text:
How do I practice ' see things as they are'?
Further to the answers to this question, I want to understand what literally is 'see things as they are' or as the sutta states, Yathā-bhūta-ñāna-dassana.
My questions are,

I understand that if I am looking at a beautiful woman, I am obviously not seeing as she is, but what when I am looking at a clear blue sky, not clouded by ignorance, lust, and greed, am I seeing things as they are? Or I should necessarily have to have insight into Three marks of existencece? Can I see things as they are without Enlightenment?
If so, can only an enlightened being see things as they are?
Sometimes when we look at a flower we can see something transcendental, something which is greater than the sum of the parts. (Not a concept from Buddhism) but some people have an aura around them, even the Buddha in pictures is shown with an aura around His head. So does seeing this metaphysical reality constitute seeing thins as they are?

You can see things as they are, everyone has direct perception, but it is typically rare in beginner's mind. Awareness of the delusion once the formation arises points consciousness directly at the seed of the manifestation, rather than the mind defilement itself that arises from it. Meditation and mindfulness train the mind to deliver wisdom (panna) of insight quick enough so one doesn't get caught in the defilement unknowingly.
See this explained here, from Thich Hnat Hanh - "Understanding Our Mind: 51 Verses on Buddhist Psychology":

When seeds of consciousness manifest themselves in our mind
  consciousness, either we perceive them directly or we do not.
(...)
The first field of perception is the perception of
  things-in-themselves, perceiving directly without distortion or
  delusions. This is the only one of the three modes of perception that
  is direct. This way of perceiving is in the realm of noumena, or
  suchness. Suchness (tathata) means “reality as it is.”
(...)
Are we capable of touching reality-in-itself? The Buddhist teachings
  say that we can. A flower can be the manifestation of the world of
  suchness, if we perceive it directly. It all depends on our mode of
  perception whether we touch the suchness of the flower or only an
  image of it that our minds have created. Our perceptions rarely reach
  the mode of things-in-themselves, however. We usually perceive things
  in the other two modes, as representations or mere images.
(...)
We are unable to reach the mode of perceiving
  things-as-they-are-inthemselves because our distorted image is a
  “representation,” not a direct perception.
(...)
The first five consciousnesses—the sense consciousnesses of eye, ear,
  nose, tongue, and body-are capable of touching the realm of
  things-inthemselves, especially when they contact their objects of
  perception without the participation and intervention of mind
  consciousness. When mind consciousness gets involved, however, there
  will always be some thinking and imagination, and the image brought to
  it by one of the sense consciousnesses will become distorted. (...)
  Anything touched in the realm of
  things-inthemselves by a sense consciousness and then processed by
  mind consciousness becomes a representation. Yet even our mind
  consciousness can touch the realm of things-in-themselves from time to
  time. When we have a strong intuition, our mind consciousness is in
  touch with the realm of suchness. Intuition is a form of knowing that
  is not based in thinking and imagining.
(...)
We are capable of reaching the field of things-in-themselves, the
  world of suchness, but because we think and discriminate we don't
  usually perceive things as they truly are. The nature of our mind is
  obstructed (parikalpita). This means that we build a world full of
  illusion for ourselves because of the distorted way we perceive
  reality. Meditation is to look deeply in order to arrive at
  reality-first the reality of ourselves and then the reality of the
  world. To get to that reality, we have to let go of the images we
  create in our consciousness and our notions of self and other, inside
  and outside. Our practice is to correct this tendency to discriminate
  and think dualistically, so that reality will have a chance to reveal
  itself.

Note that this is Mahayana perspective.

In my understanding of the explanations I received:
As many Buddhist concepts, "seeing things as they are" is a pointer to something happening in real life, but not necessarily in a sense we assume. Its meaning is more practical than strictly technical.
Most of the time we are "in our heads". We have so many preconceptions, thoughts, and inner chatter going on, that we can barely see what's going on in the real world. Instead, our vision is limited by our thoughts and preconceptions to such a degree that we barely notice things outside of our frame of reference. We tend to ignore them for two reasons: either
A) in our frame of mind they are not cohesive phenomena, they seem illogical (because we don't understand their inner logic) - and so we tend to ignore them as noise, or
B) they go against our emotional attachment to some sort of theory or ideology, and so we semi-subconsciously dismiss them as fake / illusory / insignificant.
When we learn to suspend our judgement and lay aside our attachments and preconceptions (this is what Mahayana's realization of Emptiness entails in practice), and stop our never-ending inner-monologue, and lose solidity of this heap of overgeneralizations we call "ego" -- then and only then we start seeing things "as they are".
In my experience with it, this vision liberated from preconceptions can be allegorically called "quantum" or "multidimensional". Because we are not limited to one theory and one interpretation of what's going on, we see them all, or rather, we directly see the entire "space of interpretations". There is an element of ambiguity, but it's not regular ambiguity which is hazy vision - instead it is a very clear kind of ambiguity.
It's a very practical, very direct kind of vision. We are simply not in our heads, are eyes are open and we really look around, and see things we have not seen before.
This is the critical point of the explanation.
And then on top of that, as we develop prajna, we begin to "see" "hidden connections" between things. These are not as much some magic properties as abstract relationships of (latent) influence and causation.
Combination of this "quantum" vision and seeing the latent influences is called "seeing things as they are" - in my understanding.

In this context, the word 'multidimensional' sounds more befitting than 'quantum'. thanks for the answer.

Thanks, fixed the spelling. Although, to me, quantum fits pretty well too. It's like we are in multiple places at once. Thanks!

Craving, delight & seductive qualities beguile the mind; including when seeing radiant monks & Buddhas. To see things as they are requires a pure mind without defilements; without craving.
Its a chicken vs egg scenario. Enough defilements must be cleansed so seeing things as they are can put an end to defilements.
,
Mentality ('nama') is just as or even more beguiling than physicality ('rupa'). For example, the so-called 'beauty' of a female form is more than mere physicality. The mind of the woman is also exuding an enticing quality.
Thus, to see things as they are, both internal & external bodies & minds must be seen as merely that: mental (nama) elements & physical (rupa) elements.
The elements are listed in MN 115. Viewing external objects as mere mentality phenomena (nama) and physical phenomena (rupa) is described in SN 12.19.

You know black hole because you fluently understand the knowledge of the relation of physical&chemical properties about black hole. It doesn't mean you have seen black hole.
"Seeing things as they are" is the same. You know their paṭiccasamuppāda (causes) in every time before you know them (effects) directly.
You think some one mad because of their properties, so you never think the dead body is mad. The same way, the practitioner think clinging-aggregates are "impermanent, suffering, anattā" because they aggregates depending on clinging-paṭiccasamuppāda. So, without paṭiccasamuppāda 12, the practitioner can not see impermanent-characteristic, suffering-characteristic, anattā-characteristic"  of "impermanent-aggregates, suffering-aggregates, anattā-aggregates".
This is the reason why the practitioner can meditate sammasana-ñāṇa(realizing everything have 3 characteristics) after paccayapariggahañāṇa (realizing paṭiccasamuppāda/paṭṭhāna).
So, to practice "Seeing things as they are", you have to practice to see everything in paṭiccasamuppāda style. But before that step, you have to make sure that you having good enough adhi-sīla & adhi-samādhi (sīlavisuddhi&cittavisuddhi).
See, KN Paṭisambhidāmagga Dhammaṭṭhitiñāṇaniddesa & Visuddhimagga Paccayapariggahañāṇaniddesa. Both path of them describing yathābhūtañāṇa, directly:

The knowledge that has been established by the overcoming of doubt about
  the three periods of time by discerning the conditions (paccayapariggaha[ñāṇa]) of
  mentality-materiality according to the various methods should be
  understood as “purification by overcoming doubt (kaṅkhāvitaraṇavisuddhi).” Other terms for it
  are “knowledge of the relations of states (dhammaṭṭhiti)” and “correct knowledge (yathābhūtañāṇa)” and “right vision (sammādassana).”
For this is said: “Understanding of discernment of conditions thus, ‘Ignorance is a condition, formations are conditionally arisen,
  and both these states are conditionally arisen,’ is knowledge of the
  causal relationship of states” (Paþis I 50). And:

...
“When he brings to mind as impermanent, he correctly knows and sees
  the sign. Hence ‘right seeing’ is said. Thus, by inference from that,
  all formations are clearly seen as impermanent. Herein doubt is
  abandoned. When he brings to mind as painful, he correctly knows and
  sees occurrence. Hence ... When he brings to mind as not-self, he
  correctly knows and sees the sign and occurrence. Hence ‘right seeing’
  is said. Thus, by inference from that, all states are clearly seen as
  not-self. Herein doubt is abandoned.

Another, I also describe yathābhūta in this answer:
https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/26699/10100

It is not ''to see things as they really are'', contrary to the stock translation.
it is:

once you want to stop experiencing once and for all misery,
to see once and for all ''how things arise and go away''
which means to see once and for all they are mediocre, pathetic and unreliable, ie dukkha
which means seeing once and for all they are not ''I nor mine'', ie not your business not your story, ie anatta
which means experiencing once and for all dissatisfaction with them and not to even touch them
which means experiencing once and for all disinterest with them
which means nirvana.

The first step to be sucked into this spiral is

to ''''''''be moral'''''' like some puthujjana say, meaning not causing drama over mundanities with other people until you have no regrets nor remorse nor worry about their mundane activities,
once there is no worry over the mundane activities created and cared by those people, you are left alone to have time to experience the ''tireless energy'' and joy of the jhanas,
once there is this joy, energy, relaxation, you become concentrated and have most of the ''''seven factors of Enlightenment''''''
which I copy paste here

** - Mindfulness (sati).
 - Investigation of the nature of reality (dhamma vicaya).**
 - Energy (viriya) also determination
 - Joy or rapture (pīti)
 - Relaxation or tranquility (passaddhi)
 - Concentration, clear awareness (samādhi)
 - Equanimity (upekkha).

Now to get to the point of no return, you must develop the first two, otherwise you are stuck at the jahnas like the hindus.
It turns  out what remains is precisely remembering the doctrine and investigating it, which exactly means the first list above:

once you want to stop experiencing once and for all misery,
to see once and for all ''how things arise and go away''
which means to see once and for all they are mediocre, pathetic and unreliable, ie dukkha
which means seeing once and for all they are not ''I nor mine'', ie not your business not your story, ie anatta
which means experiencing once and for all dissatisfaction with them and not to even touch them
which means experiencing once and for all disinterest with them
which means nirvana.

you said 'otherwise you are stuck at the jahnas like the hindus', I am also of somewhat similar opinion that Hindu texts are stuck in Jhnanas. If it is possible can you provide me more info on this? for my further research.

