text:
Should an Arahant become an unwanted burden to his caretaker?
The following sutta quote suggests that under the stated conditions, an Arahant should forcibly remain an unwanted burden or guest to a specific individual caretaker, even if sent away (or dismissed - according to Ven. Suddhaso's translation).
Is this really the case?
If that specific individual caretaker is unable to care for that Arahant any more due to personal circumstances e.g. due to financial reasons or family reasons or health reasons, what should he do?

Take another case of a mendicant who lives supported by an individual.
As they do so, their mindfulness becomes established, their mind
becomes immersed in samādhi, their defilements come to an end, and
they arrive at the supreme sanctuary. And the necessities of life that
a renunciate requires—robes, almsfood, lodgings, and medicines and
supplies for the sick—are easy to come by. That mendicant should
reflect: ‘While living supported by this person, my mindfulness
becomes established … And the necessities of life are easy to come
by.’ That mendicant should follow that person for the rest of their
life. They shouldn’t leave them, even if sent away.”
MN 17 (translated by Ven. Sujato)

Is it possible that “sent away” doesn’t mean “sent away by the caretaker?” In other words, some of the townsfolk might try to drive the Bhikkhu away, but so long as the caretaker is still making it easy to obtain requisites, the Bhikkhu should continue to visit. Note that if the caretaker sends the Bhikkhu away and stops offering requisites, then it is no longer the case that “the necessities of life are easy to come by.”

Is this really the case?
Piya Tan's explanation is as follows:

In the case of his dependence on a person, the Sutta instructions are rather curious. If he does not
progress in his practice, he should leave, whether he is properly supported or not, and he need not even
take leave [§§23-24]. However, if he should be able to progress, he should not leave—whether he is able
to properly obtain his life-supports or not. Then, even if the person tells him to leave or drives him away,
he should not leave!
Upon careful consideration, we should be able to understand why the practising monastic should not
leave when his practice is progressing well. The reason is simple enough: nothing should stand in the way
of his impending awakening! Indeed, if the monastic advances in deep meditation and approaches liberation, no one—not even Māra—will be able to drive him from his bodhi-seat, just like the Buddha under
the Bodhi tree during the great awakening.

If that specific individual caretaker is unable ... what should he do?
Maybe show compassion, make merit.
Footnote 23 of Piya Tan's says,

Tena bhikkhave bhikkhunā yāva,jīvam pi so puggalo anubandhitabbo, na pakkamitabbaṁ api panujjamānena
pîti [Be Ee Ce; Se samujjamānena pîti].
As in Paṭisambhidā S 2 (A 7.37/4:32), SD 85.17. Comy says that even if one
were being physically thrown out, driven out with a rod, and so on, one should still remain, patiently living there all
life long (MA 2:72).

Wow ... that's so true yet unbelievable.

The phrase "even if sent away" occurs in two suttas. The first sutta is MN17 as posted.

MN17:26.7: That mendicant should follow that person for the rest of their life. They shouldn’t leave them, even if sent away.”

The second sutta is MN122:

MN122:19.2: For what reason would a disciple value following the Teacher, even if sent away?”

MN122 explains further:

MN122:20.1: “A disciple should not value following the Teacher for the sake of statements, songs, or discussions.
MN122:20.2: Why is that?
MN122:20.3: Because for a long time you have learned the teachings, remembering them, reciting them, mentally scrutinizing them, and comprehending them theoretically.
MN122:20.4: But a disciple should value following the Teacher, even if asked to go away, for the sake of talk about self-effacement that helps open the heart and leads solely to disillusionment, dispassion, cessation, peace, insight, awakening, and extinguishment. That is, talk about fewness of wishes, contentment, seclusion, aloofness, arousing energy, ethics, immersion, wisdom, freedom, and the knowledge and vision of freedom.

Specifically, there is a danger to the student:

MN122:23.4: While meditating withdrawn, they’re visited by a stream of brahmins and householders of the city and country.
MN122:23.5: When this happens, they enjoy infatuation, fall into greed, and return to indulgence.
MN122:23.6: This student is said to be imperiled by the student’s peril.

How could an arahant benefit from and abandon a student in peril even if that student sends them away?

You are quoting Vanapattha Paryaya (monastic practice). Please note that attaining Nibbaba is the prime goal of Buddhists. If a person, a place or anything is helping that effort, it is viewed as a rare opportunity for the disciple to complete his/her journey. Such opportunities should not be missed.
On the other hand, the person who helps the disciple will be accruing a lot of good karma and knowledge (due to dhamma discussions, etc.) which in turn help him/her to complete their journey towards Nibbana as well. So, this should be viewed as a mutually beneficial arrangement rather than a once sided thing.

the monk referred to in the sutta has attained liberation. this monk is said to remain with the benefactor

The translation is misleading. What kind of liberation ties one to a place or a person? Lord Buddha preached Dhamma for the people who are yet to attain Nirvana. Once you are an Arhant, you are no longer clinging to anything, not even to Dhamma.

sorry but the translation is not misleading. please have faith in the sutta and do not take refuge in puthujjhana such as Piya Tan and his puthujjana disciples

If that specific individual caretaker is unable to care for that Arahant any more due to personal circumstances e.g. due to financial reasons or family reasons or health reasons, what should he do?

Notice the basic four-fold pattern thru-out the sutta:

No enlightenment + scarce requisites ==> leave immediately the very day;
No enlightenment + ample requisites ==> leave;
Enlightenment      + scarce requisites ==> stay;
Enlightenment      + ample requisites ==> stay as long as life lasts, even if told to go away;
So, if that caretaker is unable to care for the Arahant specifically due to financial reason (ie. ample requisites downgraded to scarce requisites), that'd degrade the case from #4 down to #3, which does not instruct the arahant to "stay even if told to go away", hence eliminates the case of the arahant being a burden to a financially-troubled patron. Same logic applies to remaining cases, if the requisites gets downgraded due to patron's personal, family, health issues, case #4 will downgrade to #3: while the arahant should stay, the "even if told to leave" would no longer be enforced.

The teaching does not appear to imply what the question is asking. The teaching appears to say:

Take another case of a mendicant who lives supported by an individual.
As they do so, their mindfulness becomes established, their mind
becomes immersed in samādhi, their defilements come to an end, and
they arrive at the supreme sanctuary… And the necessities of life are
easy to come by.’ That mendicant should follow that person for the
rest of their life. They shouldn’t leave them, even if sent away.
MN 17

The above appears to say the monk should follow the certain layperson, even if the layperson sends the monk away. In other words, the monk continues to visit the house of the certain layperson for alms, even if the certain layperson refused to offer alms and sends the monk away. In other words, the teaching appears to place no obligations upon the certain layperson. The teaching appears to say the opposite, namely, the monk has an enduring obligation of gratitude towards the certain layperson because it was when obtaining requistes from that certain layperson the monk established mindfulness and attained enligthenment.
The duty in MN 17 appears to fall upon the monk and not the layperson. The monk is to always have gratitude towards the layperson. Thus there is a sutta somewhere that says a monk or person must always be grateful towards the smallest gift.


text:
How do I cultivate Samatha and Vipassana according to the Suttas?
According to the Suttas, how do I practice Vipassana and how do practice samatha? Are these practices differentiated or not?

Asking six questions per day is maybe too many for this site. In the past it was once suggested that the list of newest questions shouldn't be all from the same person.

See for example this meta-post.

Who else will ask questions? This site is not exactly highly trafficked. Possibly the moderators here should drop their habitual non-Buddhist secular ideas and have more of a Buddhist bent. Keep in mind in Buddhism the student asking questions is the most essential thing. Its always problematic when aliens who have never lived in a Buddhist culture moderate a Buddhist forum on a website created by computer nerds/geeks.

One of my answers is here: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/17583/8157

Two of my answers are here: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/33264/8157 & https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/17583/8157

@DhammaDhatu It isn't to do with "who" is asking, but "what", "why", and "how much". If one person "floods" a site with questions that becomes a problem too (see previous experience with a couple of users I could name). Anyway part of a moderator's function on SE is to relay various site-specific policies which "the community" discussed on the Meta site.

The questions are good and often challenging, such as on MN 39 and MN 17. Credit where credit is due.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can concentration and wisdom be developed exclusively from each other?
Can you develop Samadhi (concentration) and Pañña (wisdom) exclusively from one another (according to the suttas)?
I am under the impression that a meditator cannot develop one without developing the other.

my answer is here: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/33157/8157

Thank you very much

But my question is not distinguishing Vippassana as opposed to Samatha but wisdom as opposed to samādhi instead.

Right Samadhi is lead by Right Wisdom (Panna). Wrong Samadhi is not lead by wisdom. Refer to MN 117: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html, which says: "Any singleness of mind equipped with these seven factors — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, & right mindfulness — is called noble right concentration with its supports & requisite conditions."

But can't you, in the 5 faculties, develop wisdom exclusively.

Question reopened based on "But my question is not distinguishing Vippassana as opposed to Samatha but wisdom as opposed to samādhi instead".

Yes according to the Suttas one can develop concentration separate or in tandem with wisdom.
AN 4.170

You can't have wisdom apart from vipassana either.  Think of samadhi as the ingredients, vipassana as the blender, and prajna as the milkshake.

Terrible and incorrect metaphor.

