Egoless Led Zeppelin (JBLZE) in Hollywood?

JBLZE “Stairway to Heaven” live at LA's Greek Theater, Hollywood, May 23, 2026

The only Led Zeppelin reunion in history

Led Zeppelin: Celebration Day, live at The O2 Arena, London (England 2007)

There is a self, but it's ultimately impersonal.

What is a "band"?* It's a lot like a Buddhist "SELF," a "UCLA" (the American college), or a Greek SHIP of Theseus. It has a name, from which it derives its stable identity, but does it really have anything else for long? It's an illusion.

To demonstrate: I went to a college called UCLA. It doesn't exist. It started as a campus near USC, which is close to the skyline of DTLA/Downtown Los Angeles.

Plant, baby, is there really a "manic" nirvana?

If anyone can grasp these few examples, such a person will understand why the Buddha taught that ultimately speaking, there is no self, no soul, no essence, no abiding consciousness that travels from life to life or stands still here now.

That's impossible to accept. So reject it. Of course there's a self (atta). It's writing right now, and another self is reading right now...in a conventional way of speaking. No one is saying there's not that.

That being the case, WHY would the historical Buddha ever say there wasn't a self? We have to consider that. What is the reason, what did he mean, was he serious?

How does "suffering" come to be? 12 links.

The answer is: It is the unexamined assumption of what this "self" is that keeps us from awakening, keeps us from enlightenment (bodhi), keeps us from liberation (vimutti, moksha). There is something, lots of "things" (dhammas, "phenomena"). Such things arise by a process the Buddha called Dependent Origination (Conditioned Co-Genesis, Mutual Interdependence, this-that-that-this). This is, so that comes to be; when this is not, that does not arise -- as if "this" is not really more than "that."

• Understanding D.O. in one example: What is a "candleflame"? If we break it down, deconstruct it, we find that it is five things. Who cares? Well, it's important because in place of this "self" we all believe in and never question the existence of, the Buddha is going to teach us that what we have been failing to see and penetrate is this very principle of conditioned co-arising or D.O. Okay, then, what five things?

• 

  Where does suffering go?

  There is (1) wax, (2) wick, (3) heat, (4) oxygen, and (5) a very mysterious process of combustion. (Add to the list or take away, it doesn't really matter for the example to sink in). When these five are in a functionally integrated arrangement, bam, candleflame! Where did it come from? When it goes out, where will it "go" -- east, west, north, south, hell, heaven, the sphere of nothingness, the ground, my neighbor Robby Joiner's yard never to be seen again like all my frisbees? No, the designation does not apply; it is not correct to say the candleflame "goes" here, there, or anywhere. We just say it goes "out." That is to say, when these [factors, conditions, limbs] are present, that [candleflame] arises. When they are not, it is not. Therefore, in a sense one can say that a "candleflame" does not really exist, which is to say it does not exist independent of those factors upon which it utterly depends.

• 

  A candleflame does not exist.

  Yet, we don't think it is any of those factors. It really seems independent, a new thing that came into being or brought those things (causes and conditions) with it. When does it come into being? When does it manifest what we conventionally call its "being" (beingness) into existence? When the final element (aggregate) is added. Try it. Put together any four of the five elements. There won't be a candleflame. Now, add the fifth. Viola! "Candleflame" arises in the mind -- which is what these five aggregate processes look like. We think it arises in the world, but probably all that was there before is still there now, nothing actually having been added. And when it goes out, one or the other factors (limbs) upon which it depended has been exhausted or removed. Right? Try it. Can we say that, for example, the heat is the candleflame? No, because there's heat everywhere yet there are very few candleflames. Is it the wax? No, because there's a world of wax yet relatively few candleflames.... But when we add the final element, "candleflame" seems to jump into existence. And, of course, it does conventionally speaking. But ultimately speaking, it does no such thing. It doesn't really ever exist, in a manner of speaking. I'll make this point again and again until it clicks what's being said and what is not.

UCLA does not (ultimately) exist. Here's why.

This "UCLA" that I say does not exist, isn't it right over there in Westwood? There sure is something called "UCLA" in Westwood right now. But what was born and originated near USC, other than the name or some transient traditions and a charter or photos, and what things came over from that first place that remain unchanged?

