text:
What's the role of "conceit" in the Dhamma?
I read the following on the internet:

Some rules assume the conceit, "I am". Importantly, Buddhist rules do
not. For example, take the first three rules of MN8:
MN8:12.2: ‘Others will be cruel, but here we will not be cruel.’
MN8:12.3: ‘Others will kill living creatures, but here we will not
kill living creatures.’
MN8:12.4: ‘Others will steal, but here we will
not steal.’

What exactly is conceit? Does the above quote include conceit? If so, why? If not, why not?

Possible duplicate: How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?

Conceit in Buddhism is a technical term, referring to the deep-rooted habit or tendency of self-expression or self-clinging.
It's different from self-view or identity-view, which is more like a belief, than a habit.
The difference between overcoming self-view and overcoming conceit, is like the difference between overcoming wrong beliefs about diet and exercise, and overcoming obesity.

"Just like a cloth, dirty & stained: Its owners give it over to a
washerman, who scrubs it with salt earth or lye or cow-dung and then
rinses it in clear water. Now even though the cloth is clean &
spotless, it still has a lingering residual scent of salt earth or lye
or cow-dung. The washerman gives it to the owners, the owners put it
away in a scent-infused wicker hamper, and its lingering residual
scent of salt earth, lye, or cow-dung is fully obliterated.
"In the same way, friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned
the five lower fetters, he still has with regard to the five
clinging-aggregates a lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am'
desire, an 'I am' obsession. But at a later time he keeps focusing on
the phenomena of arising & passing away with regard to the five
clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its
disappearance. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are
fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origin, such its
disappearance.' As he keeps focusing on the arising & passing away of
these five clinging-aggregates, the lingering residual 'I am' conceit,
'I am' desire, 'I am' obsession is fully obliterated."
SN 22.89

Perfect answer or contribution. I never read the above before. Sadhu!

Conceit in the Dhamma is about the tendency to assert that self is a truth & reality such that one conceives of "I am" and so on to "I am good.." etc
Saying 'I am' is akin to saying "There is a Santa Claus". The statement itself doesn't mean that we believe SC to be a truth & reality as we can say 'There is a Santa Claus, Santa Claus is something [albeit made up, a notion that a child might believe in]' whereas that child would say 'There is a Santa Claus [asserted to be a truth & reality by the child].
One's conceit is not the word 'self' or the expression "I am". One's conceit is that passionate tendency to conceive of self as a truth & reality due to one's stupidity or a lack of concentration.

“One to whom it might occur,
‘I’m a woman’ or ‘I’m a man’
Or ‘I’m anything at all’—
Is fit for Mara to address.”

Because it is the foundation for craving;

"And which are the 18 craving-verbalizations (taṇhāvicaritāni) dependent on what is internal? There being 'I am,' there comes to be 'I am here,' there comes to be 'I am like this' ... 'I am otherwise' ... 'I am bad' ... 'I am good' ... 'I might be' ... 'I might be here' ... 'I might be like this' ... 'I might be otherwise' ... 'May I be' ... 'May I be here' ... 'May I be like this' ... 'May I be otherwise' ... 'I will be' ... 'I will be here' ... 'I will be like this' ... 'I will be otherwise.' These are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is internal.
"And which are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is external? There being 'I am because of this (or: by means of this),' there comes to be 'I am here because of this,' there comes to be 'I am like this because of this' ... 'I am otherwise because of this' ... 'I am bad because of this' ... 'I am good because of this' ... 'I might be because of this' ... 'I might be here because of this' ... 'I might be like this because of this' ... 'I might be otherwise because of this' ... 'May I be because of this' ... 'May I be here because of this' ... 'May I be like this because of this' ... 'May I be otherwise because of this' ... 'I will be because of this' ... 'I will be here because of this' ... 'I will be like this because of this' ... 'I will be otherwise because of this.' These are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is external.
"Thus there are 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is internal and 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is external. These are called the 36 craving-verbalizations. Thus, with 36 craving-verbalizations of this sort in the past, 36 in the future, and 36 in the present, there are 108 craving-verbalizations.
"This, monks is craving the ensnarer that has flowed along, spread out, and caught hold, with which this world is smothered & enveloped like a tangled skein, a knotted ball of string, like matted rushes and reeds, and does not go beyond transmigration, beyond the planes of deprivation, woe, & bad destinations."
AN 4.199

The tendency to assert that self is a truth & reality appears to be sakkaya-ditthi, which is cut by a stream-enterer. The word "sakkaya" means "true or real body". Conceit (mana) still arises in a non-returner therefore it appears conceit is more subtle than sakkaya-ditthi,

The view is cut off, understanding is perfected but their concentration isn't perfected and therefore they get distracted and then it still occurs to them 'I am' as they are fit for Mara to address. It's like executing a strategy requires not only understanding but also focus & concentration as to not make mistakes.

It's like a wrestler might, due to a lack of concentration, not be able to follow his game plan. When emotions overwhelm one stops thinking appropriately and acts on past conditioning giving wrong attention.

so conceit is the opposite of mindfulness?  i guess so...

one must rely on logic and mindfulness until self characteristic is completely eradicated, i.e., no more conceit

a conceit, in this context, is a fanciful notion or wishful ideal. The point is that the actions of cruelty, killing, and stealing are all rooted in the fanciful notion "I am", because "I am" logically precedes "I want" or "I must have". So, for example, the Abrahamic traditions must make explicit rules like "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal" because the Abrahamic traditions presume the existence of an egoic "I" which is subject to sin. Buddhists don't presume the egoic "I", and thus don't require explicit rules to restrain its actions.

Interesting answer however, even though conceit will always be involved in killing or stealing, it seems ending conceit is not required to end killing or stealing or even cruelty.

i don't understand this. the conceit fetter is tied to moral acts?

@blue_ego: The conceit referred to in this question is the conceit "I am" (the notion that identity exists). Moral rules can be framed in two ways: 1) identity-driven ("I am a good person who does A", "he is a bad person who does B"), or 2) deontologically ("some actions are done, some actions are not done"). In both cases a choice is made between (say) kindness and cruelty, but in the first case the choice is made to bolster self-image while in the second case the choice supports universal principles.

Conceit is the inflated sense of self, this sense of self that is coming from the ignorance/ego.
For eg we rush to feed ourselves food but we don't rush to feel a worm food, because of ignorance we see two separate entities in ourself and the worm and it is the conceit itself that sees ourself as more important than the worm that we only rush to feed ourselves.
Two separate mental formations but conceit is a by-product (klesha) of ignorance itself.
As you would know, conceit is one of the last fetters to be extinguished as one becomes an arhant.
I don't know the source of what you are quoting above but from looking at it it looks like the writer is trying to point out the use of the word "WE" rather than "I"

I scored this answer up because it said: "conceit is one of the last fetters to be extinguished as one becomes and arhant."

Some rules assume the conceit, "I am"

This expression "I am" is generally spoken of as a first person singular pronoun. A pronoun is a word that is used instead of a noun or noun phrase. A noun is a word that refers to a thing (book), a person (Betty Crocker), an animal (cat), a place (Omaha), a quality (softness), an idea (justice), or an action (yodeling). It's usually a single word, but not always: cake, shoes, school bus, and time and a half are all nouns.
Conceit
noun: conceit; plural noun: conceits
A word that can mean excessive pride in oneself, as in "he was puffed up with conceit". Ordinary usage of late Middle English origin (in the sense ‘notion’, also ‘quaintly decorative article’): from conceive, on the pattern of pairs such as deceive, deceit.
In the Dhamma, the semantic properties of what is translated as conceit would seem to overlap with common usage as in 'arrogance', or 'prideful', eg;

Ven. Sāriputta: “My friend, when the thought occurs to you, ‘By means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human, I see the thousand-fold cosmos,’ that is related to your conceit. When the thought occurs to you, ‘My persistence is aroused & unsluggish. My mindfulness is established & unmuddled. My body is calm & unaroused. My mind is concentrated & gathered into singleness,’ that is related to your restlessness. When the thought occurs to you, ‘And yet my mind is not released from the effluents through lack of clinging/sustenance,’ that is related to your anxiety. It would be well if—abandoning these three qualities, not attending to these three qualities—you directed your mind to the deathless property.”
AN 3.131

(I appreciate this thread is over a year old, but still figured I’d provide my understanding in the hopes it might add some value for others).
It seems that the concern stems from the statements in MN 8 being self-referential. I do agree it appears that it can appear that way in isolation. (Simply a “we” statement does not necessarily mean it isn’t conceit).
What’s most clarifying is the context: these statements were provided as instruction for how self-effacement should be practiced. Said in other words, these are statements of intent rather than declarations of the sangha’s characteristics. Alone, it could appear to be a declaration about an out-group being worse than their in-group but that isn’t the purpose of this sutta.
Inevitably, some other people will commit the above mentioned unethical acts, cultivating the intention to not do such things despite this is self effacement. It’s appropriate to dwell on the fact that other people may still do such things because other people’s behavior often has tremendous influence on your own choice of action. “Why should I do X, when so many people do Y?” Or “why shouldn’t I do X, if I don’t, someone else will,” are common beliefs that undermine our ethical integrity.

What exactly is conceit?
Ven. Yuttadhammo answered a related question here.
A lot of the description in that answer is that conceit is related to "comparison" -- e.g. "I am superior" or "I am inferior".
I'm also mindful of Wikipedia's definition:

Māna (Sanskrit, Pali; Tibetan: nga rgyal) is a Buddhist term that may be translated as "pride", "arrogance", or "conceit". It is defined as an inflated mind that makes whatever is suitable, such as wealth or learning, to be the foundation of pride. It creates the basis for disrespecting others and for the occurrence of suffering.

