Understanding the Ten Fetters

[Michel]

The Ten Fetters, as taught by Siddhatta Gotama, are:

1. belief in a self (the 5 aggregates)
2. skeptical doubt (uncertainty about the teachings)
3. attachment to rites & rituals
4. sensual lust
5. ill-will or aversion
6. lust for material birth
7. lust for immaterial birth
8. conceit, or underlying perception of self-identity
9. restlessness, remorse & anxiety
10. ignorance (of the 4 Noble Truths)

Notice that sceptical doubt, sensual lust, ill-will or aversion, and restless, remorse & anxiety are also 4 factors included in the 5 hindrances. The hindrance of sloth and unconsciousness is not included in the fetters. Why is that?

Note: Jhananda wrote a very brilliant essay on the unwholesome states, which includes the ten fetters. See here: http://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/unwholesome.htm

Let's start with skeptical doubt. Skeptical doubt, if I understand correctly, is uncertainty about the teachings of the Buddha, especially the N8P, as to whether they lead to enlightenment. If one is an arahant, then they know for certain that the N8P works and leads to liberation. So, how can one overcome doubt if they are below the level of an arahant. For example, a stream- winner, a once-returner, a non-returner, have all somehow overcome the fetter of doubt. How can they be absolutely certain that the teachings lead to liberation? They do not have any proof to go on, other than the word of an arahant, who they might doubt, for the arahant could be deluded, for all they know, even if he/she appears to be free of the ten fetters. Other than having unshakable blind faith, how can they know with absolute certainty. It's not enough to say, "By their fruits you shall know them." So the fetter of skeptical doubt, from my perspective, appears difficult to overcome.

[Jhanananda]

The Ten Fetters, as taught by Siddhatta Gotama, are:

1. belief in a self (the 5 aggregates)
2. skeptical doubt (uncertainty about the teachings)
3. attachment to rites & rituals
4. sensual lust
5. ill-will or aversion
6. lust for material birth
7. lust for immaterial birth
8. conceit, or underlying perception of self-identity
9. restlessness, remorse & anxiety
10. ignorance (of the 4 Noble Truths)

Notice that sceptical doubt, sensual lust, ill-will or aversion, and restless, remorse & anxiety are also 4 factors included in the 5 hindrances. The hindrance of sloth and unconsciousness is not included in the fetters. Why is that?

Right off the bat, I am not sure why sloth and unconsciousness are hindrances, but not fetters. 

Note: Jhananda wrote a very brilliant essay on the unwholesome states, which includes the ten fetters. See here: http://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/unwholesome.htm

Let's start with skeptical doubt. Skeptical doubt, if I understand correctly, is uncertainty about the teachings of the Buddha, especially the N8P, as to whether they lead to enlightenment. If one is an arahant, then they know for certain that the N8P works and leads to liberation. So, how can one overcome doubt if they are below the level of an arahant. For example, a stream- winner, a once-returner, a non-returner, have all somehow overcome the fetter of doubt. How can they be absolutely certain that the teachings lead to liberation? They do not have any proof to go on, other than the word of an arahant, who they might doubt, for the arahant could be deluded, for all they know, even if he/she appears to be free of the ten fetters. Other than having unshakable blind faith, how can they know with absolute certainty. It's not enough to say, "By their fruits you shall know them." So the fetter of skeptical doubt, from my perspective, appears difficult to overcome.

I find that once one has found the stream, which is the charisms, then one has proof that there is a non-physical (spiritual) dimension that anyone can connect with, so doubt is removed.  Now, as we progress we learn more about what the non-physical (spiritual) dimension is through direct experience, which resolves doubt at ever deeper levels.  Once one masters the 4th jhana, then one has fully embraced the non-physical (spiritual) dimension; even if one has not mastered traversing the non-physical (spiritual) dimension via the OOBE.

[Alexander]

Something to keep in mind, Michel, is that Jhananda is an arahant, and, more than that, a guru for those who are very advanced spiritually. So, if Jhananda brings up charisms, OOBEs, and so on, and these concepts are foreign to you, do not get disillusioned, or think that you are not making any progress spiritually. Because, the larger part of the spiritual life precedes these extraordinary experiences: before them is the long and invisible process of "making spirit out of stone."

Let's start with skeptical doubt. Skeptical doubt, if I understand correctly, is uncertainty about the teachings of the Buddha, especially the N8P, as to whether they lead to enlightenment. If one is an arahant, then they know for certain that the N8P works and leads to liberation. So, how can one overcome doubt if they are below the level of an arahant. For example, a stream- winner, a once-returner, a non-returner, have all somehow overcome the fetter of doubt. How can they be absolutely certain that the teachings lead to liberation? They do not have any proof to go on, other than the word of an arahant, who they might doubt, for the arahant could be deluded, for all they know, even if he/she appears to be free of the ten fetters. Other than having unshakable blind faith, how can they know with absolute certainty. It's not enough to say, "By their fruits you shall know them." So the fetter of skeptical doubt, from my perspective, appears difficult to overcome.

