text:
Am I feeling pity or compassion?
I'm confused. The 50+ year old nanny whom I hired to take care of my firstborn has just resigned a week ago. Before she left, I willingly gave her about 25% more than the salary we agreed upon. I also bought her some nice gifts for the lunar new year. I even told her to contact me if someday she need any (financial) help and not to tell anyone, including my wife. Until now, I'm still hoping she would contact me (not that I wish her to be in bad financial situation) because I really want to lighten her financial burden. So my two questions are:
1) am I feeling pity or compassion? I really really want to help her more as she told my wife she was (kind of) stressful of her financial condition.  Also, I think she had taken care of my baby so well.
2) is this an attachment?
Sorry for my lack of basic understanding of Buddhism. Thank you. Btw, I'm 34.
Thank you for your kind answers and I'm sorry for the edit.

If you want her to contact you, it's an attachment that is going to cause you suffering. An act of Metta(loving kindness) would be calling her once in a while and checking if she is doing well. Then if she needs help, you can help her.

B. Tjoa,
here in SEAsia the usual used word of attachment is the same as for being in debt. Something "normal" but good if seen, of which is not so normal any more.
It's good to try to help, it's paise-worthy to feel not only obligated, and it's also a sign of integrity to be willing to pay back and be not in debt. Thoughts, doing and effort, even physical, by speech and body, doing what ever possible, all of that is skillful.
It's how ever not in ones sphere in how far another might receive gifts, receive repayments. Sometime one can do what ever he/she might be able, but another is either incapable or unwilling to take.
That's then the point where one needs to let go, or better do not hold on that strong. Beings are owner of their kamma (deeds), so there is no way to what others anything to do and any gain is a result of previous or present deeds at least.
So at a point it's good to not only switch to mudita (having joy with what good another has done) but also metta (release with a wish of goodwill).
It's not wrong to forward goodness to others and also a way to solve ones obligation and to stay open in all directions with ones generosity and open hands in regard of needs and wishes of others.
Only one who has reveived goodness, has become aware of what sacrify means and that they are done by others, is not only capable to develope goodness him/her self but also to become a grateful person.
At least, don't forget, real teacher and people of goodness do not take any rewards but let you only one way open to "pay" off your debts, and this is by becoming a great person by your self, infect others in same way and make not only yourself but also others part of another economy, that of giving and letting go, leading to heaven and beyound.
Mudita
For having gotten a good "The Lessons of Gratitude"
Blessed if not and not becoming a (self-called) modern or western Buddhist who actually use Dhamma only to deny their duties and waste their past merits, incapable of goodnesz, gratitute, generosity and becoming people a integrity, striving after wrong or pseudo liberalism and dwell in hypocracy. Something one should always be careful not to fall into since there is less liberating in becoming a careless consumer of past done merits. Rejoice with your good qualities and that of others and try to stay as often by wishes to repeat good mind states, for that is the case of gaining right release by right concentration caused by right lack of remorse, fundemental debtlessness.

"And what is the treasure of generosity? There is the case of a disciple of the noble ones, his awareness cleansed of the stain of stinginess, living at home, freely generous, openhanded, delighting in being magnanimous, responsive to requests, delighting in the distribution of alms. This is called the treasure of generosity.
Dhana Sutta: Treasure

Only a person seeking for ways to do good will find possibilities, only of what is nurished an improved will grow and increase and as the Buddha often told, it's seldom to have goid possibilities, so one should be quick in actions of good deeds and like Nissaya search after them, for such is the cause to Upanissaya and to come near the path of the Noble Ones, step by step.
One is not wise if just waiting of what old merits and possibilities come along and eat them just away. Yet of course one can also not makes one good deeds undone and not to ripe, so their is no fault in receiving good and clean gifts of others on the way. Steady, in ways of giving and receiving, increase the qualities of "food" up to heavenly and food for beyound of all burdens of exchange.
Then, when the tanks is really empty, that is where the Buddha told householders, having done the highest duties, one may seek seclusion and use the release for working on fruits beyound obligation.
For a person of integrity possibilities of fulfilling as well as chances to give at fist place are a source of joy, having conviction or even know the results of a joyful and open handed mind all time prepared to give and let go. Such a person never lacks on anything needed and conductive. Give it a try to be shameless in regard of doing skillful all the time, by thought, speech and deeds, where ever be. Devotion toward the proper is not a burden but right means to release.
Anumodana!
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

No, you are feeling neither pity nor compassion, but you feeling appreciative and indebted (kataññū & katavedī).
Yes, you are. We attaching everything, included our mother, our hair tip to our toe nail.


text:
Why should one not address a venerable as friend?
Here is a quote from MN 26:

One, standing up to greet me, received my robe & bowl. Another spread out a seat. Another set out water for washing my feet. However, they addressed me by name and as 'friend.'
So I said to them,

'Don't address the Tathagata by name and as "friend." The Tathagata, friends, is a worthy one, rightly self-awakened. Lend ear, friends: the Deathless has been attained. I will instruct you. I will teach you the Dhamma.

I can understand why the Tathagata might not be addressed by name; but why not as "friend"?
Perhaps similarly, from the Maha-parinibbana Sutta:

And, Ananda, whereas now the bhikkhus address one another as 'friend (āvuso)', let it not be so when I am gone. The senior bhikkhus, Ananda, may address the junior ones by their name, their family name, or as 'friend'; but the junior bhikkhus should address the senior ones as 'venerable sir (āyasmā)' or 'your reverence (bhante)'.

What's the need for, what's the benefit of, the "reverent" form of address? Or what's the harm, if any, in the "friendly" mode of address?
If you can, I'd appreciate answers:

From canonical sources (e.g. suttas or commentary)
From post-canonical sources (e.g. later, or modern, articles or dhamma talks)
From personal experience
and/or which apply to lay people (when addressing monks, or teachers or other venerables)

Edit:
I think that ruben202's answer is ample evidence that it is so, in the culture and in the suttas and other scriptures.
I'm not sure I understand why, though. For example:

A venerable is a friend -- or are they not?
Is the behaviour (or mode of address) mere ritual?
Is there said to be a benefit, some purpose, some effect: for society, for the individual's state of mind or karma, or even for the venerable?

I imagine one benefit may be orderliness in the classroom: giving the venerable an opportunity to speak; another benefit is that it might be somehow associated with "faith" (i.e. being willing to listen without yet knowing); is another obedience for some good reason?
The whole question seems to me a bit associated with some identity-view and so thicket-of-views.
The only  answer I can think of is a reference to the sutta (reference required) where the Buddha said that people need some teacher or leader, and he (having none) would take the Dhamma as his -- but that's speculation, whereas I'm asking for answers based on references or experience.

(This is an attempt to reword this question.)

Maybe the question is better put when adding an "if..." to the "should", or more direct: If one wants a useful releasing answer, useable for many cases, one does good to object a certain effect, aim, to it, so that it might not to much subject of possible misunderstood and possible wrong reinterpreted. One might try also to give a "self-answer" like beloved by the side-owner and giver but it might not for the joy of those here feeling in charge of administrate, so properbly good if they are asked for leave in advanced.

It just came to mind, maybe worthy to give it a thought: does it make any sense to ask among people where not one actually practices apacāyana, no single real refuge can be traced and disrespect is actually the reason for gathering without leader and in improper manner? Are questions mundane, under equal, not merely just for gain and orientation, not a little for growth? Why might there be a different between just friends and venerable ones, and if, how could friends (not skilled nor trained, merely annoyed of a certain skill) solve the issue?

Controlling the process lead to every goals
When the course of study are very hard to graduate, or when the work very hard to  take the goals, the teacher/manager need the very strict & many enough rules to control the process work follow in the plan to goals.
The 7 goals of buddhism are the hardest job in the world: 1. keeping own advantage, 2. keeping social advantage, 3. keeping public advantage, 4.  keeping present advantage, 5. keeping future advantage, 6 going to anupādisesa-nibbāna, 7. keeping the buddha's teaching  for the public advantage in the future until 5,000 years old. This 7 goals appeared in many sutta, such as in 10 purposes of monastic legislation.
That is the reason why the buddha, the dhamma's manager, gave 91,805,036,000 rules, just in vinaya-pitaka, for the monks. Also, 63,000 dhamma-khandha in suttanta and abhidhamma, included āvuso/bhante in this question. I still not included their ancient commentary,  which is larger than the present commentary.
Guru, teacher, means respect, doing hard
There are upajjhācāra-vatta for the student in VN mahāvagga, mahākhandhaka, which do service the teacher more than āvuso/bhante calling.
Student need intimacy and trust to learn the hardest teaching
I often see in the movie that when some student very respect to some professor, they will use "professor" word to call the professor.
Why? They realize that the professor will love them and give them all of his knowledge.
This is still going nowadays.
Teacher maybe not arahanta
Tipitaka allowed the un-enlightener, who graduated bhikkhuparisūpaṭṭhāpaka-course, to teach the new monk. So, he can hate/angry his student, because he is not anāgāmi-ariya. When the teacher bias like that, just a little impolite word can let him stop the teaching. When the teaching is not taught like that, the buddhism will go to the end.
All reason above connect together in kammṭṭhānagahaṇaniddesa
The path of purification, kammṭṭhānagahaṇaniddesa.
The right culture give the previous right master, the previous right master give the next right master
The explanation from the previous generation to the next generation, will specify the future.
If Einstein didn't describe his complicated formula, who can understand his complicated formula?
Tipitaka and commentary are very hard than Einstein's formula. Because even we understand Einstein's formula, we may not understand the whole concept of tipitaka and commentary, even tipitaka and commentary often said "the buddha taught very clear, very beautiful syntax". But why we still confuse in tipitaka and commentary meaning. Why?
Because we still not trust enough in the previous teacher, such as commentary--the tipitaka-memorizer, to learn from them step by step.
For the example of problem, nowadays, people believe in reading study system, then they try to read tipitaka and commentary by themselves. But tipitaka and commentary began in oral reciting study system. So when the readers try to read by  themselves, they will miss many meaning and relativity of words/phrases/sentences/paragraphs/suttas/canons. Because reading study system and reciting study system are very difference in many dimension, such as   structure, referencing, definition-doing, etc.
So, when the reader just read, they will miss many core of tipitaka and commentary.
How about the thailand in a book compare to thailand in travelling? Is the travelling give the traveler deeper dimensions, right? That is the difference between just the reading and the reality experience. Reading can give you a summary of tipitaka and commentary, but reciting can give the deeper information, quicker understanding, easier study, and more.
This is the reason why the monks still keep the oral study system follow ordering of buddha in vinaya-pitaka, through 2600 years. It doesn't mean we
just only recite follow the order, but actually we found the truth that reciting study system is the better way to study tipitaka and commentary. For the example, thailand discarded reciting study system about 100 years ago in colony war, today I have to ask the very deep question about pāli canon from burmese master, which the reciting study system still going on, because no one in present thailand can understand my question with my description, even my teacher who already read the whole translated tipitaka and commentary. But the burmese pali tipitaka memorizer who study from his previous teacher, can understand my question without any description.
why? The right culture give the previous right master, the previous right master give the next right master, which thai loose them 100 years ago.