See also Ud 6.6

Folk are fixated on the I-maker,
which is tied up with the other-maker.
There are some who do not realize this,
they do not see the dart.
But when they see this dart,
they do not think, ‘I make it’,
nor ‘another makes it’.
These folk are caught up in conceit,
tied by conceit, shackled by conceit.
Vehemently defending their views,
they don’t escape transmigration.

Does the above quote include conceit? If so, why? If not, why not?
It was used in (you are quoting it from) an answer to this topic about "blame" and "blameless".
The action of "blaming" -- e.g., in a personal or intimate relationship, "It's your fault, not mine, you are guilty, I am innocent" -- seems like an obvious example of conceit as described above.
Conversely that use of "we" (as quoted from MN 8) seems less "conceited" in that sense -- it doesn't have classic symptoms of conceit, e.g. "weapons of the mouth", and "other-making".

i marked this answer down despite is quite reasonable effort & reasoning. However, for me, the final conclusion was unconvincing, namely, "that use of "we" (as quoted from MN 8) seems less "conceited" in that sense -- it doesn't have classic symptoms of conceit, e.g.  "other-making". IMO, there is not evidence MN 8 will not result in "other-making".

I guess some people could use it to fuel other-making -- e.g. possibly Devadatta's "I am vegetarian, you are not" -- but it doesn't read that way to me. I find it cool (not hot-headed), inoffensive (not offensive), respectful (it's an I-message not a you-statement, definitive, welcoming (not exclusive).

i'm just saying the teaching in MN 8 can easily give rise to conceit

As it is easy to see: Those believing conceit isn't necessary for overcoming conceit, have developed most harmful wrong conceit, so pride that even denying what's posted right on the forehead of any sentences...
Followed by those believing conceit projected on equal and we, the most dangerous 'nuclear' conceit...
It was Samma-conceit that leaded the Buddha into his last journey, and it's Right conceit that allows and cares to develop the path.
Hardly a single Sutta not provoking right conceit, the force of effort, and as the wise told: Conceit is used to overcome conceit.
Your perverse pride might not be willing to accept a useful function of Bhava-tanha, but who could help one holding on house and stand, a stingy person not willing to give up what's fueling to be blindly caught in the conceit of a slave.
Ahara-hants are bond to Mara, to standholds, and wrong conceit, thinking 'i am' instead of 'i could do' penetrates throw all doors of Kamma, leaving behind a strong stand-holder smell, avoided by wise.

this answer sounds very extreme.

Conceit is completely not self-view.
Conceit is thinking "This arising and vanishing thing is difference from others" although "they are same arising and vanishing" is known.
Self-view is thinking "Nothing is arising and vanishing", "Man is controllable
by wrong-reason to be forever or to vanish forever because man is reality, nothing elements".
That's why Sotapanna still have Conceit, but Self-view.

I marked this answer down because it is not verified using quotes from sutta.

Conceit is one of the last fetters to be extinguished as one becomes and arhant. In other words, only an Arahant is completely free from conceit.
Therefore, it appears illogical Buddhist rules would be "free from conceit" when it appears logical rules are not required for Arahants.
For example, while often giving dodgy teachings, in AN 4.159, Ananda says: "By relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned".
While MN 8 begins with the statement "self-views" are abandoned when any object is viewed with right wisdom, it appears MN 8 appears to not directly include the abandoning of "conceit" in its list of 44 practises. Also, MN 8 appears to contain many very low or basic levels of instruction which could easily give rise to conceit in a non-Arahant, such as:

(44) Others will misapprehend according to their individual views,
hold on to them tenaciously and not easily discard them; we shall not
misapprehend according to individual views nor hold on to them
tenaciously, but shall discard them with ease — thus effacement can be
done.

AN 10.48 is about the Dasadhamma, namely, ten daily reflections of a monk, as follows:

"'I am now changed into a different mode of life (from that of a layman).' This must be reflected upon again and again by one who has
gone forth.

"'My life depends on others.' This must be reflected upon again and again by one who has gone forth.

"'I must now behave in a different manner.' This must be reflected upon again and again by one who has gone forth.

"'Does my mind upbraid me regarding the state of my virtue?' This must be reflected upon again and again by one who has gone forth.

"'Do my discerning fellow-monks having tested me, reproach me regarding the state of my virtue?' This must be reflected upon again
and again by one who has gone forth.

"'There will be a parting (some day) from all those who are dear and loving to me. Death brings this separation to me.' This must be
reflected upon again and again by one who has gone forth.

"'Of kamma I am constituted. Kamma is my inheritance; kamma is the matrix; kamma is my kinsman; kamma is my refuge. Whatever kamma I
perform, be it good or bad, to that I shall be heir.' This must be
reflected upon again and again by one who has gone forth.

"'How do I spend my nights and days?' This must be reflected upon again and again by one who has gone forth.

"'Do I take delight in solitude?' This must be reflected upon again and again by one who has gone forth.

"'Have I gained superhuman faculties? Have I gained that higher wisdom so that when I am questioned (on this point) by fellow-monks at
the last moment (when death is approaching) I will have no occasion to
be depressed and downcast?' This must be reflected upon again and
again by one who has gone forth.

It appears obvious the above Dasadhamma, assuming for non-Arahants, could easily give rise to conceit; such as monks believing they are different to and superior to laypeople.
In summary, there appears nothing in MN 8 that shows all, many or some of the 44 practices described in MN 8 would prevent the arising of conceit.
In other words, it appears the opinion below is unsubstantiated and probably  incorrect:

Some rules assume the conceit, "I am". Importantly, Buddhist rules do
not.


text:
What difference is there in chanting/reciting in the same way as monks?
Recitals or chants such as Om Mani Padme Hum by monks have particular tones.
Is there a difference in the ability or inability to chant in a same way for individuals that are not monastic?

Practice practice practice.

No, there's nothing about being a monastic that inherently changes your vocal  timbre or range.
If you listen to dharanis, sutras, mantras, etc., being chanted by Chinese, Thai, Japanese, or most other monks, their voices sound like anyone else's. Many of the Tibetan chanting recordings you'll find online come from specific groups that either have training in throat singing or overtone singing, or are otherwise carefully selected to sound good on a recording.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Do "conditioned" and "conventional" mean the same thing in Buddhism?
By "conventional" I think those are the things created by human conventions, that are all imaginary.
By "conditioned" I think those are things that came from another thing or things.
Do these terms have the same meaning in the Buddha's teaching?

Convention doesn't mean imaginary. It simply means that it is defined that way by consensus.
For e.g. an assemblage of parts like wheel, axle etc. is called a chariot. An assemblage of bun, patty, lettuce, tomatoes etc. is called a burger. If all parts are separated, then the object in question stops existing conventionally.
Another example is a fist or a lap. When you move your fingers and hand in a certain position, it forms a fist conventionally. When you sit down and move your legs into a certain position, it forms a lap conventionally.
In the suttas, a being (satta) is by defined by convention to be an assemblage of the five aggregates (form, feeling, perception, consciousness, mental formations) in SN 5.10. A being (satta) is also defined by convention to be existing when there's clinging to the idea of a self in SN 23.2. Combining these two, a being (satta) is defined by convention as existing when a mind-body system clings to the idea of a self.
A person (puggala) is defined based on a background story, like "this venerable one of such a name and clan" (SN 22.22).
Another use of conventions is in speech. Although arahants no longer have conceit and self-view, they may still use personal pronouns in speech like "I" and "we", just because it's the convention (SN 1.25).
Sankhara refers to conditioned and compounded phenomena.
Conditioned means that something that came about because of something else. For e.g. a house was built on a plot of land, because somebody decided to build it, due to some reason. Another example is, there are clouds in the sky because water that evaporated condensed to become clouds. Another example is, someone became angry because another person criticized their looks. The first person associates his form with his self, hence took offense at the criticism.
In terms of a being , how a being came to be the way they are, physically and mentally, can be traced back to conditions in the past.
All physical and mental phenomena, except Nirvana, are conditioned, according to Theravada. Even space and time are conditioned, as evidenced by the Theory of General Relativity.
Compounded phenomena is like a being being an assemblage of the five aggregates. But when this assemblage is labelled "being" (satta), that label is a convention.
In Mahayana, Nirvana is also considered to be semantically conditioned, although not structurally conditioned. Here, if dukkha (suffering) was never defined, then Nirvana would never be defined. Or darkness defined relative to light. That's what is meant by semantic conditioning. This is not found in Theravada. In Theravada, those are just conventions.
So, convention and conditioned phenomena are categorically different. They describe different things like how height and weight are two different things.

i found the following to be questionable: "In the suttas, a person is by defined by convention to be an assemblage of the five aggregates (form, feeling, perception, consciousness, mental formations) in SN 5.10."

@DhammaDhatu Thanks. I confused between being (satta) and person (puggala).

well, imo, convention is unrelated to the five aggregates. convention means to regard "people" as "beings"

I think "conditioned" means that things exist or not depending on certain conditions, for example:

Sometimes it rains and sometimes it doesn't, depending on atmospheric conditions.
Sometimes a body is alive or sometimes it isn't, depending on all the conditions that are essential for life

Anything conditioned is impermanent -- ceases when its conditions no longer exist.
Virtually everything is conditioned.

"Conventional" is I think closely related to language. It's something we learn as infants -- mother will point toward something and say, "Look, that's a cow!" -- after which we know that that type of thing, perhaps that aggregate of sense-impressions in that kind of environment, is "conventionally" called "a cow".
Complications:

I wouldn't call that "imaginary" exactly but it is kind of artificial, i.e. man-made.
I think it's probably subjective too, with a child's view of a cow being different from a farmer's or a calf's
Something may be imaginary, e.g. the word "unicorn" doesn't prove that a unicorn "really" exists
There are different ways to describe something (e.g. "a chariot" or "an assembly of wheels, yoke, etc.")
The things which language describes are usually conditioned and impermanent assemblies -- or perhaps they're abstractions (e.g. "virtue") rather than concrete nouns

... but even so humans learn to use their language in a conventional way for communication.
I think there can be a problem with language though, that some people mistake language for reality. They describe something in a certain way, for example,

"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me."

