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:
Duty of Student
I have list of Question can any one suggest answer of these question from me from Buddhist tradition.

what is duty of student?
what are elements that useful for student from Destruction?
How Vipasana Meditation help student?

Nyom Dheeraj Kumar and interested,
Having raised such a question "what is duty of student?", i.e. "what are my duties" at first and continuing place, is a good sign. If having patiently waited, as well. And if now carefully attentive reading all and by it understand alot already, seldom one knows, it looks pretty good to meet soon the right teacher. Sadhu and mudita
The general duties in relation to teacher are: DN 31

"In five ways, young householder, a pupil should minister to a teacher as the South:
(i) by rising from the seat in salutation,
  (ii) by attending on him,
  (iii) by eagerness to learn,
  (iv) by personal service,
  (v) by respectful attention while receiving instructions.

One might be interested about duties of Dhamma-disciples:
[Q&A] Proper way to ask a teacher to become their student - duties
Worthy to note is that there are no real defined relations between monks and laypeople, see here: Different kind of teacher-student relationships
And that layteacher might give often no change to fulfill duties since their are after other compensations (that's a warn sign for monks as well).
Since monks are actually not given to teach if there are signs of lack of respect, good to make one familar with: Respect and veneration
And the three requisites to be able to receive Dhamma: Respect, Confidence and Patient
PS: take care of body gesture, such as standing, higher, closed up like crossing hands... and the questions: "what are elements that useful for student from Destruction? How Vipasana Meditation help student?" are not proper and may fit just to markets.
[Note that this is not given that one increases his debts by trade, exchange, stacks and Buddh-ism but to go beyond relations and dependency]

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


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.

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


text:
Suttas which explain how to deal with unwholesome habits
Are there any suttas where the Buddha gives advice how to change one's behaviours, like eating addiction,  mindless eating, addiction to entertainment, laziness and all that? Basically giving in into worldy pleasures.
Thanks

Although the Noble Eight-fold Path is the all-encompassing way, one often wants specific advice on "defilements". For example, searching SuttaCentral, we have AN6.58 Defilements describing six factors of dealing with defilements.

Mendicants, a mendicant with six factors is worthy of offerings dedicated to the gods, worthy of hospitality, worthy of a teacher’s offering, worthy of veneration with joined palms, and is a supreme field of merit for the world

The question you've asked is actually quite broad. In fact ALL the suttas answer your question. For example, simply consider that identity view is an unwholesome habit. In this case, one would consult MN8 Self-Effacement. As individuals, we each have our own set of unwholesome habits and it would be best to conduct such a search on a Buddhist Sutta site such as SuttaCentral.net according to your own needs.
Inevitably, one realizes that relishing is the root of suffering (MN1). Sometimes that is enough to let go and deal. Sometimes we need other suttas for more leverage.

Dvedhāvitakka Sutta - Two Kinds of Thought

Even something like SN 5.10 might help:

But it’s only suffering that comes to be,
  lasts a while, then disappears.
  Naught but suffering comes to be,
  naught but suffering ceases.

Ask yourself, "Would the cessation of this behaviour be associated with (or give rise to) the cessation of dukkha? Does the existence of this behaviour give rise to dukkha?"
I think that's where it starts, that line of thinking is the essence of what "right view" is.
Then there's SN 56.11 -- for example on page 41 ...

The first noble truth, that is, suffering is to be understood.
The second noble truth, that is, the arising of suffering is to be abandoned.
The third noble truth, that is, the ending of suffering (nirvana) is to be realized.
The fourth noble truth, that is, the way to the ending of suffering is to be cultivated.

... and on page 46:

The first noble truth: suffering (dukkha)
  Suffering should be known (pariññeyya)
  Suffering has been known (pariññāta)
The second noble truth: craving (taṇhā)
  Craving should be abandoned (pahātabba)
  Craving has been abandoned (pahīna)
The third noble truth: nirvana (nibbāna)
  Nirvana should be realized (sacchikātabba)
  Nirvana has been realized (sacchikata)
The fourth noble truth: the path (patipadā)
  The path should be cultivated (bhāvetabba)
  The path has been cultivated (bhāvita)

Then there's MN 61 ("The Buddha teaches his young son"), which starts with being honest, and then,

Whenever you want to do a bodily action, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily action I want to do — would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both?

As for techniques to overcome withdrawal (more accurately to enable withdrawal, to enable the cessation of craving and attachment), I think there are many -- I mentioned some in this answer e.g.:

Guarding the senses
Preventing contact
Seclusion or retreat (even temporary)
The mental equivalent of aversion therapy and/or dispassion (e.g. seeing "a bag of bones")
And if at first you don't succeed then try, try, and ... try something else!

Also maybe replace 'wrong' with 'right' -- e.g. instead of dwelling on dukkha consider freedom from remorse.


text:
MN 72 - Why is a freed mind not "not reborn"?
Three translations of Bhikkhu Sujato say:

But Master Gotama, when a mendicant’s mind is freed like this, where
  are they reborn?
Evaṃ vimuttacitto pana, bho gotama, bhikkhu kuhiṃ upapajjatī ti?
‘They’re reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.
“Upapajjatīti kho, vaccha, na upeti”.
Well then, are they not reborn?
Tena hi, bho gotama, na upapajjatī ti?
‘They’re not reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.
“Na upapajjatīti kho, vaccha, na upeti”.
MN 72

