Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by cappuccino »

xabir wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 4:26 pm If someone points out to a deluded child that there isn't a Santa Claus, that is having view of Santa Claus?
The view is… Santa is imaginary
xabir
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 8:59 am

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by xabir »

cappuccino wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 4:29 pm
xabir wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 4:26 pm If someone points out to a deluded child that there isn't a Santa Claus, that is having view of Santa Claus?
The view is… Santa is imaginary
When it comes to the three dharma seals, there is a difference between direct realization and intellectual view.

As my mentor John Tan said recently:

"I would say this is not an issue peculiar to "essencelessness". For any "X" there is always a corresponding "-X" being implied when expressed in language. This is due to the "poverty" or our thinking mechanism and language, not the "moon" that essencelessness" is pointing. Similarly we see the same issue issue surfacing in "freedom from all elaborations/conceptualities" as they are equally dependent on "elaborations and conceptualities" for it's valid functioning despite that the actual message is to convey a freedom that involve no conceptual construct. Same applies to "no-self", it is dependent on the notion of "self". So as long as the essence of message is transmitted, then the raft must also be dropped."

I wrote years ago:

"The stages are like a raft, it’s for the purpose of crossing over, it’s for the purpose of giving up our delusions and clinging, rather than for clinging on as some sort of dogma. It is a skillful means to guide seekers to realise their nature of mind and to point out the pitfalls and blindspots. Once realized, all the insights are actualized moment to moment and one no longer thinks about stages, and neither will one hold onto an ideation of having an attainment nor an attainer, nor somewhere else to get to. The whole luminous field of display is simply zero-dimensional suchness, empty and non-arisen. In other words, once the raft or ladder has served its purpose, it is left aside rather than carried up the shore. As Thusness wrote in 2010, "In actuality, there is no ladder or no 'no self' whatsoever. Just this breath, this passing scent, this arising sound. No expression can be clearer then this/these obviousness. Plain and Simple!" But what Thusness said here is referring to the post-anatta-realization actualization. It is easy induce a state of no-mind experience -- for example there are many stories about Zen masters giving a completely unexpected blow, a shout, a pinch on your nose out of a sudden, and in that moment of pain and shock, all sense of self and indeed all concepts are completely forgotten and only the vivid pain remains. This can induce what we call an experience of no-mind (a peak experience of no-self/no-subject) but should not be mistaken as the realization of anatta. However, anatta realization is what makes no-mind into an effortless natural state. Most of those teachers who have access to nondual experience that I’ve seen only express a state of no-mind but not the realization of anatta. As mentioned earlier, this topic is discussed further in No Mind and Anatta, Focusing on Insight and the fourth point of Realization and Experience and Non-Dual Experience from Different Perspectives. Hence, until the 7 phases are realized and actualized, the map is still very useful."



I wrote days ago:

http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2022/ ... lower.html


Soh Wei Yu
Conceptual view is like you are able to explain to someone that the cow in the picture puzzle is located roughly at what location and what it should look like based on what someone else described, but you still cannot see it.
Experiential realization is like it is more obvious than obvious, clearer than day the cow is there when you look at the picture. Even if you may not yet have thought up the perfect way to express it, you just know, you see it with your own two eyes.


Reply
48m
Edited


Soh Wei Yu
View when directly realized is experienced directly, it becomes your experience in a direct manner.
View when understood intellectually does not have a paradigm and perceptual shifting effect.
So the understanding of three dharma seals goes through three stages according to Buddha -- first you accept it by faith, then you ponder it with a modicum of discernment (intellectual analysis), then you directly realize it. The third one is stream entry, or in Mahayana the stream entry is first bhumi. I would personally add that in my view, those of greatest capacity skip straight to third (like Bahiya et al), those of medium capacity skip to second then progress into third (the smart and analytical type), while those of lower capacity starts from the first step then progress into second and then third. I'm more of the lower capacity type -- I took 4 years after I first had faith and a modicum of conceptual discernment in the three dharma seals as explained to me by John Tan, before I could have a direct realization of anatta. Even to reach the first step took me about a year or two of talking with John Tan, before that my understanding of anatta and three dharma seals was still blurry.
Cakkhu Sutta (SN 25:1)
Near Sāvatthī. “Monks, the eye is inconstant, changeable, alterable. The ear… The nose… The tongue… The body… The mind is inconstant, changeable, alterable.
“One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way is called a faith-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry ghosts. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry.
“One who, after pondering with a modicum of discernment, has accepted that these phenomena are this way is called a Dhamma-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry ghosts. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry.
“One who knows and sees that these phenomena are this way is called a stream-enterer, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening.”

