text:
Does Abhidhamma explain how Attention Shift happens
Every cita has an Object associated with it. when we meditate on breath then the object of attention is breath.. and after some time suddenly  a past memory image pops up..
can one explain in terms of abhidhamma mind-moment model.. How the object of attention changed. and compare it with  new, medium and adapt practitioners perspective.

EDIT
There are 3 answers and yet there is no answer. I myself did some more research and concluded as following.
I think abhidhamma, or buddhism as such has no explanation for attention Shift from one object to another. As each mind moment has object which can be different from previous and each mind moment has cetasika called manaskāra.
I never understand what kind of  cetasika it is.

Is it yes / No to current object.
Is it intensity of attention like  0% to 100 %.
Is it pointer to object of attention. It could be
current object or another object altogether.

However Patanjali yoga sutra has more clear answer  to this. they  attribute it to unconscious activity. and called that 'manasa'. 'Manasa' is organ of body which travels to any location of body. and then only objects of that part are thrown to consciousness. It filters  the data of all sense door... This is quite close to modern neuroscience too as hypothalamus in brain. This manasa can be instructed to change its filters .
I am giving a link to a PDf document which compares buddhism and patanjali yogasutra  only around this question .. Its too good.
[Contrasting_Nyaya_Vaiseika_and_Buddhist.pdf]1

It's a good question and definitely Buddhism has a good answer to this, just that you haven't received that answer here yet.

Abhidhamma is the object of AdhipannaSikkha which are meditated as 8 knowledge, 8 Vijja (see DN10 SubhaSutta and Abhi. commentary), so it's impossible to explain Abhidhamma to new or medium practitioner without mistake. It's for people who has little defilements because they are ready to see the smallest and quickest elements' arising and vanishing without bias.
So, for me this question is like "please explain Theory of Relativity to me in simple term and short".
Whatever... just try.
Mind and mental elements are the quickest arising and vanishing, more than trillion times per second.
Physical body are 17 times slower than mind and mental elements.
17 mind and mental elements vanished is equal to 1 physical body vanished.
So, nothing is changed because mind is quickest so it has only one chance to take only one object before vanished immediately. Every mind never change it's object, one object only.
It's like this through all trillion times per second of mind arising and vanishing.
Then...
Each mind has difference origins from other minds, even the same type of minds. The difference origins are the specifier of their effected mind.

when we meditate on breath then the object of attention is breath.. and after some time suddenly a past memory image pops up.

In  trillion times of minds are arising and vanishing  per second...

The originated-by-Karma-mind  are knowing past-life's dead moment's object. This object appeared to mind because of Karma.

Some karma-doing mind are knowing breath. Breath appeared to mind because of the past attention originating this karma-doing mind moment as the habitual condition (Pakatupanissaya Paccaya) which means recurrent habit. The practitioner has done breath meditation past lives.

but some are knowing past memory image. Memory image appeared to mind because of the past attention originating this karma-doing mind moment as the habitual condition (Pakatupanissaya Paccaya) which means recurrent habit. The practitioner has not strong enough current breath meditation, so other conditions originate other effects, other mind, to arise and know memory image  instead of knowing breath mind.

It's really deep more than that actually. That's why we need to meditate Jhana in advance before meditate the insight meditation.

I don't think there is one understand what I've written however I confirm that what I have written are understandable but the listener need to meditate Jhana in mastery level first.

You might want to differentiate between Abhidhamma and Abhidhammamattha-sanghana which is non-canonical commentary from the 8-12th century.
I personally don't see how Abhidhamma posits existence of mind-moments and i find the notion entirely foolish because the semantic properties of 'a moment' are something that has a beginning, a middle & an end, whereas

what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another.
SN 12.61

Talking about 'mind-moments' is akin to talking about 'now-moments', 'now' as in 'present[time]-moment'.
The concept of 'now' does not in it's semantic property assume any temporal duration, iow a 'now' doesn't last for some time before becoming a 'not-now'. It doesn't arise & cease as one thing.

The past, reverends, is one end. The future is the second end. The present is the middle. And craving is the seamstress …
AN 6.61

Talking about 'mind-moments' is akin to talking about 'now-moments', 'now' as in 'present[time]-moment'.
The concept of 'now' does not in it's semantic property assume any temporal duration, iow a 'now' doesn't last for some time before becoming a 'not-now'. It doesn't arise & cease as one thing.

The past, reverends, is one end. The future is the second end. The present is the middle. And craving is the seamstress …
AN 6.61

It's the nature of all formations to be not lasting, break apart, get sick, age, decay, good householder. Mind-factors are like that, objects of mind, like-a-like. Whether grasping another stand, or where, depends on ones gained inclination and related effort.
Generally proper/good association is food for right attention, first the association outwardly, then inwardly as well.
The Avijja Sutta (AN 10.61) would explain the relation of right attention and the other chains in regard of common wheel as well as path.
Sure, the window isn't large to grasp the way of attention blessed, yet possible right here.

In abhidhamma style: what determines what kind of moment of consciousness will arise, i.e. what the content of the next moment of consciousness will be.
There are two kind of attention shift. Voluntary and involuntary. In case of voluntary attention shift  the consciousness had set the intention for that shift previously in any of recent mind moment. via a desire or resolve .Its called Vacī Sankhāra or internal  speech . Which was preceded by vitaka and vicara on the object which was available in that mind moment. E.g when you sit for meditation you first verbally or non verbally set intention  to restrain the scope of attention to nose. I  will stay focused only at nose sensations. This is  called  paying attention.
In case of involuntary  attention shift it is based on strong sense object received at 6 sense doors. which has considered crucial by the unconscious. and thrown immediately to the  consciousness. e.g a loud sound forces the attention shift. or strong past memory pops up.
There are many complex logics by the unconscious. and one interesting as I think is attention span. Every human being has different attention span. the unconscious will will not allow any object to stay more then that. and via meditation practice one can increase this attention span. There are many other factors  like loss of interest , or dullness of consciousness.
This unconscious activity is outside of consciousness. Buddhism just puts it under Sankhāra Khanada. however hinduism goes further and calls it a organ named manasa(conceit). Mahayan coined  word called alay-Vijnan. As per abhidhamma  manasa or vijnana are contaminated states of citta. The pure bhavanga vibrates when an object touches it. We can guess that manasa is place where  ditthi, fase self or mara  reside. even kilesa , moha or avijja is a near term to this unconscious behaviour.
Out of all sankhara ,or anusaya those which are common, intense or recent are most likely to be activated, since those latent impressions will be more powerful than the latent impressions of less common, less intense or less recent associations.
How we can program,unprogram this unconscious habits or manasa.?
The effort to reprogram the unconscious is called samma vyayamo. and samma sankappo (setting right intention) is one of the method.
There are 4 types of effort
(1)Maintain (2) prevent.
(3)arouse (4)abandon.
Maintaining and preventing can happen from the very beginning till it get form of thoughts. One need strong mindfulness to detect it early and process so. till it becomes habit.
After abandoning  it is very help to set intention to prevent it next time as early as possible.
similarly for arousing it is very help to set intention for the same.
setting intention  is samma sankappo ,vaci sankhara . which are initiated by vitaka and vicara.
Sense restrain (samvar) is also great practice in buddhism, to delete old habbit pattern or over indulgence with sense object.
When you sit for meditation, you resolve to pay attention only at the nose. This will direct the unconscious attention process to confine to nose area.
however due to short attention span  it will shift on its own to distraction object. as soon as you realise the distraction gently bring it back.this mean again set intention to pay attention only at nose. repeat this setting of intention all the time and train yourself. after many months of practice unconscious attention shift will get minimised.becomes a habit.
you can also indirectly train the unconscious behaviour by following.

analysing  unwholesome mental object ,,
thining its drawback, danger, escape and  solutions etc
analysing wholesome mental object thinking its benefits and methods to cultivate.
studying dhamma , discussing with other practitioner etc.. exploring the points where you are mis understanding the teaching. etc
changing mindset, building sanna, like asubha sanna, etc.
developing to see  tilakhana .


text:
How to pursuade someone not believing in fortune telling
How to persuade someone not to be too superstitious or too much into fortune telling? Cause based on the answers below, it's not appropriate.
Did the Lord Buddha say anything about magic and fortune telling?
Do Buddhist believe fortune teller?
I shared the link above, the common answers below are mostly from senior Buddhists.

Buddhism has evolved, those sutta could outdated.
Those are Theravada, and Mahayana version is different. We have too many branches.
Many success stories of healing including themself.

Most cases from the "un-audited" or modified Buddhism below from a single person thought.

Modified Chan Buddhism
Modified Mahayana

How to persuade someone not to be too superstitious or too much into fortune telling? Cause based on the answers below, it's not appropriate.

We can't really (nor is it our job) to persuade anyone to do anything.
People have their own Kamma and go in their own direction in Samsara.
The most we can do is to be good (Buddhist) examples ourselves and thereby maybe inspire others but its not something we actively strive for. If it happens then its positive and if not, then that's fine as well.

just happened to some good friends and has a compassionate heart. So would like to help only. Some just complaint Buddhism is not helping. This could be the reason

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Pillar of Spiritual Intelligence (SQ)
What is Buddhism view on this?
Spiritual Intelligence (SQ)
SQ may be defined as: “The ability to behave with wisdom and compassion, while maintaining inner and outer peace, regardless of the situation.” Wisdom and compassion being the pillars of SQ.

Deeper understanding of one’s own world view, life purpose, value hierarchy and controlling personal ego to consider the higher self.

Self-mastery of one’s spiritual growth, living your purpose, values and vision, sustaining faith in and seeking guidance from a higher power.

