Do streamwinners experience the 1st jhana?

[Alexander]

I have been sending emails back and forth with Michel, and in one conversation we came to the topic of whether or not streamwinners experience the 1st jhana. This made me aware of the fact that I do not believe they do. This confused Michel, who associated the 4 jhanas with the 4 levels of attainment. In my experience, I push them all down one, and put most of the religious experience in the arahant's stage.

...The integrated/whole person, who is caught up to the present (not running from the past), who is self-aware, who understands himself, and who is sexual, reaps the 1st jhana by default.

The ordinary person does not experience the 1st jhana. In the ordinary person, the energy that would otherwise produce the 1st jhana is used justifying/rationalizing one's actions, running from sexuality, running from one's own evil, and running from the past.

Brilliant, Alexander. This seems to make sense. Did you get these ideas from your own observations or did you learn them from some teacher?

Would you describe for me the other higher types of people beyond the integrated/whole person using similar language?

Would you say that the integrated/whole person is similar to what Abraham Maslow called the fully "self-actualized person?" Are you familiar with Maslow?

Why would you say that the ordinary person is running away from their own sexuality. This sounds like what they'd call a neurotic individual. If this is true, then there must be more integrated/whole people around considering how prevalent the interest in sex is today.

Yes, there are people who are sexually healthy in the world. It is interesting how they can live right beside people who are repressed. Of course, the people who are sexually "healthy" have their own problems. This is because when you admit the importance of sexuality in your life, this creates new issues. You have the constant stress of pursuing sexual experience, and you become susceptible to delusions that are impossible if you are sexually repressed.

An interesting thing about the word "holy" is that its meaning in Germanic is "whole." So, to be holy, you must be put together: you must have an intellectual, emotional, and sexual side; and each side should be connected to the others, with none functioning alone/in itself.

I would like to take credit for these ideas... I developed them during my "Emily" period. But, I was heavily influenced by Gurdjieff, by esoteric/mystic writing, and by John of the Cross.

I am familiar with Abraham Maslow. I only learned about him after going through my experiences. I am skeptical that Maslow is a proper spiritual person... but the chart he made is valid, and it is good he understands sexuality is a human need.

Let's see:

1. Ordinary Person

2. Streamwinner - seeks mystic knowledge; is starting to develop self-awareness/knowledge of oneself

3. Once-returner - a person who is whole/put in order

4. Nonreturner - a deva in human form

5. Arahant - a nonreturner who has passed through the mystic death

I'm a little confused. The 4 noble persons directly correlate to the 4 Jhanas, as I understand.  So in your preceding list, the once-returner/integrated/whole person has attained the 2nd jhana and is able to still the mind. But you correlate it to the 1st jhana.

Sex is such a strange thing. You are never satiated; you always want more. You can become obsessed. Clinging to sexual relationships often results in great pain and suffering. In the end the thrill of it is not worth it. I consider it delusional to think that sex is a wholesome thing. But sex is the great teacher about desire. The greatest desire is wanting live which is a higher fetter than sensual desire..

What are the delusions of the whole person in regards to sex?

I disagree with Jhanananda on this point. I have seen no evidence that the streamwinner has 1st jhana attainment.

Streamwinner = no jhanas, but is on the spiritual path
Once-returner = 1st jhana
Nonreturner = 2nd jhana
Arahant = 3rd jhana and higher

Interesting. How did you arrive at this conclusion?

It's based on the following things:

- When I was a streamwinner, I did not experience the 1st jhana.

- The streamwinners I know (you, ...) do not experience the 1st jhana.

- After I passed through the experience of the 1st mystic death, and became an integrated/whole person, the self-arsing joy emerged. This coincided with once-returning.

- The once-returners I know (...) experience the 1st jhana's joy.

- The nonreturners I know (Father Roger) experience the 1st jhana's joy, but do not necessarily have 2nd jhana attainment (the still mind). They only have the still mind -if- they pursue meditation.

