Would the stream winner no longer dislike people?

Can we argue that Stream-winners would no longer dislike people, since they have eradicated self-view, and do not identify anything within the five aggregates as a person, a being, a self, or a soul?

1 Like

I would say that they would still have preferences, but not take anything too seriously. Or personally. Like if someone behaves badly to you, instead of taking it personally, you see that the person is behaving that way due to causes and conditions. So you have understanding of that, and understanding of their suffering. But you still may not like their behaviour, and still might prefer to not be around it.

So I would say you can still dislike someone. But hating someone is more difficult. If you can see the level at which the other person is not different from you, and that the layers which you dislike are effectively ‘superficial’, then it is less likely for real hatred to manifest, i.e. really entirely hating someone, or hating the whole of the person.

But ill will is not overcome according to the texts until the stage of the non-returner.


Become one and find out :slight_smile:

1 Like

Actually what I found was if you give lot of like in Sutta Central you become a Cula Sotapanna.
I am still not sure how many like I have to give before become a Sotapanna.

Not completely eradicated. This occurs only at Arahat level when all conceits are gone.
Also a stream-winner has not diminished (Stage 2) and eliminated (Stage 3) sensual desires and ill-will.
As result, for example he/she will still have visual and sexual attractions for others and the opposite dislike and repulsion for others. Of course the extent of these is very much depending on his/her makeup.


The idea that aggregates (or anything else) is the Self (Self view) is irradicated. The sense or feeling of a self persists however.

Imagine learning that fatty or salty food is bad for you, but still continuing to eat it. The ‘view’ has changed, but the thinking and behaviour has not.


That doesn’t apply to the arahant. Without volitional formations there is no conditioned existence:

“They construct the conditioned, bhikkhus, therefore they are called volitional formations.
SN 22.79”

If the quote above is correct, the arahant would only see unconditioned phenomena.
Since he is not constructing the idea of ‘self’, he would not see any ‘people’.

1 Like

Yes, that’s right. It only applies to the stream entrant, who has attained Right view. She has also had a glimpse of nibbana, and it lasts only a moment.

In that moment of the unconditioned, she doesn’t sense anything. However as the body and the sense bases still exist, they start functioning again and she starts to see sights, sounds, sensations etc. It is not only what we imagine in our minds which is conditioned/fabricated, it is also sight, sounds, sensations, smells etc. existence, the whole of samsara.

with metta

No. The simple fact is that sight, sounds, sensations, smells etc, the whole of samsara are all in the mind as conditioned phenomena. Then the same phenomena are perceived as the unconditioned in the absence of volitional formations. The unconditioned is right here in front of us. We turn the unconditioned into the conditioned with our formations:

“They construct the conditioned, bhikkhus, therefore they are called volitional formations.
SN 22.79”

I disagree. The vague feeling that “I exist” persists, but nothing is identified as being that self subconsciously or consciously. The misidentification of form, feelings (feeling in chest = me, or pressure inside head = me) formations or consciousness ends. The insight into anatta that is required for stream entry is not merely intellectual. Of course, distinguishing between self/other in the sense of A/not A continues, but not because of belief in or feeling of an inner self that creates identity.

The ordinary selfing we do to function in a society in actuality has nothing to do with an inner essence, although it might be misinterpreted that way. Some believe they have to get rid of this ordinary distinction-making – which is part of the khanda perception – in order to be “enlightened”. Good luck with that! Even an Arahant or the Buddha himself makes such distinctions in order to be able to communicate with others and make sense out of experience. What is necessary is to see it and understand it for what it is. It could be compared to drawing a line across a sheet of paper. One part is named A, the other B.

A = not B.
B = not A.

They both exist in dependence on the other. There is no A-self making it A. There is no B-self making it B. They co-arise dependently and derive their label from the negation of the other label.

It is useful to label this body “me”. It has five senses and some of it is under direct volitional control. The rest of the field of experience does not have these properties. I do not feel pain if I spill boiling water on the table, but I do if I spill it on the hand. I can try to will the keyboard I am typing on to levitate, but it won’t. Lifting my foot, however, is easy. So I create the useful this/that distinction between body (“me”) and world (“not me”). This does not require belief in a self or the feeling of being a self, and it does not end with arahantship.

It does persist and it is called “the tendency for conceit”. Because of the tendency for conceit, self-view is developed. This self-view is just an opinion that is not correct. After the removal of this opinion, the tendency for conceit will still persist until arahantship. As Matt has explained, it’s similar to an alcoholinc changing his opinion that alcohol is not bad. After changing his opinion, the tendency will still persist and it will take a lot of training to get rid of it. (and attain arahantship in our case)

There is a tendency in modern days to confuse stream entry with arahantship.

Under the fetter model, which pervades the suttas, it is very difficult to confuse the two. I agree with you that the conceit, “I am” is not eliminated upon stream entry. It involves both thinking one is greater, lesser or equal to others, and the subtle feeling of there being is a “me” that will disappear upon the ending of the khandas. However, identification of any aspect of experience as being a self ends at stream entry.

"The Venerable Khemaka replied: “These five aggregates subject to clinging have been spoken of by the Blessed One; that is, the form aggregate subject to clinging … the consciousness aggregate subject to clinging. I do not regard anything among these five aggregates subject to clinging as self or as belonging to self, yet I am not an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed. Friends, the notion ‘I am’ has not yet vanished in me in relation to these five aggregates subject to clinging, but I do not regard anything among them as ‘This I am.’”


“So too, friends, I do not speak of form as ‘I am,’ nor do I speak of ‘I am’ apart from form. I do not speak of feeling as ‘I am’ … nor of perception as ‘I am’ … nor of volitional formations as ‘I am’ … nor of consciousness as ‘I am,’ nor do I speak of ‘I am’ apart from consciousness. Friends, although the notion ‘I am’ has not yet vanished in me in relation to these five aggregates subject to clinging, still I do not regard anything among them as ‘This I am.’

“Friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower fetters, still, in relation to the five aggregates subject to clinging, there lingers in him a residual conceit ‘I am,’ a desire ‘I am,’ an underlying tendency ‘I am’ that has not yet been uprooted. Sometime later he dwells contemplating rise and fall in the five aggregates subject to clinging: ‘Such is form, such its origin, such its passing away; such is feeling … such is perception … such are volitional formations … such is consciousness, such its origin, such its passing away.’ As he dwells thus contemplating rise and fall in the five aggregates subject to clinging, the residual conceit ‘I am,’ the desire ‘I am,’ the underlying tendency ‘I am’ that had not yet been uprooted—this comes to be uprooted."

(From SN 22:89)


“And how, bhikkhus, is there nonagitation through nonclinging? Here, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple, who is a seer of the noble ones and is skilled and disciplined in their Dhamma, who is a seer of superior persons and is skilled and disciplined in their Dhamma, does not regard form as self, or self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form. That form of his changes and alters. Despite the change and alteration of form, his consciousness does not become preoccupied with the change of form. No agitation and constellation of mental states born of preoccupation with the change of form remain obsessing his mind. Because his mind is not obsessed, he is not frightened, distressed, or anxious, and through nonclinging he does not become agitated.”

(From SN 22:7)

The kind of letting go of which this sutta describes goes deeper than a mere intellectual understanding of anatta, yet the formula does not only apply to arahants as seen above.


Thanks for expanding on my brief answer. That is what I meant.

1 Like