text:
Free will - Go with the flow or struggle against the flow?
In my thought existence is so humongous; we are nothing as individual when compared with the whole. We are comparable to the grain of sand, floating in a river. The grain of sand has two options--struggle against the flow of river or float freely with joy-- it has freedom to choose.
What is Buddha's way?
I believe following the strict code of conduct, like the one in monasteries - abstain from natural desires of lust or greed, can't enjoy pleasure even if they are in your reach. It is the way of struggle. It's painful, If enlightenment wasn't there as fruit to be got after this self-torture, no one would even bother to become a monk. While the way of Zen -- which isn't independent from Buddhism -- is certainly of another kind, to go with the flow it's joyous ride.
Out of them which way did Buddha preferred? Do modern Buddhists have any common opinion about it?

Flow with the flow

At least be constantly aware of the nature of existence. If you are aware of the nature of existence then there is no struggle because that is the Truth.
There are three marks of existence:

All conditioned phenomena are impermanent.
All conditioned phenomena are suffering.
All conditioned and unconditioned phenomena are not self.

In SN1.1, a female deva asked the Buddha how he crossed over the flood (go beyond samsara). The Buddha give an interesting reply. He said he did not stay still nor did he push forward and by so doing crossed over the flood.
It is the attachment to the body and the five senses (i.e. the five aggregates) with the accompanying pleasures and displeasures that characterized the flood or samsara as we know it. During the time of the Buddha, some renunciants realize that the attachment to sensual pleasure eventually caused suffering when the object of attachment is gone or when an object of aversion invades the senses. So, they tried to deny themselves any sensual delight through strict ascetism. They were under the impression that this form of self-torture would win them liberation from both pleasure and pain.
But the Buddha realized that going with the flow (what the world has to offer) or against the flow (denying and resisting everything that the world has to offer) was never going to be the solution. The root of the problem was always the mind and its attachments. To address these attachments, we have to recognize the value that we assign to the objects of attachment. When we see that these objects (e.g. wealth, fame, gain and pleasures) are inherently problematic (does not endure, is not-self or within our control and comes with lots of drawbacks), their perceived value began to drop. When their perceived value falls, our attachment too begin to diminishes.
This practice is an active process that happens with each waking moment. If we don’t actively see how our perceptions, feeling, thoughts and consciousness react in each contact and after every encounter with the world, we will passively revert to our habitual assigning of likes and dislikes, flowing along or against i.e. assigning perceived value without awareness. Perhaps this passive, habitual way of perceiving, feeling and thinking is what the world called free will. But will it lead to liberation of the mind? Or is it instead making us creatures of habits and fools?
Forcing the mind to actively examine and re-examine what is worthy and unworthy of attaching seems like going against the flow. But it is on the basis that there is something better and more worthy than anything the world has to offer. Is this true? Ehipassiko.

This answer is a good one, explaining SN 1.1.

@ruben2020 thanks for the link. I hope readers will follow the link to read it. It is very informative.

If we can agree that free will involves volition:

SN22.79 “And why, bhikkhus, do you call them volitional formations? ‘They construct the conditioned,’ bhikkhus, therefore they are called volitional formations. And what is the conditioned that they construct? They construct conditioned form as form; they construct conditioned feeling as feeling; they construct conditioned perception as perception; they construct conditioned volitional formations as volitional formations; they construct conditioned consciousness as consciousness. ‘They construct the conditioned,’ bhikkhus, therefore they are called volitional formations.

I prefer to read the suttas and see for myself.

MN80:16.11: In the same way, let a sensible person come—neither devious nor deceitful, a person of integrity. I teach and instruct them.
MN80:16.12: Practicing as instructed they will soon know and see for themselves,
MN80:16.13: ‘So this is how to be rightly released from the bond, that is, the bond of ignorance.’”

Many of us do the same. We do so because the suttas show different flavors teaching for different people. So the choice you make will depend on what you read in the suttas. Indeed, the question you are asking relates to this:

AN3.21:2.1: “Reverend Saviṭṭha, these three people are found in the world.
AN3.21:2.2: What three?
AN3.21:2.3: The direct witness, the one attained to view, and the one freed by faith.
AN3.21:2.4: These are the three people found in the world.
AN3.21:2.5: Of these three people, who do you believe to be the finest?”

The Sujato translations of SN 22.79 appears wrong.

Thank you. The word "choices" is perhaps divisive. Updated answer with Ven. Bodhi's translation.The point here is to get people to read and study the suttas.

Thanissaro's appears the most accurate.

Firstly, enlightenment is not the fruit of a painful path. Enlightenment is the fruit of a path of non-sensual pleasure, i.e., meditative concentration, calm & bliss. This path of non-sensual pleasure is called 'The Middle Way' (SN 56.11).
Also, to go with the flow is both not a joyous ride & not related to any type of Buddhism.
As for freewill, it does not exist in Buddhism. Buddhism teaches the will is dependent upon ignorance, or otherwise, wisdom. For example, AN 9.7 says it is impossible for an Arahant (Fully Enlightened) to perform certain types of unwholesome actions. Therefore, an Arahant does not have freewill.

Then what is "right freedom" for an Arahant? MN117: Sammādiṭṭhissa, bhikkhave, sammāsaṅkappo pahoti, sammāsaṅkappassa sammāvācā pahoti, sammāvācassa sammākammanto pahoti, sammākammantassa sammāājīvo pahot
i, sammāājīvassa sammāvāyāmo pahoti, sammāvāyāmassa sammāsati pahoti, sammāsatissa sammāsamādhi pahoti, sammāsamādhissa sammāñāṇaṁ pahoti, sammāñāṇassa sammāv
imutti pahoti.

freedom from defilements & suffering

"As for freewill, it does not exist in Buddhism." - you cannot just make up your own definitions like I do...you should base your statements on common intellectual property

Neither. Instead, the Buddha taught the middle way between over-indulgence in sensual pleasures and self-mortification.

“Bhikkhus, these two extremes should not be followed by one who has
gone forth into homelessness. What two? The pursuit of sensual
happiness in sensual pleasures, which is low, vulgar, the way of
worldlings, ignoble, unbeneficial; and the pursuit of
self-mortification, which is painful, ignoble, unbeneficial. Without
veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata has awakened
to the middle way, which gives rise to vision, which gives rise to
knowledge, which leads to peace, to direct knowledge, to
enlightenment, to Nibbāna.
SN 56.11

"Going against the flow" has another reference in the suttas.

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

There's a questionable dichotomy here between:

going with the flow, which is presented as a kind of libidinous surrender, and…
opposing the flow, which is offered as a sort of fruitless ascetic denialism.

I'd argue instead that the proper distinction is between using the flow and being used by it (or perhaps mastering the flow or being subject to it). Both abject surrender and strict opposition are at odds with the dharma; both lend themselves to craving and attachment. The point of practice isn't to abstain for the sake of abstaining. Practice teaches what it feels like to be without ego, so that when we go forward we can do without ego.
There's a passage from the daodejing that's useful:

The way is like the bending of a bow. The high is lowered,
and the low is raised. If the string is too long, it is shortened; If
there is not enough, it is made longer.

The thing to remember is that the purpose of bending a bow is to send an arrow. It's not an empty exercise. People want things always to rise and never to fall, and that makes their inner bow clumsy, weak, and ineffectual. It feeds dukkha and tanhā. Sitting on the cushion we learn to bend the bow properly. Rising from the cushion we launch an arrow.


text:
Parallel practices in Buddhism to kavacchas
Buddhism although doesn't address the path of the gods for enlightment, it is seen that they are largely addressed for their existence. There are entities - dakinis, pisachinis, etc that are negative demons and are acknowledged.
In Hinduism, there are methods in tantra to invoke kavacchas (or shields) to protect the physical self and materialistic self from those negative entities. They largely require deities who take part in shields and project their fellow human being.
Are there any alternative practices in Buddhism too - to prevent or stop negative entities (if they exist) from being a burden on the spiritual journey of enlightenment? Like invoking shields in Hinduism or anything parallel?

There is no better shield than your uprightness. If you do not lie, if you not kill ,if you do not steal , if you do not take intoxications then nothing can harm you. If you have a heart full of compassion then you are harmless to others.