[Michel]

- After I passed through the experience of the 1st mystic death, and became an integrated/whole person, the self-arsing joy emerged. This coincided with once-returning.

I did a search to find anything on the 1st mystic's death. I couldn't find anything. Could you describe it? Do you think the first mystic's death is necessary to achieve the 1st Jhana and attain once-returner status?

[Alexander]

I believe so. I think it is the 1st dark night that spiritualizes a person. Part of it is a person transforming their views. For example, they may be irreligious and become religious. They may be violent and become nonviolent. They may be sexual and become antisexual. Or, on the contrary, they could be antisexual and become sexual.

The important thing is the whole psychology is affected. Everything is integrated into the new personality. Sometimes you will hear religious people say, "I died and was born again." You have to be careful with this. There are many deluded people in our time who like to parrot this saying. But, when it is true, this references how an old self with all its views, dysfunctions, and predilections passed away, and was buried in the ground. Then, a new self which was rightly oriented with reality was created in its place. This is an essential step in a mystic's development/maturation.

[Michel]

Bhikkhu Bodhi thinks that jhana is not a requirement of stream-entry. He bases it on the suttas. This is an excerpt from an essay titled The Jhānas and the Lay Disciple According to the Pāli Suttas. It is available in full here: http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha267.htm

Jhāna and the Attainment of Stream-entry

Let us turn directly to the texts themselves to see if they can shed any light on our problem. When we do survey the Nikāyas with this issue in mind we find, perhaps with some astonishment, that they neither lay down a clear stipulation that jhāna is needed to attain stream-entry nor openly assert that jhāna is dispensable. The Sutta Piṭaka mentions four preconditions for reaching the path, called sotāpattiyaṅga, factors of stream-entry, namely: association with superior people (i.e., with the noble ones); listening to the true Dhamma; proper attention; and practice in accordance with the Dhamma.[5] It would seem that all the elements of Buddhist meditative practice, including the jhānas, should come under the fourth factor, but the Nikāyas themselves do not state whether "practice in accordance with the Dhamma" includes the jhānas. The few texts that specify what is actually meant by "practice in accordance with the Dhamma" are invariably concerned with insight meditation. They employ a fixed formula, with variable subjects, to describe a bhikkhu practising in such a way. Two suttas define such practice as aimed at the cessation of the factors of dependent origination (SN II 18, 115); another, as aimed at the cessation of the five aggregates (SN III 163-64); and still another, as aimed at the cessation of the six sense bases (SN IV 141). Of course, meditation practice undertaken to attain the jhānas would have to be included in "practice in accordance with the Dhamma," but the texts give no ground for inferring that such practice is a prerequisite for reaching stream-entry.

A stream-enterer is endowed with four other qualities, mentioned often in the Sotāpatti-saṃyutta (SN chap. 55). These, too, are called sotāpattiyaṅga, but in a different sense than the former set. These are the factors that qualify a person as a stream-enterer. The first three are "confirmed confidence" (aveccappasāda) in the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha; the fourth is "the virtues dear to the noble ones," generally understood to mean inviolable adherence to the Five Precepts. From this, we can reasonably suppose that in the preliminary stage leading up to stream-entry the aspirant will need firm faith in the Three Jewels (the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha) and scrupulous observance of the Five Precepts. Further, the realization of stream-entry itself is often depicted as a cognitive experience of almost ocular immediacy. It is called the gaining of the eye of the Dhamma (dhammacakkhu-paṭilābha), the breakthrough to the Dhamma (dhammābhisamaya), the penetration of the Dhamma (dhamma-paṭivedha).[6] One who has undergone this experience is said to have "seen the Dhamma, reached the Dhamma, understood the Dhamma, fathomed the Dhamma."[7] Taken together, both modes of description -- by way of the four factors of stream-entry and by way of the event of realization -- indicate that the disciple has arrived at stream-entry primarily through insight supported by unwavering faith in the Three Jewels. It is noteworthy that the texts on the realization of stream-entry make no mention of any prior accomplishment in jhāna as a prerequisite for reaching the path. In fact, several texts show the breakthrough to stream-entry as occurring to someone without any prior meditative experience, simply by listening to the Buddha or an enlightened monk give a discourse on the Dhamma.[8]

