Out of curiosity, what is the advantage of mapping it that way? Any downsides? You include a quote... is this map scripture-based or some other authority/opinion/foundation?

@OP:

Pawel, I like your map, as I understand it from reading various posts over time.  As you said in a different thread, you map technical 4th to your ten-fetter-ish 2nd path.  That is cool.  The reality is though, that the technical paths have a very big sample size and a network of teachers, students, and peers that have experienced it.  I would also add that one helpful way to categorize attainments past technical 4th would be through the different areas in which they manifest, i.e. energetics, bodhicitta, etc.

P.s.- "default mind is complete cessation"?  C'man dude, this is too strict for 1st path, even for you... 

1. no - complete cessation of mental sensations is 9th jhana, only for arahants & some non-returners 

2. no - there is no support in the Pali suttas that stream-enterer has reached any jhana

3. no - MN 152 states this is the domain of the arahant

4. yes - no practices with undefined purpose are done at all anymore 

5. no - understanding of Dharma 100% is after the last fetter is broken

6. yes- understanding of structure and experience of mind and why it suffers and how to make it not suffer

7. no - mastery of sensual perception - MN 152 states this is the domain of the arahant

8. no -

9. no - 

10. no - stabilization of mind is perfected at the 2nd jhana - this is not the domain of the stream enterer 

the score was 20%, 2/10 or a fail 

Ah, I see. It's basically a complete rejection of any validity of the MTCB map and even implying that style of meditation is not even meditation at all. Okay, thanks!

Interesting. I read that sutta as the main difference between earlier paths, especially between 3rd and 4th path. 3rd is still very much identified with mind states, 4th has the insight that goes beyond experiences.

Okay, so your promoting an all-or-nothing kind of model/map. That has certainly been done before and has a certain simplicity to it. It's going to promote people working toward full awakening, rather than resting on their laurels along the way. The pros and cons have been debated to death in the Zen tradition, for example, in the instant vs gradual enlightenment school debates. 

Ultimately, the gradual models have a lot of value for working with actual meditators and their problems. It's more diagnostic and can offer approaches that might work along the way. The all-or-nothing models seem a bit cold to me. But that's my opinion.

How about:

1. Having a fruition and being certain that it was a fruition.
2. If you miss the fruition or you are unsure if it was a fruition, then having a change in perception. That change of perception must hold, untouched every moment, every second.
3. Having some kind of relief, of completion, of it's done thing.
4. Having a wow thing, some kind of overload of sensations, emotions.

Eventually, I guess you are not really, really sure until you do a lot of reviews (with their fruitions) or get 2nd path.

Edited again...

Ultimately I'm glad your approach is working for you.

This sutta is not applicable to stream-entry. The reasons why are: 

1. Stream-enterers are not experiencing the sphere of the infinitude of space, the sphere of the infinitude of consciousness, the sphere of nothingness, the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception. Yet this sutta states the meditator is potentially cognisant of these states. 

2. The essential suttas, such as 

Anatta-lakkhana Sutta and MN 1, state arahants percieve or 'fully comprehend' the five aggregates. Therefore, the claim in this sutta that the meditator non-longer "percieves" earth, wind, fire, water, etc, is generally not a dhamma principle, even for arahants. 

3. Regardless, what is being said here is the meditator's mind is absorbed in Nibbana or absorbed in final vipassana. What this means is the predominant perception of the mind is that of abandonment & peace (Nibbana) or that of change itself (impermanence) rather than the objects of change. For example, final vipassana can occur so fast that the mind only percieves 'change'. The objects that change (such as breath, feelings, consciousness, etc) become irrelevant to the mind. This is why the mind does not percieve earth, wind, fire, water, etc Because the mind is percieving something else that is more salient to the mind. 

In summary, this sutta is only applicable to fully-enlightened minds (arahants). It does not pertain to stream-entry. This sutta is describing Nibbbana, which has been defined as: 

Your conclusions certainly differ from Gautama Buddha because Gautama Buddha was not deluded. 

Stream-entry is not full understanding of dharma. 

If there were not different levels of insight leading to different levels of the destruction of ignorance, the term 'stream-entry' would not even be required. 

Your posts are illogical. Where as Gautama Buddha was not illogical. This is because Gautama Buddha was not deluded.