text:
Does the middle way apply to objects as well as the skandhas?
Does the middle way -- between annihilationism and eternalism -- apply to objects? Like a mountain, will it either exist forever or be destroyed, or is it too the middle way?

The expression “middle way” refers to the Buddhist understanding of
  practical life, avoiding the extremes of self-denial and
  self-indulgence, as well as the view of reality that avoids the
  extreme positions of eternalism and annihilationism.

That is one way of reading the meaning of 'middle way'.
Do objects -- supposing they exist -- we have consciousness of have substance, according to any Mahayana Buddhists? That seems to ask the same question, I'm not sure.

The middle way -- between annihilationism and eternalism -- does apply to objects. Objects are neither existent nor not existent. They are interpretative imputations made on the basis of multiple causes and conditions temporarily coming together in their non-stop motion, transformation, and interaction.
Objects we have consciousness of are not "made of" substance, according to Mahayana Buddhists. Objects are interpretative imputations made by the observer. The so-called material substance is but a small part of all conditions, combination of which leads to arising of this particular delineation and designation.

Middle Way is described as:

avoiding the extremes of sensual indulgence and self-mortification, where one does not seek pleasure or pain, and follow the middle way which is the Noble Eightfold Path. [Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta]
avoiding extreme views like “all exist” and “nothing exists”, and follow the middle way which in this case is Dependent Origination. [Kaccā(ya)na,gotta Sutta]
avoiding the extremes of greed and hate, and follow the middle way which is the Noble Eightfold Path. [Dhamma,dayada Sutta]

For inanimate objects naturally above is excluded, as 1 deals with lifestyle and behaviour, and 2 & 3 deals with thought and philosophy, both of which only an animate object can have.

This definition is based on the Pali canon by the way -- not specifically Mahayana.

It applies to objects in the sense that they would both exist and exist-not, depending on whether we are speaking conventionally or ultimately. There would be no such thing as 'substance'. As Kant notes objects reduce to the 'thing-in-itself', which is not a substance. All things would be void, as stated in the Upanishads. This is the 'Two Truths' doctrine as applied to the existence of objects.

According to Abhidhamma:

Everything is Non-Self (Anattā).
Some Anattā are Aggregates (Khandhas), one is the opposite of Aggregates (Nibbāna),  and others are conceptual (Paññatti).
3 noble truths are Aggregates, 1 is Nibbāna. The left super-mundane-aggregates are not noble truth, however, either noble truth or non-noble-truth are Anattā.
First 2 noble truths, both are Upādāna-Khandha, are clinging (Upādāna) by Craving (Ṭaṇhā). The last 2 noble truths are not clinging by Craving.
The last 1 noble truth has 2 steps, the ordinary middle way for the beginner and  super-mundane middle way for the noble ones.   The ordinary middle way is not the last noble truth actually, it is the first noble truth. The high-skill-insight-practitioner needs to do the insight-comprehension on   The ordinary middle way as well at the end of all insight-comprehension.
The super-mundane middle way and the left super-mundane-aggregates are not for the insight-comprehension, although they are impermanent, suffering, and non-self. Why? Because they never and ever be Clinging by any Craving. Why? Because Nibbāna is the cessation of Clinging, Craving, and future Clinging-Aggretgates.  The left super-mundane-aggregates know Nibbāna, so every arising  of  the left super-mundane-aggregates are never clung by any Craving.

The Middle Way, or The Way Down the Middle, works this way:
When you take on the working hypothesis: "This is Pain." What you have done is to have set up a point of view concerning things that avoids the issue of existence altogether.
When you abstain from lies, what have you 'done'? Nothing. You have abstained from an act. That is the same thing as saying you have abstained from making kamma, or you have abstained from creating an experience by way of thought, word, or deed.
When you let go of sensual pleasures and unskillful things and with an appreciation of the peace that comes from solitude and enter and habituate the first gnosis, what have you done? Nothing. You have let go of something. That is not 'doing' that is 'no longer doing'.
These are illustrative of what is meant by 'middle'. It means abstaining from any act that would end up creating the experience of self-indulgence or self-torture.
What the Middle Way does not imply is that there is any sort of existence (whether of man or mountains or mole-hills) in the middle. When you have abstained, that is the end of it. You have avoided the two extremes and by that have walked the middle path. Do not then go further and postulate a physical middle - that would be a new kammic act that went in one or the other of the two extreme directions.
What we are trying to do here is to bring samsara to an end. That is the same thing as saying that we are trying to bring our kamma-making to an end or, stated still another way we are trying to stop identifying with acts of thought, word and deed that are intended to create personal sense-experience (own-making for short). Since kamma is 'doing' it should be obvious that any sort of doing short of intentional not-doing (the result of which is to end a kammic stream, and is experienced as neither painful nor pleasant - the two extremes in terms of experience) is going to make kamma. Making kamma is contra-indicated in the effort to end kamma.

I do not know how middle way is related with the question whether mountain will exist forever or will be destroyed?
But I will try to answer your question.
Sabbe Sanskar Annicca meaning  all conformations are transitory meaning if mountain or any object are result of coming together of things (like consciousness , elements etc) then they are bound to change and vanish over a period of time.
Practically nothing is permanent. Mountains to nucleus to universe , nothing is permanent. Hope I have answered your question.

yeah i dunno why everyone has missed that.

There is not one iota of difference in the manner and extent with which objects exist and the manner and extent in which the skandhas or any other existent exists. And of course objects exist! They do so provisionally and conventionally without even the smallest amount of 'real' or 'true' or 'substantial' existence. Some things utterly do not exist... such as the son of a barren woman. But nothing whatsoever exists in a 'real' or 'true' or 'substantial' manner. This is the middle way.

i like your first sentence, and it is helpful, but i'm not sure i agree with it or not... any reference / citation?

What I've said above is my own imprecise paraphrase of what I understand as the standard treatment of Je Tsongkhapa following Candrakirti, Aryadeva, Nagarjuna and the Buddha.

@sorta_buddhist
(commenting on @SacrificialEquation's statement that inanimate objects are conformations
(presumably his translation of sankhāra, but meaning "the shape or structure of something", where sankhāra means the making of something or the doing of something, and specifically with regard to the middle way, the making of one's identification with experiences by way of ones acts of thought, word and deed). The term is a partial synonym for 'kamma' with greater emphasis on the idea that this is where one is injecting individuality into the making of the world.
and because of that are transitory, which does not in fact answer the question as asked, which is two-fold: "Are inanimate objects permanent, and do inanimate objects walk the Middle Way".)
You say: "yeah i dunno why everyone has missed that."
The original question being:
"Does the middle way — between annihilationism and eternalism — apply to objects? Like a mountain, will it either exist forever or be destroyed, or is it too the middle way?"
I read my own answer as having answered your qeustion, but the question as written makes no sense as the middle way has to do with what is or is not suitable conduct for a human being.
See the Dhamma-Cakka-p-Pavattana Suttaɱ where the term "middle way" is first defined:
http://buddhadust.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/sn/05_mv/idx_56_saccasamyutta.htm#p1
Two, me bhikkhus, are ends
not to be gone after
by one embarking on the seeker's life.

What two?

At the one end:
whatever is desire,
is yoked to desire for the sweet-life,
inferior,
peasant-like,
of the common man,
not aristocratic,
destitute of character.

And at the other end:
whatever is yoked to causing self-torment,
is painful,
not aristocratic,
destitute of character.

It is by not attacking either end, beggars,
that the Tathāgata woke up
to a way to go down the middle;
eye-opening,
instructive,
smoothing the way
to higher knowledge,
self-awakening,
Nibbāna.
Where next the Middle Way is defined as the Ariya Angika Magga.
Rocks do not walk the Magga.
So understanding your original question as being a confusion of two ideas, my response was an attempt to separate out the issues of existence and non-existence and the understanding of the Middle way.
If all you want to know is if inanimate objects are walking the middle way, the answer is certainly: No.
The others responding to you have also been trying to straighten you out. If they have misunderstood the question, it is because you have constructed your question badly. Then you compound (sankhāra) the error by suggesting that the fault is not yours but theirs.
Asking questions is good, but should be based on an understanding of the terms used. So before asking how a term should be applied, one should ask what the term means.

there's no need to talk about "errors" in this context, though i don't understand what's difficult to understand about my question -- i have highligheted in bold what i mean if that halps?

"And I, Ānanda, will not proceed with you
as does a potter with an unbaked (vessel), not fully dry. I will speak, Ānanda, constantly reproving, constantly cleansing"
-MN 122
@sorta_buddhist
Apologies for allowing my frustration with the English of your question and your remark to show itself in the tone. But you should overlook tone and focus on whether or not what was said was well-said or not.
I completely understand how it can be that you do not understand what is difficult to understand about your question. Your clarification does not help. But I will give it another shot.
I did not, in answering your question, and in responding to your comment, intend to emphasize your misunderstandings, but to point them out was necessary in order to correct them.
You apparently have a misconception concerning the nature of the middle way. That is clear because there is no way a person who understood the middle way could think that it could possibly, in any way, apply to innanimate matter. You are either inventing the meaning of the term yourself or you have followed the invention of someone else that does not understand. That misunderstanding should have been cleared up reading the definition in the link I supplied. The link leads to several different interpretations by different translators, you can take your pick.
The Middle Way is describing an attitude to take with regard to taking action.
It is an instruction to not take even one step either towards self-indulgence or self-torture. That is the Middle Way.
It does not involve any sort of state or movement between annihilationism or eternalism.
It, itself, is not a point of view between annihilaationism and eternalism.
In so far as the Middle Way is defined as The Four Truths, it is a point of view. But it is one that avoids the issue of existence and non-existence, thus:
Whether or not there is no self and death is the end or that there is an eternal soul, there is dukkha (pain, ugly-uk-ukky-k-kha), and the Middle Way is the way to the end of that dukkha.
It is a way to interact with kamma such as to bring kamma to an end.
Folowing the Middle Way, one avoids the consequences of acting from the points of view of annihilationism or eternalism.
Example: You can only get a date with the most beautiful lass in the land if you lie. So considering the Middle Way, looking in the Magga under Sammā Vaca, Consummate Speech, you see that lies are to be avoided. You abstain from that lie. You have just followed the Middle Way.
What did you do? Nothing. Where are you between annihilationism and eternalism? Not between! If you must characterize it by location, it is 'apart from'. You didn't go anywhere. You intentionally 'not-did'. The result is not something somewhere, it is the ending of the kammic stream which presented itself to you in the form of the pleasant sensations at the eye of the most beautiful lass in the land and the thirst for her that resulted.
You evaluate the results. The result is a negative. You will not, because of that intentional not-doing, ever experience having to live with an old hag that has lost her beauty, doesn't put out and does nothing but eat, spend money and argue with you in the old age which you can now enjoy in peace.
So next time you will have less difficulty abstaining, walking the Middle Way, in a similar situation.
That explains the meaning of The Middle Way.
Now please explain how a rock could fit into this picture? Somewhere in your thinking you have constructed the Middle Way into both a point of view and an actual state between annihilationism and eternalism... one in which a rock could be found. Not so!

