text:
Why Buddha was not worried about his family after enlightenment?
Of course, after getting enlightened, One is free from worry: now the person is in higher dimension and is always happy, as he knows how perfect everything is.
But still Buddha's family was there; I mean, wasn't his family his responsibility?
I remember when the Buddha came back to the palace and met his wife: she asked, "just tell me, if it was possible to get enlightenment in the palace."
How necessary is it to leave our families to practice, and if it is not necessary why didn't Buddha just come back? I always feel sad when I think about Siddhārtha Gautama's wife Yashodhara.
If one is enlightened, he can not hurt anyone feelings: but Buddha hurt Yashodhara's feelings?
I know I am incorrect somewhere, because after all He was enlightened, so he can not take wrong decision.

But still Buddha's family was there; I mean, wasn't his family his responsibility?

Yes.

I remember when the Buddha came back to the palace and met his wife: she asked, "just tell me, if it was possible to get enlightenment in the palace."

You remember?

How necessary is it to leave our families to practice, and if it is not necessary why didn't Buddha just come back? I always feel sad when I think about Siddhārtha Gautama's wife Yashodhara.

Gautama had this urge to find out the meaning of this life and suffering, and that was his ONLY goal. He wanted to leave so he could concentrate on that. I am going to quote Chuck Palahniuk here -If you want to make an omelette, you have to break some eggs. This is the SAME with any other goal. You have to make some sacrifices.

If one is enlightened, he can not hurt anyone feelings: but Buddha hurt Yashodhara's feelings?

Cannot hurt any feelings? That doesn't make any sense. Feelings are for the person who is at the receiving end. Not for the Buddha. Have you heard of the saying "truth is bitter"? Bitter is a feeling that we experience because of our subjective minds.

I know I am incorrect somewhere, because after all He was enlightened, so he can not take wrong decision.

What's your point? There is NO SUCH THING as right decision and wrong decision. It purely depends on the context of the situation. If Gautama wants the answer he is seeking, then he has to leave the family. Period. It is NOT WRONG. He did it because he was yearning for it. It cannot happen to you or me, because we don't have the guts to sacrifice and drop everything that doesn't matter and go towards our goal. If Gautama wanted to rule the world or a kingdom, he would have taken different actions. Actions are according to the goal and the situation. Don't think in terms of marriage/divorce law or morality here.
I also want to add finally that, to go for Nirvana is definitely a selfish matter. If I want to find out what it is, it is because it is MY DESIRE to find out. Without Desire, you cannot live, breathe, feel or do anything. It is a desire to find out about life that Gautama went forth with. And whether you like it or not, it is selfish. And why not be selfish about this? Yes you will hurt some feelings, but like I said, you cannot have everything, you have to sacrifice.

well that is a rude answer, but its kind of true as well, Now plz don't say there is NO SUCH THING.

Why Buddha was not worried about his family after enlightenment?
There's a section titled "Celibacy versus Responsibility" towards the end of this article, A Happy Married Life.
Here are some excerpts:

His sacrifice is considered all the more noble because he set aside his personal needs and desires in order to serve all of mankind for all time.
Had he remained in the royal palace, his service would have been confined to only his own family or his kingdom.
One of the Buddha's earliest tasks after gaining his Enlightenment was to return to his palace to enlighten the members of his family. In fact, when his young son, Rahula asked the Buddha for his inheritance, the Buddha said that Rahula was heir to the richest wealth, the treasure of the Dhamma. In this way, the Buddha served his family, and he paved the way for their salvation, peace and happiness.
Another important fact was that the Buddha knew that his wife and son would not starve in his absence. During the time of the Buddha it was considered quite normal and honorable for a young man to retire from the life of a householder. Other members of the family would willingly look after his dependents. When he gained his enlightenment, he was able to give them something no other father could give — the freedom from slavery to attachment.

In summary:

He did it for everyone, not only his family
The members of his family, too, were subject to illness, old age, and death. If he had continued his life as a prince or worldly ruler, he would not have found how to liberate them from that.

How necessary is it to leave our families to practice
Is it hard to generalize? It's a choice, isn't it? A choice which has consequences. It's not "necessary", for example you don't have to be good and kind ... but intentional action has consequences.
And in some countries, I've read that most men do both, i.e. they leave their families temporarily (to live as monks) and (after disrobing) return to live with their families.
Buddhism doesn't seem to me to be anti-marriage. If I remember correctly, some of the rules in the Vinaya are motivated towards not breaking up families.
Look at the introduction though:

"If a man can find a suitable and understanding wife and a woman can find a suitable and understanding husband, both are fortunate indeed."

It may be that practice is necessary in order to be suitable and understanding.
Also everyone must "leave their families" eventually (i.e. people die).
If one is enlightened, he can not hurt anyone feelings
If one is not enlightened, then I think that one may tend to be ruled by feelings: your own feelings, your wife's feelings, your mother's feelings, your children's and friends' and so on.

But still Buddha's family was there; I mean, wasn't his family his
  responsibility?

In the Buddha's time families lived in clans or extended families. The Buddha's family was very wealthy and Yashodhara was fully provided for.
Also, it is highly probable Gotama rarely (if ever) had sex with Yashodhara because the suttas seem to depict Gotama as childless & having lost interest in sensuality (AN 3.39; MN 75) while he lived in his three palaces.
While rarely hypothesized in Buddhism, it is highly likely, after 12 years of childless marriage, Gotama had sex with Yashodhara to have a son at the request of his father. This is because as soon as Gotama had a son, he left home.
Contrary to the legends that say Gotama left home secretly, the suttas (e.g. MN 26) state Gotama left home seeing the tears of his parents stream down their face. Therefore, it seems Gotama possibly made a deal with his family, if he bore an heir to the throne, he could leave home.

I remember when the Buddha came back to the palace and met his wife: she asked, "just tell me, if it was possible to get enlightenment in
  the palace."

That the Buddha returned home showed he cared about his family. The Buddha's son became an arahant and supposedly also Yashodhara, who is mentioned in the suttas with another name. Therefore, the Buddha gave them the greatest gift.

How necessary is it to leave our families to practice, and if it is not necessary why didn't Buddha just come back? I always feel sad when
  I think about Siddhārtha Gautama's wife Yashodhara.

It is not necessary to leave your family permanently but if you want to practise very deeply you might have to leave them for many months and give up sex for a time.

If one is enlightened, he can not hurt anyone feelings: but Buddha hurt Yashodhara's feelings?

Yashodhara's feelings were her own kamma. The Buddha did not hurt her. If she was hurt, she hurt herself.
In the Buddha's time, I imagine women busied themselves with children & performing activities with other women. I imagine is was not the same as today, where husbands & wives live in what is called a 'nuclear family'.

I know I am incorrect somewhere, because after all He was enlightened, so he can not take wrong decision.

When Gotama left home, he was not enlightened. However, fortunately, his leaving home ended being the right decision since he provided salvation to many people.

I don't think AN3.39 depicts him as "uninterested in sensuality while he lived in his three palaces". Which suttas were you thinking of?

AN 3.39 would point to loss of desire for sensual pleasure. I was thinking more of MN 75, however the translation is not so clear, when it refers to "on a later occasion". https://suttacentral.net/en/mn75 I recall reading a translation from the Thai years ago, which sounded like the "later occasion" was while living in the palace.

@Dhammadhatu You just like the possibility that all this is true. Which is fine, but please try removing your biases.

@Rishi… some of the individuals who were close to Buddha, had been also very closely related in numerous past lifetimes. Yasodhara has been his wife in many a past life times. Then they were all reborn at the time of Buddha for the very last time and they all became Arahants (Enlightened) putting an end to this unending samsara. So all of these events, and lievs of these people were extra-ordinary. That is why Samma Sambuddha is called ‘Asama Sama’, i.e. incomparable with any other being but can be compared only to other Samma Sambuddhas (six in the last 91 Kalpas). So we cannot compare those life events with any other. Do you know that on the day of birth, the Buddha-to-be, the child walked seven paces towards the north direction and he raised his right arm, pointing his index finger to the sky and recited a stanza:

“Aggō hamasmi lōkassa (I am the foremost to this world)
  Jeththō hamasmi lōkassa (I am the eldest to this world)
  Setthō hamasmia lōkassa (I am the supreme to this world)
  Ayamantimā jāti, natthi dāni punabbhavō (This is my last birth; I do not have rebirth)”