@chrisW  I know it is very idiot, to invite you to read the lately added text at the end of answer again. But I actually can not complete it by once time writing. It is very complicated to explain, so I have to take many times to author each heading.

Thank you for your effort. I think you identified several good reasons.

Junior monks have to greet senior monks as "venerable sir" and lay people have to greet monks as "venerable sir" (and not as "friend" or by name) because this is part of the culture of respect and reverence in Buddhism, and South Asian culture in general, both in ancient and modern times.
It is part of the whole package of reverence to parents, teachers and elders. Of course, in the modern day, this is changing due to exposure to culture of other parts of the world.
Below are some examples from suttas and vinaya:
In AN10.16:

“Bhikkhus, these ten persons are worthy of gifts, worthy of
  hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of reverential salutation, an
  unsurpassed field of merit for the world. What ten? The Tathāgata, the
  Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One; a paccekabuddha; the one
  liberated in both respects; the one liberated by wisdom; the body
  witness; the one attained to view; the one liberated by faith; the
  Dhamma follower; the faith follower; and the clan member. These ten
  persons are worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of
  offerings, worthy of reverential salutation, an unsurpassed field of
  merit for the world.”

From AN8.59:

Monks, there are these eight individuals who are worthy of gifts,
  worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of reverential
  salutation, the unsurpassed field of merit for the world. Which eight?
The one who has entered the stream, the one who has entered upon the
  course for the realization of the fruit of stream-entry, the
  once-returner, the one who has entered upon the course for the
  realization of the fruit of once-returning, the non-returner, the one
  who has entered upon the course for the realization of the fruit of
  non-returning, the arahant, the one who has entered upon the course
  for arahantship

In AN5.199, the Buddha taught:

"On the occasion when a virtuous person who has gone forth approaches
  a family, the people rise up to greet him, bow down, give him/her a
  seat. On that occasion the family is practicing the practice leading
  to birth in a high family.

In Mangala Sutta:

"Not to associate with the foolish, but to associate with the wise;
  and to honor those who are worthy of honor — this is the greatest
  blessing.

In AN 4.32:

"There are these four grounds for the bonds of fellowship. Which four?
  Generosity, kind words, beneficial help, consistency. These are the
  four grounds for the bonds of fellowship."
Generosity, kind words, beneficial help, & consistency in the face of
  events, in line with what's appropriate in each case, each case. These
  bonds of fellowship [function] in the world like the linchpin in a
  moving cart.
Now, if these bonds of fellowship were lacking, a mother would not
  receive the honor & respect owed by her child, nor would a father
  receive what his child owes him. But because the wise show regard for
  these bonds of fellowship, they achieve greatness and are praised.

In AN5.58:

Now on that occasion a number of Licchavi youths had taken their
  strung bows and were walking and wandering in the Great Wood,
  accompanied by a pack of dogs, when they saw the Blessed One seated at
  the foot of a tree to dwell for the day. When they saw him, they put
  down their strung bows, sent the dogs off to one side, and approached
  him. They paid homage to the Blessed One and silently stood in
  attendance upon him with their hands joined in reverential salutation.

In MN86:

"Great king, suppose you were to see Angulimala with his hair & beard
  shaved off, wearing the ochre robe, having gone forth from the home
  life into homelessness, refraining from killing living beings,
  refraining from taking what is not given, refraining from telling
  lies, living the holy life on one meal a day, virtuous & of fine
  character: what would you do to him?"
"We would bow down to him, lord, or rise up to greet him, or offer him
  a seat, or offer him robes, almsfood, lodgings, or medicinal
  requisites for curing illness; or we would arrange a lawful guard,
  protection, & defense.

There are numerous examples of prostration before the Buddha, where the translations say that somebody bowed down then sat to one side.
In MN 90, we see prostrations with head placed at the feet.

King Pasenadi Kosala said to one of his men, "Come, my good man. Go to
  the Blessed One and, on arrival, showing reverence with your head to
  his feet in my name, ask whether he is free from illness & affliction,
  is carefree, strong, & living in comfort, saying: 'King Pasenadi
  Kosala, lord, shows reverence with his head to your feet and asks
  whether you are free from illness & affliction, are carefree, strong,
  & living in comfort.' And then say: 'Lord, today King Pasenadi Kosala
  will come to see the Blessed One after his morning meal.'"

And also in SN22.87:

“Well then, friends, pay homage to the Blessed One in my name with
  your head at his feet and say: ‘Venerable sir, the bhikkhu Vakkali is
  sick, afflicted, gravely ill; he pays homage to the Blessed One with
  his head at his feet.’

Part of the Sekhiya rules of the vinaya on a bhikkhu teaching the dhamma:

When his listener is not ill, a bhikkhu should not teach Dhamma if the
  listener:

has an umbrella, staff, knife, weapon in his/her hand.
is wearing shoes, boots or sandals.
is sitting in a vehicle when the bhikkhu is in a lower vehicle or not in a vehicle at all.
is lying down when the bhikkhu is sitting or standing.
is sitting holding his/her knees.
is wearing a hat or a turban, or has covered his/her head with a scarf or shawl.
is sitting on a seat while the bhikkhu is sitting on the ground.
is sitting on a high seat while the bhikkhu is sitting on a lower seat.
is sitting while the bhikkhu is standing.
is walking ahead of the bhikkhu.
is walking on a path while the bhikkhu is walking beside the path. (Sk 57-72)

This theme is also found in Tibetan Buddhism, in the "A Brief Teaching on The Bodhisattva’s Garland of Jewels" with translation and commentary by Khenpo Sodargye Rinpoche. This text might apply to other Mahayana and Vajrayana schools too.
From this section:

Refrain from meaningless chatter,
  And speak only true words at any time.
Whenever you see your guru or khenpo,
  Offer to serve with devotion and respect.
Commentary:
  In every moment, refrain from any talk that does not refer to the
  Buddha-dharma or spiritual practice. Never say anything that may cause
  others to slander the guru or the Three Jewels. Some people pay close
  attention to their own speech, and will carefully consider if what
  they are about to say is meaningful or meaningless, and if they find
  that it is meaningless, they will refrain from speaking at all. Others
  however, very much like talking and gossiping about other people’s
  faults. They do not even notice that they are doing it! This can bring
  a great deal of trouble both to themselves and to others. It would be
  better for this type of person to remain silent and avoid committing
  so many negative actions. Our speech should always be true speech,
  meaning that it is in accordance with the truth, is meaningful and
  brings no harm to ourselves or to others. Whenever we meet our root
  guru or khenpo, we must give rise to reverence and respect from the
  depths of our heart, and offer to serve them with respectful devotion.
  Some people might occasionally become caught up in anger or resentment
  towards their guru. This creates very severe negative karma and should
  be remedied with their utmost efforts at sincere confession and
  clarification. Some people do not know how to act when they see their
  guru or khenpo, and so will try to hide or run away. This is not
  right. What is appropriate is to just remain calm when seeing your
  guru, and, from the heart, offer to serve them with devotion and
  respect.

We also see this in the Manusmrti or Manu's Laws, a Hindu legal text, on respect to elders:

2.119. One must not sit down on a couch or seat which a superior occupies; and he who occupies a couch or seat shall rise to meet a
  (superior), and (afterwards) salute him.
2.120. For the vital airs of a young man mount upwards to leave his body when an elder approaches; but by rising to meet him and saluting
  he recovers them.
2.121. He who habitually salutes and constantly pays reverence to the aged obtains an increase of four (things), (viz.) length of life,
  knowledge, fame, (and) strength.

And this from the Manusmrti on reverence to the teacher / guru:

2.146. Of him who gives natural birth and him who gives (the knowledge of) the Veda, the giver of the Veda is the more venerable father; for
  the birth for the sake of the Veda (ensures) eternal (rewards) both in
  this (life) and after death.
2.147. Let him consider that (he received) a (mere animal) existence, when his parents begat him through mutual affection, and when he was
  born from the womb (of his mother).
2.148. But that birth which a teacher acquainted with the whole Veda, in accordance with the law, procures for him through the Savitri, is
  real, exempt from age and death.