The way I understand it is this. In ordinary life, according to ordinary (non-Noble) knowledge, we pursue a number of ends. We pursue wealth, pleasure, station, etc. We are also subject to a number of pressures (peer pressure, social pressure) which influence us and tell us who we are, how we are supposed to think, and so on. However, there is a great irony to all the seeking and pursuing of life: this is that all our acts, everything we do, ends in one thing: death.

This, to me, is the meaning behind the First Noble Truth, and the principle that Life is Suffering. Everything ends in death, and everything is a disguise for death. Realizing this, obviously, should provoke an immense horror in us. But it shows how possessed we are by all the insanity, that we do not feel any alarm at the reality which is right there, which is the mortality of all of us.

So, this is where the spiritual life begins. If we accept that everything in this reality ends in death, if we are sound people we have to take very seriously two options. First, if there is just this world and nothing else, the only rational thing is suicide. However, if there is even a possibility to make ourselves into something more, something that is not subject to death, then, we must very intensely dedicate ourselves to that possibility.

So, now we get to religion, to the premise of Christianity, which contains in it the death and resurrection of Christ, or to the premise of Buddhism, which is the goal of the arahant, the one who is (the word means) "deathless."

Could there be anything to either of these religions? Obviously, the followers of both don't understand what is packed into the teachings of Jesus or the Buddha. But, perhaps if we delve into either, and explore what the founder said deeply, we can find a hidden thing: that we can transcend this narrative of life we're given as it is.

So, skeptical doubt means you believe there is just this life we have in front of us. You believe that there is not and cannot be anything more. Skeptical doubt means you believe, ultimately, only in Suffering and Death, and that there is nothing other than Suffering and Death.

So, what does overcoming skeptical doubt mean? It means the belief that there is something more: that we can end with some other eventuality than Suffering and Death.

[Michel]

Right off the bat, I am not sure why sloth and unconsciousness are hindrances, but not fetters.

The Buddha mentions it in the 24 unwholesome states, as you pointed out in your essay, and it's one of the seven deadly sins, and Patanjali mentions something close to it. This exclusion of sloth and unconsciousness from the ten fetters may lead one to believe that the Buddha's ten fetters are simply not comprehensive.

I find that once one has found the stream, which is the charisms, then one has proof that there is a non-physical (spiritual) dimension that anyone can connect with, so doubt is removed.  Now, as we progress we learn more about what the non-physical (spiritual) dimension is through direct experience, which resolves doubt at ever deeper levels.  Once one masters the 4th jhana, then one has fully embraced the non-physical (spiritual) dimension; even if one has not mastered traversing the non-physical (spiritual) dimension via the OOBE.

I am experiencing relatively mild charisms of bliss and heat throughout my body, as well as pulsating, intense energies within in my head. Even though these charisms are beyond explanation, and at times seemingly sublime, I just can't seem to make the connection between these experiences and the possibility that they are spiritual in nature, that they are divine. Rather at times, I think that these experiences are extraordinary physical bodily phenomenon which could one day be explained by neurophysical science. 

Something to keep in mind, Michel, is that Jhananda is an arahant, and, more than that, a guru for those who are very advanced spiritually. So, if Jhananda brings up charisms, OOBEs, and so on, and these concepts are foreign to you, do not get disillusioned, or think that you are not making any progress spiritually. Because, the larger part of the spiritual life precedes these extraordinary experiences: before them is the long and invisible process of "making spirit out of stone."

Well, all I can say is I have my doubts. And I think that's healthy. So I question everything. I'm already manifesting charisms at this stage of my practice, as I've explained above. The Buddha's challenge is to find out for ourselves if following something like the Noble Eightfold Path leads to liberation. So I'm in the process of finding out. 

So, this is where the spiritual life begins. If we accept that everything in this reality ends in death, if we are sound people we have to take very seriously two options. First, if there is just this world and nothing else, the only rational thing is suicide. However, if there is even a possibility to make ourselves into something more, something that is not subject to death, then, we must very intensely dedicate ourselves to that possibility.

Well said. I'm definitely open to this possibility. That's why I'm investigating spirituality.

So, skeptical doubt means you believe there is just this life we have in front of us. You believe that there is not and cannot be anything more. Skeptical doubt means you believe, ultimately, only in Suffering and Death, and that there is nothing other than Suffering and Death. So, what does overcoming skeptical doubt mean? It means the belief that there is something more: that we can end with some other eventuality than Suffering and Death.

