text:
Why has the "3rd precept" of the 5 precepts been interpreted as being so permissive?
It seems to me that according to one interpretation of the "3rd precept" of the 5 precepts one could even engage in various sexual acts with a vast number of prostitutes nonstop and that still wouldn't be considered as breaking the "3rd precept". (I am doubtful of it being possible to attain stream-entry with that indulgent behavior therefore I believe the Buddha did not teach that as being a way to attain stream-entry.)
Why has the "3rd precept" of the 5 precepts been interpreted as being so permissive?
I find it concerning how the "3rd precept" of the 5 precepts has been interpreted as being so permissive.

Just keep it an no excuses, it's not toletant at all.

I wrote but then deleted the first comment on this question but I think it was something like: "The question in the header is based on the assumption that the 5 precepts are part of the minimum requirements to attain stream-entry.".

Therefore was it said: to gain stream, for no other useless purpose and stand. Just observe them, step by step refined, investigating body, feeling, mindstates and Dhamma (fout Noble Truth).

"I am doubtful of it being possible to attain stream-entry with that indulgent behavior therefore I believe the Buddha did not teach that as being a way to attain stream-entry.". I believe that instead the Buddha's teaching is about and means refraining from that "indulgent behavior" is a requirement for stream-entry. note: by "way to" I don't mean "method".

Yes, of course, it's not possible to reach stream as householder, one needs to leave, give up home (senses) first, at least temporary to gain stream. As for stream the eight precepts or ten as prerequisite is required. The five alone for themself wouldn't go beyond worlds in the realms of sensuality, good householder, yet if serious let to 8 and more naturally.

There is no tolerance to or on the stream, not to speak in regard of the Ariyamagga.

Update: I believe that more than all of the 5 precepts is needed to fulfill the minimum ethical requirements for stream-entry.

Update: I believe that more than all of the 5 precepts is needed to fulfill the minimum ethical requirements for stream-entry.

@Angus You have completely misunderstood 3rd percept of 5 .How come making sensual/sexual contact with prostitudes is not a sexual misbehaviour? Sexual misbehaviour forbids us even to think about anyone other than wife(that too with wife's permission).For unmarried , not to think about anyone. These 5 Percepts are not only at bodily level but at mind level too. 5 Percepts makes one a KING of body & mind ( जिंतेंद्रिय ),one who can control body & mind.

The third of the five precepts:

Kamesu micchacara veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
  I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual misconduct.

The third of the eight precepts:

Abrahmacariya veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
  I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual activity.

So the third precept is stricter in the "eight precept" version of the precepts, than in the "five precept" version.

These training rules [the eight precepts] are observed by laypeople during periods of intensive meditation practice and during uposatha (lunar observance) days. The Eight Precepts are based on the Five Precepts, with the third precept extended to prohibit all sexual activity and an additional three precepts that are especially supportive to meditation practice.

This answer quoted this introduction to the Five precepts, which says,

In many suttas regarding lay practice (Anguttara iii, 203), the
  Buddha explicitly warned of the five vices, which are dangers and
  enemies, and lead to hell. What are the five?
i) Killing living beings
  ii) Taking what is not given
  iii) Sexual misconduct
  iv) Telling lies
  v) Partaking of intoxicants

One who has these five vices lives the home-life without selfconfidence.
One who has these five vices breeds hatred in this life or breeds
  hatred in the life hereafter, feels in his mind pain and grief.
One who has these five vices is termed 'vicious' and arises in
  hell.

In the same suttas, the Buddha spoke of the advantages of
  cultivation of the five virtues, which are the Five Precepts, namely:
i) Abstention from killing living beings
  ii) Abstention from taking what is not given
  iii) Abstention from sexual misconduct
  iv) Abstention from telling lies
  v) Abstention from partaking of intoxicants

One who has these five virtues lives the home-life with
  complete self-confidence.
One who has these five virtues breeds no hatred in this life, or
  in the life hereafter, nor does he feel pain and grief.
One who has these five virtues is called virtuous and arises in
  the happy plane of existence.

I don't read that as being permissive. I read that as "this is the minimum standard of good behaviour needed to avoid being offensive towards other people -- to avoid harming other people."

The Five Precepts form the actual practice of morality for the
  layman. They are the minimum ethical code, which are mandatory
  for all lay disciples. They are undertaken immediately after the
  taking of the Three Refuges at every Buddhist service or ceremony
  and are administered by a monk if one is present; otherwise the lay
  disciples can do it by themselves. It is usual for devout lay disciples
  to undertake the Five Precepts as part of their daily recitation.

There's a definition of "misconduct":

This precept enjoins abstinence from improper or illicit sexual
  relations. The Atthasalini defines sexual misconduct as the volition
  arising in the body-door, through the unlawful intention of
  trespassing upon a person to whom one has no right of going.
  There are four conditions for wrong conduct in sexual pleasures.
i) There must be a man or woman with whom it is improper to
  have sexual intercourse.
  ii) There must be intention to have sexual intercourse with such a
  person.
  iii) Action must be taken to have such an intercourse.
  iv) There must be enjoyment from contact of the sexual organs.
With reference to the first condition, there are twenty kinds of
  women with whom men should have no sexual relations. They can
  be divided into three groups, namely: women under the
  guardianship of parents, family members, relatives and authorities
  charged with their care; married or betrothed women; bhikkhunis
  and religious women observing the Holy Life. For all women, a
  man forbidden by tradition or under religious rules is prohibited
  as a partner. For any unwilling partner who is drugged or forced to
  have sexual intercourse under threat of violence or coercion,
  conditions (ii) & (iv) exclude them from violation of the precept.

And it's not "to attain stream entry".
And I don't read it as permissive (e.g. "prostitution is encouraged"), instead I read it as protective, i.e., "don't do things which could break up families -- e.g. sexual activity with people who are married, and/or with the children who are under their protection -- nor which could interfere with someone who is leading the holy life."
It seems to me that according to one interpretation of the "3rd precept" of the 5 precepts one could even engage in various sexual acts with a vast number of prostitutes nonstop and that still wouldn't be considered as breaking the "3rd precept". (I am doubtful of it being possible to attain stream-entry with that indulgent behavior therefore I believe the Buddha did not teach that as being a way to attain stream-entry.)
So ... "sex with prostitutes is a way to attain stream entry" -- that doesn't sound like doctrine from the suttas, does it -- is someone saying that?
I think that the canon says that some lay people entered the stream. And I think that many lay people can and do keep the 3rd precept -- by being married or unmarried -- keeping the 3rd precept isn't bad -- and the precept doesn't require anyone to "engage in etc. with a etc.".
I don't much like to criticise other people's sex lives -- "You're too permissive! You naughty people! You shouldn't have any sexual activity, with your boyfriend/girlfriend -- even if you are both adults!" Instead I'm like, if a couple is happily married and of good behaviour then mudita and good luck to them -- but criticising people isn't something ... is that a good way to spend time?
Incidentally I'm not sure that prostitution is right livelihood. Doesn't the canon define 5 types of wrong livelihood for lay people -- i.e. trade in weapons, in poisons, in meat, in alcohol ... and, in human beings?
Also would you describe the first precept as "too permissive" -- would you ask, "Why is the first precept interpreted as 'no killing'? I don't believe the Buddha taught that torturing people without killing them is a way to stream entry'."
I don't think the precepts are "too permissive" -- I think they're as a good start. They're also kind of practical -- and common-sense, which everyone (even lay societies to which Buddhism is a new doctrine) might agree with.

Sexuality and sex have consistently been prominent topics in every culture throughout human history. Buddha also emphasized the profound attraction between men and women. There is a common misconception that Buddha prohibited sexual desire for laypeople. However, this is not accurate; laypeople can satisfy their sexual desires within the boundaries set by the third precept.
The third precept explicitly addresses adultery, which includes engaging in sexual activity with married or engaged individuals, protected women, women who practice religious celibacy,
or women protected by the law. This can also be interpreted as involving women who have committed wrongdoing and therefore may face legal consequences, such as being imprisoned.
The term 'protected female' signifies a woman who is safeguarded by her parents, family, or the community in which she resides
I have come across various interpretations of the term 'protected women' provided in books, by monks, and other sources. However, there are ancient sources known as ATTAKATHA (Atuwa) and TIKA (Teeka) that interpret 'protected women' as follows:
According to ATTAKATHA, the concept of being "protected by one's mother" implies that when a father passes away, the woman's elderly mother provides her with clothing and other necessities with the expectation of arranging her marriage to someone in the future.
In ancient times, girls typically married after the ages of 13 or 14/15, with historical records indicating instances of girls marrying as young as 12. However, ATTAKATHA does not specify any particular age.
According to TIKA's interpretation, the classification of a 'protected female' involves a situation in which a guardian exercises control by not permitting her to go where she desires, keeping her away from interactions with males, prohibiting her from pursuing her own choices, and offering guidance on what she should or should not do.
Various sources, including books, monks, and different schools of thought, may offer differing interpretations of the term 'protected woman.' Some suggest that a 'protector's permission' is required for engaging in sexual relations with a female individual, regardless of her age or maturity. Others assert that 'protected' applies to dependent women, not independent ones. Some maintain that it refers to underage or young girls, while others say that adult mature women do not fall under the category of 'protected.
Engaging in anal sex, oral sex, or passionate sexual activity does not constitute a violation of the precept. The precept is only transgressed when an individual engages in sexual activity with inappropriate partners (above).
I've come across some internet articles that claim the third precept is violated when someone excessively indulges their senses, such as their eyes, body, tongue, or ears. For example, they argue that overindulging in watching movies could be seen as a breach of the precept. However, I personally do not believe this to be an accurate interpretation. The third precept primarily pertains to sexual activity.
As mentioned earlier, Buddha encouraged all humans to abstain from desires, attachments, hatred, and other emotions, urging them to follow the path to enlightenment as expeditiously as they could.
Buddhism not accept with any sexual violation or assault. Always be respectful for others and take responsibility of your own action.
Buddha once expressed, 'I have never witnessed anything quite like the attraction between men and women toward each other.' (Please note that this is a paraphrased interpretation of Buddha's statement.)

