text:
How to "abandon the fetters completely"?
I was thinking about this comment ...

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

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

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

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

A Once-returner (Sakadagami) has greatly attenuated:

Sensual desire
Ill will

A Non-returner (Anāgāmi) is free from:

Sensual desire
Ill will

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

Voting this up as I would like to see some good answers, this is a well asked question! I may have said "Abandon" in a previous question, but come to think of it, it may not be the best perception in understanding the way to attain stages of enlightenment.

I'm struggling to figure out how to answer this question as it presupposes a few different ideas from different tenet systems. IOW, it is mixing concepts and teachings from the first turning of the wheel of dharma with the second turning in I think a confused manner. Theravada and Mahayana give different accounts of the "stages of the path" and what is accomplished at different points. I think the question here is trying to reconcile them. @ChrisW what do you think?

For instance, 'stream-entry' according to some Mahayana is synonymous with the First Bhumi or becoming an Arya being. That is, it is marked by the direct perception of emptiness while in meditative equipoise. I don't believe this is the Theravada account at all.

What many Theravada call stream-entry I think corresponds with the first two paths of preparation and accumulation which is decidedly not what Mahayana calls for.

@YesheTenley I was trying to reconcile the Pali canon's description (because perhaps I know that better than, I have read more of that than, Mahayana descriptions) with my own understanding -- where my own understanding may be influenced by (and/or may parallel some of the views of) Mahayana practitioners. Even so I left this topic untagged (e.g. not tagged 'theravada'), and therefore open to answers from any (or several) schools. I was hoping some answers might be practical (practice-oriented).

Phew, big question! Let's see if I can address some of that...
"The process" definitely gets harder to talk about as it progresses. This is true not only in my personal experience, but is also substantiated by the tradition. Indeed, if Enlightenment was simple and straightforward to explain, wouldn't everyone be enlightened by now? More seriously, would Buddhism evolve so many different schools with their unique ways to talk about it?
According to most schools, the mind of Buddha is indescribable. Some schools insist Buddha is completely mindless (the consciousness ceases), while others posit that while Buddha does have awareness, it is completely beyond concepts. Buddha himself said:

A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with.

If the above does not explain, it at least provides some justification for why the talk about Enlightenment can hardly not be metaphorical, beating around the bush, and involving multiple mutually contradicting descriptions.
Is it gradual?
Yes and No. It is gradual in the sense that it involves work and unfolds increasingly over time... It's not "gradual" in the sense that it can not be achieved by doing the same thing again and again mechanically, and waiting for it to just happen. (Google "Zen polishing the tile" story.)
One of my teachers said: "Enlightenment is a choice we keep on making". This highlights one aspect of it, that it's not necessarily asymptotic nor is it irreversible, but because it's "a choice" we must learn to "keep on making", there is a sense in which Enlightenment is a skill that is developed over time.
You do know that this very question (gradual vs. sudden) was the main point of debate between the schools of Chan, as well as between Chan and Tibetan Buddhism? Although, some modern scholars conclude that such a reified distinction between schools was more like a rhetorical device used by the subsequent schools, and that none of the historical schools (to an extent that we can even talk about distinct "schools") were in fact fully "sudden" or "gradual".
Is it more and more moments?... there's no such thing as an "enlightened person"...
I would rather characterize it as "less and less" rather than "more and more". In my experience, it is less and less grasping/attachment, less and less overgeneralization, less and less confusing abstractions with reality, less and less losing emotional balance. And yes, less and less "enlightened person", less and less thinking/worrying about oneself in general, less and less trying to characterize oneself as something specific (enlightened or whatever). Less and less thinking of oneself as one distinct entity or agent. Less and less conflict, less and less suffering. It's like, the tangle gets progressively looser, until it's barely in a single piece anymore. Or, a fire that is pulled apart, into individual pieces of wood...
I was wondering what the difference is between [sotapanna] and the "higher" stages of enlightenment -- and how to achieve or progress towards those, what (what practice and/or realization) is required?
I think it requires the kind of practice that Buddha metaphorically described as leveling of the earth, starting from the mountains, then hills, then progressively smaller features, until even the ground itself is "flattened away", followed by space and the very mind itself. The way I understand this, we should keep looking for obstacles to suchness - the sources of existential conflict that generate the experience of suffering.
The sense of "I" is just one of such sources (albeit a major one). Another big source of suffering, recognized in Mahayana, is the idea of Enlightenment itself (aka the idea of Nirvana as goal "over there"). At some point the practitioner is supposed to "get over" (to quote my Zen Master) the notion of the goal, because the very notion of the goal dependently co-creates anxiety of not having reached the goal. Just another "bump" to be "leveled". Then there is this idea of reincarnation or rebirth, which is really just the good old Self in disguise. And then there are myriads other "bumps" not necessarily as universal but equally important for an individual practitioner. Someone is hung up on the unrequited love, someone has a problem of being self-conscious and shy in the social setting, someone is passive-aggressive etc. Every one of these is supposedly rooted in some sort of attachment/overgeneralization that must be transcended on the way to complete Enlightenment.
In this light, achieving progress towards the higher stages definitely requires going beyond the basic morals/meditation/philosophy and into the nitty-gritty of our everyday life situations and hang-ups. Like, definitely, 100%.
Does the "dhamma-eye" being associated with stream entry imply that "the Dhamma" is already seen at that stage...
As I said in other answers, I think that stream-entry is by definition the point when one gets more or less clear about the problem, the goal, and the method - and hence "enters the stream" of right practice solving the right problem, leading to the right goal. With stream-entry, suffering has been directly recognized as subjective condition, relationship between craving/attachment/overgeneralization and suffering has been directly seen, the cessation of suffering has been directly realized in at least one real case, and -- most importantly -- the overall way "things work" has been intuitively grasped.
Practice subsequent to stream-entry may certainly involve new discoveries and realizations, it's not like you stop learning - but all these discoveries and realizations should all fit within / feed back into, this basic framework of 4NT and "the way things work".
In a recent answer I said, stream-entry is when a student is supposed to completely get it 100% with no doubts, unlike Buddha who has to figure it out from scratch having doubts until the last moment. But in practice that 100% point-in-time understanding was only possible back when Buddha was still alive and Dharma was delivered straight from the source. As time passes between the lifetimes of Buddha and the student, the Dharma gets gradually more "corrupted" (diluted, mixed-up), and the phenomenon of stream-entry gets gradually less straightforward. The future students of Buddhism must do more and more work by themselves to figure out the puzzle, which makes their paths increasingly closer to that of the Buddha, at least in this one sense.
, and thence can only become more ever-present (more of the same)? ...is that related to so-called "mindfulness"?
In my experience, as Dharma is internalized, and the habit of grasping is reduced, what I call "hard mindfulness" (keeping a constant watch over oneself) gives way to something much more fluid, more like the effortless ice skating. So, if we can speak about "more of the same" - it's more of the same fluidity and effortlessness. It's not that due to mindfulness your "moments of enlightenment" keep growing until it's one continuous Enlightenment. It's more like, due to the letting go and non-grasping, the GAPS between samsaric moments occur more and more frequently, until the whole thing gets so loose that it's not there anymore. Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche spoke about this at length, the porous nature of reality, the soda-bubbles, the ping-pong, the gaps, and the space dancing with itself. I think it's a nice way to describe it. In fact, one of the biggest virtues of Tantra (in my opinion) is providing a language to talk about these indescribable experiences in a way that can be shared and understood.
Why does Right Concentration (samma samadhi) talk exclusively about jhanas? Are they, how and/or why are they, at what point or stage are they, relevant and necessary for any (further) progress?
My teacher said that in the Eightfold Path, concentration (Samadhi) is not your regular "concentration" as in focusing on an object. It's more like ability to shift your attention of your subjective world to achieve a particular perspective on things. For example, we can look at things from a biological standpoint, or a sociological standpoint, or a semiotic standpoint, or a Buddhist standpoint. According to my teacher, in the Eightfold Path, concentration (Samadhi) requires developing an ability to control our perspective/attention of how we see the moment and life at large.
Specifically in Buddhism, first we develop ability to see the world phenomenologically as The Six Senses, Five Skandhas etc. Then we step it up a notch and develop ability to see Emptiness of all phenomena and the subject. Finally, we develop ability to let go of any position and sustain nirvikalpa-jnana, which is a completely unreified / unovergeneralized mode of awareness. Apparently this is what's actually referred to as Samadhi in the Eightfold Path.
Can you outline any connection between practising jhanas and living/acting/thinking in the world?
This is a big topic, but basically, the practice of jhana manifest in the everyday life as positive, upbeat attitude. You are supposed to understand the mechanisms of mind enough to be able to always maintain yourself in a good mood.