Care to elaborate?  Samadhi creates the potentiality for insight ("When my concentrated mind was thus purified, bright, unblemished, rid of imperfection, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to imperturbability..."), vipassana is the act of directing that mind; it's the mechanism in this process ("I directed it to"), and prajna is the fruit of that direction ("knowledge of the destruction of the taints. I directly knew as it actually is: ‘This is suffering’..." (MN 4)

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


text:
Stuck in householders equanimity, what to do next?
I was in a really bad situation five-six years back. Since then, I have been sincerely practicing the dhamma and have overcome all the five hindrances to meditation.
I am a layman and I meditate (Shamata, Zazen, and Shikentaza) for 2 to 3 hours daily. I feel stuck now, I just sit without thinking anything or feeling any emotions at all. I am not able to attain the Jhana or satori or samadhi. I know the very desire to attain itself is a hindrance, but when I sit, I sit desireless. I am not moving anywhere for the last six months.
What should be done?

Have you completed all 4 tetrads as laid out in MN 118? (ref: https://suttacentral.net/mn118/en/bodhi?reference=none&highlight=false )

You temporarily overcame the Five Hinderances with concentration meditation?

An observation: the claim that you're feeling 'stuck' suggests that you haven't quite reached a state of equanimity. You've achieved a state of discipline, which is good and useful, but discipline is just the container. Empty the container, then see what comes to fill it.
One mistake practitioners make is that they create a container that is like a pot with a lid. They control their thoughts, emotions, and sensations as an act of will, clamping that lid down so that there is a superficial sense of calm inaction. but whatever was in that pot to begin with is still bubbling away where it can't be seen. One has developed poise, but not peace. Eventually we all need to loosen that lid and let what's inside cool and calm and release itself. We have to accept our thoughts, emotions, sensations, etc. for what they are. When we cut off our emotions we'll always feel stuck, because emotions — from the Latin emovere, literally 'to move outward' — are what gives us vitality and will.
Remember, emotions, thoughts, etc., are not the problem; attachments are the problem. Disentangling the one from the other is advanced work, and I think that's where you need to be headed now.

Compare what you actually Posted, to what you might have thought it ought to mean.
How is the Title "Stuck in householders equanimity" reflected in the exposition?
If in the relevant time, you've been practicing the dhamma and overcome all five hindrances to meditation, what difference did having been in a bad situation years back make?
What does being a layman mean here? Assuming it means unqualified, does it also mean (largely) untutored or (wholly) self-taught or what?
How does it sit with you that meditating for even one hour daily might seem excessive? That some teachers see meditating for several hours a day as dangerous?
Ask yourself when you feel stuck now, to what is that feeling to be compared? How did you hope to feel? Is there something you hoped to achieve?
Ask yourself how not thinking anything or feeling any emotions at all isn't itself a significant achievement; if thoughts and emotions were obstacles to be overcome or by-passed, why did their absence not indicate success?
Look again at the difference between "I know the very desire to attain… is a hindrance" and "when I sit, I sit desireless"? If desire is a hindrance, why is being "desireless" a problem?
When you're not moving anywhere, how is that measured? Were you hoping to move somewhere particular… or anywhere noticeable?
Why might not thinking anything or feeling any emotions, or desiring nothing, or not moving anywhere not be signs of having achieved balance or equanimity?

Maybe you have gone to as far as you can as a lay person.
Being in solitude in the forest, taking the ordination vows might be the right path for you. Maybe it would be wise to look for a teacher who has been on the same path as you.

Sometimes i meditated some 6 hours a day, in a similar fashion and for a few months with little to show for it.
The issue was that i were meditating during the day and later attacking my exgf or whatnot.
Meditation became something i do to pass the time and i wasn't properly bent on renunciation.
I guess my suggestion is to look at how you spend your days in general and if possible talk yourself into a wholehearted commitment to the training.
I've experimented with walking & sitting for a long time & a short time.
Ironically i got nirodha when i was generally struggling, like occasionally crying feeling sorry for myself and not expecting anything special anytime soon. The day of attainment, prior to meditating, i was talking to a monk friend and literally saying that it was too difficult to keep pushing and how i couldn't see myself maintaining the effort lest i broke through something soon.
Was then working 4-6 hours from home, studying and trying to get 1-3 hours in walking/sitting total and at a time when it was fairly difficult to keep all the higher precepts but it worked out as i was otherwise very focused & staying alone.

@7years Are "7years" and "user23677" both belonging to the same user? If yes, please visit this page to find out how to merge them.

I meditate (Shamata, Zazen, and Shikentaza) for 2 to 3 hours daily. I feel stuck now, I just sit without thinking anything or feeling any emotions at all. I am not able to attain the Jhana or satori or samadhi.

I think that If this is true then this next statement is probably not true

and have overcome all the five hindrances to meditation

I think that you should try learning how to develop factors of enlightenment by talking to yourself, reflecting & pondering.
Like most people can do something good, or remember having done something good and become gladdened on that account if they aren't too burdened by regret in the here & now.
Likewise most people can be roused & inspired by a dhamma talk, feeling joy & happiness born of seclusion.
Rousing these in oneself, maintaining these & giving frequent attention to such seclusion is a skill to be developed.
There are themes for reflection, things to be frequently pondered, things to be contemplated, things to be thought much about.
Developing these wholesome themes is basically the work and it's much easier with other people.
The foundation is devotion to wakefulness, moderation in eating and guarding of the senses.

Meditation is important, but there is more:

MN8:11.1: It’s possible that some mendicant, going totally beyond the dimension of nothingness, might enter and remain in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception.
MN8:11.2: They might think
MN8:11.3: they’re practicing self-effacement.
MN8:11.4: But in the training of the Noble One these are not called ‘self-effacement’;
MN8:11.5: they’re called ‘peaceful meditations’.

The spiritual life is much more:

SN45.3:1.2: Then Sāriputta went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side, and said to him:
SN45.3:1.3: “Sir, good friends, companions, and associates are the whole of the spiritual life.”
SN45.3:2.1: “Good, good, Sāriputta!

And because the spiritual life is much more, we can then continue reading MN8 to understand how to apply our cushion practice.

MN8:12.1: Now, Cunda, you should work on self-effacement in each of the following ways.
...(too much to post here)...

Permanently overcoming the five hindrances without jhana sounds suspicious. I speculate that either you have not overcome the five hindrances, or you have not attained jhana.
For getting into jhana, please read "Mindfulness, Bliss, and Beyond" by Ajahn Brahm.
Once you have attained jhana, you can get into vipassana. For this, please read "How To Meditate" by Ajahn Yuttadhammo.
Or you can try to develop both in tandem (AN 4.170).
From "Awareness Itself" by Ajaan Fuang Jotiko, compiled by his disciple Bhikkhu Thanissaro:

A student came to complain to Ajaan Fuang that she had been meditating
for years, and still hadn't gotten anything out of it. His immediate
response: "You don't meditate to 'get' anything. You meditate to let
go."

Concentration: You have to learn how to do it, how to maintain it, and
how to put it to use."

"Once you catch hold of the mind, it'll stay in the present, without
slipping off to the past or future. That's when you'll be able to make
it do whatever you want."

"When the meditation goes well, don't get excited. When it doesn't go
well, don't get depressed. Simply be observant to see why it's good,
why it's bad. If you can be observant like this, it won't be long
before your meditation becomes a skill."

"Everything depends on your powers of observation. If they're crude
and sloppy, you'll get nothing but crude and sloppy results. And your
meditation will have no hope of making progress."

"Meditating isn't a matter of making the mind empty, you know. The
mind has to have work to do. If you make it empty, then anything —
good or bad — can pop into it. It's like leaving the front door to
your home open. Anything at all can come strolling right in."

In the Pali suttas, the term "householders equinimity" does not refer to the content of the question but refers to not seeing the dangers of sensuality, i.e., regarding or accepting sensuality as OK and normal.
Returning to the content of the question, the Buddha taught (in SN 48.10; end of MN 118) jhana is developed by making letting go/surrender/relinquishment (vossagga) the meditation object.
Its not enough have no hindrances and just deliberately focus the mind at breathing. Such practise is too rigid for jhana.
To develop jhana, the mind/consciousness must drop naturally, gently & silently into the body. Celibacy is also generally required for this. No sex; no masturbation; etc.
The Pali suttas say "malleability" or "flexibility" ("kammaniya") is a quantity of right concentration. If concentration is too ambitious, too stiff and too rigid, jhana will not be reached. Right concentration is born of letting go.
Best wishes.

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

I wont repeat what others have said.  My understanding is that striving for anything in practice is not the way. We sit with what is.  Sometimes that is boredom, quiet nothingness, sometimes it is rapture.  While Nibanna or enlightenment is the ultimate goal, I believe giving up goals, is a better play.
If you have a teacher he or she should be able to instruct you.  If you dont than maybe it is time to find one.  Be patient, maybe dont try so hard.  But I dont know your mind, or your actual experience so theres that.  Either way try sitting just to sit

Stuck in household, when seeing clear: going forth, so to come to refined virtue by seeing dukkha more clear. Dukkha is cause of Saddha (surrender/virtue/leaf), saddha cause of joy, joy of satisfaction, satisf. of stillness, stillness of happiness, happiness of concentration...vimutti. No cause for joy beyond house, no leave.


text:
Proper way of offering
I'm trying to clarify something I believe I heard a while back. I think I heard the monk instruct the lay person to say "Bhikku Sanghassa Demi" which I believe was later translated as "I give this to the community of monks"
Is this correct?

Yes its it correct. When you say those words you are offering to all Sangha including Lord Budhdha, Arhant sangha, and all other Sangha including Sangha from present, future and past. After this offering the offered thing will be property of Sangha and should not be used/consumed by others without explicit permission from Sangha.