While the process of "entering the stream" involves both faith and wisdom, individuals differ in their disposition with respect to these two qualities: some are disposed to faith, others to wisdom. This difference is reflected in the division of potential stream-enterers into two types, known as the saddhānusārī or faith-follower and the dhammānusārī or Dhamma-follower. Both have entered "the fixed course of rightness" (sammatta-niyāma), the irreversible path to stream-entry, by attuning their understanding of actuality to the nature of actuality itself, and thus for both insight is the key to entering upon the path. The two types differ, however, in the means by which they generate insight. The faith-follower, as the term implies, does so with faith as the driving force; inspired by faith, he resolves on the ultimate truth and thereby gains the path. The Dhamma-follower is driven by an urge to fathom the true nature of actuality; inspired by this urge, he investigates the teaching and gains the path. When they have known and seen the truth of the Dhamma, they realize the fruit of stream-entry.

Perhaps the most informative source on the difference between these two types is the Okkantika-saṃyutta, where the Buddha shows how they enter upon the fixed course of rightness:

"Bhikkhus, the eye is impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. So too the ear ... nose ... tongue ... body ... mind. One who places faith in these teachings and resolves on them thus is called a faith-follower: he is one who has entered the fixed course of rightness, entered the plane of the superior persons, transcended the plane of the worldlings. He is incapable of doing any deed by reason of which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal realm, or in the sphere of ghosts; he is incapable of passing away without having realized the fruit of stream-entry.

"One for whom these teachings are accepted thus to a sufficient degree by being pondered with wisdom is called a Dhamma-follower: he is one who has entered the fixed course of rightness ... (he is) incapable of passing away without having realized the fruit of stream-entry.

"One who knows and sees these teachings thus is called a stream-enterer, no longer bound to the nether world, fixed in destiny, with enlightenment as his destination."[9]

It is noteworthy that this passage makes no mention of jhāna. While prior experience of jhāna would no doubt help to make the mind a more fit instrument for insight, it is surely significant that jhāna is not mentioned either as an accompaniment of the "entry upon the fixed course of rightness" or as a prerequisite for it.

It might be objected that several other passages on the two candidates for stream-entry implicitly include the jhānas among their meditative equipment. The details of these passages need not concern us here. What is of interest to us is that they assign to both the faith-follower and the Dhamma-follower the five spiritual faculties: faith, energy, mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom.[10] The Indriya-saṃyutta states that the faculty of concentration "is to be seen among the four jhānas,"[11] and a definition of the concentration faculty includes the formula for the jhānas.[12] Thus, if we argue deductively from these ascriptions and definitions, it would seem to follow as a matter of logic that both the Dhamma-follower and the faith-follower possess the jhānas. More broadly, since these faculties and powers belong to all noble disciples, not to monks alone, this might be held up as proof that all noble disciples, monks and lay followers, invariably possess the jhānas.

Such a conclusion would follow if we adopt a literal and deductive approach to the interpretation of the texts, but it is questionable whether such a hermeneutic is always appropriate when dealing with the formulaic definitions employed so often by the Nikāyas. To extract the intended meaning from such schematic definition, we require greater sensitivity to context, sensitivity guided by acquaintance with a wide assortment of relevant texts. Further, if we do opt for the literalist approach, then, since the passage simply inserts the formula for the four jhānas without qualification into the definition of the concentration faculty, we would have to conclude that all noble disciples, monks and lay followers alike, possess all four jhānas, not just one. Even more, they would have to possess the four jhānas already as faith-followers and Dhamma-followers, at the very entry to the path. This, however, seems too generous, and indicates that we need to be cautious in interpreting such formulaic definitions. In the case presently being considered, I would regard the use of the jhāna formula here as a way of showing the most eminent type of concentration to be developed by the noble disciple. I would not take it as a rigid pronouncement that all noble disciples actually possess all four jhānas, or even one of them.

