text:
What does Buddhism say about having dreams about the Buddha?
Is there any meaning given to dreams of the Buddha? For example is it considered an omen a sign or meaningless ...?
EDIT: Sorry i have to change the edit back to the Buddha instead of Bodhisattva.My question is about someone dreaming of The Buddha.As in Buddha,the fully enlightened being.Not a Bodhisattva.Not a dream about Sidhattha.But a dream of the Buddha.
My question is,Is there any meaning given to dreams of the Buddha in Buddhism.For example if you dreamt of The Buddha would it be considered an omen,a sign or meaningless.
Thank you

Thanks a bunch everyone for share, any input to advice and share are helpful to me. I am so glad to learn from everyone. I am grateful to have good dream. And I had dream liked this quite often. And it's came true, in many difference form .
In my dream received jade Buddha in hands, shine in lighth green. I think , the dream is symbolic and try to contact me as the right direction. So, it's came true every times. I am greatful, and thanks a bunch to be me and share . MERRY MEET. Many bless to everyone.

The dreams Bodhisatta had about his future Buddhahoood are given in the Supina Sutta.

"When the Tathagata — worthy & rightly self-awakened — was still just
  an unawakened bodhisatta, five great dreams appeared to him. Which
  five?
"When the Tathagata — worthy & rightly self-awakened — was still just
  an unawakened bodhisatta, this great earth was his great bed. The
  Himalayas, king of mountains, was his pillow. His left hand rested in
  the eastern sea, his right hand in the western sea, and both feet in
  the southern sea. When the Tathagata — worthy & rightly self-awakened
  — was still just an unawakened bodhisatta, this was the first great
  dream that appeared to him....

You might also be interested in knowing the meanings of the dreams, queen Maya(mother of the Bodhisatta) saw.

Hi Sankha. I think Orion's original question meant what do dreams of the Buddha mean to people after the time of the Buddha. For e.g. if you dream of the Buddha, is it considered good omen or sign etc.?

Not sure about that! But she can revert modifications, if that's the case.

Here is an analysis of the Buddhist approach to dreams. Just quoting the conclusion.

C) Conclusion
Following a Buddhist example, how are we supposed to deal with dreams?
  Do we dismiss them as empty and false, do we diagnose our health from
  dream symptoms, do we systematically analyze their symbols as an index
  of our religious practice? Dreams used as a teaching device pointing
  the way to enlightenment takes a negative approach to a positive goal.
  The emptying out of both dreams and reality frees the mind from
  duality and attachments to conditioned states. Perhaps the Buddhist
  approach to dreams is identical with the path to understanding the
  purpose of waking life: transforming ignorance by the brilliant sword
  of Prajna wisdom. We must wake up from our “dream within a dream,”
  before we can know that we are actually sleeping through our lives.
  After awakening there is no need to dream any longer.

An interesting contemporary example of a dream about the Buddha, comes from the Theravada Buddhist meditation teacher Dipa Ma:

After her husband died in 1957, and her only surviving child, daughter
  Dipa, was seven years old, Nani "Dipa Ma", was drowning in sorrow and
  at the lowest point in her life. One day a doctor said to her: :"You
  know, you're actually going to die of a broken heart unless you do
  something about the state of your mind."
Because she was living in Burma, a Buddhist country, he suggested that
  she learn how to meditate. It was then she had a dream in which the
  Buddha appeared to her as a luminous presence and softly chanted a
  verse from the Dhammapada:
Clinging to what is dear brings sorrow, clinging to what is dear brings fear. To one who is entirely free from endearment, there is no
  sorrow or fear.
Dipa Ma understood the Buddha's advice as a call to master Vipassana
  meditation.

In Tibetan Buddhism there is the concept of dream yoga which is a tantric practice within the Bardos of dream and sleep. To quote from wikipedia

Finally, in the sixth stage, the images of deities (Buddhas,
  Bodhisattvas, or Dakinis) should be visualized in the lucid dream
  state. [..] They are said to be linked to or resonate with the clear
  light of the Void. They can therefore serve as symbolic doorways to
  this mystical state of being (the Void or clear light).

So within this tradition dreams of the Buddha (and Bodhisattvas and other beings) would be an actual practice and would be seen as significant.
However in the Zen tradition there is the koan

If you see the Buddha on the road kill him

I am not a Zen practitioner or have any form of insight into this koan. However  Shunryu Suzuki said in Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind

Thinking about the Buddha as an entity or deity is delusion, not
  awakening. One must destroy the preconception of the Buddha as
  separate and external before one can become internally as their own
  Buddha

So I would take from this that dreaming or indeed identifying with the actual entity of the Buddha isn't on the path. Or maybe it is if you are being a Buddha in you dreams. One to think about maybe.

Interpreting dreams is against a monk's virtue:

"Whereas some brahmans and contemplatives, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such lowly arts as:
reading marks on the limbs [e.g., palmistry];  reading omens and
  signs;  interpreting celestial events [falling stars, comets];
  interpreting dreams;  reading marks on the body [e.g., phrenology];
  reading marks on cloth gnawed by mice;  offering fire oblations,
  oblations from a ladle, oblations of husks, rice powder, rice grains,
  ghee, and oil;  offering oblations from the mouth;  offering
  blood-sacrifices;  making predictions based on the fingertips;
  geomancy;  laying demons in a cemetery;  placing spells on spirits;
  reciting house-protection charms;  snake charming, poison-lore,
  scorpion-lore, rat-lore, bird-lore, crow-lore;  fortune-telling based
  on visions;  giving protective charms;  interpreting the calls of
  birds and animals —
he abstains from wrong livelihood, from lowly arts such as these."
  (Kevatta Sutta, DN 11)

I don't know what the dream means, it could mean nothing or something but whatever it means would be irrelevant to achieving arahantship.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Right_Exertions
If this works for the awake state, it'll work for dreams too. Or your interpretations of your dreams, subject to honesty.

I don't think this is answers the question: "What does Buddhism say about having dreams about the Buddha?"

There is no reason why the path cannot and should not be applied to dreams, as it is applied to the wake state.  Seeing the Buddha in a dream happens. Play chess for three months you see chess in your dreams. I read the Sutta Pitaka often, and I dream of the Buddha sometimes. What matters is what feelings, thoughs, mental constructions arise in you after the dream.. Or during it.

If the dream inspires you to question how far down the path you are, given a personal perception of 'the end goal', and to find ways to go further, then good. If it builds your ego and makes you comfortable in your place, stops you learning the Dhamma, it's probably not the best. I think MN 126 discusses a similar point. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.126.than.html


text:
Attachment to other people and beings?
How does one live a life with multiple relationships (family, girlfriends, friends, pets, etc) while not being attached to them(being aware it will end eventually and therefore do not dwell in Dukkha when such thing happens)?
Thank you very much! :)

The People (including me), you are talking about believe in two terms. 1. karma (good will gain good, bad will add bad). 2. Attachment (as an immoral mental state).

You learn ,you understand ,you experience and then you decide for your self.

How does one live a life with multiple relationships (family, girlfriends, friends, pets, etc) while not being attached to them(being aware it will end eventually and therefore do not dwell in Dukkha when such thing happens)?

The best way would be to practice vipassana meditation and thereby train to realize the 3 signs of existence; anicca, dukkha, anatta. When beginning to understand these signs one gradually lets go of the "grabbing, holding onto, attaching to" to phenomena. Why?
One realizes through the insight meditation that all phenomena both physical and mental are impermanent and thereby unsatisfactory. When realizing them one begins to understand not-self. Impermanence and unsatisfactoriness are the easiest to realize while not-self is more tricky. Although one can realize it through diligent practice.
All phenomena are impermanent because they are conditioned. They are built/caused by other causes which again is caused by other causes. That means that all conditioned phenomena are subject to constant alteration and change. Nothing is permanent.
All conditioned phenomena follow a recipe of "arising, presence, dissolution". Because of this constant flux and change phenomena are unsatisfactory. They are not worth holding on to because they will cause you suffering when they cease. There is no stability, no permanency so if one grabs onto something one will loose it in the end anyway.
When seeing this over and over in the meditation the mind will gradually turn away from conditioned phenomena. The mind will realize that happiness cannot be found in conditioned phenomena. The mind will begin to let go. It will gradually stop "reaching out" to phenomena.
Freedom from suffering comes from renunciation and non-reacting to phenomena. Its great freedom when one realizes that one do not have to be sucked into the maelstroem everytime a phenomena arises and that one instead can be an observer. Ajahn Brahm describes it like having a "teflon/non-stick* mind. Like the non-stick pan where nothing can stick to.
So in short. Practicing vipassana meditation will be your best bet at overcoming attachment to wordly phenomena.

I quote from here is a short and blunt answer. This answer does not mean renounce your family but merely teaches a way to have less mental attachment to them. The problem is of one's mind, not of the world.

§ A woman came to Wat Dhammasathit to observe the precepts and
  meditate for a week, but by the end of the second day she told Ajaan
  Fuang that she had to return home, because she was afraid her family
  couldn't get along without her. He taught her to cut through her
  worries by saying, "When you come here, tell yourself that you've
  died. One way or another, your family will have to learn to fend for
  themselves."

One of the biggest attachments is the attachment to one's own spiritual gains.  In other words; perhaps the greatest attachment one can form is to the idea of themselves as someone who is 'free from attachments'.

What did Marpa say when his son got killed, and his students asked him
why he was crying, wasn’t it all just an illusion? Marpa said
something like “yes, but this is a super illusion.”

It is a trap to imagine that one can be free from attachment in a way that doesn't include the freedom to be attached.  To resist attachment is a snare that will bind you tightly (I speak from experience) - being aware of one's attachments, and letting them be is an access to freedom.
There is a reason why asceticism is known as an unsuccessful path.  The ascetic has separated himself from human problems to some degree - but only by attempting to become superior to them.  He/she finds themselves in a situation where they have conquered some of their sensory desires and attachments; yet they are attached to themselves as the one who is superior.
Chogyam Trungpa talks about this sort of egotistical superiority in his work, "The Myth Of Freedom".  He states that this attachment exists within the realm of the gods.  Here is some of what he says.