To repeat what Sampath posted (except, in an answer instead of a comment), the answer is "yes".
This reference, quoting from Abhidhamma in Daily Life -- Dana (charity) -- repeats that it's an offering to the whole Sangha, and gives advice about proper cetana (volition).

How to Projects One’s Goodwill
In offering Sanghika Dana, a donor’s mind must be directed to the Order of the Sangha in general. Even though you utter, “Sanghassa demi - I offer it to the Order of the Sangha”, if you have in mind a particular monk or a particular monastery, your charity cannot be Sanghika Dana. Offering alms food to any monk on daily alms-round, or to certain monk designated by the Order can be classified as true Sanghika Dana, when only the donor’s mind is truly directed to the whole of Sangha.
Mental Attitude While Offering Alms-Food
The virtuous devotee, endowed with great faith in the Buddha wishing to promote long endurance of his teaching and emergence of succession of good, dutiful Sangha who would maintain the prosperity and purity of sasana, should support the Sangha organization by offering regular alms-food to its members. But when the alms-food has been prepared ready for offering, the devotee must remove any attachment as, “This is my Sayadaw; this is the monks I have helped ordained.” Instead, he must incline his mind to the whole Sangha while making the offering uttering at the same time, “I offer this to the Sangha, Sanghassa demi.” When the Dana performance is made daily in such a manner, the offering becomes a true Sanghika Dana.


text:
Please explain loathsomeness in SN 46.54

If he wants, he remains percipient of loathsomeness in the presence of what is not loathsome. If he wants, he remains percipient of unloathsomeness in the presence of what is loathsome. If he wants, he remains percipient of loathsomeness in the presence of what is not loathsome & what is. If he wants, he remains percipient of unloathsomeness in the presence of what is loathsome & what is not. If he wants—in the presence of what is loathsome & what is not—cutting himself off from both, he remains equanimous, alert, & mindful. Or he may enter & remain in the beautiful liberation.
SN 46.54

Could someone explain what all this loathsome and unloathsome business is?

The relevent Pali word is "paṭikūla", which means "repulsive", as follows:

In the same way, when a mendicant has not developed or cultivated mindfulness of the body, their eye pulls towards pleasant sights, but is put off [repulsed] by unpleasant sights. Their ear … nose … tongue … body …
Evameva kho, bhikkhave, yassa kassaci bhikkhuno kāyagatāsati abhāvitā abahulīkatā, taṁ cakkhu āviñchati manāpiyesu rūpesu, amanāpiyā rūpā paṭikūlā honti …pe…
mind pulls towards pleasant thoughts, but is put off by unpleasant thoughts.
mano āviñchati manāpiyesu dhammesu, amanāpiyā dhammā paṭikūlā honti.
SN 35.247

The teaching in SN 46.54 is found in many places, such as in MN 152. It simply means the very skilled practitioner can view the repulsive in the repulsive, the unrepulsive in the repulsive, etc, etc, or have equanimity.
For example, monks & nuns are taught to view what is repulsive in the opposite sex. Therefore, a monk, for example, may view what is repulsive in a woman. However, a monk may also view what is not repulsive in a woman, such as women care for their children and also particularly care for monks, such as offering monks alms food. Or a monk may view a woman as merely five aggregates, which inclines to equanimity.
Why would one do such things?

Meditation upon the repulsive eliminates defilements connected to lust.

However, there is a sutta were many monks ended their life due to too much meditation upon the repulsive.

Therefore, meditation upon the non-repulsive is done to balance the mind plus develop wholesome qualities such as gratitude & loving-kindness.

All of the above are related to perceiving reality clearly.

Thank you.  The word "paṭikūla" occurs most prominently in AN5.144, which also provides more information. I have added "repulsive in the unrepulsive" to our examples as an excellent study topic.

Why would one do such things?

@PrinceDeepthinker - this type of practice evokes dispassion towards the body such that the six sense awareness disbands and there remains only an awareness, sometimes called just seeing. It is a practice that is only suited to particular types of people with a particular type of disposition.

But why would one meditate on the repulsive in regards to the repulsive, unrepulsive in regards to the unrepulsive or be equanimous?

If he wants, he remains percipient of loathsomeness in the presence of
what is not loathsome.

The noble one can attain Loving Kindness Absorb-Jhana or Four Elements Almost-Absorb-Jhana, unloathsomeness, by photographic mental seeing loathsomeness-object such as human.
This is showing the proficiency of the meditation of the noble one.

If he wants, he remains percipient of unloathsomeness in the presence
of what is loathsome.

The noble one can attain loathsomeness-Absorb-Jhana or insight meditation, loathsomeness, by photographic mental seeing unloathsomeness-object such as things which the ordinary love to see, hear, smell, taste, touch, and think of.
This is showing the proficiency of the meditation of the noble one.

If he wants, he remains percipient of loathsomeness in the presence of
what is not loathsome & what is.

The noble one can attain Four Elements Almost-Absorb-Jhana, unloathsomeness, by photographic mental seeing loathsomeness-object or unloathsomeness-object (above).
This is showing the proficiency rapidly of the meditation of the noble one.

If he wants, he remains percipient of unloathsomeness in the presence
of what is loathsome & what is not.

The noble one can attain loathsomeness-Absorb-Jhana or insight meditation, loathsomeness, by photographic mental seeing loathsomeness-object or unloathsomeness-object (above).
This is showing the proficiency rapidly of the meditation of the noble one.

If he wants—in the presence of what is loathsome & what is not—cutting
himself off from both, he remains equanimous, alert, & mindful.
Or he may enter & remain in the beautiful liberation.

This is showing the proficiency rapidly of all above meditations of the noble one. They can close all sense-doors, protecting doors from unwholesome mind moment, by focus their wholesome mind moment on the meditation-objects until attain Jhana.
See DN10 SubhaSutta and MN 119 Kāyagatāsatisutta for some detail.
There also the explanation by ven MahaSariputta in Sutta. Khu. Paṭisambhidāmaggo

Pleasant things are unpleasant in that their changing [ripening] is unpleasant; unpleasant things are pleasant in that when they change it is pleasant.

"Pleasant feeling is pleasant in remaining, & painful in changing, friend Visakha. Painful feeling is painful in remaining & pleasant in changing. Neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling is pleasant in occurring together with knowledge, and painful in occurring without knowledge." - MN 44

'Whatever is felt comes under dukkha.' That I have stated simply in connection with the inconstancy of fabrications. That I have stated simply in connection with the nature of fabrications to end... in connection with the nature of fabrications to fall away... to fade away... to cease... in connection with the nature of fabrications to change. - SN36.11

As an example, one can remain focused on the drawbacks of sensual pleasure or one remains focused on the theme of impermance whilst remaining sensitive to pleasant feeling.
Thus in regards to any sukha feeling one would discern 'this is dukkha'.
There are many other examples but that is the gist of it. In geberal dukkha being asubha can be explained in many ways such as;

all seeing by the fleshy & deva eye is ugly in comparison to dhamma-eye.
perversion of view is seeing beauty in what is not beautiful and thus being obsessed with lowly things.
As judging behavior one can say 'pretty is as pretty does'. This is common usage for skillful behaviors being beautiful because they have beautiful result and are endearing.

The fleshly eye, the divine eye, and the supreme eye of wisdom—these three eyes were taught by the supreme Buddha. The birth of the fleshy eye is helpful to obtain the divine eye. The arising of the knowledge of the Four Noble Truths is obtained by the unsurpassed eye of wisdom. Whoever obtains the eye of wisdom is released from all suffering. - Iti 61

Then to Moggallana the wanderer, as he heard this Dhamma exposition, there arose the dustless, stainless Dhamma eye: Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation.
Even if just this is the Dhamma,
you have penetrated
to the Sorrowless (asoka) State
unseen, overlooked (by us)
for many myriads of aeons. - Vinaya Mv 1.23.1-10


text:
How to distinguish the different stages of insight in MN 24?

In the same way, my friend, purity in terms of virtue is simply for the sake of purity in terms of mind. Purity in terms of mind is simply for the sake of purity in terms of view. Purity in terms of view is simply for the sake of purity in terms of the overcoming of perplexity. Purity in terms of the overcoming of perplexity is simply for the sake of purity in terms of knowledge & vision of what is & is not the path. Purity in terms of knowledge & vision of what is & is not the path is simply for the sake of purity in terms of knowledge & vision of the way. Purity in terms of knowledge & vision of the way is simply for the sake of purity in terms of knowledge & vision. Purity in terms of knowledge & vision is simply for the sake of total Unbinding through lack of clinging.
MN 24

Why is the purification of by overcoming doubt i.e purification leading to Stream Entry not already the doing the next two of the purifications subsequent to it? (excluding the purification leading to Nibāna without clinging). Why are those other two purifications needed before stream entry? Surely if one has purified any one of these three it would imply the the other two?

AN 10.13 says:

What are the five lower fetters? Identity view, doubt (vicikicchā),
misapprehension of precepts and observances, sensual desire and ill
will.

MN 24 uses the word "kaṅkhā" (translated in the question as "perplexity"), which, according to the dictionary, can mean either:

doubt; uncertainty; or

wish, desire, longing (per SN 7.18).