• All of the faculty are different
• All of the students are different
• All of the curricula, books, desks...
• In fact, let's imagine the first place burned down and was completely incinerated, so that nothing, not a brick, not a scrap of the original went from DTLA to the Westside, would we still call it "UCLA"? We sure would! Why? What we identify or imagine to be UCLA is moving from here to there.
• In a century, will there be a "UCLA"? No, but there almost surely will be a college (university) called "UCLA." All the faculty, students, books, lesson plans, and ephemera will be different, but it'll still -- in a sense -- be good ol' UCLA, at least in our minds and on some plot of real estate somewhere in LA.

There is no ship

Is it the same ship or a different ship?

Aside from the example of an empty college, a figment of our consensus reality to call this this and that that, maybe the ancient Ship of Theseus example would better communicate this. A ship sets off for Greece but along the way has to change the sails then the oars then the floorboards then the wheel then, piece by piece, every single piece. Is it still the same ship that arrives in Greece?

Whaddya mean "there's no car?" It's right here!

The nice answer is that it neither is exactly the same ship, but we can't say that it's another. It is, of course, not the same, but to say it's different does violence to our language and what we mean, as Bhikkhu Bodhi pointed out in As It Is. The same with your car. You could take it into the mechanic over and over so many times that they change every single piece. Then is it still the same car? It's your car either way, but not a lick of it remains, not a single piece. But a paper somewhere at the DMV says it's yours, even with a new license plate and engine block number, paint job, glass, carpet, upholstery, gas, oil, screws, everything.

There is no oxcart

There is no such thing as an oxcart.

In the same way, in ancient times, an oxcart. What is it? It is, broadly speaking, five components fitted in a functionally operational way (wheel, axle, body, steering, ox). Add pieces to the definition or take them away, it doesn't matter. But five is easy. Whose oxcart is this? It belongs to Thad. Its wheels are broken. Change them. Axle is broken. Change it. The body is broken. Change it. The steering is shot. Change it. Ox is exhausted. Change it. Now, every part having been changed, what oxcart? That one. Whose oxcart is it? Thad's. Why? It's because in a conventional sense (by our agreement and his delusion) it has been his all along, even though it is completely different. He has no control over it really; he can't keep it from breaking apart. But we still call it his, and we seem to have no trouble identifying it even as every single part gets switched out.

This "SELF," what is it? It is five things (form, feelings, perceptions, formations, consciousness). Whose is it? This one's mine. What do you call it? "Me." Sometimes "I." It's myself, I mean, my self. My soul. My ego. My personality. My atta (Sanskrit atman). My vessel into which I load my store of karma (deeds, doings, intentional acts, or all of my willed actions).

1. By "form" you mean this rapidly deteriorating arrangement of materiality composed of solidity, movement, cohesion, and temperature? That's the one! So this material form, this body (this temporary vessel or vehicle), is actually just Four Great Elements, which are not "elements" as such but rather qualities of materiality, in a sense quanta or quantities of it because all material particles (rupa kalapas) are actually composed of all four elements or dhatus (or maha bhuta) but in differing amounts, so that when solidity is in preponderance, it gets labelled "solid" but still has all of the other features to a lesser degree. This is "you"? No. It is my body, but I am not the body. The body changes, but "I" stay the same forever and ever, the eternal self, the unchanged soul, the essence or core of the ego (psyche), the invisible watcher, holder, and owner of all that stands.
2. Okay, these feelings, that's "you"? Yes, that's me. I'm the feeler. So you're not the feeling? Well, no, not exactly, but feeling-feeler, same thing. Okay, all of them? Which all? You are all pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral feelings passing through? Yeah, sort of, I am the feeler.
3. All right then. These perceptions? Yes, I am the perceiver. And you are the perceptions passing through, too? Sure, okay, perception-perceiver, I am the all.
4. And these other mental formations, like these volitions, impulses, motives, intentions (cetanas)? Yes, I am the intender. And the intention? Intention-intender, same thing. I am the all, the owner, the doer, the knower, the experiencer, the controller or the one-who-thinks-he's-in-control.
5. Okay, and this consciousness? Yes, I am consciousness. All of them? "All"? "You" are eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind-consciousnesses? Uh, yes, I am consciousness. And all the consciousnesses passing through conscious experience? Uh, I guess.