At least in the Theravada tradition there are some Paritta (protection) chants:

The Book of Protection by Ven. Piyadassi Thera (and here and here)
Paritta Chants for Special Blessings by Ti-Sarana Buddhist Association of Singapore
Mahamevnawa Pali-English Paritta Chanting Book by Ven. Kiribathgoda Gnānānanda Thera
Paritta Pali Protective Verses by Ven. Sayadaw U Sīlānanda
Introduction to Maha Paritta by the Burmese Buddhist Temple

From the The Value of Paritta in the first book:

Mind not only makes sick, it also cures. An optimistic patient has
more chance of getting well than a patient who is worried and unhappy.
The recorded instances of faith healing includes cases in which even
organic diseases were cured almost instantaneously.'
In this connection it is interesting to observe the prevalence, in
Buddhist lands, of listening to the recital of the dhamma or the
doctrine of the Buddha in order to avert illness or danger, to ward
off the influence of malignant beings, to obtain protection and
deliverance from evil, and to promote health, prosperity, welfare, and
well-being. The selected discourses for recital are known as "paritta
suttas," discourses for protection. But they are not "rakshana
mantras" or protective incantations found in Brahmanic religion, nor
are they magical rites. There is nothing mystical in them.
"Paritta" in Pali, "paritrana" in Sanskrit and "pirit" (pronounced
pirith) in Sinhala mean principally protection. Paritta suttas
describe certain suttas or discourses delivered by the Buddha and
regarded as affording protection. This protection is to be obtained by
reciting or listening to the paritta suttas. The practice of reciting
or listening to the paritta suttas began very early in the history of
Buddhism. The word paritta, in this context, was used by the Buddha,
for the first time, in a discourse known as Khandha Paritta in the
Culla Vagga of the Vinaya Pitaka (vol. ii, p. 109), and also in the
Anguttara Nikaya under the title "Ahi (metta) Sutta" (vol. ii, p. 82).
This discourse was recommended by the Buddha as guard or protection
for the use of the members of the Order. The Buddha in this discourse
exhorts the monks to cultivate metta or loving-kindness towards all
beings.
It is certain that paritta recital produces mental well-being in those
who listen to them with intelligence, and have confidence in the truth
of the Buddha's words. Such mental well being can help those who are
ill to recover, and can also help not only to induce the mental
attitude that brings happiness but also to overcome its opposite.
Originally, in India, those who listened to paritta sayings of the
Buddha understood what was recited and the effect on them was
correspondingly great. The Buddha himself had paritta recited to him,
and he also requested others to recite paritta for his own disciples
when they were ill. This practice is still in vogue in Buddhist lands.
The Buddha and the arahants (the Consummate Ones) can concentrate on
the paritta suttas without the aid of another. However, when they are
ill, it is easier for them to listen to what others recite, and thus
focus their minds on the dhamma that the suttas contain, rather than
think of the dhamma by themselves. There are occasions, as in the case
of illness, which weaken the mind (in the case of worldlings), when
hetero-suggestion has been found to be more effective than
autosuggestion.
According to the teachings of the Buddha the mind is so closely linked
with the body that mental states affect the body's health and well
being. Some doctors even say there is no such thing as purely physical
disease.

To show how this works, we can look at the following verse from Banner Protection (Dhajagga Paritta):

"Sakka, the Lord of gods, O monks, is not free from lust, not free
from hate, not free from delusion, and is therefore liable to fear,
terror, fright, and flight. I also say unto you O monks — if any fear,
terror or hair standing on end should arise in you when you have gone
to the forest or to the foot of a tree, or to an empty house (lonely
place), then think only of me thus:

"'Such Indeed is the Blessed One, arahant (Consummate One), supremely
enlightened, endowed with knowledge and virtue, welcome being, knower
of worlds, the peerless trainer of persons, teacher of gods and men,
the Buddha, the Blessed One.'

Monks, if you think of me, any fear,
terror, or standing of hair on end, that may arise in you, will pass
away.

It is not that when you call on the Buddha, he will come to protect you or you get mystically protected. Rather, you will lose your fear and gain courage and strength, when you think of him and feel inspired.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is the dharma thicker than both blood and water?
I’m the only Buddhist in my family and there are very few Buddhists in my community. To make matters worse, the closest Buddhist temple to me is a New Kadampa Tradition meditation center. Because of this, I’m starting to wonder if I’d be better off leaving my family behind because I think I’d have more exposure to the dharma with other people. Answers from any school of Buddhism are welcome.
Edit: The reason why I asked this question is that I thought I’d be held back from understanding the dharma if I was a Westerner with no other Buddhists in my life. In addition, I suspect my parents of being narcissists and that they’re using me as their golden child. I joined Buddhism at the age of nine because I lost interest in Christianity and saw Buddhism as much less dogmatic and more reasonable. However, now that I left NKT, I don’t have a master to rely on nor am I part of a sect, although other forms of Mahayana peak my interest with their focus on the collective whole.

Why do you dislike the "New Kadampa Tradition meditation center"? Which tradition or sect do you belong to?

There’s a lot of controversy surrounding the New Kadampa Tradition. A lot of people, mostly fellow Buddhists, accuse it of being a cult as the founder, Kelsang Gyatso, lied about being a certified Geshe, several monastic rules aren’t included, meditation centers of NKT charge members a lot of money, and the “monks” of NKT are often involved in drug trafficking and sexual abuse of female members. After leaving NKT, I really don’t know what sect I belong to anymore. The internet is all I have left, but I’m leaning towards other forms of Mahayana.

Thanks for reminding me about NKT. There's a question on NKT here: What is the relationship between the New Kadampa Tradition and Tibetan Buddhism?

Look after your family. When shit goes down, they will be the ones who help you out or look after you. You probably can't rely on people that are peripheral to your life or whose interest in you is merely to tick you off as a convert to their religion.
Most other Buddhists, including most Tibetan Buddhists, think that NKT is a cult. I've never encountered them personally, but I've also never heard anything good about them. Structurally, NKT seems like an attempt to reproduce the theocratic feudalism that existed in Tibet prior to the Chinese invasion. Doctrinally, they insist on a medieval worldview that is alien to most of us.
Western Buddhism is curiously individualistic at the best of times. Like, we can deal with the two jewels (Buddha and Dharma) but not the third jewel (Sangha). All traditional forms of Buddhism are community-based. Either a monastic community or a family-oriented lay community.
We are social monkeys: we live and thrive in communities. And we need to be wary of any group that suggests breaking existing social ties and to run a mile from any group that encourages the burning of social bridges.
Have you ever asked yourself what forms of Buddhism you find attractive? What attracted you to Buddhism in the first place?

I’m the only Buddhist in my family and there are no similar Buddhists in my community. This has never concerned me because Buddhism, to me, is a personal path. For example, the Khaggavisana Sutta says:

We praise companionship   — yes!
Those on a par, or better,
should be chosen as friends.
If they're not to be found,
living faultlessly,
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.

However, if you have no explicit family responsibilities, sure, venture to where you can develop Buddhist practice more deeply. The Dhamma is certainly thicker than both blood and water.

That’s a beautiful sutra. I asked this question because I believed that having no other Buddhists in my life would hold me back, but I didn’t want to get into harmful tribalism. What would be considered harmful tribalism? And is it wrong to rely only on the internet for learning the Dharma when nobody else in one’s life is Buddhist?

Genuine Buddhist practice centres are overtly well-balanced. They offer some teaching support yet mostly encourage self-reliance & personal practise. As for leaning the Dhamma on the internet, its OK. No one has the capacity to manipulate you on the internet; unless you take mere words too seriously.

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


text:
I am asking personal help, what is dragging me back?
Recently had an interview in which I didn't gave my 100 percent, it was failure but I am not new to it. But this time something different happened I was shaking from inside, and negative thoughts about myself were coming spontaneously even if I didn't want them. It seems like I am not able to live upto my full potential. Something is dragging me from inside, what is it? Is this explained in Buddhism? Is there any name to this condition?

In my opinion the essential characteristic -- which is also a Buddhist virtue or precept -- of a job interview, is truthfulness.
If I interview someone it's because I decided, based on their resume, that they can do job and that I'd want to hire them if possible. The purpose of the interview, then, is to see:

Were they telling the truth in their resume? I assume most people do, but job applicants (specifically) sometimes don't. So I ask them about their experience, to see whether what they're able to talk about seems to match the experience described in their resume.

Do we understand each other?

Do they want this job?

When applying for a job, I read the advertisement. If I have the experience they're asking for then I might apply, otherwise not. I wouldn't like -- I'd be ashamed -- to be in a situation where they hired me and soon discovered that I'd been lying. There's a lot to learn when starting a new job, but there are things which, as a "senior" who's already experienced, I ought to know already.
This gives me confidence in an interview, and when I start the job. I figure I just need to go to the interview and say:

Sure, I could do this job. After all I have done similar work with previous companies.
Sure, I would like to work with you. What work do you want to give me, how could I help?

Recently had an interview in which I didn't gave my 100 percent
Maybe I often give only 50%, hoping to "meet people half-way". An interview is a dialog, not a monolog. The work itself may require a lot of solo effort, working alone, but the interview is for questions:

Are they telling the truth?
Do we understand each other?
Do I want to work with them doing this?

I was shaking from inside
I don't know, maybe the interview correctly/successfully told you that you weren't comfortable with that job or with those people.
negative thoughts about myself
I don't have those much, instead I'm confident based on past experience.
I once told myself, "There are people who are smarter than me; people who know more; and people who work harder -- but not all three -- and none of them are here!"
One thing that might help is to treat the interview as if it's your first hour of work -- so ask questions about the work they want to give you, and answer their questions (because answering their questions is also part of the job). If you've experience with working but a lot less experience with interviews -- which most people have -- perhaps you'd be more comfortable treating the interview as work, and communicating as you would normally with the colleagues you work with.

Were they telling the truth...yes, I find this to be a problem especially in the IT industry. It seems like honesty is a liability instead.

In the industry...do you mean "at work", or "in interviews"? Also it may be unfortunately normal to make wrong/mistaken predictions about the future, e.g. to over-optimistically under-estimate the effort and details required to finish a project -- I'm not sure whether that's what you mean by "dishonest"?

In interviews, at work and in projects...at least this is from my observations over the years. Perhaps, this tendency to oversell one's ability is the only way to shine in a highly competitive environment.

Well I'm not competing for a promotion, so perhaps I'm lucky. Also my work with (short-lived) startups suggests that "job security" comes from being "cooperative" (not "competitive") -- e.g. when everyone is laid off, your former colleagues find new jobs, and then want to invite/recommend you to join them.