The realm of the gods is realized through tremendous struggle, is
manufactured out of hope and fear. The fear of failure an the hope of
gain builds up and up and up to a crescendo. One moment you think you
are going to make it and the next moment you think you are going to
fail. Alternation between these extremes produces enormous tension.
Success and failure means so much to us―'This is the end of me,' or
'This is my achievement of ultimate pleasure.'
Finally ... a breakthrough, such a tremendous achievement. And then pleasure
begins to saturate our system, psychologically and physically.
[... a lot here ...]
This is the absolute, ultimate achievement of bewilderment, the depths
of ignorance―extremely powerful. It is a kind of spiritual atomic
bomb, self-destructive in terms of compassion, in terms of
communication, in terms of stepping out of the bondage of ego. The
whole approach in the realm of the gods is stepping in and in and in,
churning out more and more chains with which to bind oneself.

The way is something that is designed to rid you of attachment to your own self-importance - to your own superiority and significance.  What is critical is to develop the ability to see the world and all its baseness and ugliness, and simultaneously the same baseness and ugliness in yourself, with clear eyes, open and loving to that which is so.  As Enyo eloquently states:

If you wish to understand yourself, you must succeed in doing so in
the midst of all kinds of confusions and upsets. Don’t make the
mistake of sitting dead in the cold ashes of a withered tree.

Have room for your attachment, and love it.  See it as it is, and give it space to be.  Freedom doesn't come from triumphing over attachment, but from being fully human and fully awake to your attachment.

If you're like me then "no attachment" and "no dukkha" are too much to ask.
You can do it by (by definition) being fully enlightened. :-)
If you're less than fully enlightened then what you might hope for is "less attachment" and "less dukkha".
Less attachment might make it better while it's happening. If you want your partner to be other than as they are (or able and willing to be), that's a form of attachment and a cause of suffering for both of you.
Less self-view might make it less bad when it eventually ends (when you're alone and suffering it might begin to seem clear that the problem/cause of that suffering is the sense of 'self'). And, the Mahayana aspect of Buddhism makes it clear that "you're now alone" is also a false impression.

Attachment is due to build up of perception. Your perception builds a mental model of relationship and expectations around the perception of a person or entity.
You have to tackle this in 2 fronts.
 1. Contemplate the nature of existence and relationships to reduce your polarity
 2. Do Insight Meditation to rid your self of erroneous perceptions

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Original reference for 'The essence of all religions is love, compassion and tolerance' by the HH the Dalai Lama
Friends,
Does anyone know of the original reference for the saying attributed to His Holiness the Dalai Lama that starts 'The Essence of all religions is love, compasion and tolerance. Kindness is my true religion.'   I would be grateful if the reference includes the translator.
As a personal note, as a Christian, I find ths very close to the truth.  I expect you know that Jesus said: 'The first commandment is this: Love the Lord your God with all your heart ... the second is 'Love your neighbour as yourself.'  All the law and the prophets hang on these two laws.'
Thanks in anticipation,
Richard

The phrase appears verbatim in Handbook for the Spirit, in the first essay (the opening chapter) which is titled "Love, Compassion, and Tolerance".
The author of that essay is given as (and copyright is attributed to) His Holiness the Dalai Lama, without any translator.
A copy of that essay can be found here: http://www.ofspirit.com/dalailama1.htm

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


text:
Where did the belief about monks' mothers going to heaven come from?
Some people believe that in Buddhism when the mother of a monk dies she would hold on to the monk's robe and go to heaven.
I never read the Buddha say anything like that, but of course I haven't read everything the blessed one said. It makes me wonder because in Buddhism there are no shortcuts and it may look like one.
I've heard this belief exists in Thailand, does anyone have more information on that, like did the Buddha ever suggested it?

Any place where  buddhism is practised in the exact way buddha preached..? ,I don't think so ,many cultures assimilated buddhism into local believes,many cultures tried to destroy buddhism ,what we have today is  remnants of buddhism that somehow survived destruction..Better than having nothing  :)

That is exactly why we always need to check if such belief/teaching is found on the suttas. It is very easy to find things mixed with Buddhism, as you well said, that came from local cultures or even other religions

I have met this exact belief in Northern Thailand. Could be hill-tribe belief, but it is impossible to track the exact source.

This doesn't explain why, but it does seem to confirm that this is a Thai belief. http://www.thailandlife.com/thai-monk/index.php

This belief comes from a popular Chinese Buddhist tale in Mulian saves his mother from Hell.

Mulian Saves His Mother From Hell is a popular Chinese Buddhist tale originating in the 3rd century CE, inspired by tales from India of Maudgalyayana, who becomes Mulian in the Chinese stories. Mulian, a virtuous monk, seeks the help of the Buddha to rescue his mother, who has been condemned to the lowest and most painful purgatory in karmic retribution for her transgressions. Mulian cannot rescue her by his individual effort, however, but is instructed by the Buddha to offer food and gifts to monks and monasteries on the 15th day of the 7th lunar month, which established the Ghost Festival (Chinese: 鬼 節; pinyin: guijie). The monk's devotion to his mother reassured Chinese that Buddhism did not undermine Confucian filial piety and helped to make Buddhism into a Chinese religion.
The story developed many variations and appeared in many forms..

There are many variations and from that comes the simple belief that if a filial son could descend to Avici Hell and save his mother, a filial son will will always saves his mother especially if he is a monk. In Confucianism filial duty is inculcated and taken for granted

[This is not a direct answer, but comment space is too limited]
This kind of belief in short cuts to salvation appear to be a later cultural addition to Buddhism, though sending metta to ancestors is a well recognized aspect of Buddhism.
Texts like the Surangama Sutra, itself a later addition, says the Buddha participated in some such practices of saving ancestors from hells.

Then King Prasenajit, for the sake of his father, the late king,
  arranged on the day of mourning a vegetarian feast and invited the
  Buddha to the side rooms of the palace. He welcomed the Tathagata in
  person with a vast array of superb delicacies of unsurpassed wonderful
  flavors and himself invited the great Bodhisattvas. 1:121
  [Shuranagama Sutra]

Acharya S.N. Goenka narrates a story that seems to imply nothing can improve one's lot except one's own merits. I can't find a source for this story independent of Goenkaji.
Youtube-(4 minutes audio) | (Text version-Google Books)
Pre-dating the Buddha, in Hindu brahmin culture the parents of a monk were guaranteed to go to heaven. This maybe a convenient form of consolation to a family that loses its healthy son who can plough the fields and serve them in old age. Promising rewards in the after life are the stock in trade of any religion to make people do something unpleasant right now.
Buddha was quite the exception to insist on dharma being good in the beginning, good in the middle, good in the end.
While dharma and meditation may help the individual, it doesn't directly help the family that has to accept the loss of a son. This is also why monasteries began taking in children at an early age - this made the loss acceptable to the family, since it hasn't spent a whole lot of time and money raising the son.

This doesn't answer your question directly, but it's good contextual information I think. From the book "Women in Buddhism - Questions and Answers" by Chatsumarn Kabilsingh Ph.D.

An important point that Thai women put much emphasis
  on ordination of their sons is because they themselves have no
  opportunity to be ordained, so they depend totally on their
  sons to bring them this highest form of merit.

Also

The emphasis on the value of ordaining a son is a very highly
  recognised social value particularly in the village. Ordination
  is the only time that the mother is given highest honour as she
  actually is allowed to lead the precession, a place of honour to
  walk in front of the would-be monk holding the robe in her
  hands. Normally it is the men who would take the lead in all
  rituals in connection with the monks and the temples.

This is in a section of the book asking the question why some (poor) families would sell their daughters (into work as a sex worker) in order to get up front money to provide an elaborate and expensive ceremony to mark the ordination of their sons. It's a very eye opening discussion and gives insight into just how much importance is placed upon having a son ordain. Within this context it's easier to see how such beliefs arise.

That's a good observation - a large part of it is indeed social context.

Householder Konrad, Interested,
in the case a mother gives her most beloved, let it go forth, that being a very high generosity, it is out of this reason, that she gains heavenly existence. Generosity (letting go of objects of the five senses, matter) is the cause of gaining heavenly existence (sugati realms).
In the case a mother rejoices this the gain of higher for her relative, mudita, such non-stinginess and joy of gains of others, is the case of gaining existence in the Brahma realms.
In the case a mother can at least mentally follow the path of leaving home into higher existence and happiness, such being the cause, seeing even the Dangers in the world, is the cause to gain existence in the Arupa-heavens.
If a mother follows the son's way of practice, goes for refuge into the Tripple Gems as well, such as the parents of Yasa, meeting the Buddha and his teachings, by the fact of entering the stream, on hearing it, she is destination to be no more able to fall of and as most Sotapannas, will gain heavenly realms.

Mv I 07: Pabbajjākathā — The Discussion of Going-forth [Ven. Khematto].    Yassa, a son of a money lender, disgusted of sense pleasure met the Buddha in the forest. After having been arisen to the highest Dhamma, his parents, on search for him, became, with his former wife, the first three-fold lay followers.

A very famous and inspiring story, next to that of the Buddhas Mother, Mahāmāyā, is the story of the mother of Ven. Sariputta Maha Thera, late then Upasika, Rūpasārī.

...Both she and her husband were unbelievers, and she was very sad when, one after another, her children, giving up wealth worth eighty crores, joined the Order. She wished to keep at least the youngest of the boys, Revata, for herself, and had him married at the age of seven, but her plot miscarried (See Revata). This embittered her against the monks, and, though she gave them alms when they came to the house, she blamed them for having enticed her children away...

This all being the reason, being the cause, having gained relation the family of the Noble Ones, is why it is said that the monk's mother (as she has to agree that one could become) is destined to heaven.
(Note that this Gift of Dhamma is not meant for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of merits and continue such for release)

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


text:
What are the "realms" or "planes of existence"?
Various suttas mention various 'planes' or 'levels' or 'realms' of existence; for example:

The Thirty-one Planes of Existence
Scattered throughout the suttas are references to as many as
thirty-one distinct "planes" or "realms" of existence into which
beings can be reborn during their long wandering through samsara.
These range from the extraordinarily grim and painful hell realms all
the way up to the most exquisitely refined and blissful heaven realms.
Existence in every realm is temporary; in Buddhist cosmology there is
no eternal heaven or hell. [etc.]
The realms of existence are customarily divided into three distinct
"worlds" (loka), listed here in descending order of refinement:

The Immaterial World (arupa-loka). Consists of four realms that are
accessible to those who pass away while meditating in the formless
jhanas.