• 

  "Self" as impersonal processes

  Does anyone know why the Buddha called each of these heaps an "aggregate"? It's very important. It is because there are trillions of them, not one form, one feeling, one perception, one formation, one consciousness. At least with the oxcart, it seems like there is one (or more) wheels, axle, one body, one steerer, one ox, and the conglomeration of those forms one oxcart. But with "SELF," there are no such single items. There are aggregations (heaps of rupa kalapas) of material particles, countless numbers of them in every "material" thing, and that's just the body, the form, which has 32 main parts and lots of subsidiary parts, so many that one cannot find it tenable to consider one's "self" this body. So we cling to the other four mental formations as "self." (Yes, we call the fourth heap "mental formations" or sankaras, but the fact is that feelings, perceptions, and consciousnesses are all mental formations, too. The Buddha segregated them into these five for explanatory and insight purposes. As we develop liberating insight into these, we will clearly know-and-see that what we took to be MY feeling was just feeling being felt -- arising, turning, and passing away at all times, hurtling towards destruction, never standing still for even a submoment. The reason a feeling lasts is not because it arises and hangs around for a while then, realizing it's impermanent, it leaves. One feeling arises, turns, passes away, as another almost identical feeling arises, turns, passes away, in succession until this process dies out, at which time "the feeling" which was a heap of feelings passes to be replaced by another kind of feeling. The same is true of the other four aggregates. Science tells us this material body is nothing but a conglomeration of cells, which are molecules, which are atoms, which are quarks and strong-and-weak forces and thingies and whatnots, ever more subtle until they're not even material.

Add ingredients to the definition of "SELF" or take them away, it doesn't matter. The same is true. What we call "self" is not-self. It is impersonal, and radically impermanent, and ultimately disappointing, painful, stressful, incapable of ever fulfilling us.

*What is a "band"?

Meet the future legendary "Mr. Jimmy" [Sakurai] as he shreds on guitar for an adoring crowd

.

With John Travolta as Robert Plant

If ANY of this has made sense, let us deal with the problem at hand: What is a "band"? It's a group, an assemblage, an aggregate, a "heap" of four or five basic members. Whose band is it?

(Whoever owns the name, which is just about the only stable thing other than ownership rights of music catalog performed and/or written under that name).

 

What five members (factors)?

Fifth member Pete (Manager Peter Grant) is the best like Fifth Beatle Pete Best

 

So one day four guys and their manager became the New Yardbirds. And they got threatened with a lawsuit, so they became Lead Zeppelin. But Peter Grant, the manager and fifth member, said, "To avoid mispronunciation, let's call the band Led Zeppelin." All agreed. They played, recorded, became famous, and then the drummer had a son and died. End of the story. Led Zeppelin was over. But capitalism and greed being what they are, Led Zeppelin lived on. There was even a reunion of sorts, but they couldn't bring back the dead, so they did the next best thing: They brought in the next of kin, drummer John Bonham's son Jason. It was like having 3.5 of the original four members present. It worked!

It worked so well, that everyone but Jimmy Page or Robert Plant could have quit, and the behemoth could have gone on like the Who, Stones, Chicago, or any other massive rock act has done for years and years until not even a single member of the original band is touring! How is that possible?! Ship of Theseus. Oxcart.

Who am I? There is no me?

What're ya doin in my hole?!

In fact, there's an Early Buddhist or later Chinese Buddhist parable that may illustrate this even better: A man (let's say it's YOU) is walking and falls into a deep hole, at the bottom of which are two ghoulish demons arguing as they prepare some human stew from human limbs strewn all around their gloomy hole. Seeing you fall in, the angry one asks what the h*ll you're doing there and tears your arm off. And the other, just to p*ss off the first, grabs another arm from off the ground and attaches it to your body. It works! You move the fingers. These demonic ghouls have black magic powers. You're elated to get your arm back, which p*sses off the first, who then tears off your other arm. The other grabs another arms, attaches it to you. Again it works, you're elated, and it, being p*ssed off, tears off a leg, which is replaced, a torso with heart and head. Getting all five limbs torn off and others reattaches, you get the heck out of the hole. Who got out? Who went in. All five limbs are still down in the hole, but here "you" are running away. Is it you, is it not you, is it sort of you?