I once interviewed a fresh graduate, for a vacant position in my company.
She was very nervous and afraid of failing in the interview. She was virtually shaking from the inside too.
I told her, "Why are you so nervous? What's the worst thing that could happen if you try your best and don't do well in this interview? You don't get this job. That's all. There certainly are other job openings for fresh graduates for your degree in this company and other companies. Even if you do get this job, but if it doesn't match your skills and interests, you would be struggling and become miserable. So, it is best for you to find a job where your skills and knowledge matches the prerequisites for the job, the job matches your personal interests, and the company culture matches your personal culture. The job seeker and the employer are both seeking a win-win situation."
When she heard that, she was instantly put at ease. She started to think, "what's the worst that could happen? I don't get this job. That's all. There are other interviews and other positions."
In Buddhism, this about letting go of your attachments/ clinging.
Ven. Ajahn Brahm has some nice YouTube talks on the subject, including "Relax. Everything's out of control!".
Also useful, is the analogy of the South Indian Monkey Trap.
As you get deeper into the study of the suttas, you will find that it has something to do with this sutta:

At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, suppose there was a mountain river sweeping
downwards, flowing into the distance with a swift current. If on
either bank of the river kasa grass or kusa grass were to grow, it
would overhang it; if rushes, reeds, or trees were to grow, they would
overhang it. If a man being carried along by the current should grasp
the kasa grass, it would break off and he would thereby meet with
calamity and disaster; if he should grasp the kusa grass, it would
break off and he would thereby meet with calamity and disaster; if he
should grasp the rushes, reeds, or trees, they would break off and he
would thereby meet with calamity and disaster.
“So too, bhikkhus, the uninstructed worldling … regards form as self,
or self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form.
That form of his disintegrates and he thereby meets with calamity and
disaster. He regards feeling as self … perception as self … volitional
formations as self … consciousness as self, or self as possessing
consciousness, or consciousness as in self, or self as in
consciousness. That consciousness of his disintegrates and he thereby
meets with calamity and disaster.
“What do you think, bhikkhus, is form permanent or
impermanent?”—“Impermanent, venerable sir.”…—“Therefore … Seeing thus
… He understands: ‘… there is no more for this state of being.’”
SN 22.93

It seems that you are trying to protect your prestige. You are worried that your pride might get hurt. You are worried that what will your family think about failure or what your friends will think about it. Or you are worried about your future. You are attached to your social image. You are attached to the typical lifestyle which people follow these days. Deep down you are seeking financial security. You want to shield yourself from the wrath of poverty.
Nervousness and anxieties are bound to manifest if you are protecting yourself from poverty because no one can guarantee you the financial security.
If you look at it properly then you will see that even the big companies and very rich people can become bankrupt. Recently the writer of the famous book “Rich Dad and Poor Dad” , Robert Kiyosaki , found himself in a debt of $1 billion.
You should give up all your worries about the financial security or social image. You should focus on your immediate goals. If your goal is Nibbana then this is right place for you to follow the Nobel 8 fold path. But if you have financial goals or social goals then you should seek professional help. Professional career guidance can help you better to streamline your thought processes and career goals.

The Pali scriptures (DN 31) say employees should be given work according to their capacity/abilities. Therefore, we should apply for jobs that are according to our capacity/abilities.
The same Pali scripture says employers need/depend on employees. If there are no employees, employers/businesses cannot earn money. Therefore, we should have faith that there is an employer that needs our services; and often these employers are not seeking 'perfection' because their need for employees is greater.
Your experience sounds like a lack of confidence, i.e., a lack of trust or faith. You should develop more trust in the goodwill of the prospective employer.


text:
Authentic resources to learn about Buddha's Dharma
I was on a project to read bhagvat geeta and understand it's true meaning by myself (since I was baffled by plenty of commentaries done by others). It's 4th adhyaya and I am convinced that this text is written with intention to cover failures of orthodox religion under god's name. The indirect attack on teachings of Buddha(little of which I know) is also evident in some verses. Nonetheless, I want to look for pure knowledge about myself and troubles I am going through and this time it's through Buddha. I am not new to Buddhism but I want to start from scratch,From where should I start? Which is the best book/resource to get authentic information about core of Buddha's teachings?

Try searching this site for "books".

See also English (or other European) translations of Pali Canon -- that's about the "Pali Canon" which though it's important isn't the only school of Buddhism or only "Buddha Dharma" -- but it's maybe a good start!

In addition to those duplicates, also: Starting Buddhism, Recommendation - Book for beginner

My personal favorite to recommend a complete newcomer to read is "Without and Within" by Ven. Ajahn Jayasaro.

You can start with summaries of Pali scriptures, such as:

Constitution for Living: Buddhist Principles for a Fruitful and Harmonious Life – P.A. Payutto

In the Buddha's Words - Bhikkhu Bodhi


text:
What's the roadmap to reach nirvana?
Considering I don't know anything about Buddhism expect it leads to something precious called Nirvana, what should be my approach to reach there? From my experience in academics I believe reaching the peak of any field requires strong fundamentals, rigorous training/practice and then creation (ie, invention or discovery of stuff previously non existent or unknown). Does same principle applies here? Is it possible to reach the peak of Budhhist way while being a normal human (who has obligations to fulfill and lives in society) ? Do I need to join a monastery to practice Buddhism?

You cannot escape boredom. And you can be bored anywhere. I'd rather be bored in front of my computer than in a monastery where there's nothing to entertain myself with. And these days, even those esteemed monks e.g. Ajahn Brahm, etc. use computers. So, try not to escape because you can escape life only at death.

The roadmap to nirvana is one of the most basic parts of Buddhism. It’s called the Noble Eightfold Path. It consists of:

right view
right thought
right speech
right conduct
right livelihood
right effort
right mindfulness
right passaddhi/prasrabhi (doesn’t translate to a single word in English, but has to do with practicing all four stages of dhyāna, AKA meditation)

As you might expect, it does require rigorous training. In fact, most Buddhists actually don’t reach nirvana in their current lifetime, but a lay person can reach nirvana just like monastics can.

In fact, most Buddhists actually don’t reach nirvana in their current lifetime,.... From perspective of science it's obvious that there's nothing as "next lifetime" so is there any effort in Buddhist community(in past or present) to make the process of reaching nirvana more efficient so that it can be reached in our only lifetime.

A majority of Buddhists believe in reincarnation as Hindus during the Buddha’s time taught it. It plays a lot into the concept of samsara and karma. However, some see reincarnation as less literal. Some believe that karma is one’s actions is the effect one’s actions has not only of people of today directly affected by them, but in addition, those in the distant future could be affected by that action too, similar to the Butterfly Effect. In that case, the goal would be to create a future that would expose people to the Eightfold Path.

Actually if you look at existence scientifically you will see that the "next lifetime" as you are calling it is quite assured. Observe your surroundings, now try to find any phenomena that is permanent, try to find phenomena that is not effected by causality, now try to find phenomena that does not transmigrate, Now if you cannot find any single phenomena that has these characteristics, why would you then think "you" are permanent, unaffected by causality and are unable to transmigrate...

Do I need to join a monastery to practice Buddhism?
Not necessarily.

Buddha only encourages us to be in the present, which is the only path to Nirvana.
How to be at present?
Buddha teaches how to be in the present all over the Damma. (Buddha's teachings.)
It's about concentration. It's about knowing what's going on in you, around you. (Not dreaming about the past and future.)
You can practice Samatha meditation to get absolute concentration.
(This is not the true purpose of Buddha's teaching.)
Nirvana?
Now, One should use this concentration/ability to be in the present to understand the Four Noble Truths(Nirvana).
Which is vipassana meditation (The process of using concentration to understand the Four Noble Truths).
Which is the main goal of Buddhism.
After someone attains Nirvana, they won't rebirth again. So No suffering, No purpose for living, rebirth, death.
Thanks . Any questions are welcome. ☸.

Nirvana comes naturally along the path who has figured out the game of life. I mean if you have ever played those games called Grand theft Auto or any of the massive open world games. Initially you are absolutely immersed in the game because it has pulled your attention so much like a black hole sucking in but after a while you get tired of repeating the same things over and over again.
The key is to trick your brain since essentially reality is more or less some kind of a simulation. You can tune out the world by relaxing because you have become tired of exploring stuffs in the world. Meditation is taking a break.
Nirvana is the realization that this life is a big fat joke. Now, you just keep doing what you are doing until you die. So, nirvana is no escape because you got stomach to feed. :)

It it's true at all, then it's just fabulous thing to do. Amazing perspective friend that.

nirvana is no escape because you got stomach to feed?

Wrong...........


text:
8 Worldly Dharmas - are they mental or physical for noble ones?
In the Lokavipatti Sutta the 8 worldly dharmas are pleasure, pain, fame, disgrace, blame, praise, and gain, and loss. The Buddha also says the noble ones experience all of those but don't rebel against the loss etc. and don't welcome the praise etc.
In the Sallatha Sutta, the Buddha says that noble ones experience physical pain but don't follow it with mental pain.
This leads me to wonder: if noble ones don't have mental pain following physical pain, it would seem they don't experience loss, blame, and disgrace as mental pain either.
But how do they experience it? Is it a physical pain? In psychology they say that a broken heart over a loss literally hurts the heart, i.e. those freakish cases where a person dies of grief when their wife dies.
Does a noble one then feel physical pain when they are blamed, disgraced, hurt, or at a loss? Or perhaps everyone does but often run-of-the-mill people only notice the subsequent mental pain, whereas a noble one only feels the first half with no mental pain at all.