Universal awareness of world view of others, limitations and power of human perception, awareness of spiritual laws and transcendental oneness

Social Mastery/Spiritual Presence: wise and effective mentor of spiritual principles; leadership change agent; making wise and compassionate decisions; and being aligned with the ebb and flow of life.

Does Buddhism agrees on this statement below or there are more pillars?

Wisdom and compassion being the pillars of SQ.

Source - TRUE LEADERSHIP - SQ+EQ+IQ+PQ = SUCCESS

The tenets laid out by those bullet points are largely ego driven.  For instance, "controlling personal ego to consider the higher self", "self-mastery of one’s spiritual growth", "living your purpose", "leadership change agent", etc. deal overtly with the establishment and growth of a personal self.  As such, they are directly antithetical to Buddhist practice.  The remaining points are ancillary.
Some Tibetan lama somewhere once said that when you go to buy rice, it comes in a paper bag.  You don't got there with the intention of buying the bag.  It just comes with the rice - which is what you are after.  No offense intended, but pretty much everything in your question is just a brown paper bag.  Wisdom and compassion are likewise important...but again.  Paper bag.  We don't set out seeking to develop these virtues, they appear as a result of insight.
"Seeing emptiness, he feels compassion." - graffiti at the former site of Nalanda University

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


text:
What is the difference between 'Witnessing the thoughts' vs 'Mindfulness of the thoughts'?
I am a bit confused about what is the difference between 'witnessing meditation' as taught by Osho, which can be found here, here, and here, and 'silent present moment awareness' (page number 11) as taught by Ajahn Brahm in his book, 'Mindfulness bliss and beyond'.
At first, they both seem identical to me, but as I practice with Osho's instructions it's difficult to get to that point He describes.
I would appreciate if the commentary is provided along with the answer from practice point of view.

Witnessing is one faculty of broader term called mindfulness. When you are in flow(jhana) there is only witnessing, pure awareness or bare awareness. Nānamattāya paṭissatimattāya as said in Sati Patthan sutta DN22.
However when you are agitated, lustful, angry, sleepy, restless etc. It attacks this bare awareness. These are called hindrance. You can not just be aware. its not easy. You need few more faculty i.e alertness( Sampajana) and  right effort (samma vyayamo). As early as possible be alert when this mental activity are arising will make it easier to handle. and when you realise this unskilful mental activity you have to do effort to mutate them. You need some antidot.
You also need to develop required level of concentration(samma samadhi) without that bare awareness is not possible. you might be perceiving the breath rather then being aware of sensations at nose.
In next level of mastery there is proper and improper attention. there exist some level of curiosity  or interest in these unskilful mental activity. and you need to change your mindset to not be interested. instead be interested in  trilakhana (anicca,anatta,dukha nature ) of them or be interested in skilful mental activity. This mindset(samma ditthi) has to be developed. This wise attention (yoniso mansikaro) has to be developed.
Thus mindfulness is witnessing + right mindset +required concentration +alertness always  And  occasional right effort .
Your goal is always to abide in bare awareness.   Its like sailing the boat. When there is storm you need more effort otherwise  it sails effortlessly.
When you practice for many months you already developed right mindset. and being alert and concentrated is effortless. Now  you only abide in the mare witnessing for all the time. Then your mindfulness is said to be established(satipatthana). Osho, Krishnamurthy, Ramana are talking at that level. They dont care about the struggle a new student goes through.Because they are accidentally enlightened.

Thank you for the answer. It clears the confusion.

Thanks for bounties.

In MN10, the Buddha points out that there are four steps to mindfulness meditation:

MN10:1.6: The Buddha said this:
MN10:2.1: “Mendicants, the four kinds of mindfulness meditation are the path to convergence. They are in order to purify sentient beings, to get past sorrow and crying, to make an end of pain and sadness, to end the cycle of suffering, and to realize extinguishment.

The third step is mindfulness of the mind, which includes thoughts:

MN10:3.1: What four?
MN10:3.2: It’s when a mendicant meditates by observing an aspect of the body—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world.
MN10:3.3: They meditate observing an aspect of feelings—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world.
MN10:3.4: They meditate observing an aspect of the mind—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world.
MN10:3.5: They meditate observing an aspect of principles—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world.

Notice that a repeated phrase is "rid of desire and aversion for the world". When there is desire, we see what we want to see. When there is aversion, we avert our mind away from what is. Without desire and aversion we witness and remember what is:

DN34:2.1.20: Furthermore, a mendicant is mindful. They have utmost mindfulness and alertness, and can remember and recall what was said and done long ago.

The number "one" is a thought. The number "two" is a thought. When we count breaths (an aspect of the body) we are witnessing our breaths and being mindful of the count. So in counting the breaths we witness the count increase with our breaths.
Between "one" and "two" there is a silent thread that holds and moves with the count. The thought of "one" takes but a moment, but a breath is longer than a moment, so there needs to be a mindful, ephemeral bridge from "one" to "two". Following that thread, the count proceeds. Losing that thread, the count is lost.
Thoughts are an aspect of the mind. The silent thread is an aspect of the mind. There are other aspects.
See also:

“Witnessing is not a thought, but you can start thinking about witnessing, you can make it a thought. The moment you make it a thought, it is no longer witnessing. Either it is witnessing or it is a thought; it cannot be both together. OshoTimes


text:
Question on Phassa
In Ñanavira's book Notes on Dhamma:

Phassa is included in nāma since nāma, in specifying saññā, necessarily specifies the pair of āyatanāni ('bases') and kind of viññāna involved (e.g. perception of sourness specifies tongue, tastes, and tongue-consciousness), whereas rūpa does not (inertia or behaviour does not specify its mode of appearance, visual, auditory, and so on): nāma, in other words, entails (but does not include) viññāna, whereas rūpa is simply 'discovered' by viññāna.

I don't follow his reasoning here... why is it that Phassa is included in nama instead of rupa because nāma 'entails (but does not include) viññāna, whereas rūpa is simply 'discovered' by viññāna.'?
Also why is sañña given some kind of precedence in its inclusion within the category ahead of Phassa?

Only when there is avijja such as touch arises, good householder. Whereas Not-knowing has been uprooted, consciousness would no more land.
May one 'be' touched by vijja!

Ñanavira, similar to Kaṭukurunde Ñāṇananda, erroneously attempted to reconcile the definitions of namarupa in SN 12.2 and DN 15.
DN 15 appears to be a late text (as shown by the use of the late term mātukucchismiṁ) and its definition of namarupa is Vedantic, conforming to the later Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, which the Buddha was not aware of.
The definition of namarupa in SN 12.2 is based on the earlier Chandogya Upanishad (originally part of the Samaveda, which the Buddha was aware of), which highlights the role of cetana (intention; the will). In the Chandogya Upanishad, the Great Deity exercised its Will to multiply the three basic deities/elements of earth, fire & water into a multitude of names & forms. In SN 12.2, the Buddha explains the human reality how the will/intention gives attention to proliferate & acquire externally the objects of the ignorant sankharas.
In summary:

Nama does not literally mean 'name' in the Buddha's Teaching therefore has no inherent relationship to sanna. Namarupa was obviously a term the Buddha took from the Chandogya Upanishad to redefine & debunk. The key elements of namarupa are cetana (intention) & manasikara (attention) rather than vedana, sanna & phassa.
Phassa is included within namarupa because it refers to the internal contact with the ignorant sankhara; as distinct from external contact via the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body & thoughts that become a preoccupation via inappropriate attention.

To understand how this internal phassa operates at namarupa, refer to MN 19, where the Buddha-To-Be had internal contact with various thoughts (sankhara) and then exercised his wise intention & wise attention towards abandoning & eradicating those thoughts (sankhara).
When the opposite of MN 19 occurs; when unwise intention & inappropriate attention are given to pursue the objects of the sankhara, this is the arising of dependent origination (towards suffering).

I do not study these works but i believe he is making a reference to everything nama always being tied to vinnana whereas form isn't.

"Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them."
"Discernment & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It's not possible, having separated them one from the other, to delineate the difference between them. For what one discerns, that one cognizes. What one cognizes, that one discerns. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference between them."
MN 43

Likewise contact is always associated with either of 6 types of consciousness.
There are 3 aggregates that are conjoined with consciousnesses; perceptions, feelings and sankhara which generates consciousness as conscioussness or form as form & so on.
Forms aggregated are not conjoined with consciousnesses aggregated, because form does not always accompany consciousness, form is not always generated.
Four aggregates have objects. Forms aggregated do not have an object.
In nama you will also see attention & intention.
Attention attends to, it brings into being this or that, appropriate or inappropriate dhammā.
Intention refers to the 6 classes of genesis [sankhara].

why is sañña given some kind of precedence in its inclusion within the category ahead of Phassa?

In as far as there is anything, there contact can be delineated.
Where contact is delineated, there a particular consciousness implicated in that very contact can be delineated.
Where consciousness is delineated, it is said to be conjoined with percipience & feeling.
In short there are two types of contact, with form & without form, but there is always sanna in as far there is consciousness delineated, due to their semantic conjoinment.
The states where contact is without form is that which said to be known with the purified intellect-consciousness divorced from the five [sense] faculties [form].

"Friend, with the purified intellect-consciousness divorced from the five faculties the dimension of the infinitude of space can be known [as] 'infinite space.' The dimension of the infinitude of consciousness can be known [as] 'infinite consciousness.' The dimension of nothingness can be known [as] 'There is nothing.'
MN 43

When Ven. NV writes;

Phassa is included in nāma since nāma, in specifying saññā, necessarily specifies the pair of āyatanāni ('bases') and kind of viññāna involved

I believe he is referring to contact being a meeting of the three, eg;
1.Form which is the eye + 2.Form which is visible by the Eye + 3.Eye-consciousness.
Here 1 & 2 are bases which are form.
If intellect is divorced from form the contact is;

Intellect + 2. Ideation + 3. Intellect-consciousness.