There is no UCLA?

"UCLA" can restart anywhere with anyone.

Is there one "UCLA," many UCLAs, no UCLA? Is this feeling the self, is that perception the self, is this consciousness what dies and is reborn -- or is it all an impersonal ("empty," devoid of self) process just rolling on? And that's all it's ever been? Ask Jason.

Because Jason must have asked all the remaining members of Led Zeppelin, Inc. to join him on tour. But for one reason or another (think ego, clashes, not wanting to ruin the profitable brand, and solo careers), they did not. So he did. Jason did. Jason went on tour.

Is there a Robert Plant? - Now and Zen

The O2 Arena show (called the Ahmet Ertegun Tribute Concert) was in 2007, and on Saturday night, Jason Bonham said he's been doing JBLZE about 16 years or so. That seems to be how long Jason and Co. ("JBLZE," Jason Bonham's Led Zeppelin Evening) have been at it. They don't need Page; they have "Mr. Jimmy" (Sakurai) on guitar, and he looks and plays more like Page did back then than Jimmy Page does now.

• Is original Led Zeppelin singer Robert Plant a Buddhist or simply a Gypsy mystic with a penchant for writing epic Nordic lyrics? What about Now and Zen and Manic Nirvana?
• Science find a cure for ringing in the ear? Lenire ®: Tinnitus treatment using bimodal neuromodulation

Original Led Zeppelin drummer John's son Jason’s Led Zeppelin Experience Evening “Kashmir” LIVE The Greek Theater Los Angeles Hollywood, California May 23, 2026

Anattā is not a joke or punchline. All things are impersonal and always have been. And so long as we do not realize it (or that they are impermanent and disappointing, too), we will cling. And by clinging, we will suffer. And the way to let go (and stop suffering) is to realize the True Nature of All Things.

We never step into same river twice: Heraclitus

All things are impersonal: anattā

Ven. Nyanatiloka, Buddhist Dictionary of Doctrines and Terms edited by Wisdom Quarterly

What are the Five Aggregates in Buddhism?

THERE IS NO SELF (an-attā, not-atta): "not-self," egolessness, soullessness, the impersonal nature of all phenomena (particularly the Five Aggregates clung to as "self") is the final and most incomprehensible of the Three Universal Characteristics of All Existence (ti-lakkhana).

The anattā doctrine is unheard of throughout the universe, except that a supremely awakened buddha has made it known (or a nonteaching buddha has cultivated up to supreme realization) and thereby opens up an escape from the phenomenal world of endless rebirth and incomprehensible suffering.

This doctrine teaches that neither within body-and-mind (nama-rupa, the bodily and mental phenomena of existence) nor outside of them can there be found anything that in THE ULTIMATE SENSE able to be regarded as a self, soul, self-existing real ego-entity, or any other abiding essence or substance.

This is the central doctrine of Buddhism. Without understanding it, real knowledge of Buddhism is altogether impossible.

It is the only really specific Buddhist doctrine with which the entire structure of the Buddha's Teaching (Dhamma) stands or falls.

All of the remaining Buddhist doctrines may, more or less, be found or hinted at in other philosophical systems, doctrines, or religions. But the anattā-doctrine has been clearly and unreservedly taught only by a buddha.

It is on account of this that the historical Buddha was known as the anattā-vādi, or "Teacher of Impersonality." [He was also called a karma-vadin for emphasizing personal actions and karmic results.]

Whoever has not penetrated the impersonal nature of all existence and does not comprehend that in reality there exists only this continually self-consuming PROCESS of arising, turning, and passing away of bodily-and-mental phenomena and that there is no separate (independent, self-standing) ego-entity in or outside of this process, that person will be unable to understand Buddhism.

That is, that person will be unable to understand the teaching of the Four "Noble" (Enlightening) Truths (sacca) in the correct light. One will instead think that it is:

• one's soul, self, ego, or personality that experiences suffering (dukkha, disappointment, pain, distress),
• one's personality that performs skillful and unskillful deeds (good and evil actions)
• one's soul who will be reborn according to such actions (karma),
• one's personality that will enter into some kind of everlasting heaven, sphere, place, or state the Buddha called "Nirvana" (Pali Nibbāna),
• one's "self" that practices on the Enlightening (Noble) Eightfold Path.

