text:
How often do monks get nocturnal emissions?
I am practicing celibacy from last 6 months. I cannot control my nocturnal emissions. I have some control but not complete control. In the beginning I used to get wet dreams every 10-12 days and now I get them every 45-50 days. I have extremely pure thoughts all day long. I don't think that I'll ever get sexual thought again. I believe that I have trained my mind very well. One the nights when the emission happens I don't have any erotic dreams, it happens without any sexual thought or an erotic dream.
I practise Halassana & Balasana every day without fail. I also do physical activity running mainly. Why am I still not able to control wet dreams? I want to get rid of them completely.
I researched a lot on the web but couldn't find any satisfactory answer for the following questions:
Do all monks get nocturnal emissions? How often does it happen to them especially young monks age around 24-25? If it happens to them, what do they do about it? If it doesn't then, how does they train themselves to reach that level?
Note: I am new to this site so don't know what would be the appropriate tags for the question so kindly edit if they are not suitable.
If the question is not appropriate for the site, instead of downvoting it, let me know via comment, I will take it down myself.

The are small monks, large, monks, black, white, smart, foolish... worldlings, Noble Ones and Arahats... which is asked about? It's a matter of fruit and path, Sati and abound of fetters to get ride of such in what ever age, color,  cloth, good householder. Mindful going on sleep. (it's not to be expected that a serious monk would share his obstacles) Sadhu for effort!

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with having nocturnal emissions. It's a completely natural physiological function.
I even dare to say that nocturnal emissions should happen in young and healthy males. If you'd have no emissions, it would mean that you have too low testosterone, testicular disease or other problems.
You say you have no "impure" thoughts, therefore there is no reason for you to feel regret or remorse. Quite the opposite, be grateful that your body is healthy and working well.
Please, don't worry about it. Many ascetics are too harsh on themselves and are trying to stop their desires or bodily functions by practising extreme fasting or some even emasculate themselves. These things are extreme and quite opposite to the Middle Path which Buddha taught. Don't damage yourself, be compassionate to yourself.
On the other hand, there is another extremity, which is the commitment to sensual pleasures, but I think it's not your case.
Peace

For young monks nocturnal emissions could be quite frequent, maybe even more than once a week. For young people, I'm not sure it's possible to completely stop that.
Some of the things Buddhist monks and taoist immortals practice that help reduce emissions.
- sleeping in lions posture (easier to stay conscious and alert), don't oversleep (if you dream a lot you may be oversleeping)
- adjust your diet (the more meat, salty, spicy and tasty, pungent roots like garlic, onion family tends to stimulate sexual fluid production).
- doing the right kinds of exercise, sufficient cardio, right kind of qigong and yoga, will help open up energy channels and reduce stress and potential for emissions.
The most important part, for both Buddhist and Taoist, is keeping the mind pure.
You say your thoughts are pure all day, are you sure? When you have your nocturnal emission, what happened at that moment and before?
If you're mind is pure, then the emission happens without erotic imagery or thoughts, and it's just an orgasm with emission. This is blameless, and the best you can do. Don't beat yourself up and obsess over it. Each cell in the body has at most a lifespan of 7 years before it dies, is eliminated and replaced. The biological imperative to continue the species demands that fresh quality semen is always on tap and ready to produce healthy offspring. So in theory, even monks who attained arahantship who were young, probably still had nocturnal emissions, but without lust of course. They also had to eat and shit, bleed, and get ill from viruses,  why would they not have emissions?
Adjusting diet, not overeating, eating more vegetarian diet will reduce production of sexual fluid. One monk I spoke to, in his 30's, was averaging he said about 1 nocturnal emission a year. But he's also vegetarian, eating one meal a day.

Once a year is extraordinary. I am vegetarian. Could you throw some more light on it? Please reread my question details. Maybe you can come up with some more ideas.

I overcome this issue in the past, I will explain how I did it, but it still remain a concern related to our level of "awarness" (clarity).
As Frankk already answered, we are talking about a natural activity rooted to our physical body, so nothing "evil" related to it since it's a fully unintentional phenomenon and just a "biological" function.
So this is the first step: recognize there is nothing "bad" related to it and consider it just another situation in the path where we want to focus/expand our awarness. No matter if we have success or fail correcting it ("nor accept, nor reject").
Frankk already provided good points to start with, correcting diet and sleeping position.
In my case meditating during daylight about the impermanence of the body, illusion of time (how we consider it) and about what is sexual activity itself, helped me a lot into taking control of that during sleeping. If you expand your awarness into these fields and observe them in that presence, you will finally recognize them as illusions and realize the "samsaric" nature of the sexual reproducting act. I suggest to dedicate at least one day of practice to each of that arguments.
Also, practicing "Yoga of the Dream" (or "Dream Yoga") at night, totally ended the issue. I would like to point out that in Tibetan Buddhist tradition, Yoga of the Dream is a fundamental part of one's life practice and not realted to this argument only:
during the day we apply our various sadhana and meditation/contemplation practice, but what happens when we go to sleep?
Tibetan Buddhism consider sleeping a similar state as the Bardo of the death: our mind fell asleep loosing clarity and it temporarily stop it's functions. But at a certain point in the night the mind awaken (science call it "REM fase") and we start to dream. Dreams are related to our karmic vision, so are usually based on the actions and situations of our ordinary life, exactly how is described to happen in the Bardo of death. So practicing the Yoga of Dream, ones is able to expand it's awarness (presence, calrity) into the dream state, Western call it "lucid dreaming".
Althoug this practice isn't the same thing as "lucid dreaming" it lead to similar results and beyond: as a relative level you will be able to control dreams as you like, recognize them as illusion while you are dreaming and transform them. On the absolute level, this practice is an important preparation to the Bardo of the Death: if one succeed into realizing this practice, at the moment of death, you will have good chances to recognize Bardo visions as illusions and liberate yourself from Samsara. So that is why it is considered a very important practice.
I don't know from which Buddhist Tradition you come, but if you can find an authorized Master in your country, you could ask to receive transmission/explanation of this practice. Or maybe you can directly search for some teaching retreat related to this practice and partecipate to it.
Of course I suggest to receive this practice to everyone's reading this post, since it is related not only to end any kind of dreaming problems but also a fundamental practice to attain total realization.
(please remember those practices are related to direct transmission, so of course you can read a book about them to get a general idea, but then you will need instructions from a proper master/instructor to get practical results)
Namasté, may all beings benefit from this short explanation.

You have explained a few things quite well. Although I have still some questions unanswered. Firstly, now I don't see anything erotic in my dreams when it happens. It happens without me aware of it. Secondly, I would like to break it to you that I'm not a Buddhist but I am very much influenced by Gautam Buddha and I am drawn towards buddhist way of living. First thing that I want is to attain celibacy then I would like to tread this path further. I am able to control my thoughts completely but I want to reach much higher level than this. Unfortunately,I don't have any master who could teach me

I am practicing celibacy from last 6 months. I cannot control my nocturnal emissions.

Buddhism does not teach to control nocturnal emissions, apart from having the mind free from thoughts of lust all day, including before sleep.

I have some control but not complete control.

I doubt you have any control. Teenagers who don't masturbate don't necessarily have very frequent wet dreams. When I was a teenager, I started having wet dreams at 14 years old and did not masturbate until 16 years old and only because a friend kept talking about it. In fact, I even had a few sexual encounters with girls before I ever masturbated. I do not recall ever having very frequent wet dreams as a teenager. Similarly, when I became completely celibate at 23 years old, I don't recall having frequent wet dreams. At most, once a month but generally every six weeks.

In the beginning I used to get wet dreams every 10-12 days

Sounds unusual but if that occurred it occurred.

now I get them every 45-50 days.

Yes. The above is the duration expected, every 30 to 60 days but generally around every six weeks.

I have extremely pure thoughts all day long. I don't think that I'll ever get sexual thought again.

The above irrelevant. There appears no consensus in Buddhism and only one assertion that an Arahant (fully purified mind) cannot emit semen. Refer to book page 97.

I believe that I have trained my mind very well. One the nights when the emission happens I don't have any erotic dreams, it happens without any sexual thought or an erotic dream.

Yes. When the mind is very pure, nocturnal emissions never or rarely occur with sexual dreams.

I practise Halassana & Balasana every day without fail.

This is a Buddhist forum. The above (very dangerous) Hinduism is irrelevant.

I also do physical activity running mainly.

Irrelevant to Buddhism. In Buddhism, the mind is made pure by wisdom & calmness. Buddhism teaches deep meditation calmness (called 'samatha') eliminates lust.

Why am I still not able to control wet dreams? I want to get rid of them completely.

Again, irrelevant to Buddhism.

Do all monks get nocturnal emissions?

There appears no consensus and only one assertion that an Arahant cannot emit semen. Refer to book page 97 and search other uses of the word "emit" & "emission".

How often does it happen to them especially young monks age around 24-25?

