text:
My job requires me to shuck oysters
I am not necessarily Buddhist but I am a vegan and killing doesn't sit well with me. I have suffered terrible sleep condition over the past 2 years and can't work in my field anymore and have no experience in any other field and have a hard time getting to work at an early time so midday work is best for me. Unfortunately the restaurant I work at currently has oysters for sale and they are alive when you prepare them which involves killing them. I don't know how to rationalize this but I am struggling financially and am working on getting a different restaurant job where they might not serve this dish. But I have killed some oysters already. How do I come to terms with this?

The Buddhist teachings do not exist for you to create suffering for yourself. Oysters are extremely primitive life forms. While they breathe oxygen, they are very close to plants. Oysters have a nervous system but not a brain. We practise non-killing as Buddhists so we cultivate a respect for life and cease to be violent people. If killing oysters (that don't suffer or don't have relatives or loved one's who suffer about them) is against your moral principles then find a new job. However, if you think deeply about what or who you have harmed, I don't think much will be found. Don't worry about it. Let it go. An oyster does not have a  brother, sister, mother or father somewhere in the universe grieving about their lost relative oyster. The Buddha appeared to infer in SN 12.63 that lifeforms consuming other lifeforms is part of the cycle of life. As a "vegan", I imagine your views about food are more extreme than the average Buddhist. For example, the Buddha did not preach vegetarianism. The above said, personally, I would not like to kill oysters for a living.

According to the Bhikkhu Patimokkha (quoted below), which are rules for monks, killing a human is grounds for immediate and irreversible dismissal from the monastic order (parajika).
However, deliberately killing an animal is an offense that requires only confession (pacittiya) within the monastic order, usually with the intention not to do it again. It's not as severe as killing a human.
If possible, change jobs or avoid doing the task of killing oysters. This is because killing oysters involves generating the unwholesome deliberate intention of taking a life. It's against the five precepts and Right Livelihood.
Also, don't carry remorse in your mind, which is unwholesome and unskillful. Confess it i.e. acknowledge that it's wrong then let it go. Don't hold on to it.

Intentionally bringing about the death of a human being, even if it is
  still a fetus — whether by killing the person, arranging for an
  assassin to kill the person, inciting the person to die, or describing
  the advantages of death — is a pārājika offense. (Pr 3)
Pouring water that one knows to contain living beings — or having it
  poured — on grass or clay is a pācittiya offense. Pouring anything
  that would kill the beings into such water — or having it poured — is
  also a pācittiya offense. (Pc 20)
Deliberately killing an animal — or having it killed — is a pācittiya
  offense. (Pc 61)
Using water, or getting others to use it, knowing that it contains
  living beings that will die from that use, is a pācittiya offense. (Pc
  62)

Tell it your boss, simply "I observe the precept of not killing, not to encourage others and not to approve. It would be good if my person could take on tasks which do not involve such.", and simply abstain. Mental and future struggles from wrong doing are by far more hurtful and lasting then whatever hardship out of earn.
Not out of causes the Buddha told that aside of killing, involvment in business with meat or living beings, does not fit well for someone after long time happiness. And whatever gain, of cource needs to have it's sacrifies: why not letting go of what hurts?
[Note: this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, but for release. For discussion and further question one is given to make use of this exit.]

I agree in principal with this as a possible action but would suggest that you think on changing the "Tell..." here to "Ask..."; and add, to the end, "Is there any way for you to accommodate me?" The employer might react better to this as a request for help but not react well if interpreted as a "demand". @Samana Johann if this was what you meant and was just a language issue with English, I apologize for misinterpreting. Regards.

Since you're not necessarily a Buddhist, I'll try to answer from a more vegan point of view although I'm not a vegan. You can only come to terms with this by telling your boss your beliefs and stopping. You can't continue to uphold vegan beliefs and kill animals. I know your financial situation is at stake but you don't want to be a hipocrite. There is a gentlemen I supervise who we excuse from killing bugs which is a function of his job, that we excuse because of his spiritual beliefs.

Good on you for understanding this person's dilemma. Regards.


text:
Did the Buddha have intention (cetana)?
After attaining Nibbana, did the Buddha still have intention (cetanā)?
In SN 12.2, intention is part of name in name-and-form. In SN 12.38 (quoted below), it sounds like intention is removed in an arahant.
For example, in the Udana 6.1 quote below, did the Buddha have the intention (cetanā) to go and sit at the Pavala shrine on a sitting cloth with Ananda for the day's abiding?
How does the Buddha's apparent intention in Udana 6.1, not conflict with the quote from SN 12.38?
From Udana 6.1:

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near
  Vesālī at the Gabled Hall in the Great Forest. Then, early in the
  morning, he adjusted his under robe and — carrying his bowl & robes —
  went into Vesālī for alms. Then, having gone for alms in Vesālī, after
  the meal, returning from his alms round, he addressed Ven. Ānanda,
  "Get a sitting cloth, Ānanda. We will go to the Pāvāla shrine for the
  day's abiding."
Responding, "As you say, lord," to the Blessed One, Ven. Ānanda
  followed along behind the Blessed One, carrying the sitting cloth.
  Then the Blessed One went to the Pāvāla shrine and, on arrival, sat
  down on the seat laid out.
Seated, the Blessed One addressed Ven. Ānanda, "Vesālī is refreshing,
  Ānanda. Refreshing, too, are the Udena shrine, the Gotamaka shrine,
  the Sattamba shrine, the ManySon shrine, the Sāranda shrine, the
  Pāvāla shrine.

From SN 12.38:

“Bhikkhus, what one intends, and what one plans and whatever one has
  a tendency towards (yañca ceteti yañca pakappeti yañca anuseti): this becomes a basis for the maintenance of
  consciousness. When there is a basis there is a support for the
  establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is established and
  has come to growth, there is the production of future renewed
  existence. When there is the production of future renewed existence,
  future birth, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure,
  and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of
  suffering.

OP: After attaining Nibbana, did the Buddha still have intention (Cetanā)?

Yes, Lord Buddha still has intention (Cetanā) after attaining sopadhishesa-nibbana. But after attaining anupadhishesa-nibbana , everything including intention will be ceased without remainder.
Intention (Cetanā) is one of seven universal mental factors which can be seen in every consciousness. So, if there's consciousness present intention is also present. A sentient being (including Arahants) can think, speak, and do things using body because of this "cetanā" mental factor. Even-though it appears in resultant consciousness this mental factor is not manifested in those kinds of consciousness because of the weakness of its appearance with few other mental factors.

Cetana...is the mental factor that is concerned with the actualization of a goal, that is, the conative or volitional aspect of cognition. Thus it is rendered volition. The Commentaries explain that cetana organizes its associated mental factors in acting upon the object. Its characteristic is the state of willing, its function is to accumulate (kamma), and its manifestation is coordination. Its proximate cause is the associated states. Just as a chief pupil recites his own lesson and also makes the other pupils recite their own lessons, so when volition starts to work on its object, it sets the associated states to do their tasks as well. Volition is the most significant mental factor in generating kamma, since it is volition that determines the ethical quality of the action.

~ Cited form: Cetanā by Bhikku Bodhi
Intention (Cetanā) does not become kamma in every consciousness. Intention in resultant and functional consciousness don't become kamma. Intention in super-mundane consciousness can be also considered as not kamma because they ease the burden of aggregates and shorten the Samsara.

OP: For example, in the Udana 6.1 quote below, did the Buddha have the intention (Cetanā) to go and sit at the Pavala shrine on a sitting cloth with Ananda for the day's abiding?

Yes, you can understand this by the explanation I have provided above.

OP: How does the Buddha's apparent intention in Udana 6.1, not conflict with the quote from SN 12.38?

It's very hard for a worldling to imagine how Arahants think or what kind of thoughts they have. Let me explain this with an example. Suppose there are two people worship Lord Buddha at the same time. One is a worldling and the other is an Arahant. The action, "worship" can be led by the intention of "reappear in a heavenly sphere in the next existence" or "attaining Nibbana" for the worldling. But for Arahant the "intention" is none of the aforesaid. An Arahant has already done what should be done. It's hard to imagine what the intention of Arahant is.
But one thing can be assured. That is the intention of an Arahant is not associated with craving (Taṇhā), view (Diṭṭhi), and conceit (Māna).
Note: This is how I understood. I may be wrong but not Dhamma.

Arahants don't have karmic intentions and they don't seek any results. They have higher wisdom, higher goodness, higher intelligence that is not possible to measure or described by the ordinary way of thinking. The cause of their actions are not connected to any ordinary human intention, desire or mind state but it happens out of complete purity and wisdom of Nibbana. Even If an Arahant say that "It's my intention" or "It is not my intention" that's only words(which are just tools to communicate with humans) and words have limitations to explain things correctly. So obviously Buddha didn't have intentions but it is not possible to describe the root of an Arahant's actions because they attained Nibbana permanently and Nibbana is the formless state.
A part of this video(5:08-5:35) is about this subject:
https://youtu.be/GRquhvbfVp4?t=308

Well yeah, that impulse to go to a certain place is an example of intention. However, intention to sit in meditation, is like intention of nothing, it is an intention of dispassion, of suchness. It is not an intention to get some object or attain some goal.
As that quote says, the intention shapes our mind to become what one intends, but if one intends on peace and suchness of meditation, what does one become?
Intention to meditate is not like other intentions, because the right meditation is dispassion, is letting go. This is why it is so hard for the worldly people to meditate. Because when you meditate you don't fuel your fire, not pursuing any goal, so it goes contrary to all our habits of being driven by our projects and impulses.
So, intention that is inclined towards dispassion is not an "upadana" (fueling) intention.

I'm just adding this here for completeness, but I won't accept my own answer.

“Bhikkhus, what one intends, and what one plans, and whatever one has
  a tendency towards (yañca ceteti yañca pakappeti yañca anuseti):
  this becomes a basis for the maintenance of consciousness."
“If, bhikkhus, one does not intend, and one does not plan, but one
  still has a tendency towards something, this becomes a basis for the
  maintenance of consciousness.

