When to delight and when not to delight? Namo Buddhaya. During various discourses , monks after hearing Buddha delighted or did not delight.  This is one discourse in which Monks did not delight at the end. In almost all other discourses , monks delight at the end.

There are various places in which Buddha has given directions to the monk on when to delight and when not to delight.
For example: One should not delight in sensual pleasures,One should not delight in any form. etc.

Modern day Gurus like Sri Sri Ravi Shankar say one should always delight or be always happy.
Honestly I take delight in posting to this forum.But should I take delight?

My question is : Is there any direction given to Monks by Buddha on when to delight and when not to delight ?
I am only aware of one sutta, namely, MN 1, where the bhikkhus did not delight in the Buddha's words, as follows:


  Na te bhikkhū bhagavato bhāsitaṃ abhinandunti
  
  
  
  na
  (negative particle) not; no; nor; neither
  
  
  
  abhinandati
  rejoices at, welcomes; approves of; is pleased at.


Bhikkhu Bodhi comments: 


  The bhikkhus did not delight in the Buddha's words; apparently because the discourse probed too deeply into the tender regions of
  their own conceit, and perhaps their residual brahmanic views.


Bhikkhu Thanissaro comments: 


  The Buddha taught that clinging to views is one of the four forms of clinging that tie the mind to the processes of suffering. He thus
  recommended that his followers relinquish their clinging, not only to
  views in their full-blown form as specific positions, but also in
  their rudimentary form as the categories &amp; relationships that the mind
  reads into experience. This is a point he makes in the following
  discourse, which is apparently his response to a particular school of
  Brahmanical thought that was developing in his time — the Samkhya, or
  classification school.
  
  This school had its beginnings in the thought of Uddalaka, a ninth-century B.C. philosopher who posited a "root": an abstract
  principle out of which all things emanated and which was immanent in
  all things. Philosophers who carried on this line of thinking offered
  a variety of theories, based on logic and meditative experience, about
  the nature of the ultimate root and about the hierarchy of the
  emanation. Many of their theories were recorded in the Upanishads and
  eventually developed into the classical Samkhya system around the time
  of the Buddha.
  
  Although the present discourse says nothing about the background of the monks listening to it, the Commentary states that before their
  ordination they were brahmans, and that even after their ordination
  they continued to interpret the Buddha's teachings in light of their
  previous training, which may well have been proto-Samkhya. If this is
  so, then the Buddha's opening lines — "I will teach you the sequence
  of the root of all phenomena" — would have them prepared to hear his
  contribution to their line of thinking. And, in fact, the list of
  topics he covers reads like a Buddhist Samkhya. Paralleling the
  classical Samkhya, it contains 24 items, begins with the physical
  world (here, the four physical properties), and leads back through
  ever more refined &amp; inclusive levels of being &amp; experience,
  culminating with the ultimate Buddhist concept: Unbinding (nibbana).
  In the pattern of Samkhya thought, Unbinding would thus be the
  ultimate "root" or ground of being immanent in all things and out of
  which they all emanate.
  
  However, instead of following this pattern of thinking, the Buddha attacks it at its very root: the notion of a principle in the
  abstract, the "in" (immanence) &amp; "out of" (emanation) superimposed on
  experience. Only an uninstructed, run of the mill person, he says,
  would read experience in this way. In contrast, a person in training
  should look for a different kind of "root" — the root of suffering
  experienced in the present — and find it in the act of delight.
  Developing dispassion for that delight, the trainee can then
  comprehend the process of coming-into-being for what it is, drop all
  participation in it, and thus achieve true Awakening.
  
  If the listeners present at this discourse were indeed interested in fitting Buddhist teachings into a Samkhyan mold, then it's small wonder that they were displeased — one of the few places where we read of a negative reaction to the Buddha's words. They had hoped to hear his contribution to their project, but instead they hear their whole pattern of thinking &amp; theorizing attacked as ignorant &amp; ill-informed. The Commentary tells us, though, they were later able to overcome their displeasure and eventually attain Awakening on listening to the discourse reported in AN 3.123.
  
  Although at present we rarely think in the same terms as the Samkhya philosophers, there has long been — and still is — a common tendency to create a "Buddhist" metaphysics in which the experience of emptiness, the Unconditioned, the Dharma-body, Buddha-nature, rigpa, etc., is said to function as the ground of being from which the "All" — the entirety of our sensory &amp; mental experience — is said to spring and to which we return when we meditate. Some people think that these theories are the inventions of scholars without any direct meditative experience, but actually they have most often originated among meditators, who label (or in the words of the discourse, "perceive") a particular meditative experience as the ultimate goal, identify with it in a subtle way (as when we are told that "we are the knowing"), and then view that level of experience as the ground of being out of which all other experience comes.
  
  Any teaching that follows these lines would be subject to the same criticism that the Buddha directed against the monks who first heard
  this discourse.
  
  Translator's Introduction