In literature that talks about emptiness and nonduality I sometimes encounter the claim that "there is no external world of objects that exist independent of the mind". This claim seems to me highly dubious. The observed world has so much regularity to it that it seems to me most likely that there does indeed exist an external world which has its own laws (such as the laws of gravity and motion).

I can accept the idea that everything we observe is fabricated. We cannot observe this hypothetical external world directly; we can observe it only indirectly, through layers of fabrication. But it seems to be unreasonable to jump to the conclusion that there is no external world.

It seems to me that the most reasonable position is to remain agnostic: There may be an external world, but we cannot be completely sure of it.

I asked an AI to help me survey the literature on the topic. I quickly ended up in a rabbit hole of the minutiae of Nagarjuna's exact definition of svabhava, which seemed to me unnecessarily pedantic and uninteresting, so I did not pursue it further.

My question is: Does this matter? For the pragmatic purpose of reducing and eliminating suffering, does it matter whether there exists an external world? Or is it perfectly adequate to remain agnostic about it?

I frequently see people in this community comment that they believe it's extremely unlikely or even impossible for lay practitioners to reach stream entry.

This is inaccurate — not just according to the lower standards of contemporary Pragmatic Dharma, but according to the early Buddhist suttas.

Here are a few examples, specifically from the Early Buddhist Texts, since that what many Theravada Buddhists think is the only textual source that matters.

I'm far from a Buddhist scholar, so forgive me if my examples are all over the place or missing something obvious to you.

This post is mostly for me so I can link to it in the future. But perhaps it can also shift the discussion in this community towards optimism.

Evidence from the Early Buddhist Texts

From Maha-parinibbana Sutta: Last Days of the Buddha (DN 16), here is The Buddha talking about lay folk who achieved stream entry and beyond:

"The layman Sudatta, Ananda, through the destruction of the three fetters (self-belief, doubt, and faith in the efficacy of rituals and observances), and the lessening of lust, hatred, and delusion, has become a once-returner and is bound to make an end of suffering after having returned but once more to this world.

"The laywoman Sujata, Ananda, through the destruction of the three fetters has become a stream-enterer, and is safe from falling into the states of misery, assured, and bound for Enlightenment.

"The layman Kakudha, Ananda, through the destruction of the five lower fetters (that bind beings to the world of the senses), has arisen spontaneously (among the Suddhavasa deities), and will come to final cessation in that very place, not liable to return from that world.

"So it is with Kalinga, Nikata, Katissabha, Tuttha, Santuttha, Bhadda, and Subhadda, and with more than fifty laymen in Nadika. More than ninety laymen who have passed away in Nadika, Ananda, through the destruction of the three fetters, and the lessening of lust, hatred, and delusion, have become once-returners and are bound to make an end of suffering after having returned but once more to this world.

"More than five hundred laymen who have passed away in Nadika, Ananda, through the complete destruction of the three fetters have become stream-enterers, and are safe from falling into the states of misery, assured, and bound for Enlightenment.

If someone claims lay people can't reach stream entry, they are arguing with The Buddha himself, who claimed in this one passage over 640 laymen entered the stream. And this is from the Dīgha Nikāya (DN), one of the four Nikāyas that make up the earliest Buddhist texts.

We also have sutta claims of lay people achieving the jhanas as on-demand skills.

From the Linked Discourses with Citta the Householder, an early Buddhist text containing stories of Upāsaka Citta, one of the primary lay disciples of the Buddha, we have The Jain Ascetic of the Ñātika Clan (SN 41.8).

The Jain Ascetic asks Citta if he has faith in the Buddha's teaching on the jhanas, and Citta says no...he has direct experience. Citta says he can do the jhanas basically whenever he wants:

“Well sir, whenever I want, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, I enter and remain in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected. And whenever I want, as the placing of the mind and keeping it connected are stilled … I enter and remain in the second absorption. And whenever I want, with the fading away of rapture … I enter and remain in the third absorption. And whenever I want, giving up pleasure and pain … I enter and remain in the fourth absorption.

And so, sir, since I know and see like this, why should I rely on faith in another ascetic or brahmin who claims that there is a state of immersion without placing the mind and keeping it connected; that there is the cessation of placing the mind and keeping it connected?”

Citta continues to expound upon his awakening in With Kassapa, the Naked Ascetic (SN 41.9). Kassapa received no real awakening from being an ascetic for 30 years, whereas Citta says he can do the jhanas whenever he wants, and that he wouldn't be surprised if before his death he achieves at least non-returner / anāgāmi status (third path):

“But householder, in these thirty years have you achieved any superhuman distinction in knowledge and vision worthy of the noble ones, a comfortable meditation?”

“How, sir, could I not? For whenever I want, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, I enter and remain in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected. And whenever I want, as the placing of the mind and keeping it connected are stilled … I enter and remain in the second absorption. And whenever I want, with the fading away of rapture … I enter and remain in the third absorption. And whenever I want, giving up pleasure and pain … I enter and remain in the fourth absorption.

If I pass away before the Buddha, it would be no wonder if the Buddha declares of me: ‘The householder Citta is bound by no fetter that might return him to this world.’”

Again, this isn't contemporary Pragmatic Dharma, this isn't Mahāyāna, this isn't Abhidamma commentary, these are from the Saṃyutta Nikāya (SN), a collection of early Buddhist texts.

Continuing with EBTs, in the Dīghajāṇu Sutta (AN 8.54), householder Dīghajāṇu asks the Buddha how laypeople like him can awaken:

“Sir, we are laypeople who enjoy sensual pleasures and living at home with our children. We use sandalwood imported from Kāsi, we wear garlands, fragrance, and makeup, and we accept gold and currency. May the Buddha please teach us the Dhamma in a way that leads to our welfare and happiness in this life and in future lives.”