That is: what one intends AND what one plans AND whatever one has a tendency towards - so that means underlying tendencies (anusaya) are mandatory for the basis for the maintenance of consciousness.
So, the Buddha had intention and planning, without underlying tendencies.

Quoting from Respect and gratitude! ...

"One suffers if dwelling without reverence or deference."

Being aware of this situation, he searched after a solution for an awakened person:

"Now on what brahman or contemplative can I dwell in dependence, honoring and respecting him?"

Naturally not able to pick out any person which would be worthy of respect by the Tathagata, he didn't made the mistake, which many are doing today when they are lacking of an idol, to make the own, we, mine or our to the object of veneration and respect but saw the everlasting venerability  legality of the natur and truth:

"What if I were to dwell in dependence on this very Dhamma to which I have fully awakened, honoring and respecting it?"

Brahma Sahampati, having recognized his line of thought and understanding this indirect question in regard of the beings of the world, if it would be of use without having a task for this world to stay further for something in it and conformed the Tathagata the use of his later 45 years of dedication for this world to maintain and explain an item of refugee and respect:

Past Buddhas,
      future Buddhas,
      & he who is the Buddha now,
      removing the sorrow of many —
all have dwelt,
      will dwell, he dwells,
      revering the true Dhamma.
      This, for Buddhas, is a natural law.
Therefore one who desires his own good,
      aspiring for greatness,
      should respect the true Dhamma,
      recollecting the Buddhas' Teaching.

No much to worry if wished and asked and for a good.
[Not given for trade, exchange, stacks, Buddh-ism but for release. Further questions on it and possibility to discuss, use the exit point here •]

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Sunday-question: Learning Dhamma at working time, on other recource
It might be the case that someone uses to engage into entertaining with Dhamma reads and talks in his working time, or uses resources of other for such, yet not really given, just like one may chat or do whatever private while in the office.
What might be the effects of such deeds? Would it be possible to get long term benefit from doing so? Possible to gain good while thinking, acting, like a thief?
[Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, Buddh-ism or other entertaining that keeps one caught but for liberation.]

Bad kamma. The Buddha said:

The servants and employees thus ministered to as the Nadir by their
  master show their compassion to him in five ways:
(i) they rise before him, (ii) they go to sleep after him, (iii) they
  take only what is given, (iv) they perform their duties well, (v) they
  uphold his good name and fame.
DN 31

But if a person is self-employed and their work day does not require 8 hours work per day then its no problem. If the self-employed person has free time during their work day in their office then discussing Dhamma is good kamma.

Of course, it is his and good chosen if taking his and trade it for better then earns.

Most employees are usually allowed some small pockets of free time, that they may use to read something related to Buddhism. That's fine. Most people use such legitimate small pockets of free time to look at social media, or text their family and friends outside of work.
However, browsing Dhamma or social media during the time they are supposed to be working is a kind of stealing - taking something that is not given to them. Employees have contractually given up a lot of their time and effort to their employer in exchange for remuneration. So, not giving one's time and effort as promised is a kind of stealing.
Stealing of course violates one of the five precepts, but I won't put browsing Dhamma during working time in a full time employment, in the same category as stealing the little money that a poor family has, to feed themselves.
What kind of effect would it have? Well, employees may get fired and lose their source of income. They would also lose their reputation.
I think this is a good example of the practice of heedfulness (appamada). We should be ever heedful and mindful of our duties and responsibilities, as well as the five precepts. It's true that one may not be able to fulfill the five precepts perfectly, but at least one should try his or her best.
Talking about fulfilling the precepts perfectly, this answer about stealing a sniff of the scent of flowers (from SN 9.14) is very apt for this case. Using the legitimate small pockets of free time during working time to read the Dhamma is like stealing a sniff of the scent of flowers. Those aiming for perfection in virtue (paramita or parami) should avoid it. But then again, those aiming for perfection in virtue may be better suited to the monastic life than the lay life.

Good to take the given for good and better. The last sentence, how ever, is useless, does not give rais to faith and puts those living at home on low position. Also a person living in bonds of homeluve can be of high moral if honest, and better, more fruitful then immoral meditator, stealing the time from the duties they would actually have.

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


text:
Taking out the plank from one's own eye
Is there any equivalent quotation from the Buddhist scriptures to the following from the Christian Bible (Matthew 7:3-5)?

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay
  no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your
  brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time
  there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the
  plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the
  speck from your brother’s eye.

SN 55.7; MN 8; Dhp 158-159; MN 40

One should first establish oneself in what is proper; then only should one instruct others. Thus the wise man will not be reproached.
One should do what one teaches others to do; if one would train others, one should be well controlled oneself. Difficult, indeed, is
  self-control.

SN 55.7  Since I dislike this thing, how can I inflict it on someone else?

So then the bamboo acrobat said this to his assistant Medakathalika:
  "You look after me, my dear Medakathalika, and I'll look after you.
  Thus with us looking after one another, guarding one another,
  we'll show off our craft, receive some payment,
  and safely climb down the bamboo pole."
This being said, the assistant Medakathalika said this to the bamboo acrobat:
  "That will not do at all, master!
  You look after yourself, master, and I will look after myself.
  Thus with each of us looking after ourselves, guarding ourselves,
  we'll show off our craft, receive some payment,
  and safely climb down from the bamboo pole.
  That's the right way to do it!" ~~ SN 47.19 ~~

From Dhammapada 50:

Verse 50: One should not consider the faults of others, nor their
doing or not doing good or bad deeds. One should consider only whether
one has done or not done good or bad deeds.

Alternative translation from here:

Let none find fault with others; let none see the omissions and commissions of others. But let one see one's own acts, done and
undone.

The commentary states:

The Story of the Ascetic Paveyya
While residing at the Jetavana monastery, the Buddha uttered Verse
(50) of this book, with reference to the ascetic Paveyya and a rich
lady.
A rich lady of Savatthi had adopted Paveyya, an ascetic, as a son and
was looking after his needs. When she heard her neighbours talking in
praise of the Buddha, she wished very much to invite him to her house
to offer him alms-food. So, the Buddha was invited and choice food was
offered. As the Buddha was expressing appreciation (anumodana),
Paveyya, who was in the next room, fumed with rage. He blamed and
cursed the lady for venerating the Buddha. The lady heard him cursing
and shouting and felt so ashamed that she could not concentrate on
what the Buddha was saying. The Buddha told her not to be concerned
about those curses and threats, but to concentrate only on her own
good and bad deeds.
Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:
Verse 50: One should not consider the faults of others, nor their
doing or not doing good or bad deeds. One should consider only whether
one has done or not done good or bad deeds.
At the end of the discourse the rich lady attained Sotapatti Fruition.

From Dhammapada 252:

Verse 252: It is easy to see the faults of others, but difficult to
see one's own. A man broadcasts the fault; of others like winnowing
chaff in the wind, but hides his own faults as a crafty fowler covers
himself.

The commentary states:

The Story of Mendaka the Rich Man
While residing near the town of Baddiya, the Buddha uttered Verse
(252) of this book with reference to the renowned rich man Mendaka and
his family.
Once, during his tour of Anga and Uttara regions, the Buddha saw in
his vision that time was ripe for Mendaka, his wife, his son, his
daughter-in-law, his granddaughter and his servant, to attain
Sotapatti Fruition. Seeing the prospect of these six people attaining
Sotapatti Fruition, the Buddha went to the town of Baddiya.
Mendaka was an extremely rich man. It was said that he found a large
number of life-size golden statues of goats in his backyard. For this
reason, he was known as Mendaka (a goat) the rich man. Again, it was
also said that during the time of Vipassi Buddha he had donated a
monastery for Vipassi Buddha and a congregation hall complete with a
platform for the preacher. On completion of these buildings he made
offerings of alms-food to Vipassi Buddha and the bhikkhus for four
months. Then, in yet another of his past existences, when he was a
rich man in Baranasi, there was a famine throughout the region. One
day, they had cooked a meal just enough for the members of the family
when a paccekabuddha stood at the door for alms-food. Then and there
he offered all the food. But due to his great faith and generosity,
the rice pot was later found to be miraculously filled up again; so
also were his granaries.
Mendaka and his family, hearing that the Buddha was coming to Baddiya,
went to pay homage to him. After hearing the discourse given by the
Buddha, Mendaka, his wife Candapaduma, his son Danancaya, his
daughter-in-law Sumanadevi, his granddaughter Visakha and the servant
Punna attained Sotapatti Fruition. Mendaka then told the Buddha how on
his way, some ascetics had spoken ill of the Buddha and had tried to
dissuade him from coming to see him. The Buddha then said, "My
disciple, it is natural for people not to see one's own faults, and to
exaggerate other people's faults and failings."
Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:
Verse 252: It is easy to see the faults of others, but difficult to
see one's own. A man broadcasts the fault; of others like winnowing
chaff in the wind, but hides his own faults as a crafty fowler covers
himself.

Regard him as one who
       points out
       treasure,
the wise one who
seeing your faults
       rebukes you.
Stay with this sort of sage.
For the one who stays
with a sage of this sort,
       things get better,
       not worse.

Let him admonish, instruct,
    deflect you
away from poor manners.
To the good, he's endearing;
to the bad, he's not.

Panditavagga
[Not given for stacks, exchange, world-binding trades but as gift for an escape frim this wheel]


text:
Justify immoral deeds with one incapacitties
Some suggested to take precepts not so serious, saying "The Buddhist teachings do not exist for you to create suffering for yourself." and approved kill by putting his happiness as more worthy then that of "lower".
Do this "Buddhist teachings" have any thing to do with the Buddhas and that of wise?
[Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, Buddh-ism but for release and might be not welcome for those seeking for trade.]