Do you mean a noble disciple (aka disciple of the noble ones) or a noble one?

I mean a stream-enterer, once-returner, non-returner, or most importantly an arahant.

Feeling physical pain is a chain of chemical reactions. So everyone feel it. Even Arahant feel it.(but only as a sense).
But since Arahant doesn't have self, they don't generate hate, love, greed towards pain or the cause of the pain. They only feel pain as a sense. Not as pain. (only as comfort or discomfort).
This is same for all 8 worldly dharmas. Because of this, they don't generate any bound with the outer world.
These processes are not somethings Arahant think and do.(like try to forget pain or keep the pain under control). It's their nature. They doesn't generate any thoughts around these 8 worldly dharmas like normal people do. They only sense them. All these are result of not having self/selfishness.

For a noble disciple, my impression is loss (alābho) in AN 8.6 refers to loss of social &/or physical things, such as loss of devotee benefaction thus loss of alms food or shelter, etc, or loss of physical health; or loss of disciples.
AN 8.61 is specifically on the topic of the material gains (lābho) of monks. AN 8.61 says:

First, when a mendicant stays secluded, living independently, a desire
arises for material possessions. They try hard, strive, and make an
effort to get them. But material possessions don’t come to them. And
so they sorrow and wail and lament, beating their breast and falling
into confusion because they don’t get those material possessions. This
is called a mendicant who lives desiring material possessions. They
try hard, strive, and make an effort to get them. But when possessions
don’t come to them, they sorrow and lament. They’ve fallen from the
true teaching.
Next, when a mendicant stays secluded, living independently, a desire arises for material possessions.
They don’t try hard, strive, and make an effort to get them.
But material possessions do come to them.
But they don’t become indulgent and fall into negligence regarding those material possessions.
This is called
a mendicant who lives desiring material possessions. They don’t try hard, strive, and make an effort to get them. And when possessions come to them, they don’t become intoxicated and negligent. They haven’t fallen from the true teaching.

In both AN 8.6 & AN 8.61, the Pali word for (material) 'gain' or 'possession' here is 'lābha'. I guess if the gain was a mental gain, the Pali might be 'paṭilābha', such as in:

Monks, there are four acquisitions (paṭilābhā) of individual character
(attabhāva):
(i) From one's own volition but not the volition of
others;
(ii) From not one's own volition but from the volition of
others;
(iii) From both one's own volition & from the volition of
others;
(iv) Neither from both one's own volition nor from the
volition of others.
AN 4.171

Paṭilābho, used in SN 55.1 about obtaining the four factors of stream-entry; AN 8.2 about obtaining
the wisdom fundamental to the holy life; AN 4.171 about acquiring individual character;vMN 106 about obtaining equanimity; SN 42.8 about acquiring a view; Dhp 333 about acquisition/gaining of wisdom.
We can research more later, however the following sutta also seems to support my theory, where social & physical acquisitions are 'labha' and where the mental acquisition of faith is 'paṭilabha'.

But what of the unsurpassable acquisition?
Lābhānuttariyañca kathaṁ hoti?
Some people acquire a child, a wife, wealth, or a diverse spectrum of things; or they acquire faith in an ascetic or brahmin of wrong view and wrong practice.
Idha, bhikkhave, ekacco puttalābhampi labhati, dāralābhampi labhati, dhanalābhampi labhati, uccāvacaṁ vā pana lābhaṁ labhati, samaṇe vā brāhmaṇe vā micchādiṭṭhike micchāpaṭipanne saddhaṁ paṭilabhati.
There is such an acquisition, I don’t deny it.
Attheso, bhikkhave, lābho; neso natthīti vadāmi.
That acquisition … doesn’t lead to extinguishment.
So ca kho eso, bhikkhave, lābho hīno gammo pothujjaniko anariyo anatthasaṁhito, na nibbidāya na virāgāya na nirodhāya na upasamāya na abhiññāya na sambodhāya na nibbānāya saṁvattati.
The unsurpassable acquisition is when someone with settled faith and
love, sure and devoted, acquires faith in a Realized One or their
disciple. …
Yo ca kho, bhikkhave, tathāgate vā tathāgatasāvake vā saddhaṁ
paṭilabhati niviṭṭhasaddho niviṭṭhapemo ekantagato abhippasanno,
etadānuttariyaṁ, bhikkhave, lābhānaṁ sattānaṁ visuddhiyā
sokaparidevānaṁ samatikkamāya dukkhadomanassānaṁ atthaṅgamāya ñāyassa
adhigamāya nibbānassa sacchikiriyāya, yadidaṁ tathāgate vā
tathāgatasāvake vā saddhaṁ paṭilabhati niviṭṭhasaddho niviṭṭhapemo
ekantagato abhippasanno.
AN 6.30


text:
Is there a correlation between depth of concentration and the length of a practice session?
I am asking this because now, after three years of daily samatha, I sit between forty-five minutes to an hour. Should I be sitting longer? I stopped timing myself about two years into practice, and generally speaking I sit until I emerge spontaneously from a state of concentration. Unless I am having a particularly difficult session I am rarely aware of the passage of time anyway, but more often than not I eventually just stop chanting and rest for a while in the stillness, and at that point it's like -- I could just sit there indefinitely. There is no reason to keep sitting, let alone a reason to stop.

I think it's more about quality than quantity. You can sit your entire life and never reach nibanna or you can sit for 5 minutes and reach in an instant. It's more important to be consistent. Continue mindfulness from sitting to standing, to walking to eating to sleeping. Difficult to do in daily life but I find it easier the more retreats I go on. Also make sure to sit for a while when you open your eyes and contemplate the benefits you gained from sitting.  Im like you I also prefer not to time these days and feel I could just keep sitting.

Core Buddhist meditation is not chanting but sitting with mental stillness. The very end of the important Buddhist sutta MN 118 says all meditation qualities are dependent upon the maturation of letting go/surrender. 'Depth' of concentration correlates with calmness. If the mind is not clearly experiencing an increase in calmness with the increase of the length of the practice session then what is called Right Concentration has not yet been developed. You can consider beginning & continuing your meditation session with mental stillness.

If we assume jhana levels have sometime to do with depth of concentration then we can assume depth is independent of length - right before Buddha passed away he entered jhana and progressed through the levels in what seems like a short period:
DN16:

Then the Buddha entered the first absorption. Emerging from that, he
entered the second absorption. Emerging from that, he successively
entered into and emerged from the third absorption, the fourth
absorption, the dimension of infinite space, the dimension of infinite
consciousness, the dimension of nothingness, and the dimension of
neither perception nor non-perception. Then he entered the cessation
of perception and feeling. Even on his deathbed, the Buddha retains
mastery over his mind.
...
Then the Buddha emerged from the cessation of perception and feeling
and entered the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception.
Emerging from that, he successively entered into and emerged from the
dimension of nothingness, the dimension of infinite consciousness, the
dimension of infinite space, the fourth absorption, the third
absorption, the second absorption, and the first absorption. Emerging
from that, he successively entered into and emerged from the second
absorption and the third absorption. Then he entered the fourth
absorption. Emerging from that the Buddha immediately became fully
extinguished.


text:
How to investigate dhammas
I've read a fair bit about the 7 factors of awakening but I'm really struggling with how I actually cultivate them. In particular dhamma vicaya or investigation of dhammas.  Can somebody give me a practical real world example of this? Nothing I have read is really sinking in. I need it explained to me like a 5 year old. Thank you

Dhammas can be investigated by understanding impermanence of Dhamma(except Nibbana).
Whichever Dhamma you think is the cause of your perplexity or cause of concern, you must recognise it as it is. For example- A joyous feeling is understood as joyful and painful feeling is understood as painful feeling. When you grasp the feeling , you must realise that it is impermanent. It will not last forever. It will not remain same forever. Therefore that feeling is not worth calling as me , mine or myself. And that which is not you, yours or yourself, should be discarded and you should remain calm, collected and blameless.

Dhamma vicaya is investigating whether or not something brings harm & suffering.
SN 46.2 explains this:

There are, bhikkhus, wholesome and unwholesome states, blameable and
blameless states, inferior and superior states, dark and bright states
with their counterparts: frequently giving careful attention to them
is the nutriment for the arising of the unarisen enlightenment factor
of discrimination of states and for the fulfilment by development of
the arisen enlightenment factor of discrimination of states.