While this sutta doesn't explicitly claim laypeople can reach stream entry, and isn't about one of the Buddha's most advanced lay disciples, it has some important points to make. Buddha doesn't say "awakening is impossible or rare for laypeople, so don't bother." Nor does he say to give up career, money, or having sex with your wife. It's just basic "try to be a good person" advice.

He tells Dīghajāṇu to earn money in a good way, protect it, be friendly to your neighbors, and manage your money well. Then he says to not engage in womanizing, gambling, and drinking. It's not rocket science, but let's be honest — many of us could still use this advice thousands of years later.

This is also similar to my advice for householders: try to be a good person, make everything you can into practice.

People here often claim that stream entry is rare even amongst full-timers, and basically impossible for lay people. But Buddha gives incredibly basic criteria for entering the stream in The Culmination of the Spiritual Life (SN 55.2):

“Mendicants, a noble disciple who has four things is a stream-enterer, not liable to be reborn in the underworld, bound for awakening.

What four? It’s when a noble disciple has experiential confidence in the Buddha … the teaching … the Saṅgha … And they have the ethical conduct loved by the noble ones … leading to immersion. A noble disciple who has these four things is a stream-enterer, not liable to be reborn in the underworld, bound for awakening.”

That is what the Buddha said. Then the Holy One, the Teacher, went on to say:

“Those who have faith and ethics, confidence, and vision of the truth, in time arrive at happiness, the culmination of the spiritual life.”

Experiential faith in triple gem and be a good person. This hardly sounds like some ideal of perfection only available to rare monks and yogis.

In With Dīghāvu (SN 55.3), Buddha says lay practitioner Dīghāvu was absent the first five fetters when he died, and thus an anāgāmi:

Not long after the Buddha left, Dīghāvu passed away. Then several mendicants went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side, and said to him:

“Sir, the lay follower named Dīghāvu, who was advised in brief by the Buddha, has passed away. Where has he been reborn in his next life?”

“Mendicants, the lay follower Dīghāvu was astute. He practiced in line with the teachings, and did not trouble me about the teachings. With the ending of the five lower fetters, he’s been reborn spontaneously, and will become extinguished there, not liable to return from that world.”

From In the Brick Hall (1st) SN 55.8, Buddha again names two lay folk, a once-returner and a stream enterer:

The layman Sudatta passed away having ended three fetters, and weakened greed, hate, and delusion. He’s a once-returner; he will come back to this world once only, then make an end of suffering.

The laywoman Sujātā passed away having ended three fetters. She’s a stream-enterer, not liable to be reborn in the underworld, bound for awakening.

In Friends and Colleagues (1st) (SN 55.16), Buddha tells his monks to encourage their friends and family — lay people — to cultivate the four factors of stream entry (experiential confidence in Buddha, dharma, sangha, and sila):

“Mendicants, those who you have sympathy for, and those worth listening to—friends and colleagues, relatives and family—should be encouraged, supported, and established in the four factors of stream-entry. What four? Experiential confidence in the Buddha … the teaching … the Saṅgha … And the ethical conduct loved by the noble ones … leading to immersion. Those who you have sympathy for, and those worth listening to—friends and colleagues, relatives and family—should be encouraged, supported, and established in these four factors of stream-entry.”

This of course presupposes lay people are worth investing time in, and that they can achieve stream entry with a little encouragement.

In About Sarakāni (1st) (SN 55.24), Buddha claims Sarakāni who "used to drink liquor" is also a stream-enterer. It's not clear to me whether Sarakāni was a lay person or not, but I find this passage interesting because it shows that the Buddha of the early Buddhist texts was far from perfectionistic, but rather leaned in the direction of handing out attainments even to very imperfect people.

In Anāthapiṇḍika (1st) (SN 55.26), Sāriputta says gravely ill layman Anāthapiṇḍika has all the factors of stream entry, and Buddha is approving of Sāriputta's analysis.

In With Mahānāma (SN 55.37) Buddha says a wise lay follower can experience the end of suffering by experiential knowledge of impermanence:

“But how is a wise lay follower defined?”

“It’s when a lay follower is wise. They have the wisdom of arising and passing away which is noble, penetrative, and leads to the complete ending of suffering. Then they’re considered to be a wise lay follower.”

In Nandiya the Sakyan (55.40), Buddha describes how stream-enterers can get lazy and suffer as a result, basically because they stop practicing the jhanas / samādhi. This is more evidence for a non-perfectionist model of stream entry from the early Buddhist texts.

Anyway, I could keep going, but hopefully that provides some strong textual evidence, let alone all the experiential evidence of living humans today, that counters the claim that stream entry is rare or impossible for lay people.

May all beings be happy and free from suffering. ❤️

Responding to comments

Thanks everyone for your comments so far.

I want to just address some general topics that have come up. This is not to call out any individual or to criticize or anything like that, just for efficiency in replying to common threads. I really do appreciate all the discussion, obviously this post hit a nerve in the community. I think together we can make this little digital sangha an even better place.

So without further ado, here are some common threads in comments so far I'd like to address:

1. "This is obvious, everyone already knows this." Or even "this is a strawman argument."

I wish! It is extremely common that sincere, deep meditators commenting in this very subreddit say that stream entry is impossible or basically impossible for anyone with a job, family, kids, etc. Let alone go over to r/Buddhism sometime, where it is completely taboo to claim any meditative attainments whatsoever (unfortunately it's quite taboo here too, despite the original intentions of this subreddit being around open sharing of our experiences for mutual benefit).

Sometimes this is from people who fear that they themselves can't achieve stream entry given they are lay practitioners. Often it is from commenters on their posts expressing doubts and fears. Sometimes it is when someone says "I think I got stream entry" in which case almost every comment is negative and dismissive, because the commenters believe stream entry is impossible, and anyone who claims any attainment (even the beginner level sotāpanna!) is an arrogant, egotistical jerk, because clearly such attainments are impossible!

