I hope this finds you well and happy. Over the last 25 years I have been trying to apply the instructions from the Buddha on how to study his teaching to keep it pure, found in the Pali Early Buddhist Texts. In my documents linked below, I try to resolve glaring inconsistencies in the Pali text, from the perspective that the Buddha is the unexcelled teacher and does not need help from disciples to teach. You will need a google account to view them: My comparison of up to 54 possible variations in the gradual Path (the Fourth Noble Truth) found in the Pali Texts: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1acDIhERcjDfGYof2v45tqdXOipIh09_OYUfHwXWpVTY/edit?usp=sharing My theory of early and late Buddhist Teachings (covering all Four Noble Truths): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CE8ycGuHdOBI96wzOiZt2Da1QWHclb2BCR-b1BwZEGs/edit?usp=sharing I'd be interested to hear of other similar work, because I'd like to associate and discuss with people who show at least the easiest to recognise Fruit of Stream Entry, taking the Buddha as their only teacher. That is, I'm seeking the Noble Community. Bhikkhu Sujato et al's 2014 study: Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts https://ocbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/authenticity.pdf only wants to present the case, there is NO evidence of **major** doctrinal change in the EBTs. I'm not interested in people preaching or 'soap boxing' to me, the standard interpretations of doctrines, which I would call dogma. I was a Theravada monk for 20 years. So I am very familiar with them. This pushing of dogma is usually done in the style: 'this is the truth style'/'the Buddha taught this' etc. I'm interested in authentic discussion where people apply the training for his disciples ascribed to the Buddha of 'do not say this is the truth' but rather 'I believe this is the truth', called 'safeguarding the truth' MN 95 and is expressing one's view as one's view, as it really is. I understand this to be an insight practice and found it eradicates arrogance. The difference might better be understood by the difference in: 'the world is flat' - pushed by some organisations and 'I believe the world is flat' - someone expressing their belief realistically. I appreciate facts such as, the Noble Eightfold Path appears x times in the EBTs, but not quoting scripture to push the standard view, as my research shows there are likely many corrupted ideas in the EBTs. For me, agreement with the large body of consistent words of the Buddha, is a higher standard than the number of times an idea occurs. best wishes Joe

Shedding Tears in Amazement of the Dhamma I am posting this because I've yet to post a question. I should note that I respect Ajahn Maha Bua a lot. In fact, both of my teachers were students of his. However, Ajahn Maha Bua is the most controversial figure in Buddhism. Regardless if he were an arahant, I can definitively say he is an inspiration to me, and a superb teacher. Where would I be if not for Luangta? Thoughts?

What is someone dedicated to witnessing the result of stream-entry (sotāpattiphalasacchikiriyāya paṭipanno)? I think there is the common people (puthujjana) and the good/virtuous people (sappurisā). Are seekers of stream-entry referred to as good/virtuous people? I believe at least seven out of the eight types of individuals are good/virtuous people. I mean the arahant, the once-returner, the non-returner, the three dedicated to witnessing the result of arahantship, non-returning, and once-returning, and, seventh, the stream-enterer. I'm sure these are good, virtuous people; noble disciples. However, I'm not sure about someone dedicated to achieving stream-entry. Are they good/virtuous people, or are they still common people? Are they learned noble disciples (sutavā ariyasāvako), or do they have no regard... > ... for noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, > who has no regard for "good/virtuous" men and is unskilled and > undisciplined in their Dhamma, does not know what things should be > cultivated and what things should not be cultivated, he does not know > what things should be followed and what things should not be > followed... > ——MN 46 I think if they are practicing "diligent and properly, for example some monks and nuns out there, then they are part of the community of disciples, the 'sāvakasaṅgho', making them worthy of gifts and reverential salutations.". However, they still need to acquire a flawless virtuous behavior so I'm not sure they can be referred to as 'sappurisā' or good/virtuous people. I think I wouldn't consider them noble disciples myself. What do you think?

I am long time student of Chogyam Trungpa. Unfortunately, the current situation at the sangha (now Shambhala International) is in a state of chaos. I am interested in becoming B. Alan Wallace's student. I'm wondering if his path is similar to Vajradhatu, in other words, start with shamatha/vipassana, then ngondro, and then abhiseka. Thank you

Here's the main question: - What doctrine or practice is there to minimize "conceit"? I suppose that canonically "abandoning conceit" can only be attained by an Arahant and therefore a monk, so, it would be alright to answer in that context (the answer needn't be tailored to a lay-person if it cannot be). --- Background 1. I asked this question ... - https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/9415/254 ... and the main answer there seemed to be: - "Conceit" is a habit - It's a temporary phenomenon, which arises sometimes - It's not a "held view", which would be more fixed - It's related to or present in comparing people e.g. "thinking one is superior" - Semi-enlightened (but still conceited) people make "true" comparisons - Conceit is a fetter, a higher fetter, not easy to eradicate 2. I also found this article on Wikipedia: > [Māna](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C4%81na) > > Māna (Sanskrit, Pali; Tibetan: nga rgyal) is a Buddhist term that may be translated as "pride", "arrogance", or "conceit". It is defined as an inflated mind that makes whatever is suitable, such as wealth or learning, to be the foundation of pride. It creates the basis for disrespecting others and for the occurrence of suffering. So this article focuses on conceit as being a or the source or reason for disputes (which I think many suttas say also). --- So some related questions: - Is there something I should understand about conceit, other than or beyond these two explanations? - Would this be an example of conceit? > I keep the precepts better than you do -- or, I understand the Dhamma better than you do? - If you make that comparison, and see or justify it as being "true" or truthful, does that make it ***more*** pernicious -- because then it becomes a "view"? - Is this an example of a comparison that one should avoid making? Why or why not, and if so how? - There's an expression or phrase in conventional English, "holier than thou", which is meant to be understood as being "wrong": > *Self-righteousness* (also called *sanctimony*, *sententiousness*, and *holier-than-thou* attitudes) is an attitude and belief of moral superiority derived from a person deeming their own beliefs, actions, or affiliations to be of greater virtue than those of others. Self-righteous individuals are often intolerant of the opinions and behaviors of others that they deem to be less virtuous. It's original use in the Bible (which I don't understand, haven't studied) was in the context of creating social distance: > Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou. ([Isiah 65.5](https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Isaiah%2065:5)) If this might be an example of Buddhists call "conceit" then it's a universal human "problem", not specific to a single society. - Occasionally someone -- someone who's house I'm visiting as a guest for lunch with my mum, someone who is old enough to be my parent -- wants me to accept an alcoholic drink when I'm offered one. I suspect they maybe prefer that because it's "normal" (maybe ceremonial) -- and something to do with equality or community, and not my acting "differently".