Under Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta, Buddha discovered that such states of concentration are impermanent, bringing merely momentary ease and do not lead to liberation. Therefore, Buddha's teaching was mindfulness with breath, that is, bringing body and mind together as one, and not mindfulness of breath without being attentive to the body.


text:
What’s the difference between yathābhūta and yathābhūtaṃ?
I’ve been reading about this term and have found it written in both ways. I don’t know if the difference is related to some kind of verb form.

Yathābhūta is not correct in pali-sentence. We have to put the declension-mark at the end of yathābhūta, such as  yathābhūtaṃ, before put it in the sentence.
Yathābhūta is adjective/adverb which is not complete, not ready to use, because the properties of word (vibhatti;case-endings;declension):  preposition(sambandha), amount(vacana), and gender(liṅga), etc., must put at the end of every words, except ready-made-noun (nipāta), some standalone-prefix (upasagga-nipāta; I'm not sure for linguistic name), and compound-word (samāsa). So, it can not come alone, and you can not found only yathābhūta  alone in pāli. It should to be yathābhūtaṃ (si-vibhatti), yathābhūtañāṇadassanaṃ (Deleted vibhatti because of compound-word; Vibhatti still be, but it disappear by pali-processing), yathābhūtena (nā-vibhatti), etc.
See: http://www.buddha-vacana.org/toolbox/noundec.html
For the explanation of the term "yathābhūta":
Yathā ... tathā = How it is ... as it is.
Bhūta = arising/becomming = upatti-bhava-paṭiccasamuppāda = upatti-becoming = jāti(rebirth) + jarā&maraṇa (old-age&death). bhū-root[as arise-term]+ta-suffix[as verb].
Arising of what? Arising of 5 aggregates in paṭiccasamuppāda-cycle. So:

in Sutta. Saṃ. Saḷa. Dukkhadhammasutta, buddha use yathābhūta
as arising and vanishing of 5 aggregates;
In Sutta. Saṃ. Ni. Dukkhasutta, buddha describe arising and
vanishing of 5 aggregates as paṭiccasamuppāda;
In Khandhapabba of Sutta. Ma. Mū. Mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta,
buddha describe arising and vanishing of 5 aggregates as
udayabbaya-ñāṇa-niddeso;
Also, in Khandhapabba, buddha describe vipassanā in arising
and vanishing of 5 aggregates as "samudayavayadhammānupassī
vā" which commentary refer that dhamma-term as
Dukkhadhammasutta;
So, in Sutta. Khu. Paṭisambhidāmaggo
udayabbayānupassanāñāṇa-niddesa & the path of purification
maggāmaggañāṇadassanavisuddhiniddesa udayabbayañāṇakathā, Master
Sāriputta and Master Buddhaghosa describe udayabbaya as
paṭiccasamuppāda as well.

So, yathābhūta-ñāṇa is understanding of arising of 5 aggregates in paṭiccasamuppāda-cycle.
Another, I also describe yathābhūta in this answer: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/26702/10100
Buddha have to cut the big sutta in DN/MN for the students who not smart enough to enlighten/understand/memorize at once. So, you can notice my reference are from DN&MN&SN&KN, and actually AN as well.
Pāli has a very strong structure. This is the reason why we can understand tipitaka's content by just fluent reciting&memorizing. But because of the complicate detail of Dhamma, so when we translate tipitaka to the other languages, such as english or especilly thai, we will lose many important words' properties. Then we can not understand/analysis/find the fact from some translation.
"Svākkhāto bhagavatā dhammo-the best dhamma was taught by buddha." is not just the psalms, but it is the fact by the linguistics and the truth.

To summarise: in Pali, an adjective is declined to match the noun it qualifies -- i.e. to match the noun's gender (masculine, feminine, or neuter), the noun's case (e.g. nominative, accusative, etc.), and whether the noun is singular or plural. Therefore you won't find the adjective yathābhūta written as such, because when it's used in a sentence its ending changes (to match its noun) according to the rules of declension.

@ChrisW You shouldn't summarize like that because yathābhūta can qualifies verb, too. And when it  qualifies verb, it will not depend on verb's vibhatti or noun's vibhatti, it will use only karana-vibhatti to be adverb. The summary should be something like this:  yathābhūta is not correct in sentence. We have to put the declension-mark at the end of yathābhūta, such as  yathābhūtaṃ, before put it in the sentence.

Thanks Bonn and @Chris. You've been really helpful.  As far as I understand yathābhūtaṃ will add a relation to what in English would be the pronoun it, am I right?  I have two more questions:  Can  yathābhūta be used as a term or should it be always used in a sentece?  If it can be used as a term, how would you translate it?

@Oscar I edited my answer again to try to answer your question.

I edited my answer for you both. It looks too much pali and reference. But it's good for understanding whole tipitaka.

Wonderful explanation. Impressive, scholarly. Please continue doing good research and sharing.

Thanks a lot, @Bonn. Your explanation was completely helpful and clear. Now I'm even more interested in what comes around the term yathābhūta. I'll mark this question as answered.

This dictionary says that yathābhūta
 is an adjective, whereas yathābhūtaṃ is an adverb
I haven't seen how yathābhūta is used in practice. Where is yathābhūta even used? I can only find yathābhūtaṃ.
But grammatically I presume that an "adjective" would qualify a noun (e.g. "he sees a true thing"), whereas an "adverb" qualifies a verb (e.g. "he truly sees a thing").

I know the blank space might change the context, but I've found the 4 variations, so I'm hopping you know something more about this
I don't know about the Pali scripts, but in some scripts there are no blank spaces in the script, forexamplethetextiswrittenlikethis and it's up to the reader to know where each word ends (I think it's like that when you have to understand any spoken language too).
Furthermore (or rather, more importantly), Pali (like German) has compound words.
English has some compound words too, like "butter knife" and "farsighted".
So for example SN 12.23 includes:

I say that truly knowing and seeing has a vital condition.
  Yathābhūtañāṇadassanampāhaṃ, bhikkhave, saupanisaṃ vadāmi, no anupanisaṃ.

More literally:
"Truly-knowing-and-seeing, monks, I say, is not without a condition."
To translate a long, compound word like "Yathābhūtañāṇadassanampāhaṃ" you deconstruct it into its various component root words.

I have two more questions: Can yathābhūta be used as a term or should it be always used in a sentece? If it can be used as a term, how would you translate it?
Dictionary definitions of the roots of the word are:

Yathā (i.e. "according to" or "in accordance with")
Bhūta (i.e. "natural", "genuine", "true").

So "according to the truth" or "true" or "truly" is a common translation.
Bhūta also apparently means things like "creatures", "beings", "biological kingdoms", "elements" -- so I might translate it as "seeing things according to their nature", or "seeing the nature of thing" (or, possibly, "naturally seeing things" or "seeings things naturally").
It could be translated "seeing things in their proper categories" -- for example AN 4.179 ...

Reverend Ānanda, it’s because some sentient beings don’t really understand which perceptions make things worse, which keep things steady, which lead to distinction, and which lead to penetration.

... talks about "really understanding" whether a perception belongs to one of three or four categories.
It also means "everything", "nature", and "the result of becoming" -- so it might mean "seeing things as natural".
Buddhism has a lot to say about "all created things" (e.g. it says sabbe sankhara anicca) ... so perhaps that too should be included in the view (see e.g. SN 22.55).
According to the context in which it's used (in sentences, in suttas), it's often associated with samadhi and enlightenment.

I agree with the above answer. I could only find the word yathābhūtaṃ in the suttas. Click on the link: https://legacy.suttacentral.net/search?query=yath%C4%81bhuta&lang=

Thanks for the answer. I'm still confused in some way. Perhaps, I'm making a mistake. The term I'm looking for tells to look at reality "as it is". I just read one of Osho's books an he uses the term "yatha bhtuam" to make this point out, but in some other sources I've found it written as "yatha bhuta" like in this link [Reality in Buddhism] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_in_Buddhism)  I know the blank space might change the context, but I've found the 4 variations, so I'm hopping you know something more about this. Thanks a lot!

@Oscar I added to the answer ... does that answer your query?

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Sex Before Marriage
I met this wonderful girl sometime back and we had a great thing going. We understood each other very well and have lived in great pleasure and happiness. Initially we started dating. after sometime dating, for unavoidable circumstances we knew that this relationship is not gonna work out long-term.
So we had a friends-with-benefits relationship just to have sexual satisfaction with no feelings. But with time we generated strong feelings towards each other up-to a level that we started a relationship. But the relationship is temporary. There is a expiration date. We want to do everything as a couple together. With heavy deep discussions and deep understanding we made this decision. We both are deeply in love but we are still honoring our agreement on the termination.
We aren't really bothered of finding another partner yet so that's why we are having this temporary relationship. When we feel like this is enough, we will terminate it. But no-one knows about our relationship. Not even my parents or hers or our friends. It's secret one.
Now to the important part. As a couple we are thinking of having sexual intercourse. I'm still a virgin. I love her a lot. And I do want to engage in such. But I still haven't agreed fully. My question is, is it a Sin or Akusala if I have sex with her? If so how does it become a sin? What is the Buddhist perspective on this?

I live in Sri Lanka

tahudu lankawe koheda

Is she depend on herself or you feed her..

This question is blatantly off topic, there's not even once mentioned a reference to Buddhism.Do I need to say even more?Do we decide now weather people should get married?!

@Eminem I think the 2 or 3 questions in the last paragraph are all asking about Buddhist doctrine.

So we had a friends-with-benefits relationship just to have sexual
  satisfaction with no feelings.

If sex did not feel pleasurable; why would you have sex? There is no such thing as sex with no feelings.

But with time we generated strong feelings towards each other up-to a
  level that we started a relationship.

As I said, there is no such thing as normal sex with no feelings. Having sex with no feelings is something prostitutes try to do.

But the relationship is temporary. There is a expiration date. We
  want to do everything as a couple together. With heavy deep
  discussions and deep understanding we made this decision. We both are
  deeply in love but we are still honoring our agreement on the
  termination.

Having sex is similar to taking drugs. If you become addicted to drugs, you cannot make an agreement to terminate the addiction without experiencing painful symptoms & suffering.

We aren't really bothered of finding another partner yet so that's why
  we are having this temporary relationship. When we feel like this is
  enough, we will terminate it. But no-one knows about our relationship.
  Not even my parents or hers or our friends. It's secret one.

To keep secrets from your family is not Buddhist. In Buddhism, a relationship also ensures both sides of the family are happy (if possible - DN 31).