Lonaphala Sutta: The Salt Crystal is about ungrateful monk ungrateful for alms food.
The people struggle to grow & find food but share their food with the monk.
If the drought comes, the people scavenge the sea shore for oysters, looking for food. What they collect they give a share to the monk.
The monk is fed for his livelihood of sharing wisdom with the people. When the people must scavenge for oysters, the monk offers forgiving wisdom to earn his wages of oyster food.
In Thailand, Sri Lanka, Burma & Vietnam, the fishermen share their catch with the monks. But the ungrateful monk offers condemnation rather than wise understanding of reality.
Lord Buddha said the monk is to be grateful for the smallest gift.
Precept of killing has a limit to its practise by humanity. It is a training precept.
Lord Buddha did not teach vegetarianism.

Seems to nothing as bias and total improper attention when ever touched DD's incapazities.. See MN97. The Buddha does not approve resting on incapacity, neith in regard of world nor in regard of liberation. And it all has not to do with eating but killing, there is a different. Be mindful, not ever biased.Political wishi washi... Nobody, nothing can force one to immorality aside ones incapacities to let go of desries

I want to mention that this is an interpretation (or application) of that sutta rather than a direct paraphrase of it.


text:
Taking Vinaya as a measure of the weight of kamma?
Some Brahmans, strangely those learning Abhidhamma and give into meditation, draw excuses of deeds and weight of kamma from the Vinaya, arguing that a lesser transgression must be lighter kamma. Is such an idea legitimately or just another cherry-picking around to justify personal incapacities and giving favors?
What's the different between "retaliation-justice" (in cases one likes to judge god-like) and the Vinaya, the difference between conduct-rules and kamma? Acting according certain community-rules or according the law of nature?
[Note: this is not given to give a stand, nor to trade, exchange or Buddh-ism, but for liberation, gaining rightly unbound.]

You must be dissatisfied with my quote (in this answer) of killing humans being a parajika offense for monks vs. killing animals which is only a pacittiya offense. A parajika offense is met with immediate and irreversible dismissal from the monastic order. A pacittiya offense is met with confession, usually with the intention to not repeat it.
Firstly, let's get this right:

Killing is against the first of the five precepts
Business in meat is against Right Livelihood.
Keeping the five precepts is one of the criteria for stream entry according to AN 10.92.

However, does this mean killing any living creature has the same consequence or same effects? Does killing a mosquito bear the same consequence as killing an arahant?
The answer is NO.
According to AN 6.87, there is actually a list of people a person could kill or injure, and such a person will never be able to have the right mental state or moral capacity to learn the Dhamma:

"Endowed with these six qualities, a person is incapable of alighting
  on the lawfulness, the rightness of skillful mental qualities even
  when listening to the true Dhamma. Which six?
"He has killed his mother; he has killed his father; he has killed an
  arahant; he has, with corrupt intent, caused the blood of a Tathagata
  to flow; he has caused a split in the Sangha; or he is a person of
  dull discernment, slow & dull-witted.
"Endowed with these six qualities, a person is capable of alighting on
  the lawfulness, the rightness of skillful mental qualities even while
  listening to the true Dhamma. Which six?
"He has not killed his mother; he has not killed his father; he has
  not killed an arahant; he has not, with corrupt intent, caused the
  blood of a Tathagata to flow; he has not caused a split in the Sangha;
  and he is a discerning person, not slow or dull-witted.

According to MN 86, Angulimala killed many human beings, but he could still change and become an arahant. So, probably, he did not commit the transgressions above (killing father, killing mother, killing arahant, injuring Buddha):

And at that time in King Pasenadi's realm there was a bandit named
  Angulimala: brutal, bloody-handed, devoted to killing & slaying,
  showing no mercy to living beings. He turned villages into
  non-villages, towns into non-towns, settled countryside into unsettled
  countryside. Having repeatedly killed human beings, he wore a garland
  (mala) made of fingers (anguli).
(After the Buddha transformed Angulimala)
Then Ven. Angulimala, dwelling alone, secluded, heedful, ardent, &
  resolute, in no long time reached & remained in the supreme goal of
  the holy life for which clansmen rightly go forth from home into
  homelessness, knowing & realizing it for himself in the here & now. He
  knew: "Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There
  is nothing further for the sake of this world." And thus Ven.
  Angulimala became another one of the arahants.

On the other hand, according to DN 2, King Ajatasattu was unable to effectively learn the Dhamma because he had arranged to kill his father in order to become king:

So King Ajatasattu, delighting and rejoicing in the Blessed One's
  words, rose from his seat, bowed down to him, and — after
  circumambulating him — left. Not long after King Ajatasattu had left,
  the Blessed One addressed the monks: "The king is wounded, monks. The
  king is incapacitated. Had he not killed his father — that righteous
  man, that righteous king — the dustless, stainless Dhamma eye would
  have arisen to him as he sat in this very seat."

So physical deeds are heavier then mental? Shouting with a gun after a mosquito for two hours and killing an elefant in affect.... come on, what the worth of all the knowledge gained... Fellow of the Ninganthas. Where proper attention got another times lost? For the sake of "i am right, i did not talk nonsense..."?

Is such an idea legitimately or just another cherry-picking around to justify personal incapacities and giving favors?
Perhaps it's because the suttas and/or the precepts say e.g. "don't kill" but don't have as much detail as the Vinaya.
For example, if someone asks, "What if I cause someone to die by accident? What if I dig a pit and someone falls into it?", that's maybe not a question which is answered explicitly in the suttas or precepts -- but is a question that's considered in detail in the Vinaya.
So I suppose some people would prefer to rely on what they know of the Vinaya, instead of rely on their own interpretation of the suttas or precepts.
You might want people to rely on their own experience too (not just theoretical doctrine). But I suppose most people have little or no personal experience of digging pits and seeing other people die in them, so an answer based on theory might seem like all that's available.
It's not just "killing" -- I think the Vinaya details the necessary components of other offences (e.g. lying), which look like lay precepts too (e.g. the fourth precept), including ...

Intent to deceive
Effort to produce the deception

... which isn't detailed in the suttas (though you might justify it from the suttas). That's a topic which probably affects everyone (more than pit-digging does).
People do ask that kind of question -- see e.g. Trolley problem and its variants in Buddhist ethics (whether they should ask is another matter). Here was your answer to that, by the way:

It may lighten or make certain speculations irrelevant to be clear that one does not have any inherent obligation to "help" or "save", but this it self, the notion, is in fact an "obligation" out of unskillful gained debt, independency.

When I read it I assumed that Suminda's answer was based on the Vinaya (because its content is so similar). Reading its references now, though, I see it's based on a Tharavada text called the Atthasālinī, a commentary by Buddhaghosa on the Dhammasangani -- which ties somehow to what you said in the OP about Abhidhamma. I don't know from where or how Buddhaghosa derived those doctrinal details.
The "precise" definitions sometimes have behavioural consequences -- e.g. (rightly or wrongly) some people don't classify copyright as stealing, because making a copy doesn't deprive the owner of the original thing and/or other reasons (not that I want to debate that again here).
Incidentally I think you sometimes use "killing" and "stealing" metaphorically, which is hard to converse with -- "When will you stop beating your wife?" is an example of a so-called loaded question (actually I find a lot of your language is "loaded" in other ways, e.g. your saying "draw excuses" in the this OP above instead of "give reason" or "explain" has me thinking that you condemn that practice, and assume that you know better -- I guess the "law of nature" which you refer to later is "dhamma").
One more thing, I find that suttas don't explain karma in every detail. Perhaps I see in general what karma is, and perhaps what it isn't -- but I think that "the precise working out of karma" is one of the Buddha's supernatural powers -- I'm not sure I could answer any question about the "weight" of karma, though people try to compare different weights (see e.g. ruben's answer), with justification from the suttas.

Nyom. Killing is clear defined, as well as stealing. In regard of the crisicise kind of transport: One could see it as a duty of a Samana to tell no understood things again and again, if in proper relation. In this case maybe better to assume it as a act out of compassion, if wishing to allow such a thought? Again, since mind is the forrunner of kamma and effect, there are no means to measure the heavy (aside of killing mother, fath... people of clear goodness toward one), aside of a Buddha and certain Noble ones, seeing clear. Vinaya is no tool for such at all. Kamma does not care on status.

Sadhu for the last paragraph, yes, aside of the people one ows clearly for their goodness.


text:
Monday question: Letting go of duties for a higher sake right?
Supposed one has to work, yet comes across the Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha, stops suddenly to follow his duties, and scarifies all (possible his job) to give into the Jewels, what does one think, bad Kamma and violation to be blamed by wise or legitimate "break of promise", with high rewards?
Whats the different to Sunday questions?
{Other then a sunday-question, this might be the proper for Mondays, rlease and yet not for trade and exchanges thought. So what now?}

Possible duplicate of Sunday-question: Learning Dhamma at working time, on other recource

Lets see if aside of special answeres might not come different, having abounded "only this is right, all other is wrong" on certain basic level. Sunday and monday have total different objectives for the most and such could be abounded.

A rather simple question: Is it worth to spend your only penny to own a priceless gem? Or  keep your only penny to buy something else for food?

Nyom Damith may try to start a question on it if not sure, not sure if allowed/beloved to ask if he actually is or if assumed so. But why not giving a penny into it? On starving?

Its bad kamma; similar to many suttas where a puthujjana asked the Buddha for a teaching and the Buddha said it was not the right time.
Also, the question has wrong understanding because the Buddha taught a monk should not be a burden on ordinary people.
For example, the reason why monks only go on alms round in the morning is to not be a burden on the ordinary activities of ordinary people.
Therefore, due to the SIMPLICITY of the Sangha, it is obvious a lay devotee would not be forced to stop their duties for beggars with three robes & a begging bowel who should be meditating at the root of a tree, in a cave or in an empty secluded dwelling.

So the Devoted, on his way to bring the King his ordered flowers, but on the way, meeting the Buddha, gave them to him was bad Kamma? To leave all ones duties and go form the houselife into homelessness is bad Kamma? To stop a promise to kill for some food after coming across the Dhamma is bad Kamma? And the monks under the trees haven been fall, like the Buddha from heaven, having got this task by birth, form God... or what? A lot of pain today?