So there's all that on one hand... Now, let's put all this aside and talk about the following. In one sense, everything is already perfect. This includes the world and all sentiment beings including yourself (myself) in whatever state they are. Everything is perfect just as it is, with all its imperfections, that's a fact. Achieving a direct clear vision of this is known as the Sudden Enlightenment. It has an effect of completely liberating one from all suffering. After all, what suffering can there be, if everything is perfect? So when the Sudden Enlightenment schools make fun of gradualists, they understandably contrast the never ending perfectionism of gradualists with their own nice and simple way to be free, if only one can see it directly. Everything is perfect. Enlightenment is a choice we keep on making.
There's an opinion that Anuttara-Samyak-Saṁbodhi of the Buddha entails having both views of Enlightenment, gradual and sudden, coexist in one mind at the same time, with no cognitive dissonance whatsoever. I guess this is why Buddha's mind is said to be indescribable?

Some schools insist Buddha is completely mindless Whatever that means?! I imagine, instead, "perceiving" (not unconscious), and responsive (but, according to scripture, not desirous of further becoming, e.g. to become enlightened - even 'becoming a teacher' was a response, to a request (from Brahma)). A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. Yes, the title of the question was misleading, but I didn't mean to ask about the end state (arahant) -- I meant to ask about the way towards "once-returner" and "non-returner", especially the method[s] of practice.

You do know that this very question (gradual vs. sudden) was the main point of debate...? Yes I read that Tibetans decided on "gradual". I didn't mean to ask about gradual or sudden. I meant to ask whether further progress is progressively more of the same, or (instead) something discontinuous or different in kind. Your remark about polishing a tile implies that merely more of the same might be ineffective (but to follow that up with another question, "what else instead, then?" seems like more just grasping though, so, fine, that does answer that).

Another big source of suffering ... is the idea of Enlightenment itself Yes, not news to me though it does bear repeating. nitty-gritty of our everyday life IMO it isn't concepts or doctrine that troubles me (like "will I be reborn?"), rather it's hindrances (like sensuality, "say, can you find something sweet to taste?", or torpor, "hey, how can you concentrate when you feel slight physical weariness?"). In everyday life, with so much having and discarding distracting thoughts, 'executive function' feels like wading through molasses: slow, torpid, distracted, handicapped, not effortless.

it's more of the same fluidity and effortlessness "It" doesn't seem effortless to me -- more like some kind of hindrance. But I suppose it should (feel "effortless") -- so, thank you for that advice. It's not like I have Parkinson's disease (which interferes with the mind's controlling the body), i.e. there isn't (or shouldn't be) really anything stopping me from getting things done (even though the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta suggests that "my body" and "the perceptions" and so on are disobedient).

Enlightenment is a choice we keep on making. I think that echoes my thesis that it's some matter of (somehow) remaining perpetually (or more and more continually) conscious (mindful, or awake) -- rather than e.g. getting swept away by a flood of sensuality, by trains of thought, like memories and daydreams, by feelings ("I'm not sure I like interacting with bureaucracies, so I won't, but I must, I'll delay, oh no!"), etc.

Re: mindless Buddha -- "according to Candrakīrti" ... "the fluctuations of mind and mental functions” have “completely ceased” ... "the dharma-kāya
causes a didactic sound to emit from a buddha . . . [but] the production of this
sound does not at all mean that a buddha is cognitively active" ... "enlightenment is a process of ‘not knowing’ and is characterized by the elimination of the knowing instrument, the mind" - personally, I don't take it too seriously though. Just mentioned for the sake of completeness.

Re: "more of the same" and "what else instead, then" -- from my perspective, the process is precisely opposite to "more of the same". Instead, it has an ever increasing flavor of freshness, of not holding on to old biases and pre-conceptions, of seeing things with new eyes -- the proverbial "beginner's mind". If you are looking for one principle that grows from beginner's to more advanced stages, I think that's probably it.

What is the source of those quotes about Candrakirti? It sounds like a misreading.

@YesheTenley This is from John Dunne's article Thoughtless Buddha, Passionate Buddha published in 1996 by Journal of the American Academy of Religion.

Yeah, that is both an outdated translation and incorrect interpretation according to Gelug. Here is the verse from more recent translation, "Because buddhas are manifestly, completely enlightened about all aspects of all phenomena, they
are asserted as reversing forever the flow of mind and mental factors." Moreover, the text clearly states that Je Tsongkhapa disagreed with this interpretation that Dunne is giving here. I don't think it means what he thinks it means :)

And what does 'flow of mind and mental factors' mean? From Candrakirti's Clear Words, "Conceptuality is the flow of mind. Because of being free from that, suchness is without conceptuality."

Yup, that makes sense. Thanks for this clarification.

Some thoughts from the Theravada perspective.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answering some questions from the post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To me it is just a matter of gradually removing little obscurations Yes. I hoped my question was asking after (the?) practical method[s] of gradually (actually) removing obscurations, as if that's possible. And, this answer appears to be, "Be free of conceptual elaboration"!

I don't know what "grasping at duality" means by the way in this context (unless he's talking about "self-versus-other" duality maybe). From the comments under this answer I inferred (perhaps incorrectly) that "non-duality" isn't even a thing , that instead there are "conventional dualities" ... and "emptiness".

It is indeed this kind of duality where subject is not different with object. Having an insight into ultimate this way simply is looking at things before slicing them in concepts and distinctions. The concise explanation that helps might be found here in the citation: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/26696/13383

"Meditation is to look deeply in order to arrive at reality-first the reality of ourselves and then the reality of the world. To get to that reality, we have to let go of the images we create in our consciousness and our notions of self and other, inside and outside. Our practice is to correct this tendency to discriminate and think dualistically, so that reality will have a chance to reveal itself."

@ChrisW What are you getting after by saying "non-duality" isn't a thing? I think perhaps jargon is getting in the way of understanding. That is why it is so important to nail the jargon and describe the tenet system for context that you are using.

@YesheTenley Saying that something "isn't a thing" is a colloquialism, maybe an Americanism. Now I read (in Andrei's answer) "everything is already perfect" so ... how are you supposed to put that in your pipe and smoke it, altogether with the "conventional dualities" that you talked about? :-) Anyway I hope I'd nailed some of the (non-Mahayana) jargon -- certainly not all ... I don't know (though might imagine) even what a "tenet system" is, for example. Anyway, in this topic I was hoping for more ... methods of practice or something, rather than only metaphysical doctrine.

@ChrisW There is a lot to like in Andrei's answer. In fact, I'm struggling to understand if we have any real differences rather than mere misunderstandings of emphasis. However, I think Andrei's answer is very personal to him and reflective of his particular mix. The "everything is already perfect" is I think a statement of complete pacification of the mind. IOW, it is a description of an experential feeling that might be encountered among the 10 Bhumis. Anyway, as for non-duality and emptiness... I think you should ask a question about this as I have my own answer but I'd like to hear others.

@ChrisW you really asked many different questions in the post.

@bodhihammer I really did, yes, and I often do (when I ask a question on any topic here). And thank you for answering any of it.