So it is said in The Path of Purification (Vis.M. XVI):

"Mere dukkha [ignorance] exists;

No experiencer of dukkha is found;

Deeds are, but no doer of deeds is there;

Nirvana is, but not one who experiences it;

The Path is, but no traveler on it is seen." More

Get Him to the Greek: smoke Epstein

Penis Diddy, accused rapist Russell Brand, that Jewish guy and Jonah Hill

Rock's future: Japanese Buddhist girls?

(KreciolaTV) Hanabie. LIVE Pol'and'Rock Festival 2025 (full concert)

• Dhr. Seven, Ananda (Dharma Buddhist Meditation), Ashley Wells (ed.), Wisdom Quarterly

The goddess' vimana (Sirima devi's spaceship)

John D. Ireland (trans.), Sirima: "Sirima's Vimana" (Vv 1.16 PTS: Vv 136-148) edited and further explained by Dhr. Seven, Amber Larson, Pat Macpherson (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly

The devas are beautiful humanoids.

Ven. Vangisa: Those yoked and finely caparisoned horses of yours, strong and swift, are heading downward through the sky. And these 500 chariots [vimanas = spacecraft, aircraft, limitless-vehicles, flying ships], magically created, are following, their horses [horsepower] urged on by charioteers.

You stand in this excellent chariot [flying craft], adorned, radiant, and shining, like a blazing star. I ask you of lovely slender form and exquisite beauty, from which company of devas (lit. "shining ones") have you come to visit the Peerless One (the Buddha)?

• See also Vangīsa Sutta for a story of this thera

I do as I please, assuming whatever form suits me.

Sirima [12]: From those who have reached the heights of sensual pleasure said to be unsurpassed, the devas who delight in magical creation and transformation. A nymph from that company able to assume any desired appearance [a shapeshifter able to wield the power of transformation] has come here to honor the Peerless One.

Vangisa Thera spoke up.

Vangisa: What meritorious karma (good conduct) did you practice (perform) here in former times? How is it that you live in immeasurable glory, having gained such sensuous pleasures? Due to what have you acquired the unrivalled power to travel through the sky? Why does your beauty radiate in the ten directions?

You are surrounded and honored by the devas. From where did you pass away before you came to a heavenly rebirth, goddess? Or of what teaching (dharma, doctrine-and-discipline) were you able to follow the word of instruction? Tell me if you were a disciple of the Awakened One (the Buddha).

Sirima: In a fine and well-built city situated between hills, an attendant of a noble king endowed with good fortune, I was highly accomplished in dancing and singing. As Sirima I was known in Rajagaha [modern Rajgir, India, where the Buddha dwelled on Vulture's Peak].

But then the Awakened One, the leader among seers, the guide, taught me

1. of the origination of suffering
2. and impermanence [how disappointment comes to be],
3. of the unconditioned (asankhata), of the cessation of all suffering (nirvana) that is timeless (ānantariya); and
4. of this path (magga), not crooked, straight, auspicious.

The war in heaven: vimana against vimana

When I had learned of the deathless state (amata = nirvana), the unconditioned, through the instruction of the Tathagata, the Peerless One, I was highly and well restrained in the precepts and established in the Dhamma taught by the most excellent of humans, the Awakened One.

When I knew the undefiled place, the unconditioned, taught by the Tathagata, the Peerless One, I then and there experienced the calm concentration (of the noble path). That supreme certainty of release was mine.

When I gained the distinctive undying, assured, eminent in penetrative insight, not doubting, I was revered by many people and experienced much pleasure and enjoyment.

Thus I am a goddess (devi), knowing the undying, a disciple of the Tathagata, the Peerless One, a knower of Dhamma established in the first fruit, a stream-winner. Henceforth, there is no more bad rebirth for me.

I came to revere the Peerless One and the virtuous monastics [monks, nuns, novices] who delight in what is skillful, to honor the auspicious assembly of wandering ascetics and those worthy of respect [the ariya, the noble ones], the Fortunate One, the Dhamma-king.

