text:
How can the Buddha (after he was enlightened) reflect that he was not at ease and then became at ease in seclusion?
This is from the Theravada Vinaya:

While he was staying by himself, the Buddha thought, “When I was
previously surrounded by people, I was not at ease because of those
monks at Kosambī who were quarreling, arguing, and creating legal
issues in the Sangha. But now that I’m alone, without a companion, I’m
happy and at ease because I’m apart from those monks at Kosambī.”
Pli Tv Kd 10: Kosambakakkhandhaka

How could the Buddha be thinking this way post enlightment? This seems related to this question.

You can find the another account of the same thing in non-Vinaya canon here:

So I have heard. At one time the Buddha was staying near Kosambi, in
Ghosita’s Monastery. Now at that time Buddha lived crowded by monks,
nuns, laymen, and laywomen; by rulers and their ministers, and
teachers of other paths and their disciples. Crowded, he lived in
suffering and discomfort. Then he thought, “These days I live crowded
by monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen; by rulers and their ministers,
and teachers of other paths and their disciples. Crowded, I live in
suffering and discomfort. Why don’t I live alone, withdrawn from the
group?”
Ud 4.5

Why he wouldn't prefer seclusion? Why is this a surprise?

I don’t think it is..

Obviously that entire text was authored by someone else, speaking about the Buddha in the third person.
In my understanding, the part about the Buddha leaving the quarreling Sangha is based on real events, while the thoughts going through Buddha's mind must be the author's conjecture.
To be clear, I'm not saying Buddha did not leave the quarreling Sangha for seclusion. That part is in accordance with Dharma. I'm saying, the part that represents Buddha's thoughts as speaking in terms of "before I was X and now I'm Y" must be a simplification and not the exact thought that crossed the Buddha's mind. Why? Because buddhas don't think in such terms. Why don't they? Because that would be "I-making".

Virtually the entire Tripitaka texts start with "thus have I heard" and refer to the Buddha in 3rd person, because the entire canon was written down centuries after the Buddha lived.

That's right, and this is why we should be careful and not take every single word there as literally The Dharma.

Then on what basis do you conclude that this particular verse does not represent the Dharma? Many teachers are recorded to have lived in seclusion in the years following their attainment.

To be clear, I'm not saying Buddha did not leave the quarreling Sangha for seclusion. That part is in accordance with Dharma. I'm saying, the part that represents Buddha's thoughts as speaking in terms of "before I was X and now I'm Y" must be a simplification and not the exact thought that crossed the Buddha's mind. Why? Because buddhas don't think in such terms. Why don't they? Because that would be "I-making".

I'm with you on not taking every poetic word as literal and not every literal world as poetic and not taking any word as some magical invocation past the point of being just the tool that it is. @AndreiVolkov as this is a Theravada question do you have or know of a pali reference to the 'I-making' as being something the Buddha utterly gave up?

I think your answer is def. right when it comes to the Mahayana/Sanskrit traditions interpretations of such things, but I am not so sure it is the case for the Theravada... and it seems Ruben's and Chris' answer(s) are evidence of this?

Similar to Andrei's answer I note (as fact) that it's a narration of what the Buddha thought, not what he said.
Going even further I might speculate that it's similar to Mother's saying to children, "While sitting in his office, Dad thought, 'Isn't it good that the children are playing quietly, and doing their homework'" -- i.e. it's said to convey a message, needn't be understood (except perhaps by children in question) as a direct and verbatim quote.
Lastly I don't get the impression from the suttas that the Buddha had no preferences. Apparently he preferred what's ethical, skillful, conditions for successful practice, compassionate, etc. (and that doctrine may be easier to understand than a doctrine like, "lol, nothing exists: good, bad, it's all the same..." -- especially for inter-personal relationships).
I wonder whether we're meant to see literally-all the Buddha's actions as motivated only by this kind of preference and this kind of intent -- so much so that any spark of evidence to the contrary (like a preference for avoiding quarrels) is seen as questionable and demanding an explanation.
I suppose it is possible -- that the basis for the preference is that his hanging around while people quarrel would be unskillful.
I'm not sure -- which is why I think this is a good question and which I hope someone answers.
Canonically perhaps there are specific types of preference which an arahant is free from:

Sensual desire (kāmacchando)
Desire for existence and rebirth, both material and immaterial (rūparāgo and arūparāgo)

To be logical perhaps it would be enough to explain that the preference isn't based on one of these fetters.

I'd say it's a transcription of what the Buddha said about what he thought :) That is, if you trust the compilers of the Theravada suttas and vinaya to have done an accurate job.

You know "the four great references", right? So some isolated detail which doesn't fit other suttas, I might be skeptical of (see e.g. this answer). But what's mentioned again and again in different suttas becomes a memorable theme that I wouldn't want to deny -- and there are many which admonish quarrelling; maybe another where he won't speak unless everyone is listening (paying attention) properly; others where he praises seclusion ...

I don’t disagree in the slightest

... another, AN 10.70 where talk about "kings and ministers" and so on isn't a fit topic of conversation; so the bits you quoted in the OP seem easy to believe. I'm not sure about the question -- about feeling unease due to material or social conditions/surroundings. Apparently he up and left, and felt just fine, no remorse, about doing so (I don't know how he came to be there, perhaps the place evolved). I'm not sure what to answer to "how could he be thinking this way?" I guess it implies that "post enlightenment" ...

... isn't entirely other-worldly, it isn't him losing his senses.

All of the following quotes come from MN 44.
One of the five aggregates is feeling (vedana) or sensations.
It's a mental process.

Perception and feeling are mental. They’re tied up with the mind,
that’s why perception and feeling are mental processes.”

There are 3 types of feeling.

“There are three feelings: pleasant, painful, and neutral feeling.”
“What are these three feelings?”
“Anything felt physically or mentally as pleasant or enjoyable. This
is pleasant feeling. Anything felt physically or mentally as painful
or unpleasant. This is painful feeling. Anything felt physically or
mentally as neither pleasurable nor painful. This is neutral feeling.”
“What is pleasant and what is painful in each of the three feelings?”
“Pleasant feeling is pleasant when it remains and painful when it
perishes. Painful feeling is painful when it remains and pleasant when
it perishes. Neutral feeling is pleasant when there is knowledge, and
painful when there is ignorance.”

The Buddha has discarded identity view or self view.

“It’s when an educated noble disciple has seen the noble ones, and is
skilled and trained in the teaching of the noble ones. They’ve seen
good persons, and are skilled and trained in the teaching of the good
persons. They don’t regard form as self, self as having form, form in
self, or self in form. They don’t regard feeling … perception …
choices … consciousness as self, self as having consciousness,
consciousness in self, or self in consciousness. That’s how identity
view does not come about.”

So, based on your quote, the Buddha experienced painful feelings from the six sense media but it doesn't mean that he clung to them, or had self view associated with them, or suffered from them. These painful feelings did not give rise to aversion or hate (dosa), in the absence of clinging and defilements.
Furthermore, an enlightened being is inclined to seclusion.

“But ma’am, when a mendicant has emerged from the attainment of the
cessation of perception and feeling, what does their mind slant,
slope, and incline to?”
“Their mind slants, slopes, and inclines to seclusion.”

Living arahants having five aggregates still functional but without defilements and clinging is discussed in Iti 44.

And what is the Unbinding property with fuel remaining? There is the
case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended, who
has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden,
attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released
through right gnosis. His five sense faculties still remain and, owing
to their being intact, he is cognizant of the agreeable & the
disagreeable, and is sensitive to pleasure & pain. His ending of
passion, aversion, & delusion is termed the Unbinding property with
fuel remaining.
And what is the Unbinding property with no fuel remaining? There is
the case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended,
who has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden,
attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released
through right gnosis. For him, all that is sensed, being unrelished,
will grow cold right here. This is termed the Unbinding property with
no fuel remaining."
Iti 44

In many traditions, attainment is not regarded as a permanent mental state, but requires constant practice. This is why, for example, Dogen Zenji wrote: "we do not practice to become enlightened, we practice because we are enlightened".
Before his enlightenment the Buddha spent extended periods alone in the forests:

“Such was my seclusion that I would plunge into some forest and live
there. If I saw a cowherd, shepherd, grass-cutter, wood-gatherer or
forester, I would flee so that they would not see me or me them”
(M.I,79).

Even after attaining enlightenment he would occasionally go into solitude. In the Saüyutta Nikàya he is recorded as saying:

“I wish to go into solitude for half a month. No one is to come to see
me except the one who brings my food” (S.V,12).

Many teachers from different lineages lived in physical seclusion before they took students. Famous examples include Bodhidharma & Hanshan.


text:
Were monastic training texts written down during the Buddha's life?
It seems a commonly held notion that the actual written text of Buddhadharma were only recorded well after the life of the Buddha. However, this sutta seems to indicate that was not so:

"Take a mendicant who says: ‘Reverend, I have heard and learned this
in the presence of the Buddha: this is the teaching, this is the
training, this is the Teacher’s instruction.’ You should neither
approve nor dismiss that mendicant’s statement. Instead, you should
carefully memorize those words and phrases, then check if they’re
included in the discourses and found in the texts on monastic
training. If they’re not included in the discourses and found in the
texts on monastic training, you should draw the conclusion: ‘Clearly
this is not the word of the Blessed One, the perfected one, the fully
awakened Buddha. It has been incorrectly memorized by that mendicant.’
And so you should reject it."
AN 4.180

Isn't this prima facie evidence that contrary to this belief that actual teachings were written down and consulted during the life of the Buddha?

it might be evidence AN 4.180 is fake and written after the buddha. the only True Dhamma is what can be verified as true & real in the here & now

I suspect that "text"  there is an artefact of the translation-into-English -- it says "texts" and you think "written".
A simpler and more common translation is just, "found in the suttas and the vinaya".
You can use the "views" icon on the page menu to enable side-by-side display of the Pali.