The question & comment is sīlabbata-parāmāsa (superstitious non-sense).

I think the question was asking, "Given that it's wrong to steal time from your employer to study the Dhamma, what about sacrificing your job to give to the Jewels (possibly become a monk or otherwise spend time in a monastery instead? Is that bad kamma, or is it a legitimate change of mind (e.g. about whether the employment contract is good) with high rewards?"

The Buddha spoke about two kinds of people, the ordinary worldling (puthujjana) and the noble person (ariya). Those who generate sentient thoughts focused on and attached to some sort of sensual pleasures at all times are identified under this first category. In the ”kuddala Panditha” jataka story, the Buddha described the sentient mind as a mind that is swift in nature; a mind that is not commendable; a mind that arises for the purpose of attaching to objects; and once attached to objects, a mind that cannot be retracted.
For an ordinary worldling (puthujjana), obviously it is a worthwhile ambition to become a noble person, as if we keep looking for it at some future time, then it will escape us. The difference between a noble one and a worldling is the experience of "path and fruit" (magga-phala).
This is exactly what a group of 60-80 people / families who lived in the West, and of Sri Lankan origin did some two years ago. They were influenced by the Late Waharaka Thero who ordained in the year 2005.  Before the ordination he was a lay person named WA Abayarathna and fully ordained as a monk in 2005 as Ven. Waharaka Abayarathanalankara. At that time even his wife, his son & his daughter, and her husband entered monkhood dedicating themselves to follow the path.
Even in this group of 60-80 people, there were whole families too. One such was Ven. Bhikkhu Baththaramulle Amadassana. The following short story “This is the place where we can find REAL PHILOSOPHY OF THE LORD BUDDHA”  is a snapshot of his past and present life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AKyKczBP6k&feature=youtu.be
Buddhist monkhood, 0n the ideal (ariya) level, refers to those of the Buddha’s followers—whether lay or ordained—who have practiced to the point of gaining at least the first of the transcendent qualities culminating in Liberation.
The Buddha designed the monkhood so that monks would have time alone but also have time together. If you spent all your time alone, it has its drawbacks, just as you spent all your time together. So you have to learn how to balance the two – to learn how to develop your own good qualities on your own and at the same time use the actions and words of other people as mirrors for yourself, to check yourself, to see what out there is worth emulating, to see what out there is clearly unskillful, and then reflect on yourself.
In Theragatha - Verses of the Elder Monks, we find the story of  Ven. Ratthapala who explains why he's not in the least bit tempted to return to the lay life. The verses here fall into three sections, with the first two relating to Raṭṭhapāla’s story as told in MN 82. In the first, Raṭṭhapāla is addressing his father after the latter had tried to use wealth and Raṭṭhapāla’s former wives to lure Ratthapala into disrobing. In the second section, Raṭṭhapāla is talking to King Koravya, who had asked him why he had ordained when he was still young and healthy, and had suffered no loss of relatives or wealth.
The Way to end all suffering is called the ‘Majjima Patipada’ – Way to Relinquish Attachments to this World - because it avoids the two extremes of sensual indulgence and self-mortification. Then only the mind has the clarity and strength to meditate deeply and discover the Truth. This ‘Majjima Patipada’ consists of the diligent cultivation of Virtue, Meditation and Wisdom.

Sadhu for the generous reflection Upasaka. It's hwo ever, possible difficult to relate it to the question, or? Ordaining, of course, matches, but also things like going after merits has been meant. Listen to dhamma, dana...

Samana Johann... As long as you are indebted to others, and/or others are indebted to you, you cannot go far in this path. So that samsaric debt will have to be paid, by first knowing how to turn all your Merits to Kusal (kamma that is ‘Neither Black nor White’). But this group is not yet ready / at a stage to realize that Punnabhi Sankhara is also a hinderance, as much as Apunnabhi Sankhara. So please do not ask anymore questions on this. It has to wait for another time, another day.

A nice movie as well. In the relation of the topic: would it be a fault if leaving wife, children, behind, even when they dont ordain, dont feel happy?

I see. Much faith and right choices, Upasaka. Mudita. (A former successful building engenier, with wife, children... wishing so)

Debts by the way, or debts to kama-guna, of which ignoring, there are no faults at all. Also called bodydebts, something one maintains on and on.


text:
How would/should a perfect monk appear, act and possible serve you?
How would/should a perfect monk appear, act and possible serve you?
Or from Buddhas view if wishing to try to answer this?
Good if remarking whether a claim one would have or possible good for a monk (the used perspective of individual "issues")
[One may render it how ever wished for better lucie to nurish stackes and much exchange and no fear if not wishing to use it for liberation]

Is this question explicitly asking for opinions? Should this be closed as a polling question?

Maybe I've been inconsistent in my use of "polling" but I think that strictly that means not just "asking users" but more especially "asking about users" (e.g. "how many of you have had this experience?", "what proportion of users are Theravada?", etc.). Perhaps it's subjective or a matter of opinion, the Good Subjective, Bad Subjective blog article suggested that a good answer to a subjective question should be based on something e.g. either a reference or personal experience.

oh really? And both, all three: own, buddhist, and the Buddhas. Who would like opinions? Or to give ones opinion to a question? Who like to lose ones stand by being pulled by ones thought?

@SamanaJohann the comments by moderators are not for chit-chat. When we need your input, we will ask you. Until then, please keep it to yourself.

See... Lord Andre likes to be a Sublime moderator and silent the Gems. May effects of so many headless deeds do never cause Nyom much pain.

I suppose the first part of the question is answerable using the Pali canon (for example: Sigalovada sutta). For the latter part, I have doubt whether the answer should based on the self experiences or not.

@Damith I thought that "from Buddha's view" could mean "according to the suttas". I didn't understand the next bit ("Good if...") at all, no idea what that's asking or suggesting..

@SamanaJohann Sir/Rev. Sir, Have you meant, "What are the good qualities of a monk who claimed to be a perfect one from the perspective of users?" by asking this: "Good if remarking whether a claim one would have or possible good for a monk (the used perspective of individual "issues")? If so, please edit the question accordingly. (I don't know whether that type of question is accepted here.)

There is no perfection can be found in the realm of forms. Only Nibbana is perfect. Even an Arahant who attained Nibbana permanently and have great wisdom, higher goodness and intelligence still has to live in the limitations of a human form until s/he dies.
So a monk mustn't try to be perfect, or try to be better than he is. I think that a monk's first duty must be adapting more and more to meditation. Meditation doesn't necessarily mean formal meditation, but a monk must try to adap himself more to mindfulness. That's the only way for any human being-not only for a monk-to better himself/herself. If a monk realizes Nibbana he mustn't hide his situation from his community and must immediately share his situation with the abbot and other qualified monks in the monastery. That is absolutely necessary. (The people who realized Nibbana before they ordain must do the same thing too)
Other than that everything will take care of itself. The monks who makes mindfulness the priority in their lifes will eventually become better human beings, act better, serve better. Trying to reach to the "perfection" can be harmful. Monks are human beings and they mustn't be too hard on themselves.

"Trying to reach to the "perfection" can be harmful. Monks are human beings and they mustn't be too hard on themselves." Harmful, why? Not hard: ever perfect (Arahat)?

"Perfection" is a broad term, and useless in last term when not defined well enough. Something is "perfect" always in respect to some subjective and madeup standard. If one tries to excel in every aspect of human existence, that search can lead to madness, because it will be a non-ending search. Kind regards!

Good Post Brian. To Murathan: A monk is definitely encouraged to be "better than he is" in order to realize the factors of the path.   Arousing wholesome states of mind and preventing & getting rid of unwholesome states of mind are over and over emphasized, which needs intention & exertion. Nevertheless, I fully agree with your ideas of perfection. It is better to think in terms of improving and step-by-step change than to strive for the perfect which can be out of reach, resulting in discouragement.

I agree you but mindfulness is always accepting what is there in your mind in the present moment rather than trying to change yourself. Mindfulness removes any goals and grounds you in the present moment. Transformation/changing gradually happens by itself.

From the Ajaniya Sutta, we find that the ideal monk should be consummate in beauty, strength and speed (like a thoroughbred horse):

"In the same way, a monk endowed with these three qualities is worthy
  of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of
  respect, an unexcelled field of merit for the world. Which three?
  There is the case where a monk is consummate in beauty, consummate in
  strength, and consummate in speed.
"And how is a monk consummate in beauty? There is the case where a
  monk is virtuous. He dwells restrained in accordance with the
  Patimokkha, consummate in his behavior & sphere of activity. He trains
  himself, having undertaken the training rules, seeing danger in the
  slightest fault. This is how a monk is consummate in beauty.
"And how is a monk consummate in strength? There is the case where a
  monk keeps his persistence aroused for abandoning unskillful mental
  qualities and taking on skillful mental qualities. He is steadfast,
  solid in his effort, not shirking his duties with regard to skillful
  mental qualities. This is how a monk is consummate in strength.
"And how is a monk consummate in speed? There is the case where a monk
  discerns as it actually is present that 'This is stress.' He discerns
  as it actually is present that 'This is the origination of stress.' He
  discerns as it actually is present that 'This is the cessation of
  stress.' He discerns as it actually is present that 'This is the path
  of practice leading to the cessation of stress.' This is how a monk is
  consummate in speed.