Now to the important part. As a couple we are thinking of having
  sexual intercourse. I'm still a virgin. I love her a lot. And I do
  want to engage in such. But I still haven't agreed fully. My question
  is, is it a Sin or Akusala if I have sex with her? If so how does it
  become a sin? What is the Buddhist perspective on this?

If she is not a virgin, it is a sin because you are supporting her bad habits. If she is a virgin, it is an extremely serious sin. It is very dark akusala.  The Buddhist scriptures teach parents are to "protect" their daughters (MN 41) until the parents organise a suitable marriage (DN 31). The Buddhist scriptures teach sexual misconduct is particularly a taint upon a woman (Dhp 242) because the more men a woman has sex with, the more it is difficult for her to naturally "bond" with a man and her children (refer to the 5th post at this link on Dhammawheel about Compassion for Women). This is a major reason why, in the West, there is so much social and family disharmony and dysfunction.
As for what you call "love", it is romantic feelings, lust & infatuation. It is not "metta" (Buddhist love). In Buddhism, any action motivated by only lust is akusala. In Buddhism, a Right Action is guided by non-harming & wisdom about the long-term welfare of another & one-self. Temporary sex is only lust. It is not "metta"; not compassion ("karuna"); not sila (morality); and not "abhaya" ("safety").
As a Sri Lankan, you should speak to a Sri Lankan monk and avoid seeking advice from sexually liberal Westerners on the internet who do not understand Buddhism. Western people have lots of suffering & confusion as a result of akusala sex and then try to find peace of mind with Buddhism but they generally cannot find peace of mind because they are unable to give up their wrong views about sex.

"just to have sexual satisfaction with no feelings" <- stop lying to yourself, please.
If it is not love, only lust remains.
Action derived by lust is a sin.

I don't suppose that the suttas distinguish between "a friends-with-benefits relationship" versus "sexual intercourse" -- in both cases, it's sexually-motivated contact.
One difference, I guess, is the possibility of procreation (i.e. pregnancy and so on).
I will try to structure this answer as follows.

Third precept
Apart from the precepts
How does it become a sin?
What is 'right' behaviour?

Third precept
I assume you've heard of the five lay precepts.
I think that the scriptural details (such as they are) of the third precept are identified in these topics:

Trouble understanding “sensual misconduct”
It's (specifically) sexual misconduct and not (more generally) sensual misconduct
How is sexual misconduct explained in regards to the five precepts?
It's misconduct if it's with someone who is "protected" (e.g. protected by their parents)
I think that one of the motives or considerations in Buddhism is to not break up families.
Third precept and parents approval
The precept doesn't apply to (i.e. it doesn't forbid) sexual relations between independent adults (unless they're married or betrothed -- again, the precept is protecting families)

Apart from the precepts
I think the precepts are a minimum standard of behaviour, and behaviour can be "unskillful" even if it's not against the precepts.
If I slapped someone's face, for example, I think that wouldn't break the first precept but that would be immoral and unskillful even so:

Unpleasant for the person whose face was slapped
Resulting in worse social relationships than before
Bad training for me (e.g. failing to learn to use right speech instead)

How does it become a sin?
I'm not sure that Buddhism uses the concept of "sin", a better question to ask might be "How does it cause suffering (dukkha)?"
I guess there are several ways ... but I don't want to spell them out. In brief I can think of at least 5 ways:

Pleasurable feelings lead to craving and attachment (and suffering). You might think that getting what you want (e.g. pleasure) helps put an end to craving and is therefore satisfying, but any drug addict or alcoholic could tell you that that's not the way it works.
Social disruption -- why haven't you told your parents? What would happen if they knew? What's happening to the fourth precept (i.e. refraining from incorrect speech)?
Part of attachment is a loss of independence. I think that Buddhism tries to teach that we can't depend on sensual pleasure and that we should find happiness elsewhere (independently). Finding reliable happiness is difficult when you allow your happiness to depend on the actions of someone else (who you control even less than you control yourself).
Perceived loss of independence can lead to predatory behaviour. If I'm hungry for example I might tell myself, "I need that food, I'm going to have that food." Something similar happens if I'm sick ("I need that medicine"), or poor  ("I need that money"). It's bad if that starts happening with another person: "I want that person, I need that person, I'm going to take that person" ... that's the exact opposite of what Andrei's answer described (i.e. not trying to "own" someone).
IMO it's not polite to look at a living being and say "I'm going to take your body to be my food", and similarly it's not polite to say "I'm going to take your body for my sexual gratification".
That doesn't apply if it's consensual, but it may be difficult to coordinate -- someone's consenting once doesn't mean they'll always consent, and if they don't consent in future then you might try persuasion or coercion.
It's difficult to coordinate. Apparently you're hoping that you'll both escape suffering by ending the relationship.

We both are deeply in love but we are still honoring our agreement on the termination.

That can be difficult to manage without at least one person feeling hurt (e.g. if one person decides to something or to stop doing something, at a time when the other person doesn't want them to do that or to stop doing that).
I don't know whether it's you, or her, or both, who are more likely to be hurt. Dhammadhatu's answer suggests it's her.
There's an "opportunity cost" -- one of the problem of unskillful behaviour is that you don't accrue the benefits (e.g. the training) associated with skilful or virtuous behaviour.

If this answer seems excessively negative, note that you didn't ask "How does this become a virtue?"
What is 'right' behaviour?
You might like to consider these topics:

Any authentic sutta from any tradition that gives guidance on what kind of partner to choose?
Advice from suttas on how to choose a (marriage) partner
Sigalovada Sutta (DN 31)
General advice on good social conduct for lay people
The Four Sublime States
Introduces the Brahmaviharas:

These four attitudes are said to be excellent or sublime because they are the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings (sattesu samma patipatti). They provide, in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact. They are the great removers of tension, the great peace-makers in social conflict, and the great healers of wounds suffered in the struggle of existence. They level social barriers, build harmonious communities, awaken slumbering magnanimity long forgotten, revive joy and hope long abandoned, and promote human brotherhood against the forces of egotism.
The Brahma-viharas are incompatible with a hating state of mind, and in that they are akin to Brahma, the divine but transient ruler of the higher heavens in the traditional Buddhist picture of the universe.

I should probably mention "generosity" too.

As is said in Maitreya-vyakarana:

[Gods, men and other beings] will lose their doubts, and the torrents of their cravings will be cut off: free from all misery they will manage to cross the ocean of becoming; and, as a result of Maitreya's teachings, they will lead a holy life. No longer will they regard anything as their own, they will have no possession, no gold or silver, no home, no relatives! But they will lead the holy life of oneness under Maitreya's guidance. They will have torn the net of the passions, they will manage to enter into trances, and theirs will be an abundance of joy and happiness, for they will lead a holy life under Maitreya's guidance.

The way I understand this, in the future, under Maitreya's guidance, personal relationships will no longer be defined as a type of ownership.
Today she is "your" girlfriend and you are "her" boyfriend - and from this comes all kinds of problems, passions and jealousy.
In the future, all people will be able to openly show their love and friendship to each other, and not worry about offending "the special person" that owns their commitment.
Love is acceptance, love is kindness, love is wanting the other people to experience happiness, love is allowing the other people to express their unique suchness without judgement. Love is not a type of ownership. Love-as-ownership is a reification, a disease.
As long as your love to everyone is pure - without Lust, Obsession, Jealousy, Fear - you don't have to restrict it to one special person you "marry".
There are many ways to express love. My teacher said, in Tusita heaven the gods make sex through eye contact alone - this is the highest and most pure form of sex. In our world, physical sex is one of the many ways to express love - one form of communication and tenderness.
As long as your love to everyone is pure - without Lust, Obsession, Jealousy, Fear - you don't have to restrict the ways you express it.

The question is, can "sex with benefit" happen without Lust ?

Of course it can. Sex can be a communication of friendship, tenderness, and trust. No need to reify emotional and physical closeness as an exclusive black-n-white relationship "this is real love", "this is just lust" etc. - there is a spectrum of closeness and it doesn't have to be exclusive.

So, you are basically saying "sex with benefit" relationship cannot be 0% lust. Which, the answer to my first comment should have been a No, then.

What is "sex with benefit", do you mean "friends with benefits"? Of course there can be sex without lust, for example sex with Varjrayana consort, which is a type of meditative practice.

Yes I meant 'FwB'. As for the Tantric consort, I don't know much about it so I will not comment. But pretty sure it is far from 'FwB' described by the author of this post.

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


text:
Sexual Coersion within a Sangha
I have been four years a practicing Buddhist in England.
I am struggling now in bringing understanding to my experience, I would be greatful for any insight, and I appreciate that it is hard to communicate fully on the internet.
I know there has been sexual misconduct within this particular Order before. I have within the last five months been a victim of sexual coercion and minor abuse with another Mitra in the Sangha (I use the terms and definitions provided by my communication with the helpline I rang). I am struggling to stay with my own experience now, as my need for safety has become tenfold. And my relationships within the Sangha I find now to be deeply tense, as my friends within the Order who I spoke to about this responded with advice that it would be helpful to bring compassion to this other Mitra in this situation.
I am sorry to say that I feel frightened that this would be the response... Is it helpful, skillful, to give my energy to this Sangha that seems to tolerate sexual miscunduct, up until it is themselves who are experiencing it?
I apologise for my confused sentences, and really, anything you can say that would help to bring light to this I would be very greatful for.
I don't wish to call myself a victim, and for the purpose of bringing compassion to the situation... to get help, it seems that the culture understands my experience to be that of a victim.
Many thanks.

Does "minor abuse" mean "sexual abuse of a child", or does it mean "small and not very harmful instances of mild abuse"?

Perhaps this blog is interesting for you. Here an ordained monk gives space for announcement and discussion of events of sexual abuse. One subpage is this https://buddhism-controversy-blog.com/2018/07/03/triratna-the-eye-of-the-storm/ I don't know how far this could be useful for you because it is not of the style of "victims-helping-each-other" which you might rather find on facebook as closed groups. (But he has links to such facebook-groups) For me, an attempt of abuse as a 13 years-old by an adult, has been a stinking experience which I can recall still today - although I managed to ...

