text:
Why does Milinda step into Nagasena's trap?
Referring to the discussion between Milinda and Nagasena:
Why King Milinda does not consider all together - pole, axle, wheels etc. - his chariot? Normally one defines a chariot a means for transportation consisting of pole, axle, wheels, etc. This would be the correct answer to Nagasena's question what the chariot is.
Instead, when pressed by Nagasena he names chariot only a designation, a description, an appellation, a name. That is, Milinda rejects the correct answer. Now Nagasena has an easy time to defend the Buddhist principle of anatman.

If I remember correctly, the traditional interpretation of this is that a pile of components on the ground is not the chariot either.
I suppose in modern language we could say that "Chariot" is a designation for the function that depends on the right configuration AND on the external supporting factors like the road, the horses, the gravity, the driver, the passengers etc. Plus, if individual components of the chariot are replaced with functionally equivalent but non-identical ones - the new chariot is neither the same nor different. Furthermore, the wheels etc. are only designations for things that can perform function of a wheel etc. - not to those particular wheels.
So the functional nature of the chariot arises from a number of functional conditions coming together - for which "the chariot" is only a label.
A similar illustration can be found in Vajira Sutta:

So you believe there's "a being"?
  -- this is a view of Mara.
  In a pile of mere components (sankhara)
  no any such "being"'s found.
Just as they say 'chariot'
  of an assemblage of parts,
  So they'll call "a being"
  the mere heap of components (skandha).

The key word here is "an assemblage" or in another translation "when the parts are rightly set". So that's why they are saying that the chariot is not all its parts together either - because the parts by themselves do not produce a function (of a chariot, a being etc), the right combination (of conditions) does.
But on the other hand, there is no "secret sauce" either - nothing apart from the factors and components that would set things in motion:
(from Viticcha Jataka)

The Ascetic tried to catch him in his words: "What is the Ganges? Is the sand the Ganges? Is the water the Ganges? Is the hither bank the Ganges? Is the further bank the Ganges?"
But the future Buddha said to him: "If you take exception to the water, the sand, the hither bank, the further bank, where can you find any Ganges River?"

The "neither found in any individual part, NOR in the pile of parts, NOR apart from the parts" thesis is probably constructed after canonical Buddha's line in which he shows how such phenomenon as the "Tathagata" can neither be found in the five skandhas ("piles") nor apart from them:
(From SA 105)

[The Buddha] asked again: "How is it, Seniya, is bodily form the Tathāgata?"
[Seniya] replied: "No, Blessed One."
  [The Buddha asked again]: "Is feeling … perception … formations …
  consciousness the Tathāgata?"
  [Seniya] replied: "No, Blessed One."
  [The Buddha] asked again: "Seniya, is the Tathāgata distinct from
  bodily form? [32b] Is the Tathāgata distinct from feeling … perception
  … formations … consciousness?"
  [Seniya] replied: "No, Blessed One."
  [The Buddha] asked again: "Seniya, is the Tathāgata in bodily form?
  Is the Tathāgata in feeling … perception … formations … consciousness?"
[Seniya] replied: "No, Blessed One."
  [The Buddha] asked again: "Seniya, is bodily form in the Tathāgata?
  Is feeling … perception … formations … consciousness in the Tathāgata?"
[Seniya] replied: "No, Blessed One."
  [The Buddha] asked again: "Seniya, is the Tathāgata without bodily
  form … feeling … perception … formations … consciousness?"
  [Seniya] replied: "No, Blessed One."

In my understanding, all of this is a finger trying to point out the fact that reality underlying conventional expression can never be exhaustively described, that our attempts to represent the reality is always an exercise in isolating individual factors and reassembling them into a model, like projecting a multidimensional figure on a two-dimensional surface - with a label (nama) stamped on top.
From taking our models seriously ("reifying" them) comes trying to make them our base, leaning on them, identifying with them, attaching to them - but because our models are merely designations for the fluctuating soup of factors - to assume them to be stable is an inherently faulty assumption - and from this comes dukkha. When we see reality as reality and models as models, we can stop confusing the two, stop getting attached to models, stop trying to establish our base in a model - so from this right vision (of the ineffable reality and the modeling activity) comes baselessness and from this baselessness comes cessation of nutrition of old dukkha and non-production of new dukkha.

Simple things should be kept simple: If I go to a car dealer and ask for a car (= chariot), I do not want to buy just a lable or "a designation, a description, an appelation, a name". I buy a real object consisting of wheels, carosse, motor, etc. In daily life nobody has a problem to understand what is meant by a chariot. - A parable has to proceed from a well-known concept in order to point to a problematic concept.

I too would like it to be simple - but unfortunately Buddha's realization is "deep", which is why he was hesitant to teach if you remember. In conventional use we assume the nouns to represent the entity along with its configuration, function, background, and supporting conditions. The whole thing is implied. Buddhism tries to analyse things, in order to show the limits of our thinking - which (the limits) are not apparent in everyday use (just like the inherent limits of our visual apparatus which become apparent with the help of perceptual illusions but are not noticable in everyday life).

So the functional nature of the chariot arises from an infinite number of functional conditions coming together - for which "the chariot" is only a label.

Maha-nidana Sutta: The Great Causes Discourse might help one to understand that rupa depends on nama, like nama depends on rupa, and as soon nama craves after a touch (rupa), a phenomena arises, something that is not really real but object of quarrel, Mr Jo Wehler. Has Jo Wehler given a good and complete description of the chariot or can it be rebuked?
As soon as an object is delineating and not seen as it really is, with right discernment, a world comes into existence including its observer. Is there a chariot if there is no contact? Is there a formation if there is no perception (imagination, remembrance)?
At least Milinda did not step into trap but got a way to unleash of it.
In addition, since just got across that, by trans. MN22:
SN 5.10 Vajira Sutta: Sister Vajira

Just as when, with an assemblage of parts, there's the word, chariot,
  even so when aggregates are present, there's the convention of living
  being.

Explaining with reference to this in MN22:, shows what the Ven. tried to give a chance:

SN 5.10 indicates that one of the ways of overcoming clinging is to
  focus on how the concept of "being" arises, without assuming the truth
  of the concept.

(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of/for trade and/or keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)

I don't know which version/translation you're using but let's go with The Questions of King Milinda translated by T. W. Rhys Davids since it's nearly the first that Google returned.
The way I read it is this (let me paraphrase):

Milinda: Hello your Reverence, what is your name?

Reply: I'm known as Nagasena and people call me that, but it's just a name, there's no permanent soul in the matter.
Milinda has been, presumably, brought up to assume there is a soul in the matter.

Milinda: Hey guys, this Nagasena claims there's no soul in the matter!
Milinda then tries reductio ad absurdum. Milinda tries to imply that, because it's obviously wrong to assume that Nagasena is hair, therefore Nagasena must be something else i.e. a soul.

Milinda: Well look, Nagasena: if there's no soul, who gives gives you stuff, who enjoys the stuff you're given? Who lives the holy life? Or who is sinful?
Here Milinda might be implying that Nagasena is (or is asking Nagasena whether he is) a 'nihilist'. Note that Buddhism describes eternalism (permanent soul) and nihilism (because nobody exists there are no consequences and no reason to be moral), as being opposite extremes and as both being wrong view.

Milinda: So what is Nagasena then. Are you telling me that Nagasena is the hair on your head?

Nagasena: I didn't say that.

Milinda: Or the nails, teeth, etc.? The Skandhas? The combination of Skandhas?

Nagasena: No.

Nagasena uses the chariot as an example; the chariot is:

Not one of its parts
Not any of its parts
Not all the parts in combination
Not something other than its parts

Milinda says that it's because of its parts that it's called a chariot.

Now to answer your question.

Why King Milinda does not consider all together - pole, axle, wheels etc. - his chariot?

Because of the context. Are you saying that the chariot has a permanent soul? That the soul of the chariot is the sum of its parts?
Because the chariot was being used as an analogy for Nagasena: Nagasena's parts, Nagasena's name, whether or not Nagasena had a soul, and whether "Nagasena" is just a name.

Normally one defines a chariot a means for transportation

So you think it would help to define a chariot by its function or use? Is that (the chariot's being used as a means for transportation) the chariot's permanent soul?
I personally found that kind of thinking (that objects have an eternal soul) useless and implausible when I read something like it in some book about Platonic Idealism (though I was a teenager at the time so I may have misunderstood it).
And, what by analogy would be Nagasena's function and use? Is that a permanent function or use, and/or a good way to understand that Nagasena has a permanent soul, and what the soul is?

I'm using the translation reprinted in Strong, John: The Experience of Buddhism (3rd edition 2008), attributed to Trenckner, V. (ed.) - Milinda negates that the chariot is all parts together and he also negates that the chariot is something other than the components. - I do not understand Milinda's first negation. - Neither does the text apply the concept of a soul to the chariot, nor would I do so. Why do you introduce the concept of a soul when referring to the chariot?

Perhaps the non-Buddhist belief was of Atman and Brahman -- i.e. Self and Divinity and whether the Self is Divine. Nagasena avoids this by claiming he doesn't have (and/or is not) that kind of Self. The description of the cart is used as an analogy for the description of Nagasena. If you want to say "the chariot is all parts together", is it because you want to say that "Nagasena is an eternal soul, which is Nagasena's body and mind and feelings all together" (because that's what that analogy would imply or stand in for)?

