Liberation and Selfishness

I received this question from a meditation practitioner named Tracy, and with their permission have posted their question and my response here.

Often the distinction between Hinayana and Mahayana is self-liberation versus liberation for all. The Hinayana is often described in Mahayana teachings as sounding really selfish! But I would not imagine that anyone actually achieving liberation would be selfish.

I realize this is an ancient debate and I have read many articles and essays on the topic. What I am most interested to hear is your perspective as someone who studies deeply many traditions and practices the insight meditation tradition.

I’m unclear of the difference between Theravada and Hinayana. Sometimes they are interchanged and other times there appears to be a distinction. I’ve read that Theravada started before the yanas and is not Hinayana – so forgive me if I’m inappropriately leaping to the idea that they are the same.

There’s a lot in your question, and I’m happy to explore these topics with you, as they’re ones that I find very important, and which although academic in one sense, are also extremely practical in another.

The first thing you mention is a distinction between self-liberation and liberation of all. In my understanding, this was a way that later Buddhist schools worked to differentiate themselves from other schools at the time. And clearly there was doctrinal difference between these different groups, and perhaps even a very different understanding of the purpose of the spiritual path. But, I don’t think it’s as clear cut as it’s made out to sound in the Tibetan or Shambhala tradition. The 3 yanas model is really more of a characterization of the history of Buddhism, and its evolution. And as you say Theravada does not equal Hinayana, though there are clearly some overlaps. I won’t get into how they’re historically different, as it’s a little too geeky, but I will say that there is no such thing as a Hinanayana practitioner.

The yana model is only within the Tibetan framework, and who in that tradition would claim to only practice the Hinayana? The Theravada tradition emphases self-liberation, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t also many teachings and techniques involving compassion for others. The bodhisattva ideal is embedded in the Theravada tradition in the 10 paramis (perfections) and in the story of the Buddha himself, who before he was the Buddha, was a bodhisattva. Also, you find in the teachings on metta, a practice of expanding love and care, that eventually encompasses all living beings. That is a traditional practice, right from the time of the Buddha. So, yeah there is no such thing as a Hinayana practitioner, and even for those practicing the Theravada, if they really go into the heart of the tradition, they’ll find a focus that goes beyond self-liberation. That said, the emphasis of later Buddhist schools certainly changed from the time of the Buddha, and I find that change very interesting and compelling.

Now, another question I hear you asking, is whether someone who is on a path of liberation, could be selfish. In my experience someone who is on a path of liberation, or even significantly advanced in awakening, can be totally selfish. To be completely frank, those who are awakened can be as big of assholes as anyone.

I think the reason so many people get confused about why this is, has to do with a misunderstanding of the term “egolessness.” Egolessness doesn’t mean lacking a personality structure in the Freudian sense, or getting rid of certain personality patterns we don’t like (such as selfishness, grandiosity, etc.) Rather, it has more to do with seeing that “who we are” can’t be found in anything which is compounded and changing. That insight doesn’t necessarily change what’s arising (though it sometimes can and does, and this is why this topic gets confusing, I think), but really changes the understanding of who we are in relationship to changing experience.

We are not limited to our bodies. We are not limited to our minds. We aren’t even limited to experiences of vast formlessness or radiant awareness. As Kalu Rinpoche said, “Being nothing, you are everything.” And part of the everything of who we are is our personality patterns, our neurosis—these incredibly resilient patterns. Those can be worked with and transformed, and I think a secondary goal of the Buddhist path is to work with these patterns, but awakening itself doesn’t necessarily change them. It can help in doing so, as it provides a much bigger space out of which to change, and gives us the tools of a calm and collected mind, and a more open heart. But, those are just tools, and so we’re still left with our humanity, and all its tragic (yet beautiful) flaws. And it may be that those things never go away. I know that goes against most people’s ideals regarding spirituality, and even against some of the spiritual literature. But what would your answer be if you asked yourself the question, “What if my flaws never go away?”

When I ask this question, I’m left humbled, knowing that my humanity is totally real, is something I share in with others, and that I will probably be working with until I die. This softens me to my own suffering, to those around me, and leaves me feeling grateful that I have enough awareness to even engage the question. The alternative, I think, is to blindly believe that awakening will fix everything. We might then start to judge everyone we see through this lens, including ourselves. Our expectations and our attitudes become impacted. And instead of seeing clearly what is, we see only what we think should be. When we do this we create a gap between what is spiritual and what is human, and it’s gap that I’ve never seen anyone cross by becoming even more spiritual. As Oscar Wilde said, “It takes great courage to see the world in all its tainted glory, and still to love it.” I think that is ultimately what the spiritual path calls us to do, and what we yearn for most deeply.