Hi, please avoid using multiple accounts to post your answers. Keep in mind that voting for your own answers from other accounts is illegal on this site.

Should we delete the other answer posted as Allistair? I think so. We don't want to have 8 versions of the same answer (across multiple questions).

My previous answers were locked due to 'frequency editing,' which I did in an attempt to improve my answers. I wasn't aware that it would result in the locking of the answers. However, could you please be kind enough to delete the other answers that are locked, just like you deleted my previous answer?

Done, other answers deleted.

I really appreciate you for finally understanding me. I really didn't know that policy, and my pure intention was to improve the answer; however, I ended up locking my answer. It really upset me, which is why I tried to express it to another moderator. Really, thank you for understanding me. If I answer again on this site, I'm never going to edit it 13 times for any reason. The above answer is my final answer...still, one answer is locked. If you can, please unlock or delete it. However, thank you for your response. Good luck !!!!!

I have explained the original Buddhist teachings about sexual conduct & misconduct, before.
The 3rd precept in the Pali suttas (e.g. AN 10.176) says a daughter is to be "protected" by her family.

Abandoning sensual misconduct, he abstains from sensual misconduct. He
  does not get sexually involved with those who are protected by their
  mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their
  relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail
  punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man.
AN 10.176

Per the later Commentary, the word "protected" means, per the DN 31 sutta, the daughter is "restrained from unskillful behaviour" until the "parents arrange a suitable marriage" for her into a good family.

In five ways, young householder, a child should minister to his
  parents as the East:
(i) Having supported me I shall support them,
(ii) I shall do their duties,
(iii) I shall keep the family tradition,
(iv) I shall make > myself worthy of my inheritance,
(v) furthermore I shall offer alms in honor of my departed relatives.
In five ways, young householder, the parents thus ministered to as the East by >their children, show their compassion:
(i) they restrain them from evil,
(ii) they encourage them to do good,
(iii) they train them for a profession,
(iv) they arrange a suitable> marriage,
(v) at the proper time they hand over their inheritance to them.
DN 31

This is no different to the instructions in any other major religion.
Also, the suttas (Snp 1.6) literally condemn having sex with prostitutes.

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

The impression is contemporary Buddhism is so permissive because monks don't want to make any waves with Cultural Marxist Hollywood brainwashed laypeople, which monks view as "metta".

Engaging in sex with someone who is not under another's protection or care does not break the precept. There can be prostitutes who may not fall into this category who are under their family's care but doing this on the sly. In this case, the 3rd precept may be broken. Also, there may be non-prostitutes who are not under protection. E.g. in western culture when one becomes independent and moves on to one shelter perhaps it can be thought of as been not under another's protection and care if they are totally not under the care or concern their parents and relatives. Therefore, sex in this context does not break the precepts.
To have sex one must develop sensory desire (kāmacchanda) which is one of the 5 hindrances. This effective barrier to stream-entry. Though you are not breaking the precept, one is creating a barrier for its realisation.

Sexual misconduct is described in MN 41:

He misconducts himself in sensual pleasures; he has intercourse with
  women who are protected by their mother, father, mother and father,
  brother, sister, or relatives, who have a husband, who are protected
  by law, and even with those who are garlanded in token of betrothal.

Firstly, this only applies to lay people.
I would elaborate the above as:

Sex with an underage person, who are under the guardianship of their parents by law
Sex with those who are under the guardianship of their relatives (i.e. they are not independent adults even if they are adults)
Sex with people who are married to others
Sex with people who are engaged to others or in a committed relationship with others
Sex with those not allowed by the law, for e.g. prisoners. I think this could also apply to sex with members of the monastic order. This may also apply to other contexts like teachers with their students etc.

Hence, consensual casual sex between two unmarried unattached independent lay adults, doesn't seem to be covered by this precept.
Also, using legalized prostitution doesn't seem to be covered by this precept. However, prostitutes themselves (and others working in other roles in the industry) would be violating Right Livelihood as a trade of the flesh (see AN 5.177).
The purpose of the third precept is in my opinion, to avoid and eradicate the negative states of mind (especially deception, guilt and remorse) created by cheating on a relationship or by having sex in a relationship that is forbidden or inappropriate. Somebody who cheats on their partner tends to also lie to the partner, which violates another precept on speaking the truth.
You must remember that the five precepts are the bare minimum when it comes to virtues.
Sensual enjoyment of the sexual act with a spouse is not forbidden for lay people. Also, alcohol and drugs are not covered by the precept for the sensual enjoyment potential, but rather for the loss of self-control. So, it is not sensual enjoyment that is the target of the Five Precepts. Sensual enjoyment is targeted by the Eight Precepts and Ten Precepts.
The Vera Sutta (AN 10.92) lists out the criteria for stream entry:

Five forms of fear and animosity are stilled (i.e. the effect of consistently and heedfully practising the five precepts)
Four factors of stream entry
Rightly seen and rightly ferreted out the noble method (i.e. understood dependent origination thoroughly through insight)

The four factors of stream entry are verified confidence (or experiential confidence) in the Buddha, Dhamma (the teaching) and Sangha, as well as, being endowed with the virtues appealing to the noble ones.
So, it's not true that only the five precepts are needed for stream entry. In fact, all three criteria above must be fulfilled.
Please pay attention to this phrase from the Vera Sutta:

"He is endowed with virtues that are appealing to the noble ones:
  untorn, unbroken, unspotted, unsplattered, liberating, praised by the
  wise, untarnished, leading to concentration.

This is a criteria for stream entry. A person who is over-indulgent in sensual pleasures will not meet this requirement.

Many things distracts us from seeing what is and a big one is clinging to sex. So one aims to abstain from sex so one has a better chance to stumble upon stream entry. It's really very simple.

"I am doubtful of it being possible to attain stream-entry with that indulgent behavior".

True. Remember it'll take a lot more than just perfecting the Five Precepts in order for one to attain StreamEntry. There's the stock phrase about stream-enterers in many suttas: "The stream winner, with virtues dear to noble ones endowed, which are unbroken and without a rent, untarnished and without a blemish, purifying, praised by the wise, uncontaminated and conducive to concentration". So engaging in all sorts of sexual acts with bunch of prostitutes nonstop, while it might not break the 3rd precept, but it's 100% absolutely certain that it's the opposite from the kind of virtues that are dear to the noble ones, endowed, unbroken, untarnished, and without blemish!


text:
Where can I find Nagita Thera Apadana
I searched in the Apadāna part of Tripitaka..But couldn't find it...This includes a story of Nagitathera's previous life, and merits Nagitathera got for the god-deeds done in that life...

Following are some pointers:

Nagita Thera

An arahant. He belonged to a Sakiyan family in Kapilavatthu and entered the Order after hearing the preaching of the Madhupindika Sutta.
In the time of Padumuttara Buddha he was a Brahmin, named Narada, and uttered three stanzas in praise of the Buddha. He was once a king named Sumitta (Thag.vs.86; ThagA.i.183f). He is probably identical with Atthasandassaka of the Apadana (Ap.i.169).

Nagita Thera

For some time the personal attendant of the Buddha (D.i.151; DA.i.310; A.iii.31, 341; iv.341; J.iv.95, etc.). He was the maternal uncle of the novice Siha, who is said to have addressed him by the name of Kassapa, his gotta name. He was fat and, therefore, lazy; he got most of his work done by Siha.

Nagita Thera

A thera of Ceylon, author of the Saddasaratthajalini. Gv.p.74; Svd.vs.1249.

Nagita Sutta

Once, when the Buddha went to Icchanangala, the brahmin householders there came, in large numbers, to pay him their respects and made great uproar outside. When Nagita, the Buddhas personal attendant at the time, told him the cause of the clamour, the Buddha replied that he had nothing to do with homage; his concern was with renunciation. He went on to state five inevitable things: whosoever eats and drinks must answer the calls of nature; whosoever loves is destined to sorrow and despair; whosoever dwells on the asubha must feel disgust for the subha; whosoever sees impermanence in the six spheres of contact feels disgust for contact; whosoever sees the rise and fall in the five kinds of attachment, must feel disgust for attachment. A.iii.31ff.

Nagita Sutta

The circumstances are the same as those of No. 1. The Buddha tells Nagita that he is pleased with monks who do not live in the village, but who seek the forest and stave off gains and flattery, but to him the best is to walk on the highway unattached. A.iii.341ff.; cp. ibid., iv.341ff.

You can try to follow the references given above.
As for the story of Nagita Thera donating a Katina robe and the merits gained, I have heard this only appears in a later composition bellowing to the Kandyan period. Therefore this may not appear in the Tripitaka, Commentaries and Sub Commentaries. Therefore, this perticular story will not be there in the Apadāna.

http://www.budusarana.lk/budusarana/2016/11/07/tmp.asp?ID=fea06 In the article, there mentions about a nagita thera who, protected animals lives from death and got 10 merits for it...is that nagita thera the same as the one who donated katina robe

I am not sure about that.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Unconscious Grasping to a Self
In daily life, I guess my self-grasping is not very salient; people tell me I'm considerate, open. However, I've written stories in the past, and in my fiction I project these fantasies that are incredibly grandiose and self-absorbed. I'm not sure what to conclude here.
Is it possible to have an unaware, unconscious self-grasping (which would here transpire in my stories)?
Or perhaps, could writing down and elaborating grandiose, self-themed stories exacerbate self-grasping which would otherwise be much less?
I am somewhat confused about this as, as I said, these stories seem not to fit my day to day personality, but clearly possess important themes of self-grasping.

OP: Is it possible to have an unaware, unconscious self-grasping (which would here transpire in my stories)?