Why do you introduce the concept of a soul when referring to the chariot Because I think that the conversation is about whether Nagasena has a soul: he claims he isn't or doesn't have soul, and Milinda is surprised and doesn't understand. Conversation suggests, "there are parts (i.e. skandhas) and there's the name (Nagasena) and that's all, that's no soul, no eternal Self." Milinda doesn't quite understand that so Nagasena says, "It's like a chariot...". The "chariot" is an analogy for "Nagasena", and whether the chariot is or has a soul is an analogy for whether Nagasena is or has a soul.

@JoWehler Also I don't think it's meant to be "a trap".

OP: Why King Milinda does not consider all together - pole, axle, wheels etc. - his chariot? Normally one defines a chariot a means for
transportation consisting of pole, axle, wheels, etc. This would be
the correct answer to Nagasena's question what the chariot is.

Let's say King Milinda has a chariot with 4 wheels, pole, axle etc.
So, you can say a chariot is composed of all these parts.
But what if I remove just one wheel?
Does King Milinda ask, "oh... where is my chariot?"
No. He can still see his chariot with one wheel missing.
Has the chariot ceased being a chariot because one wheel is missing? No.
Then how do you define what a chariot is?
Different parts of the chariot are not the chariot by themselves. The combination of different parts also do not make up a chariot.
So, a chariot is just a label for a concept. There is no single concrete indivisible object called chariot. It is conditioned and compounded.
Similarly, the "self" or "being" are labels for concepts that are conditioned and compounded. The "self" and "being" are not single concrete indivisible things.


text:
Soul that splits in seven parts
I clearly remember reading somewhere about (some branch of) Buddhism believing that there is a soul and that it splits in seven parts when dying. The article mentioned that four of these parts are believed to return when reborn, the other three will merge with Nirvana.
My recent reading has taught me that the individual soul/ātman does not exist per se, it is a false assumption and what one might perceive as "I" is just a piece of the a bigger consciousness (God, if you like).
Can anyone shed any light on the splitting? And is my current understanding correct, incorrect or oversimplified?

Re. your last question ("is my current understanding oversimplified"), are you asking for answers to that question from everyone or every school of Buddhism? Or are you exclusively asking for answers from within the perspective of a/the school which teaches that there is a soul with seven parts? Because I think maybe there's a school which doesn't teach that there's a soul at all, but I'm not sure whether that kind of view/doctrine is on-topic for this question?

Its good to ask about Buddha-Dhamma and not schools, so Atma would say the question is well put.

@SamanaJohann Yes, Bhante. I posted that comment because whenever the OP's topic is a subject on which different schools may disagree (and this topic, "there's a soul with seven parts", is a topic schools might disagree with), then the policy on this site has been to try to ascertain which school the OP is asking about: partly, in order to answer their question (about the doctrine of a specific school); and partly to avoid disagreement (disagreement on this site between people who may argue from the perspectives of different schools).

It would be better to unite and seek for Dhamma as to make interpretation pulling and keep "harmony"... Valued Upasaka ChrisW. Why force somebody to select a splitter sect at first place? And it might be the policy of some moderators, Atma does not think that it is the sites policy since the owner will less care about it. But like allways and ever, just a suggestion.

@ChrisW: disagreement is fine, I'm interested in all views. None but the enlightened know anyway, and they can't explain, so I see it as play. :)

Are you sure you aren't thinking of Egyptian souls/bodies? (Which have 5 or 7 parts depending on who you are reading). A quick google isn't turning up any 7 part Buddhist souls. There are many branches of Buddhism that have created a new concept functionally the same as a soul & arguing if this or that sort of Buddhism has reinvented an atman is almost a subgenre.

Is this about the 8 Consciousnesses? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Consciousnesses

Can't resist - what about the horcruxes??  Voldemort split his soul seven times!  ;-)

Mr. Jonas Bystöm might read Alagaddupama Sutta: The Water-Snake Simile especially the introduction, which gives a good overview and the "Six View-Positions" section. The seven parts soul thing is a common folk believe even is SEAsia and has Tantric roots, one could say Hindu, and has influence especially many Mahayana approaches.
To be or not to be is no question. There is no such as any self-theory to be found in Dhamma since it has simply the liberation form suffering, so to understand its cause, as objective and aim. Do not waste your time with such, 99% of beings do so.
(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of/for trade and/or keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)

On the spot answer!

Do you have any source for that folklore? I unfortunately can't seem to find any.

Can anyone shed any light on the splitting?
In the same way as Martin I haven't been able to find a reference to "seven souls" within Buddhism.
In vaguely related traditions,

Hun and po

Hun (Chinese: 魂; pinyin: hún; Wade–Giles: hun; literally: "cloud-soul") and po (Chinese: 魄; pinyin: pò; Wade–Giles: p'o; literally: "white-soul") are types of souls in Chinese philosophy and traditional religion. Within this ancient soul dualism tradition, every living human has both a hun spiritual, ethereal, yang soul which leaves the body after death, and also a po corporeal, substantive, yin soul which remains with the corpse of the deceased. Some controversy exists over the number of souls in a person; for instance, one of the traditions within Daoism proposes a soul structure of sanhunqipo 三魂七魄; that is, "three hun and seven po". The historian Yü Ying-shih describes hun and po as "two pivotal concepts that have been, and remain today, the key to understanding Chinese views of the human soul and the afterlife."[1]

The above seems to be seven bodily souls and three spiritual souls, which is more-or-less what you said in the OP.
The same articles says,

Hun 魂 and po 魄 spiritual concepts were important in several Daoist traditions.

... and I think there's some historical connection between Daoism and Buddhism in China. Signification of Buddhism and Taoist influences says,

When Buddhism came to China, it was adapted to the Chinese culture and understanding. Theories about the influence of other schools in the evolution of Chan are widely variable and rely heavily on speculative correlation rather than on written records or histories. Some scholars have argued that Chan developed from the interaction between Mahāyāna Buddhism and Taoism,[19][20] while others insist that Chan has roots in yogic practices, specifically kammaṭṭhāna, the consideration of objects, and kasiṇa, total fixation of the mind.[21] A number of other conflicting theories exist.

So maybe if you do "clearly remember reading somewhere about some branch of Buddhism", then possibly it was a branch with a Chinese influence.
What is seven constituent parts of the human soul?

From Theosophy by Rudolf Steiner

Physical body
Life Body
Astral Body
The "I" as the soul's central core
Spirit Self as transformed astral body
Life Spirit as transformed life body
Spirit Body as transformed physical body

If the above is an accurate quote, maybe (who knows) it might be a match for your OP.
And if I understand correctly the hints in this answer (I don't know much more about it than that), the Theosophists wanted to define or synthesize a "universal religion", perhaps by including bits from Buddhism.
I think there have been other historical connection between Buddhists and Theosophists, so perhaps you were reading something Theosophical and conflating it with Buddhism somehow.

And is my current understanding correct, incorrect or oversimplified?
I think that Buddhism traditionally teaches that there isn't any (permanent) 'soul' at all. The/a non-Buddhist doctrine was/is of Atman (Self) and Brahman (Divinity), and (in contrast to that) the Buddhist doctrine was/is, instead, of Anatman.
I think that an example of that is as stated in this recent answer of mine about Milinda, Nagasena, and the parable of the chariot.
I find it a bit metaphysical: talk of karma and rebirth and so on.
There are a lot of topics about that kind of thing on this site, for example, anatta, and rebirth.
Instead some people prefer to focus on the practice of Buddhism within 'this life'.

And what is practicing? "And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view. And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view...

"One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort, & right mindfulness — run & circle around right view." MN117

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can't I listen any kind of music by 7th percept?
Nacca gīta vādita visukadassanā
mālā gandha vilepana dhārana
mandana vibhūsanaṭṭhānā veramaṇi
sikkhāpadaṃ samādhiyāmi.

I undertake the precept to refrain from dancing, singing, music, going to see entertainments, wearing garlands, using perfumes, and beautifying the body with cosmetics

nacca - plays/dances
gīta - song
vādita - music
visukadassanā - visiting shows

So yes, it includes all music. Even if you hear a song by chance and you indulge in it, you break the precept.

I think that another answer on this site (much earlier than this, I can't find it at the moment) suggests that if you're outside and happen to hear music that's not breaking the precept, so it's not necessary to actively avoid public places (e.g. a shop or elevator) might music might be heard. You shouldn't be seeking music or going to seek music (nor, as you said, perhaps listening to music instead of just hearing it).

The keyword is 'indulging'. It's like if a woman comes on to you and started having sex and you allow(indulge) it, you break the 3rd precept.

Mr/mrs user73898
There are some people who say, even in the Commentary, that one would not break the precepts by listening to music which tells about the suffering in the world and causes samvega. But (if you are) being honest: isn't most music is not about lamenting (and so is certainly against the precept)? Stay with this answer.
Actually it's about distracting the mind, so one would not stay at the Dhamma of staying mindful, and would even starts to ponder this and that; greed, hatred, all kinds of feeling can come up.
So if one takes it seriously one abstains form any kind of entertainment and diversion, including shows, films, sport games, games, parades ... and especially news and google and surfing :-) Everything that is not simply work.
(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of/for trade and/or keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)

Actually it's about destructing the mind? I trust you don't mind me asking, what was the "it" in this sentence ... are you saying that, "Actually music is about destructing the mind"? Or, "the seventh precept is about not destroying the mind"? It would be good to see one or more references to explain the intention or effect of the 7th precept.

Deflecting was meant, distracting, so a spell smell. Intention: Entertainment, nourishing, sustaining (uppadana) normal as clinging translated. Dico-light for the ears, or barbecue for the tongue, or special massage for the body, or riddles, questions and answers for the mind. Indulging in Sensual pleasure. And in the sense of tainting its also destruction of an possible clean mind.

