text:
A practice built on positive incentive?
I am thinking about making a practice based on enjoyment to help gain motivation to do stuff  - a positive incentive  but not sure how to do it (or even if i should do it)  -  all tips appreciated even if its just one
i do correct vipassana meditation finished with a short metta meditation  - still i dont enjoy it really not the 1 minute meditation not the 2 hour meditation
and i am aware of benefits of the practice from study and from experience but not enough to combat the hindrances -  and since i stop practicing for few months try and stop try and stop my motivation is really low
maybe if i say i eat a piece of chocolate/listening to music/watching videos etc  after i meditate ?  but that is to much greed and will probably harm the meditation cause i will think about the "prize" at the end
im asking based on an answer i got here on a different topic which made me think about it :

There is a big obvious difference between doing something because you
  want it and enjoying the effort, VERSUS beating yourself with a stick
  like a horse. In one case you are working hard but you're enjoying it,
  you doing what you believe in, you're getting deep sense of
  satisfaction from it. In the other case, you are forcing yourself,
  breaking yourself, torturing yourself - you don't really believe in
  it, you hate yourself for doing it, but you're still doing it.
My teacher said that the feeling of special enjoyment or satisfaction
  is a key criteria for success in spiritual practice. If you're doing
  too little, you will not be happy with yourself. If you are pushing
  yourself too hard, you will not be happy with yourself. If you are
  doing it right, it may be hard and painful - but you will feel happy
  and proud and inspired.

from  :
Pushing onself too much ?

i do correct vipassana meditation finished with a short metta meditation - still i dont enjoy it really not the 1 minute meditation not the 2 hour meditation

Vipassana meditation is not meant to feel enjoyable. It might sometimes but thats not really the point of the practice. The practice is undertaken in order to purify the mind from defilements. Its a purification process.

maybe if i say i eat a piece of chocolate/listening to music/watching videos etc after i meditate ? but that is to much greed and will probably harm the meditation cause i will think about the "prize" at the end.

This approach defeats the purpose and will just increase delusion and craving.

"Vipassana meditation is not meant to feel enjoyable. It might sometimes but thats not really the point of the practice. The practice is undertaken in order to purify the mind from defilements. Its a purification process."  ... i am aware of that

"This approach defeats the purpose and will just increase delusion and craving."   i really need to find some kind of approach cause after years of this where i take this few month breaks with no control over it  - im really out of motivation  and the periods when im not on a "brake"  are getting shorter and shorter   and breaks longer and longer

and this positive incentive approach is something i didnt try yet

@breath. You should try it and see if it works for you or not. Just keep in mind that one is trying to free oneself from Samsara and not diving deeper into it.

yeah you are probably right about that part  - as you can see i also originally saw the bad side in a mundane prize  - im writing this as to "get the conversation going"  as to some idea of what a positive incentive can be

@breath. If I remember correct, you had a teacher right? A good teacher can often help one on the path. Will reply back tomorrow.

"Without joy no going on", that's a basic truth in the chain of "depending-cessation" and the path.
At first place, it's not the case that everybody might find joy in formal meditation and it's actually just one meritorious action of ten kinds.
What ever one is skilled in, one enjoys. Since everybody has certain skills, use them to sacrifice into of what is a beneficial source and outwardly it's the Sangha (either in conventional sense = community of monks, or the Sangha of the Noble ones) which serves the purpose to be a field of merits one can work on.
Sacrifice your skills, your joyful possessions there. Once you will come to a point where you gave all of your old possessions, or no more satisfy your self with the skills you own, you will naturally search for better skills and livelihoods. That's the step by step/gradual path of Dhamma.
You are not required to follow those having not done their home (basic) work, and cheat themselves with using meditation as a compensation to their incomplete ways of life.
It's like if you attentive investigate the nature and reason of people doing fitness, sports of going into fitness studios. If they would lead a proper way of life, would they need such at first place?
Have you ever seen a good hard working men in need of fitness training? Or don't they naturally appear fit and health, not so burdened by extremes?
It's required to start to change ones attitude from being a consumer to be one who tends to give at first place.
Better to Give than to Consume
It's the nature of consumer that they will be always frustrated: because they're walking the wrong path.
Once you have put into generosity, service, virtue, having gained certain debtlessness, you naturally gain the freedom to change your livelihood (hobby) into a more refined one; and objects of your hobby, which you like to tend on to gain needed pleasure and satisfaction to keep life going on, will become more refined.
If you take drugs, as suggested by some drug dealers here and there, you stay a slave of the wheel for what ever sake, but not for liberation, follow the ways of compensation and stay bound. What for? To be a "skilled" meditator? Release is the taste a wise seeks for: not a task, a skill, or any identification.
Watch out for the inwardly and outwardly Maras and Demons of defilements in all directions!
And, btw., one who is skilled, also in Vipassana, enjoys it and it's a source of pleasure, once you are skilled. You will, if really skilled, see of how much nonsense the hobby-athletics (laity) talks.

Making Tables & Chairs
It's good to make the mind pure and at peace, but it's hard. You have to start with the externals — your bodily actions and words — and work your way in. The path that leads to purity, to being a contemplative, is a path that can wash away greed, anger, and delusion. You have to exercise restraint and self-control, which is why it's hard — but so what if it's hard?
It's like taking wood to make a table or make a chair. It's hard, but so what if it's hard? The wood has to go through that process. Before it can become a table or a chair, we have to go through the coarse and heavy stages.
It's the same with us. We have to become skillful where we aren't yet skillful, admirable where we aren't yet admirable, competent where we aren't yet competent.

And now think that this is the way of the professionals already, which means that most actually polish and work on bark in their wild growing forests of defilements. How ever skilled in prepearing chairs from bark, they will not last long and it's clear that all those around will wonder of what they are doing there.
So go for release and to abandon all skills and the skills needed, just to gain the heart wood
If not having just worked on forming chairs of bark, you will have the merits not lost if not gaining final release but good foundation you can live and walk on, where ever you are.
"Good Labour makes (you) free!?", is a sentence that one does not like.
And if harming your self, body, then think an right effort not forgetting the advices toward the Son and harm for others when living on others pain.
And as [Buddha told a Deva](SN 1.1), how to cross over:

"I crossed over the flood without pushing forward, without staying in place."[1]
"But how, dear sir, did you cross over the flood without pushing forward, without staying in place?"
"When I pushed forward, I was whirled about. When I stayed in place, I sank. And so I crossed over the flood without pushing forward, without staying in place."
[The devata:]
  At long last I see
  a brahman, totally unbound,
  who     without pushing forward,
      without staying in place,
  has crossed     over
      the entanglements
      of the world.

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade.]

Oh no, no eating candy after meditation :)))
What I meant by "enjoying" is not superficial type of pleasure. It is the deep satisfaction of proceeding slowly, cutting off distractions, focusing, and doing something right.
This deep satisfaction is not the same as superficial pleasure. I suspect it is even different hormones on the chemical level. One is dopamine and the other is serotonin, I guess. You can see it if you try physical exercise. It feels difficult and painful on the surface, but if you don't rush and carry it through with slow determination, it gives you a deeper kind of satisfaction. At least that's been my experience.
As I said in my answer about energy, you can get satisfaction from keeping your house in order. Same way, you can get it from not rushing as you walk and maintaining good grace and posture, -- and(!) and(!) -- you can get it from mental hygiene. When you maintain mind that is stable, calm, observing everything with analysis and acceptance.
Your motivation to practice is inside you. Your real desires and values are inside you. You just need to stop "lying" to yourself. Then your practice will come from the inner source of truth, not from the books.

but i was in a good mental state in the past not only in retreates doing meditation all day long but also in doing for example 2 hours a day of meditation and other wholesome stuff  and also times of eating once a day not doing anything fir fun etc  - yet i always fall from it and the internet addiction for example is stronger than that  - the tasty foods etc

that means you're not doing what you really want. Maybe that should be your meditation. Sit for an hour and ask yourself what you really really want...

i know what i want  - control over my actions  - nibanna  -  do good avoid bad  .... the works

Control over your action, very good. That's what you want. So slow down and start being in control of your actions, don't rush don't compromise, be the master

but you know there is a difference between action and will  -  as i was in control in the past (not an arhant of course but good control)    and it all faded  -  and the more the years pass i take breaks from parctice and they get longer and longer and my will is lower and lower

Being in control of your actions means, only you decide what is right. Not the books, not other people. And when you decide, you stand on your decision 100%. If you decide for yourself, and then you do what you decided, because you think is right, you will never have problem with willpower. See what I mean? We're only weak when we have inner conflict between what we really think is right and other ideas we heard somewhere, because we don't trust ourselves. So it's not really a will power problem, it's a being true to oneself problem.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

If the mind is ready, the teacher will arise. Fear of suffering or wanting to be free from sufferings are one form of motivation. Wanting to benefit all sentient beings is also a form of motivation. These are good motivation. Worldly motivation includes wanting to lead a good life, to be rich, cure illnesses are possible.


text:
How to exercise goodwill in social circle?
Knowing that people in our social circle are not versed in the Dhamma, they seek gratification through the sense spheres (sensuality).
For example, most people like to be praised and engage in idly talk. But we know that these things strengthens the kilesas (especially when the topic is about political or social issues).
The Buddha said that the Dhamma is the greateast gift. But common social occasions are unfit to talk about the Dhamma (or even anything really meaningful which will lead to a long term benefit).
If I don't engage in idly talk with someone, He/she will probably think I'm being cold.
But if I do, I will be contributing for the increase of their attachments and unwholesome mental states.
So, I wonder if there is a proper way to exercise goodwill and merit towards someone in such situations.
Or am I thinking too much and should only intend to keep a heart of goodwill rather than make a active effort to preserve or increase their wellbeing?

