text:
Is mindfulness for quick enlightenment being exaggerated in the Sutta MN10?
I was reading about mindfulness here.  At the end I found this paragraph

Let alone seven years, anyone who develops these four kinds of
  mindfulness meditation in this way for six years … five years … four
  years … three years … two years … one year … seven months … six months
  … five months … four months … three months … two months … one month …
  a fortnight … Let alone a fortnight, anyone who develops these four
  kinds of mindfulness meditation in this way for seven days can expect
  one of two results: enlightenment in the present life, or if there’s
  something left over, non-return.

Here Tathagata saying one keeping that kind of mindfulness for 7 days can get enlightenment? Is it exaggeration, translation problem or understanding problem or it's true?

Is it exaggeration, translation problem or understanding problem or
  it's true?

The translation is fine, but the reader must know the environment and situation of that sutta, before read it. If the reader read it without the pre-required knowledge, it is the reader's fail.
The explanation
In atthakathā of MN 10 wrote:

Why Buddha taught mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta to Kuru-people? Because they had enough ability to study the advance teaching. It's told that Kuru-people, such as bhikkhu, bhikkhunī, lay men, and lay women,  always had the potential body and the potential mind because Kuru-country had the richness of temperature, etc. Their potential body and potential mind supported their wisdom power, so they can studied  the advance teaching.

So, most Kuru-people were diṭṭhi-cārita, who have little dust in their eyes, according to netti desanāhāravibhaṅga.
The diṭṭhi-cārita people can attain jhāna easily. So they don't have to meditate jhāna because of their pure mind. They can enlighten at the listening moment. That's why in the end of mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta's atthakathā wrote:

30,000 people enlightened as arahanta at the end of mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta was taught.

therefore, the end of mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta wrote:

Let alone seven years, anyone who develops these four kinds of mindfulness meditation in this way for six years … five years … four years … three years … two years … one year … seven months … six months … five months … four months … three months … two months … one month … a fortnight … Let alone a fortnight, anyone who develops these four kinds of mindfulness meditation in this way for seven days can expect one of two results: enlightenment in the present life, or if there’s something left over, non-return.

But for taṇhā-carita people,who have much dust in their eyes, they have to meditate jhāna, first. After they attained jhāna, they can count down for enlightenment like what buddha taught in the end of  mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta. Because jhāna can pause their five hindrances, then their "dust in eyes" state will be same little  dust as diṭṭhi-carita and they are able to count down for enlightenment.

Oh.  How can I ascertain my eligibility?

And what do you mean by little dust in eyes? Can you give some links?

The eligibility is that if you are normally no unwholesome mind arising daily, you don't need to attained jhāna.  Another, the translated link can switch directly from above given link's drop down menu. Or you can go to this link > http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/read/roman_read.php?B=15&A=3906&h=apparajakkhaj%C4%81tik%C4%81&eng=accesstoinsight_than

No exaggeration or translation problem here. A quick mundane analogy, say there's a complex quantum mechanics problem that needs to be solved, it'd be equally valid to say it could take seven years, or six years, or five years,... three months, two months, one months...or seven days for one to solve it. It all depends on where one is on the path of quantum mechanics. For a high school graduate, it sure would take at least seven years ( 4 years for a bachelor degree, 3-4 years for graduate degree), but for a professional physicist, seven days might be all s/he needs to crack it.

Great analogy of the quantum physics Path.

Here Tathagata saying one keeping that kind of mindfulness for 7 days can get enlightenment? Is it exaggeration, translation problem or understanding problem or it's true?

In order to develop these Four Kinds of Mindfulness in 7 days, one needs to have superior, fine-tuned and almost perfectly balanced faculties.
Without speculating too much on the workings of Kamma, I think it's safe to say, that this requires a lot of practice in this life and probably past lives as well.
IMO one should be careful of anything such as "quick enlightenment" or "shortcuts to enlightenment". Noone gets enlightened without putting in the work and effort it requires. People who gets enlightened from just listening to a Dhamma talk, have put in all the work in countless past lives, which is why their faculties are ripe and balanced in such a way, that it requires very little to attain Arahantship.

"Noone gets enlightened without putting in the work and effort it requires." - absolutely!

MN 10 is a fake sutta that includes the five hindrances in the 4th satipatthana. Therefore, if the meditator practises for seven days: ‘I have sensual desire in me’; they obviously will not make any progress because there cannot be any progress when the five hindrances exist.
This said, if proper satipatthana (such as described in MN 118) is practised continuously for seven days, i.e., without any hindrances for seven days and with proper samadhi based in 'letting go' (per SN 48.10 and the end of MN 118), then, yes, certainly that meditator will be a stream-enterer and certainly they can expect one of two results in their life: enlightenment in the present life, or if there’s something left over, non-return.
It is important to distinguish between 'actually practising satipatthana without hindrances' and 'attempting to practise satipatthana with hindrances'.
If a meditator sits one or many 10-day Goenka, Mahasi or IMS satipatthana meditation retreats but continues to have hindrances or uses a wrong method, then this is not actually practising satipatthana.
In order to develop these Four Kinds of Mindfulness over 7 days, one needs to have perfectly balanced faculties for the entire 7 days (which depends on one single moment of Right View).
Ajahn Buddhadasa explained:

As for samadhi, an empty mind is the supreme samadhi, the supremely focused firmness of mind. The straining and striving sort of samadhi
  isn't the real thing and the samadhi which aims at anything other than
  non-clinging to the five khandas is micchasamadhi (wrong or perverted
  samadhi). You should be aware that there is both micchasamadhi and
  sammasamadhi (right or correct samadhi). Only the mind that is empty
  of grasping at and clinging to 'I' and 'mine' can have the true and
  perfect stability of sammasamadhi. One who has an empty mind has
  correct samadhi.
Heart-wood from the Bo Tree

Thanks. But why do you often invite downvotes? You seem to be an ardent critic.

I said MN 10 was fake.


text:
GAUTAM -Buddha(BUDDHADEV) and The capability of having several lives for an ordinary man or hallucination?
A friend of mine said GAUTAM-Buddha(BUDDHADEV) passed through several lives(Births and Rebirths)and finally he attained NIRVANA.In present day context do the experience s feel like walking on an Astro-turf or living in mothers womb.This is my personal experience which should not be considered BLASPHEMY.I divulged my experience to my friend.So he advised me to search books.After death is such an experience possible?

In this question, I think that you are 1) Saying that you've had the experience, and/or that you remember the experience, of "walking on an space travel or living in mother's womb". Are you then 2) Asking whether that was a hallucination, and/or asking whether such an experience is possible after death, and/or asking whether that's what's meant when it's said that the Buddha passed through several lives?

I am sorry that my misinterpretation may be dueTO  BUDDHIST LITERATURES VERY OFTEN RAISE THE QUESTION OF REBIRTH AND BUDDHIST TEACHERS TEACH HOW ONE ONE CAN BE FREE FROM REBIRTH.ANOTHER QUESTION IS ABOUT AFTER DEATH EXPERIENCE,WHICH I EXPERIENCED FOR MANY YEARS.BUT I ASK IS IT EASY FOR ONE TO BE FREE FROM REBIRTH.LORD BUDDHA ADDED MANY VALUABLE ADVICES HOW AND WHEN ONE MAN BE FREE.

I have understood that my experiences  about space etc are illusion and deceptive.I apologize for that part of the question.USER-26375

the path to Nirvana is very simple logic. Here's what I learned from my teacher:
You should divide everything you do (including every word and even every thought) in two groups: whether you're doing it to feed your ego or whether it's actually useful. You have to be very precise. Very precise, with every single word and every single thought you should know why you're doing this. If it's for defending the ego or indulging in pleasure, you should not do it like that, should not think like that or say that. If you're doing it because you think it's actually useful, then you should do it.

Bhikkhus, before my enlightenment, while I was still only an unenlightened Bodhisatta, it occurred to me: ‘Suppose that I divide my thoughts into two classes. Then I set on one side thoughts of sensual desire, thoughts of ill will, and thoughts of cruelty, and I set on the other side thoughts of renunciation, thoughts of non-ill will, and thoughts of non-cruelty. MN 19

Then, when you live like this for several years, your mind will be pure and you will be able to see the path to Nirvana by yourself.

To avoid all evil, to cultivate good, and to cleanse one's mind — this is the teaching of the Buddhas. The Dhammapada 14.183

My teacher said, this world is a magical place where everything is possible, as long as you're free in your mind - and now I know he was right.
So, divide your thoughts like that, and learn to be very very precise with that - and you will see for yourself. This is better than me telling you "Yes, All of that is real". Hope this helps.

Thanks for your valuable contribution.But how many years it will take to cross the paths to nirvana Lord BUDDHADEV took eighty years.USER26375

It doesn't matter how long it takes to finish, because every day you do it, it turns your life to better direction, and improves your overall luck and conditions, in my experience. So even if you don't finish, it's still useful - this practice of not allowing crap in your thoughts.

I marked this answer down. While I agree with most of what is written in it, this answer is opinion based because it does not include any references to Buddhist scriptures. Also, this answer refers to a teacher but does not give credit to who that teacher is. This answer is unsubstantiated.

Fair point. Is this better?

@Andrei Volkov-It will take me many years  to understand  The Buddhism site in which way it differs from other sites.The answer and comments are of very HIGH LEVEL.Thank you.