But there is more to be said. When we attend closely to these texts, we see that a degree of flexibility is already built into them. In the analysis of the faculties at SN 48:9-10/V 197-98, the first sutta offers an alternative definition of the faculty of concentration that does not mention the four jhānas, while the following sutta gives both definitions conjointly. The alternative version runs thus: "And what, monks, is the faculty of concentration? Here, monks, a noble disciple gains concentration, gains one-pointedness of mind, having made release the object. This is called the faculty of concentration."[13]

The Nikāyas themselves nowhere explain exactly what is meant by the concentration gained by "having made release the object" (vossaggārammaṇaṃ karitvā), but they do elsewhere suggest that release (vossagga) is a term for Nibbāna.[14] The Commentary interprets this passage with the aid of the distinction between mundane (lokiya) and supramundane (lokuttara) concentration: the former consists in the form-sphere jhānas (and the access to these jhānas), the latter in the supramundane jhānas concomitant with the supramundane path.[15] On the basis of this distinction, the Commentary explains "the concentration that makes release the object" as the supramundane concentration of the noble path arisen with Nibbāna as object.[16] Thus if we feel obliged to interpret the faculty and power of concentration in the light of the jhāna formula, we might go along with the Commentary in regarding it as the supramundane jhāna pertaining to the supramundane path and fruit.

However, we need not agree with the Commentaries in taking the expression "having made release the object" so literally. We might instead interpret this phrase more loosely as characterizing a concentration aimed at release, that is, directed towards Nibbāna.[17] Then we can understand its referent as the concentration that functions as the basis for insight, both initially in the preparatory phase of practice and later in immediate conjunction with insight. This would allow us to ascribe to the noble disciple a degree of concentration strong enough to qualify as a faculty without compelling us to hold that he must possess jhāna. Perhaps the combined definition of the concentration faculty in SN 48:10 is intended to show that two courses are open to disciples. One is the route emphasizing strong concentration, along which one develops the jhānas as the faculty of concentration; the other is the route emphasizing insight, along which one develops concentration only to the degree needed for insight to arise. This concentration, though falling short of jhāna, could still be described as "concentration that makes release its object."

The faith-follower and the Dhamma-follower are the lowest members of a sevenfold typology of noble persons mentioned in the Nikāyas as an alternative to the more common scheme of "the four pairs of persons," the four path-attainers and the realizers of their respective fruits.[18] The seven fall into three groups. At the apex are the arahants, who are distinguished into two types: (i) "both-ways-liberated" arahants (ubhatobhāgavimutta), who gain release from the taints together with deep experience of the formless attainments; and (ii) "wisdom-liberated" arahants (paññāvimutta), who win release from the taints without such experience of the formless attainments. Next are three types in the intermediate range, from stream-enterers up to those on the path to arahantship. These are: (iii) the body-witness (kāyasakkhī), who has partly eliminated the taints and experiences the formless attainments; (iv) the view-attainer (diṭṭhippatta), who does not experience the formless attainments and has partly eliminated the taints, with emphasis on wisdom; and (v) the faith-liberated (saddhāvimutta), who does not experience the formless attainments and has partly eliminated the taints, with emphasis on faith. Any disciple at the six intermediate stages -- from stream-enterer to one on the path to arahantship -- can fall into any of these three categories; the distinctions among them are not determined by degree of progress but by mode of progress, whether through strong concentration, wisdom, or faith. Finally come the two kinds of anusārī (vi-vii), who are on the path to stream-entry.