Thank you for your answer @-}-- I asked because I'm so much addicted to listening music even I had planned to learn about sound engineering but I gave up because other reason.  I agree about 7th precept but you got really  what I want to ask. It is music could distrust mind really ?

Some traffic laws forbid listening to music while driving, or eating or cellphones. Yes, sensual pleasure disturbs the mind distracts the mind and one would be not really aware of what is going on, aside of indulging in an addiction. There are more people addicted to sound-pleasure then ever in this world. If one looks at them, they are really poor and have no freedom addicted to it and serve just illusion.

Love the disclaimer at the end, glad you found a work around to feel comfortable staying on the site and in the community

Thank you so much @-}-- As I'll practicing meditation that I'll got mind control and I'll abstain everything that could be cause of breaking eight precepts. Thank you so much for your valuable time. Thank you so much. @-}--

Doing it step by step but earnest is good. That means one needs to have patient with one self. Mudita with your resolve. Mr/mrs @hellyale , not really a disclaimer, as such is wrong view. Merely a reminder for everyone. How should Atma feel conformable being in the midst of wrong view?

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


text:
What is Buddhist law of marriage ? Is there any?
Should both partners be Buddhist in a marriage?
If they want get a love marriage can they still get married if one of the partners is not Buddhist. What is the law in Buddhism about marriage?

See also Any authentic sutta from any tradition that gives guidance on what kind of partner to choose?

There is no such as a Buddhist law on marriage. If you like to have a long time partner its always good to have the same tendencies as he/she but such is not merely up to religion. Virtue, generosity, gratitude... all this things are not limited to a certain religion. So to seek for a partner with equal virtue or virtues one likes to follow, is quite good.
And there is no such as any cultural, national, or what ever discrimination. Of course such plays, even so, always a rule in live and society as much traditions have also to do with common virtues. The world is not full of Arahants and Noble Ones.
(thoughts come up sometimes ...and now they like to be great yogis ...  :-)  "I wan it all", but not to speak about those who even do not take on the responsibility of partnership)

There is no strict law about Buddhist marriage.
However, the Buddha did teach it is best (preferable) to marry a person of the same faith (religion). The Buddha listed the same faith (religion) as the 1st and therefore most important quality because it is your faith (religion) that defines your life values & morals.
For example, if you are a Buddhist, you will have the tolerance & loving-kindness to marry a person of another religion. However, if you are a Muslim, you will not tolerate marrying a person of another religion & ask them to convert to Islam (since Islam forbids interfaith marriage).
Please refer to the Samajivina Sutta.

Then the Blessed One spoke thus: “If householders, both wife and
  husband wish to be in one another’s sight so long as this life lasts
  and in the future life as well, they should have the same faith, the
  same virtue, the same generosity, the same wisdom; then they will be
  in one another’s sight so long as this life lasts and in the future
  life as well.”
When both are faithful and bountiful, self-restrained, of righteous
  living, They come together as husband and wife Full of love for each
  other.
Many blessings come their way, They dwell together in happiness, Their
  enemies are left dejected, When both are equal in virtue.
Having lived by Dhamma in this world, The same in virtue and
  observance, They rejoice after death in the deva-world, Enjoying
  abundant happiness.
http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh155-u.html#S52


text:
Should a Monk speak out in favor of doing good?
If a monk is given the opportunity to speak in favor of doing a good deed that a supporter of his wants to do, even if that good deed directly benefits him, is it proper to do so?
Is there any concern to be had how others may perceive doing so? i.e. others may see this motive as being self-serving; and therefore how to address this properly?
Thank you

Do you think this question would be clearer with any real examples, or with hypothetical examples, or would you prefer to leave "doing a good deed" and "directly benefits him" unspecified?

It would be; but I also don't want to throw anyone else under the bus just for my own sake, in  telling the story. Let me think about how I might add to the question, and in the mean time perhaps someone will post the answer anyways.

@Ryan I'm going to wait on your edit if you decide to,  and try to modify my answer to fit the concrete example.  No rush.

@hellyale Ryan made made one edit, already.

@ChrisW yea,  my first answer was after the second edit.  I revised my answer with your feedback in mind. It still isn't what I want it yet,  but closer.

Not sure of what Mr. Ryan speaks (reading just the word), but Atma can remember that he once had similar thoughts in regard of Buddha. Thinking he might had caused a lot of people suffering by being attached to him.
But the more one knows the real teachings, one sees that he actually did not let such a kind of kamma behind. Its simply by people taking it wrong, that they have problems.
There is of course this danger, which you mention, that one would automatically accumulate everything, starting form the moment people see "ohh that is not a normal one" but there is nothing better as to practice the 13 Dhutangas which protect one self and people well and actually the most serious monks keep them.
Taken for example SEAsia. If people get to know that there is anywhere a Dhutanga Monk, they would come form near and far and would like to make donations, since such is a high merit. If people (monks) do not really stick hard to the Dhutangas they are caught immediately. One sees that well when observing the Thai Forest Tradition today. Their honor had actually "killed" them practical and they have already become "normal" ordinary people. Yet still living form the reputations of their teachers of old times.
So there are certain dangers and they are even covered by a downfall rule, for hard cases:

Should any bhikkhu, without direct knowledge, claim a superior human state, a truly noble distinction of knowledge and vision, as present in himself, saying, "Thus do I know; thus do I see," such that regardless of whether or not he is cross-examined on a later occasion, he — being remorseful and desirous of purification — might say, "Friends, not knowing, I said I know; not seeing, I said I see — vainly, falsely, idly," unless it was from over-estimation, he also is defeated and no longer in affiliation. BMC1

But as you can read there, even if people out of faith would address one Arahat, there is no fault for one. So if people "love" one, one having practiced proper, does not make anything wrong. That's great, even mostly not welcome for the serious practicing monk.
There have been occasions where when lot of people came to visit the Buddha and he denied. Even if monks begged him "Now is the time for the Blessed One's acquiescence, lord! Wherever the Blessed One will go now, the brahmans of the towns & countryside will be so inclined." he refused, at least saying "But when I am traveling along a road and see no one in front or behind me, at that time I have my ease, even when urinating & defecating." Yasa Sutta: Honor
So in regard of your formulation: No, there is no reason why a Bhikkhu should step back form his virtues, what ever they are or to even cheat, so that he would prevent certain attachments and problems with fans and so on.
If one reads the Suttas, one could easily believe that its all about self-aggrandizement, but actually it was a certain scarify of the Buddha, to that extend, that even no monk after him would need to use it in the same way he did. (Atma guesses the questioner understands what he tries to say)
One does actually not easy accumulate when always straight and honest (in a sense of beneficial and true for the path) and without any flavor of socializing or concern about reputations.
As for the OP question it self: "Should a Monk speak out in favor of doing good?" such is most critical, if speaking what people like and mostly a heavy offense which is called a corrupter of families, sadly one of the most, even whole communities faults.

This is illustrated in the origin story of this rule, in which the followers of Assaji and Punabbasu (leaders of one faction of the group of six) had thoroughly corrupted the lay people at Kīṭāgiri.
  "Now at that time a certain bhikkhu, having finished his
  Rains-residence among the people of Kāsi and on his way to Sāvatthī to
  see the Blessed One, arrived at Kīṭāgiri. Dressing (§) early in the
  morning, taking his bowl and (outer) robe, he entered Kīṭāgiri for
  alms: gracious in the way he approached and departed, looked forward
  and behind, drew in and stretched out (his arm); his eyes downcast,
  his every movement consummate. People seeing him said, 'Who is this
  weakest of weaklings, this dullest of dullards, this most snobbish of
  snobs? Who, if this one approached (§), would even give him alms? Our
  masters, the followers of Assaji and Punabbasu, are compliant, genial,
  pleasing in conversation. They are the first to smile, saying, "Come,
  you are welcome." They are not snobbish. They are approachable. They
  are the first to speak. They are the ones to whom alms should be
  given.'"

Abhaya Sutta: To Prince Abhaya (On Right Speech) shows well that sweet talks are nothing that are welcome if it is not simply for the path and to let go.
So it should cover all possible aspects of the question and at least maybe, a monk is no and should not be a social worker. That's a job he left behind by going forth. (females are always included speaking of monk)
Maybe one in addition. It is not allowed (out of this reasons) to receive a donation after having taught the Dhamma. So if one likes to benefit a monk, he would do good to do such in advanced. The story about the Buddha in such cases can be read here: Discourse to Bharadvaja, the Farmer A good talk about the matter of being first on giving is: Better to Give than to Consume, if one like to understand the matter also from a practitioner side as a layperson.
So there are certain ways to cut off the danger of doing a favor but less really less make such their habit today. Its all about gain, becoming, honor and for "higher purposes" (for simply this world) and seldom for Nibbana.

Asked: "others may see this motive as being self-serving; and therefore how to address this properly?"

One somebody may think, one can not manipulate or change and there is also no use for such (if one is not attached to his reputations). As seeing the motive and virtue of a monk and if he is walking the path is very difficult to find out for laypeople. Actually only a one already on the stream would recognize a straight person (in Dhamma sense). So once a king tried to test the Buddha and taught him about the possibilities to judge a person: Paṭisalla Sutta: Seclusion and it end (after an explaining with a important exclamation:

One   should not make an effort everywhere,
  should not be another's hireling,
  should not live dependent on another,
  should not go about
        as a trader in the Dhamma.