... escape by becoming too resistitive and could chase him away because it was in a cinema and I began to curse him with increasing voice). I can be happy that I could manage it by myself, and stopped him when he tried to touch my genital by opening my trousers - but as I already said: it still "stinks" from the moment I remember this... So I have some "familiar" feeling when reading about the reports in his blog and wish you can overcome your experience better (and possibly accompanied by other victims)

There is no way around it. Sexual coercion and abuses (minor or otherwise) are reprehensible and they should be addressed.
For you to have compassion is wholesome, but it should not prevent you from taking the necessary measures. Your compassion should open your eyes on the fact that (1) you might not be the only one victim (2) the person responsible of sexual coercion must be protected from himself, and others and yourself must be protected from this person as well.
You should report to the authorities of the place you stay; and to the actual authorities (i.e. police) and you might consider seeing a psychologist so that the issue will be addressed by someone who is utterly foreign to the Buddhist circle.
The fact that the center does not take it as an issue to begin with shows that they have a blind spot (or selective attention). But sweeping things under the rug is not an option. Healing never comes from escapism, but from shedding the light of understanding and awareness on issues.
In addition, however acquainted with the working of the mind sangha can be, monks are not trained the way psychologists are. They can hardly address serious issues such as depression, suicidal ideations, schizophrenia, post-traumatic stress disorder and so forth. It is difficult enough to help someone handle average afflictions - for instance if you are angry with your friend who cheated on you with your wife. Dealing with more serious issues is entirely different.
And definitely find yourself another sangha. Do not surrender your personal judgement when you entrust yourself to someone else (be it a sangha or a teacher). To entrust yourself healthily, you must not give up your own judgement and discrimination. Quiet the opposite, the teacher is not "the one who knows" and possesses a magic wand. He is the one true friend who accompanies.

I liked this post except for the part about visiting a psychologist. Any real Buddhist is not "blind" to these issues. It is best to find a new Buddhist group; preferably Theravada. If Mahayana, a group that does not have any history of sexual abuse, such as FPMT.

It's true that there are centers that are not oblivious to these issues, but I see fit to distinguish someone who is "normally afflicted" from someone who is subject to a more severe case (depression, schizophrenia, PTSD, etc.) What Lin Charles spoke of might lead to PTSD and monks are not trained to deal with these issues even in the event they are supportive.

@Dhammadhatu I did precise my meaning a little, though. Thx for the comment.

I'm sorry that your experience of it wasn't the safe refuge that I think it ought to be.

It may be (by which I mean, "I've read rumours from a perhaps-biased or one-sided source that this is so, but I have no personal experience with it") that the community in question does not have a sufficiently effective institutional mechanism to resolve this sort of problem -- I don't know, for example, whether there's a higher authority you can complain to, nor what the principle motive or policy of that "higher authority" might be, or a way to make a formal complaint with effective resolution.

I'm not sure why your friends are preaching compassion; I can imagine it might be:

Parroting doctrine
Wanting to sweep negative publicity under the rug
Not accepting the way in which you framed the story
Trying to ease or appease your mind (e.g. here or here)

Of these, only the fourth seems to me really worthy.
Andrei's answer points to the third (I'm not saying that he's wrong, I think his answer is subsequent to or informed by some of his own training which I'm not familiar with).
I suppose that if and/or when you resolve this experience, then you may review it from other perspectives -- but perhaps doing that is a result of a "cure", not a cause of a cure -- i.e. even if it (the cure or resolution) is desirable, I couldn't recommend "see it from another perspective" as a prescription or therapy. I'm not even saying it's a bad therapy, just that I couldn't meaningfully prescribe it here, and people's trying to casually say that (e.g. "review it with more compassion") might be like saying, unhelpfully, "just get over it, see it differently, from another perspective".

Also, it seems to me that the most important part of any offence-then-apology, i.e. of any apology, is an assurance that the offence won't recur -- for example, "I'm sorry that I hurt you, and I won't do it again, so you can feel safe now." I guess that without (or even with) that kind of reassurance you're in a state of heightened alert, hence your saying "I am struggling to stay with my own experience now, as my need for safety has become tenfold", and Tenzin Dorje's mentioning PTSD.
I think a symptom of PTSD is reliving the experience, and that (past) experience having unwholesome influence on your perception of the present.
Would it help to get advice, are you able to, have you had advice, on what to do to escape or avoid a repeat of that experience?

As for whether it's skilful to continue, I've no easy answer. Are you learning from it, does it benefit you? Does your participation benefit others? If you can't answer whether your input is skilful, can you assess whether it's virtuous? Would it be "praised by the wise"? It seems to me that you can't necessarily control other people's behaviour, you may be able to control your own (see also for example an alcoholic relationship, or abusive domestic/romantic relationships).
Also there's ideal behaviour, for example I think the Punna Sutta is an example of:

A semi-enlightened person
Going to benefit others (like a Bodhisattva might)
Practising the Brahmaviharas (in this case, I think, surprisingly, mudita) if or when assaulted

I find it an admirable story, and find it difficult to see him as an overwhelmed or coerced victim in that situation. On the other hand I don't think it's good to feel like a victim, and it may well be unskillful to remain in (or to seek) a situation in which you do feel like a victim. On the third hand the world is something of a dangerous place, including some unskillful and abusive people. Perhaps you need to find a[ny] way to become more independent (of such people), less subject to coercion.

As the community's reaction to your situation, you said that they advised you to "bring compassion", but you didn't say what their advice or response was to the other Mitra, except that you said that they "seem to tolerate sexual misconduct".
I think your question i.e. "give my energy to this Sangha that seems to tolerate sexual misconduct?" asks for our assessment or judgement on their tolerance.
"Coercion" doesn't sound right to me, even intolerable, an abuse that ought to be addressed. In a normal social context (e.g. the workplace) that even sounds criminal, illegal.
In case you didn't know, it's easy to find published critical commentary (e.g. here or here).
Beware that I found this criticism as a result of searching for it: so I presume it's a one-sided view almost by definition.

As for being a victim, you wrote, "I have within the last five months been a victim of sexual coercion and minor abuse" and "I don't wish to call myself a victim".
I'm not sure what you mean.
On the one hand, I respect it -- I think that calling yourself a victim, "I am a victim", can be an example of a self-view, a view that can lead to long-term suffering -- both in general (e.g. "I don't like my life, life is unfair, and I can't do anything about it") and more specifically (in the case of abuse, violence, post-trauma).
I'm also inclined to agree with Tenzin Dorje's answer -- an enlightened response might include (not be instead of) involving the police and/or a professional counsellor (or, who knows, perhaps your family doctor for advice or a referral).
See also here again -- I think this is one of the reasons for Buddhism's teaching about anatta, though judging by the number of questions on that topic it's not an easy doctrine to teach.

First of all, I must say: your subjective experience can't be denied. If a situation looked a certain way to you, if you have experienced fear, being coerced and/or abused, being a victim in danger of violence etc. - whether that experience was based on valid interpretation or invalid interpretation - there is no denying that you have experienced what you have experienced. I'm sorry you had to go through that. I feel your pain.
Now, you have to understand, that our experience is created by our mind, created from (very skim) sensory input plus (an awful lot of) interpretation. This interpretation is necessarily based on the only other source of information we have in addition to senses: our life(lives) experience up to that moment with all the imprints and memories that it left on us.
My first Buddhist teacher taught me a very good rule of thumb for assessing these. He said, if we experience a strong emotion in response to a situation it is almost certain because we are overgeneralizing based on a preconception and not seeing the situation from all sides. So he taught me that every time I experienced a strong negative emotion in response to a difficult situation, that I take a very good look inside myself and try to see what past experience created some sort of overgeneralizing preconception that manifests as a kind of knee-jerk reaction that now generates this emotion.
Then, when you see that experience=>preconception=>emotion formula, your job is to put that aside temporarily - and say "what other possible interpretations are possible for the same set of sensory inputs?"
In this particular situation: go over the events and try to review "his" exact actions and words. Suspend your interpretation of the meaning and purpose of his action ("he was trying to sexually use me"). Consider alternative possibilities. I can see at least four:

Perhaps the guy was just normally attracted to you, and was innocently (if unskillfully) trying to get close to you. Perhaps another person in another context would find his actions completely and perfectly justifiable and even enjoyable. Perhaps your reaction had to do more with you not wanting this particular type of attention, from this particular person, in this particular situation - than him being "a criminal" and "abuser". Perhaps your experience of "being abused" was an exaggeration that came from your strong emotional aversion to this type of attention (gender-driven) from this type of person (looks, character) in this type of context (Buddhist refuge).
Perhaps the guy was emotionally wounded and hurting while hiding it, and you happened to look to him like you could fill that hole and stop that emotional bleeding. Perhaps he was not driven by an evil intent to use your sexuality, but rather by pain and intuitive (if unjustified) hope that getting close with you could ease that pain. Perhaps what looked like lust to you was actually desperation and pain on his side.
Perhaps the guy incorrectly interpreted your previous behavior as indicative of you wanting and/or accepting attention from him. Perhaps your actions looked ambiguous from his perspective, and his interpretation was based on an element of wishful thinking on his part, but nevertheless in his experience it could have seemed that you want and/or accept his attention.
Finally (very unlikely but not completely impossible in a Buddhist setting) if he was an advanced Vajrayana practitioner or a teacher (Vajra master) - his behavior could have been an application of "liberative technique" in order to trigger your ego's defensive complexes and surface suppressed karmic/emotional issues. The actions of true Vajra master are always authentic and non-dual, so in that case he could have manifested real lust, real abuse etc in order to push you forward. Sounds hard to believe but I know what I'm saying :))) Anyway, this is just one option of many.

-- Once you see that there are multiple alternative interpretations possible - you don't have to convince yourself to take an optimistic interpretation ("make a fool of yourself" or "wear the pink glasses"). Just stay neutral for now.
And then, from inside that space of ambiguity, make a pledge that no matter what happens you will treat the world with the maximum wisdom and maximum compassion. Maximum wisdom means, that you will not overgeneralize and over-infer based on your past experience. Maximum compassion means that you will assume that all people are good inside, and the only reason they do evil/stupid things - is because they get caught up in exactly the same problem with past experiences and overgeneralization. This cycle of bad past experiences => overgeneralizations => wrong actions keeps turning creating victims from one person to another to another.
Once you understand all this, say to yourself: that's it, the cycle stops on me. I will not let my self be driven by this wave of past karma. I will be an adult who will use my wisdom and compassion to stop the cycle.
Ideally at this point you should try to meet with your offender (at a place where you will feel safe but not distracted) and have conversation about your past (and your overgeneralizations) and his past (and his overgeneralizations) pertaining to this situation. You both should try to go beyond your overgeneralizations and see each other's experience and the motives. He should try understand yours and you should try to understand his.
If after doing your 100% best to ensure you really understand his side of the story it still looks to you that his intent was to (knowingly and deliberately) use you for his sexual pleasure, then follow the instructions in Tenzin's answer.
All situations, especially difficult situations, especially painful and scary situations - can be utilized to learn. The most energy you can possibly receive from a situation is by overcoming your victim consciousness and becoming the master that stops the cycle of bad energy traumatizing people.
Based on all this I suggest that you take this situation as a challenge or exercise and try to navigate the above until you resolve it on your own. I promise you will be in a different world altogether if you manage to go through it.