When the prince reached the age of sixteen, King Suddhodana, his father, arranged for him to be married to his cousin, a charming princess Yasodhara, who was the daughter of Suprabuddha, Lord of Koliya castle and a brother of the late Queen Maya. At the age of 29, stirred by deep reflection on the hard realities of life in seeing the 4 signs, he wanted to understand the truth of suffering and find the way to end that suffering. He knew that it would be impossible to search for an abstract truth, living this worldly life of attachment to pleasures, and decided to renounce his princely life of luxury, pleasures, attachment to his dear Princess Yasodara and the new born son Rahula, and left the Palace to become an ascetic. He saw the birth of the child as a hinderance. Buddha named his son "Rahula," meaning "chain" or "hindrance.” Thus, while still in the prime of life, he cut off his hair and beard, put on the saffron robe, and entered upon the homeless life of renunciation, seeking a way to release from the round of repeated birth, old age, and death.
The issues that you highlighted, @Rishi.., does not affect a Buddha / Buddha-to-be. He has this noble quality Akampita. It means  unshaken; calm; resolute; Also the Buddha radiate metta equally towards his adversary Devadatta, Yasodhara his wife, and Patacara the demented woman, his royal father King Suddhodana and Sopaka the humble low-caste youth.
Earlier I mentioned that the closest loved ones all became Arahants (Enlightened). But it was not so. King Suppabuddha and his son Devadatta went to Hell. King Suppabuddha was the father of Devadatta and father-in-law of Prince Siddhattha. The king was very antagonistic to the Buddha for two reasons: first, because Prince Siddhattha had left his daughter Yasodhara to renounce the world; and second, because his son Devadatta had come to regard him as his arch enemy. He once blocked the Buddha's path and was dead within seven days – a very interesting story (check it out) – as no one can escape the effects of such evil kamma.
Shortly after Buddhahood, his father the King invited the Buddha and the Sangha to his palace with due respect. Having accepted the invitation with compassion, the Buddha visited the palace on the following day with the Arahants and accepted the alms. The Buddha with so much compassion looked around and noticed that one person was not in the hall. It was not because she was proud that she did not come down to see the Buddha that day. It was because her grief was too much. Thus, the Buddha walked up to the place towhere she was. He moved the flimsy curtain aside while standing at the door and saw that she was asleep.
Yasodhara led a very pios life since the day that her husband left the house. From the day she heard that the Prince had become a recluse, Princess Yashodara gave up all her jewellery. She rejected all fine clothes. She took food only in the morning hours after hearing that the Prince does the same. She slept on the floor on a mat.
When the Buddha called her “Dear Yasodhara!” she heard the voice which she had not heard for seven long years. She woke up startled, raised her head and looked at the door. All this time, she remembered the Prince in royal attire. But whom she saw now was a serene, calm, monk in a saffron robe. Her sorrow overtook her. She could not believe that instead of her loving husband that she remembered, she is seeing Siddhartha Gautama the Buddha. She dashed towards the Buddha crying in great pain, dropped herself at the feet of the Buddha, embraced the feet, and started to cry.
The Buddha watched all this with a very calm and serene mind. Princess Yasodhara wailed until her sorrow diminished. Finally, she came to her senses and remembered she was embracing the feet of the exalted Buddha. Then, she felt tremendous respect towards the Buddha and stepped back. It was at that time that the Buddha told a past incident that even in her previous lives Princess Yasodhara had followed Prince Siddhartha with as much love as in this life.

Buddha was silent when his wife asked about need to move away from family for enlightenment. It was just Buddha's desire for enlightenment that he moved out. Remember he was not Buddha but Sidhartha Gautam. If you ask any enlightened soul whether it is required to move away from family the answer is 'no' except is some special cases. It is basic human nature to escape and be alone to solve a problem because it gives you a focus. But I think Buddha would have done it inside palace too. He was an inner scientist and would have found out ways living with his wife, parents and rest of the clan. There is not much to think about the incident of Buddha running away. It is of no consequence. Once the fire is lit it only spreads.
A Buddha knows that all relationships are illusions. He could see himself connected to the whole. Lets suppose you have an experience where every object whether dead or alive in the world is connected to a single source and derive its existence from that source will you differentiate between two persons or even objects. Everything and everyone will become sacred. Budha discovered that there is a law (Dhamma) which makes everything work in unison so why would he be worried?

I think yours is a good question. It seems to me that what I call "brinkmanship Buddhism" or Bodhisattva Buddhism and generally the lay paths see this question as being an issue since it is in part our non-enlightenment that encourages us to form human bonds and look after our "dependants."
For instance, it would all be very well if all sentient beings should become enlightened, then everyone would share their time and wealth with every one else who needs it, but if one married person say, should become enlightened what becomes of that persons dependants? What will happen if the enlightened one realises that all clinging is illusion and that the whole world are dependants? So, perhaps, it is partly for this reason that some more modern schools of Buddhism recommend Bodhisattvas who get close to enlightenment, to the brink of enlightenment, but do not quite because society is supported by our lack of it. In the case of Gautama, he could leave his wife in one of his palaces so it was not really an issue.
So perhaps for the time being it is okay to head for the brink, of for glimpses. Above all, however, this is my excuses for not doing more meditation!

I think yours is an important question. It seems to me that what I call "brinkmanship Buddhism" or Bodhisattva Buddhism and generally the lay paths see this question as being a very real issue since it is in part our non-enlightenment that encourages us to form human bonds and look after our legal dependants. It would all be very well if all sentient beings should become enlightened, then everyone would share their time and wealth, but if one married person say should become enlightened what becomes of that person's dependants? What will happen if the enlightened person realises that all clinging is illusion, and that the whole world are 'dependants'?
The Buddha had palaces so his wife was well looked after. But for the rest of us, enlightenment is just a little fraught! What if I should get there! What would become of my wife and children?
But, then this is mainly for me just an excuse to do less meditation!
I am reminded of Christ's last words on the cross. If you are going leave the world of illusion, as a messiah or mystic, it may be important to have 1) No family or 2) Palaces or 3) Disciples.

Christ said: Matthew 19:29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.

Rishi, and those interested
- Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa -
Family responsibility is a very high one, a "duty" and in fullfilling it, Buddha had point such deeds having done as one of the highest protection, highest blessings:

Support for one's parents,
  assistance to one's wife and children,
  consistency in one's work:
      This is the highest protection.
Giving, living in rectitude,
  assistance to one's relatives,
  deeds that are blameless:
      This is the highest protection.
Maha-mangala Sutta: Protection

Family, aside of blood relation, should be seen as the group of supporters, those one is in certain ways bound for ones benefit and voluntary life-support. Of with one, importand to know, should one not be stingy in share access for others to certain benefits. Otherwise one is incapable to reach highee stages of existances, at the same time, ingratitude is causes the same obstacle.

"Without abandoning these five qualities, one is incapable of entering & remaining in the second jhana... the third jhana... the fourth jhana; incapable of realizing the fruit of stream-entry... the fruit of once-returning... the fruit of non-returning... arahantship. Which five? Stinginess as to one's monastery [lodgings], stinginess as to one's family [of supporters], stinginess as to one's gains, stinginess as to one's status, and ingratitude. Without abandoning these five qualities, one is incapable of entering & remaining in the second jhana... the third jhana... the fourth jhana; one is incapable realizing the fruit of stream-entry... the fruit of once-returning... the fruit of non-returning... arahantship.
"With the abandoning of these five qualities, one is capable of entering & remaining in the second jhana... the third jhana... the fourth jhana; capable of realizing the fruit of stream-entry... the fruit of once-returning... the fruit of non-returning... arahantship..."
MACCHARIYA SUTTA — STINGINESS (6)

So there semms to be a conflict also in the Buddhas teaching on this matter. "Pay debt, in ways of grateful acts and at the same time, share and let go of the 'family'?" But actually it isn't, if looking on it deeper.
So leaving the blood related family a little in regard, the family meant on primarly level, one migh see that friends, collegs groups of people around ones "livestyle", be it a good, or a bad, are often, from a personal view, in dependency what one individuall sees a benefical and joy-supporting, higher regarded as blood-family.
If such a non-blood-related family, father, mother... supports in just ways of sensual pleasures, such higher regard is wrong. The lowest and higherst kind of support can be seen as in:

(1) harmful (for one self and other) ways of providing enjoyment in sensuallity and the four prerequisites: regarding fools as relatives and family, people providing each other with drugs, poisions, using means like lying, taking what is not given, as means to come to the desired objects of enjoyment. A wandering on in the realms of animals, hungry ghosts and hell, with short visits in good realms.(This group, is by most being regarded as the most benefical, and therefore most binding)
(2) harmless ways of providing enjoyment in sensuality and the four prerequisites: this is the good family in the world, with it common lose and gain, wandering on inpleasant ways, for life like humans and devas. Providing by means of harmlessness and rightous gains by proper sacrifies.
(3) providing enjoyment without much special enjoyment but the four requisites (food, cloth, shelter, medicine): by proper, harmless and sacrify of own. This is where all beings parents always fall under. Short, long... starting by being received and provided in a womb. A/the family that leaves open all ways, does not bind in certain direction of ones own tendency and intent. Including also support in regard a basic skills and knowledge in the world. This family is regarded as gods.
(4) heavenly relation, providing with livelihood beyond material food and needs by harmless means. The relation with teacher, Devas and gods, exchanging and sharing virtues above ordinary realms. This is the highest family-relation within the world. So also the duty or responsibility level.
(5) relation with the Noble One, providing in the most respons-able way torward the whole family of wordily beings, with the needs of path and the aim of beyond being anyhow related any more: unbond***: This is the direct relation with the Buddhas, the Dhamma and the bondless community of Nobel Ones, Sangha. The highest responsibility, and duty one can fullfil, become part with the aim: "The task is done. The holly live fullfilled. No more further (duties, responsibilities) for the world (and its beings). Free of debt."