A friend of mine said GAUTAM-Buddha(BUDDHADEV) passed through several lives(Births and Rebirths)and finally he attained NIRVANA.

In original Buddhism, the word 'birth' ('jati') refers to each arising of the view of 'self-belief'. But in later Buddhism, the word 'birth' was misconstrued to refer to 'past lives'. Please refer to SN 22.79, which explains the true meaning of recollecting past births. In other words, when the Buddha said he cycled thru myriad "births" (in Dhp 153), this was the previous myriad arisings of egoism.

In present day context do the experiences feel like walking on an space travel or living in mothers womb.This is my personal experience
  which should not be considered BLASPHEMY.

Since your mind continues to have "self-belief", it is not the same experience as the Buddha. When the Buddha, in the present, recollected his "past births", he recollected how his mind's previous "self-beliefs" were ignorant illusions. Again, refer to SN 22.79.

I divulged my experience to my friend.So he advised me to search books.After death is such an experience possible?

In Buddhism, the goal is to eradicate the belief of "I", "me", "mine" and "self". When the Buddha recollected "past births", this is what occurred. The idea of "self" ended. To quote SN 22.79:

At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, those ascetics and brahmins who recollect their manifold past abodes all recollect the five aggregates subject
  to clinging or a certain one among them. What five?
“When recollecting thus, bhikkhus: ‘I had such form in the past,’ it is just form that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such a
  feeling in the past,’ it is just feeling that one recollects. When
  recollecting: ‘I had such a perception in the past,’ it is just
  perception that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such
  volitional formations in the past,’ it is just volitional formations
  that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such consciousness in
  the past,’ it is just consciousness that one recollects.
Therefore, bhikkhus, any kind of form whatsoever … Any kind of feeling whatsoever … Any kind of perception whatsoever … Any kind of
  volitional formations whatsoever … Any kind of consciousness
  whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external,
  gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all consciousness
  should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not
  mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’
“This is called, bhikkhus, a noble disciple who dismantles and does not build up; who abandons and does not cling; who scatters and does
  not amass; who extinguishes and does not kindle.

@dhammadhatu-very hard to understand,I will have to go through your comment many times before I can understand.Thank you.User-26375

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
Delusion,fear and panic and shame
After facing death,I passed through a period of more than six months in delusion,fear and panic associated with shame.I was very much frightened and the experience was horrifying .After so many years my personality has completely changed,I don't know for better or for worse Although I have been occupying the Same body for 64 years.How to describe different stages and passing through different states In my mortal life? can it be termed as different rebirths(any kind of) for an ordinary man In Buddhist terms.May I add that Before twenty years I took a CANCER CAPSULE and went into deep and continuous sleep without interruption for 4/5 months, I woke up for one day and went into deep undisturbed and uninterrupted sleep for another three months. finally I woke up as a normal man.I could not come to a conclusion how to describe such experience.

can it be termed as different rebirths(any kind of) for an ordinary man In Buddhist terms. No it wouldn't be nothing there's only change by Buddhist's perspective. It always patient go through such experience cause it affect mind. And may you had have depression and when you finally woke up as a normal man you was cured. Thank you.

Welcome. It's always pleasurable to tell Dhamma.

How to describe different stages and passing through different states In my mortal life?

This is most certainly the case with myself. In fact, after 12 months of diligently observing myself, I notice my mind states shift all the time, even from moment to moment. The governor for these shifting states could be our conditioned self. Unfamiliar arising conditions such as the one you describe can allow for a huge shift in consciousness and perhaps one reason for this transition is because they don't conform to our conditioned state, that being: there's no previous blueprint to overlay it with. The self (or conditioned state) has been shook up. My point is, that these changes are occurring all of the time but for the most part they go unnoticed; they are quite subtle. They can indeed be seen as a death and rebirth regardless of their magnitude.
The Tibetan Book of The Dead is an interesting read and can be applied within the finer constituents of life itself. SEE HERE. Carl Jung has an interesting interpretation of this book.
In a strictly Buddhist sense, one could learn massively from this experience.

can it be termed as different rebirths(any kind of) for an ordinary man In Buddhist terms.

I'm not sure what you're asking here.

@user 14082 -Thank you for yourValuable  comment.I am a newcomer for this site,so the comment is not easily understandable.It will take time.Thank you -user-26375

@USER-14082-After experiencing "TRUTH" ,is it his destiny to scientifically return to his old state mysticism[scientifically bound for his previous state}.,giving up" TRUTH" which he found after martyrdom[when he searched FOR the'TRUTH',AND EXPERIENCED IT]  .AFTER LONG YEARS OF MONOTONY,IS IT THAT MYSTICISM GIVES HIM "PEACE" if he can attain it  over again?when he will find  many things mysterious,full of mysteries.again.Can the state  be called "supreme peace".?

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Difference Between Walking and Sitting Meditation
I wonder simply what the difference is between walking and sitting meditation in terms of value on the path. I have been practicing walking meditation for some time without any seeming result.
Is it necessary to practice sitting meditation to see results, or for walking meditation to be truly effective? If formal sitting meditation is important, then why is that so?

Walking meditation is great to developp awareness in everyday life. The setting is more likely to reproduce what you will experience throughout your day.
While in sitting meditation, there are usually much less distractions occuring.
So, from my point of view of a relative beginner, sitting meditation is effective to empty your mind and experience higher levels of concentration, and walking meditation is effective to help you carry this concentration into your daily life.
Walking meditation is also very convenient when you lack energy, you will usually feel much less sleepy walking than sitting.
In addition, if you already seat all day at work and meditate for long periods of time, alternating between sitting and walking meditation might be a good idea to maintain a healthy life style.

Walking meditation brings weak results unless practised with empty mind of letting go. The Cankama Sutta says the samadhi developed with walking meditation is "long lasting" (samādhi ciraṭṭhitiko); thus of comparable worth to sitting meditation. However, for this to occur, the walking meditation must be done properly, with supramundane empty mind of letting go.
For meditators that practise common walking meditation of: "lifting, placing, touching, etc"; their sitting meditation is generally much better than their walking meditation because their walking meditation method is too stiff & contrived. It does not allow clear consciousness to fluidly flow.
But for those expert in empty mind, the walking meditation is seamless with sitting. A proper supramundane walker can walk very close to jhana because their samadhi is lofty; floating unhindered towards the heavens.

"The suttas teach (somewhere)..." - I'd be very interested in reading the source of this information. If you could track this down I'd be very appreciative. :-)

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.029.agku.html

Thank you. I notice another translation here... https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.029.than.html

also https://suttacentral.net/an5.29/en/sujato and https://suttacentral.net/an5.29/en/bodhi

Simple explanation for term Meditation is awareness on mind, basically we can Meditate at theses three position,

Sitting
Walking
Lay down

Is it necessary to practice sitting meditation to see results, or for walking meditation to be truly effective? If formal sitting meditation is important, then why is that so?

Sitting meditation is not necessary, we can do meditate our day to day life, when we are walking we can focus on our mind and walk,
when we are Sitting and do something focus on the work,
even lay down for get some rest (not sleep) we can focus on our mind. Like so we can always aware about what we are doing now, and that way we can sharp our mind, then only we can see through the everything, following the VIDHARSHANA meditation. Hope you could understand.


text:
How to Determine Meditation Object
I have practised previously with the breath, but I feel my eyes fall automatically when setting attention on the breath, and inversely, focusing on objects makes my mind alert. Is this sufficient to switch meditation object?
Q1: What are the best ways, or the best way, to determine proper meditation objects?
Q2 : Is there any real drawbacks of meditation with a physical object or mental image as compared to the breath?

Personally I prefer the objectless method. So first you might like to consider whether you even need an object. The answers to these sorts of questions are always the same - horses for courses. Only a close teacher could tell you what's best for you.

Noticing, observing and watching are greatly facilitated by an alert mind. If eyes fall then notice this as bodily phenomena. When you notice the falling of the eyes, what thoughts accompany that action? Watch carefully. You may find that mind is making something out of nothing or that it’s wanting something. An alert mind is sufficient; remaining alert for the duration of the session is quite another thing. Moreover, eyes will move. Let them so.

Q1: What are the best ways, or the best way, to determine proper meditation objects?

There is your attention... and there is your meditation object. If anything comes between the two then attention has been removed from the object. This might include thoughts about bodily phenomena. In fact, thoughts are the number one culprit for derailing ones attention from the object. You can observe bodily phenomena without thought.

Q2 : Is there any real drawbacks of meditation with a physical object or mental image as compared to the breath?

This is personal preference which can be understood further by experimentation.
As further reading I’d strongly suggest that you familiarise yourself with the five hindrances.
The Five Hindrances

Traditionally, meditation object is picked to be an antidote for the biggest remaining emotional problem.
For example:

The person whose mind is dominated by desire, should meditate on ugly aspects of the desired,
For someone whose mind is dominated by aversion, should meditate on lovable qualities of the object of aversion,
Someone whose mind is dominated by conflict between "right" and "wrong", should meditate on Emptiness,
Someone whose mind is dominated by inner chatter, should meditate on the inhalations and exhalations.
Someone whose mind is dominated by doubts, should meditate on basic concepts of dharma: four noble truths, four right efforts etc.
Someone whose mind is dominated by negative self-esteem, should meditate on one's good qualities.