... and then mistake that for a certain reality, and suffer accordingly.
I was taught in secondary school, incidentally, something like that the modern "scientific method" or "philosophy of science" is to do with finding and refining useful descriptions of observations -- some descriptions being more useful, or different (even contradictory) descriptions being useful.

sammuti
common consent, general opinion, convention, that which is generally
accepted; as ˚-conventional,

'Convention' appears to mean worldly names/labels for people that imply 'self'. For example:

Why now do you assume 'a being' (satto)? Mara, have you grasped a view
(diṭṭhigataṁ)? This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being
(satta) is found. Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word
'chariot' is used, So, when the aggregates are present, There's the
convention (sammuti) 'a being' (satto).
SN 5.10 (Bhikku Bodhi translation)

In human bodies in themselves, nothing distinctive can be found.
Distinction (vokāra) among human beings is purely verbal designation
(samaññāya pavuccati). Who makes a living among men, by agriculture,
you show know is called a farmer. He is not a Brahmin. Who makes a
living among men, by varied crafts, you show know is called a
craftsman. He is not a Brahmin. For name and clan are assigned
(pakappitaṁ) as designations (saṁaññā) in the world, originating in
conventions (sammuccā), they are assigned (pakappitaṁ) here and there.
For men are farmers by their acts; and by their acts are craftsmen
too. So that is how the wise truly see, seers of Dependent
Origination, skilled in action and its results.
MN 98 (Bhikkhu Bodhi translation)

When a mendicant is perfected, proficient, with defilements ended,
bearing the final body: they would say, ‘I speak’ and also ‘they speak
to me’. Skillful, understanding the world’s conventions (loke samaññaṁ), they’d use these terms as no more than expressions.
SN 1.25 (Bhikkhu Sujato translation)

Where as 'conditioned things' ('sankhara') are rarely spoken about by the world of ordinary people but are fully understood by the enlightened.
For example, the five aggregates are 'conditioned things' but not 'conventions'. The unenlightened do not discern the five aggregates clearly or even at all, let alone how they are conditioned things.
For example, in DN 16, when the Buddha passed away, the unenlightened experienced suffering because they regarded the Buddha as 'The Buddha' or 'The Blessed One'. For the unenlightened, here, the Buddha was a 'self' or 'person'. But the enlightened did not suffer because they regarded The Buddha as a conditioned thing, as follows:

When the Buddha passed away, some of the monks, with arms raised,
falling down like their feet were chopped off, rolling back and forth,
lamented: “Too soon the Blessed One has become fully extinguished! Too
soon the Holy One has become fully extinguished! Too soon the Seer has
vanished from the world!”But the monks who were without passion
endured, mindful and clearly comprehending, reflecting: “Conditioned
phenomena (saṅkhārā) are impermanent (aniccā). How could it possibly
be otherwise?”
DN 16

In summary, the words 'conditioned' & 'convention' are not synonymous in Pali Buddhism (but appear to be possibly synonymous for the Mahayana).

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


text:
Why do Sotapannas need faith?
I have read that the Stream Enterer needs to develop all the 5 faculties order to become enlightened. One of these facilities is faith. It is also said that they are beyond skeptical doubt of the Buddha's teachings and know for themselves the way out of suffering as they have the right view. Since they have seen the Buddhas teaching for themselves then, why do they need to develop faith in it? You only would need to trust someones word if you cannot verify their claims for oneself. I understand then why a Putthujana would need faith. So I am wondering maybe a) I am wrong in my understanding of what Saddha means... if so what is it and how why do I need to cultivate it or b) I am wrong in my understanding of what a sotapanna is and he is still needing to verify certain things. Can some one affirm which of these two are right?
Linked Discourses 48.56
6. The Boar’s Cave
Grounded

“Mendicants, when a mendicant is grounded in one thing the five faculties become developed, well developed. What one thing? Diligence. And what is diligence? It’s when a mendicant looks after their mind when it comes to defilements and things that stimulate defilements. As they do so the faculties of faith, energy,
mindfulness, immersion, and wisdom are fully developed. That’s how when a mendicant is grounded in one thing the five faculties become developed, well developed.”

Thanks

Since your question is based on something you have read, could you provide a reference to that text? It may help to answer your question and could be useful for other people who are also interested in this topic.

According to AN 10.92, three of the four factors of stream entry include "experiential confidence" (translated by Ven. Sujato) or "verified confidence" (translated by Ven. Thanissaro) in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha.
Experiential confidence or verified confidence is different from faith. It means that one has confidence, based on experiential verification.

Why is faith important?
It's answered in this phrase from MN95 - “Faith is most helpful for visiting, Bhāradvāja. If faith in a teacher does not arise, one will not visit him; but because faith in a teacher arises, one visits him. That is why faith is most helpful for visiting.”
The rest of the quoted sutta shows how faith leads to discovery of truth.

“In that way, Master Gotama, there is the discovery of truth; in that
way one discovers truth; in that way we recognise the discovery of
truth. But in what way, Master Gotama, is there the final arrival at
truth? In what way does one finally arrive at truth? We ask Master
Gotama about the final arrival at truth.” “The final arrival at truth,
Bhāradvāja, lies in the repetition, development, and cultivation of
those same things. In this way, Bhāradvāja, there is the final arrival
at truth; in this way one finally arrives at truth; in this way we
describe the final arrival at truth.”
“In that way, Master Gotama, there is the final arrival at truth; in
that way one finally arrives at truth; in that way we recognise the
final arrival at truth. But what, Master Gotama, is most helpful for
the final arrival at truth? We ask Master Gotama about the thing most
helpful for the final arrival at truth.” “Striving is most helpful for
the final arrival at truth, Bhāradvāja. If one does not strive, one
will not finally arrive at truth; but because one strives, one does
finally arrive at truth. That is why striving is most helpful for the
final arrival at truth.”
“But what, Master Gotama, is most helpful for striving? We ask Master
Gotama about the thing most helpful for striving.”
“Scrutiny is most helpful for striving, Bhāradvāja. If one does not
scrutinise, one will not strive; but because one scrutinises, one
strives. That is why scrutiny is most helpful for striving.”
“But what, Master Gotama, is most helpful for scrutiny? We ask Master
Gotama about the thing most helpful for scrutiny.”
“Application of the will is most helpful for scrutiny, Bhāradvāja. If
one does not apply one’s will, one will not scrutinise; but because
one applies one’s will, one scrutinises. That is why application of
the will is most helpful for scrutiny.”
“But what, Master Gotama, is most helpful for application of the will?
We ask Master Gotama about the thing most helpful for application of
the will.”
“Zeal is most helpful for application of the will, Bhāradvāja. If one
does not arouse zeal, one will not apply one’s will; but because one
arouses zeal, one applies one’s will. That is why zeal is most helpful
for application of the will.”
“But what, Master Gotama, is most helpful for zeal? We ask Master
Gotama about the thing most helpful for zeal.”
“A reflective acceptance of the teachings is most helpful for zeal,
Bhāradvāja. If one does not gain a reflective acceptance of the
teachings, zeal will not spring up; but because one gains a reflective
acceptance of the teachings, zeal springs up. That is why a reflective
acceptance of the teachings is most helpful for zeal.”
“But what, Master Gotama, is most helpful for a reflective acceptance
of the teachings? We ask Master Gotama about the thing most helpful
for a reflective acceptance of the teachings.”
“Examination of the meaning is most helpful for a reflective
acceptance of the teachings, Bhāradvāja. If one does not examine their
meaning, one will not gain a reflective acceptance of the teachings;
but because one examines their meaning, one gains a reflective
acceptance of the teachings. That is why examination of the meaning is
most helpful for a reflective acceptance of the teachings.”
“But what, Master Gotama, is most helpful for examination of the
meaning? We ask Master Gotama about the thing most helpful for
examination of meaning.”
“Memorising the teachings is most helpful for examining the meaning,
Bhāradvāja. If one does not memorise a teaching, one will not examine
its meaning; but because one memorises a teaching, one examines its
meaning.”
“But what, Master Gotama, is most helpful for memorising the
teachings? We ask Master Gotama about the thing most helpful for
memorising the teachings.”
“Hearing the Dhamma is most helpful for memorising the teachings,
Bhāradvāja. If one does not hear the Dhamma, one will not memorise the
teachings; but because one hears the Dhamma, one memorises the
teachings. That is why hearing the Dhamma is most helpful for
memorising the teachings.”
“But what, Master Gotama, is most helpful for hearing the Dhamma? We
ask Master Gotama about the thing most helpful for hearing the
Dhamma.”
“Giving ear is most helpful for hearing the Dhamma, Bhāradvāja. If one
does not give ear, one will not hear the Dhamma; but because one gives
ear, one hears the Dhamma. That is why giving ear is most helpful for
hearing the Dhamma.”
“But what, Master Gotama, is most helpful for giving ear? We ask
Master Gotama about the thing most helpful for giving ear.”
“Paying respect is most helpful for giving ear, Bhāradvāja. If one
does not pay respect, one will not give ear; but because one pays
respect, one gives ear. That is why paying respect is most helpful for
giving ear.”
“But what, Master Gotama, is most helpful for paying respect? We ask
Master Gotama about the thing most helpful for paying respect.”
“Visiting is most helpful for paying respect, Bhāradvāja. If one does
not visit a teacher, one will not pay respect to him; but because one
visits a teacher, one pays respect to him. That is why visiting is
most helpful for paying respect.”
“But what, Master Gotama, is most helpful for visiting? We ask Master
Gotama about the thing most helpful for visiting.”
“Faith is most helpful for visiting, Bhāradvāja. If faith in a teacher does not arise, one will not visit him; but because faith in a
teacher arises, one visits him. That is why faith is most helpful for
visiting.”
MN 95

I think the question is, given that they have experiential verification, why do they then (continue to) need (to develop) (more) faith in order to become (fully) enlightened?

