text:
What is the difference between Dhithi (view) and Panna (wisdom)?
What is the difference between Dhithi (view) and Panna (wisdom)?
According to Buddhism the teaching of other religions considered views.
However, people who follow those religions think that they have wisdom.
How can we differentiate views from wisdom?

Panna is understanding, knowledge, wisdom, insight. Panna is always correct.
Ditthi is simply view. Ditthi can be either right(Samma-ditthi) or wrong(Micca-ditti).
Samma-ditthi has 2 levels:

The right view caused by faith in another's teaching and/or faith in personal feelings,perceptions and reasoning.
ex: having the view that rebirth is true without actually knowing and without knowing the nature of phenomena

The right view caused by Panna
ex: having the view that rebirth is true by direct knowledge and/or by inference(through understanding of how phenomena arise).

Micca-ditthi has nothing to do with Panna. It is caused by ignorance and the faith in someone else's false teachings or the faith in one's own feelings, perceptions and false reasoning.
ex: believing that death is the end regardless of one's mental conditioning

If you are abhidhamma student, wrong ditthi is wrong panna in dhammasangini. It is a synonym for each other. If you can read pali, I will send you  evidences.

The word maybe used in the sense of "false knowledge". Did you see a place where Micca-ditthi is referred to with just  the word 'Panna'?

Dhammacakkappavattanasuttam synonym: "cakkhum udapadi nanam udapadi panna udapadi vijja udapadi aloko udapadi." Another in the same sutta: "evam tiparivattam tvadasakaram yathabhutam nanadassanam suvisuddham ahosi." So, I often said tipitaka pali reciting and memorizing is very important and seriously require.

My question is where does it say Panna = Micca-ditthi ?

In Abhidhammapitaka Dhammasangini akusalacittuppadakanda lobhaditthigatasampayutta. Also, you can notice it yourself, too. While you recite tipitaka pali.

Can you share the exact quote?

Oh! this is very interesting case that I never notice that tipitaka obviously doesn't has  micchā-paññā, even if in abhidhamma or K.N. Paṭi. However,  in conclusion of K.N. Paṭi.,  conclusion of Abh.Dha. Akusalacitta. and commentary of Abh.Dha. Akusalacitta, there are acceptation of existence of micchā-paññā, but the commentary seem to say "micchā-paññā is exist, but never found in mula-pali". Then I searching for the real reason through the night, but still not found.. I guess that it maybe because of p-upasagga. Overall, thank you verymuch for new knowledge.

You are welcome

Right, Sammā =  possible to happen in reality cause and effect rules.
Wrong, Sammā =  impossible to happen in reality cause and effect rules.
Diṭṭhi = attitude element of mind that collecting several right/wrong aspects of knowledge.
Paññā = learning element of mind that learning several right/wrong aspects of knowledge.
When you learning knowledge, is while you collecting knowledge.
So, Diṭṭhi = Paññā.
Therefore, SammāDiṭṭhi = the attitude element of mind  that collecting several aspects of learning knowledge,   that is right, possible to happen in cause and effect rules, such as paṭiccasamuppāda, paṭṭhāna, or 10 sammādiṭṭhi, etc. = SammapPaññā = The learning element of mind that learning several aspects of learning knowledge, that is right, possible to happen in cause and effect rules, such as paṭiccasamuppāda, paṭṭhāna, or 10 sammādiṭṭhi, etc.
See: abhidhamma such as ñāṇavibhaṅga, and understanding chapter of part of purification.
Edited: tipitaka doesn't use "micchā-paññā" word, even if in abhidhamma or K.N. Paṭi. However,  in conclusion of K.N. Paṭi.,  conclusion of Abh.Dha. Akusalacitta. and commentary of Abh.Dha. Akusalacittuppādakaṇḍa, there are acceptations of existence of micchā-paññā, but the commentary just seem to say "micchā-paññā is exist, but never found in mula-pali". I searching for the real reason through the night for that why tipitaka doesn't use "micchā-paññā", but I still not found. I guess that it maybe because of pa-upasagga. Overall, thank you, @Sankha Kulathantille very much for new knowledge.

SammapPaññā> Wow! never thought about it.

I could not find this word in Pali dictionary.

Recite anattalakkhana sutta pali. Sammappanna is in side that sutta. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.nymo.html

Dhithi means thought, idea. In pali it means dogma; theory; belief.
Panna means wise, endowed with knowledge, insight.
Dhithi is fabricated by the fabricated self.
Panna is not fabricated.
To differentiate dhithi from panna you have to know how dhithi arises, what is its cause and what is its cessation.
Once you know this, dhithi can cease and panna is attained.
Then you can easily differentiate between the two.
FURTHER READING:
Why panna is not fabricated?
When you meditate and perception ceases, and even the state of neither-perception-nor-non-perception ceases, and even that same cessation ceases, and all perception ceases, so that even meditation itself ceases ... that is reality.
When observation of reality arises, that "observation of reality" is a fabrication, a not truth. Nonetheless, even though that "observation of reality" is a fabrication, a not truth, it really is not a fabrication, it is truth, it is panna.
When that "observation of reality" is put into words, these "words" are fabrications, not truths. Nonetheless, even though these "words" are fabrications, not truths, they really are not fabrications, they are truths, they are panna.
When "observation of reality" arises and this "observation of reality" is described with "words", even though this "observation of reality" and the "words describing reality" are fabrications, not truths, they really are not fabrications, they are truth, they are panna.
"Observation of reality" and "words describing reality" can be called "panna". Nonetheless, even though this "panna" is a fabrication, not truth, it really is not a fabrication, it is truth, it is panna.
When a person has panna, what is fabricated is not truth, but since it is being fabricated with panna, that which is fabricated is not a fabrication, it is truth.

Can an like Nyom Beginner provide a serious source for the statement "Panna is not fabricated."?

@Samana No serious source available. But it's logical: Panna is truth. How can truth be fabricated? It cannot. Truth is truth. It cannot be fabricated.

It's not the talk about nibbana here, Beginner, but - in you words - "having truth" (e.g. wisdom). As the Buddha adviced: Don't go after logical conjunctions. Even the realm, the state of Neither-perception-nor-non-perception1 is fabricated.

@Samana You are right. I updated the answer to see what I meant with "Panna is not fabricated".

Looks better Nyom Beginner and transports well that the path actually has an Essence in regard of this importand issue: liberation.. Sadhu for effort to try to bend it.

Why the downvotes? I'm asking because I want to know where the answer must be improved.


text:
How did Buddhism and Hinduism differ in their approaches to sex work
I'm writing a paper on religion and the different attitudes and approaches to prostitution and I can't quite find anything that indicates the major differences in how Buddhism and Hinduism regards sex workers, prostitution itself and how it translated into laws. If possible I'd also like to know if different Buddhist and Hinduist tendencies  differ in their approaches.
Any help would be wonderful and I give thanks in advance

It's possible (or likely) that users on this site won't be able to answer a question about Hinduism's view of and/or laws on sex-work. You might ask that question on  Hinduism.SE instead.

In Buddhism, any activity based in only "lust" is unwholesome, as follows:

And what is the root of the unwholesome? Greed (lust) is a root of the unwholesome; hate is a root of the unwholesome; delusion is a root of the unwholesome. This is called the root of the unwholesome. MN 9

Dhammapada
   202. There is no fire like lust

In Buddhism, no prostitute ever gained enlightenment. Instead, only "ex-prostitutes" (e.g. Vimala) gained enlightenment. Buddhism states a fully enlightened being is incapable of performing the sexual act (AN 9.7).
Any action that harms oneself or another is unwholesome in Buddhism (MN 61). References to prostitution in Buddhism generally include harming, for example:

Unsatisfied with his own wife, with others’ wives he’s seen in tow,
  corrupted too with prostitutes— that’s the way to disaster’s woe
Snp 1.6

As they grow, the defilements possess many people; They play with
  fools, I believe, like demons with the mad.
In medicine they are like doctors, in business like householders, in
  decoration like prostitutes, in sovereignty like lords.
Cheats, frauds, false witnesses, sly: using multiple plans, they enjoy
  material things.
Thag 16.10

(I may add more to this answer at a later time).

Neither such as Buddhism nor such as Hinduism do approach anything or have views, people have, and they have as much different views as there are people, of corse.
Maybe this short quote helps in general to do not lose what is called proper attention:

"When we see Hindus worshiping Siva lingas it looks strange to us, but actually everyone in the world worships the Siva linga — i.e., they worship sex, simply that the Hindus are the only ones who are open about it. Sex is the creator of the world. The reason we're all born is because we worship the Siva linga in our hearts."
Ajaan Fuang Jotiko, in "Awareness Itself"

What's the different between different kind of selling, trading with entertainment, making trade, with ceratin objects he/she might be even up to gain.
Dhamma, of course, is directed at least to abound trading, starting with means of right lifelihood wheras those directed into the world even take Dhamma as a means of their trade. It's not wrong in it's essence, to call them participator of red light districts.

Genuine spiritual teachings
  cannot be separated
  from the manner in which they are given.
True Dhamma is like friendship: if you are being charged for it,
  you already know you are not getting the real thing.
Buying Dhamma, taking ungiven, stealing, and so on is like seeking for a heart of gold and then try impatiently not willing of real sacrifies satisfy one self just in redlight districts, prostitution, or abuse. Even it might satisfy shortly, it will hardly ever become ever a real, intimate and fruitful relation.
Is that what you seek for, all you can, could effort?

There have been ... prostitutes who realised the Dhamma quick, as they possible do today, if coming proper in touch.
Of the two trader, one of his/her body (kaya) and one of the Dhammakaya (body of the teachings), the second is seen as to be real nurishing much suffering and demerits for many.
One might know the joy and beneft if getting certain things free and without being not genuine and strings binding on the world.
The business of prostitution is how ever, in most Buddhist countries and people there by large not so negatively discriminated like in monotheistic countries. There is still a more "liberal" view, just another kind of trade.
This liberality in that regard is displayed by the Buddha and followed correct in the quoted sutta.

