text:
Does enlightenment in all teachings amount to a progressively deeper realisation that I am already enlightened?
So e.g. kensho is usually thought of as beginning realisation in zazen, and is into our true nature as Buddhas.
Does enlightenment in all teachings amount to a progressively deeper realisation that I am already enlightened, or is that only true in hongaku theory? Is it the case in any / all Theravada Buddhism, in Tibetan Buddhism, etc.?
Not asking about gradual / sudden polarities, or about any other scheme to think about enlightenment, only whether every single enlightenment we can have in Buddhism is of our intrinsic enlightenment.

I seem to be attracted a lot of off topic answers about whether anyone say they themselves are enlightened. I have confirmed through google that the Buddha did say "I am to be enlightened", at least, and Huineng did say "I am enlightened". Also in Mahayana sutras he claims "The Tathgata... chants these words: I am the Tathagata (etc.)".
Isn't the "conceit of I am" a specific thing, the idea that I will either exist forever or be annihilated, that I am the same from moment to moment, or that anything can truly belong to me until I am a Buddha?

Conceit is developed with regard to one's possessions when there is
misconception that they are enduring and permanent. The material qualities of eyes, ears, visible forms, are wrongly held to be permanent and consequently vanity is built round them.

Re. conceit see How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same? -- it's classically distinct from identity-view.

Did someone say you're wrong? But I think there was another topic, early on this site, asking whether the Buddha himself was wrong for claiming to be enlightened (but I don't remember where that topic is, how to find it again). Another topic possibly related to this one, if you're interested in other answers to other topics, How should I stop thinking that I am even slightly enlightened?

I think you're over simplifying things @ChrisW

why should I stop thinking I am even slightly enlightened? @ChrisW

An Arhath declares attainment of Nirvana: 'I am enlightened' only when it could be of some use for the listeners as an Arhath has no intention of gaining anything (An Arhath as no value in any such thing). Looking at the listener's perspective, to make sense to the listener, 'I am' is used by an Arhath. i.e. - If you are in a 2D plane you are bound by height and width. If you are in a 3D plane you are bound by height, width and depth. When you are in the physical plane, you are bound by concepts like I, you, they, etc. Without such references, communication becomes impossible.

thanks for the note @Sampath

"Hongaku" (本覺) is the belief that sentient beings, by virtue of being sentient beings, are already enlightened. Many scholars identify it as coming from the Tendai school in Japan and spreading out to other sects.
Here is a lovely talk by Dr. Stone on "hongaku." Dr. Stone is a specialist in medieval Japanese Buddhism. Like any academic, she does entertain some eccentric personal theories about her subject material, but all-in-all she provides good information in this talk.
https://youtu.be/1zXXWsD39hc
Watching this resource, you will see that there are many different versions and understandings of "hongaku." Some believe that all sentient beings are, in truth, completely awakened Buddhas. Some believe that undertaking a Buddhist practice, in that moment, transforms us into the Buddha.
So, to answer the OP question, "Does enlightenment in all teachings amount to a progressively deeper realisation that I am already enlightened?" No. Because "hongaku" thought is limited to East Asian Buddhism and, generally-speaking, Japan in particular. So, as such, it cannot be true "in all teachings." It isn't nececssarily true in Tantric teachings from Tibet and it isn't necessarily true in Theravada teachings from Southeast Asia. Certainly, in Chinese, Korean, and Tibetan Buddhisms, there are versions of doctrines that seem to look forward to hongaku, but there is no "hongaku" itself in those traditions.
Lastly, here is a supplemental paper from Dr. Stone on the subject:
https://nirc.nanzan-u.ac.jp/nfile/2559
EDIT: I found this, which can further supplement the answer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KwdudJF4hc
Dr. Seiji Kumagai discusses "hongaku" here, particularly its rejection by Enkō Daishi (Hōnen) and the uneasy relation that Kenshin Daishi (Shinran) had with it as a doctrine of the Tendai sect. Both of these figures, Hōnen and Shinran, would ultimately leave the Tendai priesthood and start their own sects of Pure Land Buddhism.

what do you mean "isn't necessarily true"?

"It isn't nececssarily true in Tantric teachings from Tibet and it isn't necessarily true in Theravada teachings from Southeast Asia" means "These teachings, Tantric & Theravadin, do not necessarily have 'hongaku thought' as a prominent element." Sometimes they do. The Dzogchen tradition of Tibet believes in a thing called "practice of non-practice" which is very similar to hongaku, but isn't exactly like it. Although hongaku has ancestors in China, in its modern form, it is a distinctly Japanese trend in Buddhist philosophy.

right got it! thanks. for only hongaku teachings say that we are already enlightened? I'll accept the answer then

Teachings that teach that sentient beings are already awakened Buddhas are examples of "hongaku thought," but hongaku is a specifically Japanese version of the term. The term also exists in Chinese as "benjue," but it doesn't mean a particular strand of thought or set of schools in Chinese. For instance, some Chan sects teach buddha-nature such that all sentient beings are Buddhas. For these, one doesn't use the term 'hongaku' because they are not Japanese. Nonetheless, the belief of those Chinese Chan sects could be described as hongaku.

ok got it, thanks.

Well... Yes, kind of... The essence of Teaching is the same in all schools and the Ultimate Attainment is one, what varies between the schools is the presentation. However, to tell someone just starting out: "you are already enlightened" would be rather misleading, even if true in a certain sense.
The essence of teaching in all schools is removal of conflict, towards the Ultimate Peace. This first involves removal of obvious causes of conflict, such as unwholesome behavior, and then removal of more tricky causes of conflict such as grasping at concepts and reifying abstractions.
When all causes of conflict are completely removed, the Ultimate Peace dawns automatically. Kinda makes obvious sense, right?
Now, different schools describe this ultimate peace in different ways. Some say that the Peace is ever present, and the conflict only exists in our minds. This is the "sun behind clouds" allegory. According to this school, Peace can be realized momentarily  through Sudden Enlightenment - an insight liberating from all mental projection of conflict.
Other schools argue that the mind is not separate from the circumstances, and circumstances are fruits of past karma, so Peace cannot be attained without cleansing one's karma through a long and arduous process of Gradual Enlightenment.
Yet another group of schools claim, somewhat counterintuitively, that Ultimate Peace is the fundamental reality of all situations, including those that superficially seem like conflict. This view is known as The Great Perfection and goes hand in hand with the view of intrinsic enlightenment exemplified by the hongaku tradition.
It seems like the three types of schools are in disagreement but in reality they all speak about the same "elephant", emphasizing its different aspects. Indeed, we cannot progress on the path without removing at least some of the coarser conflict that comes from bad circumstances that came from problematic behavior. There's a point of diminishing return there though, beyond which trying to attain sterile circumstances with no conflict whatsoever only serves as a major source of inner conflict. This is when the schools teaching that "peace is a state of mind" suddenly seem more to the point. And once you practice it long and sincerely, you start getting the context in which "everything is Peace even when it's conflict" actually makes sense. The whole thing is a kind of progression.
Anyway, as you make progress weeding out conflict and cultivating peace, you start realizing that the Peace is attained right here and not in some fantasy land, hence the motto "samsara is nirvana".
Similarly, you start realizing that Peace is attained with wholesome behavior and pure mind, not with some magical superpowers. You realize there's nothing you have been lacking for the proper practice of peace here and now. You just have to do it. Hence the motto, "you are already enlightened".
All schools of Buddhism know this truth, the situation we are in. It's just that some of them describe it from the perspective of a beginner barely familiar with Buddhism, others speak to an intermediate student's view, and the non-dualist schools operate within an enlightened perspective.

so yes, but you only realise that after some time? incidentally, it is stated clearly in at least some doctrinal buddhism, so I disgree that your answer, which I may not have understood, is universally the case

you're just answering on personal experience of my non-enlightenment, which isn't a thing. and anyway, surely even those of low capacities may respond with faith in their buddha nature. sorry, but -1 I will +1 if you remove the waffle about what realisation is

Are you being disrespectful by using the word "waffle"?

no, I don't call you a waffler haha

I just don't know why you've kept it in. maybe I'm not understanding stack exchange, but I have no idea how your answers are so popular

because I speak from real experience and insight, and not just from theory, is my guess?

according to a few lay strangers on the internet hmm

yup, I suppose 25 years of study and practice resonate with them? ♂

ok sorry if you are serious. you come off like you're being a loony though in your interactions with me, good luck with your practice however. unable to unwilling to see my side etc..

eager to prove you are superior to me. etc.. I agree that it is partly a problem with me, if only because you made it one.

let's not forget that you started the personalised complaints. I certainly don't recognise you as a fully enlightened being, and this seems to bother you. etc. in general, you should learn to play by the same rules as everyone else. else you will come off as a non conformist, rather than awakened.

I have truly no idea where you're coming from. From my perspective you are confused about B. and I'm trying to help. You asked why my answers were popular - I responded nicely. I really don't see anything inappropriate about my responses to you unlike yours which come across as... argumentative? inflammatory? (e.g. the waffle and now this series). I don't know what in the world you are referring to re: playing by the same rules, in what way am I not? Etc. I'm genuinely surprised you seem to have some problem with me. I care enough about you as a sentient being to try and clear up confusion.

oh I was a previous user. on topic? sure: your answers shouldn't be as upvoted as they are imho. nbd tho

I don't remember all past users on here since 2014. Did I offend you as another user? If you don't like my answers, that's certainly your prerogative. There are many more users here who don't upvote me, I only responded to you because you left a comment, which I took as an invitation to a dialog..?

