The hindrance of vicikitsa,vicikicchā(Pali) is related to 'doubt in Buddha'. What a vague phrasing, right?If you can, I am looking for the sutta where Buddha describes the difficulty of teaching to those of diverse backgrounds.

Arahants have eliminated the conceit of, "better," amongst other aspects of conceit and other fetters. However, if they are perfected people, that would mean they are perfect. Other people are not perfect, by very virtue of not being arahants. How do we explain the fact that an arahant doesn't feel better than anyone, though in reality they are better, morally, spiritually, and emotionally? Doesn't an arahant also lack ignorance? It seems knowing what you are and where you stand is a lack of ignorance.

I'm asking this question based on this comment and this question . It is well known that the goal of Buddhism is to end suffering. However, it is popularly mistaken (as seen in the cited comment and question) that Buddhists have to rush towards destroying their sense of self, skipping over the balanced wholistic practice of the Noble Eightfold Path . I think this is not correct. The ten fetters have the eradication of the identity-view or belief in a self (sakkāya-diṭṭhi) as a lower fetter, that has to be done in order to become a sotapanna or stream winner. However, a stream winner, has still not yet eradicated the fetters of sensual desire, ill will, material-existence-desire, immaterial-existence-desire, conceit and ignorance. I take it that total eradication of the sense of self happens with the eradication of the higher fetters, especially ignorance (avijja). After all, if the sense of self has been totally eradicated by the stream winner, it does not make sense that he could still have conceit, right? So, my question here is, if eradication of the lower fetter of identity-view or belief in a self (sakkāya-diṭṭhi) is not the complete eradication of a self, then what is it really? Is it an intellectual understanding of not-self? Or is it more? Is it an opinion? Is it a belief? Is it an experience? **How is the eradication of the lower fetter of identity view different from total eradication of the sense of self?**

It's mentioned in many references that when someone becomes Sotāpanna (= stream-entrant = Person-who-has-seen-Dharma) then the first three fetters (saŋyojana) are dropped. My question is, if the first fetter which is self-View (sakkāya-ditthi) is dropped, then who is going to be Sakurdagami = Once Return, Anagami = non-returning and Arahant, or how can he focus on the path as his self-view is already dropped by that time. And also when Anagami person is to become Arahant, he is supposed to drop the last three fetters which are conceit (māna), restlessness (uddhacca),ignorance (avijjā). And if someone has already dropped the self-view then how he can drop the conceit (mana) (the eighth fetter) as it's a subset of the self-view. The answers like: "It's partially dropped, etc" are not correct as that's not how it's defined (if not it's mistaken). And there are many places in Tripitaka, that Buddha mentioned as I to refer him self, so does the Buddha still has self-view? And in Khemaka Sutta this is clearly explained that even Anagami person has I am feeling and desire, which is a subset of self-view. > "Friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower > fetters, he still has with regard to the five clinging-aggregates a > lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am' desire, an 'I am' > obsession. But at a later time he keeps focusing on the phenomena of > arising & passing away with regard to the five clinging-aggregates: Do you still believe that Sakkaya Ditti means Self-View ? or is it a mistake?

Is there a visual representation of how mind looks like with kamma, feelings, emotions, perceptions, attachments etc. Like for example, I tend to visualize lust as a tether that binds us to this human place and locks our mind from our understanding and penetrating the true nature of things as it prevents development of concentration, and thus wisdom. Likewise I am looking for somewhat intuitive understanding of mind and kamma. Any one?

