Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Begin, if you want to discuss it, with what you interptret as potentially pessimistic.
When a venerable old meditation teacher enters a place it changes, no matter how vulgar the place is. But when it is all done in words perhaps its the other way around. Which spirit will be exorcized? The spirit of trifling self, or the spirit of meditation that walks in with an old man?
This place feels disgustingly like USA. Step off a plane there and you say, "One giant leap towards Hell!""
you are close, if without context... but please leave samsAra.
Yes, "Pop a cap in yo' ass" and "break da hoe" and kids dying of drivebys in your arms, smoking crack, huffing smack, dealing and pimping, selling children, etc. don't make a place sinister. It's the roots of great talent, hip hop and all that. Where would we be without it? Democracy has come to mean plenty of room for every evil.
And all this leads one to ask why you want to be with Buddhists at all, never mind where there is meant to be advanced studies. Is it a joke to you? Is Buddha a big joke?
And it's true as you say, Americans take hell with them wherever they go. They're the biggest joke on Earth as long as there are just a few of them. A market square with five hundred people, and one american ego silences everyone even when speaking in an undertone. He's like a comet crossing the sky.
In defense of anyone who doesn't ascribe to four levels, I offer that there are many many levels, of much smaller significance each. If you do believe in the four levels, these alone are specific markers that denote specific things. It's not like you go from 0 to 50 in one shot, there are many increments. It's just that 50 is a milestone, a way to identify a certain place along the path. In fact this is all relative from unenlightened to enlightened; 0 would denote the most selfish mind, and most people wouldn't be starting from that point, now would they?
This is why other schools can ascribe to different ways of thinking, each giving a label to a specific point/place along the path. For the Theravada, these are the four that importance are placed on. For the Mahayana (mostly) it's the 10 Bhumis. There's no difference in the process other than how we identify with that process. In Zen it's sudden awakening, satori, but there are many satoris not just the one (in one school, many koans each breaking the mind through to a new awareness).
These are merely the four points of reference given by the Buddha; his way of showing where fetters are unbound on the path. It's of no use to argue over it, because everyone is right in their own way.
resulted in Joseph Knecht no? His life and morals. Wikipedia.
Trungpa:
"People talk about sudden enlightenment, a sudden glimpse, satori. So-called sudden enlightenment needs enough prepration for it to be sudden. Otherwise, it can't happen. If you have a sudden accident in your car, you have to be driving it.
Otherwise, ou can't have the accident. When we talk about sudden flashes, we are talking in terms of conditioned consciousness., conditional sudden enlightenment.
Sudden enligthenment depends on the slow growth of the spiritual process, te growth of committment, discipline, and experience. This occurs not only in the sitting process of meditation, but also through life experience dealing with your wife, husband, kids, parents., job, money, sex life, emotions--everything in life. You have to learn from situations. Then, the gradual processs of spiritual develpment is almost invevitable.
Scholasticly and experientially there is no such thing as sudden enlightenment in buddhism. It is simply insight or understanding, that arises from what we have already experienced. "Suddenly I saw the sunrise" But what you are seeing depends on the situations that already exists. You are just makig it sound dramatic. The sun doesn't suddenly rise or set, although ou may suddenly notice that it's going to happen.
If someone has the notion that they've gone up a level like in video games, they probably won't get anywhere.
Didn't some old Yogi also tried to teach Siddartha to progress in stages of meditation Jana to get enlightenement?!
All this worry about levels of enlightenment will probably chain people more in Samsara than anything else.
Levels of Enlightenment are human constructs to help human, seeking Enlightenment, feel a level of progression. Whether you follow one made-up construct or one made-up construct, it doesn't matter. If it helps you, keep it. Eventually you'll get rid it.
Levels of Enlightenment are human constructs to help human, seeking Enlightenment, feel a level of progression. Whether you follow one made-up construct or one made-up construct, it doesn't matter. If it helps you, keep it. Eventually you'll get rid it.