And so on - I think it's easy enough to see the pattern.
I don't think your problem is lack of concentration. All modern people who can read and have finished the high school have enough concentration to be able to skip the kasina stage (meditation on physical objects) and get straight to meditation on mental objects. If I can venture to guess, it sounds like your meditation is too contrived. You are trying to do something synthetic, with no connection to your actual situation. Instead try to look directly at your real-life problems, stay with them enough to face and admit the facts,  then try to come up with an antidote for the emotional disbalance.

So what would be examples of mental objects, or even a mental object suited for my situation?

What is your situation?

The breath is faint, the mental images are faint. I would say mostly doubts and speculation are my problem outside of meditation. The thoughts are absent in meditation, but there is no great alertness or energy perhaps.

If your kleshas are mostly conceptual and not emotional, I think you should do analytical meditation (with thinking). For example, there is a topc of meditation called "possible and impossible". This is when you think about causes and conditions affecting the life states.

Is this because it implies I'm more cognitive and so I should attempt to use that in terms of meditation?

Yes, specifically since you said you had doubts and speculations.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

The Pali suttas teach to stay with the breath (MN 118). However, it is not necessary to look directly at the breath. Observing the empty mind uses the mind as the meditation object yet awareness of breathing will still occur.


text:
Distractions in Meditation
Upon asking questions previously, I wondered some things about my meditation. In meditation, I often experienced greatly reduced thoughts, almost no thoughts; but, the sensations at the tip of the nose are almost always lacking.
Is it possible that, despite the absence of thoughts, something other than arising cognitions pulls my attention away from the meditation object?
Just to be clear: I am asking what specifically are the type of possible distractions which may arise in meditation. I'm also wondering what is the relative strength of these distractions, for example: does a single thought break concentration? Does paying attention to some external object merely once break concentration?

Welcome to the in-betweens!  When someone starts meditating, there are generally a few phase that they will pass through.  These are all well documented, though I personally think they find the best expression in the 10 Ox herding pictures from Zen.  The first is quieting the mind.  In the series of Ox herding pictures, this is the state of seeing and taming the ox where the mind's unruly nature is first seen for what it is it's thrashings are subdued:

Once the mind settles, however, there is a very lengthy process of riding the ox to the mountain:

This seems to be where you are at now.  Take special note of that second painting.  I selected this artist's rendition specifically because I think it beautifully characterizes this phase of training.  The adept is riding the ox backwards.  He literally has no idea where he's going.  Indeed, this stage of training is very much categorized by a feeling of bumping around in the dark.  And it can go on for years.  Or it can be over in a matter of days.  There is literally no way of knowing how long it will take.  The adept doesn't even know if there is a mountain awaiting him!  He has no idea what's ahead!
The only thing you can actively do at this stage is practice with sincerity. Sit daily for at least an hour.  Apply your mind to your object of meditation.  Don't worry about what is a distraction and what isn't. The mind is entirely too complicated to sort those things out at this stage.  Moreover, much of what drives us into distraction is completely unconscious!  As you go forward, you might even find your mind filled with thoughts again as deep, forgotten memories or unseen, habitual obstacles begin to rise to the surface.  Lastly, I would strongly suggest that you go on retreats of three days or more.  This will go a long way to loosening the hold those subtle, unseen, and unconscious distractions have on your mind.  As they begin to fall away, your concentration will strengthen almost seemingly without effort.
If your practice has sincerity, eventually you will arrive at the foot of the mountain.  You just have to persist.

Upvoted for being a great answer.

Anapanasati is not something easy because breath sensations calm with awareness upon them; often making them difficult to discern.
Often, a hindrance to anapanasati is the very intention to watch or focus on the breathing because intention itself is also a thought that diminishes the awareness of the mind.
Its like "listening" to another person talking. If you really want to really hear what the other person is saying, you must abandon thoughts and have an open quiet mind.
If the mind can abide without thoughts; then the meditator should also abandon the intention to "focus" on breathing. If the mind is quiet & silent yet also soft & fluid, it will naturally flow into the breathing; similar to how water naturally flows into cracks and crevices.
The Tao Te Ching Verse 8 says:

The highest good is like water.  Water give life to the ten thousand things and does not strive. It flows in places men reject and so is
like the Tao.

The 3rd Zen Patriarch said:

The Supreme Way is not difficult If only you do not pick and choose. Neither love nor hate, And you will clearly understand. Be off by a
hair, And you are as far from it as heaven from earth.
If you want the
Way to appear, Be neither for nor against. For and against opposing
each other This is the mind's disease. Without recognizing the
mysterious principle It is useless to practice quietude.
The Way is perfect like great space, Without lack, without excess. Because of grasping and rejecting, You cannot attain it.
Hsin Hsin Ming

Is it possible that, despite the absence of thoughts, something other than arising cognitions pulls my attention away from the meditation object?

Yes, of course. If you are attempting to focus on something, any other experience can pull your attention away.

Just to be clear: I am asking what specifically are the type of possible distractions which may arise in meditation.

Sights, sounds, tastes, feelings, smells, thoughts.

I'm also wondering what is the relative strength of these distractions, for example: does a single thought break concentration? Does paying attention to some external object merely once break concentration?

The strength of a distraction entirely depends on how much time you devote to observing it. If you hear a sound and focus on it for only a moment, it was a small break in concentration. If you smell something and keep focusing on it over and over, it is a large break in concentration.
If your intention is to cultivate concentration skills, keep doing what you are doing. You sound as if you have extremely good concentration skills already and are now grappling with only very small breaks in concentration.
If your intention is to cultivate wisdom and see the truth, you have already overcome one of the largest hurdles, quieting the mind. Now it is time to start observing all experience, and not focusing on a meditation object.
Cultivating concentration is one method of learning to quiet the mind. Once you have achieved that, on the path to wisdom, there is no more benefit to enhancing concentration.
As you most likely already know, when we think, there is an automatic process of identification and labeling that occurs. When you hear a sound, you immediately think "that is a bird". This is why we always meditate with our eyes shut, for we see/identify/label "different objects" in our sight without even thinking about it. By cultivating concentration, we learn to quiet these thoughts.
You sound like a very advanced meditation practitioner that is extremely skilled in concentration! If I were you, I would stop concentrating and without thinking observe experience. While you do that, try to find answers to questions like:
What is I?
What is not I?
What is internal?
What is external?
What is experience?
How far away from you does experience occur?
How close to you does experience occur?
What is physical?
What is non-physical?
Thoughts and preconceptions mask true experience. Do not believe you need to have unbroken concentration for X amount of time to advance knowledge and gain wisdom. If you rarely ever have thoughts during your practice, you already have the tools you need. You have done a great job, well done! I wish you well on your path and hope you get where you'd like to be going soon. Forgive me if I made too many assumptions of your intentions. =]

Entering access concentration and then leaving access concentration can pull you away from the meditation object. 'Pull' is probably the wrong word here. It's more of a transition from one state to another; a higher absorption where, in some cases, bodily phenomena is left to fall away and this can include the meditation object. This is sometimes termed entering a jhana. You may have just fallen backwards though but it's helpful to recognise that you may be developing here. Regular visitations and experience will give you more awareness about what may be happening for you.
Alternativly, loss of the object may be related to one of the hindrances...
The Five Hindrances

Does a single thought break concentration?

Concentration can be broken by the degree of attention you put into that thought.

Does paying attention to some external object merely once break concentration?

So, for instance, there is a sound... but the sound is being interpreted by your body. Watch how your mind and body responds to the sound. Concentration can be broken by investing your attention into the thought about the sound. Thought will arise. Observe thought with curiosity. After some time, sound becomes a happening that passes through you as opposed to making a dense impact.


text:
What can one do with knowings that occur from strong intuition?
Please see a breakdown of how one may approach the question...

'Knowings' in this sense has not been influenced by external stimulus. One can know things about our environment using the six senses as a substrate between the seeming reality out there and the seeming mind in here. However, one can also have a knowing that occurs apparently separate from this process.
Intuition in the question here refers to an instinctual awareness that something is so but interestingly the intuition hasn't arisen through the conventional methods of learning; there has been no previous auto-suggestion.

The knowing itself is the knowing of rebirth. It has been something I've steered well clear of but, suddenly, there was the clear knowing that rebirth is so.
Thus the conflict occurs - if I have relied on my six senses all my life to know things, how could I know rebirth to be so?
What on earth is 'Mind'??? Where is Mind'??? (Rhetorical questions but if you're feeling cognitively malleable then feel free to answer these also!)

Why do you need to do something with it?

Because Buddha had these intuitive events and he gained knowledge from them. As I currently understand, it is beyond my capacity to try and comprehend this stuff.

I somehow doubt that one could know the truth of rebirth and not know the nature of Mind but perhaps I'm wrong about this. Either way the only answer for 'what is mind' would be apperception and 'being'. 'Where is mind' would be easier since it is clearly nowhere. You talk of intuition but this not usually considered knowledge, albeit it may be an intimation of knowledge. .