So when one considers this levels of families, their positions in regard in responsibility, one, for oneself more or less still to much bound in lower relations, might nevertheless see that taking on higher regard of relations and responsibilities has to be rightous also regarded as such, and will be, of people who are not totally blind. Yet one him/herself might be not able (better willing to go forward) to leave certain levels and step higher in regard. Nevertheless, higher relations, higher taking on of responsibility, will e regarded as praiseworthy, heros of people with basic right view, not to speak of people of integrity: "going forth/forward, is always praised by the wise!"

(Mv.I.7.12) The money-lender saw Yasa sitting there and on seeing him said to him, “Yasa, my son, your mother is lamenting and full of grief. Give your mother her life (back?)!”
...(Mv.I.7.13) Then Yasa looked up at the the Blessed One. Then the Blessed One said to the money-lender, “What do you think, householder: For Yasa, who has seen and known the Dhamma with the knowledge and vision of one in training—just as you have—whose mind, as he reflected on the level (of mind) as he had seen and known it, was through lack of clinging/sustenance released from effluents: Would it be possible for him to revert to the lower life and indulge in sensuality as he did before as a householder?”
“No, lord.”
“Householder, Yasa has seen and known the Dhamma with the knowledge and vision of one in training, just as you have.
“Reflecting on the level (of mind) as he had seen and known it, his mind was, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released from effluents.
“It would be impossible for Yasa to revert to the lower life and indulge in sensuality as he did before as a householder.”
(Mv.I.7.14) [The money-lender:] “Lord, it’s a gain for Yasa, a great gain for Yasa, that his mind is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released from effluents!
“May the Blessed One acquiesce to my meal tomorrow, with Yasa as your attendant monk.”
The Blessed One acquiesced with silence.
Then the money-lender, understanding the Blessed One’s acquiescence, got up from his seat, bowed down to him, circumambulated him, keeping him to his right, and left.
(Mv.I.7.15) Then Yasa, not long after the money-lender had left, said to the Blessed One,
“May I receive the Going-forth in the Blessed One’s presence? May I receive the Acceptance?”
“Come, monk.” Said the Blessed One. “The Dhamma is well-taught. Live the holy life.”
Such was the venerable one’s Acceptance. At that time there were seven arahants in the world.
The Discussion of Going-forth

[My person shell stop here, to visit certain past relatives here for/to give alms, so that they might develope possible, increase, relations of higher kinds, for now, as well: continuing is not sure and not really obligated. Let's see.]
Secular "Buddhist" do not regard relations (upanissaya) and mostly also not the three things wise praisesn "Generosity (dāna), assistance for father and mother (eg. relativesb sīla), going forth (*bhāvana), even using the labels for outsider (people who have no relation with the Noble ones, even by outwardly fullfilling of duties to them: tending and possible even already outcasts based on their elements of views).
(Kind of) Persons (whom one tends to, personality), dwelling (country, places), weather (clima), food (that is clinged on, prefered), among with other Dhammas, are matters of upanissayapaccayena, strong relation cause. As the Buddha pointed out is that realatives in tendency common meet each other again and again, gather together, and it is seldom that beings strive for higher relationship, giving nurishment and food, paccaya (strong causes) for such, by promted deeds (merely deliberated; not just unpromted, merely accidentally).
If one is blessed - see the lower highest blessings in regard of condition/relation in the Mangala Sutta "living among upright people/rigthous countries", one will propable learn outwardly proper regards of what is worthy to nurish by giving respect (again: generosity, fullfilling duties of releations and going forth). If born amoung "Brahmas" or people without relation to good relations, living in a strong devotion to unrightous individual lack of relation, in a lost generation, it's very, very seldom to come or to even meet consciously higher relations and requires strong effort to possible do not lose last upanissaya with people of integrity: finding at least strong relation with the lowest family (see above (1)).
So every contact with good families, even noble, is very auspicious. Like meeting the heavenly messangers is seldom (bodywitnessing on the level of mind: oldage, sickness, death, Samana/recluse) and with it the truth of relations getting disenchantment to wordily ones (1-4) and seeing that all other relatives live on the pain of their or other relatives. Mother killing previous mother for here child, cild kills previous child for fullfilling wordily duties to its mother...
Let my person provide here a personal story of meeting once again heaveny messangers in this existence:
By Devas guided and protected, my person once left the palace another time. While sitting on the bank of the Mekong in as so called very poor but actually most rich country, Kampochea (Abundance by own work - or non by lack of it), especially in regard of the seven real treasures,  and reflecting a blessed life and it's inconstancy, kamboja (kamma paccaya), having seen the relation of masters and slaves already.
Then a beggar child, about 4 years, took on the generouse abounded recycling cans and bottles by the hotel owner. No long after that a begging woman, with a baby beated off the beggar child to get the "treasures". At this moment it was clear to me, either if subtile or platant, beings of wordily relations kill each other for the sake of being related and so directly knowing that the strive for relation or responsibility is higher then any other reletion since it does not take side in a battle and benefits then all of the past relatives, all being, whether regarded as own or not own. This was when my person got reminded by meeting the heavingly messangers another time in this existence.
When one has a relation, one has a contract, spoken or unspoken. One holds a promis when holding a relation. Breaking a promise, a contract, is generally breaking precepts, good conduct. But in cases where one ends a contract, a relation, even with disagreement or the contract partner, for the sake of leaving a lower relation to a higher, it might sake the world caused by breaking out of Samsara.
In short: So if one breaks up a relation for other kinds of wordily relations, does not "care" of responsibility, still nurishing on it, is of cause wrong. Not to speak from breaking up responsibility and relation when going into lower life, relations, for its sake.
But if one "leaves« and abounds responsibility, outwardly and inwardly, on wordly levels, in that way showing responsibility an compassion for the sake of all beings, such is more than praise worthy. Now of course not easy to see, to be used to, not to speak of done. A person having even entered the stream, has actually left the direct relation to the family of the Noble One and also the strive after it is a righteous reason to give up certain from other demanted duties, for the sake of higher benefit even for them.
That is especially not easy if near blood relatives are actually relatives of the Devas, when one is related, used to dwell with wives, children, friends of the family of Devas, to leave even parents, wives and chikds, friends, co-worker, assistants and slaves... and it's not so that all Devas, this days, understand.
Under all breaking up of responsibilities of wordily realation, only in regard of the parents, the Buddha gave after request (by Ven. Ananda) to obligation to ask for leave, since a leave of high responsibility might give problems for the estimate of the conventional Sangha.
Monks, especially in regard of possession of the Sangha, are even restricted to show responsibility of wordily value, so to support laypeople, those not after the holly life, on a ideal level, wordilings with material support. Accept to those after the holy life, with tendency to higher conduct and mother and father, a Bhikkhu is not given to share usuall support. A topic that is actually broad and deep connected with corrution in maintaining wordily relations, a serious fault (Sg.13)
In regard of Sangha-property, the convential family of monks has (had) only with two fellow, related religions (bonds, famalies) certain possibilities and duties to take on responsibility: that is the Bhikkhuni-community and their Samaneras, see also duties of teacher and disciples: Vatta Khandhaka: Collection of Duties.
The overview of duties of those having gone forth are topics of:

Incoming Bhikkhus' Duties
Resident Bhikkhus' Duties
Departing Bhikkhus' Duties
The Duties in Giving "approve" (of good deeds: Anumodana)
Refectory Duties
The Duties for Bhikkhus Going for Alms
The Duties of Bhikkhus Living in the Wilderness
Lodging Duties
Toilet Duties
Pupils' Duties
Mentors' Duties

All of course "dutiesk in reagard of the Holly Life and for Nibbanas sake, the strive for it as highest underlying responsibility.
There is no responsibility in regard of lay people, aside of certain conducts of "foreign - policy" for the sake of estimation of the Sangha at large, by Bhikkhus.
The gift of teaching the Dhamma is a individual total voluntary act of goodness (if not made out of corruption and the sake of livelihood and requisits: such is not allowed).
Further readings:

Buddhas former wife and reflexions about responsibilities: Yasodhara and Siddhartha - The Enlightenment of Buddha’s Wife (pdf)
The Spiritual Partner, a nice story about explaining related Devas the going forth from relations, (Ajahn Mun).
The first step of leaving certain responsibilities: Refuge: an Introduction to the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha
A Heart Released, teachings of a "selfish man" staring with namo
Debts, but to whom?, it's better to nurish on good people then on not so good, yet without making any debts no progress, no walk on.
6. Sevitabbasuttaṃ (AN 3.26) Should be associated

these three persons are evident in the world. What three? Bhikkhus, there is a person that should not be associated, there is one that should be associated and there is another that should be honoured and revered and associated.
"Who is the person that should not be associated? Bhikkhus, a certain person is below par in virtues, concentration and wisdom. Such should not be associated unless out of sympathy and compassion.
Not consorting with fools,
  consorting with the wise,
  paying homage to those worthy of homage:
      This is the highest protection.
Living in a civilized land,
  having made merit in the past,
  directing oneself rightly:
      This is the highest protection.

