user254: I was thinking about this comment ...

Yes, my target is to abandon the three fetters completely. I can make sense of 'Doubt' and 'grasping at precepts+practices', getting rid of the identity view is the hardest.

... and wondering about what "completely" means. I thought this answer implies that identity view (abandoned at first stage) and conceit (abandoned at last stage) are somewhat on a continuum.
In the context of the four stages of enlightenment would it be right to say that, without identity-view, there's no such thing as an "enlightened person": instead there are maybe "enlightened moments" or moments of enlightenment?
I think that the Abhidhamma talks of "moments" (thought-moments), but that the suttas don't, so ... (knowing little of the Abhidhamma) I'm not sure whether this ("enlightened moments") is a good description.
There was also this ...

The definition of a path is: A virtuous mind conjoined with renunciation.

... which, put me in mind of different moments (places, instants) along a path.
If "enlightened moments" is a good metaphor e.g. for a sotapanna, I was wondering what the difference is between that and the "higher" stages of enlightenment -- and how to achieve or progress towards those, what (what practice and/or realization) is required?
Is it right to say that the difference is more a matter of degree than a matter of kind? Something like ...


A Once-returner (Sakadagami) has greatly attenuated:
  
  
Sensual desire
Ill will

A Non-returner (Anāgāmi) is free from:
  
  
Sensual desire
Ill will



... suggests this may be gradual, progressive?
Does the "dhamma-eye" being associated with stream entry imply that "the Dhamma" is already seen at that stage, and thence can only become more ever-present (more of the same)?
Is it 'only' that 'enlightened moments' become more continual, regular, longer, normal, without intervals?
If that's so then is that related to so-called "mindfulness" -- which I imagine might mean "the ability to (more or less continually) remember the dhamma" and also "guarding the senses (to avoid getting carried away)".
So, lastly, why does Right Concentration (samma samadhi) talk exclusively about jhanas? Are they, how and/or why are they, at what point or stage are they, relevant and necessary for any (further) progress?
Can you outline any connection between practising jhanas and living/acting/thinking in the world? Or are they unrelated, is a "seclusion" the only path and the ultimate goal (or at least through, i.e. up to and including, non-returner)?

user-1: Answering some questions from the post:

Does the "dhamma-eye" being associated with stream entry imply that
  "the Dhamma" is already seen at that stage, and thence can only become
  more ever-present (more of the same)?
Is it 'only' that 'enlightened moments' become more continual,
  regular, longer, normal, without intervals?

Since I believe that everyone of us has Buddha nature and ability to experience true nature of things I will stress that we get in touch with "Enlightenment" more often than we think. To me it is just a matter of gradually removing little obscurations of already perfect mind. All of us can see moments of clarity everyday, signs of Enlightenment as they spontaneously emerge even among non-practising people. So, ultimately there is nothing to attain and everything to attain at the same time. 
The excerpt may not be Pali canon or anything but highlights some points practically.
From Dudjom Lingpa's Vajra essence:

The enlightened awareness lineage of the buddhas is so designated
  because the minds of all the buddhas of the three times are of one
  taste in the absolute space of phenomena. The symbolic lineage of the
  vidyadharas is so designated because the symbolic signs of ultimate
  reality, the treasury of space, spontaneously emerge, without reliance
  upon the stages of spiritual training and practice.

Jhana or primordial consciousness (or put any another term here) in this context is nothing else than getting in touch again with suchness, that is "absolute space of phenomena". This space is nothing else than ultimate truth (and thus Nirvana) that Nagarjuna speaks of for that matter.
And so yes, the more refined we are, the more in touch with ultimate we would be on daily bases. By removing those little obscurations I mean of course Self and reification of it:

The primordial, originally pure nature of existence, which is great,
  intellect-transcending, ultimate reality, free of conceptual
  elaboration, is obscured by conceiving of a self and grasping at
  duality.

Furthermore, gradual releasing oneself from cyclical existence improves clarity of vision and experience:

When their previous karmic predispositions stir, they directly see the 
  truth of ultimate reality, and they emerge from the realm of wisdom.
  Pure appearances arise for them, but these are neither the mind nor
  mental processes. Rather, these appearances are by nature the play of
  the manifest space of awareness. They are not the eight kinds of
  consciousness, but they are not otherwise, so they are called by these
  names.