@again_insane_buddhist I don't understand your reaction, i.e., "you're just answering on personal experience of my non-enlightenment" -- instead I read this answer as impersonal: its topic was only "the Teaching", and not whatever he may infer about your enlightenment. So there was no reason to take offence IMO. Incidentally I tend to like Andrei's answers because although they're unreferenced I find them plausible -- they don't contradict and instead illuminate (rephrase, summarise, add to) whatever else I know about the topic, and are on-topic inasmuch as I understand the topic.

right yeah sorry I assumed a history that wasn't there @ChrisW no bother

Theravada Buddhism
There are four stages leading to attainment or Nirvana:-

Sothapanna - Stream-enterer
Sakadagami - Once-returner
Anagami - Non-returner
Arahath

In each stage, different elements of the ten sanyojana (fetters) will be dealt with. The Pali canon's Sutta Pitaka identifies ten fetters as:

belief in a self (Pali: sakkāya-diṭṭhi)
doubt or uncertainty, especially about the Buddha's awakeness and nine supermundane consciousnesses (vicikicchā)
attachment to rites and rituals (sīlabbata-parāmāsa)
sensual desire (kāmacchanda)
ill will (vyāpāda)
lust for material existence, lust for material rebirth (rūparāga)
lust for immaterial existence, lust for rebirth in a formless realm (arūparāga)
conceit (māna)
restlessness (uddhacca)
ignorance (avijjā)

-AN10.13 - Saṁyojanasutta
Fetters, 1-5 are known as lower fetters where-as fetters 6 - 10 are regarded as higher fetters. Lower fetters gets removed progressively in Sovan, Sakadagami and Anagami states, while the higher fetters are removed in an Arhath.
All who attain Nirvana can attain it via either of 3 ways in terms of effort required to attain Nirvana:

Savaka bodhi or Sravaka
Pacceka bodhi or Pachcheka buddha
Samma Sambodhi or Samma Sambudhdha

Sravaka bodhi requires the least effort to Nirvana, and thought of as the easiest and quickest path. Sravaka bodhi can only exist when there is Dhamma taught by Samma Sambudhdha is present in the world, as Sravaka (those who listen and learn Dhamma) can only exist when there is Dhamma present.
A Pachcheka buddha discovers enlightenment for himself, with own effort. A Pachcheka Buddha lacks the power to serve others by teaching Dhamma which he himself has discovered. Pachcheka Buddhas arise only during those periods when the teaching of a Samma Sambuddha does not exist. Pachcheka buddha spends more time than Shravaka in realizing Nirvana as it is done with own effort.
A Samma Sambuddha discovers enlightenment for himself, but in addition, he is able to teach Dhamma to others and show the path to Nirvana. Out of the 3 Bodhi, Samma Sambudhdha spends the most time. There are 3 categories of Samma Sambudhdha, in terms of the time required to attain Nirvana:

Praknknadhika bodhisathwa
Sadhdhadhika bodhisathwa
Wiiryadhika bodhisathwa

In the above list each bodhisathwa spends progressively more time in preparation to becoming budhdha. Least time is spent by Praknknadhika bodhisathwa, where most time is spent by Wiiryadhika bodhisathwa.
All three (Savaka bodhi, Pachcheka buddha, Samma Sambudhdha) are equal in terms of enlightenment, i.e. their liberation from sansara, which means that these are not three different classes of Nirvana.
However, the Sravaka and the Pachcheka bodhi are regarded as inferior to the Samma Sambuddha in terms of other, special qualities and capabilities. The arrival of Samma Sambudhdha is regarded as the highest form of mangala (luck) to all beings, because Samma Sambudhdha opens the path to Nirvana for many Sravaka.
The decision is left to the individual whether to take the way of the Sravaka, Pachcheka buddha or Samma Sambuddha.
EDIT: After the edit from the OP with more clarifications.
In Theravada, only the Arhath is enlightened. Sovan, Sakadagami and Anagami states can be thought of as intermediate states leading to Nirvana. I think there is nothing wrong in thinking of them as levels of progressive understanding. However, there is no way for the practitioner to know which state they are in. So, there is no such thing as realization of 'I'm already enlightened' for Sovan, Sakadagami or Anagami disciple. It is believed only Lord Budhdha can evaluate someone's state of mind correctly and declare the state (Sovan, Sakadagami or Anagami) they are in. However, one knows when they are enlightened, until their journey ends in Nirvana, disciples must strive towards Nirvana.
If by 'intrinsic enlightenment' you mean seeing through the world we have built around a 'self', yes it is Nirvana according to the Theravada Buddhism.
Apologies to OP, I am not qualified to compare Theravada with hongaku theory. I hope this answer will help you perform the comparison yourself.

this isn't targeted enough to the question, sorry

oh right, I think I misunderstood... do you mean that advancement is into realising our nature as belonging to one of the three destinies?

@again_insane_buddhist: Nirvana is one and the same despite you are Shravaka, Pachcheka Budhdha or Samma Sambudhdha. Its like the destination is the same, but what you do on the way, and what you want to do when you get there are different for each choice.

@again_insane_buddhist: I have added an EDIT to my answer following your EDIT.

ok thanks. that was helpful

I accepted the answer because you do seem to at least imply an answer to the actual question: that, in Theravada, srvakas realise the same nirvana as buddhas, so do not realise they themselves are already enlightened, because they themselves are not identical to buddhas. right?

in the same way that the shadows from two different objects do not overlap in the same way when you move one

@again_insane_buddhist: Yes, according to Theravada teachings, an Arhath, Pachcheka Budhdha and Samma Sambuddha are different. But this difference is only in either capabilities and qualities or how they arrived at Nirvana. Nirvana, once attained, is equal to all. Until a disciple attains Nirvana, they are not considered Arhath. Each stage of understanding is given separate names: Sovan, Sakadagami, Anagami and finally Arhath.

"The second way in which mindfulness protects you is to keep you focused on what’s important. It reminds you that the most important thing that you have right now is the state of your mind, and if any unskillful thought comes in, your first priority is to get it out. The Buddha illustrates this point with an analogy of a man whose head is on fire. His mindfulness is focused on putting the fire out right away. He doesn’t simply watch the flames and note their pretty colors; he remembers that he’s got to put them out, and he can’t let anything else distract him. That’s the second way in which mindfulness helps protect your mind: It keeps your priorities in mind and keeps you focused on your task."

~ Thanissaro Bhikkhu "Mindfulness" https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/GoodHeart/Section0009.html

these answers aren't great.

right, I guess you mean mindfulness is enlightenment but not into our intrinsic enlightenment. but that is.a wild guess

Your head is on fire so you can't just enjoy already being enlightened!

One experience of "already" is:

Someone invites you to hear or read a description of Dharma
When you're doing that they point out how clear your consciousness is

That's presented as an "intrinsic" clarity, and as attainable already/now.
But perhaps that's also "extrinsic" or conditioned, i.e. it's an awareness-of-clear-consciousness that's available when and because you're following a Dharma-talk.

To answer your question I suggest there could be three counter-arguments to the way you phrased it (i.e. that "every single enlightenment we can have in Buddhism is of our intrinsic enlightenment") -- by "counter-argument" I don't mean you're wrong but that misunderstanding or taking a wrong-sided view of the phrase could give a wrong impression:

Some enlightenments are conditioned on skilful virtue -- see this answer -- you may choose to call that "intrinsic" but if it's entwined with how you relate with others then possibly "intrinsic" isn't the clearest adjective
A statement like "I am enlightened" might be putting some undue (unhelpful?) emphasis on "I am" -- see this answer
Similarly the phrase "our enlightenment" might be too possessive or self-aggrandizing -- see this answer ("not something we do, not our own practice").

I'm not sure what "Hongaku theory" is. Perhaps the important lesson from that theory isn't that "I am enlightened" but is more-so that "you are enlightened", as so for example:

I shouldn't preach to you as if my enlightenment is superior to yours -- see this footnote about the Commentary to AN 5.159
I shouldn't pity you -- see this topic
I shouldn't assume that your leading a normal or mundane life implies you're stupid or unenlightened -- see this answer

I felt this was nitpicking rather than much of an answer (you admit you don't know what original enlightenment is, and don't answer as to whether anyone realises they are already enlightened: which was the point of the question). anyway, ego can be subtle, for sure, but acknowledging a conventional self need not be self aggrandisement (even when meditating haha)

Regarding common outcome, the Buddha says this:

MN121:13.1: Whatever ascetics and brahmins enter and remain in the pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness—whether in the past, future, or present—all of them enter and remain in this same pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness.

Regarding progression. the Buddha teaches that the skills developed in the progression are themselves transient.

MN121:11.3: They understand:
MN121:11.4: ‘Even this signless immersion of the heart is produced by choices and intentions.’
MN121:11.5: They understand: ‘But whatever is produced by choices and intentions is impermanent and liable to cessation.’

Most importantly, there is no "I am enlightened" or "I am already enlightened". Instead, the Buddha teaches:

MN121:12.1: They understand:
MN121:12.2: ‘Here there is no stress due to the defilements of sensuality, desire to be reborn, or ignorance.
MN121:12.3: There is only this modicum of stress, namely that associated with the six sense fields dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’
MN121:12.4: They understand: ‘This field of perception is empty of the perception of the defilements of sensuality, desire to be reborn, and ignorance.
MN121:12.5: There is only this that is not emptiness, namely that associated with the six sense fields dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’
MN121:12.6: And so they regard it as empty of what is not there, but as to what remains they understand that it is present.
MN121:12.7: That’s how emptiness is born in them—genuine, undistorted, and pure.

MN121 is an Early Buddhist Text. As such it predates Zen by a very long time. Studying both, one may see an unbroken connection as well as multiple cultural adaptations. Indeed, one may see the connection between emptiness and the need for Rinzai's katsu.

A monk asked: "What is the essence of Buddhism?"
The master gave a Katsu
The monk bowed.
The master said: "This one can hold his own in debate."

Teachings of Rinzai

this is OK as an answer, but fwiw think I disagree that there is no "I am enlighetened", and your quotes don't seem to directly address that point. didn't the buddha refer to himself?

You can disagree with the Buddha, but the Buddha states:

SN22.102:1.2: “Mendicants, when the perception of impermanence is developed and cultivated it eliminates all desire for sensual pleasures, for rebirth in the realm of luminous form, and for rebirth in a future life. It eliminates all ignorance and eradicates all conceit ‘I am’.

I not unconvinced by the buddha, I am unconvinced by your interpretation, or perhaps my interpretation of yours.