That's Dharma, not samsåraputra-level conceptuation. You have wrong view with regards to this.
I disagree with you Vincenzi, to progress through the levels you need to not have attachment to the levels. By having attachment to the levels you will reach a point where you cannot go any further. With nonattachment there are no speed limits.
The five wrong views: (1) View of self satkāya-dṛṣṭi, i. e. the view that there is a real self, an ego, and a mine and thine: (2) antar-grāha, extreme views. e. g. extinction or permanence; (3) mithyā, perverse views, which, denying cause and effect, destroy the foundations of morality; (4) dṛṣṭi-parāmarśa, stubborn perverted views, viewing inferior things as superior, or counting the worse as the better; (5) śīla-vrata-parāmarśa, rigid views in favour of rigorous ascetic prohibitions, e. g. covering oneself with ashes.
pañca-kleśa The five dull, unintelligent, or stupid vices or temptations: desire, anger or resentment, stupidity or foolishness, arrogance, doubt. Overcoming these constitutes the pañca-śīla, five virtues, Of the ten or agents the other five are styled - keen, acute, intelligent, as they deal with higher qualities.
Basically arises from the attachment of the Five Skandhas
First, form: Solidity, earth element, shape.
Second, feelings: Sensations. Not just emotional feelings, but also physical sensations and so on. Whatever we feel.
The third skandha is perceptions: Experiences, like thoughts, sights, sounds, and so on. In the second and third skandhas, in feelings and perceptions, liking and not liking arise. That's when the whole problem, the whole duality, the whole push and shove starts. The entire, exhausting treadmill or roller coaster of ups and downs.
The fourth is will or volition: Intending to do things. That's where karma comes in. Liking and not liking arise, then from that devolves reactions. Reactions rather than freedom and proactivity.
Our form feels things, perceives things this way or that way, liking or not liking. Then actions or intentions push or pull, trying to get more, get less, ignore it, or get away from it. Avoidance, denial, greed, demandingness, attachment, and so on, equals dissatisfaction and misery.
And fifth is consciousness, or as Buddhism says, consciousnesses: States of mind.
I disagree with you Vincenzi, to progress through the levels you need to not have attachment to the levels. By having attachment to the levels you will reach a point where you cannot go any further. With nonattachment there are no speed limits.
Cheers, WK
the levels exists, acknowledging them is not having trishna to the Four Levels of Nirvåna... you assume much.
so, a buddha will "produce" only neutral/no karma? what happens with bodhisattvas?
...i think, i want to visit the sudavasa abodes.
The five wrong views: (1) View of self satkāya-dṛṣṭi, i. e. the view that there is a real self, an ego, and a mine and thine: (2) antar-grāha, extreme views. e. g. extinction or permanence; (3) mithyā, perverse views, which, denying cause and effect, destroy the foundations of morality; (4) dṛṣṭi-parāmarśa, stubborn perverted views, viewing inferior things as superior, or counting the worse as the better; (5) śīla-vrata-parāmarśa, rigid views in favour of rigorous ascetic prohibitions, e. g. covering oneself with ashes.
pañca-kleśa The five dull, unintelligent, or stupid vices or temptations: desire, anger or resentment, stupidity or foolishness, arrogance, doubt. Overcoming these constitutes the pañca-śīla, five virtues, Of the ten or agents the other five are styled - keen, acute, intelligent, as they deal with higher qualities.
Basically arises from the attachment of the Five Skandhas
First, form: Solidity, earth element, shape.
Second, feelings: Sensations. Not just emotional feelings, but also physical sensations and so on. Whatever we feel.
The third skandha is perceptions: Experiences, like thoughts, sights, sounds, and so on. In the second and third skandhas, in feelings and perceptions, liking and not liking arise. That's when the whole problem, the whole duality, the whole push and shove starts. The entire, exhausting treadmill or roller coaster of ups and downs.
