https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwOccTTAcVw

I'm curious about how these three meanings of nondual awareness line up with what's discussed around here. Here are my current guesses:

The first one, sabija samadhi: Hard jhana where it seems you're glued to the object
The second one, nirbija samadhi: 'Arhatship'
The third one: Not discussed here
 
or, maybe

The first one, sabija samadhi: hard rupa jhana
The second one, nirbija samadhi: hard arupa jhana
The third one: 'Arhatship'

Would be good to know what is self experience and what is book study/interpretation.

Number three is probably what Richard (of Actual Freedom) is referring to as enlightenment.

I'm not sure I'd qualify the other two as jhana. The first one tended to happen to me when I would spend lots of time doing open-eyed concentration practice, and it had a very different character from when I'd do closed-eye jhana. Maybe this stuff just gets messy when you try to compare between traditions.

His descriptions lack clarity but assuming he means permanent shifts and not some temporary preview stuff- here is my take...(labels? lets not get to far ahead of ourselves)
The first one - predominant aspects of the subject dissolved - seeing emptiness in real time. Third path
The second one -Subject and object merge as one experience -Fourth path if you add agency deletion
The third one - Temporal components modified and emptiness manifests experientially - whatever you wanna call it -See - thusness's-six-stages-of-experience or Seeing That Frees: Meditations on Emptiness and Dependent Arising
None of it matches exactly....

I was also wondering whether he was referring to these as permanent or temporary attainments... I wish I could find his email. I'm assuming that 'agency' was included in 'subject' in his description. And "emptiness manifests experientially" isn't that a criteria for 4th? Emptiness apparent as soon as the mind is inclined to any phenomena?

I'd appreciate it if any 'arhats' would say whether their experience matches Shinzen's third description.

Isn't it about time we call a Pragmatic Masters Conference to try to nail this stuff down?

I am going to say he definately is referencing temporary states for the first two - he uses the hindu words to describe them and those are meant to be seen as states.  Samadhi is the practice and moksha is the realization in yoga.

In number 3 it sounds like he is basically describing a Vipassana practice realization in zen terminology.

But hard to say for sure.

I think Shinzen Young explains much better that 3rd Non-Dual Awareness (N-DA) in his 10 steps/stages to Enlightenment:  http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/5080083 . It's interesting that he catalogues those three N-DA through "samadhi", as he mentioned that he learned jhanas after enlightenment, not before.  

Comparing notes of Daniel (his jhana/vipassana chart + MCTB , Shinzen Young, Bernadette Roberts, Bhante Vimalaramsi and Dvedhavitakka sutta, my working hypothesis is that there are 3 kinds of N-DA plus another lesser practiced/discussed possibility:

I. 1st to 3th Path ~ proficiency in 1st to 4th Jhanas (though you may climb up and down all the jhanic arc)
II. 4th Path ~ proficiency in 5th to 7th Jhanas (Self is empty, observed things are empty too)
III. Specialized N-DA ~ proficiency in 8th Jhana, Pure Lands & Niroda Samapatti, plus Dependent Origination
IV. Psychic Powers Route ~ Buddha's awakening seeing the 3C's through all/many of his reencarnations

Regarding III N-DA, B.Vimalaramsi speaks outloud that the goal is to see DO through Niroda Samapatti (something that Daniel briefly talks about at the last 2 pages of his book). Shinzen Young talks about in the video of DO too, but never leaving out of the "black hole". In previous stages, he mentions the coalescence of all arisings into a single arising, and the same to the passings (that is the II N-DA). That's mentioned too by Daniel: reality strobing in and out in fruitions at the 5-7 jhanas. Finally, B.Roberts talks in very thick Christian terminology about 8th jhana, Pure Land and NS as jhana/vipassana stages. 