Grab the book Thinking Fast and Slow and have a read. Basically intuition is nothing but pattern recognition (according to the book)

Knowing is not dependent upon the external senses, otherwise, how would you know that you have dropped the senses in 2nd Jhana? How would you know the 3rd and 4th Jhanas? Now to answer your question about what is mind. Mind is created or produced by that-which-flows. That-which-flows is the activity of the unborn. Do not think that the unborn is static. It is not, but mind cannot access it. Knowing of the unborn comes by that-which-flows. A glimpse of that-which-flows is the attainment of Sotopanna. Realizing that-which-flows is the fulfillment of Sotopanna (obtaining the fruits thereof). This realization is often called self-realization (not of the ego self). Self-realization is beyond mind. It is the “turning in consciousness” spoken of in the suttas. Consciousness is changed when this realization happens. The first three fetters are dropped and you are never the same.

It’s a good question user14082. Although I gave the answer to your question of “what is mind”, I see that you have not received a direct answer yet to the relationship between knowing and intuition. Let me say that intuition is not of the mind, but knowing is. Maybe that’s enough to get you on the right track.

This is the question for a genius people who has photographic memory, it's not for an ordinary people, so be careful for reading various answer which some never understood the genius's mind.
At Pa-Auk Tawya, they manage and develop the  strong intuition knowing in the tipitaka-pali systematically.
They meditate all kinds of meditations follow tipitaka and the path of purification to manage and train  strong intuition knowing and it's photographic into entire real process because some (good) ordinary people can get the strong intuition knowing but they don't know how to understand the entire process and they can't create the methods to manage them all to get out of the suffering completely.
The methods to manage and train the strong intuition were taught by the Buddha in Tipitaka. That's why the Tipitaka Memorizer, Pa-Auk Tawya, use Tipitaka to manage and train them.
That's the answer of "what can can one do with knowings that occur from strong intuition".

In the tradition I follow, if I understand my teachers correctly,
the best thing to do is to leave it as it is.
If that feels inaccessible at the moment, you can try just resting in the knowing.  Allow your confidence in the path to increase based on your own direct experience.
Another thing you can do is use it as a support for practice; for example, to turn your mind to look at itself.  (You seem to already be doing this.)
Lastly, it is also possible to develop this intuitive sense, and different traditions have different methods for doing that, but it is not necessary to go down that road unless it particularly appeals to you.
Try not to get hung up on any of these things, but if you must, here’s an article that might help:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43300365

'Knowings' in this sense has not been influenced by external stimulus. One can know things about our environment using the six
  senses as a substrate between the seeming reality out there and the
  seeming mind in here.

There five external senses rather than six.

However, one can also have a knowing that occurs apparently
  separate from this process.

There is no knowing apart from the six senses.

Intuition in the question here refers to an instinctual awareness that something is so but interestingly the intuition hasn't arisen
  through the conventional methods of learning; there has been no
  previous auto-suggestion.

A living organism has a nervous system that functions based on feelings (of pleasure and pain) and underlying tendencies (such as survival instinct & fear). Often "intuition" is based in fear of the unknown; which gives rise to a certain sense of "caution". Since life is full of unpredictable & impermanent events, often the sense of cautious intuition seems valid (even though its validity is actually only due to the probability that most worldly scenarios won't be successful).

The knowing itself is the knowing of rebirth. It has been something I've steered well clear of but, suddenly, there was the clear knowing
  that rebirth is so.

There is no evidence for such thing as "rebirth". "Rebirth" ideas arises from the fear I mentioned above; the fear of the "self" or "ego" not wanting to die.
Note: In the Buddhist suttas, the word "rebirth" refers to the future results that occur due to past actions. For example, killing leading to rebirth in "hell" (trauma; prison; regret; etc). "Rebirth" is not the intuition you existed before due to fear of "ego-death".
As I already posted, people practise meditation and then the ego does not want to die. Therefore, the mind, due to fear, starts creating ideas of past & future existence.

Thus the conflict occurs - if I have relied on my six senses all my life to know things, how could I know rebirth to be so?

Ideas of rebirth are mental thoughts and objects. They are known by the 6th sense; similar to how dreams in sleep are known by the 6th sense. Dreams at night show how creative and imaginative the mind can be.

What on earth is 'Mind'??? Where is Mind'??? (Rhetorical questions but if you're feeling cognitively malleable then feel free to answer
  these also!)

The above question falls outside of the scope of Buddhism. Buddhism says there is mind and, to be free from suffering, mind must not be clung to as "I", "me" or "mine". Buddhism is only about ending suffering.

Thank you for correcting my mistake of the senses. Thank you also for the very detailed response. You've made some assumptions about how the knowing of rebirth occured but that would be due to the lack of information I provided. There is an important message in your answer though: fear arising from the cessation of the imagined concept of me. That's very intriguing and I should perhaps let go of this. Thank you. :-)

@Dhammadatu Sir, If there's no rebirth/reappearance do everything end with death? If so, Ajita Kesakambali had the very same idea; "Bāle ca paṇḍite ca kāyassa bhedā ucchijjanti vinassanti, na honti paraṃ maraṇā’ti."

This comment shows no understand of Dhamma; similar to Vacchagotta. This is because of lust for eternalism.


text:
Developing Positive Qualities and Diminishing Negative Qualities
I wondered recently whether the ideas of developing positive qualities and abandoning negative qualities are different. To me, it seems developing positive qualities requires an active effort, a type of striving. In contrast, abandoning negative qualities requires a relinquishing, a restraint.
Are these endeavours two different aspirations? Does achieving one ascertain the achievement of the other or not?
In other words, does one lead automatically to the other, or should one intentionally implement both?

Perhaps I meant whether these are linked with doing and non-doing respectively.

In my opinion, this boils down to the differences I previously outlined between "formless" and "form-full" paths.
The formless path is about relinquishing negative qualities without explicitly striving to generate the positive ones - an activity which would require creation of (contrived) forms.
On the formless path, the positive qualities are expected to manifest implicitly, as a by product of removing the negative. We say the positive qualities "co-emerge". While the form-full path involves strong emphasis on defining objectives and reaching them, which is an explicit way to generate the positive qualities.
In terms of drawbacks, the formful path is prone to issues associated with Form, such as attachment, reification, and pride. While the formless path is prone to the opposite set of issues such as loss of motivation, uncertainty, and low self esteem.
It seems that most people naturally incline towards one or the other, and so in practice it becomes a matter of recognizing the pitfalls associated with either path and knowingly compensating for them.

What about combining both?

If a person could maintain his/her mind on what that should be taken in (kusala or moral) and those that should be gotten rid of (akusala or immoral)” daily without fail, that itself lead to the removal of greed, hate and ignorance. Nibbāna is removal of greed, hate, ignorance: “rāgakkhayō dōsakkhayō mōhakkhayō idaṃ vuccati nibbānanti“. -  Nibbāna pañhā Sutta (SN 38.1).
In Sri Lanka, parents tell their child to clean his/her room by saying, “kämaraya (room) assa passa (or aspas) karāganna”. When cleaning the room, the child needs to get rid of the clutter (passa), but also can take in (assa) something like a flower vase to make the room look more pleasant, or to take in a chair that can be useful. So, one does not throw away everything or take in everything. One needs to be selective in taking in “good things” and throwing away “bad things”. That is where mindfulness comes in.
Similarly in the practice of Dhamma we should make a habit of taking in kusala & getting rid of akusala, or, equivalently, taking in the Noble Eightfold Path/discarding the miccā eightfold path, this eventually lead the practitioner to the getting rid of dasa akusala.
In the assāsa Sutta (SN38.5), it is specifically said what needs to be “taken in” (assāsa): “Katamo panāvuso maggo katamā paṭipadā etassa assāsassa  sacchikiriyāyāti (what needs to be “taken in”). Ayameva kho āvuso ariyo aṭṭhaṅgiko maggo etassaassāsassa sacchikiriyāya (it is the Noble Eightfold Path that needs to be “taken in”). Seyyathīdaṃ (namely): sammādiṭṭhi sammāsaṅkappo sammāvācā sammākammanto sammāājīvo sammāvāyāmo sammāsati sammāsamādhi”.

While the Four Right Exertions share a common goal/objective of ending dukkha and attaining liberation, each has its own purpose and function. A quick analogy is the case of a chain smoker. His objective is to regain a strong healthy body. So not only s/he'd need to exert effort to abandon his negative habit of chain smoking, s/he'd also need to exert effort to cultivate positive habits like: sleep more regularly, eat more healthy fruits/vegetables, and perform more frequently physical exercises, etc.


text:
Questions About Views in Buddhism
I have looked at a list of some wrong-views in Buddhism, and I'm somewhat confused about the meaning of the notion of 'view' [ditthi].
In Buddhism, what does it mean to hold a view?
1) I ask this because I'm unsure what the holding of a view means in this case. Does it mean merely believing the view? Does it mean believing and acting in relation to that view?
2) More so, I'm unsure whether the views listed as wrong are considered as definitive? Or, are there various types of wrong views and the lists consider only the greatest examples?
3) Finally, I wonder what views are in relation to emptiness. I can't help but feel wisdom linked with emptiness would dismantle views altogether. Wouldn't a view, in emptiness, exist only relatively and not in a definite manner? Wouldn't it be impossible to hold a view as true? I'm reminded of Nagarjuna who claims, for example, that those seeing emptiness as a view are misguided.

The answers to this question touched on some of the characteristics of a "view": How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?

I think we should assume that in the third part of the question you were asking for a Mahayana-perspective answer, i.e. asking for someone to explain (and not, to contradict) Nagarjuna's claim.