In Zen one must indeed rouse a Great Doubt.

can we please try to stay on topic, this petty passive aggressive one up-maniship is maddening. honestly, do you even care if you're right?

No. My goal is to provide actual references for study.

can we keep focus on one off topic answer at a time. are you absolutely sure that the buddha never claimed to be enlightened?

perhaps this is due to differences in how we read.

Yes. And the differences in how we read and interpret the teachings can lead to many misunderstandings. Having studying Rinzai Zen myself, I've found the study of the Early Buddhist Texts to be extremely helpful at illuminating the Dhamma as given by my Roshi. The primary teaching that was somehow obscured with Zen is the concept of Right View and the hollowness of identity, the conceit "I am".  The Great Doubt actually refers to the doubting of Identity View.

you are sure the buddha never claimed to be enlightened? I'll google haha

I was going to phrase this idea we are already enlightened as the present always already being past, which seems similar to Dogen's claim that enlightenment must be dropped every moment.
It seems that claim has links to 'original enlightenment' because the former is - at least superficially - the antithesis of the latter (it inverts the tense relation of enlightenment extending from the past to the present).
So no, according to Dogen we realise it is not - in practice - the case: forget what has been achieved.
Even as it may be abstractly.

Evolution in nature perpetuates samsara because it encourages becoming and it encourages reproduction. From the sutta quote below, you can see that going with the flow stands for craving. Craving is the cause of suffering according to the second noble truth. Evolution drives the natural tendency towards craving - sensual cravings and cravings towards becoming.
Going against the flow of nature is renunciation. Trying to end craving is against what evolution in nature drives us towards.
The idea of natural spiritual evolution is not found in (Theravada) Buddhism. The effort to becoming liberated is against natural evolution. Furthermore, as you can see in the Buddhist world today, extremely few join the monastic order in pursuit of liberation.
Natural intellectual evolution only leads towards increasing sensual enjoyment while attempting to reduce suffering, through improvement in healthcare, education, infrastructure, politics and economy.
Natural intellectual evolution does not lead towards liberation from clinging to sensual enjoyment. Rather, it leads one towards asking how to increase enjoyment while avoiding suffering as much as possible.
Furthermore, some minimum intelligence is required for becoming liberated, so that may exclude some people. Please see this answer for details.
However, with minimum intelligence, right effort and strong determination, anybody, regardless of their social background, has the equal opportunity to become fully liberated. Please see this answer for details.
Additionally, I think thinking that you're already enlightened but just need to uncover it, may be a kind of upaya (skillful means) to convince you to let go of trying too hard, while Iti 109 below employs upaya (skillful means) to convince you not to be too lax or lazy.
So, there's no right or wrong answer, you just need to get the right amount of effort as taught in Sona Sutta (AN 6.55) - about the strings of a lute not being too taut or too loose but just right.
From Iti 109:

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
heard: "Suppose a man was being carried along by the flow of a river,
lovely & alluring. And then another man with good eyesight, standing
on the bank, on seeing him would say: 'My good man, even though you
are being carried along by the flow of a river, lovely & alluring,
further down from here is a pool with waves & whirlpools, with
monsters & demons. On reaching that pool you will suffer death or
death-like pain.' Then the first man, on hearing the words of the
second man, would make an effort with his hands & feet to go against
the flow.
"I have given you this simile to illustrate a meaning. The meaning is
this: the flow of the river stands for craving. Lovely & alluring
stands for the six internal sense-media. The pool further down stands
for the five lower fetters. The waves stand for anger & distress.
The whirlpools stand for the five strings of sensuality. The monsters
& demons stand for the opposite sex. Against the flow stands for
renunciation. Making an effort with hands & feet stands for the
arousing of persistence. The man with good eyesight standing on the
bank stands for the Tathagata, worthy & rightly self-awakened."


text:
What fruits can a poor servant of Mara and his host expect?
Say one has gravely fallen into slavehood by consuming 'free' and, almost unaware, is driven to steal and pull the Gems and it's heritage, into this evil bound. Almost unaware and deluded, he even thinks he does a good by following a Robin Hood like lane, trying to gain surface by pulling Sublime into his sink.
What does good householder think: Which fruit, by acts grave wrong view (taking ungiven, cheating, hiding up, disregard...), following demand and 'my right' (given by Lord Mara, industy and his host), has he and those he encourage likewise, to expects, how ever 'naively good' he might justify his ways, even it directly warned? Liberation or long time even lower slave of Mara and his host?
Sure, answer honest and in line with the teacher, after having reflected wise, might change ones ways, and one might not only seek for excuse old but change the way toward out. Yet those answers might be rare and less voted up, naturally, bound like-a-like.

I have no idea what this question is asking. if you are suggesting that it is strange to have people demanding respect and acknowledgment of their enlightenment on-line, I have to admit I find it... odd. I don't think these people are devils, I think they have invested something different to me into their practice and thinking about buddhism, probably partly due to disbelief in karma

Why react on somethink when not understanding, out of range, then, at first place? Capability of understanding as well a liberality isn't something one bears inherently, good householder. Yet not knowing understanding, is always cause of ones unskilked acts, and suffering with it. Does good householder think that he is currently deep caught in Maras Slavehood and bound to his hosts camps or does Mara and his host give him the feeling of being free like nowhere else?

I have not studied much about 'mara'

So in that case easy possible that this question could be exactly about good householder, right here, or?

I don't know enough about anyone here to consider them frauds, but I don't wish to have your enlightenment forced down my throat on-line

Why not simply investigating seriously? Not-knowing isn't a protection at all, but root cause. There isn't any such as consumer-protection behind the bars, out there.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
Should we believe we have no enlightenment whatsoever?
Should we believe we have no enlightenment whatsoever?
I mean, acting like you're the Dalai Lama, famous sage or future Buddha may well come off as offensive and stupid. But if we authentically believe we are identical to a Buddha, just somewhat unrealised, is that as insane and arrogant?
If you are going to answer "that's what you realise" then please provide a reference point.

According to Theravada teachings assuming that you are enlightened, believing so is discouraged unless you are truly enlightened (at which point it has no value to you anymore). The reason behind avoiding such beliefs is to avoid the practicing Buddhist from becoming stuck in the path to understanding. Simply put, if you believe you have attained Nirvana, you have nothing more to do. But if in reality you have not brought your understanding to Nirvana (an incomplete journey) then you will be limiting yourself by your own declaration, thus prolonging sansara. According to Lord Budhdha's teachings, sansara is not a place to wait or rest - 'Appamado amathapadan' sums this up. One wrong move, and you would be trapped for eons in sansara.
If we look at the essence of enlightenment, we can think of it as seeing through our own bubble (the world) and in doing so, realizing the true nature of the process which we think of as 'myself'. For someone enlightened, there is no requirement to prove that a 'self' exists. As such, an enlightened mind have nothing to gain by declaring enlightenment. An Arhath will only declare enlightenment when that declaration could help someone else to fulfill the understanding towards Nirvana.
Ultimately the real question is not about enlightenment, its about one trying to gain something by declaring their level of understanding. Such an act in itself contradicts the enlightened mind. When you are enlightened, your sense of 'myself' will lose its value, as there is nothing worth clinging into - you have seen through everything in your world and found nothing worth keeping. As there is no one to suffer anymore, you are in the eternal bliss of Nirvana.
On the other hand, one can act like a sage or maybe even try to imitate an Arhath, but such imitation will not bring enlightenment to you. You will be just another actor portraying the qualities of someone else. In fact, this is a classic mistake most of the laypersons make when they observe Sila. This is not to say observing Sila is useless. But at its essence, Sila is not something to observe for the practicing Buddhist. For the practicing Buddhist, its an effect of the understanding, the realization and acceptance of the true nature of the world. The actual cause of his Sila is a realization. In contrast to someone who simply observe Sila as a rule or agreement, the Sila attained as a result of understanding is not a burden to the practitioner, its not limiting him, its not a sacrifice to him. Its simply how he lives because of his realization.
OP, you can start by thinking what would you gain by believing that you are enlightened and mimicking the sages. Not saying its bad, but it will not bring you any closer to enlightenment. And you run the danger of convincing yourself that you are enlightened when you are not! Imagine running 10,000 meters race and celebrating that you won the race before completing the last lap. Do not let all that effort go in vain.
TL,DR; Until you are enlightened, believing so, will become your own hindrance to enlightenment.

so that is the case even if you think you have in some sense completed the race but have not yet crossed the finishing line?

@again_insane_buddhist the race is important to you until you compete. The moment you finish it (attained enlightenment), it becomes no use to you anymore. Because there will be no sanknka of 'self' left. Whether oneself is enlightened or not becomes important only to the non enlightened. Its like after you crossed the finish line for good, there is no more race, no one running it, you have no value in the race anymore, no value in the concept of 'self' who ran the race even.

yes, but you didn't answer my question directly (which is fine)

It's interesting that "Should we believe we have no enlightenment?" could be interpreted in two very different ways:
Should practitioners collectively eliminate belief in the concept of enlightenment? Answer is no, because the concept of enlightenment is valuable a goal to work toward, and a basis for admiring and following the Buddha's footsteps.
Should I as a practitioner claim that I possess no wisdom? No, because this is almost never true. Claiming that I have no wisdom, when I do have some, goes against one of the practice of rejoicing in pure activities. So it is good to admit to having some wisdom, but safest to also admit that more still needs to be accumulated. Usually when I have heard people belittling their own wisdom, it seems to be based on avoiding downfall #15 in this Wiki list:

Falsely stating that oneself has realised profound emptiness and that if others meditate as one has, they will realize emptiness and
become as great and as highly realized as oneself.

