text:
Sila before samatha, samatha before vipassana according to AN 11.1-3?
In discourses given to monks in AN11.1, AN11.2 and AN11.3, the Buddha gave very similar messages on the purpose and benefit of virtue (sila) and how it leads to knowledge and vision of release.
I quote the Thanissaro translation of AN11.1:

“Thus in this way, Ananda, skillful virtues (sīlā) have freedom from
  remorse as their purpose, freedom from remorse as their reward.
  Freedom from remorse (avippaṭisāro) has joy as its purpose, joy as its
  reward. Joy (pāmojjaṃ) has rapture as its purpose, rapture as its
  reward. Rapture (pīti) has serenity as its purpose, serenity as its
  reward. Serenity (passaddhi) has pleasure as its purpose, pleasure as
  its reward. Pleasure (sukhaṃ) has concentration as its purpose,
  concentration as its reward. Concentration (samādhi) has knowledge &
  vision of things as they actually are as its purpose, knowledge &
  vision of things as they actually are as its reward. Knowledge &
  vision of things as they actually are (yathābhūtañāṇadassanaṃ) has
  disenchantment as its purpose, disenchantment as its reward.
  Disenchantment (nibbidā) has dispassion as its purpose, dispassion as
  its reward. Dispassion (virāgo) has knowledge & vision of release as
  its purpose, knowledge & vision of release (vimuttiñāṇadassana) as its
  reward.

According to the Yuganaddha Sutta (AN4.170) spoken by Ananda, insight can be developed before concentration, or concentration can be developed before insight, or both can be developed in tandem.
However, in the AN11.1-3 suttas spoken by the Buddha, the chain of causes starts with virtues (sila), and passes through rapture (piti), pleasure (sukham), concentration (samadhi), then goes to "knowledge and vision of things as they actually are" (yathābhūtañāṇadassanaṃ).
To my understanding, "knowledge and vision of things as they actually are" is the goal of vipassana (insight), right?
So, I take it that AN 11.1-3 implies the following sequence:

Every person (monk or lay person) should start with the cultivation of virtues (sila) - the starting point for virtue according to other suttas is the five precepts
Virtues (sila) eventually leads one to rapture (sila), pleasure (sukham) and concentration (samadhi), which is the goal of samatha (tranquility) meditation.
Samatha (tranquility) meditation then leads on to vipassana (insight) meditation
Vipassana (insight) meditation results in the "knowledge and vision of things as they actually are"

So, is my interpretation correct that the correct sequential order of practice is first sila, followed by samatha, followed by vipassana?
On the other hand, MN 149 does say:

Thus for him, having thus developed the noble eightfold path, the four
  frames of reference go to the culmination of their development. The
  four right exertions... the four bases of power... the five
  faculties... the five strengths... the seven factors for Awakening go
  to the culmination of their development. [And] for him these two
  qualities occur in tandem: tranquility & insight.

So, which is the right interpretation?

The one in AN 4.170 stating that insight before tranquility or
tranquility before insight or tranquility in tandem with insight, are
all good.
The one in MN 149 stating that tranquility and insight happens in tandem
The one in AN 11.1-3 stating clearly that virtues should come before tranquility, and tranquility should come before insight?

Samadhi (concentration) is not samatha (tranquility). The whole question uses terminology wrongly. I voted to close the question. The question merely creates confusion for impressionable people who are blinded by the impression of scholarship in the question.

As I explained in "Is samatha meditation more suited to lay people than vipassana?", the factors of "being good", "feeling good", "calming down", "understanding", and "liberation" are designed to support each other.
In Mahayana, it is generally understood that the exact path depends on the student's propensity.
People of intellectual type are better suited for "understanding"-first paths.
Simple people caught up in the drama of life, are better suited for "calming down"-first paths.
For most people in between these theoretical extremes, there is a mixture of "understanding" and "calming down" developed in tandem, with slightly more accent on one or the other, depending on exact situation.
For people of extremely brilliant intuition, there's the fourth path of cutting through directly to suchness. Again in real life these "extremely bright" students do not exist. There is usually some combination of study and practice required to remove all doubts.
The general principle here is that the coarsest / biggest / most obvious obstacles should be removed first. I think it was Thrangu Rinpoche who went as far as to say that we should work on them one at a time, completely focusing on the worst mental/emotional/behavioral issue until it's resolved, before moving on to next.

The question has so many errors in it that it is difficult to know where to start how to answer.
First, there is no evidence the Buddha spoke every sutta, particularly in the dodgy Anguttara Nikaya. Therefore, it is wrong to think the Buddha gave all of these messages.
Second, samatha is not samadhi. Samatha is a fruit of samadhi, just as vipassana is a fruit of a samadhi. Therefore, AN 4.170 does not say insight can be developed before concentration (samadhi). AN 4.170 is not about samadhi (concentration).
Third, samadhi must always occur before samatha; just as samadhi must also occur before vipassana (yathābhūtañāṇadassanaṃ). However, when samadhi is right, the occurring of vipassana will often occur simultaneously. Therefore, it is incorrect to say the dhammas in AN 11.1 are developed separately. These dhammas occur automatically following from eachother.
Fourth, AN 11.1-3 do not say every person (monk or lay person) should start with the "cultivation" of virtues (sila). The Noble Eightfold Path says the practitioner starts with Right View and when Right View is established the virtues will automatically be established. Why does virtue need to be "cultivated"? How is non-killing cultivated? How is not taking drugs cultivated? Is not taking drugs "cultivated" by reducing daily drug intake from 10 drugs, to 8 drugs, to 6 drugs, to 4 drugs, to 2 drugs, to 0 drugs? These virtues are not "cultivated". As soon as there is non-killing, non-stealing, non-sexing, non-lying and non-drugging the virtue is immediate.
Fifth, the interpretation is not correct that the correct sequential order of practice is first sila, followed by samatha, followed by vipassana because samatha is not concentration (samadhi). In the Anapanasati Sutta, the phrase: "He trains himself" is continuously used. The means, with every in-breath & with every out-breath, the practitioner trains themselves in sila, samadhi & panna. This training occurs simultaneously because when the mind has samadhi, the mind has sila and the mind has wisdom. When the mind has wisdom, the mind has sila and the mind has samadhi. The forerunner is wisdom, as said in MN 117. Without wisdom, morality cannot be established. Therefore, the practise of sila cannot occur first. This is why the Noble Eightfold Path does not start with sila (morality).
Sixth, when virtues (sila) lead to rapture (piti) and pleasure (sukham), this rapture & happiness do not refer to factors of jhana. It is merely the joy the mind has in knowing clearly it is living morally in the right way in not harming onself & others.
Seventh, concentration (samadhi) is not the goal of samatha (tranquility) meditation. There is no such thing as samatha (tranquility) meditation. The meditation is called "samadhi bhavana" and samatha (tranquility) is a goal of samadhi meditation.
Eighth, samatha (tranquility) meditation does not lead on to vipassana (insight) meditation. Samatha is unrelated to vipassana because both samatha & vipassana are fruits/results of concentration (samadhi).
Ninth, MN 149 says:

Thus for him, having thus developed the noble eightfold path, the four frames of reference go to the culmination of their development.
  The four right exertions... the four bases of power... the five
  faculties... the five strengths... the seven factors for Awakening go
  to the culmination of their development. [And] for him these two
  qualities occur in tandem: tranquility & insight.

MN 149 says from right view comes right morality comes right concentration comes tranquility and insight. MN 149 does not contradict the dodgy suttas in the Anguttara Nikaya because samadhi is not samatha and samatha is not samadhi.

Samatha leading is for  taṇhācarita, vipassanā leading is for diṭṭhicarita.
The tandem-bhāvanā is balava-vipassanā (pahāna-pariññā) and above, the proper-bhāvanā before that is depend on the purification of steps, like I described in the link above. Because if 2 base-purified-steps (sīla&samatha) are not pure enough, 5 head-purified-steps can't  be tandem with samatha-purified-steps.

AN11.1

AN11.1 is for person who already practiced sīla [purified virtual;sīlavisuddhi], so your qoute is just a part, not whole process line.

Every person (monk or lay person) should start with the cultivation of virtues (sila) - the starting point for virtue according to other suttas is the five precepts

Every person should start with the proper step of them. It depends on personal
ability, not lay or monk, like I described here.
The step example:
kītāgirisutta:

"Monks, I do not say that the attainment of gnosis is all at once.
  Rather, the attainment of gnosis is after  respectively training,
  respectively action, respectively practice. And how is there the
  attainment of gnosis after respectively training, respectively action,
  respectively practice?

There is the case where, when conviction has arisen, one visits [a
  teacher].
Having visited, one request to be his attendant (see vinaya mahāvagga mahākhandhaka, and CH. III TAKING A MEDITATION SUBJECT of Visuddhimagga)
Having been attendant, one listen carefully.
Having listened carefully, one hears the Dhamma.
Having heard the Dhamma, one memorizes it (dhatā=sutadharo).
Having remembered by memorizing, one ponders the meaning of the teachings.
Having pondered the meaning, one comes to an agreement through
  pondering the teachings.
There being an agreement through pondering the teachings, wish-to-do
  arises.
When wishing-to-do has arisen, one exerts.
When one exerted (an effort), one meditates insight.
Having meditated insight, one dedicates his life.
Having dedicated his life, one realizes with the mind (discernment's body) the ultimate truth and, having penetrated,
  enlightened, it with discernment, sees it.

"Now, monks, there hasn't been that conviction, there hasn't been that
  visiting, there hasn't been that attending ... that listening
  carefully ... that hearing of the Dhamma ... that memorizing ... that
  penetration of the meaning of the teachings ... that agreement through
  pondering the teachings ... that wishing-to-do ... that effort ...
  that meditating insight ... that dedicating his life. You have lost
  the way, monks. You have gone the wrong way, monks. How far have you
  strayed, foolish men (moghapurisa), from this Dhamma & Discipline!