because one sutta is not always exhaustive of the meaning of any "phrase"

In response to @sorta_buddhist's comment:
"because one sutta is not always exhaustive of the meaning of any "phrase""
complaining of the fact that I only gave one citation as an example. Never mind that this was a citation to the first sutta ever spoken by Gotama and which was the initial point where the Middle Way was introduced.
Also, I would flag @Andrei Volkov and @Yeshe Tenley, and ask them, after they have reviewed the following additional citations, how they justify the idea that the Middle Way in any way could possibly apply to inanimate objects. Do rocks walk the Magga? Is it necessary for a rock to eliminate ignorance in order for it not to attain consciousness, form, sense experience, thirst, grasping, becoming, birth and pain?
Further references defining the Middle Way:
Most of these links are to the Sutta Index which lists the Pali and the various translations that are freely available. This is only a selection, I have 60 links to this issue.
SN 2.12.35
Defining the Middle Way as the Paticca Samuppada = the Four Truths
http://buddhadust.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/sn/02_nv/idx_12_nidanasamyutta.htm#p35
SN 2.12.36
Defining the Middle Way as the Paticca Samuppada = the Four Truths
http://buddhadust.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/sn/02_nv/idx_12_nidanasamyutta.htm#p36
MN 3
http://buddhadust.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/mn/idx_majjhima_nikaya_1.htm#p3
What is this Middle Way?
Why, it is naught but the Noble Eightfold Path of
right outlook,
right aims,
right speech,
right action,
right means of livelihood,
right effort,
right mindfulness,
and right concentration;
this, Almsmen, is the Middle Way.
MN 139
http://buddhadust.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/mn/idx_majjhima_nikaya_3.htm#p139
Explaining how the Miccle Way avoids conflict with those holding the extreme views.
Wording identical to SN 56 11
SN 4.42.12
http://buddhadust.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/sn/04_salv/idx_42_gamanisamyutta.htm#p12
Not following after these two extremes, headman,
is the Middle Way of approach,
fully known by the Tathāgata,
which giveth vision,
giveth knowledge,
leading to calm,
to supernormal knowledge,
to wisdom,
to Nibbāna.
And what,headman,
is that Middle Way of approach,
fully known by the Tathāgata,
which giveth vision,
giveth knowledge,
leading to calm,
to supernormal knowledge,
to wisdom,
to Nibbāna?
It is this Ariyan Eightfold Path, to wit:
Right view, right aim, right speech, right action, right living, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.
SN 2.12.18
http://buddhadust.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/sn/02_nv/idx_12_nidanasamyutta.htm#p18
Timbaruka asks the Buddha a series of questions about the source of pain and pleasure and to each of his questions receives the response, 'it is not such as that.' When Timbaruka asks for an explanation, The Buddha teaches him the 'Doctrine Going Down the Middle': that is, the Paticca Samuppada, the chain of interdependent factors giving rise to the experience of individualized existence and the resulting pain.
SN 5.54.10
Linked to the Bhk. Bodhi translation. In a footnote Bhk. Bodhi explains the result of following the Middle Way as being the ability to observe detachedly.
http://buddhadust.net/dhamma-vinaya/wp/sn/05_mv/sn05.54.010.bodh.wp.htm#n310
He is one who looks on closely with equanimity: one is said to look on with equanimity (at the mind) that has fared along the path [Spk-pt: by neither exerting nor restraining the mind of meditative development that has properly fared along the middle way), and by the presentation as a unity [since there is nothing further to be done in that respect when the mind has reached one-pointedness]. "Looking on with equanimity" can apply either to the conascent mental states (in the meditative mind) or to the object; here the looking on at the object is intended.
... and many others

so the middle way is never between annihilationism and eternalism?

@MikeOlds Please see SN 12.15 Kaccānagotta Sutta. Also, please avoid posting multiple answers as a way to have a conversation. If you would like to converse, you can open a chat room.

Here is one I just created for you.

@AndreiVolkov I suspect that Mike Olds can't use a chat room with an unregistered account (or more specifically, using an account with no "reputation") -- and perhaps (depending on whether and when his browser cookies are cleared) cannot comment, nor edit a previous/existing answer.

Riiiight, that makes sense now! Thanks for pointing that out.

In response to:
so the middle way is never between annihilationism and eternalism? – sorta_buddhist yesterday
They are two different things and they are not equivalents. The Middle Way is a way to behave, annihilationism or any other point of view indicating a position with regard to existence is an opinion as to the real nature of things.
Our behavior is dictated by our point of view. Our behavior is not our point of view.
The Middle Way is a code of behavior based on The Four Truths; "This is pain; This pain originates with thirst; to end the pain, end the thirst; the Way is the eightfold way.
By behaving in accordance with the Middle Way, you avoid the consequences that would have resulted if you had behaved in ways indicated by either the point of view of annihiliationism (self-punishment) or eternalism (self-indulgence).
Both annihilationism and eternalism result in behavior that leads to rebirth; following the behavior indicated by the Four Truths and the Magga results (sooner or later) in no rebirth.


text:
Is all property communal for the monks?
The bowl, the robes, the lodgings, the medicines - are these private property, or shared within a Sangha of monks?

According to the Theravada Patimokkha, it appears that medicines and some other requisites like needle boxes are communal property that shouldn't be kept longer than required.
On the other hand, cloth or wool for robes and an alms bowl which are not determined for personal use, shouldn't be kept for too long, and should be given to communal ownership.
The rules also do not allow keeping more things (in good condition) and bigger things than needed. For e.g. the maximum number of robes, number of alms bowls, size of lodging, furniture in lodging etc. are defined in the rules.
Lodging appears to be for personal use.
This is what I found from reading the Theravada Patimokkha online, but I do not have direct experience or knowledge of it.

I was a monk for ten years. To answer your question, the answer is no, they are not communal property.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Question on Dhammapada verse
In this verse of the Dhammapada,

Those who in youth have not led the holy life, or  have failed to
  acquire wealth, languish like old  cranes in the pond without fish.  Dhammapada 155.

Do those who have failed to acquire wealth refer to those who have decided to remain householders and didn't manage to properly earn a living, in order to for example raise a family, or does wealth refer here to spiritual qualities and virtues ?
With metta.

does wealth refer here to spiritual qualities and virtues ?

Wealth here literally means the wealth from householders. The background story to the verse might be helpful here: https://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=155

Thank you for your answer. Yet wouldn't someone striving on the path and not necessarily being a monk or a successful householder still live a worthwhile life ?

I think the context of the verses are quite clear: a householder who squandered his massive wealth in its entirety and fell into such destitute that he had to survive on the monks' alms food must've been absolutely 100% living a terribly un-worthwhile life.

@Fedeverovitch Perhaps so; but the case in the story was of someone who was born rich and did nothing worthwhile during their life, lived an aimless life of pleasure.

Without further context I would interpret 'wealth' as 'spiritual' attainment, and the 'pond without fish' as the poverty of old age without such attainment. I see no mention of householders or monks but just a general observation applicable to anyone. .

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


text:
Why are plants not sentient beings?
Why in Buddhism plants are not recognized as sentient beings?
Can it be immoral to kill a plant?  Can a plant be reincarnated as an animal?  Is a plant alive?
Edit: I read somewhere a theory according to which Buddhism did not consider plants as sentient beings, part of saṃsāra, because although they are alive they do not have the 5 khandhas and especially they do not have consciousness (viññāṇa) although they have perception (saññā).  A sunflower perceives the sun and reacts by turning towards it but it is not conscious of its perception, it has no metacognition.  I found this idea interesting but I don't know how true it is since Buddhism seems to define consciousness more as what allows discrimination than as what allows metacognition.

Did good householder ask the "teachers" why there ate some plants with long life, some short, some ugly, some beautiful, some with lot of sickness, some healthy? How does it work, that a living being is not part of Samsara? Better to become a tree then an Arahat? What is a asaññasattā (no perceiving/remembering being)?

The Buddha told that even if a tree would observe the Uposatha, it would be of benefit for him, yet he can not... whats the benefit for a tree if not part of Samsara?

Can it be immoral to kill a plant?
It's contrary to the Vinaya for monks -- I don't know whether you consider that as implying that it's "immoral".