This is a long answer (below), so here is a summary up front:

"In Buddhism, what does it mean to hold a view?"
I think it means to get attached to a view, maybe to rejoice in or to delight in a view, like attaching to a sense-object -- especially a wrong view, such as "delight in being" (bhavaratā).
"Or, are there various types of wrong views and the lists consider only the greatest examples?"
If 62 of them are listed I doubt that's an exhaustive list -- after all, why not 63 then? There's no end to the number of ways of being wrong (or of views to attach to)!
I suppose that "right view" is defined more narrowly (4 noble truths, 3 characteristics, dispassion, etc.), and that attaching to or holding to views (doctrines) other than that and thus is 'wrong'.
Conversely though, there is "right seeing" or "seeing things as they are", which includes seeing their cause[s] and their cessation.

So a "view" is a diṭṭhi, defined here as follows:

diṭṭhi: view, speculative opinion, belief, credo, dogma, doctrine. Generally designates a wrong view. Sammādiṭṭhi is the first constituent of the ariya aṭṭh·aṅgika magga, and consists in considering the four ariya·saccas. When the prefix sammā· is absent, the word diṭṭhi generally designates a wrong view. The Buddha exhaustively expounds the 62 wrong views in the Brahmajāla Sutta. Diṭṭhis are one of the seven anusayas. See also sammādiṭṭhi.

In MN 72 for example you can see that the word diṭṭhi can be given all kinds of qualifiers:

Each of these ten convictions is the thicket of views, the desert of views, the trick of views, the evasiveness of views, the fetter of views.
Sassato loko’ti kho, vaccha, diṭṭhigatametaṃ diṭṭhigahanaṃ diṭṭhikantāro diṭṭhivisūkaṃ diṭṭhivipphanditaṃ diṭṭhisaṃyojanaṃ

The dictionary gives diṭṭhisaṃyojana as "the fetter of empty speculation", by the way.
After that sentence in MN 72 the Buddha says,

Seeing this drawback I avoid all these convictions.
Imaṃ kho ahaṃ, vaccha, ādīnavaṃ sampassamāno evaṃ imāni sabbaso diṭṭhigatāni anupagato”ti.
But does Master Gotama have any convictions at all?
“Atthi pana bhoto gotamassa kiñci diṭṭhigatan”ti?
The Realized One has done away with convictions.
Diṭṭhigatanti kho, vaccha, apanītametaṃ tathāgatassa.

I wanted to know what diṭṭhigata (used there) means exactly. Because the dictionary defines it as ...

a (false) view, a theory.
  a belief; wrong view.

... but I found it odd, it didn't make sense to me, that Vacchagotta would ask the Buddha, "what wrong views do you hold?" -- so I figured that diṭṭhigata would mean something slightly different than explicitly or literally "wrong".
As Andrei commented,

Well, ditthi means view and gata means something like "settled in", so why wouldn't ditthigata mean a position or conviction?

I think that "settled in" is so -- see also for example gata used in Tathagata (usually translated as "gone" or "gone to") ... or for example sugata, and gata generally.
So, I guess, maybe diṭṭhigata means something like, "gone to a view", or "dwelling in a view" ... or "holding a view" (which is the subject of the question in the OP), perhaps conversely "being held by a view" (if you use non-anatta terminology), perhaps "stuck on a view", perhaps a "stuck view", maybe "an abiding view" or "a view of abiding", or something like that.
There's a whole sutta actually, itivuttaka 49 is titled the Diṭṭhigatasutta. That title is translated in English as "Held by Views". Read the whole sutta, it's not long:

This was said by the Lord…
“Bhikkhus, held by two kinds of views, some devas and
  human beings hold back and some overreach; only those with vision see.
“And how, bhikkhus, do some hold back? Devas and humans enjoy being, delight in being, are satisfied with being. When Dhamma is taught to them for the cessation of being, their minds do not enter into it or acquire confidence in it or settle upon it or become resolved upon it. Thus, bhikkhus, do some hold back.
“How, bhikkhus, do some overreach? Now some are troubled, ashamed, and disgusted by this very same being and they rejoice in (the idea of) non-being, asserting: ‘In as much as this self, good sirs, when the body perishes at death, is annihilated and destroyed and does not exist after death—this is peaceful, this is excellent, this is reality!’ Thus, bhikkhus, do some overreach.
“How, bhikkhus, do those with vision see? Herein a bhikkhu sees what has come to be as having come to be. Having seen it thus, he practises the course for turning away, for dispassion, for the cessation of what has come to be. Thus, bhikkhus, do those with vision see.”
Having seen what has come to be
  As having come to be,
  Passing beyond what has come to be,
  They are released in accordance with truth
  By exhausting the craving for being.
When a bhikkhu has fully understood
  That which has come to be as such,
  Free from craving to be this or that,
  By the extinction of what has come to be
  He comes no more to renewal of being.
This too is the meaning of what was said by the Lord, so I heard.

I note five things from this sutta:

The first two groups of devas and human beings are maybe (in my vernacular) "fooling around with" views ... i.e. they're "rejoicing" or "delighting" in views.
Perhaps that's analogous to what people do with sensuality -- i.e. they attach to it.
So maybe that is literally what's meant by "holding" a view -- i.e. people hold a view in the same way that people attach to sense-objects.
I like (or have attached to) this metaphor (quoting from What is attachment as per Buddhism?):

To distinguish craving from clinging, Buddhaghosa uses the following metaphor:

"Craving is the aspiring to an object that one has not yet reached, like a thief's stretching out his hand in the dark; clinging is the grasping of an object that one has reached, like the thief's grasping his objective.... [T]hey are the roots of the suffering due to seeking and guarding."

In this sutta, the views which they hold are views of something being still or static:

In the first case, it's a view of "being" -- as if "being" were something constant, or eternal, or even non-empty in the Mahayana sense.
In the second case, it's a view of annihilation-after-death.

What you're supposed to do instead ...

How, bhikkhus, do those with vision see?
Kathañca, bhikkhave, cakkhumanto passanti? -- (the dictionary says that passati is the same as one of the meanings of dassati)

... is to see the coming-to-be and the cessation.
And that (i.e. seeing coming-to-be and cessation) is the same as what the Buddha says in MN 72, immediately after he denies having Diṭṭhigata:

Seeing this drawback I avoid all these convictions.”
“But does Master Gotama have any convictions at all?”
“Atthi pana bhoto gotamassa kiñci diṭṭhigatan”ti?
“The Realized One has done away with convictions.
“Diṭṭhigatanti kho, vaccha, apanītametaṃ tathāgatassa.
For the Realized One has seen:
Diṭṭhañhetaṃ, vaccha, tathāgatena: (note the use of Diṭṭhi again but here not implying wrong -- nor stuck/held/fixed)
‘Such is form, such is the origin of form, such is the ending of form.
  Such is feeling, such is the origin of feeling, such is the ending of feeling.
  Such is perception, such is the origin of perception, such is the ending of perception.
  Such are choices, such is the origin of choices, such is the ending of choices.
  Such is consciousness, such is the origin of consciousness, such is the ending of consciousness.’
That’s why the Realized One is freed with the ending, fading away, cessation, giving up, and letting go of all conceivings, all worries, and all ego, possessiveness, or underlying tendency to conceit, I say.”
“But Master Gotama, when a mendicant’s mind is freed like this, where are they reborn?”
“‘They’re reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.”
“Well then, are they not reborn?”
“‘They’re not reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.”
[etc.]

If you're worried about diṭṭhi being used to refer to both right views and wrong views, I think in summary the Buddha isn't stuck on any particular fixed view, but instead rightly-sees the arising, being, and ceasing of all the aggregates.
And, it's for the same kinds of purpose in MN 72 as in Iti 49: i.e. for turning away, dispassion, cessation.
There's another sutta (I forget which one) which says that something "in the stream" will reach the ocean (a metaphor for nibbana), unless it sinks or gets stuck on something along the way. Maybe that (being stuck) is another sense of "held", and why the Buddha warns against it -- i.e. given that he wants to teach "only suffering and cessation", speculative views and conceits and so on are an obstacle to cessation.
When the sutta said "delight in being" (bhavaratā bhavasammuditā) I took that as a reference to self-view (e.g. "I am"), but also as a reference to attaching to things, after not (truly) seeing the three characteristics (and so e.g. "this thing is not impermanent, this thing is desirable, and this thing is mine").
I think that "self-view" isn't the only 'wrong' view -- i.e. seeing the three characteristics of "things" is also 'right' (see also a a separate answer about 'emptiness', and AN 10.3 below).

I looked for other places where Diṭṭhigata is used.

Another place the word Diṭṭhigata is used in the last verse of Snp 4.8 which I think says that wanting to win arguments is a vain conceit.
That's inline with other suttas which say that conceit is a cause of arguments.
On the subject of "conceit" and "views" I recommend the answers to How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same? for example:

A view is taking something to be true, whereas conceit falls in the category of a simple experience, which one may or may not hold to be valid. It is similar with greed; one may want something without believing it proper to want, and one may likewise feel conceit ("I am better", etc.) without actually believing in a self.