This question is irrelevant because each monk is different. I personally gave up having sex with women when I was 22 years old and found Buddhism in a monastery when i was 23.5 years old, where I had immediate calmness from meditation and also stopped any masturbation. I do not recall any high frequency of nocturnal emissions. Generally 30 to 60 days, average 45 days. Sometimes two days in a row or twice in three days during the average 45 day cycle.

If it happens to them, what do they do about it?

Nothing, except wash their sleeping cloth & take a bath.

If it doesn't then, how does they train themselves to reach that level?

They don't, apart from freeing the mind from lust, such as in Bharadvaja Sutta.

Note: I am new to this site so don't know what would be the
  appropriate tags for the question so kindly edit if they are not
  suitable. If the question is not appropriate for the site, instead of
  downvoting it, let me know via comment, I will take it down myself

The questions are not really Buddhist and are the type of obsessiveness Buddhism avoids. The impression is your mind is building ego or self around this matter. Buddhism teaches life has no real self and is only composed of elements of earth, wind, fire, water, space & consciousness. Nocturnal emissions are merely natural phenomena or natural elements. Buddhism teaches to regard nocturnal emissions as: "This is not me, this is not mine, this is not myself", as follows:

And what is the water element? The water element may be interior or exterior. And what is the interior water element? Anything that’s
  water, watery, and organic that’s internal, pertaining to an
  individual. This includes: bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat,
  tears, grease, saliva, snot, synovial fluid, urine, or anything else
  that’s water, watery, and organic that’s internal, pertaining to an
  individual. This is called the interior water element. The interior
  water element and the exterior water element are just the water
  element. This should be truly seen with right understanding like this:
  ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’ When you truly
  see with right understanding, you reject [nibbindati; become disenchanted with] the water element, detaching
  the mind from the water element.
https://suttacentral.net/mn62/en/sujato#9

“‘So it is, Ānanda. So it is, Ānanda. Indeed, having falling asleep unalert, with muddled mindfulness, they emitted semen because of a dream. Those monks who fall asleep alert, with mindfulness established, don’t emit semen. Even run-of-the-mill people, having gone beyond sensuality, don’t emit semen....

The Vinaya monastic code has:

‘Intentional emission of semen, except while dreaming, is an offense entailing suspension.’”

In particular, the reason given is important:

“Monks, there’s intention involved, but it’s negligible.

Be mindful and wary of intentions. As intention and the tendency towards intention is relinquished, the problem disappears.
Further discussion should probably happen in private consultation with your teacher, but perhaps the Vinaya reference may provide some useful context in your study.

For me it happens without any intention. And moreover, I don't dream anything erotic, not even on the nights when emission happens.

Your thoughts and intentions are what really matters. "Chethanahan bhikkawe kamman wadami". Try practicing maithree bawanawa before sleeping.

It isn't clear that this answered any of the OP's questions (which were highlighted in bold text) -- unless I misunderstood you, it seems to be advice and not an answer (see Answers vs Advice).

@ChrisW Essentially the message is that it's more wholesome to focus on intentions and not involuntarily body functions. Also (even though the poster ideally speaks for him-/herself), he/she seems to imply that the OP could go easier on himself. A perfectly reasonable answer. Upvoted.


text:
Do monks HAVE to accept anything offered to them?
Does a theravada abbott have to accept everything / anything that is offered to them? I'm referencing technology, things beyond requisites.
I know it is important for abbotts to set a good example and to create trust through their actions.

No. Receiving is generally voluntary, if good, always out of compassion, if asked to. There are of cause things not allowed to accept and other criterias to reject offerings sometimes, good householder.

A teaching story of Ven. Kassapa, casting away a Deva eager after doing merits: The Story of Lajadevadhita And there are many other stories where those with much merits (mostly Gods) where cast away or rebuked for taking poors the possibility to make Dana

Today many monks reject gifts because they live still a householderlife, order, hold money and take of what is not given... that's of course a very bad way but no way to change their modes.

I can't speak to the Pratimoksha followed by Theraadans, however, according the the Pratimoksha of Mulasarvastivada (which I foillwed when I was a monk), there are certain items no monk can possess (e.g. a meditation mat made of black sheep's wool) - so if offered, one might accept it - but then turn it over to the abbot. Otherwise, the only other relevant vows concerned accepting what was offered in terms of food. I imagine these restrictions would be similar for Theravadans. As for technology, in my monastery, we had lots of teachings that had been digitized, for walkmen, MP3 players and computers were ubiquitous.
Hope this helps.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Monk wanting to upgrade technology
If there have been donations for technology upgrades...
Is it possible for someone to ask an abbott exactly what he wants donated funds to be used for? To ask the what specific items he could use?

Does this answer your question? Do monks HAVE to accept anything offered to them?

This is not the same as asking if monks have to accept anything offered. Here I'm concerned with something else. If an abbot can ask for specific things.

Sure, one is free to ask and offer what ever. Good monks would accept with silence and leave things to ones deeds, or just open ways that one looks for himself of what can be of use. Note: technology is often problematic since not really free, third-part, bond and making dependent, so requires a lot of thoughts not to possible burden much with  maintaining, learning to use..., good householder.

Some points might be touched here: Computers and Buddhist monks, offering computer to monk makes bad karma?. Note that most monks prefer not given, google, opensource... gnu, thinking taking makes them more independently and not fearing even strong transgressions.

Thank you Samana Johann for your experience and direct answers. I have had to make a heavy hearted call to move on and put my energy and time into my practice and into monks that display good character

Quoting from The Bhikkhus' Rules
A Guide for Laypeople

Appendix D: Examples of Vinaya Practice
This appendix illustrates how the bhikkhu's rules are actually practiced in different monasteries and communities. Each example is taken from the community's own guide or from devotees' experience.
(1) AUSTRALIA: BODHINYANA MONASTERY
...
One can also make an invitation, 'pavarana,' to cover any circumstances that you might not be aware of — a health problem, need for a toothbrush, etc., by saying, "Bhante, if you are in need of any medicine or requisites, please let me know." To avoid misunderstanding it is better to be quite specific, such as — "Bhante, if you need any more food...," "If you need a new pair of sandals..." Unless specified an invitation can only be accepted for up to four months after which time it lapses unless renewed. Specifying the time limit, or giving some indication of the scope of the offering is good, in order to prevent misunderstanding — so that, for instance, when you are intending to offer some fruit juice, the bhikkhu doesn't get the impression you want to buy a washing machine for the monastery!...
In practical terms, monasteries are financially controlled by lay stewards, who then make open invitation for the Sangha to ask for what they need, under the direction of the Abbot. So junior monks even have to ask an appointed agent (generally a senior bhikkhu or abbot) if they may take up the steward's offer — to pay for dental treatment, obtain footwear or medicines, for example. This means that as far as is reasonably possible, the donations that are given to the stewards to support the Sangha are not wasted on unnecessary whims.
If a lay person wishes to give to a particular bhikkhu, but is uncertain of what he needs, he should make invitation. Any financial donations should not be made to 'X Bhikkhu' but to the stewards of the monastery, perhaps mentioning if it's for a particular item or for the needs of a certain bhikkhu. For items such as traveling expenses, money can be given to an accompanying anagarika (dressed in white) or accompanying lay person, who can buy tickets, drinks for the journey, or anything else that the bhikkhu may need at that time. It is quite a good training for a lay person to actually consider what items are necessary, and offer those rather than money...

So I get the impression that,

There are rules (the vinaya)
Their interpretation varies somewhat from one monastery to another
In general a monk may ask if invited to ("please tell me if I can get you something")

The Vegetation section says that a monk can't dig nor command someone else to  dig, but ...

It is, however, allowable for monks to hint to laypeople or novices about what needs doing as long as the words or gestures fall short of a command. When bhikkhus need paths to be cleared, necessary work done on the ground, firebreaks made, etc., any lay attendant wanting to help should listen out for hints and indications: 'A post hole dug over there would be useful'; 'make this ground allowable,' etc. What is needed can then be clarified.

I don't know; that's only what I've read.
I try to avoid telling monks how I think they ought to behave -- more specifically I'll share with them what the rules of this site are, but I don't think it's my place to interpret their vinaya for them.
This is one of several questions on this site which ask what monks are allowed to do, I can't say I understand the motive for asking, so I feel it's difficult to understand what's really being asked.

You wrote that he replied,

"I could use some of my technology upgraded to teach online" upon being asked if he needed anything

I'm not sure what else you expected, "upon being asked". You could perhaps be happy to be told what someone needs, then you don't have to guess.