From the Akkhama Sutta, we find that the ideal monk should be resilient to sights, sounds, aromas, flavors and tactile sensations :

"In the same way, a monk endowed with five qualities is deserving of
  gifts, deserving of hospitality, deserving of offerings, deserving of
  respect, an unexcelled field of merit for the world. Which five? There
  is the case where a monk is resilient to sights, resilient to sounds,
  resilient to aromas, resilient to flavors, resilient to tactile
  sensations.
"And how is a monk resilient to sights? There is the case where a
  monk, on seeing a sight with the eye, feels no passion for a sight
  that incites passion and can center his mind. This is how a monk is
  resilient to sights.
"And how is a monk resilient to sounds? There is the case where a
  monk, on hearing a sound with the ear, feels no passion for a sound
  that incites passion and can center his mind. This is how a monk is
  resilient to sounds.
"And how is a monk resilient to aromas? There is the case where a
  monk, on smelling an aroma with the nose, feels no passion for an
  aroma that incites passion and can center his mind. This is how a monk
  is resilient to aromas.
"And how is a monk resilient to flavors? There is the case where a
  monk, on tasting a flavor with the tongue, feels no passion for a
  flavor that incites passion and can center his mind. This is how a
  monk is resilient to flavors.
"And how is a monk resilient to tactile sensations? There is the case
  where a monk, on touching a tactile sensation with the body, feels no
  passion for a tactile sensation that incites passion and can center
  his mind. This is how a monk is resilient to tactile sensations.
"Endowed with these five qualities, a monk is deserving of gifts,
  deserving of hospitality, deserving of offerings, deserving of
  respect, an unexcelled field of merit for the world."

The Sotar Sutta describes how an ideal monk should be a listener, a destroyer, a protector, an endurer and a goer.

"In the same way, a monk endowed with five qualities is deserving of
  gifts, deserving of hospitality, deserving of offerings, deserving of
  respect, an unexcelled field of merit for the world. Which five? There
  is the case where a monk is a listener, a destroyer, a protector, an
  endurer, and a goer.
"And how is a monk a listener? There is the case where, when the
  Dhamma & Discipline declared by the Tathagata is being taught, a monk
  pays attention, applies his whole mind, and lends ear to the Dhamma.
  This is how a monk is a listener.
"And how is a monk a destroyer? There is the case where a monk does
  not tolerate an arisen thought of sensuality. He abandons it, destroys
  it, dispels it, & wipes it out of existence. He does not tolerate an
  arisen thought of ill will... an arisen thought of cruelty... He does
  not tolerate arisen evil, unskillful mental qualities. He abandons
  them, destroys them, dispels them, & wipes them out of existence. This
  is how a monk is a destroyer.
"And how is a monk a protector? There is the case where a monk, on
  seeing a form with the eye, does not grasp at any theme or particulars
  by which — if he were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of
  the eye — evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or distress might
  assail him. He practices with restraint. He guards the faculty of the
  eye. He achieves restraint with regard to the faculty of the eye.
"On hearing a sound with the ear...
"On smelling an aroma with the nose...
"On tasting a flavor with the tongue...
"On touching a tactile sensation with the body...
"On cognizing an idea with the intellect, he does not grasp at any
  theme or particulars by which — if he were to dwell without restraint
  over the faculty of the intellect — evil, unskillful qualities such as
  greed or distress might assail him. He practices with restraint. He
  guards the faculty of the intellect. He achieves restraint with regard
  to the faculty of the intellect.
"This is how a monk is a protector.
"And how is a monk an endurer? There is the case where a monk is
  resilient to cold, heat, hunger, & thirst; the touch of flies,
  mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles; ill-spoken, unwelcome words &
  bodily feelings that, when they arise, are painful, racking, sharp,
  piercing, disagreeable, displeasing, & menacing to life. This is how a
  monk is an endurer.
"And how is a monk a goer? There is the case where a monk goes right
  away to that direction to which he has never been before in the course
  of this long stretch of time — in other words, to the resolution of
  all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending
  of craving, dispassion, cessation, Unbinding. This is how a monk is a
  goer.
"Endowed with these five qualities a monk is deserving of gifts,
  deserving of hospitality, deserving of offerings, deserving of
  respect, an unexcelled field of merit for the world."

The Ajanna Sutta states how an ideal monk should have eight qualities.

"In the same way, a monk endowed with eight qualities is worthy of
  gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of respect,
  an incomparable field of merit for the world. Which eight?
(1) "There is the case where a monk is virtuous. He dwells restrained
  in accordance with the Patimokkha, consummate in his behavior & sphere
  of activity. He trains himself, having undertaken the training rules,
  seeing danger in the slightest faults.
(2) "When given food, whether coarse or refined, he eats it carefully,
  without complaining.
(3) "He feels disgust at bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, mental
  misconduct, at the development of evil, unskillful [mental] qualities.
(4) "He is composed & easy to live with, and doesn't harass the other
  monks.
(5) "Whatever tricks or deceits or wiles or subterfuges he has, he
  shows them as they actually are to the Teacher or to his knowledgeable
  companions in the holy life, so that the Teacher or his knowledgeable
  companions in the holy life can try to straighten them out.
(6) "When in training he gives rise to the thought, 'Whether the other
  monks want to train or not, I'll train here.'
(7) "When going, he goes the straight path; here the straight path is
  this: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right
  livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.
(8) "He dwells with his persistence aroused, [thinking,] 'Gladly would
  I let the flesh & blood in my body dry up, leaving just the skin,
  tendons, & bones, but if I have not attained what can be reached
  through human steadfastness, human persistence, human striving, there
  will be no relaxing my persistence.'"
"Endowed with these eight qualities, a monk is worthy of gifts, worthy
  of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of respect, an
  incomparable field of merit for the world."

Sadhu! How ever, Nyom, take care not to make shares not given "for commercial purpose". Just let Atma ask: would Nyom Rubben ever meet such? How could he?

A perfect monk keeps silent unless requested to speak & teach. The Lord Buddha praised silence.


text:
Does Buddhism give methods to ask questions when you are proliferating?
From What is the Buddhist view in Socratic questioning?, I get that it is important to ask questions to get out of sufferings. However, when we are getting stuck it is very difficult to realize that we are stuck. With concepts such as sunyata, nirvana, papanca, dharma, detachment, does Buddhism have any guideline to ask questions in such situation? Or is the answer simply "when you are aware that you are in papanca, then try to get to nirvana and the questions will come"?

With concepts such as sunyata, nirvana, papanca, dharma, detachment
I suppose you internalise or become familiar with these concepts, so they (i.e. the concepts, not the descriptions of the concepts) appear (in your mind) as an antidote and/or a diagnosis when that's appropriate.
Analogously a couple of other concepts (from the suttas), perhaps fundamental, is to recognise, "this is (arising of) 'stress' (and/or craving, attachment), and this is 'cessation' (thereof)".
does Buddhism have any guideline to ask questions in such situation?
I think Buddhism recommends very simple questions.
For example, MN 61 (taught to Rahula when he was young) -- "Is this good or bad?", or more specifically

This [...] action [...] — would it lead to (is it leading to, did it lead to] self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be [is it, was it] an unskillful verbal action, with painful consequences, painful results?

This is a single, general-occasion or all-purpose question, suitable any time.
Another example of a question like that might be, Is That So? That's like asking, "Ok, so this is a "view", but am I sure it's true -- the only truth?"
There's Buddhist doctrine about "views" -- e.g. right view, wrong view, also cessation of views:

DN 34

What four things should be given up? Four floods: sensuality, desire for rebirth, views, and ignorance.

(or more specifically "view-flood", possibly "flood of views")
AN 7.51

Because of the cessation of views, monk, uncertainty doesn't arise in an instructed disciple of the noble ones over the undeclared issues

There are suttas (e.g. here) which seem to warn against taking views at all, and/or that "views" are one of the many things that a noble one is liberated from (I haven't found a good reference for this though, this might be an inaccurate paraphrase or out of context).

It warns that there are certain types of question that are inappropriate -- see A thicket of wrong views
I found this topic informative too -- How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same? -- helping to define what "a view" is or isn't.
Buddhism also (in my opinion) associates papanca with conceit, by saying they are both a cause (or are both the cause) of arguments (especially doctrinal or sectarian arguments) -- I suppose it's saying the motive is egocentric i.e., "I am right!", or, "My view is better!", and so on.
Or is the answer simply "when you are aware that you are in papanca, then try to get to nirvana and the questions will come"?
I was tempted to say, "That's not quite the answer: a better answer is ...", but I'd better not, isn't that so? :-)
"Trying to get to nirvana" is a dubious (i.e. possibly misleading) proposition -- on the one hand there is Right Effort, but on the other hand that might be the very definition of "craving".

Just an experience sharing, the best way to find answers is not always to ask questions to outsiders, but to ask question to oneself, which is a form of contemplation. An effective way is to practice meditation. From Samatha meditation in order to reach a certain level to tranquility, followed by Vipasyanā meditation to reach insight and Dharma wisdom as a whole.
You will be amazed how much you can clear up by answering your own questions instead of finding different ways to ask outsiders. Bare in mind this is by no means of "never ask anyone any question anymore", but you just have to uplift your "Dharma wisdom" from the inside and not just the outside.
Using intellect instead wisdom to discuss Dharma... will prevent you from realizing the true benefits of the Dharma.

I'm just sharing my personal experience on this.
I use to find myself caught in papanca very often, which is why I feel this question so close to my heart.
When I become aware of proliferation, the first thing I try to do is to find the causal root of that specific type of unstoppable inner monologue. I try to pay attention to the intention or tendency causing the "outflux" of proliferation, which can finally be reduced to the three main taints of the mind: craving, aversion or ignorance.
For instance, sometimes "my" mind travels without course when being faced to some socially awkward situation. I know I tend to feel anxious when, for example, I unexpectedly meet an acquantance on the streets by chance. When that happens, the mind starts to wander and becomes worried by some non-sensical thoughts (like "what should I say to that person?", "what if I embarrass myself?", "what if I have nothing to say", or things of that kind). When I notice that anxiety (by noting "anxiety", or "preoccupation"), papanca stops automatically; then, I look for the underlying cause of that specific situation, which in this case was aversion to criticism or rejection, which in turn is due to an attachment to an specific idea of self. Finally, after figuring that out, I let go of those taints, and keep doing what I was doing before proliferation came to be.
If it helps, I also realized that most mental reactions have a specific bodily response. When I try to let go, besides paying attention to the mind, I pay attention to the body and its tension. After letting go, both my mind and body feel relaxed and at peace again.
Notice, and let go...
Have a wonderful day!