I hope it shed some interesting light on your questions, although it is not too technical.

user-1: Some thoughts from the Theravada perspective.

... and wondering about what "completely" means. I thought this answer implies that identity view (abandoned at first stage) and conceit (abandoned at last stage) are somewhat on a continuum.

Completely means that even the potential to 'fill in the fetter' has been abandoned, uprooted. For instance, in daily life you find yourself looking at things the usual way. Then you correct yourself intellectually: "Ah no, although I experience this the normal, mundane way, I know it to be wrong." Well, this is not it. Once a fetter is uprooted it wouldn't even be possible to experience things in a normal, humane, mundane way. The experience of seeing Nibbana for the first time, aka. becoming a stream enterer, is so strong that a definitive shift has taken place in the mind. It's just such a powerful experience.
It's like trying to walk with one leg. An you fall over. That experience is so clear and awakening that you will never, ever try to walk with one leg again. Not only the thought of it would no longer arise. And later on the impulse doesn't either.
That's what's meant with completely.
Also: there is a clear difference between identity view and conceit. Those are qualitative two different experiences. It is therefore correct that there are different times needed where those things get uprooted. As a sotapanna the experience of a sense of self still arises. But you will never, ever again think that this sense of self is correct. The conceit sits on a deeper level, so to speak. Steam entry get's only rid of higher level.

I think that the Abhidhamma talks of "moments" (thought-moments), but that the suttas don't, so ... (knowing little of the Abhidhamma) I'm not sure whether this ("enlightened moments") is a good description. ...
If "enlightened moments" is a good metaphor e.g. for a sotapanna, I was wondering what the difference is between that and the "higher" stages of enlightenment -- and how to achieve or progress towards those, what (what practice and/or realization) is required?

The difference between the Abhidhamma and the sutta's, as far as I understand it, is that the Abhidhamma explains everything from the viewpoint of ultimate realities. And the sutta makes use of conventions.
Since in ultimate reality there is only one moment of experience followed by the next moment and so on, it makes sense that the four stages are also only moments.
In meditation it is very possible to reach a stage where one will experience reality as moment to moment. In daily life you can't penetrate that deeply. Daily life experience will always be a stream of water, not the individual drop followed by the next drop. This is why we say that anatta hides in compactness (dukkha hides in change and anicca in continuity).
So, let's say that the road towards enlightenment has trees along the side. 4 large ones and a lot of little ones. You pass those trees. The little ones represent minor enlightening, awakening thoughts, ideas ("Oh, now I get it."). Those correct view, the way you look at things. And then you pass the first large tree and that experience is mind altering. That doesn't mean you're finished, on deeper levels there is still a lot to learn and understand. And you move along the path. And you go deeper and deeper. And with clearer understanding the mind is ready to let go of the next things (pass the next large tree). And so on.
Yes, it is a matter of degree of understanding. That's where the practice of vipassana comes in.

So, lastly, why does Right Concentration (samma samadhi) talk exclusively about jhanas? Are they, how and/or why are they, at what point or stage are they, relevant and necessary for any (further) progress?

There is a difference between the mundane, preliminary eightfold path and the noble, supramundane eightfold path. The latter leads to reaching nibbana.
(I don't say enlightenment by choice. Since we need to reach nibbana four times in order to be enlightened. Also 'reaching' is conventional speech, not what's really happening.)
The supramundane path is, again, a mind moment which needs momentary concentration focussed on ultimate reality. Jhana, the once we associate with samatha practice, use a concept. Concepts will never let you see anicca, dukkha, anatta the way it is needed for the mind to let go: moment by moment on a deep, deep level. Samatha jhana do not lead to understanding and the development of wisdom. The understanding needed for letting go, the wisdom that is not intellectual, but intuitive.
I myself don't practise the deeper samatha jhana at all (only metta). They are not necessary to see Nibbana or get enlightened. They can be supportive however. So, there are teachers who teach both: to first train in samatha jhana and later on in vipassana jhana.
Hope this helps a bit.