I would say you're simply uncertain about the teachings; you are critically questioning them. You are open to finding out if they are valid or not by finding out for yourself, and not just taking someone else's opinion or claim. I can't see how having skeptical doubt leads to the belief that there is nothing other than inevitable suffering and death. The word doubt is defined in terms of uncertainty. I don't follow.

[Jhanananda]

...The way I understand it is this. In ordinary life, according to ordinary (non-Noble) knowledge, we pursue a number of ends. We pursue wealth, pleasure, station, etc. We are also subject to a number of pressures (peer pressure, social pressure) which influence us and tell us who we are, how we are supposed to think, and so on. However, there is a great irony to all the seeking and pursuing of life: this is that all our acts, everything we do, ends in one thing: death.

This, to me, is the meaning behind the First Noble Truth, and the principle that Life is Suffering. Everything ends in death, and everything is a disguise for death. Realizing this, obviously, should provoke an immense horror in us. But it shows how possessed we are by all the insanity, that we do not feel any alarm at the reality which is right there, which is the mortality of all of us.

So, this is where the spiritual life begins. If we accept that everything in this reality ends in death, if we are sound people we have to take very seriously two options. First, if there is just this world and nothing else, the only rational thing is suicide. However, if there is even a possibility to make ourselves into something more, something that is not subject to death, then, we must very intensely dedicate ourselves to that possibility...

So, skeptical doubt means you believe there is just this life we have in front of us. You believe that there is not and cannot be anything more. Skeptical doubt means you believe, ultimately, only in Suffering and Death, and that there is nothing other than Suffering and Death.

So, what does overcoming skeptical doubt mean? It means the belief that there is something more: that we can end with some other eventuality than Suffering and Death.

Well stated, aglorincz

The Buddha mentions it in the 24 unwholesome states, as you pointed out in your essay, and it's one of the seven deadly sins, and Patanjali mentions something close to it. This exclusion of sloth and unconsciousness from the ten fetters may lead one to believe that the Buddha's ten fetters are simply not comprehensive.

Well, Siddhartha Gautama was so right about so many things, even the intestinal worms being good for us, and vegetarianism was not a necessity, that I am more willing to accept a few more premises, like the Pali Canon is not a perfect record of his teachings, or even after 40 years of a contemplative life and study of the dhamma, which has born fruit, I still do not know everything about the dhamma.

I am experiencing relatively mild charisms of bliss and heat throughout my body, as well as pulsating, intense energies within in my head. Even though these charisms are beyond explanation, and at times seemingly sublime, I just can't seem to make the connection between these experiences and the possibility that they are spiritual in nature, that they are divine. Rather at times, I think that these experiences are extraordinary physical bodily phenomenon which could one day be explained by neurophysical science. 

Ok, but you are experiencing these phenomena as a product of your contemplative life, and get that they are sublime, and thus desirable, and you are intent upon enlightenment in this very lifetime, so that makes you a stream winner.

Well, all I can say is I have my doubts. And I think that's healthy. So I question everything. I'm already manifesting charisms at this stage of my practice, as I've explained above. The Buddha's challenge is to find out for ourselves if following something like the Noble Eightfold Path leads to liberation. So I'm in the process of finding out. 

Sounds healthy to me.  I do not see how doubt can go fully away until one has mastered the 8 liberations anyway.

[Michel]

Well, all I can say is I have my doubts. And I think that's healthy. So I question everything. I'm already manifesting charisms at this stage of my practice, as I've explained above. The Buddha's challenge is to find out for ourselves if following something like the Noble Eightfold Path leads to liberation. So I'm in the process of finding out. 

Sounds healthy to me.  I do not see how doubt can go fully away until one has mastered the 8 liberations anyway.

The suttas mention that the "destruction" of the first three fetters is a requirement for stream-winnership. Now "destruction" I take to mean complete annihilation. This just doesn't make any sense to me. How can one not have any doubt at this stage? At best, you could be confident in the teachings, but not absolutely certain. You would think that there could be a translation error here.

[Michel]

The tenth fetter is ignorance. I see that in some of the commentaries and in even some of the sutta translations the term "ignorance" is used interchangeably with "delusion." Do you think that the below reference properly defines the difference between ignorance and delusion?

Theravadin view:

Bhikkhu Bodhi provides the following definition based on the Theravada Abhidharma teachings:

Ignorance (avijja) is the cetasika [mental factor] delusion (moha), which obscures perception of the true nature of things just as a cataract obscures perception of visible objects. According to the Suttanta method of explanation, ignorance is non-knowledge of the Four Noble Truths. According to the Abhidharma method, ignorance is non-knowledge of eight things: the Four Noble Truths, the pre-natal past, the post-mortem future, the past and the future together, and dependent arising.[2]
Bhikkhu Bodhi explains the relationship between the terms avijja and moha as follows:
Ignorance (avijja) is actually identical in nature with the unwholesome root "delusion" (moha). When the Buddha speaks in a psychological context about mental factors, he generally uses the word "delusion" (moha); when he speaks about the causal basis of samsara, he uses the word "ignorance" (avijja).[9]