I am joyful and gladdened on seeing the sage, the Tathagata, the outstanding trainer of humans capable of being trained, who has uprooted craving, who delights in what is skillful, the guide. I honor the supremely merciful Compassionate One.

Back story: Who is the devi (goddess) Sirima?

G. P. Malalasekera, Dictionary of Pali Proper Names (palikanon.com) edited by Wisdom Quarterly

Deva emerges from gold vimana chariot-mansion

Ven. Buddhaghosa says (SNA.i.244f, 253f) that Sirimā was Sālavati's daughter, who succeeded to her mother's position as courtesan. After passing away from here, Sirimā was reborn in a high celestial plane of existence known as the Yāma World as the wife of Suyāma. When the Buddha was speaking to the monastics at her cremation, she visited the spot with 500 chariots (vimanas).

Janapada-kalyānī Nandā [the most beautiful Scythian "belle of the land," who was the fiancé of the Buddha's half-brother, Nanda, before the Buddha ordained him after showing him his future due to his mixed karma in a famous sutra that reads like a kind of Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol, the story of Ebenezer Scrooge, who turns his life around after seeing what is to come], who at that time had become a Buddhist nun, was present.

When the Buddha taught the Kāyavicchandanika Sutta, she became an arahant (fully enlightened), while Sirimā became an anāgāmī (non-returner).

The Vimānavatthu ("Vimana Stories," pp.78f., 86) gives the same story, adding that Vangīsa was also present at the teaching of the sutra and, having obtained the Buddha's permission, questioned the shapeshifting devi Sirimā and made her reveal her former identity.

Here, however, Sirimā is said to have been reborn in the Nimmānarati World, and no mention is made of her becoming an anāgāmī (but rather a sotapanna or "stream-winner"), whereas the lustful Buddhist monk is said to have become an arahant.

Sirimā is mentioned in a list of eminent upāsikās (A.iv.347; AA.ii.791). Eighty-four thousand persons realized the noble truth after listening to the Buddha's teaching at the cremation of Sirimā (Mil.350) [most of whom must have been devas]/

The Sirimā-vimānavatthu is the story of Sirimā's passing away and subsequent events (Vv.i.16; VvA.67ff.) More

How do I know if I'm enlightened?

Ajahn Brahmali: Fake or deluded stream-entry

(Buddhist Insights @ Empty Cloud) Streamed live on Dec. 26, 2021. How can we relate to phony or deluded claims of stream entry, the first stage of Buddhist enlightenment (bodhi)? Ajahn Brahmali answers questions from fellow Thai tradition Theravada Buddhist monastics. To learn more about Buddhist Insights, see: linktr.ee/buddhistinsights

• Q: How does one know whether the first stage of enlightenment (stream entry or sōtapanna) is reached? | Ajahn Dtun

Enlightenment by Ear (sota-panna)

Bhikkhu Bodhi (ATS) Wheel #367 (BPS), Dhr. Seven, C. Quintero (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly

When the Buddha taught, he did not get right to the point. First he prepared his audience with a "gradual instruction" (ānupubbī-kathā). A key recurring topic was:

 

The practice of giving, which is universally recognized as one of the most basic human virtues, a quality that testifies to the depth of one's humanity and one's capacity for self-transcendence.

In the teachings of the Buddha, the practice of giving claims a place of special prominence, one which singles it out as being in a sense the foundation and seed of spiritual development, that of being able to let go.

In the Pali (the exclusively-Buddhist language) discourses, we read time and again that "talk on giving" was invariably the first topic the Buddha discussed in his "gradual instruction" of the Dharma.

Whenever the Buddha delivered a discourse to an audience of people who did not yet regard him as their teacher, he would start by emphasizing the value of giving, of letting go, of caring for others and sharing with them for the good of all.

Only after his audience had come to appreciate this virtue would he introduce other aspects of the teaching, such as virtue in general, the law of karma (that what we think, say, and/or do subsequently bears fruit (and mental resultants), and the benefits in renunciation (internally letting go and gaining a greater perspective on the things that trap us and hold us in bonds).

P.S. The secret to enlightenment is satipatthana to realize the khandhas are anatta.