Danilo,
If one understands goodwill or meritious deeds as something to nurish on, to "experiance", to gain pleasure out of it, at first place, one has failed the deeds so that they bring benefit. Practicing means to watch over causes (e.g. ones actions, state of mind) and not grasping ofter effects at fist place: "Because I like to have this, I do that..."
How ever, what ever you can contibute is aside of outwardly things for others benefit, if able to fill a lack, virtue (abstain to harm) and thoughts of goodwill. What ever they might be able and willing to take or give, that's their case. No one can help others so also others if they feel fine and have thoughts of metta torward you, might not be able to really help you out of missery. Ever thought that all around you have actually thoughts of metta torward to you?
Why would you or do you like to put nurishment into a unbenifical relation (e.g. lower than you?), if not simply for your own desire or expected rewards from it (in the sphere of sensuallity and identification), hmm?
Are you really that willing to associated with admirable people? Or do you actually seek simply after relations and like to nurish on Dhamma together? Well, there are plenty of such "feeding away the Gems social groups" and they are really hardly bound to each other :-)
So like always, the arrow can be found in the own heart and it's of cause not easy to come accross one who might point out and directly touch the suppurative focus. That's why they usually put a lot of effort into defend against those who are above them.
Do you fight them as well or do you seek after those who seem to have not a little metta for you?
Metta, if really right practiced gives realease, releases from feelings of being in dept, and does not bind or nurish for unskillfulness.
At least, hold on of what has real value:

"Bhikkhus, I do not know anything else that arouses non arisen merit [1] and fades arisen demerit[2] as good companionship. Good companions arouse non arisen merit and fades arisen demerit. This is the first.

"Bhikkhus, I do not know anything else that arouses non arisen demerit and fades arisen merit as evil companionship. Evil companions arouse non-arisen demerit and fades arisen merit. This is the second.

"Bhikkhus, the misery from the decrease of relations is nothing in comparison to the decrease of wisdom. Bhikkhus, of decreases the decrease in wisdom is miserable. This is the sixth.

"Bhikkhus, the increase of relations is nothing in comparison to increase of wisdom. Therefore you should train, we will increase in wisdom. This is the seventh.

"Bhikkhus, the misery from the decrease of wealth is nothing in comparison to the decrease of wisdom. Bhikkhus, of decreases the decrease in wisdom is miserable. This is the eighth.

"Bhikkhus, the increase of wealth is nothing in comparison to increase of wisdom. Therefore you should train, we will increase in wisdom. This is the ninth.

"Bhikkhus, the misery from the decrease of fame is nothing in comparison to the decrease of wisdom. Bhikkhus, of decreases the decrease in wisdom is miserable. This is the tenth."

Kalyāṇamittādivaggo: Good companionship and others

If wishing to grow, you have to seek for ways to step out of your usual relations and bound that you are able to find more sublim. If you just nurish around with likeminded wasters of merits, just go out for some hunts from the more sublime to go them back to nurish it of, like not proper social communities are usual working, then, what is it's benefit?
The more sublime are no more avaliable, sind having not put nurishment into a relation, your current community, relation with it, it's just a matter of time, that it will break apart and nothing has been gained aside a big belly or a hydrocephalus from filling up with unwise thought.
You asked:

Or am I thinking too much and should only intend to keep a heart of goodwill rather than make a active effort to preserve or increase their wellbeing?

What do you think?
If you find a group delighted to visit the monks (e.g. those not sitting on such tables), if you find relation and ways to nurish it, if you invest into the more sublime rather to nurish on the inferior, that would be of benefit for you and properply the best you could do for those you "leave behind", with a heart of goodwill, compassion, joy and equanimity, approaching the some times, "Come, lets visit the monks and do something for our longtime benefit."
If comming, good. If not: even more release or?

"Jivaka, when a lay follower himself is consummate in conviction and encourages others in the consummation of conviction; when he himself is consummate in virtue and encourages others in the consummation of virtue; when he himself is consummate in generosity and encourages others in the consummation of generosity; when he himself desires to see the monks and encourages others to see the monks; when he himself wants to hear the true Dhamma and encourages others to hear the true Dhamma; when he himself habitually remembers the Dhamma he has heard and encourages others to remember the Dhamma they have heard; when he himself explores the meaning of the Dhamma he has heard and encourages others to explore the meaning of the Dhamma they have heard; when he himself, knowing both the Dhamma & its meaning, practices the Dhamma in line with the Dhamma and encourages others to practice the Dhamma in line with the Dhamma: then to that extent he is a lay follower who practices both for his own benefit and for the benefit of others." On Being a Lay Follower

Fullfil the duties you have as a recipient, fullfil you duties toward the releations of your desires. And if the fulfillment of the duties goes agains of what is good, praisworthy and requires harm, quite to further nurish the relation In that way you arrive at good relations if avaliable to you or to minimum do not nurish unhealty bound for times later, when circumstances might be better. At least don't forget that you could be the only one able to escape the circle of death and suffering amoung your tripes and what would be the benefit for all if you don't take on a seldom change for you and all others? Beings are food and nurish on food. So there is nothing that is wiser as to use useful food to seek after freedom of desire for food. If that is reached one may return but it's seldom that you might be that welcome if you can be no more regarded as giver of food they desire.
Thats is why you would never find wise or people having chanced their ancestor-ship sitting together on a table with common people and even the proper occasions for eating together with ones kind, are less and not for the sake to increase boundage.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade.]

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is there any way to decipher sensations in the body during Vipassana?
Can we know what kind of Samskars are being eradicated from the kind of sensation? Like while doing Vipassana I feel cooling or stretched sensation on forehead; itching on throat; burning & tingling in other parts. (for now).
So is there any way to know the kind of Samskars these sensations represent?

Tamas. if you read this could you explain to us what did your question meant please?  See the conversation/comments between me and Sankha Kulathantille, under Sankha's answer below.

You are not supposed to relate any physical sensation (or feeling) to any sankhara for a good reason. Because in vipassana you are practicing to see the reality as it is. This is the keystone of vipassana, to see the reality as it is, in order to discover three characteristics of all phenomenon (i.e. anicca, anatta, dukkha). Trying to find the corresponding sankhara to every feeling and sensation distracts you from this and if you insist on doing it, after a while you will find yourself playing a mental game and you'll be running in the opposite direction of vipassana's purpose.
Moreover, I think quite different sankharas can create the same physical feelings. Also many a times a neutral feeling may arise because of physical conditions (how you sit, temperature, what you ate, etc.) so it's literally impossible to find an exact sankhara for each and every sensation.
Of course, on the other hand, if you're doing vipassana and memories arises, they should not be oppressed but simply you should let them come, observe them and calmly come back to the object of meditation.
As you progress your reactions in real life will show you how you've progressed and which sankharas has been eliminated and which ones still remains.

I assume you mean "what fetters are eliminated". You cannot decipher the  eradication of fetters by any physical feeling. You are not supposed to give meanings to any feelings. You are only supposed to note them as they rise and fall. When the fetters are eliminated, you will know because they no longer arise in the mind. Here's a related answer.

Its intersting do you think "Fetter"  are ilimintated or its just a change of view  ?  my teacher who is a monk in the same tradition as ven.yuttdhammo  said to me that in practice we eliminate the hinderneces one by one  and that in some part of the retreat you take out whole brancese (if you know what im talking about)   ....  but whenver i ask about this people deny that it works this way

every time i ask someone else about this he says that the practice is more like changing of response to fetters when they arise and not a gradual reduction of fetters

It depends on the stage of the enlightenment. At the first stage you eliminate the first 3 fetters. At the 2nd stage you only weaken the 4th and 5th fetters. At the 3rd stage you eliminate 4th and 5th. Last  five fetters are eliminated when one attains Arahantship. But once a fetter is eliminated it is gone for good. There's no dispute about that among mainstream Theravada teachers.

yes i know that   - the question is do i eliminate small parts of fetters in a retreat as someone who isnt even a sotapana  (which is what the OP is  talking about in his question and describing such a thing)

Well, you can weaken your fetters. But until you eliminate them, they can always  grow back except in  the case of Sakadagami. A person who attends a retreat can be born in hell next life.

intersting so you can weaken them not only during the meditation practice  -  which is what this question suggest you can do ?

@breath I don't think that's what the question is suggesting. Fetters are weakened whenever we do good deeds. But that's temporary and insignificant.  So weakening of fetters is mostly ascribed to attaining the 2nd stage of enlightenment.

how you interpet : "Can we know what kind of Samskars are being eradicated from the kind of sensation?"   ---  and Tamas. if you read this could you explain to us what did you mean please

No the questions is asking about deciphering elimination of fetters with bodily feelings.

ok " elimination of fetters"   what does that mean ?

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

It is called Satipatthana Practice, the result is Vipassana loosely "clear-vision". Satipatthana is translated usually as "Frames of Reference" or "Foundations of Mindfuless", however translation there is Four of them: States of the Body, Mindstates, States of Feelings and Particular States (Hindrances). The practice is discernment of various experiences within the Four

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

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


text:
What happens to one in a locked in syndrome?
Most theologies give no perspective on persons who are in "locked-in syndrome", minimal conscious states and persistent vegetative syndrome. Due to my own experiences I've pondered and explored but i would like to know your opinions on a modern age problem, where people survive more traumatic incidents on the body but show no or minimal reaction to their environment, this state is life or death seems almost like a modern to pheonomna but has the topic actually been covered before in the history of Buddhism? If so, which sources please.

"Locked-in" seems to mean conscious but paraplegic ... unlike "vegetative" which is assumed to be unconscious. I'd guess these states are "modern" if the patient cannot eat (cannot swallow) I guess that's likely to need modern medicine to stay alive ... otherwise these states might be known as "dying".

Yes, most are "pegged" for food and water, in both cases. The two terms came later than PVS though which might be removed as a status. It is not uncommon for misdiagnosis between all these states so the only differences are observable which could mean the fmri etc is stimulating a reaction rather than seeing the state.

Locked in syndrome doesn't equal paraplegic at all actually. Most could have movement caused through muscle restriction, consciousness and/or reactionary.

Ignoring Wikipedia my https://www.google.fr/search?q=Locked-in+syndrome says "complete paralysis of all voluntary muscles" and "deefferented" and "paralysis of the limbs and face and inability to speak". Anyway I guess that historically it's one of the possible stages of dying. If you want an answer about ethics you might read about Tukdam; and/or read answers and comments to How long to leave a body undisturbed after death? for insight into ethics at a death-bed and/or long-term life-support.

