Dears thanks to all of you spiritual workers...
I ask to the seniors here, in which way can you call stream enterer anyone who has NOT reached the shamata/shinè level of stable concentrative equipoise, as the Treateses (f.e.Abhysamayalamkara) and the sutras say? is DhO's one a new type of use of the term or you really mean the classical range? Moreover, do you actually assume that stream enterer has already on the way of abandoning attachment to the desire realm etc.?

which sutras are you referring to?

as for the MCTB definition of stream entry, it is based on the Mahasi Sayadaw model, which isn't the exact same as the suttas, depending on who you ask.

different people here may define stream entry differently, but people generally cite which model they are using so as not to cause confusion.

Hi,

This is an onging debate amongst Buddhist Scholars as the Visuddhimagga, Pāli Commentaries and Abhidhamma clasiification identify a mode of practice or dry insighters" (sukkha-vipassaka) as a method to the path. The Sutras also mention instances when a breakthrough to stream-entry has occurred by listening to the Buddha or an enlightened monk give a discourse on the Dhamma.

Edit to add from experience with insight practices concentration develops alternatively with concentration practices insight develops, how well it works depends on tuning the tools you have creating favorable conditions for progress.


cheers

Jeff

Christiana, if you are coming from a Tibetan Buddhist practice background, as I gather from your use of Tibetan terms, you may find that there are few (although some) participants at DhO who have a solid enough understanding of the whole cultural, view and practice context of those terms to really get where you are coming from without making lots and lots of stuff very explicit. It's not that DhO community is free of cultural, view and practice assumptions of course, just that these things are generally defined by 1) Burmese Vippassana, especially as presented in Dan Ingram's book Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha, and 2)Actualism, as modified by many practitioners here, both of which have to some extent different cultures, views and practices although increasingly a sort of hybrid is dominant in current DhO culture. Communicating across the gap between where I suspect you are coming from and where the currently normative discourse on DhO is coming from is challenging, but may be made easier if you can provide references for the community that has influenced your understanding of these things as well as your practice experiences. I may have come to completely the wrong conclusion about your background btw and if so, my apologies-- just trying to gauge where you are coming from, that's all ;-)\

-Jake

Ok thank you dears. Yes, right! Tibetan school. Main referring texts on the matter: Vashubhandu's Abhidarmakosha as reported and commented by the First Dalai Lama Gedun Drub; and Maitreya's Abhisamayalamkara as reported and commented by Haribadra first and Gyeltsab Je afterwards. With all the sutras extensively quoted there, from which Samdhinirmocanasutra (Sutra Unraveling the Thought), Prajnaparamitasutra, Lankavatarasutra ecc. (there are really many).
Both Abhidhama (Vaibashika school) and Abhisamaya (Svatantrika-Madhyamilka school) describe the system of the Twenty Sangha, which explains that in order to become a stream enterer one has first have entered the gate of the Hearer Vehicle at least; such a gate is qualified by having reached the immovable concentrative equipoise on renunciation which can happen only on the basis of shamata/shinè/calm abiding realization. In the case of the gate for the Bodhisattva vehicle, the required attainments are different but still on the basis of calm abiding.
I totally understand that different schools give different meaning to all these terms, that's why I am asking which is the meaning that is given HERE. I checked in the site but all of such topics are not open to my kind of subscription (they are marked in red). I have already sent a message to Daniel & Adam in order to request such permission ( no response until now).

Thank you anyway for having made me refreshing my materials in order to respond your questions!

Love

dear Jeff thank you, why is sukkha translated "dry" by DhO rather than "bliss"? may be I am mistaking with "h"s and "k"s but I knew sukkha means bliss.

Moreover yes, I also read sutras in which it's said "....after the Bhagawan spoke, 10.000 hearers got s.e. state, 10.000 got non-returner, 10.0000 became arhants, etc."; but this doesn' t mean of course: "the only requirement in order to become w.e., n.r. and arhants is to listen to the Buddha's words". No pervasion . Anyway I' m not at all interested to argue about what the "real-of the-real" mening of s.e. is, rather simply to understand what YOU DhO mean, on the basis of the background which was told me here by Josh - of course a valid background, but since I don't know it I still I don't know what do you mean. Love

This is a very interesting book by Thanissaro about this subject called "Into the Stream".

http://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/IntoTheStream_v111128.pdf

I'm glad it is of no value

You could try here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sot%C4%81panna

thank you all guys