Ideation here must also be not such that is tied to form.
Here 1 & 2 are bases which are not-form.
Either way there are two bases and a respective consciousness.

"states where contact is without form ..." - imo, this clarified why contact is categorized with name, i.e. contact with intellect/idea is not physical is nature, not related to form

can you explain: "Four aggregates have objects. Forms aggregated do not have an object."?  or point to the text which has this?


text:
What is "meditation on the deathless state (nirvana)"?
I have read in a Buddhist sutta that one should meditate on the deathless state. What does this mean? What is it?

Please quote the sutta. Where did you see it?

Sadly i do not remember and cannot find online where i read this.

Said to the Blessed One: “Venerable
sir, it is said, ‘the Deathless, the Deathless.’ What now, venerable
sir, is the Deathless? What is the path leading to the Deathless?”
“The destruction of lust, the destruction of hatred, the destruction
of delusion: this is called the Deathless. This Noble Eightfold Path
is the path leading to the Deathless; that is, right view … right
concentration.”
“Venerable sir, it is said, ‘the removal of lust, the removal of
hatred, the removal of delusion.’ Of what now, venerable sir, is this
the designation?”
“This, bhikkhu, is a designation for the element of Nibbāna: the
removal of lust, the removal of hatred, the removal of delusion. The
destruction of the taints is spoken of in that way.” sn45.7

"And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents? There is the case where a monk remains focused on arising & falling away with reference to the five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its passing away. Such is feeling, such its origination, such its passing away. Such is perception, such its origination, such its passing away. Such are fabrications, such their origination, such their passing away. Such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.' This is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents. An4.41

"Monks, the ending of the effluents is for one who knows & sees, I tell you, not for one who does not know & does not see. For one who knows what & sees what is there the ending of effluents? 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance. Such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance. Such is perception, such its origination, such its disappearance. Such are fabrications, such their origination, such their disappearance. Such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.' The ending of the effluents is for one who knows in this way & sees in this way.
"The knowledge of ending in the presence of ending has its prerequisite, I tell you. It is not without a prerequisite. And what is the prerequisite for the knowledge of ending? Release, it should be said. Release has its prerequisite, I tell you. It is not without a prerequisite. And what is its prerequisite? Dispassion... Disenchantment... Knowledge & vision of things as they actually are present... sn12.23

He regards whatever phenomena there that are connected with form, feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness, as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a disintegration, an emptiness, not-self. He turns his mind away from those phenomena, and having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: ‘This is peace, this is exquisite—the pacification of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; unbinding.’
“Staying right there, he reaches the ending of the effluents. Or, if not, then—through this very Dhamma-passion, this Dhamma-delight, and from the total ending of the five lower fetters—he is due to arise spontaneously (in the Pure Abodes), there to be totally unbound, never again to return from that world.mn64

"A virtuous monk, Kotthita my friend, should attend in an appropriate way to the five clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a dissolution, an emptiness, not-self. Which five? Form as a clinging-aggregate, feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness as a clinging-aggregate. A virtuous monk should attend in an appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a dissolution, an emptiness, not-self. For it is possible that a virtuous monk, attending in an appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant... not-self, would realize the fruit of stream-entry."
"Then which things should a monk who has attained stream-entry attend to in an appropriate way?"
"A monk who has attained stream-entry should attend in an appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant, [...] not-self. For it is possible that a monk who has attained stream-entry, attending in an appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant... not-self, would realize the fruit of once-returning."
"Then which things should a monk who has attained once-returning attend to in an appropriate way?"
"A monk who has attained once-returning should attend in an appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant, [...] not-self. For it is possible that a monk who has attained once-returning, attending in an appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant... not-self, would realize the fruit of non-returning."
"Then which things should a monk who has attained non-returning attend to in an appropriate way?"
"A monk who has attained non-returning should attend in an appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant, [...] not-self. For it is possible that a monk who has attained non-returning, attending in an appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant... not-self, would realize the fruit of arahantship."
"Then which things should an arahant attend to in an appropriate way?"
"An arahant should attend in an appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant, [...] not-self. Although, for an arahant, there is nothing further to do, and nothing to add to what has been done, still these things — when developed & pursued — lead both to a pleasant abiding in the here-&-now and to mindfulness & alertness." Mn22

"The subduing of desire-passion for feeling, the abandoning of desire-passion for feeling: That is the escape from feeling. Sn36.23

we enter upon and abide in the cessation of perception and feeling. And our taints are destroyed by our seeing with wisdom mn31

“On one occasion, friend Ānanda, I was dwelling right here in Sāvatthī in the Blind Men’s Grove. There I attained such a state of concentration that I was not percipient of earth in relation to earth; of water in relation to water; of fire in relation to fire; of air in relation to air; of the base of the infinity of space in relation to the base of the infinity of space; of the base of the infinity of consciousness in relation to the base of the infinity of consciousness; of the base of nothingness in relation to the base of nothingness; of the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception in relation to the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; of this world in relation to this world; of the other world in relation to the other world, but I was still percipient.”
“But of what was the Venerable Sāriputta percipient on that occasion?”
“One perception arose and another perception ceased in me: ‘The cessation of existence is nibbāna; the cessation of existence is nibbāna.’ Just as, when a fire of twigs is burning, one flame arises and another flame ceases, so one perception arose and another perception ceased in me: ‘The cessation of existence is nibbāna; the cessation of existence is nibbāna.’ On that occasion, friend, I was percipient: ‘The cessation of existence is nibbāna.’” an10.7

The issue i have is what is there to meditate on? Can it be grasped, the cessation of existence, into a state to he absorbed in? I can't figure out how to meditate on that.

You don't try to meditate on that 'cessation principle of what changes as it persists'. You should develop only that dispassion towards the conditioned and the mind will turn to cessation when there is an opening & enough dispassion has been developed , no exertion needs to be exerted, it happens by itself and one comes to know & see the unmade.

I think it's enough to believe that there is an unmade and that an escape from the made can be discerned. One should believe that one will come to know the unknown and attend appropriately to the aggregates.

Any kind of fascination or craving for the conditioned, even for jhana, is counter productive because it tunes one's mind to those states rather than nirodha. Jhana are a necessary means to an end.

I guess you might be asking whether it is distinct as a meditative attainment, it is a meditative absorbtion to be emerged from and one won't perceive the world while in that samadhi. There is no mistaking it for something.

That is sufficient. Thank you!

Awesome. Good luck, i hope you attain it in no long time.

Site doesn't allow more than 8 links without rep but i'll add here some excerpts illuminating the training;
A verse;

If one were to have
mindfulness always
established, continually
immersed in the body,
(thinking,)
"It should not be,
it should not be mine;
it will not be,
it will not be mine"[1] —
there,
in that step-by-step dwelling,
one in no long time
would cross over
attachment.ud7.8

This passage can also be translated as:

It should not be,
it should not occur to me;
it will not be,
it will not occur to me.

"There is the case, Ananda, where a monk, having practiced in this way
— (thinking) 'It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not
be, it will not occur to me. What is, what has come to be, that I
abandon' — obtains equanimity. He relishes that equanimity, welcomes
it, remains fastened to it. As he relishes that equanimity, welcomes
it, remains fastened to it, his consciousness is dependent on it, is
sustained by it (clings to it). With clinging/sustenance, Ananda, a
monk is not totally unbound."
"Being sustained, where is that monk sustained?"
"The dimension of neither perception nor non-perception."
"Then, indeed, being sustained, he is sustained by the supreme
sustenance."
"Being sustained, Ananda, he is sustained by the supreme sustenance;
for this — the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception — is
the supreme sustenance. There is [however] the case where a monk,
having practiced in this way — 'It should not be, it should not occur
to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me. What is, what has come
to be, that I abandon' — obtains equanimity. He does not relish that
equanimity, does not welcome it, does not remain fastened to it. As he
does not relish that equanimity, does not welcome it, does not remain
fastened to it, his consciousness is not dependent on it, is not
sustained by it (does not cling to it). Without clinging/sustenance,
Ananda, a monk is totally unbound." Mn106

"Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'
"Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world
Sn22.59


text:
Who first claimed that "Gautama Buddha gained enlightenment"?
Some people said to me that , Gautama Buddha never made claims about himself that he had gained enlightenment and on the other hand, some people say that's not true.
Some people have also said to me that this news of enlightenment was probably initiated by one of his disciples after his death.
Here is my question:
Who claimed that Lord Buddha said that that "he obtained enlightenment"?

One reference is Ariyapariyesana Sutta: The Noble Search (MN 26).
The Translator's Introduction says,

Some scholars have suggested that, of the many autobiographical accounts of the Buddha's Awakening presented in the Pali canon, this is the earliest.

It is "autobiography" i.e. a quote of the Buddha's own words.
It doesn't say "enlightened" but then again "enlightened" is an English-language word.

Wikipedia: Enlightenment (spiritual)
Used in a religious sense, enlightenment translates several Buddhist terms and concepts, most notably bodhi,kensho, and satori. Related terms from Asian religions are kaivalya and moksha (liberation) in Hinduism, Kevala Jnana in Jainism, and ushta in Zoroastrianism.

("Bodhi" is also translated "awake" as mentioned in OyaMist's answer).
What MN 26 does say is (translated):

Then, monks, being subject myself to birth, seeing the drawbacks of birth, seeking the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke, Unbinding, I reached the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. Being subject myself to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeing the drawbacks of aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeking the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less, unexcelled rest from the yoke, Unbinding, I reached the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. Knowledge & vision arose in me: 'Unprovoked is my release. This is the last birth. There is now no further becoming.'