There are 18 internal and external views across past, present and future making a total of 108 views of self rooted in carving.
18 Internal Preoccupations with Craving

(1) “I am”
(2) “I am this [I am like this]”
(3) “Thus am I [I am like that]”
(4) “I am otherwise”
(5) “I do not exist”
(6) “I exist”
(7) “May I be”
(8) “May I be this [be like this]”
(9) “May I be so [be like that]”
(10) “May I otherwise”
(11) “I might be”
(12) “I might be this [be like this]”
(13) “I might be that [be like that]”
(14) “I might be otherwise”
(15) “I shall be”
(16) “I shall be this [be like this]”
(17) “I shall be so [be like that]”
(18) “I shall be otherwise”

Tanhā Jālinī Sutta / (Vicarita) Tanha Sutta
For an untrained person, any externals experience always result in the self-view. What one should do is to contemplate perceptions, thought, view as not-self. To to this one have to develop awareness into this process.

the eye, form, eye-consciousness, eye-contact, feeling, craving, are not-self,
the ear, sounds, ear-consciousness, ear-contact, feeling, craving, are not-self,
the nose, smells, nose-consciousness, nose-contact, feeling, craving, are not-self,
the tongue, sounds, tongue-consciousness, tongue-contact, feeling, craving, are not-self,
the body, touches, body-consciousness, body-contact, feeling, craving, are not-self,
the mind, mind-objects, mind-consciousness, mind-contact, feeling, craving, are not-self.

Cha Chakka Sutta

OP: could writing down and elaborating grandiose, self-themed stories exacerbate self-grasping which would otherwise be much less?

Self-grasping is always there. (Only at streem-entry is this broke.) More you think about oneself (108 through paths above) it is reinforced.
If

perceptions,
thoughts, or
views

do arise one should straighten them by contemplating:

Impermanent as impermanent
Painful as painful
Not-self as not-self
Impure [unattractive or repulsive] as impure

See Vipallasa Sutta
When creating these stories your self-view may be reinforced. If you do this as living maybe you can take a step back and try to write stories without too much self-centeredness. When you have to write something and the above Vipallasa arises contemplate on the antidote.
This and this answer also might be of interest on how to eliminate self-view arising.

Or perhaps, could writing down and elaborating grandiose, self-themed stories exacerbate self-grasping which would otherwise be much less?
From AN8.35, we have the case of an elaborate grandiose grasping by an ethical persion:

The heart’s wish of an ethical person succeeds because of their purity.
Next, someone gives to ascetics or brahmins such things as food, drink, clothing, vehicles; garlands, fragrance, and makeup; and bed, house, and lighting.
  Whatever they give, they expect something back.
  And they’ve heard:
  ‘The Gods of Brahmā’s Host are long-lived, beautiful, and very happy.’
  It occurs to them:
  ‘If only, when my body breaks up, after death, I would be reborn in the company of the Gods of Brahmā’s Host!’
  They settle on that idea, concentrate on it and develop it.
As they’ve settled for less and not developed further, their idea leads to rebirth there.
  When their body breaks up, after death, they’re reborn in the company of the Gods of Brahmā’s Host.
  But I say that this is only for those of ethical conduct, not for the unethical.

Wishes, be they simple or grandiose, entangle us in grasping at the continued existence of identity view, that illusion of a self. Yet even the grandiose story ends. All those grandiose features and details die.

When they know a thought with their mind, they don’t get caught up in the features and details.
  If the faculty of mind were left unrestrained, bad unskillful qualities of desire and aversion would become overwhelming. For this reason, they practice restraint, protecting the faculty of mind, and achieving its restraint.
  When they have this noble sense restraint, they experience an unsullied bliss inside themselves.
-- MN 51

To live without wishes in this very life, extinguished, requires understanding and letting go of wishes. Perhaps your writing is simply a way for you to understand what it is you or others might be holding on to. In that understanding of the inevitable impermanence of the grasped might also be the letting go.

They live without wishes in the present life, extinguished, cooled, experiencing bliss, having become holy in themselves.

OP: In daily life, I guess my self-grasping is not very salient; people tell me I'm considerate, open.

Just because you're considerate and open, doesn't mean you're not self-grasping.
Even if you think "I am considerate and open" and feel happy about that, that's already self-grasping because you're associating some mental ideas to your self.
This can be see in SN 22.59:

"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"
"Stressful, lord."
"And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to
  change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"
"No, lord."

However, for lay persons who are not stream enterers, I think recollecting examples of when you were considerate and open, is more skillful than having the three poisons occupying the mind, because it brings some joy to your mind and removes the three poisons.
We see recollection of virtues and generosity in AN 11.13:

"Furthermore, there is the case where you recollect your own virtues:
  '[They are] untorn, unbroken, unspotted, unsplattered, liberating,
  praised by the wise, untarnished, conducive to concentration.' At any
  time when a disciple of the noble ones is recollecting virtue, his
  mind is not overcome with passion, not overcome with aversion, not
  overcome with delusion. His mind heads straight, based on virtue. And
  when the mind is headed straight, the disciple of the noble ones gains
  a sense of the goal, gains a sense of the Dhamma, gains joy connected
  with the Dhamma. In one who is joyful, rapture arises. In one who is
  rapturous, the body grows calm. One whose body is calmed experiences
  ease. In one at ease, the mind becomes concentrated.
"Mahanama, you should develop this recollection of virtue while you
  are walking, while you are standing, while you are sitting, while you
  are lying down, while you are busy at work, while you are resting in
  your home crowded with children.
"Furthermore, there is the case where you recollect your own
  generosity: 'It is a gain, a great gain for me, that — among people
  overcome with the stain of possessiveness — I live at home, my
  awareness cleansed of the stain of possessiveness, freely generous,
  openhanded, delighting in being magnanimous, responsive to requests,
  delighting in the distribution of alms.' At any time when a disciple
  of the noble ones is recollecting generosity, his mind is not overcome
  with passion, not overcome with aversion, not overcome with delusion.
  His mind heads straight, based on generosity. And when the mind is
  headed straight, the disciple of the noble ones gains a sense of the
  goal, gains a sense of the Dhamma, gains joy connected with the
  Dhamma. In one who is joyful, rapture arises. In one who is rapturous,
  the body grows calm. One whose body is calmed experiences ease. In one
  at ease, the mind becomes concentrated.

So, it's OK to recollect examples of one's virtues and generosity.

OP: Or perhaps, could writing down and elaborating grandiose, self-themed stories exacerbate self-grasping which would otherwise be
  much less?

Oh yes, from SN 42.2:

Then Talaputa, the head of an acting troupe, went to the Blessed One
  and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was
  sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Lord, I have heard that it
  has been passed down by the ancient teaching lineage of actors that
  'When an actor on the stage, in the midst of a festival, makes people
  laugh & gives them delight with his imitation of reality, then with
  the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of
  the laughing devas.' What does the Blessed One have to say about
  that?"
"Apparently, headman, I haven't been able to get past you by saying,
  'Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that.' So I will simply
  answer you. Any beings who are not devoid of passion to begin with,
  who are bound by the bond of passion, focus with even more passion on
  things inspiring passion presented by an actor on stage in the midst
  of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of aversion to begin
  with, who are bound by the bond of aversion, focus with even more
  aversion on things inspiring aversion presented by an actor on stage
  in the midst of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of delusion
  to begin with, who are bound by the bond of delusion, focus with even
  more delusion on things inspiring delusion presented by an actor on
  stage in the midst of a festival. Thus the actor — himself intoxicated
  & heedless, having made others intoxicated & heedless — with the
  breakup of the body, after death, is reborn in what is called the hell
  of laughter. But if he holds such a view as this: 'When an actor on
  the stage, in the midst of a festival, makes people laugh & gives them
  delight with his imitation of reality, then with the breakup of the
  body, after death, he is reborn in the company of the laughing devas,'
  that is his wrong view. Now, there are two destinations for a person
  with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or the animal womb."

Well, it's not the same as your case, but it's similar.

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


text:
Tanhā Jālinī Sutta and Self-Views
This answer by Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena noted the self-views, in the Tanhā Jālinī Sutta, that promote clinging to a self.
I wish here to verify my understanding, namely that these views are divided into 5 parts:

(1) “I am”
(2) “I am this [I am like this]”
(3) “Thus am I [I am like that]”
(4) “I am otherwise”

These seem to relate to affirmations in the present, linked to affirming permanence of the self, e.g. "I am like this [always]."

(5) “I do not exist”
(6) “I exist”

Here the two views are about extremes of eternalism and nihilism.

(7) “May I be”
(8) “May I be this [be like this]”
(9) “May I be so [be like that]”
(10) “May I otherwise”

Here, the quality of yearning and attachment is involved, namely through fantasizing.

(11) “I might be”
(12) “I might be this [be like this]”
(13) “I might be that [be like that]”
(14) “I might be otherwise”

Here, it is speculation which is in question, and the contemplation of hypothetical realities which is the problem.