"when you are aware that you are in papanca, then try to get to nirvana and the questions will come"?
The phrasing of your question suggests a slight aversion (i.e., "try to get to nirvana") to papanca that is currently hindering you. Consider this:
If our foot is caught in a bear trap, we do not struggle away trying to get to freedom simply because that very struggling to get away would just cause more injury to our foot in the trap.  Instead, one must first deal with the panpanca and release whatever has trapped us. Don't fight the papanca. Escape it. The suttas provide much guidance on particular hindrances and their escape. Study whichever sutta pertains to the papanca that hinders you most at any moment.
When papanca are no longer apparent, then proceed in your Noble Search. Invariably, you will find more papanca!

Nyom Ooker and interested,
The idea of coming to Nibbana, at least to the Ariya-path first, if capable to remember and knowing it clearly, is good. And to gain such requires first to address the right person/people: Association with People of Integrity Someone bond and holding on house, like an elephant trapped in a mud hole, how could he help others out?

"To what extent is there an awakening to the truth? To what extent does one awaken to the truth? We ask Master Gotama about awakening to the truth."... -MN95

and second ask in proper ways, pu the right question or trust that the admirable teacher speaks of what should be followed to give into.
And what are the four wise questions one should ask outwardly or remember, when wise instructed, inwardly to ask? "What if I let go off is for my long term happiness/suffering?" "What if I hold on is for my long term happiness/suffering?"
{Note that this is neither an answer from nor for "Buddhism", not given for exchange, trade or other bond in the world but for upward and liberation only}


text:
What is the destination (rebirth) of a person with Vibhava Tanha?
What is the destination (rebirth) of a person with Vibhava Tanha?
There are three kinds of Tanha. (Kama, Bhava, Vibhava)
some description of Vibhava Tanha:

“And how do some slip right past? Some, feeling horrified, humiliated, & disgusted with that very becoming, relish non-becoming: ‘When this self, at the break-up of the body, after death, perishes & is destroyed, and does not exist after death, that is peaceful, that is exquisite, that is sufficiency!’ This is how some slip right past.
Itivuttaka 49

See also What is Vibhava Tanha? (on Dhamma Wheel).

yes there is not much on Vibhava Tanha in the suttas. The term Vibhava Tanha always appear without any detail.https://suttacentral.net/define/vibhava
Perhaps the closest you get is the dimension of nothing or perception-nonperpcetion like here https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.106.than.html
today some people say that Vibhava Tanha was added because puthujjanas managed to think that a lack of bhava Tanha means idolizing suicide, so they countered that with the lack of the formal opposite of bhava tanha, which is Vibhava Tanha...

while this answer was astute to identify MN 106, i marked it down because it appears MN 106 does not refer to vibhava tanha. If this answer includes some relevant quotes, i might change my view of it.


text:
Why did Buddhism nearly become extinct in Sri Lanka?
I read when the British came to Sri Lanka (Ceylon) during the colonial era, Buddhism was virtually extinct in Sri Lanka and has degenerated into very low forms of superstition. However, because some Sri Lankans wanted to stop British Christianity, they requested the Burmese Sangha to reinstate a Sri Lankan monastic Sangha. I read some intellectual Sri Lankan laymen had debates with Christians, where both sides (logically) accused the other side of superstition.
Why did Buddhism become virtually extinct in Sri Lanka? Was that 'extinction' somehow related to the form of Buddhism or how it was practised, or something else?

Do you know that long before British came to Sri Lanka, the country was ruled by Portugese (1505-1658) and then Dutch (1640-1796)? Local people resisted these invasions and rebelled time to time against the rulers. Buddhist monks faced so much difficulties during these periods. Buddhism was very much fertile before these periods. Ruins of buddhist monasteries more than India can be found everywhere in Sri Lanka.

The link says: Portuguese rule was always in the maritime provinces and the people whom they converted were the coastal folk. They were the backbone of their power. Many of the princes they converted had either died or were no longer Catholic. The rest of Ceylon remained in the Buddhist-Hindu religion.

@Damith I don't think your comments are relevant to the question, of why it nearly became extinct. Or are you saying the answer is that it's because Buddhist monks faced difficulties during the three centuries of Portuguese and then Dutch rule? If so, would you please post that as an answer, not a comment?

@ChrisW Sorry sir! I will post these with a detailed answer (most probably within next few days). Until then you can either delete them or keep them.

I have quoted 3 sources below on this topic.
Basically, it says that in Sri Lanka and other Theravada countries, people who lived over 150 years ago, thought that even stream entry was no longer possible because in-depth understanding of meditation had been forgotten. They felt that it's better to practise virtues and make merit, while waiting for the next Buddha, Meteyya or Maitreya to come and show them the path to Nibbana. Supposedly, even Buddhaghosa, who authored the Visuddhimagga around the 5th century CE in Sri Lanka, held this view.
However, Buddhist meditation practices (based on the Satipatthana Sutta and Visuddhimagga, as well as other suttas) started to be revived in Burma as a popular movement, over a hundred years ago, and then spread to other countries including Sri Lanka. This seemed to have reinvigorated the faith of Theravadins (both monks and lay people) in the possibility of stream entry and enlightenment.
Here, Buddhism did not become extinct in Sri Lanka, but people simply lost faith in the possibility of attaining even stream entry, until Buddhist meditation was reintroduced to them from Burma.
In the Broken Buddha book, S. Dhammika wrote:

In Sri Lanka it is widely believed that it is not possible to become
  enlightened anymore and it’s not just simple folk who believe this
  either. I once attended a talk by the famous Narada Thera of
  Vajirarama in Colombo during which he said that it is  even
  impossible  to  become  a  sotapanna  today.  Richard  Gombrich  found
  this  same  idea  to  be widely  held  in  Sri  Lanka.  ‘The
  comparative  rarity  of  meditation  is  closely  connected  with  the
  widespread belief in the  decline of  Buddhism. A  village  girl said
  that in a Buddha-less period one must  keep  trying,  but  only
  limited  progress  is  possible.  It  is  further  believed  by  the
  majority  of monks,  at  least  those  whose  general  attitudes  can
  be  described  as  traditional,  that  the  sasana  has already
  declined  so  far  that  it  is  no  longer  possible  for  men  to
  attain  nirvana.  This  opinion  is  very prevalent  among  the
  laity...One  monk  even  specified  that  till  (Metteyya)  comes  it
  is  not  even possible to become a sotapanna. The last arahat is
  commonly said to have been Maliyadeva (1st cent B.C.E).  Others  say
  that  there may  still  be  human  arahats,  but  it  is  unlikely
  and/or undiscoverable ....
I have heard these same views expressed a thousand times in Sri Lanka.
  Even Buddhaghosa did not really believe that Theravada practice could
  lead to Nirvana. His Visuddhimagga is supposed to be a detailed,  step
  by  step  guide  to  enlightenment.  And yet  in  the  postscript  he
  says  he  hopes  that  the merit  he  has  earned  by  writing  the
  Visuddhimagga  will  allow  him  to  be  reborn  in  heaven,  abide
  there  until  Metteyya  appears,  hear  his  teaching  and  then
  attain  enlightenment.

In Encyclopedia of Buddhism (editor: Robert E. Buswell, Jr.), it is written:

By the tenth century C.E., vipassana meditation appears to have fallen
  out of practice in the Therevada school. By that time it was commonly
  believed that the religion of Gautama Buddha had so declined that
  liberation  through  insight  could no longer  be  attained until the
  advent of the future Buddha Metteyya (Sanskrit,  Maitreya)  many  eons
  from  now.  In  the  early eighteenth  century,  however,  renewed
  interest  in  the Satipatthana Sutta (Discourse on the Foundations of
  Mindfulness)  led  to  a  revival  of  vipassana meditation in Burma
  (Myanmar). After encountering initial resistance,  the  practice  of
  vipassana was  endorsed  by  the Burmese sangha and embraced by the
  royal court.
By the late nineteenth century, a distinct praxis and organizational
  pattern  had  emerged  that  set  the  stage  for the modern vipassana
  movement of the twentieth century.  Led  chiefly  by  reform  minded
  scholar-monks,  a variety  of  simplified  meditation  techniques
  were  devised based on readings of the Satipatthana Sutta, the
  Visuddhimagga (Path to Purification), and related texts. These
  techniques  typically  follow  the  method  of  bare insight.
The
  teaching  of  vipassana also  prompted  the development   of   new
  Buddhist   institutions   called wipathana  yeikthaor  insight
  hermitages.  Initially  attached to monasteries, these evolved into
  independent lay oriented meditation centers. A related development was
  the rise of personality cults devoted to the veneration of
  prominent   meditation   teachers   as   living arhats. In terms of
  impact, the popularization of vipassana represents  the  most
  significant  development  in Burmese Buddhism in the twentieth
  century.
Thailand has also witnessed a revival of vipassana practice in the
  modern  period,  and  both  Burmese  and  Thai  meditation  teachers
  have  been  instrumental  in  propagating vipassana in Sri Lanka,
  India, and the West.