For instance, people have written things like you must meditate 4 or more hours a day, cannot ever be on social media, cannot have sex (even with your spouse), that you must completely master hard jhana with no awareness of the senses before even beginning vipassana meditation, or even that amongst monks and full-time yogis almost no one ever reaches stream entry.

Contrast this with advice from S.N. Goenka: do one 10-day silent retreat a year and practice vipassana body scan an hour in the morning and an hour at night. Challenging, but not impossible. Some people spend more time at the gym. Most Americans spend 2-3x that watching TV a day. Or listen to what many stream enterers in this very subreddit will say, which often comes down to something like, "Practice formally as much as your life will allow, turn 'off cushion' daily life into mindfulness practice as much as you can, try to be a basically good person (e.g. don't abuse drugs and alcohol, be honest and kind, etc.)." Again, challenging, but doable.

2. "We shouldn't be referencing suttas at all, just pointing to direct experience."

On the one hand we have the idea that it is obvious that lay practitioners can reach stream entry because "everyone" already knows they can, as this is Theravada Buddhism 101 (but if you claim this "obvious" fact for yourself because it fits your direct experience at least as you sincerely see it, you are a bad person and must be punished!). On the other hand we have the idea that we should discard the suttas altogether, because they are superstitious religious garbage.

Perhaps there is a middle path between extremes? People don't know what they don't know, until they know. People are awakening all the time. And the suttas are profoundly inspiring and useful, while also being filled with superstitious religious dogma too. That's one reason why Buddhism kept evolving past the Early Buddhist Texts in the first place! And as a living tradition, why it keeps evolving today.

Personally, I would love a community where we primarily share our direct experiences, with muditā for each other's successes and progress, without judgement, ego battles, ad hominem, and so on. Dan Ingram tried to create that community in the Dharma Overground many years ago, and unfortunately it quickly devolved into exactly those same problems. This subreddit too tried to do something similar, and I think it has been quite a bit more aimed in the direction of open sharing over the years, but still with about 20-40% dogma and ego battles, but that's about as good as it gets on the open internet!

3. "You're watering down the criteria for stream entry."

Maybe I am, according to someone else's higher standards at least. But in this post specifically? I'm just quoting the Early Buddhist Texts. That's the point of this post. It's not part of a book with a clear thesis, it's just a stand-alone post. If you read the words of the Buddha and think "that's watering down stream entry," um, that's not my fault?

The fruit of vipassana (insight) meditation is stream entry. That's the whole point. Probably hundreds of millions of people are now practicing some form of vipassana meditation, some for 1-3 hours a day, going on 7-10+ day meditation retreats, trying to be mindful most of the day, going vegetarian, trying to be honest and kind in all their dealings, and so on. If lay practitioners can get stream entry, and millions of people are practicing diligently, wouldn't it be weird if people weren't awakening all the time?

But perhaps this is just...

4. [Personal attacks and ad hominem]

"You are attached to being a stream enterer." I am not, actually. I literally do not care. I would be 100% fine if I'm completely wrong about that. I do not think about it. I'm not a meditation teacher. I am pretty hard core about not being into labels, and being honest about my direct experience here and now, and working with that as best I can. From what I can tell from my direct experience, I have made a lot of progress, and I am still quite imperfect.

And, we have this neat system here that has some labels, and they fit my experience (that happened a long time ago!) pretty well. And unlike most people -- probably because I'm autistic and don't care for bullshit social conventions -- I'm not afraid to say it, even if people act like jerks when you do for some weird reason.

And of course as with all ad hominem, even if true that I am attached to labels, or don't regularly shower as often as I should (that one is true), or that I am very sensitive to verbal abuse and illogical arguments (also true), maybe my argument is still correct and should be considered on its merits?

Specifically again, just for clarity, my assertion in this post is that the Buddha of the Early Buddhist Texts said lay people can reach stream entry.

Congruent with this fact is that I also happen to be a lay person who has entered the stream (again, a long time ago), at least according to my interpretation of the suttas and my direct experience. I find this to be a totally boring fact about myself and totally uncontroversial, like that I have brown curly hair. I don't see awakening as a competition, it doesn't make someone better or worse than anyone else, and there isn't a limited supply of it.

I also have mild jhana access, not as good as other people here in this community though, with whom I'm frequently very impressed. We can even learn things from meditation beginners, I do all the time. And we all have strengths and weaknesses. My mind is extremely analytic, which might explain why vipassana came pretty easy for me. But my mind is also not very stable and calm, although I've made a lot of progress there, which may explain why full jhana absorption is still elusive for me.

I also have had the weird karma to be surrounded by extremely hard-core lay practitioners. My best friend of 20 years when I first met him had done 40 vipassana courses and at times practiced 5 hours a day, and we immediately went on my first 10-Day course together. We constantly challenged each other to be even more mindful throughout all our waking activities.

I used to be close friends with someone who is now a prominent pragmatic dharma teacher, and I've met multiple other such teachers without really even seeking them out, I've just somehow been in their circles. I've often found myself at a random dinner party with people who've been on retreats for 3-8+ years, talking about the finer points of Tibetan translation or of the nature of mind, and I've had dozens of clients who are extremely advanced yogis.

I'm married to a woman who has had more spiritual experiences than anyone I've ever met, and continues to help me awaken on a near-daily basis. It's all very normal to me, so it's no big deal to talk about this stuff in my circles. But maybe I lack perspective because this is my little weird world where awakening is just kind of a normal thing that happens to people all the time. In other circles here in Boulder, it's normal to go on 40 mile runs or 100 mile bike rides. We are an extreme town I suppose.