Thanks ruben my understanding of Saddha was wrong, but why then does one need to cultivate this that the Buddha described and how?

@PrinceDeepthinker Why is faith important? It's answered in this phrase from MN95 - “Faith is most helpful for visiting, Bhāradvāja. If faith in a teacher does not arise, one will not visit him; but because faith in a teacher arises, one visits him. That is why faith is most helpful for visiting.” The rest of the quoted sutta shows how faith leads to discovery of truth.

Sure that is for people without the right view. But I think that Saddha is needed for Stream Enterers to develop, that is what is unclear and the reason why I asked this question.

@PrinceDeepthinker To my understanding, faith is only needed for those who are not yet stream enterers. It is not needed by stream enterers, who already have verified confidence or experiential confidence.

So the faculty of Experiential confidence for the Sekha does not need to be cultivated like the other faculties?

Also although I am not saying Saddha should not be translated as such but there seems to be a contradiction if it were seen in MN 70: 20-21 says that both the Dhammanussari and the Saddhanussari also have the faculty of Saddha but as far as I am aware they have not seen the teachings themselves.

@PrinceDeepthinker I understand your concern. It appears that there are many levels. Those who are Dhammanussari and Saddhanussari are lower than sotapanna, but they have faith and thus higher than the ordinary person (putujanna). In my opinion, experiential confidence supersedes faith.

As others have pointed out, faith is regarding faith in others.
The majority of the Buddhist thought is actually quite logical, 4 noble truths, 8fold path, dependant origination, 3 poisons and 3 marks of existence can be logically thought of to their conclusions. Originally one would need faith (in the Buddha) to even try to think about these concepts thoroughly.
While a sotapanna has experienced nibbana and knows the first 3 noble truths, he would still need faith in the Buddha to practice the 4th noble truth as it is a path that one has to follow to gain it's fruit and the sotapanna has clearly not walked the entire path.
As well as a sotapanna would need or have faith that the Buddha has walked that path and is indeed and arhant from walking that path, as one cannot know teh mind of other beings only oneself.

I think he knows all the four. I can refer you to MN 9:19 - Right View

Yeah knows the way but has clearly not walked the path as if he did he would be an arhant not a sotapanna, so he needs faith in the Buddha that walking the path leads to liberation.

I think it is clear for him that the path leads to the goal even though he has not walked it yet as he understands the third noble truth.

Knowing that exercise is good is one thing. But exercise is a lot of work. It takes faith.
It takes faith to change comfortable habits. Seeing a teacher abide in peace and joy with body, speech and mind, one might visit them and ask questions about the teaching. Troubled by lingering desires, it takes faith to be satisfied with the spiritual life.

MN68:9.3: Rather, there are gentlemen of faith who are full of sublime joy and gladness.
MN68:5.2: It’s appropriate for gentlemen like yourselves, who have gone forth in faith from the lay life to homelessness, to be satisfied with the spiritual life.

The spiritual life gives up lay comforts. That giving up of relishing is not easy. The spiritual life is supported by rules that restrain and guide. Practicing those rules is not comfortable and requires faith.

MN68:12.7: Recollecting that monk’s faith, ethics, learning, generosity, and wisdom, he applies his mind to that end.
MN68:13.7: Recollecting that monk’s faith, ethics, learning, generosity, and wisdom, he applies his mind to that end.
MN68:20.7: Recollecting that layman’s faith, ethics, learning, generosity, and wisdom, he applies his mind to that end.
MN68:21.7: Recollecting that laywoman’s faith, ethics, learning, generosity, and wisdom, she applies her mind to that end.

Seeing the faith, ethics, learning, generosity and wisdom in others inspires our own faith to practice restraint. Faith encourages us to try harder.

AN9.4:4.6: Nandaka, a mendicant is faithful but not ethical.
AN9.4:4.7: So they’re incomplete in that respect,
AN9.4:4.8: and should fulfill it, thinking,
AN9.4:4.9: ‘How can I become faithful and ethical?’

Having faith in truth is one thing. Faith inspires us to practice that truth.
Knowing that exercise is good is one thing. But exercise is a lot of work. It takes faith.
Having entered the stream, it takes faith to continue to the other shore.

MN34:9.1: Just like the calves and weak cattle who crossed the Ganges to safety
MN34:9.2: are the mendicants who, with the ending of three fetters are stream-enterers, not liable to be reborn in the underworld, bound for awakening. They too, having breasted Māra’s stream, will safely cross over to the far shore.


text:
A question on MN 39 Mahā- Assapura Sutta
The Buddha in this sutta describes the gradual training of a Bhikkhu step by step. I have a difficulty understanding some of the steps in precise detail because of the statement at the end of most of the steps pescribed: 'Bhikkhus I inform you, I declare to you: you who seek the recluse status, do not fall short of the goal of recluseship while there is more to be done'. I am not sure how the step of purifying conduct and livelihood in the way he describes it does not the imply restraint of the senses from all the way up to the abandoning of the hinderances i.e how can one do it without doing the rest? Same with restraint of the senses until the abandoning of the hinderances and mindfulness and full awareness until the latter.
So
Why is it then that in these three steps one is not cultivating any of the other steps subsequent to it?

Many of these things are certainly possible to do without cultivating the others.
You say

I am not sure how the step of purifying conduct and livelihood in the way he describes it does not the imply restraint of the senses from all the way up to the abandoning of the hinderances

And then

Same with restraint of the senses until the abandoning of the hinderances and mindfulness and full awareness until the latter.

It is not entirely clear what you are saying, but it seems like you are asking something along the lines of:

How is it possible to purify conduct and livelihood without simultaneously restraining the senses, being moderate in eating, being devoted to wakefulness, and being devoted to mindfulness and alertness? Similarly how is it possible to restrain the senses without being moderate in eating, being devoted to wakefulness, being devoted to mindfulness and alertness, and being devoted to abandoning the hindrances?

Perhaps the best way to understand this is to think of each step as describing relative degree of success. For example, plenty of people live ethical lives, in other words they have “purified conduct and livelihood,” without being committed to sensual moderation and/or high level mindfulness. They may be kind, generous, and harmless to others, but still eat more than is healthy, consume entertainment, and take regular naps. A step up from this may be a person who is similar in external behavior, but they also do a better job of watching over their minds reactions to life’s ups and downs so they spend less time daydreaming about fantasies or hating/fearing pain. A step up from this would be a person who is similar, but is moderate in their eating. And so on.
Of course, this doesn’t mean that cultivating the “higher steps” will have no effect on the “lower steps.” For example, being moderate in eating may help with restraint of the senses. Practicing mindfulness may help with getting to an even higher degree of purified mental conduct.
Just like in learning any new skill, you start with the relatively more basic steps first, then progress on to the more advanced subskills. However, this doesn’t mean that you are done mastering the more basic subskills.

Whenever one analyses ancient texts, it's worth remembering two points:

The texts were passed down (for that main part) orally, and may not have been formally organized and written for several generations. This introduces recitation artifacts.
The recipients of these texts were largely uneducated, if not actually illiterate, so teachings leaned on simple, clear messaging, not the niceties of philosophical abstraction.

The texts we ultimately receive are an admixture of the Buddha's teachings and subsequent techniques of rote learning that were used to pass the teachings down faithfully. For those of us in the modern world — at least those of us in the industrialized world, which have high literacy rates and comparatively sophisticated education systems — they might seem oddly oratorical and repetitive. But those features are precisely what made transmission of the text so successful in the ancient world.
With respect to MN 39... Yes, your instinct is right that cultivating any one point will foster the cultivation of the others. If we get down to brass tacks, we are actually cultivating something deeper than all of these overtly superficial attitudes, and once we grasp that deeper understanding we can release the apparent rigidities of MN 39. But pedagogically speaking the format of MN 39 — a simple rhetorical question posed, an answer given, a repeated refrain declaring the rightness of the answer — is wonderfully effective for inculcating the basics in more-or-less illiterate populations..

Having never read MN 39 before, my first impression is we must try to examine precisely for unique aspects.
Therefore, in relation to purity of body, speech & mind, this appears a practise performed communally in relation to other monks. The text says:

Our bodily, verbal & mental conduct will be pure, clear & open,
unbroken & restrained. We will not exalt ourselves nor disparage
others on account of that pure bodily, verbal & mental conduct...
(Thanissaro translation)

You should train like this: ‘Our bodily, verbal & mental behavior will
be pure, clear, open, neither inconsistent nor secretive. And we won’t
glorify ourselves or put others down on account of our pure bodily,
verbal & mental conduct.’ (Sujato translation)

The above appears related to how monks relate to eachother, including making confession to eachother, including for their unwholesome mental states. For example, giving another monk merely a disparaging look would be an example of impure mental conduct. The suttas clearly say monks should look at each other with "loving eyes"; blending like milk & water (MN 31).

“I hope you’re living in harmony, appreciating each other, without
quarreling, blending like milk and water, and regarding each other
with kindly eyes?”
MN 31

Therefore, the above three aspects of 'purity of conduct' appear explicitly separate from the practises described afterwards, such as abandoning the five hindrances. Abandoning the five hindrances may be explicity an "internal" matter/practice; while what is called "purity of conduct" may be an "external" matter related to communal/social conduct.
The above is my impression of the text.
Therefore, 'restraint of the senses' includes when a monk is on alms round and sees a scantly dressed or topless lady, as was/is common in traditional cultures. This example is given (somewhere) in the suttas. This context of practice of restraining the senses on alms round is different to the purity of mental conduct a monk develops towards other monks.
To continue, a monk may be skilled at purity of conduct towards other monks but have sloth & torpor when it comes to personal meditation practice. Thus this monk must develop wakefulness.
The development of jhana is even more distinct. The Buddha himself taught jhana is developed by making 'letting go/surrender' ('vossagga') the meditation object (SN 48.10; end of MN 118). Therefore, a monk may be able to abandon the five hindrances however they may develop a mind of 'rigid imperturbability' ('āneñja') rather than a mind of 'letting go/surrender to the void' ('vossagga').
Note: later texts plus suttas such as SN 12.51 refer to 'imperturbability' ('āneñja') as an non-Noble non-Path mental state.
Also, the development of jhana may not necessarily automatically result in the fruition of the Three Knowledges. The text says:

With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished,
free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to
imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the
recollection of past nivasa (dwellings; abodes; not "lives").

