text:
Are monks expected to accept life lessons from (time spent with) the laity?
In general, the monks are expected to preach the Dhamma and the laity should listen. But "behind the scenes", so to say, should monks really be learning from at least some situations they run into without the attitude they know better or that they already have the full truth?
I think I might know the answer, but I am looking for any sutta/tipitaka references or analyses.
Also, additional/complementary mahāyāna point of views and references are  welcome.

In Ubon Ratchatani Luang Por Char talked about (translating from Isaan language) how "everything is teaching us."
Also, working with people was developing strength in him, he said.

Yes, it has happened that the monastic Sangha learns from the lay Sangha. The vinaya has many cases where laity understood what was proper and complained about transgressions even before they became rules. For example, Venerable Udāyī was caught whispering in a lay woman's ear.

The training rule on teaching (origin story): How can Venerable Udāyī give teachings by whispering in the ear? Should not teachings be given audibly and openly?

This is from the origin story of the training rule on teaching.

I think there were several cases where the Buddha "learned life lessons" from monks's interactions with laypeople -- this is one example.
So far as I know many of the Vinaya rules have an "origin story" in the commentary which explain why/when the rule was enacted.

Also the Udayi Sutta: About Udayin (AN 5.159) says,

"It's not easy to teach the Dhamma to others, Ananda. The Dhamma should be taught to others only when five qualities are established within the person teaching. Which five?
"[1] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak
step-by-step.'
"[2] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak
explaining the sequence [of cause & effect].'
"[3] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak out
of compassion.'
"[4] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak not
for the purpose of material reward.'
"[5] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak
without hurting myself or others.'[1]

... where, according to the footnote ...

According to the Commentary, "hurting oneself" means exalting oneself. "Hurting others" means putting other people down.

Perhaps that -- i.e. "exalting oneself and hurting others" -- is applicable to the question i.e. "the attitude they know better".
I expect that probably a monk does indeed or in fact know better -- so if it were "conceit" ...

Māna (Sanskrit, Pali; Tibetan: nga rgyal) is a Buddhist term that may be translated as "pride", "arrogance", or "conceit". It is defined as an inflated mind that makes whatever is suitable, such as wealth or learning, to be the foundation of pride. It creates the basis for disrespecting others and for the occurrence of suffering.

... then I guess it's likely to be "true conceit" as defined here -- i.e. "thinking one is superior when one is superior", if the venerable compares his attainments with laypeople's and vice versa -- which I guess is part of what might make that so difficult.

I'd also like to answer that no, I'm not aware of such a doctrine in the suttas. I gather that generally monks teach if they're invited to and only when the audience shows respect -- but it's difficult to prove this answer, i.e. difficult to "prove a negative".

Your example could be a case of conceit (mana), and is one of the ten fetters.
From Samyutta Nikaya, Sona sutta:

When any ascetics and brahmins, on the basis of feeling … on the basis of perception … on the basis of volitional formations … on the basis of consciousness—which is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change—regard themselves thus: ‘I am superior,’ or ‘I am equal,’ or ‘I am inferior,’ what is that due to apart from not seeing things as they really are?
/.../
Any kind of feeling whatsoever … Any kind of perception whatsoever … Any kind of volitional formations whatsoever … Any kind of consciousness whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all consciousness should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’
Seeing thus, Soṇa, the instructed noble disciple experiences revulsion towards form, revulsion towards feeling, revulsion towards perception, revulsion towards volitional formations, revulsion towards consciousness. Experiencing revulsion, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion his mind is liberated. When it is liberated there comes the knowledge: ‘It’s liberated.’ He understands: ‘Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being.’”

https://suttacentral.net/sn22.49/en/bodhi


text:
Can a lay person commit sangha-bedha?(five heinous acts) Anantarika-karma
https://info-buddhism.com/sangha_schism.html
“A bhikkhunī does not split a Community even if she strives for a split. A female trainee does not split a Community. A novice … A female novice … A male lay-follower … A female lay-follower does not split a Community even if she strives for a split. A regular bhikkhu, of common affiliation, standing in the same territory splits the Community.” — Cv.VII.5.1
It seems from this scripture that only a monk can commit this heinous karma/sangha bedha?(Anantarika-karma)
Is this rightly understood by me?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anantarika-karma
Take Care

A lay person cannot commit “Sangha Bedha” as it is only when bhikkhus are concerened, but “Sangha Bedha” is not division among bhikkhus, but the fact of the matter is that today every single Bhikkhu commits schism or “Sangha Bedha” knowingly or unknowingly.
The Buddha condemned schism in strong terms, saying that a person who starts or joins a schism in a Community knowing or suspecting that he is not on the side of the Dhamma and Vinaya, is destined to be boiled for an aeon in hell (AN V.129; Cv.VII.5.3-4). Buddha’s instruction is to look into the matter and to side with the faction on the side of the Dhamma. The Buddha does not advocate superficial unity for its own sake at the expense of the Dhamma, but instead encourages that the Dhamma be clearly defended against non-Dhamma and that the distinction between the two be kept clear.
When a bhikkhu has learned that a dispute has led to a schism and he wants to get involved, he is to side with whichever faction sides with the Dhamma. According to Mv.X.5.4, a speaker of non-Dhamma is to be recognized as such if he “explains not-Dhamma as ‘Dhamma’ … Dhamma as ‘not-Dhamma’ … not-Vinaya as ‘Vinaya’ … Vinaya as ‘not-Vinaya’ …
Thus the ability to take sides requires that one be well-informed about the Buddha’s teachings. A schism can be rightfully ended only if both sides are able to investigate the grounds (i.e., the point of dispute around which the schism crystallized), get to the root (the mind-states motivating the schism — see Cv.IV.14.3-4), and then resolve which side was right, based on the Dhamma and Vinaya.
There are cases where bhikkhus have started or joined a schism rooted in corrupted intent, knowing or suspecting that their views and actions deviate from the Dhamma-Vinaya. Those who joined the schismatic faction through ignorance should be won over to the Dhamma side by explaining the true Dhamma-Vinaya to them.
Ven. Sāriputta: “How am I to behave with regard to these (schismatic) bhikkhus?”
The Buddha: “In that case, Sāriputta, take your stance in line with the Dhamma.”
Ven. Sāriputta: “And how should I know what is Dhamma and what is not-Dhamma?” — Mv.X.5.3
The Buddha: “There are these eighteen grounds by which a speaker of not-Dhamma is to be known. He explains not-Dhamma as ‘Dhamma’ … Dhamma as ‘not-Dhamma’ … not-Vinaya as ‘Vinaya’ … Vinaya as ‘not-Vinaya’ …