Reply
44m
Edited


Soh Wei Yu
<--- and then people may ask, oh Buddha said as long as you accept phenomena are impermanent, you are bound for stream entry? Really meh? Don't everyone accept everything is impermanent? Everyone will die what that's obvious.
That's not what faith in impermanence means. It means you can understand at least intellectually and have faith that everything, even mind, consciousness, arises and passes according to conditions and is not a knower, a subject, an unchanging soul, and so on. Meaning the anatta understanding understood conceptually and you have faith in that.
For me, I am pretty sure I became a faith follower or dharma follower destined to stream entry in the year 2006. I still proceeded into I AM phase in 2010 but because I am a 'faith follower' and then perhaps a 'dhamma follower', I then proceeded into direct realization of anatta in 8 months from I AM.
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by cappuccino »

xabir wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 5:08 pm oh Buddha said as long as you accept phenomena are impermanent
Going forth is hard;
houses are hard places to live;
the Dhamma is deep;
wealth, hard to obtain;
it's hard to keep going
with whatever we get:
so it's right that we ponder
continually
continual
inconstancy
.



Single Verses: (selected passages)
xabir
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 8:59 am

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by xabir »

cappuccino wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 5:17 pm
xabir wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 5:08 pm oh Buddha said as long as you accept phenomena are impermanent
Going forth is hard;
houses are hard places to live;
the Dhamma is deep;
wealth, hard to obtain;
it's hard to keep going
with whatever we get:
so it's right that we ponder
continually
continual
inconstancy
.



Single Verses: (selected passages)
Yes it is important to ponder inconstancy.

The problem is that I think you have a subtle essence view, some 'self' that is eternal but changing and morphing into different forms. That is still a subtle form of eternalism. It is not the correct view of inconstancy that is in line with anatman and lack of substance, selfhood and essence taught in the suttas.

This is why I quoted to you the passage by Walpola Rahula earlier because it breaks such substance view (a self that morphs and changes into varying form):

http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2021/ ... ahula.html

Excerpt:

"It must be repeated here that according to Buddhist philosophy there is no permanent, unchanging spirit which can be considered ‘Self’, or ‘Soul’, or ‘Ego’, as opposed to matter, and that consciousness (viññāṇa) should not be taken as ‘spirit’ in opposition to matter. This point has to be particularly emphasized, because a wrong notion that consciousness is a sort of Self or Soul that continues as a permanent substance through life, has persisted from the earliest time to the present day.
One of the Buddha’s own disciples, Sāti by name, held that the Master taught: ‘It is the same consciousness that transmigrates and wanders about.’ The Buddha asked him what he meant by ‘consciousness’. Sāti reply is classical: ‘It is that which expresses, which feels, which experiences the results of good and bad deeds here and there’.

‘To whomever, you stupid one’, remonstrated the Master, ‘have you heard me expounding the doctrines in this manner? Haven’t I in many ways explained consciousness as arising out of conditions: that there is no arising of consciousness without conditions’. Then the Buddha went on to explain consciousness in detail: ‘Consciousness is named according to whatever condition through which it arises: on account of the eye and visible forms arises a consciousness, and it is called visual consciousness; on account of the ear and sounds arises a consciousness, and it is called auditory consciousness; on account of the nose and odours arises consciousness, and it is called olfactory consciousness; on account of the tongue and tastes arises a consciousness, and it is called gustatory consciousness; on account of the body and tangible objects arises a consciousness, and it is called tactile consciousness; on account of the mind and mind-objects (ideas and thoughts) arises a consciousness, and it is called mental consciousness.’
Then the Buddha explained it further by an illustration: A fire is named according to the material on account of which it burns. A fire may burn on account of wood, add it is called wood-fire. It may burn on account of straw, and then it is called straw-fire. So consciousness is named account to the condition through which it arises.[57]