Nina van Gorkom states:

Moha is ignorant of the true nature of realities, it does not know nāma and rūpa as they are. Moha is lack of knowledge about the four noble Truths: about dukkha, the origination of dukkha, the ceasing of dukkha and the way leading to the ceasing of dukkha. So long as ignorance has not been eradicated we have to continue to be in the cycle of birth and death, we have to be born again and again. The Pāli term avijjā is used for ignorance in connection with the “Dependent Origination”, the conditional arising of phenomena in the cycle of birth and death. Avijjā is the first link in the chain of conditions for the continuation of this cycle. At the attainment of arahatship ignorance is eradicated and then there are no more conditions for rebirth.[10]

[Jhanananda]

The suttas mention that the "destruction" of the first three fetters is a requirement for stream-winnership. Now "destruction" I take to mean complete annihilation. This just doesn't make any sense to me. How can one not have any doubt at this stage? At best, you could be confident in the teachings, but not absolutely certain. You would think that there could be a translation error here.

It often helps to look at the Pali and/or Sanskrit of the original Pali Canon to gain greater understanding, so I have re-posted the list of fetters, and the Pali and/or Sanskrit for each term.

10 Fetters (samyojana) tying beings to the wheel of existence:
5 Lower Fetters (orambhagiya-samyojana)
1   Narcissism, provincialism, clan identification   (sakkaya-ditthi)
2   Skepticism & doubt (vicikiccha)
3   Clinging to rules, rights and rituals (silabbata-paramasa; s. upadana)
4   erotic craving (kama-raga)
5   Ill-will or aversion (vyapada)

5 Higher Fetters (uddhambhagiya-samyojana)
1   Craving for material existence or Lust for form (rupa-raga)
2   Craving for immaterial or formless existence (arupa-raga)
3   Conceit (mana)
4   Restlessness (uddhacca)
5   Ignorance (avija)

Since your question involves the 4 ranks of Noble (Aryan) attainment, then it is also worth reviewing them with respect to the fetters.

1] Sotapanna (stream winner)   has eradicated the 1st 3 fetters: Narcissism & clan identification (sakkaya-ditthi), Skeptical doubt (vicikiccha), and Clinging to rules, rights and rituals (silabbata-paramasa); will be enlightened in seven lives or less (cognitive, understanding)
2] Sakadágámi (once returner) has eradicated the 1st 3 & weakened the 4th and 5th fetters: erotic craving (kama-raga) & Ill-will or aversion (vyapada)
3] Anágámi (Non-return) has eradicated the first five fetters
4] Arahatta (enlightened, mystic, one who has attained the deathless) has eradicated all 10 fetters, the 5 lower fetters plus: Craving for material existence (rupa-raga), Craving for immaterial existence (arupa-raga), Conceit (mana), Restlessness (uddhacca), & Ignorance (avija)
(MN 118)

So, the conflict is confusing the 10th fetter, which is ignorance (avija) with the second fetter, which is skepticism & doubt (vicikiccha).  Skepticism & doubt (vicikiccha) is really about doubting the spiritual/contemplative life has any value whatsoever.  Whereas, Ignorance   (avija) is simply not understanding the entire package of enlightenment. 

When one enters the stream, as you have done, Michel, one knows that there is more to life than the material existence, and even knows how to make contact with the spiritual dimension.  One cannot; however, completely dispel all ignorance (avija) of the spiritual dimension and how the contemplative life transforms one into a whole spiritual being until one is fully enlightened.

The tenth fetter is ignorance. I see that in some of the commentaries and in even some of the sutta translations the term "ignorance" is used interchangeably with "delusion." Do you think that the below reference properly defines the difference between ignorance and delusion?

Considering that Bhikkhu Bodhi's translations are deeply delusional, I would not take his word on any dhamma topic without thoroughly investigating it for myself.  After all he is not even a stream winner.  He is like most priests of most religions, just someone who put on the robes of office and pretends to be holy and wise, when in fact he has no idea what the dhamma is about.

[Michel]

I was looking at what I could find on ignorance (avijjá) and delusion (moha) in the GWV dictionary. And this is what I found below.

Do you think the definition of avijja (ignorance) below is correctly defined? I very much like this definition. I said "Wow!" That's it!" to myself when I read the section in bold below. I feel exactly this way. Albeit there are references  to the Visudhimagga and the Abhidhamma. I suspect sometimes these two sources may get it right sometimes, even though they are deeply flawed. As long as they support what they say with what is found in the suttas, then I don't have a problem with that. What do you think?

What is Ignorance: bálatta. n? I couldn't find anything.

delusion: s. moha, avijjá.

ignorance: avijjá (q.v.); further s. paticcasamuppáda (1).