Famouse prostitutes:

Vimala, the former courtesan: Thig 5.2
Ambapali, Ven. Sister (formerly the courtesan): DN 16, Thig 13.1 (linked above)

There are generally five kinds of business given by the Buddha, not good for practicing lay people to get involved into:

"A lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in (human) living beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison."
Right Livelihood

To deal, sell or operate with sex-worker, making use of them, would be in the sphere of "business with living being, humans, salve work, so to speak, which is sure not easy to be done without getting involved in primare unskillful deeds.
Not that primaly unskillful can be traced if doing such voluntary, yet of course can involve one in conflicts brought by the buyer and of course sensual pleasure is an obstacle for the path, yet normal way of business in all sphere under lay people.
As for the seller and also buyer, he/she should be aware, this message needs to be reflected clear:

Four things befall the heedless man
  who lies down with the wife of another:
  a wealth of demerit;
  a lack of good sleep;
  third, censure;
  fourth, hell.
A wealth of demerit, an evil destination,
  & the brief delight of a
      fearful man with a
      fearful woman,
  & the king inflicts a harsh punishment.
      So
  no man should lie down
  with the wife of another.
Nirayavagga: Hell

But there is no real evidence (althought really not praiseworthy) if relation-free (or given free), "voluntary", and correct in regard of the deal, that selling ones own body is primarily to be regarded to be unskillful, not to speak of general worthy to be as "bad" blamed.
Cheating others harms, of course.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gain by means of trade and exchange]

This post is wrong about prostitutes gaining enlightenment because the lady Ambapali gave up prostitution before attaining enlightenment. The good lady Ambapali that gained enlightenment was  a BHIKKHUNI rather than a prostitute.

Of course is giving up the prerequiste of awakening, for householder to give up house as well. Merely strange approach, possible based on certain bias and aversion.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What are the best question-and-answer sequences on Buddhism?
If you would like to, suggest the -- let's say 10 -- best core question-and-answer sequences on this site ... which you would select to present (maybe for a tiny book "BSE and beyond - teachings on Dhamma", or a introduction link for a "new-comer" here).
Ideally an answer should provide a nice "Step by Step" teaching.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gain by means of trade and exchange]

Maybe move this question to meta site?

@ThiagoSilva It's an unusual question (and a polling question) but I wasn't inclined to close it. It might interest beginners (see also The 'beginner' tag, and, How about a 'resource' tab?), or teachers, and others. It could be on Meta (because it's about the site) but IMO it could be here (because it's about Buddhism).

@ChrisW good thinking!

Maybe one likes to add a guiding frame: 1. The three Juwels, then On Generosity, then Virtue, Heaven, Drawbacks, Renunciation, The Noble Truth of Dukkha, The Noble Truth of the Cause of Dukkha, The Noble Truth of the Cessation of Dukkha, The Noble Truth of the Path Leading to the Cessation of Dukkha. To make it possible easier.

Rebirth

I think that 'rebirth' is not the most important topic in Buddhism; but it is the topic which I thought I understood the least, and so it was the first topic which I asked about:
Is rebirth a delusional belief?
It was later, in answering this question, that I hope I came to satisfactory understanding of the anatta doctrine:
How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't?
Furthermore, this answer includes an attempt to summarize "What's the value or harm of a literal belief in rebirth?" -- but I don't know any better short summary than this comment ...

it's not that Buddhists believe in rebirth, it's that we don't believe in death

from the same answer; or than the folk-singer's doctrine which was summarized in this answer.

Step by step

The OP posted a comment to give an example of what he meant by "step by step".
Another way to sequence (doctrine and practice) might be the so-called Threefold Training.
And, you might like to consider this list of Useful resources suggested by the users of this site.

But (apart from those) I posted some questions about the Four stages of enlightenment of Theravada Buddhism.
If I recommend the following, it's not that mine were good questions (I didn't know what I was asking about, maybe it's not useful to read the questions) but you may find the answers to these topics helpful:

What are examples of identity-view?
How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?

Pali canon
If you go to a bookstore and look for books about Buddhism, it's easy to find many books written by modern authors.
In studying a religion, in the past I have often wanted to try to read the "original" doctrine and not only the more modern interpretations (if I were studying Christianity, for example, I would prefer to read the red words in the Gospels than to read anything else).
Anyway, I took advantage of this site to ask two other questions, about access to that literature:

English (or other European) translations of Pali Canon
Chronological or other sequence for beginners

Other forms/schools of Buddhism
I find it, unfortunately, difficult to even ask sensible questions about other forms of Buddhism (I hope that other people may so that I can read the questions and the answers).
I recommend or remember the following as having given me some insight into at least the existence of forms (doctrines, practices, traditions) of Buddhism in addition to the Theravada of the Pali canon:

How to explain what Buddhism is?
What is meant by Namu Amida Butsu and also Nam-myoho-renge-kyo?
Pāramitāyāna and Tantrayāna

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


text:
Are teaching on gratitude and "duty" nessesary?
Supreme Buddha once mentioned…

“These two people are hard to find in the world. Which two? The one who is first to do a kindness, and the one who is grateful and thankful for a kindness done.” — AN 2:118

1. So my question to you is should Gratitute be on a par with Loving Kindness?
In other words, asked from another view point...
2. Are teaching on gratitude and "duty" nessesary for the path development?
Or even otherwise asked...
3. Is it possible to gain path and fruits for an ungrateful person, a person denying his/her duties?
4. Could it be that the seldom appearing of gratitude is direct connected with the seldom appearing of people reaching path and fruit?
5. What in particular are teaching on gratitude mentioned in the suttas? (References of Dhamma-Dana in this regard)
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose and other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]

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

Btw.: Sadhu @Saptha Visuddhi , for the effort to prevent the question from decay. My person looks forward an auspicious answer on the topic.

Teaching on gratitude & “duty” is not necessary for Nibbana. MN 117 states gratitude & duty is a defiled (asava) right view with attachment (upadhi) siding with merit. In MN 56, Upali's stream-entry resulted in independence from the teacher. In the Vakkali Sutta, Vakkali was rebuked for wrong gratitude. Dhammapada 294 states to "kill the mother & father to attain Nibbana". In MN 86, the arahant Angulimala, ate his alms food without debt (obligation). Gratitude is a moral teaching for worldlings (puthujjana) but is unrelated to the goal of Buddhism, namely, Nibbana. Dhp 43 says:

Na taṃ mātā pitā kayirā, aññe vāpi ca ñātakā; sammāpaṇihitaṃ cittaṃ, seyyaso naṃ tato kare
Neither mother, father, nor any other relative can do greater good than the well-directed mind.

That last sounds scandalous, doesn't it. The commentary says it's a metaphor: with Mother meaning Craving, and Father meaning Conceit.

Not scandalous. Most Dhp commentaries I have read sound ridiculous. The idea of "mother" & "father" is "jati", i..e, the creation of self-views of "beings" that bring suffering. That is why SN 13.1 is about how ignorant minds suffer over the "death" of a "mother" & "father". Killing the mother & father seems to mean killing the idea of "mother & father". In lokuttara dhamma, there is no mother & no father but only dhatu (elements). I suggest to give reasoned consideration to my answer rather than rebel against the Dhamma by clinging to self-views of "mother" & "father". With metta

What foolish answer, like always. No shame no fear of wrongdoing, endless selfoverestemating and a source for falling off for many... "Without abandoning these five qualities, one is incapable of entering & remaining in the second jhana... the third jhana... the fourth jhana; incapable of realizing the fruit of stream-entry... the fruit of once-returning... fruit of non-returning... arahantship. Which five? Stinginess as to one's monastery [lodgings], stinginess as to one's family [of supporters], stinginess as to one's gains, stinginess as to one's status, and ingratitude.

Buddha-Dhamma is for liberation & truth. There is nothing but elements (dhatu).

Certain minds are not possible be well-directed, even will all effort and goodwill... since there are just elements, that will be the reason why certain people take what is not given, steal, cheat, kill, and display samples of ingratitude. "Great" Dhamma, comes possible before every elementary "communist" re-volution.

Thank you for the added explanation. I think it does (did) sound scandalous at face value, like the dictum about "If you meet the Buddha on the road".

Perhaps there's some parallel in MN 117 where "There is no mother, no father" is "wrong view", and "There is mother & father" is "right view with effluents".

i posted it is right view with effluents; which means it can be a hindrance to liberation & a generator of suffering.

Oh, so you did (post that): "MN 117 states gratitude & duty is a defiled (asava) right view with attachment (upadhi) siding with merit". I didn't recognise the quote, where I think you're equating "mother and father" with "gratitude and duty".

Yes. There is "mother & father" appear to mean "there are benefactors", which implies the "good action" of gratitude & obligation. All of this is wholesome but is also wrapped up in "self-views" and an obstacle to anatta & Nibbana.

Should Gratitude be on a par with Loving Kindness?

“These two people are hard to find in the world. Which two? The one who is first to do a kindness, and the one who is grateful and thankful for a kindness done.” — AN 2:118

Here the Buddha advises us to treasure people with Kindness and gratitude when we find them, and for us to become such rare persons ourselves.
Kindness and gratitude are virtues that needs to be cultivated together to be genuine and heartfelt.
Gratitude teaches kindness as you’ve benefitted from another person’s actions, and as you trust the motives behind those actions. Only if you’ve been kind to another person will you accept the idea that others can be kind to you. At the same time, if you’ve been kind to another person, you know the effort involved. You sense that the other person had to go out of his or her way to provide that benefit. So, when you’re on the receiving end of a sacrifice, you realize you’ve incurred a debt, an obligation to repay the other person’s trust. Therefore, the Buddha always discusses gratitude as a response to kindness, and it is more than an appreciation in general.
Are teaching on gratitude and "duty" nessesary for the path development?
AN 2:31 - Kataññu Suttas: Gratitude tells us that one should treat one’s father and mother with great respect and never be remiss in one’s filial duty.