Great answer! +1

Personally I read "having" enlightenment as a type of identity view, attributing enlightenment to a "self" as if the self is something -- instead I think it might be "less wrong" for me to consider whether enlightened behavior is or isn't (currently) present.
I think that's the bulk of the way in which it's taught in the suttas -- i.e. "good/skillful behavior is good and leads to nirvana" and so on, the talk is about the behavior not the person (though there is also talk of karma)
Similarly when teaching modern pre-school children, you're supposed to tell them about good and bad behavior -- not try to teach them "you are bad" nor "you have evil", or anything like that, again the subject is various behaviors etc.
But maybe this is just a bit of pedantry on my part -- nit-picking a choice of words, making a distinction that's not worth insisting on -- and not a distinction or a choice of words that I should try to force on you.
And yet, to the extent that "I" have been arrogant and insane myself, perhaps it's a distinction I find helpful -- a "reality check" to try to stop an "ego trip".
But like I tried to say in a previous answer, if you want to see yourself as having an identity that is somehow identical to the Buddha's, who am I criticize, or even to disagree?
It's maybe classically a question of a Middle Way, meaning "neither one extreme nor the other", with "I am unenlightened" being perhaps one extreme, "I am enlightened" being another -- instead the suttas talk about, for example, verified confidence in the three jewels. Confidence, faith, strength, and so on, are important, useful -- maybe the belief that you "have" some enlightenment is more helpful to you somehow, in that way, than it is harmful. I think some people take their confidence not so much from "having" enlightenment but from judging their own intentions, keeping the precepts, generosity too, and so on.
Oh I should mention, the Bikkhuni Sutta -- even if "I have enlightenment" were a form of conceit, the Bikkhuni Sutta implies there's a kind of conceit (like, "if he could do that then so can I") which may be instrumental, necessary:

'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk hears, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now.' The thought occurs to him, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now. Then why not me?' Then he eventually abandons conceit, having relied on conceit. 'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said.

As for whether it's insane or arrogant, I find the Zen story titled Nothing Exists:

Yamaoka Tesshu, as a young student of Zen, visited one master after another. He called upon Dokuon of Shokoku.
Desiring to show his attainment, he said: “The mind, Buddha, and sentient beings, after all, do not exist. The true nature of phenomena is emptiness. There is no realization, no delusion, no sage, no mediocrity. There is no giving and nothing to be received.”
Dokuon, who was smoking quietly, said nothing. Suddenly he whacked Yamaoka with his bamboo pipe. This made the youth quite angry.
“If nothing exists,” inquired Dokuon, “where did this anger come from?”

Two things I get from that story, one was the youth "desiring to show his attainment" and the other was Dokuon's question at the end, which I think is a fundamental question or purpose of Buddhism -- i.e. the problems of kilesas, how they originate and how to end them -- the anger (on both sides) maybe coming partly from a wounded pride!

I'm not sure what the problem with "having" enlightenment is, beyond the point about practice always being incomplete. why doesn't an apple have a red colour in the same way as someone may "have" the quality of enlightenment

I think that the beliefs "I am enlightened" and "I am not enlightened" are both potentially confusing, or with unwanted side-effects -- whether they're actually a problem might vary. Apart from "enlightened", the "I am" part of the statement might be confusing -- A thicket of wrong views -- so I'm inclined not to use it in this context, not to think in those terms i.e. about that grammatical "subject", the suttas seems to be mostly "objective" in their descriptions of Dharma.

In this specific case I think the poster explained their own motive ("my ego blends into acting" and "it definitely seems wrong").

Dokuon wasn't angry when he smacked Tesshu (and having read a bunch of Tesshu, my guess is that he's probably making himself seem dumber than he was...dude was hella self deprecating).  Tesshu's big problem was that he was dwelling in emptiness and thinking it was enlightenment - same as the Buddha's original teachers.  Emptiness has to return to form.  Emptiness is form.  Form is emptiness.  Now, if Tesshu had hit him back, that would have been a great answer!

@000 Dokuon wasn't angry I thought maybe he thought it wasn't inappropriate to pretend to be angry, to act as if he were (see also "wrathful"). having read a bunch of Tesshu Maybe he got wiser? :-) The story does say, "as a young student...".

My guess is that Tesshu actually had a sincere breakthrough experience here.  Zen people tend to minimize their own accomplishments especially in retrospect. It's like the guy who bowls a 289 game and says yeah, but it wasn't 300.  In fact, he's actually echoing Huineng in the Platform Sutra - "Bodhi originally has no tree. / The bright mirror also has no stand. / Fundamentally there is not a single thing. / Where could dust arise?"  But then the dust does arise.  Dokuon asks, what then?  This is Bodhidharma's beard and Hyakujo's fox.

You're not wrong in your reading of the anecdote re: the kilesas, but what Dokuon is pointing at is the practical mechanism for  how those kilesas are unraveled when emptiness returns to form.

Let me first say that the problem doesn't exactly lie in the belief that one is a sage or a buddha. The problem arises when one expects to be treated as a sage or buddha by the rest of the world. I mean, there are two sides to this:

The internal state of being awakened (buddha nature) which anyone can realize
The social role of being awakened for others (the role of a sage or a teacher)

Sometimes people become confused because they want to be awakened for themselves — like being awakened for others, where the other is a reflection in a mental mirror — and that can lead to attachments. But recognizing that one has the essence of awakening within one is non-problematic, and arguably an essential aspect of the dharma.
You can think of it like being at a costume party where everyone has forgotten they are wearing masks. You may realize that you're wearing a mask, and understand the essence that lies underneath it. But you can't expect anyone else to realize, because mostly they don't even see that they are wearing masks. You have to find the right attitude that allows that inner essence to reveal itself even through the mask that others see.

apparently not true for some. see the suranagama sutra

@again_insane_buddhist: I don't know what to do with such a vague comment.  can you be more specific?

I was referring to its claims - about demonic possession - that as long as you don't believe you have nothing more to accomplish you will be fine

Perceiving a Dalai Lama as sgae of future Buddha, thinking that it has something to do with awakend, is of course offensive toward the Sublime Buddha, his Dhamma and Bhikkhu Sangha, and such is also proper seen as stupid, good householder.
But in the case one does no more seek in what is subject to decay, yet has found firm faith by seeing the reality of worlds, such one, with firm faith into the Gems and with virtue pleasing for Noble Ones, if he wishes, he might declare: No more downwardly for me, heading toward final release.
And of course it's never a 'we' thing, but individual gain by ones own right effort and not a just a culture thief.
One should take care, as someone declaring attainments, beyond world, having not attained, is recognized as Biggest thief in the world, and likewise someone who makes a an ungiven fraud-copy of the Noble Domain.

I like this answer a lot, thanks!

This is a good answer, but there's no need to disparage the Dalai Lama.

That's also offensive toward the Dhamma, as one deserving dispraise is good to be blamed. A fool, thinking enlightened, does praise the blame and dislike blame of whats worthy to praise. Paves the road downwardly daily, step, by step maintaining a copy in trade.

There are some people who have partial achievements like the first level of jhana or second level of jhana, and imagine that they are now fully enlightened, mistaking bliss arising from meditation for enlightenment.
Yet some others think reaching a certain level of intellectual understanding is the same as being fully enlightened. Worse still, their understanding may be wrong and they're unaware of it (i.e. the Dunning Kruger effect).
When you think you're fully or even partially enlightened but you're not, it is a form of delusion and therefore a hindrance.
Therefore it's best to assume that you have the potential for enlightenment but you have no enlightenment presently. This will be true for most people in most cases.
So how can you know that you're fully liberated? The test is if you no longer experience even the slightest anger, hatred, envy, aversion, guilt, remorse, greed, lust etc. then you're free.

"There is such a criterion, monks, whereby a monk... could affirm the
attainment of enlightenment... What is that method?
"In this, monks, a monk seeing an object with the eye recognizes
within himself the presence of lust, hatred or delusion, knowing
'Lust, hatred or delusion is present in me,' or he recognizes the
absence of these things, knowing 'There is no lust, hatred or delusion
present in me.' Now, monks, as regards that recognition of the
presence or absence of these things within him, are these matters to
be perceived by faith, by persuasion, by inclination, by rational
speculation, by delight in views and theories?"
"No, indeed, Lord."
"Are not these matters to be perceived by the eye of wisdom?"
"Indeed, Lord."
"Then, monks, this is the criterion whereby a monk, apart from faith,
apart from persuasion, apart from inclination, apart from rational
speculation, apart from delight in views and theories, could affirm
the attainment of enlightenment: 'Birth is destroyed, the holy life
has been accomplished, what was to be done is done, there is no
further living in this world.'"
[Similarly for ear, nose, tongue, body (touch), mind.]
SN 35.152

but isn't even-one, according to some buddhists, partially enlightened?

@again_insane_buddhist To my understanding, Buddha Nature is more about the potential to become enlightened and not about being partially enlightened. But of course stream entry is an example of partial enlightenment.

agreed that is one way of looking at Buddha nature

But if we authentically believe we are identical to a Buddha, just somewhat unrealised, is that as insane and arrogant?

Conceit is an obstacle to Enlightenment and should be abandoned.

Welcome to Buddhism Stack Exchange. The system flagged this as a low quality answer. This answer is too short and doesn't contain enough details. Also, if possible, it is preferred to cite sources to support the answer. Did you intend it to be a comment under the question? If not, please see this guide on how to write a good answer.

"You have to develop your skill. As with any skill, it’s going to go through levels of refinement. And it includes factors that are very different from the goal — things like the desire of right effort, which entails wanting to do things skillfully. And even though we’re here to get rid of aversion, there has to be a certain amount of aversion, too. To begin with, you have to be averse toward the results of unskillful behavior. That aversion will eventually have to get honed down. But just because it’s there doesn’t mean that you’re going in the wrong direction. You’re learning how to approximate things.

It’s as if we’re digging for gold underground. You don’t dig for gold with a gold shovel; you use an iron shovel or a steel one. Or it’s like trying to get fresh water out of salt water. The salt water may be cool, and you want cool, fresh water when you drink it. But you don’t go straight from cool salt water to the cool fresh water. You have to take it through heat first; you heat the water and distill it. Then it can cool down again.