I marked this post down because it seems to try to not offend sexual abusers. It has an amoral flavour to me, that is, confusion about what is morally wrong & right. The Buddhist Path is Three-Fold, namely, Sila Samadhi, Panna. Would you respond the same if sexual abuse occurred to your own children?

That is fair, this is your right. Your assertion is based on incorrect understanding, but you are entitled to your opinion.

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

What is called 'Mahayana Buddhism' originally began with certain monks who did not wish to follow the rules (Vinaya) fully. Similar to the Catholic Church and unlike Theravada Buddhism, Mahayana groups tend to not expel sexual abusers and, in fact, often honor them.
For example, Triratna continue to honor Sangharakshita; Sogyal Rinpoche of RIGPA was/is continued to be honored; Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche from the USA is honored; and recently in Australia a very serious sexual & financial exploiter named Lama Choedak Rinpoche (a personal friend and sponsoree of the Dalai Lama) expected immediate forgiveness & continues to masquerade as a Holy Being. The New Kadampa Tradition had many serious sex scandals with consecutive senior monks. The following video: In the Name of Enlightenment - Sex Scandal in Religion is revealing; which includes non-Buddhist ideas about "Tantra" & "Crazy Wisdom".
It is important to know that what is called "Western Buddhism" is often amoral people who wish to believe the Buddha bathes them with His boundless love, acceptance & compassion. This appears to be why most Wseterners are attracted to what they personally regard Buddhism to be, namely, a place completely free from criticism or censure.
My advice is to not be part of these Mahayana groups because this is not Buddhism. In real Buddhism, a sexual abuser is either immediately stripped of any status and rehabilitated; or otherwise expelled from the Community (Sangha).
I suggest to visit the best Theravada groups, such as Amaravati & Chithurst Monasteries, and discuss any issues with a monk there. The monks there are good trustworthy people.

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


text:
Is it true that whatever is subject to cessation is subject to origination?
Dhamma implies that whatever is subject to origination is subject to cessation.

And while this discourse was being spoken, there arose in that bhikkhu
  the dust-free, stainless vision of the Dhamma: “Whatever is subject to
  origination is all subject to cessation.”

But what about the opposite?
Is it also true that whatever is subject to cessation is also subject to origination?

Buddha said:

yaṃ kiñci samudayadhammaṃ, sabbaṃ taṃ nirodhadhamman'ti

or "whatever is samudaya-able -- all that is nirodha-able".
Samudaya means "to come together", "to arise from coincidence of multiple conditions".
Nirodha means "to stop".
So the meaning of the phrase is "Whatever arose from coincidence of multiple conditions will stop when one of those necessary conditions is no longer operative."
You're asking, what about the opposite? Can something that has stopped like that - can it arise when the necessary conditions come together again?
The answer is, yes of course it can - but is that new "something" the same as the original "something"? In Buddhist understanding, this answer depends on clinging and identification. If we cling to it and identify with it as the same - then for us it is the same. If we don't cling and don't identify - then it's not.
The next question you ask: if suffering comes from coincidence of multiple conditions, and one of those conditions is craving, if that craving is removed, the suffering stops - but can the suffering arise again? Yes, of course it can - if all the necessary factors, including craving, come together again.
Why would craving happen again? Craving happens when we think that object of craving is desirable. Why do we think that object of craving is desirable? Because we think that getting that object will lead to good experience for us. Why do we think that getting that object will lead to good experience? Because we think that good experience comes from the object, not from ourselves. Why do we think that good experience comes from the object? Because we don't understand how our mind creates experience. This is called "ignorance".
So if there is still this "ignorance" => there will be craving => there will be suffering.
Nirvana is permanent cessation of suffering attained with complete cessation of ignorance (of how mind creates experience).

I think it's subject to origination if (but only if) the conditions for its origination exist.
A tree, for example, is subject to cessation.
A tree is subject to origination, but only in certain conditions: if there's earth, if there's rain, if there's sun, and if there's a seed (or perhaps the roots remaining from a previous tree), and if it's not eaten while it's still young, etc.
It's for that reason that they talk about Nibbana -- destroying the "roots" etc.

Just for clarification:Once cessation of craving is achieved how can 'whole mass of suffering' arise ? Isn't it true that cessation of craving means cessation of suffering and once cessation is achieved i.e Nirvana is achieved ,there is no way for the suffering to arise?

I think the 3rd noble truth says that suffering ceases when craving ceases, but doesn't explain why craving can arise. See also e.g. this answer which identifies other "roots" -- including Nivarana, Asava, and Anusaya, as well as "ignorance". There are some other topics on these roots, see also for example What is effluent?


text:
Kakacūpama Sutta and Mistress Vedehika
I'm not sure sure if this is opinion based or not but my question is. is it fair to judge Vedehika, poorly (and does  the sutta really do this). It seems like she was pushed to the breaking point (malicioulsly)  and is the lesson here that she is not really as good a person as was previously reported? After this account the sutta seems to switch from this perspective to the actions expectation of a bhikkhu and not a lay person.

I'm not sure sure if this is opinion based or not but my question is. is it fair to judge Vedehika, poorly (and does the sutta really do this). It seems like she was pushed to the breaking point

Well, simply by going with what's described in sutta MN 21, it doesn't seem like Vedehika was really that gentle and peaceful. Let's see her reaction the very first time her maid Kali got up late:

“So the maid Kalı got up late. Then Mistress Vedehika said: ‘Hey, Kalı!’—‘What is it, madam?’—‘What is the matter that you get up so late?’—‘Nothing is the matter, madam.’—‘Nothing is the matter, you wicked girl, yet you get up so late!’ and she was angry and displeased, and she scowled."

And then what she did the last time being tested:

‘What is the matter that you get up still later in the day?’—‘Nothing is the matter, madam.’—‘Nothing is the matter, you wicked girl, yet you get up still later in the day!’ and she was angry and displeased, and she took a rolling-pin, gave her a blow on the head, and cut her head. Then the maid Kalı, with blood running from her cut head..."

Now whether it was a true story doesn't matter much for it was a simple analogy the Buddha used to really drive home the point of a very real issue for many monks:

So too, bhikkhus, some bhikkhu is extremely gentle, extremely meek, extremely peaceful, so long as disagreeable courses of speech do not touch him. But it is when disagreeable courses of speech touch him that it can be understood whether that bhikkhu is really kind, gentle, and peaceful."

My take on that sutta is that , you can't really tell if one is kind or gentle in a normal situation but rather when he (or she , Vedehika in this case)  is under stress.   Sort of like you can kinda tell if one is coward or brave when he is in a dangerous situation.

I guess my concern is that if you have a history of being patient and kind does one incident define or redefine you? Of course ideally we would want to respond the same always but certainly as lay people this is difficult.  It seems she was manipulated into this response, not that that is an acceptable excuse.

The explanation of whole kakacūpamasutta:
After Buddha blamed Moliyaphagguna in Sutta. Ma. Mū. kakacūpamasuttaṃ, he rejected the monk hood to be a lay in Sutta. Saṃ. Ni.  kaḷārakhattiyasuttaṃ. In  that, kaḷārakhattiyasuttaṃ, Kaḷārakhattiya bhikkhu talked with Ven.Sāriputta "the mendicant Moḷiyaphagguna has rejected the training and returned to a lesser life." So, Buddha began the second part of kakacūpamasuttaṃ  to explain & to teach the left bhikkhu by Moliyaphagguna-rejection case.
Moliyaphagguna can not patient to co-temple bhikkhus' and Buddha's blame, because he was unruly, unteachable by his annoy--dosa. He annoyed after he was blamed, so then he rejected the monk hood. Therefore  Kaḷārakhattiya bhikkhu talked with Ven.Sāriputta "the mendicant Moḷiyaphagguna has rejected the training and returned to a lesser life."
Buddha began the second part of kakacūpamasuttaṃ  to explain & to teach the left bhikkhu that whoever  can pause annoy--dosa-mind, by mettā-meditation, they can patient to listen and to train follow Buddha's teaching such as "only 1 period meal vinaya-rule". Then they will "come to growth and development in this dispensation of the Teaching" like buddha said in kakacūpamasuttaṃ.
But the training is not too easy like that, some time there are hidden enemies such as hidden annoy, etc. So, Buddha said "Like a Sal grove near a village or hamlet would have an undergrowth of weeds" and put the Vedehikā example in kakacūpamasuttaṃ to let bhikkhu more careful about the hidden annoy before they will be blamed by the others.
Then Buddha taught "others speaking would speak in this fivefold way" and many similitudes  to bhikkhu, because Buddha let them prepare themselves before the annoy will arise at listening blame. By this teaching, bhikkhu will have enough mettā to patient for the blame listening, then they can practice follow to the blame "to come to growth and development in this dispensation of the Teaching".


text:
The "awakened" outside of a monastic/retreat setting?
Most people cannot live in the secluded setting of a monastery or retreat. Some Buddhist traditions nonetheless affirm that laypeople can become enlightened. Are there (inspiring) examples of such laypeople?
How (well) do so-called awakened spiritual/meditation masters function outside the seclusion of the monastic/retreat environments? Please give examples. (Only one comes to mind: Patrul Rinpoche).

Conversely, how many enlightened people do we ever hear about, not living a monastic or renunnciate life? Could there be a reason for that?

I think to develop deep meditation, deep vipassana (insight), jhana, etc, a monastic setting is required so meditation can be practised full-time.
However, a person with keen insight, especially into impermanence, can easily attain stream-entry outside of a monastic setting.
Note: This does not apply to believers in reincarnation since they avoid the natural reality of the impermanence of life.

only the mundane, wordly parts of the Buddha's teachings (e.g. kamma, rebirth, mundane right view), not the teachings leading to total liberation, deal with "functioning" in the layperson's life.
the Buddha taught the path leading to total liberation (which supramundane right view leads to)  - which does not necessarily have to translate into worldly 'functioning' for material ends.

Daniel Ingram claims (or claimed) to be an arahant.
His site: http://integrateddaniel.info/
More on him in this thread, which mentions other enlightened people.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/1tiy7o/dan_ingram_arahant_or_raving_manic_lunatic/
I can't say whether they are or aren't enlightened. From what I read, I doubt it.