Above sequence appear in most tipitaka content:
1st-2nd are the 1st-2nd poems of Sutta. Khu. khuddakapāṭhe maṅgalasuttaṃ (the 1st of every maṅgala), anwsering to Brahmā Sahampati (the 1st time buddha decided to teach), VN Mahāvagga Mahākhandhaka (the 1st door to be a monk), Visuddhimagga Kammaṭṭhānaggahaṇaniddeso kammaṭṭhānadāyakavaṇṇanā, Sutta. Aṅ. (4): aṭṭhaka puṇṇiyasutta, etc.
3rd-7th are the 3rd poems  of Sutta. Khu. khuddakapāṭhe maṅgalasuttaṃ, the qualification of nissayamuccaka-bhikkhu in VN Mahāvagga Mahākhandhaka, 1st Mātikā of Sutta. Khu. Paṭisambhidāmaggo, the study system in Visuddhimagga Kammaṭṭhānaggahaṇaniddeso kammaṭṭhānadāyakavaṇṇanā and  Khandhaniddeso uggahaparipucchāvasena ñāṇaparicayaṃ katvā, etc.
8th and the others are training steps, adhisīla adhicitta adhipaññā. The sequence is follow to MN rathavinītasutta, Sutta. Khu. Paṭisambhidāmaggo, and Visuddhimagga, etc. Every person should start with the proper step of them. It depends on personal ability, not lay or monk, like I described here.
For  Yuganaddha Sutta (AN4.170) is the same as I described here, except just dhammuddhacca which is vipassanūpakilesa in Visuddhimagga Maggāmaggañāṇadassanavisuddhiniddesa.
Samatha leading is for  taṇhācarita, vipassanā leading is for diṭṭhicarita.
The tandem-bhāvanā is balava-vipassanā (pahāna-pariññā) and above, the proper-bhāvanā before that is depend on the purification of steps, like I described in the link above. Because if 2 base-purified-steps (sīla&samatha) are not pure enough, 5 head-purified-steps can't  be tandem with samatha-purified-steps.


text:
What is the Universal Mind?
As far as I know, the concept of the Universal Mind (一心, yixin) was first coined in the 'Awakening of Faith'.
In studying Zongmi, Yanshou, Chinul and Wonhyo, I found different translations such as: Universal Mind, All-encompassing mind, One Mind, One Nature, Pure Nature.
Some say it is synonymous with mind-nature (xinxing).
But neither alternative translations nor synonymous tell me what it is.
In studying Yongming Yanshou systematically, I have come to identify what he says it is, its characteristics, and its functions. The issue is that it ends up being identified with so many phenomena that it becomes confusing.
Its entity:

The dharmadhatu
The mind of suchness
The mind of arising and ceasing
A mind that is unperturbed and enters the dhyanas
A mind that arises in dependence upon practicing concentration and contemplation
The mind that is transmitted from a Chan patriarch to another patriarch

Its characteristics:

The origin of nature and characteristics
The basis of all things
A phenomena in which pure and impure, samsara and thusness intersect
A principle that unifies all the teachings of the buddha
The great tenet
The grand progenitor
The source of all truth
‘Universal’ in that it includes mundane and supermundane dharmas.

Its function:

Illuminating the myriad dharmas as if reflected in a mirror.
Entering the dhyanas.
Producing prajna.
Perfecting [the actualization of] cessation.
Perfecting observation.

The best explanation I have found so far explains that the One Mind is identified with so many phenomena because it is all of them. Do you know of a more more detailed account, a clear explanation, or an authoritative reference? In 'Wŏnhyo’s Theory of One Mind', Eun-su Cho says:

The One Mind is an evolution and merger of the concepts of
  ālaya-vijñāna and tathāgatagarbha. It is a well-known fact that the
  ālayavijñāna and the tathāgatagarbha originate from different branches
  of Buddhist thought. The womb of the Tathāgata is a concept developed
  from the optimistic idea that any sentient being has the possibility
  of becoming a Buddha, a concept already described since early Buddhism
  as the “innately pure mind.”

And:

The One Mind is at times equivalent to ālayavijñāna, to the
  tathāgatagarbha, or to original enlightenment, but its characteristics
  contain the attributes of all. The One Mind represents an optimistic
  and all-encompassing philosophy of the mind, surpassing both
  ālayavijñāna and tathāgatagarbha. Additionally, the One Mind possesses
  the meanings of unity and concentration.

From Zen Master Chinul's 'Straight Talk On the True Mind', ~1205 CE. Translated by Robert E. Buswell, Jr.

...
  Question: We have already given rise to right faith, but we are still uncertain what is meant by “true mind.”
Zen Master Chinul: To leave behind the false is called “true.” The numinous speculum is called “mind.” The Suraligama Sutra sheds light on this mind.
Question: Is it only named true mind or does it also have other appellations?
Zen Master Chinul: The names given to it in the teachings of the Buddha and in the teachings of the patriarchs are not the same. First let us explore the teachings of the Buddha.
In the Bodhisattvasila Sutra it is called the “mindground” because it produces the myriads of good dharmas.
In the Prajnaparamita sutras it is referred to as “bodhi” because enlightenment is its essence.
The Avatamsaka Sutra names it the “dharmadhatu” because it interpenetrates and infuses all dharmas.
In the Diamond Sutra it is called “tathagata” because it does not come from anywhere.
In the Prajnaparamita sutras it is also referred to as “nirvana” because it is the sanctuary of all the saints.
In the Golden Light Sutra it is said to be “suchness” because it is true, permanent, and immutable.
In the Pure Name Sutra it is named the “dharma-body” because it is the support for the reward and transformation bodies.
In the Awakening oj Faith it is termed “true suchness” because it neither arises nor ceases.
In the Mahaparanirvana Satra it is referred to as “Buddha-nature” because it is the fundamental essence of the three bodies.
In the Complete Enlightenment Sutra it is called “dharani” because all meritorious qualities flow from it.
In the Srimaladevisimhananda Sutra it is named “tathagatagarbha” because it conceals and contains all dharmas.
In the definitive sutras it is named “complete enlightenment” because it destroys darkness and shines solitarily of itself.
As Zen Master Yen-shou’s Secrets on Mind-Only says, “The one dharma has a thousand names: its appellations are each given in response to different conditions.
The true mind appears in all the sutras, but I cannot cite all the references.
Question: We now know what true mind means in the teachings of the Buddha, but what about the teachings of the patriarchs?
Chinul: In the school of the patriarchs all names and words are severed; not even one name is sanctioned, let alone many.
In response to stimuli and according to faculties, however, its names are also many.
Sometimes it is referred to as “oneself,” for it is the original nature of sentient beings.
Sometimes it is named “the proper eye,” for it makes visible all phenomena.
At other times it is called “the sublime mind,” for it is empty yet numinous, calm yet radiant.
Sometimes it is named “the old master,” for it has been the supervisor since time immemorial.
Sometimes it is called “the bottomless bowl,” for it can survive anywhere.
Sometimes it is called “a stringless lute,” for it is always in harmony.
Sometimes it is called “an inextinguishable lamp,” for it illuminates and disperses delusion and passion.
Sometimes it is called “a rootless tree,” for its roots and trunk are strong and firm.
Sometimes it is referred to as “a sword which splits a wind-blown hair,” for it severs the roots of the defilement.
Sometimes it is called “the unconditioned kingdom,” for the seas are calm there and the rivers clear.
Sometimes it is named a “wish-fulfilling gem,” for it benefits the poor and distressed.
Sometimes it is called “a boltless lock,” for it shuts the six sensedoors.
It is also called “a clay ox,” “a wooden horse,” “moon of the mind,” and “gem of the mind.”
It has such a variety of different names that I cannot record them all.
If you penetrate to the true mind, you will fully comprehend all of these names; but if you remain dark to this true mind, all names are only a block.
Consequently, you must be precise in your investigation of the true mind.
...
If we have faith in this, we should realize that all the bodhisattvas of the three time periods are studying the same thing -- this mind. All the Buddhas of the three time periods have the same realization -- the realization of this mind. The teachings elucidated in the tripitaka all elucidate this mind. The delusion of all sentient beings is delusion in regard to this mind. The awakening of all cultivators is the awakening to this mind. The transmission of all the patriarchs is the transmission of this mind. The search in which all the patchwork[-robed] monks of this world are engaged is the search for this mind.
...

The mind: it is vacuous, empty, sublime, and exquisite; it is clear, brilliant, numinous, and bright. It neither comes nor goes, for it permeates the three time periods. It is neither within nor without, for it pervades the ten directions.

...
This essence is not only the Buddha-nature with which all sentient beings are innately endowed but also the basic source of creation of all worlds.
...

The wind moves but the mind shakes the tree.

...

Those who are aware of it know that it is the Buddha-nature; those who are not -- call it soul or spirit.

To me, this sounds synonymously with Rigpa, Awareness of the Ground.
If you're looking for a straightforward contemporary explanation here is mine: The Universal Mind is Information at large. Or more accurately, it is the informational aspect of the energy flow in thermodynamically non-equilibrious systems.
Although, in my personal opinion, all these reifications of the absolute are dangerous and misleading. This is why I prefer the supra-conceptual teaching style of Zen and Dzogchen/Kagyu, because it turns your eyes to the moon, instead of talking about the fingers.

Genuinely interested in further insight re info flow / t'dynamic aspect, obv not as physical theory, but as understanding of Universal Mind. Similar thoughts have been bubbling for me, but inclining oppositely: that info conceived per Shannon (drawing from alphabet, etc) inherently dual, and part of falseness, inducing separation from unity, de-integration and restricted perception. Doesn't easily chime with (true) +ve approach to causation, obv related to info flow. Wild fox koan, etc. You have thought more than me. Any crumbs, (links, biblio, etc), gratefully received. These just bubbles.

Check out Biosemiotics series published by Springer.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Why should I focus on that which is not mine?
I was sitting among my friends when I realised none of them are mine. They will change or perish. I felt detached and disconnected. I no longer focused on what they were saying. I appeared absent minded to them. I appeared as one who doesn't understand or care or love.
My question is : Why should I focus on people or serve people who are not mine ?