So there are parts of the path where you really have to put in energy, and that’s going to require desire. You’re making concentration: creating a state of concentration in the mind. You’re creating a state of becoming, in which you take on the identity of someone doing concentration in the world of the mind. That, too, requires desire. It’s simply a matter of learning how to refine your sensitivity as to what’s skillful and what’s not. Which kinds of desires are skillful, and which kinds of desires are not? Which kinds of skillful qualities are appropriate for one particular situation, and which ones are appropriate for another?"

~ Thanissaro Bhikkhu "Success by Approximation" https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/Meditations7/Section0010.html

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Causing lose of property, wealth, access in modern times: downfall transgression or just a 'virtual gaming'?
What does one think, to reflect and investigate:
If a Bhikkhu would do efforts that finally lead to lose for at least a non-Bhikkhu (lay man, novice...), such would be easy a downfall transgression (if worthy the price of a pillow...).
What do you think if such happens with possessions within the internet realm? Say, for example, making efforts that someone loses access, loses possibility to use...blocked... what ever.
Say, a Bhikkhu hunts after you and gets you banned, disabled, deprived by this or that regional authority (equal if using law enforcement for a Non-Bhikkhus lose).
As there are many using common tools, like householder, incl. there inbuild weapons, it's something that touches many actually.
(Sure, it's possible to consider also other around, yet just in kammic sphere: lay person strives for lose of a monk).

Well, I suppose that access to an internet site is not a material possession -- and so it's not like a pillow.
And I don't know details of the situation you're asking about, but removing a user from a site (preventing their posting there) may be analogous to the Kesi Sutta: To Kesi the Horsetrainer (An 4.111)?
Also I wouldn't describe removing a user as using "weapons" -- maybe it is forceful, but it is non-violent -- like I think that a key and a lock on a door is not a "weapon", but a way to uninvite an unwelcome guest.
That's just my guess though, and I don't think it's my place to try to interpret the Vinaya for you!

Yes, who says? For interpret one 1. needs to know, second have arrided at such domain. And one who thinks Kesi is applying at least should be a trainer of own kind or one with 'childs'. Like most not good to nothing wise reflected. And access to almost all in regard of livelihood for many is spiritual... not material, hmm? Good to think what's all not mind. Householders, possession, money isn't 'material'?

Although possible of long term benefit: To shut down BSE or at least drive out the mods here, would apply to householders idea, yet nevertheless likewise a downfall transgression by monks.

@user23341 - There is a sutta in which the Buddha singles out a rogue monk and asked of him to leave. I think there was a bit of to-&-fro before he left, but I can't remember the name of that sutta.

There are circumstances where a group or a person might want exclude a member, would bring such exclusion up for consideration/arbitration and or would execute it.
It is a wrong-doing if either is done for no good reason.
The severity of the offense could be a trifle to a grave offense depending on the particulars of the situation.
It can also be a skillful action if such exclusion is warranted and would be beneficial.


text:
Would you say the "dharma" explains "dharmas"
I remember the 1st book I read on Buddhism was about 'dharma' and that this has a few meanings, including, at least 'teaching' and 'element' (I suppose both of these are English glosses).

(Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism) The natural order of the universe;
natural law, cosmic order.
(Buddhism) The teachings of the Buddha as a practice to
be promulgated and taught.

These are different senses: teaching / reality.
Would you say that the teachings explain the elements?
By "explain" I mean show how they are caused.

Follow up question (I'm posting enough!) is whether either the teachings are about something real, or what they are about the elements in the present.

I'm not sure I'm processing the question correctly, but it might help to consider that 'dharma' is constructed in relation to 'karma': karma is the 'wild' and 'unconstrained' flow of the world, while dharma is measured and curated to relive the impact of the first.

not sure if it helped or not, but thanks @TedWrigley

The word "Elements" is a bit ambiguous in English -- it means "a substance" or "type of atom" (e.g. "hydrogen", "helium", etc.) in semi-modern chemistry or physics -- or more generally the basis or first-year-introduction to something (e.g. a university course titled "Elements of Statistics"), or perhaps the components of something (e.g. "the heating element").

The word "real" might be a bit ambiguous too: it's sometimes used to mean "not counter-factual" (e.g. "a unicorn is not real"), and sometimes used in the "real/ideal" duality (i.e. perhaps to try to philosophise about the difference between real and ideal).

The term dhamma has multiple meanings in Buddhism. Dhamma is defined in the accesstoinsight.org glossary page as:

dhamma [Skt. dharma]:(1) Event; a phenomenon in and of itself; (2)
mental quality; (3) doctrine, teaching; (4) nibbāna. Also, principles
of behavior that human beings ought to follow so as to fit in with the
right natural order of things; qualities of mind they should develop
so as to realize the inherent quality of the mind in and of itself. By
extension, "Dhamma" (usu. capitalized) is used also to denote any
doctrine that teaches such things. Thus the Dhamma of the Buddha
denotes both his teachings and the direct experience of nibbāna, the
quality at which those teachings are aimed.

The first sense - dhamma as an event or phenomena, can apply to "thing" as well. I guess this is what you meant by "element", and not "dhatu".

dhātu: Element; property, impersonal condition. The four physical
elements or properties are earth (solidity), water (liquidity), wind
(motion), and fire (heat). The six elements include the above four
plus space and consciousness.

If you want to know more about Dhamma, the doctrine and teachings of the Buddha, see this page.
If you want to know more about dhamma (mental quality or mental object), the fourth foundation of mindfulness, see this page, this page and the Satipatthana Sutta.
So, you can say that Dhamma (the teachings) explain dhamma (the mental objects) in the Satipatthana Sutta.

Hi Ruben. The words 'dhamma' & 'dhatu' share the same linguistic root, meaning to 'uphold'. A dhatu upholds itself while dhamma upholds people from falling into lower realms.

when expressed in the singular, the declensions of dhamma mean truth, justice or essential nature. when it is discussed it has the meaning of dogma, doctrine or teaching.
when in the plural, the declensions of dhamma have the meaning of phenomena, things, or elements. as in sabbe dhammā anattā, all phenomena are impersonal

Hello. In the nominative (subject) case, dhammā  is plural. Dhammo & dhamme are singular. For example, from MN 26 meaning 'truth' - This truth/reality I have discovered is deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of logic, subtle, comprehensible to the astute. ‘adhigato kho myāyaṁ dhammo gambhīro duddaso duranubodho santo paṇīto atakkāvacaro nipuṇo paṇḍitavedanīyo.

‘The teaching/truth is well explained by the Buddha—apparent in the present life, immediately effective, inviting inspection, relevant, so that sensible people can know it for themselves.’ ‘svākkhāto bhagavatā dhammo sandiṭṭhiko akāliko ehipassiko opaneyyiko paccattaṁ veditabbo viññūhī’ti;

thank you for the observations, they were taken into account. best regards

it is worth mentioning that both dhamme and dhammā can be both singular and plural depending on the case

In Pali, the word for 'element' is 'dhatu'. There are numerous suttas about the elements, such as MN 115, MN 140, SN 14.12, SN 14.15, Iti 44, etc.
The word 'dhatu' appears to have the same linguistic root as the word 'dhamma', meaning to 'uphold':

The Sanskrit dhatu is derived from a verb meaning to hold.
Encyclopedia of
Buddhism

The word ‘Dhatu’ is derived from the verb ‘Dha’ (धा) which means to
hold.
धारणात् धातवः |
dhāraṇāt dhātavaḥ |
The matters which hold the body are termed as Dhatu.
In general, it is a term signifying bodily fluids and tissues.
Dharmawiki

The word ‘dhatu’ is derived from the word root “Dha” by adding suffix
“Tun”. The derivation of the word is as follows-
“डु धाञ धारणपोषणयोः”- meaning that which sustains and nourishes.
In general, the Sanskrit word conveys the meaning of a component,
constituent, elementary substance, verbal, grammatical root or a
metal.
Monier-Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary, 1899

The word dharma has roots in the Sanskrit dhr-, which means to hold or
to support, and is related to Latin firmus (firm, stable). From this,
it takes the meaning of "what is established or firm", and hence
"law". It is derived from an older Vedic Sanskrit n-stem dharman-,
with a literal meaning of "bearer, supporter", in a religious sense
conceived as an aspect of Rta.
Wikipedia

Ved. dharma & dharman, the latter a formation like karman (see kamma
for expln of subj. & obj. meanings); dhṛ; (see dhāreti) to hold
support: that which forms a foundation and upholds constitution. Cp.
Gr. χρόνος, Lat. firmus & fretus Lith. derme (treaty), cp. also Sk.
dhariman form, constitution perhaps = Lat. forma, E. form
PTS Pali English Dictionary

It was once explained to me the word 'dhatu' means 'that which upholds itself'; therefore being similar to the Pali Abhidhamma term 'sabhava'.
In short, it appears the word 'dhatu' ('element') is only used in one way in the Pali Sutta, namely, referring to a discrete natural thing, such as the element of earth, the element of water, the element of sensuality, the element of ignorance, the element of Nibbana, the elements forming the unique mental disposition of an individual, etc.
In contrast, the term 'dhamma' is used in myriad ways in the Pali Suttas however each way contains the inherent meaning of something that 'upholds' life, both physically (such as food, oxygen, water & sunlight) & mentally (such as stopping the mind from falling in the lower realms). Therefore, the word 'dhamma' in the Pali Suttas, dependent upon context, can mean:

Thing/phenomena
Law/truth/reality
Teaching/doctrine
Practice/path/duty
Result of practice

You may refer to this ancient blog: The word ‘dhamma’ in context.

The word "dhamma" is defined at length by the Pali English Dictionary. Per that definition, the word "element" can be used in the sense of "a dhamma", as a part of the Dhamma and not in the sense of the "four elements".
The Buddha does discuss the four elements, but although translators avail themselves of the word "element", it actually comes from a different Pali word, "dhatu".

SN14.30:1.4: Pathavīdhātu, āpodhātu, tejodhātu, vāyodhātu—
SN14.30:1.4: The elements of earth, water, fire, and air.