What is noteworthy about this list is that samādhi, as a faculty, does not determine a class of its own until after the fruit of stream-entry has been realized. That is, facility in concentration determines a distinct type of disciple among the arahants (as the both-ways-liberated arahant) and among the aspirants for the higher stages (as the body-witness), but not among the aspirants for stream-entry. In this lowest category we have only the faith-follower and the Dhamma-follower, who owe their status to faith and wisdom, respectively, but there is no type corresponding to the body-witness.[19]

From the omission of a class of disciples training for stream-entry who also enjoy the experience of the formless meditations, one might suppose that disciples below the level of stream-entry cannot gain access to the formless attainments. This supposition is not tenable, however, for the texts show that many of tthe ascetics and contemplatives in the Buddha's day (including his two teachers before his enlightenment) were familiar with the jhānas and formless attainments. Since these attainments are not dependent on the insight made uniquely available through the Buddha's teaching, the omission of such a class of jhāna-attainers among those on the way to stream-entry must be explained in some other way than by the supposition that such a class does not exist.

I would propose that while disciples prior to stream-entry may or may not possess the formless attainments, skill in this area does not determine a distinct type because powerful concentration is not a governing factor in the attainment of stream-entry. The way to stream-entry certainly requires a degree of concentration sufficient for the "eye of the Dhamma" to arise, but the actual movement from the stage of a worldling to that of a path-attainer is driven by either strong conviction or a probing spirit of inquiry, which respectively determine whether the aspirant is to become a faith-follower or a Dhamma-follower. Once, however, the path has been gained, then one's degree of accomplishment in concentration determines one's future mode of progress. If one gains the formless attainments one takes the route of the body-witness, culminating in release as a both-ways-liberated arahant. If one does not attain them, one takes the route of the view-attainer or faith-liberated trainee, culminating in release as a wisdom-liberated arahant. Since these distinctions relate only to the formless attainments and make no mention of the jhānas, it is reasonable to suppose that types (ii), (iv-v), and (vi-vii) may have possession of the form-sphere jhānas. But by making faith and wisdom the key factors in gaining the initial access to the path, this scheme leaves open the possibility that some stream-enterers, and perhaps those at still higher levels, may not have gained these jhānas at all.

[Michel]

Do you think the first mystic's death is necessary to achieve the 1st Jhana and attain once-returner status?

I believe so. I think it is the 1st dark night that spiritualizes a person. Part of it is a person transforming their views. For example, they may be irreligious and become religious. They may be violent and become nonviolent. They may be sexual and become antisexual. Or, on the contrary, they could be antisexual and become sexual.

The important thing is the whole psychology is affected. Everything is integrated into the new personality. Sometimes you will hear religious people say, "I died and was born again." You have to be careful with this. There are many deluded people in our time who like to parrot this saying. But, when it is true, this references how an old self with all its views, dysfunctions, and predilections passed away, and was buried in the ground. Then, a new self which was rightly oriented with reality was created in its place. This is an essential step in a mystic's development/maturation.

I am undergoing the process of willful - psychological - desexualisation. To develop dispassion for the body, I must learn to see it as repulsive in all its various base biological functions, as just simply a temporary vehicle of the spirit, as an impermanent entity gradually becoming decrepit and declining into old age and inevitable death. I am trying to think of the sexual act as being base and vulgar, a hindrance to the holy life. In other words, I'm trying to turn myself into a puritan. LOL. I think that in the early stages of the holy life, this can be of great benefit to the practice. Indulging in the pursuit of sex is a major distraction to the practice.

As well, I have a new view in terms of my relationship to others. This shift in perspective is seeing the world in terms of not just "me against the world" but rather in terms of "we or us together." So in this scenario I am just as much the villain and victim as everyone else is. In reflecting on my past, it is made clearly evident in my past relationship with others that this view is correct in terms of bringing peaceful and harmonious relations. So, it is important not to put yourself against others. I find this attitude helps me enormously towards any arrogance or negative judgements I might have towards other people. This view has to be cultivated or else the old view of "me against the world" reasserts itself. As well, this view helps one develop an attitude of co-operation and kindness towards others. Having this view I believe is a gateway to the Brahma Viharas which are the fruits of jhana. And interestingly, I noticed that when I've been manic, I usually have this attitude.