And then, taking the original question again:

If a monk is given the opportunity to speak in favor of doing a good deed that a supporter of his wants to do, even if that good deed directly benefits him, is it proper to do so?

Let Atma bring a sample of how such could look like. One likes to give a donation and would ask "do you like coffee/or water?", than he would stay silent. So suggestions of that kind are not proper. If one actually gives, fine, but usual ways monks on many places even tell people "you have to ask me first" (as the other extreme) is simply wrong. It also happens that monks would say "If you give me a donation, you make much merits" or other things. All this kinds of "doing others a favor" are fine, even it would be such (which not even the Buddha told people, given that they would have made much merits if done so)
So even hinting is walking on the edge. Good teachings about that are this short essays: No Strings Attached, The Economy of Gifts
(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of/for trade and/or keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)

So is this your third account?

"One does actually not easy accumulate when always straight and honest"

Can you clarify what you mean by the above quote?

People usually don't like to hear some truth or even rebukes and given that there are really less with less dust in the eyes, there is no danger if one is not corrupt. Mr/Mrs. Hellyale

Surely one can communicate truth in a pleasant way?  Or even hold ones tongue in situations where the truth would upset?  It just seems it is advocating that lying will help you accumulate merit faster... Which is not the case in any of the schools of Buddhist thought I know.  Perhaps it just needs rephrased.

It was not good formulated, thanks for finding this whole. Actually its about benefiting. That the truth and the Dhamma is even sung is nothing new and most used by corrupts, but NOT beneficial. See Sutta on right speech above.

@hellyale In that comment I think the Samana was saying that if you are (i.e. if a monk is) very/strictly honest then they don't "easily accumulate" favours. For example, if he were to rebuke the community on this site, saying "you're doing wrong..." or "your leaders have a wrong view...", etc., that may not be popular even if it may be true.

hearty smiling and Atma is always amazed how carefully you read and who carefully you act. mudita, and do not trust at first place. That's a good attitude as long you do not really know the virtue and intentions of others.

Bhante, you wrote, "It is not allowed (out of this reasons) to receive a donation after having taught the Dhamma". I think perhaps there's a sutta saying that selling Dhamma might be called wrong livelihood for a monk; but could you reference further doctrine to further explain what your sentence is based on? For example there are monks who live in a place, teach within their community and receive requisites from people within that community: isn't that normal? Even anything except "the house-to-house-seeker’s practice" could be seen as contrary to a strict interpretation of your sentence.

To receive no food after a teaching is even a certain rule. If a monks lives in dependency of a certain community (that means he has to motivate them - like it is usual in the west, even with advertising and so on) all those things are all hard in conflict with sg13 communities which are even thought of common living and "earning" together with monks are not proper. And the kind of Mahayana (Guru) dependency is totally against the Dhamma. All this things lead to corruption.

There should be no such as a notion of "own community" in regard of laypeople. Of course its not a problem to give donations steady to a certain group of monks but in the case they would make use of it as a place to dwell in ease, it becomes dangerous. In western countries therefore Atma says, its nearly impossible to live a live straight in line of Vinaya, since simply going for alms is not really possible (for the most). Most monastic life is actually the live of a monastery-holder which is not different of that of an householder, with all its normal corruptions.

Also I get the impression that the way is not entirely about written doctrine/commentary/legalism, but also depends on right intention (e.g. if we don't understand intention then we wouldn't understand doctrine). And the OP is also asking about appearance, which is complicated ("others may see this motive as being self-serving"). Maybe some of the vinaya rules were to preserve the Sangha's good appearance i.e. reputation.

Of course, but given that the Vinaya is merely later compilate, if one reads the Suttas, for example DN2 one gets the impression of the life of a Brahman very good. So as a literary rule: not accepting food after having talked the dhamma. (which is certainly a rule to prevent of corruption, corrupting the dhamma by doing a favor seeking maybe for donors of the new meditation hall...). If practicing right, if teaching straight and right, there is no problem to receive what ever is allowed and yes its of course an intention thing.

Also Pd 3, as a protection for very faithful people could be relevant to the OP question. That is also something may teacher do not so care about. Not accepting might be hard sometimes for people & its sometimes hard for one self, but very necessary to keep things independent and never a trade. Moving simply within the literary rules will not really prevent form unwholesome & not beneficial favors for both. So gifts are always best dedicated to the Sangha as a whole rather to a favor, looki. f. t. other side

Some monks and bodhisattvas have vowed that they will always point sentient beings towards the ethical life in their endeavours.  I am not as familiarized with the monk vows,  but do know that bodhisattvas are supposed to always practice and encourage generosity. As long as the generosity does not stem from some motivation from pride,  greed,  or anger.
This goes for other types of skillful means as well.  This nearly always has to be broken down situationally. However the motive and intent of the deed matter.
Let's say a monk named Simon is seeking a donation to their monastery. The place is close to bankrupt and needs money and supplies to stay afloat this winter.  Food and proper heat for its occupants could be achieved at the fraction of the cost if a few nearby businesses partner with the monks in need.
Simon benifits from this,  so does the sangha he resides with.
The monk being able to act as diplomat between the outside communities and the Abbot or head monk is serving more than just himself.
Say he reaches an agreement and the monks will do a sand mandala on such dates and area,  in exchange for food the businesses in the area normally would throw out, but was good to eat, as well as a percentage of the sales on those dates to cover Monastery utilities and normal operating costs.
If the monk asks and encourages generosity, and follows through with the intended uses  of the benefits. I would say it would be ok, and, in most Buddhist circles, perfectly acceptable. It also would not be frowned on by outsiders.
However,  on the flip side,  if Simon instead panhandles only for himself,  seeking more than the food needed for survival,  or under some fully self centered desire , say drugs or alchohol. Even though encouraging genoristy, he is not a monk but a con man.
The scope of the deed,  and the motive behind it matter,  and so does the outcome.  If Simon is skimming profits for alcoholic beverages (not in the original agreement,  approved by the head monk,  or known to parties involved) then no, their encouraging generosity is just a type of deception.
Uncovering of such facts would be frowned on by most circles,  and outside parties as well.


text:
Talking about Dharma - is it worthwhile?
Discussing the Dharma, as on this site -- looking for and sharing information -- is it really beneficial or could it be a waste of time or even counterproductive?
Several quotes come to mind, e.g. this one from Wumen Huikai:

The instant you speak about a thing, you miss the mark.

and of course, Fen Yang:

When you are deluded and full of doubt, even a thousand books of scripture are not enough. When you have realized understanding, even one word is too much.

From this and other sources (like Chogyam Trungpa's warnings about spiritual materialism) one might conclude that spending time on a site like this could be a path to illusion and a way to develop the subtle "enlightened" ego.
What are the dangers of discussing Dharma on an online forum? How could it be worthwhile, if "speaking about a thing misses the mark" and "even one word is too much"?

Thank you all for your help here <3 ^^ You were amazing ^^

Both quotes you cite come from the Chan/Zen tradition. It is very typical for Chan to emphasize "transmission beyond scripture" and "silent illumination". Not all of Buddhism is like that though.
Gautama Buddha for example spoke about Dharma for 40 years. Tibetan Buddhists wrote hundreds of volumes about Madhyamaka, Tantra and Lam Rim (Stages of the Path). Even Chan/Zen masters themselves left a massive library of texts - koan collections, sutras, treatises, commentaries, lecture drafts etc.
Why talk about Dharma at all? As Buddha taught, the more we give our attention to something -- the more our mind gets tuned to that -- the more it becomes part of how we see the world -- the more it shapes our thoughts and actions. So the idea is, at least in theory, that the more we talk about Dharma, the more it penetrates our minds and actions.
At the same time, Buddha himself compared Dharma to a raft. It is useful as a vehicle for taking you to the other side - but once you are there you don't have to carry it with you. In fact, holding on to the raft could be an obstacle to one's Unbinding. In other words, obsession with Dharma could easily become Anti-Dharma. There are examples documented even in Pali Canon of people quarreling about particular Dharma point with Buddha having to step in and teach non-attachment to views. Second Anuruddha Sutta (A 3.128) shows how thinking about Dharma can go contrary to fulfilling Dharma in practice. The Theravada tradition warns about getting lost in quasi-dharmic intellectual proliferation, what they call "papanca".
This is exactly the same point Chan masters emphasize. The period when Prajnaparamita and Chan developed was the time when people obsessed over the raft. The Abhi-dharma movement chewed the original suttas to the bone - and came up with what they thought was a neat distillation of Dharma - the matrikas (bulletpoint lists) of Four Truths, Three Poisons, Four Efforts, Five Skandhas, Sixteen Levels of Knowledge and so on and so forth. Several centuries after Buddha's Parinirvana, people started grasping onto the specifics and missing the forest behind the trees. Some schools seriously argued how many dharmas the world is made of, 76 or 89.
As a reaction to this extreme, there emerged the Mahayana tradition - spearheaded by the Prajnaparamita movement - whose entire method is built on the contrast between the literal meaning of the teaching, with what it points to in the actual practice. At the same time, both at the peak of Chan's popularity and today, students keep on studying texts and Chan Masters keep on giving the Dharma lectures. Knowledge of Buddhist fundamentals, in their basic conceptual form, was and remains a prerequisite for receiving the more advanced instruction.
Tibetan Buddhists go as far as to say there are in fact two Dharmas - Dharma of Transmission and Dharma of Realization. Transmission consists of memorizing and passing on the texts of the three baskets: Vinaya, Sutra and Abhidharma - or more broadly the conceptual aspect of Buddhism. Realization is the actual training in Discipline, Meditation, and Wisdom - as they apply to one's daily life. The two relate as getting the map and walking the path. While mere owning the map does not get you anywhere, without the map the next generation would simply have no idea which way to go.
Another way to see this, while Buddhism teaches "liberation through wisdom" (liberation from what? wisdom about what?) not everyone can jump straight from Avici Hell to Nirvana-with-no-remainder, not everyone even wants to - so there is gotta be a way to motivate people who are not exactly on the right track. This is another reason Dharma of Transmission is necessary.
This is kinda how I myself see this site: while it can't replace a face-to-face apprenticeship with a live master, at least it can provide inspiration and positive motivation to people who have no idea what Buddhism is even about. If in addition to that it can clarify some confusion for more advanced students and point them in the right direction, I will feel verily gratified :)) One of my biggest pains growing up was overuse of upaya by teachers I learned from - mostly due to my own bad karma - so the vow I gave to myself is to share liberating realization and basic sanity openly to help new people avoid pain and confusion I went through.
Anyway, to come back to your quote, The instant you speak about a thing, you miss the mark. - I believe this refers not as much to the horrible dangers of speaking (after all you can totally "miss the mark" while staying perfectly silent!) - as to the fundamental confusion between reality and its models. Our mind keeps on building these models trying to understand reality based on our past experience - but as we project the model back onto reality we see the pant monsters we ourselves created - not the actual reality! Attachment, aversion, and reification of such mind-made phantoms - and the mental/verbal/physical action based on these three - is the fuel that feeds the fire of Samsara. Liberation from suffering caused by such phantoms, through understanding the nature of mind, is the main point of everything I am talking about here, and when it comes to this basic point,