Unfortunately, the translation of two different Pali terms as "element" can lead to some confusion between a "part of the teaching" and the "four elements".  To avoid such confusion, it is useful to learn a bit of Pali to understand the full meaning of the suttas.
The Buddha taught the Four Noble Truths: the existence of suffering, the origin of suffering, the end of suffering and the path that leads to the end of suffering.  They are all real and true.
As we can see from the dictionary, the word "dhamma" has a tremendous scope and specific meanings according to context.  That breadth of meaning actually  makes it difficult to make statements about dhamma explaining dhamma. Such statements tend to sound a bit like "does truth explain truth?"
I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "suchness". Perhaps you meant what the teachings refer to as "present knowledge":

SN12.33:11.1: A noble disciple understands choices, their origin, their cessation, and the practice that leads to their cessation. This is their knowledge of the present phenomenon.
SN12.33:11.2: With this present phenomenon that is seen, known, immediate, attained, and fathomed, they infer to the past and future.
SN12.33:12.1: Whatever ascetics and brahmins in the past directly knew choices, their origin, their cessation, and the practice that leads to their cessation, all
of them directly knew these things in exactly the same way that I do now.
SN12.33:13.1: Whatever ascetics and brahmins in the future will directly know choices, their origin, their cessation, and the practice that leads to their cessation, all of them will directly know these things in exactly the same way that I do now.
SN12.33:13.2: This is their inferential knowledge.
SN12.33:14.1: A noble disciple has purified and cleansed these two knowledges—
SN12.33:14.2: knowledge of the present phenomena, and inferential knowledge.

In a sense, the Dhamma may be understood as the teaching that our "windshields are dirty". The dirtiness obscure our vision and results in much suffering. When we clean our windshields, we can see things as they are.

ud1.10:8.2: ‘In the seen will be merely the seen; in the heard will be merely the heard; in the thought will be merely the thought; in the known will be merely the known.’

I didn't mean the four elements!

Thank you. Would it be possible to be more specific in your question so that others might provide suitable answers?

The teaching of the Sublime Buddha explains Suffering, it's cause, it's ending and the way of conduct to bring itjs ending about, good householder. It's not a philosophy busy and eager to explain, defend and uphold it self and can be acknowledged and seen just by those doing the task, good householder. It's not thought for the sake of building ones house or open to be pulled into it for the sake of maintain ones stand but to removes it's roof, walls and fundation. It's for the sake to step over to real.

This was flagged as "not an answer" but I think it is an answer. The question was, "Does the dharma explain dharmas" and this answers, "The dharma explains suffering".


text:
How is Zazen different from Anapanasati?
As far as I am aware, in Zazen the hands are folded in a mudra, a larger emphasis is placed on holding the specific posture, the eyes are held open, and attention is placed underneath the navel. But other than this the basic instructions seem to remain the same: concentrate on your breath, and when other thoughts arise direct attention back to the breath.
In Theravada Buddhism a large emphasis is placed on the jhanas. Is Zazen also supposed to lead to states of absorption? What are the differences between the practices?

I think the main difference is having.a zen master

They're the same practice.  What you are describing are the generalities of Soto Zen.  There's plenty of Zen that isn't Soto and that take a much more relaxed approach to posture, mudras, and the seat of concentration.  In my own lineage of Obaku Zen, for instance, we're instructed to focus our attention on the tip of the nose and don't use any mudra at all.  We also close our eyes.
Zen folk reach jhanas.  If you are practicing samatha meditation, this is an inevitability just as if you were to take up running you'd inevitably develop improved cardiovascular capacity.  The main difference is that we don't really care about which jhana we reach.  We're not taught to, say, drop sustained and applied thought so as to enter into the second jhana.  We just sit, focus on the breath, deal with what comes up, and figure it out as we go along.  This emphasis on self-discovery, I'd say, is what truly distinguishes Zen from Theravada and Vajrayana practice.  We try to find the path the same way that the Buddha did - through our own explorations.  Our teachers don't instruct us.  Instead, they keep us from going off the rails completely.  They even purposely let us get lost from time to time (hello koans!).  Obviously this is hard.  Very hard.  Ultimately, however, our realization is distinctly and utterly our own.  It's not a parroted version of something we once read in a sutra somewhere.  We find Buddha in our very bones.
Obviously, there's also that linguistic thing - jhana = dhyana = ch'an = zen.  They're all the same word.  But all that really isn't important.  To the student of zen, it's what you do with that jhana that matters.  Jhana that is not applied is self indulgence.  Emptiness has to return to form in order for insight, and ultimately liberation, to occur.

Zazen and Ānāpānassati are different in the sense that may matter to those who are starting the Noble Eightfold Path. This takes a little explanation and some context.
The Buddha had two chief disciples, Sāriputta and Moggallāna:

MN141:5.1: Mendicants, you should cultivate friendship with Sāriputta and Moggallāna.
MN141:5.2: You should associate with Sāriputta and Moggallāna.
MN141:5.3: They’re astute, and they support their spiritual companions.
MN141:5.4: Sāriputta is just like the mother who gives birth,
MN141:5.5: while Moggallāna is like the one who raises the child.
MN141:5.6: Sāriputta guides people to the fruit of stream-entry, Moggallāna to the highest goal.

Each of these two great disciples taught in different yet complementary ways. Sariputta was a great teacher of the text. Moggallāna was a great teacher of insight.  As students, we actually need both. We need to understand the text and we need guidance for insight.
Although both were adepts in depth and breadth, Ven. Sariputta would probably have been inclined to teach Ānāpānassati, while Ven. Moggallāna would probably have addressed direct experience and insight. Anapanasati is described in great detail in MN118, which is quite thorough and touches on many concepts explained elsewhere in the text. Sariputta would have answered all questions about Ānāpānassati and its terms:

MN118:15.2: Ānāpānassati, bhikkhave, bhāvitā bahulīkatā cattāro satipaṭṭhāne paripūreti.
MN118:15.2: Mindfulness of breathing, when developed and cultivated, fulfills the four kinds of mindfulness meditation.

In contrast, Ven. Moggallāna might have taught more in the style of Zen and zazen. Zen is terse and tough.

Venerable ones, those are only noisy names, wordy sentences,
and are all a mere change of robes. Names arise from the ocean
of breath in the region of the belly; their fierce drum beat rattles
your teeth so that they stutter out interpretations. Do you not
see that these are but illusory phantoms?

Personally I did things out of order. I started with Zen. But it only made sense to me after I read the suttas. In particular, MN118 was helpful regarding meditation on the breath.
Because starting with Zen was difficult for me, I'd recommend starting with at least a brief study of MN118.
However, the odd thing about the Noble Eightfold Path is that no matter where you start you always end up walking exactly as you need each step by step.
Basically, choose whichever method suits you best now.


text:
Sexual Misconduct involving Breast (Women)?
I have read somewhere (possibly Dalai Lama) that certain sexual activity comes under sexual misconduct (like Oral, Anal ...). So my question is whether using breast for sexual activity is considered sexual misconduct.

buhh... take care! Surely you would like to have reference quoted first...

-- Officer, I was only going a little over the speed limit
To understand misconduct, we need to understand the reason for the rules we adopt. The rules are guides on our journey to letting go of suffering. The rules protect us against certain dangers.  What dangers should we beware?
The Buddha warns against relishing. If we wish to stop suffering, we need to deal with relishing:

MN1:172-194.26: Because he has understood that relishing is the root of suffering,

Relishing is built on craving. If we wish to stop suffering we should understand craving:

AN6.106:1.2: What three cravings should you give up?
AN6.106:1.3: Craving for sensual pleasures, craving for continued existence, and craving to end existence.

Sensual pleasures are hard to let go of. They are the itch that gets worse if we scratch them and torment us if we try to ignore them. Screaming at us in the back of our minds is the thought, "I have an itch I need to get rid of now".
The first thing we learn on the path is that Identity is a view. This "I am" is a view. And because identity is simply a view, we can choose another view. We can choose to think, "here is an itchy feeling".   This view opens up new possibilities. And one of those new possibilities is that we might watch the itchy feeling just as we might watch our breaths coming in and out.
Watching feelings is part of mindfulness meditation. And as we train ourselves in mindfulness meditation, we start noticing something quite peculiar. Feelings cease.  Feelings arise and feelings cease all on their own.
Sometimes feelings are useful to us. Feeling uneasy in a burning building, we would seek to escape. And that would be a good escape from fire.
But what about sexual feelings?  Sexual feelings can feel powerful and urgent, just like the urge to flee a burning building. But what if, what if sexual feelings ARE the fire seeking to burn the house? Sexual feelings can make people do very strange things. Goaded by sexual feelings we might hurt others. Goaded by sexual feelings, we might use others as objects, demanding, trading and selling them at a whim. Clearly we need to set boundaries to such  madness.
The rules help us set boundaries to our misconduct. They limit suffering for ourselves as well as others. The rules give us time to let go of obsessions that bring suffering. And that time to let go is very important, because it gives us a chance to take a deep breath and look around us, to see what matters and let go of things that don't matter.
When we ask "is this misconduct?", we are really asking for permission to do something we doubt will bring us lasting happiness. We are thinking, "if only I had a little bit of this, then I could be a little happier."  And yet we also find that chasing that little bit of happiness just brings a little bit of suffering, endlessly. We become old people chasing young feelings.
The odd thing about meditation is that meditation also brings us happiness.  And the happiness brought by meditation stretches out to the point where sensual pleasures stop screaming at us. But meditation takes time.
If we haven't meditated enough, sensual feelings will still plague us. And we need some way to deal with them. In particular, we need to expand our awareness in each moment. To do so, we have to think about others. And here the rules again help us:

MN8:12.39: ‘Others will be conscienceless, but here we will have a sense of conscience.’
MN8:12.40: ‘Others will be imprudent, but here we will be prudent.’

So, instead of thinking about sexual objects such as breasts, it is better to understand that we are interacting with people. Breasts are attached to people. Have we even thought about what other people care?
Breasts are not the danger here. Flaming desire is the danger here. Flaming desire blinds and torments.