“I tell you, monks, there are two people who are not easy to repay. Which two? Your mother & father. Even if you were to carry your mother on one shoulder & your father on the other shoulder for 100 years, and were to look after them by anointing, massaging, bathing, & rubbing their limbs, and they were to defecate & urinate right there [on your shoulders], you would not in that way pay or repay your parents. If you were to establish your mother & father in absolute sovereignty over this great earth, abounding in the seven treasures, you would not in that way pay or repay your parents. Why is that? Mother & father do much for their children. They care for them, they nourish them, they introduce them to this world.
“But anyone who rouses his unbelieving mother & father, settles & establishes them in conviction; rouses his unvirtuous mother & father, settles & establishes them in virtue; rouses his stingy mother & father, settles & establishes them in generosity; rouses his foolish mother & father, settles & establishes them in discernment: To this extent one pays & repays one’s mother & father.“— AN 2:32

Is it possible to gain path and fruits for an ungrateful person, a person denying his/her duties?
Acts of kindness and gratitude teach you valuable lessons about kindness and empathy in the process. The debt you owe your parents for giving birth to you and enabling you to live is immense. The only true way to repay your parents is to strengthen them in four qualities: conviction, virtue, generosity, and
discernment. To do so, you must develop these qualities in yourself, as well as learning how to employ great tact in being an example to your parents. These four qualities are also those of an admirable friend, and thus you become that admirable friend to yourself. Thus it is this very same admirable friend within you that will help you to to gain path and fruits.
Could it be that the seldom appearing of gratitude is direct connected with the seldom appearing of people reaching path and fruit?
As I have said before, these four qualities (conviction, virtue, generosity, and Discernment) are what makes you become that admirable friend to yourself. Thus, it is this very same admirable friend within you that will help you to gain path and fruits. You become a person of integrity, who has learned from gratitude how to be harmless in all your dealings and to give help with an empathetic heart: respectfully, in a timely way, and with the sense that something good will come of it (MN 110 - Cūḷapuṇṇama Sutta; AN 5:148 - A Person of Integrity's Gifts Sappurisadāna Sutta); MN 103 - Kinti Sutta.
Gratitude also gives practice in developing qualities needed in meditation. The practice of concentration centers on the power of perception. Training in gratitude shows how powerful perception can be, for it
requires developing a particular set of perceptions about life and the world. If you perceive that the
goodness in life is the result of cooperation, then the give and take of kindness and gratitude become a pleasant exchange. Gratitude requires mindfulness. In Pali, the word for gratitude— kataññu—literally means to have a sense of what was done.
In SN 48:10, the Buddha defines mindfulness as “remembering & able to call to mind even things that were done & said long ago.” Our parents’ instructions to us when we were children—to remember the kindnesses of others—are among our first lessons in mindfulness. As we develop our sense of gratitude, we get practice in strengthening this quality of mind. When these qualities are not found in the practitioners , the  path and fruit too are seldom reached by them.
What in particular are teaching on gratitude mentioned in the suttas?
Buddha cited gratitude as the quality defining what it means to be civilized. AN 2:31 - Kataññu Sutta. -Gratitude
In SN 15:14-19 - Sukhita Sutta Buddha said:

“A being who has not been your mother at one time in the past is not easy to find…. A being who has not been your father … your brother…. your sister…. your son…. your daughter at one time in the past is not easy to find. Why is that? From an inconceivable beginning comes transmigration.”
“Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries—enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released.”

The above sutta shows that not all the lessons taught by gratitude and empathy are of a heartwarming sort. Instead, they give rise to a sense of samvega. You know that not all your past intentions have been skillful, and yet these are the things that will shape the conditions of your life now and into the future. This understanding make you want to find a way out even of the network of kindness and gratitude that sustains whatever goodness there is in the world.
To identify yourself as a being means having to find food—both physical and mental—to keep that identity going. Therefore, when you’re a being, you need to depend on a network of kindness, gratitude, and sacrifice. That is why you are advised to think thus:

“We will undertake & practice those qualities that make one a contemplative… so that the services of those whose robes, alms-food, lodging, and medicinal requisites we use will bring them great fruit & great reward.” — MN 39 - Maha-Assapura Sutta: The Greater Discourse at Assapura

At the same time, the example of your behavior and freedom of mind is a gift to others, in that it shows how they, too, can free themselves from their debts. This is why the Buddha said that only those who have attained full awakening eat the alms food of the country without incurring debt. They’ve even paid off their debt to the Buddha for having taught the way to release.
The only homage he requested was that people practice the Dhamma in line with the Dhamma — i.e., to develop the disenchantment and dispassion that lead to release (DN 16 – Maha Parinibbana Sutta; SN 22:39-42 Anudhamma Sutta. In Accordance with the Dhamma) — so that the world will not be empty of awakened people. In this way, attaining full release is not a selfish act; instead, it’s the highest expression of kindness and gratitude.

Sadhu, Nyom Saptha Visuddhi. To add with "unseemingly" gratitude.: Two importand pints seems to be missing: the realization of the overwhelming debt and connection to develop samvega, since it was not so, that the Buddha at least pointed to the deep relation to all being to just feel obligated in the world but to see in this manner that what was pointed out at the end: awakening to pay "pay" of all depts. Not feeling obligated there is never a drive, since there is just obligation to the senses, felt as guṇā ("benefical" giver). And sec., that ungrateful is act. one of 4 reasons for hell-state

It's ggod and proper to feel obligated toward a person who makes one certain proplems with indebt and a way out realiceable. Maybe Nyom finds inspiration to give it good additional sign for the way out and certain drive in addition. Understandig goodness and obligation means to see the first noble truth and carries the understanding of right view. Mudita! And Anumodana!

Just remember, in regard of stinginess, a person ungrateful, is incapable even to reach Jhana, not to speak of paths and fruits.AN 5.265-271.


text:
Demotivation and Nihilism
I am curious as to how Buddhism deals with demotivation, in the sense of lacking goals and aspirations, and with nihilism, in the sense of feeling things are dissatisfactory and devoid of reasons to crave them.
I am aware the second aspect of my question is intimately tied with Buddhism, but I am somewhat asking: for someone lacking craving, what is there to be done in life?
From the Mahayana point of view, I feel compassion is a noble aim, but I have trouble developping compassion. From the Theravada point of view, spiritual development is a goal, but without much obvious suffering to propel our spirituality we can get caught in cycles of lethargy, complacency.
How does Buddhism deal with lack of motivation about mundane, every day things? What should one do in the worldly sense, when one isn't practicing?
Thank you.

This is what happens when you try to lead a monk life without leaving lay life.
Why not ask yourself the question "what am I doing in lay life if I'm not motivated to achieve the goals of lay life?"
This isn't the fault of Theravada Buddhism. It's the fault of the individual who cannot pick one lifestyle. Lethargy or laziness is one of the five hindrances and there's no place for it in Theravada Buddhism, whichever lifestyle you choose.
If a certain goal does not interest you, stop bothering about it and work towards the goal that appeals to you. If no goal in lay life appeals to you, get ordained and practice diligently towards attaining enlightenment.

Sure Eggman. No joy, no progress an the path. To seek for joy doing merits, raw or fine are suggested.
Merits can be made all time and everywhere:

Merit: A Study Guide, by Thanissaro Bhikkhu (2005; 61pp./184KB)
Often misunderstood in the West as quaint and irrelevant to serious practice, the Buddha's teachings on puñña (merit) actually play an essential role in the development of a wise sense of self. This anthology explores the meaning of merit and how it functions to instill in the practitioner the qualities necessary to carry him or her to stream-entry and beyond.
"Of all the concepts central to Buddhism, merit (puñña) is one of the least known and least appreciated in the West. This is perhaps because the pursuit of merit seems to be a lowly practice, focused on getting and "selfing," whereas higher Buddhist practice focuses on letting go, particularly of any sense of self. Because we in the West often feel pressed for time, we don't want to waste our time on lowly practices, and instead want to go straight to the higher levels. Yet the Buddha repeatedly warns that the higher levels cannot be practiced in a stable manner unless they develop on a strong foundation. The pursuit of merit provides that foundation. To paraphrase a modern Buddhist psychologist, one cannot wisely let go of one's sense of self until one has developed a wise sense of self. The pursuit of merit is the Buddhist way to develop a wise sense of self.
The following readings show how this is done...."

Not for all practicioner, especially for householder, asubha or reflecting on "demotivating" things are useful to walk on in higher states.
Making merits bring joy, joy is the fundation for benefical concentration. Therefor one should seek for company of people delight in making merits, sharing merits and invite. Less are the possibilities for doing such, so be not lazy and do joyful sacrifies. They are the foundation for a benefical practice and the great field of merits has just one purpose, giving people the possibility.
See: Ten Ways of Making Merits

"We, Lord, are laymen who enjoy worldly pleasure. We lead a life encumbered by wife and children. We use sandalwood of Kasi. We deck ourselves with garlands, perfume and unguents. We use gold and silver. To those like us, O Lord, let the Exalted One preach the Dhamma, teach those things that lead to weal and happiness in this life and to weal and happiness in future life."
read further: Dighajanu (Vyagghapajja) Sutta: Conditions of Welfare

Philosophy and mind-entertaining by seeking short cuts, does not help anybody. Just the deeds, take part an enjoy the fruits. There is no practice more destructive as the populat "Uposatha of the Jhains" given by the most, talking about emptiness and anatta and sitting right next to the refrigerator.
Even if celerbrating the Uposatha of the cowherds, which is done in many traditional Mahayana-areas or those then in wordily directions by laypeople, it still does not cut of the path.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gain by means of trade and exchange]

Dutiya Anuruddha Sutta (AN 3.128 or 3.130 or 131 depending how you count) --

Then venerable Anuruddha came to venerable Shariputra and said:
  -- As much as I, friend Shariputra, look at things with purified Heavenly Eye, see things with thousandfold-superhuman vision, train in confidence unmovable, in awareness undimmable, in tranquillity imperturbable, and in focused mind unscattered, still I can't "having stopped maintaining intoxication, achieve liberation of mind".
  -- All these thoughts, friend Anuruddha, of the kind "I look at things with purified Heavenly Eye, I see things with thousandfold-superhuman vision" -- this is your conceit.
  And the thoughts of the kind "I train in confidence unmovable, in awareness undimmable, in tranquillity imperturbable, and in focused mind unscattered" -- this is your pathologic restlessness.
  And the thoughts of the kind "still I can't "having stopped maintaining intoxication, achieve liberation of mind" -- this is your remorse.
  You'd better, friend Anuruddha, these three thoughts abandon; To these three thoughts not attending, the deathless assemble with mind.