Instead, you should carefully memorize those words and phrases, then check if they’re included in the discourses and found in the texts on monastic training.
Anabhinanditvā appaṭikkositvā tāni padabyañjanāni sādhukaṁ uggahetvā sutte otāretabbāni, vinaye sandassetabbāni.

I'm not sure any of the Pali words say "written text".
I haven't found a clear translation of sandassetabbāni, here's a footnote from Buddhism: Buddhist origins and the early history of Buddhism in South and Southeast Asia
edited by Paul Williams (in a chapter titled, "On the very idea of the Pali canon"):

... which at least implies it's understood to mean something like, "compared with", not, "written text".

This is an inaccuracy in the translation of Ven. Sujato.
Let's compare it against the translation of Ven. Anandajoti on this page:

Sutte osāretabbāni Vinaye sandassetabbāni.
they should be laid
alongside the Discourses, they should be compared with the Discipline.

Here the latter translates "Vinaya" as "Discipline". The former translates it as "texts on monastic training".

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What are the prescription regarding a bhikkhu or a monastery having a lay-attendant?
I am curious about vinaya regulations & accounts otherwise relevant to a householder's attending to the bhikkhusangha.
Of interest are lay attendants in particular, how far one can go in being useful, what makes a good lay-attendant as to ideal & minimal qualification.
Not particularly interested in the circumstance of an anagarika or a novice's circumstance, although i would appreciate a delineation of differences very much.
References & general thoughts on the matter are welcome.

Go on as a formal assistant to monks, even better as novice or monk, good householder, as it is good if you have ways to associate with the Venerables. The rest is all a matter of individual deeds (kamma). Do not waste one moment when kusala citta arises, as defilements are quick to return.
As for formal assistants: Community Officials:

All Community officials must be free of four types of bias: bias based on desire, bias based on aversion, bias based on delusion, and bias based on fear.

A Theravada Buddhist lay attendant or steward is called a kappiyakāraka or Kappiya in short.
According to the PTS Pali-English dictionary entry on Kappiya:

Kappiyakāraka "one who makes it befitting," i. e. who by offering
anything to a Bhikkhu, makes it legally acceptable Vin i.206;

Basically, the lay attendant or steward, a kappiyakāraka, is the enabler who makes things allowable for monks.
"The Bhikkhus' Rules: A Guide for Laypeople" by Ven. Ariyesako provides info on lay attendants or stewards. Please search the page for "attendant" and "steward". Also please search Pli Tv Kd 6 for "kappiyakara".
The lay attendant is expected to receive and manage donations (money, robes, things, raw food ingredients, medicines etc.), buy things with donated money and distribute things to monks. The lay attendant can also cook food for monks (who are not allowed to cook), make fruits with seed allowable for monks and drive monks around in cars (since monks are generally not allowed to own or drive vehicles).
Both full monks (bhikkhu) and novice monks (samanera) are not allowed to handle money or make financial transactions. This has to be done by lay attendants. A novice monk cannot handle money because he observes the ten precepts.
I expect that a lay attendant must observe the five precepts, have taken the threefold refuge, be trustworthy, be well-versed with what is explained in "The Bhikkhus' Rules: A Guide for Laypeople" and have an abundant spirit of volunteerism.
An anagarika ("homeless one") is somewhere between a novice monk and a lay person. He is a lay person who observes the eight precepts. A person who wants to practise full time like a monk but does not want to observe all the monastic rules, may choose to become an anagarika.
The anagarika can handle money, so he can also act as a lay attendant (kappiyakāraka).
The Bodhinyana Monastery in Western Australia, which belongs to the Thai Forest Tradition, requires a person to be an anagarika for a certain duration of time before he is allowed to become a novice, and later a full-fledged monk.
According to this page, the duties and responsibilities of the anagarika at the Bodhinyana Monastery is described as follows:

The men with shaven heads and wearing white, while keeping the eight
precepts, are called Anagarikas. It is their intention to become a 10
precept novice monk in the near future.
There is quite a lot of work involved, supporting the monks and doing
various jobs around the monastery. This includes:

Working in the kitchen – cooking, cleaning and washing up.
Driving – there are many trips each week into Perth and the surrounding areas.
Weeding, digging and gardening jobs.
Construction of various projects.
Sweeping around the monastery grounds and generally keeping the place tidy and presentable.

From the above, we can see that the anagarika is expected to cook or drive monks around, hence he could function as a lay attendant too.
Anagarikas at the Bodhinyana Monastery will also receive lessons in the Dhamma (in the form of Dhamma talks), Vinaya, Pali suttas and optionally, the Pali language.

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


text:
Could anyone explain: (1) What are the advantages of practicing Guru Yoga? (2) Why (or What are the reasons) practicing Guru Yoga has such advantages?
The question is just the title. Moreover, AFAIK, currently there are 2 editions of the 14th Dalai Lama Guru Yoga.
(1)  "The Source of All Attainments: The Yoga of the Inseparability of the Guru and Avalokiteshvara".
(2)  "A Stairway to Potala: Guru Yoga of Avalokiteshvara".

This is a question seriously asked. Why is this get downvoted?

Hi, I downvoted this question after awhile because there did not appear to me a satisfactory answer and guru yoga or vajrayana is a very fraught subject. There are very good practitioners on this site who I have confidence could give a good answer, but the fact that they have refrained from doing so tells me something.

I don’t practice vajrayana and am of the opinion that it should only be practiced by those with tremendous wisdom and oceans of merit. That’s not me and the silence of those who have such merit and wisdom speaks loudly that this question - while earnest and seriously asked - should be downvoted at this time and in this context. Hope that helps to explain.

@YesheTenley These 2 editions of the 14th Dalai Lama Guru Yoga were/are firstly publicly taught by Gelug Dharma teachers (i.e., Geshes, Rinpoches,... ) in Dharma centers in Taiwan to students to practice, even to students who have never practiced Vajrayana, when the week of the 14th Dalai Lama's birth day was coming. The Chinese edition of the 14th Dalai Lama Guru Yoga instructions, are freely available from (the publications of) the representative office of the 14th Dalai Lama and Tibet in Taiwan, and also freely available from Gelug Dharma teachers in Taiwan.

If practiced properly from a proper teacher, it is:
The fastest way to attain enlightenment.
Some of the reasons are:

The guru is the Buddha
if the guru is the Buddha we have direct access to Buddha teaching

this because: a method was developed by the Buddha, it was transmitted Orally for the first 500 years, after that, books where introduced with the Buddhas teachings to supplement the oral teachings. This teachings are still being teach verbally and in other ways as well. Qualified teachers (Gurus) have complete understanding from where the teachings came (lineage) and there is still unbroken lineages around.
IF we choose to practice Guru yoga. It is recommended that we do our homework and find a proper teacher(s) that we can trust and we feel connected. Also absolutely proper to ask question about lineage and from who they learn. Guru Yoga and Vajrayana wont work if is from a not proper teacher and is said to be dangerous if practice wrongly.
I hope this answer the question! also sorry if there is any typo.

I upvoted this. IMO, this pretty much answers the OP. From a Vajrayāna perspective, the guru is a Perfectly Enlightened Buddha. The Saṃgha is his body, the Buddha is his mind, and the Dharma is his speech. Learning directly from a Buddha is better than learning from a non-Buddha. From a non-Vajrayāna perspective, none of this necessarily applies. The refuge is not in the guru in non-Tantric Mahāyāna, and the guru is not the three jewels in non-Tantric Mahāyāna.


text:
Why Become Buddhist?
I am interested in Theravada Buddhism.
What are some concrete reasons as to why one should become a Buddhist?

The great hair styles...

To become what you already are.

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/44065/so-what-is-a-buddhist-and-what-makes-a-person-a-buddhist check out those answers, there's really not much consensus on what makes a Buddhist.

You don't "become" a Buddhist. It's not an identity, it's a way of exploring what identity means.

@WillyWonka - it would be good if you could expand that wise comment into an answer! ;-)

Why Become Buddhist?

A fully enlightened Buddha's teaching is the only thing that bring about complete cessation of suffering.
Nothing else can do that. Doesn't really matter if the word "Buddhist" is used. What's important is that the teaching contains "The Four Noble Truths" since only such a teaching can issue liberation from the rounds of suffering for good.

There is no word in Pali, Sanskrit, Tibetan, Chinese, Korean, Japanese,... that corresponds to the Wester "-ist" qualifier.
For example, in Chinese & Japanese, the term used is 佛教徒 (Ch: Fójiào tú, J: Bukkyōto), lit. "Buddhist teachings people".
Also, in many Oriental countries there is no exclusive attribute: I've seen Thai people worship both a Buddha and a Ganesh statue; I know Japanese people that would identify simultaneously as Shinto and Buddhist.
I just wanted to get that stated first, because it's important to answer your question. Buddhism is not an "-ism" like other "-isms" in Western context. It is not a religion in the sense that requires anything supernatural to operate. It is more a method, a philosophy than a religion in the Western, Abrahamic sense.

"Do not be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or
ideology, even Buddhist ones. Buddhist systems of thought are guiding
means; they are not absolute truth." - Thich Nhat Hanh

Therefore, to become a Buddh-ist (the Budh* root means "to awaken"), implies a volition to understand reality as the historical Buddha did. This should be the foremost concrete reason for someone to take up practice. The recommended way to attain this goal is meditation. There are additional recommendations to facilitate this goal, but none of them take the form of "divine edicts" or leading to "sins" if not followed for lay people. You do not have to accept any doctrine at face value - in fact, the Buddha stressed you should examine everything for yourself in the Kālāma Sutra:

Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing (anussava),
nor upon tradition (paramparā),
nor upon rumor (itikirā),
nor upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna)
nor upon surmise (takka-hetu),
nor upon an axiom (naya-hetu),
nor upon specious reasoning (ākāra-parivitakka),
nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over (diṭṭhi-
nijjhān-akkh-antiyā),
nor upon another's seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya),
nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no garū)
Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and abide in them.'