Why it important to value Conditions?, encouragement to work on haining the highest blessings.
Admirable friendship, sutta collection on best relations.
Āvijjā ... maraṇa paṭicca-samuppannesu dhammesu., the understandin of relationship.
Change-of-Lineage (gotrabhū)

Useful synonymous of realation/-ship/family: ñāta, kāya, saṅghaṃ, upanissāya, guṇā, nissāya, supporters, benefactors, ...

Anumodana/dedication of the merits (a usual dedication when having made a gift.)
ឥទំ វោ ទានំ ញាតីនំ ហោតុ សុខិតា ហោន្តុ ញាតយោ
Īdaṃ vo dānaṃ ñātīnaṃ hotu sukhitā hontu ñātayo!
May this sacrifies be for (my) relatives, may (my) relatives develope happiness with it!

Dedicated and in responsibility for the family of the Noble One and their followers, for the current blood/"own" family, for the family of all beings.
That is the why the Dhamma, and proper responsibility in regard of relation, is pleasant at itjs beginning, in the middle an the end.
It's possible to become a relativ of, a khema, step by step!

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose and other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]

Yashodhara could be seeing manifestation of the Buddha and this is enough to keep Yashodhara satisfied.

Can you add a sutta reference?

Sorry no reference, I'm basing on logical thinking. If I were to be Yashodhara, and I have personally seen the Buddha, I'm already very very satisfied and will request for the teachings from him, so that I won't suffer in future lives.


text:
What is the meditation benefits of jhana?
What are the benefits of the 8 Jhana meditation? Can you list them? I have researched but maybe i haven't looked in the right place? What are some during meditation and after?

Jhana is supernormal happiness & also perfect mental clarity in the 4th jhana.
As supernormal happiness, those that reach jhana do not have to depend on anything sensual or worldly for happiness again, such as TV, movies, sex, drugs, music, alcohol, wife, husband, family, fame, money, etc. The mind becomes completely emotionally independent.
As mental clarity, it allows the mind to see more easily through the self-illusion. The self-illusion is the cause of all suffering, whether major or minor. Thus, jhana is the foundation for perfect insight.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
How vipassana is useful for removing fear from myself?
I am doing Vipasana from one year and I  feel it is beneficial for me but in spite of these a lot of fear surrounded me,fear of feature,fear of past a lot of fear surrounded me,fear of seniors.How can I handle these fears with Vipasana meditation.Please guide me.

From what I understand, what we feel as fear is a reaction when the self is in danger of losing something or itself. For example fear of losing reputation in social situations, fear of death.
This thing we call I or self is because of wrong identifications. We are identified wrongly with our body, our mind, our car, our house, our job. If you really think about it, you will see these things are not "I". You are not the job or the bank balance or the body. Please understand this clearly because that is what Vipassana meditation is trying to tell you.
If you observe your thoughts, which come up and go away, arising and passing away, your body is also the same. It is there for a brief period after which it is gone. Your car will get old and stop working. Your job may change or it may be gone tomorrow. Of course you must cherish it while it is there, but you must not get entangled with it or identify with it. Today it is there, but tomorrow it may not be there. Everything is "mortal". You are not immortal, nothing is.
Fear is coming up because you are afraid of something that you think you will lose. If you realize that this body or thoughts or job or car is temporary and may go away anytime, you will find your fear reducing. Because there is truly nothing to lose.

Fear is sometimes unescapable.
Fearful situations will always tend to create fear. If you find yourself in a room with a dangerous animal you will most likely be afraid. If you fear for the future you might or might not have adequate reasons to fear.
As such fear is part of dukkha, it is part of life. It is even necessary to life.

[Ven. Sariputta:] "Now what, friends, is the noble truth of stress? Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful; separation from the loved is stressful; not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful.
"And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] spheres of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth.
"And what is aging? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness, graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called aging.
"And what is death? Whatever deceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, dying, death, completion of time, break up of the aggregates, casting off of the body, interruption in the life faculty of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called death.
"And what is sorrow? Whatever sorrow, sorrowing, sadness, inward sorrow, inward sadness of anyone suffering from misfortune, touched by a painful thing, that is called sorrow.
"And what is lamentation? Whatever crying, grieving, lamenting, weeping, wailing, lamentation of anyone suffering from misfortune, touched by a painful thing, that is called lamentation.
"And what is pain? Whatever is experienced as bodily pain, bodily discomfort, pain or discomfort born of bodily contact, that is called pain.
"And what is distress? Whatever is experienced as mental pain, mental discomfort, pain or discomfort born of mental contact, that is called distress.
"And what is despair? Whatever despair, despondency, desperation of anyone suffering from misfortune, touched by a painful thing, that is called despair.
"And what is the stress of association with the unbeloved? There is the case where undesirable, unpleasing, unattractive sights, sounds, aromas, flavors, or tactile sensations occur to one; or one has connection, contact, relationship, interaction with those who wish one ill, who wish for one's harm, who wish for one's discomfort, who wish one no security from the yoke. This is called the stress of association with the unbeloved.
"And what is the stress of separation from the loved? There is the case where desirable, pleasing, attractive sights, sounds, aromas, flavors, or tactile sensations do not occur to one; or one has no connection, no contact, no relationship, no interaction with those who wish one well, who wish for one's benefit, who wish for one's comfort, who wish one security from the yoke, nor with one's mother, father, brother, sister, friends, companions, or relatives. This is called the stress of separation from the loved.
"And what is the stress of not getting what is wanted? In beings subject to birth, the wish arises, 'O, may we not be subject to birth, and may birth not come to us.' But this is not to be achieved by wanting. This is the stress of not getting what is wanted. In beings subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair, the wish arises, 'O, may we not be subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair, and may aging... illness... death... sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair not come to us.' But this is not to be achieved by wanting. This is the stress of not getting what is wanted.
MN 141

To reduce fear you have two viable options :
-resolve the problem that is making you afraid. Real issues call for real solutions.
-realise the dukkha aspect of existence and grow detachment as a consequence.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

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


text:
What is the way to motivate myself for Vipasana meditation Practice daily?
I am a college student and practice of Vipasana from last year but sometimes I feel laziness and during meditation I feel uncomfortable and I leave meditation at that time.I want to ask, what is way that can motivate me for doing meditation properly with complete dedication ?
thanks !

An individual desirous of mediation very often asks “What shall we do? How do we do it?” In such instances, what have we got to explain to them? How can we motivate him? The proper answer to such questions, that is in keeping with the Dahamma, is that we should practise four activities: Listening to Dhamma, participation in Dhamma discussion, Samatha and Vipassana. Only the individual who practises these four activities together develops his/her  mind and develops the motivation to continue further.
Therefore one should direct one’s mind to all these four aspects. Listening to Dhamma and participating in Dhamma discussions help us gain a good knowledge of Dhamma. From Samatha and Vipassana we develop concentration. In short we need the knowledge of Dhamma and also simultaneously practice meditation.
Some of us want to start meditating after studying the Dhamma. Some others think of studying the Dhamma after completing meditation. This is incorrect. We should select both. They should be done at the correct time.
Also you have to be clear about your intentions, mature about admitting when you have some unskillful intentions in the mind, and honest about the results that come when you act on unskillful intentions. Only by observing that, again and again, can you finally overcome them. When you really see that there’s a connection between unskillful intentions and needless suffering, you become genuinely motivated to find the escape from that suffering. This is the only way you can do it.
When it comes to specially Samatha & Vipassana Meditation, it is not an easy thing to get into as this Mind has been defiled for a Long Time. The word meditation (bhavana) is used so often that we believe it is something very easy to do. In our normal life when we study a subject, all we have to do is to listen, write and then memorize it. But, meditation is not an easy subject, as such. Meditation has to be viewed in the right context. Our minds are obsessed with facts and thoughts. Indeed, it is very difficult for us to turn away from habitual ways of thought and conduct. The practice of mindfulness is a difficult task. Mind is the core of our existence and for a long time it has been defiled. So we should firstly understand that the mind is defiled by delusion and obsessed with all kinds of useless things.
We have constructed our world either by seeing a visible object with the eye, hearing a sound with the ear, smelling an odor with the nose, tasting a flavor with the tongue, touching a tangible object with the body, or cognizing a mind-object with the mind.
Virtue (sila) is the stepping stone. It is the foundation for mental development. For this purpose, the sense organs must be controlled. This is very important. If after reflecting on an object, unwholesome thoughts associated with desire, hatred and delusion arise in our minds, we should be fully aware of this. Then, we should consider the disadvantages of the unwholesome thoughts in this way: ‘These thoughts of mind are unwholesome and bring painful consequences to me and others’.
With determination, those unwholesome thoughts should then be removed. By the removal of unwholesome thoughts, the mind stands firm and becomes calm. t is essential for us to discipline ourselves and make a strong foundation before we undertake the difficult task of training our mind through meditation.


text:
Breach of second precept
Is copying a Dhamma book in hard copy and converting it into a pdf to read on my kindle a breach of the second precept? I am planning only to read it myself and not give it to anyone.
I also thought that Dhamma material should be free. Why are people amongst them well known monks and nuns charging for dhamma material?