DESTROYING VEGETATION
The common belief at the time of the Buddha was that plants (and even soil) were 'one-facultied life.' Today we have ecologically 'green' beliefs that are often equivalent — at least they seem to lead to much the same attitudes.[41] (In Thailand, forest monks are well known as the best protectors of the jungle.)
The eleventh Confession offence concerns destroying plant life. It originated because a bhikkhu harmed 'one-facultied life' by cutting down trees. He continued to cut down a tree even when the tree-deva asked him to stop, so she went and complained to the Buddha. This led to lay criticism of such behavior and a rule was set down:

"Intentionally damaging or destroying a living plant is [an offence of Confession.]"(Summary Paac. 11; See BMC p.294)

Therefore destroying a living plant — for instance, felling a tree, uprooting a flower, burning grass — is a Confession offence; as is picking fruit from a tree, a flower from a bush, etc. It is an offence of wrong-doing (dukka.ta) to damage or destroy fertile seeds or pips, or viable seedlings. (See Kappiya).
Bhikkhus who live in tropical forest monasteries constantly have to protect both the jungle and themselves. When paths are overgrown, snakes and other dangerous 'creepy-crawlies' can be trodden on — and bite back! There also may be a need for firebreaks. One way that forest monks cope with this is a daily routine of sweeping the paths. However they are not allowed to dig or clear the land.
The tenth Confession offence arose when bhikkhus dug the ground and got others to dig, and the local people criticized them because they considered the earth to be 'one-facultied life.' The rule is phrased like this:

"Should any bhikkhu dig soil or have it dug, it is [an offence of Confession.]" (Paac. 10; BMC p.292)

Digging, breaking the surface of the earth, lighting a fire on it, pounding a stake into it are all disallowed. (If such 'earth' is more gravel or sand than 'soil' — and has no living creatures in it — it may then be dug.)
It is, however, allowable for monks to hint to laypeople or novices about what needs doing as long as the words or gestures fall short of a command. When bhikkhus need paths to be cleared, necessary work done on the ground, firebreaks made, etc., any lay attendant wanting to help should listen out for hints and indications: 'A post hole dug over there would be useful'; 'make this ground allowable,' etc. What is needed can then be clarified.
One practical and long term effect of these rules is that they have steered bhikkhus away from involvement in agriculture and land ownership. Such a development would also have isolated bhikkhus from the lay community because they would no longer have needed to depend on alms food.

See also Harmlessness to non-sentient nature and can consciousness (pure awareness) exist?

An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics: Foundations, Values and Issues says on page 175,

So "one-facultied" means "possessing the sense of touch". I guess that might imply non-sentient if it's incapable of thought -- or, it says, it's a "borderline" case.
It also says that people perceive them as alive and that it's therefore not seen as being harmless to kill them.
Whether they are actually sentient isn't stated e.g. by the Buddha, nor in the Abhidhamma.

There are too many possible, different interpretations of "rebirth" for there to be an authoritative answer on this.  Secular Buddhism, the most modern iteration, says that genes and matter from one organism are eventually recycled into the species and ecosystem; as genes are passed to posterity and the body decays and is re-absorbed by other living organisms, one is physically "reborn" in that manner.
Other branches of Buddhism teach that "rebirth" happens day to day and moment by moment; one is re-born as an older version of one's past self, and hopefully as a wiser one, also.
Of course there are supernaturalist interpretations as well; that the soul is born into some other destination, as an angel or devil or animal of some sort.  Ultimately, the teaching of "rebirth" is an all-inclusive one, and it expresses every possible relationship between cause and effect.  One would have to be, literally, omniscient to fully understand rebirth -- how every cause is tied to every effect.
That is what makes the Buddha so special; in one moment he understood all of his own numerous past lives, and those of his ancestors; and how that made him who was was in his own present time.  He was aware of karma of all other living beings as well; and that is why he, in his great compassion, taught them the dharma.
In short, while nobody, except for the Buddha, can possibly foresee how a plant could, over the course of many hundreds of millions of years, mutate into an animal or other lifeform -- they are a part of the cycle of samsara, and they do mutate, grow, and become "reborn" in some way.  But of course, the Buddha never taught his disciples or lay followers to refrain from eating plants.

This appears to dodge the question rather than answer

In Theravada (Pali), the 1st precept is about not destroying life that breathes (pāṇātipātī). The word 'pāṇā' means 'breath' and the word 'atipātī' means 'destroyer'. In other words, the term 'sentient being' is Mahayana. In Theravada, the Mahayana view of 'sentience', 'consciousness', 'perception', etc, is not relevant to the 1st precept.
I imagine, in the Buddha's time, before science, life that 'breathes' did not refer to plants. Plants cannot be seen to breath or exercise breath, such as via walking and moving.

It is not wrong to directly deprive plants of their life, in order to eat them, unlike animals, because they don't have all five aggregates. The first of the Five Precepts applies only to the taking of the life of sentient beings.
In my opinion, plants do not have mental formations and consciousness although they do have form, sensations and perception.
Without all five aggregates, plants are not sentient beings.
This can be traced to SN 5.10:

When the parts are assembled
  we use the word ‘chariot’.
  So too, when the aggregates are present
  ‘sentient being’ (satta) is the convention we use.

Who says such "It is not wrong to directly deprive plants of their life, in order to eat them" and possible causes others to kill?

In the pali texts plants are considered living beings, are said to be born but are without that which is called mind, consciousness or intellect.
I guess they are classed as living beings because they are sustained by nutriment and are born from seed. They are becoming otherwise, are subject to old age, sickness and death.
They are composed of five elements; earth whatever density, water whatever liquidity, fire whatever heating fieryness, air whatever windy and space for whatever spatial.
Destroying plants is a minor offense in the Patimokkha, it isn't the same precepts as killing a human or animal.
As i understand it. A plant, unlike a cognizant being, is without elements which are derived from the essential elements, what is refered to as plant is then conceived & perceived as primary elements only, they do not serve as a ground for the element called mind, consciousness or intellect.
It is like a dead body, in that it is deprived of consciousness.
Plant is kind of like hair, it originates, grows and changes never serving as a base for hair-consciousness, unlike ie 'an eye' element, which in the Theravada Dhamma is a derived element also called 'a world' because it is that in the world which perceives and conceives the world with it's many elements derived and not derived.

What is that form which is the sphere of vision?
The eye, that is to say the sentient organ, derived from the four Great Phenomena, forming part of the nature of the self, invisible and reacting, (i.) depending on which eye, in consequence of some visible form, there has arisen, arises, will, or may arise
visual contact; …
  177(ii.) and depending on which eye, in consequence of some visible form, there has arisen, arises, will, or may arise (born of that visual contact)
a feeling …
  [or iii.] a perception …
  [or iv.] thinking …
  [or v.] a visual cognition …

Difference is;
Thinking about mind we might see that the mind arises based on five senses or in and by itself. Thereforr it can be known that mind conceives and perceives visions, ideas or to perceives & conceives  of and through other 5 doors:
Eyes are to perceive & conceive color&form through they eye door.
Ears are to perceive sound through ear door.
Nose is to perceive smell  through the nose door.
Tongue is to perceive taste through the tongue door.
Body is to perceive bodily sensations though the body door.
That which is called mind, consciousness or intellect is to call/name/cognize/know/feel/perceive/conceive/objectify (what one discerns, that one cognizes, what one cognizes that one perceives, what one perceives that one feels, these quailities are conjoined) and to think about that which is called hair as hair, that which is called mind as mind.
Whenever contact occurs at the five sense bases therein contact at mind base can be delineated;  contact at five is also mind made contact pertaining to sensuous sphere.

When an object enters ‘the door of the eye’ or any of the other 5 senses, it enters also the door of ideation; ‘the door of the eye’ is included as a delineation of the spheres of the mind-base, included in what is called ‘mind-base’; it is mind-made.
  (for reference; M. i. 295 (see Caroline A.F,  Rhys Davis, first translation of Dhammasanghani Psychological ethics))

There should be a Sutta where Sariputta expresses it, i saw Buddhagosa reference it for sure but i don't recall which text it was. This shouldn't need substation anyway because it's derived from statements like 'all dhamma are mind made'.
Both the primary and the derived elements are perceived and conceived in dependence on derived elements.
That which perceives and conceives the world in the world, namely the mind, the eyes and other doors.
Hair is just hair, it is not a sense door neither are plants or parts of a plant.
World is conceived internally as internal elements, internally as external elements; externally as internal elements and externally as external elements.
Plants not having perception means that internal mind element is not generated internally.
Perception of a plant is thus only perceived & conceived externally, in dependence on 'internal mind element' which is generated internally or externally and which can be grasped with wrong view to be 'a self' or as 'belonging to a self' by this or that person.

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

Because they are not sentient.
Sentient: able to feel or perceive things.

Who says? Didn't Christs or human long tell animals have no feelings?

@SamanaJohann The Lord Buddha said that sentience are those who are composed of the Five Khandas.

How many aggregates do good householder have? Can he discriminate between them? Does householder know which "human" does no more hold on the five aggregayes (who is an Arahat)? In regard of killing beings, such is no tool tool to recognice.

And how would householder know wether a living being sentient, not even aware whether he is sentient certain times?

Did Ven. Ajahn Suchart or even Ajahn (Dick) Silaratano teach such, plants are not sentient, therefor free to harm and kill?

May good householder show one Sutta where the Buddha told, that plants are no living beings, do not live.

Living being, satta, and it's fine to kill or harm certain sattas maybe even Arahats, as they are said to be no more touched and have aggregates abounded.

""Vaseññha, I will tell you step by step how it happens,
The classification of living things in this and other births.
Look at the grass and trees, although they are not aware,
This and the other have attributes peculiar to their births.
So also insects, like grasshoppers and ants
They have attributes peculiar to their births.... mn98. Now how does that fit in?


text:
Theravada and Nagarjuna
I appreciate that various aspects of Nagarjuna's teachings are rejected by Theravadans but I'm wondering where the line is drawn. For some of his teachings I can see room for scepticism, but what about his central argument? Four questions...
In his Fundamental Verses Nagarjuna demonstrates the absurdity of positive or extreme metaphysical positions.
Do Theravadans accept this proof as valid and sound?
Do they accept its result, which is the logical absurdity of extreme views?
If they do accept this logical result, do they also accept the falsity of such views?
If they do not accept N's argument, on what grounds do they not do so?
EDIT: Perhaps I should have asked just this. Is it possible to endorse the logical result of Nagarjuna's argument in Fundamental Wisdom and remain a Theravadan?

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

I added an edit to make the question clearer and maybe prevent unnecessary side-arguments. I'm asking ONLY about the argument made in Fundamental Wisdom and its result.