[Jhanon]

So, firstly, on the subject of sexuality.

Simply paying close attention to the sensations involved in sex and self-gratification, to my surprise, led me to realize it is painful, disgusting, oppressive, subversive, and to produce some of the longest-term suffering available to most of mankind.

In regards to how one views the rest of the world.

I've recently begun experimenting with "That's me." I've had some interesting results. How i do this is that whenever I revert to ego, I say "that's me." It has some interesting effects. So, I could be becoming annoyed by some kids playing outside while I try to meditate and I just say "That's me", as in "those kids, the sounds, the aggravation is all me." Or, I could find unhelpful thinking occurring, and I'll say "that's me."

Preliminary Results

1) It embraces the behavior, and yet transcends it so that it ceases. There's no repression, or other forms of the ego slipping in the back door while we close the front.
2) It provides a strangely easy way to be at peace very quickly.
3) It feels strangely true, in an ultimate way.
4) it returns me to the charisms.
5) It allows one to "let go" without fear.

This is only from a few hours of experimentation, but it's worth mentioning. Note that the view upon thinking "that's me" is Oneness, not clinging. I will probably experiment with it in the future. Too much experimenting at once could lead to negative consequences of past progress.

[Jhanananda]

Jhāna and the Attainment of Stream-entry

Let us turn directly to the texts themselves to see if they can shed any light on our problem. When we do survey the Nikāyas with this issue in mind we find, perhaps with some astonishment, that they neither lay down a clear stipulation that jhāna is needed to attain stream-entry nor openly assert that jhāna is dispensable. The Sutta Piṭaka mentions four preconditions for reaching the path, called sotāpattiyaṅga, factors of stream-entry, namely: association with superior people (i.e., with the noble ones); listening to the true Dhamma; proper attention; and practice in accordance with the Dhamma.[5] It would seem that all the elements of Buddhist meditative practice, including the jhānas, should come under the fourth factor, but the Nikāyas themselves do not state whether "practice in accordance with the Dhamma" includes the jhānas. The few texts that specify what is actually meant by "practice in accordance with the Dhamma" are invariably concerned with insight meditation.

Now, this is pretty funny.  We all have to keep in mind that Bhikkhu Bodhi does not practice meditation, so he has no attainment of jhana.  This means at best he is following a 6-fold path, which is not Buddhism.  A classic example of how corrupted Bhikkhu Bodhi's dhamma is, is there is no two path model of insight (vipassnana) verses absorption (jhana) "practice."  Also, throughout the suttas the 8th fold is consistently defined in terms of the 4 jhanas; whereas, there is no fold of the path that is defined in terms of insight (vipassnana).  This is an old debate which we have been fighting for about 15 years now.

While I will agree that the 4 noble levels of being are not directly connected to the attainment of jhana in the suttas, we can nonetheless infer jhana attainment is necessary, because a more accurate way of determining the 4 noble levels of being is in a relative reduction of the fetters; and we find here that the more saturated one becomes in jhana, the fewer fetters one has; therefore, jhana attainment is necessary for all 4 noble levels of being, and being saturated at deeper levels of jhana results directly in a significant reduction in the fetters such that we can associate 1st jhana saturation with Stream-entry, and so forth.

[Jhanon]

^Word. I'm glad you got to this before me. Reading Bodhi's words was like watching a clueless victim in a horror flick. No offense to him. But it's getting really sad to keep seeing these kinds of things.

[Jhanananda]

Jhanon, this is the nature of mainstream religion. It works to subvert the ecstatic message of their mystic progenitor, while marginalizing the current crop of mystics.  After all, living mystics make the progenitors of ancient religions look not so special.