Dwelling on this point, Buddhaghosa, the great commentator, explains: ‘… a fire that burns on account of wood burns only when there is a supply, but dies down in that very place when it (the supply) is no longer there, because then the condition has changed, but (the fire) does not cross over to splinters, etc., and become a splinter-fire and so on; even so the consciousness that arises on account of the eye and visible forms arises in that gate of sense organ (i.e., in the eye), only when there is the condition of the eye, visible forms, light and attention, but ceases then and there when it (the condition) is no more there, because then the condition has changed, but (the consciousness) does not cross over to the ear, etc., and become auditory consciousness and so on…’[58]

The Buddha declared in unequivocal terms that consciousness depends on matter, sensation, perception and mental formations and that it cannot exist independently of them. He says:

‘Consciousness may exist having matter as its means (rūpupāyaṃ), matter as its object (rūpārammaṇaṃ), matter as its support (rūpa-patiṭṭham), and seeking delight it may grow, increase and develop; or consciousness may exist having sensation as its means… or perception as its means… or mental formations as its means, mental formations as its objects, mental formations as its support, and seeking delight it may grow, increase and develop.

‘Were a man to say: I shall show the coming, the going, the passing away, the arising, the growth, the increase or the development of consciousness apart from matter, sensation, perception and mental formations, he would be speaking of something that does not exist.’[59]

Very briefly these are the five Aggregates. What we call a ‘being’, or an ‘individual’, or, ‘I’, is only a convenient name or a label given to the combination of these five groups. They are all impermanent, all constantly changing. ‘Whatever is impermanent is dukkha’ (Yad aniccaṃ tam dukkhaṃ). This is the true meaning of the Buddha’s words: ‘In brief the five Aggregates of Attachment are dukkha’. They are not the same for two consecutive moments. Here A is not equal to A. They are in a flux of momentary arising and disappearing.

‘O Brāhmaṇa, it is just like a mountain river, flowing far and swift, taking everything along with it; there is no moment, no instant, no second when it stops flowing, but it goes on flowing and continuing. So Brāhmaṇa, is human life, like a mountain river.’[60] As the Buddha told Raṭṭhapāla: ‘The world is in continuous flux and is impermanent.’

One thing disappears, conditioning the appearance of the next in a series of cause and effect. There is no unchanging substance in them. There is nothing behind them that can be called a permanent Self (Ātman), individuality, or anything that can in reality be called ‘I’. Every one will agree that neither matter, nor sensation, nor perception, nor any one of those mental activities, nor consciousness can really be called ‘I’.[61] But when these five physical and mental aggregates which are interdependent are working together in combination as a physio-psychological machine,[62] we get the idea of ‘I’. But this is only a false idea, a mental formation, which is nothing but one of those 52 mental formations of the fourth Aggregate which we have just discussed, namely, it is the idea of self (sakkāya-diṭṭhi).
These five Aggregate together, which we popularly call a ‘being’ are dukkha itself (saṃkhāra-dukkha). There is no other ‘being’ or ‘I’, standing behind these five aggregates, who experiences dukkha. As Buddhaghosa says:

‘Mere suffering exists, but no sufferer is found;
The deeds are, but no doer is found.’[63]

There is no unmoving mover behind the movement. It is only movement. It is not correct to say that life is moving, but life is movement itself. Life and movement are not two different things. In other words, there is no thinker behind the thought. Thought itself is the thinker. If you remove the thought, there is no thinker to be found. Here we cannot fail to notice how this Buddhist view is diametrically opposed to the Cartesian cogito ergo sum: ‘I think, therefore I am.’ "
xabir
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 8:59 am

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by xabir »

xabir wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 6:25 pm The problem is that I think you have a subtle essence view, some 'self' that is eternal but changing and morphing into different forms. That is still a subtle form of eternalism. It is not the correct view of inconstancy that is in line with anatman and lack of substance, selfhood and essence taught in the suttas.
And if there is no such self/Self, how can rebirth be explained?

Like a fire lighting up another fire, the fire of one candle is neither the same nor different from the fire of the next candle, it is not the transference of a self or essence nor is there a self that 'morphs' into another fire (form):

"Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith replied:

One, whoever told you rig pa is not part of the five aggregates? Rig pa is knowledge of your own state. In its impure form one's own state manifests as the five aggregates; in its pure form, it manifests as the five buddha families.