OP: I'm not sure I understand "why", though. For example, a venerable is a friend -- or are they not? Is the behaviour (or mode of
  address) mere ritual? Is there said to be a benefit, some purpose,
  some effect: for society, for the individual's state of mind, or even
  for the venerable? I imagine one benefit may be orderliness in the
  classroom: giving the venerable an opportunity to speak; another might
  be somehow associated with "faith" (i.e. being willing to listen
  without yet knowing)

Argument 1: Korean Air Crashes
A theory on this is explored by Malcolm Gladwell in his book Outliers, as summarized here:

As a closing point to consider the value of the wide use of formal
  speech in Korean, let me add a story regarding Korean Air discussed
  among others by Malcolm Gladwell in his book ``Outliers." Korean Air
  had in the 1990s become one of the world's most dangerous airlines,
  with so many crashes that it was eventually excluded from its airline
  alliance.
The management of Korean Air at that time brought in an American team
  of consultants to analyze the problem and recommend a solution. While
  the Korean management had suggested more mandatory hours of flight
  simulator training for all pilots, the Americans advised them to
  introduce English as the official on-board language and ban the use of
  any Korean communication from the cockpit. Korean Air went ahead with
  this solution and as a result the crashes ceased, the airline's
  reputation was restored and it became an alliance member again. The
  consultants had discovered that the reason for the numerous accidents
  was that co-pilots could not inform captains about mistakes or
  potentially dangerous situations, because they had to use the most
  formal style of speech when addressing the captain and this created a
  barrier, which made criticism almost impossible. Once they used
  English, this "artificial wall" was torn down and teamwork and
  cross-checks became easy.

According to this theory by Malcolm Gladwell, Korean co-pilots spoke in Korean with each other that had a formal style of speech when addressing the captain, and this created an artificial barrier of respect that prevented first officers from directly criticizing their captains.
They were politely making suggestions with hints to the captain, when they should be communicating directly, clearly and bluntly in the case of a flight scenario where timeliness is critical.
On the other hand, in English, they would address each other simply as "you" or "I" instead of using honorifics. This apparently broke down the artificial barrier of respect and contributed to a reduction in crashes.
I would argue the reverse.
The use of honorifics like "bhante" and "ayasma" would create the right context and climate of respect that makes it conducive for teaching and learning the Dhamma.
Argument 2: Courtroom Decorum
Another way to argue this is to use courtroom etiquette or courtroom decorum as explained by these guidelines:

Be Respectful in Your Public Requests, Comments, and Dealings with the Court. Adopt a formal approach that reflects courtesy and respect
  for the authority of the court. Common phrases that are used when
  communicating with the judge include the following: "May it please the
  Court," used as the greeting at the outset of your opening statement
  and your opening argument; "With Your Honor's leave (or permission), I
  would like to, " used when seeking permission to do something; "As the
  court pleases," "Very well, Your Honor," and "So be it, Your Honor" -
  used when you are acceding (consenting) to an unobjectionable oral
  direction or order of the court. "As the Court well knows," used when
  you are getting ready to educate the judge about something s/he
  probably doesn't know. Don't interrupt the judge. Listen to what the
  judge says. The judge has considerable discretionary power that can be
  used to help you or hurt you, even in jury trials where s/he serves
  only as the referee. Something as nebulous as the judge's tone of
  voice in ruling on objections can influence the juror's perceptions of
  your credibility. In jury trials, treat the judge as though s/he was
  the foreperson of the jury. Every judge has quirks. In some locales,
  there are published Judge's Bench Books that describe the
  peculiarities, predilections, and requirements of each local judge.
  These may be useful reading if you are not personally familiar with
  the way a certain judge runs his or her court.

Similarly, we should adopt a formal approach that reflects courtesy and respect for the authority of the teacher.
What would happen if courtroom communication was informal and casual? The authority of the court and the judge would not be respected, and justice would not be served.
Similarly, we need to be formal in front of the Dhamma teacher to respect his authority.
This establishes the atmosphere conducive to learning and teaching the Dhamma.
Argument 3: Your child is not your friend
From a parenting website:

There are parents out there who are concerned about being their
  child’s friend. What is challenging is that if you are, first, a
  friend, then when the child is a preteen or teenager, the child will
  not need you as a friend. By then, he or she will have friends their
  own age to listen to. As teens, they need you as a parent, but they
  are not going to tell you that. When you become their friend first,
  parenting becomes difficult to establish. The child may not see you as
  an authority figure, and when you try to establish authority, the
  child will most likely question you even more. That’s not what you
  want.
When you are a friend first, it sends a message that you want your
  child to like you, to share with you, and to help you feel connected.
  If that’s the case, that puts a lot more pressure on the child. It is
  not your child’s job to help you feel good about yourself. If that is
  why you are your child’s friend, rather than being his/her parent,
  then you may need to get some counseling for yourself. You and your
  spouse (if married) will need to focus on a healthy relationship so
  the lines of parenting and friendship, even with your child, can be
  reassessed and altered, if need be.

If parents become friends first with their child, their child would not respect the authority of the parent.
It is the same with the Dhamma teacher.
Hence formal communication is needed to establish authority.

What about speaking without having got leave? Something very importand and very ignored today and maybe worthy to add in the lists.

Speaking to elders without permission?

Speaking even if elders or "respect worthy persons" are next without have asked or (if proper) taken leave, or to talk like under homies or stressed managers, no time for polite adressing, or thinking "i am wise" and "at least i have the right" to express my mind, yes, Nyom Ruben.

That's an interesting analogy at the end -- there's a similar principle, in operating theatres: i.e. you want anyone (including even relatively low-status participants) to be able to question or to point out an omission if they notice one. And I don't want to say that using honorifics is wrong, at all; but can you explain why would you want to argue the reverse?

@ChrisW I have added the courtroom decorum argument.

@ChrisW I've added a third argument - "your child is not your friend"

Buddha-Dhamma is not about deceit & political correctness but is about acting according to reality with honesty. Therefore, when a teacher, be it a monk or lay teacher, provides knowledge, compassion, help & assistance in a virtuous manner, it is appropriate & proper to address that person as 'Venerable Sir' or 'Lady' (rather than merely as "Friend").
But if a monk is undeveloped in body, speech & mind and rotten to the core, it is not required to address that monk (falsely) as 'Venerable Sir' because this would be False Speech. The Dhammapada says:

307. There are many evil characters and uncontrolled men wearing the saffron robe. These wicked men will be born in states of woe because
  of their evil deeds.
308. It would be better to swallow a red-hot iron ball, blazing like fire, than as an immoral and uncontrolled monk to eat the alms of the
  people.

Also, when a monk does not understand the True Dhamma & continuously negates the True Dhamma spoken by a lay Sotapanna, Once-Returner & Non-Returner, it is difficult to regard this monk as a 'Venerable Sir' or to use the term 'Bhante' ('Lord').
There are stories in Buddhism about lay Non-Returners honoring less enlightened monks but in the time of the Buddha generally all proper monks all accorded with what the Buddha taught. But today, there are so many different schools & sects.
If a monk is visibly virtuous, to address the monk as 'Venerable Sir' merely on the basis of his Virtue is appropriate.
But a person wearing the orange robes but uncontrolled in speech & unlearned in the True Dhamma cannot be addressed 'Venerable Sir' because this would be Lying. The Dhammapada says:

307. There are many evil characters and uncontrolled men wearing the saffron robe. These wicked men will be born in states of woe because
  of their evil deeds.
308. It would be better to swallow a red-hot iron ball, blazing like fire, than as an immoral and uncontrolled monk to eat the alms of the
  people.

Why should one not address a venerable as friend?
Because he/she is an enemy (at least as such perceived), or because one prevers giving what is proper and can be given, maybe...? It would not be of benefit to give without confidence and joy, that what is good for all and praised by the wise.
For long time benefit and aimed even beyound, some inspirations:
If somebody desiring sharing merits by a more extended answer here and seeking sources to be able, Opening the Door to the Dhamma, also Mv I 15: Upajjhāyavattakathā — The Discussion of Duties Toward a Preceptor/teacher and a collection "Respect and Veneration", might be good "starter".

...Paying Respect or Veneration (also regard, obeisance, high esteem, honour, admiration) (pi apacāyana, apa + cāy root pūja = abound, scarify; verb apaciti; gārava) , is the fourth of the traditional listed ten skilful/meritorious deeds  (pi puññakiriya-vatthus), a practice which would be maintained beginning in childhood within families and societies in Buddhist environments. Within the three major kinds meritorious deeds (dāna, sīla, bhāvana) it counts to the virtue group as an aspect of sila. More known accesses, which will be maybe not suddenly regarded as aspects of respect, is the Refuge into the Three Jewels, honour and respect as the access point into the Dhamma and one of the Four Sublime Attributes (brahma vihara), Mudita, often translated as sympathy joy or appreciation. Mudita means joy and appreciation, and with it respect, in regard of one own goodness that one has developed and that of others...more in Detail

If having further an detail question or seeking for an intensive discussion to work thinks good out, one might feel always given to do so here (careholders here don't like such to happen here, sometimes but not always).
Always happy, since people at large often give statistics more value then discerning observations, inwardly and outwardly, this topic here "Lessons from Sardinia: respect towards elders leads to a significantly longer life", in a usuall opposing proper discerment enviroment, might give some source of thoughts in regard of "one gets what one gives" and why "conservative" (good tradition preserving) societies are more garants for harmonious and long live while usually pseudo liberalism, postmodern and commonist tendencies are merely the enviroments of short live and joyless vegetating.

Abhivādanasīlissa,
  niccaṃ vuḍḍhāpacāyino;
  Cattāro dhammā vaḍḍhanti,
  āyu vaṇṇo sukhaṃ balaṃ.
For one of respectful and virtuous nature who continuously honours those who are older and more virtuous, four benefits, viz., longevity, beauty, happiness and strength, will increase.
dhp 109 incl. Comm. Story

...and of course vizi-versa, one becomes weak, ugly, thin and founds one self lost in a hot wide desert.