The above method is described in many suttas, such as:

What do you think, Rāhula? What is the purpose of a mirror?” “It’s for
checking your reflection, sir.” “In the same way, deeds of body,
speech, and mind should be done only after repeated checking. ‘Does
this act with the body that I want to do lead to hurting myself,
hurting others, or hurting both? Is it unskillful, with suffering as
its outcome and result?’ If, while checking in this way, you know:
‘This act with the body that I want to do leads to hurting myself,
hurting others, or hurting both. It’s unskillful, with suffering as
its outcome and result.’ To the best of your ability, Rāhula, you
should not do such a deed. But if, while checking in this way, you
know: ‘This act with the body that I want to do doesn’t lead to
hurting myself, hurting others, or hurting both. It’s skillful, with
happiness as its outcome and result.’ Then, Rāhula, you should do such
a deed.
MN 61

When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful;
these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the
wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to
suffering' — then you should abandon them.
"What do you think, Kalamas? When greed arises in a person, does it
arise for welfare or for harm?"
"For harm, lord."
"And this greedy person, overcome by greed, his mind possessed by
greed, kills living beings, takes what is not given, goes after
another person's wife, tells lies, and induces others to do likewise,
all of which is for long-term harm & suffering."
"Yes, lord."
"Now, what do you think, Kalamas? When aversion arises in a person,
does it arise for welfare or for harm?"
"For harm, lord."
"And this aversive person, overcome by aversion, his mind possessed by
aversion, kills living beings, takes what is not given, goes after
another person's wife, tells lies, and induces others to do likewise,
all of which is for long-term harm & suffering."
"Yes, lord."
"Now, what do you think, Kalamas? When delusion arises in a person,
does it arise for welfare or for harm?"
"For harm, lord."
"And this deluded person, overcome by delusion, his mind possessed by
delusion, kills living beings, takes what is not given, goes after
another person's wife, tells lies, and induces others to do likewise,
all of which is for long-term harm & suffering."
"Yes, lord."
"So what do you think, Kalamas: Are these qualities skillful or
unskillful?"
"Unskillful, lord."
"Blameworthy or blameless?"
"Blameworthy, lord."
"Criticized by the wise or praised by the wise?"
"Criticized by the wise, lord."
"When adopted & carried out, do they lead to harm & to suffering, or
not?"
"When adopted & carried out, they lead to harm & to suffering. That is
how it appears to us."
AN 3.65

Thanks but I just gloss over when people quote scripture as an answer

Dhamma vicaya is investigating whether or not something brings harm & suffering. That's it.

The scripture says: "There are wholesome and unwholesome states, blameable and blameless states". Dhamma vicaya is investigating what is wholesome; what is unwholesome; what brings peace & happiness; what brings harm & suffering. That's it.

Buddhist investigation (2nd factor of enlightenment) happens automatically when you develop the 1st factor of mindfulness as described in Satipaṭṭhānasutta (MN10).  All phenomena can be digested with reference to the four frames - body, feeling, mind, principles.
According to Satipaṭṭhānasutta mindfulness results in the following:

“This is the direct path for the purification of beings, for the
overcoming of sorrow & lamentation, for the disappearance of pain &
distress, for the attainment of the right method, & for the
realization of unbinding—in other words, the four establishings of
mindfulness.

My guess is right method means mindfulness is the right method of investigation.


text:
Bhaviveka and Buddhism
The Wikipedia article entitled "Buddhist influences on Advaita Vedanta" states:

A few Buddhist scholars made the opposite criticism in the medieval
era toward their Buddhist opponents. In the sixth century AD, for
example, the Mahayana Buddhist scholar Bhaviveka redefined Vedantic
concepts to show how they fit into Madhyamaka concepts, and "equate[d]
the Buddha's Dharma body with Brahman, the ultimate reality of the
Upanishads.

My question is this an accurate description of the teachings of Bhaviveka? Did he redefine Vedantic concepts to fit a Buddhist view? I want people knowledgeable on this subject to answer.

Nope, that's a pretty incorrect Indological description of Bhāviveka's standpoint (it's not the traditional Buddhist standpoint) held by scholars such as Nakamura, etc. Wikipedia is not a good source, which you must be aware about. Also, the wiki article itself states, that is a position held by 'Buddhist scholars' (these are Indologists primarily, not actual practicing Bauddha bhikṣus). If you want to know Bhāviveka's actual standpoint, it's best to consult his śāstra Mādhyamakahṛdaya alongwith his autocommentary Tarkajvālā.

There is actually a book, which does provide translations from Tibetan, etc. of the chapters from Mādhyamakahṛdaya & Tarkajvālā, regarding Sāṅkhya and Vedānta https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674088498 Vedāntatattvaviniścaya is the section in Mādhyamakahṛdaya, in which Bhāviveka gives forth his view. And that's pretty different to the nonsensical standpoint held by Nakamura, Gokhale, etc.
https://archive.org/details/hinduphilosophyinbuddhistperspectivevedantatattvavinisscayaofbhavyamadhyamakahrd_632_f/mode/2up?view=theater

If you read Bhāviveka's views, he seems to consider Vedāntavāda as a darśana, which consists of what Tathāgata has already taught, but Vedāntins have messed it up, and don't follow it properly. Furthermore, he seems to show that Vedāntavāda is not very different too in some siddhāntic matters, and that it's best for Vedāntavādins to follow Buddha. Despite this, he does strongly disagree with Vedāntavāda, which does accept an ātman, etc. (unlike Bauddhamata which doesn't). Also, somehow it seems, that he doesn't know Vedānta too well, for he doesn't take it exhaustively, covering all aspects

Bhāviveka considers Vedānta to be a contradictory and made-up mix-mashup siddhānta. Also, he does provide refutation of some matas within Vedānta, as well. Much of that is provided in the pdf document I linked, which you can check.

kk will look into it thanks for doing your research and answering :)

Also, Bhāviveka has a long discussion in Mādhyamakahṛdaya, where he puts down Veda too, he doesn't consider it authoritative (prāmāṇya) at all.


text:
Buddhist view on Aspergers
Clearly Asperger's/Autism is not something that exists independently on its own as an entity, but it is made up of component simple experiential phenomena.  What is such a view on Asperger's? What are its building components? What is it at the most fundamental level, as seen from Buddhist persepective?
Thanks

The internet includes the following statements about Asperger's syndrome:

Asperger’s syndrome belongs to a group of neurodevelopment conditions known as autism spectrum disorder.

It is not clear what causes Asperger’s syndrome. It’s likely that genes and the environment play a part. It is not caused by upbringing or social circumstances.

As Asperger's syndrome is a neurodevelopment/genetic condition, it comes under the Buddha's teaching about 'the elements' ('dhatu'). The Buddha explained (in MN 12 and SN 14.15) the different 'dispositions' (adhimutti) of individual persons are determined by 'the elements'. In other words, Asperger's syndrome is not a 'defilement' ('kilesa').

So far as I know, it's a diagnosis and therefore a "name".
I think it's a name for a type of behaviour -- but "behaviour" maybe isn't a "fundamental building component as seen from Buddhist perspective" -- behaviour is a result, of other more fundamental causes.
I don't know but I think I read that a cause a "autism" is a difference in sense-perception.

See for example here from autism.co.uk -- Sensory differences

Processing everyday sensory information can be difficult for autistic people. Any of their senses may be over- or under-sensitive, or both, at different times. These sensory differences can affect how they feel and act, and can have a profound effect on a person’s life. Here we help you to understand autism, the person and how to help.

Although this doesn't seem to be mentioned on other introductory pages like the Mayo Clinic's -- Autism spectrum disorder

In any case I think that "sense perception" probably would be considered a "fundamental building component" from the Buddhist perspective -- see e.g. the description of phassa on Wikipedia.
As for Asperger's, I don't know -- my uninformed guess is:

It's not the same sensory disorder as Autism (though a person might like quiet)
When it's a "disorder" -- i.e. disfunction which comes to the attention of a psychiatrist -- it may sometimes have symptoms like autism, e.g. unusual social behaviour
Psychiatry therefore classifies them -- by symptom -- together, as "autism spectrum"
In general psychiatry describes symptoms but doesn't really understand causes -- in this way it's currently like medieval or "dark ages" medical science -- though it can recommend some sometimes-successful treatments

The autism spectrum very broad -- some people might be "high-functioning" -- so the question isn't very precise. I recently heard someone joke that you're "on the spectrum" if you know what "a trillion" is!

Thanks. What I should have elaborated is that I I wanted to understand a particular aspect of Asperger - social aspect. These individuals have "non normal" understanding of social rules etc. Ex. Sarcasm is mostly not understood, they are low on humour, have a hard time understanding what the other person may be feeling etc.
My own suspect is that this suspect at least is not an inherent thing like let's say someone being blind or like skin color. What do you think about that?

Isn't it right to say that Buddhism sees little if anything as inherent in one thing? So-called social skills are a result of or dependent on a social situation/aggregate -- for example, you might feel awkward with some people but not others, depending on them and on their behaviour. Plus I suppose social behaviour in general is learned and nothing you're born with, learning itself being dependent on the environment/interactions as well as on some neurological capacity. Further, even "blindness" could be described as "dependent" -- on contact between light and the eye.

Really though I suppose I think it's just a name, a label. What I don't know is whether and how the label is useful to you. I suppose that's my usual standard for words -- is a Physics word like "gravity" or "friction" helpful in this situation, is it a good model -- is it informative of what's happening, or is it misleading, does it help you to behave skilfully? Because that's the extent to which -- and the occasions on which -- the word is worthwhile, like a knowledge of Physics for example is useful-occaionally -- it arises sometimes, impermanently.

I admire Buddhism for being more-generally useful/applicable -- it's doctrine of morality is more relevant to everyday social behaviour than, for example, the doctrine of Physics is.