The Fine-Material World (rupa-loka). Consists of sixteen
realms [etc.]

The Sensuous World (kama-loka). Consists of eleven realms [etc.]

The information on this page was assembled from a variety of sources.
In the interests of economizing space I have not attributed each fact
to its respective source.

I don't want to ask for a precise list, but how or what should I  understanding these realms are?
I have heard several versions now of what "levels of existence" are:

Some say it is like physical, or is it mental (psychological), biomes in this universe?
Others say it is other universes or even other dimensions?

Can you clarify what you mean by "levels of existence"? It's not clear to me how is this related to buddhism

The Buddha spoke of 31 levels of existence.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html

My understanding of "levels of existence" is that they are mind states.For example when i'm happy i am residing in the deva realms and when i'm sad or angry in the lower realms.These mind states keep changing and fluctuating all the time it never lasts.As for real physical places I think the only way to find out for certain is through meditation.

Thank you.. This raise other questions of course. For example from a psychological point of view "Anger" is not a "bad" emotion; when applied in the right situations, it can save your life. If something exist, then there is a reason for it to exist.
From a cosmological point of view, we can hope the Hadron collider can provide us with some answers soon. :)

"Applying" emotions are not part of Buddhist practice. In buddhism we have the 5 aggregates, in here the 2. aggregate of sensations. They are all impermanent, unsatisfactory and non-self. Buddhists train in meditation to let go of the aggregates since they are clinging. One trains to renunciate. There is no control over any of the aggregates and thinking that one has control is called Avija, Ignorance caused by not being able to see reality "clearly" and thereby one thinks that reality is controllable. By practicing insight meditation one will see that reality is ungovernable and oppressing.

Like Orion says they are mind states as well.
This is why if someone is acting like X most of the time, which is a behavior of Y realm, then they will most likely go to that realm. So, yes, according to Hinduism and many other traditions and cultures, this is not your only incarnation, but just one of countless from the past and many more in the future.
The magnificence of Buddhism is that it is beyond all these realms because every single one of them is temporary (on different time scales). No matter how enjoyable and how pleasureable, when one's karma for that realm runs out, one will drop or rise according to the new karma generated.
The goal of Buddhism is to transcend them all and become someone who doesn't bob up and down uncontrollably according to one's whims and karmas, forced into this and that rebirth.
This means to become a bodhisattva: someone who has mastered the incarnation process including the creation of karma and for the sake of all beings incarnates in order to teach and guide beings.
Although this effect is quite grand, the cause for this effect ("ending birth-and-death") is quite simple: follow the Four Noble Truths on its mundane and super-mundane levels.

OP: I have heard several versions now of what "levels of existence" are...

The Buddha was quite explicit with the literal meaning of hell and other realms. The common stock phrase "on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in the plane of [deprivation/happiness/..]" was mentioned frequently in many suttas. Some realms are "physical" like animal's or human's, other are purely mental like those devas' Formless realms.


text:
What is the appropriate use for the term bhante?
I've noticed on the site that quite a few people address Yuttadhammo as bhante. I'm aware that this means teacher. However in my sangha (Triratna Buddhist Community) the term is used differently. People only ever us bhante when speaking about the founder of the movement and even then it's only really people who have a more personal relationship or at least a very strong attachment to his teachings. For instance I wouldn't use the term - not that anyone would have a problem if i did - it just wouldn't seem appropriate. So the usage of the term on this site seems very casual.
I'm not asking for any validation that my sangha is using the term correctly - we probably aren't. It's just that how I would use it and how it's used on the site seem different and I'm wondering on the most appropriate usage for the term. Is it a casual term of address? Does it signify respect? Should it be only used for people with a personal relationship to the teacher?

Bhante is a contracted vocative form of the reverential "bhadanta", which is simply an appellative used to show respect. It is used in the suttas in a similar way as the word "Ajān" is used in Thailand. Strictly speaking, it should not be used when referring to a respected individual in the third person, e.g. "Bhante Bodhi", etc., and it isn't generally used to address someone of equal stature ("bho" is commonly used in that case).
It really is the most common form of address used by lay people to address both the Buddha and his monastic disciples. As was quoted in another answer, after the Buddha passed away, it also became the method for junior monks to address senior monks (individually or as the sangha).
There is also an instance in the Vimanavatthu where a lesser angel uses Bhante to address the king of the angels.

Examples:

For the Buddha (addressed by King Ajatasattu):

tassa me, bhante bhagavā accayaṃ accayato paṭiggaṇhātu āyatiṃ saṃvarāya
"Thus may you, Bhante Bhagavā, accept my fault for a fault, for the purpose of guarding from this point on."
-- DN 2

For a respectable monk (Nagita, addressed by a Licchavi householder):

kahaṃ nu kho, bhante nāgita, etarahi so bhagavā viharati arahaṃ sammāsambuddho
"Where exactly, Bhante Nāgita, at this time, is that Bhagavā dwelling, the worthy, fully-self-enlighted Buddha?"
-- DN 6

For a junior monk to address a senior monk (Ananda addressing Anuruddha):

parinibbuto, bhante anuruddha, bhagavāti. nāvuso ānanda, bhagavā parinibbuto, saññāvedayitanirodhaṃ samāpannoti.
"Is the Bhagavā completely extinguished, Bhante Anuruddha?" "The Bhagavā is not, Āvuso Ānanda, completely extinguished; [he is] attained to the cessation of perception and sensation."
-- DN 16

For an ordinary monk, just because he is a monk (Udāyi, addressed by the carpenter Pañcakanga):

na kho, bhante udāyi, tisso vedanā vuttā bhagavatā
"Not so, Bhante Udāyi, were three feelings spoken of by the Bhagavā."
-- MN 59

For the king of angels (addressed by a lesser angel):

kosātakī nāma latatthi bhante, tittikā anabhicchitā.
"There is a creeper called Kosātakī, Bhante, bitter and undesired."
-- Vv. 798

My impression is the word 'Ajahn' in Thai means 'teacher', from 'acharya'. Therefore, in Thailand, school teachers are called 'Ajahn' and young monks are not called Ajahn until they develop repute as a teacher. In Thailand, younger monks are called 'Tan' and the word 'Bhante' I have never heard used in Thailand.

From the Mahaparinibbana Sutta:

"And, Ananda, whereas now the bhikkhus (monks) address one another as
  'friend,' 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' or 'your reverence.'
Footnote: "Friend," in Pali is avuso, "venerable sir" = bhante, "your
  reverence" = ayasma.

Crab Bucket:
I have always reserved the use of the honorific "Bhante" only for those that have gone forth as Bhikkhus in the Theravada tradition. I would offer the opinion that it is not appropriate for someone who is a lay teacher (such as the Triratna founder Sangharakshita) but is not a Bhikkhu, that is, subject to and living the Pali Vinaya rules (and had lived according to those rules).


text:
Can Metta make you likable?
I think somebody asked a similar question earlier and understand that this will likely be closed but hope not.
Was wondering can practicing of Metta make you likeable? Or rather more approachable? Easy to talk to?
This is a very strange world, there are some people who possess some kind of unexplainable magnetism, it's like people are generally attracted to them and people pay attention when they talk.
They have never been out of the limelight.
Is it something to do with Metta?

From the Mettanisamsa Sutta:

"Monks, eleven advantages are to be expected from the release
  (deliverance) of heart by familiarizing oneself with thoughts of
  loving-kindness (metta), by the cultivation of loving-kindness, by
  constantly increasing these thoughts, by regarding loving-kindness as
  a vehicle (of expression), and also as something to be treasured, by
  living in conformity with these thoughts, by putting these ideas into
  practice, and by establishing them. What are the eleven?

"He sleeps in comfort.
He awakes in comfort.
He sees no evil dreams.
He is dear to human beings.
He is dear to non-human beings.
Devas (gods) protect him.
Fire, poison, and sword cannot touch him.
His mind can concentrate quickly.
His countenance is serene.
He dies without being confused in mind.
If he fails to attain arahantship (the highest sanctity) here and now, he will be reborn in the brahma-world.

Read this essay to get some exposition and experience on Metta. Particularly this experience:

Once I had a meditation student who had been a child in Nazi-occupied
  Europe. She recounted an instance when she was around ten years old
  when a German soldier held a gun to her chest -- a situation that
  would readily arouse terror. Yet she related feeling no fear at all,
  thinking, "You may be able to kill my body, but you can't kill me."
  What a spacious reaction! It is in this way that lovingkindness opens
  the vastness of mind in us, which is ultimately our greatest
  protection.

Thanks for sharing! Do you mind to elaborate more on these 11 stages?

They are not stages. Just 11 advantages of practising metta.

How do u assess the effectiveness here?

Are you sleeping and waking up in more comfort compared to when you started the practice? Do you have better mental concentration? Do you find improvements in the way people relate to you? And so on ... (but don't try fire, poison and swords)

Hmm...Has anyone experienced significant improvement/changes in reality? When u said fire, poison and swords, u mean?

Ignore the fire, poison and swords part. I will update the answer with the experiences of others.

Yes Metta is a very very important factor in the art of communication, throughout all the stages of the communication process.
Being natural (effortless) and honest is another core trait (Right Speech) as well as having a high level of generosity (dana paramita)
There are many others social skill factors, some of which are based on advanced NLP skills (which is a way to communicate to people using the specific way that they think--thus others cannot help but pay full attention to what they are saying).
You will not understand all these things in one day. It will take you the rest of your life to understand the many facets of social relationships especially the fact that people will not like you if you want them to like you.

Thanks for sharing! But does NLP even related to Metta practice? Do you mean once you have attained certain lvl of Metta then you will have NLP skills?

No it relates to karuna practice.

All the brahmas actually are excellent meditations for decreasing social anxiety and increasing social effectiveness.