From the point of view of Theravadin Buddhism and the requirements for the achieving the full benefits from the practice of mindfulness meditation, both demotivation and nihilism would be viewed as hindrances to gaining upacara samadhi, an objective, calm, undistracted, and focused state of mind that is conducive to psychological insight (which, in turn, is required to overcome suffering). Nihilism, as you define it, is most certainly not “intimately tied with Buddhism,” except in the sense that Buddhism explicitly denies its truth. Question: “for someone lacking craving, what is there to be done in life?” Answer: He or she must heal the catatonic state that causes such wide-ranging indifference. There has to be some profoundly tragic event or trauma, perhaps in early childhood, that would cause such a profound withdrawal from reality. The practice of meditation while in such a state may only deepen the withdrawal. In other words, its seems to me that you are suffering from a mental disorder. Traditional Buddhism does not deal well with mental disorders. Traditional Buddhist teachers simply lack the expertise needed to treat them. However, there are mindfulness centers that offer MBSR and psychotherapy that may meet your needs. Otherwise, I recommend to find a fully qualified psychotherapist or psychiatrist to diagnose your situation and provide relevant treatment. There is no doubt in my mind that you are in a profound state of suffering even though you may not be feeling much pain. I truly hope that you will find the loving and wise help you need.

for someone lacking craving, what is there to be done in life?

Everyone has craving, except Arahats and the Buddha of course. You need to look more closely. May be your craving is for a state of no responsibility, perhaps?

From the Theravada point of view, spiritual development is a goal, but without much obvious suffering to propel our spirituality we can get caught in cycles of lethargy, complacency.

There is suffering, that is the first noble truth. May be you can contemplate on that, see how it applies to you?
Also I'm curious, based on this and your other questions as well, have you diagnosed yourself for ADHD ? I suspect you might have a mild case of ADHD, based on what you have reported - lack of focus, lack of interest in mundane things etc. (If that is the case, I see only two options - you have to find some innermost passion or obsession and use that as a fuel or use stimulant medication)
Hope this helps!


text:
Asking questions a "childish" way to learn, to teach?
In modern world it's often regarded as "poor" if asking questions. "What, you don't know?", others would fast lower others, yet forgeting that they have been given before as well.
It is also the subtil fear to be obligated, fall into debt, that people "force" not to ask or on wrong places, wrong people and so the tendency goes in direction "steal" thinking not causing debts.
The times of google and more or lesser anonymos exchange places make it even more common that people seek, if even, for places to gain, where they believe not to accumulate debts.
It's not seldom, out of this, that "asking questions" is estimated as childish, the way "unwise" and "poor", "people of less skill" come to gain Dhamma.
What do you think, is there an adult way that replaces questioning? Is asking questions, asking for things childish?
(A maybe useful reflection that might make some parts understandable for answering the question: Giving, taking and the "new" world - "Labour makes (you) free!?")
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gain by means of trade and exchange]

Shoshin, "beginner's mind" (aka "child mind") is an important concept in Zen in particular.  "Child's mind is Bhudda's mind", as they say.
Adults often don't like to ask question because it displays ignorance, but Socrates, considered most wise, said that he himself was only wise in knowing he knew nothing.  Fear of looking unwise is rooted in the ego, and is an obstacle to advancement.
Which finding answers can be useful, one only find answers by asking questions.

In my experience, the best teachers don't provide answers, but guide the pupil toward asking the right questions

Is asking questions, asking for things childish?
Asking question is something that children do, but adults can do it too.
If I'm working with someone and (for example because I have worked there longer) if I know more about our work than they do, or if I know something about our work that they don't know but should know, then I want them to ask me questions. I want them to have good judgement (skill) too, in deciding how much to ask and how often, I expect us to weigh and find a balance between their spending too long (too much of their own time) trying to figure everything out for themselves, when instead I could have told them easily; or on the other extreme, their asking me too many questions (taking too much of my time), instead of reading the answers for themselves.
I am not a formal teacher, teaching someone else would be a part-time job for me, and the subject (which is, knowledge of the software that I might develop with co-workers) doesn't have a specific curriculum. But in general it's good if someone asks me questions: it's easier for me (and better for everyone) if they tell me they don't know something, than for me to have to supervise them and for me to have to try to guess at what they don't know. Also I distinguish between things they ought to know already compared with things they couldn't know already.
Anyway for these kinds of reasons (i.e. my experience at work) I think it's normal for adults to ask questions.
Children do sometimes ask questions to avoid work (for example, asking questions instead of putting on their shoes to go to school). It's a bit irksome when an adult asks insincere or unnecessary, unhelpful questions ...
On this site I'm grateful that people are willing to reply to my questions. I usually try not to waste their time, and try to only ask questions which will help to me, and whose answers I can't easily discover by a little work of my own (research and reading already-existing text).
The purpose of this site isn't to be a question-factory, keeping people busy  answering endless unbeneficial questions.
What do you think, is there an adult way that replaces questioning?
At university we had lectures, with hundreds of students in the room. The lecturer would talk, students couldn't ask questions, we had books to read ... and some individual tutors/tuition, perhaps an hour a week, to talk about home-work.
Or sometimes there's learning by following (emulating) other people; or waiting to be told.

Comments on the paper you referenced in the OP.
So there was a neighbour who was hardly ever able to accept a gift, for example some fruits from the garden.
In the society I live in now I've never known anyone refuse such a (small) gift.
The benefactor, "the mother", is little by little devoured
Apparently that can happen in abusive (so-called codependent) relationships.
Everything is easier nowadays
People have been saying this kind of thing since ancient Greek and Roman times, at least: especially, saying that the younger generation is lacking in courtesy.
We cringe, usually, when we hear someone say "Labour makes (you) free"
I was amazed to read "Arbeit macht frei" as the title of the page. Because of the phrase's historical usage I consider it a phrase which "no longer means what you think it means" i.e. it has (historical) "meaning" that's not evident from its overt form. It's not the plain meaning I cringe from but the association with Auschwitz et. al., which makes it difficult for me to even consider the phrase, which evokes horror (or pity for the victims, to whom the phrase was a lie) as soon as I read it.

Anyway this was kind of a vague answer, I'm not sure whether it answered your question (because I don't understand the intent or motive behind your question).
If you refer to the suttas you can see that it's full of questions and answers: students asking question (which teachers answer), and teachers asking Socratic questions.

The last passage actually carries most in regard of the question in relation with Dhamma, the rest is merely if talking about current common sense and opinions, Nyom @ChrisW . Maybe he likes to put effort into the answer and put it under a more Dhammic point of view, where he actually is not unskilled normally. Just a suggestion.

At least Nyom Chris is a «leader" of a question&answer undertaking under Dhammas-flag, so it might be thought that there are more thoughts about it, more in the sphere of what is the Dhammikas standard.

"because I don't understand the intent or motive behind your question" the thought "I will remove the arrow only if I know who shot, which clan, what material..." might be a hindrence also to assume an intent. Better to simply relay on what is there. No matter who, and why it came to be. Simply guess it is an "skillful intent". That makes it easier.

The parable of the arrow says to avoid asking silly questions about the Tathagata (the "surgeon") instead of concentrating on the Dhamma and the Way. But it might be important on this site to understand something of the OP's intent, the motive behind the question: it's better treatment (a better answer) if whoever tries to answer can perceive or understand the wound (the pain or motive for the question) -- see also dhamma about what makes a good patient: they can accurately describe their disease...

Questions of Skill
The Buddha wasn't the sort of teacher who simply answered questions. He also taught which questions to ask. He understood the power of questions: that they give shape to the holes in your knowledge and force that shape — valid or not — onto the answers you hope will fill up those holes. Even if you use right information to answer a wrong question, it can take on the wrong shape. If you then use that answer as a tool, you're sure to apply it to the wrong situations and end up with the wrong results.
That's why the Buddha was careful to map out a science of questions, showing which questions — in what order — lead to freedom, and which ones don't. At the same time, he gave his talks in a question-and-answer format, to make perfectly clear the shape of the questions he was answering.
...
...The only remaining questions are bonus ones: how best to take whatever skills you've developed along the way and use them purely for the benefit of the world.
And what more could you possibly ask?

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

The best way to ask a question in "Childish" way.  Why?

It's a philanthropist way to convey things to lower knowledgeable person to higher knowledgeable person.

It's a best way to make comfort both parties questioner and answerer bring into one place.  So that the both easily get done their work.

If we wants to get the best answer also better way to ask that question in a childish way.

People may think or look at different way.  Who cares if i want to succeed it should be in my way.

Also it shows the questioner's simplicity.  I have seen lot of eminent scholars asked questions for the sake of others in a childish way by keeping his scholarliness aside. Why they know well if they asked the same question using his knowledge no one may understand it.