I guess two bits of this answer seem practical -- mainly, maybe, a hint towards combining "free of conceptual elaboration" with what Andrei called "effortless"; secondly, pointing out that "jhana" may have other (Mahayana not Theravada) usages ... and may be equated with perception of mundane space (or is that not what you mean by "absolute space"?), and that that perception (when untainted) is enlightened awareness.

Yes, that is indeed what I meant. In fact Dudjom hints one toward finalising Samatha in order gain access to recognise and contemplate of such "space" more often, he concludes “The merit gained in a single day by someone with extrasensory perception cannot be gained even in a hundred lifetimes by someone without extrasensory perception.”, so that it is important step towards full potential of mindstream.

I have heard, from a Bhikkhu teacher that, Jhana is not a dependency for attaining the first three stages of enlightenment: basically, the first stage (Stream enterer), second stage (Once-returner), and the third stage (Non-returner), can be attained intellectually and as a layperson. If you have Jhana capabilities, it makes everything quicker. However, Jhana is required to remove the top 5 fetters.
Let's talk about the 5 lower fetters. In a sense, these fetters can be seen as "locks" for reincarnation. Each lock is a type of "suffering". If you can open these locks, you will no longer have these 5 types of suffering. Put it this way, these five aspects will no longer cause you any trouble mentally.
So, the term "abandoning" may not convey the best meaning. A better description would be "to disable the effect of those five fetters on our mental states".


text:
Should we feel good about life?
It was intense suffering which bought me to the path of Dhamma. But now as I practise I see that I have started defining my life through the lens of suffering. Even if I practise non-attachment and remind myself of ancicca which destroys craving and clinging I feel bad about my life.

Should we feel good about our lives?
What are the reasons to feel good about it?
Can we be both happy about our life and pursue Nibbana?
If we only look at life as suffering and unsatisfactory does this not make us masochist?

why?
I don't see a single reason to.

Some reasons to be happy comes from Dhammapada 197-200:

How very happily we live,
  free from hostility
  among those who are hostile.
  Among hostile people,
  free from hostility we dwell.
How very happily we live,
  free from misery
  among those who are miserable.
  Among miserable people,
  free from misery we dwell.
How very happily we live,
  free from busyness (materialism, avarice)
  among those who are busy.
  Among busy (materialistic, avaricious) people,
  free from busyness (materialism, avarice) we dwell.
How very happily we live,
  we who have nothing.
  We will feed on rapture
  like the Radiant gods.

Rapture (piti) comes from jhana (level achieved in concentration meditation)
The above words come from the perspective of monks who have renounced the worldly life.
But even for lay people, it just goes to show that we can be very happy and grateful for all the good things or situation that we have, the good environment that we're in, and the good deeds that we have done.

Feelings come under the 2nd aggregate. Feelings are impermanent, suffering and non-self regardless of if they are good or bad. All you have to do is to be mindful of feelings, both good and bad until you attain enlightenment.

masochist: a person who derives sexual gratification from their own
  pain or humiliation

Not sure how you even came up with the idea that being mindful of reality to attain enlightenment is synonymous with deriving sexual pleasure from humiliation. :)

You took the other specific definition. The general use is : a person who enjoys an activity that appears to be painful or tedious.

With that definition students studying hard to pass an exam, doctors/nurses working hard to save patients, people exercising hard to lose weight, cave rescuers working day and night to rescue a football team should all be masochists. :)
Mindfulness is not about enjoying. It's about learning what is the truth.

yes it appears like that when you read it out of context. If you put it in the context of my question I meant, i am working through the lens that life is suffering and from that stand point if I derive happiness it looks masochist. Its from the contextual bigger picture.

Nibbana is not about deriving happy feelings.

Suffering is to be understood, it is not something you yearn to experience

Neither it is about deriving anything, nor thwarting anything. It is the highest bliss that liberation gives.

1. Should we feel good about our lives?
Depends upon the context of our lives, yes? If we spend our time helping others, working to pacify ourselves, engaging in virtuous deeds and generally working towards achieving happiness for ourselves and others, then why not feel good about that? Indeed, if this is the case one should rejoice! Finding the Dharma and taking refuge in the Triple Jewels is rare. It is truly an achievement to be rejoiced.
2. What are the reasons to feel good about?
See above :)
3. Can we be both Happy about our life and pursue Nibbana?
Isn't happiness and freedom from suffering the aim of all sentient beings? Isn't this the aim of pursuing the path to the spiritual life in the first place? What is Nirvana if not arriving at the achievement of these aims? Isn't Nirvana the end of the spiritual life where one's aims have been achieved?
4. If we only look at life as suffering and unsatisfactory does this not make us masochist?
Dhukka and Samsara are facts. Reality exists (Dhukka/Samsara) whether we perceive the truth or actively try and hide from it. Seeing things for what they are is not masochism. Indeed, it is necessary to achieve our aims... freedom and release from Dhukka and Samsara. If we sit quietly drinking coffee while the house is on fire saying, "This is fine" it doesn't put out the fire, does it? No, in order to rescue ourselves from the fire we have to know the fire exists, right?
If we know the fire exists and how to put it out and engage in the practice of putting out the fire for ourselves and others, then why not rejoice in doing so?

With respect, but if you already had a 'bad time' and Buddhism does not seem tk work out the way you expected, then I suggest to seek out a therapist.
The Buddha wasn't a pessimist who claimed that life is suffering. The 1st NT states the reality of dukkha, which has a wide range of meaning. From distress, unease, unsatisfactoriness to suffering. It makes little to no sense to view life as suffering, since it is not true and it doesn't help you in the long run to live happily your life.
By all means, practise the Noble Eightfold path with dilligence and enthusiasm, but if certain underlying beliefs still sabotage your life I suggest you to seek help because it can be quite difficult to spot them and the motivation and patience you have to bring in order to change your outlook of the world.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

Given that delight is the root of suffering, one could be tempted to fall into nihilistic despair. And that would be a sad outcome.
However consider that a person who is grateful and thankful might have found that:

the appearance of five treasures is rare in the world

May you abide in peace and joy.

Just a thought... that sutta you reference is replete with ignorance as condition for arising of delight. Also, have a look here: https://suttacentral.net/iti14/en/ireland
Thus, Mahayana views ignorance as the root of all suffering.

Our delights are born and buried in ignorance and revealed through meditation. Although blind to my own ignorance, I can see delight, Mara's fire.

A major event in the Buddha's path to enlightenment was his asking 'why am I afraid of the happiness that doesn't lead to unwholesome states.' I am paraphrasing (I hope correctly) because I can't find that sutra right now. The point is: delight that is not derived from sensual input seems to me an important thing to develop on the path. Can't we connect the joy/happiness/rapture of the early jnanas to "delight?" Isn't that delight, based on seclusion, approved of by the Buddha? Can't we say that in the higher jnanas there is a super-delight that is conditioned only on true knowledge?

@KilayaCiriello The sutta you'r thinking of is MN 36, in the paragraph which starts, "I recall once, when my father the Sakyan was working"

Should we feel good about our lives?
Don't try to feel good. Joy will automatically arise once you have a mind free of regret. For a virtuous person no volition is needed to be free from regret. Therefore become a virtuous person and the joy will automatically arise.
Following is what Buddha had to say on the matter(AN 10.2):

“Bhikkhus, for a virtuous person, one whose behavior is virtuous, no
  volition need be exerted: ‘Let non-regret arise in me.’ It is natural
  that non-regret arises in a virtuous person, one whose behavior is
  virtuous.
“For one without regret no volition need be exerted: ‘Let joy
  arise in me.’ It is natural that joy arises in one without regret.