Milarepa
...His mother, bitter, sent Milarepa to train in black magic, to wreak revenge on those who had blighted her life...
Then later in life he came to meet his teacher Marpa the translator
...he came to regret his actions, and looked for help in shedding the bad karma he had acquired during his vengeful adolescence...
Tilopa
He practiced this teaching at Somapuri, but when the monastery saw him take a female consort for the practice of union yoga, he was forced to quit the community.
Tilopa profited from his expulsion by travelling throughout India, searching out many teachers and learning their methods.
Naropa
Several years later, at twenty-eight, his interests drew him to Nalanda University, near Pullahari, famous for its Buddhist philosophers...But then a dakini appeared to him, telling him that meditation practice was more important than philosophizing, and that he should search out a certain Tilopa for instructions.Leaving the monastery...
This is an entire lineage Tilopa->Naropa->Marpa->Milarepa
As they say :The truly enlightened are not necessarily very religious. Religon is a convienent description to take care of our fears, to passify us.

Answer would be better with links to sources or describing these persons.

Ignition--starting of engine--running of the motor car. So if this ignition happens due to leaving incomplete in past life, issues making life uninterested, then be you are in monastery or at your home ,the engine starts and the motorcar runs towards destination of enlightenment. Now if ignition is absent ,then go on rubbing ,rubbing,rubbing until spark is produced. it can produce in a day or cant produce throughout life. In monastery ,where deliberation of practice is there, the rubbing process goes on . At least there is hope that some or other day the spark/ignition will produce.And when it happens ,the engine starts and the car runs towards enlightenment unless stopped by meting some accident or b/d of the engine.This i elaborated that the enlightenment can be attained anywhere but required is the above prerequisite.


text:
Infinite loops of Rebirths
I have a question.
A man should attain enlightenment to liberate himself from cycle of rebirths and every other aspects.
What if a MAN don't even care to try out to attain enlightenment. Will he be stuck in a cycle and no place to stop his process of rebirth until he attains enlightenment.
Does he be a prisoner of this birth cycle. Is there no way for him to escape until he attains Enlightenment. What is the end of this birth cycle?
I don't have in-depth knowledge in Buddhism or the question I ask. So please correct me if I am wrong.

Vimalakirti Sutra:

Śāriputra: Goddess, where will you be born when you transmigrate after death?
Goddess: I will be born where all the magical incarnations of the Tathāgata are born.
Śāriputra: But the emanated incarnations of the Tathāgata do not transmigrate nor are they born.
Goddess: All things and living beings are just the same; they do not transmigrate nor are they born!
Śāriputra: Goddess, how soon will you attain the perfect enlightenment of buddhahood?
Goddess: At such time as you, elder, become endowed once more with the qualities of an ordinary individual, then will I attain the perfect enlightenment of buddhahood.
Śāriputra: Goddess, it is impossible that I should become endowed once more with the qualities of an ordinary individual.
Goddess: Just so, reverend Śāriputra, it is impossible that I should attain the perfect enlightenment of buddhahood! Why? Because perfect enlightenment stands upon the impossible. Because it is impossible, no one attains the perfect enlightenment of buddhahood.
Śāriputra: But the Tathāgata has declared: “The tathāgatas, who are as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, have attained perfect buddhahood, are attaining perfect buddhahood, and will go on attaining perfect buddhahood.”
Goddess: Reverend Śāriputra, the expression “the buddhas of the past, present, and future” is a conventional expression made up of a certain number of syllables. The buddhas are neither past, nor present, nor future. Their enlightenment transcends the three times! But tell me, elder, have you attained the state of arhat?
Śāriputra: It is attained, because there is no attainment.
Goddess: Just so, there is perfect enlightenment because there is no attainment of perfect enlightenment.

Thanks for the reference to this sutra which I had never seen before!

Yes, I too was very happy when I discovered it. It reads like a sane version of prajnaparamita line of sutras.

I found this https://bobthurman.com/relative-absolute-a-conversation-between-manjushri-vimalakirti-part-1-ep-38/ and this https://bobthurman.com/relative-absolute-a-conversation-between-manjushri-vimalakirti-part-2-ep-39/ which you might enjoy :)

To your first question, the Pacceka-Buddha are individuals who attained enlightenment without the Buddha's teaching. They are very, very rare. Since they achieved enlightenment solely on their own, there is no way to know if they cared about enlightenment; they might have, and they might have not, but it does not really matter.
To your second question, 'Enlightenment' is the only way to end the birth-cycle.

Enlightenment(Nibbana) is the only way out. There  is no other. As long as the causes are present, the effect will arise.

I think this is the succinct and correct answer. If you believe we are transmigrating beings, then nibbana is the only way to stop the transmigration.

@YesheTenley 'transmigration' is the wrong word to use since it means a soul passing from one body to another.

I did not use transmigration to refer to souls. I meant it with the same usage as this: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn15/sn15.003.than.html

It's not a commonly used term in Buddhism to give that meaning. Someone can very easily misinterpret it as a soul or something going from life to life. Rebirth is better.

Thanissaro Bhikkhu used "trransmigration" to translate samsara in his older translation of SN 15.3 (on Access to Insight) -- his newer translation of that is "wandering-on".

The process of purification of mind, is like the refinement of gold. One needs to do away with the impurities (fetters/hindrances) to obtain pure gold. As long as they exist, one is confined to Samsara.
According to Theravada Buddhism, there are Three Gateways to Liberation. In the Visuddhimagga, they are described as realizing the Three Characteristics of Existence.

The Triple Gateway To Liberation
It enters upon the state of the triple gateway to liberation now with the
  predominance of [one of] three faculties according as the contemplation occurs
  in [one of] the three ways.
  For it is the three contemplations that are called the three gateways to liberation, according as it is said: “But these three gateways to liberation lead to the outlet from the world, [that is to say,]
(i) to the seeing of all formations as limited and circumscribed
  and to the entering of consciousness into the signless element,
(ii) to the stirring up of the mind with respect to all formations and to the entering of consciousness into
  the desireless element,
(iii) to the seeing of all things (dhamma) as alien and to the
  entering of consciousness into the voidness element. These three gateways to
  liberation lead to the outlet from the world”.
-- Visuddhimagga: The Path of Purification, p. 685-88, by Ven. Buddhaghosa

A person who doesn't exert himself to attain it will obviously go without an attainment of knowledge & vision leading to the non emergence of a future due to an exhaustion of it's requisite causes & conditions.
The cessation of that which changes as it persists is thought about as it's cessation principle on account of which a yogi realizes the foremost meditative release.
The knowledge & vision of the release arises when the mind is properly inclined to it through the development of perceptions leading to disenchantment with transient elements as opposed to an inclination to a perpetual conception & perception of & through doors of the senses on account of fascination & enchantment with various states of perception & feeling.
The cessation is a freedom to be directly realized, it is a freedom from being and a freedom to be and this seeing with wisdom [judgement] destroys defilements of greed, anger & delusion as that sorrowless state is void of these elements.
One who practices this release of the mind will eventually remove delusion, greed & anger from his mind altogether, destroying the root [of becoming] they say, this is called unprovoked release or nibbana with residue. Their minds are in that made like the cessation element void of delusion and their incline to cessation as they become completely cool in regards to expectations & determinations for a future.
With their mind having no inclination to conception & perception of this or that state of existence due to disenchantment and with the breakup of the body by which they were experiencing pleasant & unpleasant sensations all modes of being come to an end.

One who need to stop this cycle of birth,at least have to become sovan,A person who became to sovan state has just 7 rebirths.. All others haven't even understood sovan state'll be in this circle of rebirth

Although I am no monk or Buddhist expert, I consider myself a Buddhist. As it is understood by me, Enlightenment CAN include the cessation of the rebirth cycle if an enlightened being so chooses it. Some do not, such as the Dahli Lama. His Inner Buddha Nature/Perfect Light, whatever you choose to call an enlightened soul, seems to have the choice of whether to continue or stop the rebirth cycle. Enlightenment seems to me to have the most to do with no longer possessing the self or I and no longer considering things from the position of a "personal singularity" or self. An enlightened being no longer need consider anything from the position of self or I, but of an all empathetic and compassionate entity no longer bound by the restrictions or "chains," if you will, of a single being. this is purely my opinion/understanding and not taken from any writings or teachings that I know of to exist.
Namaste,
Brian Burke Jr.

just to clarify smth Dalai Lama practises a certain type of yoga which allows him to pass his awareness to the next rebirth and remembering parts of his past life, however this is not enlightenment!

SO, the Dahli Lama or any of the Dahli Lamas have never attained enlightenment? I am a lay Buddhist and must find a teacher and a meditation guide. In Rochester, NY the only Buddhist centre I know of is the Zen Center started by Philip Kapleau (3 Pillars of Zen author) Do most of the people on here practice Zen Buddhism?

I'm not from NY, Enlightened beings are not reborn again,but the third Dalai Lama that I have read had achieved Enlightened

@BrianF.BurkeJr. IMO a majority of people who post on this site are Theravada (not Zen), and not American, though there are also people who post on Mahayana (including Zen although more usually Tibetan) topics. As for finding a Center, people sometimes ask a question like this, but you'd be lucky to find another user here from Rochester. See also the World Buddhist Directory for Rochester NY.

Thank you all for your answers. ChrisW - I will indeed try to look in the "World Buddhist Dictionary for Rochester, NY" It would appear I have a lot of reading to do. Any suggestions of beginner books that are rather complete would be appreciated. Thank you again to everyone who answered my question so thoughtfully. Peace, Brian

If a MAN don't even care to try out to attain enlightenment then he is not a prisoner.
As for the end of this "birth" cycle, it is when the mind stops conceiving "self".
Refer to SN 22.99 Gaddula Sutta.


text:
What is the difference between destruction of craving and cessation of craving?
There are two suttas, SN 46.26 about destruction of craving and SN 46.27 about the cessation of craving.
I was thinking that destruction of craving is same as cessation of craving but the pali word for each of them is different(destruction of craving - taṇhakkhayāya ;cessation of craving -taṇhānirodhāya)
. However I am not clear what difference does it make when we say cessation of craving instead of destruction of craving? In both the cases there should be cessation of suffering.
My question is : What is the difference between destruction of craving and cessation of craving?