.

And only after all of these principles had made their impact on the hearts/minds of his listeners would he expound to them that unique discovery of the awakened ones, the Four Noble Truths and the unheard of anatta principle that all things are, in an ultimate sense, impersonal although we regard them as "I, me, and mine."

• 

  The eye of wisdom arose = sotapannaship.

  Hearing the Dharma after their hearts/minds had been duly prepared, listeners often entered or won the stream [entered by ear, entered by hearing the truth], that is, realized the first stage of enlightenment.

Strictly speaking, giving does not appear on its own among the factors of the Noble Eightfold Path, nor does it enter among the other "37 Requisites of Enlightenment."

Most probably it has been excluded from these groupings because the practice of giving does not by its own nature conduce directly and immediately to the arising of insight and the realization of the Four Noble Truths and nirvana (moksha, final liberation, complete freedom).

Giving (dana), letting go, relinquishing functions in the Buddhist discipline in a different capacity.

It does not come at the apex of the path, as a factor constituent of the process of enlightenment (awakening), but rather it serves as a basis and preparation that underlies and quietly supports the entire endeavor to free the mind from the defilements.

 

Nevertheless, though giving is not counted directly among the factors of the path, its contribution to progress along the road to liberation should be recognized. The prominence of this contribution is underscored by the place the Buddha assigns to giving in various sets of practices. 

In addition to appearing as the first topic in the graduated exposition of the Dharma, the practice of giving also figures as:

• the first of the three bases of meritorious deeds
• the first of the four ways of benefiting others*
• the first of the ten "perfections" or paramis.

• *The four "ways of showing favor" are generosity, kind speech, beneficial actions, and unbiased impartiality (A.IV.32; A.VIII.24).

The perfections are the sublime virtues cultivated by all aspirants to enlightenment. These ten are cultivated to the most exalted degree by those who follow the way of the Bodhisattva aiming at supreme buddhahood. More

Guide to Enlightenment (Part 2)

Dhr. Seven, Ananda M., Amber Larson (eds.) based Into the Stream: A Study Guide on the First Stage of Awakening by Ven. Thanissaro (Mr. Geoffrey DeGraff), accesstoinsight.org

What is meditation in practice? Allowing, noticing, feeling, accepting, observing, sensing...

  

Meditation is the way to get your goals.

(See Part 1) ...For one's practice to lead to enlightenment -- whether stream entry or arhatship -- one must develop reliable standards for answering these questions.

The Buddha offers some preliminary guidance on developing these standards in his instructions to the Brahmin teenager Kapadika Bharadvaja.

The Chunky Sutra

(Canki Sutta, MN 95)
[Kapadika Bharadvaja:] "To what extent is there an awakening to the truth? To what extent does one awaken to the truth? We ask Master Gautama about awakening to the truth."

[The Buddha:] "In one case, Bharadvaja, a Buddhist monastic lives in dependence on a certain village or town. Then a householder or child of a householder goes to that monastic to observe with regard to three mental characteristics:

1. characteristics of greed (craving, grasping, clinging)
2. characteristics of hatred (aversion, fear, antipathy)
3. characteristics of delusion (wrong view, confusion, ignorance):

Yoga. It's not just about exercise anymore.

"'Are there in this venerable one any such characteristics of greed that, with mind overcome by these things, one might say "I know" while not knowing or say "I see" while not seeing, or that one might urge another to act in a way that is for his/her long-term harm and pain?'
 

"As one observes one comes to know, 'There are in this venerable one no such characteristics of greed... This venerable monastic's bodily and verbal conduct (behavior) are those of one free of greed. And the Dharma this person teaches is deep, hard to know/see, hard to realize, tranquil, sublime, beyond the scope of mere speculation, subtle, to-be-directly-experienced only by the wise. This Dharma cannot easily be taught by a person who is greedy.

 

I think I'm starting to see! Truth.

"'When observing that the Buddhist monastic is purified with regard to characteristics of greed, one next observes for characteristics of hatred... characteristics of delusion:

"'Are there in this venerable one any such characteristics of delusion that, with his mind overcome by these [three] thing, one might say "I know" while not knowing or say "I see" while not seeing, or that one might urge another to act in a way that was for his/her long-term harm and pain?'