(15) “I shall be”
(16) “I shall be this [be like this]”
(17) “I shall be so [be like that]”
(18) “I shall be otherwise”

Lastly, projection into the future and imagining yet occurred realities is in question.
Are these last five conclusions correct? Or have I misunderstood certain elements?
Overall, I understand this sutta to be divided into sections 1-6 pertaining directly to ignorance, 7-10 as attachment, and 11-18 as linked to the hindrances of doubt and worry.
I wonder, though, how all these separate aspects are all considered 'self-views'; is it because all kleshas mentioned previously come from and are manifesations of the self?

kleshas cannot be manifestations or come from the self, since there is no self in the first place.
What there is is various conditioned things that puthujjanas ''take up'', ie the various ''taking up'' is the upadanas, ie the fuel, and they claim the things taken up is self. They also claim that either it is not possible to stop upadanas, or that if is possible to stop the fuel, then it is bad to stop the fuel.
the buddha says the opposite, for instance

But the well taught Ariyan disdple, brethren, who discers those who
  are Ariyans; who are skilled in the Ariyan doctrine, trained in the
  Ariyan doctrine; who discern the worthy ones, who are skilled in the
  worthy doctrine, trained in the worthy doctrine, regard not body as
  the Self, regard not body as having a Self, regard not body as being
  in the Self, regard not the self as being in the body;
regard not feeling as the Self, regard not feeling as having a Self,
  regard not feeling as being in the Self, regard not the self as being
  in feeling;
regard not perception as the Self, regard not perception as having a
  Self, regard not perception as being in the Self, regard not the self
  as being in perception;
regard not the activities as the Self, regard not the activities as
  having a Self, regard not the activities as being in the Self, regard
  not the self as being in the activities;
regard not consciousness as the Self, regard not consciousness as
  having a Self, regard not consciousness as being in the Self, regard
  not the self as being in consciousness;
do not run and revolve round and round from body to body, do not run
  and revolve round and round from feeling to feeling, do not run and
  revolve round and round from perception to perception, do not run and
  revolve round and round from activities to activities, do not run and
  revolve round and round from consciousness to consciousness.
They, not running and revolving round and round from body to body, not
  running and revolving round and round from feeling to feeling,
not running and revolving round and round from perception to
  perception, not running and revolving round and round from activity to
  activity, not running and revolving round and round from consciousness
  to consciousness are released from body, are released from feeling,
  are released from perception, are released from the activities, are
  released from consciousness, they are released from rebirth, from old
  age and decay, from sorrow and grief, from woe, lamentation and
  despair; they are released from suffering, I declare.

http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/sn/03_kv/sn03.22.099.wood.pts.htm#p1
same thing with the next sutta

The Exalted One was once staying near Sāvatthī at the Jeta Grove in
  Anāthapiṇḍika's Park.
And there the Exalted One addressed the brethren, saying:
"Brethren!"
"Master!" responded those brethren.
The Exalted One said:
"Incalculable, brethren, is the beginning of this round of rebirth.
No beginning is made known of beings wrapt in ignorance, fettered by
  craving, who run on, who fare on the round of rebirth.
■
Just like a dog, brethren, tied up by a leash to a strong stake or
  pillar - if he goes, he goes up to that stake or pillar; if he stands
  still, he stands close to that stake or pillar; if he squats down, he
  squats close to that stake or pillar; if he lies down, he lies dose to
  that stake or pillar.
■
Even so, brethren, the untaught manyfolk regard body (thus):|| ||
'This is mine; this am I; this is the self of me.'
They regard feeling (thus):|| ||
'This is mine; this am I; this is the self of me.'
They regard perception (thus):|| ||
'This is mine; this am I; this is the self of me.'
They regard the activities (thus):|| ||
'This is mine; this am I; this is the self of me.'
They regard consciousness (thus):|| ||
'This is mine; this am I; this is the self of me.'
■
If they go, it is towards this fivefold grasping-group that they go.
If they stand still, it is close to this fivefold grasping-group that
  they stand still.
If they sit, it is close to this fivefold grasping-group that they
  sit.
If they lie down, it is close to this fivefold grasping-group that
  they lie down.
[128] Wherefore, brethren, again and again must one regard one's own
  mind thus:
'For a long, long time this mind has been tainted by lust, by hatred,
  by illusion.'
By a tainted mind, brethren, beings are tainted.
By purity of mind beings are made pure.
Brethren, have ye ever seen a picture which they call 'a
  show-piece?'"[1]
"Yes, lord."
"Well, brethren, this so-called show-piece is thought out by mind.
Wherefore, brethren, mind is even more diverse than that show
  piece.[2]
Wherefore, brethren, again and again must one regard one's own mind
  thus:
'For a long, long time this mind has been tainted by lust, by hatred,
  by illusion.'
By a tainted mind, brethren, beings are tainted.
By purity of mind beings are made pure.
Brethren, I see not any single group[3] so diverse as the creatures of
  the animal world.
Those creatures of the animal world, brethren, are thought out by
  mind.[4]|| ||
Wherefore, brethren, mind is even more diverse than those creatures of
  the animal world.
Wherefore, brethren, again and again must one regard one's own mind
  thus:
'For a long, long time this mind has been tainted by lust, by hatred,
  by illusion.'
By a tainted [129] mind, brethren, beings are tainted.
By purity of mind beings are made pure.[5]
Just as if, brethren, a dyer or a painter, if he have dye or lac or
  turmeric, indigo or madder, and a well-planed board or wall or strip
  of cloth, can fashion the likeness of a woman or of a man complete in
  all its parts,[6] even so, brethren, the untaught manyfolk creates and
  re-creates its body, creates and re-creates its feelings, creates and
  re-creates its perception, creates and re-creates its activities,
  creates and re-creates its consciousness.
Now as to this, what think you, brother?|| ||
Is body permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, lord."
"That which is impermanent, is it weal or woe?"
"Woe, lord."
"But that which is impermanent, woeful, unstable in nature, is it
  right to regard it thus:
'This is mine, this am I this is the Self of me?'"
"Surely not, lord."
■
"Is feeling permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, lord."
"That which is impermanent, is it weal or woe?"
"Woe, lord."
"But that which is impermanent, woeful, unstable in nature, is it
  right to regard it thus:
'This is mine, this am I this is the Self of me?'"
"Surely not, lord."
■
"Is perception permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, lord."
"That which is impermanent, is it weal or woe?"
"Woe, lord."
"But that which is impermanent, woeful, unstable in nature, is it
  right to regard it thus:
'This is mine, this am I this is the Self of me?'"
"Surely not, lord."
■
"Are the activities permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, lord."
"That which is impermanent, is it weal or woe?"
"Woe, lord."
"But that which is impermanent, woeful, unstable in nature, is it
  right to regard it thus:
'This is mine, this am I this is the Self of me?'"
"Surely not, lord."
■
"Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, lord."
"That which is impermanent, is it weal or woe?"
"Woe, lord."
"But that which is impermanent, woeful, unstable in nature, is it
  right to regard it thus:
'This is mine, this am I this is the Self of me?'"
"Surely not, lord."
"Therefore, brethren, every body whatever, be it past, future or
  present, be it inward or outward, gross or subtle, low or high, far or
  near, - every body should be thus regarded, as it really is, by right
  insight:
'This is not mine.
This I am not.
This is not the Self of me.'
■
Every feeling whatever, be it past, future or present, be it inward or
  outward, gross or subtle, low or high, far or near, - every feeling
  should be thus regarded, as it really is, by right insight:
'This is not mine.
This I am not.
This is not the Self of me.'
■
Every perception whatever, be it past, future or present, be it inward
  or outward, gross or subtle, low or high, far or near, - every
  perception should be thus regarded, as it really is, by right insight:
'This is not mine.
This I am not.
This is not the Self of me.'
■
Every activity whatever, be it past, future or present, be it inward
  or outward, gross or subtle, low or high, far or near, - every
  activity should be thus regarded, as it really is, by right insight:
'This is not mine.
This I am not.
This is not the Self of me.'
■
Every consciousness whatever, be it past, future or present, be it
  inward or outward, gross or subtle, low or high, far or near, - every
  consciousness should be thus regarded, as it really is, by right
  insight:
'This is not mine.
This I am not.
This is not the Self of me.'

OP: Are these last five conclusions correct? Or have I misunderstood certain elements?
Overall, I understand this sutta to be divided into sections 1-6 pertaining directly to ignorance, 7-10 as attachment, and 11-18 as linked to the hindrances of doubt and worry.

Your conclusions seem right.

OP: I wonder, though, how all these separate aspects are all considered 'self-views'; is it because all kleshas mentioned previously come from and are manifestations of the self?

All kleshas are manifestations of:

ignorance
attachment
aversion

Imo these aren't self views but is speech which occurs having directed the thought and made an evaluation.
These are verbalizations of craving based on wrong view and inappropriate attention which becomes the inclination due to frequent giving of attention.
'I am like this' ie, i see no evidence suggesting that the [always] is warranted and is to be inferred. The interpretation i favor is that this occurs due to lack of development, simply grasping the aggregates with inappropriate attention and or wrong view.
'I am like this' may well be verbalized as 'I am old' or 'I am a good meditator' etc, etc.
'I exist' or 'I do not exist' are expressive of speculative views about the nature of what is called 'self' in the world.
A person with perfected view and concentration is incapable of thinking along those lines because they never give inappropriate attention and are therefore incable of verbalizing craving such as ie 'i am bored, it would be good to go for a walk' whereas a Sotapanna can still do because he is not perfect in concentration and has work to do in regards to heedlessness.


text:
looking for citation, pīti and sukha of 4 jhānas compared to dying of thirst, seeing water in distance, and drinking it
There's an excellent simile in the Theravada non canonical literature explaining the difference between piti and sukha in the first 3 jhanas, reminiscent of the lotus pond in this sutta MN 40. (citation?)
As I remember it:

Piti = you're in a desert, dying of thirst, as you're approaching oasis/pond, you realize there's water in the distance, that you're not going to die, and you're going to drink that water soon. The thrill and excitement of that is piti.
sukha = you've arrived at the oasis/pond, now you're drinking the water. The pleasure from actually drinking the water is sukha.

Three questions:

what is the citation of that piti sukha simile for the 4 jhanas from?
might this sutta, MN 40, be what inspired that simile for jhana piti/sukha differentiation? Should the words piti sukha appear in MN 40 lotus pond, but got lost in transmission?
What does the MN 40 lotus pond simile mean on its own terms, just for this sutta? What are the 4 directions referring to?

MN 40 excerpt here:
MN 40: what is the meaning of the lotus pond simile?

Piti means saturated, full. The point where on can let go. Such simple.

Giving into -> delight -> full -> calm -> sukha... not different to ordinary pattern, just the "giving into" is different.

(citation?) is btw. not clear: is reference, quote here requested?

what is the citation of that piti sukha simile for the 4 jhanas from?

It's from the Visuddhimagga-Ch IV.100 (pg. 139):

And wherever the two are associated, happiness is the contentedness at getting a desirable object, and bliss is the actual experiencing of it when got. Where there is happiness there is bliss (pleasure); but where there is bliss there is not necessarily happiness. Happiness is included in the formations aggregate; bliss is included in the feeling aggregate. If a man, exhausted31 in a desert, saw or heard about a pond on the edge of a wood, he would have happiness; if he went into the wood’s shade and used the water, he would have bliss. And it should be understood that this is said because they are obvious on such occasions.