Secondary reasons include:

transcendence into Nirvana, breaking the cycle of rebirth (although some Buddhist schools will take the vow not to enter into Nirvana until all sentient beings are saved)
reduce suffering in a meaningful, genuine way through compassion
a framework to make informed choices that benefit not just yourself
a renewed view on the world once you have experienced śūnyatā (terribly translated as "emptiness" in English)
a renewed view on yourself and the illusions that surround your self-image

but everything should start with a genuine desire to understand the true nature of reality, self, and the mind. And even then, one can practice and not call themselves Buddhist.

Good answer! Just out of interest, how did śūnyatā come to be translated as emptiness?

Several branches of Buddhism attribute very different meanings to śūnyatā . In Theravada, it often refers to the non-self, while in Mahayana it refers more to "all things are void of intrinsic existence and nature (svabhava)". Linguistically, it derives from the root śvi, meaning "hollow".  I guess "hollowness" didn't click with early translators?

I actually know muslims who do not consider Buddhism to be a religion opposed to Islam.

Why become a Buddhist?
It would be to heed the advice and guidance given by that benevolent man with good eyesight standing on the bank, who wishes you permanent freedom from suffering.

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
heard: "Suppose a man was being carried along by the flow of a river,
lovely & alluring. And then another man with good eyesight, standing
on the bank, on seeing him would say: 'My good man, even though you
are being carried along by the flow of a river, lovely & alluring,
further down from here is a pool with waves & whirlpools, with
monsters & demons. On reaching that pool you will suffer death or
death-like pain.' Then the first man, on hearing the words of the
second man, would make an effort with his hands & feet to go against
the flow.
"I have given you this simile to illustrate a meaning. The meaning is
this: the flow of the river stands for craving. Lovely & alluring
stands for the six internal sense-media. The pool further down stands
for the five lower fetters. The waves stand for anger & distress. The
whirlpools stand for the five strings of sensuality. The monsters &
demons stand for the opposite sex. Against the flow stands for
renunciation. Making an effort with hands & feet stands for the
arousing of persistence. The man with good eyesight standing on the
bank stands for the Tathagata, worthy & rightly self-awakened."
Iti 109

I am interested in Theravada Buddhism.
What are some concrete reasons as to why one should become a Buddhist?
Reason:

What are you looking for (searching) in your life?
If your answer is “wealth or love or a successful business” or anything like that, I would again ask what are you looking within those? If you keep digging like this you will come to the answer “Satisfaction”. Everyone is looking for Satisfaction in their lives. That person can be a terrorist or a president or a parent or an Olympic athlete or who ever, what they are looking for is “the Satisfaction”. Now based on this if you think deeper, have you found anyone who is satisfied with their whole life by achieving something. As an example is Bill Gates satisfied with his whole life? He might be satisfied as a businessman but that doesn’t make Bill is satisfied with everything he has or he is. Why is that? Because people are looking for Satisfaction throughout their lives but they are not looking it in the correct place. Due to that they won’t be satisfied with everything. We always think A will satisfy me so we run after A, after we achieve A we keep running after B because the Satisfaction we got from A is not enough (basically A has not make us satisfied, if it did why we even want to run after B). Likewise we keep running after C, D,…. until we die, assuming next thing will quench our thirst of Satisfaction. Unfortunately it will never happen. Because real Satisfaction is not in this outer world. It’s in our inner world. It’s called Nivana (Enlightenment) and what Nivana is and what’s the path to Nivana is clearly mentioned in real Buddhism (which is labeled as Theravada). If you think this view gives your some concrete reason, I might explain this further.


text:
Different types of vipassana meditation?
I am interested in vipassana meditation.
What are the different types of vipassana meditation?

Why is he changing the question entirely after getting answers?

@Letsbuddhism The previous question was closed as being opinion-based. He modified it then it was reopened.

There is nothing called Vipassana Jhanas in the suttas. But in the commentaries there is something called Lakkhaṇūpanijjhāna.
Tattha lakkhaṇūpanijjhānaṃ nāma vipassanāmaggaphalāni.
Therein, lakkhaṇūpanijjhāna is the name of insight, path, and fruit.

Vipassanā hi tīṇi lakkhaṇāni upanijjhāyatīti lakkhaṇūpanijjhānaṃ.
Insight meditates upon the three characteristics, therefore it is
meditation on characteristics.
Maggo vipassanāya āgatakiccaṃ sādhetīti lakkhaṇūpanijjhānaṃ.
The path completes the task begun by insight, therefore it is
meditation on characteristics.
Phalaṃ tathalakkhaṇaṃ nirodhasaccaṃ upanijjhāyatīti
lakkhaṇūpanijjhānaṃ.
Fruition meditates on the characteristic of reality that is the truth
of cessation, therefore it is meditation on characteristics.


text:
Is Anagarika procedure a necessity in Thai Forest Tradition?
I wonder if the Anagarika period is always a pre-requisite to samanera & bhikkhu ordinations in this TFT tradition?

I edited the question seeing how op prompted answers which are not answering the question. I just want a categorical answer to a simple question.

Firstly, I feel one should avoid having a romanticized view of either the lay married life or the celibate monastic life.
Being a married person, you may find that your spouse, children and in-laws may often not be in line with your wishes and expectations, and may be a source of grief.
If you read the book "The Broken Buddha" by Ven. S. Dhammika, you will find that many monastic communities today are not living up to the standards of the Buddha's Sangha, to put it mildly. Also, please see this answer. A zealous person joining the monastic order today may get disillusioned by this.
Hence, it makes a lot of sense, to become an anagarika first, and then a novice monk (samanera) next, to try out the monastic life for a short time, as a trial, by staying in a monastery under the guidance of a teacher. In the end, you may find that this does not suit you, or the other way round. It's a practical way to guide one's decision-making.

That whole point of ordaining isn't just to leave home, it's to leave your very self behind.  Monastic ordination in any tradition - Buddhism of any stripe and otherwise - has a component of complete obedience to both the precepts, the rule, and the community.  If that the way it's done, that's the way you do it.  Your anxieties, reservations, or oppositions simply aren't important.
Master Dogen writes that to study the way is to study the self.  To study the self is to forget the self.  To forget the self is to become one with the 10,000 things.  So many modern people are pretty keen on studying the self and becoming one with the 10,000 things.  Forgetting the self, though, that's hard.  But it's the lynch pin that everything else depends on.

Most monastic lineages have a probationary period to weed out those who aren't right for monastic life.  Part of that is identifying people who are impatient and would react poorly to having their sense of self assailed by something as innocuous as waiting for permanent, full vows.  This, not to mention the fact that real practice involves very long periods of time where progress is slow and nothing appears to be happening..  I think a better question to ask is if it's so important to you, why aren't you willing to wait?

@user21064 You can add this as an answer by itself.

It's just a restatement of the answer above which I agree with.

"Most monastic lineages have a probationary period to weed out those who aren't right for monastic life" - How is that working out? Disrobing rates are like 95+%? Tell me more about the weeding out... Maybe you are weeding out the wrong kind of people, ever thought of that or why the Buddha never advised this?

Pretty well, I should say.  I highly doubt that those 95%+ are leaving because the the monastery isn't immediately giving them full vows.  A much simpler and probable explanation is that the diversions of the householder life exert too strong a pull.

A much simpler and probable explanation is that the diversions of the householder life exert too strong a pull. - and there is also the declination of monastic Buddhism, in part due to mainstream methods of delivering the same information. But the worrisome Buddhist would shout things like, "It's the prophesized decline of Buddhism. The Dhamma is disappearing. The end is nigh!". The method of delivery has changed to meet the demands of modern day living. Monasticism is fading into obscurity like the seniority of antiquated, old-fashioned ideas.

Good householder,
As for the Noble tradition, the Sublime Buddhas Sangha, such as Anagarika (a householder without house...) is unknown and seemingly a merely new, Sri Lank originated custom. Yet there are communities with agree on what is called "Sangha-agreement", of which is only allwoed if not against the Dhamna-Vinaya. Generally the Sublime Buddha wished to let people fastly ordain, since faith, good mind states, are all but not sure and doubt the greatest hindrance. So he also rebuked communities agreeing on similar things. There are clear rules set out by the Teacher and also clear restrictions, yet, if ordaining or not, is of course not up to any right but compassion. So nothing that should be claimed at first place. Not giving, or demand certain things, may have reasons, sometimes right, sometimes wrong judged.
The only, of which comes near such prove time, is the decleared prove time for wanderers of other sects (as for higher ordination, not explicit for going forth), whether they are really fit and earnest toward the Tripple Gems or not. Sure, most modern, westerns, would fall under this category, yet different in each individual case, of course.
There is, how ever, no real indication that such a test phase should be spend as householder. And formal, if one asks for leaving house under the Gems, taking on 10 precepts, one becomes a recluse, pabbajito, and not sure if giving such without giving robes, check if the requester has sufficent, wouldn't be actually an ordainers fault.
In all cases good if always seeking out communities with less doubt that this Dhamma-Vinaya has been layed out good. This includes of course to tend oneself to it as well, starting by being aware of being a receiver of compassion, either for the sake and bond toward the Unbound or toward the world and it's common communities.
Don't wait anyway, what ever hard ship might be feared, times is running out and skillful mind and good intentions, possibilities, even faster, good householder.


text:
What were the Original Methods of Meditation and their Instructions as Expounded by the Buddha?
In Theravada, I know there is union in understanding that the Buddha taught two types of meditation: vipassana (insight) meditation and samatha (tranquility) meditation. However, I have come across various types of these meditation methods over the years, either with an emphasis on samatha meditation, vipassana meditation, or both, all filled with various interpretations. My question is the following:
Putting aside the modern methods of meditation taught by members of the later Sangha and their interpretations as well as going back to the Buddha and his early Sangha, what was it that the Buddha originally taught in regard to meditation (samatha and vipassana meditations) and what instructions did the Buddha give as to how one practices them?
PLEASE REFERENCE THE TIPITAKA OR SOURCES STRICTLY USING THE TIPITAKA.
-Apannaka

Related: Are Samatha and Vipassana mentioned in the Pali Canon as different styles/techniques of meditation?