That i.e. "reaching the unborn", "unbinding", "release", and "no further becoming" are descriptions or paraphrases of an Arahant -- i.e. the final stage of awakening.
In summary it is the Buddha's own assertion -- which the people who met him sooner or later agreed with.
There's a more explicit version in MN 85

The Realized One is Perfected, a fully awakened Buddha. Listen up, mendicants: I have achieved the Deathless! I shall instruct you, I will teach you the Dhamma. By practicing as instructed you will soon realize the supreme end of the spiritual path in this very life. You will live having achieved with your own insight the goal for which gentlemen rightly go forth from the lay life to homelessness.’
I was able to persuade the group of five mendicants. Then sometimes I advised two mendicants, while the other three went for alms. Then those three would feed all six of us with what they brought back. Sometimes I advised three mendicants, while the other two went for alms. Then those two would feed all six of us with what they brought back.
As the group of five mendicants were being advised and instructed by me like this, they soon realized the supreme end of the spiritual path in this very life.

The Buddha once said:

MN85:49.2: While I was traveling along the road between Gayā and Bodhgaya, the Ājīvaka ascetic Upaka saw me
MN85:49.3: and said,
MN85:49.4: ‘Reverend, your faculties are so very clear, and your complexion is pure and bright.
MN85:49.5: In whose name have you gone forth, reverend? Who is your Teacher? Whose teaching do you believe in?’
MN85:49.6: I replied to Upaka in verse:
MN85:49.7: ‘I am the champion, the knower of all,
MN85:49.8: unsullied in the midst of all things.
MN85:49.9: I’ve given up all, freed in the ending of craving.
MN85:49.10: Since I know for myself, whose follower should I be?
MN85:49.11: I have no teacher.
MN85:49.12: There is no-one like me.
MN85:49.13: In the world with its gods,
MN85:49.14: I have no counterpart.
MN85:49.15: For in this world, I am the perfected one;
MN85:49.16: I am the supreme Teacher.
MN85:49.17: I alone am fully awakened,
MN85:49.18: cooled, extinguished.
MN85:49.19: I am going to the city of Kāsi
MN85:49.20: to roll forth the Wheel of Dhamma.
MN85:49.21: In this world that is so blind,
MN85:49.22: I’ll beat the deathless drum!’
MN85:49.23: ‘According to what you claim, reverend, you ought to be the Infinite Victor.’
MN85:49.24: ‘The victors are those who, like me,
MN85:49.25: have reached the ending of defilements.
MN85:49.26: I have conquered bad qualities, Upaka—
MN85:49.27: that’s why I’m a victor.’
MN85:49.28: When I had spoken, Upaka said: ‘If you say so, reverend.’ Shaking his head, he took a wrong turn and left.

An opportunity for spiritual practice was lost here...

DN34:2.1.138: Furthermore, a Realized One has arisen in the world.
DN34:2.1.139: And a person is reborn in a central country. But they have wrong view and distorted perspective:
DN34:2.1.140: ‘There’s no meaning in giving, sacrifice, or offerings. There’s no fruit or result of good and bad deeds. There’s no afterlife. There are no duties to mother and father. No beings are reborn spontaneously. And there’s no ascetic or brahmin who is well attained and practiced, and who describes the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’
DN34:2.1.141: This is the sixth lost opportunity for spiritual practice.

Focusing on attainments is often an obstacle to practice. Indeed, Buddhists frown on claiming attainments and the Buddha himself is only recorded as saying "Ekomhi sammāsambuddho" (i.e., "I alone am fully awakened") once, to Upaka.
The past is gone. Yet right now, right here, we can all practice together the Noble Eightfold Path.

Is this line I alone am fully awakened....means that Buddha claiming that he is enlightened?

I think awakened and Enlightenment are different things

I propose to take MN 12 as his selfdeclaration. It contains his "Lion's roar", in which he gives characterization of the focus and of the depth of his understanding and knowledge won in the phase after his life-threatening ascese. This example (long!, explicite!) is in the Pali-canon, in the "middle-length discourses" ("Majjhima Nikaya"), Sutta No. 12.

A good resource for the pali-canon in english (and many parallel translations) is at suttacentral.net.
The Majjhima Nikaya index is at MN and the episode/sutta has the name "Mahāsīhanāda Sutta" /"The Longer Discourse on the Lion’s Roar" (direct link to translation by Bhikkhu Sujato, see as well many parallels in various translations there).

But note: what is described there is more the/a complex concept of "awakening"; I wouldn't give it a term like "seeking for enlightenment" - this latter term seems to me to be an absurdely narrow-fenced effect-/event-thinking compared with the long and detailed report of the whole process of "awakening".

In the following sutta the Buddha clearly says he is not a human, deva etc. Rather, he is awakened.
Although we have the term "enlightenment" in English, the more precise term based on the Pali original is "awakened" (Buddha).
The phrase "and so, brahman, I'm awake" (Ven. Thanissaro) also translated as "and so, brahmin, I am a Buddha" (Ven Sujato) comes from the Pali "tasmā buddhosmi brāhmaṇā”ti".
The suttas are discourses, spoken either by the Buddha himself or by his most senior disciples and, was kept alive and recited in full by his senior disciple Ven. Ananda, after the Buddha's passing, in the First Buddhist Council. Then later, it was passed down through generations of monks through memorization and chanting.
Also: deva is god or angel, gandhabba is fairy, yakkha is native spirit.

Then the Blessed One, leaving the road, went to sit at the root of a
certain tree — his legs crossed, his body erect, with mindfulness
established to the fore. Then Dona, following the Blessed One's
footprints, saw him sitting at the root of the tree: confident,
inspiring confidence, his senses calmed, his mind calmed, having
attained the utmost control & tranquility, tamed, guarded, his senses
restrained, a naga. On seeing him, he went to him and said,
"Master, are you a deva?"
"No, brahman, I am not a deva."
"Are you a gandhabba?"
"No..."
"... a yakkha?"
"No..."
"... a human being?"
"No, brahman, I am not a human being."
"When asked, 'Are you a deva?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a
deva.' When asked, 'Are you a gandhabba?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I
am not a gandhabba.' When asked, 'Are you a yakkha?' you answer, 'No,
brahman, I am not a yakkha.' When asked, 'Are you a human being?' you
answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a human being.' Then what sort of being
are you?"
"Brahman, the fermentations by which — if they were not abandoned — I
would be a deva: Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made
like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not
destined for future arising. The fermentations by which — if they were
not abandoned — I would be a gandhabba... a yakkha... a human being:
Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra
stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for
future arising.
"Just like a red, blue, or white lotus — born in the water, grown in
the water, rising up above the water — stands unsmeared by the water,
in the same way I — born in the world, grown in the world, having
overcome the world — live unsmeared by the world. Remember me,
brahman, as 'awakened.' (Buddha)

"The fermentations by which I would go
to a deva-state,
or become a gandhabba in the sky,
or go to a yakkha-state & human-state:
Those have been destroyed by me,
ruined, their stems removed.
Like a blue lotus, rising up,
unsmeared by water,
unsmeared am I by the world,
and so, brahman,
I'm awake."

Dona Sutta (AN 4.36)

The Buddha also described himself as a "fully awakened Buddha" (sammāsambuddha).

If you’ve gone to a wilderness, or to the root of a tree, or to an
empty hut and you get scared or terrified, just recollect me:

‘That Blessed One is perfected, a fully awakened Buddha,
accomplished in knowledge and conduct, holy, knower of the world,
supreme guide for those who wish to train, teacher of gods and humans,
awakened, blessed.’
“itipi so bhagavā arahaṁ sammāsambuddho vijjācaraṇasampanno
sugato lokavidū anuttaro purisadammasārathi satthā devamanussānaṁ
buddho bhagavā”ti.

Then your fear and terror will go away.
SN 11.3


text:
What is the difference between 'Witnessing' and 'Mindfulness' from the context of meditation?
Since for my last question, I did not get a satisfactory answer I am reducing the question to its barebones.
What is the difference between 'Witnessing' and 'Mindfulness' from the context of meditation? I mean when I am looking at the sunset without any thoughts in mind and feel a oneness, am I witnessing the sunset or I am being mindful of the eye-consciousness?
In the Mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta MN 10 the word mindfulness is used, can I replace it with the word, 'Witnessing' without changing the meaning?

But in the original question, you selected a correct answer and also commented on that answer in a way that would suggest you were entirely satisfied.

sati ("mindfulness") is one of the most commonly misunderstood teachings.
It's been distorted by psychotherapy agendas, and even experienced Buddhist teachers have wildly divergent understandings.
If you want the perspective from the original suttas:
There's an implicit object of sati, and that's the Dharma, the Buddha's teaching that leads to nirvana.
One always remembers to apply the Dharma. All the time.
The fourth frame of sati, seeing Dharma as Dharma, is commonly misunderstood to be seeing thoughts (the dhamma that the mind/mano cognizes/viññāna).
But the primary role of seeing Dharma as Dharma, is living each moment in accordance with the Buddha's Dharma, and the dhamma-thoughts cognized by the mind are subservient to that primary objective.
More detail here:
http://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2022/12/two-ways-in-which-sati-mindfulness-is.html

the other answers are already good so I'll just add this quote from wiki regarding witness:

"When form is the object of observation or drshyam, then the eye is
the observer or drk; when the eye is the object of observation, then
the mind is the observer; when the pulsations of the mind are the
objects of observation, then Sakshi or the Witnessing-Self is the real
observer; and it is always the observer, and, being self-luminous, can
never be the object of observation. When the notion and the attachment
that one is the physical body is dissolved, and the Supreme Self is
realized, wherever one goes, there one experiences Samadhi. "

of course I don't see how the eye can be the object of observation but that's just me...i'm not a god

You are right! The eye isn't the object of observation. Eye consciousness is secondary to what it occurs inside of. There isn't even seeing, or someone that sees. The seen appears to move around itself and we create someone behind that activity.

eye-consciousness means the same thing as seeing

Maybe see the Quora thread on Osho's "witness": https://www.quora.com/What-is-witness-meditation-as-described-by-Osho
I can only tell from my personal experience: I've read books where "witnessing" was used synonymously with perceiving with mindfullness (sati) and without follow-up thoughts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_proliferation)
Your sunset example seems to be a mix of different elements: The basic perception process goes from the object (external) to the eye sense organ to perception to sign (nimitta), but then stopping there (if you are right that there is no mental proliferation).
The feeling of oneness seems to be a separate, second perception from your "internal sense organ". However, it's unclear if the source of this feeling is directly the eye-consciousness, if it is mediated by the perception of "beauty", or if it's the result of a separate associative process based on the memories of what Osho told you about oneness.
You may also have a look at oneness and it's background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism
However, attaining advaita usually takes years of meditation practice. Perception of beauty is said (by Sangharakshita somewhere) to provide a glimpse of it.