when you are deluded and full of doubt, even a thousand books of scripture are not enough. When you have realized [this] understanding, even one word is too much.

It's not like understanding this point makes you instantaneously Enlightened - there is still a lifetime of practice, overcoming one's reification/attachment habits - but at least knowing this you can relax about the whole thing and not feel like a donkey chasing the carrot of Nirvana while secretly hating this world.
Of course if all we do is talk about Buddhism in the way of entertainment while holding on to our models in the daily life - we would be totally missing the mark.

Sorry: "the pant monsters" is funny but was that what you intended to write, or a spelling mistake?

That's what I meant, pant monsters - like when a child imagines a monster and projects it on the pants hanging on chair?

okay! :-) I hadn't seen that expression before: I'm used to "monsters under the bed".

that's because I made it up

Well I understood it as soon as I read it, then. But I thought it might have been a spelling mistake because it's a unique phrase.

Fine that bbozo embryo got at least birth :-)
- Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa -
An Invitation to the Devas
Definitely, if the intention is Dhamma and practice for Nibbana. (see below)
Talking about Dhamma is all about straighten right view and right view is the prerequsite for any pratice which is merely useless if there is no right view. One also learns about the other factors and therefore listening to the Dhamma is a high merit not to speak about teaching the Dhamma and all services and possibilities around it. There have been many people, countless people, who have gained all kinds of pathfruits, "simply" by listening the Dhamma or by disussing the Dhamma together.
Actually nearly ALL 10 kinds of meritorious deeds can be done here (aside of material dana).
Some years ago Atma wrote a little about Googlyana - a Dharma practice approach on internet-realm which, including the understanding of the 10 meritous deeds can be easy adopted everywhere on web.
Its even no problem to practice mindfulness on the frame of reference and there are really best possibilities for every kind of wholesome deed.
If one takes for example the only or main task of a monk/nun, if not being in noble silence (2. Jhana) that it is to discuss the Dhamma.
Once there also having been a dispute of which is the proper time to approach the teacher and after arguing a lot the Buddha told that every time when greed, hatred of delusion arises, no matter what time, it is proper to approch the teacher (that also says to help the questioner at every time).
As for those who are caring on such places or answer questions in accordance with the Dhamma:

"There are these two kinds of gifts: a gift of material things & a gift of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: a gift of the Dhamma.
"There are these two kinds of sharing: sharing of material things & sharing of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: sharing of the Dhamma.
"There are these two kinds of assistance: assistance with material things & assistance with the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: help with the Dhamma.
"There are these two kinds of mass-donations: a mass-donation of material things & a mass-donation of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: a mass-donation of the Dhamma."  Iti §100

But Atma aslo has to remark that he is not happy about the environment here, since it is not freely given and for commercial purpose. When ever one spends time and effort on Dhamma one should not misuse things which are not given for that or with strings. Its like teaching Dhamma in meditation centres which charge for certain services.
Most social or content pages do not serve such proper but have commercial purposes. Also take care to do not misuse third part energy and means.
So one does good to seek for a place which is actually given.
Also in regard of using for example ones boss time and money or what ever to spend on Dhamma is not good. So it should be your good earned free time and your given means.
Individual it depends on ones motivation, so if Mr. bbozo would add it, it would be easier to tell.
Always thinking on the kamma of questions.

As the author writes in the Introduction: "There's no such thing as a totally idle question. Every question, even the most casual, carries an intention." Since one's intentions shape the course of one's entire spiritual journey, learning to ask the right kinds of questions plays an essential role in any spiritual practice. This collection of essays explores the nature of questions in the Buddhist path.

As for the introduction and its notion "To say the word is to miss the mark, said a monk, one would assume same is implied in writing it?", aside of certain motivation, two Suttas may help out: Chavalata Sutta: The Firebrand & Sikkha Sutta: Trainings

Monks, these four types of individuals are to be found existing in the world. Which four? The one who practices for his own benefit but not for that of others. The one who practices for the benefit of others but not for his own. The one who practices neither for his own benefit nor for that of others. The one who practices for his own benefit and for that of others.

To your question:

What are the dangers of discussing Dharma on an online forum?

Of cause teaching others for example of know much, can be a huge trap of conceit and pride. But even if one is trapped in such, he would not easy abound it, if not next to others who give hints about it and cross-question.
Those seeking for heartwood and missing it very good displayed here:

He is intoxicated with that gain, offerings, & fame, heedless about it, and falls into heedlessness. Being heedless, he dwells in suffering & stress. This, monks, is called a monk who grasps the twigs & leaves of the holy life, and with that he falls short.
..."Just as if a man in need of heartwood, seeking heartwood, wandering
  in search of heartwood — passing over the heartwood of a great
  standing tree possessed of heartwood, passing over the sapwood,
  passing over the inner bark, passing over the outer bark — cutting
  away the twigs & leaves, were to go off carrying them, thinking,
  'heartwood.' A man with good eyesight, seeing him, would say, 'Ah, how
  this good man didn't know heartwood, didn't know sapwood, didn't know
  inner bark, didn't know outer bark, didn't know twigs & leaves! That's
  why he, in need of heartwood, seeking heartwood, wandering in search
  of heartwood — passing over the heartwood of a great standing tree
  possessed of heartwood, passing over the sapwood, passing over the
  inner bark, passing over the outer bark — cutting away the twigs &
  leaves, went off carrying them, thinking, "heartwood." Whatever
  heartwood-business he had with heartwood, his purpose won't be
  served.'...MN29

But for now, try to get a punch of reputations and if you come to a peak, that be remembered to let go, there where you start to get comfortable with your gain.
To speak, I don't do that, I don't participate in that, that is pride, for the most cases, its not different but often the quote of the "The Fox and the Grapes". So more often, those who claim to do not participate (know already enough at the same time) as often more trapped it that so called "Spiritual Materialism", jet even clearly to greed to give a share of their possession.
Wrong grasping or for wrong purpose:

"Monks, there is the case where some worthless men study the Dhamma:
  dialogues, narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses,
  spontaneous exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events,
  question & answer sessions [the earliest classifications of the
  Buddha's teachings]. Having studied the Dhamma, they don't ascertain
  the meaning (or: the purpose) of those Dhammas with their
  discernment. Not having ascertained the meaning of those Dhammas with
  their discernment, they don't come to an agreement through pondering.
  They study the Dhamma both for attacking others and for defending
  themselves in debate. They don't reach the goal for which [people]
  study the Dhamma. Their wrong grasp of those Dhammas will lead to
  their long-term harm & suffering. Why is that? Because of the
  wrong-graspedness of the Dhammas. ...Alagaddupama Sutta: The Water-Snake Simile

There are still the dangerous of bhava-tanha (craving for becoming and to be) and since intellectual contact is also a kind of sensuality one can be pretty addicted to this sensual pleasure by building concepts and thought and then enjoy and dwell in it. This ways are pattered by lose and gain and even if caught one would have a chance to become aware of it, like the monk in the story having come in contact with rebukes of his fellows and his teacher. Something, if one turns away of being confronted in discussions, or discusses just with like-minded people with similar wrong views, would not be possible be corrected. So the more critic you are possible able to get, the more you have chance to correct your views.
As for "looking for", its pretty good to know and understand the mechanic of Dhamma: Better to Give (dhamma) than to Consume (dhamma) one is not able, not capable to gain Dhamma, if still having a consumers attitude an is not willing to give at first place and in advanced (not even with the desire to gain something in return). A famous Zen-teacher defined people who are spending times in Dhamma-centers but are not capable to understand the Dhamma as hungry ghosts. Of course, becoming a hungry Dhamma-Ghost has its reason. Those are the people who hardly would give but seek and load down where ever they can.
So when ever you spend some times, its good to take on a task and if you run a place give people a task (in Dhamma) so that they would keep things balanced or even to service and other things as their primary focus. So different of marketing places its good if you see such honest approach right at the door and beware of people telling you that it is "free". Even the Dhamma is actually not free but will either call for you (to put it into action) or never graspable but causing one much dept at least, if just for entertaining and livelihood.
So ways to be on the good side here would be:

pay respect where it is proper (Apaciti)
using the possibilities to show appreciation and gratitude, either by words or by voting (Abbhanumodana)
Helping to clean of typos and obliviously faults (Veyyāvaca)
Add of what is missing (Veyyāvaca)
Take on tasks other would be not able to do (Veyyāvaca)
Feeding such things as tag-infos (Veyyāvaca, Desana)
Share of what you are able to share (Dāna)
Give your work a dedications and share your merits, invite others (Pattānuppadāna)
Stay mindful on your body, feeling, mind and Dhammas (Bhāvana)
Keep precepts while you share and "take" (Sīla)