I also think people can suffer as a result of being labelled. If you say to a child "You're a bad boy!" then they go around thinking, "Oh no, I'm a 'bad boy', and there's nothing I can do about it." So you need to be careful with labels: use them kindly; use them only to the extent that they're useful; and maybe (in the context of this example) use them to label a child's (transient) behaviour not their (more permanent or 'inherent') person, e.g. "That was unskillful behaviour" not "You're a bad boy".


text:
Who are the noble ones and who are their disciples?
In the suttas, we read about the noble ones (ariya) and the disciples of the noble ones (ariyasavaka).
Who are the noble ones?  Do they include only the four persons who are the stream enterers, once-returners, never-returners and arahants? Or do they also include the four persons trying to achieve stream entry, once-returnership, never-returnership and arahantship? Together, the eight form the noble sangha.
Who are the disciples of the noble ones? Do they include the four persons trying to achieve stream entry, once-returnership, never-returnership and arahantship?
Is there any overlap between the two?
References from the Pali Canon on this is appreciated.

You should probably either edit the title portion "who are the noble disciples?" or clarify your question to indicate whether you're treating the term ariya-savaka to mean "noble disciple" or "disciple of noble ones", very different meaning!

@frankk Updated.

From Uposatha Sutta,

this Dhamma & Vinaya is the abode of such mighty beings as these:
stream-winners & those practicing to realize the fruit of
stream-entry; once-returners & those practicing to realize the fruit
of once-returning; non-returners & those practicing to realize the
fruit of non-returning; arahants & those practicing for arahantship.
The fact that this Dhamma & Vinaya is the abode of such mighty beings
as these — stream-winners & those practicing to realize the fruit of
stream-entry; once-returners & those practicing to realize the fruit
of once-returning; non-returners & those practicing to realize the
fruit of non-returning; arahants & those practicing for arahantship:
This is the eighth amazing & astounding quality of this Dhamma &
Vinaya because of which, as they see it again & again, the monks take
great joy in this Dhamma & Vinaya

8 Types of Noble disciples:

Stream Winners
Once returner
Non returner
Arahant
Those on the way to stream entry
Those on the way to once returner
Those on the way to Non returner
Those on the way to Arahant

Here I disagree with frankk that all disciples who have learned dharma are ariya-savako.

"Furthermore, there is the case where you recollect the Sangha: 'The Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples who have practiced well... who have practiced straight-forwardly... who have practiced methodically... who have practiced masterfully — in other words, the four types [of noble disciples] when taken as pairs, the eight when taken as individual types — they are the Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples: worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of respect, the incomparable field of merit for the world.' At any time when a disciple of the noble ones is recollecting the Sangha, his mind is not overcome with passion, not overcome with aversion, not overcome with delusion. His mind heads straight, based on the Sangha. And when the mind is headed straight, the disciple of the noble ones gains a sense of the goal, gains a sense of the Dhamma, gains joy connected with the Dhamma. In one who is joyful, rapture arises. In one who is rapturous, the body grows calm. One whose body is calmed experiences ease. In one at ease, the mind becomes concentrated.

It is a blessing for you to disagree with that answer. I have offered three comments to show the answer is inconclusively argued, i.e., not well-spoken. Unless some evidence clarifies this matter, I would suggest a Disciple of the Noble Ones has faith in the teachings rather than merely learns or is "exposed" to them. MN 22 refers to the "foolish/useless person (moghapurisā)" that learns the Buddha's Teachings for wrong evil wicked purposes.

i agree with this answer - noble ones and noble disciples are one and the same

"Here I disagree with frankk that all disciples who have learned dharma are ariya-savako." It's not clear what you're disagreeing with, and it's not clear how you understand the term 'ariya-savako', and it's not clear what the sutta quote you posted is supposed to show.

In tha past, Noble ones were those who were from the dynasty of Arya(Upper Caste). They used to spread Arya Truths or Nobel Truths. Buddha was an Arya. After the Sangha formation anyone who believed and followed the Arya Satya or Noble Truths was considered the Nobel one. Those who are still coming around to the understanding of Nobel Truths were considered to be Arya followers or the followers of the Nobel ones.

Ariya = noble one.
ariya-sāvaka = disciple of the noble ones, but is not necessarily noble themself.
my article here examines many sutta passages
https://lucid24.org/tped/a/ariya/index.html#2
such as these:
KN Iti 82 Iti 82 shows a newly ordained monk would already be a stream enterer 'ariya savaka' before ordaining, which is clearly unlikely though not impossible.
MN 152 comparison between an arahant, a sekha (a trainee who is at least stream enterer), and an ariya. Ariya savako term does not appear in this sutta.
SN 45.8 right livelihood, even people who are not ariya can do right livelihood their whole life. Nothing special or ‘noble’ about that. The other 7 factors of the noble eightfold path, the Buddha refers to bhikkhu/monk instead of ariya-savako.
The fundamental purpose of the term 'ariya savaka' is to contrast against a disciple who has not been exposed to the Buddha (Noble one's) teaching, the 'unlearned ordinary person'.
It's not to differentiate an unenlightened Buddhist disciple from an enlightened one, for which other terms already exist (stream entry, etc.).
MN 64 example
The Buddha said this:
Bhagavā etadavoca:
“Ānanda, take an unlearned ordinary person who has not seen the noble ones, and is neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the noble ones. They’ve not seen good persons, and are neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the good persons.
“Idhānanda, assutavā puthujjano ariyānaṁ adassāvī ariyadhammassa akovido ariyadhamme avinīto, sappurisānaṁ adassāvī sappurisadhammassa akovido sappurisadhamme avinīto
Their heart is overcome and mired in identity view,
sakkāyadiṭṭhipariyuṭṭhitena cetasā viharati sakkāyadiṭṭhiparetena;

Iti 82 does not support this argument. Iti 82 refers to three things: (1) ‘This disciple of the noble ones has made up his mind to do battle with Māra.’ (2). a disciple of the noble ones lives devoted to developing the seven [sets of] qualities that are wings to awakening; (3) a disciple of the noble ones, through the ending of effluents, dwells in the effluent-free awareness-release & discernment-release, In summary, this whole sutta is supramundane & describes at the very least the individual practicing for stream-entry.

In MN 152, there appears nothing that explicitly says the sekho is a stream-enterer. All MN 152 says is the sekho  is "horrified, repelled & disgusted" by what arahants also experience (per MN 152 & Iti 44), namely, agreeable & disagreeable sense contacts.

MN 64 does not appear to support your conclusion. MN 64 literally in comparing a puthujjana with a Noble One because it is about identity-view: "Here, Ānanda, an untaught ordinary person who has no regard for noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who has no regard for true men and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, abides with a mind obsessed and enslaved by identity view, and he does not understand as it actually is the escape from the arisen identity view; and when that identity view has become habitual and is uneradicated in him, it is a lower fetter"

I would suggest to take to heart Dhamma Dhatu's answer rather than downvote DD's answer. DN 31 is unambiguously sufficient to show Ariya Savaka does not always refer to a Noble One. In addition, when DD's answer is read the first to two factors for stream-entry occur. Unfortunately, the last two factors of stream-entry are dependent upon the would-be 'student'

You haven't read read my post carefully. I stated clearly that ariya-savaka is a disciple of the Noble Ones, not necessarily a disciple who is themself Noble (enlightened). I downvoted your post because of your wrong views on [No] rebirth, and your general ignorance and consistent abusive behavior on this board.

the buddha did not teach anything that can be translated as "rebirth". Venerable Yuttadhammo also made this point in this forum. Regardless, any notion of "rebirth" is not Noble Right View. MN 117 makes this literally clear. I recommend to read DD's answers carefully.

Rebirth is completely built into not just Buddhism, but other meditative traditions with yogis who've developed 5 of the mundane six higher knowledge, the divine eye that can see past lives and how beings are reborn according to kamma. That the Buddha didn't standardize on a single word for 'rebirth' has nothing to do with whether it's part of the system.  Taoist yogis, hindu yogis, christian mystics who are superb meditators all have personally witnessed rebirth

. That you don't believe it, that's your own business but there's no denying when various relgions are unmistakably talking about that phenomena. If you can't see it from reading the collection of suttas, it just shows your own lack of comprehension and living in denial.

SN25.x is devoted to this classification.
SN 25.1:

Someone who has faith and confidence in these teachings is called a
follower by faith. They’ve arrived at surety in the right way, they’ve
arrived at the level of the true person, and they’ve transcended the
level of the untrue person. Yo, bhikkhave, ime dhamme evaṁ saddahati
adhimuccati—ayaṁ vuccati saddhānusārī, okkanto sammattaniyāmaṁ,
sappurisabhūmiṁ okkanto, vītivatto puthujjanabhūmiṁ;
....
Someone who accepts these teachings after considering them with a
degree of wisdom is called a follower of teachings. They’ve arrived at
surety in the right way, they’ve arrived at the level of the true
person, and they’ve transcended the level of the untrue person. Yassa
kho, bhikkhave, ime dhammā evaṁ paññāya mattaso nijjhānaṁ khamanti,
ayaṁ vuccati: ‘dhammānusārī, okkanto sammattaniyāmaṁ, sappurisabhūmiṁ
okkanto, vītivatto puthujjanabhūmiṁ;
...
Someone who understands and sees these principles is called a
stream-enterer, not liable to be reborn in the underworld, bound for
awakening.”

It says both the follower by faith (saddhānusārī) and follower by teachings (dhammānusārī) are on the path to stream-entry. It says they are not puthujjana (ordinary person), so then they must be the opposite, or noble (arya).  If the lowest rung of the four paths is deemed noble, then all eight types of the path should be classified noble? Still, it  doesn’t seem to be enough, understanding or faith, there should be some application [cultivate eye of wisdom].