What are the reasons to feel good about?
Although being virtuous will automatically make you joyful, there are some reasons for which you can feel good about. The main reason is Buddha. You believe in Buddha. You have no doubt on Buddha. That itself is a reason for celebration because it means you are inclining towards Nibbana. Next you can be happy about Dhamma. The one who understands Dhamma understands the fundamental truth about the existence. This truth is independent of anyone. Third reason to be happy is Sangha. But if you dont belong to Sangha then you should be happy that there are kind hearted , honest men in world. Not everyone is bad.
Can we be both Happy about our life and pursue Nibbana?
One day we will die. There is no choice. The happiness without intention of renunciation and good will won't last long. If you can be happy in so called adverse situations then yes you can be happy and pursue Nibbana. Life is impermanent. It is the cause of suffering. Therefore you can't be happy about life but you can be happy 'about' Buddha , Dhamma and Sangha and yourself who is on the right path to renunciation.
If we only look at life as suffering and unsatisfactory does this not make us masochist?
Joy and rapture are integral part of Buddhist Philosophy. But it must be seen in the context of the questions: what are we happy about and how we achieve happiness?

Trying to feel good or avoid suffering is the very motivation of embarking on the Buddhist path. How can that be bad?

@YesheTenley Motivation is alright but without treading the Path one can not achieve cessation of suffering. You have limited choice. You can become a virtuous person and the rest will automatically follow. See AN 10.2. The Path is conditioned by volitional formations but ultimately one has to give up the idea of Self and Conceit. I can not demand happiness. I can not demand cessation of suffering. Once we are set on the right path (with right view) things automatically take care of themselves.

Sure. I don't disagree, but I'd note that maybe some could perceive tension between your words "Don't try to feel good" since in order to "tread the path" one has to try to :)

@YesheTenley Yes initially volition is required. But as we walk the path we realize volitional formations are not self. I think it is pretty clear that if we want happiness and joy then we should focus on becoming virtuous(AN 10.2).For example if we want to eat a fruit then we must sow the seed. We can not directly reach to the fruit. Joy is that fruit. Nirvana is that fruit. Our total effort should be focused on sowing the seed and taking care of it, rest will automatically happen if right conditions are met.

I agree here, I think @DheerajVerma meant that we should not "try" as in strive to feel good as it's a trap of Self, but rather just naturally feel good whenever it arises - we cannot just snap fingers and make ourselves happy, thinking in such way creates plenty aversive feelings of dissatisfaction and disappointment.

Should we feel good about our lives?

Yes, we should feel great and happy about our lives, Buddhism is about feeling happiness. By that I mean that while dwelling in moments we should know whenever we are happy - awareness of that is the very thing that makes us notice and store positive seeds for the future. Without that,  of what possible help can we be to others if we are miserable, useless and confused? Conversely, when we are afflicted by negative emotions we should know that too, so we apply skilful means and let go of them, or not to produce negative karma as the result of them.
Acknowledgement of pleasant moment and happy life needs to be made without any obstructions - by just noting it. Remember that great deal of suffering is inflicted upon you when you torment yourself by asking and questioning such questions as you've asked; Should I be feeling happiness and joy at the given moment? Should I be happy about life at all? That is because of the fact that we take things to the extreme, drifting off from the path of Right effort. Hence, we have to re-adjust from time to time, until strings play well. You should not feel bad about feeling pleasure and enjoy it while it lasts, just note and contemplate that it is going to end, because nothing is permanent, not even life. Such antidotes to pleasure and excitement will save you some disappointment of thoughts like "I'd rather this gig last for much longer, it was such a good set...", "I have lost my puppy, and I loved him so much...".

Can we be both Happy about our life and pursue Nibbana?

I would attempt to split this into a two-step process. Firstly, we sail off, and that means we have Eightfold path to establish solid base of happiness and bliss through good karma and release from cyclic rebirth, in order to reap positive things in future. It is like training wheels that one cultivates while pursuing more sustainable, unconditional ways of higher bliss. Those unconditional are Dharmadhatu, Rigpa or Jhana - they all speak of the relatively same great experience. So, then it comes the next step we arrive at some realisation that is the resultant of right mindfulness, concentration and effort - all the things resulting from insight into no-Self, impermanence and Emptiness. It might be like above, the first contact with Jhana or just getting in touch with Selflessness. Because mental discipline is a very long process that might take lifetimes, thus the reason for the initial path of ethics has to bring us solid happy foundation quickly, long before realisation, and long long before we reach the other shore to become unafflicted completely.
Since laypeople don't have as much time as monks, even some realisation of three marks of existence is enough to provide sustainable source of happiness. Most importantly, pursuing Nibbana should never be forced or pushed. Insight and realisation should arise naturally in time.
Therefore, knowing that true happiness is unconditional we should not attach too much to the plans of making ourselves happy by conditional means. If such things happen OK, but keep in mind they're not reliable. Constantly looking at the other the shore should give us enough to be wise about it, and try our best not to attach ourselves.

If we only look at life as suffering and unsatisfactory does this not
  make us masochist?

Yes, if we only look at life like this, we are in fact masochists. Life is not all suffering, remember. I reject Four Dharma Seals in favour of Three, they are more truthful. Read: Maha-mangala Sutta: Blessings, this is how joyfully we should approach Buddha's teachings for they give great happiness in our hands. If Buddhism makes you feel like this, it is not Buddhism making it miserable, it is you! Remember it is not things but reaction to things that make us suffer.

I'll try to answer this much simple,First you said that

It was intense suffering which bought me to the path of Dhamma

and it was right way.Cause you saw and felt yourself that i'm suffering and i want to get rid of it some how, then you might have try to find a way, and finally you end up with buddhism. Which is the only way to end suffering.
Therefore for

yes you can.
you have Dhamma and you somehow practising it as you can.
we dont need to pursue Nibbana cause it is not something to puruse, if we practising dhamma as Lord Buddha said, eventual result is Nibbana. we can happy about our lives as long as we are practising dhamma.
No, it's the truth about our lives. If we dont see the truth we will not be able to end suffering. It'll help to remind always life is painfull.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Substrate consciousness and Rigpa
I think both substrate and rigpa are not a state - they pervade into states.
Substrate consciousness pervades on waking state and dreaming state - so in the substrate consciousness we can have lucid dream, where we are aware that we are dreaming (or substrate consciousness is aware that we are dreaming).
Rigpa pervades sleep state (without dream) as well as waking state and dreaming state - so rigpa can be aware of rigpa when we are in deep sleep. In other words, something is awake when we are in deep sleep because rigpa is aware of rigpa.
Is my understanding correct?

I need to elaborate my questions.
Rigpa is different from what is achieved from Zen or other non-dual traditions such as Vedanta or Shavism, and Rigpa can be achieved when we go one step further from being aware of being aware.
In Vedanta, Turiya can be recognized when being aware of being aware, and something(not a state) pervaded into wake, dream and deep sleep state, so in Turiya we can dream with recognizing the dream(lucid dream), when we are fully settled in Turiya. But "when we go one step further," only thing I can presume is that something can be recognized when being in deep sleep. So it could be called Rigpa, as Rigpa is aware of Rigpa when in deep sleep.
What I am trying to say is not criticizing his teaching; I respect his teachings. Also the explanation on Vedanta is just reference to describe the question, mostly coming from Ken Wilber's book - Vedanta is not the topic here. I just want to clarify my understanding on the teaching and what Rigpa is.
Please help me to understand.

It is about establishing three-dimensional model of the mind. Such models differ between schools. For example, Theravada or Yogacara have many more dimensions to it described.
First dimension is the ordinary mind (psyche), it is equivalent of chitta. It is the dualistic mind responsible for Self-personality grasping. This part is also your base of imagination, rational thinking, intellectualisation. This dimension is switched off when we sleep or are in the coma, or dying.
Second dimension is substrate consciousness that is equivalent of alayavijnana which is storehouse consciousness in Yogacara school, or in Theravada, this corresponds to bhavanga. Storehouse consciousness is essentially your subconsciousness - it always processes information no matter what. It also stores everything, biologically (from your father), and experientially (past actions). Relation with chitta is that chitta allows you to transform and store good or bad seeds back into the storehouse that will one day blossom and re-manifest in psyche again. It is the relative vacuum of consciousness.
Lastly, bare awareness, primordial awareness that is Rigpa. It is equivalent to experiences of Buddha nature or wisdom of Dharmadhatu, or Dharmakaya, also Tathata or even Jhana. Rigpa is based on intuition (jnana as opposed to prajna) coming from touch with suchness. This is seeing things as they are. There are many terms that describe it. For Dzogchen practitioners, the whole singular experience of it is best seen as last remnant after two other layers dissolve at the time of death - the clear light. It is the absolute vacuum of consciousness.
Each one of these layers goes deeper and such is the relation between them, each one emerges from the lower layer. Concepts arise from being in touch with suchness and so on.