.

might this sutta, MN 40, be what inspired that simile for jhana piti/sukha differentiation? Should the words piti sukha appear in MN 40 lotus pond, but got lost in transmission?

Possibly. But notice the context is different between MN 40 and Vism IV.100. In MN 40, the lotus pond simile was used to illustrate the benefits of cultivating the Four Divine Abodes and how it benefits everyone; while the Vism's simile was for describing the Piti/Sukha absorption factors of the Jhanas concentration practices.

What does the MN 40 lotus pond simile mean on its own terms, just for this sutta? What are the 4 directions referring to?

The Four Divine Abodes.

In the context of Jhana, there is a reference a lake with spring-water welling up from within appears in many suttas with regard to the 2nd Jhana (with Piti, Sukha, Ekaggatha) and a pond of the blue lotuses, red and white lotuses, or red lotuses for the 3rd Jhana (with Sukha, Ekaggatha):

Kuta,danta Sutta
Mahā Sakuludāyi Sutta
Dīgha Mahāli Sutta
Sālavatika Lohicca Sutta
Kevaḍḍha Sutta
Mahā Assapura Sutta
Soṇadaṇḍa Sutta
(Ānanda) Subha Sutta
Samādhi Pañc’aṅgika Sutta
Ambatṭha Sutta
Kevaḍḍha Sutta

The more famous of the Suttas with this reference is:

Kāya,gatā,sati Sutta
Samannaphala Sutta

In the context of Cūḷa Assapura Sutta (MN 40) it means if any person regardless of the divine adobe mediation (4 directions) they practice realises the Dhamma hence quench their thirst. This can be also taken as anyone from the 4 casts can realise the Dhamma and quench their trust. This section appears between the description of divine adobe meditation and description of the people of 4 different casts and seam applicable to both. This Sutta is not about Jhana.
There are lotus pond similies in:

Kāraṇapālī Sutta - Buddha's clarity of wisdom
Āghāta Pativinaya Sutta 2 - purity of Sila
Aputtaka Sutta 1 - proper sure of wealth
Mahā Sihanāda Sutta - the destruction of mental influxes

what is the citation of that piti sukha simile for the 4 jhanas from?

The citation is from the Visuddhimagga, used to explain piti (rapture) is mental formation (sankhara) rather than a feeling (vedana). Here, the Visuddhimagga says piti is something mental rather than originating from the physical; thus appears to contradict the meaning of 'rupa jhana' and contradicting the sutta terms "vedanāsu vedanānupassī" and "cittasaṅkhārapaṭisaṃvedī" (where 'cittasaṅkhāra' means feelings, per MN 44).

might this sutta, MN 40, be what inspired that simile for jhana piti/sukha differentiation? Should the words piti sukha appear in MN 40 lotus pond, but got lost in transmission?

MN 40 is not about jhana. While, similar to the Visuddhimagga, the pāmojjaṃ (joy) & pīti (rapture) in MN 40 appear to be born of mental formations (sankhara), as said, MN 40 is not about jhana where as Visuddhimagga claims to be about jhana. Therefore, there seems to be a contradiction here between MN 40 and Visuddhimagga. However, if the writer of the Visuddhimagga, similar to FrankK, misinterpreted MN 40, then yes, MN 40 might be what inspired that (false) simile for jhana piti/sukha differentiation

What does the MN 40 lotus pond simile mean on its own terms, just for this sutta? What are the 4 directions referring to?

MN 40 does not appear to be about jhana. MN 40 describes the mental joy of knowing or recognising the mind is pure; similar to the worldly idea of "self-esteem". Using AN 11.2 to explain, MN 40 is describing the joy arising from an absence of remorse.
However, the rapture of jhana is unrelated to any mental recognition, judgment, knowing or perception. The rapture of jhana is "physical" in its origins and is born from the stress in the physical body being thoroughly calmed & dissolved (to the degree that the mind can longer feel/discern the physical body, which consumates the 1st jhana, in which there is no knowing of the physical body, as explained by Bhikkhus Buddhadasa, Brahmavamso, Sujato, etc).
I recall I have explained before the meaning or types "rapture" ("piti") are not always the same. There are at least five different types of rapture found in the suttas, namely:

Rapture when hearing about there is a path to an end to suffering (SN 12.23).
Rapture when free from remorse and when feeling morally righteous (AN 11.2; MN 40).
Rapture when first successfully having mindfulness & insight (SN 45.3; rapture factor of enlightenment).
Rapture of neighbourhood concentration (MN 118)
Rapture of attainment concentration/jhana (MN 4; MN 19; MN 111).

and as I've pointed out to you already, piti of 7sb awakening factors IS the same nira-misa piti of the 4 jhanas, also qualified as piti-manassa deriving from mind, not body. SN 36.11, SN 46.3 for the clear differentiation between what's kaya and what's citta among piti, sukha, passadhi.

You have not pointed out anything.


text:
Responding to Worldly Questions
Namo Buddhaya!
People always ask "How are you?", "Isn't that beautiful/horrible", "You are so lucky/unlucky!", "Did you enjoy/like that", and so on.

How do I respond to these things in a way that doesn't identify with
  the aspects that cause clinging, such as saying my day is good and
  favorable rather than bad or saying I dislike this meal, and so on.
  More specifically, how do I respond to these and other questions like
  so in a way that doesn't push toward a worldly condition such as
  pleasure and pain, status and disgrace, etc.?

Metta!

Conversations may make one feel superior/inferior, good/bad, etc. Your conversation response can be anything within the bounds of right speech (abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter). Your mental response should be on account of whatever feeling that arises either pleasant, unpleasant or neutral one should know the sensation as such and that it is impermanent and not worth clinging to.

If he feels a pleasant feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a painful feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a neutral feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.
If he feels a painful feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.
If he feels a neutral feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta

I don't think regular normal response like: "I'm fine, thank you" to regular normal greetings like "How are you?" would increase or decrease worldly condition like clinging or greed or aversion. About questions like "isn't that beautiful/horrible?", maybe simply telling them the truth that there're always beautiful and ugly aspects to all conditioned phenomena, like a coin would not exist without both faces. Similarly for like/dislike about a particular meal, some people will like it, and others will not; even when it's really a terrible meal, to someone who's been starving for a few days, it's still the most wonderful meal s/he's ever had! This way, not only you give truthful answers but also provide an opportunity for your friend to take a step back and give some further thoughts about the real nature of existence, provided that s/he's a thoughtful person obviously. But even if they're not, there's no harm in any of the answers you've just provided above.

Ideally, I'd consider their meaning and  answer while I try to mindfuly guard for identifing with the aspects that cause clinging. I'd also try to communicate with metta where there is not nessasarily a seperation between anyone or anything at some heart level I would be chanting myself into. Mindfulness and metta together are powerful.

Right Speech is part of the Noble Eightfold Path.

"And what, bhikkhus, is right speech? Abstinence from false speech,
  abstinence from divisive speech, abstinence from harsh speech,
  abstinence from idle chatter: this is called right speech." (SN 45.8)

In AN 10.211 it's explained as among the 10 things that lead to hell:

(4) “He speaks falsehood. If he is summoned to a council, to an
  assembly, to his relatives’ presence, to his guild, or to the court,
  and questioned as a witness thus: ‘So, good man, tell what you know,’
  then, not knowing, he says, ‘I know,’ or knowing, he says, ‘I do not
  know’; not seeing, he says, ‘I see,’ or seeing, he says, ‘I do not
  see.’ Thus he consciously speaks falsehood for his own ends, or for
  another’s ends, or for some trifling worldly end.
(5) “He speaks divisively. Having heard something here, he repeats it
  elsewhere in order to divide those people from these; or having heard
  something elsewhere, he repeats it to these people in order to divide
  them from those. Thus he is one who divides those who are united, a
  creator of divisions, one who enjoys factions, rejoices in factions,
  delights in factions, a speaker of words that create factions.
(6) “He speaks harshly. He utters such words as are rough, hard,
  hurtful to others, offensive to others, bordering on anger,
  unconducive to concentration.
(7) “He indulges in idle chatter. He speaks at an improper time,
  speaks falsely, speaks what is unbeneficial, speaks contrary to the
  Dhamma and the discipline; at an improper time he speaks such words as
  are worthless, unreasonable, rambling, and unbeneficial. (AN 10.211)

It's also mentioned:

“And what is the person whose speech is like honey? Here, some person,
  having abandoned harsh speech, abstains from harsh speech. He speaks
  such words as are gentle, pleasing to the ear, and lovable, as go to
  the heart, are courteous, desired by many, and agreeable to many. This
  is the person whose speech is like honey." (AN 3.28)
“Mendicants, there are these four kinds of good conduct by way of
  speech. What four? Speech that’s true, harmonious, gentle, and
  thoughtful. These are the four kinds of good conduct by way of
  speech.” (AN 4.149)

So you should try to respond in ways that are gentle, pleasing, lovable, and aren't against right speech principles...similar to in metta (loving-kindness) ways.
For the lay people you should respond more in pleasing ways rather than concerning yourself with things like clinging or what pushes towards a worldly condition since such speculations most likely won't lead to anything good.