Nagārjuna resolves this issue through using the eight examples. There is no substantial transmission, but there is serial continuity, like lighting a fire from another fire, impressing a seal on a document and so on. See his verses on dependent origination:

All migrating beings are causes and results.
but here there are no sentient beings at all;
just empty phenomena entirely produced
from phenomena that are only empty,
phenomena without a self and what belongs to a self,
[like] utterances, lamps, mirrors, seals,
lenses, seeds, sourness and echoes.
Although the aggregates are serially connected,
the wise are understand that nothing transfers.
Also, the one who imputes annihilation
upon extremely subtle existents,
is not wise,
and will not see the meaning of ‘arising from conditions’.”"


In the //Milindapanha// the King asks Nagasena:


"What is it, Venerable Sir, that will be reborn?"

"A psycho-physical combination (//nama-rupa//), O King."

"But how, Venerable Sir? Is it the same psycho-physical

combination as this present one?"

"No, O King. But the present psycho-physical combination produces

kammically wholesome and unwholesome volitional activities, and

through such kamma a new psycho-physical combination will be

born."
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by cappuccino »

xabir wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 6:25 pm As Buddhaghosa says:

‘Mere suffering exists, but no sufferer is found;
The deeds are, but no doer is found.’
Buddha did not say this
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by cappuccino »

xabir wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 6:27 pm And if there is no such self/Self, how can rebirth be explained?
No self is still self view
xabir
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 8:59 am

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by xabir »

cappuccino wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 6:37 pm
xabir wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 6:27 pm And if there is no such self/Self, how can rebirth be explained?
No self is still self view
Tell Vajira and Buddha then.
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by cappuccino »

xabir wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 6:50 pm
cappuccino wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 6:37 pm No self is still self view
Tell Vajira and Buddha then.
Buddha knew
User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by Goofaholix »

cappuccino wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 6:37 pm No self is still self view
Its a view, it's not self view.

Imagine if you were a real estate agent and you wrote on your advertising "Sea view", when people came to your open homes they asked you "Where is the sea view?" and you replied "The sea view is... no sea view". You'd soon get a reputation for dishonesty.
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by cappuccino »

Goofaholix wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 10:03 pm "The sea view is... no sea view"
:coffee:
xabir
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 8:59 am

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by xabir »

cappuccino wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 7:53 pm
xabir wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 6:50 pm
cappuccino wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 6:37 pm No self is still self view
Tell Vajira and Buddha then.
Buddha knew
Thanissaro Bhikkhu's understanding on anatta is disorted, I would not trust his translation on this. Why? I explained in http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2011/ ... elf_1.html


This translation is better:

https://suttacentral.net/sn44.10/en/suj ... ript=latin

Linked Discourses 44.10
1. The Undeclared Points

With Ānanda

Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went up to the Buddha and exchanged greetings with him. When the greetings and polite conversation were over, he sat down to one side and said to the Buddha:

“Master Gotama, does the self survive?” But when he said this, the Buddha kept silent.

“Then does the self not survive?” But for a second time the Buddha kept silent. Then the wanderer Vacchagotta got up from his seat and left.

And then, not long after Vacchagotta had left, Venerable Ānanda said to the Buddha:

“Sir, why didn’t you answer Vacchagotta’s question?”

“Ānanda, when Vacchagotta asked me whether the self survives, if I had answered that ‘the self survives’ I would have been siding with the ascetics and brahmins who are eternalists. When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self does not survive, if I had answered that ‘the self does not survive’ I would have been siding with the ascetics and brahmins who are annihilationists.

When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self survives, if I had answered that ‘the self survives’ would that have helped give rise to the knowledge that all things are not-self?”

“No, sir.”

“When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self does not survive, if I had answered that ‘the self does not survive’, Vacchagotta—who is already confused—would have got even more confused, thinking: ‘It seems that the self that I once had no longer survives.’”
xabir
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 8:59 am

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by xabir »

cappuccino wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 6:35 pm
xabir wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 6:25 pm As Buddhaghosa says:

‘Mere suffering exists, but no sufferer is found;
The deeds are, but no doer is found.’
Buddha did not say this

"This humankind is attached to self-production
Or holds to production by another.
Those who have not understood this
Have not seen it as a dart.

But one who sees (this as it is),
Having drawn out the dart,
Does not think, 'I am the agent,'
Nor does she think, 'Another is the agent.'