See related question; Does illegal downloading or viewing of copyright material violate the second precept?.

Do you own the hard copy of the book, which you're copying ... is it your hard copy?

yes I do own the book ...its my hard copy

There is an unexplored distinction in this question between copyright protection and compensation.  The foundation of copyright includes elements that protect the authenticity and integrity of expression, as well as, use and derivations. There are Fair Use guidelines that can speak to this question in a Buddhist context. Unfortunately, as stated, the second clause of this question conflates compensation with copyright in the absence of sufficient facts -- making this, in fact, two questions.

The second of the Five Precepts (pañca-sila) is  “Adinnadana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami”… meaning…. I undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not given. Overall, the precepts offer a clear moral foundation which has benefits for how we interact with others and our own spiritual progress. When one develops a strong conviction that the sacrifices one might have to make in observing the precepts that are really worth making, that there are some things of greater value to be gained by letting go of those unskillful activities, such thought / doubts come up at times. But here in this instance I do not see anything wrong in what you did.
The question is how can I explain this to you, to one who have decided that you’re not going to kill under any circumstances, that you’re not going to steal under any circumstances from anyone at all, no illicit sex, no lying, no intoxicants ever at all. When you give such limitless protection to all beings in following the precepts to the letter, then you gain a share in that limitless protection as well.  Taking what is not given [stealing] is breaking a precept. A disciple of the noble ones abstains from taking what is not given. But when it comes to the True Teachings of the Buddha there is no such thing as stealing.  Also there is no such thing as plagiarism, or plagiarizing when it comes to dhamma. No one can take ownership of the teachings of the Buddha.
But there is a serious problem, and a grave danger to those who speak of and write about Dhamma. It is of the distortion of the Suddamma. Today many a writers make gross distortions and incorrect adaptation of the Teaching of the Buddha to 'explain' the Dhamma. Thus it is very difficult for you and I to learn the true Dhamma without any adulterations or distortions that are widespread in most of today’s preaching and in the written material found in book stores and libraries. So in going forward in this dhamma path you and I have to be a bit cautious.

Copying a Dhamma book in hard copy that you bought & converting it into a pdf to read on your kindle & not give it to anyone else is not a breach of the second precept.

(-1) This is one of the type of answers which make me cautious about buddhist practice in social contexts .... Why not simply say: "well, that fellow didn't indicate that he/she intended to give it as free", and then to consider really cool: "well, so what's my matter with it?" ?

Your comment is incomprehensible.

It means: to consequently avoid taking things having owners which are not explicitely given for free. The half-sentence with "...cool..." means to arrive at a detached inner state first.

The answer might be clearer if you explained why "that you bought" is important; and whether it would be the same answer if it were a book "that you borrowed". A problem with very short answers like this one is that there's no reason to believe them (except trust or faith in you and in your speaking correctly).

Personally, I think most scenarios is not breaking the precept because the transgression occurs under Copyright Law rather than under Dhamma Law. Under Dhamma Law, if I share my suttas with you & you copy them with my permission, that is not a breach of the 2nd precept. Thus, the only breach that occurs is under copyright law.

Oh sorry, I didn't see (or extrapolated) that clause "... that you bought..." If my english were more fluent I possibly had understood it even in the first version of your answer.

No problem. I added the clause "that you bought" after you made your comment.

There are many sutras which claim that it is merit to copy them. So, even if you did not own the copy of the sutra I would think it was okay to copy it. The problem arises when deciding what to do with that copy. Copyright is a modern concept used to protect commerce. To avoid breaking the law you should own a copy. But, I think the original meritorious idea was to spread the teaching of the sutras.
Spreading the dharma is not always without cost. The dharma is free, but the media may not be without cost. You also have the issue of the clergy
charging money in place of accepting donations. Donations is acceptable in the right place and time, but some societies are not accustomed to that practice.

To take what is not given, is a break of the precept. Just prove that, possible ask the owner (giver), which is not wrong for householder to do and should be usual.
For more and details, one is welcom to look: [Q&A] Breach of second precept (copyrights, Dhamma books)
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]


text:
How to overcome guilt
I am interested in knowing what the Buddha said about guilt. I think I know that it is an unwholesome mind state. Is there any specific teaching that can be gleaned from the suttas. Can anyone also recommend any meditation or contemplation practices to get over crippling guilt.

Basically we felt guild while we regret about mistakes we did, regret and we correcting our mistakes so we don't feel guilt anymore. Apologize is one thing to do.

Buddhism explains the 'doer' of bad actions (kamma) is 'ignorance' ('not-knowing') rather than 'oneself'. When the mind realises an action is bad & hurtful, this is the arising of wisdom & a positive step according to Buddhism. The Dhammapada states:

172. He who having been heedless is heedless no more, illuminates this world like the moon freed from clouds.
173. He, who by good deeds covers the evil he has done, illuminates this world like the moon freed from clouds.

Within the Vinaya, a transgression (one that causes guilt or not) is overcome by declaring it to at least one monk.. The length of time it takes to overcome the transgression was set at the length of time the transgression was kept secret (keep some wrongdoing secret for a year, it is easy to imagine you won't just be able to consciously brush it off in one day!).
The quote on fools and wise people does this idea justice for me:

"Monks, these two are fools. Which two? The one who doesn't see his
  transgression as a transgression, and the one who doesn't rightfully
  pardon another who has confessed his transgression. These two are
  fools.
These two are wise people. Which two? The one who sees his
  transgression as a transgression, and the one who rightfully pardons
  another who has confessed his transgression. These two are wise
  people." AN 2.21

(also, has always worked for me on a personal level - admitting wrongdoing and guilt, preferably in a non-secretive, open setting to others is usually the best way of admitting this to your self, and therefore starting the process of changing yourself for the better)

One thing it says that kusala (wholesome) sila (morality) results in a lack of guilt.

AN 11.1
"Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, Ananda, and freedom from remorse as their reward."

It also mentions that "feeling remorse" doesn't undo an evil deed. What we must do instead is abandon evil deeds:

SN 42.8
That was not right. That was not good. But if I become remorseful for that reason, that evil deed of mine will not be undone.' So, reflecting thus, he abandons right then the taking of life, and in the future refrains from taking life.

So one key, apparently, is sila ("virtue" or "moral conduct"): that includes topics like the "five precepts", harmlessness, good-will, admirable friends, and so on.
I've read in several places (several authors) that good sila is necessary for (should be practiced before) meditation, for example:

To get good Samadhi, Sila (morality) has to be perfect, since Samadhi is build upon Sila. For a good experience of Anicca, Samadhi must be good. If Samadhi is excellent awareness of Anicca will also become excellent.

You asked, "recommend any meditation or contemplation practices to get over crippling guilt" -- the way to get over guilt is to abstain from, refrain from, abandon wrong-doing.

And "remembering your own (past) virtuous acts" might help you to get over guilt.
Also I think that viewing it as "your" guilt, accusing your self of being guilty, may be another example of dukkha associated with a sense of self.

Whatever you have done, what you are feeling guilty about, falls within the realm of human experience. Whatever you have done, has been done before, and will be done again by someone else.  In another culture or at another era of time, you likely would have been praised for doing the same thing. Guilt is always about an action that has occurred in the past, and when you really think about it, is relative, and you are judging yourself. It is a true waste of your present moment, not doing much good at all, if any.
The condition of the human experience, as pointed out by the dharma, there is never anything even close to perfection for anyone, ever. Life is only the way it is, perfect like that. The nature of the dharma can be seen as life is an ongoing learning experience.  Once on the path, you will be faced with wonderful feelings, emotions and experiences, and also with the dreadful ones. You will understand the dharma when you learn to repeat what feels good over time, and stop doing the things that make you feel bad (explore: the eight fold path). You will stop caring whether you get things, or whether you can avoid them, while living morally and lovingly. You will see life flowing to you. You will realize the futility of the self to control much of anything. You will see life as flowing along if you look, the dharma in action.
It starts with the awareness that you do have a SELF and also a self. These highs and lows of existence are experienced by the self and observed by the SELF. The self has a job to do, which is to understand the dharma, and become aware of the SELF, which is indestructible and endures. Buddha spelled it all out for us.  It is quite simple really, but you have to have determination, faith, and learn to be still enough for the smoke to clear of human existence, and peacefully your SELF will become recognizable. This is the SELF of all.
This is slightly complicated by what the Buddha called dependent origination. These are things that still need to be worked out by the self to finally experience the SELF.  Some people call this karma. Your self may be pulled into one direction or another where you will have to live with "guilt" for a time.  But, as dependent origination can hold you back, it can further your recognizing the dharma, and these activities like guilt will seemingly evaporate.  effortlessly. I would slowly contemplate your true SELF and see what happens.


text:
What does "Nothing like anything" mean according to Buddism?
I heard "Nothing like anything" from many people. I think a lot over it and finally i got it like "Tyag se he mukti milte h" and i feel it with my self yes tyag se he mulki milte h but i could not get it remain with my self. Will you please give me a direction so that I could pertain it as remain and what is the the proper meaning of "nothing like anything" according to Buddism because I do not have much knowledge about Buddha teachings. Thanks in advance.