The fourth is will or volition: Intending to do things. That's where karma comes in. Liking and not liking arise, then from that devolves reactions. Reactions rather than freedom and proactivity.
Our form feels things, perceives things this way or that way, liking or not liking. Then actions or intentions push or pull, trying to get more, get less, ignore it, or get away from it. Avoidance, denial, greed, demandingness, attachment, and so on, equals dissatisfaction and misery.
And fifth is consciousness, or as Buddhism says, consciousnesses: States of mind.
Buddha then asked, "What do you think, Subhuti, does one who has entered the stream which flows to Enlightenment, say 'I have entered the stream'?"
"No, Buddha", Subhuti replied. "A true disciple entering the stream would not think of themselves as a separate person that could be entering anything. Only that disciple who does not differentiate themselves from others, who has no regard for name, shape, sound, odor, taste, touch or for any quality can truly be called a disciple who has entered the stream."
Buddha continued, "Does a disciple who is subject to only one more rebirth say to himself, 'I am entitled to the honors and rewards of a Once-to-be-reborn.'?"
"No, Lord. 'Once-to-be-reborn' is only a name. There is no passing away, or coming into, existence. Only one who realizes this can really be called a disciple."
"Subhuti, does a venerable One who will never more be reborn as a mortal say to himself, 'I am entitled to the honor and rewards of a Non-returner.'?"
"No, Perfectly Enlightened One. A 'Non-returner' is merely a name. There is actually no one returning and no one not-returning."
"Tell me, Subhuti. Does a Buddha say to himself, 'I have obtained Perfect Enlightenment.'?"
"No, lord. There is no such thing as Perfect Enlightenment to obtain. If a Perfectly Enlightened Buddha were to say to himself, 'I am enlightened' he would be admitting there is an individual person, a separate self and personality, and would therefore not be a Perfectly Enlightened Buddha."
Subhuti then said, "Most Honored One! You have said that I, Subhuti, excel amongst thy disciples in knowing the bliss of Enlightenment, in being perfectly content in seclusion, and in being free from all passions. Yet I do not say to myself that I am so, for if I ever thought of myself as such then it would not be true that I escaped ego delusion. I know that in truth there is no Subhuti and therefore Subhuti abides nowhere, that he neither knows nor does he not know bliss, and that he is neither free from nor enslaved by his passions."
^Ha ha! I was just thinking about the Diamond Sutra!!!
Anyway, again, I sound like a broken record on this forum, butttt, why all this worry about levels of enlightenment, analytical/scientific explainations of emptiness etc?! All of this will most likely chain us rather than help us! Why a monk who does boring mundane tasks for many years will probably help cultivate and purify his mind more than university research. However, after strict discipline, then the mind is ready to take in knowledge and understand that correctly.
I can perfectly understand why people would want to pursue knowledge because quite frankly, it's fun and interesting and probably boost our ego and self-worth. On the other hand, ideas of paitence, discipline, consideration for other people, especially "stupid and disagreeable" people are hard work and boring.
Ch'an, there's such a thing as an intellectual, an emotional or a devotional approach to Buddhism and more importantly, debate is a healthy instrument for ascertaining that an individual properly understands Buddhism's many tenets.
See, this is where delusions come in. Our assumptions of healthy debate are most likely not not healthy when not under the guidance of reliable teachers.
Knowledge is not equal to wisdom, hence debate will still just be intellectual combat to win over your opponent. Just because this forum talks about buddhist theories doesn't mean it's above circular and combative nature of other internet forums.
is the diamond sutra part of the påli tripitaka? or is it chinese mahayana?
either way... the stages are useful as flag posts where a stream-enterer can see where to go next, and where not to go next.
[i] just putted another flag "forse-nagåmi"; if it is useful to others... then [you] are welcome. if not, i do not care.
it is a little "insulting" to assume much about a stream-enterer; like not understanding correctly anatta or assuming that a "noble one" (stream-enterer) is combative in nature. maybe [one] can defend and attack, but do Not assume that is the first option.