We cannot stop others thinking pattern.  This is comparative world. the Best thing is to sort out our matter by asking it in a simple childish way.

Your Question 100% perfect. Because All in Lord buddha's questions and answers in a very simple way that can understand everybody. Even a small child. But he is the one and only supreme Mundane Wisdom intellectual in this world who follows this.

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


text:
From Buddhas point of view, is what is common called preaching unskillful not benefical?
Food for thought:
It's in modern or western world common regarded and even broadly taught that such as preaching, in more dhammic words, giving a sermon, is unskillful, not the way Dhamma is taught.
Now my person like to ask if that actually is really true?

Is preaching to be regarded as the wrong way?
If not generally, where would be the point that preaching, teaching, giving a sermon might turn out to be not of use (either for giver nor for receiver)?
What might be a possible "psychological" reason, or cultural reason for aversion in regard of sermons?
Under which circumstances a possible gift turns out to be a kind of red flag?

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

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is not about Buddhist philosophy but about Western culture.

"Preaching" in the sense of "proselytizing" is kind of unpopular among Buddhists (see also How are Buddhists supposed to spread Buddhism?).
In the suttas I think that the Buddha tended to teach people who asked him a question or people who challenged him (and didn't try to impose his views on strangers), and he often taught by asking questions.
But "preaching" in the sense of "giving dhamma talks" is normal; and (Dhamma) is I think defined as one of the proper topics of speech for a monk.

It depends if it's the appropriate time and the appropriate place and the appropriate intention.
Red flags? Like the teacher smoking cigarettes or the teacher who drinks regularly and calls it crazy wisdom or the teacher who only knows the Dhamma through just studying books and no experience? It is possible that an unexperienced teacher could lead one to liberation while missing out on it themselves, yes?


text:
Is shame and remorse unskillful?
I read this in another answer on this site:

"and later I regretted" -- remorse is a klesha, an obscuring emotion.

my person thought it's worthy to lift the question if shame and remorse (before, while and after a deed be mind, speech or body) are generally unskillful, therefore to be abandoned, or if certain shame and remorse is actually skillful and very needed, therefore to develop and relay on it.
(Note that remorse/kukkucca, as a hindrance, falls by abounding sense-desire, end of reason for ill-will)
Feel invited to reflect, and possible share even Buddhas view on this mind qualities: An invitation of shameless making merits, so that one might not feel remorse, having not done, later.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gain by means of trade and exchange]

In a now-deleted comment, you quoted MN 61, "If, on reflection, you know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it was an unskillful mental action with painful consequences, painful results, then you should feel distressed, ashamed, & disgusted with it.".

The other answer on this site was fine in its essence, spirit, purpose & intent.
There is the unwholesome 'remorse' or 'guilt' (kukkucca), which is a hindrance; and there is the wholesome 'sense of shame' (hiri), which is a virtue and one of the five gates to Dhamma.
As the other answer on this site implied shame towards unskilful deeds is for a Buddha a means of learning a lesson and moving beyond guilt & remorse.
The Lord Buddha said:

He who having been heedless is heedless no more, illuminates this world like the moon freed from clouds.
He, who by good deeds covers the evil he has done, illuminates this world like the moon freed from clouds.
For it is a cause of growth in the Dhamma & Discipline of the noble
  ones when, seeing a transgression as such, one makes amends in
  accordance with the Dhamma and exercises restraint in the future.

The last verse is one of your little jokes, isn't it. I kind of wish you wouldn't do that because IMO it risks misleading people.

:) You are always welcome to moderate & edit any of my posts. There is no need to ask. Thank you again Chris for your service, here. With metta

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It depends on the circumstances.
Sometimes shame and remorse can guide you to do skillful actions.
Sometimes it can guide you to do unskillful actions.

I suppose it's part of a skillful response to unskillful action.
Conversely, "shameless" is usually portrayed as undesirable.
The response to skillful virtue is said to be "lack of remorse".


text:
Was Buddha ever born as an elephant?
I am not sure about this but the title of this book (When the Buddha Was an Elephant: 32 Animal Wisdom Tales from the Jataka) implies that Buddha was once an elephant; in other words that an elephant was a Buddha.
Here is the story in question:

My question is: according to Jataka tales or other scriptural references, is it true that an elephant was a Buddha (not just Bodhisatta but Buddha)?

That kind of link is only visible to you. To make it visible to other readers you would need to take a screenshot of it and insert the screenshot as an image into your question.

That link pointed to a book titled :"When the Buddha Was an Elephant: "...The book is expensive and it made me wonder whether what the book claims is true. I think book has a wrong title. Buddha was never an elephant.

What if the Buddha was a Bodhisatta, and the Bodhisatta was an elephant?

@ChrisW Bodhisatta are potential Buddhas. Some are realized into Buddha and some are not. It is true that a Buddha can learn about his previous births and in one of the previous births he might remember himself being an elephant. But as quoted from Questions of King Milinda an animal can not attain an insight into the Truth. Bodhisattas are humans.

@ChrisW My apologies. Bodhisattas can be animals as it is mentioned in the scriptures.  The point is no animal can be considered as Buddha himself. However some animals can be considered as Bodhisattas. That resolves my minor curiosity. Thanks.

No. Animals can not become Buddha.
Even if an elephant or any other animal regulates his life right ,he will not attain insight into the Truth.
To quote from Questions of King Milinda:

'Venerable Nâgasena, those who regulate their lives aright--do they
  all attain to insight into the Truth, or are there some of them who do
  not?' 'Some do, O king, and some do not.' 'Then which do, Sir, and
  which do not?' 'He who is born as an animal, O king, even though he
regulate his life aright, will not attain to insight into the Truth,
  nor he who is born in the Preta world, nor he who holds wrong views,
  nor the deceitful man, nor he who has slain his mother, or his father,
  or an Arahat, nor he who has raised up a schism in the Order, nor he
  who has shed a Buddha's blood, nor he who has furtively attached
  himself to the Order , nor he who has become a pervert , nor he who
  has violated a sister of the Order, nor he who, having been guilty of
  one or other of the thirteen grievous offences , has not been
  rehabilitated, nor a eunuch, nor an hermaphrodite--and whosoever is a
  human child under seven years of age, even though he regulate his life
  aright, will not attain to insight into the Truth. To these sixteen
  individuals there is no attainment of insight, O king, even though
  they regulate their life aright.'

The Tiracchānamanussanirayādi Sutta https://suttacentral.net/pi/sn56.120-122 says a animal can realise the truth, similar to how Angulimala in MN 86 realised the truth. Angulimala was an "animal" because he engaged in violence against innocent people. SN 56.47 says animals ("non-humans") engaged in the mutual devouring & devouring of the weak. Thus immoral people, such as Angulimala, are "animals" in Buddhism. Such animals can learn & change and realise the truth, as stated in the Tiracchānamanussanirayādi Sutta.

My impression is Jataka are about the Bodhisatta. Regardless, the Buddha did not speak the Jataka, which are universally acknowledged to be belated texts. They were possibly commissioned under King Ashoka, who wanted to spread Buddhism. Ultimately, being stories for children, the Jataka probably contributed strongly to the materialism of reincarnation that now dominates much of Buddhism and resulted in the demise of Buddhism in India (since Buddhism became largely indistinguishable from Hinduism). Obviously, it is every difficult to argue the Bodhisatta in the Jataka was not an Atman (Same-Soul) reincarnated over many lifetimes. For the true meaning of "past lives", which is "past abodes ("pubbe nivasa"),   I recommend to study SN 22.79 very carefully. A wise person would ask questions about SN 22.79. Because you are Indian, you should understand the words "nivasa" ("homes") & "jati" ("caste"; "identity") do not mean "past lives".

I never experienced caste related issues. But I understand what caste is. When a group of people believes that they and their descendants have only God given duties to be performed,then we say that group belongs to a cast. Brahmin caste - Duty to learn Vedas. Kshatriya Caste- Duty to fight war. Vaishya caste - Duty to do business. Shudra Caste- Duty to serve upper caste.  Caste identity of person is not permanent. It changes. Buddha was never an animal. However an animal can be a potential Buddha(Bodhisatta)


text:
Sexual disinterest
Is it possible that Buddhist practice could cause a lack of interest or even repulsion of sex?  Lately I have tried to have sex a few times and I felt uninterested and repulsed by it. I was so repulsed that I couldn't even function down there. It feels so pointless to go through this entire ritual which takes so much energy and time for this tiny moment of pleasure which feels like a sneeze. It all seems so disgusting, the smells, the fluids etc. It's all rather filthy and I feel like my entire aura is dirty after.  I still have the desirous thoughts that lead me to seek it out but when I do it just doesn't happen. Is this a symptom of meditation practice?

Meditation can make the mind more sensitive to coarse/unrefined things however becoming accustomed to refined experiences of love or intimacy can also result in loveless sex feeling pointless & coarse.
Buddhism (example, the Piyavagga) refers to different levels or degrees of love, which accord with the natural purpose of love, which is to evolve from craving, to lust, to attachment, to affection, to endearment and finally to self-sacrifice (caga) & metta-karuna (friendship & compassion).
For example, the self-seeking lust of a teenager is different to the self-sacrificing love of a mother, as described in the Metta Sutta, as follows:

Even as a mother protects with her life  Her child, her only child, so with a boundless heart
      Should one cherish all living beings...