So your question is "Tyag se he mukti milte h" which means sacrifice, renowned and non attachment will bring Salvation.
Nothing like anything is never said by Buddha.
However coming back to question first of all Lord Buddha's view on salvation is a bit tricky if you are coming from a Hindu background, by that I mean you are not supposed to sacrifice anything just remain in the middle, as Lord Krishna also said remain in tranquility or there should be equanimity in life.
As the question has been asked on Buddhism, So lets stick with buddha's view.
So the aim to be always remain conscious, which seems to be impossible but with practice you will start realizing that you are doing better.
Sit silently and start by focusing on breath, just observe your breath for 3 minutes in starting and do this at least three to six times a day, which should be easy you are android developer.
Now also try to use 30 second rule multiple times a day, which in short is to try to remain in the present moment.
Now lets say you feel good in meditation and at some point bad, Buddhism approach is that you will not get flown by mind in either of the above said situation, do not get excited when feeling good and do not feel depressed on feeling bad, just OBSERVE.
OBSERVATION is very powerful

Nothing like anything means incomparable; completely different from all other things. This is applied to Supreme Buddha Himself. It is because there can be only one Samma Sambuddha, in the entire universe, at any given period. During most aeons (Kalpa), there are no Samma Sambuddhas. Hence they are very rare. A Samma Sambuddha is called ‘Asama Sama’, i.e. incomparable with any other being but can be compared only to other Samma Sambuddhas who had lived in the distant past. Hence it is not feasible for all to aspire to be a Buddha.
This is also a truism for the Dhamma. "Dhamma" nothing but The Teachings of the Supreme Buddha. The Dhamma is the second of the Three Jewels of Buddhism of which practitioners of Buddhism seek refuge in (what one relies on for his/her lasting happiness). The truth and meaning of Dhamma becomes a private experience by the wise only when there is INSIGHT or vipassana. But insight (vipassana) depends on samadhi or CONCENTRATION. And concentration (samadhi) depends on Sammaditthi or RIGHT VIEW.
The Arya Sangha – the Arahants – too are like no other. We know that “Arahant disciples” of the Buddha have no re-births. Because the cause for rebirth was overcome and the Patticca Samuppada (Law of Cause and Effect) was defeated, there is no birth due to Bhava or the formation of Kamma to result in a birth (“Bhava paccaya jāti” as noted in Patichcha Samuppada) for Arahants. This is why Arahants are completely free from being born again, and are the third of the ‘Nothing like Anything’ .

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


text:
How to determine whether a 10 days S.N. Goenka Vipassana course is safe for my friend or relative?
I have recently participated in a 10 days S.N. Goenka Vipassna course, which had incredible positive results. I feel like I shed 20 tons off my heart, and most importantly I am able to practice daily and to be aware of Sankaras before they 'stick'. My life has improved significantly in each and every aspect, and I was even able to bring positive awareness to the lives of my beloved ones.
Naturally I want everyone to participate in a course immediately, especially people I am close to, and especially those who are in great suffering. But while trying to understand whether the course is safe for everyone or not, I've developed some doubt. Some experiences sound really unhealthy, like these:

The 10 Day (Goenka) Vipassana Retreat – A Warning
TERRIBLE and TRAUMATIC experience at Goenka retreat
Vipassana : Diary of a Bipolar episode following meditation
Mental breakdown triggered by Goenka retreat meditation

(TL;DR - People are describing long periods of suffering, depression and even a bipolar episode).
To be fair, it's not that easy to find many negative reports about the course, but seems like some people were significantly hurt, and the Vipassana course organizers / teachers weren't able to screen them beforehand or to guide them to the safe, healing zone of the technique.
Another issue is the big amount of people leaving the course in the middle. This doesn't necessarily indicate they had an overall bad experience, but surely for many people leaving in the middle comes with some negative effects. I assume going on a course at a bad time, and leaving in the middle, might cause the participant to lose the chance of acquiring the technique for life (which is, IMHO, quite terrible).
I have the option of remaining totally neutral towards whether a friend goes on a course or not, but I believe this is not necessarily the right, responsible approach. If I have the power to influence someone to acquire this amazing tool in a healthy manner, I think I also have the responsibility to do so. Similarly, if the course might be dangerous for someone, I must at least warn her / him.
What approach should be taken while deciding whether to go on a course or not, or whether to encourage someone to go on a course?

This answer says that "through a process of questions and answers, we will be able to help you decide clearly beforehand whether you are in a position to benefit fully from a course." Was that your experience, did you have that process of questions and answers beforehand?

Yes, through the registration form, and my wife is also being asked many questions by the organizers. So I guess one good tip is to answer the forms / questions openly and in detail, so that the team can effectively use their experience and judgment.

I would suggest that you trust yourself to make that decision for each individual you are contemplating the recommendation.
You have personally taken the course so you have firsthand knowledge of its contents and rigors. The people you are going to be talking with are 'close' by your description so you already know a lot about who they are and should understand (or be able to learn through discussion) approximately where each one is on their personal journey on the path toward Enlightenment - and what help they might need.
With those pieces of knowledge, and the additional understanding of the issues others have had with the course (references you provided in your question), you are in a good position to analyze the issues for each and make that decision.
For those you decide to approach, I would make sure to spend the time informing them not only about the benefits you obtained but also some about the potential negatives that others have had. In this way, they will have all of the information they will need to look within themselves and decide if this is right for them.
In my opinion, withholding knowledge of training which you feel could help another would be as bad as blithely recommending it without providing the understanding of the possible difficulties they might encounter.
Through using your judgement and taking the middle path, I believe you will have done your best to assist all of them on their journey.

All these episodes are you past Karma or Fabrications in many cases. Sometimes meditation might coincide with the time they were supposed to manifest themselves. With 100k+ or more people doing a retreat every year in 200+ centres there can be such cases. So there is always a chance some independent events happening and someone inferring a correlation between the two.
Some time it might be the meditation which triggers the past Karma or fabrication coming up.
Let me change the argument for a little. Say you went to a beautiful park. You enjoyed it. You want a friend to enjoy the scene and tranquility. Now you learn that someone visiting the park was knocked down on the way. Should this stop you from recommending the part to someone else. Also investigating more you read someone playing with fireworks at the park was hurt. Should you be more worried. They are either coincidental, or negligence, in many cases.
When you do recommend the course of course you should warn the friend that this involved working at a deep level of the mind and you should be cautious. You should stick to the instructions meticulously. Think ong it as you are operating on yourself. If you are doing this you have to be careful.
Key point to remember is:

whatever experience, be equanimous knowing it's impermanence, if you are not, then you are creating unwholesome roots which can have undesirable results
whatever the experience, do not try to give more meaning to it that what is experienced, since your mind has Vipallasa (see: Vipallasa Sutta), it will most likely give a wrong identification and / or wrong view
when you go do not go with expectations, as this will result in disappointment and disturb the balance of your mind. Excessive craving for results. My headache is still not gone after meditation for x days.

If you look at the instruction, something can go wrong if the instructions create unwholesome states. Being equanimous and seeing impermanence you abandon unwholesome states. (See: Pahāna Sutta for further information.) Also you do not use any visualisation, verbalisation, imagination which abandones verbal fabrications which are not in touch with the ultimate reality hence unwholesome (there will be at least dilution present). Also abandoning verbal fabrications reinforces concentration as your mind becomes less scattered. Also you practice Samadhi which is mastery over the mind which is wholesome as well as morality which is wholesome.

I have recently participated in a 10 days S.N. Goenka Vipassna course, which had incredible positive results... My life has improved
significantly in each and every aspect, and I was even able to bring
positive awareness to the lives of my beloved ones.
Obviously, the retreat & practise was suitable for your individual disposition but this does not apply to everyone.

Naturally I want everyone to participate in a course immediately, especially people I am close to, and especially those who are in great
suffering.
This is wrong understanding because meditation does not benefit everyone. The Buddhist scriptures refer to those that benefit from Buddhism as relatively "few".

Blind is the world; here only a few possess insight. Only a few, like birds escaping from the net, go to realms of bliss.

