from above]
So in terms of action, what do other yogis on this forum actually DO to help others? Do you participate in face-to-face sanghas? Do you just focus on helping advanced yogis through forums like this? Are you posting flyers around town, etc.? How do you negotiate some of these dynamics? "

@jgroove I think, in a way, it comes down to others being interested in the benefits of awakening. How do they find out about the benefits?, from an awakened person (partial or complete awakening), Trungpa also mentioned this: the password to awaken is knowing that someone else has already done it, why can't I do it too? In this sense, being open about one's attainments, puts the sign out there: "It is possible".

On the other hand, helping needs wisdom. What kind of wisdom? Bodhisattva wisdom, what Alex mentioned: the paramitas. Abiding in a selfless nature reveals "what needs to be done to help others", which, in my experience, cannot be defined. Perhaps one could use words like "selfless action", but the wisdom itself is ineffable and only discernable with progress.

In terms of practice, the vajrayana uses the vow as a meditation technique. The bodhisattva vow is a preliminary practice that leads to dzogchen and mahamudra. Want to get "closer" to the Dzogchen/Mahamudra view now? Be willing to help anyone right now in a balanced way (not too much help, not to little help), no hesitation, no questions, no resistance. It is fearless spontaneous help. It is practical help, not "looking for recognition" help. No one to help right now? Doesn't matter, just be willing. Just be open. Suddenly open, suddenly warm and beneficial.

Of course this takes practice, that's why its called preliminary practice.

The idea of taking the bodhisattva vow before recognizing the essential nature of mind just feels wrong to me because you are fundamentally ignorant of what you are vowing. (yup, that's me projecting...tension...release)

"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?"

There is an ironic wisdom in this question which is why I believe that "not 100%" felt right to me. I can only give up desire for further enlightenment right now. The absolutely amazing accomplishment and technical analysis by many of you on here is truly, deeply inspiring - but I am sorry - I am lazy and impatient so I'll just take my awake moments as I get them and be happy with that. If I am to become an arhat in this lifetime then it is already included in the potential of this moment.

"The idea of taking the bodhisattva vow before recognizing the essential nature of mind just feels wrong to me because you are fundamentally ignorant of what you are vowing. (yup, that's me projecting...tension...release)"

Yes, very difficult to recognize it. This text from a sutra helped me discern selfless action which corresponds with the beneficial qualities of the essential nature of mind:

"Whenever you want to do a bodily action, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily action I want to do '” would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful bodily action with painful consequences, painful results, then any bodily action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on reflection you know that it would not cause affliction... it would be a skillful bodily action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then any bodily action of that sort is fit for you to do."

Same thing for verbal and mental actions.

Here's the link to the sutra: www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.061.than.html

"How hard should one push the KFD perspective? Should it be pushed at all? We have traditionalists in our group. I don't want them pushing their perspective on me or others. But probably, they feel a similar urge to speak out. [cont]"

@jgroove I can't provide a perfect formula but maybe we can use some logic: if someone does not ask for help, and isn't suffering, helping them makes them suffer, then they get angry at us, and then we suffer.

When someone asks for help and if we help them too much, they suffer, they get angry at us and then we suffer too. If we help too little, they suffer, get angry at us and then we suffer again. I believe we have to be mindful in order to make adjustments. Is this practice? Of course, it is one of the three trainings: ethics/morality and this also leads to the end of suffering. You don't really need to be fully enlightened to discern harmful outcomes.

"@jgroove I can't provide a perfect formula but maybe we can use some logic: if someone does not ask for help, and isn't suffering, helping them makes them suffer, then they get angry at us, and then we suffer.

When someone asks for help and if we help them too much, they suffer, they get angry at us and then we suffer too. If we help too little, they suffer, get angry at us and then we suffer again. I believe we have to be mindful in order to make adjustments. Is this practice? Of course, it is one of the three trainings: ethics/morality and this also leads to the end of suffering. You don't really need to be fully enlightened to discern harmful outcomes."

This is helpful stuff. Thanks. I hear what you're saying, and I know there are no easy answers or pat formulas.
Here's a very recent example of the kind of thing I'm talking about, though: On Wednesday, a guy came to our group who has been meditating for years in Swami Muktananda's siddha yoga group. He said he wanted to explore vipassana because "something was missing." I had a pretty good idea of what was missing: 1st gear and an understanding of the maps. I'd bet my right arm this guy's a dark-night yogi who crossed the A&P doing samatha and devotional practices and now is looking for a happiness that isn't state-dependent. Is this my projection or am I right on the money? The guy did appear to be seeking help, on the one hand, but on the other he was a very easy-going guy who seemed pretty happy. Maybe he's the one who has something to teach me rather than the other way around! But yes, it's about being mindful and knowing in the moment what the skillful and helpful action might be.

"when someone asks for help and if we help them too much, they suffer, they get angry at us and then we suffer too. If we help too little, they suffer, get angry at us and then we suffer again. ."

Aint that just so!

Joel, in response to your question, I can suggest you take a look around you on this forum, and notice how and when people offer help, feedback, and advice, and how the further along they are on the path, the more capable they are of saying something really useful. Kenneth anchors the forum, and does not take an "anything goes" approach, because he knows that there is such a thing as expertise, and those who don't have it can get confused. I know that in my case, I have tried all my life to jump in and "help" others, and sometimes I actually have succeeded in doing so, but other times I'm just taking over. Years ago I came up with a description for this kind of thing: when people pool their ignorance, it turns into a flood.

So, your fellow-yogi may be in D.N. or not, and you may be able to recognize that or not, but those who are further along probably could offer more specific help. Even then, people balk, walk away, argue, don't like what they hear. A person who has gotten further into the path is able to take that kind of thing in stride better than ego-invested folks like me. On those occasions when I have succeeded in helping someone, I've paid a high personal price for it. Just a few thoughts from a pre-path yogini here.

"This is helpful stuff. Thanks. I hear what you're saying, and I know there are no easy answers or pat formulas.
Here's a very recent example of the kind of thing I'm talking about, though: On Wednesday, a guy came to our group who has been meditating for years in Swami Muktananda's siddha yoga group. He said he wanted to explore vipassana because "something was missing." I had a pretty good idea of what was missing: 1st gear and an understanding of the maps. I'd bet my right arm this guy's a dark-night yogi who crossed the A&P doing samatha and devotional practices and now is looking for a happiness that isn't state-dependent. Is this my projection or am I right on the money? The guy did appear to be seeking help, on the one hand, but on the other he was a very easy-going guy who seemed pretty happy. Maybe he's the one who has something to teach me rather than the other way around! But yes, it's about being mindful and knowing in the moment what the skillful and helpful action might be."

Yes. Once we go through some sort of hell and back again, we seem to know what people need and many times we are correct because we do learn useful stuff. But our training needs to continue. Cultivating patience helps me when I feel the urge to tell people what to do or not. If I feel anxiety, that reminds me I am suffering, and so I let go of my need to provide the solution, the yearning of pleasure I get out of controlling the person, controlling the whole thing. I try to rest, relax, breathe and realize I'm hurting myself, and hurting others.

If all goes well and I dont get stuck in the consumption of pleasure, then later people can ask me about, say, DN and the ñanas, and I'll answer. If not, I won't answer and continue doing whatever I need to do at the moment.