There is a Buddhist concept of Kalyāṇa-mittatā, Buddha definitely approved friendship amongst the sangha as well as for householders. As long as it was with right people (meaning friends addicted to gambling, alcohol should be avoided).
Now to your dilemma,

when I realised none of them are mine

The better thing to realize was to say, 'I am not' 'anatta'. As long as you have not realized no-self, and as long as you are you can say 'none of them are mine'. Of course, you do not possess them, so in that sense, they are not yours, but they are YOUR friends. As a householder, friendship is imperative, you cannot live in this samsara like an island, you never know when will you need whom. Although this should not be the criteria to make friends, but this is true.

They will change or perish. I felt detached and disconnected. I no longer focused on what they were saying.

They will change and perish so will you, so will everybody you know, your wife, your children, your parents, everything is impermanent, 'annicca'. The feeling of detachment is alright, in fact good, but dis-connection shows you lack respect and compassion. Everyone wants to tell their story to friends, share the problems and good and bad times with friends, you should have compassion. You should have listened to them without attachment. Like a lotus in a pond, be in this world but not of it.

I appeared absent-minded to them.

Are you not practicing mindfulness? Absent-mindedness is not something for a meditator. You should be aware. Later on, you will regret if only I would have been listening to him...

I appeared as one who doesn't understand or care or love.

Cultivate kindness and compassion. Metta bhava is important.

Why should I focus on people or serve people who are not mine?

Because Samsara is Nirvana (this is something I learned in Zen). Also not focusing on people who are not of profit to you or not yours shows selfishness and will bolster your ego. Remember the Jataka tales and remember all the sacrifice the Buddha did in His previous life for other beings, out of compassion.

I wonder about your thoughts on the perception that the other-self can be detached from the self, how can one perceive a complete detachment if they are part of one's life?Also, couldn't an apparent absent-minded state be part of a meditative state?

Yes, 'the other-self can be detached from the self' if I don't generate any degree of possessiveness, if I don't try to exert any control over the other and if I give complete freedom to the other in a relationship, then yes, in an un-enlightened state, the other-self can be detached from your self. I agree, a complete detachment will be very difficult for an un-enlightened being, only a Buddha could have had a complete detachment to His son and wife. In his question, by absent-minded he just meant that not-present, though you are also right, in a meditative state one can be absent-minded.

Bhikkhu Bodhi answered this very question in "The Balanced Way":

Like a bird in flight borne by its two wings, the practice of Dhamma
  is sustained by two contrasting qualities whose balanced development
  is essential to straight and steady progress. These two qualities are
  renunciation and compassion. As a doctrine of renunciation the Dhamma
  points out that the path to liberation is a personal course of
  training that centers on the gradual control and mastery of desire,
  the root cause of suffering. As a teaching of compassion the Dhamma
  bids us to avoid harming others, to act for their welfare, and to help
  realize the Buddha's own great resolve to offer the world the way to
  the Deathless.
Considered in isolation, renunciation and compassion have inverse
  logics that at times seem to point us in opposite directions. The one
  steers us to greater solitude aimed at personal purification, the
  other to increased involvement with others issuing in beneficent
  action. Yet, despite their differences, renunciation and compassion
  nurture each other in dynamic interplay throughout the practice of the
  path, from its elementary steps of moral discipline to its culmination
  in liberating wisdom. The synthesis of the two, their balanced fusion,
  is expressed most perfectly in the figure of the Fully Enlightened
  One, who is at once the embodiment of complete renunciation and of
  all-embracing compassion.
Both renunciation and compassion share a common root in the encounter
  with suffering. The one represents our response to suffering
  confronted in our own individual experience, the other our response to
  suffering witnessed in the lives of others. Our spontaneous reactions,
  however, are only the seeds of these higher qualities, not their
  substance. To acquire the capacity to sustain our practice of Dhamma,
  renunciation and compassion must be methodically cultivated, and this
  requires an ongoing process of reflection which transmutes our initial
  stirrings into full-fledged spiritual virtues.
The framework within which this reflection is to be exercised is the
  teaching of the Four Noble Truths, which thus provides the common
  doctrinal matrix for both renunciation and compassion. Renunciation
  develops out of our innate urge to avoid suffering and pain. But
  whereas this urge, prior to reflection, leads to an anxious withdrawal
  from particular situations perceived as personally threatening,
  reflection reveals the basic danger to lie in our existential
  situation itself — in being bound by ignorance and craving to a world
  which is inherently fearsome, deceptive and unreliable. Thence the
  governing motive behind the act of renunciation is the longing for
  spiritual freedom, coupled with the recognition that self-purification
  is an inward task most easily accomplished when we distance ourselves
  from the outer circumstances that nourish our unwholesome tendencies.
Compassion develops out of our spontaneous feelings of sympathy with
  others. However, as a spiritual virtue compassion cannot be equated
  with a sentimental effusion of emotion, nor does it necessarily imply
  a dictum to lose oneself in altruistic activity. Though compassion
  surely includes emotional empathy and often does express itself in
  action, it comes to full maturity only when guided by wisdom and
  tempered by detachment. Wisdom enables us to see beyond the
  adventitious misfortunes with which living beings may be temporarily
  afflicted to the deep and hidden dimensions of suffering inseparable
  from conditioned existence. As a profound and comprehensive
  understanding of the Four Noble Truths, wisdom discloses to us the
  wide range, diverse gradations, and subtle roots of the suffering to
  which our fellow beings are enmeshed, as well as the means to lead
  them to irreversible release from suffering. Thence the directives of
  spontaneous sympathy and mature compassion are often contradictory,
  and only the latter are fully trustworthy as guides to beneficent
  action effective in the highest degree. Though often the judicious
  exercise of compassion will require us to act or speak up, sometimes
  it may well enjoin us to retreat into silence and solitude as the
  course most conducive to the long-range good of others as well as of
  ourselves.
In our attempt to follow the Dhamma, one or the other of these twin
  cardinal virtues will have to be given prominence, depending on our
  temperament and circumstances. However, for monk and householder
  alike, success in developing the path requires that both receive due
  attention and that deficiencies in either gradually be remedied. Over
  time we will find that the two, though tending in different
  directions, eventually are mutually reinforcing. Compassion impels us
  toward greater renunciation, as we see how our own greed and
  attachment make us a danger to others. And renunciation impels us
  toward greater compassion, since the relinquishing of craving enables
  us to exchange the narrow perspectives of the ego for the wider
  perspectives of a mind of boundless sympathy. Held together in this
  mutually strengthening tension, renunciation and compassion contribute
  to the wholesome balance of the Buddhist path and to the completeness
  of its final fruit.

I can understand the compassion part but it is not clear why is it necessary  ? One necessary reason to interact is karma. If my karma demands it then I must interact with full attention.

Be careful of succumbing yourself to a non-right view.

Maybe you could elaborate on non-right view.

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


text:
Does sankhara disappear in Samantha meditation or insight meditation?
If the doer disappears, all the  external objects disappear, what remains is the knower. Knower is known and knows.  Knower is consciousness,inner aspect.
Knower,outer aspect,objects.
Sankhara appears for Knower
If sankhara disappears pure consciousness will arise.
Which kind of a meditation  sankhara disappears?

One moment Shankaras are noticed is during vipassana meditation through a detailed body-observation as you go across the areas where feelings are more rude or notorious.
In order to make disappear the shankara, the acceptance of the feelings which arise during a concrete body area observation is needed. Understand the feelings, then accept them.
This acceptance, releases  the shankara from the whole metaphysic body of the meditator, not just the physical one, releasing the emotional concept underlaying the apparition of the shankara.
Technically upon shankara dissapears, there will not be possible that the same concept generates a new shankara as it is learnt as inner experience. This allows the character to completely release misery and thus obtain a true paññā in the path of illumination.

I think studying 9 levels of meditation (4 forms and 4 formless plus cessation)  might lead to an answer.
For first four form meditations, what disappear are 5 hindrances but you still have all 5 skandhas. Then from 4th jhana to Infinite space, form disappears.   Since I haven't gotten no where near that,  i assume is like existing without body. So from here on you have only 4 skandhas. Feelings, perceptions,  SANGKHARA (from your question,  sangkhara is still there) and conciousness.  When you are reached neither perception or perception level,  you still have 4 sakhandas left.   Then from when Buddha explained how ven. Sariputta enter cessation level,  he used sati or mindfulness as a tool.   Cessation level in pali is sanna-vedayid-nirode or extinguish of perception and feelings.   What left? Vinnana and sankhara.
5 hinderances disappear in first four mediations
Form disappear in 4 of formless perceptions.
Perception and feelings disappear in cessation mediation (as direct translation of Pali word sanna-vedayid-niroda)
So I'm not sure if it is possible to temporary suppress sankhara and conciousness while still alive.
I'm putting my answer up so I could be corrected if someone remember Pali texts somewhere that it is possible to suppress sankhara or conciousness.
Foot note correction:  I did some quick research for "cessation of perception and feeling" and found something in Kāmabhū-sutta, in deed, all 5 skandhas are temporary extinguished during cessation meditation.
PS.  i dont have enough creadit to post comment so i am going to place my comment for you here. you dont need teachers.  Studying suttas and many of questions will be answered.  Be concerned if someone claims you have/have not accomplished such as such state.  From Migasala Sutta, only Buddha could tell someone's accomplishments.  Even Ven. Sariputta or Moggallana didnt make such proclaimation in others.
Let me put it this way, in one of sutta, first Jhanna, sounds are no longer a bother.  If i remember words correctly, sound is longer a thorn  for those in first jhanna.  Same for 5 sensual pleasures (sex craving is included), they disappear in first Jhanna.
I am not quoting Sam Harris as an authority figure of meditation, but this is exactly how i feel about my meditaion, especially part where he said "interrupt continuous personal dialog"
Sam Harris: Mindfulness is Powerful

I don't know where I am in my meditation practice .I am doing  satarsathipattanaya, when walking meditation I lost perceptions of hearing,sitting meditation practice sometimes restless,sexual craving disappears can see the thoughts process of anger and automatically stop by another thought. Where I am ?I don't have a teacher  now.


text:
Due to coming together of what does the dream arise?
Buddha explains how world came to be by saying eye and forms come together to create eye consciousness. Coming together of eye, forms and eye-consciousness created contact. Contact lead to feelings which lead to birth , death and suffering.
Same applies to ear , nose , tongue , mind.
But when we sleep the eyes are shut yet we see the dream. How is that possible ? In that dream I am able to see, hear , touch  and feel.
Due to which contact in this real world am I able to live the dreams ?
My question is : due to coming together of which internal and external senses does the dream arise ?