Alan Wallace's commentary on Vajra Essence:

For clarification let’s refer to the three-tiered model of the mind
  presented earlier. The first and most superficial level is the psyche,
  in which thoughts, fantasies, images, and so forth appear. If you sit
  quietly and watch your mind, the phenomena you observe manifest in
  your psyche. We access the second level, the substrate consciousness,
  in deep sleep, the blackout period of death, and in the practice of
  shamatha. During shamatha meditation the phenomena observed do not
  necessarily emanate solely from the psyche, which is encapsulated
  within this lifetime. Having accessed the substrate consciousness,
  there is the potential for tapping into memories from past lifetimes, phenomena entangled within a vast network of experiences. These may appear in the form of dreams, visions, desires, or fears whose origin is not to be found in this lifetime. In the case of fear, for example, the anxiety may be very real, yet its origin may be a past-life experience. Such fear is an expression of imprints stored in the substrate consciousness.
Then, having broken through to the third tier of the mind—primordial
  consciousness—what emerges, the phenomena that appear, are not
  manifestations of mind and mental processes. From this deeper vantage
  point, such manifestations and mental processes, which comprise the
  psyche, are surface phenomena. For the same reason it would also be
  misleading to depict these primordial experiences as manifestations of
  the substrate consciousness. Appearances originating in primordial
  consciousness are the spontaneous, natural effulgence of pristine
  awareness. Being neither the mind nor mental processes, “these
  appearances are by nature the play of the manifest space of
  awareness”—dharmadhatu.
(...)
For example, if you truly fathom the
  nature of anger as it arises—even something as slight as a mild
  irritation—it is seen to be nothing other than an expression of
  pristine awareness. Of course we don’t normally do that. We grasp on
  to anger, reify it, and then act out within the sphere of the psyche
  and of ordinary appearances, in which case anger is an afflictive
  emotion. Therefore, if you fathom the nature of the mental
  processes—the eight kinds of consciousness—it is seen that they have
  never been anything other than expressions of primordial
  consciousness. However, not fathoming their nature, they are then seen
  either as expressions of the substrate consciousness or expressions of
  the psyche, indicating that you are locked within samsara.

You can clearly see there is nothing special that cannot be experienced outside Dzogchen and that same experience is also spoken of in Mahayana in great detail.

Thanks for your elaboration. I thought, previously before being deep into this study, rigpa would be the same as something in Mahayana and others, and as you quoted the book, it looks like more the same. But many people and even the author explicitly says that there is one step more in Dzogchen than anything in Mahayana and non-dual, and I surely believe that they are learned enough, which makes me very confused. Can you give any opinions on it?

It cannot be different if its primordial and available to everyone to experience. I am not sure what you refer to, but at least Alan Wallace always writes in a way that he always compares Rigpa to a typical experience of suchness, or things as they are which is same as Tathata. He also writes its intuition-based, and for example it is exactly the same as what Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh describes here in citation: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/26696/13383

I respect and love Thay and read the book, which is one of my favorites. From the link in my original post, you can hear it from 9:00 forward around 5 minutes - not mentioned here about Zen though, but about non-duality. BTW, how can we communicate in person? There is no function of private messages.

From what I've briefly heard from the lesson he was referring to a particular instruction in Pali. About cutting through, which is what he refers to - in the end Zen koans are exactly the same for example, they cut through rational thinking. Diamond cutter sutra is exactly the same - it cuts through and so on. Most of Mahayana is based upon notion of cutting through so Mahayana claims it is more efficient than intellectual understanding  which is stressed in Theravada. The whole Zen stresses experience above all.

@Jin Yes you can't communicate privately on the site. You can use chat which is semi-private, i.e. it's public but probably few people will read it. Or you can use comments and/or your "user profiles" to communicate your email addresses or twitter handles or something to each other, and then communicate that way.

Rigpa is what in Zen is called "your true self" or "true nature".
In practice of a Zen student, Rigpa manifests as clarity. It's like, when you have spent enough time in the wilderness and got your mind cleared, or you have meditated enough -- and now you have this lucidity. You understand everything that you encounter without much thinking. Things are clear, good-and-bad is clear, and decisions are easy to make -- so no thinking is required. Your actions are direct, precise, and appropriate. That's Rigpa.
It is also what's known in Zen as "first thought, best thought". However, it's not a thought of someone confused and full of fear or lust or aggression or judgement. It is the intuitive spontaneous reaction of a pure mind that is free from confusion.
Sometimes Rigpa is described as one continuous sense of awareness that never sleeps - but this is very misleading! Rigpa is not a watcher, it's not one thing that is always there sitting in the depths. Instead, it is the basic underlying unawareness from which all awareness springs. It's like an alarm clock - you can completely relax and stop watching the time - and it will tell you when it is time to wake up.
In this sense, Rigpa is always with us, and we always use it. It is our most personal sense since the earliest childhood. We seemingly lose touch with it when we are busy with the world of thoughts - but in reality we never lose it. The regular mind becomes aware of Rigpa when we are alone, or are very sick, or in survival mode.
Rigpa is that deep-most sense of sanity that never judges anything and always understands the essence of everything. Rigpa is that level of mind that understands without words, which you sometimes have to do in order to communicate its vision, which can hardly ever be adequately expressed.
Rigpa is the mind of Enlightenment.

Thanks for your explanation. 1) On your view, what is the pros and cons in Dzogchen and Zen in terms of changing habits, karma, etc. and post-enlightenment daily life? 2) After enlightenment, is rigpa always with us, living with it in daily life?

Hello @Jin - #1 sounds like a separate question about differences between Dzogchen and Zen practice. #2 yes.

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


text:
Books on Buddhism for Beginners
I'm just starting the study of Buddhism and I'm really interested in the whole philosophy of Buddhism. Can someone please suggest some books for beginners ? Thank you.

I also found these helpful -- English (or other European) translations of Pali Canon and Chronological or other sequence for beginners -- to also be able to read more details, rather than only being given an overview. There are several branches (philosophies?) of Buddhism, I think most see the "suttas" (or their Chinese versions) as fundamental or basic. Later (Mahayana) doctrine may be easier to understand after you've been acquainted with the basic doctrine (or Mahayana may be stand-alone too).

Some of the "introduction to Mahayana" questions that I've asked include Pāramitāyāna and Tantrayāna, and Spontaneity in Zen, and this (about non-duality), and Describe the Mahayana path.

See also Introductory books to Buddhism for other book recommendation (maybe this duplicates and should be merged with the Recommendation - Book for beginner topic); and List of book recommendations.


text:
How can I live life knowing other people work so hard for so little and people and animals suffer
I cry, I don't know why.
I just feel things so deeply and want to solve everyone’s problems
I don’t know but I can’t help it, it’s just in me, I can’t distance myself from their suffering, because we all suffer.
It makes living life really hard. If I get too carried away I desire to deny being compassionate and having connections with people because they hurt. Then I picture my life as always worrying about sad things and the problems of others and then there’s no more me.
How can I live life knowing other people work so hard for so little and people and animals suffer?

" solve everyone’s problems " what kind a problems are you thinking about ? money ? health ?