user13375: In the context of the four stages of enlightenment would it be right to say that, without identity-view, there's no such thing as an "enlightened person": instead there are maybe "enlightened moments" or moments of enlightenment?
The book Buddhism: One Teacher, Many Traditions does a very good job of explaining the differences between the Theravada and Sanskrit regarding the explanation of the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment. There are similarities between the two, but some major differences as well. The two share a common vernacular (stream-entry, once-returner, arahant, etc.), but have different definitions for these terms or different viewpoints of exactly what has been achieved. The Sanskrit tradition (aka what many call Mahayana) places the stream-enterers, once-returners, non-returners, and Arahants as having already achieved the Path of Seeing. This is the demarcation line between Arya beings and regular beings. What is an Arya being? Someone who has directly perceived emptiness in a completely unmistaken and non-conceptual way while in meditative equipoise. When someone has achieved this there can be no question coming from the side of the person who has achieved it. When you arrive at this ... you'll incontrovertibly know it. I can honestly say that I have not achieved this. What's more, my teacher tells me that very few modern human beings on earth have achieved this it is so rare. This is a big difference with the Theravada as I think stream-entry is generally thought to be fairly common among modern people.
In other words, I think from the Sanskrit/Mahayana view virtually no one on earth following the Sanskrit/Mahayana (let alone Theravada) have achieved stream entry. What's more virtually everyone who has is most likely well beyond believing that any of these categories are real inherent things. In other words, anyone who believes they have achieved stream entry without studying Nagarjuna's treatise and then meditating in single pointed concentration and directly seeing what Nagarjuna was on about is fooling themselves from Mahayana perspective.
That's why it is so hard to answer your question from Mahayana perspective as any of the four stages - from Mahayana perspective - is so far beyond what modern Theravada practitioners normally posit. You can't have achieved stream-entry from Mahayana perspective until you've gone quite beyond the coarse meaning of shunyata found in the Theravada tenet systems.
As for your question about "enlightened person" ... there is definitely enlightened persons. Eliminating the 'identity-view' does not negate or refute the existence of enlightened persons. Rather, it just puts 'enlightened person' in its proper place: a completely conventional existent without the slightest bit of inherent existence. Again, I'd say someone who has eliminated the 'identity-view' is someone quite beyond past the point of believing there is the slightest bit of inherent existence in any person. Why? Because they've seen the absence of this existence directly in a completely non-conceptual way. Nevertheless, an Arya being would not refute completely the existence of a "enlightened person."
If "enlightened moments" is a good metaphor e.g. for a sotapanna, I was wondering what the difference is between that and the "higher" stages of enlightenment -- and how to achieve or progress towards those, what (what practice and/or realization) is required?
I don't think this is a good metaphor for any person on the path past the point of seeing. An Arya being is completely convinced that inherent existence is absent in everything yet the appearance of inherent existence still appears to them. This is true of once-returners, non-returners as well. Only a Buddha has no perception of inherent existence at any time. The only time when inherent existence does not appear to a non-Buddha is when an Arya being is in meditative equipoise on emptiness. In this sense, I guess you could say that "enlightened moments" are those moments when an Arya being is in meditative equipoise on emptiness. For any non-Buddha (let alone non-Arya being) no moments of enlightenment occur.
Is it right to say that the difference is more a matter of degree than a matter of kind?
I think there must be a world of difference between the moments an Arya being is in meditative equipoise on emptiness and normal everyday moments when inherent existence appears to them. However, the former moments leave the Arya being absolutely sure that when inherent existence does appear in subsequent moments that they are not fooled by it in the slightest.
Does the "dhamma-eye" being associated with stream entry imply that "the Dhamma" is already seen at that stage, and thence can only become more ever-present (more of the same)?
The Path of Seeing is arrived at when we directly perceive emptiness so yes. It becomes ever more present as an Arya being continues to abide in meditative equipoise and the moments between them become ever more illusory like. The appearance of inherent existence shakes and shimmers and its illusory nature becomes ever more apparent. I think this is what it must be like, but mind you I'm not claiming to know!
So where does that leave us non-Arya beings on the path? Well, we are on the Path of Accumulation marked by:

Detailed knowledge and understanding of doctrine
A strong and heartfelt desire to be free from samsara with clear and lucid understanding of our predicament ie., dhukka/samsara and the 4NT's
For Bodhisattva's #2 is said to be marked by a genuine (as opposed to contrived) Bodhicitta which is #2, but solely concerned for others welfare

And/or we are on the Path of Preparation marked by:

A clear and lucid understanding of emptiness with the growing conviction that things lack inherent existence
This is a conceptual or inferential understanding and is not the same thing (although a necessary prerequisite) as having a direct perception of emptiness

Personally, I think non-Arya beings that have taken refuge in the Triple Gem are somewhere among the two with imperfect achievements of some/all of the above. That is, I don't think that it's an either/or between Accumulation and Preparation. We're mostly in the muddled middle.
I think I'll stop there. I know you were looking for practical advice, but I guess I've given the presentation of doctrine. Suffice to say that until you've achieved the direct perception of emptiness (an extremely rare and uncommon occurrence among modern humans on this earth) I think a lot of this is theoretical. What we have are the accounts of people who have achieved this like Nagarjuna.
Hope this helps!

254: <p>I was thinking about <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/28545/as-a-buddhist-how-shall-we-make-sense-of-the-notion-that-there-is-no-such-thing#comment47970_28548">this comment</a> ...</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Yes, my target is to abandon the three fetters completely. I can make sense of 'Doubt' and 'grasping at precepts+practices', getting rid of the identity view is the hardest.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>... and wondering about what "completely" means. I thought <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/9424/254">this answer</a> implies that identity view (abandoned at first stage) and conceit (abandoned at last stage) are somewhat on a continuum.</p>

<p>In the context of the four stages of enlightenment would it be right to say that, without identity-view, there's no such thing as an "enlightened person": instead there are maybe "enlightened moments" or moments of enlightenment?</p>

<p>I think that the Abhidhamma talks of "moments" (thought-moments), but that the suttas don't, so ... (knowing little of the Abhidhamma) I'm not sure whether this ("enlightened moments") is a good description.</p>

<p>There was <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/28506/254">also this</a> ...</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The definition of a path is: A virtuous mind conjoined with renunciation.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>... which, put me in mind of different moments (places, instants) along a path.</p>

<p>If "enlightened moments" <em>is</em> a good metaphor e.g. for a sotapanna, I was wondering what the difference is between that and the "higher" stages of enlightenment -- and how to achieve or progress towards those, what (what practice and/or realization) is required?</p>

<p>Is it right to say that the difference is more a matter of degree than a matter of kind? Something <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_enlightenment#Path_and_Fruit" rel="noreferrer">like</a> ...</p>

<blockquote>
  <ul>
  <li>A Once-returner (Sakadagami) has greatly attenuated:
  
  <ol start="4">
  <li>Sensual desire</li>
  <li>Ill will</li>
  </ol></li>
  <li>A Non-returner (Anāgāmi) is free from:
  
  <ol start="4">
  <li>Sensual desire</li>
  <li>Ill will</li>
  </ol></li>
  </ul>
</blockquote>

<p>... suggests this may be gradual, progressive?</p>

<p>Does the "dhamma-eye" being associated with stream entry imply that "the Dhamma" is already seen at that stage, and thence can only become more ever-present (more of the same)?</p>

<p>Is it 'only' that 'enlightened moments' become more continual, regular, longer, normal, without intervals?</p>

<p>If that's so then is that related to so-called "mindfulness" -- which I imagine might mean "the ability to (more or less continually) remember the dhamma" and also "guarding the senses (to avoid getting carried away)".</p>

<p>So, lastly, why does <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-samadhi/index.html" rel="noreferrer">Right Concentration (<em>samma samadhi</em>)</a> talk exclusively about <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-samadhi/jhana.html" rel="noreferrer">jhanas</a>? Are they, how and/or why are they, at what point or stage are they, relevant and necessary for any (further) progress?</p>