Dreams happen in your mind.

But I am able to experience all the senses like eyes , ears , nose ,tongue, body , mind in the dream which according to you happens only in the mind. Mind is separate sense organ. Are you saying that mind behind all the other sense organs?

A dream consciousness is a mental consciousness arising in dependence upon a mental sense power. While an eye-consciousness apprehends shape and color (which is form), a dream consciousness apprehends a phenomena source. A dream consciousness and its objects simultaneously arise from a seed left in one's mental continuum.
In his commentary to Lorig, Geshe Jamphel Gyaltsen said:

The blue in the dream is form included in the category of 'phenomena
source'. We have the form source, related to the eye consciousness,
etc. The phenomena source is the source for mental consciousness only.
The blue in the dream is included in that category.
The only source taken in the sleeping state is the phenomena source
and therefore more subtle. Between dream and deep sleep, in the dream
you still have many different manifestations of the phenomena source,
whereas in deep sleep you don't have these manifestation.

Not all mental consciousnesses have a phenomena source as their object of observation. For instance, the divine ear is a clairvoyance that is a mental consciousness apprehending sound, which is form.
Furthermore, in his commentary to Purbuchok’s 'Explanation of the Presentation of Objects and Object-Possessors as well as Awarenesses and Knowers', Geshe Tenzin Tenphel says:

The first, [a mental non-conceptual wrong consciousness] is, for
example, a dream consciousness that clearly sees as blue the blue of a
dream. This subject is a mental consciousness, a non-conceptual
consciousness, and a wrong consciousness.
• it is a wrong consciousness because of being a consciousness that
apprehends its object, a form which is a phenomenon source, as blue,
whereas it does not exist as blue.

In other words, dream-blue is not actual blue. It is not form but phenomena source. Thus, 'seeing blue' in a dream is the function of a mental consciousness and one is not actually seeing.

Coming together of Mind and Mental phenomenon gives rise to Mind consciousness. If dream is a Mind consciousness then how is it able to include eye consciousness , ear consciousness , tongue consciousness,nose consciousness and mind consciousness while dreaming?In other words is the eye consciousness experienced in dreams is due to coming together of eye and forms or not ?

As you just implied, dream consciousness is indeed mental consciousness. Dream-blue is not actual blue; a dream-car is not form; and "seeing" or "hearing" in a dream is but a facsimile of sense consciousness.

Dreams are fragmentation/de-fragmentation of your memories.
Memories are based on a combination of your worldly senses from eyes , ears , nose ,tongue, body , mind....etc.

No . Dreams play an active role in the Karma. Dreams can also be a means of communication with others.

Are you saying dreams are not just memories, what do you suggest if they are not? Either way, dreams are still inside your mind and it is an internal projection.

I guess there are two ways to explain it.

One is to say that it's the working of sense-consciousness without contact. When there's contact (with a sense-object) the contact combines with sense-consciousness -- sense-consciousness is conditioned by previous experience -- sense-consciousness combines with sense-contact to create perception ... for example, first you see something, and then you perceive or recognise it when you combine the sight with your past experience, and so can say "that's a dog" or "that's a road" etc.
I think the same process (i.e. experiences cause consciousness cause perceptions) sometimes continues during sleep, even without contact (I say "sometimes" because not all sleep is dreaming-sleep). I guess neurologists see activity in parts of the brain responsible for sight and/or perception, for example:

In addition the team found that dreaming about faces was linked to increased high-frequency activity in the region of the brain involved in face recognition, with dreams involving spatial perception, movement and thinking similarly linked to regions of the brain that handle such tasks when awake.

I guess that an alternative way to explain it is that dreams are mind-objects, involving contact between the dream and the mind-consciousness.
For example, even when you're "awake" you can remember things: e.g. remember the sight of a place or of a face, or the sound of some music or of a dog barking. When you do that (remember a sense-experience) I think you replay elements of that experience in some parts of your mind (e.g. in the parts of the mind which are responsible for perceiving or being perceived as that experience).

So if the first explanation above (sense experience and perception without contact) is difficult to accept (because it doesn't fit the doctrine of the 12 nidanas), I think the definition of the sixth sense (e.g. contact with "mind-objects") is broad enough to include the phenomenon of dreaming.

As for how it can happen without contact, I imagine a radio receiver. Perhaps you can't hear it properly -- when you can't hear it, you might turn up the volume (i.e. increase the amplifier). If you do that when it's not tuned to the signal from a transmitter, what you'll hear is "noise" -- that "noise" is the relatively small electric fluctuations which are present in the local environment (e.g. the radio's antenna and amplifier circuitry) -- normally the fluctuations induced by an external signal is louder than the noise, so what you normally get is contact with the signal, but if there's no signal you experience contact with the noise.
According to my analogy, dreams are "noise" that you experience when the louder signal (from the waking senses) are cut off.
One of the questions when meditating is whether to do that with eyes open or closed -- see e.g. What are the advantages/disadvantages of meditating with eyes closed?

This is speculative on my part. I'm posting it anyway because I doubt it's explained authoritatively, in detail in the suttas.

The way I was instructed on Buddhism is very different from the perspective implied in most of the answers and in the question itself. My teacher(s) would probably say this misunderstanding comes from a deeply ingrained materialistic view.
From (right) Buddhist perspective, the five senses, plus the sense of introspection - are all mind faculties. They are differentiated by six modalities, but they are all faculties of the mind. To say that the world exists "outside" and the mind sits "inside" and perceives the world through the little holes is a (wrong) materialistic perspective. The world exists inside. The mind exists outside. There is no inside and outside.
When we're dreaming, we experience "a world" on the same five modalities, and we experience "self" on a sense of introspection - but this world and this self is not the same we experience when awake. Why? Because our state of mind is different. State of mind defines what we experience and how we experience it.
When Buddha talks about "contact" - he does not talk about an external object touching a sense organ. First of all, with the exception of taste, objects almost never actually "touch" our sense organs. The stimuli we do get are mere reflections of object's properties in either light-waves or sound-waves or its emission of chemical molecules (in case of smell). Even the sense of touch is usually mediated. When we feel the ground with our feet through the soles of our shoes, or even better - when we feel the surface of the road with the wheels of our car - the object never touches our body and yet we feel it. So the stimulus is not the object, the object is a construct of our mind based on the stimulus.
When Buddha talks about "contact", he talks about contact in our experience. Our constructed idea of self comes in touch with our constructed idea of object. This is called "contact". It happens in our imagination, whether we're dreaming or awake. In all cases the object is a projection of our mind.
-- "My question is: due to coming together of which internal and external does the dream arise? Due to which contact in this real world?
This idea of "external" and "internal" with the doors of senses in-between is a very materialistic idea. Also, there is no "real world", it's an experience, projection, imagination. My Zen Master called it "hallucination"!
As all experience (vijnana), dreaming arises from samskara. Then, "inside" that experience, there is "internal" and "external", "contact", "objects", "self" and "the world". All experience is constructed by the mind, including eye-experience, ear-experience etc. - both when dreaming and when awake.

I suppose light (EM radiation) is the (external) sense-object which makes contact with the sense-organ (the eye) -- though I think the suttas talk about rūpa ("form" or "visual object" in that context) -- I guess form is detected by the visual cortex (or is that still too materialistic a statement?). I guess your answer isn't far from saying that everything is empty. IMO it's odd to hear that the world a hallucination -- because I've sort of heard that before, that "everything is a hallucination" is Buddhist doctrine, but assumed that was a misquote.

This speaks from the phenomenological perspective. Trying to map phenomenological perspective back into objective perspective defeats the purpose. In the phenomenological perspective, stimulus is not an object at all, because it is usually unconscious (unless it is abnormal?). Then through associations with samskaras there is a process of grasping the marks and recognition - this goes in cycles elevating the level of abstraction....

All that happens on multiple modalities in parallel and then gets seemingly integrated as "experience". At some level of abstraction there appears several nested levels of "objects" and "backgrounds"... And finally there is an experience of contact with the object.... Sorry I'm not being precise for the sake of speed and simplicity, just trying to paint the overall picture...

This is called "the raft" - phenomenological perspective is a skillful mean used to help the student learn to control the mind and detach from the objects of senses. This is not real emptiness yet. Then at some point the student is supposed to transcend both phenomenological perspective and objective perspective -- resulting in real emptiness or position-less or groundlessness or whatever we can call that.

So "EM radiation" is something that in phenomenological perspective only exists as a concept, an abstraction. "External" is only an inference we make. "Eye" is something we see on the other people and in the mirror, and read about it in books - so it too is an object in our constructed mind-space. As is "cortex". In this sense "the world is a hallucination" - a fleeting experience conjured by the mind.


text:
Is it unethical to teach mindfulness for money?
There are several consulting firms out there that teach mindfulness to corporations as a livelihood. Is it bad karma since they are essentially taking this from the Buddhist teachings, adding their own neuroscience research on top of it and selling it as a product for better productivity and emotional health. On the other hand, many mindfulness centres in the west offer retreats in exchange for "suggested" donations. Does this kind of transaction corrupt the dharma or is it propagating the dharma to a wider audience?

nope,not at all

"their own neuroscience research..." pretty sure you have your answer.

I would say it is rather ironic that 'Corporations' employ mindfulness for their employees to be more productive and enhance the corporation's achievements which...at the end of the day...do not necessarily bring any benefits of mindfulness to the wider general public customers.

Is it unethical to teach mindfulness for money?

I guess that what's taught as "mindfulness" probably isn't Buddhist Dharma -- for example:

Sharf further notes that this [i.e. Buddhist mindfulness] has little to do with "bare attention," the popular contemporary interpretation of sati [i.e. the mindfulness which is taught by and to corporations], "since it entails, among other things, the proper discrimination of the moral valence of phenomena as they arise."