Thanks for the Shinzen link. I hadn't seen that model before. Interesting that Shinzen would give a Fundamental Perception Model with impermanence at its core. Although, I'm not sure that that model describes the ideal results, from my point of view. For one thing, it seems like it's carrying the boat after crossing the river. According to MCTB at least, seeing impermanence is useful for resolving reality clearly enough to flip the switch, i.e. Non-Duality Model. I'm not so sure that there's any merit in mastering impermanence after that point. Here's Daniel talking about impermanence in his PCE Mode thread:
Dan wrote this long before he reached a transformation with PCE-practice, so I'm curious to see his opinions on impermanence now.

Also, Pablo, I'm not sure why you're correlating proficiency with jhana with paths, unless you're using ~ to mean "or possibly"

EDIT: To include Dan's full quote

PCEs have nothing to do with non-dual awareness or imperminance.  I think you guys are really missing out by trying to fit actualism into this universal model.  It really is something different, and it's worth figuring out what that difference is because it works way better than vipassana (or, I should say, it's worked way better for me - like night and day difference). Actualism is about taking control of your mind, not relenquishing control or discovering a lack of control a la emptiness and non-dualism.

Personally, SY's Impermanence Model strikes a chord as I have been involved in Taoism for more than 25 years. It clearly addresses the Wu Chi <---> Taichi <---> Pakua, rather Taoist's Dependent Origination. But I admit that it's heavy sided in Impermanence, thats why I say that it's a specialized N-DA model. To be fair, I would say the same of B.Roberts' Dukkha Model. Don't know enough of B.Vimalaramsi's model. 

Regarding "proficiency" in jhanas, Daniel links High Equanimity with Formless Jhanas. The lower Paths do need to walk through HEQ but not necessarily mastery of it. My working hypothesis is that the (jhana related) center of gravity in that stages is Rupa Jhanas, and that when that center shifts to Arupa Jhanas -because of countless experience in HEQ (I remember Daniel 37 full cycles/paths before reaching 4th Path)- the yogi is able to see Emptiness in all its features. Is it clearer? 

Good video. Don't know how it really lines up definitions-wise for with what's discussed around here, but Shinzen made perfect sense in his explanation.

This video had more to do with daily active living mind states than formal seated posture jhana, this is more of a continuous state of consciousness he describes, more likened to the mind/consciousness remaining unperturbed by internal and/or external stimuli, and in when it does it is still connected to the imperturable state of consciousness.  

Summary opinion: (Conscious states described are not during formal meditation , but during daily activities) 

1) In one state the mind is agitated a little by it's surroundings, but is still connected to the source of imperturability and is able to stabilize again quickly. sa-bija samadhi (tranquility with seed, i.e. tranqulity based on conditions and needs support, "issues left to deal with that can disturb mind")

2) The next state the mind is firmly on the Ox, not shaken. Imperturable. nirbija samadhi translates as (tranquility without seed, i.e. tranquliity not based upon conditions, conditions have been transcended, "nothing left to mess with")

Missed the other state of mind.?


Just my spin 

Psi

 Wanted to add, after some thought, that in the ten fetter model:

Anagami still has conceit, comparing and contrasting with others and surroundings,still fettered by conceit

With the Arahant , Conceit is dropped, would abide in awareness unfettered again by conceit

To me, this lines up with what Shinzen said in video,
thereby the Anagami would have access to unfettered awareness but needs support system or "seed" ,and the Arahant would have unfettered awareness independent of support system or "no-seed"Psi

Not an arahat, but "Emptiness in Real Time" can start showing up in late third path, though it isn't permanent. 

Comparing the four-path Theravadin model to other schools of thought is always problematic, because we are talking about fairly arbitrary labels and no one really knows what these people are talking about. Particularly when we start getting into traditions outside of Buddhism.

What we really need is someone to attain the Divine Eye and see what is going on under the hood. The practice instructions are in the Vishudimagga... ;)

"Emptiness in real time' happened for me upon waking in the middle of the night to go pee the evening of third path, and was there without effort to induce the following day as well.