[Michel]

Jhāna and the Attainment of Stream-entry

Let us turn directly to the texts themselves to see if they can shed any light on our problem. When we do survey the Nikāyas with this issue in mind we find, perhaps with some astonishment, that they neither lay down a clear stipulation that jhāna is needed to attain stream-entry nor openly assert that jhāna is dispensable. The Sutta Piṭaka mentions four preconditions for reaching the path, called sotāpattiyaṅga, factors of stream-entry, namely: association with superior people (i.e., with the noble ones); listening to the true Dhamma; proper attention; and practice in accordance with the Dhamma.[5] It would seem that all the elements of Buddhist meditative practice, including the jhānas, should come under the fourth factor, but the Nikāyas themselves do not state whether "practice in accordance with the Dhamma" includes the jhānas. The few texts that specify what is actually meant by "practice in accordance with the Dhamma" are invariably concerned with insight meditation.

Now, this is pretty funny.  We all have to keep in mind that Bhikkhu Bodhi does not practice meditation, so he has no attainment of jhana.  This means at best he is following a 6-fold path, which is not Buddhism.  A classic example of how corrupted Bhikkhu Bodhi's dhamma is, is there is no two path model of insight (vipassnana) verses absorption (jhana) "practice."  Also, throughout the suttas the 8th fold is consistently defined in terms of the 4 jhanas; whereas, there is no fold of the path that is defined in terms of insight (vipassnana).  This is an old debate which we have been fighting for about 15 years now.

While I will agree that the 4 noble levels of being are not directly connected to the attainment of jhana in the suttas, we can nonetheless infer jhana attainment is necessary, because a more accurate way of determining the 4 noble levels of being is in a relative reduction of the fetters; and we find here that the more saturated one becomes in jhana, the fewer fetters one has; therefore, jhana attainment is necessary for all 4 noble levels of being, and being saturated at deeper levels of jhana results directly in a significant reduction in the fetters such that we can associate 1st jhana saturation with Stream-entry, and so forth.

It's important to know Bhikku Bodhi's position as well as all the other Theravadins' on matters of the Dhamma. We should know when their teachings are a corruption of the Dhamma. But there is a disagreement between Alexander and Jhananda on whether stream winners require attainment of the 1st jhana. So, what else is new. LOL

I think if I had enough time, I'd learn Pali.  Now the question would be,"Is the Pali Cannon, as presented in Pali, corrupt as well?" The only way out of this bind is to master the jhanas, as you have done, Jhananda, and see if the teachings are correct.

[Jhanananda]

It's important to know Bhikku Bodhi's position as well as all the other Theravadins' on matters of the Dhamma. We should know when their teachings are a corruption of the Dhamma.

Yes, I agree.

But there is a disagreement between Alexander and Jhananda on whether stream winners require attainment of the 1st jhana. So, what else is new. LOL

Yes, there is a disagreement between my interpretation of the 4 noble levels of being and Alexander's.

I think if I had enough time, I'd learn Pali.  Now the question would be,"Is the Pali Cannon, as presented in Pali, corrupt as well?" The only way out of this bind is to master the jhanas, as you have done, Jhananda, and see if the teachings are correct.

I believe all religious texts, including the Pali Canon are simply anthologies of religious literature that were inspired by common sources, thus there is no "word of god" or "word of progenitor" in any mainstream religious literature. Also, all religions have corrupted the translation and interpretation of the literature that is associated with their progenitor, who was a mystic. Thus, we must always exercise critical thinking and insight born of deep meditation.

[Cal]

I believe so. I think it is the 1st dark night that spiritualizes a person. Part of it is a person transforming their views. For example, they may be irreligious and become religious. They may be violent and become nonviolent. They may be sexual and become antisexual. Or, on the contrary, they could be antisexual and become sexual.

The important thing is the whole psychology is affected. Everything is integrated into the new personality. Sometimes you will hear religious people say, "I died and was born again." You have to be careful with this. There are many deluded people in our time who like to parrot this saying. But, when it is true, this references how an old self with all its views, dysfunctions, and predilections passed away, and was buried in the ground. Then, a new self which was rightly oriented with reality was created in its place. This is an essential step in a mystic's development/maturation.