I think there are reasons why it's traditionally wrong to teach dharma for money -- for example:

Monks shouldn't
Lay people might be typically less able to teach Buddhism than monks or nuns are, and should respect (not try to replace) one of the functions of the Sangha which is teaching

Buddhism isn't very specific about what "right livelihood" is for lay people; but IMO it includes giving good value for money, not making fraudulent claims about the product or service.

IMO because they're not teaching Dharma (#1 above) so the normal reasoning (#2) isn't applicable.
It might be (but isn't necessarily) unethical for #3, e.g. if they make fraudulent (untrue) claims about the benefits of what they're teaching, or if they don't deliver (competently teach) what they promised.
On the other hand, many mindfulness centres in the west offer retreats in exchange for "suggested" donations.
The little experience I have of that is of a group of people renting a room in which to meet -- where a small amount of money per person was volunteered,  a collection to pay to rent the meeting room.

Good question. Leaving Mindfulness aside for a second, let's consider the question of taking money for Dharma.
In the original Buddhism this was explicitly disallowed but implicitly allowed. Monks could not take money but they could accept 'dana' (donations) in form of food, medicine, and clothes. Rich sponsors such as Anathapindika donated land and sponsored construction of facilities.
In Late Indian Buddhism, as we can see from the story of Naropa and Marpa, it was customary for the student to "offer" (give) the teacher something extremely valuable, such as gold, to indicate respect and seriousness of intent. Indeed, if you don't think Dharma is more valuable than gold, can you be considered a serious student? This custom was carried on in Tibetan Buddhism, where money "offerings" to the teacher at the end of the lecture are practiced to this day.
A modern teacher I highly respect once said that people do not value something they get for free. He insists on charging money for retreats and training sessions. According to him, people take it more seriously when they feel it has a cost. My Zen Master had "membership fee" that permanent students had to pay. He never enforced it of course, but it has been declared. My local Nyingma temple always sells tickets for teaching events, but never checks them at the door, so everyone can come and listen whether they have money or not. Thousands of Buddhist authors and translators sell books on Amazon and other bookstores for much higher amount than the cost of paper and printing.
I think this sets up enough precedence to not demonize taking money for teaching Dharma. I personally would like to see Buddhism getting as popular and accepted by mainstream society as therapy, personal coaching, and holistic practices like Tai-Chi & Qigong. Treating it as any other wellbeing training, including the taking of money, would help with adoption. There are always the normal concerns of fair price, fair advertisement, fair customer retention methods, fair customer service - but I think this could be controlled by the civil society's free market mechanisms, as well as existing legislation in place in most countries.
Now, to get to your Mindfulness question, Mindfulness is not strictly speaking a form of Buddhism. Even though it was inspired by Buddhism it does not provide a holistic ethical and philosophical system for someone to follow. In some sense Buddhism is like science: the laws of physics are not anyone's intellectual property and can't be patented. If someone takes one of these laws of principles, and builds a commercial product around it -- a product that people find helpful and good -- the physicists do not file a lawsuit for patent infringement, do they? So I don't think we should be this defensive about someone taking an idea from Buddhism and using it for the benefit of people, even if they charge money for it.
In my opinion, Dharma gets more "corrupted" by not fully understanding its principles, by not applying them in real life, and by not passing them on to the next generation -- than by the charging of money. What hurts Dharma, in my opinion, is parroting the texts with only a superficial understanding, and encouraging superstitious attachment to traditional skillful means - without making an effort to understand and transmit the meaning and purpose behind the ideas.
What I think needs to happen to help "propagating the dharma to a wider audience" is a serious effort to translate the principles behind dharma to a modern secular language, and to show how dharma benefits all aspects of regular life. Offering commercial Mindfulness courses to a wide secular population is a tiny step in the right direction.

Yes, it is unethical.
Vinaya Pātimokkha sekhiya Pādukāvagga Navama:

“Formerly, monks, in Benares, the wife of a certain low class man came
to be pregnant. Then, monks, this low class woman spoke thus to this
low class man: ‘Sir, I am pregnant; I want to eat a mango.’
‘There are no mangoes, it is not the mango season,’ he said.
Now at that time the king had a mango tree with a perpetual crop of
fruit. Then, monks, that low class man approached that mango tree;
having approached, having climbed up that mango tree, he remained
hidden. Then, monks, the king together with the brahmin priest,
approached that mango tree; having approached, having sat down on a
high seat, he learnt a mantra. Then, monks, it occurred to that low
class man:
‘How unrighteous is this king, inasmuch as he learns a mantra, having
sat down on a high seat. This brahmin also is unrighteous, inasmuch as
he, having sat down on a low seat, teaches a mantra to (someone)
sitting on a high seat. I too am unrighteous, I who for the sake of a
woman, steal the king’s mangoes. But all this is quite gone,’ (and) he
fell down just there.
Neither knows the goal,
neither sees dhamma,
Neither he who teaches the mantra,
nor he who learns according to what is not the rule.
My food is pure conjey
of rice flavoured with meat,
I do not therefore fare on dhamma,
dhamma praised by the noble.
Brahmin, shame on that gain of wealth,
(that) gain of fame;
That conduct (leads) to falling away
or to walking by what is not the rule.
Go forth, great brahmin,
for other creatures boil,
Do not you, following what is not the rule,
from that break like a pot.

Mahasupina Jataka:

"I saw rancid buttermilk being bartered for precious sandalwood worth a fortune in gold. This was my eleventh dream. What shall come of it?"
"This will happen only in the distant future, when my teaching is waning. In those days, there will be many greedy, shameless bhikkhus, who for the sake of their bellies dare to preach the very words in which I have warned against greed! Because they desert the Truth to gratify their stomachs, and because they sided with sectarians, their preaching will not lead to Nibbana. Their only thought as they preach will be to use fine words and sweet voices to induce lay believers to give them costly robes, delicate food, and every comfort. Others will seat themselves beside the highways, at busy street corners, or at the doors of kings' palaces where they will stoop to preach for money, even for a pittance! Thus these monks will barter away for food, for robes, or for coins, my teaching which leads to liberation from suffering! They will be like those who exchanged precious sandalwood worth a fortune in pure gold for rancid buttermilk. However, you have nothing to fear from this. Tell me your twelfth dream."

What is being taught is not the teachings of the Buddha but another doctrine manufactured by others. Therefore, its not unethical in the sense of "stealing" something from Buddhism. However, it is bad karma because the "mindfulness" being taught is the suspension of moral judgment.
The word "mindfulness" merely means to "remember" or "keep in mind". An assassin that must stalk a victim to shoot them must have "mindfulness". However, the mindfulness of an assassin is not Buddhist "Right Mindfulness" ("Samma Sati").
Similarly, the corporate mindfulness that teaches to suspend moral judgment in favour of having equanimity towards all corporate objectives & directives is not Buddhist mindfulness. Since Corporate Mindfulness is not Buddhist Mindfulness, it can be sold for money.

It is ethical if it brings cessation of and eases suffering of all other beings.
I once listened to Ajahn Brahm's talk when he described it is absolutely fine to have money and be rich, but in a right way, helping people, refraining from lying and by not making others suffer in the process.

Teaching ''samatha'' bhavana for money is not a much  big problem,But when it's to ''Vipassana'' bhavana that's not ethical and suitable..Because Lord buddha's the founder of vipassana meditation ,and before the era of buddha there were samatha bavana and it's also taught in other religions..So vipassana meditation is only found in Buddhism,It's not ethical to get money for teaching vipassana..
In buddhism mostly buddhist monks are the teachers,Buddha had said them not to accept money in any occasion,So that also suggest getting money for something uniquely in buddha's learning isn't suitable

To teach mindfulness is one thing;
To teach the dharma is another thing.
Supplementing my original comment to the question and simply put:
If the corporation is unethical, anything/any means that supports this corporation, is unethical.


text:
Anatta during meditation
When doer and knower disappears is that the state where anatta found? Have reached the state experience of a mirage in appeared on doing work. Which  samadhi has involved?And mind  restlessness appeared when closer look at the restlessness it will disappears with samadhi.

You don't have to look for anatta. That's completely misunderstanding what anatta means. Anatta is a characteristic. Meaning every experience is anatta.
Look at experience (any experience) arise. You don't make it arise. That happens according to conditions. That is what anatta means.
Feelings, memories, hearing, thinking .... everything arises according to conditions. Whether you like it or not. You can't stop experience from arising.
That is what anatta means.
Don't try to reach stages. Don't try to gain anything. Just observe objectively.

When you are doing anatta meditation, you are focusing your mind on anatta, So gradually anatta'll improve in your mind, and there isn't certain time where you find it at-once..Othewrwise you'll feel the parikamma/uggaha/patibaga nimitta according to the type of meditation you are doing,when you improve samadhi and reach to a jhana state,and also you feel ten fetters are reduced in some amount


text:
Why does the Buddha, in the Pali Canon, periodically engage in harsh speech?
Throughout the Pali Canon you can find instances where the Buddha appears to engage in harsh speech that seems to be contrary to the noble eighfold path. There are several important points/possibilities to understand first:

It may just be the appearance of harsh speech, and not actually contrary to the path.

My understanding of harsh speech may be too gentle compared to what the Buddha intended, and rather the way he engages in what seems to be 'harsh speech' is the norm (or limit) of gentle speech.

The Suttas may be fabricated and inauthentic.

The Sutta in question may be authentic and the speech may be harsh, yet the Tathagata may be engaging in harsh speech because he knows the limits of all actions and cannot be reckoned by Karma.

There are (at least) several Sutta instances of the Buddha engaging in what would seem to me to be harsh speech. These examples are not common and they are hard to find without re-reading sections of the Pali Canon. Here is one that I remember off the top of my head:

"Of whom do you know, foolish man, that I have taught to him the teaching in that manner? Did I not, foolish man, speak in many ways of those obstructive things that they are obstructions indeed, and that they necessarily obstruct him who pursues them? Sense desires, so I have said, bring little enjoyment, and much suffering and disappointment. The perils in them are greater. Sense desires are like bare bones, have I said; they are like a lump of flesh... they are like a snake's head, have I said. They bring much suffering and disappointment. The perils in them are greater. But you, O foolish man, have misrepresented us by what you personally have wrongly grasped. You have undermined your own (future) and have created much demerit. This, foolish man, will bring you much harm and suffering for a long time."
Then the Blessed One addressed the monks thus: "What do you think, O monks: has that monk Ari.t.tha, formerly of the vulture killers, produced any spark (of understanding) in this teaching and discipline?"[4] — "How should that be, Lord? Certainly not, O Lord."
After these words the monk Ari.t.tha, formerly of the vulture killers, sat silent, confused, with his shoulders drooping and his head bent, brooding and incapable of making a rejoinder.