The baseless speculation in this thread isn't much help to anyone. I suppose I set a bad example by putting my similarly baseless guesses in the OP. I ought to have explicitly put "Can any arahats chime in on this?" But, it seems very few come 'round these parts

These explain the third description in-depth and are all around worth watching
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M28c-8VfVjQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbKlB-0eORs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTPWNtGgp6A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hsgj-5yCLGU

Setting an example of baseless speculation/guess, to use your words, you continue to make an unfounded guess about who comes "'round these parts". What can you say on sound bases about who comes 'round these parts and are you done speculating?

Hi, by that I meant "posts here often". I could have been more explicit admittedly. I can say on sound bases how things seem to me and little else. I'm currently done speculating on both these topics, yes. No guarantees otherwise

Oh, so then you do know soundly, "more explicit[ly]" there are "arhats" and the frequency of their posting such that you can assert they do/do not post here often?


On what are you spending your mental energy-sincerity? Do you understand causality (dependent origination) in your body, speech, and especially thoughts, the influence (aka power) of a/your use of mind*? 


You may appreciate this still: Verse 1: All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as their chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with an evil mind, 'dukkha' 3 follows him just as the wheel follows the hoofprint of the ox that draws the cart.

I'm not sure I'm seeing your point here. I'll respond with all the qualifications I assumed were obvious.
This question puzzles me. It seems you're using my quote as an adverb when it was originally an adjective. Anyway, assuming I'm reading this correctly.. No, I didn't use the word 'know'. But, yes some people that post here are self-declared 'arhats' according to whatever definition they use. I don't see those people post here often anymore. I don't know whether there are closet-'arhats' around. I don't know whether every self-declared 'arhat' fits my (currently) preferred definition. I don't know if there are people who don't call themselves 'arhats', but fit my (currently) preferred definition. I suppose to be extra explicit I could have said "There aren't many people that I'm aware of who call themselves 'arhat' that I believe are credible (based on my limited experience) that post often 'round these parts." but that doesn't have the same ring to it.

Now I'm not sure if you mean "energy -- sincerely?" or "energy-sincerity" as some compound phrase I'm not familiar with. Assuming the first, I don't spend much mental energy on this thread or its content. I spend a lot of mental energy on integrating disparate systems of thought, meditating, and doing work.

I have some understanding of causality, yes. I don't know if I understand the specific aspect of it you had in mind. So, could you also make it clear what you're spending your mental energy on?

Hey Droll

A genuine question here: what is your preferred definition of Arhat? Do you mean pragmatic technical 4th path (either Ingram or Folk claimants - there are many of these)?.  Do you mean full fetter model (I don't know of any of these)?.  Something in between?

And Katy, yes, you are being oblique.  Which is not a bad thing, but I didn’t get it.

(Bold emphasis added.)

You have three different statements above (items (1)-(3)), each stating something different with the third being deemed "ultra explicit", when each are a different comment. Your third statement is specific and can be validitated from a non-Droll Dedekind person. Previously, what you wrote convey an actuality, which actuality could not be validated by anyone except Droll Dedekind and/or faith in Droll Dedekind or dismissal/ignoring him (not validating, just ignoring).

I chose to reply to your posts (spend mental and physical energy on this) due to our peer participation in the DhO and this Buddhist-oriented thread. From my vantage, when I express something poorly--- such as, let's say I would assert "But, it seems very few nice people come 'round these parts"--- then I am willing to develop the mind as something that should perpetuate carelessness and/or baselessness. 

Having studied and practiced a little meditation and Buddhist "science of mind", if you will, this careless and/or baseless usage is to me taking an influential tool ("mind is the forerunner"), which tool in said science of mind can be the foundation for a reliable equanimity and tranquility in being alive despite unreliable and changing conditions which could otherwise cause a lot of suffering without a reliable mind. Why would I use the mind in this way if I know causality, if I know that one thing gives rise to another and another and another and the things resemble their original thing. Well, I would be doing this for any number of gratifying motivations, including perhaps laziness or to take a dig or to be provokative. In any event, I will have willfully exposed myself to the related chain of the action's causality: the plant resembles the seed and so too careless/baseless mental effluent from some sort of gratifying-motivation soil produces more carelessness/baselessness. 