Thanks for your suggestions. Yes it's complicated without first hand experiences. Perhaps if I use the word "coma" it's more historically known in different cultures. A PVS patient used to be considered as anyone in a coma for longer than a year (two years after head trauma). Now one could be minimally conscious (locked-in) or PVS based on whether they show a regular sleep cycle or subtle reactions which don't necessarily indicate consciousness. I.e. body movements, eye tracking

Isn't this a medical question? What do you mean by "what happens"? As in where they are born when they die or why they get LIC according to Buddhism?

I'm keen to not push my own views so I can describe the state medically from a neutral point. Ethically and spiritually, it's a long list of possibilities, i.e. is it force feeding if someone's body is not willing to consume food itself? Does eye tracking and slight body movements mean we should treat the person as living or disturbed body at death like suggested above.

Sorry if I was/am unclear -- I'm not saying that conscious paralysis (e.g. with eye tracking) is somehow analogous to death and shouldn't be treated; I was saying that before modern medicine maybe people couldn't sustain life in such conditions, couldn't be treated ... that was a reaction to your writing a modern age problem and has the topic actually been covered before in the history of Buddhism? If so, which sources please in the OP, i.e. guessing that historically this would have been a "patient is untreatable and cannot even be fed" event.

No need to apologise. Even eye tracking does not indicate whether consciousness is there at all. My view comes from western history so I could be wrong that the state is modern so I'm open to all ideas. I found it interesting in Tukdam that "the body does not become stiff". As this persons body has become tighter and tighter due to muscle wasting etc - I would now find some comfort if this occurs after death. This person was only 17 at the time of the incident, now 30, so his body is what kept him alive medically. Spiritually I feel like this is either a journey or he has already passed.

Death, in the realm of humans and Devas (for them), where Dhamma can be understood, is defined with "break up of the body", so a "unconscious" human being should not be regarded as no more living as long the body "works", ages.

"And what is aging and death, what is the origin of aging and death, what is the cessation of aging and death, what is the way leading to the cessation of aging and death? The aging of beings in the various orders of beings, their old age, brokenness of teeth, grayness of hair, wrinkling of skin, decline of life, weakness of faculties — this is called aging. The passing of beings out of the various orders of beings, their passing away, dissolution, disappearance, dying, completion of time, dissolution of the aggregates, laying down of the body — this is called death. So this aging and this death are what is called aging and death. With the arising of birth there is the arising of aging and death. With the cessation of birth there is the cessation of aging and death. The way leading to the cessation of aging and death is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view... right concentration.

"When a noble disciple has thus understood aging and death, the origin of aging and death, the cessation of aging and death, and the way leading to the cessation of aging and death... he here and now makes an end of suffering. In that way too a noble disciple is one of right view... and has arrived at this true Dhamma."

There is the state of (trans.asaññasatta) "Unconscious" - being, a realm of existence not desired and maybe therfore not much talk about.
How ever, even if "really" in an asañña state (lit. "No rememberance, no perception"), there are still the mental factors, consiting with form/object a living being (satta), of cause very subtle [Sadhu for giving the right spelling of this word, N. Chris].
So this asañña state might fit to you question.
There is also, what is called, "caught in concentration" in meditation, one might know such "unconscious" states, often called "daydreaming", when the mind is firm on a mind object concentrated (possible the arupa-realms of existence.
One in such a state is not easy to get to mind again, like "paralyzed", similar maybe with shock.
It's reported that Samadhi sessions can last for extreme long time, of course it has it's limits in regard of physical nurishment, but obiviously, the mind can nurish it self, for a long time, without much external imput. (see the four kinds of nurishment).
It's not so easy to say if this states might be in the sphere of asañña or actually arupa states, which might also explain the attentive discussion under the question, assuming two different phenomenas.
Of cause, in a very materialistic world of thoughts, the "mindless" states of beings will increase, either as general "ignorance" or such as the "medical" recognised phenomenas.
A modern wrong view, present in that what is called "secular Buddhism", is the case, the Buddha told, "when a asaññasatta falls out of its existence and gains a human life, this and that "materialistic" views are hold.

"There are, bhikkhus, certain gods called 'non-percipient beings.' When perception arises in them, those gods pass away from that plane. Now, bhikkhus, this comes to pass, that a certain being, after passing away from that plane, takes rebirth in this world. Having come to this world, he goes forth from home to homelessness. When he has gone forth, by means of ardor, endeavor, application, diligence, and right reflection, he attains to such a degree of mental concentration that with his mind thus concentrated he recollects the arising of perception, but nothing previous to that. He speaks thus: 'The self and the world originate fortuitously. What is the reason? Because previously I did not exist, but now I am. Not having been, I sprang into being.'
Brahmajāla Sutta: The All-embracing Net of Views

So generally this phenomena, in all it's small and larger appearances, not at least by such so guided practice and teachings, will increase. And (provoking), where should all the trees have gone to in this days :-)
Such as classical taught Zen-ways in modern times, put away of all thinking, is a good chance to reach the asanna states by zazen. Not being aware of anything, one might believe "coming and going, from and to emptiness"

Brahma Realm of Perceptionless Beings (Asañña-Satta Brahma-Loka), kindly given by Bhante Paññobhāsa.
--This  Realm presumably is the destination of contemplatives who gain 4th jhāna without any corresponding insight; it is a kind of heavenly dead end. The beings here are virtually unconscious, and remain motionless like statues for many billions of years. After approximately 500 world cycles (the same lifespan as in Realm 21) a thought finally arises in their mind, and they immediately vanish from this strange Heaven and reappear somewhere else. Aside from the fact that they gain no benefit from this, there is the philosophical question of whether Perceptionless  Brahmas are really there at all, as of course they are completely oblivious to their environment, and would experience absolutely no passage of time while in this non-state. They would seem to be inanimate  objects, or at best comatose bodies. At any rate, this is an example of  a high Heaven Realm that is not all that great of a place to go to—skillful meditators may as well avoid it.

Might it help in the desire to get an releasing answer: leading to disenchantment in regard of conditioned things and issues not leading to the unconditioned, by seeing the dangers in this world.
Practical, to prevent from such existences, approaching the wise, and ask
'What is skillful, venerable sir? What is unskillful? What is blameworthy? What is blameless? What should be cultivated? What should not be cultivated? What, having been done by me, will be for my long-term harm & suffering? Or what, having been done by me, will be for my long-term welfare & happiness?'
...makes one being not so much in danger of unbenefical states to gain and then just taken on this, act-ually walk for beyound.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade]


text:
Madhyamaka, Mādhyamaka, Madhyamika, Mādhyamika?
Two spelling/usage questions about two Sanskrit words common in Buddhism.
First, what is the difference between Madhyamaka (ending in "aka") and Madhyamika (ending in "ika"). I have seen that the former is the doctrine or school while the latter is an adherent of that school. Is that correct?
Second, are either or both properly rendered in the Latin alphabet with or without the straight bar diacritical over the initial a: Madhyamaka or Mādhyamaka; Madhyamika or Mādhyamika.
I have seen it both ways in numerous contexts.

From Wikipedia:

Madhya is a Sanskrit word meaning "middle" ... The -ma suffix is a superlative, giving madhyama the meaning of "mid-most" or "medium". The -ka suffix is used to form adjectives, thus madhyamaka means "middleling". The -ika suffix is used to form possessives, with a collective sense, thus mādhyamika mean "belonging to the mid-most" (the -ika suffix regularly causes a lengthening of the first vowel and elision of the final -a).
In a Buddhist context these terms refer to the "middle path" (madhyama pratipada) between the extremes of annihilationism (ucchedavāda) and eternalism (śassatavāda), for example:
Kātyāyana Sūtra: Thus, the Tathāgata teaches the Dharma by a middle path avoiding both these extremes.

Madhyamaka refers to the school of thought associated with Nāgārjuna and his commentators.
Mādhyamika refers to adherents of the Madhyamaka school.

Note that in both words the stress is on the first syllable.

So if we are to believe this, it looks like "madhyamaka" with a short "a" is the middle path school, and "mādhyamika"s with a long "a" are its followers.

Thanks! But oh, Wikipedia -- why didn't I look there before asking, as usual? ;))))

Well... Duh, of course I hoped you did. Actually, I vaguely remembered this -ika/-aka thing even without Wikipedia. So it did ring a bell. But I thought they had a nice explanation of suffixes, I can't really imagine what a better answer would talk about.


text:
How does the 2nd Noble truth explain the cause of suffering-as-suffering (e.g. resulting from a severe burn)?
I would like to ask question regarding the 4 Noble Truths. The second Noble Truth broadly speaking is that suffering is a result of craving, aversion and ignorance. I can see how this can been seen as a cause of suffering-as-change (Viparinama-dukkha), and suffering-as-conditions (Sankhara-dukkha); but can not relate craving, aversion and ignorance to suffering-as-suffering (Dukkha-dukkha). For example how can the cause of suffering resulting from a severe burn be explained by those three factors?

See also this question: Experiencing physical pain

Suffering arises due to aversion to the physical pain of the burn. The physical pain itself is not suffering.

Dukkha-dukkha is just painful feelings accompanied by craving. Painful feelings are simply feelings. In the case of severe burns, one would experience a lot of painful feelings. But it is still just a physical feeling like any other physical feeling. It becomes suffering only when you wish it to go away. That is called Vibhava-tanha. In other words, the craving for a certain experience to go away causes you suffering.

Cūḷavedallasutta:

Miss, how sukkha-vedanā clearly appears as sukkhā, and dukkhā?

Āvuso visākā, sukkhā-vedanā clearly appears as sukkhā when it's arising, and dukkhā
  when it's changed (vipariṇāma;vanish).
Dukkhā-vedanā clearly appears as dukkhā when it's arising, and sukkhā when it's
  changed.
Adukkhamasukhā-vedanā clearly appears as sukkhā when it's arising simultaneously with vijjā, dukkhā when it's arising simultaneously with avijjā.