Ignorance: bálatta. n

moha: 'delusion', is one of the 3 unwholesome roots (múla, q.v.). The best-known synonym is avijjá (q.v.).

avijjá: 'ignorance,' nescience, unknowing; synonymous with delusion (moha, s. múla), is the primary root of all evil and suffering in the world, veiling man's mental eyes and preventing him from seeing the true nature of things. It is the delusion tricking beings by making life appear to them as permanent, happy, substantial and beautiful and preventing them from seeing that everything in reality is impermanent, liable to suffering, void of 'I' and 'mine', and basically impure (s. vipallása). Ignorance is defined as 'not knowing the four truths, namely, suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the way to its cessation' (S. XII, 4).
As ignorance is the foundation of all life-affirming actions, of all evil and suffering, therefore it stands first in the formula of Dependent Origination (paticca-samuppáda, q.v.). But for that reason, says Vis.M. (XVII, 36f) ignorance should not be regarded as "the causeless root-cause of the world ... It is not causeless. For a cause of it is stated thus 'With the arising of cankers (ásava, q.v.) there is the arising of ignorance' (M. 9). But there is a figurative way in which it can be treated as a root-cause; namely, when it is made to serve as a starting point in an exposition of the Round of Existence ... As it is said: 'No first beginning of ignorance can be perceived, Bhikkhus, before which ignorance was not, and after which it came to be. But it can be perceived that ignorance has its specific condition (idappaccaya)" (A. X, 61). The same statement is made (A. X, 62) about the craving for existence (bhava-tanhá; s. tanhá). The latter and ignorance are called "the outstanding causes of kamma that lead to unhappy and happy destinies" (Vis.M. XVII, 38).
As ignorance still exists - though in a very refined way until the attainment of Arahatship or Holiness, it is counted as the last of the 10 fetters (samyojana, q.v.) which bind beings to the cycle of rebirths. As the first two roots of evil, greed and hate (s. múla), are on their part rooted in ignorance, consequently all unwholesome states of mind are inseparably bound up with it. Ignorance (or delusion) is the most obstinate of the three roots of evil.
Ignorance is one of the cankers (ásava, q.v.) and proclivities (anusaya, q.v.). It is often called a hindrance (nívarana; e.g. in S.XV, 3; A.X, 61) but does not appear together with the usual list of five hindrances.

[/size]

The ultimate song of delusion has got to be Louis Armstrong's lyrics to "What A Wonderful World" What was this guy on? Was he totally manic when he wrote this song?

What A Wonderful World

I see trees of green,
 red roses too.
 I see them bloom,
 for me and you.
 And I think to myself,
 what a wonderful world.

 I see skies of blue,
 And clouds of white.
 The bright blessed day,
 The dark sacred night.
 And I think to myself,
 What a wonderful world.

 The colors of the rainbow,
 So pretty in the sky.
 Are also on the faces,
 Of people going by,
 I see friends shaking hands.
 Saying, "How do you do?"
 They're really saying,
 "I love you".

 I hear babies cry,
 I watch them grow,
 They'll learn much more,
 Than I'll ever know.
 And I think to myself,
 What a wonderful world.

 Yes, I think to myself

Here's his performance of the song. He seems so very sincere: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2VCwBzGdPM

When I first heard this song, I thought Armstrong must of meant it in a sarcastic way, as some sort of joke. We've all meet people in our lives who believe in this type of delusion. They make us nauseous. Another tune that comes to mind is "Everything is Beautiful."

PS - Who authored the GWV's "a Contemplative's Pali to English Dictionary?" I suspect  that you've vetted some if not all the entries? Did you write some in yourself?

[Jhanananda]

I was looking at what I could find on ignorance (avijjá) and delusion (moha) in the GWV dictionary. And this is what I found below.

Do you think the definition of avijja (ignorance) below is correctly defined? I very much like this definition. I said "Wow!" That's it!" to myself when I read the section in bold below. I feel exactly this way. Albeit there are references  to the Visudhimagga and the Abhidhamma. I suspect sometimes these two sources may get it right sometimes, even though they are deeply flawed. As long as they support what they say with what is found in the suttas, then I don't have a problem with that. What do you think?

What is Ignorance: bálatta. n? I couldn't find anything.

delusion: s. moha, avijjá.

ignorance: avijjá (q.v.); further s. paticcasamuppáda (1).