The Discourse on the Snake Simile
Alagaddupama Sutta (MN 22)
To me the tone of the speech is an example of harsh speech. If I were to use this kind of speech in my day-to-day life I would consider myself not living up to the standard of Right Speech as per the Noble Eightfold Path. I understand, however, that the Buddha controls his speech masterfully. In that case, how did this sort of speech come to be? There is no clause in 'Right Speech' that allows us to engage in harsh speech for the greater good - for example rebuking a monk harshly. That being said, do not mistake this for casting doubt on the Buddha. I consider him a good example of what everyone should act like and his control of virtue, faculties, and activities is something everyone should strive for.
Also, there are several more examples. I have read through chunks of the Pali Canon and there are other Suttas where the Buddha engages in speech I would again consider a violation of Right Speech (not that I have a perfect record of Right Speech). My question is why? Why not rebuke without harshness and adhere perfectly to gentleness?

What is so harsh about it ? Buddha is saying it out of compassion.

It is harsh because it hurts the other monk.
The second sentence is true. If we apply the logic you use to any situation, I can justify most of my harsh speech away, removing the actual need for practicing Right Speech. Furthermore there is no clause in harsh speech to justify abusive speech for the sake of helping other beings - at least in the Pali Canon. Quote: "Abandoning abusive speech, he abstains from abusive speech. He speaks words that are soothing to the ear, that are affectionate, that go to the heart, that are polite, appealing & pleasing to people at large."

If it hurts then it is the dosa(fault) of the monk. The monk has not beeen able to overcome his dosa. Buddha is free from all raga, dosa and moha therefore do not expect him to be angry ever. He is guiding/rebuking the monk like a father to put him on the right path.

The point of the question was to extrapolate the Buddha's behaviour to my own practice. I have already addressed all of the things you're saying in my first post and partially in my reply to your first post. I don't think you understand what I'm writing. I am not suggesting his mental factors, such as anger or delusion. Right Speech goes (at a basic level) beyond mental factors, as the quote I just listed demonstrated: "..pleasing to people at large."

@AntonA.Zabirko: Please understand that Budhdha was not trying to hurt the monk, but to make a stern point of his mistake, for the benefit of the monk and others. Remember the responsibility of Budhdha is not limited to that one monk, nor limited by time. Those teachings we still benefit from, are a testament for that fact. Last but not least, Budhdha did not go through all that hardships and realized Dhamma to make you feel good in your delusion. It is to get you out of the delusion. So, emotions don't matter in this discussion. "Dhamma is for those who has transcendental wisdom".

The answer to this comes in the Kesi Sutta:

As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him: "You, Kesi, are
  a trained man, a trainer of tamable horses. And how do you train a
  tamable horse?"
"Lord, I train a tamable horse [sometimes] with gentleness,
  [sometimes] with harshness, [sometimes] with both gentleness &
  harshness."
"And if a tamable horse doesn't submit either to a mild training or to
  a harsh training or to a mild & harsh training, Kesi, what do you do?"
"If a tamable horse doesn't submit either to a mild training or to a
  harsh training or to a mild and harsh training, lord, then I kill it.
  Why is that? [I think:] 'Don't let this be a disgrace to my lineage of
  teachers.' But the Blessed One, lord, is the unexcelled trainer of
  tamable people. How do you train a tamable person?"
"Kesi, I train a tamable person [sometimes] with gentleness,
  [sometimes] with harshness, [sometimes] with both gentleness &
  harshness.
"In using gentleness, [I teach:] 'Such is good bodily conduct. Such is
  the result of good bodily conduct. Such is good verbal conduct. Such
  is the result of good verbal conduct. Such is good mental conduct.
  Such is the result of good mental conduct. Such are the devas. Such
  are human beings.'
"In using harshness, [I teach:] 'Such is bodily misconduct. Such is
  the result of bodily misconduct. Such is verbal misconduct. Such is
  the result of verbal misconduct. Such is mental misconduct. Such is
  the result of mental misconduct. Such is hell. Such is the animal
  womb. Such the realm of the hungry shades.'
"In using gentleness & harshness, [I teach:] 'Such is good bodily
  conduct. Such is the result of good bodily conduct. Such is bodily
  misconduct. Such is the result of bodily misconduct. Such is good
  verbal conduct. Such is the result of good verbal conduct. Such is
  verbal misconduct. Such is the result of verbal misconduct. Such is
  good mental conduct. Such is the result of good mental conduct. Such
  is mental misconduct. Such is the result of mental misconduct. Such
  are the devas. Such are human beings. Such is hell. Such is the animal
  womb. Such the realm of the hungry shades.'"
"And if a tamable person doesn't submit either to a mild training or
  to a harsh training or to a mild & harsh training, what do you do?"
"If a tamable person doesn't submit either to a mild training or to a
  harsh training or to a mild & harsh training, then I kill him, Kesi."
"But it's not proper for our Blessed One to take life! And yet the
  Blessed One just said, 'I kill him, Kesi.'"
"It is true, Kesi, that it's not proper for a Tathagata to take life.
  But if a tamable person doesn't submit either to a mild training or to
  a harsh training or to a mild & harsh training, then the Tathagata
  doesn't regard him as being worth speaking to or admonishing. His
  knowledgeable fellows in the holy life don't regard him as being worth
  speaking to or admonishing. This is what it means to be totally
  destroyed in the Doctrine & Discipline, when the Tathagata doesn't
  regard one as being worth speaking to or admonishing, and one's
  knowledgeable fellows in the holy life don't regard one as being worth
  speaking to or admonishing."

I was searching for this sutta when writing my comment to OP. Remembered the story, but I have forgotten the name. Thanks.

The Pali word for "harsh" may be pharusa. According to the dictionary it's used figuratively, and its meanings include "cruel".
As pointed out in a comment the most important question maybe isn't whether it's "unendearing and disagreeable", but whether it's "beneficial" and "said at the proper time".
So that exception was used in this case by the Tathagata to rebuke the monk. Do you know if this case applies to non-enlightened noble disciples or only to the Tathagatas?
I think the Buddha is famously good and knowing people's mind-states, in order to be able to teach them effectively.
So perhaps sometimes he knew that the speech needed to be reproving (sometimes also called "rebuke" or "admonish") to be beneficial.
See also What is a wrathful Buddha? where there's a comment:

That makes sense to me. The example of pretending to be angry with your kids is a familiar experience.

It might also make a difference what sort of relationship exists (e.g. teacher, or parent).
I say this in the hope of answering the question.
Another consideration (according to this collection of Right Speech doctrines) is:

Do I speak with a kindly heart, or inwardly malicious?

It is harsh because it hurts the other monk. The second sentence is true. If we apply the logic you use to any situation, I can justify most of my harsh speech away, removing the actual need for practicing Right Speech. Furthermore there is no clause in harsh speech to justify abusive speech for the sake of helping other beings
Well it might hurt the monk's pride, or something, if not the monk himself -- or "refute his argument" (if arguing is what they were doing).
It's a fairly extreme example, if you look at the previous paragraph to the one you quoted:

"Is it true, Ari.t.tha, that you have conceived this pernicious view: 'There are things called "obstructions" by the Blessed One. As I understand his teaching those things are not necessarily obstructive for him who pursues them'?" — "Yes, indeed, Lord, I understand the teaching of the Blessed One in this way that those things called 'obstructions' by the Blessed One, are not necessarily obstructive for him who pursues them."

See also footnote 1.
I don't think you should take this example as general advice, that you should go around calling everyone "foolish" and "worthless" and so on.
And I don't think that most people can (or should) "justify most of their harsh speech away". Firstly, I think that most harsh speech comes from anger and hurt, attachment and so on, for example:

"He abused me, he ill-treated me, he got the better of me, he stole my belongings;"... the enmity of those harbouring such thoughts cannot be appeased.

Hence the question about whether the speech is "with a kindly heart, or inwardly malicious".
Secondly I think that people often respond better to gentle input.
Here we are still talking about this one bit of harsh speech, thousands of years later!
Also, consider the words you're using. I think "abuse" for example is when you're "mis-using" a relationship. The Buddha has some duty (as a teacher), as well as authority, and even a supernatural ability -- to correct one of his errant monks on a matter of doctrine isn't exactly "abuse" (of their relationship).
Whereas most forms of verbal bullying, that I might imagine in lay or family life, maybe is more abusive.

MN 58:

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.

When is the proper time to say beneficial but unendearing & disagreeable words? It is when not saying them would lead to even worse results! In one Pali Canon sutta, Buddha uses a simile of a surgeon saving a patient wounded by a poisoned arror:

Friend Niganthas, it's as if a man were shot with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. As a result of being shot with the arrow, he would feel fierce, sharp, racking pains. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon. The surgeon would cut around the opening of the wound with a knife. As a result of the surgeon's cutting around the opening of the wound with a knife, the man would feel fierce, sharp, racking pains. The surgeon would probe for the arrow with a probe. As a result of the surgeon's probing for the arrow with a probe, the man would feel fierce, sharp, racking pains. The surgeon would then pull out the arrow. As a result of the surgeon's pulling out the arrow, the man would feel fierce, sharp, racking pains. The surgeon would then apply a burning medicine to the mouth of the wound. As a result of the surgeon's applying a burning medicine to the mouth of the wound, the man would feel fierce, sharp, racking pains. But then at a later time, when the wound had healed and was covered with skin, he would be well & happy, free, master of himself, able to go wherever he liked.