The practice of recollection of past abodes is only fully explained in SN 22.79.
Therefore, the impression of the above is a deliberate act of mind is required to direct the mind towards recollection of past abodes rather than the opposite, which would be to remain in jhana and develop the immaterial spheres.
Note: MN 140 says about the 4th jhana & this step:

One discerns that 'If I were to direct equanimity as pure & bright [of the 4th jhana] as
this towards the dimension of the infinitude of space and to develop
the mind along those lines, that would be fabricated. One discerns
that 'If I were to direct equanimity as pure and bright as this
towards the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the
dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor
non-perception and to develop the mind along those lines, that would
be fabricated.' One neither fabricates nor mentally fashions for the
sake of becoming or un-becoming. This being the case, one is not
sustained by anything in the world (does not cling to anything in the
world). Unsustained, one is not agitated. Unagitated, one is totally
unbound right within. One discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life
fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'

In conclusion, my impressions above show MN 39 may not be a straightforward as it may appear.


text:
Where is the sutra source of Buddha[s] (plural) existing and blessing peoples minds?
Tibetan/Mahayana Buddhists believe in such a thing, that somehow specific Buddhas exist....somewhere and emanate in forms in the world and are able to bless other peoples minds.
My question is where does the source of this info come from?
I have never read any such things from the Buddhas teachings (though I am not a scholar who has studied all sutras) though from the maha-parinibbana sutta Buddha explained "where" he will go after death and it is nowhere, as in not to another form as the causes to arise again have ceased. So how can there be Buddhas that exist in other realms of existence that bless peoples mind?
Unless of course these beings exist in realms or worlds now, but that creates another conundrum as to how human beings communicated with them. Buddha did explain in MN115 that no 2 Buddhas will exist in the same world system at the same time.
I would like to know the source of this belief, and I guess I am also asking is this just some cultural belief system that is not actually the Buddhas teachings, like dharma protectors for eg.

Great question, and confusing.
A basic web search for "other Buddhas"
Longer:

https://www.learnreligions.com/a-list-of-buddhas-450140

Short:

https://tricycle.org/beginners/buddhism/are-there-other-buddhas/
If this is ok, we can add relevant parts as an answer

Not exactly sources. I only briefed over them as I am about to go to sleep and will look more into tomorrow, but It is just giving general information not sources. The Buddha himself explained about previous Buddhas before him and the next to be mattreya. He explained that no 2 Buddhas can exist in the same world system simultaneously but did not elaborate on Buddhas in other world systems, even ones that were possibly in existence while the Buddha was alive. The real question is where did the information of such Buddhas, like amitabha for eg, where does the source of the info originate.

added an answer to get things rolling. Mahayana talks of bodhisattvas, this seems closest, no?

There are three types of bodies of the Buddha in Mahayana - Dharmakaya, Nirmanakaya and Sambhogakaya.
I believe that the concepts of Dharmakaya (eternal truth form) and Nirmanakaya (physical form) originated from the following sutta quote.
The Buddha downplayed the importance of his physical form and advised Ven. Vakkali to focus on the teachings, stating that when one sees the Buddha, one sees the Dharma (teachings), and when one sees the Dharma, one sees the Buddha.
In other words, the Dharma is what the Buddha stands for, and the Dharma is what the Buddha represents. The Dharma (teachings) is his eternal "form".

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 (teachings) sees me; one who sees me sees the
Dhamma (teachings). For in seeing the Dhamma (teachings), Vakkali, one
sees me; and in seeing me, one sees the Dhamma (teachings).
Vakkali Sutta (SN 22.87)

I believe that the concept where the Nirmanakayas of all the past Buddhas emanate from one Dharmakaya originates from the following sutta quote.
It simply means that all the past and future Buddhas rediscover, understand and teach the same Dharma (teachings), because it is the natural law.
Hence their physical appearance as teachers, emanate from the Dharma (teachings) as their one eternal "form". In other words, all the Buddhas stand for the same Dharma (teachings) and all the Buddhas represent the same Dharma (teachings).

Past Buddhas,
future Buddhas,
& he who is the Buddha now,
removing the sorrow of many —
all have dwelt,
will dwell, he dwells,
revering the true Dhamma.
This, for Buddhas, is a natural law.
Therefore one who desires his own good,
aspiring for greatness,
should respect the true Dhamma,
recollecting the Buddhas' Teaching.
Garava Sutta (SN 6.2)

And what about the Sambhogakaya (enjoyment/ reward form, or perhaps inspirational form)?
I speculate that it's related to the following quote.
When one recollects the Buddha, who he was, what he achieved, what he contributed and what he stood for, that person becomes inspired and his fears dispelled. So, this inspirational mental image of the Buddha is the Buddha's inspirational "form". He can manifest in this "form" to inspire and dispel fear.

But bhikkhus, I say this: If you have gone to a forest or to the foot
of a tree or to an empty hut, and fear or trepidation or terror should
arise in you, on that occasion you should recollect me thus: ‘The
Blessed One is an arahant, perfectly enlightened, accomplished in true
knowledge and conduct, fortunate, knower of the world, unsurpassed
leader of persons to be tamed, teacher of devas and humans, the
Enlightened One, the Blessed One.’ For when you recollect me,
bhikkhus, whatever fear or trepidation or terror you may have will be
abandoned.
Dhajagga Sutta (SN 11.3)

So, you can say that this is the inspirational form of the Buddhas which bless people's minds.

As much as I appreciate this answer, it isn't really the answer to the OP question. What you are explaining here is the trikaya and the way in which mahayana Buddhists explain how Buddha)s) emanate. In laymens terms, a physical body, a body of information/text and as a representation for inspiration, i.e a statue or a mental image.
What I am asking is the source of such claims as to X Buddhas existing, as to where they are or who communicated with them, and then more importantly, where the source is that these Buddhas can bless a persons mind at the persons behest.

For an example. The pali canon documents the chief as well as many "lesser" disciples who were living at the time of the Buddha. Sariputta, ananda, kasipya for eg. Then we have in Mahayana the Heart Sutra. In the Heart Sutra, it is explained that avelokitishvara was present (and actually was the one who expounded the sutra) when the teaching was being given. So, where is the source of such being existing as a disciple of the Buddha...where is the source of this persons life.  I am only using this deity as an example. I already know myself this is just a name switch of a hindu deity.

Again the real question is where is the source of the claim that in other worlds or other realms of existence, there are Buddhas with X Y Z name who then are actually capable of interacting with human beings in this world by "blessing" their mind and helping them towards liberation. One would think that such a large concept of Buddhas being able to influence and communicate with people from lightyears away or in different realms of existence would have come directly from the words of Buddha himself and in turn be documented in the 4 nikayas.

Great question.
Citing [2]:

As the 5th and final Buddha of our times, Maitreya's goal would be to reinstate the Dharma.

In all branches of Buddhism, Maitreya is viewed as the direct successor of Gautama Buddha.

In some Buddhist literature, such as the Amitabha Sutra and the Lotus Sutra, the being is referred to as Ajita.

Despite many individuals and religious leaders claiming to be Maitreya throughout history, all Buddhists firmly agree that these were false claims.

Taking one step back and taking a broader perspective:
Citing [1]:
Scriptures from early Indian Buddhism:

... talk about five buddhas that have existed during the current cosmological era or kalpa—a term that means an aeon, or the period from the origination to the end of the present world. The Buddha we know about, Shakyamuni Buddha, was the fourth of this group. The fifth is known as Maitreya, or the Buddha of the future.

In Theravada Buddhism:

... the tradition practiced mainly in Southeast Asia and Sri Lanka, people pay homage to 29 buddhas, most of whom existed during other kalpas, according to the scriptures.

The Mahayana Buddhist schools of East Asia and Tibet:

... know countless buddhas and bodhisattvas—awakened beings who stick around in this world in order to help others reach awakening. We see them in artworks, and their legends populate scriptures and Buddhist stories.