You already know it.
Depressive mind has power to transform whole world to depressive world. Angry mind has power to transform whole word to angry world. Metta mind has power to transform whole world to metta world.
When dwelling in depression, everything is depressive. When boiling in anger, everything is angry. When radiating metta, everything is shining metta.
This world will reflect back what ever you offer to it. If you have this I like you and I want to help you -mind towards this world, this world will reflect it back to you as I like you and I want to help you -world.
Why don't you try out?

Thanks for sharing!But u can't just help someone only if you like him/her. I thought you should help all without prejudices.

I didn't advocate any prejudices. Help those who you like and like those who need help. And everyone needs help.


text:
Where can I find the earliest possible version of the Mahā Karuṇā Dhāraṇī ("Great Compassion Mantra")?
I am looking for the earliest possible version of the Mahā Karuṇā Dhāraṇī ("Great Compassion Mantra") in Sanskrit or Pali as part of tracing it's origins. My hope is to find the Chinese contributions. I suspect it can be found in a book, either in print or not, but entirely in Sanskrit. As I am not literate in this language it hinders my task.
Can anyone recommend where I can find such a book or source containing the text of the Mahā Karuṇā Dhāraṇī ("Great Compassion Mantra") dating before the first Chinese translation of 627 AD? Is there a library that one could recommend that would have a good chance of having it?
Thank you so much for any help you can give.

Is the Wikipedia version not enough?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C4%ABlaka%E1%B9%87%E1%B9%ADha_Dh%C4%81ra%E1%B9%87%C4%AB#Full_Text

Sadly not even close. DT Suzuki's English from 1915 is a problem. Prof. Lokesh Chandra has written about how Suzuki used both Sanskrit and Chinese texts for his translation. While this is fine for understanding it under the Mahayana flag in doesn't help with the origins and has problems according to Prof. Chandra. Anything written past it's introduction in China is suspect in this influence. I seem to be out of "digital road" and need to explore the analog world now. Thank you for your suggestion. - PM

But Wikipedia has the Sanskrit as well

The Vietnamese version of the Wikipedia article does have Sanskrit but I can't confirm it is correct or hasn't been influenced by the Chinese translation.1 Sadly I have yet to find a single version I can accept as authentic. Prof. Chandra's "Sanskrit texts from the Imperial Palace at Peking, in the Manchurian, Chinese, Mongolian and Tibetan scripts" should have the answer once I find said collection which is easier said then done.  Thank you again for your time Venerable Yuttadhammo. I appreciate your time in this matter. - PM  1. http://goo.gl/sr6QnG (achive.org pdf)

While not quite what I was looking for this article gives me everything I need but actual confirmation of the source. Prof. Chandra might be the best voice on this subject and here's his words including his translation: http://himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk/collections/journals/kailash/pdf/kailash_07_01_01.pdf IMO that's the closest I've seen but I still need to confirm these are really Prof. Chandra's words. The whole article is a good read with very interesting conclusions. It seems the Wikipedia article is rather wrong. Thank you. Namo Buddhaya. PM

Maybe post your findings as an answer to the question for the benefit of others undertaking similar searches?

I plan on writing an article on it. It has been fascinating to do this research into something that is so meaningful to me. Two weeks ago I was chanting it at the funereal for a friend and well-respected member of my community. Fifty plus people calling for compassion. It was heart-breaking and heart-warming at the same time. I still need to reverse engineer Prof. Chandra's work, confirm he actually wrote the article and confirm the source material. IMO Prof. Chandra is to be accepted as correct until proven wrong. This project seems to be my current raison d'etre. Namo Buddhaya.

Generally speaking the study of dhāraṇī has been sorely neglected until very recently. As such there is very little published information on the subject. For example Paul William's standard text on Mahāyāna Buddhism contains no reference to dhāraṇī.
As the article by the Lokesh Chandra says, the earliest extant texts of this particular dhāraṇī date from the 7th century Chinese translations (T1057 + Siddhaṃ). I see no sign of an independent Sanskrit text anywhere, and Chandra doesn't cite one either. So the Sanskrit texts that are floating around are from one or another of the Chinese texts. And be warned that these are almost certainly unreliable - particularly the Siddham script version (ironically).
The fact that in the text, Avalokiteśvara has already taken on some of Śiva's attributes means that it was probably composed not much earlier than the 7th century. Nīlakaṇṭha is a name of Śiva, as is Īśvara (from Avalokita-īśvara). In Alexander Studholme's book Origins of Om maṇipadme hūṃ he notes that the assimilation of Śiva into Buddhism is a theme in the Kāraṇḍavyūha Sūtra which he dates to the 4th Century CE. I suspect that it must be a century or two later than this, just before the emergence of Tantric Buddhism. So the dhāraṇī in question is certainly no earlier than the 4th or 5th century CE.
The Sanskrit text looks to be mainly classical Sanskrit. Although this could just be the bias of editors who reconstructed the Sanskrit from the Chinese! Presuming that the transcription is accurate, it also argues for a date of not earlier than the 4th century CE, since before that time Buddhist texts were composed in Prakrit. Many dhāraṇī's, such as those included in the Saddharmapuṇḍarikā and Suvarṇabhāsottama Sūtras sometime around the 4th century CE, seem to have been composed in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit. There never was any text like this in Pāḷi, although Gāndhārī is a possibility since many early Mahāyāna texts were composed in that language. However, very few Gāndhārī texts have been found and not all of them have been edited and published. But see for example the article by Ingo Stauch "The evolution of the Buddhist rakṣā genre in the light of new evidence from Gandhāra: The Manasvi-nāgarāja-sūtra from the Bajaur Collection of Kharoṣṭhī Manuscripts" in the BSOAS issue listed below
So it seems to me that you have the earliest text already and that looking for the "original" is probably not going to turn up any more information.
A couple of publications that you might want check are:

Copp, Paul. (2014) The Body Incantatory: Spells and the Ritual Imagination in Medieval Chinese Buddhism. Columbia University Press.
Studholme, Alexander (2002). The origins of oṃ manipadme hūṃ: a study of the Kāraṇḍavyūha Sūtra. Albany: State university of New York Press.

Also if you can get hold of it the Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, Volume 77 - Issue 01 - February 2014. The contents page is available here, and as you will see it has many articles on dhāraṇī.
There may be info in Esoteric Buddhism and the Tantras in East Asia
edited by Charles Orzech, Henrik Sørensen, Richard Payne. I don't have it to hand and the Google Books version has no previews, though the word nīlakaṇṭha is mentioned several times.


text:
Does Theravada Buddhism encourages animal release?
Does Theravada Buddhism encourages animal release?
Would it be conflicting if one is under the branch Theravada Buddhism but perform animal release?

Animal liberation could mean many things. Can you narrow it down?

Releasing fishes, crabs...Mostly seen in Asian countries

You mean animal rights terrorism?

Oh wow...no...U may read this http://www.fpmtabc.org/programanilib.php

@Sunset_Limited. Would you please add the "ethics-tag" to your question. Thank you.

No problem but Ruben just did before me. Thnx Ruben. =)

I've just changed the title of the question to make it clearer. I've also asked a question on meta about whether this is generally the correct thing to be doing. Please roll back if not happy with it. http://meta.buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/1450/157

Wow seems like u all have been diligently helping me to revamp the title. Lol! Anyway, the word encourage sounds dictative here. I initially wanted to have the title appeared more subjective. But it's alright now, as long as my question got conveyed in a way that can be understood. Thnx for editing anyway! =)

Btw, at the Buddhist centre, they called it as animal liberation. Basically it started off wiv some chanting then proceed to the sea for releasing of fishes or crabs.

There is a non-offence clause under the precept against theft for monks that seems to suggest the goodness of it:

tena kho pana samayena aññataro bhikkhu pāse bandhaṃ sūkaraṃ kāruññena muñci. tassa kukkuccaṃ ahosi … pe … “kiṃcitto tvaṃ, bhikkhū”ti? “kāruññādhippāyo ahaṃ, bhagavā”ti. “anāpatti, bhikkhu, kāruññādhippāyassā”ti.
And again there was that time when a certain bhikkhu freed a boar caught in a snare out of compassion. To him there was worry... "What did you have in mind, bhikkhu?" "I was led by compassion, Blessed One." "There is no offence, bhikkhu, for one who is led by compassion."
-- pārājikapāḷi, 1. pārājikakaṇḍaṃ, 2. dutiyapārājikaṃ, vinītavatthu

Certainly there appears to be no conflict with the Dhamma; it is ostensibly a wholesome act, falling under charity, I think.

Perhaps the most frequent way in which it's practised these days is for people to buy live animals (or birds) at market in order to release them. Unfortunately it's claimed that practice has side-effects (e.g. people trapping wild-life in order to sell to Buddhists for release).

I was puzzled by the intention of liberating all these animals in the beginning. I was wondering y would we buy them and claim to be liberating them out of compassion when there are also possibilities that they will get caught and served in restaurant. I thought our objective is to save them,until now I still don't quite get it. Maybe u all wanna read this http://www.purifymind.com/SB51.htm #9, but what difference does it make apart from having their lives prolonged.

No, the Theravada tradition wouldn't encourage things like driving around a truck full of shellfish in holy cities, hoping for them to somehow develop Saddha and get a higher birth. Only on very rare occasions, certain animals were able to listen to the Dhamma and benefit from it. So the Theravada tradition would consider it as a waste of time or borderline foolish behavior. Besides, the number of animals in the universe are said to be infinite. So even if that works, it's never going to end.

I think (as per the comments), the question relates to physical liberation :)

Bhante, the link provided says "but more importantly, to liberate them from future rebirths in the lower realms and give them the imprints to meet with the Buddha’s teachings"

This article claims,

In East Asian Buddhism and particularly in Tibet and China, the release of animals, particularly birds or fish, into their natural environment became an important way of demonstrating Buddhist pity. In Tibetan Buddhism it is known as Tsethar;[4] whilst in China it was known as 放生 (Fàngshēng). This practice is based on a passage in the Mahāyāna Sūtra of Brahma's Net [etc.]