I assume that's similar to an addiction or an ex-addiction; e.g. the thought might occur and reoccur, to a former addict, "I want X (where 'X' is e.g. alcohol or whatever the object of addiction/attachment is)", and you then have to decide "No, that's a bad idea! I really don't want that." I guess conceit or egoism might be an addictive pleasure, or something, that people have to wean themselves from over time.
SN 41.3 is, again, speculative views about the afterlife. Ditto AN 10.3. A lot of the "held views" seem to be on that kind of topic.
Maybe debating such views was a custom then, e.g. among a "holy men" i.e. the wanderers or seekers in that society.
AN 10.3 also defines right view, as "what's created is impermanent, what's impermanent is dukkha, what's dukkha is when seen with right wisdom not mine, not me, and not myself".
That's a bit unusual in that, as I said earlier, instead of mentioning the three characteristics explicitly as it does in AN 10.3, other suttas tend to contrast Diṭṭhigata with seeing the creation (cause), being, and cessation of the five aggregates.
AN 7.54 also uses diṭṭhigata (translated here as "misconception"), to describe the various famously "undeclared points" or "unanswered questions" (e.g. "does a Tathagata exist after death?" etc.).
It also says that, it is due to Diṭṭhinirodhā (i.e. due to the "cessation of views") that "an educated noble disciple has no doubts" -- where "doubts" (vicikicchā) is one of the canonical fetters (see also e.g. the second half of this answer).
AN 7.54 appears to be the only sutta to mention Diṭṭhinirodhā, FYI -- and that's in the context of things that are avyākata ("not designated" -- if you want to research further you might want to check the usage of avyākata and of its antonym, byākata).

Given that the definition at the top of this answer says that diṭṭhi is one of the seven types of anusaya, you might also want to read this answer which helps to define anusaya.

You may or may not also find this helpful: Buddhaghosa on seeing things as they are (2)
One thing it says is ...

Having a diṭṭhi is not the problem, being diṭṭhigata is.

... and then goes on to talk about seeing things as they are, yathābhūtadassana.
It ends with what I think of as a pun on the word "conclusion" (i.e. two separate meanings of "conclusion"):

One meaning of "conclusion" is "a theory", for example, "I made these observations and 'concluded' that such-and-such a generalisation is true".
Another meaning of "conclusion" is "cessation", "ending".

I think, I suppose, that in the suttas the Buddha is trying to point towards the latter (cessation), and not the former (sustaining generalisations, holding views, conceited arguments, etc.).

Very nice answer - thank you for that much work!

iti 49 is the view that a "self" is annihilated at death. It is not the view the mind ends at the termination of life. Iti 49 is about two self-views; the self is eternal & the self dies.

@Dhammadhatu I don't see what you're getting at with your comment on Iti 49 -- neither how your translation differs from the one quoted (e.g. "for the cessation of their being" and "inasmuch as this self"), nor how that affects my thesis (i.e. the difference between "right view" and "holding views").

Perhaps something you might think unorthodox about my answer is that I imagine that a "delight in being" in Iti 49 includes (in practice) "delight in having (things)" -- so not seeing things (and not just, 'self') as impermanent, caused, suffering ... so "not mine" as well as "not me" and "not myself" ... IOW the way in which you view things is relevant, as well as the way in which you view self.

Iti 49 literally says: "this SELF , good sirs, when the body perishes at death, is annihilated"... but you claim this is unorthodox. This is because, as said in the Ani Sutta: "they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited."...

@Dhammadhatu I said you might find it unorthodox that I considered "delight in being" to be a reference to, both, self-view ("I am") and to not seeing the three characteristics of things (thus it's "I have" as well). But maybe you agree that that is thoroughly orthodox too. Apart from that, as I said, I don't see a difference between your translation and the one I quoted (i.e. Ireland's), nor any difference between what the translations say and what I infer (read) from them. AND I fail to see how your comments are constructive criticism i.e. what improvement you suggest to the answer.

RE: "Instead, you say I have unorthodox view when it is you that has an unorthodox view" - And yet here were are, arguing about views. Also note the I/you-making that comes from that. Ditthinirodha FTW!

View is synonymous with a position (on something). It's a conviction that a concept or a cohesive set of concepts (a theory) is a valid (and complete!) description of reality, and that therefore any other conviction that differs from or logically contradicts this one is, correspondingly, mistaken. So a view is a conviction about how reality (or a part of reality) is.
Holding a view does not refer broadly to "a way of knowing" or "a type of knowing" - it is more specifically a reification, it is about assuming that a concept is referring to the way things truly (ontologically) are. It's about confusing a model with reality.
The problem with views is that they tend to be simplistic, one-sided, limited, and relative. This is because our concepts are often based on either hearsay or very limited observations, which we then extrapolate to the totality. Or even if views are fact-based, the way we interpret and summarize these facts usually depends on some implicit assumptions, agendas, biases, and specific frames-of-reference. Indeed, the world is complex and for pretty much any set of facts S that can be generalized to a View X one can find another set S' that would contradict it. Plus, same things can be viewed and described from vastly different perspectives, so you can have multiple valid views e.g. at different levels of abstraction.
This makes several views on the same topic particularly prone to clashing with each other. And as we know from experience as well as from Buddha's teaching, clashing views lead to arguments, conflict, and suffering. In addition to clashing with other views, once in a while a view may also clash with reality, which leads to failed expectations and personal frustration - another word for suffering.
I suppose this is why Buddha advised against attaching to views, which is meant to say, against assuming a view to be anything more than a vastly simplified model. A safe alternative to philosophical, metaphysical, political etc. views Buddha offered was careful analysis (of phenomena, their causes, and effects). In fact, "analysis of dhammas" is how Buddha defines the Ultimate Right View. Analysis is concerned with detailed examination of the elements or structure of something, separating the previously unexamined  -- and therefore naively lumped "glob" -- into its constituent elements. In Buddha's view, it is analysis that is the best medicine to the naive overgeneralization, oversimplification, and reification associated with ignorance. It is analysis that helps to go beyond mistaken views and into seeing things as they are.
What's known as "Emptiness" in Mahayana is explication of this same principle originally postulated by the Buddha. So you are correct that realization of Emptiness entails doing away with all views. It's not that you become dumb and incapable of generalization, it's more like you grow wise and get to see its limits.

Vaccha, the position that 'the cosmos is eternal' is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding.
The position that 'the cosmos is not eternal'...
  ...'the cosmos is finite'...
  ...'the cosmos is infinite'...
  ...'the soul & the body are the same'...
  ...'the soul is one thing and the body another'...
  ...'after death a Tathagata exists'...
  ...'after death a Tathagata does not exist'...
  ...'after death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist'...
  ...'after death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist'.
Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"
A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with.

In Mahayana this "position of no position" is recognized to eliminate a major source of inner and outer conflict, culminating in inner harmony (aka "suchness"). Complete realization of this principle (in one's real life, not just conceptually) is equated with Enlightenment.

I don't understand why people translate the MN 72 you quoted as "the Tathagata has done away with a position" or "... with convictions". Because the Pali word there is diṭṭhigata, which the dictionary translates as "a (false) view, a theory, a belief; wrong view"; or, a 'pernicious' viewpoint. So maybe the Tathagata has done away with false views and theories ... I'm not sure about doing away with e.g. right views as well, though there is the "dhamma as a raft".

Well, ditthi means view and gata means something like "settled in", so why wouldn't ditthigata mean a position or conviction? The "false" part is an implication by the dictionary. If it were "false" it would be miccha, as in micchaditthi - but here it's just ditthi.

Maybe yes: gone to a view, resorting to, abiding in a view -- so, stuck on a view -- i.e. as opposed to (as described in the next sentence), seeing, "Such is [form, etc.], such is the origin of [form, etc.], such is the ending of [form, etc.]".

Right. So the question begging to be asked is, why is that not a view. Of course, Buddha was much more pragmatic than later followers and never bothered with such seeming contradictions.

I think that that is (literally) a view ... though maybe not a held view, maybe that's an observation (or what you called a "fact", as opposed to a "generalised view"), and not something static ... maybe it counts as yathābhūtaṃ pajānāti i.e. knowing things as they truly are, i.e. arising and subject to cessation..

itivuttaka 49 is titled the Diṭṭhigatasutta. I wonder whether Diṭṭhigata describes cases where people are fooling around with (rejoicing or delighting in) views of an afterlife and/or of non-existence after death, instead of being heedful of the present.

I've disagreed with others liberal usage of MN 72 precisely because others have used it to indicate the Tathagata is indicting logic or is somehow saying "don't think too much about it" which I find wildly off the mark. This is the Tathagata's advice to Vaccha and should be interpreted in that way: this is what Vaccha needed to hear because he found himself so hopelessly confused. It does not mean that thinking too hard or analyzing something closely is itself a fault. The mental consciousness can have unmistaken knowing just like other consciousness.

IOW, the Tathagata rightly knew Vaccha's mind was bound up with views of inherent existence. All those questions presupposed that things exist inherently. This is why the Tathagata did not answer... because the questions were based upon a faulty assumption of inherent existence. Had Vaccha been capable of seeing the middle way at that point I think the Tathagata's answer would have been different.

Another place the word Diṭṭhigata is used in the last verse of Snp 4.8 which I think says that wanting to win arguments is a vain conceit. And SN 41.3 is, again, speculative views about the afterlife. Maybe debating such views was a custom then. Ditto AN 10.3 ... which also (unusually) defines right view as "what's created is impermanent, what's impermanent is dukkha, what's dukkha is when seen with right wisdom not mine, not me, and not myself".