Seeing this, a learned noble disciple becomes disillusioned with form,
  feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness.
Evaṃ passaṃ, bhikkhave, sutavā ariyasāvako rūpasmimpi nibbindati,
  vedanāyapi nibbindati, saññāyapi nibbindati, saṅkhāresupi nibbindati,
  viññāṇasmimpi nibbindati.
Being disillusioned they become dispassionate. Being dispassionate
  they’re freed. When freed, they know ‘it is freed’.
Nibbindaṃ virajjati; virāgā vimuccati. Vimuttasmiṃ vimuttamiti ñāṇaṃ
  hoti.
They understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been
  completed, what had to be done has been done, there is no return to
  any state of existence.’
‘Khīṇā jāti, vusitaṃ brahmacariyaṃ, kataṃ karaṇīyaṃ, nāparaṃ
  itthattāyā’ti pajānātī”ti.
SN 22.59

The sage at peace is not reborn, does not grow old, and does not die.
  They are not shaken, and do not yearn.
Muni kho pana, bhikkhu, santo na jāyati, na jīyati, na mīyati, na
  kuppati, na piheti.
For they have nothing which would cause them to be reborn. Not being
  reborn, how could they grow old? Not growing old, how could they die?
  Not dying, how could they be shaken? Not shaking, for what could they
  yearn?
Tañhissa, bhikkhu, natthi yena jāyetha, ajāyamāno kiṃ jīyissati,
  ajīyamāno kiṃ mīyissati, amīyamāno kiṃ kuppissati, akuppamāno kissa
  pihessati?
MN 140

Why does MN 72 say  "not reborn" does not apply to the freed mind (vimuttacitto) but SN 22.59 and MN 140 say "rebirth is ended" and the arahant is "not reborn"?

Apparently khina in khina jati means "has exhausted", so the phrase would literally mean "birth has exhausted" (not re-birth), meaning the samsaric tendency for sustaining the self that was born as a result of 11th link of Dependent Origination has exhausted itself, ran to its end and disbanded.

Isn't MN 72 more literally asking where the Bhikkhu (or "a Bhikkhu") is reborn (not the freed mind)? So the title should be (more literally) "Why is a Bhikkhu with a freed mind etc.", and the text "does not apply to the Bhikkhu".

Well then, are they not reborn?
Tena hi, bho gotama, na upapajjatī ti?
‘They’re not reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.

I would suggest it has to do with the way this question is formulated. It's not about rebirth having ended but about pointing to a person because of the use of the word 'they'.
Talking about a 'they', 'him', 'her' doesn't apply anymore. So, the question is wrongly put.
That's my take on it.

IMO the pronoun "they" isn't in the Pali (though a subject may be implicit when a verb is used). I think the Pali says, more literally, "And in this way freed, friend Gotama, [a/the] monk to where is reborn?" and "Then, friend Gotama, not reborn?" I think the subject is assumed to be bhikkhu i.e. the mendicant.

On a different note, I've always thought it would be much more meaningful to translate it as "Comrade Gotama" ;)))

@AndreiVolkov Why so? "Comrade" implies to me a strict equality of social rank (see also Why should one not address a venerable as friend?), though also helper or ally.

It was said tongue-in-cheek, a joke. But seriously, why did Buddha's bhikkhus call each other "friend"? I suppose, what if explicitly establishing equality of social rank was what Buddha was after? Despite social inertia to the contrary that he had no choice but to accept.

@AndreiVolkov I imagine that "the wanderer Vacchagotta" wasn't a bhikkhu? The introduction to MN 72 doesn't have the usual formal reverences. I think bhikkhus referred to each other as friends -- until The Blessed One's Final Exhortation with "And, Ananda, whereas now the bhikkhus address one another as 'friend,' let it not be so.... But yes I don't quite get the formality, e.g. a French child says "vous" to a school teacher (or any adult), but "tu" to a parent (or God).

... and an adult says tu to friends and to their social equals, or tu to everyone only if they're like, veterans of 1968. I guess it's just convention (which was why I asked about it -- to understand a reason). But then again, people (you too) mention doing prostrations, so...

We can think of karma as sowing the seeds of rebirth: every karmic act is part of a cycle of dependencies that causes its own return. It makes sense to talk about these seeds coming to fruition (leading to return), and it makes sense to talk about these seeds being extinguished (not leading to return). But a freed mind does not sow these seeds. There is nothing planted that can return or be extinguished, so it makes no sense to use these terms.
To be a bit silly about it, it's like asking a woman whether her dog has fleas. She can say yes or no, sure. But if she doesn't have a dog, well… How could she say whether the dog she doesn't have has fleas? The liberated mind is that woman without a dog.
Err… no offense to dog owners.

MN 72 later says:

“But Vaccha, suppose they were to ask you: ‘This fire burning in front
of you: what does it depend on to burn?’ How would you answer?”
“I would answer like this: ‘This fire burning in front of me burns in
dependence on grass and logs as fuel.’”
“Suppose that fire burning in front of you was extinguished. Would you
know: ‘This fire in front of me is extinguished’?”
“Yes, I would, Master Gotama.”
“But Vaccha, suppose they were to ask you: ‘This fire in front of you
that is extinguished: in what direction did it go—east, south, west,
or north?’ How would you answer?”
“It doesn’t apply, Master Gotama. The fire depended on grass and logs
as fuel. When that runs out, and no more fuel is added, the fire is
reckoned to have become extinguished due to lack of fuel.”