You are referring to a full book comprising of 27 chapters, with at least ten different translations. That makes it hard to know what the "positive or extreme metaphysical positions" are for someone unfamiliar with his writings, so the question may be difficult to answer without specific references.
Anyway, with all due respect for Nagarjuna, from a fundamentalist approach here are some suggestions for demarcation criterias from the nikayas.
AN 4.77:

Mendicants, these four things are unthinkable. They should not be thought about, and anyone who tries to think about them will go mad or get frustrated. What four?
The scope of the Buddhas …
The scope of one in absorption …
The results of deeds …
Speculation about the world …
These are the four unthinkable things. They should not be thought about, and anyone who tries to think about them will go mad or get frustrated.

https://suttacentral.net/an4.77/en/sujato
MN 63:

These positions that are undeclared, set aside, discarded by the Blessed One — 'The cosmos is eternal,' 'The cosmos is not eternal,' 'The cosmos is finite,' 'The cosmos is infinite,' 'The soul & the body are the same,' 'The soul is one thing and the body another,' 'After death a Tathagata exists,' 'After death a Tathagata does not exist,' 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist,' 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist' — I don't approve, I don't accept that the Blessed One has not declared them to me. I'll go ask the Blessed One about this matter. If he declares to me that 'The cosmos is eternal,' that 'The cosmos is not eternal,' that 'The cosmos is finite,' that 'The cosmos is infinite,' that 'The soul & the body are the same,' that 'The soul is one thing and the body another,' that 'After death a Tathagata exists,' that 'After death a Tathagata does not exist,' that 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist,' or that 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' then I will live the holy life under him. If he does not declare to me that 'The cosmos is eternal,'... or that 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' then I will renounce the training and return to the lower life.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.063.than.html
MN 2:

'Did I exist in the past? Did I not exist in the past? Who was I in the past? How was I in the past? In the past, who had been I and who was I [in the subsequent existence]? Will I exist in the future? Will I not exist in the future? Who will I be in the future? How will I be in the future? In the future, having been who, who will I be?'
Also as regards the present, uncertainty arises in him thus: 'Do I exist? Do I not exist? Who am I? How am I? From where has this soul come? Where will this soul go?'
In a person who thus considers improperly there arises one of the six [wrong] views. The view 'I have self' arises in him really and firmly. Or, the view 'I have no self' arises in him really and firmly. Or, the view 'I perceive self through self' arises in him really and firmly. Or, the view 'I perceive non-self through self' arises in him really and firmly. Or, the view 'I perceive self through non-self' arises in him really and firmly. Or, he has the view thus: 'That self of mine speaks, knows and experiences the results of wholesome and unwholesome actions. That self of mine is permanent, stable, durable, incorruptible and will be eternal like all things permanent.'

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.bpit.html

Excellent points - I suppose the question is whether Nagarjuna went beyond using philosophy for a practical purpose of explaining Dhamma, to just intellectualising it. Personally some days I agree, some days I don't. He claims no difference between samsara and nibbana, but he doesn't claim no equality (in the absolute meaning of the terms). I don't believe he thinks that statement is implied, but if there is no absolute difference, there is no absolute equality. It is a little ott imo, relative to the suttas, but still worth consulting.

Thanks. You're quite right about the question. I was hoping for answers only from those who already know Nagarjuja because otherwise they won't be able to answer, so didn't see much point in explaining further. If Theravadans don't know this much about him then they'll have little reason to argue with him. I expect it's my fault but I cannot see the relevance of the body of this answer other than that it suggests agreement with Nagarjuna.

PS - An extreme metaphysical position states of Reality in some case that it is 'this' or 'that'. For instance, that the Cosmos is infinite or not-infinite etc.

What's a "demarcation criterion" (and how does that relate to the OP's question)?

@ChrisW It's a term borrowed from Popper to hint at Buddhas delineation of which questions that are possible to answer in a helpful way (or not). Many of the questions he deemed acinteyya regards metaphysical ponderings. Again, i'm not sure which one of Nagarjunas metaphysical analyses that are referenced in the original question, but regardless it seems that Buddhas distinction didn't apply in this case according to the OP.

@Erik - It's a subtle issue and I like your idea that it's a demarcation problem. Sometimes I wish we could chat here.

@PeterJ You can always chat for s long as you both want to. If two people  post enough dialog back-and-forth in a comment thread then the system will offer to create a chat room for you. Or I can create a chat room, or this room is always open (though almost never used).

@PeterJ Not sure i have too much opinions in the matter, but just hit me up for a chat and we'll take it from there.

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

Of course traditionally Theravada Buddhism has regarded Nagarjuna as not one of its own.  He has too long been claimed by Mahayana to expect otherwise.  But  some relatively recent scholarship regards him as a transitional figure, with close affinities -- as you suspect -- to Early Buddhism.  In fact, a very strong case can be made that he regarded himself as a defender of Gautama as recorded in the suttas. His opponents were not in the suttas, but in the Abhidharma philosophy that dates from several centuries after Gautama and several centuries before Mahayana.
A.K. Warder's rather monumental Indian Buddhism argues that Nagarjuna was closer to Gautama than the Mahayana, and blurs the distinction.
David Kalupauhana's  Nagarjuna: Philosophy of the Middleway is an eminently scholarly translation and commentary on Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika which argues that Nagarjuna was not Mahayanist at all, and in fact makes the case that the Karika itself is a commentary on the Kaccayanagotta Sutta, upholding Gautama's view of the middle way between "eternalism" and "nihilism."
You can find Velez de Cea, “Emptiness in the Pali Suttas and the question of Nagarjuna's orthodoxy.” (Philosophy East and West 55(4) October 2005) on line. Here, parallels between Nagarjuna and the suttas are gathered, and Nagarjuna's roots in the suttas is demonstrated.
In the Sunna Sutta, Gautama is asked: “In what respect is it said that the world is empty?" and answers; "Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self.” This is pretty much Nagarjuna's view. In the Sunyatatasaptati (Emptiness: The Seventy Stanzas),  he writes that “since the intrinsic being [self-nature] of all entities does not exist . . . therefore they are empty."
The reason I have this at  my fingertips is because I've been spending my time in COVID lock-down writing a piece on Nagarjuna that argues that he believes he is upholding Gautama's Dharma.  Although it's dressed up, it was really written just to pass the time, but I'll put it on line for you, and in fact would be pleased if you read it, and comment if you wish. It will be at
Reading  Nagarjuna -- A rendition of Chapters 1, 24, and 25 of The Mulamadhyamakakarika for Students of the Buddha's Dharma
You are right that Nagarjuna and Gautama both reject the unanswerable questions" about Ultimate Realities (and N. warns that only fools confuse emptiness with the Absolute), believing, in distinction to almost every religion,  that answers to metaphysical questions are not necessary for "salvation." As I suspect you know, the Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta  asks "did I ever say to you . . . live the holy life under me, and I will declare to you that 'The cosmos is eternal,' or 'The cosmos is not eternal . . . [etc.].   The final chapter of the Karika, “Examination of Views,” is concerned entirely with  the unanswered questions contained in this and other suttas. The last verse of the Karika states:  “I reverently bow down to Gautama who, out of compassion, has taught the true doctrine in order to relinquish all views.”  The "views" he refers to are the unanswered questions of the suttas. No more no less.
I think it is clear from the suttas and Karika that there are 2 reasons for rejecting the unanswered questions -lst because they are improper questions in the sense that they have no answers, they are metaphysical speculations 2nd because they do help --- and N. echoes G. on both counts.
You can certainly, IMO, like me, be a follower of the Buddhism of the suttas and accept almost all of N.'s Karika. But whether a strict Theravedan would agree, I cannot say.

Bhikkhu K. Ñāṇananda, a Theravādin monk, did mention him from time to time. From Questions & Answers On Dhamma :

“The five ascetics were given a teaching based on the ethical middle
  path, avoiding the two extremes of kāmasukhal- likānuyoga and
  attakilamathānuyoga. But the middle path of right view is found in the
  Kaccānagotta Sutta, beautifully used by Ven. Nāgārjuna. When the
  Theravadins got engrossed with the Abhidhamma they forgot about it.
  The Mādhyamikas were alert enough to give it the attention it
  deserved.
(...)
“I didn’t quote from the Mahāyāna texts in the Nibbāna sermons,” he
  says, “because there was no need. All that was needed was already
  found in the Suttas. Teachers like Nāgārjuna brought to light what was
  already there but was hidden from view. Unfortunately his later
  followers turned it in to a vāda.”
He goes on to quote two of his favourite verses from Ven. Nāgārjuna’s
  Mūlamādhyamakakārikā (as usual, from memory):
Śūnyatā sarva-dṛṣtīnaṃ proktā niḥsaranaṃ jinaiḥ, yeṣāṃ śūnyatā-dṛṣtis
  tān asādhyān babhāṣire [MK 13.8] The Victorious Ones have declared
  that emptiness is the relinquishing of all views. Those who are
  possessed of the view of emptiness are said to be incorrigible.
Sarva-dṛṣti-prahāṇāya yaḥ saddharmam adeśayat, anukampam upādāya taṃ
  namasyāmi gautamaṃ I reverently bow to Gautama who, out of compassion,
  has taught the doctrine in order to relinquish all views. – [MK 26.30]
Bhante doesn’t bother translating the verses; the ones provided above
  are by David Kalupahana.;
“When I first read the Kārikā I too was doubting Ven. Nāgārjuna’s
  sanity” he laughs. “But the work needs to be understood in the
  context. He was taking a jab at the Sarvāstivādins. To be honest, even
  the others deserve the rebuke, although they now try to get away by
  using Sarvāstivāda as an excuse. How skilled Ven. Nāgārjuna must have
  been, to compose those verses so elegantly and filling them with so
  much meaning, like the Dhammapada verses. It’s quite amazing. This has
  been rightly understood by Prof. Kalupahana.”
Prof. David J. Kalupahana is an eminent Sri Lankan scholar who stirred
  up another controversy when he portrayed Ven. Nāgārjuna as a reformist
  trying to resurrect early Buddhist teachings. He had been a lecturer
  during Bhante Ñāṇananda’s university days as a layman at Peradeniya.
(...)
“Ven. Nāgārjuna was right: at the end, all is empty. We are not
  willing to accept that existence is a perversion. Existence is
  suffering precisely because it is a perversion.”

See also this, this and this (from a more Early Buddhist Texts perspective than Theravādin, however).