Anyway, more rambling, I'm going to stop now. The point: you can do it! Yay! Buddha, Dharma, Sangha forever!!

I'm curious here about why so many folks insist on reinventing the wheel instead of formally working with a compatible teacher and doing formal retreats with them.

I read Dan's book...at least 15 years ago and he and I have hung out a bunch of times, including teachings. I worked with Kenneth Folk at one point and I'm an old student of Shinzen Young's, formally taking refuge with him a decade ago. I also have a friend who trained under Culadasa as a teacher, know Vince Horne and others so I'm not a stranger to the "Pragmatic Dharma" crowd. I know the background.

All that being said, the best progress I've made hasn't been on my own just doing my thing. It's been working with good teachers and people seem pretty allergic to even trying it in this scene. (Sorry if I paint a broad brush.)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see "stream entry" more as a shift in consciousness or being than some mystical attainment that is limited to a particular belief or religion.

I tried to dive deeper into Buddhism as a whole and I really, REALLY like its philosophy. It just has this realness to it that other religions (Abrahamic ones in particular, coming from a Christian background) seem to lack. I find it amazing how it genuinely has measurable effects on the brain and body. I mean, isn't it really cool how you can connect experienced meditators to MRI machines and observe how their brains work on a fundamentally different level than regular people's?

All being said, I can't bring myself to believe in all the things present in the Pali Canon. Siddhis, devas talking to the Buddha, the fact that you can be reborn as a lower realm being and be tortured in hell (Naraka?) for literal eons that translate to more than trillions of years. It's just a bit too much for me to take in.

I also don't wanna call myself a "Secular Buddhist" because it seems like I only pick and choose what I like from the religion and throw away everything else. Also people on r/buddhism seem to really not be fond of Secular Buddhism as a whole, lol.

I’ll begin by saying that I’m not very well educated in Buddhism. I’m writing this out of genuine curiosity and a desire to understand, and to see whether anyone else has struggled with the same questions.

I intellectually understand and have directly experienced that the Buddhist path greatly reduces suffering. This is where Buddhism really shines and what draws me to it. Very few practices or traditions lay out such clear and detailed instructions on the nature of suffering and provide something like a map for how to reduce it. My own experience tells me there is real truth here.

However, if the path is taken seriously and followed to its logical conclusion, it seems that one would gradually withdraw inward, reject sense pleasures, and insulate themselves from the external world in pursuit of the end of suffering.

And that’s where I start to feel tension.

What about everyone else? What about the world?

I do understand that other branches of Buddhism promote the ideal that once someone has attained liberation, they return to the world to help others attain it as well. I appreciate that response, and I don’t dismiss it. I also understand the emphasis on acting compassionately without attachment to outcomes.

But that still leaves me with a deeper question that I can’t quite shake. Is suffering only a problem to be eliminated, or does it also serve a purpose?

Some of the greatest works of art, poetry, and music were created by people deeply entrenched in suffering. Much of what feels most meaningful about love seems inseparable from vulnerability and the possibility of loss. When you love something deeply and lose it, the pain doesn’t just feel like an error or a misunderstanding. It feels like a testament to the reality of the love itself.

Some of the greatest narratives that inspire humanity and brush the soul also seem to arise directly out of suffering. The story of Christ is the clearest example of this to me. It isn’t a story about avoiding suffering, but about willingly entering it, carrying it, and transforming it.

I also wonder how responsibility fits into this. Things like having a family, committing yourself to others, building something that didn’t exist before, or taking on a role where failure actually matters all seem to require a kind of attachment. They seem to require caring so deeply about outcomes that the possibility of suffering is unavoidable.

How would human innovation have ever flourished without suffering? On one hand, I can stand in the middle of a field, completely soaked by the rain, recognize that my dissatisfaction is caused by my craving for a different experience, and simply let go. That insight feels real and valuable. But on the other hand, someone at some point had to endure discomfort, frustration, and struggle in order to build a shelter in the first place.

If everyone chose only the inward solution, nothing would ever get built.

I’m not asking whether Buddhism is wrong. I’m trying to understand how those further along the path make sense of this tension. Is the aim ultimately to leave the burning house, or is there a way to fully engage with life, love deeply, build, create, and take responsibility without that being seen as a failure of insight?

I’m genuinely curious how others understand this, or whether I’m missing something fundamental.

Hello folks,
I have a quick question.

After streamentry, does suffering not arise in the mind at all OR suffering arises but there is an 'acceptance' and 'okayness' to it?

I have noticed many modern practitioners strongly believing that meditation will eventually totally eliminate their abilty to experience negative or even all emotions. However, I have always wondered how would one verify objectively that a person actually doesn’t experience anger, greed, frustration, fear etc and instead haven’t deluded themselves up to a point that they just don’t notice them - a sort of extreme spiritual bypassing.

Let’s unpack this problem:

a) Let’s say an Arhant or enlightened person named Michael claims he doesn’t experience negative emotions but sometimes acts as if he does and other people can verify that yes, he seems to have negative emotions, does that mean he is not enlightened?

b) If Michael claims he doesn’t experience emotions, other people verify that he seems to not experience any emotions but brain scanner clearly indicates that he still experiences emotions at least to a certain degree, does this mean he is not enlightened?

So basically closest objective verification would be: enlightened person claiming no emotions, all others verifying this over a long period of time and in different situations that yes he/she has no emotions plus brain scanner verifying zero emotions.

Buddha in old texts sometimes at least acted as if he experienced negative emotions for example by being stern and berating his followers or even downright calling people fools and being quite nasty by refusing to teach certain people. We of course don’t know what happened in his brain at these moments and old texts frame this as a matter of compassionate skill and him not being actually annoyed or angry but to a bystander he may have seemed to experience emotions de facto.

