Buddhist school lineage, correct?

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by kuranes

I assume from your name you are inclined to the Vajrayana teachings. My understanding of the Hinayana vs. Mahayana was that Mahayana was more interested in bringing enlightenment to others after achieving it, where Hinayana was focused on enlightening oneself only. Since the definition of "self" can be viewed differently in the Buddhist world than elsewhere, I wonder at the meaning of this.

This is only my personal take, claiming no other sanction, but I've always felt that the view often expressed that the difference between the lesser & greater vehicles is that between the selfish path of the arahant and the compassionate path of the bodhisattva perhaps dislocates us a little from what is really going on, and for a few reasons.

First, the bodhisattva path was there from the beginning. Second, the term hinayana itself it too easily confused with sects of Buddhism, like the Theravadins, who in their practice stick to the earliest discourses, as recorded for example in the Pali Canon.

But third, and most importantly for me, when I look at the texts and their development what I find is a progression from a focus on suffering & escape from suffering to a focus on the nature of enlightenment itself.

So for me the great philosophical, devotional & methodological expansions and the great development of the bodhisattva path we find in the Mahayana arose not because some sects had greater or larger compassion than others - the compassion was always there - but from a deeper exploration & elaboration of enlightenment, or liberation, and what it really means. (Of course I'm leaving out whatever social/economic factors that figured in this; for example, the influence of the laity, other schools of Indian thought, etc.)

To adhere to only the early discourses is not to be selfish, or less compassionate, but is perhaps at worse only to be a little lacking in ambition. And in fact, as I'm sure others will attest to, the early discourses are essential; they form the base of everything that follows; every serious Buddhist must begin with the fact of suffering - sort of like being scared straight.

But your question of how the "self" relates to all this is very much to the point. Considering the interdependent nature of reality, what does an "individual" enlightenment really mean? It was just these kinds of dilemmas that likely fuelled the development of the great thought worlds of the Mahayana.

(Paul Williams in his book, Mahayana Buddhism, points out that idea of delaying one's entry into Nirvana until all sentient beings come with you makes no logical sense; deeper meanings are at play.)

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by samabudhi

Howdy

No self, no other, yet everything manifests.
If you are suffering, thus unenlightened and ignorant, it is taken that you are focused on your own happiness anyway. This IS why you're suffering - since you see a distinction. Distinction being the play of the mind, the clouds in the sky.

(my use of the word distinction has nothing to do with your last part about the distinctions of the Vajrayana. well...almost nothing.)

Not bad. Amazing how many different ways there are to summarize the crazy facts of life.