+1 Thanks. This is helpful. Interesting that Kalupahana sees N as resurrecting earlier (purer?) teachings. My view also. I assume that Kalupahana accepts N's argument in Fundamental Verses. Is he a Theravadan, albeit a controversial one? Is it possible to accept N's argument and remain a Theravadan? (This is probably the question I should have asked in the first place)..

I don't know about those questions, unfortunately.

OP:

In his Fundamental Verses Nagarjuna demonstrates the absurdity of
  positive or extreme metaphysical positions.
Do Theravadans accept this proof as valid and sound?

Personally, I am not familiar with Nagarjuna's works regarding the absurdity of positive or extreme metaphysical positions.
Theravadans generally accept the absurdity of extreme metaphysical positions, because they accept the absurdity of all metaphysics, due to the following statements in the suttas.
So, I suppose we can say that Theravadans agree with Nagarjuna?
From Acintita Sutta:

"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an
  unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring
  madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

From Sabba Sutta:

"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will
  speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear &
  sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations,
  intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would
  say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on
  what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable
  to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it
  lies beyond range."

To the Buddha, pragmatism was more important than metaphysics. Please see the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow.

Hmm. You bring up a relevant complication, which is that Theravadans reject metaphysics as absurd. However, this is not at all what Nagarjuna does so this would be a point of disagreement. He proposes rejecting positive views, not metaphysics. But there is an overlap between these views and they would be easily confused, so the answer is helpful.

Officially the Theravadans means the people who like the vinaya & suttas in pali, and sometimes their parallel in chinese and so on, and also the same for their abiddhama. Sometimes theravadans are just the people who like the suttas (and the vinaya?).
So for people who like the suttas most, philosophy is useless to reach nibanna. And the fantasy that there is a ''proof of nibanna'' and a ''proof of the wrongness of wrong views (ie not buddhism)'' is  complete non-sense, ie only a fantasy.
At best it will be the people who like the abidhamma, who enjoy mental gymanistics a bit more, but then reading another book from some indian intellectual wherein he wrote his speculations on whatever was buddhism at the time and trying to ''refute'' whatever the Shravakas had written in their own abidhamma is usless to them, since they think their abidhamma is already good enough to reach nibanna.
More generally, what is even a ''proof'' in philsophy? In maths they use ''proof'' too, but in philsophy people keep saying such claim is an ''argument'' and such string of arguments is a ''proof of some other claim'' but so far intellectuals do not even agree on what a proof is in philsophy. And how a string of sentences in some language would even be a proof of nibanna?
The buddha said that the only good use of ''mano'' is yoniso manisakara , which just means thinking a lot about the dhamma, but in this way : ''thinking about what is the fuels the arising of sensual desire'' https://suttacentral.net/sn46.51/en/sujato and so on, so just dependant origination. And in Mahyana, they confuse dependant origination with interconnectenedss already, so they struggle a lot on the dhamma.
And it is this proper attention, ie comparing your life with whatever the buddha calls the good life, that is supposed, sooner or later, to get you into samadhi, and then it is right samadhi which will get you to nibanna.
https://suttacentral.net/sn9.11/en/sujato

Thinking about the Teacher, the teaching, the Saṅgha, and your own
  ethics, you’ll find gladness, and rapture and bliss as well, no doubt.
  And when you’re full of joy, you’ll make an end to suffering.”

Officially, the ''proper attention'' has faith for condition

And what is the fuel for mindfulness and situational awareness? You
  should say: ‘Proper attention.’ I say that proper attention is fueled
  by something, it’s not unfueled. And what is the fuel for proper
  attention? You should say: ‘Faith.’ I say that faith is fueled by
  something, it’s not unfueled. And what is the fuel for faith? You
  should say: ‘Listening to the true teaching.’ I say that listening to
  the true teaching is fueled by something, it’s not unfueled. And what
  is the fuel for listening to the true teaching? You should say:
  ‘Associating with good people.’

https://suttacentral.net/an10.61/en/sujato
So none of the mental proliferations of indian intellectuals fit in the dhamma.

Thanks but...this appears to be an attack on a straw-man.

PS To explain my comment - I feel that philosophy is valuable (albeit of limited value)  and do not agree with the view that it should be ignored - unless one is already a serious practitioner. It's a view I fight against, so I cannot share the sentiment expressed in this answer.  . .  .


text:
A person asks the Buddha to sit on his lotus. The Buddha agrees, with one requirement: keep silence. What is the name of this story?

Once upon a time there was a beggar who wanted to sit in the Buddha's seat in a temple. The Buddha agreed, with one requirement: keep silence.
At first, a rich man went to the temple to ask for virtue. When the rich man went out, his wallet felt out without his notice. The beggar was about to call him back, but remembering his requirement he kept silence.
Then a poor man went in and ask for a better life. When bowing he saw the rich man's wallet, and thought that the Buddha gave this to him. The beggar was about to call him back, but remembering his requirement he kept silence.
Then a fisherman went in and ask for a good journey in the sea, because the sea was so violent (large waves, strong wind). Suddenly the rich man returned to find his wallet. Seeing only the fisherman, he thought it's him who stole his wallet and hit him. This time the beggar couldn't hold back and explain the whole story.
Then the Buddha returned and told the beggar that had he kept silence, then the rich man had learnt his virtue lesson, the poor man had had a better life, and the fisherman's life had been rescued because he would stay home otherwise.
The lesson here is that we just need to keep observe and not influence our wants and needs.

Do you know what story is this? Which would be its origin?
Source: Chuyện kẻ lang thang muốn đổi chỗ ngồi với Bồ Tát (Vietnamese)


text:
How things become easier when we do things continuously / repeatedly?
What are habits, and why do they stick? Lord Buddha said that we even bring habits into next lives. Why does that happen? How come it is powerful enough to continue from life to life?
There are some variations of habits. Some needs mental effort (like studying, or meditating etc.), some needs physical effort (exercising etc.), and some doesn't need any effort, meaning that every day actions (eating, playing etc.). (By effort i mean the energy needed to do something, and habits requires less actual effort to do something).
I have the general idea about how habits works. We may be able to find shortcuts, and get new ideas when we do things repeatedly. But, it is hard to understand the way our habits vary. Can anyone give me a clear / deep explanation about habits?
Or are habits conditioned by impermanence, cause and effect or karma that I should accept as the nature of existence/the world? If it is, please post the name of respective sutta where Lord Buddha talked about habits, so I will be able to believe it without doubts.
Kind regards.

I did some editing of the grammar. Could you please check so i didn't change the meaning of your original question too much?

Thank you very much. In the last paragraph, I mean habits are nature of the world which we can't argue. Ex: Cause and Effect, we can not argue about this. Because that how this world works. We can't argue about that why there can not be a effect without a cause. Thanks again :)

Maybe your looking at it the wrong way. I am not sure of an exact sutta or even any sutta that says this exactly but habits passed onto another life can be because of the karma accumulated.
For example let take the following scenario.
If your a physical trainer, you would most likely train all your life to be physically fit. Now as a trainer, you get other people (your clients) into physical training hence you do the "dana" or "giving" of physical training to lots of people. Since you have that karma of "giving out physical training", your most likely to get "physical training" as a reward in your next life. Hence there is a high chance in your next life you will be really into physical training. While you do this, you will also inspire someone else to be a physical trainer. Again giving the "inspiration to be a physical trainer". Next life, someone will inspire you to be the same as a result of your karma.
If you inspire someone, you will be inspired by someone. You make someone do something, someone else will do the same back to you. This is the karmic law. Obviously its not this simple but in a bird's eye view, roughly this is probably the cause of a habit being born on a person and then continuing until that habit is dead.
Karma is subjected to impermanence like everything else. Hence eventually it will fade away. So you won't have a forever samsara habit.


text:
In what order should I read the various Buddhist scriptures?
Well, first of all, I don't consider myself a strict Buddhist, but I want to study Buddhism -- both Theravada and Mahayana -- for educational and spiritual purposes. I am very excited with scientific studies of Buddhist meditation, and I'm sure that the Buddhist teachings have a lot of interesting and helpful things to offer...
I have one small book on the philosophy of Buddhism, there are 19 sutras with the commentaries on each sutra. But the book is a bit wordy due to its specificity, and heavily influenced by the author... The texts (I suppose) are translated well, with the meticulous description for every specific term (like, "Tathagata", or "dukkha" etc.)...
But when I decided instead to start to read the Pali Canon directly, not this compilation, and found out that Pali Canon is huge, even Sutta Pitaka alone seems to be way bigger than the Bible...
And it seems that the sutras are not composed chronologically or from simple to difficult, so I suppose there is no need to read the book in strict order...
So, how do you suggest reading the sutras? In strict order? Randomly? Or, from the 'popular' sutras to the 'unpopular' ones?
Do I even need to read the whole Sutta Pitaka? Do I need to read Abhidhamma Pitaka and if yes, in which order?
And what of Mahayana's important texts?
I'll appreciate all of your recommendations (and don't be afraid to correct my grammar, because English is not my native language).

I think that this question is a duplicate of Chronological or other sequence for beginners, which has several good answers already.

I think the question should remain open. I posted an answer on the older question but that was specific for that older questioner. It will be confusing to add to new answer to the older question. Since the scope of this question can be so large, I think we should allow this question to remain open for the sake of the questioner.

@Damocle Please clarify whether this question is a duplicate of the previous question -- whether the answers to the previous question answer your question -- or whether they're not the same, i.e. whether your question is asking something which is in some way slightly different.

@ChrisW I don't think that the previous question is a strict duplicate of mine, and some of my questions remain untouched by these answers. For example, I asked about whether should I read Abhidhamma, the previous question was only about suttas. Also, I asked about Mahayana's important texts, the previous question did not include this as well.