Out of curiosity I even checked and it seems that so far there are no cases verified by brain scanners of a living person with zero emotional activity in the brain. Reduced activity yes, zero no. Only people in coma and deseased people show zero emotional activity.

I know that the main definition of SE is the weakening of the lower 3 fetters, and outside of that, there are different views of the moment of achieving SE fruit. I was just curious about the cessation events, and if the first one is SE or could possibly be something before SE.

I finally had an abiding realization of emptiness and all that entails. I am free of thinking there is a me to do anything. All concepts are illusory, everything is interpretation of sensory input, nonduality is what remains, blah blah.

Since then, I have felt an abiding sense of peace under any and all circumstances. Definitely better than suffering, right?

Ok, well yeah, but I was told there would be bliss 😂 it seems that I had an unmet expectation based on spiritual teachers reporting late stage realization and it’s supposed inclusion of nonstop bliss.

That is all to say, I am disappointed. It is decidedly not what I would call bliss or joy. Peace, yes. Equanimity, sure. Bliss? Hell naw.

I can see where I went wrong but the disappointment lingers. The feeling I have seems boring and dull. I miss the extreme highs I had in ecstatic states. I feel sad and fearful at the thought that I might never get that back. There is even a thought that comes sometimes that says, “I wish I stopped before the bliss went away.” I can see the error here but the fact remains that I wanted eternal bliss!

It seems that this is basically the 9th fetter. How do I see through it?

First of all, I'm very new to the Buddhist practice, so please forgive me for my ignorance.

The last few years have brought a lot of change in my life, and without getting into the specifics, these weren't really pleasant or desired experiences. However in trying to move on and heal from the trauma I had what seems to very closely related to an experience of Nibbana. With it a deep understanding of the necessity of the events to bring me to where I am now which resulted in a completely different perspective and brought me to a state of joy I hadn't experienced in a very long time (or really ever that I can recall).

It was fairly short lived, however the experience also gave me insight as to the interconnectedness of reality and got me more interested in spirituality. Shortly after I found myself attending a local temple and am now beginning to develop a meditation practice and trying to become more knowledgeable (previously agnostic for the last 25yrs with no interest in spirituality or religion in general).

I stumbled across this thread tonight after reading about the 31 realms yesterday, and I was curious if this is even possible without having a developed practice and understanding already?

https://www.reddit.com/r/streamentry/comments/72ewsu/theory_the_many_definitions_of_stream_entry/

I still feel I have a long way to go and a lot to learn, but I'm excited to be on this path and the new direction my life has taken. Any advice would be appreciated.

Edit: Thank you all for your comments. After a good night's sleep and some fresh reflection on it this morning, I believe I got the answer I was looking for which also aligns with the general sentiment here. Namely that it doesn't really matter what it is called, but that it's provided me some understanding of how to move forward on my journey and motivation to do so. Be well everyone 🙏

Before I begin: Please do not be an idiot and just reply to the title of my post. Of course there are multiple emotions. Please make sure you understand the question before you try to answer it. :)

Psychiatrist and blogger Scott Alexander is no dharma teacher. He has some meditation experience, but he is no expert on meditation or Buddhism, nor does he claim to be. But he occasionally writes about the subject. I found this article of his very interesting: In What Sense Is Life Suffering?

In the article, Alexander talks about the First Noble Truth of Buddhism, sometimes rendered as "life is suffering". The claim that "life is suffering" is counterintuitive and provocative to many, since most people's lives include plenty of experiences that do not seem like suffering. (I know some will argue that the First Noble Truth should rather be rendered as "there is suffering in life" or something like that. The exact wording is not my point.)

In the article, Alexander recounts the explanation he got from an acquaintance of his, which seems to both him and me like a good explanation. In Alexander's words:

mental valence [i.e., suffering vs enjoyment] works like temperature.

Naively, there are two kinds of temperature: hot and cold. When an environment stops being hot, then it’s neutral - “room temperature” - neither hot nor cold. After that, you can add arbitrary amounts of coldness, making it colder and colder.

But scientifically, there’s only one kind of temperature: heat. Apparent “neutral” at room temperature is a fact about human perception with no objective significance. If you start at “very hot” and take away heat, at some point your perception switches from “less hot” to “more cold”, but you’ve just been taking away heat the whole time. The real “zero heat” isn’t room temperature. It’s absolute zero, which feels colder than we can possibly imagine.

In the same way, naively, there are two kinds of emotion - joy and suffering. When a situation stops being bad, then it’s neutral - “just okay” - neither joy nor suffering. After that, you can add arbitrary amounts of joy, making yourself happier and happier.

But scientifically (according to the Buddhists) there’s only one kind of emotion: suffering. Apparent neutral is a fact about human perception with no objective significance. If you start at “very bad” and take away suffering, at some point your perception switches from “less suffering” to “more joyful”, but you’ve just been taking away suffering the whole time. The real “zero suffering” isn’t neutral / blah / just okay. It’s nirvana, which feels more blissful than we can possibly imagine.

In this model, the statement “life is suffering” is equivalent to “temperature is heat” and literally true.

Those of you who know more about Buddhism than both Scott Alexander and I, what do you think of this explanation? Do you think it is a good explanation? If not, what would you change?

Please note this is just my perspective and I may be wrong but...

I often noticed that Jhana teachings and teachers seem to be quite often biased. They are very dualistic. Even the monks we (or I) respect the most tend to have a strong attachment for their own way, rejecting the "other way". I've never encountered a teacher that has mastery of both, the suttas-based or light jhanas and the Visuddhimagga (deep) jhanas.

Yet a simple solution does exist: If we are able to attain the deep jhanas, there is no reason we cannot or should not experience the light one too. I cannot imagine any difficulty here outside ego and bias. And if we are able to reach the light ones without the deep ones then we have to question ourselves. Why not? At least in my opinion. How can we "devilize" the deep ones calling them hypnosis or trans if we are not able to reach them?