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


text:
Theory of momentariness -- do things arise ex nihilo?
As far as I understand it, according to the theory of momentariness (Kshana- Bhanga, or kṣaṇa) the cause does not exist in the effect. A perishes before B arises. It arises from nothing. Even if we take the Zero energy universe model, shunyata is seen as emptiness of emptiness, and the Zero energy universe is more akin to Nirguna brahman than Shunyata. Nothing arises from nothing.
My question is -- even if we say that the cause creates the effect, with what material does it do so? For example, if A gives rise to B, where did B come from? Is it the same substance/thing as A in a different form? If not, how did B arise from A? Even if A exists after or until B arises, how can a new B arise from A (unless B is A in a different form like water turning into vapor or unless A divides its substance/material into different parts)?
Things cannot arise ex nihilo can they? If we assume that things are created anew, that is actually ex nihilo (and is also a problem that many Theists have with their God creating things from nothing).
In actuality new things cannot be created, we see one root substance being transmutated into different components and forms but the root substance remains the same. Things cannot infinitely divide themselves. A cannot divide itself to become B, because the material would become infinitely smaller.
 No new materials are created. From what would they be created by? Actually new things in actuality cannot arise from existent things, let alone when such existent things have already perished before their effect arises, as in the case of khshana-bhanga. In nature we just see one substance being transmutated into different forms but the root substance remains the same.
I think that materialism makes more sense than the theory of momentariness for this reason?
The theory of atoms perishing and then giving birth to new atoms makes no sense. Even if Atoms didn't perish until new atoms were created, this would still be impossible as new things cannot arise substantially or materially as there is only transmutation/transformation in nature.in materialism that would be eternal subatomic components.

Does this answer your question? What are the unthinkable (acinteyya) dhamma?

Sorry to ask, but why do you think this question is important? What have you read or learned about this subject already, i.e. from what text[s]? Are you trying to understand the doctrine, or are you trying to argue against it? Are you aware that it's a doctrine which different schools of Buddhism might disagree on, are you looking for an explanation of the doctrine from the point of view of a specific school, and if so which one or if not what kind of answer are you looking for?

I think this question should be improved with some references to the doctrine as it is presented. The philosophical point is clear enough but it can be like a strawman if the doctrine isn't presented rightly. So i think either give references for exactly what you find disagreeable or phrase the question as a matter of general logic philosophy

Comments could be made to simply try to give an answer as well, or? Here good support: To Kaccāna Gotta
Kaccānagotta Sutta

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

This is essentially the question: "Does X exist?"; "Does X not exist?" which are questions the Buddha puts aside as not being helpful towards achieving the goal. Whether or not X exists, there is pain (dukkha). This is the problem that is dealt with in the Buddha's system.
The idea of 'cause', as 'hetu' and 'nidana' and 'paccaya' and a half dozen other terms are translated (including 'ahara' food!), is an error. "Hetu" the most reasonable candidate for 'cause' means 'driving force' (something like the teamster's 'giddy-up!'). Cause remains a mystery that is not dealt with as it is irrelevant to the solution of the problem of pain.
What we get in the Paticca Samuppada (and other formulas dealing with the origin and ending of things) is not a description of cause and effect (no matter how often it is translated that way -- it makes no sense as a cause-and-effect description) it is a description of causal association (aka: Bhk. Thanissaro: requisite condition; aka: proximate cause, economic cause).
Causal association can be seen.
That is the point.
We deal in this system with what we can see and know for ourselves; what we can do something about ourselves.
"It cannot exist without it" does not equal "cause."
We cannot see the 'cause' for the appearance of aging and death from birth, but we can see that without birth there would be no aging and death.
So without needing to deal with 'cause', we can know for certain that the result, whatever the 'cause' may be, can be eliminated by eliminating birth. And so on for the other causal associations.

Please read this book, the commentary addresses this exact very topic in great details:
The Rice Seedling Sutra: Buddha's Teachings on Dependent Arising
Briefly, 1) phenomena arise from gradual continuous transformation and combination of previous phenomena. 2) The act of establishing an identity (spatial/temporal/qualitative boundary) of the phenomenon and likewise delineating/identifying phenomena that served as the sources/causes of this one is an act of semiosis performed post-factum by the interpreting observer.
Related references:
Hierarchy Theory
Peirce and Biosemiotics: A Guess at the Riddle of Life

I guess that this thesis probably addresses it too: THE ·BUDDHIST DOCTRINE OF MOMENTARINESS -- A Survey of the Origins and Early Phase of this Doctrine up to Vasubandhu

Looks like the one you linked focuses on impermanence/change/destruction aspect, not the arising - the topic of this question.

Do you mean the Theravadin Abhidhamma's theory of momentariness?
That is not related to Madhyamaka's Shunyata (where all things are empty of substance or essence, including emptiness itself) or the nature of matter, or the universe. It however, relates to Theravadin Shunyata (i.e. all phenomena is empty of a self).
The Abhidhamma's theory of momentariness is applied only to the mind and mental processes. I don't fully understand it, but I see it as a quantization or discretization of mental processes into thought-moments or cittas.
This actually sounds very similar to how a computer CPU runs based on clock cycles, and its processes are quantized or discretized into processing of individual instructions (so-called instruction cycles), each taking a number of clock cycles. Each instruction has to be fetched, decoded, executed, and completed, before the next instruction can be fetched.
It is not far fetched to say that the Abhidhamma's model of mind and body is similar to the model of software and hardware in a computer. Both do not require a self or soul to function or run. And exactly, this is the point of Theravadin Shunyata i.e. sabbe dhamma anatta - all phenomena is not self.
Apparently, this is supported by scientific research. Please see "Consciousness Arises In Discrete Time Slices, Suggests Study" and "A time slice theory of consciousness suggests we’re not continually aware of our surroundings".
I quote below from The Abhidhamma in Practice by N.K.G. Mendis:

The Cittas
Awareness is the process of cittas experiencing objects. For a citta
  to arise it must have an object (aaramma.na). The object may be a
  color, sound, smell, taste, something tangible, or a mental object.
  These are the six external objects. Strictly speaking a mental object
  can be an internal phenomenon, such as a feeling, a thought, or an
  idea, but as forming the objective sphere of experience they are all
  classed as external. Corresponding to these external objects there are
  six internal sense faculties, called "doors" since they are the
  portals through which the objects enter the field of cognition. These
  are the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind. Each of the five
  physical sense faculties can receive only its appropriate object; the
  mind door, however, can receive both its own proper mental objects as
  well as the objects of the five physical senses. When a door receives
  its object, there arises a corresponding state of consciousness, such
  as eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, etc. The union of the object,
  the door or sense faculty, and the consciousness is called "contact"
  (phassa). There can be no awareness without contact. For contact to
  occur all three components must be present — object, door, and
  consciousness. If one is missing there will be no contact. The process
  of the arising of consciousness and the subsequent train of events is
  analyzed in detail in the Abhidhamma. A study of this analysis will
  show that only "bare phenomena" are taking place and that there is no
  "self" involved in this process. This is the no-self characteristic of
  existence.

And also:

Mind in its passive and active forms
The mind occurs in both passive and active modes. The passive gives
  way to the active when a stimulus is received through one of the sense
  doors. The passive state of mind is called bhava"nga, cuti, or
  paa.tisandhi, according to the occasion.
Bhava"nga. The bhava"nga citta, mentioned earlier, is the primary form
  of mind. It flows from conception to death except when interrupted by
  a stimulus through one of the sense doors. When a stimulus enters,
  consciousness becomes active, launching into a thought process (citta
  viithi). Thought processes have been analyzed in great detail in the
  Abhidhamma.
A complete thought process, occurring through the physical sense
  doors, is made up of seventeen thought moments (citta kha.na). These
  are:

A bhava"nga that flows by in a passive state when one of the five physical sense organs comes in contact with its object (atiita
  bhava"nga).
A bhava"nga that vibrates for one thought moment (bhava"nga calana).
A bhava"nga that cuts off the flow (bhava"nga upaccheda).
A citta that turns towards the object through the sense door that has been stimulated (pañcadvaara-vajjana).
The appropriate sense consciousness; in the case of the eye, for example, eye consciousness (cakkhu viññaa.na).
Next a thought moment — the sampa.ticchana citta — which has the function of receiving the object.
When the object has been received another thought moment, called the santiirana citta, arises, performing the function of investigating
  the object.
The act (kamma) itself, especially if it was a weighty one.

9 to 15.
  The object having been determined, the most important stage from an ethical standpoint follows. This stage, called javana, consists of
  seven consecutive thought moments all having an identical nature. It
  is at this stage that good or evil is done, depending on whether the
  cittas have wholesome or unwholesome roots. Therefore, these javana
  thought moments have roots and also produce new kamma.
16 and 17.
  Following the seventh javana the registering stage occurs, composed of two thought moments called tadaalambane. When the second
  registering citta has perished, the bhava"nga follows, flowing on
  until interrupted by another thought process.
These thought moments follow one another in extremely rapid
  succession; each depends on the previous one and all share the same
  object. There is no self or soul directing this process. The process
  occurs so rapidly that mindfulness has to be alert and brisk to
  recognize at least the determining thought moment — the vottapana — so
  that one can govern the javana thought moments by wholesome volition.
When the mind-door receives a mind-object, the sequence of events is a
  little different from that occurring through the physical senses. The
  mind-door-adverting citta is the same type of citta as the determining
  moment — the votthapana — that arises in a sensory process. This
  mind-door-adverting thought moment can cognize an object previously
  seen, heard, smelt, tasted or touched, thus making memories possible.
  Since the mind-object here has already been received and investigated,
  these functions need not be performed again and the
  mind-door-adverting thought moment gives way immediately to the
  javanas. These are, again, of great ethical significance. For example,
  unpleasant words previously heard can suddenly come to mind and,
  unless proper mindfulness (sammaa sati) is practiced, call up javana
  cittas rooted in hatred, i.e., unwholesome kamma.