I would recommend that you need to have a fairly good grasp of Theravada teachings on the Four Noble Truths, and especially the truth of suffering, before you begin to hear even one word of the Mahayana.  Why?  The Mahayana is simply too joyful and exhilarating, not to mention seemingly over-permissive.  If you don't understand the teachings on the inevitably of death, the inevitably of suffering, the inevitably of karmic consequence, then you could easily misinterpret the Mahayana into something very self-deluding and very bad.
There are too many love and sex ritual cults in the world.  There are too many wealth and prosperity and positive-thinking cults.  There are too many health-food philosophies and miracle faith healers.  Too many "live forever and watch your enemies burn in hell" cults.  Too many follow-the-leader-and-everything-will-work-out-for-you cults.  Too many drug and psychadelic subcultures.
If you listen to the parts in Buddhism that say "nothing is real" and the parts that say "everything is great" and the parts that say "everybody in the world is a Buddhist even if they're awful".... It's can be easy to be convinced that Buddhism is something that it isn't.  It's important to understand that the non-negotiables in Buddhism are non-negotiable.
And that understanding, that the non-negotiables are non-negotiable, forms what is called Right View in Buddhism.  Right View is the first of the Noble Eightfold Path, and the tenth of the Ten Right Actions.  Everything else is built on Right View; it is the starting point and the destination.

I have read MN, then SN, then AN - so that's another way to sequence it. Then you can read Questions of King Milinda.  Then Tattvasiddhi Śāstra by Harivarman also known as Satyasiddhi Śāstra, Then Vasubandhu's Abhidharma-kosa. Then the Rice Seedling sutra. Then try Vimalakirti sutra. Then Diamond sutra. Then Heart sutra. Then Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamikakarika.

The book "In the Buddha's Words" by Bhikkhu Bodhi is an excellent anthology of the suttas. The PDF version can be found here.
I strongly recommend the sutta order from this anthology, and I quote it below. However, the sutta translations below may not all be from Bhikkhu Bodhi. They all come from SuttaCentral, instead of the book.
Also, some of the sutta numbers, especially those of Anguttara Nikaya, may not match the book, but they refer to the same suttas.

The Human Condition

Old Age, Illness and Death - SN 3.3, SN 3.25, AN 3.36
The Tribulations of Unreflective Living - SN 36.6, AN 8.6, SN 22.7
A World in Turmoil - AN 2.37, DN 21, DN 15, AN 3.69
Without Discoverable Beginning - SN 15.1, SN 15.2, SN 15.5, SN 15.8, SN 22.99

The Bringer of Light

One Person - AN 1.170-186
The Buddha's Conception and Birth - MN 123
The Quest for Enlightenment - MN 26, MN 36, SN 12.65
The Decision to Teach - MN 26
The First Discourse - SN 56.11

Approaching the Dhamma

Not a Secret Doctrine - AN 3.131
No Dogmas or Blind Belief - AN 3.65
The Visible Origin and Passing Away of Suffering - SN 42.11
Investigate the Teacher Himself - MN 47
Steps Towards the Realization of Truth - MN 95

The Happiness Visible in this Present Life

Upholding the Dhamma in Society - AN 3.14, DN 31
The Family

Parents and Children - AN 4.63, AN 2.33
Husbands and Wives - AN 4.53, AN 4.55, AN 7.63

Present Welfare, Future Welfare - AN 8.54
Right Livelihood - AN 5.177, AN 4.61, AN 4.62
The Woman of the Home - AN 8.49
The Community - MN 104, MN 93, DN 16, DN 26, DN 5

The Way to a Fortunate Rebirth

The Law of Kamma - AN 4.232, MN 41, MN 135
Merit: The Key to Good Fortune - Iti 22, AN 8.36, AN 4.34
Giving - Iti 26, AN 8.33, AN 4.57, AN 5.148, Iti 107, AN 8.35
Moral Discipline - AN 8.39, AN 8.41
Meditation - Iti 27, MN 99, AN 9.20

Deepening One's Perspective on the World

Four Wonderful Things - AN 4.128
Gratification, Danger and Escape - AN 3.103, AN 3.105
Properly Appraising Objects of Attachment - MN 13
The Pitfalls in Sensual Pleasures - MN 54, MN 75
Life is Short and Fleeting - AN 7.74
Four Summaries of the Dhamma - MN 82
The Danger in Views - AN 1.306-314, Ud 6.4, Iti 49
From the Divine Realms to the Infernal - AN 4.125
Perils of Samsara - SN 15.3, SN 15.13

The Path to Liberation

Why Does One Enter the Path? - MN 63, MN 29, SN 45.41, SN 45.42-47, SN 45.48
Analysis of the Eightfold Path - SN 45.8
Good Friendship - SN 45.2
The Graduated Training - MN 27
The Higher Stages of Training with Similes - MN 39

Mastering the Mind

The Mind is the Key - AN 1.21-30
Developing a Pair of Skills - AN 2.31, AN 4.170, AN 4.94
The Hindrances to Mental Development - SN 46.55
The Refinement of the Mind - AN 3.101
The Removal of Distracting Thoughts - MN 20
The Mind of Loving Kindness - MN 21
The Six Recollections - AN 6.10
The Four Establishments of Mindfulness - MN 10
Mindfulness of Breathing - SN 54.13
The Achievement of Mastery - SN 28.1-9

Shining the Light of Wisdom

Images of Wisdom - AN 4.143, MN 146
The Conditions for Wisdom - AN 8.2
A Discourse on Right View - MN 9
The Domain of Wisdom

By Way of the Five Aggregates - SN 22.56, SN 22.82, SN 22.59, SN 22.45, SN 22.95
By Way of the Six Sense Bases - SN 35.26, SN 35.28, SN 35.147, SN 35.148, SN 35.149, SN 35.85, SN 35.234
By Way of the Elements - SN 14.1, SN 14.37, SN 14.38, SN 14.39, MN 140
By Way of Dependent Origination - SN 12.1, SN 12.20, SN 12.33, SN 12.15, SN 12.38, SN 12.44
By Way of the Four Noble Truths - SN 56.24, SN 56.20, SN 56.31, SN 56.21, SN 56.42, SN 56.32, SN 56.25

The Goal of Wisdom - SN 38.1, SN 43.1-44, Ud 8.1, Ud 8.3, Iti 44, MN 72

The Planes of Realization

The Field of Merit for the World - AN 8.59, SN 48.18, MN 22, MN 73, MN 70
Stream Entry - SN 55.5, SN 25.1, SN 13.1, SN 55.2, SN 55.1
Nonreturning - MN 64, AN 4.169, SN 55.3, SN 46.3
The Arahant - SN 22.89, SN 48.53, MN 22, AN 9.7, AN 9.26, AN 10.90, MN 140, SN 22.76
The Tathagata - SN 22.58, Iti 84, SN 47.12, MN 12, SN 56.38, MN 19, SN 22.78, AN 4.23

Back in the day people recited but a few discourses, there were no schools nor walls of text to choose from; ip there were no Abhidhamma books, no Vinayas and yet people had more attainments, were making better progress.
That time was more favorable. If you could go back in time even to years like 377BC, you would see a lot of Ariya, probably fully attained but no Mahayana texts or Theravadin Abhidhamma books.
So how essential do you think they are?
Abhidhamma is basically a different expression of the same meaning as the Sutta. It's expression is supposedly rightly inferred from the meaning & expression of pali discourses which were memorized. It is agreeable to some and disagreeable to those of other persuasions about Sutta meaning.
Afaik Theravada school forms around 300BC and their texts aren't done written down until something like a couples of hundred years later.
Mahayana texts are introduced around that time and and are also deemed heretical by some who hold that those early Mahayana texts disagree with pali discourses held as true and agreeable in meaning & expression.
It looks like the monks were inevitably developing personal commentary and ways of doing things all along, explaining things in their own words and according to their understanding. Grouping accotdingly. Therefore it was common to see people who analyzed popular notions and practices within the big schools all along.
After the 1st century a lot of supposedly correct commentary, polularizations, classifications, lore and whatnot is being written by  more and more people and it has not stopped.
The quality of expression and meaning was corrupted in the process because it's hard to explain the Dhamma better than Buddha did, it is therefore non understanding of Buddha's expression that directly or indirectly prompts the adding to, complementing, the making of popularizations, simplifying, censoring or otherwise changing the expression and or meaning.
In the Sutta some people grasped the Dhamma after a verse of how Dhamma as it was generally presented by The Buddha and his direct disciples;

"Aggivessana, the Blessed One disciplines his disciples in this way; this part of the Blessed One's instruction is generally presented to his disciples: 'Form is inconstant. Feeling is inconstant. Perception is inconstant. Fabrications are inconstant. Consciousness is inconstant. Form is not-self. Feeling is not-self. Perception is not-self. Fabrications are not-self. Consciousness is not-self. All fabrications are inconstant. All phenomena are not-self.' This, Aggivessana, is the way in which the Blessed One disciplines his disciples; this part of the Blessed One's instruction is generally presented to his disciples."

It can be said that the full penetration of the meaning of this expression is the objective. Some people need more clarification than others and some won't get it even after a lifetime.
Of course in times of the Buddha people became followers not understanding the Dhamma and grew in and into it's understanding.
So the Buddha also taught the Dhamma in all essential ways including practices conducive to the development of knowledge.
It is generally accepted that the Pali texts are the things Buddha actually said to people he met.
The main collections of pali discourses are generally accepted as texts from the period of True Dhamma, a period of 500 years proclaimed in the Sutta, a period before the arising of Counterfeit Dhamma.
Imo a great teacher would proclaim the dhamma, so that it clallenges one's views, rouses effort and settles doubt.
Without a teacher one has a lot of text for a teacher, so it is about becoming familiar with what is out there to separate true texts from fake dhamma.
When one has confidence in a text as being the real deal one can learn and think about it. Eventually one would understand the essentials of the doctrine as it is generally explained. Then one may come to agreement or reject the idea.
Eventually one would probably fine the true texts and come to agreement with the doctrine, understanding the meaning and expression of true Dhamma.
At that point one can effectively scrutinize the expression in all text, from Abhidhamma to Buddha quotes on the internet. In the Sutta it is explained as the ability to distinguish what is rightly spoken.
Reading the Sutta is like listening in on coversations, trying to understand exactly what is talked about and emulating the training.
Imo best sorting is according to the theme one is preocupied with, studyin it in dwtail as to the meaning & use of every word in the system of expression found therein.
As i see it, one will end up reading and refering to some discourses more than others, drawing parallels and rearranging them to extract a cohesive expression of meaning. Some of it you will inevitably memorize and theorize about.
Many discourses are useful because they are a support for what should be inferred from another discourse. Many discourses are useful because they refute what should not be inferred from another discourse. Many discourses are wordplay in that they beautify the expression, illucidate the meaning and or are inspiring.
All this one will see in the process. Learning from people on the internet is a different can of worms and i would advice against it lest the texts that are known as true are being recited.
As long as one stays intellectually honest it should work out very well.
In short, a lot of people read a whole lot of fake dhamma.
Here's a thread with some discourses i listed as of particular interest few years ago;
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=29180&start=15#p419374

The Path is threefold, namely, wisdom, morality & concentration.
For the sake of wisdom, you can read the 1st three sermons of the Buddha:

SN 56.11, the 1st sermon
SN 22.59, the 2nd sermon
SN SN 35.28, the 3rd sermon
AN 45.8, the Noble Eightfold Path
SN 22.1, about non-attachment to impermanent things.