Obviously, those with wrong views who claim to be "trying" to achieve stream-entry are not Noble Ones. For example, merely browsing some articles (such as this & this) purportedly about 'stream-entry' & 'refuge' that keep referring to 'rebirth' shows ignoble wrong views that won't leads to stream-entry.
SN 55.5 refers to the factors of stream-entry for one practising for stream-entry:

associating with true persons,

listening to the true teaching,

rational application of mind [towards comprehending the true teachings]

practicing in line with the [true] teaching.

In short, the true teachings (SN 56.11; MN 118; SN 48.10) refer to 'vossagga/paṭinissagga' ('letting go') as the foundation  of The Path. Any practice that aims at anything other than letting go of craving & attachment towards the five aggregates is the wrong path for stream-entry. For example, Ajahn Buddhadasa explained:

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.
Heartwood From The Bo Tree

As for the term 'ariyasavaka', there are suttas, such as DN 31, which obviously use this term for the unenlightened who have faith in the moral teachings of the Buddhas/Noble Ones. For example, those who claim to be Buddhists but adhere to non-moral alien ideologies (such as Capitalism, Liberalism, Marxism, Zionism, Globalism, Wokeism, etc) cannot be Disciples of Nobles Ones. These are self-condemned.


text:
Cultivating Rapture
How is one supposed to develop rapture? It doesn't seem like something you can just decide to attain. Any states that or may not have been rapture that Ive ever experienced happened during retreat when meditating all day everyday and even then it seemed to have happened by itself not because I was trying to make it happen.

please see https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/27061/43

Rapture born of concentration (samadhi) happens by itself. For example, the sutta SN 48.10 says the rapture of jhana is born from making 'letting go' the object of meditation. Rapture is a reward for giving up craving. The less craving, the more 'progress'. What is 'cultivated' is giving up craving.
If there are doubts about this, the Anapanasati Sutta literally says:

A mendicant develops the awakening factor of rapture, which relies on seclusion, fading away and cessation that ripen as letting go.
MN 118

For a more detailed explanation, Ajahn Brahm has taught:

The rapture and bliss of jhana is directly related to the amount of
Samsara which is, albeit temporary, let go of.
In meditation, pitisukha refers only to that joy
and happiness that is generated through letting go.
The joy and happiness that arises with the
beautiful breath is fueled by the letting go of burdens such as past and
future, internal commentary and diversity of consciousness. Because it
is a delight born of letting go, it cannot produce attachment. One cannot
be attached and letting go at the same time. The delight that arises with
the beautiful breath is, in fact, a clear sign that some detachment has
taken place.
One might propose three major types of pitisukha, (joy and happiness):
that generated by sensual excitement, that cased by personal
achievement, and that born of letting go. Not only are these types of
happiness differentiated by their cause, but they are also very different in
their natures. The happiness generated by sensual excitement is hot
and stimulating but also agitating and consequently tiring. It lessens in
intensity on repetition. The happiness caused by personal achievement
is warm and fulfilling but also fades quickly, leaving a sense of a vacant
hole in need of filling. But the happiness born of letting go is cool and
very long lasting. It is associated with the sense of real freedom
Sometimes meditators wonder about the role of effort in meditation. At
the stage of meditation just before the beautiful breath, one’s effort
should directed only into the knowing, and kept away from the doing
mind. When effort is channeled into doing the meditation, that is,
controlling everything, then the energized “doer” moves into restlessness,
another of the hindrances. But when the effort is removed from the
“doer” and is given fully to the knowing, then not only does restlessness
disappear, but so does sloth and torpor.
Thus one cannot will the mind to be still! The way into stillness is
though the pitisukha born of letting go. Once the delight that comes
with the beautiful breath appears, then will becomes redundant. It
becomes unnecessary since mindfulness stays with the breath all by
itself, effortlessly. Mindfulness enjoys being with the beautiful breath,
and so does not need to be forced. It is through the arising pitisukha at
the stage of the beautiful breath that will becomes calmed, effort is
relieved, and stillness begins to manifest.
When stillness appears it enriches the pitisukha. The deepening of
pitisukha, in turn, creates even less opportunity for effort, and so
stillness grows stronger. A self-reinforcing, feedback process ensues.
Stillness deepens pitisukha. Pitisukha increases the stillness. This
process continues, when not interrupted, all the way into Jhana where
stillness is profound and pitisukha ecstatic.
The Jhanas: Ajahn Brahm

Ajahn Buddhadasa, similar to Ajahn Brahm, previously explained:

In this lecture we will speak about the second tetrad of Anapanasati. These four steps deal with the feelings and are called "vedananupassana (contemplation of feeling)." The first two steps of this tetrad take piti (rapture) and sukha (happiness) as the objects of our further study and detailed examination.
The practice of these steps develops out of the practice of the
previous step. Once the body-conditioner or breath is calmed, the
feelings piti and sukha appear [by itself]. Then, we take these very piti and
sukha as the next objects or materials of our practice.
If we calm the kaya-sankhara (body-conditioner) to the extent of jhana (the first jhana and so forth), then piti and sukha will be full and complete as factors of jhana. Nevertheless, if we are unable to reach jhana and are able only to calm the body-conditioner partially, there is likely to be a degree of piti and sukha proportionate to the extent of that calming. Thus, even those who are unable to bring about jhana can still manage enough piti and sukha to practice these steps.
Anapanasati: A Manual for Serious Beginners

Another Anapanasati book by Ajahn Buddhadasa explains:

I don't know why people downvoted this answer as it is quite complete. the simple fact is rapture is a factor gained from concentration, jhana.

people want to think their superficial fondlings with meditation are jhana. the Tibetan guru Chögyam Trungpa called this 'Spiritual Materialism' or 'ego'.

Irony of all this is that the Buddha said that the dharma leads to dispassion and relinquishment, not passion and accumulation.

Developing rapture is very important. There are various ways to do it. If you are convinced that you will not hurt anyone at any cost then you should feel the rapture. It needs to be developed. Unlimited compassion is the basis of rapture because you have understood that everyone is going to suffer.
If you have renunciated possessions then also you should feel the rapture as you are on the right path.
If you have understood impermanence then also you should feel rapture because that is the nature of all conditioned phenomena.
If you have understood all Dhammas as not self then also you should feel rapture because it is very difficult to discern this fact.

If you examine Vedana closely you will realize how they form. Vedana is divided into 3 categories.

Pleasant
Unpleasant
Neutral

Pleasant feelings(Vedana) occurs when it(sensory object) is agreeable to other perceptions and mental states. Unpleasant occurs when it's disagreeable. Neutral feelings occur when it's dull and uninteresting.
The same sensations may give rise to pleasant feelings at one time and unpleasant feelings the next time.
If you understand how Vedana rises you can see how rapture rises from meditation.
i.e Reduce desires and thus every sensory object becomes agreeable(pleasant).
If you examine more, you can try to manufacture rapture at will. This process is what I call "developing rapture".
Some people intuitively understand rapture due to long time exposure, and some can examine it more closely to understand it's causes.

AN 11.3:

When there is no joy, one who lacks joy has destroyed a vital
condition for rapture. Pāmojje asati pāmojjavipannassa hatūpanisā hoti
pīti.

I think it means you should enjoy the Dhamma, not just pout about it.  If you enjoy it then you will pursue it and cultivate path factors. It makes sense  that Dhamma is more likable on retreat where there's less distraction - then you can really get into it and increase the probability of taking what some call path action.  When you take path action you get path re-action, like rapture.


text:
Reference request for believing there are no sages who can see beyond the physical world
Originally thought it was among some of the list of downfalls but couldn't find it there. I remember hearing somewhere in the suttas perhaps the unskillfulness of believing there are no sages who can see beyond the physical world. Ring any bells? (Oops on the vagueness)

The Pali suttas refer to disbelieving the sages know 'this world' ('loka') & 'the other world' ('paraloka'). The term 'world' ('loka') does not necessary refer to physical worlds. For example, AN 4.45 refers to the world arising & ceasing within the mind.

For it is in this fathom-long carcass with its perception and mind that I describe the world, its origin, its cessation, and the practice that leads to its cessation.
AN 4.45

The reference you are seeking is a stock phrase; found in MN 60, MN 117, AN 10.211 and at least 15 other suttas, as follows:

i. The Doctrine of Nihilism (natthikavāda)
Householders, there are some recluses
and brahmins whose doctrine and view is this: ‘There is nothing given,
nothing offered, nothing sacrificed; no fruit or result of good and
bad actions; no this world, no other world; no mother, no father; no
beings who are spontaneously arisen; no good and virtuous recluses and
brahmins in the world who have themselves realised by direct knowledge
and declare this world and the other world.’
MN 60

MN 117 clearly says the above doctrine sides with merit (goodness) & attachment; thus does not lead to liberation & Nibbana.

Yes!! This is it! Wild how so many modern day materialists and those into Scientism as their religion (in a manner of speaking) fit pretty much into this same camp of nihilism although more limited specifically to claiming: 'no other world . . . no beings who are spontaneously arisen; no good and virtuous recluses and brahmins in the world who have themselves realised by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.' ...which could make one wonder how it got that way and how limited they are even in their nihilism although maybe they think math and tech are a more expanded trap

The "materialists" are actually those who believe this verse refers to rebirth or reincarnation

How so Dhamma Dhatu?