So that's Mahayana.
This artlce says,

Life release is a traditional Buddhist practise of saving the lives of beings that were destined for slaughter.[1] This practise is performed by all schools of Buddhism: Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana.[2] It is known as "Tsethar" in Tibetan Buddhism.[3]

So that claims Theravada as well as Mahayana, but it's unreferenced.
This article on Buddhism in Thailand says, in its description of the Laity,

To get ordination into monkhood even for a short period, of course, brings much merit. Besides, there are other ways of merit-earning, such as releasing caged birds or freeing caught fishes, plastering gold leaf on Buddha statues or religious monuments, contributing to the construction of a new temple or the repair of an old one, etc. "The Law of Karma" that each action has its corresponding result and the belief in rebirth are two important factors in molding such attitude towards life among the Buddhists. Though Nibbana (Sanskrit: Nirvana), the highest bliss in Buddhism, is aspired to by all good Buddhists, the vast majority of them still think it is not so easy to reach and that they will be reborn again in this world, in heaven or some other world, or — at the very worst — in hell. Hence, as long as they live they must try to do good in order to ensure good results in this very life as well as in the life to come. "Be a light unto yourself. Each man must strive for his own salvation" — these were the Master's words. In view of this, Theravada Buddhism is often said to have individualistic temper. Nevertheless, it is very tolerant, [etc.]

Wikipedia's Buddhism in Thailand article starts,

Buddhism in Thailand is largely of the Theravada school, which is followed by 90% of the population. Buddhism in Thailand has also become integrated with folk beliefs[1] as well as Chinese religions from the large Thai-Chinese population.[2]

Note that this answer doesn't argue whether and when it's correct to buy and release animals, doesn't argue whether that's a beneficial or a harmful practice: instead this answer is trying to say whether it's a common practice in a culture or country where Theravada Buddhism is established.

Does Theravada Buddhism encourages animal liberation? Would it be conflicting if one is under the branch Theravada Buddhism but perform animal liberation?

Good questions.
I would like to divide my answer into 2 aspects. First the animal liberation aspect seen from the perspective of the animal and then how to approach unwholesome acts such as animal cruelty, destruction of the environment, war and violence in general. Why all these? Because they are intimately woven together as i will try to explain.
Performing acts of animal liberation:
I would like to take the perspective of the animal. Is it a good thing to interfere with that beings life and try to save it from pain and suffering?
Its important to view this from a karmic standpoint. Those beings are in that situation because of their past kamma. They are now receiving the effects of their past deeds meaning that their past kamma is now in effect. If one interferes with that kamma-receiving-process one will disturb that beings kamma-process. One might disturb it in such a way that the being does not get the full effect of the kamma and thereby have to suffer again at a later time.
We do not know what that being is experiencing. We do know that pain and suffering plays an important role in growing and developing spiritually. If one interferes with that beings life one might "cut-off" a process where the being is actually gaining insights and developing. If that happens then the act of saving that being will instead do much more harm than good because one is taking away that beings oppertunity to both grow and develop but also to receive the results of past kamma.
I do not have the "right" answer. What i just wrote is at least an important thing to keep in mind if one is considering to do animal liberation acts. One must ask oneself: "am i really helping that being by interfering?".
Unwholesome actions such as animal cruelty, destruction of the environment, war and violence in general:
From a hardcore buddhist perspective it is not recommended to try to save the world by doing e.g. animal liberation acts, becomming an environmental activists etc. Why is that?
Because that is only treating the symptoms. Buddhism does not treat symptoms. Buddhism goes much deeper than that. It goes to the root of the problem. The root of all problems such as animal cruelty, destruction of the environment, war and violence in general are the 3 root defilements; Greed, Hatred & Delusion.
Greed is the cause of e.g. crabs and whales are being caught to eat and elephants and tigers are being caught to steal their horns and teeth.
Hatred is the root cause of war, violence, intolerance etc.
Delusion happens when one does not see "clearly". One sees e.g. phenomena as being solid and permanent and satisfactory. Because of the apparent solidity one superimposes qualities onto phenomena such as "beautiful, ugly, good, bad etc.".
As long as there exists greed, hatred and delusion in the world the effects of those will also persist. What can we do then?
We can go to the root of the problem. By working on ourselves we can stop ourselves from putting more greed, hatred and delusion into this world. By following the eight-fold noble path we can work on our ethical conduct, mental development and wisdom. By keeping to our ethics and morality and developing ourselves through insight meditation others might be inspired and then begin to practice themselves too.
This is the true and only way to end war, destruction of the planet, animal cruelty and all of those unwholesome acts. They are effects caused by human greed, hatred and delusion so naturally by dimishing these 3 poisons in ourselves we will see a diminishing of the effects in the world also.
If one only treats the effects one will never succeed. Its like keep pouring water into a bucket with holes in it. The water will keep running out. But if one instead fixes the holes in the bucket or even better getting a new intact bucket then one will go to the root of the problem instead of treating the symptoms.
So to sum up. One should practice the noble eight-fold path and develop the different path-factors. The goal is not to dimish war, destruction of nature, animal cruelty etc. These are positive side-effects that happens when one is reducing the root defilements in oneself.
The goal is to work on ourselves and develop our minds and by doing that all the other positive things happen. That way we will become better at "seeing clearly" and thereby better at helping other beings.
Lanka

Its important to view this from a karmic standpoint. Those beings are in that situation because of their past kamma. They are now recieving the effects of their past deeds meaning that their past kamma is now in effect. If one interferes with that kamma-recieving-process one will disturb that beings kamma-process. One might disturb it in such a way that the being does not get the full effect of the kamma and thereby have to suffer again at a later time.  << Would u look at it the other way that the moment when they were saved is also the moment when they are done serving their bad karma?

@Sunset_Limited. Yes i would. There is certainly that possibility too. That because of past kamma they are now being rescued. That is why it is impossible for non-Buddhas to comprehend the workings of kamma. Which is also why the Buddha didnt answer questions regarding the workings of kamma. Check out "The Four Imponderables": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acinteyya#Four_imponderables


text:
Did Buddha go through the stages of sotapanna/sakadagami/anagami before his enlightenment?
Did Buddha go through the stages of sotapanna/sakadagami/anagami before his enlightenment? Or did he go straight from a normal person to an arahant and a Buddha during the night of his enlightenment?

I would imagine he was born an anagami in his last life.

@Anthony, but Buddha did get married and had a son in that lifetime. I guess that required some kama-raga?

@Anthony, and I guess the bodhisatta's ascetic practice was a form of silabbata-paramasa (attachment to rites and rituals) too.

The orthodox Theravada interpretation is that he went through all four stages.

[I]n the course of his long wanderings in samsāra, the bodhisatta had been to all the realms except the five suddhāvāsa realms which are meant only for those who have attained anāgāmi stage. The bodhisatta usually attains all the four stages on the path only in his last existence.
-- Mahasi Sayadaw, Discourse on Paticcasamuppada

N.B. I assume "usually" above is a mistranslation; it is not usually, it is always the case AFAIK.


text:
How to Study the Suttas?
I practice the Theravada tradition. There are a lot of suttas, and I don't know how to go about studying them. Can I please get some pointers or guidelines on how I can study them? For example, which suttas to start with, or maybe some kind of overall introduction on the suttas, or perhaps a technique in studying the suttas.

Chronological or other sequence for beginners has several helpful answers.

I'm converting this to a wiki, since it seems to be a request for various, complimentary answers.

I recommend the book In The Buddha's Words by Bhikkhu Bodhi. It is an anthology or selection of translated suttas from the Pali canon. It is also thematically and systematically arranged. You can look at the Table of Contents on the Amazon page I linked. It is 512 pages long, which is quite alright. PDF version here.
I quote from the Preface:

In an ongoing series of lectures I began giving at Bodhi Monastery in
  New Jersey in January 2003,1 devised a scheme of my own to organize
  the contents of the Majjhima Nikaya. This scheme unfolds the Buddha's
  message progressively, from the simple to the difficult, from the
  elementary to the profound. Upon reflection, I saw that this scheme
  could be applied not only to the Majjhima Nikaya, but to the four
  Nikayas as a whole. The present book organizes suttas selected from
  all four Nikayas within this thematic and progressive framework.
This book is intended for two types of readers. The first are those
  not yet acquainted with the Buddha's discourses who feel the need for
  a systematic introduction. For such readers, any of the Nikayas is
  bound to appear opaque. All four of them, viewed at once, may seem
  like a jungle—entangling and bewildering, full of unknown beasts—or
  like the great ocean—vast, tumultuous, and forbidding. I hope that
  this book will serve as a map to help them wend their way through the
  jungle of the suttas or as a sturdy ship to carry them across the
  ocean of the Dhamma.

Thank you so much!this is amazing Ruben.I may try to find it in print.

@Orion I suggest marking ruben's as the answer here. It is really most excellent.

I also suggest starting with an anthology if one is not much familiar with suttas or the dhamma.
Then, I suggest read the Majjhima. I think it is the best option for the first nikaya. The suttas are not as long as digha (that contains much more context narrative), but long enough to not be raw and provide a nice reading. Also they are so mixed that it is kind of anthology of buddhism on its own, containing just so many important suttas.
After it, i think it's more of a personal drive, and its easier to read other nikayas in parallel. Since samyutta is somewhat organized by content, it can also be used to study a specific content more in depth (and anguttara to a certain extant, since its numerically organized). But i suggest first doing a complete read of each nikaya, to know what is there (and what isn't).
These would be the main 4 nikayas. I'm not very familiar with the Khuddaka nikaya, so i can't really comment on it for now.

I think Dharmafarer's sutra discovery series is the best starting point. (http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/sutta-discovery/sutta-discovery-volume-1-9)
Maybe you can start your study with the trilinear Suttas (http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/sutta-discovery/trilinear-suttas)

As Reuben2020 says, In the Buddha's Words is a really great place to start. Could I also recommend Rupert Gethin's book Sayings of the Buddha. It's a collection of sutra's from the Sutta Pitaka of the Pali Canon. There is a couple of page introduction before each sutta which puts the text into context which I found extremely useful.
Good luck with your reading.

There are three study types in alagaddūpama sutta.
The pali and it's sequence, of that sutta, same to kīṭāgirisutta, that I re-translated in this answer.
By kīṭāgirisutta, you must choose a right teacher, that I answered in this answer.
Also, there is a layman-beginner course, in this answer, too. But that course is what the skillful teacher, in this answer, will teach you, so you shouldn't do it yourself alone. Why? Because I have doing it for 10 years, but I still not even achieve appanā-jhānā.  In comparison, my current teacher from pa-auk, who just started to study buddhism since 6 years ago. However, he is one of pa-auk teacher now, because he study buddhism from a professional teachers who have all qualities in this answer, from pa-auk.
Right way will give you a shortcut way.