In your previous question, you referred to a 17 year "intimate" relationship, which came to an end. Often, random sexual acts feel pointless after intimate love is known because sex itself is something the developed human grows/evolves out of, in favour of intimacy & friendship.
It is like becoming accustomed to eating good food. If one is forced to eat bad  food, the bad food is not enjoyable. Similarly, random sex after the ending of an intimate relationship can be unenjoyable because life evolves forwards or upwards rather than falls backwards, which is described in MN 75:

Suppose, Māgandiya, a householder or a householder’s son was rich, with great wealth and property, and being provided and endowed with
  the five cords of sensual pleasure, he might enjoy himself with forms
  cognizable by the eye…with sounds cognizable by the ear…with odours
  cognizable by the nose…with flavours cognizable by the tongue…with
  tangibles cognizable by the body that are wished for, desired,
  agreeable, and likeable, connected with sensual desire and provocative
  of lust. Having conducted himself well in body, speech, and mind, on
  the dissolution of the body, after death, he might reappear in a happy
  destination, in the heavenly world in the retinue of the gods of the
  Thirty-three; and there, surrounded by a group of nymphs in the
  Nandana Grove, he would enjoy himself, provided and endowed with the
  five cords of divine sensual pleasure. Suppose he saw a householder or
  a householder’s son enjoying himself, provided and endowed with the
  five cords of human sensual pleasure. What do you think, Māgandiya?
  Would that young god surrounded by the group of nymphs in the Nandana
  Grove, enjoying himself, provided and endowed with the five cords of
  divine sensual pleasure, envy the householder or the householder’s son
  for the five cords of human sensual pleasure or would he be enticed by
  human sensual pleasures?”
“No, Master Gotama. Why not? Because divine sensual pleasures are more excellent and sublime than human sensual pleasures.”

That's the first time I've seen this doctrine about the "natural purpose" and evolution of love.

Its my own theory rather than officially Buddhist but this is how life works. Young people are driven by lust, then grow in attachment, have children, then learn to sacrifice & be compassionate. Many doctrines refers to different grades of love, It isn't rocket science.

Mods are censoring comments - lame. How are people supposed to have an honest open conversation when our comments are deleted. I see nothing wrong with anyhting I have said.

I vaguely recall your comment, here, but then it was deleted. To answer your comment, I recall I posted elsewhere that in the Pali suttas another person sharing mutual (non-sexual) qualities is considered a suitable partner. Therefore, per the suttas, having sex before committing to a relationship is not considered necessary. I acknowledge this might be different in gay relationships because hetero relationships were traditionally planned in advance around family & children thus this is a shared mutual quality that goes beyond merely two people. Childless relationships can have less mutuality.

It sounds like it's a symptom of meditation practice, but at the same time it sounds like an intermediate stage on the path to full understanding. You have understood that sense-pleasures are a distraction from what's real and that even the notion that they're "good" and should be sought is just an optional thought in your head, not a law of nature, but this has led you to develop an aversion to the sense perceptions that come with intimate contact and now you're attached to that aversion and the concept that these perceptions feel "bad". You have only replaced the attachment to pleasure with an attachment to displeasure. :)
Try to continue down the path and see all physical sensations as just physical sensations, not "good", not "bad", not compelling you to always reflexively or compulsively seek them, not compelling you to always run away from them, just physical things that are happening in an interaction of human bodies.
On the other hand, go deeper into what makes you want a relationship in the first place. Is it to get some sense-pleasures from some physical interactions or is it to love and be loved? If you discover you have some deeper motive than simple physical pleasure then you should be able to use that motive to color all your physical interactions with that person, and get to where you see all sense-perceptions that you create together as manifestations of what, fundamentally, has brought and keeps the two of you together. (This should also help in getting you past the roadblock you were talking about that is everyone's expectation that you "put out" right from the start - if you're clear on why, deeply, fundamentally, you want to be with that person, and keep that deeper reason at the forefront of your mind through all interactions, all physical sensations you get with them - even during "too early" intercourse - should become as acceptable or "positive" as that original motive itself.)
[Note: "not good, not bad" is a non-dualist teaching, specific to Mahayana, Zen, Advaita Vedanta, Daoism and the like. Adepts of Theravadist traditions may disagree with this framing.]

Yes. 'Higher' love can admit 'lower' things as unavoidable. If you garden, your hands will get dirty. One can still love the garden and its development. Your answer is well said.

Well thanks for the advise but I can't be myself here and leave honest comments because I get moderated.

I would argue that, logically, some meditators -- who are not necessarily affiliated with Buddhism -- still have sex and do not live a celibate life. Therefore, meditation in itself is unlikely to cause disgust as you describe.
However, some things must be kept in mind. There are different types of meditation, leading to different results. Contemplating the impurities of the body, for example, might cause what you describe.
Within Buddhism, sexuality isn't immoral, but rather leads to subsequent suffering. This is because of the nature of attachment, especially such gross types of attachment as sexual desire. The Dalai Lama has claimed sexuality is always a source of suffering.
Since you speak of auras, I suspect you are into spirituality which may not necessarily subscribe to Buddhism. Buddhism itself allows sexuality, as long as it isn't sexual misconduct. I imagine your feelings of disgust arise from conditions distinct from meditation, and if this is the case, then the answer requires considerations beyond what is currently available to me.
Hope you'll figure out this situation,
Eggman.

Yes, because sex is  five strands of sensuality, that the buddha called that it is the first of 3 very big suffering, mahādukkhandha, in mahādukkhakkhandhaSutta.
The lack of interest in five strands of sensuality, is require, before the practitioner will begin both of concentration meditation and insight meditation.

@Bonn...I think, beside the monks, there are very few lay followers who aren't trapped in sensuality. Do you think it's right for people who are still trapped in sensuality to at list do Samatha meditation?

I am a layman. So, I never denied lay people to do concentration meditation. It is just your idea. Moreover, don't try to protect the laymen by spoil them. There are very few lay man who can attains lokiya-jhāna, too. Why? Recite mahādukkhakkhandhaSutta, the answer is inside that sutta.

I'm not trying to protect anyone I was just trying to understand what you mean by "required"...   Anyways, thanks.

My english is very terrible. I'm so sorry, too. I trying to improve it.

Have you, during Buddhist/medidation practice, contemplated sex and realized that you're repulsed by it, disgusted by it, aura dirty when doing it? Or has Buddhist/medidation practice lead you to contemplation of sex and realization that you're repulsed by it, disgusted by it, aura dirty when doing it?
If yes, then your repulsion is a symptom of Buddhist/meditation practice.
If no, then your repulsion can be a symptom of something else. This doesn't mean that it can't be from Buddhist/meditation practice. It still can be from Buddhist/meditation practice, but it can also be a symptom of something else, completely unrelated to Buddhist/meditation practice.

My first reaction was that it sounded like depression.

It is indeed the case that, if a person were to contemplate on the decomposition of the human body after death, he or she would develop a temporary disinterest in sex, but not necessarily a repulsion towards sex. Indeed, the cemetery contemplations can (but not necessarily) result in a blissful experience of full samadhi. It is a serious misconception of Buddhist celibacy to assume that it involves or requires a repulsion of sex. On YouTube, the Dalai Lama talks about how attractive he finds beautiful women. I suggest that, while the practice of some forms of Buddhist meditation can result in a temporary disinterest in sex, it would result in a repulsion towards sex only if the repulsion was already present to some degree. I therefore suggest that there are karmic reasons for your repulsion of sex. If this is the case, then there is much benefit in gaining insight into the karmic-formation (sankhara) involved, just as it is beneficial to gain insight into any karmic-formation. (Gaining insight into any sankhara is always liberating.) It is important to know that the only purpose of developing disinterest (and not repulsion) is to prepare for upacara samadhi, an objective, calm, undistracted, and focused state of mind that is conducive to psychological insight (which, in turn, is required to overcome suffering and, eventually, achieve Enlightenment). There is also a profound difference between casual sex and sex in a deeply loving relationship. Finding casual sex to be repulsive is a consideration profoundly different from finding loving sex to be repulsive. The fact that you are talking about interpersonal sex as a “ritual” indicates to me that you are experiencing a repulsion of sex that is not related to Buddhist meditation but to a childhood experience of physical, emotional, and/or sexual abuse that should be discussed with a psychotherapist rather than Buddhist teacher.


text:
Should Buddhists in India celebrate diwali (New moon of November)?
On the occasion of diwali I've to ask, should Indian Buddhists celebrate diwali?
Because recently I've read dark history behind diwali:

That
Tathagata Gautama Buddha had entrusted the team with the Saraiputa and Mahamoggalan.
He made Dhanmaseva for 44 years. The entire generation of Kartik Purnima was performed. The 15-day Kartik Amavasa (New moon of November) Mahamoggalan was brutally murdered on the Isigil mountain, that day was of Diwali.
The last Buddhist king of Maurya Brahadrath, was brutally murdered by Brahmin commander Pushyamitra Shung. That day was of Kartik Amavassa(Diwali, New moon of November).
The Buddhist power was overturned.
The monks are slaughtered.
Pushyamitra Sung left the decree for giving 100 gold coins to cut the monk's head.
Viharas, Stupas was destroyed. That day was Kartik Amavasya (Diwali, New moon of November).
Conferred best King Bali of the Bahujana and was murdered in a fraudulent by vishnu.
Their power, science, education, wealth were taken away.
Their children were killed one after the other.
On the day of Bali Pratipada, victim King Bali was assassinated.
That day was Kartik Amavasya (Diwali, New moon of November).

Therefore, Buddhists, the Bahujans(Indian backward people who being Buddhist after Dr. B. R Ambedkar gave gift of Buddhism to them) should not celebrate Diwali festival.
But other thing is about diwali that Emperor Ashoka started the Digvijay campaign this day. The public had greeted them by burning lamps.
Also In Buddhism, after 18 years, Gautam Buddha returned to Kapilavastu with followers on this day. Then Diwali was celebrated burning millions of lamps in their reception by the citizens. During his first discourse, Buddha gave a new dimension to Deepawali(Diwali) by preaching:

"Atha Deepa Bhava".

So let me know with what perspective we have to celebrate or not this day?  Cause there's no importance of new moon in Buddhism and observance day is on full moon.