As AN 2.41 makes clear, samatha and vipassana are qualities, and not methods. Methods are described in the Anapanasati and Satipatthana suttas, for example.

If I explain anything, it is what you called "later interpretations".
If I quote a short Sutta, it is what you called "modern methods"--rearrange Suttas' sequence by my own opinion.
If I quote other Suttas' which is not Ananda's Sutta, people would say "this
Sutta is new, not original."
So, this is the long Sutta by Ananda, the first Tipitaka Memorizer, who we all accept that he is the main answerer at the first Buddhist Council of Theravada.
I can't quote because it is very long. These all are enough for me to meditate follow the Buddha and enough for me to understand and trust the entire Tipitaka Pali, commentary pali, sub-commentary pali, forest-monk tradition, etc.

What was that noble one's spectrum of ethics that the Buddha praised?

See https://suttacentral.net/dn10/en/sujato?h=The%20Entire%20Spectrum%20of%20Ethics#dn10:1.6.5.0

What was that noble one's spectrum of immersion that the Buddha praised?

See https://suttacentral.net/dn10/en/sujato?h=The%20Spectrum%20of%20Immersion#dn10:2.1.0

What was that noble one's spectrum of wisdom that the Buddha praised?

See https://suttacentral.net/dn10/en/sujato?h=The%20Spectrum%20of%20Wisdom#dn10:2.20.0
There are many long Sutta which content something like above Sutta in DN, MN, but by the Buddha directly such as DN2.
However, if one still can't meditate follow above very long Sutta, it's time to trust in Tipitaka Memorizers like, Pa-Auk tawya, Abhidhamma, commentary, etc.

Links to the most important suttas on meditation here:
https://lucid24.org/misc/raft/index.html (disclosure: my website, most of the sutta translations derived from B. sujato).
You'll want to start with SN 46.3, it shows the causal sequence of how 7 awakening factors leads to samadhi.
SN 54.3 is the basic version explaining 16 steps of breath meditation.
SN 45.8 gives the definitions for noble eightfold path.
Prior to attainment of jhanas, most of the time in meditation will be spent in right effort, explained in detail in AN 4.14
Remember that Buddhism was an oral tradition, so the instructions are terse, and you won't be able to get the full picture on reading through those suttas  once or a few times. You'll need to recite and reflect on it frequently, and consult with knowledgable friends to connect the dots and see the whole picture.
Samatha and vipassana segregation is a late Theravada corruption. In the original suttas on meditation, those qualities are not developed independently of each other, but synergistically, holistically, organically.
edit, answering a comment:
It's easy to misinterpret Yuganaddha Sutta that way (as segregating samatha and vipassana). But if you study carefully all the meditation suttas, you'll find that interpretation is not tenable, not to mention there are very few suttas that like that one period. In light of the collection of meditation suttas and connecting the dots, what  Yuganaddha Sutta is actually saying is that some meditators tend to be stronger in samatha or vipassana, and on their path to arahantship they don't really strengthen the other factor until later stages. The 4th case of the sutta makes it especially clear. Both samatha and vipassana are weak to begin with, and later both are developed in tandem.  So out of the 4 possible cases 50% of them involve developing both samatha and vipassana in tandem. The first two cases, where one is developed first while the other is lacking, is from inherent weakness in the meditator, not because the buddha ever recommended one factor to be developed first.

Well, samatha and vipassana looks segregated to me in the Yuganaddha Sutta.

It's easy to misinterpret Yuganaddha Sutta... (see edited msg)

The word meditation doesn't have an analog in pali discourses.
The way samatha & vipassana are spoken of, likewise, doesn't align with contemporary practices.
Unfortunately one has to read a lot of discourses to get a good idea of how people were training on & off the cushion and how they talked about it.
If you want a bunch of excerpts from pali sutta & theravadin abhidhamma + minimal commentary, i have a doc here, only the first half of it will be interesting to you as a cross reference of the main meditation instruction in the discourses.
It's a 24/7 kind of training. Here are the brief expositions;

"Kesi, I train a tamable person [sometimes] with gentleness, [sometimes] with harshness, [sometimes] with both gentleness & harshness.
"In using gentleness, [I teach:] 'Such is good bodily conduct. Such is the result of good bodily conduct. Such is good verbal conduct. Such is the result of good verbal conduct. Such is good mental conduct. Such is the result of good mental conduct. Such are the devas. Such are human beings.'
"In using harshness, [I teach:] 'Such is bodily misconduct. Such is the result of bodily misconduct. Such is verbal misconduct. Such is the result of verbal misconduct. Such is mental misconduct. Such is the result of mental misconduct. Such is hell. Such is the animal womb. Such the realm of the hungry shades.'
"In using gentleness & harshness, [I teach:] 'Such is good bodily conduct. Such is the result of good bodily conduct. Such is bodily misconduct. Such is the result of bodily misconduct. Such is good verbal conduct. Such is the result of good verbal conduct. Such is verbal misconduct. Such is the result of verbal misconduct. Such is good mental conduct. Such is the result of good mental conduct. Such is mental misconduct. Such is the result of mental misconduct. Such are the devas. Such are human beings. Such is hell. Such is the animal womb. Such the realm of the hungry shades.'"
AN 4.111

“Master Assaji how does Gotama the Contemplative generally instruct his disciples?”
“Aggivessana, Gotama the Rightly Self-awakened one instructs his disciples, in a general way, as follows: ‘Form is impermanent, feeling is impermanent, perception is impermanent, mental fabrications are impermanent, consciousness is impermanent. Being impermanent, form is not-self, feelings are not-self, perceptions are not-self, mental fabrications are not-self, and consciousness is not-self. All impermanent phenomena is not-self. In short, the Five Clinging-Aggregates are impermanent and so not-self.’ Aggivessana, this is the general way that Gotama the Rightly Self-awakened one instructs his disciples.”
Cula Saccaka Sutta

When, on observing that the monk is purified with regard to qualities based on delusion, he places conviction in him. With the arising of conviction, he visits him & grows close to him. Growing close to him, he lends ear. Lending ear, he hears the Dhamma. Hearing the Dhamma, he remembers it. Remembering it, he penetrates the meaning of those dhammas. Penetrating the meaning, he comes to an agreement through pondering those dhammas. There being an agreement through pondering those dhammas, desire arises. With the arising of desire, he becomes willing. Willing, he contemplates (lit: "weighs," "compares"). Contemplating, he makes an exertion. Exerting himself, he both realizes the ultimate meaning of the truth with his body and sees by penetrating it with discernment.
"To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is an awakening to the truth. To this extent one awakens to the truth. I describe this as an awakening to the truth. But it is not yet the final attainment of the truth.
"Yes, Master Gotama, to this extent there is an awakening to the truth. To this extent one awakens to the truth. We regard this as an awakening to the truth. But to what extent is there the final attainment of the truth? To what extent does one finally attain the truth? We ask Master Gotama about the final attainment of the truth."
"The cultivation, development, & pursuit of those very same qualities: to this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the final attainment of the truth. To this extent one finally attains the truth. I describe this as the final attainment of the truth."
MN 95

"May the Blessed One teach me the Dhamma in brief! May the One Well-gone teach me the Dhamma in brief! It may well be that I will understand the Blessed One's words. It may well be that I will become an heir to the Blessed One's words."
"Then, monk, you should train yourself thus: 'My mind will be established inwardly, well-composed. No evil, unskillful qualities, once they have arisen, will remain consuming the mind.' That's how you should train yourself.
"Then you should train yourself thus: 'Good-will, as my awareness-release, will be developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, & well-undertaken.' That's how you should train yourself. When you have developed this concentration in this way, you should develop this concentration with directed thought & evaluation, you should develop it with no directed thought & a modicum of evaluation, you should develop it with no directed thought & no evaluation, you should develop it accompanied by rapture... not accompanied by rapture... endowed with a sense of enjoyment; you should develop it endowed with equanimity.
"When this concentration is thus developed, thus well-developed by you, you should then train yourself thus: 'Compassion, as my awareness-release... Appreciation, as my awareness-release... Equanimity, as my awareness-release, will be developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, & well-undertaken.' That's how you should train yourself. When you have developed this concentration in this way, you should develop this concentration with directed thought & evaluation, you should develop it with no directed thought & a modicum of evaluation, you should develop it with no directed thought & no evaluation, you should develop it accompanied by rapture... not accompanied by rapture... endowed with a sense of enjoyment; you should develop it endowed with equanimity.
"When this concentration is thus developed, thus well-developed by you, you should then train yourself thus: 'I will remain focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world.' That's how you should train yourself. When you have developed this concentration in this way, you should develop this concentration with directed thought & evaluation, you should develop it with no directed thought & a modicum of evaluation, you should develop it with no directed thought & no evaluation, you should develop it accompanied by rapture... not accompanied by rapture... endowed with a sense of enjoyment; you should develop it endowed with equanimity.
"When this concentration is thus developed, thus well-developed by you, you should train yourself: 'I will remain focused on feelings in & of themselves... the mind in & of itself... mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world.' That's how you should train yourself. When you have developed this concentration in this way, you should develop this concentration with directed thought & evaluation, you should develop it with no directed thought & a modicum of evaluation, you should develop it with no directed thought & no evaluation, you should develop it accompanied by rapture... not accompanied by rapture... endowed with a sense of enjoyment; you should develop it endowed with equanimity.
"When this concentration is thus developed, thus well-developed by you, then wherever you go, you will go in comfort. Wherever you stand, you will stand in comfort. Wherever you sit, you will sit in comfort. Wherever you lie down, you will lie down in comfort."
AN 8.63

Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."
Through hearing this brief explanation of the Dhamma from the Blessed One, the mind of Bāhiya of the Bark-cloth right then and there was released from effluents through lack of clinging/sustenance.
Ud 1.10

These are short expositions.
In detail one begins by reflecting on results one's thoughts & behavior in general. One separates thoughts into two categories as to conducive and not conducive to the goal which one envisions for oneself. Furthermore, one starts cultivating the good ones by giving attention and stilling the formation of distracting thoughts;

When, indeed, bhikkhus, evil unskillful thoughts due to reflection on an adventitious object are eliminated, when they disappear, and the mind stands firm, settles down, becomes unified and concentrated just within (his subject of meditation), through his reflection on an object connected with skill, through his pondering on the disadvantages of unskillful thoughts, his endeavoring to be without attentiveness and reflection as regards those thoughts or through his restraining, subduing, and beating down of the evil mind by the good mind with clenched teeth and tongue pressing on the palate, that bhikkhu is called a master of the paths along which thoughts travel. The thought he wants to think, that, he thinks; the thought he does not want to think, that, he does not think. He has cut down craving, removed the fetter, rightly mastered pride, and made an end of suffering."
MN 20

Assuming one has come to agreement with the Dhamma, one should reflect on one's actions before, during & after doing deeds, analyzing the results.
One should reflect on the fearfulness of the states of woe and give much attention to the danger in things. Cultivate self-preservation, kindness to oneself and this will make you a kind person to all beings because others are like yourself just different body & amount of delusion.
One should be one's own servant, protector, judge & advocate and let one's best knowledge dictate behavior.
One reflects much on one's circumstances, think thoughts of sympathy towards oneself, wanting oneself to succeed, think of ways to show compassion to yourself, a little kindness, restraining some bad behavior maybe or get rid of bad influence.
Think thoughts of appreciation much, count your blessings, don't ruminate on what you lack, think of how far you've come & etc. There are many other themes to develop, I have a list of course (see here).
Furthermore, one should remain always mindful of the body, the dhamma, the Buddha and the Sangha. What these mean exactly I won't get into here.
However, dwelling thus mindfully in dependence on strengths of a student, ardent & resolute, serious with perception of death acutely established, perception of unattractiveness well established, senses guarded, moderate with food, devoted to wakefulness, filled with learning, having a few duties, resting in solitude and with energy aroused, one will perceive great distinctions and quickly attain the final goal.
Here a few random excerpts on vipassana & samatha;

These two qualities have a share in clear knowing. Which two? Tranquillity (samatha) & insight (vipassana).
“When tranquillity is developed, what purpose does it serve? The mind is developed. And when the mind is developed, what purpose does it serve? Passion is abandoned.
“When insight is developed, what purpose does it serve? Discernment is developed. And when discernment is developed, what purpose does it serve? Ignorance is abandoned.
“Defiled by passion, the mind is not released. Defiled by ignorance, discernment does not develop. Thus from the fading of passion is there awareness-release. From the fading of ignorance is there discernment-release.”
AN 2.30

There is the case of the individual who has attained internal tranquillity of awareness (cetosamathassa), but not insight into phenomena through heightened discernment ( adhipaññādhammavipassanāya)
“The individual who has attained internal tranquillity of awareness, but not insight into phenomena through heightened discernment, should approach an individual who has attained insight into phenomena through heightened discernment and ask him: ‘How should fabrications be regarded? How should they be investigated? How should they be seen with insight?’ ...
“As for the individual who has attained insight into phenomena through heightened discernment, but not internal tranquillity of awareness, he should approach an individual who has attained internal tranquillity of awareness... and ask him, ‘How should the mind be steadied? How should it be made to settle down? How should it be unified? How should it be concentrated?’
AN 4.94

Basically, samatha is calming for impulse control and insight is associated with strategy, knowledge & understanding. If there is a lack of impulse control then one can't execute one's strategy and is distracted.


text:
Which of the seven fold reasons does this fall under?
Which of the seven fold reasons does this fall under?

The conventional self is not different to all its parts (is composed only of parts) but not the same as any part (does not depend on any part)

This seems to get around the first two reasons, as well as being a reasonable description of my perceptual life; and, arguably, is a reason to think that the self cannot be destroyed (there is always another part to lose), given it lacks substance and cannot be annihilated.
It seems to be completely coherent, so I can't imagine for a moment that no-one a Buddhist has ever argued with has conceived of the self this way. So, why is it wrong: and has any Buddhist claimed the conventional self is like this?

Not just that every part has a part, but that every part is one part only.

I don't know how to phrase it any clearer than I have, and it seems to capture an intuition of what the self may be, that it always one thing with many parts...

the thing about it having no end may seem like a crap version of zeno's paradox. but yeah, I don't think lines essentially have parts. all "lines" have parts, but 'line' is a conceptual designation, and has no essence. I was asking why there is no conventional self that has the essence of the emptiness of dharmas. there's a subtle difference

Identification with consciousness of an infinity of parts and non-parts is incomplete:

MN1:16.1: They perceive the dimension of infinite consciousness as the dimension of infinite consciousness.
MN1:16.2: But then they identify with the dimension of infinite consciousness …
MN1:16.3: Why is that?
MN1:16.4: Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.

Also consult DN1, which describes 62 grounds for getting caught up in theories of self and cosmos.

DN1:3.70.1: Now, when those ascetics and brahmins theorize about the past and the future on these sixty-two grounds, it is not possible that they should experience these things without contact.
...
DN1:3.72.2: All of these ascetics and brahmins who theorize about the past or the future are trapped in the net of these sixty-two grounds, so that wherever they emerge they are caught and trapped in this very net.

Rather than look at all the parts or not-parts, perhaps we should best examine the first four words of the seven reasons.

The self is not ...

Without self, what reason would there be to look for parts or not parts?

What does it mean when a username is not clickable?

https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/15341/why-are-some-usernames-not-clickable

@Max It means the user account doesn't exist -- that it was never created on this site (because of a migration, as in answer OyaMist linked to), or that it was deleted. In this case, the account was self-deleted (deleted by the user/owner of the account)  two days ago -- perhaps you can see some of the  https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/20628 page. Then the question was edited 7 hours ago by an anonymous user -- probably the same user, the original author -- and ruben2020 approved the edit, which is attributed to the Community user.

Thanks, @ChrisW.

I get what you mean in your conclusion, which is good. but I was talking about a non ultimate self. I think you misunderstood what I meant by "there is always another part": which I don't think is the same as being infinite.

It's probably useful to take a few steps back first, since this text is from Chandrakirti, an author which views differ significantly from some of the core principles of other schools in his branch of Buddhism.
The linked text originates in the Madhyamaka school of Nagarjuna, which means that as a basic principle, author will view all phenomena as ultimately empty of intrinsic nature or self-existence (svabhāva). Furthermore, all things (bhāva) have two natures, the conventional and the ultimate
As such, the conventional truth (saṁvṛti satya) implies that, as a matter of human convention, phenomena have a nature or existence (bhāva), for example ice has the property of being cold. The world-view of conventional truth is the building block of human communication that allows us to build societies.
As for ultimate truth, well, this is where Madhyamaka branches off in different schools of thought, like Sautrāntika, Kamalaśīla, Yogācāra and Prāsaṅgika (Chandrakirti belongs to the latter). It would take way too long to detail the differences here. If you're interested, The Theory of Two Truths in India is an excellent read.
In essence, Candrakīrti rejects the theories of the two truths in both Brahmanical and the Buddhist schools of Vaibhāṣika, Sautrāntika, Yogācāra and Svātantrika Madhyamaka. At the core of the Prāsaṅgika's theory of the two truths are these two fundamental theses:

Only what is conventionally non-intrinsic is causally effective, for only those phenomena, the conventional nature of which is non-intrinsically real, are subject to conditioned or dependent arising. Conventional reality (or dependently arisen phenomenon), given it is causally effective, is therefore always intrinsically unreal. Hence that which is conventionally (or dependently) coarisen is always conventionally (or dependently) arisen.

Only what is ultimately non-intrinsic is causally effective, for only those phenomena, the ultimate nature of which is non-intrinsically real, are subject to conditioned arising. Ultimate truth (or emptiness), given it is causally effective, is therefore intrinsically unreal. Hence ultimate truth is ultimately unreal (or emptiness is always empty)

Madhyamaka schools generally state that all phenomena are merely conceptual constructs (prajñaptimatra) which do not exist in themselves but are mentally constructed dependent designations (prajñāptirupādāya). However, Chandraktiri views even conventional truth (which is not a phenomenon, but a mental state or construct) as empty of intrinsic natures. As such, he defines ultimate truth as:

"the nature of things found by particular exalted cognitive processes
(yeshes) of those who perceive reality."

Now with this in consideration, let's take a look at your statement:

The conventional self is not different to all its parts (is composed
only of parts) but not the same as any part (does not depend on any
part)...this arguably, is a reason to think that the self cannot be destroyed

Candrakīrti attributes three senses to the term convention:

confusion (avidyā) for it obstructs the mundane cognitive processes of the ordinary beings from seeing the reality as it is by way of concealing (saṃvṛti) its nature;

codependent (paraparasaṃbhavana) for it is an interdependent phenomenon

Signifier (saṁket) or worldly convention (lokavyavahāra) in the sense of dependently designated by means of expression and expressed, consciousness and object of consciousness

All 3 senses can be applied to your statement, giving very different renditions pointing to the same underlying conventional truth. For example:

the conventional self, like all phenomena, is subject to constant change. Its acclaimed parts are therefore also subject to change. Since there is no "constant" conventional self, there is no "constant" that cannot be destroyed.

if the conventional self arises dependent on its parts, then essentially there is no intrinsic self that cannot be destroyed.

as a worldly convention, we interact with our and other "selves" as mental constructs for convenience of communication. Nothing in this convention however points to these "selves" being indestructible.