Regardless of the meaning of "kaṅkhā", SN 24.1 says a person that has given up "kaṅkhā" is called a 'stream-enterer', as follows:

When a noble disciple has given up doubt in these six cases, and has
given up doubt in suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the
practice that leads to its cessation,
Yato kho, bhikkhave, ariyasāvakassa imesu ca ṭhānesu kaṅkhā pahīnā
hoti, dukkhepissa kaṅkhā pahīnā hoti, dukkhasamudayepissa kaṅkhā
pahīnā hoti, dukkhanirodhepissa kaṅkhā pahīnā hoti,
dukkhanirodhagāminiyā paṭipadāyapissa kaṅkhā pahīnā hoti—
they’re called a noble disciple who is a stream-enterer, not liable to
be reborn in the underworld, bound for awakening.
ayaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, ariyasāvako sotāpanno avinipātadhammo niyato
sambodhiparāyano”ti

Therefore, based on SN 24.1, there appears no distinction between the fetter of vicikicchā & kaṅkhā.
Bhikkhu Bodhi offers footnote 288 in his Majjhima Nikaya explaining these 7 stages from the Visuddhimagga (which I personally do not agree with). Bhikkhu Bodhi does however appear to caste some skepticism upon MN 24 by saying this teaching is found nowhere else in the suttas except for in DN iii 28 (which adds two more stages).
Therefore, I can only offer my personal explanation/interpretation of MN 24, which is:

Purification of view (diṭṭhivisuddhi) is predominately intellectual, such  as intellectually comprehending the teachings.

The above intellectual comprehension gives rise to faith & purifies the mind from doubt (kaṅkhāvitaraṇavisuddhatthā). Due to the absence of doubt, there is the faith or confidence to attempt to practise the path.

The above practise of the above learned teachings gives rise to knowledge & vision (ñāṇadassana) of the path, which is direct insight rather than intellectual acceptance. In other words, there is the knowledge & vision that whenever the mind is free from craving, attachment & self-view, the mind is free from suffering & tastes The Deathless.

The above purity of knowledge & vision of the path (maggāmaggañāṇadassanavisuddhatthā) gives rise to knowledge & vision of what the path is and what the path is not. Thus, even though this practitioner may develop  samatha & bliss, they know samatha & bliss is not the path. Instead, what is the path is the continuous prevention & dropping of any craving, attachment & self-view and ultimately dispassion (viraga).

Therefore, by knowing with direct insight what is the true path and what are the potential pitfalls of a wrong path is , the practitioner purifies their knowledge & vision of the true path.

I presume step 5 is stream entry. But I am wondering how step 3 and 4 is not a description if it and rather oeads ine there.

But I thought abscence of doubt is stream entry.

Ask me again if someone want the reference links.
Follow ven. Pa-Auk for going in detail.

sīlavisuddhi

Purification of personal behavior, verbal/physical. It's physical wholesome.

cittavisuddhi

Purification of mind moment's behavior, mental. It's mental wholesome.

diṭṭhivisuddhi

Purification of view about above body's elements and mental elements. The opposite view is mole-view, never analysis as elements completely perfectly.

kaṅkhāvitaraṇavisuddhi

Purification of view about the sequential process of body's elements and mental elements in the sequence of the dependent origination. The opposite view is the mole-view which become into the doubt about the sequential process of body's elements and mental elements (kaṅkhā).
So, if the practitioner has wrong idea about body's elements and mental elements because of no diṭṭhivisuddhi, the practitioner will mistakenly relate  the relation of body's elements and mental elements. Then this step will go wrong.
Seeing the dependent origination should switching with recalling-pastlife-skill like the Buddha did at his enlightening night because only past life's karma and unwholesome of rebirth moment are easiest to see "do good get good, do bad get bad". This moment has only one karma effecting, which appear at the last mind-process of past life. The other moments are effected by wholesome and unwholesome, so the ordinary often mistakenly think "do good get bad, do bad get good".
After the Purification of view about the sequential process of body's elements and mental elements in the order of the dependent origination, then the practitioner can see mind's moment, trillion times per second, arising and vanishing. This is the beginning of seeing three characteristic of the realities, body moment and mind moment.
In this step, the practitioner can analysis between real wholesome mind moment, real unwholesome mind moment, trillion times per second. If not, use kalapasammasana method to practice this step until proficiently seeing the realities' arising and vanishing sequentially and relatively, trillion times per second.

maggāmaggañāṇadassanavisuddhi

Real wholesome mind moment is called Magga (path).
Real unwholesome mind moment is called Amagga (not path).
The object of above diṭṭhivisuddhi and kaṅkhāvitaraṇavisuddhi are three noble truth, except nibbana (cessation-noble-truth, because the practitioner can't see nibbana until enlightening moment arising).
Proficiency of understanding uncountable realities' arising and vanishing possibility of three noble truth is called ñāṇa (dukkhe ñāṇa, etc.)
Above ñāṇa is viewing uncountable realities' arising and vanishing possibility of three noble truth like a photographic memorial genius sciences seeing atomic structure in his head, so this ñāṇa is called dassana.
The above views, diṭṭhivisuddhi and kaṅkhāvitaraṇavisuddhi, are purified or not, are depending on how clear the practitioner seeing the noble truth. If the practitioner can't see the entire possible unwholesome arising on entire possible objects, Then this step will go wrong because the hidden unwholesome will arise between the insight meditation. And the unwholesome in this step is what the ordinaries never think they are unwholesome. That's one important of many reasons why we need to see the momentary arising and vanishing.
The practitioner can't see the momentary arising and vanishing without above proficient of kaṅkhāvitaraṇavisuddhi skill. The practitioner is going to be bias, dirty, confuse, complicated, misunderstood about analysis of real wholesome, real unwholesome, neither wholesome nor unwholesome. Then this step will go wrong.
That's why it's named maggāmaggañāṇadassanavisuddhi.

paṭipadāñāṇadassanavisuddhi

Proficiency of keeping the insight meditation going on, without any unwholesome in between, by understanding uncountable realities' arising and vanishing possibility of three noble truth is called ñāṇa (dukkhe ñāṇa, etc.)
Above ñāṇa is viewing of keeping the insight meditation going on, without any unwholesome in between, by understanding uncountable realities' arising and vanishing possibility of three noble truth like a photographic memorial genius sciences seeing atomic structure in his head, so this ñāṇa is called dassana.
If above maggāmaggañāṇadassanavisuddhi has only one unwholesome moment inbetween.  Then this step will go wrong. Restart the meditation from  sīlavisuddhi again.

ñāṇadassanavisuddhī

It's enlightening moment. All ñāṇa and dassana are purified at this only moment.

Please back points up with Sutta references if you can.

It's not that one comes before the other...

why do you put a cast on a broken leg?
because you want to have the bone fixated in place
why do you want to have the bone fixated in place?
because it is conducive to healing

This is analogical and maybe you can see that this line of inquiry does not describe a progressive eventuality such that first we cast the leg, then we fixate the bone before we start healing; and neither does the sutta passage.
Here too

Cetanākaraṇīyasutta—Bhikkhu Bodhi
Aṅguttara Nikāya
The Book of the Tens
10.2. Volition
(1)–(2) “Bhikkhus, for a virtuous person, one whose behavior is virtuous, no volition need be exerted: ‘Let non-regret arise in me.’ It is natural that non-regret arises in a virtuous person, one whose behavior is virtuous.
(3) “For one without regret no volition need be exerted: ‘Let joy
arise in me.’ It is natural that joy arises in one without regret.
(4) “For one who is joyful no volition need be exerted: ‘Let rapture
arise in me.’ It is natural that rapture arises in one who is joyful.
(5) “For one with a rapturous mind no volition need be exerted: ‘Let
my body be tranquil.’ It is natural that the body of one with a
rapturous mind is tranquil.
(6) “For one tranquil in body no volition need be exerted: ‘Let me
feel pleasure.’ It is natural that one tranquil in body feels
pleasure.
(7) “For one feeling pleasure no volition need be exerted: ‘Let my
mind be concentrated.’ It is natural that the mind of one feeling
pleasure is concentrated

.

(8) “For one who is concentrated no volition need be exerted: ‘Let me know and see things as they really are.’ It is natural that one who is concentrated knows and sees things as they really are.
(9) “For one who knows and sees things as they really are no volition need be exerted: ‘Let me be disenchanted and dispassionate.’ It is natural that one who knows and sees things as they really are is disenchanted and dispassionate.
(10) “For one who is disenchanted and dispassionate no volition need be exerted: ‘Let me realize the knowledge and vision of liberation.’ It is natural that one who is disenchanted and dispassionate realizes the knowledge and vision of liberation.
“Thus, bhikkhus, (9)–(10) the knowledge and vision of liberation is the purpose and benefit of disenchantment and dispassion; (8) disenchantment and dispassion are the purpose and benefit of the knowledge and vision of things as they really are; (7) the knowledge and vision of things as they really are is the purpose and benefit of concentration; (6) concentration is the purpose and benefit of pleasure; (5) pleasure is the purpose and benefit of tranquility; (4) tranquility is the purpose and benefit of rapture; (3) rapture is the purpose and benefit of joy; (2) joy is the purpose and benefit of non-regret; and (1) non-regret is the purpose and benefit of virtuous behavior.
“Thus, bhikkhus, one stage flows into the next stage, one stage fills up the next stage, for going from the near shore to the far shore.”

If you read the Sutta they do...

MN 24 uses an analogy of using seven chariots to complete seven stages of a journey.

If you read the an10.2 you should see what i mean. No volition needs to be exerted, they fill up eachother and cannot be separated. It's not like you can do one without doing the other, it's not like you do one thing then you do the next thing.

In the same way you do not cast a leg first and then you fixate the bone. In casting the leg you fixate the bone, it is natural that bone gets fixated. In doing virtuous behavior one is freed from regret, it is natural that regret is removed.