The Diamond Sutra is Mahayana yes and as it says, there is technically no such thing as a stream enterer in the mind of a stream enterer, since a stream enterer has already cut the fetter of self identification. The påli tripitaka has similar statements. One of which is below.
"At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said, "Monks, whatever contemplatives or priests who assume in various ways when assuming a self, all assume the five clinging-aggregates, or a certain one of them.
...
"Thus, both this assumption & the understanding, 'I am,' occur to him. And so it is with reference to the understanding 'I am' that there is the appearance of the five faculties — eye, ear, nose, tongue, & body (the senses of vision, hearing, smell, taste, & touch).
"Now, there is the intellect, there are ideas (mental qualities), there is the property of ignorance. To an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person, touched by experience born of the contact of ignorance, there occur (the thoughts): 'I am,' 'I am thus,' 'I shall be,' 'I shall not be,' 'I shall be possessed of form,' 'I shall be formless,' 'I shall be percipient (conscious),' 'I shall be non-percipient,' or 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient.'
"The five faculties, monks, continue as they were. And with regard to them the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones abandons ignorance and gives rise to clear knowing. Owing to the fading of ignorance and the arising of clear knowing, (the thoughts) — 'I am,' 'I am this,' 'I shall be,' 'I shall not be,' 'I shall be possessed of form,' 'I shall be formless,' 'I shall be percipient (conscious),' 'I shall be non-percipient,' and 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient' — do not occur to him."
SN 22.47
As it says, the thought "I am (insert whatever thing here, including "I am a stream enterer") does not occur to a stream enterer since there is no separate self to enter the stream to begin with. A stream enterer does not identify themselves as a stream enterer since there is nothing to identify with to begin with. By definition, a stream enterer has already cut off ALL self identification including the identifications as a stream enterer.
there is technically no such thing as a stream enterer in the mind of a stream enterer, since a stream enterer has already cut the fetter of self identification
IMHO to be more precise the one who has entered the stream only has the wisdom of anatta/anatman (no longer belief), not yet dis-identification with that pesky "I". At this point they see the problem as a fact that they can't ignore; they can't turn away or turn to another religion for their liberation. The next three stages are removing that duality and clinging that allow "I" and "not I" to arise.
1. Turning away from material sensations 2. releasing one's self from materials sensations 3. Turning towards the light 4. objectification with the light
The four jhanas can be broken down into just two steps
1. turn away from corrupt phenomenon 2. turn towards uncorrupt non-phenomenon (True Self).
Modern Buddhism denies a True Self because they take the Buddha's teachings to mean there is no self (anatta) but anatta is simply the negation of atta, Self, which is the same Self as the Upanishads. If there were no Self, then there could be no Buddha, no Tathagatta, none "gone to the one" (lit. meaning of tathagatta), no Buddha (awakened one), and no one to go towards nirvana. Who blows out the desires, if nirvana is reached? The temporal self? But how can something temporal blow itself out eternally? Or do Modern Buddhists deny even eternity? As being eternalism? But the Buddha did not say eternalism but rather perpetualism, the denial of the material/perpetual world, not the world of the Eternal nirvana, which is permanent.
Buddhism uses an apt analogy of blowing out of desires, like blowing out the final sparks of a fire, to deal with the problem of suffering, but at that point, you still have something left over, that which was the subject of suffering (self). Now it is true that the temporal self is not real, an illusion, emptiness (shunyatta), and anatta, but there is, an unborn, uncaused, unbecome, if there were not, this unborn, uncaused, unbecome, there would be no escape for the born, the caused, the become. The Tathagatta is without the mark of all things, he dwells upwards in the signless inflexured mind/will (true Self) , there within Ananda, dwell with the light as your self, with the light as your refuge, with none other as refuge.
Ah ha! There the pugnacious Pudgalavadin alights! The same mere handful of quotes at arms-length! Self! Self! Buddha said 'Self'!