text:
irrational fear of hell and damnation and spiralling, please help me?
I've posted on this Q&A site before when my grandmother just passed away, and some of the answers here really helped me feel a lot better and eased my fear enough for me to go back to my normal life with a better understanding of the teaching, but man it was really short-lived.
Today, during the 49th day of my grandmother's passing, part of the rites we were carrying out involved sitting down and reciting the Ksitigarbha sutra and again, all the talk about all the different kinds of hells really got me feeling so irrationally scared. It took me back to the whole deal where I feel like if I lived like a normal human being, even if I'm not really hurting anyone intentionally, I'm being imperfect and sinful for wanting nice things, cracking dark jokes and just generally living my best life as a city girl. (I explained my fear in depth in my previous post)
There was this one part that jumped out at me particularly this time--I'm not sure if I intepreted it right but it's something along the lines of, I might think something isn't a big deal (maybe something like a white lie or getting angry/annoyed/impatient in the moment), but I will pay for it in the afterlife or something? And immediately my brain just goes to thoughts of all the hells and damnation I've landed myself into for being well...an imperfect human because that's just how the whole cycle works. And again, I'm tossed into this crippling fear of hell and damnation. I feel so worried and scared I can feel everyone around me getting annoyed with me because I always try to slide the topic into conversations in hopes that someone would call me out for being dumb and tell me I'm completely wrong.
If anyone is familiar with the sutra and teachings, could you please enlighten me? I was born into a culturally Chinese Buddhist family. I'd really, really appreciate it.
I'm really spiralling right now as I do more research on my own, like how having a drink (alcohol) and wanting to let my hair down is being mindless and thus will bring suffering and damnation, how desire is the root of all suffering and will also bring damnation and so on. I really, really want to live my life to the fullest and have no regrets. I want to build a nice career, strive for the stars, own a nice (even fancy) house and have a drink and party now and then but it's scaring me so much right now my hands and feet feel cold and I can't think of anything else.
It feels like everything and anything I want to do for myself is considered an unwholesome/bad/selfish and will cause me to go to hell and so on and it's literally terrifying me so much. I'm only 22 and I used to feel so excited and full of life and hungry for the adventure and love and fun life brings but now I have so much of this fear and thoughts I can't seem to be or love myself. It's gotten me feeling that self-love is bad too and I'm just gravely afraid of everything and I feel so crippled and helpless just being myself.
I really feel like I can't be myself without feeling like I'm going to wander to hell after I've lived out my life. I'm so scared and desperate. I used to never want to settle for the ordinary, always wanting to live my life out to the fullest and working for all the pretty and nice things in life (without intentionally hurting other people) and just living a cosy, carefree and happy life as a vibrant, free-spirited girl but now I have so many reservations and I feel so, so scared.
Please be rational and gentle with me, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Sankha Sutta: The Conch Trumpet might help, aside of not associating with fools.

Nothing in what the Buddha taught says that one is not to enjoy righteously earned pleasures. One gives up the world at one's own pace. But the whole world recognizes (if it doesn't practice) the corrupting nature of lies, harm, theft and unrestrained self indulgence. The key idea there is 'righteously earned'. You need to develop a sense of where the line is drawn between activities that create bad kamma and those that create good kamma. One does not go to Hell practicing only good deeds. That is basic training:
Create good kamma: Practice generosity. Find a vihara and make gifts to the bhikkhus.
Avoid bad kamma:
Train yourself to refrain from saying things that are not true.
Train yourself to refrain from activities that cause harm to breathing things.
Trin yourself to refrain from taking things that are not givin to you.
That is 'train yourself'. You are not expected to reach perfect behavior over night, the important thing is the direction you are headed. Your fear is rational; right now you are headed in the wrong direction. You do a 180 by taking the first step.
If you have a good bank account of good kamma and are cultivating a life that avoids making bad kamma what pleasures come to you can be enjoyed without fear and the bad stuff you have already created or newly create will be experienced in an over-all environment of progress towards the good.
If you want to understand this system more deeply I suggest this over-view, which is based on Ananda's Gradual Course:
http://buddhadust.net/dhammatalk/the_pali_line/course/table_of_contents.htm

I might think something isn't a big deal (maybe something like a white lie or getting angry/annoyed/impatient in the moment), but I will pay for it in the afterlife or something?
There's a Pali sutta that might be relevant -- Loṇakapallasutta
It starts ...

“Mendicants, suppose you say: ‘No matter how this person performs a deed, they experience it the same way.’ This being so, the spiritual life could not be lived, and there’d be no chance of making a complete end of suffering.
Suppose you say: ‘No matter how this person performs a deed, they experience the result as it should be experienced.’ This being so, the spiritual life can be lived, and there is a chance of making a complete end of suffering.
Take the case of a person who does a trivial bad deed, but it lands them in hell. Meanwhile, another person does the same trivial bad deed, but experiences it in the present life, without even a bit left over, not to speak of a lot.
What kind of person does a trivial bad deed, but it lands them in hell? A person who hasn’t developed their physical endurance, ethics, mind, or wisdom. They’re small-minded and mean-spirited, living in suffering. That kind of person does a trivial bad deed, but it lands them in hell.

... which I think means, "How you live your life, i.e. holy or not, developed or not, affects how kamma is experienced -- a trifling deed by an 'undeveloped' person may take the individual to hells, whereas the same deed by a 'developed' person is instead experienced in the here-and-now, and only for a moment."
have a drink and party now and then
I don't know you, but in my experience I don't really trust alcohol. Having a drink, and then wanting to have another drink, can lead to alcoholism, inappropriate friendships, missed opportunities -- it can make you sick, stupid, AND depressed -- it's debilitating and habit-forming.
And I think it always has those effects.
But, the amount of its effects will vary from person to person -- i.e. how much effect, how often, and how long it lasts, will vary.
Perhaps it depends on how 'developed' you are. And it's to avoid suffering, to avoid long-lasting ill-effects, that the "threefold training" exists -- i.e. training in virtue, concentration, and wisdom.
just living a cosy, carefree and happy life as a vibrant, free-spirited girl
Let's hope you may.
They say that a purpose and a consequence of "skilful virtue" is "absence of remorse" -- I think that might mean that, if you do good, then you don't regret (have no remorse about) having done it.
Conversely if you do something bad then I think you are supposed to feel remorse about that, and "having seen the disadvantages" of the bad behaviour, resolve not to do it again in future -- and then, not doing it again, feel no more remorse about it after that -- "absence of remorse" (as a result of virtue) may be one of the first steps toward freedom.

I really feel like I can't be myself without feeling like I'm going to wander to hell after I've lived out my life. I'm so scared and desperate. I used to never want to settle for the ordinary, always wanting to live my life out to the fullest and working for all the pretty and nice things in life (without intentionally hurting other people) and just living a cosy, carefree and happy life as a vibrant, free-spirited girl but now I have so many reservations and I feel so, so scared.

Well according to The Buddha the vast majority of people go to hell, the animal realm, or the realm of ghosts after death....very few ever go to a heavenly world or are reborn as a human (In Pansu Suttas The Buddha compares a small speck of dirt to all the land mass on Earth saying so few are ever reborn as a human or deva after death).
Birth as a human is extremely rare and gives one many opportunities like even achieving arahantship here and now but the majority of people will waste their existence away.
The majority of people are sinners or have done sinful deeds in some past existence.
The Maha arahant Moggollana for instance in some past existence killed his parents and that bad kamma followed him everywhere:

Depending on some evil friends, overpowered by lust and anger, being
  cruel-minded I slew my mother and my father too.
In whichever womb I’m reborn in hell or else among humans since I
  possess that bad karma I get murdered, head split open. (Tha Ap 4)

If such a great arahant in the past was a sinner why do you think yourself of such a bad person?
You may think that you yourself are a bad person but seemingly good people who practice things like painful austerities also go to hell (something like a career that causes one to experience painful feelings of stress, agony, boredom is like a painful austerity that one practices on a daily basis).
Very few people generate pleasant feelings or good kamma that leads towards higher worlds.
Since you are living as a lay person don't trouble yourself with speculative thoughts that cause mental agony rather trouble yourself with generating loving-kindness (metta), doing good deeds, avoiding the ten evils.
You can still be yourself, why not. When encountering lay people and householders The Buddha taught differently to instead do merit to achieve desires:

"Householder, the noble disciple who desires fame ought not to pray
  for fame or delight in it or passively yearn for it. A noble disciple
  who desires fame should practice the way conducive to fame. For when
  he practices the way conducive to fame, it leads to obtaining fame,
  and he gains fame either celestial or human."
"For one desiring long life, beauty, fame, acclaim, heaven, high
  families, and lofty delights following in succession, the wise praise
  heedfulness in doing deeds of merit." (AN 5.43)

Therefore you should produce merit, good deeds, generate loving-kindness, easily forgive and forget, in accordance to fulfill your desires.
Based on my reading of the suttas it looks like there's only a few ways to avoid the three lower destinations (hell, the animal realm, or the realm of ghosts):

Have a Right View at the time of death
Having already generated lots of merit in the past
Generating merit (especially metta) here and now
Avoiding the ten evils, unwholesome actions, wrong views
Association with good company
Being favored by higher beings
Achieving higher states like the jhanas
Developing iddhi

It seems however that many people perceived as good don't really generate pleasant feelings or good kamma thereby being more similar to the ascetics who practice painful austerities and almost never go to heaven after death (in MN 71 it's mentioned that only one ascetic in the past 91 eons went to heaven).

“Bhikkhus, whatever grounds there are for making merit productive of a
  future birth, all these do not equal a sixteenth part of the
  mind-release of loving-kindness. The mind-release of loving-kindness
  surpasses them and shines forth, bright and brilliant." (Iti 27)

Unless willing and capable of achieving the jhanas, developing iddhi, and the six higher knowledges try to practice, concentrate, and meditate on metta (loving-kindness).
An easy mind-exercise is to hold your body still, close your eyes, and imagine loving-kindness filling your body, mind, and the world inside out.