Where does it say jhanas are necessary (or not) to realize the four supramundane paths (stream-entry, etc)?

It's clear right view is the foremost factor as without the right view one would not go for practicing the noble eightfold path at all. But when the rest is considered, is there a real sequence? My physical actions are generally good and my speech is fine but needs to be improved as I'm vulnerable to idle chatter. But controlling speech the action is difficult to me. But when I realize that idle chatter(rather idle communication, not just idle chatter alone) leads to more dukkha I am abstaining from it. It's kind of right concentration. Am I following the noble eight foldpath correctly in that scenario?

Beyond householder-equanimity is recluse-equanimity. Yet - equanimity being the highest factor of the factors for awakening - does this factor then result in a further kind of equanimity, or does equanimity fade into something else, once highest, aim, is reached? What's higher than equanimity? And where and how could the stages of equanimity be mapped on the ten-fold path?

Looking at the [Lists of fetters](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetter_(Buddhism)#Lists_of_fetters) I see "conceit" and "identity view" listed separately ... and the [four stages of enlightenment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_enlightenment) say that identity view will be abandoned (in the first stage) before conceit (in the fourth stage). Wikipedia article about [Conceit](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C4%81na) includes, > There is conceit or pride when we consider ourselves important. How is it that "conceit" could continue after "identity view" has been abandoned?

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?

Venerable sir, Lately I have been wondering if there is a proper technique that can be used in order to attain stream entry rather than meditating. I have a few experiences with loving kindness meditation though it did not go very well. Actually, I am not good at meditating therefore it is hard for me to walk in the path. It might be easier if there is a proper technique to follow instead of meditating. Also even though I am in a Buddhist country it is not very popular among the Buddhist to meditate here, so if there is a technique please let me know. Thank you

Having seen that anger disappears after noticing attraction and aversion of the mind towards thoughts, attraction and aversion have disappeared. Feel like there is no core on mind objects. Is that anatta?

I have often wondered about one particular riddle regarding the stages of the path. If Sakkāyadiṭṭhi, a view of the self, is one of the first fetters conquered at stream- entry, why is it that Māna, that is a consequence of subtle ‘I-am-ness’, is one of the last to go at Arahanthood? In what form does the ‘I’ sustain itself till the last?

The primary source for the 16 stages of insight (aka 7 stages of insight) is the Theravadan text, the Visuddhimagga . But do other, unrelated, sects of Buddhism have similar stages? (ie. Do other sects mention things that could be compared to the *dukkha nanas*?) You would think that separate sects of Buddhism, performing the same practices of meditation, would have encountered the same things, and so would have formed their own "maps". Did they? Or is it unique to the Theravadan tradition. And if that's the case, why?

During insight meditation no hearing of sound aware and cittarupa disappears like a mirage during meditation seen as no thoughts. Feel like cessation of mind. Is it anicca?thoughts disappear and citta goes inside without control. What is the stage of insight meditation is that?

I am reading Practical Insight Meditation: Basic and progressive stages by Mahasi Sayadaw. In the book he elaborates on the 16 stages of insight meditation as a kind of road map of what to expect. I was wondering if these stages are part of the Theravada tradition or an integral part of the Dharma canon.

I know about the ten fetters model. I read that a Once-returner has very reduced desire and aversion to the point that they only appear when tired or unmindful. Are there other relevant requirements? Are there stuff that hint that the person is or is not a Once-returner? For example, if the person doesn't reach jhana, does that HINT that maybe he is not a Once-returner?

I practice vipassana meditation since 2008. My recent experience is breathing can't be noticed. But sensation of the body is present. And thoughts are coming and passing away automatically. Most of the time sensation of the body appears such as pain , dissolves without any discomfort. Thoughts are less. Sound can hear but no thoughts on those sounds which were heard. What is this state? How to continue from here?

I use the definition of Three Doors posted here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/6rrbl8/any_commentaries_on_the_three_doors_of_liberation/dl7h0e1/ To me, it looks like there is a connection: * Desire for existence in the realm of form * Desire for existence in the immaterial realms They are about the tension between being and non-being. In other words, existence or non existence of the self, and that pretty much is **Emptiness** of the self. * Conceit The conceit "I am... (this or that)". This looks related to **Signlessness** (there are no inherent attributes). * Restlessness Seems related to **Wishlessness**. * Ignorance This kind of encompasses everything. Of course, the Three Doors are related to the Three Characteristics too. * Emptiness -> no-self. * Signlessness -> impermanence. * Wishlessness -> unsatisfactoriness. I am understanding the fetters wrong and making up the relation or does this makes sense? I'm trying to understand them as good as I can.

And how about followers of other non-Theravadin Buddhisms? Why? If they cannot, what is the last stage of enlightenment that they are able to achieve? Please refer to sources in your answers.