"There is the case where a woman or man is obstinate & arrogant. He/she does not pay homage to those who deserve homage, rise up for those for whom one should rise up, give a seat to those to whom one should give a seat, make way for those for whom one should make way, worship those who should be worshipped, respect those who should be respected, revere those who should be revered, or honor those who should be honored. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation... If instead he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is low-born wherever reborn. This is the way leading to a low birth: to be obstinate & arrogant, not to pay homage to those who deserve homage, nor rise up for... nor give a seat to... nor make way for... nor worship... nor respect... nor revere... nor honor those who should be honored.
The Shorter Analysis of Action

So really good to think much about the starter for a good walk-about: "What is worthy to go after and fall for it?", and how to not forget and fall into self-centeredness., get stuck.
May all beings have always proper and never to less Respect, Confidence and Patient, and even it may sound contradict, starting with goodwill to be able, with one self, since someone not estimating ones own merits, does not know the cause of pleasure, how could he/she ever find any real refuge and follow it?
Addition because it could work to make the way of approach for a fruitful relay-tion-ship reasonable more understandable.
What kind of guided person in a relation do you like to be? (Drawn from nun Uppalavanas translation of AN 7.13, seven kinds of wives)

Sujatha these are the seven wives to a man. Of them what are you, or like to be?
Venerable sir, from today remember me as a slave wife to my husband.

While Sujatha, and others, even if worse, could trace practice and good ways within her sociaty and being reminded, it's probably total impossible for a modern, western person, having grown up in a communist, socialisitic, postmodern society to ever get a needed enviroment given that they seek for advices in even more "brotherly" Kolkhoz (resource another), under other slaves with no liberality or usuals to walk after liberation.
So if really wishing to get it understood and become capable to adopt and practice good conduct, like always, starts with association with wise and avoiding the fools like poision, or to best train to possible gain existence in a area where basic right view is still something practiced amoung many, become blessed.
For even, as my person heard, recommended and as good estimated branches of monks even wish their lay people not to use proper addressing - "don't do so, we are all equal here in search" - and prefer that what they are used to, by birth, not having chanced, the lighter bearable "homie-hood" to ensure their gain, growth and existence.
Let my person share a simile for encouragement to put all effort into seek for real refuge, inwardly and outwardly and to learn to become a devotional person not to Mara, not to Death, as usual in the world, amoung "friends", in a dusty on-house-holding (e.g. senses) life:

The King of Death
We live like a chicken who doesn't know what's going on. In the morning it takes its baby chicks out to scratch for food. In the evening, it goes back to sleep in the coop. The next morning it goes out to look for food again. Its owner scatters rice for it to eat every day, but it doesn't know why its owner is feeding it. The chicken and its owner are thinking in very different ways.
The owner is thinking, "How much does the chicken weigh?" The chicken, though, is engrossed in the food. When the owner picks it up to heft its weight, it thinks the owner is showing affection.
We too don't know what's going on: where we come from, how many more years we'll live, where we'll go, who will take us there. We don't know this at all.
The King of Death is like the owner of the chicken. "We" don't know when he'll catch up with us, for "we're" engrossed — engrossed in sights, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, and ideas. "We" have no sense that "we're" growing older. "We" have no sense of enough.

And possible end up in not having found real refuge again but just a more "comfortable" better more tricky chicken raising farm, with all good for health and grow and good managed, where "non" even able to harm the other.

"Under friends"
Vandāmi is a usual, even often just a ritual, practice under devoted lay followers, a homage, asking for pardon and asking for the share of the juwels merits (e.g. father, teacher, Sangha, Dhamma, Buddha) and as it is pointed out in the Vinaya, to confess faults amoung those of equal, is of no use, would not help and support a better, neither for the individual nor for the paticular community (which can possible not helped).
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other low trades and just exchange for the world.]

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Right Speech & Precepts
Couple of questions:

According to the Dhamma, is it allowed to critisize someone in a constructive manner?
If someone gossips about me how do I deal with it? Compassion and kindness aside, sometimes it is necessary to be assertive. One can only be compassionate if one is healthy inside in that moment in time.
Intention is a little bit more important than the act itself,
(isnt it- at least in Buddhism) (only in a few instances is the act more important than the intention for example stealing is wrong even if one's family is poor), however, if for example I slice my bread in the supermarket and I see remaining pieces of bread in the machine and I take them with me because no one did I then so no reason why I would largely violete the "not taking what is not given". Sure, it wasn't given but if my attention or thought is: "Well, if I don't take it it will be wasted" then that should rather influence my kamma, right? So it's largely about my intention. If I  hurt someone out of compassion because he attacks someone and injures them severely I have better results because my intention was to safe others, correct?

You can criticize if it is beneficial to you and/or others, but you should not get angry.
You can advice the person not to do so, if you think he will listen. In any case, be mindful of the concern about your ego. You cannot really stop people from talking whatever they like behind your back. Be mindful of the anger arising in you. Do either Metta or Satipattana meditation to deal with anger.
Intention takes precedence always. It's never the act. Stealing is wrong because it is caused by greed and delusion. Regarding sliced bread, taking something is ok if the owner does not mind you taking it. It does not break the precept. You can prevent someone from hurting another by blocking his path or holding him tight. But hurting intentionally usually involves aversion. It's up to you to check if hate/aversion creeps in.

According to the Dharma, is it allowed to criticize someone in a constructive manner?

As per Buddha in Pali Canon, it is out duty to point out someone's mistakes. However, Buddha also explained how arguments come from attachment to our views. What looks like mistake to us can be right with the information they have. Buddha in Pali Canon explained that when two people have a disagreement about how things work, they should try to discuss and merge their two perspectives into one, instead of trying to argue which one is correct. This combined merged perspective will be more robust and more useful to both.

If someone gossips about me how do I deal with it? Compassion and kindness aside, sometimes it is necessary to be assertive. One can only be compassionate if one is healthy inside in that moment in time.

Based on what I saw in Pali Canon and other texts and on what my teachers explained to me, I'm pretty sure that the Buddhist approach is NOT to try to argue with gossips, but to keep showing who you really are in action. If you are consistent with manifesting your values in your actions, people will see that, and any gossips that come from invalid or partial information will eventually fade away.

Intention is a little bit more important than the act itself...

Correct, in Mahayana Buddhism, and as explained by my teacher, your hidden agenda in your mind is what really matters. If you act with egoistic agenda, even the best action will be contaminated, so that's bad karma - even if it does not break any rules and succeeds short-term. If you act with selfless agenda, even controversial acts will be good, as long as they are performed with wisdom of understanding the consequences for others. But yes, in terms of your feeling good and not having doubts about your choices, as long as your intention was selfless and you did not harm others, your karma is good, so you should feel good and have no doubts.

I might be useful if you provided some references for your answers.

For some of this stuff that came from the middle of Anguttara Nikaya or Samyukta Nikaya, finding exact reference would take some significant time. If I remember specific sutta or can easily find one, I try to supply references, you can see that in some of my past answers. But if I can't, I prefer to reply from memory than not reply at all.

The merging idea came from one line in the verse at an end of a sutta in SN or AN. The fading of gossips came from the infamous Buddha's prostitute story (and my teacher's personal advice).

The precept for lay people is only about refraining from false or dishonest speech. The precept is not about 'Right Speech' (which includes pleasant, cordial & beneficial speech). Therefore, the precepts allows lay people to  criticise people, such as criticizing bad monks but monks are generally not allowed to criticise laypeople because they generally must practise metta.
Regardless, the Dhamma allows criticism in speech, as shown below:

Potaliya, four kinds of people exist and can be found in the world.  What four kinds?  The four kinds are:
Some people blame those who should be blamed, according to the truth, at the proper time, but do not praise those who should be praised,
according to the truth, at the proper time.
Some people praise those who should be praised, according to the truth, at the proper time, but do not blame those who should be
blamed, according to the truth, at the proper time.
Some people do not blame those who should be blamed, according to the truth, at the proper time, and do not praise those who should be
praised, according to the truth, at the proper time.
Some people blame those who should be blamed, according to the truth, at the proper time, and praise those who should be praised, according
to the truth, at the proper time.
Potaliya, these four kinds of people exist and can be found in the world.  Of these four kinds of people, that kind should be the most
fair and right, the most refined, to you?
Venerable Lord Gotama, of all those four kinds of people, the kind of person who does not blame those who should be blamed, according to
the truth, at the proper time, and does not praise those who should be
praised, according to the truth, at the proper time; is the kind of
person who is the most beautiful and refined to me.  What is the
reason for this?  Because this is fair and right with upekkha
(equanimity).
Potaliya, of all those four kinds of people, whichever kind of person blames those who should be blamed, according to the truth, at the
proper time, and praises those who should be praised, according to the
truth, at the proper time; this kind of person is the most beautiful
and refined of these four kinds of people.  What is the reason for
this?  It is fair and right because such a one knows the right time in
those circumstances.
AN 4.100

Absolutely , you can criticise someone constructively. Buddhism in no way teaches us to be pushovers. However, the Buddha mentioned from the (AN V (From The Patimokkha, Ñanamoli Thera, trans.))
Source : https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-vaca/index.html
In order for your actions to be skillfull you have to admonish the person hurting you or others very skillfully.
How to admonish another skillfully
"O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu who desires to admonish another should do so after investigating five conditions in himself and after establishing five other conditions in himself. What are the five conditions which he should investigate in himself?
[1] "Am I one who practices purity in bodily action, flawless and untainted...?
[2] "Am I one who practices purity in speech, flawless and untainted...?
[3] "Is the heart of goodwill, free from malice, established in me towards fellow-farers in the holy life...?
[4] "Am I or am I not one who has heard much, who bears in mind what he has heard, who stores up what he has heard? Those teachings which are good alike in their beginning, middle, and ending, proclaiming perfectly the spirit and the letter of the utterly purified holy life — have such teachings been much heard by me, borne in mind, practiced in speech, pondered in the heart and rightly penetrated by insight...?
[5] "Are the Patimokkhas [rules of conduct for monks and nuns] in full thoroughly learned by heart, well-analyzed with thorough knowledge of their meanings, clearly divided sutta by sutta and known in minute detail by me...?
"These five conditions must be investigated in himself.
"And what other five conditions must be established in himself?
[1] "Do I speak at the right time, or not?
[2] "Do I speak of facts, or not?
[3] "Do I speak gently or harshly?
[4] "Do I speak profitable words or not?
[5] "Do I speak with a kindly heart, or inwardly malicious?
"O bhikkhus, these five conditions are to be investigated in himself and the latter five established in himself by a bhikkhu who desires to admonish another."
In short , investigate whether you are doing it out of anger our out of a pure intention to protect yourself and the other person as well .Make sure that it is true that the other person is indeed gossiping about you and this is not just your assumption . And then ask yourself whether it is beneficial, to all concerned.If all these three conditions are fullfilled then pick a right time to speak it.