May I ask -- why "the fact of the matter is etc." in the first paragraph? -- and, why is it "not division among bhikkhus"?

The Buddhist religion has silenced the pristine unadulterated Buddha dhamma. It is the Buddhist religion that has defined Sangha Bedha as the division among bhikkhus. The Dhamma that Buddha gave us has got replaced by a religion known as Buddhism today. This is just one instance that shows the misrepresentation and distortion of the Dhamma. I feel that the time is not right for the world to know the real TRUTH. In ten years from now, by the year 2030 things may be different. First this change should happen within Sri Lanka. I feel that it may take another 10 years for that.

It would be very foolish and dangerous to believe that there is an area of "Narrenfreiheit" (fools-liberality).
Violation of rules (Vinaya) and kammic actions (although often related), are two different things. Of course everybody, not having found firm footing in the Dhamma is capable of all Anantarika-kamma. Note also that in kammic issues, others that Vinaya again, the Schism has to be done in between Noble Ones, at least a valid Sangha. And as Nyom Saptha Visuddhi used only in regard of Bhikkhus: "fact of the matter is that today" is that many "Buddhist" are very virtual in conducting that kind of Kamma and of course do not only have already cut them of of any attainments in this life but also will Devattada like bear the fruits.
May one take care not to associate with fools and giving into their evil and deluded objectives.
[Note that this is not given for stacks, exchange, trade or giving into efforts of common nourished Schism but as a means to escape for this course]

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is it a bad heavy karma to criticize or give up your guru?
"However it is said in the Guhyasamaja Root Tantra:"
"If sentient beings commit an action
As grave as the five heinous crimes
He [still] can attain the superior Vajra Vehicle,
But who from within disregards his master
Shall never attain, even if exerted."
"That means having given up your guru, criticized the guru, or having heresy or broken samaya with one’s guru. It is not possible to explain how heavy the negative karma is from these things. One who criticizes, hurts, or belittles one’s guru from the heart will not achieve anything in this life; even if one practices one won’t achieve anything."
https://www.lamayeshe.com/advice/killing-ones-parents
Does asking a sceptical question count as criticism? Such as why the guru is charging x-amount for teachings? And giving up a bad guru is it bad? Does it matter if the guru is buddhist or not? Perhaps this only applies to certain types of buddhism?

You might want to check out some useful comments on the same topic here: https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=29064#p417733

Heavy bad kamma is always a matter of strong wrong view, and ingratitude is such especially if it's toward real and lasting help: Toward one's Gods, Parents, people of goodness.
Much done.
It's how ever not bad if based on right view and if the relation is a more or lesser good trade with the world, it would be even good to seek for leaving, correct of course and not just for another similar way.
[Not given for trade, exchange, stacks and what ever relations not dedicated toward real liberation]

It's kinda simple logic: if guru does something that is ultimately beneficial, but in your confusion you think it's wrong, then by denying the guru you are shutting the door to that goodness, hereby creating bad karma.
If guru is bad then you're not. But how do you know, if by definition he is the more enlightened, not you, so how can you have capacity to correctly judge him?
In Vajrayana "type of Buddhism" there is unique situation when the guru may do crazy stuff on purpose to provoke you and create the teaching moments. So in that school it is even harder to trust your guru but also that much more important to trust, so you two can keep working.
In other "types" it's simpler in the sense that you can follow basic guidelines like the guru is not supposed to do anything immoral, so that makes it easier to identify what's what.

This is a complex subject and I will defer to those who practice vajrayana, but from what I understand it is the giving up of vows that incur the very heavy karmic cost.
Briefly, when someone with full understanding of what they are getting into, chooses to take the vajrayana vows with regard to a particular guru, then if they break those vows ... there is very heavy karmic cost.
The solution is simple: if you are at all unsure - whether the guru might be bad, whether they have your best interest at heart, whether you are capable of keeping the vows, whether they are capable of keeping the vows, whether the vows are worth keeping even if the guru manifests utterly reprehensible non-dharmic behavior... don’t take the vows. Period.
Trouble comes when the student and/or the guru are not ready. So be ready and completely sure you are ready and your guru is ready before you embark.

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


text:
What is the difference between panna vimutti and ceto vimutti?
I wonder if the difference has something to do with the permanent destruction (through vipassana bhavana) vs. the temporary destruction (through samatha bhavana) of the kilesas?

I wonder if the difference has something to do with the permanent destruction (through vipassana bhavana) vs. the temporary destruction (through samatha bhavana) of the kilesas?

Having only performed a very brief search of the suttas, I follow my intuition and disagree with the question above.
It appears the terms 'cetovimuttiṃ' & 'paññāvimutti' are both used as constituents of the same attainment; therefore 'cetovimuttiṃ' does not appear to refer to 'samatha' or 'samadhi'.
A search for 'paññāvimutti' obtains 171 results. Of these, many of the results contain the words "cetovimuttiṃ paññāvimutti" together, particularly in the following phrase:

āsavānaṃ khayā anāsavaṃ cetovimuttiṃ paññāvimuttiṃ diṭṭheva dhamme
  sayaṃ abhiññā sacchikatvā
realize the undefiled freedom of heart and freedom by wisdom in this
  very life

About 'paññāvimutti', SN 22.58 says:

A bhikkhu liberated by wisdom, liberated by nonclinging through
  revulsion [towards the five agggregates]... through... fading away and cessation, is
  called one liberated by wisdom.