Although the word "upapajjatī" does not appear to literally mean "reborn" (refer to this topic), when the word "upapajjatī" is most often used in the suttas, it refers to "a being" ("satta") or "beings" ("sattanam") faring on according to their kamma, as follows:

With clairvoyance that is purified and superhuman, I saw beings (satte) passing away and being reborn (upapajjamāne) — inferior and superior, beautiful
and ugly, in a good place or a bad place. I understood how beings are reborn (upapannā) according to their deeds: ‘These dear beings did bad
things by way of body, speech, and mind. They spoke ill of the noble
ones; they had wrong view; and they chose to act out of that wrong
view. When their body breaks up, after death, they’re reborn (upapannā) in a
place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell. These dear beings,
however, did good things by way of body, speech, and mind. They never
spoke ill of the noble ones; they had right view; and they chose to
act out of that right view. When their body breaks up, after death,
they’re reborn (upapannā) in a good place, a heavenly realm.’ And so, with
clairvoyance that is purified and superhuman, I saw beings
passing away and being reborn — inferior and superior, beautiful and
ugly, in a good place or a bad place. I understood how beings
are reborn (upapajjamāne) according to their deeds.
MN 4

In other words, it appears the word "upapajjatī", particularly with its prefix of "upa" (meaning  "close" or "nearness"), must always be a dependent phenomena (such as a future state of being depending on a former state of being/kamma).
Therefore, for an Arahant, both free from the notion/view of being "a being" and free from any dependent conditions, the idea "not reborn" does not apply.


text:
Is there any benefit in abstaining from listening songs?
All the songs which I have been listening since childhood are constantly popping up in my mind even the songs which I listened in the childhood.
Shall I now stop listening any song altogether providing I want to uncondition my mind completely? Are there benefits to stop listening them?
Also what shall I do when these old songs pope up again in the mind?
Note: If it's helpful to answer let me inform you that I have been practicing mindfulness along with anapansatti.

It's very important to know WHY you want to stop listening to music. If it is just by blindly following precepts, the motivation won't take you that far. However, if you realise that sense-restraint is a crucial part of the Dhamma, and was not coincidentally taught by the Buddha, you will realize its importance. The more you restrain yourself from "unskillful mental states", the more success you'll have in your meditation, since by default then your mind will have a lesser degree of hindrances. This being so, the less results you experienced up until now (especially due to wrong friendship,a crucial part of right view), the less trust you will have in the Buddha.
As you probably know, meditation alone cannot rid all hindrances. Because of this, the Buddha divided the path into Sila, Samadhi and Pañña. Whatever you do within & outside your meditation session is really what you cultivate (bhavana). And wherever your mind frequently dwells the most that will be your inclination. The Buddha spoke thus:

Bhikkhus, whatever a bhikkhu frequently thinks and ponders upon, that will become the inclination of his mind. If he frequently thinks and ponders upon thoughts of sensual desire, he has abandoned the thought of renunciation to cultivate the thought of sensual desire, and then his mind inclines to thoughts of sensual desire. If he frequently thinks and ponders upon thoughts of ill will … upon thoughts of cruelty, he has abandoned the thought of non-cruelty to cultivate the thought of cruelty, and then his mind inclines to thoughts of cruelty.

MN 19

If you stop listening to songs, eventualy the odds of fragments of song poping in the mind would shrink, but is that realy what you are looking for ?
A better way to approach this would be to let go of the aversion you feel toward having songs beeing replayed in your mind.
When it occurs, do as you do with any other distraction or thought. Watch is appear and disappear by itself, watch for any sensation or thought that may arise because of it.
Even if you decide not to listen to music anymore, you will be exposed to it against your will from time to time, so you can't really count on "dropping the listening habit" strategy alone.
Please also consider that one can listen to music in order to feel sensual pleasure, which is unskillful, but also to engage with a particular art form which won't prevent your spiritual growth at all. See this question Buddhist view on Art and being an Artist.
Music can increase one's motivation in his spiritual developement, by giving access to particular emotions one would have never felt otherwise.
Just a few examples on the top of my head :
If you are on a bad day, listening to a particular song could uplift your mind and give you the motivation to sit and meditate.
If you have trouble feeling goodwill towards other human beeings, try listening to Beethoven's 9th symphony. Also 5th symfony can easely be interpreted by the story of a person who gradually overcomes his bad kamma. 6th symphony is about joy associated with nature. And so on.
As with any other actions, you should contemplate the effects of listening to music. With time you will build up discernement, and avoid situations when listening to music is unskillful.
Be good to yourself and don't beat yourself over it unnecessarily. When you see clearly the drawbacks of music, things will resolve quite naturally.

Yes, listening to music is called entertainment or sense gratification.
You need to understand the purpose of listening to music. Is it helping to grow spiritually?
Music will create emotions in mind, leading to suffering.
There are no cheats or listening to music once in a while.
You have to be serious for practicing dhamma.
Ancient Buddhist monks also practiced, avoiding to watch beautiful or colourful things for controlling mind.
Reading books is called intellectual entertainment.
Dhamma is for disciplined candidate.
Discipline will liberate your mind.
There has to be a fire of discipline to grow spiritually.

Only a personal experience, but for the substantial period that music was not a part of this life a few things happened. The mind was more clear and focused. Meditation came easier and deeper. There was one less distraction and attachment to deal with.
It is my practice that not listening to music is in strict accordance with the precepts. With this being said, it was only a challenge at the beginning stage and includes the position you describe.
All the best to you friend.

Thank you. I almost stopped (not forcibly) to listen music. Sometimes, listening only non material.  But will stop that also. :)

Is there any reason to keep on nourishing of what is just of short pleasure, does not lead to liberation?
Is there any reason to nourish something being an obstacle on the path? Having told by the wise and particularly seen for oneself?
By not nourishing, not giving note, not giving into, withdraw, cutting of any feed, relations break apart, good as well as bad.
Now think how dhamma, suttas, good reminders would pup up in the head, if starting to seek for relation to it? So it's good to seek for relation where they repeat, enjoy and remember each other of what is worthy to nourish, remember and store, to face the unconditioned possible for yourself and be not without good entertaining /lifelihood for the mind.