@YesheTenley correct, but here we are still on the subject of "views" vs. e.g. Four Noble Truths and why they are not a "view". I guess in Mahayana we can say that Dharma is different from "holding" (=reifying) a view exactly because it involves understanding the limit of conceptual models (aka emptiness) and not just understanding but going beyond them in practice. But how do we tie that with Buddha's original presentation, that does not speak in terms of Emptiness?

To me, the answer is that Buddha of Pali Canon proposed analysis (as in, splitting previously unexamined lumps into their constituent elements) as his method of choice for solving the problem of reification and that the talk about 4NT etc. that follows the discussion of diṭṭhigata serves as an example of analysis. In simple words, the Buddha was saying: "The generalizing views are dangerous, folks; analysis is a much safer method and here is an example of analysis: There is suffering... " etc.

Yes, analysis is necessary for arriving at the correct and unmistaken view of how things exist. Over and over again we have to use analysis to see that things don't exist inherently just like an elephant does not exist in a particular room.

A view is nothing more than a belief about the truth value of a proposition. It is a type of knowing.
It is not true that one has to relinquish all views in order to realize suchness. It is true that one has to relinquish views that assume or believe things exist inherently in order to realize suchness.
The view of emptiness is simply the sure knowledge that nothing exists inherently. Knowing this directly is unmistaken and a correct view.
The idea that all views whatsoever are to be abandoned leads to logical fallacies and is an absurd and naive view. That view, being mistaken, needs to be abandoned in order to realize suchness.
This is a subtle point very hard to realize and thus it is not accepted among all tenet systems of Mahayana, but this is the view of the glorious Je Tsongkhapa and IMO the view of Nagarjuna and the Buddha as well.
Some direct responses:
"I can't help but feel wisdom linked with emptiness would dismantle views altogether."
Wisdom indeed does dismantle all views that assume or believe inherent existence.
Wouldn't a view, in emptiness, exist only relatively and not in a definite manner?
Certainly! Thus, even emptiness - when viewed as a thing - is empty of existing inherently.
Wouldn't it be impossible to hold a view as true?
No. This goes too far and is a view of nihilism which is a backdoor view of inherent existence. To assume that because everything exists relatively, dependently, without the slightest shred of inherent existence that nothing exists or that there is no such thing as truth etc., etc., is to fall to the extreme of nihilism. And if you really investigate deeply you'll see that this extreme of nihilism itself is based on the belief or assumption of inherent existence.

FWIW, I see very little daylight - if any at all - with Andrei's answer since his definition of view is inclusive only of those views (ways of knowing) that assume or believe in inherent existence...

In my understanding of Buddha's use of the word, in light of my understanding of Mahayana... view is not just broadly "way of knowing" or "type of knowing" - it is more specifically a reification of any piece of knowledge as referring to the way things truly (ontologically) are. It's confusing the model with reality.

Right, which is why I said we're likely in agreement with only apparent contradiction. I simply use a different definition that I think is in keeping with the OP's POV, but I could be wrong. The point is that there are ways of knowing that are non-mistaken and that emptiness does not contradict this.
Otherwise, you get into "all views are mistaken" <- "but that right there is a view and therefore mistaken" ... "no, i have no views!" ... "yes, you do!" etc, etc silliness :)

This sentence seems to contain the whole problem. "The view of emptiness is simply the sure knowledge that nothing exists inherently. Knowing this directly is unmistaken and a correct view". The point here, I suspect, is that knowing the truth of emptiness is not a view but a state of being.  It may be expressed as a view, and even a right one, but it is not really a view. When someone states they are in pain we do not call this a view.   .

Most every sentient being everywhere is so accustomed to believing in the inherent existence of things that this belief is held as a fundamental prior of all of our beliefs and thoughts. It doesn't even occur to us that this might be wrong. Therefore, all of our "views" are necessarily predicated on this false belief. This is how those "views" are wrong views.
But there are other views which are unmistaken. These are not wrong views at all because they are not based upon a false belief. It is like the sure knowledge that an elephant is not in a particular room.

The Noble Eightfold Path is lead by Right View; which is the view that craving & attachment lead to suffering and thus are to be abandoned.
Apart from this, when the word "views" is used alone and generically in sutta, this appears to refer to "wrong views". Since wrong views will be inherently connected to attachment, then wrong views will inherently be forms of attachment. In other words, I doubt it is possible to be non-attached to a wrong view.
For example, the wrong view that there is no mother and no father is ingratitude or selfishness. Being selfish, such a view is already saturated with egoism and attachment.
Or engaging in sex is generally a form of attachment (to sensual pleasure). MN 38 says: "delight in feelings is attachment". It is generally not possible to engage in sex without attachment. Thus any exclusively positive view about sex itself will be a wrong view.
As for Nagarjuna, if all views (including Right View) are misguided then anything Nagarjuna thought, spoke or wrote is naturally also misguided.
In summary, the Noble Eightfold Path is lead by Right View. Any Buddhist practitioner that is not an Arahant must have Right View.

And, following from this previous answer ...
Re. your questions about emptiness, beware that my impressions of that doctrine are from hearsay.
I think that a statement like, "As for Nagarjuna, if all views (including Right View) are misguided then anything Nagarjuna thought, spoke or wrote is naturally also misguided", may be missing the mark -- i.e. I think that one needn't dismiss it as a self-referential paradox (and therefore nonsense).
Instead I suspect that the doctrine of emptiness might itself be an example of (a result of, intended as, usable as) right view or right-seeing -- because perhaps it matches the definition (from this previous answer) of what "right view" is -- i.e. it's some insight into, some knowledge of, the cause (e.g. components, boundaries) of any held view, and something about the cessation of holding such views -- and in particular, any views about the "being" of things.
I previously wondered how the anatta (non-self) doctrine of the suttas was ever (later) extended to a sunyata doctrine (i.e. that things too don't have a 'self'). Now, I suppose that it may be an extension of the anicca doctrine --  perhaps its purpose is to draw attention to, not only the 'view of impermanence', but also the 'impermanence of views'.
So if anicca is 'the view that things are impermanent', perhaps sunyata is a doctrine that 'the views (of things) are impermanent too' ... and/or that views themselves are inherently self-related (i.e. they're forms of self-view), and subject to the three characteristics (though some people consider it anathema to say e.g. that Dharmic views or doctrines are impermanent or unsatisfactory), and to that extent to be abandoned.

First, You have plenty of mistaken views listed here.
http://obo.genaud.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/sn/03_kv/idx_24_ditthisamyutta.htm
A view is a bunch of claims about ''the world'' or like puthujjanas  love to put it, about ''reality''.
It is normal for puthujjanas to cling to their papanca and intellectualize what they experience, especially what they call the meditative experience, some of them to the point of creating dhammas, teachings, doctrines, philosophies, views, systems, perspectives, ways of life, logics, rationales. Then they claim that their views are better than other views created by other puthujjanas, and that only the really smart and really righteous people like them can understand their views (which are, at this point, no longer  views, but truths)....
In fact, puthujjanas cling so much their intellectualization of what they experience that it is easier to upset a male puthujjana by mocking his views than by giving him a bad experience through the usual 5 senses. This is how insane is the relation of puthujjana with views...
All those intellectuals and other rationalists continue to crave and to cling to their papanca way to much, like puthujjanas who cannot resist to interpret what is a view  in terms of logic through (more or less) formal logic, with their vocabulary of ''postulate'', ''theories'',  ''proposition'' and ''truth values''.This is the view adopted by humanist scholars long ago and that westerners crave so much.
They fail to see that The buddha does not postulate anything, that the dhamma has nothing to do with logic. Anything that the buddha says is a conclusion to his endeavor and it certainly not ''a theory'', nor a ''postulate'', nor ''an hypothesis that has to be verified''.
Overall, behind this question about views and ''destroying all views'' that those puthujjanas have created is as usual whether or not the path is conditioned, or fabricated. Since the path is indeed fabricated,
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.044.than.html
 they just see an opportunity to claim that there are different  paths leading to nibbana.
A few puthujjanas even claim that there are thousands of paths to nibanna, or even worse that each person has a different path from another person, because they claim and think that people are all different (because people like and dislike different things through the 6 senses and those puthujjanas  fail to understand what is beyond the 6 senses so they remain on this level of existence and base a path on sensual likes and dislikes)....
The  path is indeed conditioned and is the method to stop being a puthujjana with the tools that a puthujjana has: sankharas, cetanas, talks, karma, rebirth, vedana, rupa, livelihood, views, and what not.
Of course, At the end of the day, there is not one sammā-vācā  for one puthujjana and another sammā-vācā  for another puthujjana , there is not one sammā-ājīva  for one puthujjana and another sammā-ājīva  for another puthujjana, there is not one sammā-samādhi for on puthujjana and another sammā-samādhi for another puthujjana, there is not one sammā-sankappa  for one puthujjana and another sammā-sankappa  for another puthujjana.
The path is the same for all puthujjanas: sila is the same for all, samadhi is the same for all and prajna is the same for all....
Since you care about views, care about the sakkaya-ditthi and the samma-ditthi, instead of wasting the few energy that you have on embarrassing intellectual views even worse than sakkaya-ditthi.  Spending your day doing sati sampajanna and yoniso manasikara is the opposite of relying on vitaka+vicara+papanca and rewriting the dhamma to determine what leads to nibanna or not and what must be done to see the dependent origination.
Also, there is a famous sutta https://legacy.suttacentral.net/en/mn64 about a baby and views. The buddha claims that a baby has no identity view, ''Yet the underlying tendency to identity view lies within him''. Somebody who has the lower fetter that is the sakkaya ditthi is really somebody who

abides with a mind obsessed and enslaved by identity view, and he does
  not understand as it actually is the escape from the arisen identity
  view; and when that identity view has become habitual and is
  uneradicated in him, it is a lower fetter.

and somebody who does not have this fetter is somebody who

understands as it actually is the escape from the arisen identity
  view, and identity view together with the underlying tendency to it is
  abandoned in him.