Ignorance: bálatta. n

moha: 'delusion', is one of the 3 unwholesome roots (múla, q.v.). The best-known synonym is avijjá (q.v.).

avijjá: 'ignorance,' nescience, unknowing; synonymous with delusion (moha, s. múla), is the primary root of all evil and suffering in the world, veiling man's mental eyes and preventing him from seeing the true nature of things. It is the delusion tricking beings by making life appear to them as permanent, happy, substantial and beautiful and preventing them from seeing that everything in reality is impermanent, liable to suffering, void of 'I' and 'mine', and basically impure (s. vipallása). Ignorance is defined as 'not knowing the four truths, namely, suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the way to its cessation' (S. XII, 4).
As ignorance is the foundation of all life-affirming actions, of all evil and suffering, therefore it stands first in the formula of Dependent Origination (paticca-samuppáda, q.v.). But for that reason, says Vis.M. (XVII, 36f) ignorance should not be regarded as "the causeless root-cause of the world ... It is not causeless. For a cause of it is stated thus 'With the arising of cankers (ásava, q.v.) there is the arising of ignorance' (M. 9). But there is a figurative way in which it can be treated as a root-cause; namely, when it is made to serve as a starting point in an exposition of the Round of Existence ... As it is said: 'No first beginning of ignorance can be perceived, Bhikkhus, before which ignorance was not, and after which it came to be. But it can be perceived that ignorance has its specific condition (idappaccaya)" (A. X, 61). The same statement is made (A. X, 62) about the craving for existence (bhava-tanhá; s. tanhá). The latter and ignorance are called "the outstanding causes of kamma that lead to unhappy and happy destinies" (Vis.M. XVII, 38).
As ignorance still exists - though in a very refined way until the attainment of Arahatship or Holiness, it is counted as the last of the 10 fetters (samyojana, q.v.) which bind beings to the cycle of rebirths. As the first two roots of evil, greed and hate (s. múla), are on their part rooted in ignorance, consequently all unwholesome states of mind are inseparably bound up with it. Ignorance (or delusion) is the most obstinate of the three roots of evil.
Ignorance is one of the cankers (ásava, q.v.) and proclivities (anusaya, q.v.). It is often called a hindrance (nívarana; e.g. in S.XV, 3; A.X, 61) but does not appear together with the usual list of five hindrances.

My preference is sutta quotes in support of Buddhist definitions, but thanks for quoting the GWV's.  My definition of delusion is not realizing that the entire fabric of human civilization has been and will always be completely and utterly corrupt, as long as the enlightened are not the leaders of mankind, because everyone else is stupid, ignorant, delusional, lazy, and addicted.

The ultimate song of delusion has got to be Louis Armstrong's lyrics to "What A Wonderful World" What was this guy on? Was he totally manic when he wrote this song?

What A Wonderful World

I see trees of green,
 red roses too.
 I see them bloom,
 for me and you.
 And I think to myself,
 what a wonderful world.

 I see skies of blue,
 And clouds of white.
 The bright blessed day,
 The dark sacred night.
 And I think to myself,
 What a wonderful world.

 The colors of the rainbow,
 So pretty in the sky.
 Are also on the faces,
 Of people going by,
 I see friends shaking hands.
 Saying, "How do you do?"
 They're really saying,
 "I love you".

 I hear babies cry,
 I watch them grow,
 They'll learn much more,
 Than I'll ever know.
 And I think to myself,
 What a wonderful world.

 Yes, I think to myself

Here's his performance of the song. He seems so very sincere: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2VCwBzGdPM

When I first heard this song, I thought Armstrong must of meant it in a sarcastic way, as some sort of joke. We've all meet people in our lives who believe in this type of delusion. They make us nauseous. Another tune that comes to mind is "Everything is Beautiful."

Yes, both songs are naive, as naive as new-age thinking.

PS - Who authored the GWV's "a Contemplative's Pali to English Dictionary?" I suspect  that you've vetted some if not all the entries? Did you write some in yourself?

The GWV's "a Contemplative's Pali to English Dictionary" comes from multiple sources, mostly the 4 published Pali to English Dictionaries.  I did edit it heavily.  It could stand some improvement.  I believe all of the sutta quotes and references are mine.

[Michel]

It often helps to look at the Pali and/or Sanskrit of the original Pali Canon to gain greater understanding, so I have re-posted the list of fetters, and the Pali and/or Sanskrit for each term.

10 Fetters (samyojana) tying beings to the wheel of existence:
5 Lower Fetters (orambhagiya-samyojana)
1   Narcissism, provincialism, clan identification   (sakkaya-ditthi)
2   Skepticism & doubt (vicikiccha)
3   Clinging to rules, rights and rituals (silabbata-paramasa; s. upadana)
4   erotic craving (kama-raga)
5   Ill-will or aversion (vyapada)

5 Higher Fetters (uddhambhagiya-samyojana)
1   Craving for material existence or Lust for form (rupa-raga)
2   Craving for immaterial or formless existence (arupa-raga)
3   Conceit (mana)
4   Restlessness (uddhacca)
5   Ignorance (avija)

Since your question involves the 4 ranks of Noble (Aryan) attainment, then it is also worth reviewing them with respect to the fetters.