Going forth (i.e., becoming a monk)

They avoid dancing, singing, music, and seeing shows --MN27

For a lay person this may sound like quite the burden. However, it's not. Music is by its nature compelling. Wanting to listen to music is wanting to be caught up in it, to be emotionally tied and bound. Even professional musicians understand this and need to develop a necessary measure of restraint, distance and awareness to advance their skills. Similarly, listeners naturally develop a certain distance when listening mindfully. "Oh this song wants me to feel seduced by romance". Etc.
Note that the sutta uses "avoid". As in "avoid stepping in bear traps with bare feet." There is no sin or virtue here. I also avoid firecrackers because they can cause injury. Music isn't bad or good. In fact, one can actually listen to music mindfully to understand where hidden delights are bubbling. Then one can go meditate on those delights and relinquish them if possessive about them.

You can listen to music while learning dharma thus:
Sound - ear - interpretation - feeling - craving or aversion.
How so can one learn from this?
The source of wanting or averting is in the feeling (vedana) and since nothing can be sustained to our liking, then it is all impersonal or not-self. From a more direct perspective, it is impermanent, suffering and therefore not who you 'think' you are. The same is true of all the other senses.
You could really go some here by seeing how this process fits into the 12 nidanas.

"Nidanas" are co-dependent events or phenomena, which act as links on a chain, conditioning and depending on each other. When certain conditions are present, they give rise to subsequent conditions, which in turn give rise to other conditions. Wikipedia

Additionally, in the Assutavā Sutta the Buddha said...

When this exists, that comes to be. With the arising of this, that arises. When this does not exist, that does not come to be. With the cessation of this, that ceases.

The answer to your question is yes there is benefit from not listening but also there is an opportunity to learn from your physiology when listening.

Correcting earlier... “Could you figuratively use a feather of awareness to the music compared, e.g., a hammer, that is, a lighter note.”
If everything passes - in time - then if one were to let it it pass, (feather) compared to paying it so much attention (hammer) maybe the mental activity could be noted of the object (thoughts, music, etc.) but not necessarily sustained, maintained, retained.

I don't understand what this answer says.

Me neither. Could you be more specific?


text:
What is the meaning of uppajjati versus upapajjati?
In the Pali there are two terms, which are (generally) used contextually in two different ways:

uppajjati (and its past particle uppanna)
upapajjati (and its past particle upapanna)

What do these terms actually mean and what is the distinction between them? Importantly, how are these terms constructed or derived in Pali to differentiate their meaning?
Of note: the PTS dictionary makes the rather vague comment:

doubtful whether a legitimate form as upa + pad or a diaeretic form of uppajjati = ud + pad. In this case all passages ought to go under
  the latter. Trenckner however (Notes 77) defends upa˚ & considers in
  many cases upp˚ a substitution for upa. The diaeresis may be due to
  metre, as nearly all forms are found in poetry. The variant reading
  upp˚ is apparently frequent; but it is almost impossible to
  distinguish between upap˚ and upp˚ in the Sinhalese writing, and
  either the scribe or the reader may mistake one for the other

I think there are two rather different words confused here.
One is Sanskrit "utpada"/"anutpada" (to arise / not to arise) and its Pali corruption "uppada" with a past form "uppanna".
Another one is Sanskrit "upaprajati" (something like "offshoot" or "derivative" - meaning something that is born off a family but separate) and the Pali corruption of its past form, "upapanna".
Google dictinary for "offshoot" gives the following meanings:

a thing that originated or developed from something else.
"commercial offshoots of universities"
    synonyms: outcome, result, (side) effect, corollary, consequence, upshot, product, by-product, spin-off, development, outgrowth, fallout
"rap music began as an underground offshoot of disco"
subsidiary, branch, adjunct, derivative
"the company now controls several offshoots"

Checking the examples of sutta usages in @ChrisW's answer, I think they all make sense.

Yes. Thanks for this. I am very grateful. I think this is correct. "उपप्रजायते verb upaprajAyate { upaprajan } be born after or in addition to". This dictionary is very easy to use for researching: http://spokensanskrit.org/. Imo, it seems "upapajjati" means to "follow on" or "proceed from". Thus, it supports MN 148 in my answer, as well as the common "rebirth" contexts.

Rapture is arising (uppajjati). :) HH Guru Volkov. For many years, I searched for an answer to this.

'Upapajjati' is for the most part found in suttas about results of kamma. It was also mentioned how it is found in the Appassuta Sutta (AN 4.6) about "progression" in learning/study.
'Uppajjati' is found unrelated to results kamma, most commonly as:

Eye consciousness arises dependent on the eye and sights.
Cakkhuñca paṭicca rūpe ca uppajjati cakkhuviññāṇaṃ
MN 148

Interestingly both words are found in the one place in MN 148:

If anyone says, ‘the eye is self,’ that is not tenable (12).
‘Cakkhu attā’ti yo vadeyya taṃ na upapajjati.
The arising and vanishing of the eye is evident,
Cakkhussa uppādopi vayopi paññāyati.
so it would follow that one’s self arises (13) and vanishes (14).
Yassa kho pana uppādopi vayopi paññāyati, ‘attā me uppajjati ca veti cā’ti iccassa evamāgataṃ hoti.
That’s why it’s not tenable to claim that
Tasmā taṃ na upapajjati:
the eye is self.
‘cakkhu attā’ti yo vadeyya.
So the eye is not self
MN 148

Piya Tan comments however appears to dispute the use of 'uppajjati' at 13:

12 “This is not fitting,” taṁ na upapajjati (lit “this does not arise”), but here Comy glosses as na yujjati, ‘it is not applicable; this is not the case/meaning” (MA 5:100).
13 “Rises,” upapajjati (PTS has uppajjati, which is erroneous), normally means “he reappears, is reborn,” but also has a
  special usage in logic to mean, “to be tenable, to be acceptable,” as
  it does here. (M:ÑB 1362 n1330)
14 “Passes away,” veti (from vi + √I, “to go”  eti) (Skt vyeti), “he goes away, disappears, wanes” (M 3:282; S3:135; A 2:51; J 3:154). Comy
  glosses as vigacchati nirujjhati (“he disappears, ceases”) (MA
  5:100).