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:
Wanting something
How do I deal with healthy desires like wanting to get a relationship etc? Is it wrong intention to want that or is it good if it stems from non-ill will, renunciation etc.?
Likewise, it's bad if I thirst to get a girlfriend but how then do I deal with the accompanied depression? Loving kindness to oneself? Contemplating on the impermanence or the unattractiveness of the woman might not work in the heat of the moment when I'm depressed (Self compassion probably does and then realizing that other ppl face the same problem .. in essence: Im not alone with my problems)

"What, if I do (want) it, would lead to my long term benefit and happiness?", wanting/doing is nothing wrong but needed for all kind of gains, also lasting, Val.

As my teacher explained (sorry, this looks silly, but I always have to start my answers with something like this, since I'm not quoting texts but none of this is my invention),
there is a difference between a desire (aka "should") and an intent (aka "will")
Desire is a point of inner discontent. Half of you is here, without girlfriend, and the other half is there in your imaginary future, with girlfriend. This split creates inner conflict that leads to the feeling of wrongness, mental/emotional suffering.
Intent is a case of inner integration and inner peace, based on unbending determination. All of you is here. You have thought about your goal, you have determined the best possible course of action (such as doing something; or not doing at all - i.e. waiting; or exposing oneself to spirit and chance; or being oneself authentically) and now you're living it with no back thoughts and no hesitations. Because you are like this, there is no inner conflict, there is no mental/emotional suffering.

Is the above a description of "craving", rather than of "desire"?

Yes, of Tanha. I used OP's terminology on purpose. Perhaps you are right and I should have dichotomized his desire, instead of equating it with craving and adding intent. But to me "desire" sounds closer to craving than to decision/determination, so I equated them.

"wanting to get a relationship" comes from lust/craving. Hence it is unwholesome. But lay people are not expected to give up on relationships. They just have to keep to the 3rd precept where one avoids relationships that come under sexual misconduct.
However, if you are determined to advance to the next level of being celibate, you can practice Patikulamanasikara meditation or Satipatthana meditation. Once your lust is subdued/weakened, staying single becomes comfortable and preferable. There is no instant fix to mental issues. The mind needs to be cultivated with meditation over a period of time.

I practised Patikulamanasikara meditation, however, how long does it take once I see its results. The problem is, that I don't really see the ugliness in the human body. For me, all is quite natural, even urine etc.

Then try corpse meditation. Look at videos/pictures of rotting bodies.


text:
Can anyone explain how 'stimulus / response' appears in Chinese or Japanese Buddhism?

Can anyone explain how 'stimulus / response' appears in Chinese or Japanese Buddhism?
What does it mean?

I can recall barely nothing about it, but I do know that it features in Zhiyi's work, Chin Fa-hua-hsüan-i at least. I'm especially interested in how the terms, which I believe are paired, may have a universal meaning.

This is an extremely broad question, I will limit my response to Ch'an/Zen Buddhism.
Starting in the earliest schools of Ch'an in Sung China, we find the practice of a stimulus/response ritual the Japanese call sassho. It usually (but not necessarily) takes the form of a question-answer dialog between master and student and is used to both invoke and verify insight/realization. Some of these dialogs have become (in)famous and were compiled into Kung'An/Koan collections still used today.
The basic philosophy behind sassho is to verify whether the answer to a teacher's question is free-flowing or (pre)conceived. In the latter case, the answer would be rejected and the student would be requested to meditate further on the question.

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


text:
When something goes wrong
One hears of religious psychosis, with a 'Buddhist' element. As well as people who convert to or begin to study / practice Buddhism and seeming different, somehow worse; more solitary or unconcerned, etc..
What is going on these sorts of lives, becasuse I don't think "zen sickness" always applies to confusion with the dharma?

Good to add samples, for normal would see wired as wired, as well wired do that toward normal, e.g. wired will trace all aside as the used to as wired, beliving in nicca and owning, personality. Noble Ones are seen as fools by fools, people not into the stream are incapable to trace even best integrity. So most will always have a real problem. And good to know if after truth or after defending something one hold as ones own.

I don't understand the first sentence, which describes what you heard ... especially the 2nd half of it: "folks converting", from what to what? Being "different", from what? "Worse", how or in what way? How or why are you hearing of it? If you can't explain or don't understand what you heard, how could people explain for you "what is going on there"?

@ChrisW are you sure you don't understand? i'm using completely plain language, to describe a phenomena that should make sense to anyone. i think adding further details would be irrelevant; do you just mean that you don't understand because it's too abstract?

Psychiatric hospitals are full of Christs and Buddhas. I'm not sure it's a subject suitable for this stack exchange, though.

Oh so then I shouldn't tell them that I am Buddha and Christ at the same time? :D

There are cases when someone gets obsessed, this is known as the Dharma fever. In my lineage this is not considered too bad. Many folks coming into Buddhism have preexisting aversion to this world. Generally speaking, my Buddhism is Buddhism of love and acceptance - if someone is in a difficult life situation and lost balance, or even never had it because that's how their life turned out, we see that with the maximum warmth and try to make the best out of the situation. In Varjrayana everything is energy, even the energy of confusion, so we try to use all that. I personally hate silent, sarcastic, and passive-aggressive treatment of confusion. If someone is completely off base, they need love and acceptance, not judgment.
The cases when someone gets arrogant and/or righteous are not tolerated well. Ego is the enemy of enlightenment, so spiritual snobbery has to be persecuted.
I've never heard of true madness, but losing a sense of boundaries is standard. This is where the personal presence of teacher and sangha comes in handy. Someone has to stop you when your head starts spinning, slap you on the face, bring back to the ground and give a hug. I miss my last teacher for that.

I agree with your comment. In the end, the Buddha didn't teach self hatred or world hatred. I mean if he would it would be self contradictory because of the hindrances. If one is doing 32 body parts contemplation with a self loathing/disgust attitude then one inevitably experienced aversion. Same should be seen with impermanence. Whatever we practise and focus one, we become (bhavana).

Equal usuaŀly gather together so that they somehow can bear their sickness. Less chances if not approaching doctors, Noble ones. But lets "us" wait, some think it's a natural progress to meet "unearned" or by accidents if just be brave in ones sphere of usual abilities.

ps thanks for understanding the question! i think i'll take a back seat after chrisw's comments. be well etc etc

I think that psychosis is a state of disordered thinking, confusion, delusion (a "mental disorder").
It might seem, superficially, like Buddhism -- some withdrawal from ordinary worldly activities and concerns, for example, an unusual understanding of what's valuable, of who owns what -- sometimes also grandiose delusions, or a wide range of other possible symptoms, for example flattened affect, and so on and so on.
What is going on these sorts of lives
Well, by the definition in your question, you're saying that psychosis is going on.
It might possibly be that Buddhism (a Buddhist environment, values, practioners) is helpful for them and for those around them -- psychotic people behave abnormally, and maybe uncooperatively, and/or are less able than you might want them to be. So your being able to detach a bit from what you expect of people -- your wanting to behave morally, independently (or unilaterally) of whether other people are behaving too -- might help to enable a better relationship than otherwise possible.

The rule of the thumb is that if someone becomes depressed or suicidal or negative or exhibit behavior that is harmful towards others, then they are doing it wrong.
One example of this from the Vesali Sutta are the monks who got too obsessed with the meditation on unattractiveness meant to overcome lust, and committed suicide. The Buddha then advised the remaining monks to switch to the mindfulness of breathing to create positive feelings, if they became negative by practising something else. This is just like driving a car - if you are veering too much to the left, then turn the steering wheel to the right and vice versa. The goal is to reach the destination safely.
The second example of this from the Alagaddupama Sutta are people who learn the teachings of the Buddha but do not truly understand it and do not practice it. Instead, they use it to attack others and defend themselves in debates. This is a philosophical obsession.
A third example from the Acintita Sutta are people who are obsessed with useless metaphysical speculations, which drive them to madness.
However, spending time alone to reflect upon the teachings and meditate, rather than having a good time with the cool folks - that's quite acceptable.
An example of this comes from the Vajjiputta Sutta:

On one occasion a certain monk, a Vajjian princeling, was dwelling
  near Vesali in a forest thicket. And on that occasion an all-night
  festival was being held in Vesali. The monk — lamenting as he heard
  the resounding din of wind music, string music, & gongs coming from
  Vesali, on that occasion recited this verse:

I live in the wilderness
    all alone
    like a log cast away in the forest.
    On a night like this,
    who could there be
    more miserable
    than me?