Remember that all these constructs are built upon conventional reality, which Chandraktiri views as empty of intrinsic natures.

I didn't mean to imply that the self was "constant" (as then it would be an ultimate self with substance). can you edit your answer to reflect that please?

If you take the position the conventional self cannot be destroyed then by definition this implies a constant, immutable component. Otherwise, if the conventional self and its parts are constantly changing, then that change is constantly destroying and reconstituting the self from changing parts in codependent arising.

no it doesn't! dependent on whether you think the conventional self has a substance, or not. I don't think the conventional self, that useful fiction, disappears every-time we take a shower or clip our fingernails. but it may help us work out that we smell. 'that was me then, that is me now': does that mean that I haven't changed?

I didn't say I took that position. I explained the consequences of taking that position.

hm, well I think that if you think the conventional self cannot be destroyed means that it exists constantly, then you are thinking substantially. but whatever

Again, I do not think that. I get the impression you are not framing this conversation on Candrakīrti , so why did you reference his text in your question in the first place?


text:
Questions Regarding Venerable Ānanda's Overview of Meditation
I SUGGEST & REQUEST THAT YOU READ DN 10 (LINKED) BEFORE READING AND/OR ANSWERING THIS POST.
After contemplating DN 10, several questions have arisen in me pertaining to the clarification of the sutta and the meditation practice. They are the following:

When Venerable Ānanda talks about guarding the sense doors and not getting "caught up in the features and details" of sensual experience (the quote below), how does that translate into a meditation practice (in other words, what would one specifically do to do that in meditation)?

...
“And how, student, does a mendicant guard the sense doors? When a mendicant sees a sight with their eyes, they don’t get caught up in the features and details. If the faculty of sight were left unrestrained, bad unskillful qualities of desire and aversion would become overwhelming. For this reason, they practice restraint, protecting the faculty of sight, and achieving its restraint. When they hear a sound with their ears … When they smell an odor with their nose … When they taste a flavor with their tongue … When they feel a touch with their body … When they know a thought with their mind, they don’t get caught up in the features and details. If the faculty of mind were left unrestrained, bad unskillful qualities of desire and aversion would become overwhelming. For this reason, they practice restraint, protecting the faculty of mind, and achieving its restraint. When they have this noble sense restraint, they experience an unsullied bliss inside themselves. That’s how a mendicant guards the sense doors."
...
(DN 10)

When reading the Satipatthana Sutta, I understand it says to "focus" or "discern" specific phrases and teachings and so too here in a way when Venerable Ānanda talks about having mindfulness and situational awareness (the quote below), but how does that translate into a meditation practice (in other words, what would one specifically do to do that in meditation)?

...
"And how does a mendicant have mindfulness and situational awareness? It’s when a mendicant acts with situational awareness when going out and coming back; when looking ahead and aside; when bending and extending the limbs; when bearing the outer robe, bowl and robes; when eating, drinking, chewing, and tasting; when urinating and defecating; when walking, standing, sitting, sleeping, waking, speaking, and keeping silent. That’s how a mendicant has mindfulness and situational awareness."
...
(DN 10)

Would guarding the sense doors and being mindful and situationally aware lead to the hindrances being given up as well as entering the jhanas per DN 10?

When Venerable Ānanda speaks in DN 10 about extending and projecting the mind toward knowledge and vision, the creation of a mind-made body, psychic power, clairaudience, comprehending the minds of others, recollection of past lives, knowledge of the death and rebirth of sentient beings, and knowledge of the ending of defilements, are these supposed to be standard experiences and potential powers that one should only be aware of in meditation when Venerable Ānanda says to extend and project the mind towards them, or is one supposed to do something other than only being aware of them?

Would the "spectrum of immersion" per DN 10 refer to the meditative methods to achieve samatha (tranquility), would the "spectrum of wisdom" per DN 10 refer to the meditative methods to achieve vipassana (wisdom), and in that, does DN 10 express that both methods are suppose to be used in partnership to attain freedom from suffering (for reference of samatha and vipassana: AN 2.30)?

PLEASE REFERENCE THE TIPITAKA OR SOURCES STRICTLY USING THE TIPITAKA IN YOUR ANSWERS.
-Apannaka

it would be helpful if you gave your own answers to those questions, so people have an idea how you think about it and we could confirm you got the right answer, don't got it, or have an idea of how we can help fill in gaps.

When Venerable Ānanda talks about guarding the sense doors and not getting "caught up in the features and details" of sensual experience (the quote below), how does that translate into a meditation practice (in other words, what would one specifically do to do that in meditation)?

There is an additional explaination

This is Nanda’s guarding of the doors of his senses: If he should look to the east, he looks focusing his entire awareness, (thinking,) ‘As I am looking thus to the east, greed & distress, evil unskillful qualities, will not flow out.’ That’s how he is alert there. If he should look to the west… the north… the south… above… below… to the intermediate directions, he looks focusing his entire awareness, (thinking,) ‘As I am looking thus to the intermediate directions, greed & distress, evil unskillful qualities, will not flow out.’ That’s how he is alert there. This is Nanda’s guarding of the doors of his senses.

When reading the Satipatthana Sutta, I understand it says to "focus" or "discern" specific phrases and teachings and so too here in a way when Venerable Ānanda talks about having mindfulness and situational awareness (the quote below), but how does that translate into a meditation practice (in other words, what would one specifically do to do that in meditation)?

In course of the training sometimes one would think about, take note & discern different aspects & elements of the training.
In example if one dwells with senses guarded and is assailed by sloth & torpor, one would take note and contemplate the sloth & torpor based on what has been heard & done concerning release and direct the mind to the development of some factors of enlightenment.
In the course of this process one will have established mindfulness on the body, the dhamma, the hindrances and the factors of enlightenment.

Would guarding the sense doors and being mindful and situationally aware lead to the hindrances being given up as well as entering the jhanas per DN 10?

Not necessarily. There are three main pillars for the attainment of extinguishment in a qualified or definitive sense, namely, moderation in eating, the guarding of the senses and a devotion to wakefulness.

Bhikkhus, possessing three qualities, a bhikkhu is practicing the unmistaken way and has laid the groundwork for the destruction of the taints. What three? Here, a bhikkhu guards the doors of the sense faculties, observes moderation in eating, and is intent on wakefulness.

Guarding of the senses is like taking a reactive dog away from other dogs to retrain it in a calm environment and basically using foresight to avoid perceptions that are likely to challenge one's impulse control.
The stilling & prevention of unarisen bad states is something other that avoidance of triggering stimuli. And they are connected because removing the triggering sense impression is a necessary step in the process of rehabilitation.
Eg, In regards to the opposite sex, one ought practise not-seeing, if one has to see then not-talking and if one has to talk then one has to be very mindful.
However the prevention & removal of arisen hindrances is more like knowing how to calm the dog down after it got excited at the dogpark and how to train him so that he doesn't get excited next time you go to the park.
Eg, when sloth is present one generally ought to somehow overcome it by directing the mind to a countering theme or activity as to develope factors of enlightenment that can rouse a sluggish mind.

"At such times, monks, as the mind is sluggish, that is the wrong time to cultivate the enlightenment-factor[1] of tranquillity, the enlightenment-factor of concentration, the enlightenment-factor of equanimity. What is the reason? A sluggish mind is hard to arouse by these factors.
"But, monks, when the mind is sluggish, that is the right time to cultivate the enlightenment-factor of investigation-of-states, the enlightenment-factor of energy, the enlightenment-factor of rapture.[2] What is the reason? A sluggish mind is easy to arouse by these factors.

When Venerable Ānanda speaks in DN 10 about extending and projecting the mind toward knowledge and vision, the creation of a mind-made body, psychic power, clairaudience, comprehending the minds of others, recollection of past lives, knowledge of the death and rebirth of sentient beings, and knowledge of the ending of defilements, are these supposed to be standard experiences and potential powers that one should only be aware of in meditation when Venerable Ānanda says to extend and project the mind towards them, or is one supposed to do something other than only being aware of them?

As i understand it, these are actual magical powers and not something one should envision oneself doing much. Some people have an inclination to their development and when they have sufficient power of concentration & judgement they will be able to access those abilities naturally.


text:
After right concentration, how does right view change?
After right concentration, how does right view change?
Do you become completely convinced by right view, or was that already the case? Is right view in some other sense more pervasive? Or is it just as it was, and all that's changed is you have a deeper insight (and if so in what way?)?
I've tagged this Theravada, but only because its path is easier to break down into right view etc., so welcome an answer from any tradition.

Right view is a precursor to any attainment based on right views.
In example if a person held the view that sensuality is a worthwhile pursuit then he wouldn't be able to still the perception of sensuality. He would be training thus 'this should be, this should be for me and it is proper'.
Therefore you can't have right concentration without the corresponding right views. In order for path to be born one develops right views and eventually when there is an opening one attains the 8-fold path as a meditative attainment stilling the conditioned on account of dispassion, mind leaps to the Deathless element for release & a destruction of taints.

yeah well I knew all that, and you didn't answer the question. no harm in it, however

My point was that nothing changes as to one's views, one simply has an experience of entering into & emerging from cessation of perception & feeling. Having emerged from the attainment one's taints are more or less removed and one then has a memory of the sorrowless state, rather than a mere  conceptual understanding of the possibility of such a reality and mind is then inclined to it.

yeah that works for me: non-conceptual knowing or knowledge. thanks!

Another thing changing is that one gains verified confidence and no longer takes it on faith that the training culminates in the Deathless, one no longer proclaims it based on faith or conviction. Technically it's not something one believes beyond the point of realizing that truth with one's body.

sure. it depends on how you spin 'faith' see e.g. Korean buddhism. and I disagree that after right concentration you have no beliefs (even-though I like the idea of the omniscience of nothing at all). but I see were you're coming from

There is a sutta where The Buddha asks Sariputta whether he believes or takes it on faith that the development of faculties culminates in the Deathless and Sariputta says that he doesn't. The present monks were rattled by this and couldn't understand why Sariputta doesn't take it on faith.