Not every buddha is specifically known to us. One class of enlightened beings is made up of buddhas “on their own” (in Pali and Sanskrit paccekabuddha, pratyekabuddha). These beings have achieved awakening without a teacher or guidance, and they don’t teach the path to enlightenment or have followers.
Sources:
[1]. https://tricycle.org/beginners/buddhism/are-there-other-buddhas/
[2]. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maitreya
[3]. Lotus Sutra, pdf: http://avalokiteshvara.net/abscI/PDF_Files_ABSCI/10SutratheUniversalGateofAvalokiteshvara.pdf

Let's imagine whether we have reborn for uncountable times and we have met the past Buddha before.
Then we meditate the concentration meditation follow DN10 Subha Sutta, etc. in this life and start to randomly recall  our past life because of the beginner's skill in Eight Vijja, DN10 AdhiPannaSikkha.
The past remembrance about the past Buddha, sanna, can appear  very as photographic memory, high resolution, to the Jhana Practitioner or even normal person who has the past wholesome collection. And some of them could say "I met the Buddha". This could be real because he could have met the past Buddha before and he can use the recall skill in Eight Vijja to see his past  remembrance (sanna) of the past Buddha who he really met before actually.


text:
How do I become a Saddhanussari or Dhammanussari and know if I have attained it?
How do I become a Saddhanussari or Dhammanussari and how do I know if I have attained it?
I think that the question above is clear enough. Just to add I have read their descriptions in the Suttas but from them, the answer to these questions are still unclear. He describes them as such:
MN 70

And what person is a follower of the teachings (dhammanussari)? It’s a person who
doesn’t have direct meditative experience of the peaceful liberations
that are formless, transcending form. Nevertheless, having seen with
wisdom, some of their defilements have come to an end. And they accept
the teachings proclaimed by the Realized One after considering them
with a degree of wisdom. And they have the following qualities: the
faculties of faith, energy, mindfulness, immersion, and wisdom. This
person is called a follower of the teachings. I say that this
mendicant also still has work to do with diligence. Why is that?
Thinking: ‘Hopefully this venerable will frequent appropriate
lodgings, associate with good friends, and control their faculties.
Then they might realize the supreme culmination of the spiritual path
in this very life, and live having achieved with their own insight the
goal for which gentlemen rightly go forth from the lay life to
homelessness.’ Seeing this fruit of diligence for this mendicant, I
say that they still have work to do with diligence.
And what person is
a follower by faith (saddhanussari)? It’s a person who doesn’t have direct meditative
experience of the peaceful liberations that are formless, transcending
form. Nevertheless, having seen with wisdom, some of their defilements
have come to an end. And they have a degree of faith and love for the
Realized One. And they have the following qualities: the faculties of
faith, energy, mindfulness, immersion, and wisdom. This person is
called a follower by faith. I say that this mendicant also still has
work to do with diligence. Why is that? Thinking: ‘Hopefully this
venerable will frequent appropriate lodgings, associate with good
friends, and control their faculties. Then they might realize the
supreme culmination of the spiritual path in this very life, and live
having achieved with their own insight the goal for which gentlemen
rightly go forth from the lay life to homelessness.’ Seeing this fruit
of diligence for this mendicant, I say that they still have work to do
with diligence.

How does one 'accept the teachings proclaimed by the Realized One after considering them with a degree of wisdom.'? Or 'have a degree of faith and love for the Realized One'? And how does one know that one has fulfilled this?

There are five things that can turn out in two ways in the here-&-now. Which five? Conviction, liking, unbroken tradition, reasoning by analogy, & an agreement through pondering views. Now some things are firmly held in conviction and yet vain, empty, & false. Some things are not firmly held in conviction, and yet they are genuine, factual, & unmistaken. Some things are well-liked... truly an unbroken tradition... well-reasoned... Some things are well-pondered and yet vain, empty, & false. Some things are not well-pondered, and yet they are genuine, factual, & unmistaken.
Canki Sutta: With Canki (MN 95)

At Savatthi. "Monks, the eye is inconstant, changeable, alterable. The
ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The mind is inconstant,
changeable, alterable.
"One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way is
called a faith-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of
rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the
plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by
which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm
of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry.
"One who, after pondering with a modicum of discernment, has accepted
that these phenomena are this way is called a Dhamma-follower: one who
has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people
of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is
incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in
the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry.
Hearing the Dhamma, he remembers it. Remembering it, he penetrates the meaning of those dhammas. Penetrating the meaning, he comes to an agreement through pondering those dhammas. There being an agreement through pondering those dhammas, desire arises. With the arising of desire, he becomes willing. Willing, he contemplates (lit: "weighs," "compares"). Contemplating, he makes an exertion. Exerting himself, he both realizes the ultimate meaning of the truth with his body and sees by penetrating it with discernment.
"One who knows and sees that these phenomena are this way is called a
stream-enterer, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe,
headed for self-awakening."
Cakkhu Sutta: The Eye (SN 25.1)

Nice, but which Sutta is this from?

Cakku sutta and canki sutta. I mixed them for your convenience

It's noteworthy to me how these 3 discourses semantically target the same development in different expression, good to draw out meaning for the different phrases.

Rūpa/Dhatu Sutta  (SN 25:2/9)
Near Sāvatthī. “Monks, forms are inconstant, changeable, alterable. Sounds.… Aromas.… Flavors.… Tactile sensations.… Ideas are inconstant, changeable, alterable.…At Savatthi. "Monks, the earth property is inconstant, changeable, alterable. The liquid property... The fire property... The wind property... The space property... The consciousness property is inconstant, changeable, alterable.
"One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way is called a faith-follower...

I would assume these 2 followers, faith and dharma followers are on the path to sotapanna.
Quite simply judge your own mind, are you following the dharma because you believe (faith follower) that the noble truths are true and the 8fold path leads to liberation, or have you experienced some fruit of the practice, experienced defilements lessen or cease and are following because of your own experience (dharma follower)


text:
Becoming attained-to-view as opposed to one liberated-by-faith and vice versa
How did the practice of one in-training (sekha) differ so that he became one attained-to-view as opposed to one liberated-by-faith and vice versa?
In MN 70 the Buddha describes them like so:

And what person is attained to view? It’s a person who doesn’t have
direct meditative experience of the peaceful liberations that are
formless, transcending form. Nevertheless, having seen with wisdom,
some of their defilements have come to an end. And they have clearly
seen and clearly contemplated with wisdom the teaching and training
proclaimed by the Realized One. This person is called attained to
view. I say that this mendicant also still has work to do with
diligence. Why is that? Thinking: ‘Hopefully this venerable will
frequent appropriate lodgings, associate with good friends, and
control their faculties. Then they might realize the supreme
culmination of the spiritual path in this very life, and live having
achieved with their own insight the goal for which gentlemen rightly
go forth from the lay life to homelessness.’ Seeing this fruit of
diligence for this mendicant, I say that they still have work to do
with diligence. And what person is freed by faith? It’s a person who
doesn’t have direct meditative experience of the peaceful liberations
that are formless, transcending form. Nevertheless, having seen with
wisdom, some of their defilements have come to an end. And their faith
is settled, rooted, and planted in the Realized One. This person is
called freed by faith. I say that this mendicant also still has work
to do with diligence. Why is that? Thinking: ‘Hopefully this venerable
will frequent appropriate lodgings, associate with good friends, and
control their faculties. Then they might realize the supreme
culmination of the spiritual path in this very life, and live having
achieved with their own insight the goal for which gentlemen rightly
go forth from the lay life to homelessness.’ Seeing this fruit of
diligence for this mendicant, I say that they still have work to do
with diligence.

Try here: https://suttacentral.net/an3.21/en/sujato?layout=linebyline&reference=pts&notes=asterisk&highlight=true&script=latin

Here: https://suttacentral.net/pp2.9/en/law?reference=pts&highlight=true

How did the practice of one in-training (sekha) differ so that he became one attained-to-view as opposed to one liberated-by-faith and vice versa?

Likely that'd involve more than just the training but also the innate orientation of whether one is "insight oriented" or "serenity oriented" as the dominant faculty. Sorta like some folks are born naturally good at literature, while others are naturally good at math. Note that the Liberated-by-Faith/SaddhaVimutta is for those who are "serenity oriented". This stage is a notch below the Attained-to-View/DitthiPatta, who is "insight oriented". Ven. Bodhi in "Middlelength Discourses" provides footnote to those 2 terms based on Commentaries' explanation:

Attained to View/DitthiPatta(insight oriented): [705]MA: includes the same 6 individuals as under Kayasakkhin, but without possession of immaterial attainments. Pug. defines him as one who has understood the Four Noble Truths, reviewed, examined with wisdom the teachings proclaimed by the Tathagata; defilements partially abandoned without immaterial attainments;
Liberated by Faith/SaddhaVimutta(serenity oriented): [706]MA: includes the same 6. Pug. defines same way as Ditthipatta, but adds that he has not reviewed and examined the teachings with wisdom to the same extent that the Ditthipatta has; defilements partially abandoned without immaterial attainments;[ITBW_X.17]This includes the same classes in whom faith is the dominant faculty.

Ok, but what does it mean that your practice is more serenity based as opposed to insight. Does it  insight practice require more study and reflection? And the faith based more just quietening the mind to stop mental activity. Also how is the faith based practice it seems more like what the body witness would be doing.

@PrinceDeepthinker, just like the folks naturally good at either literature or math, you'll find folks who naturally oriented toward investigative/contemplative approach (ie. the insight track), and those who are naturally oriented toward faith, peace, and serenity/tranquility approach. The Body-Witness is actually a notch above just faith-based, but actually requires one to also attain one of those immaterial-attainments (Infinte-space, infinite-concsiousness, nothingness, or neither-perception-nor-non-perception). So naturally, these would require a high degree of serenity/tranquitlity/faith


text:
Carpe Diem or Memento Mori?
Carpe Diem or Memento Mori?
Which of these two approaches did the Buddha recommend for your benefit?

What does this mean?

@ruben2020 I think the question must be asking, "Which of these two approaches did the Buddha recommend for your benefit?"

I suppose those are two sides of the same message.
You can find both in the suttas, for example:

Momento mori

"If, lord, such a great peril should arise, such a terrible destruction of human life — the human state being so hard to obtain — what else should be done but Dhamma-conduct, right conduct, skillful deeds, meritorious deeds?"
"I inform you, great king, I announce to you, great king: aging and death are rolling in on you. When aging and death are rolling in on you, great king, what should be done?"

Pabbatopama Sutta: The Simile of the Mountains (SN 3.25)

Carpe diem

Here are the roots of trees. Here are empty places. Get down and meditate. Don't be lazy. Don't become one who is later remorseful. This is my instruction to you.

Bhikkhunupassaya Sutta: Directed and Undirected (SN 47.10)

"It would be a sheer coincidence, lord, that the blind sea-turtle, coming to the surface once every one hundred years, would stick his neck into the yoke with a single hole."
"It's likewise a sheer coincidence that one obtains the human state. It's likewise a sheer coincidence that a Tathagata, worthy & rightly self-awakened, arises in the world. It's likewise a sheer coincidence that a doctrine & discipline expounded by a Tathagata appears in the world. Now, this human state has been obtained. A Tathagata, worthy & rightly self-awakened, has arisen in the world. A doctrine & discipline expounded by a Tathagata appears in the world.
"Therefore your duty is the contemplation, 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress.' Your duty is the contemplation, 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.'"