<p>Can you outline any connection between practising jhanas and living/acting/thinking in the world? Or are they unrelated, is a "seclusion" the only path and the ultimate goal (or at least through, i.e. up to and including, non-returner)?</p>
 -1: <p>Answering some questions from the post:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Does the "dhamma-eye" being associated with stream entry imply that
  "the Dhamma" is already seen at that stage, and thence can only become
  more ever-present (more of the same)?</p>
  
  <p>Is it 'only' that 'enlightened moments' become more continual,
  regular, longer, normal, without intervals?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Since I believe that everyone of us has Buddha nature and ability to experience true nature of things I will stress that we get in touch with "Enlightenment" more often than we think. To me it is just a matter of gradually removing little obscurations of already perfect mind. All of us can see moments of clarity everyday, signs of Enlightenment as they spontaneously emerge even among non-practising people. So, ultimately there is nothing to attain and everything to attain at the same time. </p>

<p>The excerpt may not be Pali canon or anything but highlights some points practically.</p>

<p>From Dudjom Lingpa's <em>Vajra essence</em>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The enlightened awareness lineage of the buddhas is so designated
  because the minds of all the buddhas of the three times are of one
  taste in the absolute space of phenomena. The symbolic lineage of the
  vidyadharas is so designated because the symbolic signs of ultimate
  reality, the treasury of space, spontaneously emerge, without reliance
  upon the stages of spiritual training and practice.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Jhana or primordial consciousness (or put any another term here) in this context is nothing else than getting in touch again with suchness, that is "absolute space of phenomena". This space is nothing else than ultimate truth (and thus Nirvana) that Nagarjuna speaks of for that matter.</p>

<p>And so yes, the more refined we are, the more in touch with ultimate we would be on daily bases. By removing those little obscurations I mean of course Self and reification of it:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The primordial, originally pure nature of existence, which is great,
  intellect-transcending, ultimate reality, free of conceptual
  elaboration, is obscured by conceiving of a self and grasping at
  duality.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Furthermore, gradual releasing oneself from cyclical existence improves clarity of vision and experience:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>When their previous karmic predispositions stir, they directly see the 
  truth of ultimate reality, and they emerge from the realm of wisdom.
  Pure appearances arise for them, but these are neither the mind nor
  mental processes. Rather, these appearances are by nature the play of
  the manifest space of awareness. They are not the eight kinds of
  consciousness, but they are not otherwise, so they are called by these
  names.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I hope it shed some interesting light on your questions, although it is not too technical.</p>
 -1: <p>Some thoughts from the Theravada perspective.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>... and wondering about what &quot;completely&quot; means. I thought this answer implies that identity view (abandoned at first stage) and conceit (abandoned at last stage) are somewhat on a continuum.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Completely means that even the potential to '<em>fill in the fetter</em>' has been abandoned, uprooted. For instance, in daily life you find yourself looking at things the usual way. Then you correct yourself intellectually: &quot;Ah no, although I experience this the normal, mundane way, I know it to be wrong.&quot; Well, this is not it. Once a fetter is uprooted it wouldn't even be possible to experience things in a normal, humane, mundane way. The experience of seeing Nibbana for the first time, aka. becoming a stream enterer, is so strong that a definitive shift has taken place in the mind. It's just such a powerful experience.
It's like trying to walk with one leg. An you fall over. That experience is so clear and awakening that you will never, ever try to walk with one leg again. Not only the thought of it would no longer arise. And later on the impulse doesn't either.
That's what's meant with completely.</p>
<p>Also: there is a clear difference between identity view and conceit. Those are qualitative two different experiences. It is therefore correct that there are different times needed where those things get uprooted. As a sotapanna the experience of a sense of self still arises. But you will never, ever again think that this sense of self is correct. The conceit sits on a deeper level, so to speak. Steam entry get's only rid of higher level.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I think that the Abhidhamma talks of &quot;moments&quot; (thought-moments), but that the suttas don't, so ... (knowing little of the Abhidhamma) I'm not sure whether this (&quot;enlightened moments&quot;) is a good description. ...</p>
<p>If &quot;enlightened moments&quot; is a good metaphor e.g. for a sotapanna, I was wondering what the difference is between that and the &quot;higher&quot; stages of enlightenment -- and how to achieve or progress towards those, what (what practice and/or realization) is required?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The difference between the Abhidhamma and the sutta's, as far as I understand it, is that the Abhidhamma explains everything from the viewpoint of ultimate realities. And the sutta makes use of conventions.</p>
<p>Since in ultimate reality there is only one moment of experience followed by the next moment and so on, it makes sense that the four stages are also only moments.</p>
<p>In meditation it is very possible to reach a stage where one will experience reality as moment to moment. In daily life you can't penetrate that deeply. Daily life experience will always be a stream of water, not the individual drop followed by the next drop. This is why we say that anatta hides in compactness (dukkha hides in change and anicca in continuity).</p>
<p>So, let's say that the road towards enlightenment has trees along the side. 4 large ones and a lot of little ones. You pass those trees. The little ones represent minor enlightening, awakening thoughts, ideas (&quot;Oh, now I get it.&quot;). Those correct view, the way you look at things. And then you pass the first large tree and that experience is mind altering. That doesn't mean you're finished, on deeper levels there is still a lot to learn and understand. And you move along the path. And you go deeper and deeper. And with clearer understanding the mind is ready to let go of the next things (pass the next large tree). And so on.</p>
<p>Yes, it is a matter of degree of understanding. That's where the practice of vipassana comes in.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>So, lastly, why does Right Concentration (samma samadhi) talk exclusively about jhanas? Are they, how and/or why are they, at what point or stage are they, relevant and necessary for any (further) progress?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There is a difference between the mundane, preliminary eightfold path and the noble, supramundane eightfold path. The latter leads to reaching nibbana.
(I don't say enlightenment by choice. Since we need to reach nibbana four times in order to be enlightened. Also 'reaching' is conventional speech, not what's really happening.)
The supramundane path is, again, a mind moment which needs momentary concentration focussed on ultimate reality. Jhana, the once we associate with samatha practice, use a concept. Concepts will never let you see anicca, dukkha, anatta the way it is needed for the mind to let go: moment by moment on a deep, deep level. Samatha jhana do not lead to understanding and the development of wisdom. The understanding needed for letting go, the wisdom that is not intellectual, but intuitive.</p>
<p>I myself don't practise the deeper samatha jhana at all (only metta). They are not necessary to see Nibbana or get enlightened. They can be supportive however. So, there are teachers who teach both: to first train in samatha jhana and later on in vipassana jhana.</p>
<p>Hope this helps a bit.</p>
 13375: <p><strong>In the context of the four stages of enlightenment would it be right to say that, without identity-view, there's no such thing as an "enlightened person": instead there are maybe "enlightened moments" or moments of enlightenment?</strong></p>