In the Pali canon, sensual (or sexual) misconduct as one of the five precepts is defined as:

He misconducts himself in sensual pleasures; he has intercourse with
women who are protected by their mother, father, mother and father,
brother, sister, or relatives, who have a husband, who are protected
by law, and even with those who are garlanded in token of betrothal.
MN 41

So for lay persons, it is more about adultery, infidelity, and a sensual relationship outside of a committed exclusive relationship (or marriage) with a free consenting adult (of legal age), rather than a specific sexual practice or fetish.
So, what's bad about sexual misconduct? What is the consequence that is to be avoided?

The minimum result it (sexual misconduct) leads to for a human being
is rivalry and enmity.
AN 8.40

And what is the purpose of virtue?

"Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, Ananda,
and freedom from remorse as their reward."
AN 11.1

Remorse typically comes from harming others in a way that you would not like to be done to you (Ud 5.1).
I don't see any cause for rivalry, enmity or remorse from the practice of "unnatural" sex within a committed exclusive relationship (or marriage) with a free consenting adult.
So, does that mean that specific sexual practices and fetishes are acceptable within a committed exclusive relationship (or marriage) with a free consenting adult?
It's definitely forbidden for monks, nuns, novice monks, novice nuns, anagarikas and those temporarily observing uposatha (stricter practice).
For lay persons outside this scope, it is not forbidden by the minimum prescribed training (i.e. the five precepts). However, serious practitioners may very well consider restraining their extreme desires.
In Buddhism, lust for sex is treated just like greed or lust for other sensual pleasures. Sexual addiction is no more evil than gluttony.

"Now suppose that there was a leper covered with sores & infections,
devoured by worms, picking the scabs off the openings of his wounds
with his nails, cauterizing his body over a pit of glowing embers. The
more he cauterized his body over the pit of glowing embers, the more
disgusting, foul-smelling, & putrid the openings of his wounds would
become, and yet he would feel a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction
because of the itchiness of his wounds. In the same way, beings not
free from passion for sensual pleasures — devoured by sensual craving,
burning with sensual fever — indulge in sensual pleasures. The more
they indulge in sensual pleasures, the more their sensual craving
increases and the more they burn with sensual fever, and yet they feel
a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction dependent on the five strings of
sensuality.
MN 75

Here is a traditional view of sexual misconduct as I understand it.
The Daśākuśala-karma-patha-nirdeśa (Explanation of the ten virtuous paths of action) authored by Aśvaghoṣa. While the breasts are not explicitly mentioned, he says:

What are inappropriate body parts?
The mouth, the anus, the calves or
Thighs pressed together, and the hand* in motion

*(this includes one's own hand).
So, while the breasts are not mentioned, we can safely conclude that using the breasts in a manner similar to the thighs or calves pressed together is inappropriate: This is because the list is not an exclusive list - Aśvaghoṣa does not say 'the inappropriate'.
Much of the following comes from the same and correlating texts:
Sexual misconduct may appear complex, but really it can also be seen to be quite simple.
If we recognise that the function of sex is procreation rather than recreation then - first of all, any form of sex that is not procreative is misconduct, even with eligible partners.
Secondly, any form of procreative sex with an unsuitable partner is likewise misconduct.
If you and your partner are both consenting, both free from any ties of family or other people, of fertile (legal) age, married to each other or both unmarried, belong to different families, are not bound by vows or decisions of celibacy, engage in a private place where any cries of passion will not be heard, during the hours of darkness, and only at those times of the month where conception is likely; and if both of you and your families are all willing to accept the consequences and responsibilities of raising a child together into adulthood if a pregnancy were to occur, knowing that nobody will object to your choice of partnership, then this is not sexual misconduct - unless your sex is on a holy day, close to a holy site, monastery, temple, and so on, in which case it is misconduct. (Likewise, to have more than five orgasms in a night is excessive, and is sexual misconduct).
So this is pretty restrictive. The Dalai Lama offered an alternative, suggesting that maybe monks don’t understand married life so well.
In this, it allows for recreational sex, as long as there is no harm done to anybody and if there is explicit consent freely given by involved parties.  ‘Harm’ also includes STDs, lack of disclosure, and anything leading to a furtive behaviour, emotional hurt of either the involved or uninvolved parties.  He has spoken of this on a few occasions.
However, and regardless, full responsibility by all parties for unintended consequences (children) is required always - and this means being present in their lives and actively raising them - not merely paying child support.  He has talked on this many times.
Always consider the possible consequences before doing anything.


text:
Where should the eye be oriented during Vipassana (Anapanasati)?
Here is a general meditation technique of Anapanasati where one concentrates on the breath.
My question is during this meditation where should the eye turned.
Should they look up, or straight normally or on nose tip?
Is there any recommendation in the tradition as to what should the eyes do?

This answer is only from the Theravada viewpoint. It's likely that you can find more diverse meditation techniques in Vajrayana.
Shambhavi Mudra is apparently an eyebrow center gazing gesture.
Agochari Mudra is apparently a nose tip gazing gesture.
While these are not found in Theravada Buddhism, the closest thing to it is parimukham. Please read this answer for a detailed analysis on the term parimukham, with respect to the mindfulness of breathing (anapanasati) meditation, in the Pali suttas.
This is often translated as concentrating on the sensation of the breath at the tip of the nose in the mindfulness of breathing (anapanasati) meditation. That does not refer to the tip of the nose at the eyebrow center, but rather, it refers to the nostrils and area around the nose and mouth where the sensation of the breath can be felt.
But the sensation of the breath can also be felt at the diaphragm and abdomen. Please also see this answer.
In any case, this is not about what to do with your eyes during anapanasati. This is about what to concentrate on. The eyes should be kept relaxed and preferably closed, to my understanding.


text:
Prayer in Soto Zen. Is it practiced? If so, how do I start, or where do i go for resources
So, I know prayer is a subject in Buddhism, but recently i started trying to learn about prayer in the Soto Zen tradition. I cant seem to find any posts that really help, or some that take me one way and another that takes me the complete other direction. I really just need some good solid place to start.

there a large contemporary work of EL scholarship on Soto and funerary rights. HTH

Like most things in Buddhism, it depends on who you ask and where you practice.  Prayer isn't a Zen thing.  It's just not.  Who, exactly, would you be praying to?  What would you even ask for?  Zen puts a premium on individual effort.  Atta dipa.  Be a light unto yourself.
Of course, practically speaking, this isn't true in the least.  Zen specifically has a whole lot of East Asian culture rolled into it.  We might pray to Guanyin for mercy and compassionate support in our practice.  We might pray to Manjurshri for wisdom.  In Japan, there's a whole host of kami who can help you with everything from your taxes to your SAT to your...ahem...marital problems.
I think the best question you can ask yourself is why you feel the need to pray.  Examine that.  Based on what you discover, you should be able to find a way forward.

Kami us a Shinto concept.  It had nothing to do with Buddhism.

i.e. (from above) "Zen specifically has a whole lot of East Asian culture rolled into it."


text:
Is nirvana a mere conscious experience, and if so of what kind?
What is nirvana if it is not just a beatific consciousness free from suffering in all meanings? I want to move away from that and the idea of the perfections (both seem slightly off).
So there is meant to be no person to have found its happiness, and soon after nirvana is realised there is no longer even any aggregates to experience its bliss. We agree there is less suffering in the world when a aspirant attains any kind of buddhahood, right? One metaphor is the extinguishment of a lamp, its flame being, I suppose, a kind of burning.
Do we look at it pseudo objectively (one less thing in pain in samsara), pseudo subjectively (the extinction of a particular painful cycle of rebirth), or some mixture of the two (e.g. it belongs to one consciousness but a reason for happiness for all).
So could you say it's not just a beatific sense of profound bliss, its the ground of all happiness that does not fool anyone? If so, if that's a fair characterisation (not at all sure it is), do Buddhists define that as a consciousness, and if so with what meaning?

There is suffering. It's not your suffering or my suffering. It's simply mental suffering that arises whenever the mind-body phenomena is mired in craving and clinging, that is rooted in ignorance.
Through the cultivation of wisdom through the noble eightfold path, ignorance is weakened and eventually uprooted. When ignorance is uprooted, craving is ended and this brings the permanent cessation of suffering. With the awakening from ignorance, comes the liberation from suffering.
Upon liberation from suffering, Nirvana is experienced. The clinging aggregates are destroyed but the non-clinging aggregates survive until the dissolution of the physical body. This is called Nirvana element with fuel remaining.
Nirvana is a phenomena or thing that is sensed by the mind when it is completely free from suffering. It is the experience of the absence of suffering. It can be cognized by mind-consciousness. It's not a thought. It's not an emotion. It's not consciousness. It's not a state of mind. It is unchanging and it is not self. Of course, due to the experience of Nirvana, peace and bliss can arise and be felt as emotions.
Imagine that you were a soldier in South East Asia during World War 2. One day you ran deep into the forest to escape the pursuit of the enemy. Since then, you lived in hiding with fear and anxiety, constantly looking out for enemy incursion, day and night, day after day. You spend decades deep in the woods with mental anguish, depression, boredom, loneliness, fear and anxiety. All sorts of mental suffering.
Then one day, some people discover you in the forest and tell you not to be afraid, and that WW2 had ended decades ago. There's no war anymore. No enemies. Only peace.
Becoming awakened to the fact that the war had ended, which is uprooting the ignorance of the fact that the war had ended, causes the ending of clinging to the mindset (or mental concept or mental world) of living in hiding from the war. And with the ending of this clinging, comes the cessation of mental suffering. No more fear and anxiety.
You experience a huge burden lifted, a sense of relief, a source of peace and bliss. That's not a thought or emotion of the mind. That's not consciousness. That's not a state of mind. That is a phenomena which is experienced by the mind. That is a phenomena cognized by mind-consciousness. That is the experience of the absence of suffering.
This is an analogy to explain what Nirvana is.
Of course, the WW2 soldier's freedom from suffering is not permanent. It would soon get replaced with some other suffering. The permanent achievement of Nirvana on the other hand, brings permanent freedom from suffering.