What you are experiencing is too much empathy. Many people believe that empathy is a universal virtuous trait that should always be increased, but this is not so.
To be very clear, empathy is distinct from compassion. The two are not the same thing although they are often conflated and misunderstood. The definition of compassion is very simple: the wish for others to be free from suffering. That's it.
Empathy is different from compassion. Empathy is the capacity to put yourself in someone else's shoes and feel what it is they are feeling. To imagine what someone else is feeling and experience some amount of it yourself.
So what is the relationship between compassion and empathy? Well, to some extent you need to be able to recognize someone else's suffering in order to develop the wish for them to be free of it. However, once this recognition is accomplished it does not require you to keep feeling what they are feeling. To suffer with them. When people in the west talk about "compassion fatigue" they are really talking about empathy fatigue.
So in summary, empathy can be both good (allowing us to recognize the suffering of others) and bad (rendering us powerless/overwhelmed or biased towards those we empathize with) depending upon the context. It sounds like you are definitely experiencing the latter and should stop empathizing so much. In order to do so, you first have to become clear on the differences between compassion and empathy. Compassion is a universal good that should always be increased. There is no such thing as compassion fatigue, but there is such a thing as empathy fatigue.
Have a look here for a modern account of how a western psychology recently discovered something that Buddhists have known for centuries ;)
Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion
You can also find an interesting interview with the author here.

The fear of the lottery winner. It Might Not Be Mine. This is suffering. When we have more than others, we suffer in their suffering. Some turn a blind eye--that is just delusion and more suffering.

Mendicants, before my awakening—when I was still unawakened but intent on awakening—I thought: ‘Alas, this world has fallen into trouble. It’s born, grows old, dies, passes away, and is reborn, yet it doesn’t understand how to escape from this suffering...’

And with that awareness of suffering you could go indeed go forth. Gotama was sheltered from suffering by palaces and went forth upon first seeing others suffer.
However, it might be more immediately practical to address one's own suffering first. When the airplane oxygen masks flop down, we are instructed to put on our own mask first so that we may help others. Some of the tears we cry for other's suffering may actually be tears for our own suffering. Following the path of one's own tears, one can usually find some craving, some holding on to, some clinging. It might, for example, be  delight in good fortune. If so, with metta embracing equanimity, one can relinquish the hold on delight, to let it be and be gone.

It would be helpful for you to be more specific about the types of suffering you’re talking about?  Many higher belief systems such as Buddhism recognize that suffering is a part of Life.  No matter who, rich or poor.  It is necessary for growth.  They teach not to take on another person’s suffering as your own, because they are on their own trajectory, suffering to learn the lessons they are in this life to learn. Let them learn it!
You also can never assume how much someone is suffering just by looking at them. Not every homeless person is suffering in the way you might think. Any well dresed person on the street might be suffering perhaps more than you could possibly know because you don’t know them and are making assumptions about what their world looks like.
If your talking about 3rd world hunger & feel guilty that you have food, why not alleviate some of that guilt by volunteering at a charity or other helpful organization? But the saying goes if you want to make a difference start locally. Start with yourself...as another user mentioned; don’t confuse your own suffering with that of others.  Know the difference and explore your suffering so that you can more specifically help yourself and others.  You may also be using the pain of others as a way to avoid something in your life -connecting with the pain, just not your own.
There is a personality type where you feel others pain too intensely, called “Empath.”  If you are a true Empath there are tools you can learn and train yourself to do to block out some of these feelings so that you can function.  But there’s nothing wrong with caring about how others are feeling so I think it matters less that you put a label on it and more that you act on it. If it keeps you from functioning and living your life look for professional help.  I hope you feel better.


text:
How can mindfulness/awareness be employed effectively for Forgiveness?
I don't want to harbor ill-will anymore and I want to forgive others for what they did to me and also forgive myself for my past actions.
So I remain aware and mindful of the thoughts of ill-will that pop up and mindful of corresponding feelings. But this does not seem to alleviate the stream of thoughts and feelings all day.
How can mindfulness be employed effectively for forgiveness?

What do you think being able to forgive someone else would provide you?  What would it provide them? When you've done something wrong and regret it do you find solace when others forgive you? What happens when they don't forgive you even though you've apologized? I'm asking these questions because I think there might be something deeper going on then your question indicates. Like maybe you are confusing regret and guilt? Or you have some belief in universal justice still?

@YesheTenley I just have a continuous stream of thoughts and thereby bad feeling about how my close friends behaved with me and on other occasions how I behaved, I don't want these thoughts and feelings anymore. Yes, I also regret what I did and that also has a component of guilt, so I even want forgiveness for myself. No, I am not saying this for Kaarma or universal justice, I really just want to start feeling good about myself, about who I am.

I want forgiveness for what others did to me and also forgiveness for myself for my past actions.

The first part isn't in your sphere of control. Having preferences like that other people better forgive you is in and of itself ok, however, if you turn that healthy preference into a command that they SHOULD forgive that will result -as in your case - in anger.
You can however cultivate self-acceptance. You judge your acts as bad but not your personhood. You judge the deed, not the doer, for the doer is fallible and too complex to give a global evaluation.
Just observing ill-will won't necessarily change your underlying beliefs and the resulting perceptions. You need an alternative perception that weakens the old belief. Therefore, mettā is employed to attenuate anger and increase kindness.
Refer to MN 62

"Develop the meditation of good will. For when you are developing the meditation of good will, ill-will will be abandoned.
"Develop the meditation of compassion. For when you are developing the meditation of compassion, cruelty will be abandoned.
"Develop the meditation of appreciation. For when you are developing the meditation of appreciation, resentment will be abandoned.
"Develop the meditation of equanimity. For when you are developing the meditation of equanimity, irritation will be abandoned.

~
You can also try to view people as unique, complex and fallible human beings (like you!), whose mind and body are constantly changing (like yours!),  and that they too are often prey of environmental factors and prior mind/body conditioning (again, like you!) -> At that moment in time these people haven't had better coping skills to regulate their thoughts, feelings and behaviours. In short: "It seemed so to them."
See them as human beings that have certain aspects that are annoying and then you can take that aspect and wish them metta with regards to the opposite positive quality. So if a person is annoying or dishonest, you can wish them: "May they know the happiness resulting from honesty and friendliness".
No matter which technique you employ, repetition is key. I employ especially the self accepting technique for over 2 years and it works out. Of course, sometimes I do get angry, but that is to be expected because I too am a fallible human being who can learn from his mistakes and try to restrain himself in the future.

My teacher gave me the following instructions.
After the vipassana meditation session, end with giving and asking forgiveness; and after that do a short metta wish.
Example:
<< forgiveness >>
I wish to ask for forgiveness from all beings and persons whom I have, in the past, with or without intention, hurt or harmed in thoughts, words or deeds.
I wish to forgive all beings and persons who have, in the past, with or without intentions, hurt or harmed me in thoughts, words or deeds.
[Note: English is not my first language. Please create a sentence that makes more sense to you. Hope you get the gist though.|
<< metta wish >>
Ahaṁ sukhito homi (niddukkho homi, avero homi, abyāpajjho
homi, anīgho homi, sukhī attānaṁ pariharāmi)
May I be happy, free from suffering, free from enmity, diseases and grief, free from troubles, difficulties and dangers and look after myself with ease.
Sabbe sattā sukhitā hontu (niddukkhā hontu, averā hontu,
abyāpajjhā hontu, anīgha hontu, sukhī attānaṁ pariharantu)
May all beings be happy, free from suffering, free from animosity, diseases and grief, free from troubles, difficulties and dangers and look after themselves with ease.
I usually do that one just in Pali.
So, both things are to be done at the end of each regular meditation session.
Hope this helps.

In vipassana (seeing "not-self'), the idea of "beings" ("satta") ceases. The view of "beings" ("satta") belongs to Mara. Refer to SN 5.10 https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn05/sn05.010.bodh.html and SN 23.2 https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn23/sn23.002.than.html.

First, it may be right to disassociate the act from the person. I'm told that a state-of-the-art among pre-school teachers (and maybe parents), for example, is that when a young child does something wrong, you don't say:

You're a bad boy!

You reprove the act, not the person:

Don't hit people when you want something. Ask for it, use your words.

Two reasons:

The criticism is more specific (what not to do) and constructive (what to do instead)
The lesson that "I am a bad boy" is not the lesson that you want the child to learn!

