Outside world is there without mind?outside world create only by mind. Actually there is no materialistic world. Is this correct?

According to the suttas in SN13 , a stream enterer (or stream winner or sotapanna ) only has at most, seven remaining lifetimes, before they are permanently freed from suffering. On the other hand, takers of the Mahayana Bodhisattva vow , would forego enlightenment for a very long time (apparently aeons), till they complete the full Bodhisattva training (which I presume is the development of paramitas and the attainment of bhumis ). However, this implies that they need to avoid stream entry, which could cause them to become released from suffering in seven lifetimes at most. So, how do they avoid stream entry? Do they avoid it by avoiding the practice of insight meditation (vipassana ) perhaps?

Does a sotapanna still experience afflictive thoughts and or engage in unwholesome activities etc or have they transcended such things?

What does a Buddhist practitioner, based on the 8 fold path, and deepening practice contemplate to become a sotāpanna (a stream-enterer)?

As a layperson, I try to achieve sotapanna and do vipassana meditation for one month approximately. I like to hear song, so I leave it. But, I often sing and hum accidentally. I try to stop it but it's so difficult And second, I often speak loudly when there isn't anyone in the room. I try to stop it but it's so difficult

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?

Please answer without reciting suttas. I hear often it said that one will neither confirm nor deny if they have. If you haven't experienced it why would you not just say you haven't? It seems deceptive to me to not just come out and say "I have not" but instead lead people on being mysterious about it. Straight direct question-- What particular living individuals have experienced Nibbana? Or are most likely to have?

Would an enlightened person (stream enterer at the minimum) ever [falsely] make the claim that he is lying?

I quoted below, the words of Ven. Dhammavuddho, who stated that, according to SN 55.5, to attain stream entry, one must have focused attention (yoniso manasikara) when listening to the true Dhamma from true men (ariyans) and contemplating on it. After that, they must practise the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma. They can have focused attention, only if the five hindrances stop habitually obsessing their minds. Two types of persons pass this criteria - one who has attained the first jhana and one who is highly intelligent (has high IQ). Both can concentrate their minds effectively. My questions are: - Is the role of IQ as stated above, found in the suttas? (reference request) - How could not-so-intelligent persons compensate for their lack of IQ, if they want to understand the Dhamma and attain stream entry? In the YouTube video entitled "Characteristics of a Sotapanna ", Ven. Dhammavuddho Mahathera stated (with some paraphrasing): > Now we look at another Sutta - SN 55.5 . ... It is mentioned that there are > four factors or conditions for stream entry - sotapattiyangani. First, > association with true men - sappurisa. Second, hearing the true > Dhamma (Saddhamma). Third, focused attention or proper attention (yoniso manasikara). And fourth, > practice of the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma - > Dhammanudhammapatipatti. > > The first one is association with true men. The word sappurisa also > means ariyans - those who understand the true Dhamma. Because they > understand the true Dhamma, you can hear the true Dhamma from them. > > The second condition - What is the true Dhamma? ... if it agrees with > the Buddha's words in the Suttas, then it is the true Dhamma. .... > > The third condition, this word - yoniso manasikara, which I translate > as focused attention. Sometimes they say careful attention. This word > means that when you listen to the Dhamma, you are focused on listening > to the Dhamma. In other words, at that time, you don't have the five > hindrances. If that is so, then you can understand the Dhamma and > attain stream entry. > > So who are the people who do not have the five hindrances? In the > suttas, it is stated by the Buddha that as long as a person has not > attained piti and sukha which are secluded from unwholesome states, > which are secluded from sensual pleasures, the five hindrances will > obsess him and obsess him habitually. > > So, there are two types of persons who do not have the five > hindrances. The first is the one who has attained the first jhana > (i.e. he who has attained piti and sukha). When a person has attained > the first jhana, he has eliminated the five hindrances and the Buddha > says that the five hindrances no longer obsess that person habitually. > > So there are two conditions if a person has the hindrances. Firstly, > it obsesses your mind, it enslaves your mind. Secondly, it is > habitual, it is very often there. ... When a person attains the first > jhana, these hindrances reduce to a very low level. ... > > **The other type of person who does not have the five hindrances habitually obsessing his mind is an intelligent person - the person > with a high IQ. Normally, a person born with a high IQ, he has good > concentration and that was obtained from previous lives.** A very good > example is Albert Einstein. ... (some example of Albert Einstein) ... > It shows that he had great concentration. So, people who are > intelligent, they are able to focus their mind. That is very > important. A scatter-brained person cannot be an intelligent person - > the mind is so scattered. > > These are the two types of persons. One, because of previous lives, > he's born very intelligent - he can focus his mind. The second person > is one who has attained the jhanas. > > The fourth condition - practice of the Dhamma in accordance with the > Dhamma. So he keeps practising the Dhamma and he will attain stream > entry. Now this fourth condition may not be necessary for some people. > We find in the suttas - many people when they listen to the Buddha, > speaking the Dhamma, even for the first time, they attain stream > entry. The Buddha confirms this. But some people after they have > listened, it doesn't click immediately. They go back and they think > about it and then it clicks. And then they understand the Dhamma and > attain stream entry. > > So this practice of the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma is after > he has listened, he starts to recall the Dhamma or investigate more of > the Dhamma. And then after some time, then the pieces fall into place > like a jigsaw puzzle. And then he sees the Dhamma.