This done, there will come

Listening to the Dhamma (Savana)
Correcting one’s View (Diṭṭhijju-kamma)

But once again in regard of BuddhismSE. Atma has doubts that it is at least most beneficial, since all service you give, you give actually (mental cold be different but would cheat the Inc. you made a contract with) and then, after that, the ones give his share (for his what ever purpose). So it has its limits to make service to the Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha in line with Dhamma and Vinaya. Different would it be, if there are no commercial or worldly interests and a place is actually really given for its real purpose. People who dedicate such places and make scarifies are less, because they prefer to gain and to have it easy. One would not be happy afterward, having put much effort into giving just to see it flow down on the rivers of the world and Samsara, having been just food to nourish death and size up the mountains of corps. So also here, even certain path elements can be seen, are lacking of the prerequisites which are against the grain and subject of real generosity.
Do not throw the Dhamma as it it would be a entertainment and trading good and be aware and grateful of what you maintain your livelihood (certain joy to be willing and able to live on, that includes mental food)
Atma is not really able to stay here long out of that reason, since one needs to overstep virtue in regard of the Dhamma and Vinaya or cause the owner here to get his demand of his wished contract not repaid. Even if invited and welcome by its user does not means that certain approaches are welcome with whom one has a contract and its sad that users do actually don't have such with each other exclusively which give others also the feeling being to dependent on them. But you will, if you see that problem, find ways although the chance is less that runners of such places would scarify just for this "Dhamma-Vinaya" possibilities to gain.

The Seven Noble Riches
Concerning saddhā or faith, the person who has it
(a) likes to meet virtuous ones,
(b) wishes to hear the true dhamma (saddhamma), and
(c) lives at home with stinginess removed from his mind.

Endowed with these three qualities he indeed is called ‘one who has
  faith’.

What one should be strongly be aware of, is not to develop a notion of being ones home or ones own, when dwelling on a Dhamma place and get attached to his/here monastery, group...
As for those who think that they can do without Dana, Service, an so on, and even think that they are beyond that child stuff, Atma tells you that they dwell in anything but not on the path:

"Without abandoning these five qualities, one is incapable of entering & remaining in the first jhana. Which five? Stinginess as to one's monastery [lodgings], stinginess as to one's family [of supporters], stinginess as to one's gains, stinginess as to one's status, and stinginess as to the Dhamma. Without abandoning these five qualities, one is incapable of entering & remaining (even) in the first jhana.
Macchariya Suttas: Stinginess

(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of/for trade and/or keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)

May all beings  —  without limit,
without end  —    have a share in the
merit just now made,
and in whatever other merit I have made.
Dedication of Merit

FYI (not that you have to care for my opinion) I liked parts of this answer but not others. I'd like to upvote it (+1) for mentioning "right view" at the beginning; and there was more, later, that was good. But there are several paragraphs I didn't like, which were the complaints about commercialism: I thought that these were incoherent (i.e. wouldn't be understood by someone who hasn't seen your arguments on that topic before), and off-topic (i.e. barely relevant to this question), and not constructive (by which I mean not "actionable").

I'd suggest that you work on defining a single, clear, coherent argument on this topic, but do it elsewhere. For example perhaps you could post a brief question on Meta like, "Does this site's ToS make it immoral to discuss and/or quote Dharma here?", and a long answer which explains your point of view. People could comment on that answer and you could then add to or clarify it. Then if the topic comes up again (e.g. if you want to repeat that in your answer to this question) you could simply insert (in your answer to this question) a reference (a hyperlink) to your well-argued answer on Meta.

I'd like to echo @ChrisW remarks

Its not needed to dislike parts what one is not able to take for now, but it would be inhonest and oppressing something that is very relevant: using things which are not given for certain purpose. That reaches from the money and time of your company, environment with other purpose, till using third part energy. It also makes one aware that even to talk with each other needs scarifies. Would you walk? Would you organize a teacher to come? And rather to lift up certain other cases (80% of Dhammatalks are not made in a proper environment), its better to stay where we are. So those are samples.

The reason why it is so, that people use certain "free" stuff rather to sacrifice own material possession, time and effort, is because they don't like to sacrifice. And as we know, the prerequisite for listening to Dhamma is Dana. If you can not give up the raw stuff and hold on it, how would one see a benefit in letting go the fine stuff. What ever is comfortable for one self has an unpleasant cause on others. Yet asking, did they give or do we misuse them? Or do we need to misuse the Dhamma, so that it fits to that others would make a deal?

I would say that you are mixing the methods a little bit. While Women Huikai and Fen Yang belong to the Zen (Chan) branches, Chogyam Trungpa represents the Vajrayana (Kagyu) branch.
So, these two branches represent two different methods (to the best of my knowledge, only Kagyu as compared to Zen has the tantric practices and yogas of Naropa, but otherwise these two teachings are identical in their Buddhist nature).
Therefore there are no, as far as I know, any dangers whatsoever in discussing Buddhism at online forums in Zen paradigm or as a part of intellectual discussion (but there a lot of things depending on motivation, of course).
As for persons having tantric initiations, the dangers do exist, but they depend mostly on the vows taken by a certain person within a given lineage.

Chogyam Trungpa was not in the OP's question - I added it myself to clarify OP's "path to illusion and a way to develop the subtle "enlightened" ego" - so please don't build your answer around that. I can remove C.T. if that will help avoid confusion. That said, I don't see how you connect the two different methods point with "therefore there are no dangers" point?

Methods do differ, but at long as the teachings are Buddhistic and they are identical in their Buddhist nature, there is no danger. The danger might be about mixing the methods, yet the reasoning (the wisdom) has the same nature and therefore there is no danger.

@AndreiVolkov Yes I noticed you do that and 'let it go' then, yet it might have been better to put C.T. as your clarification in your answer, than inserted into the OP's question.

Yup, I figured - but now it's too late, since it would drive this answer meaningless. OMG I've caught myself in a karmic trap.

I'm going to try to answer this version of the question.

Is it a good idea to spend time on this website?

There are people who have tried it and no longer do.

Not worthwhile
Was worthwhile but their mission was accomplished
Would be worthwhile except there are other things to do in their life and only finite time

To say the word is to miss the mark, said a monk, one would assume same is implied in writing it?

I suppose so except that writing might be a bit more thoughtful; and, when we're tele-remote from each other (unlike being together in person), an exchange of words is our only medium of communication.

this one from Wumen Huikai

Wikipedia says,

However, it was Zen master Yuelin Shiguan (月林師觀; Japanese: Gatsurin Shikan) (1143–1217) who gave Wumen the koan "Zhaozhou’s dog", with which Wu-men struggled for six years before he finally attained realization. After his understanding had been confirmed by Yuelin, Wumen wrote his enlightenment poem

So (given "Zhaozhou’s dog") it might be called unsurprising that he'd say something like, "The instant you speak about a thing, you miss the mark", because note this commentary to this koan,

Has a dog Buddha-nature?
  This is the most serious question of all.
  If you say yes or no,
  You lose your own Buddha-nature.

When you are deluded and full of doubt, even a thousand books of scripture are not enough. When you have realized understanding, even one word is too much.

Well I suppose these are two extremes, if you know what I mean, conversely a doctrine of the middle way might suggest that if you're a bit deluded and/or have a bit of doubt, then a bit of scripture might be part of what's helpful for finding a way towards understanding.
The Buddha was persuaded to teach for the sake of those who had "little dust in their eyes".
A statement like "burn your Dharma books" is all very well, but maybe only if that is already internal?
My version ("If you're a bit deluded and/or etc.") is really wordy, though, and I'd guess not idiomatic in Chinese. It might not even be necessary, either: my current Tai Chi teacher claims that the Chinese don't see things in black and white, but only as shades of grey.
I haven't found the original Chinese version of that phrase you quoted, but I wonder (a complete guess on my part) if it might be something like,

Great Doubt | Thousand Books | Not Enough
  Kenshō | One Word | Too Many

To understand that better (albeit understand it in a mundane way) it might help to know some context: that "Great Doubt" (as well as "Faith") is (I think) an ingredient in Zen doctrine/practice; that though other people might have written a thousand books of commentary but students are expected to demonstrably understand (and not parrot a book).

From this, and other sources, one might conclude that spending time on an online forum looking for, or giving wisdom, is one possible path to illusion for the subtle "enlightened" ego

That might be what some people call "spiritual materialism" (I haven't read about that in detail, but I guess that it might mean trying to accumulate spirituality like others try to accumulate material wealth).
Also I'm not sure that people can "give wisdom", exactly, but they might try to behave themselves wisely and to share information, references, understanding.