Dhammapada

If I have the power to influence someone to acquire this amazing tool in a healthy manner
My personal experience of Buddhism followed established Buddhist principles, namely, I myself was searching for something when I found Buddhism. Similarly, others are expected to take their own first steps when searching for solutions.
Buddhist principles do not support proselytization. The suttas state:

This is the best of gifts: the gift of Dhamma. And this is the best of friendly speech: to teach again and again Dhamma to those who wish
for it and who listen attentively.
AN 9.5

When Gautama was enlightened, he naturally wanted to tell some people he knew what and how to reach the goal, so it is natural to want to ask people to try the course. And your interpretation of "the few" seems erroneous, because it might have meant, people are led astray with lack of insight and somebody needs to guide them properly, so it doesn't mean Buddhism is not for them, it means they need the "right guidance" because they lack insight.

Thanks but my post was not erroneous since it directly quoted the dhammapada.

I said interpretation. Not the quote.

Either I am right or wrong. Since I spent 6 years of my life putting thousands of people thru meditation courses I think I have some idea about the amount of people that are positively transformed by meditation and the amount of people that struggle with meditation.

+1, I have also been trying to go but many times it says for old students

Well don't give up on meditation. That's all I'll say. shrugs

@Dhammadhatu Can you refer me to some vipassana center near New Delhi, as they always ask for references

@Dhammadhatu, your reply is interesting and valuable. Yet, I didn't find an answer to the question. If there are only a few that can benefit from Vipassana, how do I know who are those few? Some people, with different mental situations, already signed up for a course at my recommendation - how do I know if this is a right step for them? Do you think I should remain totally neutral towards wether someone goes on a course or not? If not, how can I determine to whom should I recommend and who should I warn?

I can see that you are feeling a bit evangelical after the Goenka Retreat, and you have a great desire to tell others about it. What you are trying to give is a  “Dhamma Dana” is Pali for “The Gift of Dhamma.” It is the best gift you can give, this gift of Dhamma. So to your question:
What approach should be taken to encourage someone to go on a course?
The short answer is…  there is a right time and a place for it, and you will have ‘to let go’ of this desire to tell others about it. When we feel enthusiastic we begin to impose our enthusiasms on other people. But when it come to this Ten Day Goenka Meditation, you may have to let go of your desire to influence others UNTIL the right time comes. Then it happens naturally rather than as an aggressive action. There is a level of readiness that comes in stages. There is the Pre-contemplation stage, then the Contemplation stage. Then in the Preparation stage, one has to read about Goenka and the Program & get to know of it beforehand. Then only would come the Action – “The time is Now” moment.

I don't think they are safe for anyone. It's a very ascetic style of retreat and in my opinion not healthy for body or mind. I know someone who was dragged from the room kicking and screaming. Its not good for the lay person to sit there for ten hours at a time. The body does not cope. Combine that with sleep deprivation because of crowded dorm style accommodation and also having to listen to the grating voice of goenka ad nauseam on the videos they use. It's enough to drive anyone over the edge. There are many more much gentler, less strict forms of meditation and retreats so I'm unsure why anyone would put themselves through that torture. Doesn't seem very kind or compassionate to me.   You could suggest to your friend to look into doing an insight retreat in the tradition of Mahasi Sayadaw. The sitting is combined with walking. It's much better and they have actual teachers guiding and not just a video like at Goenka so you can communicate and ask questions about your practice. I love them.

What approach should be taken while deciding whether to go on a course or not, or whether to encourage someone to go on a course?

To the first question, to go or not to go is a personal decision. Some may find little investigation in advance is necessary while others may need or desire awareness sufficient to overcome fears, uncertainty, or doubt. Others still may simply need enough facts to weigh cost/benefit or risk/reward. These value judgments are ultimately the responsibility of the interested person.
You may share your experience, strength, and hope with those that welcome such. After which, your duty is exhausted.
You may also share your fears, uncertainty, and doubt with others, if such is welcomed. However, ultimately the choice to act or not to act is upon them. And subsequently, their experience is their experience.
To all those for whom you are not a teacher (that have not inquired or welcomed your guidance), you are imposing your values upon them. Such an act is proselytizing and the subject to an entirely different question.
To the title question...

How to determine whether a 10 days S.N. Goenka Vipassana course is
  safe for my friend or relative?

Beyond sharing your own experience, strength, and hope... the duty is upon your friend or relative to determine safety. Without being pedantic, safety in this context is ill-defined. Appropriateness is probably a better word and still the burden is upon them -- not you.
That the experiences of others is not aligned with your experience and your desire to confront those differences is a teaching moment for you.
What is the nature of the craving you feel to reconcile the differences in experience? Is such a craving rooted in the safety of your family or friends... or in yourself?
Your best service to others is to deeply internalize good practice, model good practice, be good practice. You can only live your life. Channel the passion and enthusiasm you have discovered into enhancing the integrity of your practice and step away from the desire, clinging, and attachment you have toward the practice of others.

First of all congratulations for having a good meditation experience, seeing the Dharma of ending suffering isn't easy to come by.
This is one of the reason why Right Concentration is the very last on the Eightfold Noble Path. Without the other supporting factors, meditation isn't going be very effective.
I have had some experience with meditation retreats as well as monastic retreats as a novice monk, and generally the first thing we will come across during the meditation is sheer mental suffering from the withdrawal of all the pleasures we used to cope - burying our mental afflictions with them. Whether it's social media, gaming, drinking or sex. If your friends and family were expecting it to be peaceful and pleasant, they might be in for a nasty surprise.
Worse still, if they have been violating the Precepts and not acting ethically through their words and deeds, it's likely to come up to haunt them. This might not necessarily be a bad thing from a self realization perspective. But they might have to get past some nasty experiences. I heard stories about butchers and murderers coming face to face with the realization of the harm they have done to others.
Further more, due to the sensory deprivations, the mind can start to hallucinate by fabricating its own sensory experiences, if we had the wrong view and wrong intentions, we could start deluding ourselves, or start having some terrifying hallucination.
The goal of meditation is to calm the mind enough so that we could start letting go of the afflictions. If we aren't sure what we are doing, we could be just sitting there hating every minute of it and fabricating more afflictions.
This is why it is necessary in the Buddhist path to create sufficient merits, practice good ethics in our life, be mindful of our thoughts, words and actions, and work hard at it before meditation will be effective.
Successfully passing through the suffering do lead you to happy blissful, peaceful and clear meditative states known as the Jhanas though! Well done!


text:
Buddhism and Science
Science is capable of helping living beings flourish, or of generating suffering for living beings.
Either of these two capacities are the result of trial and error as well as research and technological development.
So if it is known that in the trial and error process of developing technologies to help life flourish that some degree of suffering could occur in the case of an error (such as a nuclear meltdown causing death or radiation sickness, or experimental medicine causing sickness or death,) would those scientists developing said technologies generate bad karma if suffering did, in fact, occur, even though their intention (life's flourishing) is pure?
How does an active R&D scientist who is also a Buddhist navigate the potential suffering that their R&D is capable of generating, so as to not accumulate any bad karma?

Would the question be clearer with an example of what type of trial and error you're asking about? I'm imagining "medical research and development" might be an example, where an experimental medicine might be harmful or ineffective (or beneficial).

Oops, meant to do that. I will do so now.

The paper Buddhism and Medical Ethics: Principles and Practice says (claims):

The study of Buddhist ethics is a recent development brought about by the arrival of Buddhism in the West, and largely in response to the demand of Westerners for clarification of where Buddhism stands on a range of contemporary moral issues.
Although Buddhism is widely respected for its humane and benevolent moral values, there is an apparent absence in traditional Buddhist thought of a branch of learning devoted to reflection on ethical issues.

See also:

While the materialist is mainly interested in goods, the Buddhist is mainly interested in liberation. But Buddhism is the Middle Way and therefore in no way antagonistic to physical well being. The keynote of Buddhist economics is simplicity and non-violence. From an economist's point of view, the marvel of the Buddhist way of life is the utter rationality of its pattern - amazingly small means leading to extraordinarily satisfying results.

It may be that there isn't a direct, traditional answer to your modern question.
I'll try to list some of the traditional answers which may indirectly answer or touch on your question:

Traditional Buddhist monks (who you might look to for ethical advice) don't typically try to develop technology (except perhaps meditation as a type of technology).
The kind of "suffering" that Buddhism tries to address is mental, spiritual, or emotional suffering, rather than material or technological poverty
There's some doctrine (e.g. here) which says that "intention" matters -- if an enlightened person did harm without intending to, that's karmically neutral
There's some but only a little doctrine on the subject of "right livelihood": it's traditionally defined for laypeople as no "trade in weapons, living beings, meat, alcoholic drink or poison". Maybe the best (most harmless) form of livelihood is the monks': i.e. "living from begging, but not accepting everything and not possessing more than is strictly necessary".