Your source on Pushyamitra Shunga comes from the Ashokavandana which itself is skeptical as per historians. It claims Ashoka murdered Ajvikas when in reality he patronized them. So, the source in question isn't very accurate lol.

Firstly, you got the wrong term here. "Dipa" means "island" and not "light".
From this footnote:

Atta-diipaa. Diipa means both "island" (Sanskrit dviipa) and "lamp"
  (Sanskrit diipa), but the meaning "island" is well-established here.
  The "self" referred to is of course the unmetaphysical pronoun
  "oneself".

Secondly, you can always celebrate Diwali, the Festival of Lights, by giving it a new spin, for e.g. from the Tamonata Sutta:

"And how is one the type of person in darkness who is headed for
  light? There is the case where a person is born into a lower class
  family — the family of a scavenger, a hunter, a basket-weaver, a
  wheelwright, or a sweeper — a family that is poor, with little food or
  drink, living in hardship, where food & clothing are hard to come by.
  And he is ugly, misshapen, stunted, & sickly: half-blind or deformed
  or lame or crippled. He doesn't receive any [gifts of] food, drink,
  clothing, or vehicles; garlands, perfumes, or ointments; bedding,
  shelter, or lamps. He engages in good bodily conduct, good verbal
  conduct, & good mental conduct. Having engaged in good bodily conduct,
  good verbal conduct, & good mental conduct, he — on the break-up of
  the body, after death — reappears in the good destination, the
  heavenly world. This is the type of person in darkness who is headed
  for light.

The Buddha gave new spins to many Brahmin rituals of his day. See this answer and this answer for examples.

Yes I would celebrate Diwali but not as hinduism rituals as how Buddha shown the path of light. Thank you so much. "May Buddha Bless you".

But you are saying is wrong about pronunciation it is dipa not dweepa cause what is to do with island that's why I think you got wrong about it.

That's a good question. Let me ask this question.

Wait I thing you are right, cause meaning of "Atta" is myself or yourself so that's why. And I also found answer for your question before you ask.

Here What did Buddha's "Appo Deepo Bhava" mean?

So It is pali word which pronounce same so I guess Indians interpret it as a sanskrit word.

I asked the question here.

Tank you for your attention that let me know what is it actually. Thank you so much.

It's a Hindu festival. So a Buddhist should not be a part of the religious aspect of the festival if those activities are incompatible with Buddhism. That does not mean a Buddhist cannot meet up with his Hindu relatives and have a good time.

Yes you are right but there's so many festivals in India like that, that has dark history. They celebrated as someone's defeat. In question mentioned (Diwali, New moon of November). That occasions they made consciously and celebrate defeat of someone. This isn't humanity. We Indians don't believe in hinduism cause it's mythologically and ideologically developed religion. Also nothing is there to achieve peace. I would not accept them because whats wrong in them but for humanity and kindness I'm always there. It's my first religion. I pardon and Thanks a lot.

You are welcome! Staying away is ok, if they are celebrating something bad. But you can also guide your friends/relatives to celebrate something wholesome, if they are receptive to you.

Yeah I do the same to my friends, relatives. My parents and siblings too I speak a lot but they don't stop following hindusim fest and rituals. I'm afraid but I don't let them do those rites and rituals cause I want 100% Buddhism  in my family. Thanks a lot for your invaluable time.

We have to celebrate and cheerish the moments Buddha s return to kapilavastu with his enlightened preachings "Atha Deepa Bhava".
Why to remember the darker side of the day..
Can add a condolences to the great souls..
https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/o-meditation.com/2010/05/21/appa-deepo-bhava-osho/amp/

I am a buddhist but i grew up among hindu friends.Even now I married to a hindu guy.
I dont like to worship hindu god by following all hindu rituals like havan and all, but as married to hindu family i need to do it. I am still confuse if i am doing wrong or right but i do what i feel is right to keep family happy. I play holi and i celebrate Diwali with my hindu friends.

I'm also Indian even my family does celebrate diwali and other festivals. But as a Buddhist we shouldn't do.  All the festival in hindu religion has hiddent truths. And they hide truth most are about Buddhism. Cause declined Buddhist with their mythological stories and festivals and because that we don't know truth and so Indian Buddhist walk on that false path.

If you don't like to worship and all. Don't do. Rituals are just rituals (KarmaKand) so no meaning doing it. You can still practice Buddhism. Thank you. May Buddha bless you

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


text:
After Nibbana, can one be reborn again in Samsara?
Is Nibbana final? Or if you attain Nibbana, can you be reborn again in Samsara if you wish?

Theravada Buddhist Perspective:

After Nibana, can one be reborn again in Samsara?

No, that is not possible. When reaching Nibbana one has destroyed all fetters. One has uprooted all defilements. There exists no longer Ignorance (Avijja) which binds beings to Samsara. One has freed oneself from the cycle of rebirth.

If you attain Nibanna, can you be reborn again in Samsara if you wish?

No, that is not possible. Volition/intention no longer has any potency. Actions no longer bear fruits. Actions become merely "functional" (kiriya) in nature.

Is Nibana final?

Nibbana is final when one has reached the forth stage of Enlightenment, i.e. Arahantship. At that stage the practitioner has destroyed all ten fetters. As a result of that, further rebirth is not possible.

This is Theravada perspective. Is there any other perspective which says that after Nibana one can be reborn again?

@Chris. I don't have sufficient knowledge about other traditions view on this topic. Sorry.

Downvoted because it is not entirely true. Nibbana is not the same as final nibbana (meaning having reached the state of arahantship). The first time reaching Nibbana makes someone a Sotapanna (so to speak). When such a person dies the story will go on.

@Medhini, hmm, I thought Lanka was giving the orthodox Theravada interpretation here... can you give your own answer in detail? I would be very interested :)

@YesheTenley I think Medhiṇī was just saying that there are different stages of enlightenment -- e.g. that a Sotapanna reaches or sees enlightenment, but that that's not the "final" nibbana --  and that Lanka's answer didn't specify that detail.

@Medhiṇī. Answer updated.

Mahayana perspective:

"bodhi and nirvana are hitching posts for donkeys" -- Lin-ji

There is no "before" and "after nirvana". It is timeless and self-existing.
There is no "one" to attain Nirvana or to be reborn and there never has been.
There is no "attainment", it is attainment of no attainment.
Directly understanding the above is called "First Bhumi". This is when the clouds open and the endless sky of Dharmakaya that has always been there is seen for the first time. However, Samsara and Nirvana still remain quite separate in one's mind, and one keeps hard-switching between Dharmakaya and ordinary world. From this moment on, through 10 Bhumi's one grows in ability to bridge the relative and the absolute in practice until the two are no longer two separate perspectives but one fully-integrated and highly-functional unity.

Does the mind growth, as you say, from viewing Samsara and Nirvana separately to one fully-integrated unit ever end? I was told that to ask how the mind become ignorant, to begin with, is unskilful, but to imagine ever-awaking mind is perplexing.

Imagine a master magician performing an elaborate card trick with superb sleight of hand and thinking that it was real magic. Then imagine the master magician showing you how he did it with just sleight of hand. After the magician explained it you wouldn’t even for one second thereafter think it was real magic. In this same way as this knowledge of mere illusion continues, Nirvana continues.

It is my understanding that the Dalai Lama distinguishes enlightenment from Nirvana.  From such a distinction, the Theravada view is not inconsistent with the Mahayana view. Enlightened beings may or may not be Buddhas, but they are Bodhisattvas.

Mahayana perspective...
Samsara and Nirvana are not places. It is not like there is a Nirvana-without-remainder universe and a Samsara universe. Also, mere conventional existence does not end with Nirvana.
Using imprecise language I would say something like those beings who have realized Nirvana are reborn in Nirvana and not Samsara.

It depends on who you ask. Theravadin Buddhism clearly says “No.” But Mahayana texts say it is more complicated. From my personal point of view, for what it is worth, given the psychological nature of nirvana (given, that is, it is a change in a state of awareness and connectedness and not a great increase in wisdom), a person would need to achieve nirvana a great multitude of times to acquire the wisdom of a Buddha. On grounds of compassion, I suspect, many Buddha-like beings continue to return to samara in order to teach Dharma and help their many friends who remain in samsara. Nonetheless, even if parinirvana is viewed as a heaven for Buddhas (a correct assumption, depending on which texts you consult), the Buddhas there remain connected with people in samsara and remain able to influence them and help them overcome suffering. In my view, those of us who are in samara are in great need of those Buddhas who decide to be reborn in samsara.

Mahayana perspective:
Although, when we use the word 'samsara' loosely, we refer to a place, strictly speaking, samsara refers to the contaminated aggregates (i.e. the aggregates one takes due to the power of karma and affliction). A so-called Hinayana arhat is free from that samsara.
While a so-called Hinayana arhat is not reborn due to the power of karma and afflictions, he is  subject to the 'inconceivable transformation birth' and the 'inconceivable transformation of death' due to the power of the imprints of ignorance. Being subject to the inconceivable transformation of birth means taking up a mental body due to the power of the imprints of ignorance.
In his commentary to 'Maitreya’s Sublime Continuum: The Essence of a One Gone Thus, with Commentary by Gyaltsap Darma Rinchen', Geshe Jamphel Gyaltsen says:

What is called the inconceivable transformation of death is the
  destruction of the mental body and it is compared to the last of the
  12 links, aging and death. It is compared to the presentation of the
  twelve links of dependent origination of a person circling in samsara.
  Destruction in general, in the context of an ordinary being of the
  desire realm and form realm, (formless realm being apart) refers to
  old age and death. In order to take rebirth after death we go through
  the intermediate state. If after one week in the bardo, the bardo
  being has not taken another rebirth he takes another birth in the
  bardo until he finds a new birth outside the bardo. This goes on up to
  seven weeks with small deaths and births every seven weeks.