Similarly you might think about your friends "That was an unskillful action, hurtful", rather than, "They are bad, they hurt me" etc.

Second, if I fall of a bicycle unexpectedly and hurt myself, I've been inclined to worry about it until I work out how and why it happened -- so I can avoid repeating the mistake ... because I don't want to live in fear of its happening again for the same unknown reason.
Likewise it seems to me that a sincere and important part of an apology is something like, "I did wrong and I won't do it again."
I think that if you have any real assurance that it won't happen again, then you can afford to forgive and/or forget it (but otherwise that's more difficult).
Sometimes the hurt is of a kind where you can't get an apology: where "they" won't apologise, or the actor is a bit impersonal (maybe a war, a crime, a car crash). That kind of experience can cause what people call "post traumatic stress disorder" (PTSD) where you keep reliving the experience. PTSD is a real problem, there are therapies for it (I don't know of any Buddhist therapies) that you might want to investigate further, one of which they call "mindfulness" -- which includes being/remaining aware of what's happening now and the fact that the traumatic experience is past.

Third, if you want to forgive yourself in some way, perhaps it's good to do good things -- to intend well (e.g., kindly), and to act well when possible.
Buddhism praises both harmlessness and generosity, for example. Practising either or both of these, perhaps remembering (when you recollect your "past lives") that you have been harmless and well-intentioned, may result in your experiencing no remorse.

Fourth, you may want to compare yourself with others -- see that you're like others, better than some, only human ... not judge yourself too harshly.
The Christian prayer includes "forgive us, like we forgive others" (which sounds sensible to me).
Also when "compare yourself with others" it's good to find or recognise people who you think may be better than you, and learn from them, learn to practice as they do.

I marked this answer up, even though we should be trying to wean Friedrick Nietzsche away from Christianity.

I think there's something like it in a metta chant for example too: "May i be free... May you be free..."

I think instructions for metta mediation (metta bhavana) say to start with someone dear to you (because it's easier to generate metta for someone dear), and then take as your object someone less dear -- intending that the same metta as for the dear person will be generated for your less dear person. I did mention a Christian version here, because I found it more succinct (quotable), explicitly about "forgiveness", and relevant to the (perhaps slightly unusual, according to Buddhism) situation where a person isn't already feeling that about themself.

"Mindfulness" means to "remember to apply" the teachings.
Therefore, mindfulness remembers the teaching that anger & hatred bring suffering and thus remembers to give up anger, hatred, resentment, etc, per Dhp 5:

Dhp 5. Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.

Mindfulness also remembers the reality of Dependent Origination; that the "doer" of bad karma is "ignorance" rather than "persons", per SN 12.17.

“How is it, Master Gotama: is suffering created by oneself?”
“Not so, Kassapa,” the Blessed One said.
“Then, Master Gotama, is suffering created by another?”
“Not so, Kassapa,” the Blessed One said.
“How is it then, Master Gotama: is suffering created both by oneself and by another?”
“Not so, Kassapa,” the Blessed One said.
Without veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by the middle: ‘With ignorance as condition,
  formations come to be; with formations as
  condition, consciousness…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of
  suffering. But with the remainderless fading away and cessation of
  ignorance comes cessation of formations; with the cessation
  of formations, cessation of consciousness…. Such is the
  cessation of this whole mass of suffering.’”

Thus, similarly, the "doer" of past unskillful action was "ignorance" rather than "myself".
If it is realised the doer of past unskillful actions was "ignorance" then those actions will also be seen clearly as wrong actions; thus those actions will not be repeated in the future. Dhp says:

172. He who having been heedless is heedless no more, illuminates this world like the moon freed from clouds.
173. He, who by good deeds covers the evil he has done, illuminates this world like the moon freed from clouds.


text:
Buddha's self-declaration without identity view and without conceit
In this question, the OP asked:

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

The Buddha in the MN 26 quote below, declared "I, the unexcelled teacher. I, alone, am rightly self-awakened ... I am a conqueror (of evil qualities)."
However, as the enlightened one, we can be sure that the Buddha did not have identity view (sakkāya-diṭṭhi) and also did not have conceit (māna).
So, how could a declaration like "I am the unexcelled teacher" or "ahaṃ satthā anuttaro" be made without identity view and without conceit?
Could it be possible that it is OK to use personal pronouns and also stating truthful facts relating to one's person, without identity view and without conceit? How?
In MN 26:

"Then, having stayed at Uruvela as long as I liked, I set out to
  wander by stages to Varanasi. Upaka the Ajivaka saw me on the road
  between Gaya and the (place of) Awakening, and on seeing me said to
  me, 'Clear, my friend, are your faculties. Pure your complexion, and
  bright. On whose account have you gone forth? Who is your teacher? In
  whose Dhamma do you delight?'
"When this was said, I replied to Upaka the Ajivaka in verses:

All-vanquishing,
    all-knowing am I,
    with regard to all things, unadhering.
    All-abandoning,
    released in the ending of craving:
    having fully known on my own,
    to whom should I point as my teacher?
I have no teacher,
    and one like me can't be found.
    In the world with its devas,
    I have no counterpart.
For I am an arahant in the world;
    I, the unexcelled teacher.
    I, alone, am rightly self-awakened.
    Cooled am I, unbound.
To set rolling the wheel of Dhamma
    I go to the city of Kasi.
    In a world become blind,
    I beat the drum of the Deathless.'

"'From your claims, my friend, you must be an infinite conqueror.'

Conquerors are those like me
    who have reached fermentations' end.
    I've conquered evil qualities,
    and so, Upaka, I'm a conqueror.'

"When this was said, Upaka said, 'May it be so, my friend,' and —
  shaking his head, taking a side-road — he left.

Related: How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?

Talk is just convention.

Talk is just convention here https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN1_25.html and here https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn01/sn01.025.wlsh.html

SN 1.25
[Deva:] He who's an Arahant, his work achieved, Free from taints, in
  final body clad, That monk still might use such words as "I." Still
  perchance might say: "They call this mine." ... Would such a monk be
  prone to vain conceits?
[The Blessed One:] Bonds are gone for him without conceits, All
  delusion's chains are cast aside: Truly wise, he's gone beyond such
  thoughts.  That monk still might use such words as "I," Still
  perchance might say: "They call this mine." Well aware of common
  worldly speech, He would speak conforming to such use.

As I have seen times and again in many Mahayana texts, as well as heard in person from my Zen Master, understanding of Emptiness has two aspects:
1) Form is Emptiness. This is when you understand that identity is illusion, self does not really exist, all entities are imputations or abstractions, agent is a perspective etc. From this perspective, reification is the root of all evil and cessation of reification leads to cessation of suffering.
2) Emptiness is Form. This is when you understand that, despite being inaccurate and misleading, entities/labels/identities/agents naturally emerge -- because that's the easiest and most compact way to represent the world in context-bound thought and speech.
In light of #1, you abandon naive fascination with entities/identities/labels/abstractions and taking them at their face value. In other words, #1 is freedom from (the dictate of) Form.
In light of #2, you abandon aversion to forms and fear of using forms. You understand pragmatic value of forms without getting fooled by them. You can delineate new forms and use them according to the needs of the context, but you never forget anymore that forms are conventions and not the actual realities. In this sense, #2 is freedom to use Form.
Since Buddha fully understands how "Emptiness ≡ Form", it is said that Buddha can freely fabricate an identity as required to communicate Dharma to the audience.
The #1 implies that Samsaric mind with its ignorant tendency for reification is the problem and cessation of reification is the way to achieve the peace of suchness. #1 assumes a perspective according to which the regular mind is imperfect and the mind of Buddha is perfect. According to #1, Samsara and Nirvana are separate.
The #2 implies that regular mind is Buddha, that things are perfect as they are, that Enlightenment is self-existent, and that Samsara and Nirvana are not separate.
The #1 is called "Dharma-eye" (seeing things from the perspective of Dharma); The #2 is called "Buddha-eye" (seeing things from the perspective of Buddha).