I personally took those "right livelihood" guidelines as forbidding "trade in weapons" (e.g. any military R&D), but as permitting telecommunications R&D even though that might be used for good or ill.
Someone else I know studied nuclear physics and eventually chose a career in nuclear medicine (rather than nuclear power or military applications).
You presumably know that there are modern (not specifically Buddhist) guidelines for the development of e.g. medical and nuclear technologies. If you're going to practice that type of development you might at least consider those (modern ethical and engineering) guidelines.
There's some doctrine that's sometimes taken to be general advice, in the Kalama sutta:

... when you yourselves know: "These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill," abandon them.'
when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them.

Beware I might be quoting this out of context, but I'm pretty sure it's often (rightly or wrongly) interpreted as giving you permission to think (or know) something for yourself -- that includes considering whether it's censured or praised by "the wise".

I believe that meditation on the Middle Way along with relative vs absolute Bodhicitta. No matter how much science may claim to be the ultimate arbiter on the question of what is reality, it is nonetheless conventional reality. See Thomas Kuhn Structure Scientific revolutions.


text:
Buddha's opinion on late night talk shows
I am wondering what Buddha would have said about late night talk shows that are now busy making fun of Donald Trump. Do they break the precept on gossiping and frivolous talk since they are making fun of people. Its also true that they make people laugh and remove their sorrows for a while. Would this count as good Karma  -- to make people laugh?

Suspending judgement on how this question is framed, I disagree that it should have been down voted without commentary or without effort to improve it.  The Buddha does actually speak directly to the premise of this inquiry (as I venture in my answer below).

Didn't downvote, but this seems like a point of discussion, like a flight of fancy. "What would Buddha have done in X or Y situation" Answer: We would never truly know. So, is this question answerable? Nope.

Trump appears to be a Bodhisattva. Did you know he was nominated for the nobel peace prize 3 or 4 times? He cultivated peace in the middle east. His accomplishments have been ignored by those who are supposed to tell us what is going on and many of his accomplishments would be liked by progressives.

Wait, how does Trump appear to be a Bodhisattva? What could I have meant? I forgot.

[AN 5.198] Right speech is:

Spoken at the right time
Spoken in truth
Spoken affectionately
Spoken beneficially
Spoken with a mind of good-will

It may be a bit subjective, but I don't think talk-show mockery is right speech.

No. The answer to this question can be found in Talaputa Sutta: To Talaputa the Actor (SN 42.2).  The Blessed One said:

"Apparently, headman, I haven't been able to get past you by saying,
  'Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that.' So I will simply
  answer you. Any beings who are not devoid of passion to begin with,
  who are bound by the bond of passion, focus with even more passion on
  things inspiring passion presented by an actor on stage in the midst
  of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of aversion to begin
  with, who are bound by the bond of aversion, focus with even more
  aversion on things inspiring aversion presented by an actor on stage
  in the midst of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of delusion
  to begin with, who are bound by the bond of delusion, focus with even
  more delusion on things inspiring delusion presented by an actor on
  stage in the midst of a festival. Thus the actor — himself intoxicated
  & heedless, having made others intoxicated & heedless — with the
  breakup of the body, after death, is reborn in what is called the hell
  of laughter. But if he holds such a view as this: 'When an actor on
  the stage, in the midst of a festival, makes people laugh & gives them
  delight with his imitation of reality, then with the breakup of the
  body, after death, he is reborn in the company of the laughing devas,'
  that is his wrong view. Now, there are two destinations for a person
  with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or the animal womb."

Ref: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn42/sn42.002.than.html

I guess it may be classified as "lowly talk".
Several suttas say something like this:

Whereas some brahmans and contemplatives, living off food given in faith, are addicted to talking about lowly topics such as these — talking about kings, robbers, ministers of state; armies, alarms, and battles; food and drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, and scents; relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women and heroes; the gossip of the street and the well; tales of the dead; tales of diversity [philosophical discussions of the past and future], the creation of the world and of the sea, and talk of whether things exist or not — he abstains from talking about lowly topics such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue.

I guess that talk which is "busy making fun of Donald Trump" is the same as "talking about kings" etc.
So I think that would be considered "lowly talk", for monks: and I don't see why it would be better, for lay-people. Well, being politically active might be part of a lay-person's social responsibility: but if that is your intention you might find better ways to do that than by watching or producing mockery.

Would this count as good Karma -- to make people laugh?
A talk show "making fun of" is mockery, I suppose, or taunting, ridicule (and a war of words).
I'm not sure about karma but I suspect that, instead, exhorting people to virtue, telling them things that are to their long-term benefit, might be considered as good karma (or better karma).
And, compassion and dispassion tend to be praised. If the talk show's mockery is of a sort which incites hatred rather than loving-kindness then I suppose it's rather less praise-worthy.
Also I'm not even sure it's usually good to watch television at all. I suppose it's a kind of activity that's often contrary to the seventh precept (see also Wermske's answer).

Instead of "talk of kings" the suttas contain recommendation like this

Why should you not do this? Such talk, monks, is not related to the goal, it is not fundamental to the holy life, does not conduce to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, tranquillity, higher knowledge, enlightenment or to Nibbana. When you have discussions, monks, you should discuss Suffering, the Arising of Suffering, its Cessation, and the Path that leads to its Cessation. Why is that? Because such talk is related to the goal... it conduces to disenchantment... to Nibbana. This is the task you must accomplish.

And like this:

"Monks, there are these ten grounds for praise. Which ten?
"There is the case where a monk himself is modest and instigates talk
  on modesty among the monks. The fact that he is modest and instigates
  talk on modesty among the monks is grounds for praise.
"He himself is contented and instigates talk on contentment among the
  monks...
"He himself is secluded and instigates talk on seclusion among the
  monks...
"He himself is non-entangled and instigates talk on non-entanglement
  among the monks...
"He himself has his persistence aroused and instigates talk on
  arousing persistence among the monks...
"He himself is consummate in virtue and instigates talk on being
  consummate in virtue among the monks...
"He himself is consummate in concentration and instigates talk on
  being consummate in concentration among the monks...
"He himself is consummate in discernment and instigates talk on being
  consummate in discernment among the monks...
"He himself is consummate in release and instigates talk on being
  consummate in release among the monks...
"He himself is consummate in knowledge & vision of release and
  instigates talk on being consummate in knowledge & vision of release
  among the monks. The fact that he is consummate in knowledge & vision
  of release and instigates talk on being consummate in knowledge &
  vision of release among the monks is grounds for praise.
"These are the ten grounds for praise."

Engaging in slander, lies & cruelty is wrong speech in Buddhism.
Today, is it very difficult to know what is true or false in politics.
Further, making people laugh often distracts them from the real political issues.
That is why the USA is in upheaval at the moment.
When a Republican government promises to help the lower classes from the economic problems created by the Democrat government, this shows how distracted the people have been.


text:
Can someone be a monastic in their own home?
If someone has the necessary financial resources and is fully dedicated to the Dhamma, would it be possible for them to be ordained as a monk yet live outside of a temple, in a place of their choosing?
Or, on the other hand, if they do not have the necessary financial resources, but rather they live either off of producing goods relating to the Dhamma, or off of the generosity of others, but are still fully dedicated to the Dhamma, could they be ordained and live where they please?

In Mahayana traditions, there are monastics on their own (in their house, hut, living with their parents and taking care of them, etc). It is not that monks have to give everything away (savings and all) before they take ordination. As a matter of fact, both the FPMT (Tibetan Gelug) and the Kwan Um School of Korean Zen encourage monks and nuns to keep what it takes to live at least 3 or 4 years, because they are not incline to sponsor newly ordained monks. A monk is not supposed to work for a living, but it happens that the teacher encourages someone to do just that. A monk is not supposed to have debts either, but some own a loft that they bought or inherited and did not completely pay yet. A fully ordained one is not supposed to sleep in the same house as laypeople for more that four days, but some live with their parents. These are minor breaches. The most important is to follow your teacher's advises. I know of teachers who encouraged specific students to work.
For instance, in the Tibetan Gelug tradition, H.H. the Dalaï-Lama encourages newly ordained renounciates (rabjung) and novices (getsül) to stay and study at a monastery for at least 4 years. He also encourages fully ordained monks (gelongs) to stay in a monastery for 5 years after ordination. This is because he does not want unlearned monks to roam free. It makes sense, since monks are representative. He wants monks to be able to answer Dharma questions.
The short answer is: yes, it is possible, at least in most (if not all) Mahayana traditions, but I suggest you rely on a qualified teacher.

In the Theravada tradition, monastics depend entirely on the laity for support. In exchange, monastics provide teachings to the community. These rules are in the Vinaya (the monastic code), presumably to ensure that monastics cannot cut off all ties from society. According to the Pāṭimokkha, monastics are not allowed to handle money or even damage living plants.
However, monastics in forest traditions may observe one or more Dhutanga (renunciation) practices. It is common for these monastics to wander without a permanent home and depend on others' generosity in order to obtain food and other requisites.
To summarize, in the Theravada tradition one cannot be a monastic living wherever one wants to live. They would either have to live in a monastery/temple (even if it is just a regular house in which people come to hear teachings and practice meditation) or wander around and accept what shelter is given to them, which might be no shelter at all.