So far, in this science of mind I have not read or heard that it is helpful towards developing reliable tranquiliy of mind to cultivate baselessness and/or carelessness of thought and speech.

In looking for/awaiting a "Pragmatic Masters Conference", as you call it, you may be delaying your own attention-to-detail work. People can talk about swimming all day long, but a person actually learns to swim for themselves and then all those videos on "Master swimming" actually make better sense or are not needed; one is actually developing themselves and not hunting outside themselves. 


I am also careless, sometimes in a apparently different ways that your posts above and sometimes in apparently similar ways, but as we seem to be DhO-peers and practitioners in meditation it is worth my mental energy to participate with you in your public DhO thread about how you are using speech and about the mind forerunning your speech.


I do often make compound nouns, like "sincerity-effort" or "energy-sincerity", when to me neither stand-alone noun is exactly what I'm trying to convey. If you ever speak to someone whose first language is not English, you may encounter this English variation again and then you may ask if it's just as easy to understand coming from a native English speaker. Indeed, it seems languages change all the time. One can Google that...


G'night, 
Katy

carrot top, I prefer the one Daniel gives here. I don't necessarily believe it's the Ultimate Bestest Enlightenment Ever, just a high standard that makes sense to me right now.


Katy, I'm not the first one to be careless on the DhO. I trust you recognize this. Then, why am I being targeted?
I posted
I don't see 1), 2), 3) as different statements, just a gradual unpacking of what I assumed was obvious.

Aren't the consequences of karma one of the 'Four Imponderables'? I'm no Buddhist, but it seems like I could take all the time I save by not elaborating points I see as obvious and go volunteer at soup kitchens, help the poor, fuel my own enlightenment, generare positive thoughts, etc. I'll assume also that the latter outweighs any destruction caused by my evil ambiguity.
The swimming example belies the subtleties involved in meditation. Many subtle subjects hold conferences to clarify points or to host discussions between experts. Are mathematicians, scientists, politicians, etc therefore necessarily not actually doing mathematics, science, politics, etc? Are they therefore necessarily just looking for outside authorities? The same could be said of many difficult hobbies that involve action.

I'm interested in a Pragmatic Masters Conference on an intellectual and practical level, I should add. If some sort of consensus or at least a detailed survey of masters was taken, it could hasten the scientific study of meditation, which interests me intellectually and could help me practically.

Hopefully,  not trying to be baseless and speculative, but in the initial Shinzen link you sent out, Shinzen does seem to be describing an ongoing state of awareness that is not just within meditation.  To me it seems, what he is describing then is the result of practice and not the practice itself.  And I will go out on a limb and say what he describes does line up with my personal experience, so , unless I am delusional, what I am conveying would neither be baseless nor specluative, perhaps if someone has opened their "third eye" they could look under my mental hood, perhaps they would only find silence , which would lead one to believe their "third eye" was inoperative, or perhaps they would find some everyday thinking, or a master delusionist behind the curtain, which leads us back to groundless speculation, funny huh?

Anyway I am only on the third video of the second set of links  you sent out, Shinzen does have nice a way of weaving together different paths and showing the usual "more similarities than differences" aspects of various traditions, which is not suprising, as the common denominator in all traditions is : the mind.

Questions to the many selves in the world:

So, what is it everyone?  This post seems to bring out the ongoing fixation upon meditation, what about the rest of the day?, what about practice during daily living? This is what Shinzen is mostly talking about... Non-Dual Awareness. How do you get to that mode of awareness?, and once there, practice to stay there? Do you believe one can stay there without getting bounced out?  If one can get there for a little bit, by reason, shouldn't one be able to grow this type of awareness, through training, to become ever more stable and balanced, equanimous?  Did you ever think your meditation practice should or would blend over into the rest of your day? And if you didn't, why not? Or why don't you?

As an acorn grows into a mighty oak, sabija grows into nirbija.  So too does the seed of doubt grow of its own accord, as mind is the forerunner.

Thanks again for the links, it has been long since listening to Shinzen, he has shown me alot through his recordings, very wise.