*really, it's more Samkhyan than "Personalist", but whatever...
About the "blowing out" analogy: I'm curious where you find a "blowing out" in the Canon. All the lamp analogies I can find point to the flame ceasing due to a lack of fuel (craving and/or kamma) and not from being "blown out" by another. For one to blow out the flame of another would be dualistic, and more akin to Samkhya or Jainism.
About "making the Self your refuge": "Various syntactic analyses of the phrase are thus possible; but the correct semantic rendering, as always with the notion of 'making oneself a refuge' in Buddhism, is simply that one should, indeed can only rely on oneself in religious practice, and succeed only through one's own efforts. In context, this phrase is used by the Buddha to claim that he has done so. No metaphysical meaning is needed or implied." Collins http://www.jstor.org/stable/3270114
"A man has only two possible places to look for a cow thought to be missing, but upon making a thorough search in both spots, he fails to find her. He knows that the cow cannot possibly be elsewhere, it being useless to consider a third place, so the fruitlessness of his search becomes apparent and with it his mistaken assumption (of a lost cow) is revealed. Likewise, the assumed independent existence of the atman after one has searched for it both within and without the five heaps [the skandhas, categories or aggregates of personality], must be seen to be non-existent. Belief in an independent atman (soul) is actually the result of mental activity. Such ideas of an atman are proved an illusion and proved logically invalid by the sundering (of the views) of oneness and not-oneness so that one arrives at atma-sunyata (voidness of the atman) which is synonymous with no-atman of the person (pudgala-nairatmya). In this way and by the force of this dialectic there arises in one who practises thus right view of the Middle Practice-Path." HHDL _The Opening of the Wisdom-Eye_ pp99-100; cited in http://www.jstor.org/stable/3270114
I disagree with you Vincenzi, to progress through the levels you need to not have attachment to the levels. By having attachment to the levels you will reach a point where you cannot go any further. With nonattachment there are no speed limits.
Cheers, WK
the levels exists, acknowledging them is not having trishna to the Four Levels of Nirvåna... you assume much.
the levels exists, acknowledging them is not having trishna to the Four Levels of Nirvåna
Yes, that's quite true.
FYI- There are four different levels (also called four yogas) in mahamudra meditation: 1) One pointed-ness, when the first taste of the luminous, empty nature of inner sensation is experienced. 2) Non-conceptuality: when the inner experience is strengthened 3) One taste: when the realisation of outer and the inner start to diminish and outer experiences are seen to be similar in nature to the inner sensations 4) Non-meditation: the meditator sees the unreality of the differentiation between meditation and post-meditation. And non differentiation is perfected. The end of stage 4 is said to be buddhahood.
mahamudra could be described as formless meditation, yet it is supported by Boddhicitta and shunyata.
answer to OP question: If one breaks the first fetter (wrong view), namely when one gets the Right Understanding (Right View) one knows one has broken the first three fetters (this is the first stage)
from then on one does not need to ask questions about Buddha's Teaching because Buddha's Teaching (Dhamma) is in front of one's eyes always
however he/she will forget Buddha's Teaching sometimes and act as normal (everyday) person but his /her Right view will never be changed
the second and third stages depend on how one will practice the Buddha's Teaching after one gets the Right View
Comments
you are close, if without context... but please leave samsAra.
that's all I'm saying for now about the subject.
fool, samsara putra.
This is why other schools can ascribe to different ways of thinking, each giving a label to a specific point/place along the path. For the Theravada, these are the four that importance are placed on. For the Mahayana (mostly) it's the 10 Bhumis. There's no difference in the process other than how we identify with that process. In Zen it's sudden awakening, satori, but there are many satoris not just the one (in one school, many koans each breaking the mind through to a new awareness).
These are merely the four points of reference given by the Buddha; his way of showing where fetters are unbound on the path. It's of no use to argue over it, because everyone is right in their own way.
apinagåmi
2 fetters left to broke: arupa-råga and rupa-råga.
reference
resulted in Joseph Knecht no? His life and morals. Wikipedia.
resulted in Joseph Knecht no? His life and morals. Wikipedia.