1] Sotapanna (stream winner)   has eradicated the 1st 3 fetters: Narcissism & clan identification (sakkaya-ditthi), Skeptical doubt (vicikiccha), and Clinging to rules, rights and rituals (silabbata-paramasa); will be enlightened in seven lives or less (cognitive, understanding)
2] Sakadágámi (once returner) has eradicated the 1st 3 & weakened the 4th and 5th fetters: erotic craving (kama-raga) & Ill-will or aversion (vyapada)
3] Anágámi (Non-return) has eradicated the first five fetters
4] Arahatta (enlightened, mystic, one who has attained the deathless) has eradicated all 10 fetters, the above plus: Craving for material existence (rupa-raga), Craving for immaterial existence (arupa-raga), Conceit (mana), Restlessness (uddhacca), & Ignorance (avija)
(MN 118)

So, the conflict is confusing the 10th fetter, which is ignorance (avija) with the second fetter, which is skepticism & doubt (vicikiccha).  Skepticism & doubt (vicikiccha) is really about doubting the spiritual/contemplative life has any value whatsoever.  Whereas, Ignorance   (avija) is simply not understanding the entire package of enlightenment. 

When one enters the stream, as you have done, Michel, one knows that there is more to life than the material existence, and even knows how to make contact with the spiritual dimension.  One cannot; however, completely dispel all ignorance (avija) of the spiritual dimension and how the contemplative life transforms one into a whole spiritual being until one is fully enlightened.

It is interesting to see that you define the first fetter as "Narcissism, provincialism, clan identification." All of the teachings I've come across seem to indicate that the 1st fetter is the belief that the 5 aggregates constitute the self; which is an incorrect view, since the aggregates are in a state of ceaseless change from moment to moment, and therefore there is nothing stable that you can define as having a truly permanent identity. How did you arrive at this definition?

You say that the "Sotapanna (stream winner) has eradicated the 1st 3 fetters: Narcissism & clan identification (sakkaya-ditthi), Skeptical doubt (vicikiccha), and Clinging to rules, rights and rituals (silabbata-paramasa)." Eradicated means totally obliterated. This is what the suttas say, and this is what you are saying here as well. How can we say that in my case I'm a stream-winner when I haven't eradicated doubt totally?

[Jhanananda]

It is interesting to see that you define the first fetter as "Narcissism, provincialism, clan identification." All of the teachings I've come across seem to indicate that the 1st fetter is the belief that the 5 aggregates constitute the self; which is an incorrect view, since the aggregates are in a state of ceaseless change from moment to moment, and therefore there is nothing stable that you can define as having a truly permanent identity. How did you arrive at this definition?

The Pali term 'sakkaya-ditthi' literally refers to sakkaya, which is a clan, Siddhartha Gautama's clan, as he says "I am a Sakkayan.  This is how I got to the first fetter referring to clan identification, which is a part of our identity.

You say that the "Sotapanna (stream winner) has eradicated the 1st 3 fetters: Narcissism & clan identification (sakkaya-ditthi), Skeptical doubt (vicikiccha), and Clinging to rules, rights and rituals (silabbata-paramasa)." Eradicated means totally obliterated. This is what the suttas say, and this is what you are saying here as well. How can we say that in my case I'm a stream-winner when I haven't eradicated doubt totally?

Good point.  I guess you are not a Sotapanna (stream winner) due to too much Skepticism & doubt (vicikiccha).

[Michel]

It is interesting to see that you define the first fetter as "Narcissism, provincialism, clan identification." All of the teachings I've come across seem to indicate that the 1st fetter is the belief that the 5 aggregates constitute the self; which is an incorrect view, since the aggregates are in a state of ceaseless change from moment to moment, and therefore there is nothing stable that you can define as having a truly permanent identity. How did you arrive at this definition?

The Pali term 'sakkaya-ditthi' literally refers to sakkaya, which is a clan, Siddhartha Gautama's clan, as he says "I am a Sakkayan.  This is how I got to the first fetter referring to clan identification, which is a part of our identity.

The GWV dictionary defines "sakkáya-ditthi" as personality-beliefs in terms of the 5 aggregates. This is a completely different interpretation. "In the suttas (e.g. MN 44) it is said to be a name for the 5 groups of existence (khandha)." See below.

sakkáya-ditthi: 'personality-belief', is the first of the 10 fetters (samyojana). It is entirely abandoned only on reaching the path of Stream-winning (sotápatti-magga; s. ariya-puggala). There are 20 kinds of personality-belief, which are obtained by applying 4 types of that belief to each of the 5 groups of existence (khandha, q.v.): (1-5) the belief to be identical with the body, senses, perception, mental structures or cognition; (6-10) to be contained in them; (11-15) to be independent of them; (16-20) to be the owner of them (M. 44; S. XXII. 1). See prec., ditthi, upádána 4.