Thus, bhikkhus, one stage flows into the next stage, one stage fills up the next stage, for going from the near shore to the far shore

your analogy of the broken leg appears to contradict the analogy of the chariots in MN 24

Let it appear to you, i don't care

If i cared about how things appear to you then i wouldn't be freed from explaining


text:
Baby Buddha Bathing

Vesak Day is coming, some monastery offering a baby bathing during the event.
What is the story behind about this? Is it appropriate?

The Buddha himself discouraged focusing on his form and instead recommended to focus on the teachings (Dhamma).

Vakkali: “For a long time, venerable sir, I have wanted to come to see the
Blessed One, but I haven’t been fit enough to do so.”
Buddha: “Enough, Vakkali! Why do you want to see this foul body?
One who sees
the Dhamma sees me; one who sees me sees the Dhamma. For in seeing the
Dhamma, Vakkali, one sees me; and in seeing me, one sees the Dhamma.
SN 22.87

On the other hand, some minor texts rebuke the criticism of relics worship. However, I would give more importance to the words of the Buddha, compared to the words of a random ghost.

Ghost:
In the city of Rajagaha I was an extremely wealthy person. One day my
wife, daughter, and daughter-in-law were ready to go to worship a
stupa that held relics of the Buddha. They had prepared lotus flowers,
garlands made of flowers, and incense. I stopped them from going
there. That was the evil deed I did.
There are about eighty-six thousand ghosts here suffering each in
their own way. They all committed the same evil deed of insulting the
worshipping of the Buddha’s relics. We are suffering intensely in this
ghost world as if we were in hell.
If one criticizes worshipping the relics of the Supreme Buddha, that
person loses a great meritorious opportunity.
Petavatthu 35 (part of Khuddaka Nikaya)

Supreme wording. Why would we listen to a Ghost?

I think it is a very ignorant thing to do but not particularly offensive to me.
#1 Buddha isn't a baby, nor is it a name, thus washing 'baby-buddha' makes no doctrinal sense. As a matter of fact the Buddha never was a baby and a baby can't attain Buddhahood.
#2 The earliest statues & depictions of the Buddha do not appear until several hundreds of years after Parinibbana. The Sarvastivadin Vinaya even claims that the Buddha specifically forbid making of his images but allowed depicting the Bodhisatta.
The common view is that making statues of the Buddha is inappropriate and that is why the earliest art depicts things like a footprint of the Buddha rather than The Buddha himself.

The Introduction to the Jhataka has an account of the Buddha's miraculous birth -- this is the same source as the story of the Divine Messengers leading to the Buddha's going forth; and of the vow by the bodhi tree.

I would expect you to know that the Bodhisatta attained Buddhahood at the age of 35 or so.

Yes, it is appropriate. I used to do stuff to my Buddha statue all the time. I stuck googly eyes on him, hung hats and rubber bands on his fingers. In the end, I stuck him face down in the drawer where he belongs! Now I've freed some space on my desk - he was a big ol' thing, that Buddha! Maybe I'll take him to the workshop and chop him up with the plunge saw! Who knows! Thing is, this is seen as blasphemous only to one who is stuck inside the dreamy world of Buddhism.
There is a saying in Zen, "if you see the Buddha, kill the Buddha!"
If you grab dhamma by the wrong end, it'll chew you up for decades and perhaps your whole life. Many have fallen into this dreadful trap, even prominent teachers.

This answer is very similar to this answer -- which was a subject of this meta-topic. This answer is longer though, more explicit.

@ChrisW - Sure. The issues of one being offended is drawn from their own hearts, from their own misplaced attachment to Buddhists concepts. In Zen, one of the methods that is used to address this dreadful affliction is usually a very harsh and swift method. Most Buddhist wouldn't understand the simplicity in such an approach, for their faculties are bedding sensually with complex Theravada ideologies. To put it succinctly, if you finally get the picture, your jaw will drop, and you'll laugh at all this crap.

@ChrisW - Oh, just to add: naturally, I'm speaking from personal experience. It is actually the case that some people respond rather well to adorning themselves with Dhamma in such ways.

This is a fetter that will be let go for a sotapanna.
Both the desire or affiliation to do such trivial things as well as the concern about others doing such trivial things.
Obviously the Buddha did not suggest or advocate for anyone to do such trivial things but you can find all sorts of trivial things like this in most of the Buddhists sects and traditions including Theravada (statues, images of teachers, offering to statues etc)
Essentially it is a cultural nonsense created by/for Putajanna.
Tibetan Buddhism is full up of these type of trivial things.


text:
Can be the mind separated from the body?
As e.g. if somebody harms you, you don't feel because you know that the people is only harming this body, that is just a pile of cells, and the people is incapable to harm your mind.
If yes, do have some teachings to contemplate the separation of mind and body, preferably some mindfulness technique?

Yes, the following sutta shows how an educated noble disciple deals with physical pain compared to an uneducated ordinary person.
The former feels the physical pain but does not lament about it, while the latter feels the physical pain and also laments about it.

“When an uneducated ordinary person experiences painful physical
feelings they sorrow and wail and lament, beating their breast and
falling into confusion. They experience two feelings: physical and
mental.
It’s like a person who is struck with an arrow, only to be struck with
a second arrow. That person experiences the feeling of two arrows.
In the same way, when an uneducated ordinary person experiences
painful physical feelings they sorrow and wail and lament, beating
their breast and falling into confusion. They experience two feelings:
physical and mental. ....
When an educated noble disciple experiences painful physical feelings
they don’t sorrow or wail or lament, beating their breast and falling
into confusion. They experience one feeling: physical, not mental.
It’s like a person who is struck with an arrow, but was not struck
with a second arrow. That person would experience the feeling of one
arrow.
In the same way, when an educated noble disciple experiences painful
physical feelings they don’t sorrow or wail or lament, beating their
breast and falling into confusion. They experience one feeling:
physical, not mental.
SN 36.6

Can be the mind separated from the body?

While it'd take certain level of cultivation of serenity and insight to experience that on the humans plane, there're realms in the 31 planes of existence where beings exists solely with the mind without possessing a physical body.

If yes, do have some teachings to contemplate the separation of mind and body, preferably some mindfulness technique?

Quite oftentimes, the inability to stay mindful of that truth is due to the fear of what might happen to oneself after death. It's really the fear of the unknown that makes one clings even more to what one already has. In SN 55.27, Ven. Ananda comforts the householder Anathapindika and taught him contemplation on the four aspects to remove all fright, trepidation, and fear.

SN 22.1, SN 36.6 and MN 21 are a good starting point.
Also MN 62 is directly applicable, instructing to have a mind like earth, wind, fire, water & space.

Rāhula, meditate like the earth. For when you meditate like the earth,
pleasant and unpleasant contacts will not occupy your mind. Suppose
they were to toss both clean and unclean things on the earth, like
feces, urine, spit, pus, and blood. The earth isn’t horrified,
repelled, and disgusted because of this. In the same way, meditate
like the earth. For when you meditate like the earth, pleasant and
unpleasant contacts will not occupy your mind.
Meditate like water. For when you meditate like water, pleasant and
unpleasant contacts will not occupy your mind. Suppose they were to
wash both clean and unclean things in the water, like feces, urine,
spit, pus, and blood. The water isn’t horrified, repelled, and
disgusted because of this. In the same way, meditate like water. For
when you meditate like water, pleasant and unpleasant contacts will
not occupy your mind.
Meditate like fire. For when you meditate like fire, pleasant and
unpleasant contacts will not occupy your mind. Suppose a fire were to
burn both clean and unclean things, like feces, urine, spit, pus, and
blood. The fire isn’t horrified, repelled, and disgusted because of
this. In the same way, meditate like fire. For when you meditate like
fire, pleasant and unpleasant contacts will not occupy your mind.
Meditate like wind. For when you meditate like wind, pleasant and
unpleasant contacts will not occupy your mind. Suppose the wind were
to blow on both clean and unclean things, like feces, urine, spit,
pus, and blood. The wind isn’t horrified, repelled, and disgusted
because of this. In the same way, meditate like the wind. For when you
meditate like wind, pleasant and unpleasant contacts will not occupy
your mind.
Meditate like space. For when you meditate like space, pleasant and
unpleasant contacts will not occupy your mind. Just as space is not
established anywhere, in the same way, meditate like space. For when
you meditate like space, pleasant and unpleasant contacts will not
occupy your mind.


text:
What kind of samadhi is the Ven.Sariputta talking about here?
This seems to be a very baffling Sutta passage where he describes a seemingly contradictory state where one is in a special Samadhi beyond neither perception nor non perception but is still percipient.
What is this Samadhi attainment called?
AN 10.7

Then Ven. Ananda went to Ven. Sariputta and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to Ven. Sariputta, "Friend Sariputta, could a monk have an attainment of concentration such that he would neither be percipient of earth with regard to earth, nor of water with regard to water, nor of fire... wind... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception... this world... nor of the next world with regard to the next world, and yet he would still be percipient?"
"Yes, friend Ananda, he could..."
"But how, friend Sariputta, could a monk have an attainment of concentration such he would neither be percipient of earth with regard to earth... nor of the next world with regard to the next world, and yet he would still be percipient?"
"Once, friend Ananda, when I was staying right here in Savatthi in the Blind Man's Grove, I reached concentration in such a way that I was neither percipient of earth with regard to earth... nor of the next world with regard to the next world, and yet I was still percipient."
"But what, friend Sariputta, were you percipient of at that time?"
"'The cessation of becoming — Unbinding — the cessation of becoming — Unbinding': One perception arose in me, friend Ananda, as another perception ceased. Just as in a blazing woodchip fire, one flame arises as another flame ceases, even so, 'The cessation of becoming — Unbinding — the cessation of becoming — Unbinding': One perception arose in me as another one ceased. I was percipient at that time of 'The cessation of becoming — Unbinding.'"