Trungpa:
*most common italian mudra
Levels of Enlightenment are human constructs to help human, seeking Enlightenment, feel a level of progression. Whether you follow one made-up construct or one made-up construct, it doesn't matter. If it helps you, keep it. Eventually you'll get rid it.
That's Dharma, not samsåraputra-level conceptuation. You have wrong view with regards to this.
Cheers, WK
The five wrong views:
(1) View of self satkāya-dṛṣṭi, i. e. the view that there is a real self, an ego, and a mine and thine:
(2) antar-grāha, extreme views. e. g. extinction or permanence;
(3) mithyā, perverse views, which, denying cause and effect, destroy the foundations of morality;
(4) dṛṣṭi-parāmarśa, stubborn perverted views, viewing inferior things as superior, or counting the worse as the better;
(5) śīla-vrata-parāmarśa, rigid views in favour of rigorous ascetic prohibitions, e. g. covering oneself with ashes.
pañca-kleśa The five dull, unintelligent, or stupid vices or temptations: desire, anger or resentment, stupidity or foolishness, arrogance, doubt. Overcoming these constitutes the pañca-śīla, five virtues, Of the ten or agents the other five are styled - keen, acute, intelligent, as they deal with higher qualities.
Basically arises from the attachment of the Five Skandhas
First, form: Solidity, earth element, shape.
Second, feelings: Sensations. Not just emotional feelings, but also physical sensations and so on. Whatever we feel.
The third skandha is perceptions: Experiences, like thoughts, sights, sounds, and so on. In the second and third skandhas, in feelings and perceptions, liking and not liking arise. That's when the whole problem, the whole duality, the whole push and shove starts. The entire, exhausting treadmill or roller coaster of ups and downs.
The fourth is will or volition: Intending to do things. That's where karma comes in. Liking and not liking arise, then from that devolves reactions. Reactions rather than freedom and proactivity.
Our form feels things, perceives things this way or that way, liking or not liking. Then actions or intentions push or pull, trying to get more, get less, ignore it, or get away from it. Avoidance, denial, greed, demandingness, attachment, and so on, equals dissatisfaction and misery.
And fifth is consciousness, or as Buddhism says, consciousnesses: States of mind.
so, a buddha will "produce" only neutral/no karma? what happens with bodhisattvas?
...i think, i want to visit the sudavasa abodes.
Chapter 9.
Buddha then asked, "What do you think, Subhuti, does one who has entered the stream which flows to Enlightenment, say 'I have entered the stream'?"
"No, Buddha", Subhuti replied. "A true disciple entering the stream would not think of themselves as a separate person that could be entering anything. Only that disciple who does not differentiate themselves from others, who has no regard for name, shape, sound, odor, taste, touch or for any quality can truly be called a disciple who has entered the stream."
Buddha continued, "Does a disciple who is subject to only one more rebirth say to himself, 'I am entitled to the honors and rewards of a Once-to-be-reborn.'?"
"No, Lord. 'Once-to-be-reborn' is only a name. There is no passing away, or coming into, existence. Only one who realizes this can really be called a disciple."
"Subhuti, does a venerable One who will never more be reborn as a mortal say to himself, 'I am entitled to the honor and rewards of a Non-returner.'?"
"No, Perfectly Enlightened One. A 'Non-returner' is merely a name. There is actually no one returning and no one not-returning."
"Tell me, Subhuti. Does a Buddha say to himself, 'I have obtained Perfect Enlightenment.'?"
"No, lord. There is no such thing as Perfect Enlightenment to obtain. If a Perfectly Enlightened Buddha were to say to himself, 'I am enlightened' he would be admitting there is an individual person, a separate self and personality, and would therefore not be a Perfectly Enlightened Buddha."