About 'cetovimuttiṃ', MN 29 says:

Yā ca kho ayaṃ, bhikkhave, akuppā cetovimutti — etadatthamidaṃ,
  bhikkhave, brahmacariyaṃ, etaṃ sāraṃ etaṃ pariyosānan
the goal, heartwood and final end of the spiritual life is the
  unshakable freedom of heart.

Now the terms 'cetovimuttiṃ' & 'paññāvimutti' are a type of word compound where the translation is uncertain. Thus, translators such as Ireland & Thanissaro have translated 'cetovimuttiṃ' & 'paññāvimutti' literally as "mind-release" & "wisdom-release". Where as translators such as Bhikkhus Bodhi & Sujato have translated the terms interpretatively as "liberation of mind" and "liberation by wisdom".
Given the descriptions found in SN 22.58 and MN 29 quoted above, I personally would agree with the translations of Bhikkhus Bodhi & Sujato.
In other words, 'paññāvimutti' sounds like a 'means/method' and 'cetovimuttiṃ' sounds like a 'goal/end'. The meditator uses 'paññāvimutti' to achieve 'cetovimuttiṃ'.

āsavānaṃ khayā anāsavaṃ cetovimuttiṃ paññāvimuttiṃ diṭṭheva dhamme sayaṃ abhiññā sacchikatvā
realize the undefiled freedom of heart and freedom by wisdom in this very life. → Where can I find this text in the Pali-canon?

https://suttacentral.net/sn51.7/en/sujato
  https://suttacentral.net/ud3.2/en/anandajoti    https://suttacentral.net/iti97/en/ireland  https://suttacentral.net/an3.13/en/bodhi

@GuyEugèneDubois When you visit suttacentral and read a translation by Ven. Sujato there, click on the gear-wheel (Settings) icon on the page to enable "View original text with translation".

also Activate Pali word lookup

I wonder if the difference has something to do with the permanent destruction (through vipassana bhavana) vs. the temporary destruction (through samatha bhavana) of the kilesas?

Per the Pali dictionary, CetoVimutti and PannaVimutti carry different meanings depending on context (restricted sense versus highest sense). In the highest sense, both are on the same level for they both signify the fruition of Arahantship. They're just different in regards to the specific pathway as a result of the practitioner's dominant faculty on either concentration or insight.

Having thus found a firm footing on the first Jhana, he gained the second absorption, which he called "the noble silence" (Samy. 20,1), because all thoughts are silenced in it. Thus he advanced up to the fourth absorption (Samy. 40 2f). As he later told, he had practiced the absorptions in a twofold way, first by cultivating the "Ways of Power" (iddhi-pada; Samy. 51, 31),[4] and then by the "Liberations" (vimokkha; Thag. 1172). On his path towards the final Deliverance by Wisdom (pañña-vimutti), the absorptions (jhana) served as stages to the "Ways of Powers," which led to various kinds of super-normal faculties and also opened up many gate-ways to wisdom. This twofold approach was his strong point when he became an arahant, a Saint. For attaining to the "Liberation of Mind" (ceto-vimutti) the absorption led him to the eight Liberations (vimokkha), culminating in the four formless (immaterial) absorptions (arupajjhana). On his way to become one "Liberated in Both Ways" (that is through both concentration and insight),[5] he used the fourth absorption as basis for both. In doing so, he gained the "Signless Concentration of Mind,"[6] which is free from all that marks (or signifies) conditioned existence and which affords a glimpse of the "Signless Element," Nibbana (Samy. 40,9). But this attainment, too, was not final as yet. For even here he lapsed into a subtle enjoyment of it. Such refined attachment is still a delusive "sign" or "mark" superimposed on a high spiritual attainment of greatest purity. But aided by the Master's instructions, he could free himself from these last fetters and attain to perfect "Deliverance of Mind" and "Deliverance by Wisdom," in all their fullness and depth. Thus the venerable Maha-Moggallana had become one of the Saints. He admitted that he could well say about himself that "Supported by the Master a disciple may obtain the great state of the super-knowledges."[7]

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/hecker/wheel263.html


text:
Spirituality is making me anhedoniac!
I only find pleasure in working on my goals and achieving something every day.
Female bodies don't seem much attractive anymore but out of habit I masterbate after every 3 days just for the sake of it. I don't even get an orgasm after ejaculation. It is bland. Boring. And I have lost a lot of attraction for all the mainstream things.
This all have started happening after I did 10 days Vipassana Meditation Course. Everything feels empty.
I only find excitement in my work and time spend with close friends.
Any thoughts? I am worried about my anhedoniac sexual activities as I am still in my 20s

You write "I'm worried" but the question isn't clear -- e.g. there's nothing with a question mark. If someone were to answer based on their personal experience and/or a reference to doctrine, then what should be in the answer, how to assess whether it's an answer to your question?

Anhedonia is a diagnosable medical condition. Please consult a doctor for evaluating your condition. Your spiritual practice might have revealed a medical condition, especially if nothing gives you pleasure. Spiritual practice does lessen craving, yet normally other joys blossom accompanied by happiness in seclusion and meditation. Continued practice should strengthen spiritual bliss. If you are not experiencing spiritual happiness, consult your spiritual teacher as well.

Great achievement, congratulation. Most don't archive it even after lifetime practice. It's just that it is mostly not for sure, so continue further to a point where possible joy in ordinary work or association with others also fade away and developing Dhamma remains as refuge.
The younger the better. No need to follow the old never ending practitioner.
[Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or to put into other world binding relations but for an escape from this wheel.]