Orion,
There is a nice explaining by Upasaka John Bullitt, generous giver of ATI:
Befriending the Suttas - Tips on Reading the Pali Discourses
which does not require much to add at all in the questions regard.
Maybe a random Sutta as restarter today?
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other wordily gains]

The website ReadingFaithfully.org is a great place to start. It promotes the idea of daily, ongoing engagement with the Suttas.
Getting started: https://readingfaithfully.org/about/
Core concepts: https://readingfaithfully.org/2011/09/25/the-five-ps-of-sutta-practice/
Canonical Collections: https://readingfaithfully.org/canonical-collections-for-practice/
Anthologies: https://readingfaithfully.org/anthologies/
Choosing a text: https://readingfaithfully.org/texts-for-practice-based-on-your-current-knowledge-level/


text:
Does consensual sex break the five precepts?
Is it considered breaking the five precepts under these circumstances:

Both are in a relationship, unmarried and it's purely consensual.
Both are single and it's purely consensual.

by "in a relationship" I assume you mean "in a relationship with other people"? If so, see here

Bhante, I meant with each other not with other people.

By #2 are you referring to prostitution? #1 and #2 seem to be the same otherwise.

No, nothing to do with prostitution at all.

There are four conditions for wrong conduct in sexual pleasures.
i) There must be a man or woman with whom it is improper to
have sexual intercourse.
ii) There must be intention to have sexual intercourse with such a
person.
iii) Action must be taken to have such an intercourse.
iv) There must be enjoyment from contact of the sexual organs.
With reference to the first condition, there are twenty kinds of
women with whom men should have no sexual relations. They can
be divided into three groups, namely: women under the
guardianship of parents, family members, relatives and authorities
charged with their care; married or betrothed women; bhikkhunis
and religious women observing the Holy Life. For all women, a
man forbidden by tradition or under religious rules is prohibited
as a partner. For any unwilling partner who is drugged or forced to
have sexual intercourse under threat of violence or coercion,
conditions (ii) & (iv) exclude them from violation of the precept.
Causes of Sexual Misconduct
The root cause of sexual misconduct is always greed or lust,
accompanied by delusion.
Factors affecting the Gravity of Sexual Misconduct
The gravity of the offence is determined by the degree of lust
motivating the action and the qualities of the person against whom
the transgression is committed. When the lust is very strong, even
incest and rape can be committed, the most serious being the rape of
a female Arahant.
So to answer your questions,
consensuality is actually a requirement to break the 3rd precept. If a girl gets raped, she's not breaking the precept, but the man is.
Case #1: Yes, if it violates the 1st condition
Case #2: Yes, if it violates the 1st condition
Whether it's a long term relationship or just a one night stand is irrelevant to violating the 3rd precept. Lust is the root cause in both cases.

I'm not quite following here, y is #1 is a definite yes for breaking the precept and #2 depends? Both have fulfilled the condition of consensuality  .#1 is more like both of them are taking it to another lvl and it could very well lead to a happy marriage.#2 is more like a mutual agreement to do it w/o any feelings attached.

In #1, by 'relationship', were you referring to the relationship between the 2 of them or them being in other relationships?

I'm sorry I may not have made myself clear in this, I meant 2 of them, neither with other people nor other relationship.

In that case, what's the difference between #1 and #2?

#1 - In a relationship, pretty much attached to each other but not yet married. #2 - Could be someone they just knew, could be just casual acquaintances but both agreed to have sex, no feelings involved.

Lust is a feeling. It's still a relationship even if it's just for 1 night :)

Let us continue this discussion in chat.


text:
Is it wrong to buy a Buddha statue in Thailand from a Buddhist point of view?
I understand in Thailand they can confiscate Buddha statues in the customs unless you have a special permit that takes days to be processed and a lot of paperwork.
It is clear that from a "wordly point of view" it is not a good idea to buy and take it away without permission but from a Buddhist point of view: Is there anything wrong with it? Of course I'm talking about a person that will use the statue to worship and will not treat it with disrespect. (Not an antique of course, just a regular statue)

AFAIK, that law is in regards to antiques only, and has less to do with Buddhism than with preserving cultural icons (from theft, etc.).

Bhante, that's what I thought too, but reading the law they say any statue larger than 12cm, old or new... I would love to bring one with me to treat with all respect, but I don't want to offend anyone (?)

I think this is because many foreigners buy them to decorate their bathrooms. That has made life difficult for even the genuine foreign Buddhists. But they probably wouldn't stop a monk from taking a statue abroad unless it has antique significance.

Right. But is it wrong from a Buddhist's point of view to bring one home?

Not if you are bringing it for veneration.

Why do you need statues for veneration? The Buddha discouraged making images in his likeness (Ananda Bodhi jataka), and has said that the Buddha cannot be likened to a statue (aprati samo). Venerate the dhamma within you, recollect your generosity, virtue, compassion, dhamma knowledge and wisdom. Practice and develop the satipattana. Let the statues made of corruptible wood and baked clay and trinkets be.

Read about the "Uddesika Cetiya". Your comment is better served as a question.

Buddhist's point of view will not care about this type of behavior. At the core Buddhist want you to enlighten yourself through meditation and thought excise and it will tell you not to do bad things that harm others. Bringing a piece stone home does not harm anyone and will likely to remind you to meditate, its a good thing in the eye of the Buddha.

... unless it becomes seen as necessary for meditation or causative of it, because it is, in itself, an empty thing.

Yes it's wrong. Throw away your statues and burn your dharma books.

Sorry this doesn't look like a serious answer so I'm deleting

We've put together some tips and advice for new users here - http://meta.buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1502/i-am-a-new-user-here-at-buddhism-se-what-should-i-know-before-i-post which you may find useful. I appreciate your answer was probably just tongue in cheek to make a point but unfortunately it reads as being unhelpful hence the deletion.

It's been pointed out by other users that I might have been unfair here by deleting this. So I have undeleted and opened up a discussion thread on the meta site - http://meta.buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/1561/157 which you would be very welcome to join in on. Previously we haven't welcomed this style of answers but I think it's right to revisit the issue and to discuss further

Kaveenga got at the intent behind my post with this comment from above:
Why do you need statues for veneration? The Buddha discouraged making images in his likeness (Ananda Bodhi jataka), and has said that the Buddha cannot be likened to a statue (aprati samo). Venerate the dhamma within you, recollect your generosity, virtue, compassion, dhamma knowledge and wisdom. Practice and develop the satipattana. Let the statues made of corruptible wood and baked clay and trinkets be.


text:
What exactly were the parks that the Buddha spent time in?
Whe I read the Pali Canon the BUddha seems to spend a lot of his time in parks in various locations. Often in the suttas these 'parks' are mentioned in the introduction to the text. For instance the Alagaddupama Sutta (The Water-Snake Simile) begins

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying in
  Savatthi, at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's park

I've even read park keepers being mentioned in some sutta I've read. This as always struck me as achronistic. The notion of parks where the Buddha can spend time seems odd. If they were pieces of land owned by Kings and nobility I would have expected the translation to be rendered private gardens or the like. To me the word park gives the impression of some kind of public or communal ownership.
So what were the parks that existed 2500 years ago in India. Were there really
pieces of land with some kind of common ownership that anyone could go to. Is it a translation issue and there are other possible translations to this that don't give the impression of a communal kind of ownership? Is it just me that finds this odd?

Using Google to find a Pali version of the Alagaddupama Sutta , it starts,

Evaṃ me sutaṃ: ekaṃ samayaṃ bhagavā sāvatthiyaṃ viharati jetavane anāthapiṇḍikassa ārāme.

My first guess was that ārāme is the word you're looking to translate (because it's next to the word "anāthapiṇḍikassa").
Various online Pali dictionaries don't return a result when I try to look it up, but I guessed the reason for that is that ārāme is probably a (grammatical) declension of the word instead of the root.
Using this Criticial Pali Dictionary to search for ārām* (note using * "Truncation sign") returns 160 words. Using the 'Next' button to scroll down until the words begin with ārām (i.e. the right accents over the vowels) finds this definition ...

2ārāma, m. [ts.], a place of pleasure i. e. a
pleasure grove, garden, or park in a monastery, or
(as pars pro toto) a monastery itself (see SBE XIII
p. 23, note 2; Geiger, Culture Â§Â§81, 175, 196);

... with a long list of references to places where the word is used.
In English a 'Park' isn't necessarily a municipal, public park: I imagine it might be a like a garden, but perhaps wilder (not all lawn and flower-beds), or a private wood. I expect it's reserved in some way (reserved for public use, or reserved for private use), not used for agriculture etc.
Similar/related/compound Pali words suggest it's used as a synonym for 'monastery', for example,

ārāma-gata, mfn., having gone to or being in a monastery
ārāma-dāna, n., giving of an ārāma

(not too surprising when monks dwell in a 'forest' instead of as 'householders').
It's also used in contexts which suggest it means delight and pleasure:

1ārāma, m. [ts.], delight, pleasure
ārāma-ramma, m(n)., the delightful, charming
or beautiful abode of a monastery

I recommend you browse the other related compound words to see other ways in which it's used; for example some of the less common words include

ārāma-(p)patta, mfn., who has reached the park
ārāma-sīla, mfn., having the habit of going to a park

Indeed, Anathapindika was an important lay disciple of the Buddha who was very wealthy and became a great benefactor of the Sangha. He bought the land from Prince Jeta and constructed a monastery there. You can read his story here.