I apologize in advance, if any of this sounds harsh, for it may or may not to different readers.  But, still, in truth, my mind is sometimes harsh, I am trying to work on that, currently to me the world is harsh and impersonal, absurdly so. But, to all on DHO, I would consider a friend, I always have, even if not considered otherwise.

Blessings to all,
Open Hearts,
Open Minds

Psi

Well, you can "trust" I recognize this or can can see that I did write this for myself:
Oh, targeted are you? Where I live this is hunter and sportsman speak. Respectfully, you're not being targeted/hunted, Droll  (unless this is an opinion you love to hold). You made a a public post inviting comments in your search for some meditational tool and in one post you asserted 

a) "'Can any arahats chime in on this?' But, it seems very few come 'round these parts" without qualification or basis (except that you wrote this for "the ring of it", which is a subjectively valid basis) ; then you wrote

b) "Hi, by that I meant "posts here often". I could have been more explicit admittedly. I can say on sound bases how things seem to me and little else. I'm currently done speculating on both these topics, yes. No guarantees otherwise" and you did no supply any validation for your clarified meaning that arhats don't post here often. Again, no basis. 

c)I suppose to be extra explicit I could have said "There aren't many people that I'm aware of who call themselves 'arhat' that I believe are credible (based on my limited experience) that post often 'round these parts." but that doesn't have the same ring to it. And in this third point you restarted yourself clearly as being valid to yourself; that this is just a feeling and that out the outset you prefer to write things for the "ring to it".


So to Psi's point about what is happening in daily life, I am engaging with you (or as you feel "targeted" because the mind is an important tool in Buddhist "science of mind". It is said to be the forerunner. There is limited value to sitting on the cushion or walking around in a dazed-like open awareness effort if one is not also studying "What am I thinking, saying and actually doing right now?" 

You hold a subjective view that there aren't many people who...xyz. It is needless bagage, except that you enjoy stating things for "the ring to it". 

So speaking idly, and I certainly do too, and/or baselessly speculating (as you identified yourself doing earlier in your thread) really lacks clear understanding of cause-and-effect. So while a person may watch lots and lots of YouTubery it is one's own mind that is worth looking at over and over and over again and considering how am I actually thinking and living? What do I put in motion. 

In this case, you excused yourself for speculating and then you, in the same paragraph, returned to speculating. So  in the seven factors of "freedom", mindfulness and investigation are the first two factors one must support. 

Something worth being mindful of is you already have dualism active in your head whilst you watch Steve Young videos and you enable baseless speculation (the kind you recognised for yourself in this thread and the kind pointed out to you).

What is the dualism of speculation: speculative comments-- when not used for forming theories to test-- present "me" and "baseless thinking" --aka: subjectively opining--- versus "thinking in line with actuality, what is". There is always dualism when there is "me" and  "baseless speculation"-- because such idle, baseless speculation is a (conceited) decision to view the world one way (hold the world around you in a regard you prefer) and therefore with mind one has already decided, for example "The DhO world is like this: 'very few come 'round these parts So you are dualistly holding an opinion -- and I suggest it is a self-gratifying opinion -- that you will not validate outside of your subjectivity (so your speculation is a opinion) and doing this cannot be in the world actually un-separately.

Treasuring one's baseless speculation ("for the ring of it" as you note) one can be in the world in a glossed dissociation, but not non-dual. One's need to hold an opinion outside of actuality (mindfulness, investigation...) is the cause for separation. 

This is also aligning the mind to knowing causality, the skill of knowing causality, the dangers of ignoring causality and the immense influence mind has as forerunner.

In this point, best wishes. It will be useful if you train your mind scientifically so that when you join your conference you are prepared to support this sort of dialog. Do you want opining and baseless speculation as part of your conference or do you want dialog that has some external validation (testing and objective metrics) and candor about what cannot be known absolutely?

Otherwise you could go to poetry readings and other places where the intention of speech may be about, as you  say, the ring of it.

Okay, to you I "am being oblique". To me, not so. 