For the sake of morality, you can read:

MN 61
SN 55.7
AN 10.211
AN 4.55
DN 31

For the sake of concentration, you can read:

MN 19
MN 62
MN 118
MN 131
SN 47.20
SN 46.54

For a general overview, you can read: Maha-Mangala Sutta.
The Majjhima Nikaya contains some suttas that are interesting to read, often in story format, such as MN 22, MN 26, MN 37, MN 82, MN 86, MN 87, MN 95, MN 115 (non-story), MN 140 and MN 148 (non-story).
The Dhammapada is easy to read.
You can read some anthologies, such as:

Samyutta Nikaya Anthology
Anguttara Nikaya Anthology
In The Buddha's Words by Bhikkhu Bodhi

Good householder, interested,
The steps, like it was and is taught by the Noble One, Dhamma - A Gradual Training  are for sure the most secure path. Only as soon one step practiced and with good conviction mantled, go to the next if not taking the wiser way and search for a teacher.
Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks and other binder in the world but to escape this wheel)

You may need to commence with "The Path of Purification'' pdf - English translation Bhikkhu Nanamoli - Introduction page xlv has a section on ''Trends in the Development of Theravada Doctrine." This may give you an insight on the Need for a System to cut through all the Suttas you refer to and show 'The Way'' to Enlightenment. I believe this is the only book that brings all the teachings of the Buddha, together under one roof! The Abhidhamma is the Systemic Approach to understand Buddhism but in view of its complexity, the Path of Purification is preferred by yogis. Its a long haul though!

Some methodically read suttas in numerical order. Others read the most popular suttas. The scholarly study by historical collection and parallels. Some students follow their teacher's syllabus. Some use the Internet to search as they wish. Yet others start with an "overview sutta" such as DN33, searching and studying challenging phrases as necessary.
For searching the Pali Canon, it is helpful to use a body of work with consistent translations. Consistent terminology builds a coherent understanding of the suttas. SuttaCentral offers translations by many authors and even has translations correlated by segment number to help readers cross-reference translations in multiple contemporary languages. Voice.suttacentral.net offers audio versions of those segmented texts in multiple languages for those who prefer or can only use audio.

DN33:1.1.1: Evaṃ me sutaṃ—
DN33:1.1.1: So I have heard.
DN33:1.1.1: So habe ich gehört.

Good point with translations. Id advice learning the pali terms for the doctrinal nouns and to make up ur own mind about the correct translation.

Here below list in details of scriptures with recommended prayers in sequence for everyday practice as well as where these scriptures could help.

I think this answer is better for the question Good source of mantras with their meanings, rather than this question, because this question is about scripture reading and not mantra chanting.


text:
Which Sutta? Karma of unknowingly doing evil is worse than knowingly doing evil
Which Sutta? Karma of unknowingly doing evil is worse than knowingly doing evil.
Which Sutta(s) talk about this, hopefully in more detail than I can remember?
The subject is karmic consequence, and the law is surprisingly not intuitive.
In comparing two types of actions:
1) Not knowing that an action is evil, one commits an evil action.
2) Knowing that an action is evil, one commits an evil action.
What is not intuitive about that law, is you would think if one had wholesome and skillful intentions, before committing an action which is actually evil, that one is less culpable for the negative karmic consequence, in comparison to someone who knowingly commits and evil action even knowing fully well that the action is evil.
Which sutta(s) talk about this?
I don't remember if I'm stating the general form of the law quite correctly, what concrete examples were given in the sutta(s).
I see there is this thread with mostly the same question:
Doing evil knowingly and unknowingly
It seems KN Miln might be the only scripture, and no one was able to identify a sutta. The key words from that passage "knowingly" (jānāti) and "evil action" (pāpaka kamma).
So can anyone confirm there is no sutta about that?

But KN Mil does not really talk on Vipaka from action per se or, does it? That not knowing is the reason for suffering is a core teaching and found straight in most teachings. And a trained (to know) mind can do a lot more bad and bear it then an untrained could not.

The following sutta is not about kamma (but is about internal defilements).

Mendicants, these four people are found in the world. What four? One
  person with a blemish (aṅgaṇa) doesn’t truly understand: ‘There is a blemish in
  me.’ But another person with a blemish does truly understand: ‘There
  is a blemish in me.’ One person without a blemish doesn’t truly
  understand: ‘There is no blemish in me.’ But another person without a
  blemish does truly understand: ‘There is no blemish in me.’ In this
  case, of the two persons with a blemish, the one who doesn’t
  understand is said to be worse, while the one who does understand is
  better. And of the two persons without a blemish, the one who doesn’t
  understand is said to be worse, while the one who does understand is
  better.
MN 5

I cannot imagine knowingly doing evil wicked kamma is better than not knowingly doing evil wicked kamma (such as the wicked Mara kamma of reviling Noble Ones & making false declarations of jhana attainment). Knowingly doing evil wicked kamma sounds psychopathic.

Perhaps you're thinking about the Lonaphala Sutta:

"Suppose that a man were to drop a salt crystal into a small amount of
  water in a cup. What do you think? Would the water in the cup become
  salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink?"
"Yes, lord. Why is that? There being only a small amount of water in
  the cup, it would become salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit
  to drink."
"Now suppose that a man were to drop a salt crystal into the River
  Ganges. What do you think? Would the water in the River Ganges become
  salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink?"
"No, lord. Why is that? There being a great mass of water in the River
  Ganges, it would not become salty because of the salt crystal or unfit
  to drink."
"In the same way, there is the case where a trifling evil deed done by
  one individual [the first] takes him to hell; and there is the case
  where the very same sort of trifling deed done by the other individual
  is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment.
'Now, a trifling evil act done by what sort of individual takes him to
  hell? There is the case where a certain individual is undeveloped in
  the body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in mind [i.e., painful
  feelings can invade the mind and stay there], undeveloped in
  discernment: restricted, small-hearted, dwelling with suffering.   A
  trifling evil act done by this sort of individual takes him to hell.
'Now, a trifling evil act done by what sort of individual is
  experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is
  developed in the body, developed in virtue, developed in mind [i.e.,
  painful feelings cannot invade the mind and stay there], developed in
  discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with the
  immeasurable. A trifling evil act done by this sort of individual is
  experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment.

that's a great sutta on kamma, and I see where it has some relevance, but not the best fit to answer to my specific OP. I'm not the one who downvoted your answer. I'm really sick of people who quick trigger downvote and then don't explain why they do it.

@frankk I downvoted because I thought it wasn't the right answer to the question i.e. the answer didn't match the question (I suspect that something like the sutta you're looking for might exist).


text:
Letting go in day to day life
How to let go your own children. They are giving  hard time for me. I can't  go even . Because  they are young.but have problems.

What do you think, Rahula: What is a mirror for?"
"For reflection, sir."
"In the same way, Rahula, bodily actions, verbal actions, & mental
  actions are to be done with repeated reflection.
"Whenever you want to do a bodily action, you should reflect on it:
  'This bodily action I want to do — would it lead to self-affliction,
  to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful
  bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on
  reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the
  affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful bodily
  action with painful consequences, painful results, then any bodily
  action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on
  reflection you know that it would not cause affliction... it would be
  a skillful bodily action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results,
  then any bodily action of that sort is fit for you to do.
"While you are doing a bodily action, you should reflect on it: 'This
  bodily action I am doing — is it leading to self-affliction, to the
  affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful bodily action,
  with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you
  know that it is leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of
  others, or to both... you should give it up. But if on reflection you
  know that it is not... you may continue with it.
"Having done a bodily action, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily
  action I have done — did it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction
  of others, or to both? Was it an unskillful bodily action, with
  painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know
  that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to
  both; it was an unskillful bodily action with painful consequences,
  painful results, then you should confess it, reveal it, lay it open to
  the Teacher or to a knowledgeable companion in the holy life. Having
  confessed it... you should exercise restraint in the future. But if on
  reflection you know that it did not lead to affliction... it was a
  skillful bodily action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results,
  then you should stay mentally refreshed & joyful, training day & night
  in skillful mental qualities.

Majjhima  Nikaya 61
Concentrate on whether your behaviour is beneficial to you and them, and if not, adjust it accordingly.
This is by Kahlil Gibran, not a Buddhist, but the jist of his thought is not un-Buddhist!

And a woman who held a babe against her bosom said, Speak to us of
  Children.
       And he said: Your children are not your children. They are the sons and daughters of Life’s longing for itself. They come through you
  but not from you, And though they are with you yet they belong not to
  you. You may give them your love but not your thoughts, For they have
  their own thoughts. You may house their bodies but not their souls,
  For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot
  visit, not even in your dreams. You may strive to be like them, but
  seek not to make them like you. For life goes not backward nor tarries
  with yesterday. You are the bows from which your children as living
  arrows are sent forth. The archer sees the mark upon the path of the
  infinite, and He bends you with His might that His arrows may go swift
  and far. Let your bending in the archer’s hand be for gladness; For
  even as He loves the arrow that flies, so He loves also the bow that
  is stable.

My child is very stubborn, he is 5, and mostly learns through his own errors, not my translation of my errors to him - in my hope he avoids them for himself a-priori. People learn from their own errors for the most part, we can only guide them if they accept guidance. If they don't, guidance will only push them away or to rebellion, better accept if they demand distance, and wait until they see their errors, and return.