This humankind is possessed by conceit,
Fettered by conceit, bound by conceit.
Speaking vindictively because of their views,
They do not go beyond samsara."

- Tatiyananatitthiya Sutta


“Great hermit, I ask you, the Kinsman of the Sun, about seclusion and the state of peace. How, having seen, is a mendicant quenched, not grasping anything in this world?”

“They would cut off the idea, ‘I am the thinker,” said the Buddha, “which is the root of all concepts of identity due to proliferation. Ever mindful, they would train to remove any internal cravings.

- https://suttacentral.net/snp4.14/en/suj ... ript=latin


"The contemplation of neti neti, or dissociation, the separation of the witness from the witnessed, Self from not-self and so on, is done to 'support' a position of a true Self. So with regards to the phenomenal world of everchanging things, I reject as not me and mine, for I am the ultimate Witness that is perceiving all these.

This is the false View no. 4 described in Sabbasava Sutta: "...As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress." - the commentary of 'Middle Length Discourses' book explains, "of these six views, the first two represent the simple antinomy of eternalism and annihilationism; the view that ‘no self exists for me’ is not the non-self doctrine of the Buddha, but the materialist view that identifies the individual with the body and thus holds that there is no personal continuity beyond death. The next three views may be understood to arise out of the philosophically more sophisticated observation that experience has a built-in reflexive structure that allows for self-consciousness, the capacity of the mind to become cognizant of itself, its contents, and the body with which it is inter-connected. Engaged in a search for his 'true nature,' the untaught ordinary person will identify self either with both aspects of the experience (view 3), or with the observer alone (view 4), or with the observed alone (view 5). The last view is a full-blown version of eternalism in which all reservations have been discarded.""

- Soh [xabir], http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2011/ ... elf_1.html



I also recommend this article: http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2014/ ... nd_14.html
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by cappuccino »

xabir wrote: Sun May 08, 2022 4:22 am This translation is better:
:shrug:
auto
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Question about "luminous mind" in Thai Forest Buddhism

Post by auto »

xabir wrote: Mon Apr 18, 2022 3:40 pm MCTB fourth path and Stage 5 is highly correlated. Also a decade ago, Daniel Ingram called John Tan / Thusness an 'arahant' in an interview (arahant under his MCTB definition which is controversial to say the least -- personally I consider that more like stream entry https://www.reddit.com/r/streamentry/co ... he_meaning )

Anatta must be a realisation. There is training and there is realisation.
Reading the reddit link, it seem you are against the idea that there is vacuum nothingness, blackout state. I don't know if you are a subtle channel in body meditation person, who would unlock the .. centers in body, head?
There is a place in the head where the senses converge, if to switch from seeing to hearing, there is impact felt in that center.. i don't know how micro or macro the cycle is but if to concentrate on it(by focusing on upon yourSelf, which makes the clear aspect more clear, obscure free) then there are couple of empirical experiences before the blackout happens tho and it happens once, which is enough for knowing the transience of the small self and then you first handedly know the True self.
The difference between true and transient self is that the transient self makes you possible to walk around, it is what appears in the body and you become conscious. The true self is behind the lines.
Blackout state is without the transient self, obscurities removed. And when you emerge from that state, in waking state, you will attain the fruition of that state by using regular thinking, based on the state(blackout) you experienced, perhaps couple days later, just reflecting on it and 'the thing what can be removed' is there to be removed and you remove it.
In short the fruition is attained on a regular state based on the state experienced. To shun the sceptics who seem lack details and make wrong allegations.

From the thread embedded,
https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=6950&sid=f7b4b44123ec3063fce3d846eeae8cdf wrote:Therefore, this contentless absorption cannot be equated with Buddhist nibbāna. Moreover, there are now a number of people who've had such experiences sanctioned by "insight meditation" teachers, and who have gone on to proclaim to the world that arahants can still experience lust and the other defiled mental phenomena. Taking all of this into account there is no good reason whatsoever to accept this interpretation of path and fruition cognitions. Void vacuum state cessations are not an adequate nor reliable indication of stream entry or any of the other paths and fruitions.
after the so called vacuum state, there come more things(after longer time of stagnation, meditation forgotten), the vacuum state realization gives actual access to the torso, belly. It just a first genuine or relevant opening where one feels done.
Post Reply