Buddhist meditation, namely, anapanasati, is for the development of a spiritual happiness that is superior to and requires an absence of sensual pleasure.
Since sexual desires are often a significant obstacle would-be meditators, you might have a head start.


text:
Reference request: where is this text about abandoning hindrances from?
I found the text below on another site. However, it doesn't say whether the source is a specific sutta, commentaries or something else. Could someone show me the origin?

Six things are conducive to the abandonment of restlessness and remorse:

Knowledge of the Buddhist scriptures (Doctrine and Discipline);
Asking questions about them;
Familiarity with the Vinaya (the Code of Monastic Discipline, and for lay followers, with the principles of moral conduct);
Association with those mature in age and experience, who possess dignity, restraint and calm;
Noble friendship;
Suitable conversation.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel026.html

Source: Uddhacca,kukkucca by Piya Tan

It is most likely taken from the commentary to the satipatthana sutta, which has a similar list for each of the five hindrances. They are all worth reading:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wayof.html#hindrances


text:
Ultimate reality and tilakkhana
Is it correct to say that the tilakkhana (anicca, dukkha, anatta) is ultimate reality?

The Buddha didn't use lakkhana but sanna (perception) which might answer the question. How ever, useful to do First things first

Tilakkhana is Pali for "three lakṣaṇa". "Lakshana" means indication, symptom, attribute, feature, omen, that by which a thing is recognized.
Anicca, dukkha, anatta are the three aspects of all dharmas or all phenomena. Dharmas have many different attributes or qualities, but these three are the subset of qualities that helps us let go of our simplified assumptions about dharmas and to realize their true mode of existence aka "ultimate reality".
The way dharmas really exist does not come in three pieces. Anicca is not separate from dukkha is not separate from anatta. Instead, the ultimate reality is this fluid stuff. We, being equal parts naive and fearless, try to describe this stuff in terms of distinct dharmas, but every time we create these distinctions they are inaccurate, unreliable, and unstable - and that's what trilakshana refers to.
So it would be more accurate to say that trilakshana is a characterization of our description of reality than something that applies to reality itself.
In other words, trilakshana is Samsara we overlay on top of Nirvana - not Nirvana itself which is free of the three marks.

In the Theravada, the first two lakkhaṇa do not apply to all dhammas. Nibbāna is not anicca or dukkha.

Right, and that's what I concluded with, that they apply not to Nirvana. As to whether Nirvana is included in All dharmas or not, and whether it is Anatta or the more strict N/A, have been the topic of debate since Sthavira Nikaya split from Maha Sangha, so I'd rather not go into those details.

Andrei "fluid stuff" Volkov. Any reference for that part?

https://www.amazon.com/Rice-Seedling-Sutra-Teachings-Dependent/dp/161429643X  commentary by Geshe Yeshe Thabkhe.

Nibanna has not the tilakkhaṇna marks. Nibanna has only the not self part and it is as real as whatever has the 3 marks. But nibanna is not a product of mano, ie an idea, not  an object of the 5 usual senses, and not a material good, so it is a weird object which is why the buddha uses ''direct knoweldge'', instead of the ''intellectual knowledge'' that philosophers claim exists and actually is knowledge, to talk about the knowledge of nibanna.

AN 3.136 explains the tilakkhana (anicca, dukkha, anatta) are invariable natural laws; even when they are not known or perceived.


text:
What is the cause of imaginary dialogues in mind?
Most of the time, I have conversations in mind. Most of them, there is person , interviewing me. Other person: "Why don't you like that ?" Me: "I don't like it because ..."
This doesn't happen in real world because it is an egoish thing. What is the cause of this ?. Is this the pride ? How do I stop this without forcing it ? (I'm aware of these kind of thoughts and I turn the direction when I caught them.)
I am looking for an answer according to the Buddhism.

This phenomenon is sometimes also called an "inner dialogue" or "inner monologue".

@ChrisW, is it bad ?

@Dum Most/all of us have it. It's just the way our brain is wired. (Recently i have seen people claiming they have no inner dialogue, but i find that rare). As already pointed out, in meditation it's called vitakka and vicara, and is considered a healthy examination of our inner workings. Outside of meditation one can arguably call the inner monologue "vaci sankhara", which essentially is a result of our karma. Good or bad, it's just there, simply put.

@Erik but it is all about me. "I am not like that. Because .......", "I don't recommend that ...." Thanks :)

@Erik Am I lowering others ?

@Dum i'm not sure i understand your question, but i didn't see it that way. Also, i believe it's important that you try to find your own answers to your questions.

It's about the first Governor arguing with the defilement or vici versa. Nothing wrong and very needed till the final abounding of even this relation. Just don't mix them, since the defilement are smart in tricking.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, trade or what ever keeps one bond in the wheel]

You are always come up with best resources. Thank you very much :) It is very helpful.

Mudita, the Buddha himself had this, what others call 'wired' all along his way, used and the Tipitaka is full of such dialogues. Sometimes with Devas and Gods as well and of course with Mara.

The way I understand it is called Vitakka and Vicara.
Vitakka and Vicara stop at first Jhana.

You have asked what is the 'cause' of vitakka and vicara (the inner dialog). The idea of 'cause' should be let go* and the idea of 'association' should be substituted.

Vitakka and vicara arise as a consequence of contact with named-forms + consciousness.

Things are all named-forms + consciousness. When attention is brought to a thing three things arise in association: the form of the thing and its identification (name) and awareness thereof.

A string of such perceptions of named-form + consciousness constitutes a thought. Thoughts arise to one; are not generated within.

Those thoughts become the subject of attention and consideration and inquiry and reasoning and analysis; that is vicara; 'pondering'.

The first (vitakka) should be observed as coming from without in order to evaluate it objectively and/or pass it along to vicara or let it go.

Vicara will stop when one has observed the external nature of vitakka and has let it go.