The idea of conceit should resonate somewhere along the lines of: I am better, we are the same, I am worse.
But in the declaration, the Buddha was stating the facts, and does not indicate any marks of conceit. At least that is one way of interpreting it.

Could it be possible that it is OK to use personal pronouns and also stating facts relating to one's person, without identity view and without conceit?
Exactamundo. There is no problem using conventional language for enlightened persons. Not the slightest problem at all. The idea that absence of identity-view relegates one incapable of using personal pronouns is profoundly silly and indicates a major misunderstanding :)
Enlightened persons and you and I exist. We all exist. The doctrine of Anatta or Shunyata do not contradict this at all. Believing that they do is falling into nihilism and very silly. Don't make this mistake! The question is not whether we exist... the proper question is how we exist.
How?
Enlightened beings use these personal pronouns in exactly the same manner and according to the same rules as ordinary beings: by worldly convention. This idea that the negation of identity-view necessarily negates the existence of persons is just wrong. It is a misunderstanding. Listen to the Buddha:

At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, I do not dispute with the world; rather, it is
  the world that disputes with me. A proponent of the Dhamma does not
  dispute with anyone in the world. Of that which the wise in the world
  agree upon as not existing, I too say that it does not exist. And of
  that which the wise in the world agree upon as existing, I too say
  that it exists.

If you look as the Sutta continues he elucidates what does not exist:

And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as not
  existing, of which I too say that it does not exist? Form that is
  permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change: this the wise in
  the world agree upon as not existing, and I too say that it does not
  exist.

And he elucidates what does exist:

“And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as
  existing, of which I too say that it exists? Form that is impermanent,
  suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree
  upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. Feeling … Perception …
  Volitional formations … Consciousness that is impermanent, suffering,
  and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as
  existing, and I too say that it exists.

What is the Buddha getting after here? He is talking about the coarse understanding of emptiness. That is that existing things are impermanent, non-unitary and utterly dependent. The doctrine of shunyata - both at its coarse level and its subtler levels like prasangika-madhyamaka - does not refute existence. Persons exist. Things exist. Entities exist.
Emptiness does not refute that things exist. It refutes that things exist permanently, unitarily, independently, substantially, in a self-sufficient manner, ... and most subtly, inherently.
Why is it so hard to understand this? Why do we always either undershoot and negate too little or overshoot and negate too much? Because most everything around us appears to exist permanently, unitarily, independently, substantially, and in a self-sufficient and inherent manner. It is hard for us to break through this apparent perception and see the reality underneath. We go from one extreme: believing in the appearance of true existence ... to the other extreme: believing that things don't exist at all! We are very foolish.
To understand how an enlightened being could use these pronouns without the slightest bit of identity view imagine a dream where you are completely aware you are dreaming. You look at your hand and you say, "This is my hand" and yet you have absolutely no doubt that this is not a real hand, but merely a dream conjuration. The appearance of your dream hand does not fool you at all. You acknowledge the existence of this dream hand, but have no doubt whatsoever that it is an illusion. For Arya beings I think every perception is like this.
In fact, that is how I conceive of what it might be like to have a direct perception of emptiness. To suddenly wake up in this very life - much like a sleeper wakes up in a lucid dream - and know without the slightest bit of doubt that my own hand is no more real than the hand that I once perceived in a lucid dream. To know that this very waking life is no more real than a lucid dream. Not that it is a dream mind you, but like a dream in the precise sense that neither is more real or less real than the other. Of course, that's probably just my romanticized notion of what the direct perception of emptiness is like. I'll let you know for sure when I experience it :)

If you'll accept a personal opinion, I've assumed that he was talking about the Dhamma.
For example if you needed a driver and I offered, "I can drive", that's less a statement about me and more a statement about the availability of the subject-matter.

Also there's an essay here: The Lion's Roar -- Two Discourses of the Buddha
I think it's relevant to your question:

The Pali Commentaries explain that there are two kinds of lion's roar: that of the Buddha himself and that of his disciples. The former is sounded when the Buddha extols his own attainments or proclaims the potency of the doctrine he has realized; the latter, when accomplished disciples testify to their own achievement of the final goal, the fruit of arahantship.

I don't know whether it explains why you wouldn't call that conceit.
Maybe it agrees with my saying that it's primarily about the teaching:

Each delivers in its own way an eloquent and inspiring testimony to the uniquely emancipating nature of the Buddha's Teaching and the peerless stature of the Teacher among the spiritual guides of humanity.

Also there are plenty of places where the Buddha approves of other people (i.e. other people's virtues).
Also I think this is not an example of literally "identity view", which I think means (literally) "view that the body is true", or, "view about the true body", or something like that: generally mistaking the aggregates for self or soul or maybe permanent and so on -- and, that is not what's happening.
As for conceit or pride, I don't know. Perhaps it matters when or in what circumstance, for what motive something is said. There's a sutta where the Buddha approves of someone's mentioning their attainment only when no white-robed lay-person was present.
And/or it's part of the right speech doctrine, i.e. "having a sense of the proper time" for saying something that's "true" and "beneficial".
Per the scripture, the Buddha's teaching is motivated "for the sake of" others, and after being asked to (originally asked by Brahma, or in this case in reply to a question put by Upaka).


text:
Suttas on the 5 Precepts
I am looking for the suttas where the Buddha has preached about the 5 precepts. Also how it can lead you to Samadhi, Niravana and etc.
-Metta

The sutta below lists out the criteria for stream entry:

Five forms of fear and animosity are stilled (basically the five precepts)
Four factors of stream entry
Rightly seen and rightly ferreted out the noble method (dependent origination)

The four factors of stream entry are verified confidence in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, as well as, being endowed with the virtues appealing to the noble ones.
From the Vera Sutta (AN 10.92):

Then Anathapindika the householder went to the Blessed One and, on
  arrival, having bowed down to the Blessed One, sat to one side. As he
  was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him, "When, for a disciple
  of the noble ones, five forms of fear & animosity are stilled; when he
  is endowed with the four factors of stream-entry; and when, through
  discernment, he has rightly seen & rightly ferreted out the noble
  method, then if he wants he may state about himself: 'Hell is ended;
  animal wombs are ended; the state of the hungry shades is ended;
  states of deprivation, destitution, the bad bourns are ended! I am a
  stream-winner, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe,
  headed for self-awakening!'
"Now, which five forms of fear & animosity are stilled?
"When a person takes life, then with the taking of life as a requisite
  condition, he produces fear & animosity in the here & now, produces
  fear & animosity in future lives, experiences mental concomitants of
  pain & despair; but when he refrains from taking life, he neither
  produces fear & animosity in the here & now nor does he produce fear &
  animosity in future lives, nor does he experience mental concomitants
  of pain & despair: for one who refrains from taking life, that fear &
  animosity is thus stilled.
"When a person steals... engages in illicit sex... tells lies...
"When a person drinks distilled & fermented drinks that cause
  heedlessness, then with the drinking of distilled & fermented drinks
  that cause heedlessness as a requisite condition, he produces fear &
  animosity in the here & now, produces fear & animosity in future
  lives, experiences mental concomitants of pain & despair; but when he
  refrains from drinking distilled & fermented drinks that cause
  heedlessness, he neither produces fear & animosity in the here & now
  nor does he produce fear & animosity in future lives, nor does he
  experience mental concomitants of pain & despair: for one who refrains
  from drinking distilled & fermented drinks that cause heedlessness,
  that fear & animosity is thus stilled.
"These are the five forms of fear & animosity that are stilled.

Oddly, the suttas labeled "Five Precepts" are a bit short and lacking detail. We have, however, a longer discourse in A Layperson AN 5.179:

And what are the five precepts in which their actions are restrained? It’s when a noble disciple doesn’t kill living creatures, steal, commit sexual misconduct, lie, or use alcoholic drinks that cause negligence. These are the five precepts in which their actions are restrained.

And if you want a really REALLY long discourse, consult the Analysis of the Precepts.