In Meditation en Masse, Erik Braun wrote:

These days many assume that Buddhism and meditation go hand in hand -
  sometimes they are even considered to be one and the same. But even
  counting Theravadins, progenitors of the massively popular insight
  meditation (Vipassana) movement, relatively few Buddhists historically
  have ever understood meditation to be essential. On the contrary,
  instead of meditating, the majority of Theravadins and dedicated
  Buddhists of other traditions, including monks and nuns, have focused
  on cultivating moral behavior, preserving the Buddha’s teachings
  (dharma), and acquiring the good karma that comes from generous
  giving. To be sure, such folks have recognized the critical role
  meditation plays in awakening—in the Theravada view, you cannot become
  enlightened without such practice—but they have not doubted that one
  can live a worthwhile and authentic Buddhist life without meditating.
  Aiming not toward awakening but toward a good rebirth, many
  Theravadins have even argued that meditation is inappropriate in our
  degenerate age, except perhaps for a rare few living in the isolation
  of jungles or mountain caves. Where, then, did this now pervasive idea
  come from that meditation lies at the heart of Buddhist life?
This question brings us to Burma just over a century ago. Prior to
  this time, no trend toward widespread meditation had developed
  anywhere. It is true that Thai forest masters, above all Ajaan Mun
  (1870–1949) and revivalist figures in Sri Lanka such as Dharmapala
  (1864–1933), played an important part in the establishment of insight
  practice and sounded the call for lay meditation. But they did not
  spark any broad-based movements. One must look instead to Burma to
  account for the ascendance of meditation to a popular
  practice—specifically, that of insight meditation. The Vipassana view
  understood meditation as the logical and even necessary application of
  a Buddhist perspective to one’s life, whether lay or monastic. The
  rise of this practice, however, was not strictly an indigenous
  development. It came into being specifically through colonial
  influence. (In fact, no current tradition of insight practice can
  reliably trace its history back further than the late 19th or early
  20th century.) Though now a global movement, insight practice had its
  start in a moment of interaction between a Western empire and an
  Eastern dynasty. Indeed, one could go so far as to pinpoint its
  origins to a particular day: November 28, 1885, when the British
  Imperial Army conquered the Buddhist kingdom of Burma.


text:
Is the Sinhalese language very different to Pali?
I notice many Sinhalese posting on Western chatsites about Buddhism. However, I often notice these Sinhalese don't have particularly strong empathy with the Pali of the suttas. I sometimes feel "dukkha" ("suffering") when having to answer their questions.
Is the Sinhalese language very different to Pali?  Should Sinhalese be able to learn Pali easier than Westerners?

I have seen these kind of situations generally arise due to the view-difference of both parties. A person bear a different sub-religious view may sees the other one as weak either in Pali or English or Dhamma interpretation. It is natural but we need to be careful in judging in most cases.

OP: Is the Sinhalese language very different to Pali?

No, Sinhalese language has many similarities to Pali. Many of the words in Sinhalese language were derived from Pali and Sanskrit.
In the introduction chapter of the book, "An Introduction to Kachchayana's Grammar of the Pali Language" by James D'Alwis, it has stated that;

THERE is hardly a country on the face of the Globe which presents greater facilities for acquiring a knowledge of the Pali, than Ceylon; and, perhaps, no nation possesses greater advantages for its study than Sinhalese. Pali, like the Sanskrit and the Sinhalese, forms a necessary part of the course of education pursued by the natives. Our Alphabet is common to these several languages, and the affinity which the Pali bears to the Sinhalese, both verbally and gramatically, renders its study far more easy to the people of this country than even to the Burmese.
Although the Sinhalese, as a language, has been latterly neglected; the Pali, from its being the dialect in which the Buddhist scriptures are recorded, has always been the principal study of the largest portion of the Ceylonese, who are followers of Buddha.

~ Cited from: An Introduction to Kachchayana's Grammar

OP: Should Sinhalese be able to learn Pali easier than Westerners?

The answer should be yes to this question according to the above quoted passage mentioned in the answer to the first part of the question.

I think Sinhala language has far more similarities to Tamil more than Pali. Sinhala script is very similar to the Tamil script and does not connect at all with Pali. Pali is similar to the Devanagari script whereas Sinhala is similar to Dravidian scripts.

I think only the later script is considered to be related to South Indian Script, but not the language. Many consider it is the most closest to Pali. Ang Bengali and Hindi also considered close.


text:
Is nibbana eternal?

Arising dhamma is ceasing dhamma so much as ceasing dhamma is arising dhamma as well.

What does this mean? The answer should be nibbana is not eternal either.
I'm asking about the Pali in this quote from SN 56.11:

And while this discourse was being spoken, the stainless, immaculate vision of the Dhamma arose in Venerable Koṇḍañña:
Imasmiñca pana veyyākaraṇasmiṃ bhaññamāne āyasmato koṇḍaññassa virajaṃ vītamalaṃ dhammacakkhuṃ udapādi:
“Everything that has a beginning has an end.”
“yaṃ kiñci samudayadhammaṃ sabbaṃ taṃ nirodhadhamman”ti.

Is the first sentence ("Arising dhamma is ceasing") a quote? Where is it from, what is that quoting?

Imasmiñca pana veyyākaraṇasmiṃ bhaññamāne āyasmato koṇḍaññassa virajaṃ vītamalaṃ dhammacakkhuṃ udapādi – ‘‘ yaṃ kiñci samudayadhammaṃ, sabbaṃ taṃ nirodhadhamma ’’ nti

Thank you for explaining. I added that quote to the question (together with Ven. Sujato's translation of it).

Thank you Chris. What I would like to say is as simple as we don't hope the world be with complete cessation of suffering. That would make another sort of craving in this world.

Standard question. Below there are three standard correct answers therefore it is not necessary for me to repeat. Only conditioned things (sankhara) are impermanent. The uncondiitioned (visankhara) is permanent.

@X-pression I suggest you to read this sutta: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn51/sn51.015.than.html

Think carefully the conditioned(arising dhamma) comes out of the unconditioned(nibbana). Without the unconditioned there is no conditioned either.

The above comment is non-sense. Nibbana is not a "ground of being". Nibbana is only stillness.

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

What we usually understand as happiness is dependent on specific condition, which need to be controlled, arranged, fulfilled and satisfied in order to reach that specific and temporary state.
The happiness of Nibbana is what remains after removing the desire for control and satisfaction of the senses and the ego. If you eliminate the conditions for suffering, what remains is peace without conditions. Thus, you don't need anything in special to feel satisfied, because craving, aversion and ignorance have been eradicated. You feel content because you took off what blocked that peace of simplicity and renunciation.
That's why it's called "The Unconditioned".
As long as the conditions (craving, aversion and delusion) are uprooted, Nibbana should be eternal. If those conditions are still there in the mind, then, at most, you can have "glimpses" of Nibbana.
Also, remember that:
"Sabbe sankhara anicca": everything conditioned is impermanent.
"Sabbe sankhara dukkha": everything conditioned is unsatisfactory.
"Sabbe dhamma anatta": all dhammas are not-self
The word "Dhamma" can be used to talk about the Buddha's teachings, as well to refer to any phenomena. It all depends on the context. And I think the quote you posted is talking about conditioned dhammas, i.e. sankharas.
Kind regards!

Sir, I cannot explain this very much in English. But I suppose the sentence "As long as the conditions (craving, aversion and delusion) are uprooted, Nibbana should be eternal." has the meaning "Simply the cessation of craving, aversion and delusion is Nibbana". But Nibbana is NOT. Nibbana is a dhamma, NOT a state of mind. The above mentioned sentence may contain the idea that "someone attain Nibbana by generating it" which Lord Buddha denied. ~ Note: This is how I understood. I may be wrong but not Dhamma.

"Everything that has a beginning has an end.” means every-thing, every conditioned, manifested thing is impermanent. Nibbana is not conditioned and it is not manifested state, so it does not have a beginning or end
My English is not good so I looked to the meaning of eternal. It says that: "lasting or existing forever; without end"
If you try to describe Nibbana with using "time" then it won't lead you to the right direction because Nibbana is the unconditioned. It is timeless. You can use that term, If you mean being "deathless" by saying eternal. Nibbana is free from any conditioned state. It is free from birth, death, time. It is the unmanifested state.
Thich Nhat Hanh wonderfully talks about Nibbana: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odWIPhj-ivo

I think that sankharas arise and cease -- they arise dependent on other things, created from or of other things, when and only when other things exist -- and they may cease when those conditions (dependencies, components) change or cease.
Conversely nibbana is defined as "unconditioned", and therefore isn't a sankhara (it's a dhamma), and isn't siubject to arising and ceasing -- it's not impermanent, not anicca.
I don't know what the doctrine says about the word "eternal" -- it says that "the dhamma" is akalika (meaning "timeless" or "without time", possibly "immediate" or "ever-present", I don't know about "eternal"). I think that "dhamma" used in that sense (to refer to Buddhist doctrine) isn't necessarily the same as saying that nibbana is a "dhamma" rather than a "sankhara" -- apparently "dhamma" is a word with several meanings/uses.

In SN 56.11 it's not "dhamma" that arises but rather dhammacakkhu or "insight into dhamma" which is associated with "stream entry".
Whether that is eternal is another matter.

Think carefully the conditioned (arising dhamma) comes out of the unconditioned (nibbana). Without the unconditioned there is no conditioned either.
You might find doctrine like that in Mahayana schools, e.g. (I don't know) Nagarjuna.
Also some schools of Buddhism (e.g. Tibetan) say that nibbana is temporary too, though apparently that sounds contrary to e.g. the doctrine of the Pali suttas.
For Mahayana doctrine you might want to look at topics such as:

How is samsara nirvana?
Difference between abiding nirvana and non-abiding nirvana?

I think it's contrary to Theravada doctrine, though -- perhaps because Theravada defines nibbana as a state in which defilements and so on don't ever arise, will no longer ever arise, never arise, cannot arise, in which the conditions for their arising don't exist (like a palm tree which has been cut down doesn't regrow).

There's some complicated doctrine though about whether nibbana is a state of mind, based on whether how it's perceived by an arahant -- see e.g. this footnote:

Some have objected to the equation of this consciousness with nibbana, on the grounds that nibbana is nowhere else in the Canon described as a form of consciousness. Thus they have proposed that consciousness without surface be regarded as an arahant's consciousness of nibbana in meditative experience, and not nibbana itself.

I'm not sure whether or why that's a doctrinal distinction worth making, though.

Sir, Some broken schools from Mahāsāṃghikas had the idea of "Attainment of nibbāna is temporary for an Arahant" (that an Arahant can fall away from Arahantship). This idea was logically rejected in Parihānikathā of Kathāvatthupāḷi.