AN 10.7 appears to literally say the perception is of Nibbana (Unbinding).

But what, friend Sariputta, were you percipient of at that time?"
"'The cessation of becoming — Unbinding — the cessation of becoming —
Unbinding': One perception arose in me, friend Ananda, as another
perception ceased. Just as in a blazing woodchip fire, one flame
arises as another flame ceases, even so, 'The cessation of becoming —
Unbinding — the cessation of becoming — Unbinding': One perception
arose in me as another one ceased. I was percipient at that time of
'The cessation of becoming — Unbinding.'"

Ud 8.1 defines Nibbana as follows:

There is, bhikkhus, that base [ayatana; sense object] where there is
no earth, no water, no fire, no air; no base consisting of the
infinity of space, no base consisting of the infinity of
consciousness, no base consisting of nothingness, no base consisting
of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor
another world nor both; neither sun nor moon. Here, bhikkhus, I say
there is no coming, no going, no staying, no deceasing, no uprising.
Not fixed, not movable, it has no support. Just this is the end of
suffering.

But what samadhi is he talking about? With which he was able to see Nibbāna

Just a headsup on the part '[ayatana; sense object]' is a translation(?) that op made up somehow and it isn't in the link. Afaik Ayatana shares semantic properties shared by words like 'sphere', 'base', 'scope', 'range', 'foundation' and is usually translated 'base' or 'field'.

This seems to be a very baffling Sutta passage where he describes a seemingly contradictory state where one is in a special Samadhi beyond neither perception nor non perception but is still percipient. What is this Samadhi attainment called?

It does seem baffling because this state is only available to those who already attained one of the four Paths, according to the Commentary:

Mp identifies this with the concentration of fruition attainment (phalasamapattisamadhi). This attainment is not the fruition that occurs for a few moments immediately following the path, but a special meditative state accessible only to those who have already attained one of the four paths and its subsequent fruition. The attainment, as shown in this sutta, does not take any of the mundane, conditioned meditation objects as its support; its support is the unconditioned nibbana, experienced directly and immediately. The commentaries hold that this attainment is graded as fourfold according to the four stages of realization (from stream-entry to arahantship).

You are correct good sir https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.036.than.html As for these two dimensions — the attainment of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception & the attainment of the cessation of feeling & perception — I tell you that they are to be rightly explained by those monks who are meditators, skilled in attaining, skilled in attaining & emerging, who have attained & emerged in dependence on them."

These are attainments on the treshold of Nibbana, they are an attainment of that nibbananirodha-principle which is the immediacy by which taints are destroyed.

Emptiness, the signless, & the undirected are names for a state of concentration that lies on the threshold of Unbinding. They differ only in how they are approached. According to the commentary, they color one's first apprehension of Unbinding: a meditator who has been focusing on the theme of inconstancy will first apprehend Unbinding as signless; one who has been focusing on the theme of stress will first apprehend it as undirected; one who has been focusing on the theme of not-self will first apprehend it as emptiness.

These nibbananirodha attainments are talked about as path-fruition attainments, or as signless[themeless]/undirected/emptiness release depending on how the are approched, depending on how they are apprehended and whether any & what change is seen in one who emerges from them.
This attainment is the difference between a dhamma-follower and a stream-enterer who has directly seen the truth of cessation.
One can become absorbed for up to 7 days & 7 nights, dwelling sensitive to unalloyed pleasure of the Asoka [sorrowless] reality.

Now, I — without moving my body, without uttering a word — can dwell sensitive to unalloyed pleasure for a day and a night... for two days & nights... for three... four... five... six... seven days & nights. - MN 14

"And what, Ananda, is another pleasure more extreme & refined than that [of neither perception nor non perception]? There is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters & remains in the cessation of perception & feeling. This is another pleasure more extreme & refined than that. Now it's possible, Ananda, that some wanderers of other persuasions might say, 'Gotama the contemplative speaks of the cessation of perception & feeling and yet describes it as pleasure. What is this? How can this be?' When they say that, they are to be told, 'It's not the case, friends, that the Blessed One describes only pleasant feeling as included under pleasure. Wherever pleasure is found, in whatever terms, the Blessed One describes it as pleasure.' - SN 36.19

Here, venerable sir, whenever we want, by completely surmounting the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, we enter upon and abide in the cessation of perception and feeling. And our taints are destroyed by our seeing with wisdom. - MN 31

There are, monks, three unskilled ways of thought: thoughts of lust, thoughts of ill-will, thoughts of hurting. And these three unskilled states disappear utterly in him whose heart is well established in the four foundations of mindfulness, or who practices concentration on the signless. - SN 22.80

Practicing signless release utterly destroys taints and that result [arahantship] is called 'the unprovoked release'.

"Passion is a making of themes, aversion a making of themes, delusion a making of themes. For a monk whose fermentations are ended these have been abandoned, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. To the extent that there are themeless awareness-releases, the unprovoked awareness-release is declared supreme. And that unprovoked awareness-release is empty of passion, empty of aversion, empty of delusion. - SN 41.7

Here some favorite texts from Therigatha

Four times, five, I ran amok from my dwelling,
having gained no peace of awareness,
my thoughts out of control.
So I went to a trustworthy nun.
She taught me the Dhamma:
aggregates, sense spheres, & elements.
Hearing the Dhamma,
I did as she said.
For seven days I sat in one spot,
absorbed in rapture & bliss.
On the eighth, I stretched out my legs,
having burst the mass
of darkness. -Thig 3.2

[I thought:] "Plowing the field with plows, sowing the ground with
seed, supporting their wives & children, young men gather up wealth.
So why is it that I,  consummate in virtue,   a doer of the teacher's
bidding, don't gain Unbinding? I'm not lazy or proud."
Washing my feet, I noticed        the         water.
And in watching it flow from high         to      low,    my heart was composed
like a fine thoroughbred steed.
Then taking a lamp, I entered the hut,    checked the bedding,    sat down
on the bed. And taking a pin, I pulled out the wick:  Like the flame's
unbinding     was the liberation      of awareness. - Thig 5.10

This last line of verse is noteworthy to dhamma-nerds because liberation of awareness also occurs as 'awareness freed from consciousness' in Bahuna sutta.

Freed, dissociated, & released from ten things, Bahuna, the Tathagata dwells with limitless awareness. Which ten? Freed, dissociated, & released from form, the Tathagata dwells with limitless awareness. Freed, dissociated, & released from feeling... Freed, dissociated, & released from perception... Freed, dissociated, & released from fabrications... Freed, dissociated, & released from consciousness... Freed, dissociated, & released from birth... Freed, dissociated, & released from aging... Freed, dissociated, & released from death... Freed, dissociated, & released from stress... Freed, dissociated, & released from defilement, the Tathagata dwells with limitless awareness - AN 10.81

What do you mean that they are on the threshold of Nibbāna. And that This attainment is the difference between a dhamma-follower and a stream-enterer.

The expression is in Thanissaro's footnotes to https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn41/sn41.006.than.html

Does threshold mean, the point before cessation of perception and feeling or the attainment of Arahantship?

'Being on the treshold' means that it's based on the same single principle and beyond the difference in approaching & emerging from there is no difference. Like an Arahant can enter cessation & feeling attainment but for him it doesn't remove delusion because he had none prior to entering. Therefore for him it is merely an entering into & emerging from a cessation attainment wheteas for a sekha [learner] it is a destruction & removal  of taints.

Parinibbana also depends on the nibbananirodhadhatu but we don't say that one enters into it because life-force is extinguished at attaining and there is nothing further to that world as all modes of being are abandoned and fuel for a future is depleted.


text:
Two contradictory passages in the Majjhima Nikaya
In MN 22 in the end of the simile of the raft the Buddha says that the arahant has relinquished both what is skillful and what is unskilful:

"Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go (pahātabbā) even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas."

Why is then the Buddha described in MN 88:17 like so:

"The Tathāgatha great king has abandoned all unwholesome states and possesses (samannāgata) wholesome states"

You're right. It is contradictory! It's not possible to possess wholesome states, so read the suttas with a pinch of salt. What actually matters is your own direct experience; that is what trumps any sutta reading.

Maybe translation errors/differences or just the fact that using human-based language to explain something as deep as the Dhamma can never really be accurate.

"Dhamma" is quite a broad term with different meanings in different contexts ( ref; https://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/b_f/dhamma.htm )

In MN 22, the term "Dhamma" in the context of the raft simile refers to "the teachings" (based on the context of the sutta), and not to "phenomena" or "mental objects/ phenomena".
In the quoted statement of MN 88, the term "dhamma" refers to "mental objects/ phenomena", and not to "the teachings".
So your question is similar to saying "you can eat turkey" and "you cannot eat Turkey" as contradictory statements.

Dhamma is an explanatory device, a discursive construct meant to make a point. Understanding the point you get what it refers to in your immediate experience. Then you can cultivate and eventually actualize or realize the wholesome "states", e.g. non-grasping.
The wholesome states exist in the realm of experience while the teaching exist in the realm of theory. The teaching is a model or a schematic and being schematic it is a crude approximation. Because it's a crude approximation, taking it literally and obsessing with its literal meaning is an obstacle to achieving the wholesome states in practice.
Attaining the wholesome states requires going beyond the schematic and into the experiential.
This is why there's no contradiction there. You abandon the raft - going beyond the schematic - and this is exactly the final stage of actualizing the wholesome states.