I think I may have to agree with you on this point, Alexander. For me, it was the death of my mother. The transformative period was the sum of years, however. Yet I bounced back and forth with the spiritual long before I could ever recognize the first Jhana. Another thing that hasnt been talked about on here, is the Kundalini awakening. For me, the first Jhana was not apparent until that moment.

Another interesting thing that hasnt been talked about much, is those of us out there in the world, that dont speak of thier experiences. My sister, for example. She found some charisms the first time she walked into a church, she said it smelled like roses. She has also described a fullness in the heart that expands outwards, much like that of the tactile sensations. (I think she may be describing the opening of the heart chakra, but im not entirely sure.) Yet there have been other women, that I have spoke with, that describe the same experiences. All have said that "It is my experience, and I dont share it with others." I thank them, of course, for sharing it with me. I would believe that these mentioned, have found stream entry, yet they are all very much immersed in the falsehoods of the christian church, very devotedly, I'd say. I say stream entry, because they do not carry any experience with them beyond the memory of them, see what Im sayin?

I also think it possible that others outside of the Buddhist community might not understand the meaning of a still mind. I am intimately familiar with the sets of feelings (Not all of the sensory charism), that correspond with the different stages of Jhana. I can say without a doubt, that I have progressed into the third Jhana without a still mind, not thoughtless. I've thought on it alot, how it was possible. It was actually just yesterday that I came to a conclusion, the thoughts, words, processes going on in those moments, were awareness. Jefferey posted it in the dependant origination thread and he described the 5 aggregates of clinging, along with awareness. Awareness being another of the cognitive function, although, I'll admit that it is "different" from the cognitive function. With awareness it has been more of a feeling, something is imprinted, inserted, separate, an outside influence. All the same, I've found it can also "drift", like the mind. 

[Cal]

You know, with all of that said, i feel I should clarify a bit more. I do not see the 4 noble ones as a description of attainment in meditation. Not initially anyway. It is what is carried with you outside of the meditation state. What one continues to carry outside of the meditation state. So, if one was to meditate all day, everyday in the state of the 4th Jhana, I would call them Arahant. But for one to meditate to the 4th Jhana consistantly, but does not carry it with them the rest of the day, is not Arahant.

I say this from my own viewpoint. I can meditate to the 4th Jhana consistantly, and do so. Yet, on the best days I will carry the 3rd Jhana with me, for a time. Most days are the first Jhana, and the better of those are the second Jhana. I would never call myself Arahant, based solely on the experience of re-occurance, rather than a lasting state.

So, in closure, my viewpoint is that one should become the Jhana, at all times, because when one is the Jhana, the fetters do not exist.

[Jhanananda]

Another interesting thing that hasnt been talked about much, is those of us out there in the world, that dont speak of thier experiences. My sister, for example. She found some charisms the first time she walked into a church, she said it smelled like roses. She has also described a fullness in the heart that expands outwards, much like that of the tactile sensations. (I think she may be describing the opening of the heart chakra, but im not entirely sure.) Yet there have been other women, that I have spoke with, that describe the same experiences. All have said that "It is my experience, and I dont share it with others." I thank them, of course, for sharing it with me. I would believe that these mentioned, have found stream entry, yet they are all very much immersed in the falsehoods of the christian church, very devotedly, I'd say. I say stream entry, because they do not carry any experience with them beyond the memory of them, see what Im sayin?

I agree.  I find many of the devout might just be stream winners, because they have their faith, and that faith is often based upon some very real religious experiences, and these people often times are free of some of the fetters.  Thus awareness of the Noble Eightfold Path, or following it, is not necessarily necessary for stream entry.  It is just embracing a spiritual lifestyle.

So, in closure, my viewpoint is that one should become the Jhana, at all times, because when one is the Jhana, the fetters do not exist.

I agree.

[Michel]

Yes, there is a disagreement between my interpretation of the 4 noble levels of being and Alexander's.

Would you say that all arahants are infallible in their understanding of the Dhamma, that they all have the same understanding of it?