Ven. Sariputta: “Reverends, extinguishment (Nibbana) is bliss!
Ven. Udayi: “But Reverend Sāriputta, what’s blissful about it, since
nothing is felt?”
Ven. Sariputta: “The fact that nothing is felt is precisely what’s
blissful about it.
AN 9.34

Excellent answer, can you please elaborate what do you mean by unclinging attributes?

@MrGreenGold Please see Difference between aggregates and clinging-aggregates?.

I saw it and it was a very complicated answer. Does it means to say physical body and mind is non clinging aggregates and subtler bodied are clinging aggregates?

@MrGreenGold No. They are the same. It's just that when you cling to them, they are called the clinging aggregates. It's defined this way, so that dependent origination makes sense with clinging aggregates collapsing when ignorance is overcome completely. However, the non-clinging aggregates remain in a living arahant.

I humbly think you are wrong and have got it reverse. It's not what we cling to, it's what clings to us.

@MrGreenGold Basically when the five aggregates are tainted, they are called the clinging aggregates. Yes, by right it's not whether we cling to it, or it clings to us, because all phenomena is not self.

Nirvana is not a place like heaven to experience. Its merely seeing the world as is without the wale of Moha blocking our view. When you attain Sopadisesa Nirvana you get to see the process that binds you to Sansara, and in that, you realize there is nothing worth clinging onto, thus removing the reasons to Bhawa (simply means rebirth). So, at Anupadisesa Nirvana, when your body dies, there there will be no rebirth for you, thus breaking the cycle of birth and death (sansara).
Due to Moha, we never get to experience the world as is. Everything we do, is targeted towards building the concept of 'myself'. In this conceptual world we build ourselves with 'myslef' at the center, we form attachments of Lobha (attraction), Dwesha (desisting) or neither Lobha nor Dwesha.

If we take Lobha attachments, the 'self' is ascertained by thinking that something is good for 'me'.
If we take Dwesha attachments, the 'self' is ascertained by thinking that something is bad for 'me'.
If we take neither Lobha nor Dwesha attachments, the 'self' is ascertained by thinking that something is neither good nor bad for 'me'.

This is a very tiresome thing for all of us, but we do not know any better. We simply do this over and over when interacting or identifying anything in the world, and build up the conceptual world within our mind accordingly. This is why we never see the reality. We always see a reflection of our own mind.
If you take your own body, how many aches and pains are there? How many diseases are there? Don't you fear of getting diseases in the future? You may not be happy of your weight, height, muscle structure, metabolic rate, body odor, hair, etc. Even to maintain your body you have to feed it, bathe it, dress it, tend to its needs. Even if you do them all today, your tasks are not done. You need to repeat them tomorrow, the day after, and until you die. Lord Budhdha shows us that it will not be over even after death. Because we are bound to Sansara, we will receive another body to maintain, fear, care, hate, or like. As long as there is someone (sakkhaya dhitti) they will face suffering (dukhkha).
According to Lord Budhdha, there are 31 plains of existence, 31 plains where we can be reborn. And we have no control over that. These plains have different kind of bodies and minds. In some plains there are lifespans of eons. Whatever the plain you are born, as long as there is someone they will face suffering (dukhkha).
Nirvana is the end of this endless cycle. There is no one to suffer at Nirvana. That's why its a bliss.
Note: When Nirvana is realized in this life with the body remaining, it is called Sopadisesa nibbana-dhatu. When an Arahat attains Parinibbana, after the dissolution of his body, without any remainder of physical existence it is called Anupadisesa nibbana-dhatu.

but it's not bliss for anyone, so is bliss the right word? happiness without anyone being happy, unless of course we mean that it's happiness for the ex person, they have achieved their past goals

@again_insane_buddhist Yes it is not a bliss for 'anyone'. The view that there is 'someone' is no more for Arahath. There is no 'I' for Arhath as s/he sees through the process that was misunderstood as a 'self'. I agree that Bliss is not the right word. My opinion is that the correct term is Nirvana, and Bliss is a crude explanation to Nirvana.


text:
When does right or wrong view at death over ride the karma one has accumulated in life?
When does right or wrong view at death over ride the karma one has accumulated in life?
I was just reading (googling) how right and wrong view when we be die can determine our next birth, rather than our karma in general. For genuine Buddhists, this may not be a problem, because that is also temporary. But it's an issue for me, so I wondered when that happens, when karma plays less of a role.

Here is what I was reading

right and wrong view at the time of death can only temporary over ride (not eradicate) karma

This seems to be the explanation for how evil doers with wrong view can end up with a good rebirth (and virtuous people with right view a poor rebirth): a momentary change of view.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.136.nymo.html

Related: Last thought before death?

I've already read it @ChrisW but thanks!

Related: Can we program or pre-define our last thoughts?

helpful thanks @ruben2020

Yes. Even if one leads a virtuous and generous life, if at death wrong view is present, one is headed downwardly, good householder. So very importand to gain the stream!

"Now, for one of wrong view, Lohicca, I tell you, there is one of two destinations: either hell or the animal womb.... more on "how to adress wrong view."

At what time ones conducts grows righteous, secure not to fall down ever again?

Enter
At Savatthi. "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 shades. 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 shades. 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."

Mudita

Right view does not override the kamma. Right view permits enduring the kamma experienced.

MN86:17.2: Now at that time someone threw a stone that hit Aṅgulimāla, someone else threw a stick, and someone else threw gravel.
MN86:17.3: Then Aṅgulimāla—with cracked head, bleeding, his bowl broken, and his outer robe torn—went to the Buddha.
MN86:17.4: The Buddha saw him coming off in the distance,
MN86:17.5: and said to him,
MN86:17.6: “Endure it, brahmin! Endure it, brahmin!

Right view lessens the burden of that kamma.

MN86:17.7: You’re experiencing in this life the result of deeds that might have caused you to be tormented in hell for many years, many hundreds or thousands of years.”

Aṅgulimāla killed many. He became a follower of the Buddha and changed his view before he died.
However, sometimes it takes a passage through Hell to change wrong view. Ven. Moggallāna once said:

MN50:23.1: I roasted for many years, many centuries, many millennia in that Great Hell.

Ven. Moggallāna was one of the Buddha's two chief disciples.
Random paths
In general, the Noble Eightfold Path is conditioned. When we direct our intentions with Right View, the outcomes of our actions are no longer random whims lit by momentary impulses of desire. The outcomes are Noble, directed towards less suffering:

MN44:10.2: “The noble eightfold path is conditioned.”

However, we have to guard intentions very carefully. In particular, notice that the Buddha teaches that although our own intentions matter, kamma can also be conditioned by others.

AN4.171:6.1: Mendicants, there are four kinds of reincarnation.
AN4.171:6.2: What four?
AN4.171:6.3: There is a reincarnation where one’s own intention is effective, not that of others.
AN4.171:6.4: There is a reincarnation where the intention of others is effective, not one’s own.
AN4.171:6.5: There is a reincarnation where both one’s own and others’ intentions are effective.
AN4.171:6.6: There is a reincarnation where neither one’s own nor others’ intentions are effective.

Because the intentions of others impact us as well, those intentions of others are like waves on the ocean that toss about small boats. Those waves arise from the intentions of others. Our own intentions direct the steering of our own little boats on the open ocean. And just like a small boat on the ocean, navigation (i.e., Right View) is a way to avoid many bad outcomes (i.e., lost at sea). In that way one might say that we "override" the kamma of ignorance. We are still at sea but stop welcoming random directions and choose instead the right direction. We let go of ignorance in favor of Right View.
Once we embrace Right View and set our boats on a good course, interesting things happen.

DN33:3.1.101: They think:
DN33:3.1.102: ‘If only, when my body breaks up, after death, I would be reborn in the company of well-to-do aristocrats or brahmins or householders!’
DN33:3.1.103: They settle on that thought, concentrate on it and develop it. As they’ve settled for less and not developed further, their thought leads to rebirth there.
DN33:3.1.104: But I say that this is only for those of ethical conduct, not for the unethical.
DN33:3.1.105: The heart’s wish of an ethical person succeeds because of their purity.

We can get quite fancy about favorable destinations:

DN33:3.1.132: They think:
DN33:3.1.133: ‘If only, when my body breaks up, after death, I would be reborn in the company of the Gods of Brahmā’s Host!’
DN33:3.1.134: They settle on that thought, concentrate on it and develop it. As they’ve settled for less and not developed further, their thought leads to rebirth there.
DN33:3.1.135: But I say that this is only for those of ethical conduct, not for the unethical.
DN33:3.1.136: And for those free of desire, not those with desire.
DN33:3.1.137: The heart’s wish of an ethical person succeeds because of their freedom from desire.

For those who embrace Right View the paths followed lead to:

AN10.63:1.4: The one who has seven rebirths at most, the one who goes from family to family, the one-seeder, the once returner, and the one who is perfected in the present life.

So in that way, Right View is essentially the abandonment of all the intentions that would lead us to random bad existences stuck in an ocean of suffering.  There is no magic transporter to "Nibbanaland".  We have to get there on our own.

not sure if we've misunderstood each other. I mean temporary over ride, so you get reborn somewhere as if by random

Thank you for the clarification. I've added a new section on "Random Paths" that highlights what the Buddha taught about how views affect outcome. Hopefully that will be of some use.

I don't mean right view in the super mundane way, I just mean basic buddhist beliefs. sorry for any confusion

Ah. Understood. I can only direct towards what the Buddha taught. Those teachings are core to all Buddhist beliefs, but have evolved to focus on different basic buddhist beliefs by each tradition. I studied Zen and those basic beliefs are worded differently than the texts quoted above. We'll have to see how other Buddhists on this forum share their own knowledge.

right. so you're pretty sure that doesn't come up in Theravada Buddhism? Interesting, thanks. it was a Tibetan secondary text (I think?)

I cannot say. The vocabulary of the Early Buddhist Texts is quite rigorous and modern language does not quite bridge exactly to the texts. I have experience searching the five Nikayas for key terms found there. If you happen to remember the Tibetan document, it might help that search. There are also Tibetan Buddhists here on the forum who will be far more knowledgeable than I about their own tradition.