pariyuṭṭhati: Partial

The worldling is partial to:

1. I'm materiality, materiality is mine
2. I'm feeling, feeling is mine
3. I'm perception, perception is mine
4. I'm personality, personality is mine
5. I'm consciousness, consciousness is mine

The itinerant hearer is not partial to:

1. I'm materiality, materiality is mine
2. I'm feeling, feeling is mine
3. I'm perception, perception is mine
4. I'm personality, personality is mine
5. I'm consciousness, consciousness is mine

(Note: Other translators have used the word obsession for pariyutthati)

Excerpt from AN 4:195

"Vappa, as for any obscurations causing trouble & vexation that arise in dependence on bodily activity: When one has abandoned bodily activity, those obscurations causing trouble & vexation do not exist for him. He does no new action [kamma], and as for old action, he destroys it with each mental image: a wasting away that is visible here & now, timeless, inviting inspection, pertinent, to be known by the observant for themselves"

Similarly for obscurations that arise in dependence on verbal activity, mental activity & ignorance (link).

Therefore, here are two meditation methods:

1. Abandon bodily activity, verbal activity, mental activity & ignorance.
2. Observe the non-existence of obscurations that could cause trouble & vexation.

Or:

1. Do no new kamma. 
2. Observe the wasting away of old kamma with each mental image.

Guild Unification #1: Different ways by which one can forfeit bodily viewpoint (sakkaya-ditthi)

One way is to arrive at the following viewpoints:

1. Materiality is not self
2. Feeling is not self
3. Perception is not self
4. Constitution is not self
5. Consciousness is not self

Similarly, a second way is:

1. The self is not materiality
2. The self is not feeling
3. The self is not perception
4. The self is not constitution
5. The self is not consciousness

A third way is:

1. There is no self in materiality
2. There is no self in feeling
3. There is no self in perception
4. There is no self in constitution
5. There is no self in consciousness

And a fourth way is:

1. There is no materiality in self
2. There is no feeling in self
3. There is no perception in self
4. There is no constitution in self
5. There is no consciousness in self

Guild Unification #2.2: Faith in the Dhamma

 Faith in the dhamma is faith that this-gone's dhamma is well said (Def 1). This faith has a property (Prop 1) - namely it gives rise to valor, recollection, equilibrium & experience.

Any equivalent definition with the same property will also do..

PS: Many thoughts of the nature "the dhamma is now obscure, it is poorly taught, etc" can be fixed by the application of faith "this-gone's dhamma is well said".

Guild Unification #2.3: What is the Sangha?

This post is going to be about quarrels regarding the Guild (Sangha). Faith in the guild is qualitatively different from faith in the Buddha.

Faith in the Buddha is about faith in his awakening. Faith in the Guild is about faith in the correctness of their spiritual practice (Def #3).

Having faith that the Guild is practicing correctly (or has practiced correctly, as the case may be) will give rise to valor, mindfulness, equilibrium & experience (Prop #3).

Is there any other faith that also has the same nature & quality? Yes.. there is the faith that the Bodhisattvas are practicing correctly. This faith too will give rise to valor, mindfulness, equilibrium & experience.

Guild Unification #2.1: What is the Buddha?

Quarrels regarding the Buddha, Dharma & Sangha number among the major splits in the Guild. And there is a way to resolve these quarrels in a dispassionate way.

Resolution #1: What constitutes faith as in Buddha? Going by some threads, we find the Buddha say that the the three knowledges count as Buddhahood (Definition 1).

More empirically (and in accordance with another thread), we can say that having solely faith in the Buddha should lead to valor, mindfulness, equilibrium & experience (Property 1).

There are other faiths, which do not have Prop #1.

If something can be added to Def #1 or removed from Def #1 while still retaining Prop #1, I would say that such a faith constitutes faith in Buddha.

Different beings have different rationales for faith in the Buddha. Resolution #1's question + answer "What constitutes as faith in Buddha" let's one cultivate & multiply faith in the Buddha with neutrality towards one's purpose.

Who are kings, nobles, clerisy, common-folk of the modern age?

Nobles

These are the wealthy people. The exact amount would vary from country to country but in the US, I would say millionaires to billionares.

Clerisy 

The principal indicator is control over the party line. In the US, they are likely university professors or journalists.

Kings

Tend to be of two types. If they are king of clerisy roots, they are a university professor who made a deep & lasting impression on some billionaires. If they are a king of noble roots, they probably sponsor many a university professor through his foundation. The principal indicator is that they are able to mobilize everyone else for some cause or the other.

EDIT: I now believe that the closest thing to a king is an activist leader.

Common-folk

The classic case is a freelancer.