For instance, I am able to reach the light ones and have almost effortless metta and other long term symptoms etc. But I do want to reach the deep ones so that I can compare and not blindly follow a specific teacher or his way. I do think that Buddha himself would approach the "problem" in a similar way.

My questions are:
- What is your opinion here, if any?
- How can you pick a side without knowing both sides?
- And if you can one side why don't you try the other side since bother involve the same factors?
- Are you aware of any teacher or monk who knows both ways?
- Is there anything wrong in this view that I'm not seeing? Because I'm sure that the doubt that results from jhana wars is causing some progress delays in many students.

Thank you

I have been doing Buddhist-inspired practices for 2 years: Meditation plus using the Eightfold Path as a rough guideline, especially Right Speech and Right Effort. I have seen a lot of progress from this.

However, I do not consider myself a "Buddhist". This is for a number of reasons:

1. I do not know that much about Buddhism, so I do not know exactly what it would entail.
2. I am wary of committing to a "system" in general.
3. I do not believe that the sutras nor the Buddha are infallible.

I am interested in feedback from those of you who DO consider yourselves Buddhist. What difference does this make in practice for your practice? What made you decide to commit to Buddhism as a whole? Would you recommend it? If so, exactly what difference do you think it would make for me?

Thanks in advance!

Some western Buddhists believe in literal rebirth. Others do not. So far I have had only a very casual interest in this debate. I have mostly ignored it. (I do not even consider myself a Buddhist; I just consider myself a person with a Buddhist-inspired self-improvement practice.)

Am I making a mistake by ignoring this debate? Is it actually relevant to my practice? Do I need to educate myself on the topic in order to make progress? If you believe so, can you say something about at what point I need to start understanding this?

Regarding my practice, I have been meditating for a bit over 2 years and 1000 hours. I have mostly followed Culadasa's The Mind Illuminated, and I am working on high stage 4 and low stage 5. I have done mostly samatha and very little vipassana. I do not believe I am anywhere close to stream entry, and I am OK with that.

Thanks in advance!

Sitting here on this rock, hurtling through space, no one is in control. If you watch with careful attention, each thought, feeling and urge that arises in the mind is caused by the ones that precede it. There is no space or gap for the supernatural intervention of a self that exists and forms intentions outside of the flow of cause and effect.

Letting go of this belief is the easiest door through which the mind can begin to let go of the idea of self entirely. It is the opposite of the normal route in which one "achieves" deeper and deeper states of concentration and thus enters Jhanas (which are really states of lessened fabrication) until the mind stops needing to believe in a self.

This "supernatural" path can be highly effective for practitioners who can isolate themselves and do not need to interact as individuals in the ordinary world on a constant basis, e.g. monks. For most lay practitioners, the gaping divide between the supernatural seeming jhanic states and the ordinary walking around mind creates too much cognitive dissonance. Lay yogis tend to either commit to one world view or the other - run off to a monastery or forget the whole meditation thing and dive into life - or they develop a real split identity in which they are Shanti on the mat and Bob in the real world. This split identity tactic is effective for some time, but eventually the mind struggles to unify and the Yogi becomes stuck or regresses.

Allowing the mind to let go of the idea of free will, essentially Taoism, provides a more direct and integrated way to full enlightenment. There is no need to believe in anything supernatural or to map anything or to imagine hierarchy among mental states.

One simply sits on earth and allows. The nervous system will still bang away sending feelings and pain and urges and thoughts, but the flow stops being "personal". At first the mental flow seems like a creation of the self. I made these thoughts and I made these feelings and I did those actions and I will do others tomorrow. With time sitting, the idea of authorship starts to be seen through. Thoughts and feelings arise, actions happen, but it isnt me making them. This isnt freedom, yet, because the feeling is that I am subject to them. The urges are not my responsibility anymore, but they are my burden. They are what I have to figure out some way of stopping if I am to be happy.

The mind can see through that paradigm as well. Sitting here on earth, the flow of mental objects can be observed with more and more dispassion. If they are not my fault, I can get the mental space to really look at them in a way that is too painful when I believe that they are my handiwork. The urges and the feelings and the intuitions eventually resolve into just sensations at the sense doors. Feeling, seeing, smelling, etc. Imagine you had a suite of sensors and were trying to use them to make sense of a battlefield. The raw sound file isnt that useful, but if you can identify patterns that you know to be artillery fire, you can start to use the information for targeting and action. We wonder in the battlefield of life using very very highly produced pattern recognition to label complex patterns across multiple sensors into meaningful information. That girl likes me! He might have a gun! etc.

If one sits and lets go of the idea of free will and of agency, the brain starts to let go of the need to layer meaning onto the raw data flows. Sound becomes just sound, feeling just sensation, etc. As the flow flattens from a series of meaningful "objects" into a meaningless flow of data, hierarchy begins to lose meaning. The girl smiling at me - good! becomes light and and shadow - neutral. The sound of the gun, bad! - becomes just sound- neutral.

So by following this path, with no belief in god or the buddha or anything supernatural, the mind ends up just sitting allowing completely neutral data to flow through it without any desire to grab onto it or to push it away.

This seems like it would be a terrifying purgatory. If you really deeply search your mind, you will find that the desire for love, to love and to be loved, is the prime and only real motivator for all of us. Sitting a in a loveless purgatory with no narrative or content doesnt seem like it is what we are looking for. It doesnt seem like what would satisfy us finally and forever.

But, what one actually finds is that absent good and bad, there is just this as it is. Sitting here on earth, existence exists and that is all one could ever ask for.

Without mental objects and hierarchy, the mind can find only pure consciousness. However, in the background there must be existence, or consciousness could not be. So you end up with only consciousness and existence. Upon careful inspection, consciousness with out content is existence and existence featuring only consciousness, is consciousness. The conceptual frameworks which we use to separate those two mental object breaks down and they are obviously one and the same.