SN 22.47 could be a fake sutta because the term "tanhanirodha" is not found in any other sutta, apart from in suttas about dependent origination. https://legacy.suttacentral.net/search?query=ta%E1%B9%87h%C4%81nirodh%C4%81ya&offset=0&limit=10

There are tanha's nirodha in everywhere of tipitaka. Ariyasacca and paṭiccasamuppāda are mentioning the same. Don't distort Tipitaka. https://legacy.suttacentral.net/search?query=ta%E1%B9%87hakkhayo+nirodho&lang=

SN 46.27 is cessation part of dependent origination in SN Nidāna vibhaṅgasutta 84000.org/tipitaka/read/v.php?B=16&A=33&Z=87

According to Sanskrit dictionary, the two words have different connotations that I think are important for correct understanding of Buddhist doctrine.
Pali kkhaya or Sanskrit kṣayā (kshaya) means "destruction, termination, ruin, perish, wane, decay, end, vanish, disappear". (kṣayā-ya means "for destruction")
Pali and Sanskrit nirodha is made from the root rodha which basically means dam, fence, wall, barrier -- and prefix ni- that means "within", "down into" or niḥ- which means "out", "away". Combined with rodha, both prefixes seem to support the image of containment, blocking something from getting in or getting out. Hence the dictionary meaning of Sanskrit nirodha: "confine, imprison, restrain, control, suppress, obstruct, hinder, keep back". Interestingly, "Nirodh" is a condom brand in India. In modern-day Hindi - a language that grew out of Proto-Magadhi Prakrit, the word निरोध (nirodha) means "contraception", "protection", "detention", "control", "prevention", "restraint", "check", "repression", "preclusion", "obstruction", "constraint", "inhibition", and gives rise to such modern words as "insect repellent" (nirodhaka) and "stranglehold" (nirodhana).
So the meaning of nirodha is more like not allowing something to happen, while the meaning of kshaya is more like decaying, falling apart & vanishing from existence.
The common English translations of nirodha as "cessation" and kshaya as "destruction" have it a little backwards, in my opinion. A better translation IMO would be nirodha => "prevention" (to prevent, to arrest, to stop) and kshaya => "ending" (to end).
As I understand, Buddha of Pali Canon uses "nirodha" a lot more frequently than "kshaya" because he wants to make it clear that dukkha is something we actively prevent (by not giving rise to craving, by uprooting the ignorance, by developing signlessness, by abiding in suchness), instead of it simply ending by itself when we reach some fantasy meditative state.

I have found a sutta which explains what is cessation. It explains here

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

Re-read the topic What is Nirodha?
Based on this answer (which quotes fro a translation of the Visuddhimagga), and this answer (which quotes the PTS dictionary definitions of rodha and of ni) perhaps nirodha implies "escape from the prison of".
Also Piya Tan quotes Payutto saying that nirodha doesn't mean "cessation" (of something which has arisen), instead it means non-arising ... according to that interpretation, the third noble truth would be about the "non-arising" of dukkha.

Ven. Payutto described 5 types of nirodha: http://84000.org/tipitaka/dic/d_seek.php?text=%B9%D4%E2%C3%B8&original=1

The semantic properties of these words are shared.
As an example, a champion may get destroyed by a contender in a fight which is then a cessation of the champion's reign.
In Dhamma the way we use words & construe meaning is akin to creating a map of understanding complete with elements properly conceived. Following this map we may arrive at a cessation or at a destruction which may essentially be the same truth & reality albeit apprehended & arrived at differently, think of the blind men and the elephant parable.
Removal denotes absence, Destruction denotes elimination, elimination is that by which the thing is removed having been destroyed. In the Dhamma that which is the destruction is also without that which is destroyed, it is a truth & reality which is in & by itself empty of taints and these unwholesome states utterly cease in one practicing the seeing & knowing of the destruction.

The answer of this question
According to your quote, khayāya and nirodha mean same. It is synonym of each other for that context.

There are two suttas, one about destruction of craving and other about the cessation of craving.

Why buddha teach those both sutta by those difference words in the same meaning?
Because some word is understandable just for some listener. Similitude, if you say "give me barbie" in the Australian's restaurant, it may means "give me barbecue", not barbie doll, because "barbie" is a slang of barbecue in Australia. Also, buddha may teach the same paṭiccasamuppāda by the difference words for one from the northern and another one from the southern, because of their lingo.
Then how to know they are the same?

Your quote suttas come together, the first is full, but the next is brief. That means the 1st saṅgāyana-members decided to brief the next sutta because of the previous sutta.
The other sutta, which describing paṭiccasamuppāda as alike as your quoted sutta, use these 2 words as each other synonym, such as in Sutta. Saṃ. Ni. parivīmaṃsanasutta:

ayaṃ vuccati bhikkhave bhikkhu sabbaso sammā dukkhak-khay-āya paṭipanno jarāmaraṇa-nirodh-āya.
This is called a mendicant who is practicing (paṭipanno) for(āya) the complete ending (khaya) of suffering (dukkha), for(āya) the cessation(nirodh) of old age and death (jarāmaraṇa).
[jarāmaraṇa=dukkha follow to SN Dhammacakkappavattanasutta and SN Paṭiccasamuppādavibhaṅgasutta]

There are another example of the same case in Vinaya. Mahāvi (1) Paṭhamapārājikakaṇḍaṃ as well
The side answer in this question
It is very easy to take two piece of jigsaw, then say "whole of jigsaw-pieces in this box is not united, because these 2 pieces can not connect together". And people who addicts drama-movie often love&like to act like this.
But it is uncountable hard to relate and connect a thousand pieces of jigsaw together by the right way. It is harder when that jigsaw has changed the box more than 2,600 times through 2,600 years.
However, if one in 2,600 years later can done that jigsaw to be unity. It's means  the fist box owners already marks the numbers at each piece of jigsaw very clearly, and they also wrote the manual "how to connect the jigsaw together", then sent it from the previous generation the the next generation for 2,600 years.
From another answer that has now been deleted:

I was once taught the Pali word "atthaṅgama" refers to a temporary cessation where as "nirodha" refers to a permanent cessation.

Atthaṅgamo can refer to a permanent cessation, too. Such as in DN Nidāna. Dukkasuttaṃ:

“Monks, what is the fading (Atthaṅgamo) of unpleasantness?

“Monks, on account of eye and forms arises eye-consciousness. The coincidental arising of the three is contact. On account of a contact are feelings. On account of feelings is craving. With the cessation of that craving without a remainder holding ceases. With the cessation of holding being ceases. With the cessation of being birth ceases. With the cessation of birth, decay, death, grief, lament, unpleasantness displeasure and distress cease. Thus ceases the complete mass of unpleasantness.

From another answer that has now been deleted:

Therefore, I think the suttas should be researched to affirm or refute this idea that "nirodha" refers to a permanent cessation.

Sāriputta already done it, but the anti-abhidhammist often ignore it. So, according  to Ven. Payutto and Sāriputta-mahāsāvaka, there are 5 type of cessations using in tipitaka that appears in various difference words:

[224] Nirodha 5 = extinction; cessation of defilements.

Vikkhambhana-nirodha — extinction by suppression.

Tadaṅga-nirodha — extinction by substitution of opposites.

Samuccheda-nirodha  — extinction by cutting off or destruction.

Paṭipassaddhi-nirodha — extinction by tranquillization.

Nissarana-nirodha — extinction by escape; extinction by getting freed.

These example words have the same meaning as well:  Pahāna 5 (abandonment 5), Vimutti 5 (deliverance 5), Viveka 5 (seclusion 5), Virāga 5 (detachment; dispassionateness), Vossagga 5 (relinquishing), etc.

Actually,  atthakathā already researched and often specified one of these 5 meaning for each nirodha-word found in each sutta. But the anti-abhidhammist ignore them, never try to study abhidhamma and atthakathā as they are and by the ancient study system. So although the research already done, they still never know the existence of that research.
From another answer that has now been deleted:

The word "kkhayo" ("destruction") definitely refers to a permanent cessation or "uprooting". When the Buddha 1st uttered his awakening, he referred to the destruction of craving

There is no kkhaya-word in pāli. Pāli has only khaya. But -k- of taṇha-k-khaya (taṇha+khaya) is a word merging as alike as -t- of get-t-ing (get+ing).
Khaya not used only as a permanent cessation, there are many khaya used as temporary cessation, such as in Sutta. Saṃ. Kha. Ānandasutta:

“Ānanda, matter is impermanent, compounded and arise dependently and it is of the normal of withering(khaya), fading (vaya), loosing interest (virāga) and ceasing (nirodha[temporary]). The cessation(nirodha[permanent]) of that is cessation.

From another answer that has now been deleted:

Another contra argument against synonymity is it is impossible for "kkhayo" ("destruction") to be used in Paticcasamuppada because "nirodha" in Paticcasamuppada refers to the extinguishing of ignorance that taints consciousness, mind-body, sense bases and contact rather than the destruction of consciousness, mind-body, sense bases and contact.

Kaya-word was not directly used in Paṭiccasamuppādavibhaṅgasutta. But Kaya-word was used instead of cease-word, (nirodha-paṭiccasamuppāda)  directly in various suttas and in many relation with paṭiccasamuppāda, such as:

“Sir, a mendicant who is perfected—with defilements ended, who has completed the spiritual journey, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, achieved their own goal, utterly ended the fetters of rebirth, and is rightly freed through enlightenment—is dedicated to six things. They are dedicated to renunciation, seclusion, kindness, the ending of craving, the ending of grasping, and mental clarity (no-ignorant).
“Yo so, bhante, bhikkhu arahaṃ khīṇāsavo vusitavā katakaraṇīyo ohitabhāro anuppattasadattho parikkhīṇabhavasaṃyojano sammadaññāvimutto, so cha ṭhānāni adhimutto hoti— nekkhammādhimutto hoti, pavivekādhimutto hoti, abyāpajjādhimutto hoti, taṇhāk-khayā-dhimutto hoti, upādāna-kkhayā-dhimutto hoti, asammohādhimutto hoti.

From another answer that has now been deleted:

Also, the term "tanhanirodha" appears to be not found in any other sutta, apart from in suttas about dependent origination.

This gives rise to two different conclusions:

SN 46.27 is a fake sutta. Generally, when "permanent nirodha" is referred to, the term "asesa" ("remainderless") is also included. Since SN 46.27 does not include the term "asesa", it could be a fake sutta.

The fact is:  only in the cessation noble truth that taṇhā-nirodha come with "asesa" as "yo tassaāyeva taṇhāya asesavirāganirodho" . even in Paṭiccasamuppādavibhaṅgasutta "asesa" come with only avijjā as "avijjāya tveva asesavirāganirodhā". But taṅhā come with nirodha without "asesa".