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.

***I have noticed that a lot of Mahasi practitioners seem to reach sotopanna very quickly.*** What is the difference from other methods of Buddhist Meditation and the Mahasi Method, relative to the apparent speed of attainment in the Mahasi Method? **Maybe you think Mahasi style practice does not lead to these better results?** If so, who, what, where, when and why do you think this? I hope this is an appropriate question but if it's not, that's ok :) metta **PLEASE NOTE**: I have, "**doubts** about such quick progress in the Mahasi Tradition, not **pride**" It appears, many assumed something else. My mistake, I should have been clearer.

Is it true that at stream-entry there is a profound decrease in the intensity of suffering perceived in samsara? If I'm not wrong, the Buddha does use the metaphor of a small clod of earth, as tiny as that can be picked up on a fingernail, to portray the amount of suffering one perceives after stream-entry, compared to the intense suffering, equivalent to the whole of earth, that a worldling feels in samsara?

I'd like to know what will all sotapanna have in common with each other. And the same for arahants (both for separate, please, not comparing a sotapanna with an arahant). **What are the common grounds in terms of what has been uprooted? What do they share in terms of understanding, ideas and views (independently if they are not attached to those views)?** I ask this, because I've noticed that there are lots of differences between all the ideas about what should a sotapanna/arahant know, be, feel and think, for example. And, according to the level of confidence/attachment/understanding of those asked about what a sotapanna is, they will be more on the defensive, disparaging any other idea conflicting with theirs, stating that a sotapanna/arahant is only what they think it is, with more or less grounding on suttas. For an outsider, it may almost seem like a discussion based on "No true scotsman" fallacies. **EDIT: Thanks for the answer given so far! I wanted to add another point.** Now that OyaMist has written about interpretations on those common grounds, I realize that that might be exactly the main source of problems. Since we're using texts written in a language not used as vernicular in current societies; since most concepts can be interpreted in multiple ways; and since there are a lot of discussion (with more or less logical arguments or irrefutable evidence) about the "authenticy" of some texts or discourses, most conclusions seem to fall into what feels the most coherent to the particular follower, or into what seems to produce the best results. For example, some say one cannot reach stream-entry without attaining 1st jhana. But I think this criterion becomes problematic, to say the least, when the problem of interpretation and definition occurs in the exact same way when talking about what jhana is or is not. **If that's the case, how to differenciate between the most relevant/fundamental and secundary/optional interpretation for those common grounds?** EDIT 2: Just for the sake of context, and to give some (possibly) hints to a potential answer, maybe we can rephrase the question about the minimum common grounds for all sotapanna as: **What is the minimum knowledge that Right View HAS to contain in order to really be Right View?** I'd appreciate any help on this issue. Thanks in advance! Kind regards!

I just wan to know whether there are any measurements advised by the Buddha to identify a stream enterer (sotapanna). I know for a fact that from the stream enterer and above, all four types have given up on self doesn't tell that he/she is enlightened or in this state or not. So how are we to find these noble people? Are there any instructions and where is it cited?

When the life of a Sotapanna ends, let's say he/she reincarnates as a human. Does that mean, the reincarnated is capable of demonstrating the qualities of a Sotapanna since a very young age? Or, does it take years of practice (again) to regain Sotapanna qualities ? And how long roughly does it take ? And is there anyway to tell if a kid attained Sotapanna in his/her past life ?

If people, maintaining a Buddhist identity, are good, they do whatever sacrifices of which they expect benefit or where they feel touched. Now, when a person gives outside the Savaka-Sangha, outside the Noble Ones, can he/she be called either, faith-, dhamma-follower or even Sotapanna? Would he/she be regarded as being ready and worthy to be taught by wise? *(Note, this is not given for exchange, trade, stacks or entertainment for bounds but to escape dry lands and go beyond)*

There is the case where a person gives toward a monk, having a joyful perception of the good Sangha, while he gives. There is the case where a person assumes a certain monk assuming being a Noble One and gives with such a joy. There is a person who is not able to trace either a monk nor the Sangha and gives an householder, willing to think "more worthy is he". What would give the most benefits? What are the problems for an ordinary person, and a most secure way? What are the dangers of overestimating ones capacities of judgment? What it a person thinks that his ideals are those of a Noble One "I know", yet total wrong? *(Note: this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or binding entertainment here, but as a tiny door to escape the wheel corrent and since a long caught in)*

What does one here think: Is a person, having reached the path, able, would he, reject a request of something material, incl. strength and effort in material spheres, if he could share? In what cases, if he could reject, would he? *(Note: not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment that binds here in this wheel, but as a tiny door out)*

Beings are act-ually stingy because they think or argue, that when giving this, it will hurt be, be of disadvantage for me. Now, what does the Buddha mean by advicing to give when it does not harm oneself? Does he even promote stinginess, or what's the game of defilements here? *(Note: this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment keeping in this wheel, but for an escape)*