Mindfulness is situational awareness of the body and its context, which occurs effortlessly at all times. Precisely where that awareness occurs, I have no idea. Awareness isn't the best term, as there is no such thing as awareness, but I don't have another convenient word, at this time. Regardless, when it fully opens up, you are safe there. True mindfulness is the pinnacle of what Buddha taught. Knowing your body and its context leads to the end of suffering. This is why Thich Nhat Hanh called it the safe island of mindfulness. This is not a mindfulness that is performed by cognizant effort, however, when introduced to the idea of being mindful, one is lavished with a range of various mindfulness-based techniques, which may or may not be helpful.
Therefore, if we look at this in progressive terms, we might be able to find an answer to your question. In the beginning, as one approaches the practice of being mindful, one must exert themselves. This very exertion gives mindfulness a definition which makes it stand out from other things - it becomes a routine task, a behaviour that one must perform.
This is the preamble phase where a lot of discernment takes place, or what you might call witnessing. In this preliminary phase, the mind is going through a preparation, from which sensory preoccupations begin to diminish leading to disenchantment.
During that preparation, many questions will arise about the nature of mindfulness, mostly what it actually is, and are you doing it right. These, too, need to become part of what is discerned (or witnessed). Witnessing isn't the best term as it suggests one must push aside thoughts, feelings & sensations so that the witnessing can take place. However, these discernable things must remain intimately close, closer than close. The quality of attention that is used to discern passing phenomena (thoughts, feelings & sensations) is crucial to the whole practice.
In Zen terms, this is called 'sweeping' (popular in the Caodong school) and one sweeps with such persistence and regularity that the great empty sky suddenly opens up and all distinctions dissolve. Why is that? Because the discerning mind becomes disenchanted by what it has become caught inside of and seeks freedom as if all by itself.
Over in the Theravada tradition, in the Anguttara Nikaya and Buddhagosa's Path Of Purification, Page 684 a simile of a crow was used to illustrate the meaning of tathāgatako, which I colloquially translate as 'gone, mate!'. The crow symbolizes the disenchantment of the mind brought about by unrelenting mindfulness practice, and how it searches for another place of rest, which in Buddhist parlance is called Nirvana. It is here where one truly understands mindfulness, but not from the perspective of doing, hence it no longer becomes a task. One might say it is now the ordinary part of daily life.

The 7 Stages of Purification - Page 107

can't we say awareness is the lack of continuity?

@blue_ego - yes, I could go with that. Awareness is what's left when you have collapsed the minds ability to perceive in continuity terms (time & space) usually around the 6th & 7th fetter. That awareness is the I Am conceit. It's a nice place to be, but it's not the end.

Know where I can find that simile in the Anguttara Nikaya, or elsewhere?

Thanks, @stick-in-hand - that last part needed tidying up a little bit, which I've done. ;-)

@stick-in-hand don’t expect anything from max, he has conceit in his lap


text:
taking vows (the Five Precepts) and magic mushrooms
I was thinking about taking vows and I had a few questions:

does cannabis and magic mushrooms count as intoxicants?
does masturbation count as sexual misconduct?

if cannabis and magic mushrooms are in fact intoxicants, can I use them one last time before taking the vows. Just to have that experience one last time

Yes all drugs that affect the mind and causes heedlessness are intoxicants in both the most conventional sense as well as in Buddhist morality.
The issue here is to what point is heedlessness. If you do some study on this subject in suttas you may find out when you are high on cannabis your mind is not heedless. Mine was not when I used to smoke weed regularly but it impeded my meditation practice so i gave it up...eventually.
Essentially heedlessness means unable to control your mind and the defilements which in turn cause you to create negative causes.
Either way all drugs are a waste of time and are obstacles to meditation.
This is coming from someone who has taken loads of different drugs, used to bee a weed head and am still a boozer.
Masturbation is not sexual misconduct in of itself except for a monk as monks (are supposed to) refrain from all sexual activity.
The 2 issues here is your sperm retained is a powerful tool you can use to control your mind and meditation that you should not waste, and more importantly coveting another person is bad for your mind in helping you curb and control desire.
What is sexual immorality is coveting a non sexual object, so a child, a wife, or someone girlfriend or of course your own mother or sister. Gender swap roles if you are a female or homosexual of course. Covetousness is never good either way and I would suggest to only use certain people who you don't covet in your fantasies for only arousal to release or even porn just to arouse you for a release rather than watching it to sustain desire or entertainment.
Further more if at present you are unable to take solemn vows of refraining from intoxication and/or sexual misconduct, you can still take solemn vows of refraining from killing, lying, stealing and when you are truly able to keep to the vows of refraining from intoxication and sexual misconduct, then add them to your already established vows.
Start small if you need to, essentially it is all Sila, morality and a gradual practice of turning your mind from non virtue to virtue.

can I use them one last time

My own experience says "no".
For me a typical cycle is like this:

Try it
Like it
Want it again

and then:

Have it many times
Eventually become sick of it -- at this point, I might think I ought to quit, and that I probably can but don't want to quit quite yet -- and "finally" decide I will quit or try to quit.

Then, having decided to quit:

I'm quitting now so it's OK, I'll just try it once more
As you said in the OP, "have that experience one last time":

experience it again
and then experience its ending/cessation again

Want it again!

The problem now is that having decided it's OK to try it "one last time" the same logic now still holds -- it's OK to try it one last time. And so this becomes the new cycle, once becomes twice, and the circumstances (including sobriety) in which quitting seemed plausible becomes more remote. Meanwhile the harm accumulates.
Theoretically perhaps someone less addicted or less "addictive" than I am might be able to use something "one last time", but experience tells me I'm unable, and that instead "once" becomes "again" and so on. For me, the only way to stop is to stop, never, not once -- to have already stopped.
Here's from Piya Tan's analysis of SN 56.11:

The Dhamma,cakka Pavattana Sutta fully and clearly explains the functions of each of the 4 noble
truths, thus:

The 1st noble truth, that is, suffering is to be understood.
The 2nd noble truth, that is, the arising of suffering is to be abandoned.
The 3rd noble truth, that is, the ending of suffering (nirvana) is to be realized.
The 4th noble truth, that is, the way to the ending of suffering is to be cultivated.

The Sutta is also unique in presenting the 3 phases (ti,parivaṭṭa) of each of the truths, namely:

the knowledge (ie, understanding) of the truth, sacca,ñāṇa
the knowledge of the task to be done regarding each truth, and kicca,ñāṇa
the knowledge of the accomplishment of these tasks. kata,ñāṇa

The commentarial version of these phases is called “the 3 good truths” (saddhamma):

the true Dharma as theory pariyatti.saddhamma (textual aspect),
the true Dharma as practice paṭipatti.saddhamma (moral virtue and meditation), and
the true Dharma as realization paṭivedha.saddhamma (sainthood and freedom).

When these 3 phases are applied to each of the 4 truths, they total as the 12 modes or aspects (dvādas’-ākāra).

Note what it says about "phases" and "knowledge of accomplishment".
Quoting from SN 56.11 itself:

Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before: 'This is the noble truth of the origination of stress'... 'This noble truth of the origination of stress is to be abandoned' ... 'This noble truth of the origination of stress has been abandoned.'
"Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before: 'This is the noble truth of the cessation of stress'... 'This noble truth of the cessation of stress is to be directly experienced'... 'This noble truth of the cessation of stress has been directly experienced.

The "has been"  there is an example of the grammatical perfect tense -- i.e. to have already quit.
On the plus side I can tell you that I very much don't regret -- I feel no remorse about -- the decision to stop completely.
It reminds me of this paragraph ...

For the Ariyan Dhamma, the distinction between the two types of conduct, moral and immoral, is sharp and clear, and this distinction persists all the way through to the consummation of the path: "Bodily conduct is twofold, I say, to be cultivated and not to be cultivated, and such conduct is either the one or the other" (MN 114). The conduct of the ideal Buddhist sage, the arahant, necessarily embodies the highest standards of moral rectitude both in the spirit and in the letter, and for him conformity to the letter is spontaneous and natural. The Buddha says that the liberated one lives restrained by the rules of the Vinaya, seeing danger in the slightest faults. He cannot intentionally commit any breach of the moral precepts, nor would he ever pursue any course of action motivated by desire, hatred, delusion, or fear.

... i.e. "seeing danger in the slightest faults".
I see danger!
And in fact I have quit completely and no longer have the "habit", and more-or-less "uprooted" the "conditions" in which even temptation might occur -- the thought (of "using them once last time") almost never ever occurs -- which I find relatively very pleasant (e.g. compared with "danger").
I'm not claiming to be an Arahant but I figure it's important to be careful about what behaviour I allow myself -- especially habitual behaviour.