As far as I understand it, according to the theory of momentariness
  (Kshana- Bhanga, or kṣaṇa) the cause does not exist in the effect. A
  perishes before B arises. It arises from nothing. Even if we take the
  Zero energy universe model, shunyata is seen as emptiness of
  emptiness, and the Zero energy universe is more akin to Nirguna
  brahman than Shunyata. Nothing arises from nothing.

Nothing arises from Nothing is a wrong premise. All conditional conformations are impermanent but they do not lead to Nothing. They lead to suffering.

My question is -- even if we say that the cause creates the effect,
  with what material does it do so? For example, if A gives rise to B,
  where did B come from? Is it the same substance/thing as A in a
  different form? If not, how did B arise from A? Even if A exists after
  or until B arises, how can a new B arise from A (unless B is A in a
  different form like water turning into vapor or unless A divides its
  substance/material into different parts)?

Why are you clinging to A? Why do you think A gives rise to B ? It is possible that there are multiple causes which give rise to B , A being one of them. B need not be a form of A. Just as fire is produced by wood , air etc...Fire is not wood , nor it is air. Water changes in vapor but vapor is not water. All things change. All conformations are impermanent. Things come together to produce an effect but the effect is a changed state. It might be similar to cause or causes but it is also different in many ways.

Things cannot arise ex nihilo can they? If we assume that things are
  created anew, that is actually ex nihilo (and is also a problem that
  many Theists have with their God creating things from nothing)

Things can not arise ex nihilio... Every thing has a past.

I think that materialism makes more sense than the theory of
  momentariness for this reason? The theory of atoms perishing and then
  giving birth to new atoms makes no sense. Even if Atoms didn't perish
  until new atoms were created, this would still be impossible as new
  things cannot arise substantially or materially as there is only
  transmutation/transformation in nature.in materialism that would be
  eternal subatomic components.

Have you seen atoms ? Do you believe the theory of atoms is correct ? It is better if we stop this discussion and focus on suffering , origin of suffering , cessation of suffering and path leading to cessation of suffering.


text:
Is it wrong to be a "people pleaser"?
What is wrong with pleasing others? To what level should we care about others, and what should we avoid?

This is an important topic.

AN4.95:1.1: “Mendicants, these four people are found in the world.  What four?

There are those who practice to benefit neither themselves nor others. It creates no benefit. Let's skip that one.
And one can practice to benefit oneself. Or one can practice to benefit others. However...

AN4.95:3.3: But the person who practices to benefit both themselves and others is the foremost, best, chief, highest, and finest of the four.

Notice also that there is an important difference between pleasing others and practicing for their benefit. For example, a drug addict would be pleased to receive free drugs, but it would not be to their benefit. Let us all practice to benefit others as well as ourselves.

I suppose you please people by saying things that are agreeable and endearing to them.
According to MN 58 below, it is not appropriate to say agreeable and endearing things, if they are unfactual and untrue.
From MN 58:

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

One of the phrases I remember is from the Kalama sutta

Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them.

So in terms of pleasing people, perhaps do what's praised by people who are wise -- and not necessarily what would "please" a person who is unwise.
There's a lot of specific advice -- which seems especially for laypeople, about good friends and bad friends -- in the Sigalovada Sutta.

Good householder, honored Buddhaparisada, interested,
Good and importand question, all along the path, till there, and it's end, unbound.
Yes, it is wrong if by unskilful means and for unskilful poor-pose. No, it isn't wrong, if by skilful means and for skilful pure-pose, good householder.
Most helpful and simple, everywhere and -when applyable, are the teachings toward the Sublime Buddhas son: Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta: Instructions to Rahula at Mango Stone.
Importand is maybe that one does only need to be pleasing for others, as long in relation, dependency of others: relation duties (next to skilful). To gain independency fulfilling the duties of ones relation are importand. Otherwise no end and lot of bad condition-accumulation.
To act most pleasing within ones sociaty is also called Sangha-vatthu (Ground of community): AN 4.32 Sangaha Sutta: The Bonds of Fellowship. (Btw one of the Suttas certain sects addopted fast for their worldly purpose, since powerful.)
There is a lot to talk about on this question, at least because the path is nothing but to gain highest "being" plrasing for all others and oneself, so here just an entrance for those wishing to be pleasing for higher and highest goal.
So called "people pleasure", addicted to try to make all perfect for others, are, for the most very caught and unfree, slaves of their desires and after certain rewards, seldom real giver. So good to think a lot about the issue, especially if accepting to harm oneself or others for "pleasing" here and there.
One is welcome to use possible more proper areas for more on it. At least because there are those pleasing things, unpleasing for others in their sphere of awareness: AN 5.157: Dukkathā Sutta: Unpleasant talk.
If serious free of certain amount of desires, this words by Ajahn Fuang may be of help (or hell for those not really free as well, so careful with it, it's wrong when gratitude, right view, is abounded at the same time, past, present, futur...):

"If people hate you, that's when you're let off the hook. You can come and go as you like without having to worry about whether or not they'll miss you or get upset at your going. And you don't have to bring any presents for them when you come back. You're free to do as you like (within skilful!)."

(Note: this isn't given to please anyone after trade, exchange, stacks and what binds in this wheel here, but for liberation from it)

What is wrong with pleasing others?
Nothing - unless we'd help them more by not pleasing them.
To what level should we care about others?
To whatever level we are able.
And what should we avoid?
Not caring about others to whatever level we're able.


text:
Is being emotional means worthless?
When it is come to "dana" I heard many times "First do something for loved ones".
I don't have any confusion regarding "dana" generosity.
But lately I'm thinking indulge partner is means worthless (being emotional or emotionally doing something for partner) or just fragile thing.

If I'm buying something or even giving rose to partner, is it worthless?

Is being emotional means cheap, am I thinking wrong?
 Happy Vesak to all of you

It's cheap to try to be cool while actually hot, Nyom. Sure, having become real cool is of countless value.

Just something to think about: "If someone is vey pleased, attached to my person, loves my way, he/she will soon suffer  very hard from my care, since parting is unavoidable."

"Happy Vesak to all of you" Sadhu

There's some talk about that here -- A Happy Married Life:
A Buddhist Perspective

THE HUSBAND
The Buddha, in reply to a householder as to how a husband should minister to his wife declared that the husband should always honor and respect his wife, by being faithful to her, by giving her the requisite authority to manage domestic affairs and by giving her befitting ornaments. This advice, given over twenty five centuries ago, still stands good for today.
Knowing the psychology of the man who tends to consider himself superior, the Buddha made a remarkable change and uplifted the status of a woman by a simple suggestion that a husband should honor and respect his wife. A husband should be faithful to his wife, which means that a husband should fulfill and maintain his marital obligations to his wife thus sustaining the confidence in the marital relationship in every sense of the word. The husband, being a bread-winner, would invariably stay away from home, hence he should entrust the domestic or household duties to the wife who should be considered as the keeper and the distributor of the property and the home economic-administrator. The provision of befitting ornaments to the wife should be symbolic of the husband's love, care and attention showered on the wife. This symbolic practice has been carried out from time immemorial in Buddhist communities. Unfortunately it is in danger of dying out because of the influence of modern civilization.

That's a reference to DN 31

"In five ways should a wife as the western direction be respected by a husband: by honoring, not disrespecting, being faithful, sharing authority, and by giving gifts.
"And, the wife so respected reciprocates with compassion in five ways: by being well-organized, being kindly disposed to the in-laws and household workers, being faithful, looking after the household goods, and being skillful and diligent in all duties.
In this way, the western direction is protected and made peaceful and secure.

It hardly matters whether you give rose or not. It hardly matters whether you consider emotions or feelings as cheap or not.
If a person has a dart in his heart will you ask him how is his relationship with his girl friend or wife ? No , you will not. Your focus will be on remedying the wound.Buddha asks us to do exactly that. Understand this is suffering, this is the origin of suffering , this is the cessation of suffering and this is the path leading to the cessation of suffering. On the path leading to the cessation of suffering you will find that one should not cling to any feelings. Good feeling or bad feeling or neutral feeling , just do not cling to it.

So am I mixing up generosity and about feelings and emotions?  And please explain the scenario of a person with a dart in his heart. Discourse of Buddha so I could gain insight.