After the meal,
  Anathapindika asked the Enlightened One if he might build a monastery
  for the Order in his hometown of Savatthi. The Buddha answered: "The
  Enlightened Ones love peaceful places." "I understand, O Master, I
  understand," answered Anathapindika, overjoyed with the acceptance of
  his offer. (SN 10.8 = Cv VI.4)
Once he arrived in Savatthi, he immediately searched for an
  appropriate location for the monastery. It had to be neither too close
  to the city, nor too far. The site should not be one that would be
  overrun by people in the daytime, nor should there be noise at night.
  It should be suitable for access by devoted visitors and also fit for
  those bent on seclusion. At last, in the chain of hills surrounding
  the city, he found a beautiful forest glade, ideal for the purpose.
  The area belonged to Prince Jeta, a son of King Pasenadi.
Anathapindika visited Prince Jeta in his palace and asked if the
  forest were for sale. The prince answered that the large tract of land
  was not for sale, not even for the appropriate price of eighteen
  million. "I will give you that much, right now," replied
  Anathapindika, but they were not able to come to terms and went to an
  arbitrator. The arbitrator ruled that the price should amount to as
  many gold pieces of the eighteen million as could be laid next to each
  other on the land. One this basis an agreement of sale was reached.
Anathapindika had many carts filled with gold coins, and had them
  spread out upon the site. Finally only one small patch of ground at
  the entrance remained bare. He gave the instructions that more gold be
  brought, but the Prince Jeta announced that he was prepared to build a
  mighty gate-tower on that spot at his own expense. This imposing
  bastion and gate protected the monastery from the outside world,
  shielded it from the noises of the road, and emphasized the dividing
  line between the realms of the sacred and the worldly. Anathapindika
  then spent another eighteen million for buildings and furnishings. He
  built individual cells, a meeting hall, a dining hall, storerooms,
  walkways, latrines, wells, and lotus ponds for bathing as well as a
  large surrounding wall. Thus the forest glade was transformed into a
  monastery and stood apart as a religious sanctuary. (Cv VI.4)
When everything had been completed, the Enlightened One, with his
  monks, came to Savatthi to take up the residence at the new monastery.
  On their arrival, Anathapindika invited them for an alms meal. After
  the meal he addressed the Buddha and asked: "How should I proceed with
  the offering of this Jetavana (Jeta's Grove)?" — "You may dedicate it to the Sangha
  of the four quarters, present and future." And so Anathapindika did.
The alms-meal for the monks was followed by a sumptuous celebration
  for the laity with gifts for everyone. This cost another eighteen
  million, so altogether Anathapindika spent fifty-four million on the
  headquarters for the Order. Therefore, he stands at the head of the
  benefactors. (AN 1.19)


text:
Buddhist monk education level
I saw that many of the western monks like Ajahn Brahm, Ajahn Shumedho, Ajahn Sucitto etc. have an university degree. I'm 24 years old from Switzerland and I only finished secondary school with 15 years old. I tried many times to make an apprenticeship as an information scientist but failed due to my strong depressions. I was a few times in a psychiatric clinic because I tried to kill myself. The last 2 years i was just staying at home with no goals in life.
I started to read about Buddhism and meditation. I really think that this would help me out in my difficult life. I even thought about to join a monastery and become a Theravada Buddhist monk. I just worry about my education level. I saw the youtube videos from the monks mentioned above. They seem very intelligent when they speak due to their education in an university. I feel pretty dumb compared to them.
tl;dr
I went to:

1-6 primary school
7-9 secondary school

Is this enough to become a monk?

Hi Paul, don't feel dumb or compare yourself with anyone.You are fine just the way you are.Okay remember this my friend you are not alone.The rest of the world experiences depression with you .Everybodys suffering.First,I have to address your depression.Depression is an illness just like cancer.You need to seek Professional Medical Help.Talk to your GP like tommorow if you can.This is very serious illness.If you've been diagnosed with depression before there is a higher chance of relapse.So talk to your GP doctor..Get better first.Only a happy mind can see suffering clearly.

Hello Orion
Thank you very much for your answer and your kind words. I'm visiting a psychiatrist 1 time per week since 3-4 years. It doesn't help that much. I think you should watch this for a better understanding of depression: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N_jjY7W_fs&spfreload=10

Thank you Paul.I will watch this video and hopefully it will educate  me more about depression.Please forgive me if I misunderstood you in anyway.May you be free from suffering and may you be happy.

If you misunderstood me it's because of my bad English. My native language is German. Thank you for your good wishes.

Good luck, Paul! I am no expert, but I suspect education doesn't help much. You'll be as fine as the next guy.

The main objective of being a monk is to attain Nibbana as soon as possible. Not to achieve recognition for being knowledgeable or intelligent. Read the story of the novice Culapantaka who couldn't even memorize 1 stanza for 4 months.

I went to: 1-6 primary school 7-9 secondary school Is this enough to
become a monk?

Being capable enough to chase away a crow is enough to be ordained as a novice. So, yes!
Keep in mind that you don't have to make youtube videos or preach to large audiences, just because you get ordained. You could simply stay in a forest or monastery, meditating. Wanting to be recognized can cause a lot of depression in a person. Work on giving up that need.

Thank you very much for your answer. This was kind the answer I was looking for. I do think that I am intelligent, I just feel dumb because of the lack of education I had due to my emotional problems. My goal is to find inner peace. I think it's nearly impossible for me to find inner peace in the "normal" environment where I live at the moment. But I have to think a lot more about this. I'm married with a thai woman so if I want to live in a monastery I have to give up that marriage. That would would be a big step. I hope you understand what I mean. My English skills are not the best.

Yes, you will have to give up your wife, if your become ordained. But you can also stay at monasteries  where they conduct short meditation courses,  from time to time and work on inner peace without affecting your family life much.

I could suggest you try to make some personal contact with Buddhists. I think that joining a monastery isn't an all-or-nothing, black-or-white things: for example you can visit a monastery, stay for a while, before you ask to become a monk.
To try to answer your question, here are some quotes from Plum Village (which is, apparently, Vietnamese Zen),

Becoming a Monastic
There is also a wide variety of ages, from age 15 to 79, though most of the monastics are in their 20’s and 30’s.
All applicants must be under 50 years of age. No academic degree is required. If you are under 18, you must have permission from your parents. Those who have serious or terminal illnesses or severe disabilities can not be accepted as monastics.
As a candidate for the novitiate you should stay in either Plum Village Monastery for at least three months. In this way you can have direct experience of monastic, communal life and the Sangha can observe whether or not you have a strong monastic vocation.

Or, for Theravada more specifically, a web site for Theravada in Switzerland seems to be http://www.theravada.ch/
One of the pages which this links to is http://www.geneva-vihara.org/fr/bhante.html which says, about its chief monk,

Bhanté Dhammika est moine depuis l'âge de onze ans. Il a étudié le Bouddhisme, la langue Pâli et le Sanskrit avec son propre Maître, Vénérable Mãwanané Pemãnandã au temple de Sri Vijayãnanda à Habarakada/Gãlle au sud du Sri-Lanka. Puis, il a poursuivi ses études à l'Université de Colombo au Sri-Lanka, puis en Europe à la Sorbonne en France.

So this man clearly did most of his studying after he became a monk.
Anyway I suspect there are many different types of career path for Buddhist monks ... for example some might be more scholars, others might meditate more, others might act for (interact with) the lay community, etc.

I'm glad to see that no academic degree is required. Thank you for the links.

I'm sorry Paul, but to become a monk, you need to have a PhD.
PhD = "Permanently holding onto Dhamma"  :-)
This website has some requirements and procedures to become a monk.
You need to first become a novice monk (samanera), which involves taking up the ten precepts of the novice monk.
But before becoming a novice monk, you can consider becoming an anagarika, who observes the eight precepts.
You will first be asked these questions before ordination:

Do you suffer from leprosy? If you do, answer 'Yes, Venerable Sir', if you do not, answer 'No, Venerable Sir'.
Have you got boils?
Have you got eczema?
Have you got tuberculosis?
Do you get epilepsy?
Are you a human being?
Are you a man?
Are you a free man?
Are you free from government service?
Have you got your parents' permission to be ordained?
Have you a set of three robes and an almsbowl?
What is your name? (My name is Naga.)
What is your preceptor's name? (My preceptor's name is Venerable Tissa.)

I also have in this answer, some quotes on how mindfulness and meditation helps depression, including a quote from Scientific American.

Thx ruben for your funny and helpful answer :-)


text:
Theravada Monks and meat in daily meals
Can I assume that Theravada monks are to eat any kinds of food given to them during alms round?
What if they are given food with seafood or any meat? Is it considered breaking the 1st precept? Cos in order to have the seafood, somebody has to do the dirty job of catching them then make them dishes, same applies to meat.

This article by Ven. Dhammavuddho Thero discusses this topic. But the comments are not from him.

Majjhima Nikaya 55:
  After paying homage, he said: “Venerable sir, I have heard this: ‘They
  slaughter living beings for the monk Gotama (i.e. the Buddha); the
  monk Gotama knowingly eats meat prepared for him from animals killed
  for his sake’….”; and asked if this was true. The Buddha denied this,
  adding “Jivaka, I say that there are three instances in which meat
  should not be eaten: when it is seen, heard, or suspected (that the
  living being has been specifically slaughtered for oneself) … I say
  that there are three instances in which meat may be eaten: when it is
  not seen, heard, or suspected (that the living being has been
  specifically slaughtered for oneself)….”

This means that meat (already dead) that was purchased from the supermarket does not break the first precept. But if you see, select the animal to be killed or if somebody purposely killed a particular animal for you, then it breaks the first precept.
This is discussed in this question.

Actually it breaks the 1st precept only if you kill or instruct someone to kill. Laypeople are allowed to eat meat regardless of if they saw, heard or suspect that the animal had been killed for them. The rule only applies to monks.

Thank you for the info. I thought the rule applied to everyone.

That is not right, @SankhaKulathantille , Ruben , in regard of kamma since it has 3 doors, by action, verbal (incl. gestures and other ways of communication) and by thoughts. Confirming, approving, so to speak welcome by thoughts is as well an unskilful deed and such does not matter if wearing robes or householder dress. So also a layperson should think about taking of what has been killed form him/her. Mental deeds do of course not formaly break a precept according to usual commentaries. It's noteworthy that the Buddha did never went into details for lay people but felt sometimes urged else

@SamanaJohann  A layman needn't confirm, approve or welcome killing to buy meat :)

Not at all does "need" fit here, but mostly it would be so. @SankhaKulathantille . As long as one does not understand mind, it's pointless to talk and just this or that stand/view would be taken on. When thinking on how may confirming of killing for other things are done by this smart "good people" of today, even one eats only meet, does not match those "sunday good people" totally confused. (This post has caused kills)

@SamanaJohann, your comment is just an opinion on how people may or may not be thinking when buying meat. What I'm simply saying is that they dont have to think in those way.