How is the fetter "Identity View" destroyed by confidence in the triple-gem and ethics ([\[DN 16, see "Dhamma-Mirror"\]][3] )? The concept of identity view also seems to be a bit fuzzy. In [\[SN 55.21\]][1] the stream entrant Mahanamo wonders about his future abodes. I assume that Mahanamo was familiar with the term Sotapanna and its implications. The buddha assures him that by his ripened confidence in the triple gem and his steadfast ethics, he is saved. I make the following conclusions: 1. "I am worried about **my future births**" does not imply identity view. 2. If I doubt my attainment of SE, I do not disprove my attainment. Point 2 is mentioned, because often I see the argument "you worry about sotapanna, then you are not sotapanna due to identity view". By the above reasoning, I know that identity view must be something else, as it seems to tolerate some thoughts about **myself**. I also conclude that there are two sufficient conditions for stream entry: 3. No self view, no skeptical doubt and no clinging to rites and rituals implies Sotapanna[ \[MN 25\]][2] . 4. Confidence in the triple gem and good ethics implies Sotapanna,[ \[DN 16, see "Dhamma-Mirror"\]][3] . If point 4 describes the "conviction follower", then Thanissaro Bikkhu disagrees about 4, saying > [...] conviction-followers are apparently those who are following the path > to stream-entry but have yet to reach the fruit of stream-entry. This leaves only point 3 as possibility to stream entry and contradicts the Dhamma Mirror, given by the Buddha.

When researching stream-entry, I came across this fascinating statement ... > "The stream enterer ... has removed the saṅkhāras that force rebirth > in lower planes". SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_awakening#Stream-enterer I find this statement to be fascinating because the 4 stages of enlightenment are usually described as a function of "abandoning fetters (samyojanas)" rather than "removal of saṅkhāras". Does this statement have any reference in the suttas? i.e. Do the suttas actually make this connection between "removing saṅkhāras" and freedom from "rebirth in lower planes"? If so, do they hint at the nature of the "saṅkhāras" to be removed?