Note: Above sutta talking about the clearly appearing, so the answers mentioning just the  adukkhamasukhā-vedanā, which harder to appear clearly than the other vedanas. But naturally, avijjā can arise with every vedanā in S.N. Saḷāyatanavagga, nirāmisasutta.
In paṭiccasamuppāda, dependent origination:

Every steps are arising simultaneously with phassa, vedanā, saññā,
cetanā, jīvitindriya, and manasikāra in S.N. Nidānavagga, Samanupassanāsutta.
Also, every taint steps, craving & aversion, are arising simultaneously with avijjā, in Samanupassanāsutta, too.
So,  caving causes the first Noble Truth, such as dukkadukkha. Because avijjā arising simultaneously with taṇhā, sukhā/dukkhā/adukkhamasukkhā vedanā, and bodily/verbal/mental apuññābhi-saṅkhāra, that causes, not simultaneously, The first Noble Truth, bad resultants (dukkha-vipāka) which arising simultaneously, such as viññāṇa, nāna&rūpa, saḷayatana, phassa, dukkhā (dukkhadukkha)/adukkhamasukkhā vedanā, etc.
But,  ariyamagga causes the third Noble Truth. Because vijjā arising simultaneously with sukhā/adukkhamasukkhā vedanā, and bodily/verbal/mental puññābhi-saṅkhāra, that causes, not simultaneously, saupādisesanibbānadhātu, ariya's life, which leading to anupādisesanibbānadhātu, the third Noble Truth.

See the path of purification, CHAPTER XVII — THE SOIL OF UNDERSTANDING (CONCLUSION): DEPENDENT ORIGINATION, for more detail.

The "problem" might be that one is to much attached to see cause and effect as a straight linear pattern.
Suffering with suffering shows good the fact, that phenomenas are not only caused by past actions, but also how reaction is giving at the present and actually there is the door of release and the chain works here in a more subtly way, in a manifold smaller scale. If taking the raw tool, used to, to investigate, the picture is certainly blurred. That's why refined states of awarness are required, lack of clinging/maintaining (to objects of odentification) is nessesary to do not only see the cause of suffering but also the cessation as it act-ually comes into being.
Discernment: Right View, in wings of awakening, might be supportive to clear up doubts.
That is way it is good to understand depending origination as depending co-arising and to understand "from this comes that" and/or "with the arising of this, that arises".
Or let it be explained with simply words:

It’s like this knife: “I want to lift up just its blade, but the back of the blade will have to come along as well.” Learn to think in this way. Wherever there are causes, things can arise again. They won’t stop.
Still, Flowing Water

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade]

The 2nd noble truth states the arising (samudhaya) of suffering is due to craving that leads to new 'becoming' or 'ego-existence' (bhava). In other words, craving without becoming does not lead to the arising of suffering.

And this, monks, is the noble truth of the origination of stress: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion &
  delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual
  pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming.
SN 56.11

The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual
  pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming: This, friend
  Visakha, is the origination of self-identification described by
  the Blessed One."
MN 44

The audio lecture 4. Noble Truth of Dukkha's Origin (part 1 | part 2) will provide a proper explanation.

The Second Noble Truth states that there is an origin of suffering and that the origin of suffering is attachment to the three kinds of
  desire: desire for sense pleasure (kama tanha), desire to become
  (bhava tanha) and desire to get rid of (vibhava tanha). This is the
  statement of the Second Noble Truth, the thesis, the pariyatti. This
  is what you contemplate: the origin of suffering is attachment to
  desire.
Ajahan Sumedho


text:
What is your Dhamma?
I am trying to understand Dhamma. If people ask me what is my Dhamma I say I am XXX , which explains my behavior to them.
Suppose I ask you the same question ,What is your Dhamma? ,then what will be your answer?

Are you asking what the word "Dhamma" means, again?

No... I am asking what is your Dhamma ?

Also, a polling question. I vote to close this.

agreed. DV is repeating same question.

What is your Dhamma?

One cannot really have ones "own" Dhamma. The Dhamma is timeless and impersonal and cannot be owned by anyone.
Furthermore, the Dhamma is discovered..
In the Nagara Sutta, the Buddha teaches how he discovered an ancient Path, the Noble Eightfold Path, and by following it he came to experience the cessation of aging and death (conditioned reality).

"... So too, bhikkhus, I saw the ancient path, the ancient road travelled
  by the Perfectly Enlightened Ones of the past. And what
  is that ancient path, that ancient road? It is just this Noble
  Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech,
  right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right
  concentration. I followed that path and by doing so I have directly
  known aging-and-death, its origin, its cessation,and the way leading to its cessation ..."
-- SN 12.65: The City, p. 603, Bodhi transl.

I guess you are saying that by following Noble Eightfold Path one discovers impersonal and absolute Dhamma.

See also "Sabbe Dhamma Anatta" ("anatta" implies "This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self").

When people ask "What is your Dhamma?", they usually mean what are the moral principles you try to live by? In other words, what is your religion? So if you are a Buddhist, you can simply say 'Buddhism', unless you are purposefully trying to give a complicated answer.

Am I a Buddhist ? I truly believe in the doctrine given by Buddha.

If you take refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma and the Sangha, you are a Buddhist.

When you state "believe" (with rational faith not with blind faith) is not bad as initiative to Buddhism. But Buddhist teaching is not "come and believe" but "come and see" (with your wisdom). Believing is not seeing. This is what Buddhism blossoms in the world among other religions and philosophies.

@danukashewantha I see what you're saying about "faith"; but I'm not sure I can tell any difference between "I believe that X" and "It is my view that X" and "I observe that X".

@cw it seems you are trying to build some gross logic upon "faith" and "believe" so I am not asking YYY as result will be XY,XY,XY to me!

I say YYY! When you ask question What is your? answer has to be "our Dhamma",Dhamma is not property of any body and do you agree below? If yes, you are answered or do you have any counter question?
1.If simplified Dhamma as teaching of Buddha. It's also interpreted as behavior or process of nature. E.g when you consider three characteristics(anatta,dukkha,anicca); those are exists in nature and can be observed with our wisdom. Simply Dhamma is how nature is operated or functioned with its fundamental laws and constants.
2.As a Buddhists we accept with wisdom Dhamma as teaching of Buddha.E.g When you consider three characteristics with your wisdom they don't need labels and they are fundamental and basics of nature. Once Buddha declared 2500 years ago it with his wisdom then we can accept with our wisdom in our capacity. If any religious leader declare some thing and not cope with human wisdom and dogma can't be consider as Dhamma. If you are not Buddhist it's better to consider Dhamma "how nature is operated or functioned(or behavior) with its fundamental laws and constants.


text:
Why don't animals(animal realm) commit suicide?
We all know that suicide has been totally refused in Buddhism as unwholesome act.
suicide can be observed in human realm but why not in animal realm?

I'm not sure that they don't, not sure that it is never observed -- sometimes an old dog walks in front of a car for example, and is killed, and I wonder if they knew what they were doing.
But your question reminds me of a poem, by a non-Buddhist author, it's short and says:

Self-Pity
I never saw a wild thing
sorry for itself.
A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough
without ever having felt sorry for itself.

It's a famous poem, striking, maybe worth considering from a Buddhist perspective.
I'm not even sure about that poem, though, not sure that it's true either: its author didn't always write kindly even about people (perhaps he was wrong about animals, too) -- it's hard to be sure of others' motives.
Animals sometimes feel sad, I'm pretty sure of that, and apparently mourn their dead; but perhaps self-pity depends on the ability to tell (or fabricate) a story about oneself: which, maybe, animals don't.

Just for information, the poem is by D.H. Lawrence.

@CW :When I raised this question I was thinking that similar to question "from where the colors of flower come from?" asked by kid. How ever i feel there is a pretty good philosophy inside this question. As same way I hope you will see some thing deep in my question.

suicide is a very sensitive subject.  Buddha said in Channa Sutta that suicide is not always blame worthy.  Only when it is done to leave current condition to find a new one is (blame worthy).

Sāriputta, if someone gives up this body and seizes another, I say it is a fault. In the bhikkhu (Channa) that fault is not apparent.

IMO Buddha did not elaborate much about suicide because people might have taken it out of context and create a cult such as the
 Heaven's Gate.  In case of Channa Bhikku, He might have reached enlightenment during his dying process????  Sutta tells us he was making fast progress during his final hours per conversation with Ven Sariputta.
Channa Sutta
PS.  Some species of mouse have been known to commit suicide for some reasons.

Physical animals appear to function on programmed instinct rather than on 'self'. For example, animals, generally, have sex for reproduction rather than for self-affirmation (therefore they do not get heartbroken & are detached in child birth) and animals, generally, do not engage in greed or random violence but are only violent when hunting for food or protecting territory.
Where as people commit suicide due to heartbreak, loneliness, financial problems, trauma from war (see 15 Common Causes Of Suicide: Why Do People Kill Themselves?), which is related to ideas of 'self', which in Buddhism is 'delusion'.
In the Pali, suttas, the term 'animal' is used for a lack of Dhamma, as follows:

Bhikkhus, from
  actions born of greed, hate and delusion a hellish being, an animal
  existence (tiracchānayoni), a ghostly sphere (pettivisayo) or some other bad state would be evident.
AN 6.39

Now on that occasion the wanderers of other persuasions had come together in a gathering and were sitting, discussing many kinds of
  bestial (animal) topics, making a great noise and racket. AN 10.93

The world would have fallen into promiscuity, as with goats, sheep, chickens, pigs, dogs, and jackals. But as these two bright principles
  protect the world, there is discerned respect for mother… and the
  wives of other honored persons. AN 2.9

In the Pali suttas, the term 'human' is used for virtue & wisdom, as follows:

Bhikkhus, a god, a human or any other good state would not be evident from actions born of greed, hate and delusion. AN 6.39

Sooner, I say, would that blind turtle, coming to the surface once every hundred years, insert its neck into that yoke with a single hole
  than the fool who has gone once to the nether world would regain the
  human state. For what reason? Because here, bhikkhus, there is no
  conduct guided by the Dhamma, no righteous conduct, no wholesome
  activity, no meritorious activity. Here there prevails mutual
  devouring, the devouring of the weak. For what reason? Because,
  bhikkhus, they have not seen the Four Noble Truths. What four? The
  noble truth of suffering … the noble truth of the way leading to the
  cessation of suffering.
SN 56.47

While some might possibly consider what I am saying as posting hurtful content on Buddhism SE, it seems quite obvious from the teachings of the Buddha that the word 'animal' in Buddhism does not refer to physical animals but to people having a mind like an animal (i.e., a mind without Dhamma). In other words, physical animals do not commit suicide but people without Dhamma, enslaved to both instinct & self-view, commit suicide.
Therefore, by practising & realising Dhamma, the inclination towards suicide may be overcome. The suttas say:

Beings (sattā) are few who that leave an animal existence (tiracchānayoniyā) & reappear (paccājāyanti) as humans
  (manussesu)… those beings are more numerous that reappear in hell…. For
  what reason? They have not realised the Four Noble Truths.
SN 56.102 to 131

In short, in Buddhism, the term 'tiracchānayoniyā' ('animal existence') refers to living without Dhamma. People in the tiracchānayoniyā realm can fall into hell, prompting suicide, or, otherwise, they can rise up into the human realms by taking refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma & Sangha.