@Swapnil 'If I'm buying something or even giving rose to partner, is it worthless? ' Thinking about such questions is absolutely worthless. If you want to give rose give it happily and if you dont want to give rose do not give it. But do not cling to any feelings. It hardly matters. What matters is the knowledge that this is suffering.

I know not to cling with but I want to know what it is exactly. If it is giving rose mean indulging or caring or love and if it worth or don't.

All feelings are inferred to be impermanent, inconstant, an ill, and you can say worthless to that extent sure. Buddha compared even a tiny spell of existence to excrement and taught cessation of feeling & perception.
There is that sense of them being worthless.
There is another sense in which some feelings lead to the cessation of perception & feeling, they are to that extent wholesome states, are path.
These on that account aren't worthless as they are means to achieving value even tho they aren't the value they are the right ones leading to attainment of value.


text:
Extending Buddha's lifespan
Where did Lord Buddha say to Ananda Thero that a Buddha can, if there is an invitation, extend His lifespan? Was this mentioned in a Sutta or somewhere else?

Related: Did Mara win over Buddha?

It is DN 16, here

The Buddha said to him: “Ānanda, Vesālī is lovely. And the Udena, Gotamaka, Sattamba, Bahuputta, Sārandada, and Cāpāla shrines are all lovely.
Whoever has developed and cultivated the four bases of psychic power—made them a vehicle and a basis, kept them up, consolidated them, and properly implemented them—may, if they wish, live on for the eon or what’s left of the eon. The Realized One has developed and cultivated the four bases of psychic power, made them a vehicle and a basis, kept them up, consolidated them, and properly implemented them. If he wished, the Realized One could live on for the eon or what’s left of the eon.”
But Ānanda didn’t get it, even though the Buddha dropped such an obvious hint, such a clear sign. He didn’t beg the Buddha: “Sir, may the Blessed One please remain for the eon! May the Holy One please remain for the eon! That would be for the welfare and happiness of the people, for the benefit, welfare, and happiness of gods and humans.” For his mind was as if possessed by Māra.

... and here

Therefore, Ānanda, the misdeed is yours alone, the mistake is yours alone. For even though the Realized One dropped such an obvious hint, such a clear sign, you didn’t beg me to remain for the eon, or what’s left of it. If you had begged me, I would have refused you twice, but consented on the third time. Therefore, Ānanda, the misdeed is yours alone, the mistake is yours alone.


text:
Where do I focus ? On the outer nose or outer nose with upper lip?
My question is that where do I focus ? The outer nose or outer nose with upper lip

Where ever touch is sensed, good householder.

the context for your question is way too vague to give any kind of reasonable answer without clarification. What meditation are you practicing, and what style/tradition/lineage of that meditation are you trying to accomplish?

I practice goenkas retreat

The instruction is: sati-parimukkham, or parimukkham-sati.
This means: mind-around-mouth
It also means: mind-around-face
It also means: mind around the front
It also means: mind around the interface [between the personal and the external]
It also has been interpreted as meaning: mind the business at which you are about (that is minding).
This instruction is found in cases where a formula for meditation is being set forth, not exclusive to minding the in and out breaths.
There is no instruction that reads: 'focus where the breath is felt' or 'at the nose' or at any specific place. Try to focus on the point where the breath passes the nostrils you will quickly see that you cannot find that place. It moves around at light-speed!
That is why the instruction reads "around" (pari). The point is the focus, not the locus. This is also important as a preventive measure: our job here is not to maintain a state of concentration on any object. We are trying to develop concentration (or better, focus) as a skill with a tool to be used in understanding other things. You are not going to Nibbana with your mind focused on your nose!
Follow the instructions without trying to pick it apart and you will see the advantages of minding around the mouth as a starting point, minding the face as a matter of minding the sense-reactions, minding the front as minding the whole body, minding the interface as minding the inter-relations of the body and the external world, and minding your business as keeping you focused on the task. Round and round, up and down, back and forth. A spectrum.

A correct translation of agama passage EA 17.1 is "pervade the entire body" -- here is the excerpt from my translation at
http://lucid24.org/agama/ea/ea17/ea17-01/index.html

From the agama school, the dhayna samadhi sutra is an excellent representation of how most of the Agama schools understand breath meditation -- i.e. that awareness pervades the entire anatomical physical body) -- in radical contrast to Visuddhimagga's outlier (wrong) view that one should focus only at the nostrils and ignore the entire physical body.
Excerpt from
http://lucid24.org/sted/16aps/index.html

409 CE Dhyāna Samādhi Sutra
This is not from the EBT period, but is fully EBT compliant in describing step 3 of 16aps and capturing what is so peaceful, sublime, ambrosia, a brahma dwelling, and the Buddha’s preferred meditation of choice on his retreats.
  Dhyāna Samādhi Sutra (corresponds with Ānāpānā step 3, sabba kāya patisamvedi)
  Dhyāna Samādhi Sutra (chinese to english trans. By Dr. William Chu)
T15n0614_p0275b25(08)║念諸息遍身。亦念息出入。
  “One is mindfully aware of various breaths suffusing the whole body, as one attends to the exhalation and inhalation of the breath.
T15n0614_p0275b26(05)║悉觀身中諸出息入息。
  As one pervasively observes the various kinds of inhalation and exhalation inside the body,
T15n0614_p0275b27(14)║覺知遍至身中乃至足指遍諸毛孔如水入沙。
  one becomes aware and comprehends what is happening throughout the body, up to and including one’s toes and pores—[awareness] pervades as if water seeps into sands.
T15n0614_p0275b28(13)║息出覺知從足至髮遍諸毛孔亦如水入沙。譬如[夢-夕+棐]囊入出皆滿。
  In the same way, with [each] out-breath, awareness and understanding pervade—from the toes to the hairs, permeating all the pores—as if water seeps into sands. Just like a sack that is completely filled from its bottom to its opening,
T15n0614_p0275b29(05)║口鼻風入出亦爾。觀身周遍見風行處。
  so too should one experience the body being saturated this way with [each] in-breath coming in from mouth [and/or] nose.
T15n0614_p0275c01(07)║如藕根孔亦如魚網。復心非獨口鼻觀息入出。
  One should perceive that throughout the body, where ‘wind’ traverses, it is as if it traverses through the holes of a lotus root; it is as if it traverses through the eyes of a fish net.
T15n0614_p0275c02(06)║一切毛孔及九孔中。亦見息入息出。
  Furthermore, one should not just perceive the breath as going in and out of one’s mouth [and/or] nose; one should also see that the breath comes in and out from all the pores and from the nine orifices of the body.
T15n0614_p0275c03(09)║是故知息遍諸身
  For this reason, one should understand that the breath pervades throughout the body."

In SN 54, the Anapana Samyutta, prior to this sutta in the first 9 suttas, the 16 steps of 16 APS have not been associated with the 4 tetrads of 4sp (satipatthana, right mindfulness). So the first thing to understand about this context is that the Buddha is trying to explain how the breath is related to each of the 4 tetrads. One might question, how is the breath related to the anatomical body (kāya)? So the Buddha explains that the breath is also a type of body. One might question, how is vedana (feeling) a breath? And the Buddha explains the breath is a certain type of feeling. One might question how is the breath related to the tetrad of citta-anupassana, and so on. So in saying that the breath is one type of body, the context here is trying to justify how the breath ties in to 4sp (satipatthana) practice in general, how it ties in to kāya anupassana (body contemplation). He’s not trying to redefine the default definition of body understood as physical.
The second thing to notice is that the Buddha is saying the breath is a type of kāya (body), is ONE type of body, among the already established understanding of body as being composed of 4 elements. He is not overriding the definition of kāya here, he is not saying breath is the only type of body, and he certainly didn’t say in this context breath is the whole body and the anatomical body should be discarded from meditative awareness.
The third thing to notice, even if we want to practice 16 APS taking the breath to be the only part of the physical body that we’re contemplating, ignoring the remaining 3 of the 4 elements, this body of breath has shape, dimension, occupying the same physical space as our anatomical body.

detailed comprehensive analysis on term 'pari mukha'
http://lucid24.org/tped/p/parimukha/book/index.html

Quite interesting method and controversy. The main piece of evidence is Buddha saying that breath is a body among bodies in satipatthana sutta, so many would split on this.

@116PУC Perhaps there's also empirical evidence, and whether it accords with preconceived doctrine i.e. what people might already/previously know to be true.

My guess is that it works similarly, one more or less contemplates the air element and stops thinking in the second jhana. Probably a very old controversy

see reedited post for response to comment. Vism. interpretation of step 3 of 16 steps meditation is completely unfounded. There really shouldn't be a controversy. But like anything, buddhism is political. the ruling political party dictates the 'correct' interpretation, when careful examination of evidence is incontrovertibly clear their interpretation is wrong.

Focus on where you feel the in and out breath. The location varies with each individual so there is no 1 place to focus on.