In the Theravada tradition is a practice 'reflection on the fearfulness of the states of woe'. It is practiced by doing what you are doing and it's result is that the perception of fear is established.
It is a rational fear in that it is right and a natural fear of what is to be feared rightfully. It's purpose is to motivate a yogi tho, not scaring him into despair; to establish fear of wrongdoing and laziness.
You can learn more about the various destinations of the various paths, that is to make sure you aren't having irrationally crippling fear over what is not actually as you imagined it thus not correctly evaluating the circumstances.
You can also balance out the perception of fearfulness by contemplating heavenly realms, good destinations and virtue in the deities and internal virtue as in your own good deeds and qualities.
Reflecting on the merits of having received the inheritance of the Dhamma and the associated virtues is also going to mend what is crooked.
There are things unfit for pursuit and if one realizes that it is unreliable, is going to cause stress, is not to be done and is unbeneficial; one should avoid it like a dangerous road.
If one knows a road is pleasant to look at but is known as dangerous, unprofitable, a road to loss, a dead-end where one will be met with trouble, that fear that there is on that account is not the issue.
It becomes an issue if being cruel one is not being compassionate to oneself, intending to travel that route and creating much regret, troubles and worry for oneself.
It is like knowing you have an allergy to your favorite food and it is a cause of all your illness.
Or a smoker dreading cancer...
One should sympathize and take care of oneself, quit smoking, not eat disagreeable food and seek a safe passage.
One should avoid resolving on stress.
One should resolve on doing good; in the morning, in the daytime and in the night; one should bathe in that goodness.
Thus is one purified. Thus all stress vanishes with the cause for fear.
Also don't beat yourself up over it; if you really think about it your mind is not even your own; nor is this body born of mother and father; how then are actions, how then is blame?!

I really feel like I can't be myself without feeling like I'm going to wander to hell after I've lived out my life. I'm so scared and desperate. I used to never want to settle for the ordinary, always wanting to live my life out to the fullest and working for all the pretty and nice things in life (without intentionally hurting other people) and just living a cosy, carefree and happy life as a vibrant, free-spirited girl but now I have so many reservations and I feel so, so scared.

You'll need to be a bit more specific than the above, cuz it really depends on how one implements those meanings of "being oneself", "live out one's life to the fullest", or "living a cozy, carefree, and happy life". Some interprets those as a life dedicated to the service of others, to derive true happiness by bringing joy and happiness, and lessening pain and suffering in other people. They earn their living through decent means and support themselves, their family, and the community to the best of their ability. They see great joy in helping the sick, the elderly, and the destitute, etc. If one lives a life like that, not only s/he's able to live their life "to the fullest", "a cozy, carefree, and happy life", but also enjoy the same benefits for the many lives to come. However, if one interprets those same exact terms to mean that one could simply indulge in a "carefree" life full of drugs, alcohol, intoxicants, sex, all kinds of debauchery, etc. then yes, there's a legit. reason to be concerned about, cuz that lifestyle not only will bring harm and suffering to oneself in the immediate life, but also to the many lives to come, including the possibility of rebirths in woeful realms like hell, afflictive spirits, or animal.

...working for all the pretty and nice things in life...
When working, we just work for Right Livelihood based on right view, thought, speech, action. To avoid a bad rebirth requires ethics and view:

Furthermore, when an ethical person’s body breaks up, after death, they’re reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm. AN5.213

In other words, it's the working for the delights that entrenches us in hellish craving.

Relishing is the root of suffering MN1

Pretty and nice things show up in life all they time. Just experience them with gratitude instead of greed. Certainly don't work for them!  Instead, when working, just work for Right Livelihood.

Lol you stepped on the frog that was an eggplant. Nothing to worry about right now. Sounds like anxiety and all or nothing thinking. A little mental health service like counciling should get you right rather quickly if you do it. Your smart and self aware. That logic is conflicting with the rest. The drinking and fun is escape from childhood abuse. So is the rest of it. No escape though? Your also at that magical age where your no longer a baby adult. Your changing. So will relationships. A little religion will help you cultivate yourself. Do the mental health check up too for balance. Meditation will relieve guilt and give you more self control. I have lots of students your age and they know cultivation doesn't happen overnight.
As for you asking for someone on here to enlighten you: can I poop for you?

The Buddha advocates the middle path. It's not about total austerity, it's about moderation, especially for a layperson. Moderate indulgence in pleasures that are justly earned is totally acceptable. It sounds like you are very secularly ambitious, which is not a terrible thing, especially considering your age. Worldly pleasures can be a good teacher, as you will find that, as your dreams come true, they won't make you as purely happy as you think that they will. If you keep an eye out for the unsatisfactoriness, even in the most pleasant worldly phenomena, over time you will begin to abandon them, not out of austerity or fear, but simply because they no longer interest you.
Otherwise just stick to the path:
Right view - basically understand that right and wrong are real. Avoid as much as possible acting, speaking or thinking, out of greed, hatred/aversion, and spiritual ignorance. Kamma/karma is real. Doing good will bring good to you. Doing bad will bring bad.
Right intention - essentially have good intentions in line with right view.
Right action - act on the good intention. Try to perform actions based on generosity, loving-kindness, and wisdom. You mentioned drinking as a big concern. From my understanding the biggest issue with drinking isn't the drinking itself, but can cause you to perform bad actions and speech. If you're going to drink, drink mindfully, avoid drunk texting or making any decisions while drunk. Ideally drink in relative moderation.
Right speech - don't speak out of anger, hate, pride. Don't brag. Never try to wound someone with your speech. Avoid engaging in gossip. Do speak when you know you have something valuable to share.
Right livelihood - avoid trading in meat, guns, poison, alcohol or recreational drugs, or high pressure sales or marketing for non-necessities. Ideal professions are ones that provide a product or service that genuinely help others in line with the path.
Right effort - put effort into your good intentions. Even if you are worldly, try to keep it in perspective and try to do genuine good where you can.
Right mindfulness - mindfulness meditation is good, but in day to day life, be present in the moment. Don't sleepwalk through life. Try to be active in every decision you make, big or small.
Right concentration - meditate. It is very important, and it's really quite enjoyable once you get into it. If hell is your big concern, loving-kindness meditation is meant to be one of the best ways to develop very good birth karma.
Finally, I know it might be difficult, but try not to fear hell. If you do the right thing out of fear, fear is a type of aversion and is an unwholesome root. Instead do the right thing out of wisdom and compassion for yourself and others. Hope this helps

Oh sweet girl, you are currently in a hell realm of fear. Lets liberate you: There is no self, so there is no self in hell! This is the REAL truth, so don't put your self in a prison of fear, go deeper, see emptiness and by that you will be free. I hope this reaches your heart and mind.


text:
Jhana Explaination
Namo Buddhaya!
Can someone please SIMPLY explain the EIGHT Jhanas, specifically:

1) What are Jhanas meant to do & why would one want to achieve them?
2) How does one specifically achieve them (instructions please)?
3) What happens in each individual Jhana, from the first to the
  eighth?
4) How can I explain the Jhanas to a newcomer of the Dhamma?

Please use scripture to back up your answers, but don't make your whole answer scripture...
Metta!

where is a duplicate?

I think this was a duplicate or very nearly a duplicate, of a previous topic (i.e. Please describe all the Jhanas in everyday languague). If this question isn't the same as the previous/existing topic, please clarify how this question is different.

the question is very extensive while other questions are very specific to only certain matters

i answered here: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/2014/methods-for-reaching-jhana?rq=1 because Yuttadhammo answered here.

@Dhammadhatu The banner at the top which says, "This question already has an answer here" -- do you see that has an "edit" link which you can click, to add to the list of questions of which this is a duplicate? I edited this list to add links to the two other topics which you edited just now, but perhaps you too could edit the list if you want to.

Thanks. I will sort out my answers later. I must go now

1) What are Jhanas meant to do & why would one want to achieve them? and 3) What happens in each individual Jhana, from the first to the eighth? are not asked elsewhere. 2) How does one specifically achieve them (instructions please)? is answered in Methods for reaching Jhana and 4) How can I explain the Jhanas to a newcomer of the Dhamma is explained in Describe all the Jhanas in everyday language

I posted an answer to this question here: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/35158/295

@SumindaSirinathS.Dharmasena Well let's see if Dhamma4All edits it somehow. At the moment I read it as, "A simple explanation of what and why and how for all jhanas and each jhana, with references and your own explanation", which is very broad -- i.e. a long answer to do well, maybe a full answer isn't possible, except perhaps by referencing a good book which could answer the question. But IMO anything which could be put in an answer to this question would also fit as an answer to Describe all the Jhanas in everyday language.

1) What are Jhanas meant to do & why would one want to achieve them? will remain largely unaddressed if it put there. I believe this question deserves own answer as putting the answer under another answer makes it out of place. Any way pingback if the question is opened. For the time being, I put the answers under the other question.


text:
Problematic Nature of Views
This answer states that:

View are mental constructions as they break down under scrutiny at a lower level of abstraction. Since an average person cannot discern the realities at lower levels of abstraction some view and confidence in these view.

I am confused by this, because I understand the world in terms of views, I have the feeling most people hold on to views. If these views aren't existent, what are people holding on to? I agree that perhaps these views are illusory, as they are impermanent and dependently originated, but doesn't the fact we recognize them imply they have some reality and existence?
More so, when I write for myself I often get insights, but these insights form aggregated beliefs. They're precisely aggregated, abstract ways of seeing things. Does Buddhism precisely condemn this as a cause to suffering?
Lastly, the quote mentions lower levels of abstraction. Wouldn't most people usually live in such levels, and fail to reach higher levels of abstraction?

Maybe they mean as with a computer program, there are  levels of abstraction and the lower level would mean more fundamental  and the higher abstraction would be more conseptual.

I have updated this answer cited above for more clarity.

"If you wish to know the Truth, hold no cherished opinions."

When we say "level of abstraction" we don't mean "level of sophistication", but rather "how much generalization this abstraction entails". "High level of abstraction" means a birds-eyes-view with a lot of generalization. "Low-level of abstraction" means we look at particulars.
For example, when we say "In US, Democrats are generally good people, and Republicans are generally more pragmatic than ethical."  -- that's a high level of abstraction, not high level of sophistication.
Most people hold these kind of very general views about things, very much simplified. In fact, the nature of MIND is such that it has tendency to forming and holding on to such simplified views. Children are known for this, as well as unsophisticated adults. Mahayana Buddhists say that "reifying" (grasping as real) such views is the root of suffering. Buddha said, the Highest of the two Right Views (the right view without asavas vs the right view with asavas) is "analysis of dharmas" - meaning, the ultimate right view is to go beyond simplified views and reifyed abstractions.
Why?
Because simplified views omit too much, they are "leaking abstractions", thereby creating potential for mental conflict, which is the nature of suffering.
How do they create potential for mental conflict?