Then the devata inhabiting the forest thicket, feeling sympathy for
  the monk, desiring his benefit, desiring to bring him to his senses,
  approached him and addressed him with this verse:

As you live in the wilderness all alone
    like a log cast away in the forest,
    many are those who envy you,
    as hell-beings do,
    those headed for heaven.

The monk, chastened by the devata, came to his senses.


text:
Can someone address this critique?
I found a rather compelling critique on the Internet and would like to ask you to answer this. He probably misunderstood dukkha, however, he is somewhat right on the nihilism aspect of buddhism. In the end, not being reborn is the goal so why should one act benevolently? I know it sounds stupid but I would like to have a sensible rationale why buddhists then practise loving kindness etc?
There is the link: A Critique of Buddhism by Benjamin Studebaker

Nirvana is the state of enlightenment in which one is freed from desire (and thus suffering). One who has achieved nirvana no longer reincarnates. When one who has achieved nirvana dies, said individual ceases to be entirely.
However, there are two ways to deal with desire–one way is, as Buddhism suggests, to eliminate it. The other is to actually achieve what you desire, to get what you want. There are entire moral theories that suppose that desire satisfaction is the principle source of good. So though desire may be the source of suffering, it may also in turn be the principle source of goodness. How else can we be benevolent toward others other than by helping them to get the things they want or ought to want? The benevolent behavior Buddhists are encouraged to engage in via the eightfold path seems to require that they fulfill the desires of others. How can the path to enlightenment entail leading others away from enlightenment? It’s contradictory.
The next trouble I have is with the third noble truth (and, consequently, with the fourth), the belief that desire (and thus suffering) can be altogether eliminated. To eliminate desire altogether would eliminate not merely suffering, it would eliminate happiness, as happiness is the product of satisfying our desires. In order for it to be possible to eliminate desire, we would have to actively pursue an entirely neutral mental state. And how could we pursue such a mental state without, on some level, desiring that mental state itself?
Even more importantly, if we are not desiring anything, if we are in a perpetually neutral state, are we really alive in any meaningful sense? Does not life entail pursuits of some kind or another? The man without any goals or dreams is a man already in the grave. Yet that does indeed seem to be the goal of Buddhism–those who achieve nirvana cease to reincarnate and cease to be. So the goal of Buddhism does seem to be well and truly non-existence. This leads to a very disturbing contradiction. The point of life, according to Buddhism, is to achieve permanent death.
In which case, doesn’t Buddhism imply that we ought not to create life in the first place? If all beings that are alive are beset with desires and suffering until they achieve nirvana, and most beings never achieve nirvana, isn’t creating life an overwhelmingly harmful activity? Yet Buddhism does not explicitly oppose childbirth anywhere that I can see, and it certainly doesn’t advocate for the humane killing of other beings in order to eliminate the suffering that goes with life for most of them.
But perhaps, in order to achieve permanent death, we have to do behave benevolently toward others for some length of time. But what meaning does this benevolence have if all of these other beings are themselves best off permanently dead in a state of non-existence? How can we be good to someone whose life’s purpose is not to be happy but to achieve death?
There is a stench of nihilism about all of this. All human projects are the result of desire, so Buddhism negates all human projects. At the same time, Buddhism maintains that we should behave benevolently toward one another, but if benevolence consists of making others happy and happiness for others means achieving their projects and humans having projects is the source of human suffering, then being benevolent under Buddhism consists of preventing people from achieving their rightly considered life purpose, the achievement of permanent death. And how could we all simultaneously attempt to achieve permanent death when doing so involves sating one another’s desires that we have all mutually committed to eradicate? In the end, all of this must be resolved one way or the other–the contradiction is too strong.
Either Buddhism is a nihilist theory, in which life’s only purpose is its end, or Buddhism is a moral theory of how we should treat each other, in which case Buddhism’s methodology for eliminating suffering is not really about desire, but is really just about being nice to other people. In the latter case, either Buddhism is mistaken about what suffering is, or Buddhism is mistaken about whether or not it can be eliminated or ought to be eliminated.
In sum, it just doesn’t hold together. While desires lead to suffering, they also lead to happiness if we can manage to achieve them. The entire human project has, for thousands of years, been about improving the human condition by achieving human goals. Buddhism rejects the very idea that human beings ought to have projects or goals that they desire to achieve, and in so doing, Buddhism (as I’ve understood it) denies the human project. If that’s not nihilism, I don’t know what is.

Very standard critique, and very confused about Buddhism. Probably too much to unload in single post but here we go.
First, he does not understand what Buddhism means by "suffering". By suffering Buddhism means the painful state of discontent and frustration when things don't go the way we want and can't be easily fixed. Obviously, when you want something and it can be easily obtained, that's not suffering. When you're in an objectively difficult situation but you are at peace with it, that's not suffering either. That's just difficulty or pain. When you exercise and feel pain in the muscles, that's not suffering - because you wanted that. It's only suffering when your "is" conflicts with your "should" and you are helpless to fix it.
Second, "desire" is not as much sober aspiration/determination as it is the fruitless kind of obsession. When we obsess over a wish (positive), or over something we would like to stop (negative), we feel bad or we do some crazy stuff or both. No doubt about that.
Generally speaking, there are two approaches to discomfort: extensive and intensive.In one approach we turn on the heat - in the other we put on more clothes. In one we exterminate cockroaches - in the other we keep the kitchen clean. In one we pave the wilderness with asphalt and build hotels - in the other we put on hiking boots and carry all food. In one we take medicine and do surgery - in the other we fix diet and lifestyle. In the same vein, when it comes to satisfaction with life, Buddhism says we must make our own mood. It is as simple as that. Instead of depending on external circumstances for happiness, we take charge of our own mood.
Nirvana as final death is a big misunderstanding. Nirvana is obtaining deathless. The deathless is obtained when we stop identifying with that which is subject to death. This is an act of making our own mood, an act of freedom. We choose to think that we are not this organism, nor are we the information that reincarnates from one organism to another. We don't identify with anything. Because we don't identify, we are not subject to death. Not subject to birth either. Hence "no more rebirth" and "final Nirvana". That's a simplification for kids. The real Nirvana is when we took charge of our mood, tamed our mind, and made it free from everything including death.
Now, on top of all that, some bright ancient people noticed that when people obsess with Buddhism, they tend to get antisocial, whether before they attain their peace or after. So they added this notion of compassion which was mentioned in the original teaching but not emphasized. They said, as you work on taking control of your mind and mood, why shouldn't you be nice to other people. And once you obtained your peace, why don't you help others. This fit surprisingly well with the teaching, and this is how Mahayana was born. Indeed, taking care of others is the best way to eliminate our mental fixations that cause our suffering in the first place, plus it helps reduce identification with "I" on the way to achieving the deathless.
All in all Buddhism is a very cohesive teaching where all elements fit together and help each other. The only thing to understand is that it is all about psychology of life, not life in this world but sentient life in general at any time any place in the universe.
That is not to say that this world is all we have. As we learn to see beyond preconceptions and become masters of mind, we start seeing things we could not see before. Training to be a master of mind, able to navigate layers of information, emotions, and energy without getting lost or confused is a way to that bigger world.

The main problem with the critique is that he doesn't distinguish tanha (i.e. craving or thirst) from chanda (i.e. desire, possibly wholesome desire). He therefore assumes that Buddhism is nihilist.
He also didn't mention "clinging", and so on.
In summary I think the critique is based on a false premise, i.e. it's a critique of his own (strawman) rendition of the four noble truths. You'd do better to study translations and commentary of the original version.
Another problem with it may be the statement, "However, there are two ways to deal with desire–one way is, as Buddhism suggests, to eliminate it. The other is to actually achieve what you desire." -- I'm not sure (but I doubt) whether that's acknowledging that sankharas are impermanent and unsatisfatory.
Another problem is, "How else can we be benevolent toward others other than by helping them to get the things they want or ought to want?" -- I think that's extremist, implying we might either try to satisfy everyone's every wildest dream, or care nothing for them ... instead there's a "middle way" (helping people with what they need, causing no harm, interacting harmoniously, and so on).
In the end it equates Buddhism with nihilism -- but Buddhism would describe nihilism as one of the types of Wrong View.

Avijjā does not know the ariya-sacca, such as:
Not knowing what desire is.
Not knowing what suffering is.
Not knowing what happiness is.
Not knowing what existence is.
Not knowing what non-existence is.
Not knowing what death is.
Not knowing what life is.
Not knowing all this, beings formulate views about all this.
They define what desire is, what suffering is, what happiness is, existence is, non-existence is, death is, life is, etc.
They say "This is X" not knowing that X is really not X. Not knowing the cause of why "that which is not X", becomes X.
Not knowing, they either fall to one of the two extremes:
"Something exists" is one extreme.
"Something does not exist" is the other extreme.
The article falls into the first, that of existence.
Since the author of the article likes existence very much, it is not surprising that when he/she studies the middle (neither existence nor non-existence), he interprets it as non-existence (nihilism), which neither Buddhists nor the Buddha would proclaim is the case.