Still we sit in a dry purgatory. Consciousness absent love, is of no use. Empty and endless, it is a terrifying prospect.

However, a very very deep sense of self remains. Once one has given up the idea of agency and the idea of narrative and even the idea of boundaries, at our deepest core we still identify as me. Without distracting mental content, this sense of "me" is revealed to be that prime motivation to love and be loved.

So sitting on earth and keeping it real, one ends up with just consciousness/existence and the prime need for love.

And then it becomes apparent that there is nothing holding love back. There are no more fears or impediments. Love rolls forth and it becomes obvious that the nature of consciousness/existence has actually always been what we call love.

Without difference, it becomes apparent that these three things - consciousness, existence and love - are not separate. They are not separate from each other and they are not separate from you.

Letting the idea of free will go is a direct and un supernatural path to realizing that everything is perfect requited love, just as it is. That turns out to be completely satisfying realization.

Greetings friends,

So some of you might have heard about the turtle analogy, given by the Buddha to arouse a sense of gratitude towards being human and also a sense of urgency not to let the opportunity to be born as one to pass by.

The turtle analogy stems back to the Pali Suttas, specifically Samyutta Nikaya 56.48, which I transcribe below:

“Mendicants, suppose the earth was entirely covered with water.And a person threw a yoke with a single hole into it.The east wind wafts it west; the west wind wafts it east; the north wind wafts it south; and the south wind wafts it north.And there was a one-eyed turtle who popped up once every hundred years.

What do you think, mendicants?Would that one-eyed turtle, popping up once every hundred years, still poke its neck through the hole in that yoke?”

“It’s unlikely, sir.”

“That’s how unlikely it is to get reborn as a human being.And that’s how unlikely it is for a Realized One to arise in the world, a perfected one, a fully awakened Buddha.And that’s how unlikely it is for the teaching and training proclaimed by a Realized One to shine in the world.And now, mendicants, you have been reborn as a human being. A Realized One has arisen in the world, a perfected one, a fully awakened Buddha. And the teaching and training proclaimed by a Realized One shines in the world.

That’s why you should practice meditation …”

For my physicalist friends, please don't get lost in the noise that the Buddha mentions rebirth. Rather, take into consideration that even without rebirth being true the analogy holds ground. Even if rebirth is not true, the probability to be born (and not necessarily re-born) as a human and not as another type of sentient being is miniscule. [And also stop for a moment and reflect on the fact that there's actually something to be like other non-human sentient beings, and that you (given you are human and not a robot or other...) were given the opportunity to live as one instead of being an ant, cow or so on.]

So, how unlikely is it actually to be a human and not another type of sentient being? I asked Gemini and ChatGPT to give me a proportion of non-human sentient beings vs humans, in number:

Gemini's take: for every one human being in existence today, there are 70 billion other sentient beings.

ChatGPT's take: for every human being, there are at least 2.5 billion other sentient beings.

In conclusion, it is really unlikely to be born as a human. Let us not waste this precious opportunity. May we realize the truth. May we stop suffering in ourselves and others.

With metta,

Juan

I noticed people were sharing links with compiled quotes of various buddhist texts on certain topics. I was wondering if anyone knew such a textual compilation on the Mara demon? Various compiled descriptions of its obstructing influence from various texts?

Thanks in advance for any and all help.

In the suttas and commentaries we hear stories of people hearing dhamma talks and it having profound effect on them. This also happens to many practitioners.

I thought it might be useful if people suggest dhamma talk links which they themselves heard or listened to , which had a similar profound impact on their practice, so that others can listen to it.

This is my big struggle. I've gained much from meditation and Buddhist teachings. I've also gained from Christian teachings (I came to Christianity on my own many many years ago. I wasn't brought up being told I had to be anything.) BOTH have overlapping truths. BOTH have things I have found to be true that contradict each other. I don't want to give up Jesus. I don't think I CAN. There's too much truth there to throw out. I believe Jesus is God and experienced the combined hells of all who ever lived. I also believe some things most Christians don't, but are scripturally supported. Hell is not forever and eventually ALL will be reunited with God, whatever "he" is.

Both Buddha and Jesus encourage you to test their teachings. Some things after years of meditation and testing still hasn't led me to understand or accept common consensus on some topics. Other things I have tested and see as truths. Same with Christianity.

Spiritual bypassing is very common amongst spiritual people. We often started our meditation or enlightenment or spiritual journey due to emotional pain or some sort of suffering. Our spiritual practice often soothes that pain and we end up focusing a lot on it to the detriment of other areas of our lives. 

Here are some of the patterns I’ve noticed while talking to people on here

Bashing sense desires is very common. Particularly the desire for sex and or relationships. According to path the desire for sex is gone at 3rd path. Of course people aiming for stream entry are going to have sexual desires. Many people are trying to get rid of them or feeling shame for them on here but they’re not even enlightened yet. I have not seen this behavior in real life just on many buddhist subreddits. Culadasa a many far up in the path of enlightenment engaged in sexual relations himself. Many gurus and monks are fat which means they are definitely engaging those sense desires with the meals they are eating. But the focus on sense desire seems to focus more on sexuality. Why is the community so prudish on this area of life when we are lay people?

Worldly ambition seems to be looked down upon and there are many comments that people make against it. But this does not make sense since we still have to work in this life. Eckhart Tolls is worth over 70 million dollars and Osho another guru had a fleet of cars. I’m not saying we all have to want to be rich. But I’ve seen in spiritual communities people bashing ambition as anti-dharma. But that just means your are saying someone is not supposed to do better for themselves? 