Q: does cannabis and magic mushrooms count as intoxicants?

If it can make you heedless or careless, and fall away from observing the first four of the five precepts, then yes, it is considered an intoxicant under the fifth precept.
From the essay "A Discipline of Sobriety" by Ven. Bodhi (the highlighted statements apply to both alcohol and drugs):

To dispel any doubt about his reasons for prescribing this precept,
the Buddha has written the explanation into the rule itself: one is to
refrain from the use of intoxicating drinks and drugs because they are
the cause of heedlessness (pamada). Heedlessness means moral
recklessness, disregard for the bounds between right and wrong. It is
the loss of heedfulness (appamada), moral scrupulousness based on a
keen perception of the dangers in unwholesome states. Heedfulness is
the keynote of the Buddhist path, "the way to the Deathless," running
through all three stages of the path: morality, concentration, and
wisdom. To indulge in intoxicating drinks is to risk falling away from
each stage. The use of alcohol blunts the sense of shame and moral
dread and thus leads almost inevitably to a breach of the other
precepts. One addicted to liquor will have little hesitation to lie or
steal, will lose all sense of sexual decency, and may easily be
provoked even to murder. Hard statistics clearly confirm the close
connection between the use of alcohol and violent crime, not to speak
of traffic accidents, occupational hazards, and disharmony within the
home. Alcoholism is indeed a most costly burden on the whole society.

Please also see this answer.

Q: does masturbation count as sexual misconduct?

For lay persons, sexual or sensual misconduct (defined in MN 41) is more about adultery, infidelity, and a sensual relationship outside of a committed exclusive relationship (or marriage) with a free consenting adult (of legal age), rather than a specific sexual practice or fetish.
The purpose of this precept is to remove potential animosity with others and also to remove the remorse of hurting others.
Please also see this answer.

Funny that explanation on alcohol because I can get absolutely blasted and not loose my morality at all, as in it does not cause me to be headless, though this was not always the case so I have "learned" to not become headless by vast years of boozing it hard!


text:
Wholesome Actions, Three Poisons, and Dukkha
I was thinking about whether the goal of a wholesome action is to reduce suffering (dukkha) or to "shrink" the roots of suffering, namely craving, desire or aversion (the three poisons). In fact, there are actions that temporarily create more suffering with the ultimate goal of eliminating its roots---This is the case with exposure therapy, where a psychotherapist exposes a patient to the object of their phobia in order to train them to let go of the aversion towards it.
This leads me to three questions:

Is it sometimes wholesome to perform actions that can temporarily lead to suffering with the goal of "shrinking" its roots?

If so, how much suffering is allowed in order to "shrink" its roots? For example, can a Master lead someone towards a path that includes a lot of suffering in this lifetime if they know it to be necessary to eliminate the roots of suffering in the next?

Do wholesome actions always lead to a "shrinking" of the roots of suffering (ignorance, craving, and aversion)? It seems possible to me that this is not the case. Take for example the case of a Master who---with the best of intentions---exposes someone to an advanced insight. Two scenarios:

This person was not ready for the teaching and ends up developing more ignorance, craving and aversion. Did he perform an unwholesome action?
He didn't realize that five other people were listening to this teaching through the door and they were not ready for it. Unwillingly, he ends up creating more ignorance, aversion, and desire in these five. Did he perform an unwholesome action?

You're rightly concerned, if you treat teaching as an objective event with no regard of its appropriate audience, then any such "wholesome" teaching with spiritual advancement as its ultimate goal will have side/negative effect for those misunderstood. That's why master teaching is extremely rare and hard to find, and some sutras mentioned Buddha's single teaching voice became different voice to every different listening disciple. It's entirely unlike our common Q&A online digital exchange in fixed literal words and alphabets, in other words, such teaching is not replicable digitally...

Having said above, btw regarding your understanding of suffering, according to Vajra Sutra there's only suffering coming and ceasing, so how can any "wholesome" teaching reduce or shrink an iota of it? I believe you mean the degree of some physical or psychic suffering, and here of course we're most interested in the latter kind. Bear in mind the more psychic suffering doesn't necessarily mean it should be shrinked or reduced, sometimes the more degree of such suffering the better enlightenment...

Is it sometimes wholesome to perform actions that can temporarily lead to suffering with the goal of "shrinking" its roots?

There is this

Now at that time a baby boy was lying face-up on the prince’s lap. So
the Blessed One said to the prince, “What do you think, prince? If
this young boy, through your own negligence or that of the nurse, were
to take a stick or a piece of gravel into its mouth, what would you
do?”
“I would take it out, lord. If I couldn’t get it out right away, then
holding its head in my left hand and crooking a finger of my right, I
would take it out, even if it meant drawing blood. Why is that?
Because I have sympathy for the young boy.”
“In the same way, prince:
....
[3] In the case of words that the Tathāgata knows to be factual, true,
beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense
of the proper time for saying them. - Mn58

This shows that sometimes it is necessary to inflict a larger amount suffering so that the suffering in the future is lessened. But it doesn't really mention that it's ok for the prince to inflict suffering on the boy for spiritual advancement purposes.

"Intention (cetana) I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by
way of body, speech, & intellect." - The Nibbedhika Sutta, Anguttara
Nikaya 6.63

It’s important to distinguish between activity that clings to particular outcomes, and is aversive to others, and activity which recognises the futility of that. Great Compassion comes from Bodhicitta, the spontaneous wish for all beings to attain release from suffering. In that sense, the outcome has no impact on that, the intention is wholesome. But that encounters the negative behaviour of getting a teaching not suited to them, from their karma.
I read that Ananda gave the wrong teachings: He taught a blacksmith to contemplate the unpleasantness of the body, and a washerwoman to count breaths, and they both became iccantikas. The correct teachings were given, and they both attained awakening.
So, I would talk about it as skilful or unskillful. Buddhism generally is not characterised by secret teachings (with notable exceptions), and I would point to this kind of circumstance as why. Say if a child got hold of something dangerous; causally, the child is responsible. But skilful parenting, means don’t leave knives out.


text:
Is the Pali Canon the final authority in the Theravada tradition?
In the Theravada tradition is the Pali Canon viewed as the final truth?   In other words, are the Buddha's teachings viewed as the final authority which cannot be revised or are his teachings subject to possible enhancement or even revision by later enlightened ones in the way Newton laws were later made even more accurate by Einstein's work?

One would think that Canon is that and most will tell you that it is.
It is my impression that in practice one will find that some monks might more so go by what their teacher taught, might not care too much about what is canonical and may be looking for 'late additions' or 'fake texts' where canon is disagreeable to them if they were to study it.
If one says 'I don't like the Theravadin Abhidhamma, i don't like the  commentary and i think some Suttas might be fake'. It wouldn't be difficult to find a group that will take him in as long as one conforms to what the founders of that lineage taught.

The pali canon actually includes work that is not actually from the Buddha. The abhidhamma for eg are full systematic explanations of the mind and the practices that was created by the sangha to systematically arrange the Buddhas teachings, it is in of itself not the words of the Buddha.
Similar with the jataka and the dhammapada, in fact afaik the entire Khuddaka Nikāya is not specifically the words of the buddha although it is a part of the tipitika. The 4 nikiyas ARE the teachings of the Buddha, of course arranged by the sangha themself but not in a ontological sense like the abhidamma was.
As for a next Buddha adding to the past Buddhas teachings, not so much as the Buddha explained the full dhama and this dhama is ultimate truths that a next Buddha will himself find. There is no addition to it by definition of it being the highest ultimate truths about reality.
There is certain requirements that a Budddha has to do to be a continuation of the previous Budddha and there are predictions about it like what tree he will sit under to reach liberation though matreya is the only one the Buddha predicted.

The Buddha said that he has taught all that is necessary for liberation. He may have known more than what he taught but those things are unnecessary for liberation.
So there's no need to search for more teachings beyond what the Buddha himself had taught in his lifetime.

On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Kosambi in a siṁsapa
grove. Then the Blessed One took up a few siṁsapa leaves in his hand
and addressed the bhikkhus thus: “What do you think, bhikkhus, which
is more numerous: these few siṁsapa leaves that I have taken up in my
hand or those in the siṁsapa grove overhead?” “Venerable sir, the
siṁsapa leaves that the Blessed One has taken up in his hand are few,
but those in the siṁsapa grove overhead are numerous.”
“So too, bhikkhus, the things I have directly known but have not
taught you are numerous, while the things I have taught you are few.
And why, bhikkhus, have I not taught those many things? Because they
are unbeneficial, irrelevant to the fundamentals of the holy life, and
do not lead to revulsion, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to
direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbāna. Therefore I have not
taught them.
“And what, bhikkhus, have I taught? I have taught: ‘This is
suffering’; I have taught: ‘This is the origin of suffering’; I have
taught: ‘This is the cessation of suffering’; I have taught: ‘This is
the way leading to the cessation of suffering.’ And why, bhikkhus,
have I taught this? Because this is beneficial, relevant to the
fundamentals of the holy life, and leads to revulsion, to dispassion,
to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to
Nibbāna. Therefore I have taught this.
“Therefore, bhikkhus, an exertion should be made to understand: ‘This
is suffering.’… An exertion should be made to understand: ‘This is the
way leading to the cessation of suffering.’”
SN 56.31