-----
Today the term 'cause' is used way too carelessly. Cause is a mystery. We cannot 'see' cause. What we can see is association. WHEN this arises, THAT arises; not WHEN this arises, this is the CAUSE.


text:
How do I recognize the attachment to certain things?
How do I know whether I am attached to certain things or not?
Examples:

When we are attached to a taste, we will try to find more & more tasty foods. We can reduce that by getting a simple meal, cutting the extra meals or only taking 2 meals per day like monks.

When we are attached to clothes, we are trying to buy the latest/expensive clothes. We can reduce that desire by wearing simple and charming clothes.

The questions are, How do I know whether I am attached to my career, exam results or not? (Now I am in university. I have to work for exams. Sometimes I feel, I am attached to exam results) If I am, how do I work without attaching to it?
I read this answer already: Should I do what I don't want to do?

How do I know whether I am attached to my career , exam results or not ?

The evidence for attachment is dukkha (suffering/discomfort/dissatisfaction). In your next sentence you seem to be aware of feeling the attachment (vedana). The answer to your question then lies in how that makes you feel.

( Now I am in the university. I have to work for exams. Sometime I feel , I am attached to exam results) If it is, How do I work without attaching to it ?

It's pretty much an either/or deal: You can either attach to a specific outcome, such as exam results, or put your effort into non-attachment according to buddhist dhamma.
To my understanding you can't do both, which can put us in a bit of a difficult existential quandary: The question whether you should be attached to your studies or not is only for you to determine.
In case you want to develop a buddhist practice, getting into the meditation called anapanasati is a good start. Also, it is a meditation that can yield good consequences for a lifetime.
This is a good start:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/ariyadhamma/bl115.html
You will find plenty of discussion/instructions here:
https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=anapanasati

Are their any practises / ways to reduce attachment ?(I mentioned similar practices in the question). Thanks :)

@Dum I'll add it to my reply

Can you think of something that especially help me to reduce attachment to exams/jobs ? (like wearing simple/charm clothes reduce the attachment to the clothes) Thanks  :)

@Dum apart from my original recommendation i'm afraid i don't have anything else. There are no quick fixes, if that's what you're asking.

@Dum: Don't worry excessively about ridding yourself of attachments; that can become an attachment in its own right. If you find yourself really clinging to something — e.g. fear that you'll get a bad grade, or that people don't like you, or other typical university stuff — sit down and meditate when you get a chance, and let it wash out of your system. It may help at this stage to think of buddhist practice as detoxification rather than attainment. As you detoxify the attachments will grow thinner and weaker.

It is very simple
Symtom
1. Fear to lose
2.worry
3.insecurity
4.jealousy
5.anger
6.dukha
This is symtom of attachment.
For example.
My wife ,my girlfriend,my bike, my hair , my child
If you want to know  truth.  Don't  following any religion. Following yourself

Thanks, are these based on buddha's words ?

No . This is my experience. This is no buddha words.

"My experience"   is  this  also attachment ? I have no answer

You might want to distinguish between "attachment" and "craving" -- Why do the Noble Truths talk about 'craving', instead of about 'attachment'? -- it's more specifically "craving" that is deprecated.
Then Buddhism distinguishes "craving" (tanha) from "desire" (chanda) -- and "desire" might be for a wholesome or an unwholesome object.
How do I work without attaching to it ?
Maybe it's a practice.
My mum commented how patient I am when I help with her computer (i.e. she explicitly compared my demeanour with hers, saying that she gets upset and helpless if ever it doesn't work, whereas I don't, I just try to find a work-around for the problem). Now I'd slightly prefer not to do it at all, but I do because I think it's virtuous (to help her). And I'm not especially happy when it works as expected, and I'm not especially upset when it (temporarily) doesn't immediately work as intended/expected/predicted. So I'm working with the computer "as it actually is" and not only "how I want it to be" -- IMO I'm not too attached to its behaving as I hope it might. This is a result of decades of practising as a professional programmer, I know that getting upset with a computer isn't skilful, nor pleasant.
One of the Zen stories, No Attachment to Dust, includes the line, "Live with cause and leave results to the great law of the universe."
When I work with a computer I more or less understand or guess at the cause[s] of its behaviours.
So my work with her computer is a bit unattached, for example, in my opinion -- and it (working with it) doesn't really make me suffer, I don't think. I can remember when I started to program that I used to be surprised/unhappy if something I wrote didn't have the right effect, maybe that's something about being more attached as a novice -- or there being more of a gap between the computer on the desk and the model of the computer in my head -- with that "gap" then acting like a "craving" (for the computer to be other than as it is).
The bigger attachment in this story is something like, "I want to be the sort of person who helps their mother" -- that attachment can be a cause of suffering (e.g. "I wish I could help  her more", or, "I don't want to do this other thing she asked"), but having done something like that for her that's not an action I regret, there's no remorse.
That's kind of where I am at the moment -- look at actions and habits (intentions) and wonder whether I regret that and feel remorse about it, like a bad habit, or whether it was a good thing to be doing or to have done, possibly an action that was intended (even regardless of its outcome) to benefit self and others.
You might like to read something like the book, The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity, I think that the suttas are by and for monks and slanted towards the life of a monk, and I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but it isn't obvious how to apply that to life as a layperson. This book identifies and summarises from the suttas intended for lay people.

How do I know whether I am attached to ceratain things or not ?

Evidently, until one's attained enlightenment, everyone still has attachments of at various different levels from gross to subtle. At the grosser/coarser end of the spectrum, attachment is severe craving, an addiction. And the telltale sign is very simple: one continues to do something s/he's not able to stop! On the middle of the spectrum, one continues to have some sense of yearning and longing for the objects of their desire, but with some determination, one's able to stop with strong will. The lightest most subtle end and also the most difficult one to get rid of before attaining enlightenment, is attachment to conceit, a sense of "I", "mine", and "myself" making. For more infos, refer to the Ten Fetters.