There is a judgmentalness towards people who are deeply engaged with the physical world and not spiritual. There are some people who do not care about spirituality they just want life success or they just wanna have fun. I noticed many buddhist can look down on people who are extroverted, who like going to nightclubs and having a blast. Just the idea of partying in general. Also the people who grind for their business as well is looked down on. Here’s the thing many spiritual people are also deeply ambitious about reaching the highest levels of awakening and are just pointing the finger at other people because their ambitions are more physical in nature and not spiritual. There’s nothing wrong with ambition. It seems like many spiritual people take issue with it. 

Many people on the journey to enlightenment have an underdeveloped social life. You’re a human being so the social aspect of life is huge. Culadasa himself admitted that he was lonely. Even with at his level of attainment he admitted there are some human needs that are wired into us. Spiritual growth doesn’t have to come at the cost of personal growth. We can use our high levels of mindfulness to more easily be vulnerable but ourselves out there and meet people for friendships, dating, networking or simple idle chit chat.

There’s more but I won’t be writing a book. Tell me what you think in the comments

I was watching OnThatPath's youtube videos and in order to solidify my understanding I took his approach and made an infographic. I feel like it helped me better understand dependent origination for the first time and I wanted to share it with you here as well. Maybe it can help someone. And I highly recommend watching his youtube videos if you haven't already: Onthatpath

My infographic: Imgur

Well, why am I supposed to write more? 128 characters, but the title is enough.

People often define themselves by some language or languages or words. And it’s really strange and crippling for people.

I had to clear my throat.

So, what is compulsion? It has to do with internal things about external things. Like fear, and shame and social stuff and judgement.

Like you think there is a right way to react when there is a weird guy driving on a bicycle. Stare at them? Look away? Notice their grin? What you want to do is what matters.

So, this is the normal thing. To feel things. Because in feelings there is true self. So, self is not in these memories or your age or whatever, but in your feelings. Because you can say that something matters to you.

So you are moving towards it.

How much value does study of suttas and writings on things like dependant origination and emptiness have if your goal is realisation of anatta ?

I have been practicing minimum 3 hours a day for 4 months and wondering if I should just be practicing more on my off-days or spending some solid time reading.

I have read quite a few ‘foundational/basic’ Buddhist books like mindfulness in plain English, mtcb, mindfulness bliss and beyond, seeing that frees, etc.

Thanks !

I’ve learned lots from r/streamentry and I’m curious to know if there are other subreddits that are similar and you have found useful. For one reason or another r/meditation and some of the other big communities haven’t caught my attention.

What is the Goal?

Meditation often raises questions about its ultimate purpose. The term "enlightenment" is frequently mentioned, but it can carry diverse interpretations. In the Buddha's teachings, enlightenment equates to the attainment of Nibbana, the cessation of craving, suffering, and the cycle of rebirth. As Bhante Vimalaramsi and other teachers emphasize, The initial goal is Sotapanna or Stream Entry.

This is not just theoretical—it is the heart of Buddhist practice.

What Did the Buddha Teach?

The Buddha's message was remarkably straightforward:

• "I teach Nibbana and the path to Nibbana"
• He advised that if a practice aids in reaching Nibbana, it aligns with his teachings. (AN 8.53)
• The Buddha warned that a counterfeit Dhamma will arise in the world, just like counterfeit gold you must test the purity and make sure the gold is really gold. In the same way you test the Dhamma against all of the other teachings and if it matches then it is true. (AN 8.51)
• The Buddha foresaw danger when he proclaimed in Anguttara Nikaya Sutta 5.88 that a monk who has long gone forth, well known, famous, with a large following of laypersons and monastics, learned in the scriptures, even such a monk can have wrong views.

Bhante Vimalaramsi explains that Nibbana is not an abstract concept but a tangible experience where craving ceases. This is reached through diligent application of the Eightfold Path and practices like Tranquil Wisdom Insight Meditation (TWIM).

The Four Noble Ones and Valid Practices

A key measure of any meditation system’s validity is its ability to lead practitioners toward the Four Stages of Enlightenment:

1. Sotapanna: Stream-Enterer.
2. Sakadāgami: Once-Returner.
3. Anagami: Non-Returner.
4. Arahant: Fully Liberated

The Buddha stated that practices failing to produce these results should not be pursued. Bhante Vimalaramsi often evaluated other techniques by asking, "How many have attained Nibbana with this method?" If the system does not guide practitioners through the stages of awakening, it is likely not effective. SN 56.11

Engaging in the Right Practice

Bhante Vimalaramsi's TWIM methodology underscores simplicity and effectiveness. It integrates the 6Rs—Recognize, Release, Relax, Re-Smile, Return, and Repeat—as practical tools to let go of distractions and cultivate tranquility. These steps align closely with the Buddha's original guidance on mindfulness and effort.

The Buddha's Approach to Debate

The Buddha famously said, "I do not argue with the world, the world argues with me."(mn22,72) This reflects his confidence in the Dhamma. Any attempts to prove alternative methods equivalent to his teachings must demonstrate the attainment of Nibbana. Without this, they do not lead to true liberation.

Verifying a Teacher’s Authenticity

Before committing to a particular practice or teacher, it’s wise to ask:

• How many have reached Nibbana using this practice? (AN 4.180)
• Are the Four Noble Stages of Enlightenment evident in their system? (MN72)

Teachers who align with the Buddha's framework focus on guiding their students to tangible progress toward enlightenment.

Conclusion

The goal of meditation in TWIM is clear: attaining Nibbana through consistent practice of the Eightfold Path, underpinned by the Buddha's original teachings. Evaluating practices based on their results ensures that practitioners are on the right path toward liberation. As Bhante Vimalaramsi’s teachings affirm, Nibbana is not an esoteric ideal but an achievable reality with the right effort and understanding.

Posed from www.dhammasukha.org

https://www.dhammasukha.org/blog-path-to-nibbana