SO again the only view you care about and reject is sakkyaditthi and the only view that you should care about and embrace is samma-ditthi

Downvoted for the extraordinary comments about Nagarjuna. Also, while the comment that the Dhamma has nothing to do with logic is justifiable up to a point Nagarjuna shows that it has a sound logical basis and expression. In Buddhism we are advised to contemplate on our experience for the sake of wisdom and insight and this cannot be dismissed as mere 'intellectualising'. To be honest it comes across as a rather angry answer. .

It's a policy of this site that, when you write about a school of Buddhism (like Nagarjuna's) then you should do that in order to explain their perspective, and not to explain why you think they're wrong (though you may be allowed to explain a controversy e.g. to say that "one school teaches this while another school teaches that"). Also, to avoid causing arguments here (and, misrepresenting the views of other users) you may explain your perspective but please avoid contradicting or criticising the views of other users by name.

with birth as condition, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair come to be --Dependent Origination SN12.1

If a view arises, a view disappears. This is a simple manifestation of dependent origination. Thoughts bubble up, thoughts disappear.
When a view is held, it is attached, there is craving for existence.

with craving as condition, clinging; with clinging as condition, existence;

The view becomes self, become identity. This is a view held. This is delusion. This is the fruit of ignorance. A view held is a volitional (i.e., held) formation.

With ignorance as condition, volitional formations come to be;

And what shall be done about held views?

‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’

Regarding the wisdom of emptiness:

But they don’t conceive the dimension of nothingness, they don’t conceive regarding the dimension of nothingness, they don’t conceive as the dimension of nothingness, they don’t conceive that ‘the dimension of nothingness is mine’, they don’t take pleasure in the dimension of nothingness. --MN1


text:
What was Buddha's purpose in constructing The Four Stages of Enlightenment?
I can see the major to entering this path as being quite significant: the seeing through ones own imagination of their self. I also see that this four stage progression must be held onto quite loosely as one could become lost in defining their selves as sotapanna for instance and living out the identity of being someone who has seen through their identity.
However, what practical use can one obtain from using the four stages?

The four stages define what the basis of enlightenment is, namely, losing the belief in an inherent self ("stream-entry") ; and, at the same time, further define what full enlightenment is ("arahant"), namely, the complete uprooting of greed, hatred & delusion. Therefore, if you or a teacher (guru) still has lust, hatred or selfishness then this means full enlightenment has not been reached.
For example, there are many intellectuals (e.g. Sam Harris) who speak and act to give an impression they are enlightened because they speak theories about "no self". However, if we examine their other views and beliefs, we can work out if they are really enlightened or not.
Or there is a certain chat site where members claim to practise "jhana" yet they also post about their sexual lusts. Since a master of jhana will be at least a once-returner but often a non-returner, any significant lust should not arise in a once-returner or non-returner.
The same applies to us. The four stages are a guide to us of the level of (our) enlightenment. They are not for boasting but for the opposite. They are so we do not overestimate our experience.

Thank you. What reason do you see for Buddha doing outlining these domains? In what context were they delivered to monks? How did he use them?

I think the other two fetters, that define a Sotapanna, are no less significant than "seeing through ones own imagination of their self" -- i.e. they are:

vicikicchā (doubt, uncertainty) 1
sīlabbata-parāmāsa (attaching to ceremonies)

Maybe these are a superset of (more general than, thus greater than) the "overcoming sakkāya-diṭṭhi" attainment.
Also I think that sakkāya-diṭṭhi is more and less than "one's own imagination of their self" -- I think it's literally "true-body view", and its antonym is to not seeing (or view) the five aggregates as self -- which I think is an intellectual position or realisation and, moreover, an experience.
It's a preliminary attainment, see e g. How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same? (or here where I describe that as analogous to being an addict in recovery, still experiencing conceit and suffering and so on).
I gather that a further thing that's required of a Sotapanna is heedfulness, i.e. though they may have heard (and understood) what right view is, but it takes heedfulness to keep it in mind (see e.g. Jayarava's analysis of The last words of the Buddha for a description of appamādena).
Also I think the doctrine (of "four stages") meets the criteria defined in the handful of leaves, i.e.

And why have I taught these things? Because they are connected with the goal, relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. This is why I have taught them.

However, what practical use can one obtain from using the four stages?
Yes I think the suttas say more (or in more detail) about the right conditions for stream-entry than later stages (see also Can someone give references of the four stages of enlightenment in the four major Nikayas?).
I think the other stages (or other fetters) is a reminder of how much more (or further) the way to cessation is than only, merely, or even wholeheartedly adopting "right" view (intellectually) -- i.e. after that there's still overcoming any anger, sensuality, clinging, conceit, and so on -- see also e.g. What is effluent?

1 Looking for definitions of vicikicchā, I found vicikicchā and suttas that define it, which says (I summarise):

AN 1.15 and 1.20 says doubt arises and increases with unwise attention (and, vice versa, decreases)
DN 2, DN 25, and MN 39 suggest it means "uncertainty as to what things are wholesome"

And:

At MN 16, vicikiccha applies to Buddha, Dhamma (that includes any part of the teaching, the noble truths, the three characteristics etc. and also who speaks the truth or falsehood [SN 43.13 and AN 3.66]), Sangha, the training (sikkha).
MN 23, it is compared to a fork
SN 22.84, doubt is compared to a "forked road"
SN 12.32, doubt is about whether one as abandoned the asavas, in other words whether one is an arahant or not
SN 46.51, doubt is twofold: there is doubt about the internal and doubt about the external
AN 7.54, doubt does not arise about undeclared things because of the cessation of views

I wondered about the definition in SN 12.32 -- if overcoming doubt is associated with being a sotappana, why is it still being mentioned in the context of deciding whether one is an arahant?
I think the answer to that is here, part of the definition of "conceit" ...

a Sotapanna can only give rise to true conceit, viz:

thinking one is superior when one is superior
thinking one is equal when one is equal
thinking one is lesser when one is lesser

... i.e. a Sotapanna, when conceited, would see correctly that they are not an arahant.

Actually it's not constructed by Lord Buddha, it just nature.

Great point but I haven't yet determined this to be a part of a natural process which is perhaps why Buddha chose to appeal to the meagre conceptual mind using concept himself. From the perspective of concept, it is a construction of words to form a concept. Perhaps one day, I may see the silliness in name and form. ;-)

In the most simplest terms,

Stream-enterer (Sotapanna) - you let go of the belief that you’re really a separate self living inside your head and looking through your eyes. This illusion is eliminated, and when you look within you can’t find a self anywhere.
Stream-enterers have also let go of attachment to rites and rituals and doubts about the teachings.
Once-returner (Sakadagami) - returners have entered a stage where their “no-self” is completely integrated, and they experience a significant reduction in attachment and aversion and the suffering that accompanies these states of mind.
They are much more detached. For example, occasional irritation and preference replace hatred and greed, which no longer have any hold over the once-returner.
Non-returner (Anāgāmi) - The Non-returners are free from feelings of sensual desire and ill will towards others. They are seen to be partially enlightened and on the way to complete enlightenment.
They experience significant levels of compassion as they have lost the sense of separation between themselves and others.
Arahant - The fourth stage is free from having any craving for prosperity in the material world, doesn’t crave existence in the ideal world (which is heaven), doesn’t experience conceit, never feels restlessness and isn’t subject to ignorance.
At this stage, the person is experiencing ultimate nirvana. The feeling has been compared to falling into the depths of a cloud and disappearing. The circumstances of life no longer stir even the slightest craving or dissatisfaction.

Link :- The 4 Stages of Enlightenment According to Buddhist Scripture (And How You Can Achieve Them)

The path to attain Nirvana is The Noble Eight Fold Path.

Thank you. I wanted to know more about why Buddha chose to formulate these 4 domains. What reason do you see for Buddha doing this? In what context were they delivered to monks? How did he use them?

This is not answering the question, is it ?

Thank you. It describes the four stages but it does not say how they were presented in the pali canon. Perhaps my question should have been: Can you give references to the four stages of enlightenment in the pali canon? and i'll do the rest. :-)

@Suchness That (reference-request) would be a duplicate of this question which however no-one has answered.

@ChrisW - Thank you. I'll read through the link you posted.

@Suchness If think there (in that topic) are references to books which list or comment on suttas which describe becoming a Sotapanna. IMHO I don't know of suttas which describe becoming a Sakadagami (though plenty of suttas which describe how a bhikkhu in general should practice), but there are also several suttas (I don't know if or where there's an index of them) which describe various bhikkhus becoming Arahants.