I disagree with Piya Tan's dispute about "uppajjati" at 13 and agree with the answer of Guru Andrei Volkov, from which I have concluded "upapajjati" to mean: "follows" or "proceeds" or "progresses".
Thus, to me, it means:

If anyone says, ‘the eye is self,’ that does not follow/proceed/conclude [from that statement].
MN 148

Because of undertaking such deeds, when their body breaks up, after death, they follow on/proceed into a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld,
  hell.
So tena kammena evaṃ samattena evaṃ samādinnena kāyassa bhedā paraṃ maraṇā apāyaṃ duggatiṃ vinipātaṃ nirayaṃ upapajjati.
MN 135

Little learning but follow to/proceed to the point of learning.
appassuto sutena upapanno
AN 4.6

While not the words of the Buddha, MN 72 below:

But Master Gotama, when a mendicant’s mind is freed like this, where do they proceed to/go to?
Evaṃ vimuttacitto pana, bho gotama, bhikkhu kuhiṃ upapajjatī ti?
‘They proceed/they go’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.
“Upapajjatīti kho, vaccha, na upeti”.
Well then, do they not proceed/not go anywhere?
Tena hi, bho gotama, na upapajjatī ti?
‘They don't proceed/don't go’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.
“Na upapajjatīti kho, vaccha, na upeti”.
MN 72

Woohoo! Buddha's reply in MN 72 explained below:

Tatrāpāhaṃ, bhikkhave, neva āgatiṃ vadāmi, na gatiṃ, na ṭhitiṃ, na cutiṃ, na upapattiṃ; appatiṭṭhaṃ, appavattaṃ, anārammaṇamevetaṃ.
  Esevanto dukkhassā”ti.
Here, bhikkhus, I say there is no coming, no going, no staying, no deceasing, no uprising. Not fixed, not movable, it has no support. Just this is the end of suffering..
Ud 8.1

In this post Ven. Sujato wrote,

Throughout, Ñāṇānanda refers to the reading anuppanno. This is the mainline reading of the PTS edition, and is presumably supported by the Sinhala manuscripts. The Burmese texts have anupapanno. The difference is that, as I discussed in a previous post, upapanna always refers to rebirth, whereas uppanna has a more general meaning. Nevertheless, in this context it is clear that rebirth is the topic, so the difference is immaterial. The related passages I quote below support the reading upapanna so I use that.

That's compatible with AN 3.59 which uses uppanna for the arising of "knowledge":

Ignorance is destroyed and knowledge has arisen; darkness is destroyed and light has arisen, as happens for a meditator who is diligent, keen, and resolute.
avijjā vihatā, vijjā uppannā; tamo vihato, āloko uppanno yathā taṃ appamattassa ātāpino pahitattassa viharato.

In AN 8.29 uppanna is used for the arising of a Tathagata in the world, but (in the next paragraph) upapanna for a person having been reborn in hell:

Firstly, a Realized One has arisen in the world—perfected, a fully awakened Buddha, accomplished in knowledge and conduct, holy, knower of the world, supreme guide for those who wish to train, teacher of gods and humans, awakened, blessed. He teaches the Dhamma leading to peace, extinguishment, awakening, as proclaimed by the Holy One.
Idha, bhikkhave, tathāgato ca loke uppanno hoti arahaṃ sammāsambuddho vijjācaraṇasampanno sugato lokavidū anuttaro purisadammasārathi satthā devamanussānaṃ buddho bhagavā, dhammo ca desiyati opasamiko parinibbāniko sambodhagāmī sugatappavedito;
But a person has been reborn in hell.
ayañca puggalo nirayaṃ upapanno hoti.

Piya Tan (in his description of Appassuta Sutta (AN 4.6) translates uppanna as "progress" or "spiritual progress".
That would be ironic if true, because "spiritual progress" may imply the opposite of "rebirth" (ironic that the dictionary definition of both include "rebirth").
But I think it's not generally true i.e. that specific meaning (spiritual progress) is only applies what it's applied to in this sutta.

I'm confused too though, by this. Below is Piya's rendition of AN 4.6.
Note that:

The Pali is given as uppanno
The footnote says it's sometimes confused with upapanno

In contrast, below is Ven. Sujato's rendition of AN 4.6.
Note:

The Pali is given as upapanno (contradicting the Pali in Piya's version)
The translation "get the point of learning" (which is perhaps more literally "learning comes into existence") contradicts Ven. Sujato's own comment that upapanna always refers to rebirth, so I don't know what's happening there

What four? A person may have:
Katame cattāro?

Little learning and not get the point of learning.
Little learning but get the point of learning.
Much learning but not get the point of learning.
Much learning and get the point of learning.
Appassuto sutena anupapanno, appassuto sutena upapanno, bahussuto sutena anupapanno, bahussuto sutena upapanno.

I don't know anything about why there are different versions of the Pali, except that apparently there are. Maybe it's what Ven. Sujato was talking about in the first quote:

Ñāṇānanda refers to the reading anuppanno. This is the mainline reading of the PTS edition, and is presumably supported by the Sinhala manuscripts. The Burmese texts have anupapanno.

See also the quote appended to the OP:

it is almost impossible to distinguish between upap˚ and upp˚ in the Sinhalese writing

Confusing! Maybe you can derive some kind of clue from other bits of this answer though.

The use of "upapajjati" in MN 72 is very interesting and appears not so straightforward.
Yes MN 72 seems to use both words.
The instances of upapajjati are translated "reborn". And assuming you agree with this comment ...