How do I know whether I am attached to certain things or not?
All of the other answers are useful, but I’d suggest doing the thought experiment of either imagining yourself stepping up to the moment of giving it up completely or imagining yourself without that thing in your life.
Then analyze your feelings to that situation. Could you honestly see yourself able to completely give it up? Could you see yourself honestly able to be OK in life without it? I’m not asking if it would be inconvenient; more, I am asking if it’s absence would leave a hole in your ongoing life.
If the answer is ‘yes, it would leave an emptiness or no, I can’t see myself giving it up’, then I would maintain it signifies attachment which will eventually lead to suffering.
How do I work without attaching to it?
I cannot speak for others, but what works for me is to always keep perspective of what that work really is – an aspect of what I call the “external real world” which we must participate in as part of our current existence but which is really a temporary illusion that has no significance to the important inner reality of ourselves or our goal of reaching enlightenment.
Because it is, indeed, part of that “external real world” then how can you become attached to something that you know is temporary and illusionary?
Of course this begs the question: Why to care about how you do the work if this is so? There I look to the teachings of the Noble Eightfold Path. These apply to our actions in the “external real world”, and speak to Right Livelihood and Right Effort which, to my mind, applies also to work and how we should approach it. We should care about it and expend effort to do it well, just not attach to it.
Best to you in your path to figure your way through this.

Namo Buddhaya,
This question really sparked me so thought to contribute.
How do I know whether I am attached to something / someone?
This depends on the individual and how personally that thing or that person is important in your life. What I meant by important is how strongly you have cling into thoughts of that person or thing (bonded) in your mind. Think for a moment that you are going to die tomorrow (in your imagination) and also think about that someone or something. Can you honestly let that thing/person go off your mind knowing that you are going to die tomorrow and never going to see that thing/person again? The same thing happens if someone whom you loves a lot passes away, we feel terribly sad, because we we are so deeply attached to some people in our everyday life, undeniably. The more it becomes difficult to let something or someone go off from your mind more you are attached to that person or that thing in your life. (Lord Buddha's says attachment leads to suffering. That's in the Four Noble Truths)
How do I work without attaching?
In this society, there is a misconception that you cannot have a decent family, work, love life with following Dhamma, especially when it comes to detachment. It because our lack of understanding about Lord Buddha, Dhamma & Sangha. A person who knows Lords Buddha's Teachings he applies Dhamma to themselves and develops devotion (Shradda) towards Lord Buddha. There are a number of stories including lay people such as Nakula Matha / Nakula Pita (husband and wife), Anathapindika (a wealthy merchant and a banker), Visaka (a wealthy aristocratic woman) and so on, who followed Lord Buddha's teachings and became sotāpanna (stream-winner, the first state we'll achieve as a result of following the Noble Eight-Fold Path) and continued to do their day-to-day routines, maintaining family lives, maintaining businesses and so on, but with dedicated devotion towards Dhamma / Lord Buddha's Teaching's.
It is vital to understand the Four Noble Truths in order to understand Buddhism and especially to understand how to live/engage with day to day life routines knowing that everything we encounter one day will perish whether we like it or not. In every passing moment, things are decaying, whether it's your very expensive newly bought pair of Levi's jeans or cheap pair of jeans from the market both perish, but our unenlightened (Awidya) eye can't spot that unless we see a stretch mark, colour difference or something significant occurs.
More on the Four Noble Truths :- http://mahamevnawaimc.org/buddhism/
I hope you will find my contribution somewhat useful.
May the Noble Triple Gem Bless You :)

Your question is answered exactly once you aware about the 4 ultimate realities called 28-Rupa[Matters], 52-Chethasika[Mental Factors], 89 or 121 Chiththa[Consciousness] and Nibbana. For the time being we can keep the Nibbana aside. I have given the link below:
4 ultimate realities.
Relax take your time and read carefully while understanding the concept behind each word. Remember the words " Concept behind each word".  Do not try to search the word meaning.  Just find the meaning for the clarification purpose.  Try to feel the concept using your wisdom.
Example: Take the word "Patawi"[ Earth Element ]. At a glance we have an idea about earth or soil. But it is not the meaning here.  It is far beyond that meaning.  When we take Earth Element You have to consider hardness to softness all the places in between very near to liquids and even liquids hardness or toughness include.
In the mental factors you must learn well about 6 main root causes for the attachment.  Those are

Delusion (moha) - 02. wisdom factor (paññaa)
Good-will (adosa) - 04. Good-will (adosa)
Attachment (lobha) - 06. Non-attachment (alobha)
Once you learn those well you will realize exactly the meaning of the attachment and  at the same time even we say "Non attachment" it has a sort of attachment until attain Nibbana.

May triple Gem Bless You!!!

Try to let it go and you will become aware of its attachment. Go throw away your college degree. If you can’t then you are attached. You are attached to a standard of life which must be maintained.
You can work or live without attachment by developing thoughts of abandonment. Promise yourself that you will abandon it then you are closest to the idea of non-attachment . Once you have taken the middle path all attachments will vanish.

You understand these concepts:

When we attached to the taste we will trying to find more & more tasty foods. We can reduce that by getting a simple meal, cutting the extra meals or only taking 2 meals per day like monks.

When we attached to the clothes, we are trying to buy latest/expensive clothes. We can reduce that desire by wearing simple and charm clothes.

You can apply these same concepts to your exam by thinking of it like this. When we want the newest/trendiest clothes, we are thinking of how others are viewing us...if no one saw us, we wouldnt dress particularly how we do.
You can think to yourself if you're attached because of pressures from others, or from yourself. Reframe this attachment by making a list of what you gain, vs what you are losing by this attachment.
You need to do well in your exams to reach a goal. However, the goal shouldnt define you or your purpose in this life. Every time you catch yourself having thoughts/feelings of attachments towards this...you can repeat an affirmation to yourself "I am not this goal" or something of this nature...or get up and shake it out...to disengage that feeling from within you.
That you are questioning this attachment, is a good first step.


text:
Is procastinating lengthen the samsara?
I know that good or bad karma lengthen the samsara. Similary, Is procastination / laziness lengthen the samsara ?