The pain in this simile is obviously dukkha, the arrow (as explained in MN105) is craving, the poison is confusion or ignorance spreading the toxins of desire, obsession, and negativity. And the surgeon is Buddha, helping the student remove that craving and clean out confusion -- even at cost of creating short-term pain. Because if the doctor were to leave the poisoned arrow in the body, not wanting to cause pain for the patient, the patient would suffer even more and eventually die!
The way my (Mahayna) teacher explained this to me, there are two levels to our application of Buddhist rules:

The basic level, when rules are understood simplistically & literally (which is actually the third fetter, known as "silabbata-paramasa" or attachment to rules as a kind of "cargo-cult").
The advanced level, when the real purpose behind rules is well-understood. That real purpose is preventing suffering and attaining Peace.

When you get to advanced level you are still in alignment with the literal rules 99% of the time. However sometimes, in the remaining 1%, you end up doing things that go contrary to the letter of a rule - in order to uphold the true "spirit" and achieve the "higher purpose".
For example, there is a bodhisattva vow (=training rule) that goes like this:

Not overpowering those on a perverted path.
If, due to laziness malice, you do not expel, punish or deflate the pride of those who need it, you will incur this down-fall. Some situations may require forceful action to stop harm.

-- this is listed as rule #45 of the 46 secondary bodhisattva vows originally coming from Asanga's Yogacarabhumi Sastra.
There are multiple examples in Tibetan Buddhist folklore (e.g. in 100,000 Songs Of Milarepa) of situations when the protagonist was challenged by a "demonic force" and was required to let go of the attachment to pacifism and use some form of (usually verbal, and sometimes magical) aggression.
There is also a not widely publicized early story (Jataka?) about Buddha and Uruvela Kasyapa, the leader of the fire worshipers that Buddha converts 2nd after his enlightenment, shortly after he enlightens his five original friends. In that story, Buddha and Kasyapa get into a dispute about the nature of Enlightenment and each other's attainment levels, and end up "turning into nagas" (snakes) and "exchanging fire". The argument is finished when Buddha is said to manifest even more fire than Kasyapa, which overpowers "the old naga". To me this sounds like an echo of a rather violent debate that involved some heated arguments and possibly yelling.
All this is to say that the use of aggression in Buddhism seems to be justified in some very rare cases when it is required to subjugate a foolish and/or aggressive opponent of Dharma. A typical real-life case (and I have witnessed one in the presence of my Zen Master), is when the person is foolish enough to not notice Master's silent disapproval of what that student is saying or doing, which leads to Master escalating the disapproval to the point of being harsh.
Finally, in Zen and Vajrayana there is a whole other level of "harsh" (unpleasant, disagreeable) speech with Master embarrassing the student to help let go of the egoistic defenses, see one's attachments, and achieve groundlessness. At that level, it is considered a skillful means serving a higher purpose and therefore justified.
Other than these two scenarios (subjugating foolish and/or aggressive opponents of Dharma and murdering student's ego) I don't think I've ever heard of any other scenarios in Buddhism, when the use of "harsh" (unpleasant, disagreeable) speech was justified and appropriate.
But the main idea here is that our long-term goal is Liberation from Suffering. This goal is more important than tiny bit of extra suffering created in students.

Could Andrei kindly explain how MN 105 was about harsh speech? Thanks

@Dhammadhatu MN105 explains who is the surgeon and what is the arrow. Buddha as the surgeon uses speech as his scalpel, which causes the pain short-term, but stops the pain long-term. It is up to you to add two and two together and understand what that means.

To me the tone of the speech is an example of harsh speech.
You are misreading. You are imagining things. His tone is always of compassion.
If I were to use this kind of speech in my day-to-day life I would consider myself not living up to the standard of Right Speech as per the Noble Eightfold Path. I understand, however, that the Buddha controls his speech masterfully. In that case, how did this sort of speech come to be? There is no clause in 'Right Speech' that allows us to engage in harsh speech for the greater good - for example rebuking a monk harshly. That being said, do not mistake this for casting doubt on the Buddha. I consider him a good example of what everyone should act like and his control of virtue, faculties, and activities is something everyone should strive for.
You are trying to criticize Buddha for using harsh speech. If as a father you scold your son sometimes to put him on the right path then is it harsh speech ?
Also, there are several more examples. I have read through chunks of the Pali Canon and there are other Suttas where the Buddha engages in speech I would again consider a violation of Right Speech (not that I have a perfect record of Right Speech). My question is why? Why not rebuke without harshness and adhere perfectly to gentleness?
Criticizing Buddha is like criticizing Father. Such a criticism will lead you towards doubt and confusion. He is rebuking in the best possible way ,in the best interest of the monk.

I just don't think you understand what I'm saying. I have no doubt in the Buddha. The reason for my question was to refine my own understanding and practice of Right Speech. To refine it, I need to understand why and how the Buddha engages in Right Speech, especially when his engagement in Right Speech 'appears' contrary to what I've been practicing so far. Finally, and I've already said this several times, so I should not be writing it here: Right Speech goes beyond intention. It is not limited to compassion. It needs to be gentle, appealing, and pleasing to people at large.

Harsh speech follow to Collins dictionary:

Harsh actions or speech are unkind and show no understanding or
  sympathy.

Wrong speech follow to Sutta. Ma. Mū. Verañjakasuttaṃ:

Would talk roughly, saying insolent words that are sharp and cursing. Words bordering on anger and not conductive to concentration. Would say frivolous, untimely, untruthful words, not in keeping with the Teaching and the discipline.

But the buddha's words is more flexible, beniefical, in Sutta. Ma. Ma. Abhayarājakumārasuttaṃ:

1 In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual,
  untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing &
  disagreeable to others, he does not say them.
2 In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say
  them.
3 In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense
  of the proper time for saying them.
4 In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual,
  untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not
  say them.
5 In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say
  them.
6 In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the
  proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has
  sympathy for living beings."

So, when buddha blame Sāgata-bhikkhu in VN Surāpāna-sikkhāpada (and the other bhikkhus in many Vinaya rules [sikkhāpada]), it is not harsh speech, because after that, he became an arahanta.
However, in Devadatta case, nobody could change his vindictiveness, so buddha made devadatta as a cause of statute making instead in Vinaya. Mahāvi (1) Saṅghādisesa Dasamasaṅghādisesaṃ. Also, buddha try to keep Devadatta's students instead of him in Vinaya. Culla (2) Saṅghabhedakkhandhakaṃ, so buddha helped Devadatta by helping his students:

the venerable Sāriputta spoke thus to the Lord: “Devadatta, Lord, having split the Order, is setting out for Gayā Head with as many as five hundred monks.”
“Can there not be for you, Sāriputta and Moggallāna, compassion for these newly ordained monks? Go you along, Sāriputta and Moggallāna, before these monks fall into trouble and distress.”

There is much talk about the divine or third eye and yet not much ever said about the divine ear... typically depicted by pierced and stretched out lobes.
Abuse of both the divine eye and divine ear often occur... they are teachers is really the only divine thing about them; If one becomes inflamed by the divine eye or divine ear then they will fall back off the path of the middle way and once again into the two extremes ...No different than with that of the normal eye and normal ear.
The divine ear; is where hearing is meant to come clear not be used in search of the pleasant as an extreme same as with the eye with the pleasant. Such practices are exactly what is meant by the six-fold eternal suffering and the six-fold eternal bliss. That is the upper and lower limit of the duality world of Samsara...
If one in the practice of the hearers: Theravadin were to grasp with their ear a word or sound as a vehicle? They will hear all of it to the very end of it's range. The same way with the eye, nose, taste, sensation and mind as separate and individual consciousnesses. Attaching to dhamma/dharma when heard is suggested to be set upright on the path, attaching to those thus gone is suggested to be set back upright on the path too the other senses etc. the same ...attaching to the extremes is not suggested as it only leads right back into the six-fold world of samsara being attached to the six sense consciousnesses and their six sense consciousness bases.
The Surangama Sutta clearly points to this; there is another Sutta that points out "Knowing one's range" but I don't know the name of it, that is helpful in regard to the senses and their bases too it doesn't specifically state anything about the senses as they on a whole are simply referred to as "range".
Those that practice A Lot will notice the various Bhumi's arises and passing... some may get disturbed like why is a dog laying on the floor? Why is there a corpse in the bed? Those beings do not know their range... and if they do know their range they are there either as help or hindrance. Typically either hindrance to meditation or some help they can't really provide, or not knowing how they even got there to begin with.
The three marks of existence are important in such a case; Impermanent, Not Self, and Suffering... What they want or expect who cares? They're beings that don't know their range.

The sutta excerpt is a translation. It may sound harsher in English than in Pali. Regardless, what was spoken was truthful speech, namely, the monk "misunderstood" Dhamma and the monk "misrepresented the Buddha" and the monk "undermined his own future" if the monk continued to hold those wrong views.
Also, the monk was repeatedly advised by the other monks his view misrepresented the Buddha's teaching but he would not change his views.
Importantly, unlike today with monks who seek to create the own cults with their own interpretations of Buddha-Dhamma, when the Buddha was alive He maintained a strict purity of his teachings within his monastic community.
Also, monks are subject to strict discipline and communal confession. Even today, if a senior monk commits a serious offense he is demoted temporary to a junior, even novice, status, and must tell all monks, including visiting monks, of his transgression. I think this is better than Catholic priest who engage in pedophilia and the Church covers it up and forgives them.
In summary, in the Buddhist Monastic Sangha, censure & confession occur publicly (communally) and thus what could ordinarily be perceived as "humiliation" often occurs.
In conclusion, those who embrace "political correctness" will struggle to understand Buddhism.

I upvoted this comment, because I feel that it was unjustly downvoted. I suspect that the non-sequitur about "political correctness" at the end likely made the post seem politically radicalized. I would advise removing it. You needn't follow this advice, of course.

You should take my advice rather than try to give it. Thanks for the up vote.


text:
What is mental phenomenon?
Every internal sense organ comes along with corresponding external organ. For example eye comes along with form, ear comes along with sound, nose comes along with smell , mind comes along with mental phenomenon.
I am aware of the meaning of form or sight , sound , smell etc .. but I am not sure what is meant by mental phenomenon?
When eye and form/sight come together eye consciousness arises.
When nose and smell come to together nose consciousness arises.
In both the statement above it is clear from my experience what is sight and smell. But when we say mind and mental phenomenon come together mind consciousness arises, it is not clear from my experience ,what is the mental phenomenon? Is mental pehnomenon the memory of past or the simulation of future or is it the dream or is it the speech ?
There are different types of tastes ,colors ,odours, touch etc... Are there different types of mental phenomenon also?