In addition, another shorting coming of your post is you spend time analysing a term "ditthigata" which is spoken by an outsider, as though its meaning is the same as held by the Buddha. Since the outsider is ignorant of Dhamma, one must be careful in imputing, as you did, that their meaning of a word is the same as the Buddha.

... you'll find it significant that it was "the outsider" who first used that word.
And at the end of MN 72 there's anuppādadhammā (I think that's the same word as uppajjati) applied to each of the five aggregates -- saying that because form etc. don't "arise" then there's no question of being "reborn".

And, to "discuss the construction of the Pali words" -- according to this dictionary:

One is upapajjati : (upa + pad + ya) to be reborn in; rises.
And the other is uppajjati : (u + pad + ya) to be born; arises.


text:
Satipathanna Sutta and contemplating mind externally?
More specifically, Buddha informs the Kurus thus:
"Contemplating mind internally. Contemplating mind externally. Contemplating mind both internally and externally"
How is one to contemplate the mind externally?
Additionally, in chapter 1 of the Shurangama sutra, the Buddha skillfully guides Ananda into locating his own mind by searching not just within the body but outside of the body. This throws Ananda and the other monks into mental and emotional upheaval (quite fascinating actually).
So, from the perspective of satipathanna sutta, is one to contemplate mind beyond the boundaries of the body?

The first part of this questions is a duplicate of How should satipatthana be understood in regard to external/internal minds? which has some answers.

It's possible that the second part of this question (about the Shurangama sutra) might be unrelated to the first, and better asked as a separate question (if indeed it's a question at all).

Thank you ChrisW. I should put more effort into searching before asking a question. Did you use my question as a search term?

Indeed, my search for https://www.google.fr/search?q=Satipathanna+Sutta+and+contemplating+mind+externally%3F found https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=1122 and then https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/10372/how-should-satipatthana-be-understood-in-regard-to-external-internal-minds

Abhidhamma Vibhaṅga Khandhavibhaṅga:

Therein what is internal consciousness? That consciousness which, for this or that being, is personal, self-referable, one’s own, individual and is grasped (by craving and false view), (i.e.) eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness, mind consciousness. This is called internal consciousness.
Therein what is external consciousness? That consciousness which, for this or that other being, for other persons is personal, self-referable, one’s own, individual and is grasped, (i.e.) eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness, mind consciousness. This is called external consciousness.

This is it. Simple and concise. It resonates perfectly. Thank you.

Contemplating mind means contemplating defilements (rather than thoughts) and the absence of defilements.
For example, when contemplating externally, the mind views that there are no people or no beings or no selves. All that exists is physical forms animated by mental defilements; such as the mental defilement (urge) to eat and the mental defilement to have sex and reproduce.
Thus contemplating mind externally is contemplating the greed, lust, anger, violence, psychopathy, delusion, ignorance, etc, in external forms and seeing how these defilements are elements of nature rather than selves or self-generated.
For example, in what is ordinarily called a “sexy woman”, one contemplates how there is physical matter with a physical womb saturated with various chemicals and hormones which give rise to various mental defilements that animates that form to move, act and behave in the way it does.
When contemplation of mind is done properly, external life forms will be veiwed as programmed robots.

Thank you but your answer still points to an internal contemplation of mind. To eat and to have sex are biological mechanisms. I appreciate that they are bound to the functions of mind but they are still internal contemplations. However, the arising of external phenomena seemingly influences mind. Could it be the contemplation of how external phenomena shapes the weather of mind?

My answer refers to external minds. Thanks

Thanks. I see that you've added further. ;-)

DD, does this mean to view all beings as 5 aggregates? Or is this contemplation only possible during deep meditation.

It can be started analytically; similar to meditation on the parts of the body. You sit on the bus & analyse the so-called "people" in terms of aggregates. For example, an unhappy looking "person" as "a mind with sorry". A person is dressed with make up to attract attention and you analyse "A mind with lust or craving". A person looks angry or unfriendly: "A mind with hatred". Then there also is consciousness. I emphasize the physical body in my post because it provide a grounding to the meditation. Most mentality such as desire to eat, to work, look sexy, etc, arises because of the body.


text:
Anusati vs Bhavana
If we take meditation objects like caganusati, silanusati, buddhanusati, maranasati etc. we can clearly see that all of them require active and sustained thought, however so does metta bhavana or asubha bhavana.
Why then is there a distinction in name?

"X-Anusati" basically means "go over the memory of X" ("anu" is literally "under" but it has connotation of following something, in this case following a memory).
"X-Bhavana" means something like "generate X", "cultivate X", "produce X".
As you said, both involve the act of Calling something into mind (what you call "active thought") and then Mulling Over it (what you called "sustained thought").
The Mulling Over part is the same in both cases but the Calling part differs. In case of Anusati the emphasis is on recalling something we know from before, while in case of Bhavana the emphasis is on creating or manufacturing something new.
In practice, however, there is not that much difference, since in case of e.g. buddhanusati we have not actually experienced Buddha first-hand and have to manufacture his image from conceptual elements we know of. Conversely, in case of asubha bhavana it's not like we create the disgusting images completely from scratch, we assemble them from memories of disgusting things we have experienced before.
Why they are named differently? I guess, that's because in case of X-anusati that "X" refers to the source memory - while in case of "X-bhavana" that "X" refers to the target state.
Indeed, it would not make sense to call it "metta-anusati" or "asubha-anusati" - because we are not actually remembering metta or asubha, we're generating them. Similarly, it would not make sense to call it "buddha-bhavana" or "sila-bhavana" - because we are not cultivating Buddha or our sila, we are remembering them.


text:
Must one move through the various jhanas to realise nibbana?
Some of these jhanas are incredibly powerful but they have an opposite, that being emotional and mental upheaval and the dark nights.
Essentially, I realise that there are valuable insights to learn from both their extremes but I find that delusion can arise as part of the mental upheaval (I thought I was in love with my teacher) now that I'm out of the delusion it seems so silly.
Buddha had mentioned in a few suttas (I can't remember their names) that jhanas are the way to nibana but was this within the context of who he was giving the teaching to?
As an example, the satipathanna sutta was taught to the kuru people because they already possessed a deep wisdom and an advanced ability to learn quickly thus, the teaching he gave was conducive to their ability to attain higher levels of realisation very quickly.