There is no contradiction. The raft simile is about not engaging in "gahaṇa".

In the same way, I have taught how the teaching is similar to a raft:
it’s for crossing over, not for holding on.
Evameva kho, bhikkhave, kullūpamo mayā dhammo desito nittharaṇatthāya,
no gahaṇatthāya.
By understanding the simile of the raft, you will even give up the
teachings, let alone what is against the teachings.
Kullūpamaṁ vo, bhikkhave, dhammaṁ desitaṁ, ājānantehi dhammāpi vo
pahātabbā pageva adhammā.

gahaṇa
neuter
seizing, taking hold of; grasping; grasp: acquiring

For example, the Vinaya uses the term "gahaṇa" in relation to a man lustfully holding the body of a consenting nun (woman).
Therefore, when MN 22 says to 'pahātabbā' ('cast away'; 'give up'), this refers to casting away 'gahaṇa' of the teachings (rather than say faith in or reverence for the teachings).
Keep in mind MN 22 is about the simile of the snake rather than about the simile of the raft. The purpose of the simile of the raft is to explain the simile of the snake, namely, to memorize the teaching for the sake of finding fault and winning debates.
Therefore, when MN 22 says to use the raft properly, this means to not use the raft for the sake of finding fault and winning debates.
As for MN 88, the term is 'samannāgata', which means 'endowed with', as follows from MN 117:

So the trainee is endowed with eight factors, while the perfected one
is endowed with ten factors.
Iti kho, bhikkhave, aṭṭhaṅgasamannāgato sekkho, dasaṅgasamannāgato
arahā hoti.

It is pretty clear that the simile is talking about the fact the sekha needs to stop holding on to the dhamma in order to become an Arahant.

I think some people say that the parable of the raft is about giving up the Teaching -- or as it seems to be phrased in the question, "relinquishing what is skilful" -- but I don't read it that way.
In context:

The monk Arittha has a wrong view
Other monks try to dissuade him and fail
The Buddha reproves him, and gives the parable of the Water-snake and of the Raft.

In my opinion the water-snake parable says, "If you grasp it improperly then it will harm you".
And similarly the raft: that it's wrong to hold it for too long.
But I don't think that's saying -- or at least I'm not sure that it's saying -- "abandon the teaching" ... which a lot of other people seem to say.
Instead I think it's like the water-snake parable, i.e. "don't grasp it wrong", or in this case maybe, "don't take it too far", or "don't stretch the analogy beyond its intended context".

To double-check my theory -- only sensible if other people contradict it -- I look at Piya Tan's analysis. That somewhat supports my theory -- on what it calls page 55 (which is page 6 of the PDF)

In the parable of the raft which is the key parable here—the Buddha goes on to show the
serious error that lies in wrongly grasping that which one has learnt, that is, the dangers of misconceiving and misinterpreting the teaching

That's paraphrasing Gombrich according to the footnote.
On page 56:

As such, we can see that Buddhaghosa takes part (2) of the Sutta as the core parable, and the other
parts as giving its meaning. Thus, Buddhaghosa clearly sees the Alagaddûpama Sutta through the parable
of the water-snake, as addressing the dangers of wrongly grasping the dharmas (truths and teachings).

Then on page 57 he says, which seems to contradict my theory,

While the Pārājika 1 story stresses the letting go of sexuality, the Sutta stresses letting go of the
Dharma itself before we can progress to self-awakening. Hence, it is very clear why the Buddha declares
that, having understood the parable of the raft [§13], “you should abandon even the dharmas, how
much more so that which are not-dharmas” (dhammā pi vo pahātabbā pag’eva adhammā) [§14]: in simple terms, we should abandon even right views, what more of wrong views.

It then goes on the say that "Dhamma" is a word of many meanings, and then for example:

Once again we have a deceptively simple term (dhammā) whose context is very clear. If we take
dhamma here, without any Abhidhamma technicality, as simply meaning “a state that is occurring, a
present mental event,” then the Buddha’s import is very clear. He is advising us to be mindful of the
nature of mental states and sense-experiences as they arise.

And this is his conclusion on page 60:

The context here is that of interdependent arising (paṭicca,samuppāda), that is, a doctrine. It is thus
clear that the meaning of the parable of the raft is

that one should not become slavishly attached to a view even when that view is true. One should
understand the true nature of consciousness but not become fixated on it qua philosophical
theory. It must be put to its proper use as part of the Path and within the context of the rest of
Buddhist teachings.

... and:

Gombrich goes on to say that the Buddha is himself aware of the dangers (or disadvantages) of “putting words first” (pada,parama), that is, the last of the four types of unawakened learners.


text:
Concentration & Wisdom
Right concentration supports wisdom(panna) if right mindfulness arises? If right mindfulness isn't there then does right concentration support ignorance?

Right concentration supports wisdom(panna) if right mindfulness arises? If right mindfulness isn't there then does right concentration support ignorance?

Each limb of the N8FP has its opposite counterpart:

From wrongness comes failure, not success. And how is it, monks, that from wrongness comes failure, not success?

"In a person of wrong view, wrong resolve comes into being. In a person of wrong resolve, wrong speech. In a person of wrong speech, wrong action. In a person of wrong action, wrong livelihood. In a person of wrong livelihood, wrong effort. In a person of wrong effort, wrong mindfulness. In a person of wrong mindfulness, wrong concentration. In a person of wrong concentration, wrong knowledge. In a person of wrong knowledge, wrong release.

"This is how from wrongness comes failure, not success. ~~ AN 10.103 ~~

From an10.58, based on Thanissaro & Sujato translations and my interpretation.
 Samādhippamukhā sabbe dhammā

Samadhi is the chief over all dhammā, it is presiding over them.

 Satādhipateyyā sabbe dhammā.

Mindfulness is their ruler, as it governs them

  Paññuttarā sabbe dhammā.

Wisdom is their superior, as it surpasses them

A rightly focused mind always has right mindfulness, it is therefore said to be rightly focused.
Like a good king would have a good government or he wouldn't be a good king.


text:
If Samsara is natural in origin, is the Wheel of Dharma artificial?
I'm under the impresion that Samsara is the natural state of things in this Universe, every being just "recycles" itself on and on, at the laws of randomness and karma. Eventually, beings figured a way out, and by gaining such control and power, could now model and reshape the flow of Samsara, therefore creating a force of spiritual evolution (spinning the wheel). So the wheel of Dharma was arficial, but at such scale and ingrained in the very fabric of the Universe that it could pass as a force of nature. The only difference is that it must be "kept spinning" by illuminated beings.
Is my reading correct?

So the wheel of Dharma was arficial, but at such scale and ingrained in the very fabric of the Universe that it could pass as a force of nature. The only difference is that it must be "kept spinning" by illuminated beings.

It could be either way depending on context. It's "artificial" in the sense that each individual after hearing the precious Dhamma must actively put in the real work to constantly improve upon themselves in order to make progress. But by the same token, it's also legit to say that it's also "natural" too. Like the yin-and-yang of the universe, if Samsara exists as part of the natural order of things, then the way out of it would also naturally exists. The Buddha himself certified that He did not invent anything novel all by himself. Instead He simply re-discovered the Path many of His predecessors had already discovered, and the torch will continue to be carried on long after the passing of Gotama Buddha, with the future Metteyya Buddha and others long into the future.

“Suppose, bhikkhus, a man wandering through a forest would see an ancient path, an ancient road travelled upon by people in the past. He would follow it and would see an ancient city, an ancient capital that had been inhabited by people in the past, with parks, groves, ponds, and ramparts, a delightful place. Then the man would inform the king or a royal minister: ‘Sire, know that while wandering through the forest I saw an ancient path, an ancient road travelled upon by people in the past. I followed it and saw an ancient city, an ancient capital that had been inhabited by people in the past, with parks, groves, ponds, and ramparts, a delightful place. Renovate that city, sire!’ Then the king or the royal minister would renovate the city, and some time later that city would become successful and prosperous, well populated, filled with people, attained to growth and expansion.

“So too, bhikkhus, I saw the ancient path, the ancient road travelled by the Perfectly Enlightened Ones of the past. And what is that ancient path, that ancient road? It is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. I followed that path and by doing so I have directly known aging-and-death, its origin, its cessation, and the way leading to its cessation. I have directly known birth … existence … clinging … .craving … feeling … contact … the six sense bases …. name-and-form … consciousness … volitional formations, their origin, their cessation, and the way leading to their cessation. Having directly known them, I have explained them to the bhikkhus, the bhikkhunīs, the male lay followers, and the female lay followers. This holy life, bhikkhus, has become successful and prosperous, extended, popular, widespread, well proclaimed among devas and humans.” ~~ SN 12.65 ~~

Evolution in nature perpetuates samsara because it encourages becoming and it encourages reproduction. From the sutta quote below, you can see that going with the flow stands for craving. Craving is the cause of suffering according to the second noble truth. Evolution drives the natural tendency towards craving - sensual cravings and cravings towards becoming.
Going against the flow of nature is renunciation. Trying to end craving is against what evolution in nature drives us towards.
The idea of natural spiritual evolution is not found in Buddhism. The effort to becoming liberated is against natural evolution. Furthermore, as you can see in the Buddhist world today, extremely few join the monastic order in pursuit of liberation.
Natural intellectual evolution only leads towards increasing sensual enjoyment while attempting to reduce suffering, through improvement in healthcare, education, infrastructure, politics and economy.
Natural intellectual evolution does not lead towards liberation from clinging to sensual enjoyment. Rather, it leads one towards asking how to increase enjoyment while avoiding suffering as much as possible.