Phenomena source is one of the twelve sources. It is apprehended only by mental consciousnesses: In Commentary to the Middle-Length Lamrim, Geshe Jampa Gyatso says:

The twelve sources are the six object-possessors (the eye source, ear
  source, nose source, tongue source, body source, and mental source)
  and the six objects (form source, sound source, odor source, taste
  source, tangible object source, and phenomena source).

There are two types of mental consciousnesses:

Conceptual consciousnesses
Non-conceptual mental consciousnesses

An example of a conceptual consciousness is a memory-consciousness. Examples of non-conceptual mental consciousnesses are the five clairvoyances, and dream-consciousnesses. The five clairvoyances are: minds apprehending minds in the continuum of other persons, the divine eye, and so forth.
If it is a phenomena source, it cannot be apprehend by a sense consciousness. However, if it is a mental consciousness, it does not necessarily apprehend phenomena source. For example, the divine eye apprehends actual form (i.e. form which is form source).
Furthermore, an example of a mental consciousness apprehending phenomena source is a dream-consciousness. A dream-car is called 'form that is not form source but phenomena source', it is not fully qualified form. In Commentary to Lorig, Geshe Tenzin Tenphel says:

The blue of a dream is a phenomena source, an object of mental
  consciousness, whereas actual blue is a form source, an object of eye
  consciousness.

An example of a valid conceptual consciousness is a memory-consciousness remembering one's mother. Its appearing object is a mental image, and the actual mother is the object of engagement. A mental image is a phenomena source, and therefore a conceptual consciousness apprehends its object of engagement by way of a phenomena source appearing.

According to Asanga and Vasubandhu's Abhidharma texts, here are five examples of phenomena source:

Dream-objects
Kasinas (such as the water or earth kasina to the perspective of a yogi)
Appearances of hair falling, etc. appearing to an eye that is subject to disease.
The appearance of two moons when there is one moon in actuality.
The appearance of an actual face when we look at the reflection of a face in the mirror.

Can I say that all dhammas are mental phenomenon?

@DheerajVerma No, not even from a Yogacara viewpoint. Go back to my second statement: if it is not apprehended only by mental consciousness, it is not phenomena source. Are shape and color, smell, etc. apprehended only by mental consciousnesses?

Mental phenomenon in the context of the six senses is things like: thought, memories, mental images... things like that. Mental formations also fall in this category, these are basically thoughts.
The arising mind consciousness is thus aware of thoughts, or of memories and so on.
Taste is just taste. When you differ, you assign different signs/characteristics. This is a mental proces after receiving the basic taste object. As soon as you differentiate you are passed the point of 'let tasting just be tasting', imho. That's why on a retreat you can, at a certain point, no longer differentiate let alone know what you're eating. Concepts like salty, sweet or bitter no longer come up. Well, at least that's my experience.

Mental formation (sankhara) is the current object of awareness of mind consciousness.
Mind is able to perceive in direct (things as they are), representative (deluded, distinguished and prejudiced) and purely in mind-object way (abstract, not in touch with reality).

The list of 51 mental formations: https://plumvillage.org/transcriptions/51-mental-formation/
The Four Layers of Consciousness from the perspective of Yogacara: https://www.lionsroar.com/the-four-layers-of-consciousness/

Edit:
Apologies. Edited so it rather displays all the relevant text rather me trying to give a summary.
Presence of mental formation/phenomena:

Your ear and the music come together and provoke the manifestation of
  the mental formation called touch, which causes store consciousness to
  vibrate. That information, a new seed, falls into the store continuum.
  Store consciousness has the capacity to receive the seed and store it
  in its heart. Store consciousness preserves all the information it
  receives. But the function of store consciousness isn’t just to
  receive and store these seeds; its job is also to process this
  information.

Absence of mental formation/phenomena:

There are times when sense consciousness operates in collaboration
  with store consciousness without going through the mind. It’s funny,
  but it happens very, very often. When you drive your car, you are able
  to avoid many accidents, even if your mind consciousness is thinking
  of other things. You may not even be thinking of driving at all. And
  yet, most of the time at least, you don’t get into an accident. This
  is because the impressions and images provided by eye consciousness
  are received by store consciousness, and decisions are made without
  ever going through mind consciousness. When someone suddenly holds
  something close to your eyes—for instance, if someone is about to hit
  you, or when something is about to fall on you—you react quickly. That
  quick reaction, that decision, is not made by mind consciousness. If
  you have to make a quick maneuver, it’s not your mind consciousness
  that does it. We don’t think, “Oh, there is an accident, therefore I
  have to quickly swerve to the right.” That instinct of self-defense
  comes from store consciousness.

Volitional formations are called Sankhara. There are 3 types of Sankhara: Bodily formations , speech formations and mental formations. We can not say all sankhara are mental formations.   Mental phenomenon I guess means Mental objects.

It is unclear by your example.
Whenever object of sense becomes a mental formation is for example, if mind consciousness is aware that you are smelling the smell, or seeing red colour, or form - it is now a mental formation and phenomena.

As far as I know Sankhara has no direct English translation like many words that yield only contextual meaning as they originate from Pali.
But here: https://www.imsb.org/three-questions-and-responses-about-sankhara/


text:
How to extend the counter-part sign? What even is this?
As I'm learning to master the first jhana one must do two things, master the five masteries & be able to extend the sign. For the masteries,
• Mastety Of Adverting
 ×Turning your attention & focus on any jhana factor after! anywhere,time or place
• Mastery Of Attainment
  × Entering jhana concentration quickly, Anytime you wish
• Mastery of Resolving
×Staying in the absorption for as long as one wants.
• Mastery of Emerging
× Emerge from The Jhanas Quickly
• Mastery Of Reflection
×Looking at & learn each thing you did to enter each jhana factor.
Please tell me if I'm incorrect. Now for extending the sign. I don't truly understand how to do such a thing, or even what it is. Here's a passage from the book I'm reading.

The perfecting of the first jhana involves two steps: the extension of the sign
  and the achievement of the five masteries. The extension of the sign means
  extending the size of the counterpart sign, the object of the jhana. Beginning
  with a small area, the size of one or two fingers, the meditator gradually
  learns to broaden the sign until the mental image can be made to cover the
  world-sphere or even beyond (Vism. 152-53; PP.158-59).

Can someone please elaborate for me please. I need to understands what the counter-part sign is & how to extend it. Is it a mental image you have? So a kasina ot any other mental image you form?

From my own meditation experience... For what it's worth...
Usually, when meditation is going well, you feel very comfortable and can relax, your level of concentration grows. Concentration on what? On nothing really, just on sitting and being in the moment. At some point even the breath stops being important, it's more like you no longer get distracted from sitting and staring at your own "raw" mind...
When that happens, it feels almost like you start tripping. I'm sorry for using a highly contemporary comparison, but I can't come up with a better image for what happens at that moment. At least in my experience, I start floating into some altered state of mind... While staying firmly in the present moment, without losing my concentration... In this state of mind I "see" feelings as "shapes" and "colors". It's hard to describe, because that "seeing" is not really visual, the shapes are not really shapes and the colors are not colors. They are feelings. But they are much more "loud" and "thick" than our normal feelings, they have more structure and differentiation so to speak. I believe this is the so-called "counterpart sign".
No two people have the same experiences, but when your get in touch with your deep subconscious emotional mind, you will experience something strange. This something, whatever it is in your case, will start small and then grow and expand. Then you have a choice to either keep relaxing and going deeper into that, or hold on, or come back out. In my experience, when I go deeper I eventually fall into something like a dream state.
In this dream state I lose sense of time, and I don't really have control, but there is still a sense of something going on, and I feel that, and it is good. Sometimes there is a feeling of some mental knots getting untied. Sometimes there is a feeling of resting. Sometimes there is a feeling of opening. Sometimes there is a feeling of sweetness. It also serves as a kind of reset button, meaning, when you "wake up" you feel much refreshed, more grounded, well-rested, balanced, and calm.
It's not really that magical. It's rather similar to a moment when you're falling asleep.
So my answer to your question, "how to extend the counterpart sign" is: "by relaxing into it, by relaxing deeeeep into the present moment".

So i just shouldn't worry about it. Just focus on my object and it will come when it comes. Ive reached access concentration before, the feeling was amazing. I felt a pleasant feeling slowly creeping through my body. Mg breath became faint and that kind of jumped me out of it. But i will keep going and counter part sign will come i guess theres no need to try and understand it but experience it

Yeah, except if I were you I wouldn't hold on to the object too much. It serves as an anchor to stabilize the mind, but once the mind has stabilized, it will want to let go of the object and rest on itself.

I am a practitioner of tummo and I can say that after I after entering jhana multiple times can enter jhana quicker than I used to.
The best advice I can give to anyone is relaxed awareness in your meditation object! This is how I gained proficiency!

Gaze into space  with both eyes, with the body motionless, without
  speaking, and with a gentle and natural coming and going of the
  breath. Tilopa has said:  Hold the mind as if it is space.Make it like space and bind the breath evenly.
  When there is complete knowledge of equality, it dissolves
  completely.

You can different exercises in order  to gain proficiency like changing your object of meditation size,colors ect...
Also take a look at this

I think i found some insight into so i want to provide my own answer for others. This is just one view though.
Pure, Beautiful mental image. It will feel strange at first. But mentally joyful. We never experienced such things but the mind will try to described & understand it. For some its some form of light, some a ecstasy feeling. But all 5 sense are gone. You see no light you feel no sensations but this is just the mind trying to understand & classify the beauty. Even though the mind experience different perspectives one thing is the same the pure mental object.

the goal of meditation in an object is to have no objects remember that,bliss is only temporary what will you do then?

You move to the bliss and focus your mind to reach higher jhanas. Until you feel nothing. Not pain/ pleasure have no thoughts etc

where are you based for these statements?

Personnel experience. May be different for others