On the other hand, here I am writing enlightening things on an online forum but yet I feel it is worthwhile

Thank you for trying. :-)

So given this problem -- this context and these concerns -- my question is: Is it a good idea to spend time on this website? How could it be worthwhile, if "speaking about a thing misses the mark" and "even one word is too much"?

Well if I read Dharma I haven't always understood all of it. Or something might sound plausible in a superficial kind of way but I'm not sure I understand what's said, in depth.
If that happens then I like this site because I could ask questions which are personalized towards my own particular doubts and misunderstandings, and people try to understand the question and address their answers accordingly: for example I can ask, "What does 'this word' mean? It's used 'here' and this dictionary describes it as 'such and such', but how you you understand that?"
Another thing is I suppose my first introduction to Buddhism was someone's biography of the Buddha: including, you know, the sights before he left home, the struggle for enlightenment, the first sermon (at Benares), and so on. My next exposure to Buddhism were more or less Three Pillars of Zen and Zen Flesh, Zen Bones.
There's a big gap, between those two: all the suttas, for example!
I suspect (I believe although I don't know) that many Zen monks and/or their patriarchs said that kind of ("not a word!") thing as well as (and/or, maybe, 'after', not 'instead of') learning Dharma.
I think it's quite Tao-inspired too: "The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao"; and maybe ideals like Wu wei. I thought I recognized the provenance of your quotes even if not the quotes themselves.
Anyway, another thing to note is that there's a big gap after that traditional Zen. There's also (a slightly separate development) Tibetan/Northern Buddhism; and, lately, Buddhism in the West.
One reason why this site can be worthwhile is that (perhaps unlike in 'real life') you'll get input from people from several schools (or no particular school). There's often input from a Theravada perspective and sometimes also input from other perspectives too.


text:
Why do the scriptures employ so much repetition?
I was reading the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic
and here the Buddha attempts to demonstrate that not in any of the five aggregates is the self to be found. He says this about form for example:

"Form, O monks, is not-self; if form were self, then form would not lead to affliction and it should obtain regarding form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus'; and indeed, O monks, since form is not-self, therefore form leads to affliction and it does not obtain regarding form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus.'

Now with other aggregates he follows the same paragraph structure and just substitutes in for the word "form".
What I've noticed though, is that many other suttas employ this style of exposition and I wanted to know what the motivation was for this?
I've heard that repetition made memorization easier, which makes sense; but is there another reason for this?
Should I read through each paragraph even though its an almost exact replica of some other paragraphs? It can be tedious to read something that uses this style and I have simply just skipped such paragraphs.
What do you think? What is recommended?
edit: Some other translations of this sutta don't explicitly rewrite the paragraph and just place elipses to avoid repetition.

Mr David V.,
There are many aspect but one of the central is to be and stay concentrated. Its also the case, if you try to translate a Sutta for example, that if you go a head, you would suddenly see "Oh, that part did I miss before" since mind loves to interpret things into certain attention gaps. One would even swear that one read this or heard this or that.
Listener, or reader, if not very concentrated would either get bored and lose patient or start to be aware of that matter and put an effort into it.
Upasaka John Bullitt (founder and generous giver of accesstoinsight.org) wrote some useful and guiding words, worthy for everybody new to the texts:
Befriending the Suttas - Tips on Reading the Pali Discourses
If Atma remembers right, Upasaka mentioned this question as well.
Oh yes (from a sound engineer and musician):

Don't ignore the repetitions.
Many suttas contain repetitive passages. Read the sutta as you would a piece of music: when you sing or listen to a song, you don't skip over each chorus; likewise, when you read a sutta, you shouldn't skip over the refrains. As in music, the refrains in the suttas often contain unexpected — and important — variations that you don't want to miss.

and also good, even if very unusual in modern or western world:

Read the sutta aloud, from beginning to end.
This helps in several ways: it encourages you to read every single
  word of the sutta, it trains your mouth to use right speech, and it
  teaches your ears how to listen to Dhamma.

You could even record it and share it (if your like): Dhammaoke! Giving others the possibility to listen to the Dhamma
(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of/for trade and/or keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)


text:
Different transmissions for reciting various versions of a same mantra acc. to any of Vajrayana branches
Tashi delek! My question concerns the mantra reciting in Vajrayana tradition, where some Buddhist deities (not to be confused with the mundane ones) may have several versions of a same mantra.
That is, a mantra of a same deity may be either longer or shorter according to different sutras and dharanis.
In Vajrayana, it is also very important to receive a direct transmission of energy from guru (lama) before reciting any mantra.
My question is, can a Vajrayana practitioner recite another version of the same mantra if she or he has already (in a given reincarnation) received from her or his guru a transmission for receiting another version of the same mantra?
A reference to any root texts of any Vajrayana branch (Gelug, Sakya, Nyingma, Kagyu or Jonang) would be a great help.

This is a very partial answer because I can provide no textual reference.
Differences between mantras of the same deity are of two types:

In terms of length (short version / long version)
In terms of category

For instance: Vajrasattva has (1) a short mantra, (2) a long mantra, and (3) a mantra associated with its wratful aspect, that is another category, such as 'Heruka Vajrasattva'.
Generally, there is no objection for practitioners who received an initiation to recite both short and long version of a mantra of the same deity. As to reciting the mantra of another category/aspect of that same deity (in the given example, that of Heruka Vajrasattva), you must ask your teacher. In Kopan monastery - and so Kyabje Lama Zopa Rinpoche - they do allow one to recite Heruka to those who took just Vajrasattva. If you are not a student of his, ask your own teacher.


text:
Bare awareness while meditating in the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition
While practicing the Mahasi Sayadaw style of meditation, noting the rise and fall of the abdomen as the body breathes, and noting other intruding experiences or phenomena, and essentially labeling that which is noted, at what point does one dispense with the conscious labeling in favor of simple non-conceptual bare awareness? Is the transition made by conscious effort or is it a non-volitional event that one simply recognizes and sits with? I think I may have some fundamental misunderstanding in this matter.

The noting shouldn't stop one from seeing things with bare awareness. One doesn't focus on the noting, one focuses on the meditation object.
...at what point does one dispense with the conscious labeling...
If one isn't  consciously aware of the noting then one will be unconsciously (un)aware of the noting. We note no matter what we do.
When we need to listen, speak, read, write or study then it is more difficult to note consciously. Some don't note consciously in these situations but they do continue mindfulness of bare experience.
I've never heard of an end to noting(conscious or otherwise) made by conscious effort or made by a non-volitional event.

Thx to all for the replies! Re "an end to noting", I have the notion that, as concentration developers or stabilizes, one might dispense with applying words or terms to noted objects, and that one would be left with bare awareness that does not involve words or terms or language. Having not reached such a condition, I do not yet "know" what I am talking about.

@PaPa some Mahasi teachers will teach that noting is optional. I myself have tried "not noting" but I always felt like the reason I wasn't noting could be my own aversion, so I try to stick with the noting. It could seem a whole lot smoother to not consciously label things but then again vipassana doesn't need to be smooth.                    I have confidence in this noting because of what I have already learned through direct experience. I can also see what it has done for other people like Bhante Yuttadhammo(who teaches to always note) and that gives me confidence for the noting.

I am fairly familiar with Bhante Yuttadhammo's videos and teachings. Also, I have noticed that attempting to discontinue "labeling" noted objects, whether the rise-and-fall of the abdomen or intruding mental phenomena, seems to allow more mental chatter. It's as if the noting process takes up or uses mind moments, thus leaving fewer mind moments available for intrusions. Therefore, I have wondered if that is an essential aspect of the process of stabilizing one's concentration.

@PaPa that's because when we label that is a kinda controlled mental chatter. Noting is especially good for those who think a lot, because noting is thinking and it takes up some of the mental space that would otherwise be given to mental chatter

I sincerely appreciate the feedback. Being way down here in south Mississippi ... no Theravada sanghas or teachers nearby ... it seems the only way forward with my meditation practice is to faithfully continue noting, returning to the noting of the rise and fall of the abdomen when intrusions occur, without entertaining an unhealthy desire for whatever lies beyond "just noting". Maintaining calm presence while feeling a need for progress requires an inordinate amount of patience ... like being between a rock and a hard place. Nevertheless, I take your words as encouragement! Thx :)

Come join us meditation.sirimangalo.org. :)

@PaPa Yes, at meditation.sirimangalo.org Bhante Yuttadhammo answers our questions over Google hangout and has been known to give one on one interviews to help meditators progress on the path.

As far as I understand, noting only ceases upon cessation(nibbana) itself.
That is to say, the meditator does not stop noting.
I'd also invite you to meditation.sirimangalo.org
Ven. Yuttadhammo gives Dhammapada talks there on Tuesday nights, 9pm eastern time, Dhamma talks on Thursday, and does Q & A Saturday nights.
He also offers 1 on 1 meetings in an online meditation course format for more serious meditators, so this may be of interest to you.

I'm guessing your are using the term "cessation" to mean nirodha-samāpatti?

I don't know what that means, but to clarify I meant realization of Nibanna

Nirodha-samāpatti is a meditative state ( http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/n_r/nirodha_samaapatti.htm ) and can sometimes be translated as "cessation".  It's the only meditative state where all mental activity ceases.  Given the context of the question, it's what I thought you might be referring to.

This appears to be a distinct attainment of Nibanna, as its stating only an arahant or anagami can enter into it. But all other beings are able to attain cessation as well.

And during which, there is the cessation of conditioned experience.