When craving ceases, grasping ceases.

taṇhānirodhā upādānanirodho;  (no "asesa")

Actually, we all know that the meaning of "asesa" also included by the context relation. But, it was fail, if someone said 'when "permanent nirodha" is referred to, the term "asesa" ("remainderless") is also included'.
So, this fail can not prove "it could be a fake sutta."
From another answer that has now been deleted:

SN 46.27 explains how to achieve the "cessation" mentioned in SN 46.26; upon which the factors of enlightenment depend on. In other words, the "destruction" in SN 46.26 is about final Nibbana where as the "cessation" in SN 46.26, which the factors of enligthenment are dependent upon, is the non-final cessation from starting the Path.

The fact is:  If one think 'SN 46.27 has to have "asesa" to be "final Nibbana"'. According to that idea, SN 46.26 can not be "final Nibbana" as well, because AN 46.26 also doesn't have "asesa" as well.
So, this fail can not prove "it could be a fake sutta.", because the logic are fail at both.
From another answer that has now been deleted:

Therefore, the respective terms "kkhayo" and "nirodha", as used in SN 46.26 and SN 46.27, may not be synonymous.

Therefore, those all reasons can not prove '"kkhayo" and "nirodha", as used in SN 46.26 and SN 46.27'.
So, what happen in SN 46.26 and SN 46.27?
The possible case is "some of the listening-bhikkhu came form the other state, they didn't understand and did confuse of "khaya" in SN 46.26, while Buddha had be teaching. Because of that confusing, they couldn't memorize that sutta. Then they ask the buddha for repeat again "Please, repeat again, because I confuse of 'khaya'-word in 'taṇhakkhayā kammakkhayo kammakkhayā dukkhakkhayoti', so I can't memorize this sutta". Then the buddha know and repeat as SN 46.27.

interesting theory

@DheerajVerma It's rule, not theory. Theravāda-monk's leaders still doing like that. Because sutta and vinaya force theravāda members to do continuous like that. See: https://unmixedtheravada.blogspot.com/2017/09/how-to-find-right-dhamma-teacher.html

Khaya not used only as a permanent cessation sound wrong

this a answer sounds wrong. khaya appears used with defilements unless used for the final ending of the aggregates

Payutto maybe #1 Thai scholar said: "A problem with the word "nirodha"" https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books3/Payutto_Bhikkhu_Dependent_Origination.htm#problem

@StopObama-BidenStopWar I will not argue about khaya, pali problem, with one who never memorize even only DN22 in pali because it requires very high level pali skill and memorizing skill to understand the answer.  So, you can tag me after you already remember every related suttas about khaya in pali form.

@StopObama-BidenStopWar also, ven. Payutto wrote what you quoted when he was young.

Irrelevant. Nirodha does not mean literal cessation. A Buddha has no ignorance but still has sense contact & feeling (Iti 44)

Since SN 46.26 & SN 46.27 are grouped together, any relationship between them should be investigated. While both suttas refer to the same outcome (thus destruction & cessation are synonymous here), in SN 46.26, khaya (destruction) is the final result of the Path; where as nirodha (cessation) in SN 46.26 is something the Path is dependent upon, as follows:

Bhikkhus, develop the path and the way that leads to the destruction
of craving. And what is the path and the way that leads to the
destruction of craving? It is: the seven factors of enlightenment.
What seven? The enlightenment factor of mindfulness … the
enlightenment factor of equanimity.”
When this was said, the Venerable Udayī asked the Blessed One:
“Venerable sir, how are the seven factors of enlightenment developed
and cultivated so that they lead to the destruction of craving?”
Here, Udayī, a bhikkhu develops the enlightenment factor of
mindfulness, which is based [dependent] upon seclusion, dispassion and cessation,
maturing in release.
46.26

Therefore, it appears destruction (khaya) is a more absolute/permanent term;  where as nirodha can be used more flexibly.
For example, in the teaching of Dependent Origination, nirodha is used for the 'cessation' of ignorance, formations, consciousness, body-mind, sense-bases, contact, feeling, craving, attachment, becoming, birth, aging-&-death and suffering.
However, if Dependent Origination is actually understood, it is understood consciousness, mind-body, sense-bases, contact & feeling do not literally 'cease' when ignorance ceases because consciousness, mind-body, sense-bases, contact & feeling continue to operate for a Buddha (refer to Iti 44; SN 22.53; MN 38; MN 148; MN 140; etc). Instead, what 'ceases' is the ignorance & defilement polluting/tainting consciousness, mind-body, sense-bases, contact & feeling.
Where as 'khaya' ('destruction') appears only used for literal destruction. Therefore, unlike the term 'viññāṇanirodhā' in Dependent Origination (which does not refer to the literal destruction of consciousness), if the term 'viññāṇakkhayo' was found, it appears it would refer to the literal destruction of consciousness.
In conclusion, as the final outcome of the Path, the words 'destruction' & 'cessation' appear synonymous in SN 46.26 & SN 46.27; but not within SN 46.26. However, in other suttas, it appears the words 'destruction' & 'cessation' may not be synonymous.
For example, in the stock definition of Nibbana (found in MN 26 below), the single word 'cessation' ('nirodha') appears a synonym for Nibbana where as 'khaya' alone is not but found within a compound. Instead, 'khaya' appears always added to something, such as craving.

It’s also hard for them to see this thing; that is, the calming of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the destruction of
craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment.
Idampi kho ṭhānaṃ duddasaṃ yadidaṃ—sabbasaṅkhārasamatho sabbūpadhipaṭinissaggo taṇhākkhayo virāgo nirodho nibbānaṃ.
MN 26

For example, in SN 43.14-43, the word 'khaya' is not found as a synonym for Nibbana. Instead, the word compound 'taṇhākkhaya' is found.
In summary, the word 'khaya' alone appears to never have any special meaning in Buddhism. Where as the word 'nirodha' can be used more flexibly yet when used alone appears to have a special supreme meaning (synonymous with Nibbana).


text:
Ten fetters in saṃsāra during meditation
How are the 10 fetters being destroyed?
Can the chain of fetters be seen during vipassana meditation?

The 10 fetters are destroyed by reaching the different stages of enlightenment.
Meaning the Sotāpanna gets rid off the first three fetters; the fourth and fifth are weakened by the Sakadāgāmi and completely destroyed by the Anāgāmī.
Fully free of all the fetters is the Arahant.
See http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/s_t/samyojana.htm) for a short list.
I'm not sure what you mean by the chain of fetters. Could you specify this?
Anyway, yes the fetters can be seen/experienced during vipassana meditation.

Chain of fetter ,what I mean is  chain of stage of fetter can be seen and at the last stage it has disappeared. And there is a nother chain appears can seen.

The fetters are not a chain, in the sense that they are linked to each other one after the other. They are separate mental states, mental attributes. But maybe I still don't understand what you mean.
Perhaps you mean 'one is chained to a fetter'.
Anyhow, my original answer still stands. The fetters are destroyed by reaching enlightenment.
And one will, without any doubt, know when fetters have been destroyed.

Chain ,Is it samadhi state of mind?

Chain is basically a different word than fetter, but they both refer to the same: Being tide to whatever (craving, ideas and so on). It has nothing to do with samadhi. If you are able to see YouTube, you might be interested in watching this video on Fetters (MN 64): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxNQSPhlu60&t=0s&index=39&list=PL4j9bs3T1aPSuZ4ULqx2QkFvrZMU-mXrz

How are the 10 fetters being destroyed?

To breaking the circuit of 10 fetters, the practitioner has to destroy by the continuous understanding the circuit, paṭiccasamuppāda, of 10 fetters as they are.
In breaking of circuit, paṭiloma-paṭiccasamuppāda, Buddha taught to destroy the last fetter, avijjā and taṇhā&upādāna, to break the whole circuit. But most some people can not immediately destroy avijjā and taṇhā&upādāna.
So, in 10 fetters, Buddha describe more explanation of those avijjā and taṇhā&upādāna as 10 fetters, 10 saṃyojana. And Buddha arranged that 10 fetters from the easiest-to-destroy to the hardest-to-destroy. So, someone, who can not destroy avijjā and taṇhā&upādāna at only one time, will try to destroy the easier-to-destroy fetters (such as uddhambhāgiya-saṃyojana) instead, step by step.
By this way, people can more easily destroy avijjā and taṇhā&upādāna, by beginning at destroying 3 orambhāgiya-fetters, which are diṭṭhi-upādāna/sīpabata-upādāna/attvāda-upādāna-paṭiccasamuppāda, =iterations of bhava&vibhava-taṇhā-paṭiccasamuppāda, and  ignoring [avijjā] of causes&effects in paṭiccasamuppāda. After they destroyed these 3 fetters, the 7 left fetters will certainly destroy in the future, not over more than 7 rebirth according to Sutta. Aṅ. (3): chakkanipātā,  Paṭhama-abhabbaṭṭhānasuttaṃ and the suttas around it.

Can the chain of fetters be seen during vipassana meditation?

Yes, according to Sutta. Saṃ. Ma. Dhammacakkappavattanasutta, the practitioner have to clearly understand the 4 noble truths, which included 10 fetters in the 2nd noble truth, already.


text:
Buddhist views on transgender issues
The Buddha or the scriptures do not state specifically if an individual being a transgender is right or wrong. So how would a Buddhist interpret this in a modern light and why?

Are you asking if it is right for them to continue to live instead of committing suicide? :D

No I'm asking whether being a transgender is wrong

@Hari Do you mean doing hormone therapy to change one's gender?

Probably duplicate of Theravada perspective on transgender people -- see also this answer for a hint at a Mahayana perspective.

When you ask whether it is wrong, are you asking "is it unethical?", or are you asking "is it factually discordant in that one identifies with something he is not"? Your question is still unclear.

For anybody who ''wants to end dukkha'', caring about the body is the first mistake, and trying to change the body is the second mistake. The third mistake is to base the actions, which let's recall are thinking, talking and moving the body, on the individual will (to talk like the secular humanists) or more generally on the various libidos, like the libido dominandi and libido sentiendi to talk like the full-on christians, which means on the sensations imagined, fantasised, expected, or even worse demanded , through some of the ''6 sense consciousnesses'', as the results of the actions based on the libido.
Overall, for anybody who want to stop being miserable, it is quite a blunder to even spend some energy on this.
For anybody who ''wants to end dukkha'', the actions are based on what gets the person closer to nirvana -- those are welcomed -- and what gets the person away from nirvana -- those are avoided -- which have nothing to do with pleasures, displeasures, comfort, lack of comfort, the will, the libido.
For the people who are satisfied with dukkha, it is quite natural to worry about the body, the senses and to base their actions on ''what they want'' or more generally on their desires (and then, even worse to build an identity on the pleasures and displeasures they have so far), since it is all they know ; which it turns out is a major source of misery, but they do not know that...

this has nothing to do with the question, your answer is misplaced