Either two (groups of) people hold opposing simplified views on the same ontological subject, and therefore come in conflict with each other. OR
A person grasps at a simplified view and comes in conflict with REALITY when the details omitted in the simplified view inevitably come up. (One obvious example is Impermanence - i.e. we grasp at an idea of an entity as something fixed, while the reality beyond this simplified abstraction is an assembly of transitory aggregates. Impermanence is just one example of leaking abstraction though, out of million other cases.)

To summarize, grasping at views, specifically grasping at "abstract", "generalized", "simplified" views, and specifically assuming them to be THE ontological reality must be recognized as the root of suffering.

In that case, I understand seeing 'reality' to mean seeing phenomena as they are, without the shortcuts of neglecting the details and simplification. Would such 'real' seeing mean attending to 'particulars' as you say, truly existent entities?
I thought also that Mahayana Buddhism dismissed such entities constituting reality?

Yes. Generally speaking, seeing things as they are means seeing things analytically, in all their multifaceted complexity. But no "truly existing entities", that would be reductivistic materialism. Instead, in Mahayana Buddhism we say, there's no one absolutely correct way of seeing things, views are like tools, different tools for different jobs.

When you see things from "all the sides" at the same time, it's like having multidimensional vision. That's "seeing things as they are". "Entering" that "multidimensional" reality is entering Emptiness and entering Nirvana, I say.

For Buddhists, or at least Mahayanists, the true nature of Reality would be beyond conceptual fabrication. It would follow that all views are wrong. Such views are always speculative and abstract. The one exception, of course, would be the view that Reality is beyond conceptual fabrication.
Further to this Reality would be free of all distinction and division, thus would  transcend the categories of thought such that all 'positive' statements and views about Reality would be wrong. This is what Nagarjuna proves in his Fundamental Wisdom.
It would be as a consequence of the nature of Reality that all extreme views are logically indefensible, for they would be wrong. The correct view would not be extreme, but it is debatable whether this can be called a view since it denies the possibility of conceiving (as opposed to knowing) or describing (except seemingly-paradoxically) the genuine nature of Reality. This may be called a neutral or non-dual metaphysical position but this is not a view in itself, unless we say it the view that all other views are wrong.
Some say that Nagarjuna and the Buddha ask us to abandon all views but it seems to me this is not quite right. We are allowed to hold the view that their view is right such that Reality cannot be captured by an expressible or thinkable 'view'.
This is all to do with the limits of language and logic. The issue goes back to the Old Testament Tower of Babel and the hopeless consequences of thinking we can work out what can only be discovered.
The avoidance of abstract views would be necessary for the realisation of the correct one, for this cannot be an abstract view but is a knowledge of what is the case.
This is not to say that abstract theoretical views are never useful or always hopeless. They may be helpful and even useful as approximations, but they would never be rigorous and should only ever be temporary structures that we can expect to become obsolete as our realisation of our true situation deepens.

is reality beyond fabrication? is that was true, there could be no perception of a likeness.  a recursive likeness would be impossible

OP: View are mental constructions as they break down under scrutiny at a lower level of abstraction.

Conceptual objects have constituent parts. These constituent parts have other parts. At the lowest level is what is known as the ultimate reality which has the basic building blocks. This needs to be realised through meditation.

OP: Since an average person cannot discern the realities at lower levels of abstraction they develop confidence in these views.

A normal person does not see through to the ultimate nature, hence mistake this as either permanent, pleasant, self or beautiful. These perversions at multiple stages which are mear recognition or memory (saññā,vipallāsa), thinking (citta,vipallāsa) or deep ingrained view reinforced through continuous thinking on the experience (ditthi,vipallāsa).
Take a person for example. If you look only at body parts as:

head hairs (Pali: kesā), body hairs (lomā), nails (nakhā), teeth (dantā), skin (taco),
  flesh (maṃsaṃ), tendons (nahāru), bones (aṭṭhi), bone marrow (aṭṭhimiñjaṃ), kidneys (vakkaṃ),
  heart (hadayaṃ), liver (yakanaṃ), pleura (kilomakaṃ), spleen (pihakaṃ), lungs (papphāsaṃ),
  large intestines (antaṃ), small intestines (antaguṇaṃ), undigested food (udariyaṃ), feces (karīsaṃ),
  bile (pittaṃ), phlegm (semhaṃ), pus (pubbo), blood (lohitaṃ), sweat (sedo), fat (medo),
  tears (assu), skin-oil (vasā), saliva (kheḷo), mucus (siṅghānikā), fluid in the joints (lasikā), urine (muttaṃ).

Patikulamanasikara

You will not develop the notion of a person if you look at only the parts or imagine a pile of body parts.
When you are at a saloon and see hair on the floor you think of it as hair. You will not thin of the hair on the floor as me, Jhon, etc. There there is no perception of a person by looking merely at hair. Only when all parts are together there is a notion of a person. If you take hair and dive this further then the notion of hair is lost. Then it will be different chemical complexes. If you go further and break down to the lowest level you will be left wilt subatomic particles which is Buddhism is called Kalapa. When you think of the person you might think beautiful, but if you think of the parts the notion of beauty is lost. If you see a beauty queen or supermodel after a horrific accident in the morgue the notion of beauty is not there anymore.
If you take any object like a car, table, clock, etc. the notion of the concept (car, table, clock) and recognition is there as long as it is a whole. When you look at parts (tyre, planks, cogs) then the original notion and recognition are lost. Generally one perceives a car as and solid permanent object. Laps of time or and accident will prove otherwise.
Now let's take the notion of my car. You meet with and accident and the car is all in parts. Holding onto the notion of the car when could break would bring you sorrow when it does break. If you see that this is compounded as subjected to break and become obsolete then the sorrow is less.
Each physical items one perceives (tree, house, son, garden, etc.) are compounded hence the sum of parts and the notion of an object arises when it is whole and not by the individual constituents. Anything can easily fall apart to the constituents.
Any conceptual item is subjected to the following preventions:

what is impermanent is taken to be permanent;
what is painful is taken to be pleasurable;
what is not self is taken to be a (or the) self; and
what is impure is taken to be pure.

OP: the fact we recognize them imply they have some reality and existence?

They are made of Rūpa. In conventional terms, we have to recognise them as such, but in reality, they are made of smaller constituents, which have certain properties.
The undue expectation from something compounded than their basic elements (Mahābhūta) will result in pain. If we think of a tree, our notion is that it is solid, lasting unchanging impression. This will be painful when the tree collapses on your house.

OP: Wouldn't most people usually live in such levels, and fail to reach higher levels of abstraction?

At the lowest level of abstraction would be real objects (Paramattha Dhammas) corresponding to citta (a moment of consciousness or a moment of experience), cetasika (mental factors accompanying consciousness), rupa (material phenomena) and nibbana (the unconditioned reality). Anything compounded or constructed from by the mind will pannatti which is not real. Following are some constructed items:

Santhana pannatti are concepts of form, like land, mountains, etc.
Samuha pannatti are collective concepts, corresponding to a collection or group of things, like chariot, table.
Disa pannatti refer to concepts of locality.
Kala pannatti refer to concepts of time.
Akasa pannatti refer to space, like caves, wells.
Nimitta pannatti refer to conceptualized images, visualized images.

To function in society one needs this conceptual or conventional sense of objects and truths. E.g. You can say pass me the Jam than saying to pass me the subatomic particles. You can say I am taking a bus than say a mass of subatomic particles in motion with another mass of subatomic particles. You can say it is raining than liquified subatomic particles in motion through a gas medium. Even in Buddhism the Vinaya and Sutta Pitaka are in conventional terms. Only in the Abhidhamma one has absolute terms. But when using conventions one should see them unperverted, i.e.:

Impermanent as impermanent
Painful as painful
Not-self as not-self
Impure [unattractive or repulsive] as impure

But when one is looking through the lens of meditation one should penetrate the conventional sense and see their constituent nature and the true characteristics of conditionally arisen, impermanent, painful, not-self and decaying (not-beautiful), which is the ultimate truth.

Another example on higher-level abstractions (Chariot) breaking down at lower levels (Wheel, Axels, Reighs, Frame, Seat, Draught pole) if found example of the Chariot in the King Milinda's Questions:

But what is a chariot? Nagasena asked. Is it the wheels, or the axles, or the reigns, or the frame, or the seat, or the draught pole? Is it a combination of those elements? Or is it found outside those elements?
The King answered no to each question. Then there is no chariot! Nagasena said.
Now the King acknowledged the designation "chariot" depended on these constituent parts, but that "chariot" itself is a concept, or a mere name.
Just so, Nagasena said, "Nagasena" is a designation for something conceptual. It is a mere name. When the constituent parts are present we call it a chariot; When the Five Skandhas are present, we call it a being.
...
Another way to understand the chariot simile is to imagine the chariot being taken apart. At what point in the dis-assembly does the chariot cease to be a chariot? We can update the simile to make it an automobile. As we disassemble the car, at what point is it not a car? When we take off the wheels? When we remove the seats? When we pry off the cylinder head?
Any judgment we make is subjective. Perhaps you may argue that a pile of car parts is still a car, just not an assembled one. The point is, though, that "car" and "chariot" are concepts we project onto the constituent parts. But there is no "car" or "chariot" essence that somehow dwells within the parts.

O'Brien, Barbara. "King Milinda's Questions and the Chariot Simile." Learn Religions, Jun. 25, 2019, https://www.learnreligions.com/king-milindas-questions-450052.

Ego is a funny thing. We tell ourselves this one little thing. Then we decide it's good or bad. It starts a story like no tomorrow. You get good guys and bad guys when someone becomes this person or that person a whole reality forms on the assumption and association's. So is it true or just a story? Is this who we are?
A student/roshi of mine said it like this: "You shouldn't point at it, it's unlucky."
See the magic of Mara?