Right - but not all who attain nibbana can reach it.  It's a meditative accomplishment.  I was just trying to clear up what you meant by "cessation".

I'm not sure what you mean by your first sentence. Are you referring to nirodha-samapatti?

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

As mr. Ryan sad, "As far as I understand, noting only ceases upon cessation itself." (Sadhu!)
Mr/Mrs PaPa, not much in certain styles in this matter, but one should gain minimum/any of the Jhanas, so that it would make sense to let go

...And here is how I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One:
  'When the monk is percipient of himself here, then from there to
  there, step by step, he touches the peak of perception. As he remains
  at the peak of perception, the thought occurs to him, "Thinking is bad
  for me. Not thinking is better for me. If I were to think and will,
  this perception of mine would cease, and a grosser perception would
  appear. What if I were neither to think nor to will?" So he neither
  thinks nor wills, and as he is neither thinking nor willing, that
  perception ceases and another, grosser perception does not appear. He
  touches cessation. This, Potthapada, is how there is the alert step-by
  step attainment of the ultimate cessation of perception.'"
"That's right, Potthapada."
"But, lord, does the Blessed One describe one peak of perception or
  many peaks of perception?"...(see further DN 9)

Just to see (and understand) that it (how it works everywhere at least) is actually not a different phenomena in the "Mahasi Sayadaw" method and also not in others which are in line with the Dhamma, in what way ever one accesses certain samma concentration:

...But as the latter is able to suppress the hindrances just as access
  concentration does,[23] and since it is the neighbourhood of the
  noble-path attainment concentration,[24] therefore that same momentary
  concentration is spoken of by the name of "access" (or
  "neighbourhood") and also the meditation subjects that produce that
  momentary concentration are called "meditation subjects leading to
  access concentration." Hence it should be understood that momentary
  concentration, having the capacity to suppress the hindrances, has
  also the right to the name "access" and "purification of mind."
  Otherwise purification of mind could not come about in one who has
  made bare insight his vehicle by employing only insight, without
  having produced either access concentration or fully absorbed
  concentration.

Its merely just a "dispute on the emperors beard" (as a Austrian proverb expresses)

As AN 9.36 points out, one can attain cessation based on any of the
  levels of jhana. Thus, although the specific level from which
  cessation is attained might differ from person to person, its role in
  functioning as the basis for cessation is the same in every person's
  Awakening. (Note to DN9)

(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of/for trade and/or keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)


text:
Detachment : What are we really parting from?
I was thinking about detachment today and this thought occurred in my mind...
We like what we see,hear,touch,smell,taste & think. This liking turns into attachment over time and this is the attachment we talk about when we say "Detachment".
And we say that one who practice the path should part from these worldly temptations and he should try to realize and part from those binds.
But what are we truly attached to,i mean when we say attachment we commonly blame the things that we think are tasty,nice,comforting,satisfying and etc.
But when i thought of this i felt that we are not attached to the source of these attachments.
The way i see it we are attached to the attachment, let me simplify...

I think we are not directly attached to the taste of chocolate, i feel
  we are actually attached to the attachment that we once made when we
  tasted it for the first time. I think we are keeping that in mind and
  when we see chocolate again the older attachment comes and we gladly
  accept chocolate because we want what we once felt, i think this is
  why we always compare our meals even though we do not have a clue what
  we are comparing it with. As the taste of chocolate makes us live that
  moment again we love chocolate, because it is the source of that
  feeling that we hold dear.

After thinking this i felt that i should focus on what is the true source of attachment,
is it taste of chocolate or the fact i once loved the taste of chocolate? which one am i truly attached to,
is it a moment that i had which i want to live again and again or is it just plain taste?

Attachment (and the other things you mention) are described among the Twelve Nidānas.
For example chocolate exists as:

Name ("chocolate") and Form (the form of chocolate)
Sensuality (sight, taste, touch, smell, idea)
Contact (between our consciousness, our senses, and chocolate's form)
Desire
Attachment
Memories

You're right if you're saying that the specific/single answer is difficult to discern. I think that's because:

Attachment isn't to a single thing
Attachment doesn't have a single cause

When I say "not a single thing" I mean that chocolate exists as name, form, sensual contact, mindfulness (or the lack of it), sensual desire, memory and other fabrications; it's not a single thing.
When I say "doesn't have a single cause" I mean that attachment depends on a lot of conditions: sensuality, desire, form, contact, and fabrication.
Instead of "single cause" I think it's better to understand it as "dependent co-arising" ... e.g. "attachment to chocolate arises with (sensuality, desire, memory, etc.)".
It might be better to see the whole chain as a single system rather than as separate bits.
Your question is a bit like asking, "What is the 'chariot' exactly? Is it the wheels, the yoke, the thing it carries, or its destination?" To understand it correctly, it's kind of all of these.
So perhaps you can discern attachment as an active component within the whole: e.g. it's something which affects the 'way' in which people travel.

Also if I look at some of the various definitions of Kleshas (defilements) then sometimes it's listed and sometimes it's not. If the list is detailed then it's a 'separate thing', if it's a shorter list then I think it's just included (presumably along with Taṇhā/craving) in the category of Lobha/desire.

A very good answer! Can you explain a bit more,So is it OK if i say that eventually attachment is focused on a collective experience of a certain event captured by all the senses?

I think that attachment is described as holding or grasping something that's "known". Maybe Taṇhā/craving is like a thief going into a stranger's house looking for something (unknown, anything) to steal, and Upādāna/attachment is when he perceives something in particular (realized, known) and reaches out and grabs it.

The example is perfect!

According to that what I've understood of the Pali-canon you can be attached to sensations caused by physical objects as well as to sensations caused by mental objects (the latter are possibly easier to understand as being constructs of the mind itself). In that I say here "sensations" - just take it as a placeholder for a wider area to what we might be actually attached to.
So, as the field in which as well as to which attachment can occur is very wide I think the only authority who can know what happened with you with the "chocolate"-example are you yourself ; it's the analytical exercise (as general methods of meditation and analysis proposed by the Buddha) to find it out yourself whether with you it happend that you became attached to the chocolade, to the taste of the chocolade, to the feeling in your mouth or in your body, or whether to the contact with the word/entity "chocolade" (for instance as a reminder to nice and important experiences in childhood), even to the abstractum which might begin to dwell in your world of thoughts, imaginations and projections (in case you are an artist creating lyrics, pictures, movies... ;-) ) .

I think we are not directly attached to the taste of chocolate, i feel we are actually attached to the attachment that we once made when we tasted it for the first time

You are half right. There is an in-built evolutionary requirement to get carbohydrates (without them we'd get low blood sugar and go into a coma or starve to death). Therefore we feel great when we find carbs... the higher the glycemic index the better.
The other part you are right about. We associate chocolate with many things. Easter. Childhood. Christmas. Birthdays. Then there's the advertising you've unconsciously had programmed into you which has further associations.
I would suggest that you / we are attached to both of these mechanisms.

You opened up a whole other side of this question, Thank you! and keep it up :-)

Reality is comprised of momentary experience, one after another.
When you sit in meditation, for instance, you may come to see :
The thought of chocolate, arising and ceasing
followed by a wanting of chocolate, arising and ceasing
followed by a physical feeling, arising and ceasing.
In my experience, it is the physical feeling that arises and ceases, which is a symptom of the minds greed, its burning, wanting, and this is what we act on out of habit; that behavior which we have ingrained in our minds as being good:
We come to act on desire by following after it, and upon getting what we want, this burning of the mind subsides for some time, offering a release.
And so we come to think that it is good to get what we want, never truly coming to see what is actually happening at the experiential level.
And this is why one must practice meditation; it is not enough to understand this intellectually. It is only by experiencing this happening over and over that we can come to bend the minds habit away from an unwholesome mode of behavior to one of unbinding.

But when i thought of this i felt that we are not attached to the
source of these attachments.

Then simply detract you from that (all of what you think that you are not attached to), that is why a yogi takes on 8 precepts or 10 to be even aware or the raw defilement.
Mr. Theravada would then, without the need of believing somebody, find out the answers to his question.
Its like

Falling Out of a Tree
...It's the same with dependent co-arising. "Ignorance is the
condition for fabrications. Fabrications are the condition for
consciousness. Consciousness is the condition for name and form."
We've studied this and memorized it, and it's true, the way the Buddha
has divided things up like this for students to study. But when these
things actually arise, they're too fast for you to count.
It's like falling from the top of a tree — thump! — to the ground. We
don't know which branches we've passed. The moment the mind is struck
by a good object, if it's something it likes, it goes straight to
"good." It doesn't know the connecting steps in between. They follow
in line with the texts, but they also go outside of the texts. They
don't say, "Right here is ignorance. Right here is fabrication. Right
here is consciousness. Right here is name and form." They don't have
signs for you to read. It's like falling out of a tree. The Buddha
talks about the mental moments in full detail, but I use the
comparison with falling out of a tree. When you slip out of a tree —
thump! — you don't measure how many feet and inches you've fallen. All
you know is you've crashed to the ground and are already hurting.
("In Simple Terms" 108 Dhamma Similes by Ajahn Chah)

(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of/for trade and/or keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)

I agree bhante, But what i was asking for a explanation to clear my mind so i can be clear if what i thought is correct or not.

An explanation will not clear your mind, as Bhante explained.

Thats right, Mr @Theravada , you would just intellectual think form this comes this and that is because of that, but when it actually accrues, you would not be aware of it. Let Atma add a simile in the answer.

OK OK, i think You are right bhante :-) @SamanaJohann