Yes, for the one who is blind Buddhism is Nihilistic.
Imagine someone who has only a sense of touch, and you, having a faculty of sight, try to explain to him what the world of sight is, how would you explain it to him?
If he asks "is the color blue is rough or smooth or is it in between?" how would you answer? Would you not answer it’s neither rough or smooth, neither both, nor neither.
What would your friend think of your response? Would he not think you are completely talking nonsense? Why? Because for him the only world is the world sensed by touch.
And again if you told your blind friend that the surface he is been touching all his life is just a small turd and that if he doesn’t recover his sense of sight he will remain juggling the small turd all his life and will go nowhere.
What do you think your friend will say when you equate his world with a small turd? Would he not say you are a Nihilist? I think he will.
In the same way for Mr. Benjamin, Saṃsāra is the only world and when Buddhism describe Saṃsāra as perpetual suffering an endless cycle of birth, suffering, and death he would say Buddhism is Nihilistic.
Until Mr. Benjamin reflects deeply our existence in Saṃsāra and starts to see it as unsatisfactory any idea which negates his attachment (his attachment could be a desire for pleasure or fake sense of purpose or a hope from God) will be seen as Nihilistic.
I think only the Buddhist view can survive the deepest self-reflection that Nietzsche, the greatest proponent of nihilism, prophecies humanity will face soon.
Nietzsche said

I praise, I do not reproach, [nihilism's] arrival. I believe it is one
  of the greatest crises, a moment of the deepest self-reflection of
  humanity. Whether man recovers from it, whether he becomes master of
  this crisis, is a question of his strength!

Moderator message: I see you keep creating new accounts and if you do that on purpose that's alright, but if you're having technical difficulties and would rather use the same account, let us know and we will try to help.

"Not being reborn is the goal" , that is the precise reason why we need to practise loving-kindness. Committing actions that sow the seeds of karma will cause you to be born again , it is the natural law of cause and effects. Only when one has given up all desire for the world, when one is enlightened , do the seeds of karma stop being ceated.
Committing bad deeds leads to rebirth in lower realms of suffering.
Buddhism is not nihilism , it is the complete opposite of nihilism. Buddha said that things to exist , but they are empty of "inherent existence". That means they are always changing as they are conditioned. Even the smallest particles inside any given object are changing with time. This is what he meant by emptiness. Infact he said that those who say that nothing exists are infact having "wrong view"

Thanks user. In the kalama sutta says that even those who dont believe in rebirth and still do good deeds live in harmony this life. Agreed, however, what then does right view aim to? Right view asks us to reconsider the two extremes and believe in rebirth. So isnt right view then contradictory to the kalama sutta? Could it be that some concepts are even hermeneutics? Sure some are meant to be for monks and some for the "lower thinking people".. Could one go so far that rebirth in hell or heaven was hermeneutic as well? As a motivator to push them to do good and avoid harm?

Yes, you are right, that is possible. In this case, I suppose we can reflect on what the Buddha says about examining everything that is said, and upon reflection if we find it to be true and beneficial for all, to go ahead and believe in it.

Ending suffering is the goal. Not being reborn is a result of reaching that state. Benevolent acts are conducive to reaching that goal. Hateful or cruel acts will take you away from that goal.

Buddhism does not advocate ceasing the will to live. It advocates reaching the highest bliss that is Nirvana. It also advocates happiness in the present life through living a virtuous life. See this answer and this answer.
Buddhism teaches neither annihilationism nor nihilism. See this question.
Should a Buddhist have children is addressed in this question.
Buddhism encourages the social and economic progress of humanity. See this answer, this answer and this answer.
The goal is the ending of suffering.
All sentient beings are suffering according to the first noble truth.
You want to avoid suffering and other beings want to avoid suffering.
So, why not avoid increasing the suffering of other beings, and if possible help other beings reduce their suffering?
So, find ways to reduce your suffering and reduce the sufferings of other beings too.
Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote in "The Balanced Way":

Like a bird in flight borne by its two wings, the practice of Dhamma
  is sustained by two contrasting qualities whose balanced development
  is essential to straight and steady progress. These two qualities are
  renunciation and compassion. As a doctrine of renunciation the Dhamma
  points out that the path to liberation is a personal course of
  training that centers on the gradual control and mastery of desire,
  the root cause of suffering. As a teaching of compassion the Dhamma
  bids us to avoid harming others, to act for their welfare, and to help
  realize the Buddha's own great resolve to offer the world the way to
  the Deathless.
Considered in isolation, renunciation and compassion have inverse
  logics that at times seem to point us in opposite directions. The one
  steers us to greater solitude aimed at personal purification, the
  other to increased involvement with others issuing in beneficent
  action. Yet, despite their differences, renunciation and compassion
  nurture each other in dynamic interplay throughout the practice of the
  path, from its elementary steps of moral discipline to its culmination
  in liberating wisdom. The synthesis of the two, their balanced fusion,
  is expressed most perfectly in the figure of the Fully Enlightened
  One, who is at once the embodiment of complete renunciation and of
  all-embracing compassion.
Both renunciation and compassion share a common root in the encounter
  with suffering. The one represents our response to suffering
  confronted in our own individual experience, the other our response to
  suffering witnessed in the lives of others. Our spontaneous reactions,
  however, are only the seeds of these higher qualities, not their
  substance. To acquire the capacity to sustain our practice of Dhamma,
  renunciation and compassion must be methodically cultivated, and this
  requires an ongoing process of reflection which transmutes our initial
  stirrings into full-fledged spiritual virtues.

Nirvana is the state of enlightenment in which one frees oneself from desire (and thus suffering). One who has achieved nirvana no longer suffers birth, aging, or death. When one who has achieved parinirvana, said individual is said to neither exist, neither not exist, neither both, nor neither.
Nirvana is not permanent, it is not impermanent, it is not both, nor neither. It is the ceasing of mental objectification, through the realization that all objectified things are impermanent, and not permanently satisfactory.
Only a person who sees Form or Essence sees Nirvana as a nihilism. But the Buddha never taught the annihilation of an existing being. He taught that existence and non-existence led to a thicket of views and no certain, permanent, arbiter. As such, concentrate on impermanence.


text:
Should Buddhists drive a car or a motorcycle?
Buddhist first precept is abstain from killing animals.
Could this also imply that driving a car is unwholesome and not good for a practitioner.

Would not one agree that by choosing to walk is considered kinder as it would have less chance of accidentally killing animals than driving or riding? The same could go that riding is kinder than driving. By taking these kindfull approaches, one would commit less killing and right intention, which would bring better meditation. Please be careful here, I do not imply that driving is wrong, but it can reduce peace in our mind.

There is a related religion called Jainism that is sort of extra-strict buddhism, and it was started partly as a reaction to the fact that buddhism would not oppose driving a car.

@Benubird I think Jainism was started one generation before Buddhism.

I believe the Buddhist ideal would the abandonment of cars and motorcycles both for the reasons you give and for the sake of the natural environment, but not many are in position to do this. I have a feeling we will not need to be having this debate for much longer.  . .

Please also see this answer.
When you walk you might accidentally step on ants or other small insects. Does that mean you should stop walking?
From Dhammapada 1:

On one occasion, blind Thera Cakkhupala came to pay homage to the Buddha at
  the Jetavana monastery. One night, while pacing up and down in
  meditation, the thera accidentally stepped on some insects. In the
  morning, some bhikkhus visiting the thera found the dead insects. They
  thought ill of the thera and reported the matter to the Buddha. The
  Buddha asked them whether they had seen the thera killing the insects.
  When they answered in the negative, the Buddha said, "Just as you had
  not seen him killing, so also he had not seen those living insects.
  Besides, as the thera had already attained arahatship he could have no
  intention of killing and so was quite innocent."
Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:

All mental
    phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as their
    chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with an evil mind,
    'dukkha' follows him just as the wheel follows the hoofprint of the ox
    that draws the cart.

Driving a car does not break the first precept unless you intentionally run over someone.

Sadhu for feeling responsible and go after thoughts of right shame!
There was once an answer on "mindful walking" and my person shared a little of practice in this regard here, but not remember where.
Once driving the bigges car in town, the thought after insects smashed on the window accures: "why not driving more slow" later "why why driving at all and not just care about the near", later "why driving at all?" later "why wearing shoes?" and since wakling toward a battle line for peace, thinking "it's not proper if wishing to encourage to peace to harm others and to wear "weapons and protections"" my person did not even took any ride since probably eight years (just saw it must be 10 already) and people asking why not are asways wondering if telling them that my person in this way is much faster than any aeroplane ever could be.
People, just having some merits in reach or access to take are not capable to calculate and the bet, aside of all the merits, is always up: no one can be faster then my person, in using vehicles, if starting at the same point, with the same conditions and counting possible debts at the destination for right calculation afterwards.
Walk! (Note heavy lyrics and not for those already on the way) And train yourself in being mindful and in letting go of greedy hypocritical ideas, step by step.
Tires are often to patch, after many thousand kilometers just step by step, there was just one accident, and this was in the near dark having fever over 40º for more than 3 weeks in remote forest area. "Devas" found my person and took care that it healed.
There is nothing more of benefit then modesty and freedom of remorse and while the Bodhisattvas rushing accross you may find lot of reason for compassion for thse killing each other again and again for their "compassioned" attachements and greed.
One is sure not only to be health at mind but also have bodily good health, not to speak of easy gaining insight and what ever powers one might be after if doing it mindful and with the right direction objected.
Be faster and smarter and let others win outwardly for as far they can see...
Ohh... btw, one my person wrote some words for those up to lighten themselves and do good:
Who is the winner in the traffic of life?

To say driving does not kill... how much do / would you cheat your self...? Follish people who step into such arguments to defend their incapabillity and greed, but certain teachers and the linegare of Jains give them food to think that they are on the right trace, yet causing neither possitive effects for themselves nor for all others in their ways and actions.

A Sense That Your Arm is Short
The Buddha's teachings are direct, straightforward, and simple, but hard for someone who's starting to practice them because his knowledge can't reach them. It's like a hole: People by the hundreds and thousands complain that the hole is deep because they can't reach to its bottom. There's hardly anybody who will say that the problem is that his arm is short.
The Buddha taught us to abandon evil of every kind. We skip over this part and go straight to making merit without abandoning evil. It's the same as saying the hole is deep. Those who say their arms are short are rare.