My point is this: meditational practices in Buddhist traditions are sometimes called "science of mind" and that is how I take up the practice.
 
So one reads about "enlightenment" and "freedom" and "peace" and "calm" and skillfullness and happiness and non-dualness... all manner of attributes purportedly developed through meditation: studying the mind and cultivating its skillful usage, where skillful is knowledge of cause-and-effect (and this knowledge will bring in automatically brahmaviharas, or at least one of them, that of equanimity) and an end to "dukkha".

So people come to the practice and want some outcome from the practice: non-dual mind, happiness, calm, etc...

This can be compared to one getting a nice studio apartment during a storm: "Oh! I got a studio apartment during a storm (the decision to meditate, the finding of a teacher or teachings...)"...

...and then a little time or a lot of time passes and people find themselves on the TV a lot (e.g., YouTube), "Oh, look at their studio apartment: it's got non-dualism. How do I get that kind of apartment?"

Then the video finishes and the person is back in their studio apartment (their mind, their meditation, their awareness) and, oh, it seems dull.

So they try to drive up dialog with their neighbors in the apartment (fellow meditators), "Did you see that show in the non-dual apartment? Whoo!" And then that, too-- that effort to drive up excitement about someone else's practice, is unreliable, is not a reliable source of pleasure, happiness, non-dual-- that which they want from meditation.

So the person may mewl, "I don't seem to have any accomplished neighbors in these parts...I need to be at a conference of masters clearly." Now, not only is the apartment (their mind, their practice) not good enough, but the neighborhood is not quality.

(And they could be in an apartment building of so-called masters but unable to know it because they can't recognize what masters do as they themselves have diverted from practice into watching and yearning for other outcomes-- the heart of dualism =).

So now the person who got an studio apartment in a storm (was turned on the process of mental study and mental cultivation) has taken to turning on the apartment's TV-- that's okay and natural; then the TV show ends (and TV/YouTube show is therefore ultiamtely an unreliable source of the attributes one sought in starting meditation); so the person goes to their neighbors-- that's natural, too, often helpful, but then the person starts baseless deeming their neighbors/neighborhood, like "These people too are mostly an unaccomplished bunch; there aren't accomplished neighbors here so much", so the person sulks and complains in their apartment (mind).

A person, a neighbor, walks by and says,
"Your apartment is getting messy. Your thoughts are becoming baseless and speculative.
"You acknowledge this and yet you insist on doing it still.
"How can you expect results for work you are not doing?
"And how can you complain about getting the results of what you are doing?
"Dust and mess arrives to one who watches a lot ot TV and doesn't re-group and focus on their own apartment (mind) while it is storming and you have to opportunity to do this work."

=] So "Droll Dedekind" feels targeted by a person who walks by his/her post and who feel she understands and urges Droll Dedekind to re-consider his/her practice and to understand causality and the power (influence) of mind.


---edits for clarity---

Hello Katy,

Please forgive me if I as well also make a careless mistake. I think I get what you're saying, you read Droll's comment that not many arahats come around these parts and were offended. You realized that such a comment is baseless and you wish for Droll to be more generous in his assumptions about other's attainments.

I feel that you can be more direct about the fact that you are offended as you are currently being very oblique. For example you could re-affirm that there are many qualified practitioners here who could answer Droll's question (categorically or analytically) or you could reprimand him.

I do get what you're saying, the comment was uncalled for.

As for the thread, I also do not understand how much of it will affect practice, there seems to be quite a bit of inability to deal with ambiguity. For example the linking of disparate categories of objects: sabija and whatever samadhi to jhanas.

The second linking of sabija and whatever samadhi to hard attainments.

Where hard attainments are stages of distinction, and sabija and whatever are mere themes of concentration, there is no linking of these two disaparate categories, apples and oranges.

Moreover the categories of sabija and whatever samadhi are derived from intuition, whereas the stages of jhana were derived from the Buddha's wisdom. So I do not understand how an intuitive sequence of deepening concentration (derived by a tirthika) could even match the actual reality of jhana, which is also impermanent and unstable. In other words the Buddha describes a reality, whereas a tirthika describes an intuitively-derived reality.