Chiggala Sutta: The Hole (SN 56.48)

"Momento mori" tries to make people dispassionate about worldly gain -- to cease, to discourage.
"Carpe diem" tries to encourage people to take the opportunity to practice -- to begin, to continue.

There's "Memento Mori!".

“And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am subject to
death; I am not exempt from death’? During their lives beings are
intoxicated with life, and when they are intoxicated with life they
engage in misconduct by body, speech, and mind. But when one often
reflects upon this theme, the intoxication with life is either
completely abandoned or diminished. It is for the sake of this benefit
that a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth, should often
reflect thus: ‘I am subject to death; I am not exempt from death.’
AN 5.57

The next version is "Memento Mori, therefore Carpe Diem!"

“This noble disciple reflects thus: ‘I am not the only one who is
subject to death, not exempt from death. All beings that come and go,
that pass away and undergo rebirth, are subject to death; none are
exempt from death.’ As he often reflects on this theme, the path is
generated. He pursues this path, develops it, and cultivates it. As he
does so, the fetters are entirely abandoned and the underlying
tendencies are uprooted.
AN 5.57

And there's also "Carpe Diem anyway, don't waste your life."

Those who in youth have not led the holy life, or have failed to
acquire wealth, languish like old cranes in the pond without fish.
Those who in youth have not lead the holy life, or have failed to
acquire wealth, lie sighing over the past, like worn out arrows (shot
from) a bow.
Dhp 155 - 156

The exact advice to be given is like medicine. Each medicine is suited for a different illness. Depending on one's addictions, motivations and level of energy, one of the three above should be chosen.

Both statements can be seen from a Buddhist perspective. Though I would say rather than"seize the day" "seize the moment" would be better suited, being conscientious of every moment and experience is a foundation of mindfulness.
As for remembering that we will die, and could die at any second is not just a fundamental understanding of Buddhist paths, it is one of the 3 marks of existence.
However your question didn't really make any sense.


text:
Will we all attain enlightenment eventually?
Since the Buddha said everything is impermanent (anicca) 'yan kinci samudaya dhammam sabban tam nirodha dhammam' and ignorance (avijja) is something, won't it be the case that ignorance (avijja) will cease for everyone (ordinary folk (puthujanas) and those-in-training (sekhas) alike) eventually?
The Buddha did say that ignorance (avijja) is impermanent (anicca) actually.

jarāmaraṇaṃ, bhikkhave, aniccaṃ saṅkhataṃ paṭiccasamuppannaṃ khayadhammaṃ vayadhammaṃ virāgadhammaṃ nirodhadhammaṃ. jāti, bhikkhave, aniccā saṅkhatā paṭiccasamuppannā khayadhammā vayadhammā virāgadhammā nirodhadhammā. bhavo, bhikkhave, anicco saṅkhato paṭiccasamuppanno khayadhammo vayadhammo virāgadhammo nirodhadhammo. upādānaṃ bhikkhave…pe…. taṇhā, bhikkhave… vedanā, bhikkhave… phasso, bhikkhave… saḷāyatanaṃ, bhikkhave… nāmarūpaṃ, bhikkhave… viññāṇaṃ , bhikkhave… saṅkhārā, bhikkhave… avijjā, bhikkhave, aniccā saṅkhatā paṭiccasamuppannā khayadhammā vayadhammā virāgadhammā nirodhadhammā.
Ageing-&-death, bhikkhus, is impermanent, determined, dependently arisen, its nature is to be destroyed, to disappear, to fade away, to cease. Birth, bhikkhus, is impermanent, determined, dependently arisen, its nature is to be destroyed, to disappear, to fade away, to cease. Being, bhikkhus, is impermanent, determined, dependently arisen, its nature is to be destroyed, to disappear, to fade away, to cease. Assuming, bhikkhus… Craving, bhikkhus… Feeling, bhikkhus… Pressure, bhikkhus… The six domains, bhikkhus… Name-&-matter, bhikkhus… Consciousness, bhikkhus… Determinations, bhikkhus… Ignorance, bhikkhus, is impermanent, determined, dependently arisen, its nature is to be destroyed, to disappear, to fade away, to cease.
paccayasuttaṃ (SN 12.20)

Nothing happens without an effort. Nibbana is not an automatic eventuality. And Sansara is not a place to loitering.

Are you saying that we are not garuteed Nibānna? But if that is so then avijja could be eternal, if we don't make the effort. But it is clearly not defined that way in the Sutta.

Which sutta are you refereeing to? There are Tatha Dhamma in the world. Thatha Dhamma are eternal (e.g. - Dukkha in 4 noble truths). Assuming everything is impermanent is erroneous.

Paccayya suttam

OP, please note that you have got the wrong interpretation. At one occasion Lord Budhdha brought forth the following simile: 'Learning Dhamma is like handling a venomous serpent. You catch it from the wrong end, and you are doomed'. Please note that Buddhism does not dictate everything is impermanent. Aniccha is just a characteristic of the world we make for ourselves. You have caught the serpent from the wrong end.

The Buddha said that all conditioned things -- all sankharas -- are impermanent.
So to answer (or gain insight into or from) the question, you may want to ask, what is the condition for avijja and what is the condition for its ceasing.

This is a great question!
Ignorance (avijja) is impermanent (anicca). Everything that arises must cease.
So, will we all become liberated? Will we all become enlightened?
But, we must also remember sabbe dhamma anatta - all phenomena is not self.
So, ignorance will cease. Not necessarily for you or for me specifically, but it will cease eventually. And it will also arise again - again not for you or for me specifically.
The same goes for suffering (dukkha).

Thanks for the reply, but how is it that it will re arise again, I thought once you remove avijja, it can never return again?

@PrinceDeepthinker Avijja is still there in the world today.

Ok but will I eventually become enlightened if I was a Putthujana.

@PrinceDeepthinker No, you won't. Please see this answer.

These are all religious ideologies that create entrapments. The idea of impermanence is a concession given to the practitioner in the same way a koan is given to a Zen monk. Impermanence can only be defined by its opposite and opposites can only reference conventions, thus impermanence can only have truth in a practitioner who is held captive by their own mental propagation.

This question is not to be answered because it asserts self-view.
It is very important to understand & accept that one can't project one's delusion about what exactly is 'a world' in a definitive sense and to stop trying to reconcile one's common worldly naive notions of what is 'a world' with the Dhamma.
You are asserting that there is a world wherein this or that being attains final extinguishment [of the world] and that this world further persists with other beings in it.
This is a grave, disqualification mistake, as it slips by the definition of a world in the texts. If you can't see this then you are blind in the Dhamma.
If it was as you assert then nibbana is part of the world, there would either be many nibbanas in this very world such that one nibbana would be different from another (like a feeling, a piece of gold), or nibbana would merely be a title, a state of mind or an idea like 'financial freedom', or nibbana would be a place in this world where beings go.
I am not going to explain this at length because imo questions like these are best merely refuted.
In short when this or that being attains parinibbana then a world ceases, all ceases and there is nothing further to the world as all modes of being become extinguished.
If the world ends, then what are the to-be-enlightened beings are we talking about and how can there be an 'after' where all fuel for a future is depleted.

"Insofar as it disintegrates,[2] monk, it is called the 'world.' Now what disintegrates? The eye disintegrates. Forms disintegrate. Consciousness at the eye disintegrates. Contact at the eye disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too disintegrates.
"The ear disintegrates. Sounds disintegrate...
"The nose disintegrates. Aromas disintegrate...
"The tongue disintegrates. Tastes disintegrate...
"The body disintegrates. Tactile sensations disintegrate...
"The intellect disintegrates. Ideas disintegrate. Consciousness at the
intellect consciousness disintegrates. Contact at the intellect
disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on
contact at the intellect — experienced as pleasure, pain or
neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too disintegrates.
"Insofar as it disintegrates, it is called the 'world.'"

“Mendicants, I say it’s not possible to know or see or reach the end of the world by traveling. But I also say there’s no making an end of
suffering without reaching the end of the world.”

Whatever in the world through which you perceive the world and conceive the world is called the world in the training of the Noble
One. And through what in the world do you perceive the world and
conceive the world?

Through the eye in the world you perceive the world and conceive the
world. Through the ear … nose … tongue … body … mind in the world you
perceive the world and conceive the world.

What, bhikkhus, is the Nibbāna-element with residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of attachment, hate, and delusion in him that is called the Nibbāna-element with residue left.

Now what, bhikkhus, is the Nibbāna-element with no residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant … completely released through final
knowledge. For him, here in this very life, all that is experienced,
not being delighted in, will be extinguished. That, bhikkhus, is
called the Nibbāna-element with no residue left.

“These, bhikkhus, are the two Nibbāna-elements.”
These two Nibbāna-elements were made known By the Seeing One, stable
and unattached: One is the element seen here and now With residue, but
with the cord of being destroyed; The other, having no residue for the
future, Is that wherein all modes of being utterly cease.
Having understood the unconditioned state, Released in mind with the
cord of being destroyed, They have attained to the Dhamma-essence.
Delighting in the destruction (of craving), Those stable ones have
abandoned all being

One can't pin down beings as a truth or reality repudiating the 'All;

Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will
speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear &
sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations,
intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who
would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if
questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement,
would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief.
Why? Because it lies beyond range."