How can an animal take refuge? Just be reminded on the story of the ordained Naga as well: even more common animals are not able to grow into the Dhamma. So it might be the talk on gifted, not common animals, capable to keep the Uposatha, or?

The sutta (SN 56.102 to 131) says animal can realise the 4 noble truths. Ajahn Buddhadasa said: "People language is used by the ordinary people who don't understand Dhamma very well and by those worldly people who are so dense that they are blind to everything but material things. Then, there is the language which is spoken by those who understand reality (Dhamma), especially those who know and understand reality in the ultimate sense. This is another kind of language" http://www.redrat.net/blackhole/cessation.htm

Merely in some slaves liberation dreams and gospels, my person guesses: "sutta says animal..." * wuff * got it? Me "fears" no.


text:
Can I practice Buddhism on my own?
As I live in an extremely Christian centered country, and am still a closeted non-christian (if that makes sense), it's hard for me to just join a temple (there are none) or a community/sangha. Is it very important that I do, or can I practice Buddhism on my own?

You don't have to join a physical Buddhist community or temple. Instead you can use online resources for learning and be part of virtual Buddhist communities on the Internet. You can also practice the Noble Eightfold Path on your own.
A classic book for a beginner to read is "What the Buddha Taught" by Walpola Rahula, which can be downloaded here.
The Basics of Buddhism podcast series by the Buddhist Society of Western Australia (BSWA) seems to be good. Ajahn Brahm, who features in some of these podcasts, is also a famous speaker on Youtube.
Two good beginner articles to read are The Buddha and His Dhamma by Bhikkhu Bodhi and An Introduction to the Buddha, Dhamma, & Sangha by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
Tricycle's Buddhism for Beginners has some nice articles.
If you want to feel close to a Buddhist community, watch the live and recorded videos of the BSWA on their Youtube Channel. During the live sessions, you can submit questions. Sometimes they have live events like the five precepts initiation ceremony on Wesak Day and the occasional monk ordination ceremony.
You can learn the basics of Buddhist meditation as taught by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu either using the booklet or the Youtube videos. You can join the online meditation courses also, where you could have interaction with other course participants.
Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu has also written many great answers on this website, which would be helpful to a beginner. His YouTube channel also has many good videos for beginners.
When you want to deep-dive into the teachings of the Buddha, use the accesstoinsight.org website's Self-guided Tour of the Buddha's Teachings. The book "In the Buddha's Words" by Bhikkhu Bodhi is also highly recommended.
And of course, Buddhism SE, SuttaCentral and DhammaWheel are a few other online Buddhist communities you can participate in.

Very good and comprehensive answer, +1.

yes indeed very good instructions to beginner and addition to above I suggest first read the "kalama Sutta" and start your journey towards enlightenment. wish you may gain courage and wisdom to realization and understanding and serve the worlds with your achievements.


text:
Is it "bad" to want a "materialistic" happiness?
After reading several articles and a book about Buddhism, I now feel a bit uncertain about what Buddhism actually is about. Am I not allowed to dance? To sing? To fall in love? Is the purpose of Buddhism to become a munk or nun? To meditate and never get a taste of life?
Is it "bad" to want to travel? Is it "bad" to want to be happy and/or content?
Is Buddhism about finding happiness in Nirvana? Is that really it? Is it not about being happy where we currently are? Are we not allowed to truly live in the moment?
I am quite new to everything about Buddhism, and I apologize if anything I've said in this question is insulting or rude. I don't know who else I can ask questions like these. I hope someone can explain to me.

The question is not one of being "allowed" or "not allowed" things, you're taking this too much like a dogmatic religion. Buddhism is more like a form of psychotherapy that comes with its own philosophy that it needs you to understand for the method to work.
The therapeutic method comes in an if-then formulation: IF you do this, THEN that will follow; IF you don't want that to follow, THEN don't do this. Its focus is suffering and the thing it teaches you how to do is eliminate a necessary cause of suffering that is present in your own psyche and without which the suffering cannot happen. If you don't feel any suffering or don't want to eliminate it, then there's nothing to do, you can ignore the Buddhist method. If you do feel suffering, you have in Buddhism a most efficacious method of eliminating it, namely by stripping away one of its necessary causes.
The necessary cause of suffering that's contributed by your psyche is having expectations. An expectation is a certain insistence or dogmatic belief that things having to do with your life must be or remain in a specific way (this is what they call "attachment" - this insistent belief or strong expectation). Unavoidably whenever you entertain such an insistent belief you are setting yourself up for disappointment and suffering - "things must be or remain in this exact way or else... <insert negativity>" - and life, being a process of continuous change, will be all too happy to provide these violations to your expectations and produce said suffering. So to the extent to which you want to avoid suffering, to that extent you must abandon your insistent belief that the world "must" be or remain in a certain way, e.g. that you "must" keep your current level of wealth and never go lower, that everyone in your family "must" remain alive and healthy forever, that you "must" keep all your limbs forever, that you "must" benefit from your current good relationships forever etc. etc. Any of these expectations can be violated by the process of life at any time, and this will immediately cause you great suffering because of your insistent belief that these things must stay constant, especially for you, forever. But the process of the universe is not tuned to such static(!) wishes, and the sooner you understand this the more immune to suffering you will be.
So the short answer would be: sure, enjoy every kind of sense-pleasure and emotion and feeling and whatever you want to enjoy in life, BUT... if to the pleasure you also add an insistent belief (expectation, attachment) that the pleasure "must" last or stay with you for X amount of time, know that you are setting yourself up for disappointment and suffering. If you want to avoid the suffering part, just feel the pleasure that is there to be felt in the present moment and don't create any beliefs about how it should behave in the future. If it continues into the next moment, that's fine, and if it ends and is replaced by some pain in the next moment, that's fine too, because pain is also something that arises and then ceases, and doesn't last forever. Learn not to cling to things, be they pleasant or unpleasant: this is the essence of the Buddhist teaching.

"After reading several articles and a book about Buddhism, I now feel a bit uncertain about what Buddhism actually is about."
Buddhism, in essence, is about the four noble truths -- every single "Buddhism". It's about suffering, happiness, eliminating the former and cultivating the later. (See also Buddhism is kind of depressing).
"Is Buddhism about finding happiness in Nirvana? Is that really it? Is it not about being happy where we currently are?"
By the early textual tradition, in it's most dedicated form (e.g. monastic), Buddhism is the training to attain Nirvana, the permanent end of suffering. The Buddha said:

Bhikkhus, if wanderers of other sects ask you:
"For what purpose, friends, is the holy life lived under the ascetic Gotama?"
— being asked thus, you should answer them thus:
"It is, friends, for the abandoning of the fetters ... for the uprooting of the underlying tendencies ... for the full understanding of the course … for the destruction of the taints ... for the realization of the fruit of true knowledge and liberation ... for the sake of knowledge and vision ... for the sake of final Nibbāna without clinging that the holy life is lived under the Blessed One."
-- Annatitthiyapeyyala Vagga

If all Buddhism was about was being content about our current state in life, and being happy about whatever we do and what happens to us, then there wouldn't be much to teach -- or to learn.
There are buddhist teachings that focus on our contentment with whatever situation we find ourselves in, of acceptance, but there's a particular function, attitude and scope to that exercise. For example, this "acceptance" does not extends to passively accepting hindrances like sloth, to accept our lack of striving, lack of purpose or lack of dedication to eradicate defilements of the mind.
Unfortunately, this "just be happy mantra" is so repeated in buddhist circles that it seems to be equated with the entirety of Buddhism, leading to a lot of misunderstandings.
"Am I not allowed to dance? To sing? To fall in love?"
The degree to which Nirvana is pursued in this very life depends on the particular buddhist school and the personal inclination of the buddhist.
Again, by the early textual tradition, the Buddha was very accommodating to listeners of different inclinations. Some of his disciples lived "normal" lives, married with children, jobs and probably entertainments of many sorts. In buddhist lingo, these are called laymen/laywomen or householders.
However, "normal" life is a huge obstacle for attaining Nirvana. Being sensitive to the fact that many refuse to renounce it, the Buddha did not appear teaching them the more austere practices of renunciation that are appropriate for monastics fully dedicated to the path. Particularly, if these listeners have no inclination to renounce, e.g., singing and falling in love. Instead, he taught them what they could do: abandon evil actions, be good, be virtuous. And if the listener is so inclined, he seems to have also taught deeper practices like meditation as well.
So, Buddhism is a gradual path of happiness, it's not 'Nirvana or nothing'. There is progress and there are lower attainments possible even for a lay person.
At the very least, by training on the most accessible teachings alone, one may be able to create a more peaceful, easier and happier life now and for the rest of one's life. And finally, according to the tradition, one is more likely to be reborn in a realm with less suffering (until, that is, one dies from there and reappears somewhere else, a better or worse realm).
Thus, the saying in the buddhist texts:

The dhamma taught by the Buddha is good in the beginning, good in the middle, good in the end.