My husband is trying to convince my children that I am doing something  wrong  for them.so they hurt me. Now it is serious  and I can't  tolerate it anymore. How can I stay with them.he try to laugh  at me with my  children.

@BuddhikaKitsiri Sorry you're still having trouble. It's unlikely that most users will see this comment -- you might get more answers if you post it as a new question instead of as a comment.

Sorry to hear you are having such trouble. Maybe try and find a third person you can both discuss your issues with? Putting a wedge between you and your children by commenting on how you raise them, instead of directly taking up this issue with you is not the right way to solve problems. Ask your children why your husband doesn't speak to you directly, since after all to solve a problem you must deal with the root of it. If he laughs at you doing your best, ask him and your children if that action is beneficial, and who benefits from it! Do ask another question though, people are helpful here!

No point discuss with a third person. I ask him to go for counselling. He said no. What he expect  doing things  like that. Did he want me to leave. My younger daughter  has an eye defect. So doctor ask her to only  watch t.v 1/an hour  per day. But he try to let her watch  more than that and sometimes  he try to  show videos from his apple phone  which is not totally acceptable.   I am very sad and can't  give up because  they  are my children. Don't  know  what to do.

A parent should form the kids to do what is beneficial for them. Does your husband think a lot of TV is beneficial for them? How? There is what people want and what people need - kids will always choose what they want over what they need, and a parent should encourage what then need - kindness, education, safety. Maybe devise a way to use the tablet in an educational way. My kid watches numberblocks, alphablocks, so we usually don't complain if he does 3 hours of spelling in front of a screen. But 3 hours of cartoons is a different thing! Try and adjust the behaviour to be more useful maybe!

Today I met with an accident.somebody has put some stapler pins on the floor so I didn't noticed and stepped into it .It pierced my foot. I am so sad. I don't  know  whether anybody  has purposely do it or not.But there is curfew  going on and it is difficult  to get a toxoid  even. Sad.

The solution to your question is first of all making own mind peaceful.
For this you can start with the practice of anapana meditation .
Once you start becoming peaceful with this in few days then make your children sit with you for meditation 5-10 minutes.
For all:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh5ii6R6LTM
For Children
https://www.vridhamma.org/Anapana-and-Children
Thanks Dhamma!
Dhamma means universal


text:
What should I avoid to maintain sati?
To develop sati, we should meditate. So, what should I avoid to maintain sati?

It's a good thing to phrase the question in terms of refraining, like you did. Please see previous answers regarding the five hindrances: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=five+hindrances

the condition for sati is proper attention

I say that mindfulness and situational awareness is fueled by
  something, it’s not unfueled. And what is the fuel for mindfulness and
  situational awareness? You should say: ‘Proper attention.’

https://suttacentral.net/an10.62/en/sujato

The Buddha is a bit circular on this point:

SN46.51:18.1: And what starves the arising of the awakening factor of mindfulness, or, when it has arisen, starves its full development?  There are things that are grounds for the awakening factor of mindfulness.  Not frequently focusing on them  starves the arising of the awakening factor of mindfulness, or, when it has arisen, starves its full development.

Simply put, if we are distracted, we are not mindful.
Consider that right mindfulness is preceded by Right View, Right Thought, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood and Right Effort. We need these prerequisites to engage in right mindfulness.

MN119:3.1: “And how, mendicants, is mindfulness of the body developed and cultivated to be very fruitful and beneficial? It’s when a mendicant has gone to a wilderness, or to the root of a tree, or to an empty hut. They sit down cross-legged, with their body straight, and establish mindfulness right there. Just mindful, they breathe in. Mindful, they breathe out.

Let go of distractions and make an effort. Consider the whole path, not just one step in it. In particular, take care of the following:

MN128:30.1: When I understood that doubt, of focus, dullness and drowsiness, terror, excitement, discomfort, excessive energy, overly lax energy, longing, perception of diversity,  and excessive concentration on forms are corruptions of the mind, I gave them up.

Hi OyaMist! Maybe, the problem of circular definitions happens here because how we used to understand and translate 'sati'. Perhaps if we use another concept to translate it, we may see the nuances and differences between the words attention and 'sati'. Kind regards!

Yes. It gets subtle when we start bringing in foreground/background attention. I looked more and found something more directly useful in MN128. Thanks!


text:
What can I practise to avoid expectations?
Today, I have realized that I have lot of expectations about my life and about others. Until today, I didn't aware of it because,today I face a big disappointment.So, Experiences of expectations and hopes breakings are  way to understand the nature of expectations. Other than that, What can I do to avoid expectations ?

Who exactly is is it that has these expectations?

Very sorry, I can't understand your question (English isn't my native language)

I was suggesting that one way to deal with your expectations would be to deal with your sense of the 'I' that has these expectations. This is, of course, the heart of the practice. In this way the practice can deal with your expectations. But then, are you trying to deal with expectations or with the disappointment of broken hopes? Not quite the same thing.

I write this here because it isn't an answer to your question; it is merely an idea that may be useful to keep in mind. I don't think expectations by themselves should be a problem; expectations just are the mental information about what to expect about phenomena and their consequences to the world and to us. I think the problem lies in the suppositions and assumptions underlying the expectations: if the assumptions are ignorant or false, it's probable that stress, frustration and hopelessness may arise. And so, the best to do is to keep in check our assumptions with Right Understanding.

I don't think one can avoid having expectations in general because if we know the possibilty of an outcome we can be said to expect it to the extent to which it is known to be a possibility.
What one can prevent is having false expectations as these are due to general bewilderment and are a cause of suffering.
Understanding counters ignorance, removes delusion and is supported by learning.
Whether we favor one outcome over another and it causes grief is a related matter of attachment rooted in delusion.
Correct knowledge & understanding begets right expectations and dispassion.

Expectation is normal human behavior, there's nothing wrong with that. But there is something wrong if you are cling to it,
You need to have expectations for your life(if i get it right you mean the goals of your life) otherwise it's hard move on without a purpose. But the thing is don't let your self down once the expectations or dreams falls apart. Simply don't regret about what happened, it's also makes mind impure.
What you can do for having less expectation is that think about the Death, what happens the next moment if i die, where would this thoughts leads me(afterlife).
I hope this would help.

I piece of (non-Buddhist) advice I read once is that you shouldn't reward young children for being successful. Consider this scenario:

Give a group of children a task to do
When it finishes, praise half of them for succeeding, praise the other half for trying
Give them another, more difficult task -- those who are motivated by success will be inclined to give up if they think they can't succeed (those who are motivated by trying, by engaging with the task, by the effort, are more likely to continue)

I think I might have read something like that advice in a Buddhist context, here (i.e. "live with cause"):

No Attachment to Dust
Zengetsu, a Chinese master of the T'ang dynasty, wrote the following advice for his pupils:
Living in the world yet not forming attachments to the dust of the world is the way of a true Zen student.
When witnessing the good action of another encourage yourself to follow his example. Hearing of the mistaken action of another, advise yourself not to emulate it.
Even though alone in a dark room, be as if you were facing a noble guest. Express your feelings, but become no more expressive than your true nature.
Poverty is your treasure. Never exchange it for an easy life.
A person may appear a fool and yet not be one. He may only be guarding his wisdom carefully.
Virtues are the fruit of self-discipline and do not drop from heaven of themselves as does rain or snow.
Modesty is the foundation of all virtues. Let your neighbors discover you before you make yourself known to them.
A noble heart never forces itself forward. Its words are as rare gems, seldom displayed and of great value.
To a sincere student, every day is a fortunate day. Time passes but he never lags behind. Neither glory nor shame can move him.
Censure yourself, never another. Do not discuss right and wrong.
Some things, though right, were considered wrong for generations. Since the value of righteousness may be recognized after centuries, there is no need to crave an immediate appreciation.
Live with cause and leave results to the great law of the universe. Pass each day in peaceful contemplation.

It is quite difficult but possible to reduce expectations in daily life.
Start with realising that everything you get is because of the Karma you have acquired through your previous births. Sometimes the things you recieve may not only be affected by Karma but by effort as well (Eg: Results of an exam) but sometimes things happen that you just have to accept and move on as everything is temproary and we won't live for much long anyways. Try to always see the good side of things even of the outcome is bad.


text:
Oral sex and semen swallowing
My girlfriend does oral sex and she likes to swallow my sperm during sex. Will these activities violate any precep?
Will swallowing of semen violate the no killing precet and are sperm cells considered sentient beings?
I would prefer simple answers since I have a little understanding of Buddhism as this point.

Sperm are not considered 'sentient beings' (Mahayana) or 'breathing beings' (Theravada). Therefore, the ejaculation of sperm is not killing in relation to the 1st Buddhist precept.
While it is not a literal violation, having a girlfriend without long term commitment violates the spirit of the 3rd Buddhist precept. The 3rd precept in Buddhism was taught together with the instruction to parents to ensure the marriage of their children when their children become sexually mature. Therefore, when the 3rd precept refers to a girl 'under the protection of her family', it means the girl is protected by her family until her family ensures she is married.
If your girlfriend lives with her parents and your having sex with your girlfriend is against the wishes of her parents, this is violating the 3rd precept.
if your girlfriend's parents agree to you & your girlfriend having sex, this does not literally break the precept; even though having sex without long term commitment violates the spirit of the Buddhist teachings because it is not compassionate.

Western culture contradicts alot with respect to traditional eastern culture. At the time of Lord Buddha, celibacy was practiced with couples until marriage (it is still practiced in the present albeit not so commonly), which brings us to the 3rd precept of 'Abstaining from sexual misconduct' (mostly is translated to abstaining from adultery) but sexual acts before marriage does taint (doesn't exactly violate) the 3rd precept as your partner is still under the protection of his/her parents or siblings.
When it comes to the 1st Precept and your question, I believe as sperm doesn't exactly have a conciousness it doesn't exactly count as killing someone. I find it more dangerous is the attachment to the pleasure derived from the act of (oral) sex which leads to alot of akusala kamma, which leads to rebirth than the akusala kamma derived from the killing of sperm cells.