From Wikipedia's Sutta Pitaka's list of ten fetters : > The Pali canon's Sutta Pitaka identifies ten "fetters of **becoming**". > > 1. sakkāya-diṭṭhi > 2. vicikicchā > 3. sīlabbata-parāmāsa > 4. kāmacchando > 5. vyāpādo > 6. rūparāgo > 7. arūparāgo > 8. māna > 9. uddhacca > 10. **avijjā** My best *guess* is that "becoming", in this context, has the same meaning that it does in the context of pratītyasamutpāda . > 1. **avijjā** > 2. sankhara > 3. viññana > 4. nama-rupa > 5. salayatana > 6. phassa > 7. vedana > 8. tanha > 9. upadana > 10. **bhava** 11. jati > 12. jarāmaraṇa Notice that **avijjā** is both (1) the last of the 10 fetters and (2) the first of 12 links of the dependent origination of suffering, This suggests that cutting the last "fetter of becoming" results in the dependent condition which gives rise and sustains the entire cycle of suffering to cease. Therefore, an understanding of avijjā and bhava and their inter-relationship will be of interest to many. Gil Fronsdal describes the first 9 steps of dependent of origination (preceding "bhava/becoming") thusly > 1: avijja: ignorance; the choice to ignore / avoid discomfort > 2: sankhara: intention > 3: viññana: attention > 4: nama-rupa: mobilization of "body and mind" in the direction of the attention > 5: salayatana: mobilization of the "6 senses" in the direction of the attention > 6: phassa: contact > 7: vedana: feeling tone > 8: tanha: craving > 9: upadana: clinging Source: 2009-06-21: Gil Fronsdal: Dependent Origination Notice that the choice to ignore / avoid the source of the discomfort conditions / shapes / influences our choice of intention. Our choice of intention, in turn, conditions / shapes / influences our choice of attention. Our choice of attention, in turn, conditions / shapes / influences how we are compelled to move in the world including our choice to believe that happiness depends upon the satiation of THIS desire for the THIS sensory experience. Our choice of what we cling to (updana), in turn, conditions / shapes / influences becoming (bhava) by creating the conditions for the formation of an identity capable of attaining the craved sensory experience to which we are clinging. For example, the pain of the perception of rejection might compel the formation of an identity to prove to ourselves that we are worthy of attaining the object of our desire. So the **meaning of becoming (bhava)**, in this context, is something like > *moving/acting with the aim/intention > to create the conditions whereby > our clinging to a craved sensory experience > can be satiated.* With regard to the last 3 steps of dependent of origination, quoting the comments under this answer : > “When there is acquisition, aging-and-death comes to be; when there is > no acquisition, aging-and-death does not come to be ... So long as > the choice to pursue the sense-desire via becoming and birth is > rewarded with acquisition, ignorance [AKA "avoidance"] is rewarded, clinging to “wrong > view” is rewarded and we remain trapped in the cycle of suffering. > > Only when the unskillful choice of ignorance [AKA "avoidance"] is not rewarded by > acquisition does the mind feel forced to search for an alternative way > to alleviate the suffering. Only then will it feel compelled to think > more deeply about its unskillful choice to ignore the discomfort which > is feedback to be investigated for insight. An insight the mind > desperately needs to find to break the cycle of suffering." Gil also suggests that jaramarana (aging & death) is short for "aging, death, sorrow, lamentation and despair". Source: 2009-06-21: Gil Fronsdal: Dependent Origination This suggests that even if we attain that which we were clinging to, new rejections will arise to fuel the fires of greed, hatred and delusion and hints and that the subjugation of conceit (mana) is not only necessary to end the cycle of suffering, it is in direct opposition to becoming (bhava) which seeks to strengthen the identity to attain the craved for sensory experience which is being clung to. **What is avijjā?** In this context and considering that **avijjā** is both (1) the last of the 10 fetters and (2) the first of 12 links of the dependent origination of suffering, understanding the meaning of avijjā is crucially important. Being consumed by "sorrow, lamentation and despair" is compelling us to "ignore/avoid" something important and it is THIS choice to ignore/avoid which sustains the entire cycle of suffering. Therefore, if the aim is to end suffering, understanding exactly what is being ignored/avoided is of some importance. **So what exactly are we choosing to ignore/avoid?** From neuroscience we know that ... The sensory-motor brain evolved because it enabled beings to respond to sensory experiences with moves that improved the probability of gene survival. It does so by constructing and continually refining a sensory-motor predictive model of the world to guide movement. It does this by "knowing and seeing". Whereby "knowing" is making moves in the world as if the model were 100% correct and "seeing" is verifying if the sensory experience predicted by the model is (1) correct or (2) a misprediction. In the event of a "misprediction", beings respond by ruminating to discover the error in the predictive model (insight), reformulating the predictive model to improve its predictive power. i.e. Greater understanding (panna) enables us to move through the world with greater equanimity (uppekha) because our predictive model is constantly improving to make better predictions. The problem is that mispredictions are accompanied with varying intensities of pain. The biological purpose of "pain" is to provide the sensory motor brain with strong feedback that its predictive model of the world is incorrect and to keep the attention focused on the sensory experience until the source of the error in the predictive model has been discovered and corrected. But the problem is, if the intensity of this pain (first arrow) exceeds our ability to hold it in spacious non-judgmental awareness and investigate it for insight, we will feel a compulsion to ignore it; to avoid investigating it; to leave the error in the predictive model unfixed; in favor of the pursuit of sense-desires. The entirety of the dharma is oriented towards correcting this single unskillful decision by training the mind to turn towards the suffering and to search for the insight which leads to the correction in the sensory-motor predictive model of the world. In this context, becoming (bhava) should be corrected. This would explain why it is one of the 4 āsavas: > 1: kāmāsava > 2: **bhavāsava** 3: diṭṭhāsava > 4: avijjāsava https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asava But this is only a strong intuition. I lack certainty in this meaning. If you possess insight that can contribute to a stronger understanding, please provide commentary.