The teachings promotes happiness now, happiness later, and happiness after that.
That's a gist of the Buddha's teaching: extinguish suffering permanently, or at least lessen suffering.
"Is the purpose of Buddhism to become a munk or nun?"
Being a monk or nun is, theoretically, the most adequate and, perhaps, safest route towards Nirvana. "Theoretically", because monasticism around the world have difficulties living up to this ideal.
However, lay life is not disapproved or frowned upon at all. Moreover, lay buddhists are at the core of the support of monastic life and comprise the two parts of the fourfold sangha: laymen and laywomen.
So, really, it's a matter of personal choice.
"Is it "bad" to want to be happy and/or content?"
This is the whole point of Buddhism. However, there are different kinds of "happiness" and "contentment". Some of them comes back and bite us back in a pernicious way and thus are sources of suffering. For example, successfully stealing money can be a source of happiness but isn't it also a source of suffering?
Thus, abstaining from stealing is a Buddha's teaching and is not something so incompatible with lay life, certainly a lay buddhist can practice that without inconvenience.
But as one looks for a more stable kind of happiness, one discover other things that also have drawbacks. These, in Buddhism, are called sensual pleasures: those born from the senses and contact (e.g. the sight of an enticing form, the hearing of an enticing sound, etc).
At this point, the Buddha usually addresses the monks and nuns only, and speaks quite directly about the essential nature of sensual pleasures:

"Again, with sensual pleasures as the cause, sensual pleasures as the source, sensual pleasures as the basis, the cause being simply sensual pleasures, people indulge in misconduct of body, speech, and mind."
-- MN 13 (Bodhi trans.)

In a more detailed and "technical" buddhist jargon, the Buddha says:

“When one abides inflamed by lust, fettered, infatuated, contemplating gratification, then the five aggregates affected by clinging are built up for oneself in the future; and one’s craving—which brings renewal of being, is accompanied by delight and lust, and delights in this and that—increases. One’s bodily and mental troubles increase, one’s bodily and mental torments increase, one’s bodily and mental fevers increase, and one experiences bodily and mental suffering.
-- MN 149

Then, in higher training, the Buddha teaches sense restraint -- which is not something he is seen teaching lay followers as far as I can tell.
But contrary to popular thinking, the point is not to create a depressed monk or depressed nun. These sensual pleasures are "substituted" by other kinds of happiness that the monastics trains and cultivates, that are less problematic and lead straight to Nirvana.
To name just a few, the happiness of renunciation (e.g. perception that monastic life is simpler and worldly life and commitments as a burden), the happiness of full dedication to dhamma (to practice, learn and teach the eradication of suffering), the  happiness of jhāna (deep meditation states).
Because these lead to less desires, it's also easier to be content, to experience deeper contentment and long lasting contentment. Finally, when superior and simpler kinds of happiness are cultivated and grow, people tend to perceive sensual pleasures as inferior, gross, a burden, even suffering.

I'll try to give you a straight down to earth answer in which is easily understandable. Some people may want to correct me here but I'll tell you want I see as the bare bones of Buddhism.
The purpose as stated is to reduce suffering. But how much you reduced it is entirely up to you (unless you want to become a monk). You can be 1% Buddhist or 100% Buddhist but the road to Nirvana will obviously be quicker via the latter. Take the 8 precepts if you will. Think of it as a soup with different ingredients, the more you stick to the recipes outlined by Buddha the less suffering you should endure in the long run.
What you talk about or think of as pleasure is actually just a very subtle form of suffering. What happens when you stop singing and dancing and go home? You become a little sad because it's finished, right? You want to do it again next week right? Do u think next week you will be happy when it finished again?
Please don't take everything too seriously especially when starting.
Your goal imo really should be first to stop lying, stealing and killing to begin with, then work from there. You want to stop yourself from creating negative Karma, by abiding to the 3 conducts above this will help in going along the way.
Everything is pretty much linked to cause and effect (karma). You're not going to stop creating negative Karma until a lot further along. You need to understand Karma, attachment, ego-grasping; how to meditate properly and practise it among many many other things.
Don't look at Karma in such a cliched way (i love karma), by reducing the amount of negative Karma you give out, you're stopping negative karma coming back at you. Which in turn will give you a more positive rebirth and a more positive future in this life.
You can still have a materialistic lifestyle if this is what you chose. But just know that buying the new iPhone X won't give you eternal bliss, or true happiness as at some point it may get stolen. It may break or you may lose it (entering the suffering). The law of impermanence means that nothing last forever. And what you believed to be happiness isn't the same as eternal bliss :).
In my humble opinion stopping all suffering is pretty impossible as a laymen. But it doesn't mean you shouldn't strive for a happier future.
The Buddha would say that most people today suffered from mental afflictions, it's just a matter of degree. Your aim is to actually live "in the now" as thinking about past and future will create suffering in some form.
If you take everything too seriously you will end up creating negative thoughts which in turn can create negative Karma and this is exactly what Buddha trying to stop. If you break a precept and sleep on a large bed for instance, then beating yourself up about it is exactly what Buddha doesn't want. Your aim is to stop your OWN suffering, no one else's. But just remember what goes around comes around.
As a laymen, you can sleep on a normal bed. But just beware that one day your life can change and when you don't have that big cozy bed still guess who's gonna suffer?? That's right you.
Take from Buddhism what you want, as much or as little. The more you take from Buddhism the less suffering will occur in your mind.
And to me this is the core to Buddhism it's all about your mind. Learning how to protect your mind and enhance it is the Buddha's thing. If you want to have sex, have sex. But know this isn't going to give you eternal happiness. If you fall in love with the person you had sex with and they left you one day you will be the one who sufferred.
If you really want to become enlightened then give up sex, drugs and rock'n'roll, go living in the mountains with monks and meditate and practise Buddhism for the rest of your life, otherwise you can just concentrate on reducing your suffering and in turn you will lead a happier life. There's many videos on Buddhism in YouTube. If I were you go there and watch as much as you can to get a good idea of what it's about. Don't take it too serious and enjoy the feeling of freedom and peace that it can bring.
The only way you can fail with Buddhism is by not starting and by not carrying on. Try and avoid mystifying it too much to begin with, and try and avoid teachers who are hard to understand and use mystifying words as this will all make it harder to understand. All the big and new words can create too much confusion and aren't really what it's all about. Some people are very far into it and know all the fancy words and use them so freely out of habit or because they think you may be far into it as well and understand it all. While others may do it to strengthen their egos (I'm not talking about anyone on this thread by any means). I personally try and keep it simple. As this suits me best.
For me Buddhism is about freeing my mind and learning to let go of anger, hatred, jealousy and fear and becoming a more compassionate, happier and loving person.
Good luck and keep going more into it, there will be a lot to absorb but worth it.

And it's not really about living with as little as possible either, it's really about leading a happier existence by knowing your mind properly. Think of buddha as the greatest master of psychology who ever lived and a scientist who was way ahead of his time and is way ahead of this present time now. Wanting to travel, is basically a desire, and as long as you desire things you will stay stuck in the cycle of suffering. But again don t take it all too seriously as your creating your own suffering by doing so. Go and travel wherever you want, But know this isn t the answer to eternal happiness.

Am I not allowed to dance? To sing? To fall in love?

You allowed, because a lay man just has to observe 5 precepts, first. However, how you sing is how you unpracticed in buddhist training. So, to understand buddhist teaching deeper, a lay man may observe 8 precepts 1 day per week. This 8 precepts included watching/dancing-rejection, listening/singing-rejection, and making-love.

Is the purpose of Buddhism to become a munk or nun? To meditate and
  never get a taste of life?

No, buddhism purpose to enlighten nibbāna, both lay man and ordained man can meditate to enlighten nibbāna. But the ordained man is expedient to do, because of their discipline life-style. Similitude, you can learn in the university, and you can learn by yourself.

Is it "bad" to want to travel?

The buddha just cared the traveler about the risk between the travelling, see S.N. Nidānavagga Duggatasutta. Both this life travelling and the other lives travelling are very risk.
The monk still travels to search for a good place for the meditation. He happy with his life. But the monk's travelling leading to finish the cycle of traveling (dependent origination), so it is not very risk when compare to the general travelling.

Is it "bad" to want to be happy and/or content?

It is risk to happy with 5 kāmaguṇa, 5 strings tied you to 5 kāmaguna, see M.N. Mūlapaṇṇāsaka,mahādukkhakkhandhasutta.

Is Buddhism about finding happiness in Nirvana? Is that really it? Is
  it not about being happy where we currently are? Are we not allowed to
  truly live in the moment?

We can be happy with every state of life. But nibbāna is the best happiness which give the best resultant. So, no one can force you to happy with your life, but don't be sorry later, when you knew "Oh, I this happiness come with the problem, suffering" like we daily doing in M.N. Mūlapaṇṇāsaka, mahādukkhakkhandhasutta.

I am quite new to everything about Buddhism, and I apologize if
  anything I've said in this question is insulting or rude. I don't know
  who else I can ask questions like these. I hope someone can explain to
  me.

Your question is not insulting or rude. You just confuse about the benefit/ the advantage of the buddhism, because dhamma of buddhism is the hardest teaching to understand and to follow in few years. But do you know? Hard working causes the best benefit.
Someone used his whole life to train follow to the buddha's teaching, but in the end of life he still not enlighten nibbāna. This is how the buddhism's teaching hard.

Does Volapor think it's a proper Avatar to approach Dhamma and display not only words but also actions? Given the topic, it seems to be a good time to make the young man a little more aware.