Do as you think. If one says that buying a death peace of meat, comming accross it, includes confirm, approve or welcome killing automatical, what's the need to talk further and cause useless killings by doing this.... @SankhaKulathantille You actually have more and more harming problems...

There is a bit of interpretation going on with this.
Buying meat at the supermarket does count as commanding someone to kill because the force of one's money compels the wheel that is the meat industry.
If the meat was purchased, killed, or gotten specifically due to one's preference... it does break the heart of that precept.
Even if  in one's almsrounds, the favorite house one goes to knows that one really likes that spicy meat (hence the owner went to supermarket and purchased that type). Hence it is important for such monks to practice nonequanimity or even indicate preference for that which is less pleasant but beneficial--a Theravadin exercise.
It seems this view broadens things too much. But there are still many instances where "when it is not seen, heard, or suspected (that the living being has been specifically slaughtered for oneself)….":

Being invited somewhere (wedding, dinner, etc.) and the items are pre-picked without one's meat-eating influence
Getting specific food at almsround that one did not influence the choice of towards meat-eating (ok to influence towards vegetarianism, however)
etc.

You might be clearer about "does count ... because the force of one's money" -- I think, I gather, that is maybe Mahayana doctrine but is not Theravada doctrine?

yes, one can pretend, but cannot decamp

In Theravada tradition, the Buddhist monk or nun must eat only what is offered through alms, not what he or she desires to eat. Therefore if meat is offered, so long as the animal was not killed specifically to feed the monk/nun, and the monk/nun did not witness in some way the killing of the animal, then they are not only allowed, but encouraged to consume the flesh in order to show compassion for the person(s) providing them the meal and express gratitude for their generosity.
This instruction was given by Buddha specifically to the monastic community, not to lay people. Given that historically, the lay people very often lived extremely humble lives and had to make do with whatever they had, meat eating is not specifically proscribed for lay people. This is, in fact, one reason why a monk eating meat provided by a lay person is considered an act of compassion, as it is also a way for the lay person to make good karma.  In other words, if the lay person must through necessity kill and eat an animal to survive, this is still good karma through the act of sharing what little they have with the monk who is required by Buddha to live off the generosity of the lay person.
Buying animal products at the market is in effect a scavenging act, not a hunting or butchering act, as the animals would have been slaughtered regardless of any intention on the part of the lay person. When one considers that in agriculture, many creatures' lives are taken (earthworms, field mice, insects, etc.) in order for crops to grow, flourish, and be harvested, the idea that vegetarianism invariably circumvents violence toward animals, or that not buying meat prevents the taking of life, rings hollow. Thus, purchasing the meat of an animal that has been killed with no intention on one's own part to kill the animal is no worse than purchasing crops that caused the death of thousands of small creatures.
This is not specifically to encourage meat eating, mind you. It is simply to demonstrate that the lay person need not have spiritual concerns regarding the purchasing and consumption of meat. What is important is that right actions be in accordance with right intentions.

Lord Buddha's dharma is not only for the monks. It's for lay follower too. Reflect wise. Proxy killing is not consider as a killing beings despite the name contradicted. Example like cleaning a area for development. There might be some animals died in the process. Even walking on road too. We can't fly all time or even creat an earth like how Maha Monggalana Thero could. Our purpose is not to kill the animals with intention to kill.
Killing beings is applicable to a being who/which has consciousness of life ( A state of being aware as alive).
Killing is absolute if intended,planned and executed.Either by verbal or action. Affirming with thoughts is not consider breaking the precept but with such thoughts one is delighted in killing. Therefore for such a person killing is not a matter as the tendency to kill is there.
Lord Buddha's dharma is the dharma of mind. Mind is the cause. Therefore be wise.

I was at a retreat hosted at a Theravada monastery.
I learn that the Venerable Mangala (Theravada Myanmar) and my teacher (a bhikku) when I was there do Not eat meat at all.
On youtube, I have seen animals crying and even begging (with 4 limbs on the ground) when they know they are being slaughtered.
The Buddha spoke of compassion and also quelling arrogance. Simply quelling arrogance or bringing forth great compassion is a most difficult task to do.
When one is a mendicant (which really helps in quelling arrogance), it is most difficult to choose and pick your food.
The Buddha frequently of being kind and compassionate. He also spoke of opposites, sometimes praising isolation (not the best choice of word), sometimes praising friendship (I recall a quote where he says that having a kalamitra is a big part of cultivation).
And the triple jewel is Buddha, Dharma, Sangha and not Buddha, Sangha Dharma. After reading the Dharma, I feel a strong sense to be a plant based consumer.

Ananda, I permit the bhikshus to eat five kinds of pure meat. This meat is actually a transformation brought into being by my spiritual powers. It basically has no life-force. You brahmans live in a climate so hot and humid, and on such sandy and rocky land, that vegetables will not grow; therefore, I have had to assist you with spiritual powers and compassion. Because of the magnitude of this kindness and compassion, what you ea that tastes like meat is merely said to be meat; in fact, however, it is not. After my extinction, how can those who eat the flesh of living beings be called the disciples of Shakya?

Above text comes from a Mahayana Sutra named the Surangama Sutra http://www.cttbusa.org/shurangama6/shurangama6_2.asp where the
 Buddha elaborates on the 5 kinds of pure meat.
Luang Por Sumedho (Theravada) and Venerable Master Hsuan Hua (Mahayana) are leaders in their Buddhist lineage. They did not elaborate on this issues but they claim to be dharma brothers in past lifes. The above text comes from VM Hsuan Hua's branch website.
I brought in a lot more extraneous info, but I feel a need to clarify. Please forgive me if I said more than I need to.


text:
What are the Pali's suttas commentaries on the three higher knowledges?
Recently, I read an insight by the Dali Lama in the book "Buddhism:One Teacher, Many Traditions" that caught my attention:
"When I reflect on the three higher knowledges mentioned in the Pāli suttas, I recognize a correspondence with what the Tibetan sage Tsongkhapa later called the three principal aspects of the path— renunciation, bodhicitta, and correct view. While these are generated before one becomes a buddha, they reach their fulfillment at buddhahood. With the first higher knowledge, the Buddha saw his previous lives— their duḥkha and transience. Knowing all that misery was caused by afflictions and karma, he responded with full renunciation of saṃsāra, making the determination to attain liberation. With the second higher knowledge, he saw the passing away and rebirth of sentient beings under the influence of afflictions and karma. His reaction to this horror was impartial love, compassion, and bodhicitta . To fulfill this altruistic commitment, he freed his mind of all pollutants and obscurations by realizing the correct view of the subtle selflessness of persons and phenomena. Through repeatedly using this wisdom to cleanse his mind, he gained the third knowledge and knew that his mind was totally purified and that he had attained nirvāṇa." - Dali Lama
What are the Pali's suttas commentaries on the three higher knowledges?   How may I integrate them into my meditation practice?
Thank you for your time and consideration.  All the best!!!

Are you planning to become a fully enlightened Buddha? As final knowledges, they aren't something you practice, they are what you attain in the night of your supreme enlightenment.

Who knows?   Everybody needs a new hobby once inawhile.   Seriously though, I've never heard the three higher knowledges as being final realizations...  I guess, I should stay away from Dhamma Lite..   Thanks for the insight Yuttadhammo!

The Threefold knowledge(Tevijja) is mentioned in many suttas. In MN 36, the Buddha describes obtaining each of these three knowledges on the first, second and third watches respectively of the night of his enlightenment. A nonexhaustive list of other suttas is available here

I can help you or refer you to my teacher. In order to attempt the Tevijja, you'd need to go through the tranquil aware Jhana's as the Buddha did. Then you would view your past lives, then view how beings are reincarnated according to past actions, then you'd examine suffering its causes, origins and its way leading to its cessation. From there you would calm your mind to the point of a final cessation of feeling, consciousness, and perception. Then life as an Arahant begins.


text:
Work, Love, and Buddhism in the modern setting
I am curious as to what the stance of Buddhists would be towards a couple of issues.
Would it be possible to maintain a career, one that you dedicate a lot of time towards and that you actively pursue, while still devoting your life to Buddhism?
Would it be possible to maintain a physical and emotional relationship with someone?
On both of these issues I want to make a clear distinction between applying Buddhist principles towards life, and being a practicing Buddhist. I am concerned with the latter, treating the Buddhist teachings as your primary goal and giving it the utmost importance.
In essence, I am wondering if one can gain true enlightenment while remaining an active participant in the modern workspace and relationship environment, just with different principals?
As an additional tidbit, would pursuing other education or outside pleasures be possible as a monastic Buddhist?
Thank you for any help!

Welcome to Buddhism.SE :) I think we've had this question already in many forms... see "Related" in the sidebar.

I was worried about that, but searched and could not find much. I will keep searching though, thank you for being kind!

It's difficult to answer such broad questions... we're better equipped to deal with specific issues, like "What did the Buddha say about marriage?" etc.

Perhaps this question can reworded, along the lines of " Is enlightenment possible while staying active in the Modern Setting?" But check for duplicates.

Would it be possible to maintain a career, one that you dedicate a lot
  of time towards and that you actively pursue, while still devoting
  your life to Buddhism?

Vanijja Sutta - On Business
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.177.than.html
Even if one is very busy with work, try to incorporate generosity, even encouraging words, an uplifting smile, live a harmless and balanced life, speak kind and truthful words, devote some time to dhamma study (say even 15 mins of reading the suttas), practice and develop even one of the four factors of mindfulness, or even one of the four right efforts, occassinally reflect on one of the three characteristics, or the dependent origination, such a person can be said to be devoted to the Dhamma.

Would it be possible to maintain a physical and emotional relationship
  with someone?

Suttas in relation to Nakula Matha and Nakula Pita will be helpful. They wanted to be husband and wife in the next life as well and the Buddha instructed them how to do so :)
http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/5.2-Nakula-S-a6.16-piya.pdf
Hope this helps even a little.
May you be happy