Subhuti then said, "Most Honored One! You have said that I, Subhuti, excel amongst thy disciples in knowing the bliss of Enlightenment, in being perfectly content in seclusion, and in being free from all passions. Yet I do not say to myself that I am so, for if I ever thought of myself as such then it would not be true that I escaped ego delusion. I know that in truth there is no Subhuti and therefore Subhuti abides nowhere, that he neither knows nor does he not know bliss, and that he is neither free from nor enslaved by his passions."
Anyway, again, I sound like a broken record on this forum, butttt, why all this worry about levels of enlightenment, analytical/scientific explainations of emptiness etc?! All of this will most likely chain us rather than help us! Why a monk who does boring mundane tasks for many years will probably help cultivate and purify his mind more than university research. However, after strict discipline, then the mind is ready to take in knowledge and understand that correctly.
I can perfectly understand why people would want to pursue knowledge because quite frankly, it's fun and interesting and probably boost our ego and self-worth. On the other hand, ideas of paitence, discipline, consideration for other people, especially "stupid and disagreeable" people are hard work and boring.
Knowledge is not equal to wisdom, hence debate will still just be intellectual combat to win over your opponent. Just because this forum talks about buddhist theories doesn't mean it's above circular and combative nature of other internet forums.
Anyway, this is just the last of my input.
either way... the stages are useful as flag posts where a stream-enterer can see where to go next, and where not to go next.
[i] just putted another flag "forse-nagåmi"; if it is useful to others... then [you] are welcome. if not, i do not care.
it is a little "insulting" to assume much about a stream-enterer; like not understanding correctly anatta or assuming that a "noble one" (stream-enterer) is combative in nature. maybe [one] can defend and attack, but do Not assume that is the first option.
"At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said, "Monks, whatever contemplatives or priests who assume in various ways when assuming a self, all assume the five clinging-aggregates, or a certain one of them.
...
"Thus, both this assumption & the understanding, 'I am,' occur to him. And so it is with reference to the understanding 'I am' that there is the appearance of the five faculties — eye, ear, nose, tongue, & body (the senses of vision, hearing, smell, taste, & touch).
"Now, there is the intellect, there are ideas (mental qualities), there is the property of ignorance. To an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person, touched by experience born of the contact of ignorance, there occur (the thoughts): 'I am,' 'I am thus,' 'I shall be,' 'I shall not be,' 'I shall be possessed of form,' 'I shall be formless,' 'I shall be percipient (conscious),' 'I shall be non-percipient,' or 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient.'
"The five faculties, monks, continue as they were. And with regard to them the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones abandons ignorance and gives rise to clear knowing. Owing to the fading of ignorance and the arising of clear knowing, (the thoughts) — 'I am,' 'I am this,' 'I shall be,' 'I shall not be,' 'I shall be possessed of form,' 'I shall be formless,' 'I shall be percipient (conscious),' 'I shall be non-percipient,' and 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient' — do not occur to him."
SN 22.47
As it says, the thought "I am (insert whatever thing here, including "I am a stream enterer") does not occur to a stream enterer since there is no separate self to enter the stream to begin with. A stream enterer does not identify themselves as a stream enterer since there is nothing to identify with to begin with. By definition, a stream enterer has already cut off ALL self identification including the identifications as a stream enterer.
1. Turning away from material sensations
2. releasing one's self from materials sensations
3. Turning towards the light
4. objectification with the light
The four jhanas can be broken down into just two steps
1. turn away from corrupt phenomenon
2. turn towards uncorrupt non-phenomenon (True Self).
Modern Buddhism denies a True Self because they take the Buddha's teachings to mean there is no self (anatta) but anatta is simply the negation of atta, Self, which is the same Self as the Upanishads. If there were no Self, then there could be no Buddha, no Tathagatta, none "gone to the one" (lit. meaning of tathagatta), no Buddha (awakened one), and no one to go towards nirvana. Who blows out the desires, if nirvana is reached? The temporal self? But how can something temporal blow itself out eternally? Or do Modern Buddhists deny even eternity? As being eternalism? But the Buddha did not say eternalism but rather perpetualism, the denial of the material/perpetual world, not the world of the Eternal nirvana, which is permanent.