Both Theravada and (Tibetan) Mahayana textual sources state that jhanas are not a hard requirement, but insight is.
That said, live teachers in both traditions clearly say that "insight" refers not as much to dry intellectual understanding as to practical real-life mastery of mind based on the first-hand insight into its key mechanisms.
In my understanding, jhanas ARE the stages of that mastery - especially if you interpret them broadly as stages of mastery of Emotional Intelligence - as opposed to concrete states. In this interpretation, nirvana/nibbana is a state of 100% inner harmony without any conflict between "is" and "should" whatsoever. While jhanas are progressive approximations of that state from coarse to finer, to finest, to transcendental.
The coarse stages entail coarser positive mindstates and coarser techniques of generating them - and the finer stages entail finer positive mindstates and finer techniques of generating them. If you look at it this way, you will see that jhanas are the very nature of the gradual path and are therefore required for anyone but the most talented practitioners who can skip to pure suchness right away.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

Jhanas are not emotional, not a mental upheaval and not dark nights. The Pali suttas describe jhana as "seclusion", "composure", "happy" and "equanimous".
"Dark Night" happens in a transitional phase prior to establishing the path and much prior to jhana.
To realise final Nibbana as an Arahant, yes, the four rupa jhana must be moved though.
To "taste" the freedom of Nibbana, as a stream-enterer, jhana is not required however the "Dark Night" of "ego-death" must be experienced.

The aftereffects of big jhanas (hours and days) can leave one navigating through emotional and mental upheaval along with dark nights.

What is in the comment is not jhana. Thanks

in Jhanna Sutta, you dont need to move thru 4 jhanna.  Budda went down each Jhanna with

"'I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the first jhana.' Thus it has been said. In reference to what was it said? There is the case where a monk, secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. He regards whatever phenomena there that are connected with form, feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness, as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a disintegration, an emptiness, not-self. He turns his mind away from those phenomena, and having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding

And Buddha repeated above all the way with other jhannas ONE by ONE.
Interesting fact, quite differently for those in dimension of neither perception nor non-perception & the attainment of the cessation.  You have to attain that stage and emerge from in back and forth to gain insight. I remember from one sutta Buddha said he could only teach those with perception, and not a twisted one, such as those with severe mental illness.
The idea that all 4 Jhanna has to be achieved to end the mental fermentations is taught by later teachers.  I guarantee you, you will not find sutta saying so.  However, one may twist the sutta to match his idea.

Buddha counts four jhanas but others count 6 or above. The mind has this propensity towards linear progression which can be an issue. In the Rahogata Sutta Buddha describes moving through all four jhanas to realise the fruit. How does this compare to your answer? I may have an incorrect interpretation of the Rahogata Sutta. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.011.than.html


text:
Buddhist cannon database
s there an online database that either contains the Buddhist canon in either English or Chinese?
I've had a difficult time tracking down first hand sources other than the usual suspects (Heart Sutra, Prajnaparamita sutra, etc). I've been looking for anything related to pratityasamutpada in the abhidharma, but I don't even know where to look, or even if English translations exist.
Does anyone know where to look?

There are several large scholarly collections you can access freely:
Organizations:
International Association of Buddhist Studies
Sanskrit:
Digital Sanskrit Buddhist Canon
Chinese:
WWW Database of Chinese Buddhist texts
Digital Database of Buddhist Tripitaka Catalogues
Japanese:
The SAT Daizōkyō Text Database
English:
English Translation of the Buddhist Canon and Publication Project
hope this helps


text:
Harmlessness to non-sentient nature and can consciousness (pure awareness) exist?
Buddhism teaches us to practice harmlessness. Would it be considered harmless to go around destroying non-'sentient' parts of nature? Can consciousness, particularly the pure awareness aspect, reside in such parts of nature (e.g. non-animals), or why not?

From the (non-dual!) Mahayana perspective, "mind" and "matter", "sentience" and "non-sentience" are definitely not two separate things, they are different aspects of the same.
For example, in his work called Bendowa Japanese Zen-master Dogen points out that:

In Buddhist philosophy, the body and mind are essentially one, and the essence
  and form are non-dual. So, don't separate the mind from the body. Why do
  you say that the body perishes while the mind is eternal? This is against the
  right law.

In addition to this, Dogen states in Shinjin-Gakudo:

All the worlds in the ten directions are the true human body itself.

and in Yuibutsu-yobutsu:

The whole world is one's own 'dharma-kaya'.

He also says:

Those [said to be] without the “mind” must also be sentient beings; this is because “all sentient beings” are the “mind.” Therefore, all that possess the “mind” are the sentient beings, and the sentient beings all have the Buddha-nature. Grass，trees, land ... are all “mind.” Since they are the “mind,” they are sentient beings；since they are all sentient beings, they have the Buddha-nature.

And then in Bussho:

When people hear the word “Buddha-nature” many scholars misunderstand it as akin to the atman of the heretics. It is because they do not meet the true person, nor do they see the real nature of their own selves, and furthermore it is because they do not encounter an authentic teacher. They unknowingly identify the function of human mind with the consciousness of the Buddha-nature.