The goal in Buddhism is the end of suffering. But why do you want to reach the end of suffering? The reason is to attain the only permanent happiness, which is Nibbana.
So, the mission in Buddhism is really the pursuit of happiness. The Buddha discovered that both over-indulgence and over-asceticism are not conducive to the path to the end of suffering. So, he prescribed the middle way through the Noble Eightfold Path.
If you follow the middle way, you can have long term, medium term and short term goals of happiness.
The long term goal associated with this mission is attaining Nibbana (permanent happiness). It might take multiple births, maybe even aeons to achieve this.
The medium term goal would be to try to achieve: at least stream entry for Theravada and strong cultivation of Bodhicitta for Mahayana. You can also get more info on stream entry in this YouTube video talk.
The short term goal would be to try to achieve and maintain "materialistic" happiness in this life and future lives (which includes avoiding unfortunate rebirths). At the very minimum, you need to keep the five precepts with heedfulness (appamada). Going a little further, you need to practise more of virtue (sila) with heedfulness (appamada).
This short term goal is described in the Ittha Sutta:

Long life, beauty, status, honor, heaven, high birth: To those who
  delight in aspiring for these things in great measure, continuously,
  the wise praise heedfulness in making merit.
The wise person, heedful, acquires a two-fold welfare: welfare in this
  life & welfare in the next. By breaking through to his welfare he's
  called prudent, wise.

For lay followers, there is plenty of advice on achieving the short to medium term goals in the Gihi Sutta (or Discourse to the Householder), Sigalovada Sutta, Dighajanu Sutta and Anana Sutta. The minimum training rules imposed on lay followers are the five precepts. Also see this answer for the question "Can a Buddhist own and run a billion dollar business?"
For those in a hurry to Nibbana, there are the more advanced training paths of anagarika (sort of a pre-monk or pre-nun), novice monk or nun, and fully ordained monk or nun. Please see this answer for details.

Of course you can dance, sing and fall in love. Do you think these things don't exist in Buddhist countries?
Monks forego these things but you don't have to become a monk. As a lay Buddhist, you don't even have to take the 8 precepts (where singing and dancing are mentioned) and observe uposatha days.
I don't think Buddhism is against the material. It's practical. It's more a case of understanding what is essential and what is not essential. You need to eat but not everything etc.
From Dhammapada I.11-12:

asāre sāramatino sāre cāsāradassino te sāraṃ nādhigacchanti
  micchāsaṅkappagocarā sārañ ca sārato ñatvā asārañ ca asārato te sāram
  adhigacchanti sammāsaṅkappagocarā
Thinking to be essential, what is not, seeing no essence in what is
  essential,
  they, feeding on wrong thoughts, do not discover the essence. Having known the essence as the essence, non-essential as non-essential,
  they, feeding on right thoughts, discover the essence.

So it's more about... trying to live life with as little as possible, as good as possible, and as happily as possible?

Well, as little as possible of what is unnecessary. An airplane is a very complex system but little of that complexity is excess.

Is it ok if i change materialistic happiness to pleasures through 5 sense gates (eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body)?  For those who are not ready to abandon them, Buddha taught us to know 5 things about them

casuals.
inability to sustain, or stay that way.
deliciousness.
drawbacks, adverse reactions.
and the right way to remove self from them.

Buddha compared those who are "smart" in taking 5 sensual pleasures to a dear feeding near a trap set by a hunter but smart enough to not to get trapped and smart enough to jump and run away as soon as a sight of a hunter.

Can you give (or tell me anything extra, to help me find) a reference for those two statements (i.e.: the list of 5 things to know; and, the simile of the deer)?

let me give you pali first and i will hunt down simile for you (pun intended). samudayacca (causal-sense gates+objects), atthaṅgama (impermanent, constructed with components), assāda (deliciousness- sukka vedana), ādīnava (drawbacks -decaying), nissaraṇa (right way to get out -medition and/or wisdom of a noble level, 8 fold path)

"and the right way to remove self from them", thats merely the Cockaigne lie of Dhamma seller. Enjoy sensuallity and reject self responsibility... @DeanA. Dwelling in the fire of householder equanimity...

samana Johann.  please look up "nissaraṇa". + Pasarasi Sutta MN26 "   ....the hunter cannot do with him as he likes, and when the hunter comes he can go where he wants...."  and what does  Dwelling in the fire of householder equanimity, mean?  I suggest you do more research about Buddha's teachings to house-holders.  My answer does not suggest anyone to be deep in sensual pleasures but if one does not have inclination to remove self from it, Buddha gave guild line on what to do too.  not everyone is ready for total renunciation and Buddha knew that fact very well.

oh, just came to me.  do you feel that my answer was to go head and enjoy 5 sensual pleasures as long as one rejects responsibility? That wasn't it.  the answer was "enjoy 5 sensual responsibility according to guideline given by Buddha which texts can be found at MN26.  Though technically he did not say directly enjoy them responsibly, he went on and say "look at them this way while you are at it".   that's my take on MN26


text:
Translation of Parayana - definition
Is it correct to translate 'parayana' as 'the other shore'? Or is there another and better synonym ?

A recurrent image in [Pali Canon] is of life as a raging flood — a flood of birth, aging, and death; sorrow and lamentation; stress and suffering. The purpose of spiritual practice is to find a way across the flood to the safety of the far shore [parayana].

However:

Parāyana, (Parāyaṇa) (nt.) (fr. parā+i, cp. Vedic parāyaṇa highest instance, also BSk. parāyaṇa e.g. Divy 57, 327) 1. (n.) final end, i.e. support, rest, relief S. I, 38; A. I, 155, 156 (tāṇa lena dīpa etc.); J. V, 501=VI, 375 (dīpañ ca p.).—2. (adj.—°) (a) going through to, ending in, aiming at, given to, attached to, having one’s end or goal in; also: finding one’s support in (as daṇḍa° leaning on a stick M. I, 88; A. I, 138), in foll. phrases prevalent: Amata° S. V, 217 sq.; tama° Pug. 51; Nibbāna° S. IV, 373; V, 218; brahmacariya° S. I, 234; Maccu° S. V, 217; sambodhi° D. I, 156; II, 155; Pug. 16. Cp. also Sn. 1114 (tap°=tad°, see Nd2 411); Miln. 148 (ekantasoka°); DhA. I, 28 (rodana, i.e. constantly weeping). ‹-› (b) destined to, having one’s next birth in. , e.g. Avīci° J. III, 454; IV, 159; duggati° PvA. 32; devaloka° J. I, 218; brahmaloka° J. III, 396; Miln. 234; sagga° J. VI, 329; PvA. 42, 160; sugati° PvA. 89 similarly nīlamañca° Pv. II, 25. See also pārāyana.
Pārāyana, (nt.) (late Sk. pārāyaṇa, the metric form of parāyana) the highest (farthest) point, final aim, chief object, ideal; title of the last Vagga of the Sutta Nipāta A. III, 401; Sn. 1130; Nd2 438; SnA 163, 370, 604. >
  parāyaṇa : (nt.) support; rest; relief; the final end (in cpds.) aiming at; ending in; destined to; finding one's support in.
pārāyana : (nt.) final aim; chief object.

It seems to me parayana has a connotation of "the ultimate". I guess you could also call it "completion".


text:
Buddhism on depression?
I've seen some posts (questions and answers) talking about how feeling bad... is bad. Basically that you shouldn't feel bad because of... whatever reason. It varies.
My question is... how does that affect Buddhist teens? You know, the ones controlled by their emotions. Or the ones that are depressed. Will it not act like a Circle of Depresseion, where the person becomes more depressed by thinking that they are a bad Buddhist by being depressed?
Like, you feel sad > you're not supposed to feel sad. You're supposed to be above that > you feel sadder because you are sad and you're not supposed to.
How does newly converted buddhists face that? How does any buddhist face that?
Note that this question talks about laymen, and not munks.

Hmmm that's an interesting take. It's not that feeling bad is bad. That would indeed lead to the vicious circle you describe. It's more like feeling bad is lame. It's like you're starving when your fridge is full. Or you're itching but don't know how to take shower. Or you have cockroaches in the kitchen but don't realize that keeping it clean could solve that. That's the idea.
Per Buddhism, feeling bad is not something we should feel helpless against. Despite life always giving us trouble or even completely failing us in many ways, there are ways to feel good regardless of all that. These Buddhist techniques for feeling good are not fooling oneself, not wearing pink glasses - in fact they are more real than what we're used to call "real".
Having said that, in my experience of having a teenage son (who is now 19) they can sense B.S. from nine miles away, so unless one has really mastered it in one's own life, giving them some fairy-tale explanations is not going to work. But if you have walked the path yourself and know what you're talking about, you can totally help a teenager achieve stability and agency in their own life.

I've seen some posts (questions and answers) talking about how feeling bad... is bad. Basically that you shouldn't feel bad because
  of... whatever reason. It varies.

Buddhism does not generally say people "shouldn't" feel bad. Instead, Buddhism generally points out the causes of feeling bad.

My question is... how does that affect Buddhist teens? You know, the ones controlled by their emotions. Or the ones that are depressed.

Teens may be controlled by emotions & feel depressed due to many possible reasons, such as:

Abusive or unloving home environment;
Bullying at school;
Caught up in social & materialistic expectations of the corporate media world, where they start to compare themselves to those corporate images.
Sexual hurt & rejection.

However, I doubt a teen like this can be called a "Buddhist teen".

Will it not act like a Circle of Depresseion, where the person becomes more depressed by thinking that they are a bad Buddhist by
  being depressed?

This idea is irrelevant, based on the answers above. If a Buddhist practitioner has a feeling of depression; they examine or investigate the causes of that feeling (rather than say they "should not" feel depressed).

Like, you feel sad  you're not supposed to feel sad. You're supposed
  to be above that  you feel sadder because you are sad and you're not
  supposed to.

This idea is irrelevant, based on the answers above.

How does newly converted buddhists face that? How does any buddhist face that?

Buddhism in the West is sometimes like the mass market corporate media, in trying to recruit as many people as possible, even though Buddhism may be unsuitable for those people.
As a minimum, a Buddhist should practise the five precepts, which includes not engaging in unwholesome sexual behaviours motivated by lust. In Buddhism, sexual activity is guided by compassion for the long-term welfare & well-being of oneself & others rather than motivated by mere lust or social expectations. A practicing Buddhist should not really be a slave to the sexual or sensual realm, which is generally the realm of teenage angst. The Buddhist way of life does not follow the ways of the ordinary corporate media world.