They are not the same.

Whatever theme you take up, your concentration should always be supported by the seven factors; right view...

James out.

A good example for what I'm saying about the sabija and whatever thing is the following:

Say a person desires to go into the heart of a jungle, but has not knowledge of the territory. He would merely say something like:

"When you go into the jungle, at first you're outside, but as the journey progresses, you get deeper. As the journey further progresses you get even deeper. And finally when the journey comes to fruition, you're really deep."

It seems almost self-explanatory.

The Buddha's wisdom dictates a reality, however:

"Good man take this path, on coming to this landmark you are so far in, these are the signs. Have faith, keep going. On coming to this landmark you are so far in..."

Whereas the Buddha describes an actual, practical reality. The tirthika merely derives his progression into the jungle via what seems reasonable.

The Buddha experienced it, and thus knows.

I surmise that if I respond point-by-point I'll be further misinterpreted for the purpose of justifying this lecture. Here's another approach.

It seems that 'baseless speculation' and 'few arhats around these parts' are being interpreted as value judgments by me. From my POV, there was little value judgment or criticism involved. If I remember someone's recent post about being pre-SE, or about attaining SE, or how to get access concentration, etc then I consider it extremely likely they're not an arhat. If I remember someone's post from a couple years ago about seeing emptiness in realtime, nirodha, or about how they attained arhatship, I consider it extremely likely they're an arhat.

Read the homepage lately?I'm reading a salient passage by Paul Watzlawick
For this reason, I'm jumping ship on this thread

HI J J 
"Please forgive me if I as well also make a careless mistake. I think I get what you're saying, you read Droll's comment that not many arahats come around these parts and were offended. You realized that such a comment is baseless and you wish for Droll to be more generous in his assumptions about other's attainments.

I feel that you can be more direct about the fact that you are offended as you are currently being very oblique..."

The point made is that Droll is making basely assumtions with his mind repeatedly, stating that he should not make those baseless speciulations, then layering on more speculation, and then expressing that he wants as Masters Class of attainees to teach him and develop the science of meditation.

"As for the thread, I also do not understand how much of it will affect practice..."

It relates to causality. A person can study the jhanas till the cows come home but not understand dependent origination. There are consequences to every action. So where he's not able to stop speculating and he is seeking a masterful level of training and a scientific, non-speculative basis, speculative thought becomes a needless risk.


Since the apartment analogy was oblique to you, consider this analogy: on building a house, the floor must be square.

If a person checks the diagnols of the foundation and says, "Ah, it's just one half difference between the diagnols. That's good enough for me. I don't like baseless measurements, but I'll make another one."

Now along comes a person who's built just one foundation, is not a master-- but has seen how a master builder builds a foundation now, and then points out to the new-builder, "Be careful of those unequal diagonals showing your foundation is not square; they will have consequences all throughout your building."

Now the new-building person takes umbrage, feels "targeted", feels like they're in a game--- basically they start exhibiting two of three motions which a stressed brainstem takes fight (argue/oppose, can't engage, loss of their outset curiosity which is housed in the actual brain not the brainstem), flee (leave, can't engage, loss of...), anywho... they build as they like, they bemoan a lack of certain experienced people apparently replying to them and they speak of having a master builder's conference. 

Wow. C'est Drôle.


All the while that unsquare foundation will bear difficult fruit all the way to the top of the building. A master builder could wonder, "Why didn't you spend four hours truing the foundation?" That is so basic and necessary a topic I suspect it would not be part of a master builder's conference.

So cause-and-effect is very important: consequences do result and one can look back and see, "Oh, I basically caused all of that." Hence there is a lot of emphasis in buddhist science of mind around developing sound thought, sound speech and sound action; and understanding causality; and understanding that mind is forerunner, is very influential in making and dealing with 'events.
'
But I'm not offended if a person wants to be careless in their construction and effluents of mind... so be it. It's their "roof" in conditions whether it's reliable or not.