<p>The book <a href="https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/B00JYDKTOQ" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Buddhism: One Teacher, Many Traditions</a> does a very good job of explaining the differences between the Theravada and Sanskrit regarding the explanation of the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment. There are similarities between the two, but some major differences as well. The two share a common vernacular (stream-entry, once-returner, arahant, etc.), but have different definitions for these terms or different viewpoints of exactly what has been achieved. The Sanskrit tradition (aka what many call Mahayana) places the stream-enterers, once-returners, non-returners, and Arahants as having already achieved the Path of Seeing. This is the demarcation line between Arya beings and regular beings. What is an Arya being? Someone who has <strong>directly perceived</strong> emptiness in a completely unmistaken and non-conceptual way while in meditative equipoise. When someone has achieved this there can be no question coming from the side of the person who has achieved it. When you arrive at this ... you'll incontrovertibly know it. I can honestly say that I have not achieved this. What's more, my teacher tells me that very few modern human beings on earth have achieved this it is so rare. This is a big difference with the Theravada as I think stream-entry is generally thought to be fairly common among modern people.</p>

<p>In other words, I think from the Sanskrit/Mahayana view virtually no one on earth following the Sanskrit/Mahayana (let alone Theravada) have achieved stream entry. What's more virtually everyone who has is most likely well beyond believing that any of these categories are real inherent things. In other words, anyone who believes they have achieved stream entry without studying Nagarjuna's treatise and then meditating in single pointed concentration and directly seeing what Nagarjuna was on about is fooling themselves from Mahayana perspective.</p>