I don't want to answer the down voting answers. But If you can read the below quote's from the cannon, you may re-think about what you are doing as a meditation with external world instead of the dependent core-arising.
Below is about the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person from Assutava Sutta

Monks, an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person might grow disenchanted
  with this body composed of the four great elements, might grow
  dispassionate toward it, might gain release from it. Why is that?
  Because the growth & decline, the taking up & putting down of this
  body composed of the four great elements are apparent. Thus the
  uninstructed run-of-the-mill person might grow disenchanted, might
  grow dispassionate, might gain release there.

And below is about instructed disciple of the noble ones from same Assutava Sutta

"The instructed disciple of the noble ones, [however,] attends
  carefully & appropriately right there at the dependent co-arising

In this guide, Thanissaro Bhikkhu wrote that you can focus on any place where the breath can be sensed, whether it is the nose, chest, abdomen or any other place:

Only when you have cleared the mind in this way, and set outside
  matters aside, are you ready to focus on the breath. Bring your
  attention to the sensation of breathing. Breathe in long and out long
  for a couple of times, focusing on any spot in the body where the
  breathing is easy to notice, and your mind feels comfortable focusing.
  This could be at the nose, at the chest, at the abdomen, or any spot
  at all. Stay with that spot, noticing how it feels as you breathe in
  and out. Don't force the breath, or bear down too heavily with your
  focus. Let the breath flow naturally, and simply keep track of how it
  feels. Savor it, as if it were an exquisite sensation you wanted to
  prolong. If your mind wanders off, simply bring it back. Don't get
  discouraged. If it wanders 100 times, bring it back 100 times. Show it
  that you mean business, and eventually it will listen to you.

According to Chapter 2 "Sitting Meditation" of the book "How To Meditate" by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu, you can also try to observe movements of the abdomen, instead of nasal sensations:

The purpose of formal meditation is to limit our experience to the
  fewest number of objects in order to allow for easy observation
  without becoming overwhelmed or distracted. When sitting still, the
  whole body is tranquil and the only movement is when the breath enters
  and leaves the body. When the breath enters the body, there should be
  a rising motion in the abdomen. When the breath leaves the body, there
  should likewise be a falling motion. If the movement is not readily
  apparent, you can put your hand on your abdomen until it becomes
  clear.
If it is difficult to perceive the motion of the abdomen even with
  your hand, you can try lying down on your back until you are able to
  perceive it. Difficulty in finding the rising and falling motion of
  the abdomen when sitting is generally due to mental tension and
  stress; if one is patient and persistent in the practice, one’s mind
  and body will begin to relax until one is able to breathe as naturally
  sitting up as when lying down.
The most important thing to remember is that we are trying to observe
  the breath in its natural state, rather than forcing or controlling it
  in any way. In the beginning, the breath may be shallow or
  uncomfortable, but once the mind begins to let go and stops trying to
  control the breath, the rise and fall of the abdomen will become more
  clear and allow for comfortable observation.
It is this rising and falling motion that we will use as our first
  object of meditation. Once we are able to observe the motion of the
  abdomen without difficulty, it will serve as a default object of
  meditation for us to return to at any time.

Thk u all respected sir and masters for giving me guidance .I could feel the rise and fall of abdomen with and without placing hands in sitting position.Once again I thk u all If it is possible for you to send a video of watching breath at abdomen.

Just breathe.  You are overthinking it too much.


text:
Steward to a monk/monastery
I am trying to recall the formal/traditional way of offering help to a monk for the longevity of their ordination.
Being a steward doesn't seem like it's the answer I'm looking for.
I have both met a family that does this for a monk with travel, etc.. and remember reading something about it in 'Stillness Flowing'.
Thanks!

What is meant by steward, good householder? Assisting? "Disciple" as layperson, or someone tolding fonds for monks keeping such? Or allaround?

Steward in the more broad sense like helping a monastery. To be more specific on my question, I believe there is something that is said to a specific Bhikku that sets a formal relationship for offering and assisting.

@SamanaJohann I read it as Mark's asking for details of how to do this -- How to help a Bhikkhu — Invitation -- "Such an invitation is made when lay people decide to commit themselves to supplying medicines if a particular bhikkhu should ever become ill, or it can be a broader offer of help."

Upasak Mark. Actually there is no such as a formal relationship between Bhikkhus and lay people valid and objected by the Buddha. At Buddhas times it happened that doners gave slaves, or Kings ordered a whole village to serve the monks. Just polite and direct asking or telling, of what Nyom likes to give and if in relation with good monks, steady renewing and own effort is needed. Relations, as such, are actually very burdensome and would case always troubles. But why not ordain as Samanera? That's a little easier but double of benefit, watching ones own ways better.

Currently Atma got a devoted Upasaka near, who sacrifies good time for the tripple germs, near and isolated all the time, how serves really a look and tries to look after two monks. It's really not easy but all of huge merits, once dangers are good known. In this case Upasaka actually lives like a monk himself, and if not, it would be hardly benefical possible. Just go on and do, may Upasaka not fear mistakes and learn formost to quick stand up again once fallen. Mudita

Sadhu for generosity to share how Nyom sees of what Upasaka Mark might like to know, Nyom @ChrisWl

Some comments in Q&A Proper way to ask a teacher to become their student. Laypeople, over the generations, have adopted certain ways, looking formal, but actually aren't, yet good conduct anyway.

I believe that you are looking for the term Pavarana.
Here is a description from The Bhikkhus' Rules: A guide for Laypeople:

Normally a bhikkhu will not ask for things. Instead, he will wait for
something to be offered. This is exemplified in the alms round where
the bhikkhu makes no request, does not even look at people, although
he may quietly wait to see if an offering is to be made before moving
on. One way that lay people enable a bhikkhu to ask them for help is
by making an invitation or pavarana.
The Buddha allowed a bhikkhu to accept pavarana or 'invitation.'
Such an invitation is made when lay people decide to commit themselves
to supplying medicines if a particular bhikkhu should ever become ill,
or it can be a broader offer of help. (Although a sick monk is allowed
to ask anyone for medicine, asking somebody who has already invited
him with a pavarana invitation is obviously preferable.) Therefore
if lay people meet a bhikkhu who seems worthy of help and support,
they may make such an invitation. Quite a number of the rules deal
with what and how much may be asked for when a donor makes this formal
invitation.
An invitation can therefore be quite specific about what is being
offered and how long that invitation will last. (Obviously, if
circumstances change or the request is unreasonable, the donor has no
obligations — and a conscientious bhikkhu is always sensitive about
this.)
A clear invitation will also help prevent misunderstandings. For
instance, the bhikkhu will know exactly what has been offered and so
will not ask for more than that; and the lay person will not be
overwhelmed by extravagant requests.
The original circumstances of the forty-seventh Confession Offence
were as follows:
A lay supporter possessed much 'medicinal ghee' so he invited the
monks to make use of it during the following four months. Much of the
medicine was still left, so he extended his invitation for another
four months and then extended it for life. The Buddha allowed this.
However, that same lay donor had once criticized the 'group-of-six'
monks because of their previous improper conduct so they decided to
take their revenge by asking him for an impossibly large amount of
medicine (ghee) and then criticized him when he could not immediately
produce what he had promised. This rule was set down:
"A bhikkhu who is not ill may accept (make use of) a four- month
invitation [pavarana] to ask for requisites. If he should accept
(make use of) it for longer than that — unless the invitation is
renewed or is permanent — it is [an offence of Confession.]" (Paac.
47; BMC p.393) When the invitation is more vague — for example, a lay
person may just say, "If you need anything, Bhante, let me know" — the
bhikkhu should not exceed the spirit of the invitation. In fact some
communities consider that an invitation in which the lay person does
not mention any time limit is valid only for four months and that
taking up the invitation beyond that time is an offence.
A bhikkhu is always allowed to ask for requisites from his relatives
without having formal invitation first. (Whether they actually supply
anything is, of course, up to them.) 'Relatives' are considered to be
those with whom the bhikkhu has common ancestors back through seven
generations, on both the mother's and father's side. Here 'in-laws'
are not counted as relatives.
"Thus all descendants of one's great-great-great-great-great-
great-great-grandfather are counted as one's relatives... [although] a
bhikkhu at present would be well-advised to regard as his relatives
only those blood-relations with whom ties of kinship are actually
felt." (BMC p.183)

Perhaps, this is what you're looking for. Please see the bolded text for something that you say to a Bhikkhu to help him, in the case that you're not a steward but just a layperson interested in donating.
From the footnotes of the "The Bhikkhus' Rules: A Guide for Laypeople" by Bhikkhu Ariyesako:

Footnote 105:
"The Buddha had to steer a middle course between
  honoring the laity's generosity and concern for the welfare of the
  Bhikkhu-Sangha and preventing the bhikkhus from receiving and using
  money. Thus, while bhikkhus are not allowed to receive money for their
  use, they are allowed to accept things obtained from a
  properly-deposited fund. This is usually done through the services of
  a monastery-steward who is entrusted with money provided by lay
  people. In our modern, money-dominated world this may appear as a
  subtle and refined point, however, it may be helpful to compare this
  arrangement to a special Trust Fund from which the beneficiaries (in
  this case, bhikkhus) can only receive material requisites. That is,
  the donor (temporarily) establishes a Trust Fund to provide a bhikkhu
  with requisites through the monastery-steward as manager." (HS ch.14)
"...the Buddha permitted money to be entrusted by a donor to a
  steward, who may be a monastery attendant or a lay follower, for the
  personal benefit of an individual bhikkhu, thus:
'There are, bhikkhus, people of faith and confidence (in the Sangha)
  who entrust money into the hands of monastery stewards saying, "With
  this, provide the bhikkhu so-and-so with what is allowable." I permit
  you, bhikkhus, to accept an allowable item obtained thereby. But this,
  bhikkhus, I do not say: that in any circumstances may gold, silver or
  money be accepted (by a bhikkhu, or) be looked about for (by him).'
"When the donors ask the bhikkhu, 'Has the Venerable One a steward?'
  or, 'Is there an appropriate place where I may deposit this money,' or
  some similar question, then the bhikkhu may point out a suitable
  steward, or he may indicate an appropriate place. Should the donor
  deposit the money with that steward, or in that place, then it is
  properly deposited." (AB)
Footnote 106:
"Money given to a steward of the Sangha
  (veyyaavaccakara), for the use of bhikkhus or to stewards of
  individual bhikkhus, is not given to the bhikkhus for them to possess.
  The steward holds the money of the donors in trust, and should a
  bhikkhu have legitimate reason to make use of this (travel for Dhamma,
  Requisites, Dhamma-books, etc.), he can request the steward to supply
  him with the article needed. He cannot purchase it himself. "This rule
  concerns money of which a bhikkhu has such thoughts as, 'It is mine'
  or 'It belongs to me' and which he intends to use for purposes other
  than those of Dhamma." (Paat. 1966 Ed.; p104-105)
Footnote 107:
"The Monastery-Steward: The monastery-steward is usually someone who
  is a close supporter of the monastery. Not only should he/she ideally
  be well-informed about the monastic guidelines relating to money, but
  also be knowledgeable about what is appropriate to provide and the
  proper procedures for doing so.
"When a fund has been properly established and the bhikkhu is in need
  of a requisite, he may approach that steward and state what he is in
  need of. Should a bhikkhu command the steward to: 'Buy me this,' it is
  considered a case of dubbhicaritata (wrong procedure) and that bhikkhu
  may not make use of any article obtained therefrom, although other
  bhikkhus may use it.
"It is a fault of Acknowledgement with Forfeiture [Nis. Paac.10] for a
  bhikkhu who receives a requisite by badgering the steward beyond
  verbally reminding him three times and standing silently up to six
  times. If the required requisite is not forthcoming the bhikkhu is
  obliged to inform the donor that the invitation to requisites has not
  been fulfilled. The Commentary says that if the bhikkhu does not
  inform the donor it is a fault of Wrong- Doing "for breaking a
  custom"). The donor may then take up the matter with the steward." (HS
  ch.14)
"A bhikkhu may not command (tell) either the donor or the steward what
  to do with regard to the gift of gold or money. However, he may give
  them hints, or suggestions, or any information, as long as these fall
  short of ordering the donor or steward. Also, a bhikkhu may not accept
  the ownership of gold or money offered to him indirectly, for example
  should a donor say to him, "In such and such a place is a certain
  amount of money, I give it to you." then the bhikkhu is obliged to
  reject the gift by words or by a gesture of refusal or by mental
  resolve (e.g., determining, "I do not accept this") otherwise he
  incurs [an offence of Confession with Forfeiture]." (AB)


text:
Is mind the most valuable thing according to the Lord Buddha?
Is mind the most valuable thing according to the buddha that we should protect by doing anything to everything?
Are there any metaphors said by Lord Buddha on the value of protecting the mind vs doing other things ?

Yes, in regard of the path, since the root. No in regard of things, Dhammas, as nor "real", anicca. Nibbana "is" the only really valuable thing, at least. It's found throughout in all teachings.

In MN 56, we see disciples of the founder of Jainism, Mahavira (called Nigantha Nataputta in the suttas) debate with the Buddha.
Apparently, Nigantha Nataputta taught that physical deeds weigh more heavily than mental deeds.

“Reverend Gotama, Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta doesn’t usually speak in terms of
  ‘deeds’. He usually speaks in terms of ‘rods’.”
“Then how many kinds of rod does Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta describe for
  performing bad deeds?”
“Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta describes three kinds of rod for performing bad
  deeds: the physical rod, the verbal rod, and the mental rod.” .....
“Of the three rods thus analyzed and differentiated, which rod does
  Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta describe as being the most blameworthy for
  performing bad deeds: the physical rod, the verbal rod, or the mental
  rod?”
“Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta describes the physical rod as being the most
  blameworthy for performing bad deeds, not so much the verbal rod or
  the mental rod.”

What did the Buddha teach?

“Tapassī, the Realized One doesn’t usually speak in terms of ‘rods’.
  He usually speaks in terms of ‘deeds’.”
“Then how many kinds of deed do you describe for performing bad
  deeds?”
“I describe three kinds of deed for performing bad deeds: physical
  deeds, verbal deeds, and mental deeds.” .....
“Of the three deeds thus analyzed and differentiated, which deed do
  you describe as being the most blameworthy for performing bad deeds:
  physical deeds, verbal deeds, or mental deeds?”
“I describe mental deeds as being the most blameworthy for performing
  bad deeds, not so much physical deeds or verbal deeds.”

And later the Jain householder Upali came to debate with the Buddha.

When he said this, the householder Upāli said to him, “Good, sir, well
  done by Tapassī! The honorable Tapassī has answered the ascetic Gotama
  like an educated disciple who rightly understands their teacher’s
  instructions. For how impressive is the measly mental rod when
  compared with the substantial physical rod? Rather, the physical rod
  is the most blameworthy for performing bad deeds, not so much the
  verbal rod or the mental rod.”  .....
“What do you think, householder? Take a Jain ascetic who is restrained
  in the fourfold restraint: obstructed by all water, devoted to all
  water, shaking off all water, pervaded by all water. When going out
  and coming back they accidentally injure many little creatures. Now,
  what result does Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta say they would incur?”
“Sir, Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta says that unintentional acts are not very
  blameworthy.”
“But if they are intentional?”
“Then they are very blameworthy.”
“But where does Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta say that intention is classified?”
“In the mental rod, sir.”
“Think about it, householder! You should think before answering. What
  you said before and what you said after don’t match up. But you said
  that you would debate on the basis of truth.”  ......
“Sir, I was already delighted and satisfied by the Buddha’s very first
  simile. Nevertheless, I wanted to hear the Buddha’s various solutions
  to the problem, so I thought I’d oppose you in this way.
Excellent, sir! Excellent! As if he were righting the overturned, or
  revealing the hidden, or pointing out the path to the lost, or
  lighting a lamp in the dark so people with good eyes can see what’s
  there, the Buddha has made the teaching clear in many ways. I go for
  refuge to the Buddha, to the teaching, and to the mendicant Saṅgha.
  From this day forth, may the Buddha remember me as a lay follower who
  has gone for refuge for life.”

And using this simile and other similes, the Buddha convinced Upali that mental deeds weigh more heavily than physical deeds and verbal deeds. Thereafter, Upali became a Buddhist.

From Dhammapada

184 "Nibbana is supreme," say the Buddhas.

43 Neither mother, father, nor any other relative can do one greater good than one's own well-directed mind.

Is mind the most valuable thing according to the buddha that we should protect by doing
anything to everything?

It's hard to rank dhamma teachings in terms of importance, as they are interrelated in a rather complex way.
I'd argue that renunciation (nekkhamma) or our intentions (cetana and kamma) is more important than protecting the mind, but on the other hand these are more or less associated principles.
Someone else will likely say that another aspect of dhamma is the chief principle. This can be confusing, and hence it is important to find out what is needed for oneself in ones personal practice.
Are there any metaphors said by Lord Buddha on the value of protecting the mind vs doing
other things?