sakkáya: 'existing group'. 'this word is usually translated by 'personality', but according to the commentaries it corresponds to sat-káya, 'existing group', hence not to Sanskrit sva-káya, 'own group' or 'own body'. In the suttas (e.g. M. 44) it is said to be a name for the 5 groups of existence (khandha): "Sakkáya, o Brother Visákha, is said by the Blessed One to be a name for the 5 'groups as objects of clinging' (upádána-kkhandha), to wit: soma, sensing, perception, mental structures, and cognition." - See foll.

ditthi (lit. 'sight'; Ö dis, to see): view, belief, speculative opinion, insight. If not qualified by sammá, 'right', it mostly refers to wrong and evil view or opinion, and only in a few instances to right view, understanding or insight (e.g. ditthi-ppatta, q.v.; ditthi-visuddhi, purification of insight; ditthi-sampanna, possessed of insight).

Good point.  I guess you are not a Sotapanna (stream winner) due to too much Skepticism & doubt (vicikiccha).

Well, I'm almost there; I'm on the very brink. For the last week, I've been experiencing some rather strong bliss in my meditations. At times I wonder if there is a physiological explanation for this, and I think this is where the doubt comes in. I've experienced some very wonderful states of euphoria in my manic states, but never have I  had such sensations as this bliss in my life. It's truly sublime. I believe that the N8P probably leads to the destruction of craving and clinging to the 5 aggregates, as well as the eradication of the 10 fetters, and therefore freedom from suffering, and possibly to total liberation. So I'm  resolute in my practice.

[Jhanananda]

Well, I'm almost there; I'm on the very brink. For the last week, I've been experiencing some rather strong bliss in my meditations. At times I wonder if there is a physiological explanation for this, and I think this is where the doubt comes in. I've experienced some very wonderful states of euphoria in my manic states, but never have I  had such sensations as this bliss in my life. It's truly sublime. I believe that the N8P probably leads to the destruction of craving and clinging to the 5 aggregates, and therefore freedom from suffering, and possibly to total liberation. So I'm  resolute in my practice.

I cannot imagine skepticism & doubt (vicikiccha) being truly removed until after one has direct religious experience through leading a rigorous, self-aware, contemplative life.  So, with more practice, you will have more experience, which will remove more of the fetters/addictions & delusions, which will give you greater acceptance of the N8P as defined by the GWV.

[Michel]

Alright, I get what you mean when you say that "the Pali term 'sakkaya-ditthi' literally refers to sakkaya, which is a clan, Siddhartha Gautama's clan, as he says "I am a Sakkayan." It is logical to arrive at this interpretation. But the suttas seem to imply that identity view is linked to the 5 aggregates as we see in Culavedalla sutta, MN44.7 below. Perhaps you would interpret this sutta differently than Bodhi's translation?

(IDENTITY VIEW) 7. “Lady, how does identity view come to be?” “Here, friend Visākha, an untaught ordinary person, who has no regard for noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who has no regard for true men and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, regards material form as self, or self as possessed of material form, or material form as in self, or self as in material form. He regards feeling as self, or self as possessed of feeling, or feeling as in self, or self as in feeling. He regards perception as self, or self as possessed of perception, or perception as in self, or self as in perception. He regards formations as self, or self as possessed of formations, or formations as in self, or self as in formations. He regards consciousness as self, or self as possessed of consciousness, or consciousness as in self, or self as in consciousness. That is how identity view comes to be.”462

Bodhi, Bhikkhu; Nanamoli, Bhikkhu (2005-06-10). The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Majjhima Nikaya: New Translation (Teachings of the Buddha) (Kindle Locations 6790-6798). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.

The Khandas , or the 5 aggregates, are also linked to the idea 'anatta.' This wiki article below refers to "anatta" as the first fetter. Therefore it implies that 'anatta' is the same as 'sakkaya-ditthi.' What do you think?

In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pāli) or anātman (Sanskrit: अनात्मन्) refers to the notion of "not-self" or the illusion of "self". In the early texts, the Buddha commonly uses the word in the context of teaching that all things perceived by the senses (including the mental sense) are not really "I" or "mine", and for this reason one should not cling to them.
In the same vein, the Pali suttas (and parallel āgamas, both referred to collectively below as the nikāyas), categorize the phenomena experienced by a being into five groups ("khandhas") that serve as the objects of clinging and as the basis for a sense of self. In the Nikāyas, the Buddha repeatedly emphasizes not only that the five khandhas of living beings are "not-self", i.e. not "I" or "mine", but also that clinging to them as if they were "I" or "mine" gives rise to unhappiness...
Anatta as a fetter[edit]
Identity-view is defined as one of the fetters to be abandoned by the Buddha, and a requirement for stream entry. Only by removing notions of "self" and "I-making" is one able to attain liberation...