<p>That's why it is so hard to answer your question from Mahayana perspective as any of the four stages - from Mahayana perspective - is so far beyond what modern Theravada practitioners normally posit. You can't have achieved stream-entry from Mahayana perspective until you've gone quite beyond the coarse meaning of shunyata found in the Theravada tenet systems.</p>

<p>As for your question about "enlightened person" ... <strong>there is definitely enlightened persons. Eliminating the 'identity-view' does not negate or refute the existence of enlightened persons.</strong> Rather, it just puts 'enlightened person' in its proper place: a completely conventional existent without the slightest bit of inherent existence. Again, I'd say someone who has eliminated the 'identity-view' is someone quite beyond past the point of believing there is the slightest bit of inherent existence in any person. Why? Because they've <strong><em>seen</em></strong> the absence of this existence directly in a completely non-conceptual way. <strong>Nevertheless, an Arya being would not refute completely the existence of a "enlightened person."</strong></p>

<p><strong>If "enlightened moments" is a good metaphor e.g. for a sotapanna, I was wondering what the difference is between that and the "higher" stages of enlightenment -- and how to achieve or progress towards those, what (what practice and/or realization) is required?</strong></p>

<p>I don't think this is a good metaphor for any person on the path past the point of seeing. An Arya being is completely convinced that inherent existence is absent in everything yet the <em>appearance</em> of inherent existence still appears to them. This is true of once-returners, non-returners as well. Only a Buddha has no perception of inherent existence at any time. The only time when inherent existence does not appear to a non-Buddha is when an Arya being is in meditative equipoise on emptiness. In this sense, I guess you could say that "enlightened moments" are those moments when an Arya being is in meditative equipoise on emptiness. For any non-Buddha (let alone non-Arya being) no moments of enlightenment occur.</p>

<p><strong>Is it right to say that the difference is more a matter of degree than a matter of kind?</strong></p>

<p>I think there must be a world of difference between the moments an Arya being is in meditative equipoise on emptiness and normal everyday moments when inherent existence appears to them. However, the former moments leave the Arya being absolutely sure that when inherent existence does appear in subsequent moments that they are not fooled by it in the slightest.</p>

<p><strong>Does the "dhamma-eye" being associated with stream entry imply that "the Dhamma" is already seen at that stage, and thence can only become more ever-present (more of the same)?</strong></p>

<p>The Path of Seeing is arrived at when we directly perceive emptiness so yes. It becomes ever more present as an Arya being continues to abide in meditative equipoise and the moments between them become ever more illusory like. The appearance of inherent existence shakes and shimmers and its illusory nature becomes ever more apparent. I <em>think</em> this is what it must be like, but mind you I'm not claiming to know!</p>

<p>So where does that leave us non-Arya beings on the path? Well, we are on the Path of Accumulation marked by:</p>

<ol>
<li>Detailed knowledge and understanding of doctrine</li>
<li>A strong and heartfelt desire to be free from samsara with clear and lucid understanding of our predicament ie., dhukka/samsara and the 4NT's</li>
<li>For Bodhisattva's #2 is said to be marked by a genuine (as opposed to contrived) Bodhicitta which is #2, but <em>solely</em> concerned for others welfare</li>
</ol>

<p>And/or we are on the Path of Preparation marked by:</p>

<ol>
<li>A clear and lucid <em>understanding</em> of emptiness with the growing conviction that things lack inherent existence</li>
<li>This is a conceptual or inferential understanding and is not the same thing (although a necessary prerequisite) as having a direct perception of emptiness</li>
</ol>

<p>Personally, I think non-Arya beings that have taken refuge in the Triple Gem are somewhere among the two with imperfect achievements of some/all of the above. That is, I don't think that it's an either/or between Accumulation and Preparation. We're mostly in the muddled middle.</p>

<p>I think I'll stop there. I know you were looking for practical advice, but I guess I've given the presentation of doctrine. Suffice to say that until you've achieved the direct perception of emptiness (an extremely rare and uncommon occurrence among modern humans on this earth) I think a lot of this is theoretical. What we have are the accounts of people who have achieved this like Nagarjuna.</p>

<p>Hope this helps!</p>