Buddhism uses an apt analogy of blowing out of desires, like blowing out the final sparks of a fire, to deal with the problem of suffering, but at that point, you still have something left over, that which was the subject of suffering (self). Now it is true that the temporal self is not real, an illusion, emptiness (shunyatta), and anatta, but there is, an unborn, uncaused, unbecome, if there were not, this unborn, uncaused, unbecome, there would be no escape for the born, the caused, the become. The Tathagatta is without the mark of all things, he dwells upwards in the signless inflexured mind/will (true Self) , there within Ananda, dwell with the light as your self, with the light as your refuge, with none other as refuge.
*really, it's more Samkhyan than "Personalist", but whatever...
About the "blowing out" analogy: I'm curious where you find a "blowing out" in the Canon. All the lamp analogies I can find point to the flame ceasing due to a lack of fuel (craving and/or kamma) and not from being "blown out" by another. For one to blow out the flame of another would be dualistic, and more akin to Samkhya or Jainism.
About "making the Self your refuge": "Various syntactic analyses of the phrase are thus possible; but the correct semantic rendering, as always with the notion of 'making oneself a refuge' in Buddhism, is simply that one should, indeed can only rely on oneself in religious practice, and succeed only through one's own efforts. In context, this phrase is used by the Buddha to claim that he has done so. No metaphysical meaning is needed or implied." Collins http://www.jstor.org/stable/3270114
"A man has only two possible places to look for a cow thought to be missing, but upon making a thorough search in both spots, he fails to find her. He knows that the cow cannot possibly be elsewhere, it being useless to consider a third place, so the fruitlessness of his search becomes apparent and with it his mistaken assumption (of a lost cow) is revealed. Likewise, the assumed independent existence of the atman after one has searched for it both within and without the five heaps [the skandhas, categories or aggregates of personality], must be seen to be non-existent. Belief in an independent atman (soul) is actually the result of mental activity. Such ideas of an atman are proved an illusion and proved logically invalid by the sundering (of the views) of oneness and not-oneness so that one arrives at atma-sunyata (voidness of the atman) which is synonymous with no-atman of the person (pudgala-nairatmya). In this way and by the force of this dialectic there arises in one who practises thus right view of the Middle Practice-Path." HHDL _The Opening of the Wisdom-Eye_ pp99-100; cited in http://www.jstor.org/stable/3270114
Cheers, WK
http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/355/8/c/deva_namarati_by_elvenmuse-d35bw8w.jpg
born a srotapanna.
i didn't finish reading upalabhava post (for whatEver reason)
bodhi na gåmi / forse na gåmi
FYI-
There are four different levels (also called four yogas) in mahamudra meditation:
1) One pointed-ness, when the first taste of the luminous, empty nature of inner sensation is experienced.
2) Non-conceptuality: when the inner experience is strengthened
3) One taste: when the realisation of outer and the inner start to diminish and outer experiences are seen to be similar in nature to the inner sensations
4) Non-meditation: the meditator sees the unreality of the differentiation between meditation and post-meditation. And non differentiation is perfected.
The end of stage 4 is said to be buddhahood.
mahamudra could be described as formless meditation, yet it is supported by Boddhicitta and shunyata.
Cheers, WK
If one breaks the first fetter (wrong view), namely when one gets the Right Understanding (Right View) one knows one has broken the first three fetters (this is the first stage)
from then on one does not need to ask questions about Buddha's Teaching because Buddha's Teaching (Dhamma) is in front of one's eyes always
however he/she will forget Buddha's Teaching sometimes and act as normal (everyday) person but his /her Right view will never be changed
the second and third stages depend on how one will practice the Buddha's Teaching after one gets the Right View
maitri, mūdita, karuna upekśa