- What is the "sensual desire" described as one of the fetters, which is: - Reduced or weakened in a once-returner - Abandoned in a non-returner - Are *kāmarāga* and *kāmacchando* used interchangeably? - Does it have a specific meaning, perhaps identified in a sutta or commentary -- or can we only imagine what it means by analysing the words (kāma, rāga, chanda)? For example, the words *micchacara* and *abrahmacariya* -- used in the two versions of the 3rd precept -- have explicit canonical definitions (or at least specific examples of prohibited behaviour) beyond what can be inferred from only the etymology of the words. - What about any "exceptions which prove the rule" in suttas which describe arahants -- for example the Buddha's experiencing discomfort of old age in [DN 16](https://suttacentral.net/dn16/en/sujato) : > Sometimes the Realized One, not focusing on any signs, and with the cessation of certain feelings, enters and remains in the signless immersion of the heart. Only then does the Realized One’s body become more comfortable. Are we to understand there's no "desire" associated with this? That it's not "sensual"? Or perhaps that it is if anything a desire for "neutral" feelings (i.e. for *not* feeling pain), and therefore within the scope of enlightened thinking? - If the senses are the All ([SN 35.23](https://suttacentral.net/sn35.23/en/sujato)) , are there any desires which aren't "sensual" -- even a preference for seclusion, for example, or for good health? Or even, for morality?

In the Theravada tradition, the fetters model makes reference to rūparāgo and arūparāgo found in the higher fetters. I've never been a jhana follower, but I can clearly recognise that the rupa jhanas and the arupa ayatanas move into me from time to time and sometimes in sequence, one after the other. From early in my practice I noticed they had there own type of sensual craving not particularly connected with dense forms. I found this to be a suitable motivational incentive to move away from desire for worldly form but soon saw the drawbacks of having too much emphasis on rupa jhanas and rupa ayatanas. As such, I developed an indifference about their perceived feeling-tones, but I was still able to utilize the benefits they bring concerning insight and wisdom. My main practice is satipattana. There is an interpretation I came to naturally understand using the aggregates model alongside my here-and-now experience, that one craves either the perception of form or the perception formless both through objectification of mental ideas born from the study of dhamma and the motion of practice. One could use the term *spiritual materialism* as an umbrella term. I find this practice helpful but too tricky to compile into words. To summarise, it's just a granular way of watching the rise and fall of the aggregates. My question is, what other interpretations can be given to rūparāgo and arūparāgo from within Theravada traditions and also other Buddhist traditions?

According to the ten fetters model, one of the five fetters which are only removed at attaining arahantship is ignorance (avijja). This means that anagamis are still subject to ignorance in some way. But it's also evident that anagamis possess a lot less ignorance than ordinary people. For example, belief in a self (sakkaya-ditthi) is abandoned at the first stage of enlightenment. So which forms of ignorance would an anagami still experience, and which forms not? Or is ignorance something that only sometimes arises in an anagami, the same way ill-will is only sometimes present in ordinary people? Thanks in advance for your answers!

The second fetter to break when one becomes a stream entrant is given as 'Clinging to rites and rituals'. I've always found that one a little puzzling. How do you know if you are clinging to a ritual? What would be the signs of it? Does the fetter apply exclusively to Buddhist rituals or does it apply to the little rituals we all indulge in as we navigate our way through daily life? I think I'm after someone to help unpack this one a little bit.