Attaining nirodha Is analogical to waking up from a dream-world in that the whole entirety construct of the world ends. Therefore it's called an awakening to the truth or a final attainment of the truth, which is the truth & reality of extinguishment of that in the world through which one perceives & conceives the world.
Therefore perhaps you can see that the mistake OP is making is akin to asserting that a person awakes in a dream rather than awakening from a dream anddoing this requires asserting that 'a being' is something that repudiates the all so that the being can cease with all persist without him.
Another way to say this is that nirodha happens to the world not merely in the world.
At last i will say that the development of mind is not a matter of chance but rarher conditioning. This means that it is not so that given enough time you will realize Nibbana because it can't be modelled as an arbitrary event.
References; nibbanadhatu, adittapariyaya, sabba, lokantagamanasutta

It looks like most questions assert self view, my friend. That is why the aggregates ask these questions.

Since the Buddha said everything is impermanent (anicca)...

Well, if "everything" is impermanent, then impermanence itself is also impermanent! And before we start spinning our heads going down that logical rabbit hole, the law of causation dictates that enlightenment doesn't automatically comes for free to everyone eventually. One must put in the hard work (the cause) to arrive at the targeted outcome (the result). And reality seems to support that, at the current rate what is the ratio of folks who attained enlightenment compared to those who have not? So even assuming that the idea of "inevitable enlightenment" was true, it'd also hold true that for every single individual who'd reach an enlightened state today, there'd always be gazillions others whose due date will come tomorrow, day after tomorrow,... ad infinitum.

It is erroneous to think that everything is impermanent. This is a wrong view. Refer to: Paṭisambhidāmagga - 2 Yuganaddhavagga - 2.2. Saccakathā. In the first paragraph itself it is discussed that the four noble truths are permanent (Tatha).
Your assumption, that everything is impermanent is not Buddhism.

It appears the phrase 'yan kinci samudaya dhammam sabban tam nirodha dhammam' (from SN 56.11) does not say everything is impermanent (anicca). It appears this phrase merely refers to everything/all that arises in the 2nd noble truth ceases with the realization of the 3rd noble truth.

Physical death happens in & lasts a moment. Thus physical death cannot 'fade away'. Thus 'ageing-&-death' refers to the 'view' that 'a being', 'person' or 'self' is has died. Since 'ageing-&-death' is merely a view or thought conception, it can 'fade away'.

It appears the following translation should be questioned: "its nature is to be destroyed, to disappear, to fade away, to cease." This translation appears to rigid or absolute, when saying "its nature is". A better translation is probably: "it has a nature that can be destroyed, disappear, fade away, cease."

In summary, there are too many suttas that say puthujjana are destined for long-lasting, close to 'eternal', hell &/or the animal kingdom. Buddhism's terrorism of people with threats of eons in hell appears more severe than Christianity.

When asked would all beings attain enlightenment, the Buddha remained silent (AN 10.95). However, there are many teachings that say only the "few" (Dhp 174) or "rare" (AN 5.143) attain enlightenment. Everyone else is literally destined for hell (SN 56.102). The puthujjana should stay with Christianity and pray to Jesus Christ for salvation via faith alone. Christ saves!


text:
Must an Arahant stay forever in their place of enlightenment?

Take another case of a mendicant who lives close by a jungle thicket. 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. But the necessities of life that a renunciate requires—robes, almsfood, lodgings, and medicines and supplies for the sick—are hard to come by. That mendicant should reflect:
‘While living close by this jungle thicket, my mindfulness becomes established … But the necessities of life are hard to come by. But I didn’t go forth from the lay life to homelessness for the sake of a robe, almsfood, lodgings, or medicines and supplies for the sick. Moreover, while living close by this jungle thicket, my mindfulness becomes established …’ After appraisal, that mendicant should stay in that jungle thicket; they shouldn’t leave.
Take another case of a mendicant who lives close by a jungle thicket. Their mindfulness becomes established … And the necessities of life are easy to come by. That mendicant should reflect: ‘While living close by this jungle thicket, my mindfulness becomes established … And the necessities of life are easy to come by.’ That mendicant should stay in that jungle thicket for the rest of their life; they shouldn’t leave.
MN 17

Am I interpreting this correctly in saying that for an Arahant, it is forbidden for him to leave the place where he became enlightened?
Also, if so, how large is the area around this spot, where one can go to without breaking this rule?

see a similar thread at: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/47126/2282

There is no such requirement of staying in any place for an Arhant.
But the sutta you refer is specifically related to vanapattha paryaya (monastic practice). Where the Dhamma practitioner feels that s/his mindfulness becomes established, their mind becomes immersed in samādhi, their defilements comes to an end, it means the place is suitable and helpful for the person to arrive at Nirvana. Such places should not be left, as one needs every bit oh help that they can get in order to become an Arhant. If the surroundings are helping, such surroundings should not be left.
The sutta does not describe an Arhant, rather someone who is yet to obtain enlightenment.

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.

This is clearly a description of an Arahant

Please check whether it is specifically mentioned as an Arahant in the sutta. Otherwise the assumption can take you to a completely different meaning. The translation seems to be somewhat misleading in this regard.

the sutta says: "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"

@Dhamma Dhatu I agree with Sampath that the overall context of this Sutta make it clear that it refers to one who is still in training. It is true that parts of the particular phrase you have quoted sound like the completion of training, but the sutta makes it clear that these things are arising in dependence on the environment. Hence, it does not mean total liberation.

sorry but the sutta says: "their defilements come to an end and they arrive at the supreme sanctuary".

@DhammaDhatu Please note Lord Budhdha did not preached Dhamma for Arhant. Dhamma was for those who walked the path towards Nirvana. Once you are an Arhant, you have no need for Dhamma anymore. Its like: at the destination, the map, way-points and even the road are no longer needed. That translation is poor in clarity. Don't cling to it. Read/understand the whole sutta before coming to a conclusion.

again, u posting your own ideas. often the Buddha gave teaching to Arahant Sariputta

@DhammaDhatu: In those occasions, the objective was to answer possible questions that future disciples might come across. or to address a possible unclear or untold part of Dhamma and to leave the teaching for the future disciples. There are many such Dhamma discussions like that. But what more good can Dhamma do to an Arhant? An Arhant has left even Dhamma behind. No more collecting of Dhamma even. Do you have any other logical explanation for it?

Possibly the translation of "anubandhitabbo" is too rigid.

That mendicant should follow that person for the rest of their life.
They shouldn’t leave them, even if sent away.
Tena, bhikkhave, bhikkhunā yāvajīvampi so puggalo anubandhitabbo, na
pakkamitabbaṁ, api panujjamānenapī”ti.

anubandhitabba future passive participle adjective anubandhati

anubandhati present 3 singular follows; keeps close to, attends
closely; pursues

While the use of anubandhitabbo appears in all other cases to refer to "physically following a person around", in MN 17 it may mean to "mentally keep close to in the heart". Therefore, for example, a monk may go wandering but always periodically return to that benefactor or forest grove, such as during the rainy season retreat.

Must an Arahant stay forever in their place of enlightenment?
I think it does not fit with what we're told in many other suttas -- in that the suttas mentioned many Arahants by name, including the Buddha himself, travelling from place to place. I don't remember reading any rule like that in the Vinaya, either.
As for this sutta the word in question, which is translated "for the rest of their life", is yāvajīva (from jīva) -- and I see no hint in the online dictionaries that this word has a idiomatic or non-literal meaning.
But one thing that puts me in mind of is this episode from the Buddha's life --  Buddha meditation under the bodhi tree. That shows some movement e.g. for necessities. That's from before the Buddha's final enlightenment or becoming "unbound", i.e. it's while seeking, during the Noble Search..
And there's this version of that story -- Where is the description of the vow and the Bodhi tree? -- which (in my words) implies that the Buddha vows to stay there for the rest of his life if necessary.
The other thing is, I read the whole sutta as saying that the place doesn't matter so much, what does matter is whether the place is conducive -- i.e. it's not important whether it's in a jungle thicket or not, what's important is whether the mind becomes established -- and, especially until or before the mind becomes established, the seeker should seek and remain in a good environment which makes that possible.

'and they arrive at the supreme sanctuary'. What is this describing if not enlightenment?

I think that's describing the goal or motive, the reason why they remain somewhere; and that it's like AN 4.159, i.e. it's a description of the process by which, by doing this, someone may become enlightened.

I do agree that this sutta, in how I interpret is seemingly odds with the rest of the canon, maybe this rule was just laid down for a specific period of time and then later rescinded.

I guess the suttas are usually advice (about how to behave), or a statement of fact (about how the world works), or a history (of what happened) -- and the "rules" of conduct are the Vinaya. Yes I think the superficial/literal/legalist interpretation of this sutta doesn't match the rest of the canon -- so we have to discard it or (preferably) find another way to make sense of it. Often if a sutta is difficult to understand I find that one resource is Piya Tan's analysis e.g. https://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/52.5-Vanapattha-S-m17-piya.pdf

please. this is a Q & A forum rather than a Piya Tan forum.

possibly the word "anubandhitabbo" should be considered. therefore, possibly it does not mean to literally physically follow the benefactor at all times but merely means to "stay close to in the heart ". therefore a monk may go wandering but always periodically return, such as during the rainy season retreat.

@DhammaDhatu Possibly, eh? But I was reluctant to suggest (which seems to be a premise of the question) that an Arahant has limits -- geographical (bound to a place), personal (bound to a person), or otherwise, or conditions on which liberation depends -- and so I think the sutta is addressed to one still seeking. The only limit I'm aware of from the canon might be "seeing danger in the slightest fault". This sutta mentions "dwelling in dependence", but I'm doubtful about whether that means, "... on a lay benefactor".

your ideas about Arahants sounds like papanca. did Ajahn Chan wander around or did he establish a base in one place? Once I visited a small village in the middle of rubber plantations in Thailand and its small monastery has the most radiant abbot. He looked rather enlightened to me. That was his base. People could visit him there. your Western intellectualism and constant interjections in the comments section is really tedious and embarrassing for me to constantly deal with. I wonder why i bother posting here. Its pointless at times.

I'm pretty sure that the suttas describe the Buddha and his Arahants moving from one place to another.