Sir, "There's some complicated doctrine though about whether nibbana is a state of mind, based on whether how it's perceived by an arahant" - According to answers to this question, this is happened due to a mistranslation issue.

The pali is the usual “yaṃ kiñci samudayadhammaṃ sabbaṃ taṃ nirodhadhamman”ti, which is the usual, badly said: whatever will samudaya will nirodha. so it is the usual whatever is subject to arising will cease too.
And nibanna does not arise and does not cease, that's the whole point of nibanna.

Before whatever arises it is nibbana. After whatever ceases it is nibbana. After whatever arises it is not nibbana as much as before whatever ceases it is not nibbana either. Therefore nibbana is not eternal.

The above comment is incomprehensible.

'Lasting forever' implies relation to time. Nibbana is not related to time!

Nibbana is a state of unconditioned reality, aka Ultimate Reality. Therefore it cannot be measured or quantified, making Nibbana neither eternal vs temporal, neither permanent vs impermanent, neither long vs short, neither existent vs non-existent, neither when & where...etc, because such concepts applies only to conditioned reality, aka Conventional Reality, which is where we are now.


text:
When would a Buddhist want to attach?
I understand that Buddhism is meant to end sufferings. The Buddhists welcome everything and don't clinging when it's gone. They don't necessary cut existing attachments (knowledge, relationships), but they don't necessary seek to strengthen them. However, is there a case that a Buddhist wants to attach?

The teachings has always been about detachment.
Therefore, assuming when you mention Buddhist means "one who understands the true context of the Dharma AND practice the teachings skillfully", then the answer will be No. There will be no case for such one to want to attach.
And to clarify any doubts - practicing something does not equal to attaching to something.

to further clarify, can you explain when doing something is attaching to it, and when it is not?

If the resulting emotions of doing particular something arises greed, aversion and ignorance, there goes attachment.

Say you are practicing basketball. If you shoot the ball at the basket, you feel good and know that your technique is correct. If you don't, you feel disappointed and want to improve next time. All of these are attachments and not attachments at the same time?

Then, you need to observe why u felt "good". Was it because you have mastered a technique for a good purpose, or was it so that you can beat someone else later on. They are two different things.

so basically if what you are doing don't involve the self-conscious emotions, then you are not attaching to it?

Those emotions are obvious signs of attachment.

When would a Buddhist want to attach?
I suppose that people, Buddhists too, want all sorts of things at various times.
Perhaps you mean "When should they want".
The suttas are prescriptive (e.g. "you should X"), especially on topics of morality --  but they can also (perhaps e.g. on a topic like well-being or even nibbana) be seen as merely descriptive (e.g. "the consequence of X is Y") and let you decide for yourself (like a parent's saying, "if you do that, there will be consequences, so, choose wisely").
They welcome everything and don't clinging when it's gone.
I'm not sure "welcome" is the right word.
The suttas warn against "delighting" in what's pleasant. Perhaps instead a monk would be expected to "accept" or "note" rather than welcome -- I think that's what's meant by "guarding the senses" -- i.e. you sense the senses, you perceive perceptions, you even feel feelings, as anyone does, but -- remain detached, don't attach, don't delight in (nor recoil from ... and don't seek, but perhaps avoid).
I guess that ("not delighting") is because if a pleasant feeling goes when you weren't attached to it, that's OK, but if you were delighting in it then (per the doctrine of the 12 nidanas) that's what causes "craving" (and therefore "stress" and so on).
That doctrine might vary though -- e.g. perhaps it's what monks do and lay people don't (which is why lay people aren't apt to be monks) -- and as I said I think this is the doctrine of the suttas, perhaps other schools have another doctrine on the subject (e.g. perhaps about whether "avoiding" is a good practice).
But for the doctrine from the suttas, see e.g. nibbida of which e.g. here is a description: What is Nibbida?
They don't necessary cut existing attachments (knowledge, relationships)
Technically I'm not sure that those (e.g. relationships-between-people, and what's-been-learned-as-"knowledge") would be called "attachments" -- instead maybe they're called (identified as) sankharas -- Can anyone explain Sanskara / Sankara indepth?
The Pali word that's usually translated as "attachment" is upadana. That is most famously used in the compound word upādānakkhandha -- i.e. attaching or clinging to the (five) "aggregates" (i.e. khandha in Pali, or skandha in Sanskrit).
These five aggregates are "form", "sensation", etc. -- one of which is saṅkhāra (translated "mental formations"). But all the aggregates are sankharas, in the wider sense of sankhara -- Are all of the five aggregates saṅkhāras?
The five saṅkhāras are among (they're elements of) the twelve nidanas, and they're associated with (unwise) views of "self" (e.g. "I am form", or, "I am consciousness", or, "this feeling is mine", and so on).
Incidentally there's a difference between "aggregate" and "clinging-aggregate" -- Difference between aggregates and clinging-aggregates?
One of the similes (about "clinging") that I read was that if greed or craving or something is what motivates a thief to enter a room at night, then "clinging" or "attachment" is what happens when the thief puts their hand on something in the dark.
I think it's referenced in (or I recognised it in) Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance too, in the passage which includes the "South India Monkey Trap" -- small hole in a coconut with rice inside, monkey reaches in, makes a fist (to grab the rice) and is therefore trapped (because the fist is bigger than the hole), and to escape the trap the monkey must let go (and it asks, "What general advice...not specific advice...but what general advice would you give the poor monkey in circumstances like this?").
However, is there a case that a Buddhist wants to attach?
Maybe sort of. It's good to be kind to people, compassionate, to "put yourself in the place of another" and therefore not hurt them as you wouldn't want to be hurt. Maybe you shouldn't view yourself as "special".
After his enlightenment the Buddha consented to teach, though it might have been easier not to.
Lay life involves a lot of relationships -- see e.g. DN 31 -- though I wonder sometimes,  if DN 31 is (or given that it is) Buddhist doctrine for Brahmins maybe that over-emphasises the Hindu notion of karma as social duty.
Religious life may depend on a relationship too, e.g. Kalyāṇa-mittatā, famously SN 45.2, perhaps also this topic.
The four brahmaviharas are described as the right social attitudes to have towards other people (compassion, kindness, respect/admiration, equanimity) -- but although these are "social" perhaps they're not meant to be "attachment".
Still that (i.e. thinking of others) might be better than thinking selfishly all the time -- if it is attachment maybe it's a better attachment. That brings up the topic of "generosity", incidentally, formally dāna -- possibly more than one purpose, e.g. to reduce attachment to your own "possessions", and (in places where there are Buddhists monks) it's because of dāna that monks can live -- it's a link between the lay and monastic societies.
There are many Zen stories about giving, by the way, e.g. The Giver Should Be Thankful, The Moon Cannot Be Stolen, The Thief Who Became a Disciple, Publishing the Sutras, and so on. The monks in the Pali suttas have no possessions to give, don't handle money, and so to that extent these suttas aren't very informative or detailed about giving and handling money and so on (though they do mention lay people giving monasteries, nuns receiving robes, and so on).

When you say attach, the official term for it is upādāna (clinging, grasping) in both Sanskrit and Pali.
In MN 11, there are four types of clinging described:

"Bhikkhus, there are these four kinds of clinging. What four? Clinging
  to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, clinging to rules and
  observances, and clinging to a doctrine of self.

Taking the example of clinging to sensual pleasures (kama-upādāna):
Eating food for physical sustenance, rather than for enjoyment is an example in SN 12.63 that shows us that we should not abandon food, rather we should abandon clinging to the pleasure of food. Practising extreme austerities that involve self-starvation is discouraged in Buddhism.
Of course, eventually, all types of clinging and craving have to be overcome in order to become permanently free of suffering.
So, does this mean that we should never cling to anything?
Buddhism does allow skillful use of limited clinging, in order to overcome our bigger shortcomings. This usually applies to clinging to views (diṭṭhi-upādāna).
The first example is Dhamma (teachings of the Buddha) and the Right View. One may cling to the Right View, in order to progress on the right path towards Nibbana, but eventually, he needs to abandon clinging to all views. In MN 22, the Dhamma is described as a raft that takes one across the river of samsara to the other shore (Nibbana), but eventually, one must let go of the raft, in order to get onto the other shore (Nibbana).
The second example are the following views from AN 5.57:

“And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
  householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
  my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
  relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
  good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
  and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
  is either completely abandoned or diminished. It is for the sake of
  this benefit that a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth,
  should often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my
  kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my
  resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’
“This noble disciple reflects thus: ‘I am not the only one who is the
  owner of one’s kamma, the heir of one’s kamma; who has kamma as one’s
  origin, kamma as one’s relative, kamma as one’s resort; who will be
  the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that one does. All beings
  that come and go, that pass away and undergo rebirth, are owners of
  their kamma, heirs of their kamma; all have kamma as their origin,
  kamma as their relative, kamma as their resort; all will be heirs of
  whatever kamma, good or bad, that they do.’ As he often reflects on
  this theme, the path is generated. He pursues this path, develops it,
  and cultivates it. As he does so, the fetters are entirely abandoned
  and the underlying tendencies are uprooted.

If one clings to the above-mentioned views, one could abandon misconduct, and it could also lead to the uprooting of fetters. The same sutta includes other such skillful reflections or skillful views. However, as stated before, clinging to all views must eventually be abandoned.

how would the statement "I am the owner of my karma" be explained in Buddhist epistemology? I think the "I" and "owner" are explained as the formation of 5 aggregates, and karma is explained as the result of the intention of the "I". I wonder what would be the underlying framework for that sentence.

This is clinging to a view which is a mental idea or mental formation, experienced by the intellect sense base. This is taking the self to be an idea, in this case "owner of karma". Or self as owning karma.

A buddhist would want to attach to the noble eightfold path. It would be contradictory to claim that the eightfold path wouldn't encompass attachment. The distinction is whether you attach to the right things or not.
In the long run, the distinction between right/wrong may be abandonded, thanks to your initial attachment to right view. Dharma is merely a raft for crossing to the other side.