"As one observes one comes to know, 'There are in this venerable one no such characteristics of hatred...delusion... This person's bodily and verbal conduct are those of one free of hatred...delusion. And the Dharma this monastic teaches is deep, hard to know/see, hard to realize, tranquil, sublime, beyond the scope of mere speculation, subtle, to-be-directly-experienced only by the wise. This Dharma cannot easily be taught by a person who is hateful...deluded.
 
"When observing that the monastic is purified with regard to characteristics of hatred...delusion, one is filled with confidence (verified faith, conviction, saddha) in that practitioner.

• With the arising of confidence, one visits and grows close.
• Growing close one lends ear.
• Lending ear, one hears the Dharma.
• Hearing the Dharma, one remembers it.
• Remembering it, one penetrates the meaning of those teachings.
• Penetrating the meaning, one agrees by contemplating those teachings.
• There being an agreement through contemplating those teachings, zest (motivation, eagerness) arises.
• With the arising of zest, one becomes willing.
• Willing, one contemplates (weighs, compares).
• Contemplating, one makes an exertion.
• Exerting oneself, one both realizes the ultimate meaning of the truth with this body and sees by penetrating it with wisdom (discernment, insight, intuition).

"To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is an awakening to the truth. To this extent one awakens to the truth. I describe this as an awakening to the truth. But this is not yet the final attainment of the truth."
 
[Kapadika Bharadvaja:] "Yes, Master Gautama, to this extent there is an awakening to the truth. To this extent one awakens to the truth. We regard this as an awakening to the truth. But to what extent is there the final attainment of the truth? To what extent does one finally attain the truth? We ask Master Gautama about the final attainment of the truth."
 
[The Buddha:] "The cultivation, development, and pursuit of these very same characteristics -- to this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the final attainment of the truth. To this extent one finally attains the truth. I describe this as the final attainment of the truth."— (MN 95) More

Guide to Enlightenment (Part 1)

Dhr. Seven, Ananda M., Amber Larson (eds.) based Into the Stream: A Study Guide on the First Stage of Awakening by Ven. Thanissaro (Mr. Geoffrey DeGraff), accesstoinsight.org

The marriage of wisdom and compassion

"Sole dominion over the earth, rebirth in heaven, ruling over all worlds, the fruit of stream-entry [the first stage of enlightenment or] excels them all. — (Dhp 178)
 

I: The Way to Stream Entry

The Pali (the world's only exclusively Buddhist language) canon recognizes four basic levels of enlightenment (more divisions are presented in the Path to Freedom, a early version of the Path of Purification by Ven. Buddhaghosa).

The first of these is called stream entry. This gains its name from the fact that a person who has attained this level of realization has entered the "stream" flowing inevitably to nirvana.

How can I be compassionate and wise?

One is guaranteed to achieve full enlightenment within at most seven lifetimes (which may still amount to millions of years given that rebirth in superhuman worlds and the Pure Abodes last much longer than the longest stretch of a human life, which in some "golden" ages can reach 80,000 years).

It is a miraculous attainment because in the interim one will never be reborn in any realm lower than the human plane.

This guide on stream entry (sotapanna-ship) is divided into two parts. The first deals with the practices leading to stream entry and the second with the experience of stream entry and its results.

 

The practices leading to stream entry are encapsulated in four factors:

1. Association with noble people is a factor leading to stream-entry.
2. Listening to the true Dharma is a factor leading to stream-entry.
3. Wise attention is a factor leading to stream-entry
4. Practice in accordance with the Dharma is a factor leading to stream-entry. — (SN 55.5)

These four constituents form the framework for the first part of this guide.

 

The Pali canon's treatment of these four factors touches on questions of interest to all meditators, whether one's practice aims all the way to full enlightenment, a better future life (replete with six wished for things), or simply a better life here and now.

• How can one recognize a trustworthy teacher who knows about the path of practice to enlightenment? How can one tell the true Dharma from counterfeit dharmas?
• What rewards come from listening to the Dharma?
• Which questions should one ask oneself in the course of practice?
• What kind of practice qualifies as being "in accordance with the Dharma"?
• What kind of qualities does one need to develop to benefit most from practice? More