"procrastination" does not mean, "doing something without thinking about the end result" -- it means, "delaying an action", e.g. with the thought, "I will not do this now, maybe I will do it tomorrow instead".

I feel that this question make no sense. If anyone did something without aiming to be enlightned , that deed will lengthen the samsara for sure. I'm going to delete the question. :(

It's actually a valid question and the Buddha did discuss this.

The Sublime Buddha: "This Dhamma isn't for lazy people..."

See also Q&A Delayed speech as right speech (delay of skillful deeds) and Q&A Buddhism and Procrastination

Refer to the Saṅkārauppada sutta to overcome procastination.

The Buddha made a distinction between slow and fast practice. Since you're asking about procrastination, let's look at what the Buddha said about slow practice. As you can see, this path is indeed painful:

AN4.162:2.1: And what’s the painful practice with slow insight? It’s when someone is ordinarily full of acute greed, hate, and delusion. They often feel the pain and sadness that greed, hate, and delusion bring.

However, a better approach is to choose a more pleasant path with less craving, more kindness and deeper insight:

AN4.162:5.1: And what’s the pleasant practice with slow insight? It’s when someone is not ordinarily full of acute greed, hate, and delusion. They rarely feel the pain and sadness that greed, hate, and delusion bring.

An even better approach is to choose a pleasant path that is quicker:

AN4.162:5.5: They have these five faculties strongly:  faith, energy, mindfulness, immersion, and wisdom. Because of this, they swiftly attain the conditions for ending the defilements in the present life. This is called the pleasant practice with swift insight.

But since you asked about procrastination, the third path, which is the best, would only be available for one who gave up procrastination.

Not if procrastinating what ever is akusala. One can train also in focus of procastination of form, sound, smell, taste, touch and thoughts and it would quickly lead out of Samsara.
But if delaying the kusala, the training, then hopeless wandering on can be expected.

One should make haste in doing good deeds; one should restrain one's mind from evil; for the mind of one who is slow in doing good tends to take delight in doing evil.
Story to Dhp 116

[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, what ever trade that binds in this circle, but to get rid of delay, right in the "here&now"]


text:
Are the Pali-words Patinissagga and Vossagga synonyms?
Are both Pali-words synonyms or is there a slight difference between 'patinissagga' and 'vossagga'?

While not always, paṭinissagga is often used for more lofty situations, such as connected to Nibbana (in SN 56.11; AN 3.32 & MN 118).
Vossagga appears always used in less lofty situations and appears more 'personal'.

vo
enclitic from tumha
to you; of you; by you

Each use of each word in the suttas should be examined; as for the etymology of each word. A post on the topic is here.

MN 118 contains both words. 'Vossagga' is found describing the maturation of the qualities each factor of enlightenment relies upon. Therefore, 'vossagga' appears used with path factors Anapanasati relies on.
'Paṭinissagga' is used to describe the end of the path of Anapanasati. Therefore, 'paṭinissagga' appears more lofty than 'vossagga'.
Start with 'vossagga' and end with 'paṭinissagga'.

It’s when a mendicant develops the awakening factors of mindfulness, investigation of principles, energy, rapture, tranquility, immersion, and equanimity, which rely on seclusion, fading awa, and cessation that ripen as letting go.
Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu satisambojjhaṅgaṃ bhāveti vivekanissitaṃ virāganissitaṃ nirodhanissitaṃ vossaggapariṇāmiṃ. Dhammavicayasambojjhaṅgaṃ bhāveti … pe … vīriyasambojjhaṅgaṃ bhāveti … pītisambojjhaṅgaṃ bhāveti … passaddhisambojjhaṅgaṃ bhāveti … samādhisambojjhaṅgaṃ bhāveti … upekkhāsambojjhaṅgaṃ bhāveti vivekanissitaṃ virāganissitaṃ nirodhanissitaṃ vossaggapariṇāmiṃ.
They practice breathing in observing impermanence. They practice breathing out observing impermanence.
‘Aniccānupassī assasissāmī’ti sikkhati, ‘aniccānupassī passasissāmī’ti sikkhati;
They practice breathing in observing fading away. They practice breathing out observing fading away.
‘virāgānupassī assasissāmī’ti sikkhati, ‘virāgānupassī passasissāmī’ti sikkhati;
They practice breathing in observing cessation. They practice breathing out observing cessation.
‘nirodhānupassī assasissāmī’ti sikkhati, ‘nirodhānupassī  passasissāmī’ti sikkhati;
They practice breathing in observing letting go. They practice breathing out observing letting go.
‘paṭinissaggānupassī assasissāmī’ti sikkhati, ‘paṭinissaggānupassī passasissāmī’ti sikkhati.
MN 118

In conclusion, 'vossagga' may possibly mean when the 'self' or 'will' lets go by employing mindfulness to bring to mind right view. Where as 'paṭinissaggā' may possibly mean when the mind itself lets go due to direct seeing or vipassana.

It seems to me, 'patinissagga' means gradual and progressive letting go (or giving up), while 'vossagga' simply means letting go, without emphasizing the progression.
Pati or prati looks like the same prefix as in 'pratipada' and 'pratityasamutpada'. In my research, prati implies that something happens in multiple stages as opposed to all at once.
So I suppose 'patinissagga' tells us to methodically let go, first of more obvious hang-ups and then of progressively more and more subtle, I think.