His nirvana is not the final true cessation. In this sense, his nirvana is not final.
A fully enlightened Buddha is free from all types of rebirths. However, he can manifest or show the aspect of being born. We say that Shakyamuni Buddha was already enlightened at the time of his birth as Shakyamuni, but that he showed the aspect of being born... showed the aspect of undertaking austerities... showed the aspect of achieving enlightenment, etc.
The non-abiding nirvana of a Buddha is final in that it is the final true cessation free from the two obscurations. It benefits both others and oneself.

Theravada perspective:
According to Itivuttaka 44, after final Nibbana, a living Arahant still experiences the five aggregates, including the feeling of pain and pleasure, without the five aggregates burning with the fires of passion, aversion and delusion. After the final extinguishment (parinibbana), there would no longer be the experience of the five aggregates anywhere.

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
  heard: "Monks, there are these two forms of the Unbinding property.
  Which two? The Unbinding property with fuel remaining, & the Unbinding
  property with no fuel remaining.
And what is the Unbinding property with fuel remaining? There is the
  case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended, who
  has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden,
  attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released
  through right gnosis. His five sense faculties still remain and, owing
  to their being intact, he is cognizant of the agreeable & the
  disagreeable, and is sensitive to pleasure & pain. His ending of
  passion, aversion, & delusion is termed the Unbinding property with
  fuel remaining. (Note1)
And what is the Unbinding property with no fuel remaining? There is
  the case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended,
  who has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden,
  attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released
  through right gnosis. For him, all that is sensed, being unrelished,
  will grow cold right here. This is termed the Unbinding property with
  no fuel remaining." (Note2)
Note1 and Note2 (commentary by Thanissaro Bhikkhu):
  With fuel remaining (sa-upadisesa) and with no fuel
  remaining (anupadisesa): The analogy here is to a fire. In the first
  case, the flames are out, but the embers are still glowing. In the
  second, the fire is so thoroughly out that the embers have grown cold.
  The "fuel" here is the five aggregates. While the arahant is still
  alive, he/she still experiences the five aggregates, but they do not
  burn with the fires of passion, aversion, or delusion. When the
  arahant passes away, there is no longer any experience of aggregates
  here or anywhere else.


text:
Appreciating Nature Aesthetically
I recall reading somewhere that beauty is a lure within Buddhism, and causes attachment towards the external world. However, I've come to think beauty may be positive in certain circumstances. This site which deals with mindfulness and other such topics suggests witnessing nature mindfully allows greater connection.
My reasoning is that if compassion is put forwards in Buddhism, especially with the Mahayana, then attachment isn't necessarily all bad. I recall reading the Dalai Lama explaining how compassion propels karma, but towards positive rebirth. Attachment towards others through compassion can benefit the individual in the present or future.
QUESTION 1: What is the benefit of aesthetic contemplation, if any?
And, in line with this, I wonder if within compassion meditation one needs to experience feeling during the meditation itself. I remember the Dalai Lama saying one should generate compassion with reasons, then focus upon the feeling. It's difficult for me to do so, so I wonder if compassion-meditation can work without immediate feeling.
QUESTION 2: Is feeling (either vedana or 'emotion') necessary for compassion meditation?
Thank you.

By saying “attachment isn't necessarily all bad,” you are somewhat timidly suggesting that “beauty and love are not (necessarily) forms of suffering.” The truth, of course, is that both Enlightenment and the path to Enlightenment are valuable because they profoundly enhance the experiences of and capacities for love and beauty (and insight). The fact that you are placing this profound truth in question is the result of a popular misunderstanding of Buddhism.
This common misunderstanding concerns the notion of detachment (upekkha) in Buddhism. A person practices detachment only as a preparation for achieving upacara samadhi in mindfulness meditation. Upacara samadhi is an objective, calm, undistracted, and focused state of mind that is conducive to psychological insight (which, in turn, is required to overcome suffering). Hence, the only reason a monk may contemplate the stages of decomposition of a corpse is to temporarily suspend any attachment to the body in order to reach upacara samadhi more easily. To practice detachment as a way of life has no value, because it does not generate insight. People who practice detachment without practicing a lot of meditation are merely increasing their suffering and delaying insight for another lifetime!
QUESTION 1: What is the benefit of aesthetic contemplation, if any?
ANSWER TO QUESTION 1: While the contemplation of beauty does not lead directly to insight, it is an indicator of progress for those people who value the experience of beauty.
QUESTION 2: Is feeling (either vedana or 'emotion') necessary for compassion meditation?
ANSWER TO QUESTION 2: In the practice of the brahmavihara, the practices of loving-kindness (metta) and joy for others (mudita) can be sources of great joy and happiness. Of course, the contemplation of the suffering of others (which arouses compassion or karuna) is painful. The practice of upekkha (usually translated as equanimity, but better translated as objectivity) is, well, objective. There is no equivalent to “emotion” in the Pali language. In Pali, vedana merely means feeling, which is not always emotional.

Eggman, are the homework assignments done? The basic works? If not, there is no base to build on.
To get attached to aesthetic, to beauty of nature, is very needed, since one starts to practice that what gives cause to: long life, beauty, happiness and strength: Dana, Sila, Bhavana.
The contemplations for that, after having the items understood, having developed the objects of contemplation, are this six found here:
[Q&A] What should one meditate upon as a beginner? (Bhavana for Laypeople)
As for the nature (plants animals), which is really not a ground for joy to contemplate, but a place to see how poor certain existances can be, to understand the confusion, its worthy to understand The Roots of Buddhist Romanticism. To see beauty in the ugly, good in bad... to even train such is a foolish practice of the fool.
That is why real aesthetic objects are chosen. Not such without any generosity, virtue and even wisdom... nature is good to be wise reflected to develope samvega, "fear".
(Seems to be redundant questioning of yours... there is no way aside of simply putting firts generosity and then virtue just into practic, Eggman.)
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other kinds of low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]


text:
Budhist monastery rituals
I am not sure if I should ask this on this site and I apologise if I shouldn't. Just let me know and will be out of your hear. :D
I am going to go to South East Asia at the end of December and will stay there for about 5 months. I am really interested to see buddist ceremonies/festivals. I am from Romania (not a buddhist country) and there, in each region, monasteries have certain rituals which apply only for their region. I was wondering if there is anything like this in SEA as well? Or which are the rituals you would definitely want to go to? I would also like to go to monasteries where maybe you can join the muns for meditation for a day before moving on. I know you are supposed to do at least 7 days, but my partner is not really that into this type of things although he would have the patience of trying it for a day here and there. I am trying to ease him into it. :D
Please let me know what you think and again, if it was inaproprite for me to ask this here, I apologise.

Welcome to the site. Just to repeat what you asked, I think you're asking two questions: the second question is, "are there places (monasteries) where I can join in meditation for 1 day?"; and the first question is, "are there region-specific rituals, and/or rituals that you would want to go to?" in South East Asia.

You might (I don't know) also get some answer if you asked this question on Travel.SE

I believe Singapore can be a good stop to visit many Buddhist Temples from different regions. There are

Thai Buddhist Temple
Burmese Buddhist Temple
Sri Lanka Buddhist temple
Buddha Tooth Relic Temple and Museum at ChinaTown

For meditation, it might be quite difficult as you might need to join a group to mediate in a specific place or find a quiet place inside the temple to meditate.
If you are visiting Yangon in Myanmar/Burma Country, you should definitely visit Shwedagon Pagoda. You can find a lot quite place to meditate and you might also see a large crowd celebrating Buddhist festival at Full-Moon day.


text:
What is life-continuum?
In the book Path Of Purification It talks about

The explanation of the meaning here( " talking about the five jhana mastery mostly mastety if Adverting " ) is this. When he emerges from the first jhána and first of all adverts to the applied thought, then, next to the adverting that arose interrupting the life-continuum, either four or five impulsions
  impel with that applied thought as their object. Then there are two life-continuum
  [consciousnesses]. Then there is adverting with the sustained thought as its
  object and followed by impulsions in the way just stated. When he is able to
  prolong his conscious process uninterruptedly in this way with the five jhána
  factors, then his mastery of adverting is successful. But this mastery is found at
  its acme of perfection in the Blessed One’s Twin Marvel (Paþis I 125), or for others on the aforesaid occasions. There is no quicker mastery in adverting than
  that.

I'm having trouble understanding what they mean here. What iis life-continuum? It said in brackets consciousness so it's disrupting consciousness of the jhana object? What i guess they mean is once you come out of jhana use applied thought to focus on the things that intruped that jhana then once you have "applied" applied thought move to focus on the objects with sustain thought once you can do this uninterrupted you mastered adverting?

life-continuum is Bhavanga-citta. It's the filler thought moment/moments between every 2 thoughts/experiences. It keeps you from dying when the senses cannot provide an object to the mind. When you are in dreamless sleep, your mind mostly has Bhavanga-cittas.
It's the first thought moment in your life and the last thought moment of the previous life. It is a resultant thought moment, thus Karmicly neutral. For humans and above, it's always a result of good Karma. For hell-beings, it's a result of bad Karma.

I guess this is from the Abhidhamma?

Abhidhamma & Visuddhimagga

So when they say advert to the things that intruped that what do that mean? Since i thought it was an object but as you stated it's not

Wait could they mean you advert your attention to the things that broke your consciousness-less mind?

Yes, it just means the object that interrupted the Bhavanga process. Read this: Mind in its passive and active forms

Update: I fully understand this is Mastery of adverying being able to enter the jhana factors right after you emerge from yhe jhana. That what they mean by advert to that which arouse interrupting life continuum. That the jhana factors cause focussing on them will not have pauses in thought but a steady focus steam

Life-continuum is the same kamma's fruit of one's first born mind. The life-continuum arisen by kamma to keep the fruit go on the kamma's way, such as a human birth living in a human based mind and body, or a animal birth living in a animal based mind and body.