There is for instance the metaphor from SN35.245, where sati is likened to a gatekeeper in a city:

“So too, bhikkhu, those superior men answered as they were disposed in just the way their own vision had been well purified. “Suppose, bhikkhu, a king had a frontier city with strong ramparts, walls, and arches, and with six gates. The gatekeeper posted there would be wise, competent, and intelligent; one who keeps out strangers and admits acquaintances. A swift pair of messengers would come from the east and ask the gatekeeper: ‘Where, good man, is the lord of this city?’ He would reply: ‘He is sitting in the central square.’ Then the swift pair of messengers would deliver a message of reality to the lord of the city and leave by the route by which they had arrived. Similarly, messengers would come from the west, from the north, from the south, deliver their message, and leave by the route by which they had arrived.
“I have made up this simile, bhikkhu, in order to convey a meaning. This is the meaning here: ‘The city’: this is a designation for this body consisting of the four great elements, originating from mother and father, built up out of boiled rice and gruel, subject to impermanence, to being worn and rubbed away, to breaking apart and dispersal. ‘The six gates’: this is a designation for the six internal sense bases. ‘The gatekeeper’: this is a designation for mindfulness. ‘The swift pair of messengers’: this is a designation for serenity and insight. ‘The lord of the city’: this is designation for consciousness. ‘The central square’: this is a designation for the four great elements—the earth element, the water element, the heat element, the air element. ‘A message of reality’: this is a designation for Nibbāna. ‘The route by which they had arrived’: this is a designation for the Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view … right concentration.“

https://suttacentral.net/sn35.245/en/bodhi

Is mind the most valuable thing according to the buddha that we should protect by doing anything to everything?
Are there any metaphors said by Lord Buddha on the value of protecting the mind vs doing other things ?

While 'valuable' might not be the best term for it has to operate in conjunction with various components in the chain of dependent origination, there's no doubt mind plays such a vital role among them:

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow. ~~ Dhp 1 ~~

Not valuable, but most important..it is the basis of his dhamma...also mind is hurdle in buddhist practice and mind itself is the cure...by crossing this mind -realm one attain goal of buddhism: nibbana..which cant be conceived by this mind..only one word to describe that state : unconditional happiness

In Buddhism the Mind you refer to is Consciousness or Vinnana in Pali. Please refer to the word Vinnana in the e- Buddhist Dictionary by Ven Nyanatiloka https://www.budsas.org/ebud/bud-dict/dic_idx.htm


text:
How to practise Zazen so that it leads to Satori?
Currently I practise Zazen as I have read from books i.e 'Just sitting doing nothing'. I keep an erect sitting posture, back straight and eyes closed.
This hasen't led me anywhere.
So I am asking the official way to practise Zazen and Zen in general so as to lead one to Stori.

I recommend reading The Three Pillars of Zen

Yes it has.  You just don't know where it's led you.  Keep at it and you'll find your way out of the bag eventually.
(Official answer - get a teacher.  You can't practice Zen by yourself.)


text:
Are there Zen monastries in India?
I am searching for a Zen monastery in India.
My google search returns Vajrayana Tibetan monasteries.
Please let me know if you know a Zen monastery in India.

There's a World Buddhist Directory which may be helpful (I don't know any personally).
This URL -- http://www.buddhanet.info/wbd/search.php?keyword=&search=Search&country_id=42&province_id=0&tradition%5B%5D=mahayana -- returns 35 "Mahayana" matches in India, and several of these are Zen (or probably Zen even if they don't say "Zen").

Thank you so much...didnt knew of this search website....thanks again.

There is a temple associated with Sogenji and Shodo Harada of the Rinzai sect in India: Indozan Sogenji.

There is a Zen Ashram near Kodaikanal called - Bodhi Zendo Ashram. Goolge it, you will find the website and location along with contact detials.


text:
Conversational Pali and Sanskrit?
When people speaking different languages came from other lands to meditate, did that ever necessitate speaking the language in which they chanted?
Has there ever been a situation where circumstances necessitated conversation in Pali or Sanskrit?

Seldom, aside of formal (trans-) acts of the Sangha (where it is required to use the Pali), good householder, at least for Pali, since a "death language", similar to latin. Scholars might use it as means if no other for communication. Of course it help when looking to find meanings of teachings. One easy gets meaning exchange when familar with Pali in  traditional countries and also learns the language then fast.

Of the question actually askes "are there sociaties, Sanghas, communicate in Pali with each other (1. language in use): not having come avross such even a little till yet.

Afaik there are still people who primarily use Sanskrit for conversation.

Yes, though Pali is a "dead language" in the sense that it has no native speakers left to use it, that doesn't mean it can't be used to communicate with others. I remember Professor Gombrich mentioning that it got used to communicate by monks who did not have any other common language.
You can also find examples mentioned in this thread: can people who are pali experts converse in it? in posts by "James the Giant" and "cooran".

Welcome to the community. ;-)


text:
Over control and energy dissipation
As a beginner, after 3 months of quiet intensive meditation, i feel exhausted. And I understand that it’s linked to my relation with every type of duty during my life. Studying, working, relations or just simply living, where i feel “ have to do “ emotions, and being extreme with behaviours and self control. So i go out of energy. I really enjoy meditation and i am enthusiastic about it, also as a philosophy, trying to bring it to everyday life. But I feel that i control too much my self, with thoughts and actions, and it’s frustrating a lot. This is not a new thing but, being aware of it now makes it a strong obstacle. I feel a little bit lost. Maybe someone could share some similar experience and to how to deal with it.

Meditation burnout is a thing. In buddhist terms one can consider it as one or many of the types of clinging/grasping, upadana:

Bhikkhus, there are these four kinds of clinging. What four? Clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, clinging to rules and observances, and clinging to a doctrine of self.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.011.ntbb.html
Looking into the different types can yield clues regarding what it is that motivates you to maintain such a high pace.
If you feel tired of practicing sitting meditation right now, you can always try to look into what the dhamma has to say about the experiences you've made. Some examples are concepts like the five skandhas, equanimity (upekkha), impermanence (anatta), and renuncation (nekkhamma). Perhaps the ideas behind the five hindrances during mediation (panca nivaranani) has something to say about your practice as well.
I mention these briefly as a scratch on the surface. If they seem interesting, consider them a rabbit hole to dive into. Sometimes the experiences we make in our lives can be a fruitful springboard into deepening our theoretical understanding of dhamma and ourself, as opposed to reading without any particular question in mind.

Thank you very much Erik for your answer

If one has just one method by which one tries to attain a pleasant abiding it will often be a hit or miss with regards to attaining seclusion from states that are hindrances because sometimes developing calm be difficult and attempts to do it lead to sleepiness which is a hindrance.
Therefore in the pali texts one takes note of mind and accomodates the various perceptions that are in charge of mind & behavior by directing the mind based on knowledge.
Here excerpts from sutta;

Sluggish/Tired Mind

"At such times, monks, as the mind is sluggish, that is the wrong time to cultivate the enlightenment-factor[1] of tranquillity, the enlightenment-factor of concentration, the enlightenment-factor of equanimity. What is the reason? A sluggish mind is hard to arouse by these factors.
"But, monks, when the mind is sluggish, that is the right time to cultivate the enlightenment-factor of investigation-of-states, the enlightenment-factor of energy, the enlightenment-factor of rapture.[2] What is the reason? A sluggish mind is easy to arouse by these factors.
Restless/Agitated

"Monks, when the mind is agitated,[3] that is the wrong time to cultivate the enlightenment-factors of investigation-of-states, of energy, of rapture. Why? An agitated mind is hard to calm through these factors.
  "When the mind is agitated, that is the right time to cultivate the enlightenment-factors of tranquillity, concentration, equanimity. Why? Because an agitated mind is easy to calm[4] through these factors.

Eventually wants wants to counter some dominant perspectives by developing other perceptions;

Bhikkhus, to the bhikkhu practicing the perception of loathing and abiding much in it, the sexual thought keeps away, it shrinks and rolls away.
Bhikkhus, to the bhikkhu practicing the perception of loathing in regards to food and abiding much in it, the craving for tastes keep away, it shrinks and rolls away. The mind stretches out and gets established in equanimity or loathing.

There are many more like this. If you want i can give you some excerpts.

Thank you very much for your answer

Please provide sources for sutta quotes.

It's aggi and sanna sutta

David, you've actually partly answered your question. You know the over-controlling has caused the energy loss. This is the opposite of proper meditation, which brings about more energy, and wakefulness.
Try this: Don't try to meditate.
Why is that a good idea? Because presently your view of meditation is incorrect. That's why it isn't bringing you good result. When you try to meditate, your current view of meditation will certainly make you meditate wrongly. So, drop the idea of 'meditation' first.
Then, just be aware. Just let the mind be aware of whatever it's naturally aware of. You don't even have to be able to label it/them.
As you continue to be aware, the awareness grows. Because you're not spending energy trying to do something, you retain energy, and over time you'll notice that you have more energy, not less.
Later, you may begin to notice more things: feelings, thoughts. It's okay. It's completely ok. The important thing is that you're aware in the right way: not trying to manipulate what's happening, seeing them as they are.
Hope that helps.

Dear Kumāra. I stopped to meditate. the obstacle is not the meditation itself, but the management and scheduling of the activities, lot of rebellion and stress against it. Forcing and self control costs too much energy. Feel deep ongoing feeling of fear and hurry around hourly activities. I would prefer to meditate 24h without stop than knowing that i have to meditate, eat and sleep in curtain hours. Do you think this is because i didn’t found the best motivations or it is just behavioural characteristics?

@David, By all means, meditate all the time: while eating, walking, etc.