Note that this question talks about laymen, and not munks

Buddhist lay people are not expected to have sex before marriage. The Pali scriptures (DN 31) say parents are to arrange the marriage of their children. Therefore, the modern teenage angst is not really related to the Buddhist outlook but generally only to teenagers who think being a Buddhist is trendy & socially cool; like being Richard Gere, Courtney Love or Angelina Jolie.

What if a teenager is not a Buddhist only because it is trendy and socially cool, but because they truly wish to convert to Buddhism? Should they wait until they are older and more emotionally stable to convert?

Buddhism is for the overcoming of suffering, including depression. It does not matter what your age is. However, to gain benefits from Buddhism, you must be willing to abandon the common thinking of the world & clearly discern what is right & wrong. Bad parents are wrong; bullies are wrong; the corporate media is wrong; sexual carelessness is wrong; because these things bring suffering. If a teenager or any person knows what is right, i.e., truly healthy, they can be free from depression. If they must live with bad parents, they can visit a (proper trustworthy) Buddhist centre & ask for advice, support & friendship.
In summary, depression has causes. Buddhism teaches if you wish to be happy, you should train yourself to remove the causes of suffering. You must learn what love truly is, learn to love yourself & learn not be the slave of the expectations of others.

What if a teenager is not a Buddhist only because it is trendy and socially cool, but because they truly wish to convert to Buddhism? Should they wait until they are older and more emotionally stable to convert?

Wisdom, here especially what is called "emotional-wisdom" is not a matter of age and is always up to ones persons previous and current deeds. As the Buddha told, some might have an easy way, some a hard.
It's totally not a matter of age in regard od dealing with feeling, and the younger one is learning skills, the better, for an old is hard to bend.
There have always been kids who even gained Arahat shipp and that even old are foolish till their death is a common usuall. So better than to worry about the young would be worry about ones emotional problems in regard of young and uproot the cause of emotional problems with if by one self, wouldn't it?
As soon being able to chase off cows, one is already prepared to even live the holly life in its full, from outwardly aspects.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade]

Denying feelings makes them resist, because they need to be processed before they can be released. Denying them is like impulsively swimming against a strong current, and eventually becoming exhausted by it. The more you fight it, the more it controls you.
But the moment you acknowledge them and consciously attempt to understand their causes, is like the relief that comes with the sudden realization that if you relax and trust the current, it will take you safely to shore.
There are some problems about which the causes are difficult to accept intellectually, and your mind just wants to forget. Again and again, your heart asks, why? And each time your mind answers: Oh, yes, of course I know the answer. I just don't like it. Let me forget. Must you keep reminding me?
You persistently remind yourself of the causes, so that you can process it some more. Some things are difficult to accept because they're really unacceptable. They require remediation, in order to allow peace.
You might get tired of processing them, but there's a reason for doing so: you're a human being. It's like doing the laundry: a necessary chore. Whether you enjoy or despise doing it, is up to you. It's your choice.


text:
what is the love described in Buddhism?
I heard from Buddhist monks love is "kamachannda" and definitly a "Klesha"(hindrance).When I analyze the definition of love in in Oxford Dictionary it states;

An intense feeling of deep affection(a feeling of fondness or liking.)
2.A strong feeling of affection and sexual attraction for someone.

So this is a match with "channda"(liking)
logically no body love something or some one which dislike.
Once I search single word for "metta" in English; Universal love (as mention in "What's the Buddha thought by Ven.Walpola Tero) and this is the common interpretation for "metta". So is loving wrong thing to do?what is the difference of love and metta? Is love an attachment?

You know that feeling when you like/love something or someone so much that you feel the pull, you want to have it, you have this sense of string attached to your stomach pulling you to the object you're fond of?
That's what the word "kama" stands for. It's the pulling aspect of love, the "I like what you're doing to me and therefore I want you".
Metta/Maytri has a different meaning. You know, when you are in love with someone, you like everything about them: the way they look, walk, talk, eat - anything. And even their bad habits and mistakes look cute, because you accept the complete person, it is absolute 100% unconditional acceptance. So the word metta stands for this kind of acceptance or tolerance, when you take the person as he or she is, without judgement, without shame for them, you just take them exactly as they are.
So in Buddhism this desire to have someone ("love") is recognized as a problem. While unconditional acceptance ("love") of everyone, including oneself, is a virtue to be cultivated.

pulling aspect of love- If we don't distort the basic definition of love, it's better to mention "liking" (chanda) is base of love. logically you don't love something you don't like and vise-versa. in last sentence our two types of "love" is unclear and unacceptable. I an unaware of definition in other language and only consider English definition as we are communicating with it.

If we simplified the basic quality of love is expecting something back.

It's a pity Buddhist scripture doesn't have anything more evocative and poetic about 'metta' (like the Christians have in 1-Corinthians, chap. 13) so people could understand it better in contrast to ordinary lust. At the same time if the Buddhist answer were fully developed it might not be too readily accepted: that once you have freed yourself from delusion and lust and you have genuine 'metta' for another human being, you necessarily have it for all human beings simultaneously, it's no longer exclusive, no longer something restricted to happening inside a "couple".

Can't agree with you more. And yes, I love 1st Corinthians 13... Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. - probably the most beautiful piece of the Bible, to me.

@DonJoe There's a Metta Gatha.

'Love' is an imprecise word in English. It's used in the phrase "brotherly love", for example, which may be more or less like metta; and used in other phrases like "motherly love", "love of chocolate", "love of country", "self love", "making love", and so on, all with different meanings (depending on who is loving, what they're loving, and how).
So even in non-Buddhist (e.g. Christian and/or European) philosophy, for example, some people tried to standardise on using and understanding different words for different kinds of love, for example:

Philia (/ˈfɪljə/ or /ˈfɪliə/; Ancient Greek: φιλία), often translated "brotherly love", is one of the four ancient Greek words for love: philia, storge, agape and eros.

... sometimes using non-English words in theological or philosophical treatises.
It's difficult or imprecise to translate Buddhist terminology, from a language like Pali, into a language like English whose (English) words have different (non-Buddhist) common ("vulgar") cultural meanings.
It's necessary to do so (necessary to try to translate) for the sake of those who only understand English.
But if you're asking, it may be more precise, more accurate, to ask about and learn to understand the meanings of some of the key original Pali words ... like metta, like chanda, and so on.
Chanda (desire) in Buddhism isn't necessarily bad ... the desire to be good (virtuous), for example, is maybe a good (virtuous) desire ... but kāma means something like "sensual pleasure" (kāma is not the same word as kamma) ... so kāma-chanda means something like "desire for sensual pleasure" (and it is defined as one of the fetters).
Conversely, metta is one of the four brahmaviharas (which I asked about most recently in this topic, see also other topics tagged metta).
In classical Buddhism the "wrong thing to do" is more-or-less defined by the "four noble truths" ... which I think say that you experience suffering and/or dissatisfaction (Dukkha) when you "crave" things (that's Taṇhā, a different kind of desire, always 'bad') and "attach" to things (Upādāna ) ... and/or "wrong thing to do" is defined by not keeping (at a minimum) the five precepts.

The Buddha generally taught in a gradual matter thus the different degrees of love are listed in the Piyavagga. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.16.budd.html  Here, the student can examine each Pali word for each type of love

"Having heard that suffering comes from love, he rejected and went to the gambler..."

Gotama the contemplative said to me, 'Householder, your faculties are not those of one who is steady in his own mind. There is an aberration in your faculties.'
"When this was said, I said to him, 'Lord, how could there not be an aberration in my faculties? My dear & beloved little son, my only child, has died. Because of his death, I have no desire to work or to eat. I keep going to the cemetery and crying out, "Where have you gone, my only little child? Where have you gone, my only little child?"'
"'That's the way it is, householder. That's the way it is — for sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are born from one who is dear, come springing from one who is dear.'
"'But, lord, who would ever think that sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are born from one who is dear, come springing from one who is dear? Happiness & joy are born from one who is dear, come springing from one who is dear.' So, not delighting in the words of Gotama the contemplative, rejecting them, I got up from my seat and left."
"That's the way it is, householder [said the gamblers]. That's the way it is. Happiness & joy are born from one who is dear, come springing from one who is dear."
So the householder left, thinking, "I agree with the gamblers."
Piyajatika Sutta: From One Who Is Dear

Piya or straight tanha are words for love. To the contrary, Mettā means Goodwill
When loving/desiring someone/something, what if not just form, sound, smell, taste, touch, your thought about it, do you love? And what is in regard of love not just you and yours, the thing or person? Ones just loves, desires sensuality what or who might provide and providing will have an end.
It's not for a bad, but for a good to love and desire to get free of desire, to love teachings, peoples way to help, admirable friends, to have strong affection for the teacher and the teaching. Actualy strong love for if, for unbinding, is very needed.
And how to get ride of desire for sensuality (kama-chanda)?
Denourishing of Sensual Desire
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade]

There's no definitive thing called 'love'. Love is an ambiguous word used to describe different things at different times. Sometimes it is used for lust. Sometimes it is used for kindness. Sometimes it is used for compassion. Sometimes it is used for clinging etc. etc.
Metta is kindness, friendliness. In other words, being nice to people. It has nothing to do with liking a person. Liking a person for looks, voice, character etc. leads to Upadana(clinging). That leads to suffering.

Kāma-chanda, in M.N. Mahādukkhakkhandhasutta, means the interest to attach 5 kāma-gunā:

yo  kho  bhikkhave kāmesu chandarāgavinayo chandarāgappahānaṃ idaṃ
  kāmānaṃ nissaraṇaṃ.
Removing the interest to attach 5 kāma-gunā, is nissaranaṃ.

5 kāmaguna example: I love a skin (of you). I loves a voice (of you). I love a smell (of you). I love a taste (of you). I love a touch/hold/hug/making love/kiss (of you).
Mettā-(chanda), in M.N. kakacūpamasuttaṃ, means (the interest) to give the advantages, not to give the disadvantages.

hitānukampī  ca  viharissāmi  mettacitto na dosantaroti
We will remain sympathetic to that person's welfare** = we will have mettā-mind  = We will not have inner hate (The clause are defining each others).

Some translation translateed mettā as loving kindness.
**Person's welfare refer to personal happiness.
See also: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/24519/10100