There's a good talk about the view of Materialism from Ajahn Punnadhammo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSCjbzJCCuk

The Buddha never used any term to mean "materialism". The only place I have found the term "materialism" found is in the Nikaya commentary called the Patisambiddhamagga, which literally says "rebirth is materialism" and "non-rebirth is non-materialism".


text:
Is this a mistake when meditating?
I am a beginner in meditation practice (have been meditating for about a week now). Sometimes when I meditate the following occurs: once I am able to keep focus on my breath for some time (some minutes perhaps), I notice that sometimes I slowly begin to go into this state where I am aware that I am breathing but I am not aware of being aware of my breath (if that makes sense). It is as if my mind slows down and calms down, and I begin to be aware of not only my breath but of many other things such as my body, my environment, etc.
Is this ok? Or is this some kind of "daydreaming" that should be noted and then I should bring my attention back to only focus on the breath.

The primary goal of meditation is to maintain equanimity of mind.
Therefore, when your awareness of the breathing becomes uncertain & vague, you should not worry about it; as though you are doing something wrong. Instead, just maintain your mental equilibrium and take some deliberate conscious deeper & longer breathes to re-establish your awareness. Then return again to observing the natural breathing.
Its OK to be aware of the body. This is only natural & part of meditation practice. A goal of Buddhist meditation is to be aware of how different types/qualities of breathing affect the physical body; particularly experiencing how fine long calm breathing makes the physical body to also become calm, relaxed & stress-free.
As for awareness of your environment, this is also OK. For example, quietly listening to the environment around you is OK. One famous monk, namely, Ajahn Sumedho, has taught a technique called 'the sound of science' (here).
To reiterate, the primary goal of meditation is to maintain equanimity of mind rather than to worry about doing small things wrong.
An excerpt below from this meditation manual:

Can you cite the source of the meditation manual? Book title, author?

reluctantly. the meditation manual is too complicated, too long & just appears to be a mixture of personal views and various translated Buddhist commentary (such as Anapanasati Commentary, Patisambiddhamagga, Visuddhimagga) text from Pali to Thai to English. its a translation without any footnotes therefore the reader cannot discern what is what. if you wish to create more confusion
than already abundantly exists, the  (papanca) meditation 'manual' is at this link: https://dhammatalks.net/Books3/Buddhadasa_Bhikkhu-Anapanasati.pdf

The Buddha taught many suttas about meditation. For example, here is part of a sutta about breathing:

SN54.8:1.1: “Mendicants, when immersion due to mindfulness of breathing is developed and cultivated it’s very fruitful and beneficial.
SN54.8:1.2: How so?
SN54.8:2.1: It’s when a mendicant—gone to a wilderness, or to the root of a tree, or to an empty hut—sits down cross-legged, sets their body straight, and establishes mindfulness in front of them.
SN54.8:2.2: Just mindful, they breathe in. Mindful, they breathe out.
SN54.8:2.3: Breathing in heavily they know: ‘I’m breathing in heavily.’ Breathing out heavily they know: ‘I’m breathing out heavily.’ …
SN54.8:2.4: They practice like this: ‘I’ll breathe in observing letting go.’ They practice like this: ‘I’ll breathe out observing letting go.’
SN54.8:2.5: That’s how immersion due to mindfulness of breathing, when developed and cultivated, is very fruitful and beneficial.

When I started Zen, I was simply instructed to count breaths. And I did just that for many years. Different traditions approach meditation in slightly different ways. Because of this, reading the suttas provides the background for understanding many of the subtle issues that arise. Reading the suttas also provides fruitful dialogues with teachers since the suttas are a common frame of reference.

There's no single "the meditation", just like there's no single "the exercise". There are many exercises and many meditations. What you do in a meditation is tied to what you are trying to achieve, and that's where the right/wrong judgment comes from. Consequently, if you are not trying to achieve anything in particular - then there's nothing you could be doing right or wrong :-P
In your case, you are just starting to explore. As a beginner, there are two ways you can go from here:

You can keep exploring. Don't fight with your thoughts but don't get caught up in thoughts either. If you do get carried away, gently come back to the present moment. In this open-style meditation anything goes - including thoughts, memories, the environment, all kinds of mental trips - as long as you keep coming back. It's like the laundry machine, it keeps cycling but always stays in place. Pay attention to all the ebbs and flows, explore your mental/emotional/somatic continuum, and give your introspection some time to mature. Some serious time, at least six months to a year. You can't force the natural progress, it has to take time. Your goal is to learn the landscape through random roaming.
Alternatively, you can take up the breath meditation proper. In this one, your goal is much more narrowly defined. Your goal is to achieve pinpoint focus on the microscopic nuances of how each of your in-breaths and out-breaths feels second-by-second, and through that to access your feeling mind. This requires tremendous level of concentration, exclusively on the breath (and on the feeling mind) not engaging in thinking, reminiscing, observing the environment, meta-analysis, or anything else. Your eventual goal with this meditation, once you learn to access the feeling mind, is to start untangling the emotional tangles, untying the knots and straightening out the old wrinkles.

Eventually, with both types of practice, you should arrive at this open, relaxed, transparent, lucid, and even psychosomatic continuum, like looking down at a very quiet koi pond.
Anecdotally, for many people the specificity of breath meditation seems like a more comfortable more deliberate framework than the open-ended exploration-style meditation. Then again, since our minds are pretty restless, most people end up cycling in and out of their thoughts during the breath meditation, blaming themselves for getting distracted, ending up neither here nor there.
Right now you are kinda trying to do both meditations at once, worrying whether you should focus on the breath or allow your mind to settle and explore naturally.
I recommend to make up your mind and pick either one meditation style or the other, and commit to your choice for at least six months, better a year. Once you get some experience with either one, you'll have enough insight into the functioning of your mind to make a meaningful next step.

With regards to your statement: "...aware of being aware of my breath (if that makes sense)":
I'm not sure, but how can this be? If I understand correctly, awareness always arises with an object - it's called contact.  If I am aware of my breath, the breath is my object. But when I am aware of being aware..., what is my object?  Probably the idea of being aware? That would be awareness conjoined with intellect-idea (internal-external base). To me, at least this makes it clear consciousness (awareness) is not transcending (for lack of a better word) itself, it's still sequentially- and object-oriented.

Please do not overthink of meditation. First step is to accept that a man is a machine. Just take a computer, you use it non stop for hours and hours. It becomes overheated. And if you run even more heavy applications, it might shut down by itself. The overheating might damage the computer altogether and you might have to buy another one.
Our brain is akin to a computer but it is very strong. You might have noticed that when you overexert yourself, you feel so tired because your energy has been drained out completely. So, you shutdown the machine via a nice meditation or a nice sleep.
This is as simple as it gets.


text:
What is liberated both ways?
“liberated both ways” can you tell me what does it mean? I will find the discourse later

In theory, according to Pali Canon, you can attain Enlightenment either through understanding or through meditation. "Liberated both ways" is one who got it both ways.
In practice, every teacher worth his or her salt will tell you that intellectual study without meditation is fooling oneself, and at the same time sitting in meditation until your butt falls off is complete waste of time if you don't have understanding. And both are useless if you don't integrate it with real life.
So in practice, Liberated Both Ways is the only option.

and I guess what you call complete waste of time. is also fruitful after many decades. i.e some one will eventually understand just by sitting for long hours for many decade. and also some one who understand it all will eventually sit and do nothing.

Sujato's final footnote for DN 15 says:

Here we see the terms “one who is freed” used in two ways. All
arahants have “freedom of heart” (by means of samādhi) and “freedom by
wisdom” (the realization of the Dhamma). At the same time, one who
emphasizes samādhi is said to have “freedom of heart” in contrast with
one who emphasizes wisdom, who has “freedom by wisdom”. One who has
consummate mastery of both samādhi and wisdom is said to be “freed
both ways”.

If we read the end of DN 15, the Eight Liberations (which collectively are one of the 'both/two' liberations) particularly emphasise the Immaterial/Formless Spheres. Therefore, "Liberated Both Ways" here (in DN 15) can be contrasted with SN 12.70, where the monks declare Arahantship without attainment of the Immaterial/Formless Spheres.

“Well, knowing and seeing thus, do you have direct meditative
experience of the peaceful liberations that are formless, transcending
form?”
“No, reverend.”
“Well now, venerables, how could there be such a declaration when
these things are not attained?”
“Reverend Susīma, we are freed by wisdom.”
SN 12.70

Note: the Arahant monks in SN 12.70 have attained the Four Jhana of the Noble Eightfold Path; but have not attained the Four Immaterial/Formless Spheres.

short answer: An arahant who has not only 4 jhānas, but also formless attainments.
An arahant who is only wisdom liberated (pañña vimutti) only has 4 jhānas.
comprehensive answer:
summary of all the sutta passages (10) and links to those suttas that use the term 'liberated both ways'
https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2024/02/ubhato-bhaga-vimutta-liberated-both.html

reading that blog: i think "placing the mind and keeping it connected" is a good way to describe vitarka-vichara

https://lucid24.org/sted/8aam/8samadhi/vitakka/index.html

in an oral tradition, vitakka and vicara has to be linguistc verbal thought. "placing and connecting the mind" happens in all 4 jhanas and first 7 attainemnets, it can't drop out after first jhana, among many other reasons that translation is horrendously wrong

the pali is quite consistent about vitarka-vichara dropping out after the first jhana..perhaps it has served its purpose ie cittekaggata