It's not that you no longer have beliefs, it's about the beliefs associated with that particular development & the goal. In regards to the vision & knowledge of release one goes beyond faith.

sounds like a point for debate, is all I meant: not entirely clear perhaps?

Sāriputta, do you have faith that the faculties of faith, energy, mindfulness, immersion, and wisdom, when developed and cultivated, culminate, finish, and end in the deathless?”
“Sir, in this case I don’t rely on faith in the Buddha’s claim that the faculties of faith, energy, mindfulness, immersion, and wisdom, when developed and cultivated, culminate, finish, and end in the deathless. There are those who have not known or seen or understood or realized or experienced this with wisdom.

They may rely on faith in this matter. But there are those who have known, seen, understood, realized, and experienced this with wisdom. They have no doubts or uncertainties in this matter. https://suttacentral.net/sn48.44/en/sujato

yeah! that doesn't contradict what I've said, I think?

I can't follow your thinking entirely because i don't know what is Korean Buddhism and when you say 'omniscience of nothing at all', i also get lost a bit because i didn't intend to communicate anything close to that expression. Therefore i think it's best to leave this as is and i don't think it's appropriate to discuss terminology much in the comments.

ok. maybe we should delete all the comments. perhaps edit in some of your comments?

I'm just going to answer from my own limited and potentially fictional etc. experience. Your views do not change, but - in the Mahayana at least - you have "no view" (as Nagarjuna famously espoused).
So, less dogmatic, more capable of revision, and yet never revised.

Typically one leaves wrong view, then enters right view with taints or effluents, then on to generating the noble path, then to the noble right view and then to the rest of the noble eightfold path. Please the MN 117 below.
Another good sutta which shows the transition from right view with taints or effluents, to the generation of the noble path is AN 5.57.

“Therein, bhikkhus, right view comes first. And how does right view
come first? One understands wrong view as wrong view and right view as
right view: this is one’s right view.
“And what, bhikkhus, is wrong view? ‘There is nothing given, nothing
offered, nothing sacrificed; no fruit or result of good and bad
actions; no this world, no other world; no mother, no father; no
beings who are reborn spontaneously; no good and virtuous recluses and
brahmins in the world who have realised for themselves by direct
knowledge and declare this world and the other world.’ This is wrong
view.
“And what, bhikkhus, is right view? Right view, I say, is twofold:
there is right view that is affected by taints, partaking of merit,
ripening in the acquisitions; and there is right view that is noble,
taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path.
“And what, bhikkhus, is right view that is affected by the taints,
partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions? ‘There is what is
given and what is offered and what is sacrificed; there is fruit and
result of good and bad actions; there is this world and the other
world; there is mother and father; there are beings who are reborn
spontaneously; there are in the world good and virtuous recluses and
brahmins who have realised for themselves by direct knowledge and
declare this world and the other world.’ This is right view affected
by taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions.
“And what, bhikkhus, is right view that is noble, taintless,
supramundane, a factor of the path? The wisdom, the faculty of wisdom,
the power of wisdom, the investigation-of-states enlightenment factor,
the path factor of right view in one whose mind is noble, whose mind
is taintless, who possesses the noble path and is developing the noble
path: this is right view that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a
factor of the path.
“One makes an effort to abandon wrong view and to enter upon right
view: this is one’s right effort. Mindfully one abandons wrong view,
mindfully one enters upon and abides in right view: this is one’s
right mindfulness. Thus these three states run and circle around right
view, that is, right view, right effort, and right mindfulness.
MN 117

“And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
is either completely abandoned or diminished. It is for the sake of
this benefit that a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth,
should often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my
kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my
resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’
“This noble disciple reflects thus: ‘I am not the only one who is the
owner of one’s kamma, the heir of one’s kamma; who has kamma as one’s
origin, kamma as one’s relative, kamma as one’s resort; who will be
the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that one does. All beings
that come and go, that pass away and undergo rebirth, are owners of
their kamma, heirs of their kamma; all have kamma as their origin,
kamma as their relative, kamma as their resort; all will be heirs of
whatever kamma, good or bad, that they do.’ As he often reflects on
this theme, the path is generated. He pursues this path, develops it,
and cultivates it. As he does so, the fetters are entirely abandoned
and the underlying tendencies are uprooted.
AN 5.57

There's a snowball effect, exponential growth, like compound interest. The eightfold noble path is a causal sequence, and #8 (right samadhi) loops back to #1 (right view). So when your samadhi improves in quality, immediately you're right view is going to see a little more clearly, and increase the potential to understand a little more deeply. So every moment, it's a snowball getting bigger and stronger. It's an ongoing process, improving or declining depending on your focus, there's no set formula for when a deep insight is going to kick in.


text:
Is the conventional self "conventional" in the same way as dharmas are?
Is the conventional self "conventional" in the same way as dharmas are?
So if the conventionality of dharmas means that they arise and disappear each moment, or that they don't exist from their own side, or that they leave no trace of themselves, or that they always have parts (etc., etc.) does the same apply to the conventional self?
I understand that both lack "substance": but does that mean the same thing here?
I'm interested in anyone having said "no".

There is no agreement as to what are Dharmas and a conventional 'self', if it is conventional & normal then what is the mystery. We have also had plenty of questions dealing with the words 'self' & 'emptiness', you should search for those because i doubt anybody will bother repeating the answers. It's very unclear what it is you are asking because you are mixing various methods of expression, eg notion of a 'conventional self' is entirely foreign to pali litterature.

likewise the notion of dhammas arising & ceasing every moment, this is also foreign to sutta and is actually reprimandable because it is said that what is called mind, consciousness or intellect arises as one thing & ceases as another.

"notion of a 'conventional self' is entirely foreign to pali litterature" @Letsbuddhism I agree I don't understand this question, but I think that "conventional" self is for example in the dialog of King Milinda -- where "conventional" is translated here as "the designation in common use".

I misunderstood what you meant by "dharmas" in the first paragraph -- I thought you meant "doctrines" but I guess you meant "things".

I think you're glossing "self" to mean "ultimate / substantial / unchanging / etc. self", etc.. it'a pretty standard, but has been pretty conclusively - I think - established as a mistake @Letsbuddhism

If you agree, maybe it would draw more attention by using the terms avijja and vijja instead of conventional self and dharmas, that's if I understand your meaning of dharmas. In Theravada, Avijja has a similar meaning to conventional self, and Vijja has a similar meaning to dharmas. Avijja - without the risk of sounding derogatory - is a kind of stupidity or living life with a closed mind. Vijja is the opposite: it's a desire to see the larger frame of reference where situational wisdom arises.

Does this answer your question? Does Theravada posit the selflessness of phenomena?

I think this question is possibly a duplicate of https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/28708/does-theravada-posit-the-selflessness-of-phenomena and https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/28709/if-theravada-doesnt-posit-the-selflessness-of-phenomena-then-how-to-interpret

@ChrisW as to conventional, i'll give you that but it's a stretch to say that The Buddha taught about the doctrine of self in this way. As to OP You will be surprised as to the amount of delusion in buddhist circles. Don't want to get into details much but afaik the word moment occurs like 1 time in the tipitaka and that in a book of abhidhamma. The conditioned is said to change as it persists and consciousness arising as one thing & ceasing as another. I only post this to show how difficult it is to interpret your question, i neither agree nor disagree with your assertions.

Afaik It is mostly after 11th century that the doctrine of things arising & ceasing very fast became a popular expression in Theravada due to the comy which is Abhidhammattha-sangaha.

I said there is a lot of delusion in Buddhist circles in regards to this "no it is not entirely foreign to the pali sutras, not unless lots of monks have been entirely misunderstanding the sutras". I was just using your proposition of monks having a lot misunderstanding [delusion] if that expression is indeed foreign to Sutta and it obviously isn't in the canonical texts, i already explained the origin. I think that you will be surprised to learn how much disagreement there is among monks and commentators if you study more.

OP: "Is the conventional self "conventional" in the same way as dharmas
are?"

In extent Mahayana traditions the selflessness of phenomena and the selflessness of persons is of the same nature and both are posited. They differ only in the object of focus. Further, it is considered critical to understand the selflessness of phenomena in order to achieve the soteriological ends of the Buddha.
In the Theravada, the selflessness of phenomena is not posited and it is treated by some as not germane to the soteriological ends of the Buddha while others insist that positing the selflessness of phenomena is actually a hindrance in that it denies the reality of the objectively existing world. However, it should be noted that some Theravada practitioners here on the site seem to have more or less the same understanding of the two selves as Mahayana.

OP: "So if the conventionality of dharmas means that they arise and
disappear each moment, or that they don't exist from their own side,
or that they leave no trace of themselves, or that they always have
parts (etc., etc.) does the same apply to the conventional self?"

In Mahayana: yes. In Theravada: see above.

OP: "I understand that both lack "substance": but does that mean the
same thing here?"

Again see above.
Also, these questions and answers might be helpful.

can you please provide a reference for your first paragraph, ideally a very catholic one

You can find a reference to a Geshe Lharampa stating essentially the same thing in the first link I posted in the answer above. Cheers.

ok well I was primary interested in more sinitic forms of buddhism cheers

Yeah, that's hard to give a reference for. I think most of the sinitic traditions would agree, but it will be hard to find a detailed description written in an academic fashion. The Tibetan traditions are the most academic in this sense.

dwai, I will ask a Tendai monk or scholar. your answer was helpful, thanks

Regarding self as a convention:
If you sit down, you have a lap. When you stand up, where is the lap? Where has it gone to?
What a "lap" is, is just a convention, just a like a "fist".
Similarly, a being (satta), a person (puggala), a chariot (ratha) are all conventions. See SN 5.10.
The self (atta) can be seen in two forms.
In the first case, when am unenlightened person clings to it, it's simply a mental idea (Snp 4.14) in the mind that one clings to.
In the second case, when an enlightened one says "me", "I", "we", "our", "mine", he is just using conventions (SN 1.25).
Even in the first case, it's just a convention too. Why? What you call "self" is somehow pegged to some other concept like your body or your mind or your personality.
So, imagine if you go to the beach and spend a lot of time and effort to build a sand castle. Then someone comes and smashes it. You feel angry and say "why did you smash my sand castle?" "You", "my" and "sand castle" are all conventions. The anger appeared because of clinging.