The Buddha and all Arahats, as well as their good and formost disciples, never took a ride and there is actually no reason to do so.
When ever you see way and reason to follow the Noble Ones, go after right resolve and right effort, since if it would not be possible, the Buddha would not have taught.
And someone blind, even by law, would not get a licence to drive... no intention incl. "put up with" or tolerate certain sure effects. Kamma by thoughts of approve and taking deliberately on account is not diverent from doing, not to speak on act-ualy doing on such account. So if actually knowing, ignoring and hypocrisy is no protection at all but called heedless or alajji and it's good to avoid people of alajji.
Some possible useful words on doing unknownly can be found here: Unwholesome done knowingly and unknowingly
Many of those self-called Bodhisatvas today, thinking by imitating the father they can be smarter as the father adviced, yet not even able to take on his outwardly standards but more eager in misinterpretating him and the ways of the Noble Ones and their follower.
Be careful and trust in regard of remorse your heart not the "brain" and the opposing group of defilements.
There is also a nice simile in a sutta about a man running, then starting to think "why do I run?"... and so on.
As long as you may have certain control of what is given to you, your feets, use them for a good.

Cankama Sutta: Walking
Monks, there are these five benefits of walking up & down.1 What five?
One is fit for long journeys; one is fit for striving; one has little disease; that which is eaten, drunk, chewed, tasted, goes through proper digestion; the composure attained by walking up & down is long-lasting.
These, monks, are the five benefits of walking up & down.

Start to train your self to take care of yourself in keeping precepts where ever possible and bend away from the greed of looking around for short gains, watch out you current step. If you think to much about others welfare you might fall on your mouth, like my person did today, not taking care on that what is near and in range... it may happen fast if you forget your prime own protection letting the mind wander of, nor to speak if many might be after you waiting for moments you leave the place of work (frames of references).
Anumodana!
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

I notice that this kind of restriction might be practised by monks.
These Frequently Asked Questions include:

FAQ 12: "Are monks allowed to own and/or drive vehicles? Is this allowed by the Vinaya? If it does not go against the Vinaya, would it still be socially acceptable, given the monk's spiritual status in society?"
  A: There is a specific rule against bhikkhus owning vehicles. Obviously, 'motor vehicles' were not available in the Buddha's time and most travel would have been on foot. However, there was the case:

"...when the group-of-six bhikkhus went in a vehicle yoked with cows and bulls, they were criticized by the lay people. The Buddha then established a fault of Wrong-doing for a bhikkhu to travel in a vehicle; later illness was exempted from this guideline...
"Traveling in a vehicle in the Buddha's time was an extravagance. A strict application of this training in Thailand is not allowing bhikkhus to drive or own vehicles, and (officially) not to ride on motorcycles." (HS ch.17)

Bhikkhus were allowed to use ferry boats, etc. (In Thailand, bhikkhus from riverside monasteries will go on alms round by boat.)

Some (perhaps most) monks sometimes do travel in vehicles -- cars (and even airplanes) -- but, I gather, usually driven by a layperson.
I think you'll find that in general there's a difference in custom between laypeople, and ordained monks and nuns: what you said, i.e. "it would have less chance of accidentally killing animals than driving or riding", also applies to agriculture (digging in earth), for example -- which again is forbidden to monks but not to laypeople.
I note too that the reason given for not driving, in the FAQ above, is not so much kindness as to avoid being criticised by the lay people.

Different kamma vipaka have different weights. This is an area of incorrect thinking that many people have. The critical problem is that they try hard to avoid actions with relatively small kammic consequences, while unknowingly doing things that have stronger kammic consequences. Kammic consequences are the greatest for killing your mother or father, killing an Arahant, injuring a Buddha, knowingly causing schism in Sangha or having micca ditthi (wrong views). These will send you to the apayas (lower 4 realms) in an upcoming life.
You can learn more in the following posts:

How to Evaluate Different Weights of Kamma
Wrong Views (Miccā Ditthi) – A Simpler Analysis
Ten Immoral Actions (Dasa Akusala)

So, stop worrying about the small insignificant actions and start looking at not only your bodily actions (kaya sankhara), but your speech (vaci sankhara, internal talk as well as out loud talk) which continue your predestined gathi and defiled mind (mano sankhara).
With metta,
Donna :)


text:
Not breaking the first precept vs. developing compassion
In Theravada, we have established that eating meat does not break the first precept in many Buddhism SE questions (for example, this question and other questions linked in its comments).
However, beyond not breaking the first precept, could vegetarianism be used as a practice of developing compassion (karuna) and being compassionate?
Or does the practice of compassion require direct intention and direct action in allaying the sufferings of others, and indirect means are not relevant?
Bhikkhu Khantipalo defined compassion (karuna) here as:

Compassion (karuna) is taking note of the sufferings of other beings
  in the world. It overcomes callous indifference to the plight of
  suffering beings, human or otherwise. Likewise, it must be reflected
  in one's life by a willingness to go out of one's way to give aid
  where possible, and to help those in distress. It has the advantage of
  reducing one's selfishness by understanding others' sorrows. It is
  Lord Buddha's medicine for cruelty, for how can one harm others when
  one has seen how much they have to suffer already? It has also two
  enemies: the "near" one is mere grief; while its "far" enemy is
  cruelty.

Compassion is a wholesome quality, but compassion cannot take you to Nibbana. We use the practice of compassion to counter cruelty in the mind. But the goal of Buddhism is not about dedicating your life to the cultivation of compassion. If that is the case, you will have nothing else to do in life other than looking for beings in misery and trying to help them. How can you even eat, drink, wear clothes if all your actions are dedicated to compassion? There are always beings who do not have food, water etc. You should give all your food to them and starve to death yourself, if compassion is all that you should cultivate.
Vegetarian food production causes much killing as well. So why not starve to death to save any possible loss of life? This kind of thinking comes from Jainism. Buddhism does not fall into these extremes. The goal of Buddhism is the end of suffering and there are other more important qualities that one must cultivate to achieve that. Being vegetarian is not one of them.

"compassion cannot take you to Nibbana", sure? What else is lived right resolve... take care to get not lost and spead "quotes" out of a small box. Of cource practicing eating just certain food and forget deeds in gaining it is not right resolve, e.g compassion, e.g. the virtue factor of the path.

I meant compassion alone isn't enough. The right resolve is to counter cruel thoughts. It doesn't mean one should dedicate one's life to compassionate deeds.

The Buddha told actually different and told of and to his disciples to keep precepts (eg. Right resolve, right compassion) even if a hardship and death. Virtue = compassion if not traced.

No the Buddha did not tell to practice compassion without wisdom

Did my person say that? Right resolve comes right after right view and both are the widom sections. Start to be not so narrow, Sankha Kulathantille and attached to views but try to gain the first section. Sīlena nibbutiṃ yanti. Compassion follows after wisdom: right resolve leads to virtue, compassion in action.

The one with right view does not take the view that one must become a vegetarian to attain enlightenment

Nobody (no wise) said that, thats you own windmill enemy. The one with right view also said "if one wishes to eat no meat, he may do so" how ever, that does not lighten the problem you might still have desiring for meat and justify it and so doing being not really correct. Tell if not so.

There is no problem in recognicing "my arm is to short" for now. Better that to spread edited.

Again you start typical vegetarianism arguments which were answered so many times in this site. Greed for taste is not limited to meat. Should people stop eating all food just because they have greed?

If deeply wishing to live a compassioned life, to live on highest right livelihood, take just what is given into your bowl and follow the Arahats. Ask possible for going forth since not easy to manage such in other ways.
"Preah karuna" (lord of compassion) is not out of reason a usual form of addressing those who went forth.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other low trades and just exchange for the world.]

I think I see the practice of not "trading in meat, weapons, or poisons" as what you might call an "indirect" means of compassion and allaying suffering.
It might be (or become) so easy to practice, though, that it is not "going out of one's way to give aid where possible".

I watched a video by a Mahayana Venerable monk. He given a story that how the monkey child are being chased and killed by the food seller in the jungle. The Monkey's mum come and protect the child. Yet, whole family died there to serve as food. Well, cow will behave so too.
Or, you can try to watch how the chicken is slaughtered as food in front of you. I watched it accidentally, then i don't feel like eating meat. I remembered Venerable said that if you don't feel the hurt and harm from that chicken when seeing this, probably might lack of compassion.


text:
Need more information about samanera or sramanera in India(Theravada tradition)?
I am planning to be samanera or sramanera for now. Later, would like to be a buddhist monk. I am interested in Theravada tradition. I live in India. But I have no idea what is the procedure to be one or to whom to contact for that. Is there anyone who can guide me on this?

Which tradition are you interested in? Theravada, Mahayana, Tibetan, Zen etc.?

Thanks for asking this question. I am interested in Theravada tradition. I'll include this in my question, so it'll be helpful for others to provide suggestions.

There is the Maha Bodhi Society in India. They have monastic training centers in Bengaluru and Hyderabad.
There's another monastery called the Mahabodhi Jetavana Monastery in Ladakh.
I found these through Google, to be honest.

Tony Montana, sadhu for you intention. Most general in regard of ordination can be found in the Mahavaga.
Aside of certain contitions (deptless, agreement of parents...) one does good to find a good and relayable preceptor of which is the most difficult, and as far heard specially not easy to find in India where the Sangha has not the best reputations in regard of Vinaya.
The procedure is certain simple, having organised robes an bowl you may approach a qualified Bhikkhu you trust, bow down and having put the palm over you heart, in kneeling position, ask for going forth three times, that's it, he should lead you to the rest.
Some advices you may also find here: novices - BMC2
Best success and mudita and feel always welcome to ask questions in a  monastery for going forth and support of it purpose. And it is not wise to approach communities disrespecting and encouraging against the Sangha of monks if wishing to find yourself not under other householders and controlled by them.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]