The point is the bigest data, highest experience, highest trust, highest level of influence to people decision  by the Buddha's practice along four uncountable kalpa plus hundred thousand kalpa of the Buddha.
No one has same practice, but the Buddha.
So, the  final authority is the Buddha and people who practice hardest follow him in 8 mastery Jhana of 40+ practices, 8 specialist knowledge and entire tipitaka pali professional memorizing, according to VN1 VeranjaKanda, DN28 SampasadaniyaSutta, DN10 SubhaSutta, and VN Pātimokkhaṭṭhapanakkhandhaka.
Someone may think the authority is Dhamma, but the truth is some dhamma is wholesome, some dhamma is unwholesome. We don't really know which is really wholesome which is really unwholesome without the bigest data, highest experience, highest trust, highest level of influence to people decision  by the Buddha's practice along four uncountable kalpa plus hundred thousand kalpa of the Buddha. And we can practice follow people who practice from the past generation professors to the previous generation professors who practiced inadvance of the 8 mastery Jhana of 40+ practices, 8 specialist knowledge and entire tipitaka pali professional memorizing.
Nothing easy but it's really worth more than Einstein's work uncountable times.


text:
Looking for the source of a story about the Buddha and a lady who looked the other way
I'm searching for a Sutra (or possibly a commentary) but it has escaped me. My recollection is hazy, but it is about one of the Buddha's monks (most likely Ven. Ananda or Ven. Sariputta) asking the Buddha three times to teach an elderly lady.
The Buddha finally entertained the request, but as he approached the lady it is said she turned the other way. The Buddha then approached the lady from the other 9 directions but she always turned away from the Buddha.
I would like to be able to reference the source as I think it is relevant to illustrate the role or importance of positive affinities when teaching living beings.
Here is how someone else remembers the story: So Buddha walks up to her, she turns away. Buddha repeats this in every direction, and even multiple directions (by using his powers) and she just turns to the direction she can't see him. He floats, she just looks down. Then Buddha sends Ananda to talk to her. She greets him warmly, and accepts the Dharma from him. So the disciples ask why the lady rejected the Buddha so. Buddha explains that both Ananda and the Buddha met this lady in a past life. She was just about to send-off her dead husband and was grief-stricken. Buddha was a wandering scholar who told her about impermanence and that grieving is of no use. She was affronted at his blunt advice. Whereas Ananda consoled her by hugging her and saying reassuring words. Therefore the lady has favorable affinities with Ananda instead (sic).
BTW I'm a Mahayana Bhikkhu. In my study and teachings I reference both Theravada and Mahayana texts equally. My fellow bhikshus know of the story but not the origin either. I've been looking out for this in my many years of practice. I have not been able to find it in my studies of the Pali Tripitaka nor in major Mahayana texts. Thank you in advance.

Found it. For anyone in the future who's interested. Source: THE TREATISE ON THE GREAT VIRTUE OF WISDOM OF NĀGĀRJUNA (MAHĀPRAJÑĀPĀRAMITĀŚĀSTRA)
One day, accompanied by Ānanda, the Buddha went to Śrāvastī on his alms-round. A poor old woman was standing at the roadside. Ānanda said to the Buddha: "This woman is worthy of compassion; the Buddha should save her." The Buddha replied: "This woman does not have the conditions required [to be saved]."
Ānanda continued: "May the Buddha approach her. When she sees the Buddha with his major marks (lakṣaṇa) and minor marks (anuvyañjana) and his rays (raśmi), she will experience a joyful mind (muditācitta) and will thus fulfill the required conditions." Then the Buddha came near the woman, but she turned away and showed her back to him. The Buddha tried to approach her from four different sides; each time she turned her back to him in the same way. She looked up in the air, but when the Buddha came down to her, she lowered her head at once. The Buddha rose up from the earth [to make her see him], but she lowered her face with her hands and did not want to look at the Buddha. Then the Buddha said to Ānanda: "What more can I do? Everything is useless; there are people who do not fulfill the conditions necessary for being saved and who do not succeed in seeing the Buddha." That is why the Buddha has said that it is as difficult to meet a Buddha as a flower on the udumbara tree. With the Buddha, it is like rainwater (varṣajala), easy to receive in folded hands, but which the pretas, ever thirsty, never get.
Now that I know the source, an alternative translation was easy to find:
Source: Marvelous Stories From The Perfection Of Wisdom - Nagarjuna, translated by Bhikshu Dharmamitra (Kalavinka Press)
The Buddha Attempts to Connect with an Old Woman
Introductory Exegesis Discussion: The Rarity of Meeting a Buddha
The Buddha said that there is one situation which is difficult to encounter. It is that of meeting up with a buddha, one of the World Honored Ones. He also said that in a period of ninety-one kalpas, only three kalpas have buddhas whereas the rest of the kalpas are all empty. They have no buddha. It is extremely lamentable. The Buddha explained this circumstance for the sake of those who are burdened by severe karmic offenses and who have not planted the roots of goodness whereby they might see a buddha, stating, “The difficulty of encountering an age in which there is a buddha is like that of encountering the blossoms of the udumbara tree which appear only once in a great long time.” People with karmic offenses such as these turn about in the three wretched destinies. Perhaps they may come to abide among men or gods at a time when a buddha appears in the world but, still, these people do not succeed in seeing him even then. As it has been told, there were nine hundred thousand households in the city of Śrāvastī among whom three hundred thousand actually saw the Buddha, three hundred thousand heard of the existence of the Buddha but never saw him, and the remaining three hundred thousand neither heard of nor saw him. Although the Buddha dwelt in the state of Śrāvastī for twenty-five years, still, these beings neither heard of him nor saw him. How much the less did those who dwelt at a distance.
Story: The Buddha Attempts to Connect with an Old Woman
In addition, we have the exemplary case wherein the Buddha once went together with Ānanda into the city of Śrāvastī seeking almsfood. At just that time there was a poverty-stricken old mother who was standing at the end of the street. Ānanda said to the Buddha, “This person is pitiable. The Buddha should bring her to deliverance.” The Buddha replied, “This person has no conducive causes and conditions.” Ānanda said, “Would that the Buddha would just go forth and approach her. When this person sees the Buddha’s special characteristics and becomes aware of the light which he radiates, she will develop a delighted mind and will thereby create conducive causes and conditions.”
The Buddha then went forth and approached her with the result that she turned her body so that her back was towards the Buddha. The Buddha then approached her from each of the four sides and in each case she turned her back towards the Buddha and raised her head so as to gaze upwards. And so the Buddha approached from above with the result that she then lowered her head so as to look downwards. The Buddha emerged from the ground beneath her, but she then covered her eyes with both hands and, even then, was unable to gaze at the Buddha. The Buddha then inquired of Ānanda, “Well, just what further causes and conditions would you wish to have created now?”
Nāgārjuna’s Concluding Comments
There are people such as these who are lacking in the causes and conditions requisite to being brought to deliverance. They are unable to succeed in seeing the Buddha. It is for this reason that the Buddha said that the rarity of being able to encounter the Buddha is comparable to that of being able to see the blossoms of the udumbara tree. This is analogous to the situation of the hungry ghosts who, even when rainwater is abundant and easily found everywhere, still remain constantly thirsty and unable to find anything at all to drink.


text:
Is repeating words in mind necessary to some meditations in Theravada? Why or why not?
According to Visuddhimagga, focusing on breath does't require repeating "inhalation, exhalation..." in mind (at least it seems that the book doesn't explicitly tell that) . However, the 10 Kasinas and the 10 foulness may need repetitive words in mind. For example:

"Anyone else should use that same kind of circle of luminosity just described, developing it as “luminosity, luminosity” or “light, light.”(Vm. The Remaining Kasinas.The Light Kasina)

I think that the principle of the 10 Kasinas is focusing on concepts of meaning. So maybe repeating the concepts of word isn't necessary.
Many modern experts also imply repeating words when meditating but give no further explanation.

Why don't you then go practice according to your own thoughts/method and see what happens and report back here?

I use mental verbalizations of the in-&-out breathing as to cut off [replacing] distracting thoughts should there be any.

He should develop...mindfulness of in-&-out breathing so as to cut off thinking. Meghiya Sutta Ud4.1

I assume that can be said in reference to this

When evil unskillful thoughts connected with desire, hate, and delusion arise in a bhikkhu through reflection on an adventitious object, he should, (in order to get rid of that), reflect on a different object which is connected with skill. Then the evil unskillful thoughts are eliminated; they disappear. By their elimination, the mind stands firm, settles down, becomes unified and concentrated, just within (his subject of meditation).
Like an experienced carpenter or carpenter's apprentice, striking hard at, pushing out, and getting rid of a coarse peg with a fine one, should the bhikkhu in order to get rid of the adventitious object, reflect on a different object which is connected with skill. Then the evil unskillful thoughts connected with desire, hate and delusion are eliminated; they disappear. By their elimination the mind stands firm, settles down, becomes unified and concentrated, just within (his subject of meditation). MN 20
Vitakkasanthana Sutta: The Removal of Distracting Thoughts

When developing perceptions of death, inconstancy, not-self, unattractiveness one has to contemplate reflecting on these things.
Sometime one will direct the mind to a theme connected with skill and withdraw from that when the mind has been gladdened or when the unwholesome perceptions have been stilled. Having withdrawn one stops thinking and remains mindful without thinking.


text:
Do Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana teach any form of solipsism?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/#AnotHist
Buddhism is sometimes compared to solipsism.
Discussions on this topic can be found on the Internet. I do not understand why Buddhism is sometimes compared to solipsism.
As far as I know, in all schools and sects of Buddhism Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana there is a doctrine of anatman (no-self), and in all schools and sects of Buddhism a special role is played by compassion (in the Mahayana there are Bodhisattvas who swear to deprive all people of suffering).
Also, all schools of Buddhism say that each person consists of skandhas. How then can this be solipsism?
As far as I understand, Buddhism cannot teach solipsism at all.
Do Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana teach any form of solipsism?
Or is it just that someone doesn't understand what they are talking about?

This question was closed as a duplicate of existing questions. The duplicate questions have been linked. All of those linked questions contain around 16 answers in total. Please see if they answer your question too. I don't see why or how this question would be different from those questions.