Regarding emptiness:
The concept of "substance" (svabhava) comes in the Madhyamaka philosophy of Mahayana. Madhyamaka states that everything is empty of substance, which means it is empty of the meaning that is given to it by the mind. It's not what you think it is.
Anatta is the notion that everything is not self. The body, the mind, the five aggregates, mental ideas etc. are all not self.
Anatta is a specialized form of emptiness (i.e. everything is empty of a self - SN 35.85), while the Madhyamaka emptiness is a more generalized form (i.e. everything is empty of the meaning given to it by the mind). Both types of emptiness are covered in MN 1. So, Theravada has both too, in fact.
The Madhyamaka emptiness is explained by the Pali term papanca. If papanca is the process of baking, then svabhava is the cake. Please see this answer.
In his commentary to Snp 4.14, Ven. Thanissaro explained that the objectification and classification (papanca) of the mental idea of the self vs. non-self objects, lead to craving, clinging and suffering. He also explained papanca in his commentary to MN 18.
A detailed explanation can be found in this answer.

yes, similarly. I made that point in the question, and asked if they are in the same way empty. are they?

@unknown_buddhist The concept of "substance" (svabhava) comes in the Madhyamaka philosophy of Mahayana. Madhyamaka states that everything is empty of substance, which means it is empty of the meaning that is given to it by the mind. It's not what you think it is.

oh, I have definitely heard that anatta means the self lacks a "substance". certainly, anatta has been glossed before as "emptiness of self", just as sunyata has as "lack of self existence"

Anatta is the notion that everything is not self. Your body, your mind, the five aggregates, mental ideas etc. are all not self.

so you seem to think "no" they are just similar, not the same, emptiness. that's cool... I'm out of questions now anyway!

@unknown_buddhist Anatta is a specialized form of emptiness (i.e. everything is empty of a self), while the Madhyamaka emptiness is a more generalized form (i.e. everything is empty of the meaning given to it by the mind). Both types of emptiness are covered in MN 1. So, Theravada has both too, in fact.

they mean different things (in Mahayana and Theravada) I believe, but ymmv - legitimately I mean ha!

@ruben2020 this answer says that Theravada also has selflessness of phenomena according to MN 1... does that mean you've changed your mind? Do you now regard the selflessness of phenomena as important to the goals of liberation?

@YesheTenley What you call "selflessness of phenomena" is called papanca (reification or conceptualization or objectification-classification) in Theravada. The mental idea of the self is a type of papanca and non-self objects are also papanca. Craving is also habit of papanca. Snp 4.14 is very clear that to end suffering, we must end papanca by putting an end to the root of papanca, which is the thought "I am the thinker" (i.e. the self). Ven. Thanissaro explains this in his footnote.

see https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/45625/what-is-the-difference-between-theravada-papanca-with-regard-to-objects-and-ma


text:
Are lives of people who have, by birth or design, large amounts of money, worth more to the Buddha, than the poor?
Are lives of people who have, by birth or design, large amounts of money, worth more to the Buddha, than the poor?
I don't actually know enough about the history of Buddhism to answer that question!

OP: Are lives of people who have, by birth or design, large amounts
of money, worth more to the Buddha, than the poor?

Definitely no.
Listen to the story of Sunita the Outcaste below, who came from a very poor and socially disadvantaged background, but was accepted by the Buddha into the monastic order. In ancient India, the outcaste or untouchable was of the lowest caste, while the brahmin (the priestly class) was the highest caste.
Ven. Sunita followed the teachings of the Buddha and became an Arahant (a fully enlightened one). The Buddha said that he became a true brahmin.
This means that the ones who are fervently seeking enlightenment and the ones who have attained enlightenment are worth more to the Buddha than anyone else.

In a lowly family I was born,
poor, with next to no food.
My work was degrading:
I gathered the spoiled,
the withered flowers from shrines
and threw them away.
People found me disgusting,
despised me, disparaged me.
Lowering my heart,
I showed reverence to many.
Then I saw the One Self-awakened,
arrayed with a squadron of monks,
the Great Hero, entering the city,
supreme, of the Magadhans.
Throwing down my carrying pole,
I approached him to do reverence.
He — the supreme man — stood still
out of sympathy
just for me.
After paying homage
to the feet of the teacher,
I stood to one side
& requested the Going Forth from him,
supreme among all living beings.
The compassionate Teacher,
sympathetic to all the world, said:
"Come, monk."
That was my formal Acceptance.
Alone, I stayed in the wilds,
untiring,
I followed the Teacher's words,
just as he, the Conqueror, had taught me.
In the first watch of the night,
I recollected previous lives;
in the middle watch,
purified the divine eye;
in the last,
burst the mass of darkness.
Then, as night was ending
& the sun returning,
Indra & Brahma came to pay homage to me,
hands palm-to-palm at their hearts:
"Homage to you, O thoroughbred of men,
Homage to you, O man supreme,
whose fermentations are ended.
You, dear sir, are worthy of offerings."
Seeing me, arrayed with a squadron of devas,
the Teacher smiled & said:
"Through austerity, celibacy,
restraint, & self-control:
That's how one is a brahman.
He is a brahman supreme."
Thag 12.2

Which is more likely: a poor man who has no attachments to his poverty or a rich man who has no attachments to his riches?
Worthiness is an evaluation; an evaluation is a comparison; a comparison demands the existence of a reified self. Someone who has awakened sees the falseness of the reified self, thus makes no comparisons, thus makes no evaluations, thus is unconcerned with worthiness.
Rich people have more free time to sit around contemplating and practicing than poor people. Rich people also have a greater burden of ego-identification: each thing they own, each mark of status and privilege, each step up the social ladder is another fetter binding them to a fabricated self. Most likely they need more time to contemplate and practice to make the same progress as the poor. It all comes out in the wash, as they say...

As I understand, the Buddha's teachings seemed to favour those who had gone forth from the lay life into the homeless life, regardless of what background they came from. There's a simile about this regarding a farmer's fields where the crops are growing in one field but not another, and that one should attend to the already growing crops first. I guess his disciples were the already growing crops, and everyone else were barely growing if I understand it correctly. However, the Buddha travelled and encountered a wide variety of people from all walks of life, including rich and poor, and gave teachings suitable to their understanding.
EDIT: I wasn't able to locate the simile I mentioned. I tried searching the index of similes at access to insight, but it yielded nothing. I know it's there somewhere. In any case, I think ruben2020 is most accurate in answering your question.

Four things are helpful.

DN34:1.5.2: What four things are helpful?
DN34:1.5.3: Four situations:
DN34:1.5.4: living in a suitable region, relying on good people, being rightly resolved in oneself, and past merit.

Therefore, if one lives in a bad neighborhood, is surrounded by bad friends, is uncertain, or has a bad reputation, then one should take action to live in a safer neighborhood with trustworthy friends acting decisively for the benefit of one and all.
The Buddha himself talks about wealth in terms of qualities as opposed to money.

DN34:1.8.3: Seven kinds of wealth of noble ones:
DN34:1.8.4: the wealth of faith, ethical conduct, conscience, prudence, learning, generosity, and wisdom.

Lastly, one understands that character matters, not conventional wealth, caste or titles:

AN2.9:1.1: “These two bright things, mendicants, protect the world.
AN2.9:1.2: What two?
AN2.9:1.3: Conscience and prudence.
AN2.9:1.4: If these two bright things did not protect the world, there would be no recognition of the status of mother, aunts, or wives and partners of teachers and respected people.
AN2.9:1.5: The world would become promiscuous, like goats and sheep, chickens and pigs, and dogs and jackals.
AN2.9:1.6: But because the two bright things protect the world, there is recognition of the status of mother, aunts, and wives and partners of teachers and respected people.”

Good householder,
Naturally the Sublime Buddha more often taught the rich, and more seldom the poor. Don't forget that poverty is often mainly caused by a significant tendency of being incapable of overcoming the hindrances.
Yet, of course it's possible for a person to change his or her current social state, even toward the Dhamma. There is no need to get rich first, but use effort for the smarter track.

Buddha most often taught monks who don't use money

I think the answer implies that Buddha taught mostly the most capable,  those who are rich in ability to overcome hindrances. Took me a while to process

@Letsbuddhism Yes, it's incredibly insightful that very often, lay people who are stuck in hardcore poverty are assailed by the five hindrances more than the middle and upper class, hence they are also not seeking Nirvana. They can neither improve their social status, nor become enlightened, due to a lack of capability. Also, if you are always hungry, you will not have the motivation to think about dependent origination and so on.

It would be helpful to provide some sort of reference for this. There are many who are not poor or not rich, but comfortable.

Maybe 5-10%, good householder, if even,talks are given to low social status, poor, good householder. There are traded lists and stats around, but really not worthwhile to put time and effort into it. May one just observe ones neighborhood, if not reading some Suttas and look toward status and capability to listen to higher.

All other things being equal then the rich person is the foremost.
Otherwise are qualities like beauty, power & influence, wisdom or health better than wealth? Is spiritual & intellectual wealth more worth than material?
I think The Buddha would approve of the saying 'pretty is as pretty does' and that it is likewise with wealth 'the rich is as the rich does'.

Health is the foremost gain.
Contentment is the foremost wealth.
Trust the foremost kinship.
Extinguishment - the foremost happiness. - Dhp 204