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

Also please see this answer.

Eventually, beings figured a way out

Transmigation is beginningless. Therefore you should not assert that in a general sense there was a past where nobody knew about the deathless and that someone eventually figured it out.
At any given point in history you will find this knowledge and if nobody there & then knows, then you will find someone who knew if you go far enough back.
Added;
Beings are & are of nature, they are part of the world, per definition. If anything 'beings' are nature conceiving & perceiving nature in nature
Whatever intellect is found in nature that is nature's intellect, there is no other intellect that isn't part of nature.
To me the expression 'Buddha taught only nature and the cessation of nature' is quite agreeable.

I imagine that Nibbana is natural and the default state and that samsara is the unnatural created state that somehow existence has got stuck in.
Of course the wheel of dharma is artificial in the basic sense that it is a concept.


text:
Feelings while meditating
During deep meditation, I start to feel waves of some sort of energy that's hard to explain, the best analogy I can find is "an electrostatic feeling, like an aurora borealis" around the head, and sometimes the body too. The deeper the state, the more intense. Sometimes it gets so intense I have to pause, but it is still a powerful and beautiful moment.
Do you have similar experiences?

This may be a "polling" question.

Waves of light?

This sounds like a classical account of priti and sukha in the first or second dhyana. Enjoy these feelings while they appear, try not to get attached to them (which is basically impossible...) and continue to practice.
With time, these sensations will gradually decline, and give way to even deeper states of dhyana, which will come with their own, but different types of pleasures.
For additional accounts and sometimes vivid descriptions of similar experiences please see:

Kamalashila's take on dhyanas with a detailed description of priti and sukha. His book Buddhist Meditation is even a bit more detailed.
Daniel Ingram's book Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha (MCTB) chapter 27, even though he is quite a bit controversial.
Check the comments on page 2 of the Wildmind page on Anapanasati

Pïti describes quite well what I experience, at least in the 3 first levels. Thanks a lot!

I have felt similar.   I suggest the reading below.  I have found this site to be a great help to me.  The link below is a text version of an audio also available on the site as part of the Basic Collection of audios.
Note that this site is in the Theravada tradition if that makes a difference to you.
https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/GatherRound/Section0079.html

That's mu.  In Zen, we'd say that you are just beginning to touch your true nature.  I'm hesitant to say what will happen from here on out - I don't want to prompt you into expectation - but the short of it is, the intensity of this experience will continue to intensify.  Eventually you might want to do something.  If you get to that point, you really should start working with a teacher otherwise your progress will plateau.  It might even be a good idea to start looking for one now.


text:
Sutta references for hindrances and jhana related statements
In the YouTube video entitled "Characteristics of a Sotapanna", Ven. Dhammavuddho Mahathera stated (with some paraphrasing):

So who are the people who do not have the five hindrances? In the
suttas, it is stated by the Buddha that as long as a person has not
attained piti (rapture) and sukha (joy or bliss)
which are secluded from unwholesome
states and sensual pleasures, the five hindrances will obsess him and
obsess him habitually. ..... (with example of someone raping his own
daughter because he couldn't control his hindrances)
So there are two conditions if a person has the hindrances. Firstly,
it obsesses your mind, it enslaves your mind. Secondly, it is
habitual, it is very often there. ..... When a person attains the first
jhana, these hindrances reduce to a very low level,
that they are not considered hindrances any more. ..... They are
eliminated for good.

Which sutta(s) support the following?

The five hindrances are overcome only by the attainment of jhana (at least the first jhana)
The five hindrances obsess and enslave the mind habitually, even outside times of sitting in meditation (you can find this elaborated in the video)

The five hindrances are overcome only by the attainment of jhana (at least the first jhana)

This statement is found in Tipitaka normally. All previous context in DN SubhaSutta is for preparing to attain Jhana. And we can found something like this in whole Tipitaka even in MN KayagatasatiSutta which is the preparing of  MN MahasatipatthanaSutta.

Seeing that the hindrances have been given up in them, joy springs up. Being joyful, rapture springs up. When the mind is full of rapture, the body becomes tranquil. When the body is tranquil, they feel bliss. And when blissful, the mind becomes immersed.
Quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, they enter and remain in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected. They drench, steep, fill, and spread their body with rapture and bliss born of seclusion. There’s no part of the body that’s not spread with rapture and bliss born of seclusion.

So, Jhana is so very important even for MN MahasatipatthanaSutta.

The five hindrances obsess and enslave the mind habitually, even outside times of sitting in meditation (you can find this elaborated in the video)

Mind is arising and vanishing more than trillion times per second. The ordinary never notice there are so many unwholesome while they are doing wholesome.
In MN Bodhi-Rāja-Kumāra Suttaṁ, The Buddha chose to teach Āḷāra the Kālāma, Uddaka the Rāma's son and five monks because they have little dust in their eyes like lotus over the water.
They are Jhana Mastery but the Buddha said they have "have little dust in their eyes" in that sutta.

Then, Prince, it occurred to Brahmā Sahampati who knew with his mind the reasoning in my mind: ‘Alas, the world is lost, alas, the world is destroyed, inasmuch as the mind of the Tathāgata, the perfected one, the fully awakened one, inclines to little effort and not to teaching Dhamma.’ Then, Prince, as a strong man might stretch out his bent arm, or might bend back his outstretched arm, even so did Brahmā Sahampati, vanishing from the Brahmā-world, become manifest before me. Then, Prince, Brahmā Sahampati, having arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, having saluted me with joined palms, spoke thus to me: ‘Lord, let the Lord teach Dhamma, let the well-farer teach Dhamma; there are beings with little dust in their eyes who; not hearing Dhamma, are decaying, (but if) they are learners of Dhamma they will grow.’ Thus spoke Brahmā Sahampati to me, Prince; having said this, he further spoke thus:

raping his own daughter because he couldn't control his hindrances

I think this expression misuses the term 'hindrances', makes it confusing because it gives the impression that evil behavior is because people can't control the hindrances but Devadatta could control hindrances better than most people and still did many worse harmful things.
I think for support you will draw on lines like this;

Dhp Verse 222: He who controls his rising anger as a skilful charioteer keeps in check a chariot, — him I call a charioteer; other's are merely rein-holders.

"Lord, when a disciple of the noble ones enters & remains in seclusion & rapture, there are five possibilities that do not exist at that time: The pain & distress dependent on sensuality do not exist at that time. The pleasure & joy dependent on sensuality do not exist at that time. The pain & distress dependent on what is unskillful do not exist at that time. The pleasure & joy dependent on what is unskillful do not exist at that time. The pain & distress dependent on what is skillful do not exist at that time. When a disciple of the noble ones enters & remains in seclusion & rapture, these five possibilities do not exist at that time." Piti

As to hindrances being the default mode of operation. I think it's obvious because beings are generally oppressed by laziness & sloth, sensual desire, aversion, doubt, restlessness, anxiety or whatnot and seclusion from all 5 is exceptional.

Which sutta(s) support the following?

The five hindrances are overcome only by the attainment of jhana (at least the first jhana)

The five hindrances obsess and enslave the mind habitually, even outside times of sitting in meditation (you can find this elaborated in the video)

For #1, i don't think there's any that explicitly states that they're overcome ONLY BY jhanas. For example, AN 9.64 suggests using Satipatthana as the method to overcome:

"Monks, there are these five hindrances. Which five? Sensual desire as a hindrance, ill will as a hindrance, sloth & drowsiness as a hindrance, restlessness & anxiety as a hindrance, and uncertainty as a hindrance. These are the five hindrances.

"To abandon these five hindrances, one should develop the four frames of reference. Which four?... ~~ AN 9.64 ~~

For #2, it should be fairly obvious since AN 5.51 uses the continuous flowing river downstream simile:

"Suppose there were a river, flowing down from the mountains — going far, its current swift, carrying everything with it — and a man would open channels leading away from it on both sides, so that the current in the middle of the river would be dispersed, diffused, & dissipated; it wouldn't go far, its current wouldn't be swift, and it wouldn't carry everything with it. In the same way, when a monk has not abandoned these five obstacles, hindrances that overwhelm awareness and weaken discernment, when he is without strength and weak in discernment for him to understand what is for his own benefit, to understand what is for the benefit of others, to understand what is for the benefit of both, to realize a superior human state, a truly noble distinction in knowledge & vision: that is impossible. ~~ AN 5.51 ~~


text:
A collection of stories about Buddha past lives
Where can i find the collection of these stories about Buddha past lives? Any book or video about this stories especially stream-enterer in series or probably some before this stage.
One life before i found was a king.

Source

Should be in the Jataka: https://suttacentral.net/pitaka/sutta/minor/kn/ja

Please see The Jataka or Stories of the Buddha's Former Births (at sacred-texts.com), translated by various persons under the editorship of E.B. Cowell.
This translation comes in six volumes and was published between 1895 and 1907.
The introduction states:

The Jataka is a massive collection of Buddhist folklore about previous
incarnations of the Buddha, both in human and animal form. Originally
written in Pali, and dating to at least 380 BCE, the Jataka includes
many stories which have traveled afar. Many of these can be traced
cross-culturally in the folklore of many countries.

The Jataka is part of the Khuddaka Nikaya (minor collection) of the Sutta Pitaka (the basket of discourses) of the Pali Canon.