Another possible duplicate with 2 answers: Is Buddhism methodological solipsism? (itself closed as a duplicate)

Related: Why is the Yogācāra school called 'mind only'?, Do Cittamatra / Yogacara explicitly refute the existence of an external world?, What is the difference between Yogacara Buddhism and Idealism?


text:
Doesn't pīti mean love?
I am indian. And in all indian languages Priti means love. And even in abhidhamma I found a statement that it's towards the object. interest in object. Whereas sukha is from the object.
I sometime feel my breathing so comfortable that i just love/like that effortless breathing.
Isn't this pīti?
Why we made so difficult word like rapture? And making it more complicated.

Ordinary words can be converted into technical terms.
For e.g. in English, the ordinary word "reduction" means "the action or fact of making something smaller or less in amount, degree, or size".
But in medicine, a technical term was created out of "reduction" which means "the restoration of a displaced or broken part of the body to its proper position or alignment by manipulation or other surgical procedure."
So, similarly, piti may have an ordinary meaning in Pali and other Indian languages, but for jhana, the Buddha turned it into a technical term.
You can find some info in the Rapture (piti) section of "The Jhanas in Theravada Buddhist Meditation" by Ven. Henepola Gunaratana:

Rapture (piti)
The third factor present in the first jhana is piti, usually
translated as joy or rapture. In the suttas piti is sometimes said
to arise from another quality called pamojja, translated as joy or
gladness, which springs up with the abandonment of the five
hindrances. When the disciple sees the five hindrances abandoned in
himself "gladness arises within him; thus gladdened, rapture arises in
him; and when he is rapturous his body becomes tranquil" (D.i,73).
Tranquillity in turn leads to happiness, on the basis of which the
mind becomes concentrated. Thus rapture precedes the actual arising of
the first jhana, but persists through the remaining stages up to the
third jhana.
The Vibhanga defines piti as "gladness, joy, joyfulness, mirth,
merriment, exultation, exhilaration, and satisfaction of mind" (Vbh.
257). The commentaries ascribe to it the characteristic of endearing,
the function of refreshing the body and mind or pervading with
rapture, and the manifestation as elation (Vism.143; PP.149). Shwe Zan
Aung explains that "piti abstracted means interest of varying
degrees of intensity, in an object felt as desirable or as calculated
to bring happiness."
When defined in terms of agency, piti is that which creates interest
in the object; when defined in terms of its nature it is the interest
in the object. Because it creates a positive interest in the object,
the jhana factor of rapture is able to counter and suppress the
hindrance of ill will, a state of aversion implying a negative
evaluation of the object.
Rapture is graded into five categories: minor rapture, momentary
rapture, showering rapture, uplifting rapture and pervading rapture.
Minor rapture is generally the first to appear in the progressive
development of meditation; it is capable of causing the hairs of the
body to rise. Momentary rapture, which is like lightning, comes next
but cannot be sustained for long. Showering rapture runs through the
body in waves, producing a thrill but without leaving a lasting
impact. Uplifting rapture, which can cause levitation, is more
sustained but still tends to disturb concentration, The form of
rapture most conductive to the attainment of jhana is all-pervading
rapture, which is said to suffuse the whole body so that it becomes
like a full bladder or like a mountain cavern inundated with a mighty
flood of water. The Visuddhimagga states that what is intended
by the jhana factor of rapture is this all-pervading rapture "which
is the root of absorption and comes by growth into association with
absorption" (Vism.144; PP.151)

Piti is mental cetasika.. So when you say hairs to rise.. that part is phisical. isnt it. that must be sukha feeling. isnt it?

@enRaiser No. Piti is psycho-physical. Sukha is mental only.

Thanks a lot. The right word is psychogenic. so pīti is psychogenic. I studied difference between psychosomatic and psychogenic. and found that pīti is more closed to psychogenic.

I was wondering if there is any word called phisiogenic..hahah. in that case it could mean somanassa in pali ;)

@enRaiser What's the difference between psychogenic and psychosomatic?

I think psychosomatic means that the symptoms can either be initiated from mind or body. e.g fever, hunger etc. where as for psychogenic it can only be initiated from mind like goosbump, chill etc. I am not sure..


text:
Are Charnel Grounds still a thing?
I wonder in how far the burning of human corpses in the open is still a thing?
Ideally looking for a place where there are always burnings and corpses and mourning.
Heard it's suitable from the Dhutanga chapter of the Visuddhimagga:

Even in sleep the dweller in a charnel ground shows naught
Of negligence, for death is ever present to his thought;
He may be sure there is no lust after sense pleasure preys
Upon his mind, with many corpses present to his gaze.
Rightly he strives because he gains a sense of urgency,
While in his search for final peace he curbs all vanity.
Let him that feels a leaning to Nibbána in his heart
Embrace this practice for it has rare virtues to impart

Chogyam Trungpa said:

Charnel ground is a symbol of no man's land. It is the ground where birth and death take place; it is prelife and postlife experience. The idea of the charnel ground is that all kinds of experiences coexist simultaneously;

It is a place to die and a place to be born, equally, at the same time -- a wasteland of some kind. The closest thing to a charnel ground in this country is a hospital -- a place where you give birth and a place where death is performed. But the charnel ground is much more than a hospital situation. It is simply our basic raw and rugged nature, the ground where we constantly puke and fall down, constantly make a mess. We are constantly dying, we are constantly giving birth. We are eating on the charnel ground, shitting on it, sleeping on it, having nightmares on it. That basic ground which we use all the time is what is known as the charnel ground.

You might feel threatened because the environment is very spooky. You have to give up your arrogance. Giving that up is connected with devotion. Having related with longing and with the absence of arrogance you have to surrender completely. In other words, everything takes place in the charnel ground. It is a place of birth and a place of death.

so as you can see, in Buddhism it's not so much about literal unburied cemetery as it is about naked truth of existence as it is, complete with horrifying and inspiring aspects. Hospital is one place you can experience that naked quality, a country at war could be another, or, if you are really sensitive, you can see the charnel ground aspect in all of our everyday situations.

I wonder in how far the burning of human corpses in the open is still a thing?

Ideally looking for a place where there are always burnings and corpses and mourning.

More active than ever been, look at Eastern Ukraine, plenty of burning of human corpses everywhere, on the streets, inside schools, hospitals,... and inside battle tanks.

Unsuitable, pācittiya 48, 49, 50

Well, you said: "Ideally looking for a place where there are always burnings and corpses and mourning." and i've provided u exactly what you're looking for

It's not a charnel ground just because a corpse is burning there. Inside a tank is a charnel ground? I was asking a serious question about one of the dhutangas (susanik'anga).

and just because it's not a charnel ground doesn't mean it's not a serious object of contemplation. In fact, the charrred remains of bodies and tanks is just as effective, if not even more in helping one in their contemplation. I gave a serious answer.

The question was about charnel grounds tho. Anyway this isn't important. Thank you for the answer

I suppose that places like Varanasi would meet the letter of your description (i.e. "burning of human corpses in the open" and "a place where there are always burnings and corpses and mourning").
I haven't been there -- this English newspaper article (with photographs) says, I don't know how truthfully

But the atmosphere at the giant funeral site is not one of sorrow, as mourners instead laugh, chat and play cards as the funeral preparations are carried out.
...
The closest male relative must perform the funeral rites, while women are traditionally not allowed to be present for fear they will cry and ruin the respectful atmosphere.

But my image of a "charnel ground" would be of abandoned, unburnt, decaying corpses; not a lot of human presence; and maybe carrion-eaters -- like a graveyard except where corpses are not buried nor cremated.
Wikipedia: Charnel ground says

Throughout Ancient India and Medieval India, charnel grounds in the form of open air crematoria were historically often located along rivers and many ancient famous charnel sites are now 'sanitized' pilgrimage sites (Sanskrit: tirtha) and areas of significant domestic income through cultural tourism. However, proper "charnel grounds" can still be found in India, especially near large rivers banks and areas where abandoned people (without family) are cremated or simply left to decompose.

... and cites suttas

'Cemetery contemplations', as described in Mahasatipatthana Sutta (DN: 22) and the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta (MN: 10):

...have as their objects a corpse one or two or three days old, swollen up, blue-black in colour, full of corruption; a corpse eaten by crows, etc.; a framework of bones; flesh hanging from it, bespattered with blood, held together by the sinews; without flesh and blood, but still held together by the sinews; bones scattered in all direction; bleached and resembling shells; heaped together after the lapse of years; weathered and crumbled to dust.
At the end of each of these contemplations there follows the conclusion: "This body of mine also has this nature, has this destiny, cannot escape it."

Similar are the 10 objects of loathsomeness (asubha q.v.).

No modern, industrialized nation still uses anything akin to charnel grounds, mainly because they have turned the disposal of corpses into a highly regulated industry. Corpses within densely populated urban societies are a significant health hazard. Even within moments of pressure (such as epidemics with high fatality rates) industrialized nations prefer mass graves to open-air cremation or natural decomposition. Mass graves preserve a minimal sense of dignity for the corpse, where fire-pits would appear as an act of panic or an all-too-visible symbol of despair.
Certain tribal groups still maintain open lands designated for cremation or open-air decomposition, most notable Indian and Native American groups. These would technically amount to charnel grounds, although — because of the prohibitive cost of funereal pyres in India, and the relatively sparse populations of traditional Native Americans — they don't see excessive use that might be hazardous or disruptive to surrounding communities.
There are, interestingly, body farms where researchers study the decomposition of human remains under a variety of natural and artificial conditions. Research considerations aside, these farms do roughly resemble charnel grounds.

You could always work at a morgue. In america there are corpse farms where crime scene investigators practice their skills.