I recall reading words or translations in the Pali suttas suggesting the following: 1. It is a path of decline to give donations to non-Buddhists. 2. It is most meritorious to give donations to the Noble Sangha & higher Ariyans 3. People are sick, injured & disabled in this life due to violence they have done in past lives. Today, I read a post soliciting for donations on a Buddhist forum for a sick non-Buddhist. Since the time of the post, no one has given a donation, except me. Because I am simple minded & a sucker for bleeding hearts, I gave a US$37 dollar donation, to symbolize the 37 bodhipakkhiyādhammā, which include the 7 factors of enlightenment, which, according to the suttas, cure disease & illness. My questions are: 1. If my donation helps cure the sickness of the sick person, am I stopping the person reaping their punishment for their past life karma? 2. If this person does not reap what they have sown, how will they learn the necessary lesson from their past deeds, similar to Angulimala? 3. If I am not giving donations to the Noble Sangha, but, instead, blocking the Law of Karma punishing a non-Buddhist, am I incurring demerit against myself, which could lead to rebirth in a lower realm? In other words, should I practise equanimity? 4. Should I give donations to supreme leaders of the Dhamma, such as Samana Johann? 5. What is the karmic destination of a person that solicits donations from Buddhists for non-Buddhists? 6. Or is all of the above mere superstition therefore I should give the donation merely because it develops compassion, open-handedness & beautifies my heart?

I have a question which has probably been answered before, but I'm unable to find it. Sorry about that. My mind is unfortunately very logically driven. My question is, is doubt removed after making progress, or is it up to me to remove the doubt? I want to not doubt, but I cannot help to doubt. I practice meditation often and a common thought is "am I wasting my time?" I know I am not, but the thought still arises. Do I just accept the doubtful thoughts, or do I try and transform them? Many thanks!

I have read the causes of anger, lust, etc. but I haven't yet encountered the cause of Muṣitasmṛtitā . I am sure, most of us have had issues with this ailment. What is the root cause of it?

I follow the notion that when the false view of an independent, permanent "self" is annihilated for the first time this is Stream Entry. The Dharma no long is merely a question mark, and it's not dependent on rituals, or merely following rules. These first three fetters can't continue in the face of such an experience. But how is the practice after Stream Entry different that before? --- > "In Buddhism, a sotāpanna (Pali), śrotāpanna (Sanskrit; Chinese: 入流; pinyin: rùliú, Tibetan: རྒྱུན་ཞུགས་, Wylie: rgyun zhugs), "stream-winner", or "stream-entrant" is a person who has seen the Dharma and consequently, has dropped the first three fetters (saŋyojana) that bind a being to rebirth, namely self-view (sakkāya-ditthi), clinging to rites and rituals (sīlabbata-parāmāsa), and skeptical indecision (Vicikitsa). > > The word sotāpanna literally means "one who entered (āpanna) the stream (sota)", after a metaphor which calls the noble eightfold path a stream which leads to nibbāna. Entering the stream (sotāpatti) is the first of the four stages of enlightenment." > > -- [Sotāpanna (wikipedia)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sot%C4%81panna) Also see [Agataphala Mahānāma Sutta (A 6.10) -- The Discourse on Mahānāma (on the fruition-attainer) ](http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/15.3-Agataphala-Mahanama-S-a6.10-piya.pdf)

What does this fetter really refer to? Is it clinging to rites & rituals and thinking that these practises by their own can lead to liberation OR does it refer to clinging to precepts? If it is the former, then most "rational" inclined people should have little to none of this fetter, no? If it's the latter, then it's NOT about blindly believing a precept, but questioning it and seeing for oneself that it's helpful. However, it appears to me that many rules in the vinyana are there to avoid social faux pax and unnecessary conflicts. If we take the not-eating-after-noon precept, we will see that the Buddha has reason for devising such precept; but do those reasons still hold true nowadays? I doubt it. So if most monks just follow rules and precepts because the Buddha said so (or they are deemed to be effective), then this is called Silabbata Parāmāsa?

What is exactly meant by "Material rebirth lust", and how is it properly abandoned?

There are several things which Buddha asked us to abandon before we can abandon craving finally. For example Buddha asks us to abandon five fetters and hindrances. My question is : Is there a complete list of things to abandon before abandoning craving ?

According to the Anapanasati Sutta it is this practise that leads to liberation but how does the destruction of (a) fetter(s) exactly happen? Let's take the stage from once-returner to non-returner. The latter one has removed sensual desire and anger. How did this exactly happen during Anapanasati?