hrmm... I might push them all up one. I would say a stream-winner would have infrequent experiences of the first jhana's joy, while not being immersed in it all the time. Instead steam-winners are more characterized by right view (their divestment from exterior things, and their beginning to turn inward) than by attainment.
If we are going to take this discussion outside of Buddhism, which I believe we should, then we need to define attainment in broader terms, while not diluting the contemplative life and attainments there of.
Therefore, we have to look at other religious movements in other religions to see that the devout often exhibit a higher level of ethics, verses the "unbelievers," or those who are less devout. However, it is commonly stated among the devout, "We are all sinners." I take this as meaning that the devout are willing to admit that they still have some craving; and perhaps their whole devotion is nothing more than piety; however, from observing the devout in a wide range of religions it is clear to this observer that devotion brings with it a higher level of ethics, which represents the attainment of a stage of noble behavior.
A characteristic of the devout is they tend to engage in religious study and behavior on a daily basis, so we cannot say that they are casual in their religious convictions or devotional practices. And, what I see behind their conviction is some religious experience that strengthens their conviction. I believe that religious experience would be characterized by bliss and joy; and their religious behavior would be characterized by some level of discrimination regarding unwholesome behaviors and beliefs. Thus we can conclude that the devotee very probably experiences the first stage of the religious experience on a fairly regular basis, which would be reasonably equal to the first jhana.
Once-returner is definitely immersed in 1st jhana most or all of the time. While a nonreturner is more-or-less immersed in the second jhana all of the time, with infrequent experiences of the third.
I would make my argument based on our discussion of the Christian experience of "repentance" which we had earlier. The right view of the stream-winner facilitates the transformation of the the whole person (which is "repentance," or the dark night "of sense"), and then after coming out of that, the "new man" more or less permanently abides in the 1st jhana's joy.
I would say that repentance is typical of the conversion experience of the devotee, and thus would be a property of the stream-winner, or attainer of the first jhana.
Here we would have to be clear on what is meant by the "dark night of sense." From reading John of the Cross it seems to me that he is talking about the stilling of the mind. If so, then that is the second jhana, and along with that attainment is learning to live present in the moment, which typically involves a more radical transformation than the stream winner. That transformation would be consistent with the level of liberation from the fitters/sins/addictions, to be consistent with the once-returner.
And would you say jhanas 3-4+ are experienceable by people who are not arahants? You are the enlightened being here so you would be able to say better than me, but I would have thought they were not.
From the sutta description of the 4 jhanas and the 4 levels of nobles, and from my personal contemplative life, it seems mastering the 4th jhana results in liberation from all of the fetters/sins/addictions, to the point that one is an arahat. Therefore, it is my belief that what characterizes a Buddha/messiah/prophet is their realization that depth in meditation is not as significant as mastering the first 4 stages of the religious experience, because they are what is needed for the radical transformation of a being from suffering and addiction, to liberation from suffering and addiction.
However, arguably, after the radical transformation of a being to arahat, there is further profound transformation that occurs through traversing the upper stages of the religious experience, which arguably constitutes the difference between an arahat and a Buddha/messiah/prophet.
In regard to this it is also an interest of mine, and I am happy mapeli gave us the opportunity to explore this topic. Specifically I have been fascinated by people I have met in my own life, and how they are the different ranks of noble person, despite not being contemplatives. In fact a majority of noble people in the world are not contemplatives, so it is interesting to me how they make progress despite being outside of the contemplative life, or outside of the experience of an actual, outward renunciation of objects/extroversion.
I would caution one to keep in mind that piety is a disease of religious institutions and the devout. If the pious were genuinely functioning at a higher level, then we would not find them hiding their fetters/sins/addictions behind their piety. They would also be more genuinely supportive of contemplatives and mystics. However, there is ample evidence to the contrary.
I have also been fascinated by how people inherit and build upon their previous lives' work, with how fate seems to intervene, pointing people in the right direction, or else fixing certain important ideas or notions in their heads at a young age.
People do go throw transformational experiences from sinner to the devout. We could argue it is the result of previous lifetimes, or we could argue that the world is full of sinners/addicts, and to be part of the world one must be a sinner/addict. However, the religious experience is what gives the individual the impetus for the radical change to nobility.
In my own daily life I have been fortunate enough to meet (outside of Jeff Brooks!) a large number of noble persons. Two nonreturners (one a former Trappist monk, and another an older gentleman immersed in esotericism); a once returner (a professor who told me about his very unhappy childhood - ie he went through the night of sense); and many stream-winners (among them a couple of people I ended up befriending a long time ago).
In general I do have trouble with stream-winners. I have a hard time discerning them from ordinary people who are simply wise (that is, who have a right view about renunciation). And I suppose that would make sense - since in the human world someone on the Path would need to spend several lifetimes (4 or 5?) as a stream-winner, slowly accreting wisdom, before hitting the rank of once-returner. It might also be fair to say that we can call some people "proto-streamwinners"* - who have a certain right view about some things, but if they do not consolidate their views by the end of that given life, they won't make the cut to streamwinnerdom, and won't get the guarantee of moksha which noble persons proper have (so ie, when they are born again, they will probably become someone with wrong views - and back in samsara again).
I would argue that vision of the noble persons (Aryans) is one of the spiritual gifts.
*I believe the Buddha referred to this very briefly as a dhamma-follower - although again it is not a noble person, just an ordinary person with (some) right views.
Well, the thing to get is Siddhartha Gautama was not starting a new religion. He was just being a mystic within the religious context of his day. That religious context is what today we call Hinduism. So, the Buddha was not a Buddhist, but a Hindu; just as Jesus was not a Christian, but a Jew. The mission of all mystics is to call people away from the frauds and huxters that highjack every religious movement, and to return to the core principles of the contemplative life, which requires a radical lifestyle change.