While the Vietnamese Zen-master Thich Nhat Hanh says:

“If you are a poet, you will see clearly that there is a cloud floating in this sheet of paper. Without a cloud, there will be no rain; without rain, the trees cannot grow; and without trees, we cannot make paper. The cloud is essential for the paper to exist. If the cloud is not here, the sheet of paper cannot be here either. So we can say that the cloud and the paper inter-are. “Interbeing” is a word that is not in the dictionary yet, but if we combine the prefix “inter-” with the verb “to be,” we have a new verb, inter-be. The cloud and the sheet of paper "inter-are".
If we look into this sheet of paper even more deeply, we can see the sunshine in it. If the sunshine is not there, the forest cannot grow. In fact, nothing can grow. Even we cannot grow without sunshine. And so, we know that the sunshine is also in this sheet of paper. The paper and the sunshine inter-are. And if we continue to look, we can see the logger who cut the tree and brought it to the mill to be transformed into paper. And we see the wheat. We know the logger cannot exist without his daily bread, and therefore the wheat that became his bread is also in this sheet of paper. And the logger’s father and mother are in it too. When we look in this way, we see that without all of these things, this sheet of paper cannot exist.
Looking even more deeply, we can see we are in it too. This is not difficult to see, because when we look at a sheet of paper, the sheet of paper is part of our perception. Your mind is in here and mine is also. So we can say that everything is in here with this sheet of paper. You cannot point out one thing that is not here-time, space, the earth, the rain, the minerals in the soil, the sunshine, the cloud, the river, the heat. Everything co-exists with this sheet of paper. That is why I think the word inter-be should be in the dictionary. “To be” is to inter-be. You cannot just be by yourself alone. You have to inter-be with every other thing. This sheet of paper is, because everything else is.
Suppose we try to return one of the elements to its source. Suppose we return the sunshine to the sun. Do you think that this sheet of paper will be possible? No, without sunshine nothing can be. And if we return the logger to his mother, then we have no sheet of paper either. The fact is that this sheet of paper is made up only of “non-paper elements.” And if we return these non-paper elements to their sources, then there can be no paper at all. Without “non-paper elements,” like mind, logger, sunshine and so on, there will be no paper. As thin as this sheet of paper is, it contains everything in the universe in it.”

So now, given this information, what do you think, would it be considered harmless to go around destroying non-'sentient' parts of nature?

thank you. Now I feel less silly for cultivating metta as a general attitude towards all things.

Maybe yes, or, "yes in some (or most) forms of Buddhism". Look at this answer for example:

A Bhiksu/Bhikkhu chopped down certain village sacred tree for building his little hut, the tree Deva's kid just playing around that tree accidentally being chopped off his finger. The tree Deva, devastated, went straight to complain to the Buddha... You see, here this Bhiksu is definitely unable to see, if, for example, he didn't get accomplishment in Dhyana/Jhana. Else he wouldn't chop off the Deva kid's finger, nor it's for the kid to make himself visible in normal circumstance; the Deva didn't file complaint to him directly since he wasn't able to see him.

I'm not sure whether that meets your definition: I think that there the deva is sentient (and has an immaterial body), the tree not considered "sentient" (iirc perhaps it's called three-factored), and the tree is somehow the deva's home.
I think this type of belief is known to the West as Animism ... and some people posit that Buddhist doctrine was admixed into indigenous (non-Buddhist) beliefs, such that forms (e.g. national forms, like Thai) include elements of both.
I think devas and so on are a feature of all traditional forms of Buddhism -- I'm only unsure of whether they're associated with "nature".
As for "Would it be considered harmless to go around destroying non-'sentient' parts of nature?", you might like to read this (or other writings related to such a topic):
“Thou shall not cut these trees” --
They are ordained now --
The story of Tree ordination in Sri Lanka
That's written by someone associated with "the Friends of the Earth" (which I think is an international organization of environmental activists, who are not necessarily Buddhist, so maybe biased somewhat and not a reliable editor of Buddhist doctrine).
As for what's "harmless" it would be an idea to check the Vinaya. I think that breaking (or killing) a living plant is not "allowable" to a monk, is a fault requiring confession -- "taking what's not given" might be an issue too.

I found that what I quoted above is a paraphrase of the story associated with Dhp 222 -- which may also be the origin story for the Vinaya rule against Bhikkhus cutting plants:

Once, a bhikkhu from Alavi wanted to build a monastery for himself and so he began to cut down a tree. The deva dwelling in that tree (rukkha devata) tried to stop him, saying that she and her infant son had nowhere to go. Failing to stop the bhikkhu she put her son on a branch, hoping that it would stop him from felling the tree. By then, the bhikkhu was already swinging his axe and he could not stop it in time and unintentionally cut off an arm of the child. Seeing her child being harmed in this way, the mother flew in a rage and was about to kill the bhikkhu. As she raised her hands to strike the bhikkhu, she suddenly checked herself and thought, "If I were to kill a bhikkhu, I would be killing one who observes the moral precepts (sila); in that case, I would surely suffer in niraya. Other guardian devas of the trees would be following my example and other bhikkhus would also be killed. But this bhikkhu has a master; I must go and see his master." So she went weeping to the Buddha and related all that had happened.
To her the Buddha said,

"O rukkha devata! You have done well to control yourself."

Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:

Verse 222: He who restrains his rising anger as a skilful charioteer checks a speeding chariot, — him I call a true charioteer; other charioteers only hold the reins.

At the end of the discourse the deva attained Sotapatti Fruition, and for her dwelling place she was offered a tree near the Perfumed Chamber of the Buddha. After this incident, the Buddha forbade bhikkhus to cut vegetation, such as grass, plants, shrubs and trees.