PED:
Paṭinissagga : giving up, forsaking; rejection, renunciation
Vossagga : relinquishing, relaxation; handing over, donation, gift
sati-Vossagga : relaxation of attention, inattention, indifference
Vossajjati : to give up, relinquish; to hand over, resign

The difference, if any, appears to be in a greater emphasis of vossaga on the mental or personal side of the issue of letting go.


text:
What is the difference between the path to nibanna and the path to higher planes?
From what i understand, moha - loba - dosa - ( greed, hatred, attachment, delusion...) are mind qualities and actions that strengthen samsara and are the path to lower rebirth.
The opposite is also true, selflessness, compassion, non-attachment, non-self are path to higher rebirth but also nibbanna.
In the highest planes of existences, attachment toward body reduce more and more.
Therefore, what is the difference between the path to nibbana and the path to higher realms since you need to practice the same values and mind qualities to reach them?

Practicing Samatha meditations you reach higher realms.
Practicing Vipassana meditation you reach Nibbana.
Samath practice attenuates attachment aversion and ignorance.
Vipassana practice fully eradicates the attachment aversion and ignorance.

The opposite is also true, selflessness, compassion, non-attachment, non-self are path to higher rebirth but also nibbanna.

There're different gradations to the 31 planes of existence due to cultivation of various levels of Sila/Samadhi/Panna. It's not so much the difference between the path to Nibbana vs. higher planes but rather the level of intensity and level of purity. So just like there're different levels of purity in a body of water, from a few percent to 100% purity. At that highest utmost level is Nibbana, while the other end of the spectrum are the woeful states (hell, afflicted spirits, etc...). Even at 99% purity, there's still work to be done, 'cuz there's still that 1% impure residual to be gotten rid of.

So you are of the opinion that nibanna is what comes after the highest of the 31 planes, altough it is of a different nature. I tend to go with that opinion

Also just to clarify that while the gradations of the 31 realms reflect the general level of purity of the mind, it doesn't mean that one has to climb every level of those realms before attaining Nibbana. The human realm's always been considered one of the most conducive realms to cultivate the Dhamma and as evidenced in the suttas, the Buddha and many of His noble disciples attained Nibbana after spending their last rebirth as humans right here on earth.

Wisdom, i.e. hearing the good Dhamma of the Arahats with proper attention, and apply it in addition to the practice of merits, kusala deeds.
[Note that this isn't given for exchange, stacks, trades but only for release from this wheel.]

I think that in the suttas the path to higher realms is described as "bright kamma". There are four types of kamma:

Bright
Dark
Mixture of bright and dark
Kamma which leads to the ending of kamma

It's the latter which leads to nibbana.
I don't know a good summary.
You could search Access to Insight for text containing "bright kamma" -- https://accesstoinsight.org/search_results.html?q=kamma+bright -- because that text is likely to include descriptions of the fourth type too.
The most relevant paragraphs from Kamma & the Ending of Kamma might be these:

Most descriptions of the Buddha's teachings on kamma tend to stop here, but there are many passages on kamma in the Canon — and included in this section — that do not fit into the neat picture based merely the first two insights on the night of the Awakening. The only way to account for these passages is to note the simple fact that Buddha's teachings on kamma were shaped not only by these two insights, but also by the third insight and the resulting knowledge of Unbinding. The third insight explored the possibility of a fourth kind of kamma — in addition to good, bad, and a mixture of the two — that was skillful enough to bring about the ending of kamma [§§16-17]. At the same time, in the course of developing the level of skillfulness needed to bring kamma to an end, the Buddha learned a great deal about the nature of action that forced him to recast his understanding of kamma in much more subtle terms. The knowledge of Unbinding — which followed on the full development of this fourth type of kamma and the realizations that accompanied it — acted as proof that the understandings comprising the three insights were true. To explore these points will not only help give us a more complete understanding of the Buddha's teachings on kamma, but will also show why conviction in the principle of skillful kamma is essential to Buddhist practice.
In his effort to master kamma in such a way as to bring kamma to an end, the Buddha discovered that he had to abandon the contexts of personal narrative and cosmology in which the issue of kamma first presented itself. Both these forms of understanding deal in categories of being and non-being, self and others, but the Buddha found that it was impossible to bring kamma to an end if one thought in such terms. For example, narrative and cosmological modes of thinking would lead one to ask whether the agent who performed an act of kamma was the same as the person experiencing the result, someone else, both, or neither. If one answered that it was the same person, then the person experiencing the result would have to identify not only with the actor, but also with the mode of action, and thus would not be able to gain release from it. If one answered that it was another person, both oneself and another, or neither, then the person experiencing the result would see no need to heighten the skill or understanding of his/her own kamma in the present, for the experience of pleasure and pain was not his or her own full responsibility. In either case, the development of the fourth type of kamma would be aborted [§§228-229].
To avoid the drawbacks of the narrative and cosmological mind-sets, the Buddha pursued an entirely different tack — what he called "entry into emptiness," and what modern philosophy calls radical phenomenology: a focus on the events of present consciousness, in and of themselves, without reference to questions of whether there are any entities underlying those events. In the Buddha's case, he focused simply on the process of kammic cause and result as it played itself out in the immediate present, in the process of developing the skillfulness of the mind, without reference to who or what lay behind those processes. On the most basic level of this mode of awareness, there was no sense even of "existence" or "non-existence" [§186], but simply the events of stress, its origination, its cessation, and the path to its cessation, arising and passing away. Through this mode he was able to pursue the fourth type of kamma to its end, at the same time gaining heightened insight into the nature of action itself and its many implications, including questions of rebirth, the relationship of mental to physical events, and the way kamma constructs all experience of the cosmos.

I'm not sure whether you can follow (make sense of) that description to its end.
I like the Vajira sutta -- it matches the last paragraph quoted above, and is an observation of the tilakkhana.
Also there's a description of how to eat mindfully, which appears in several suttas and might help to illustrate:

And how does a monk know moderation in eating? There is the case where a monk, considering it appropriately, takes his food not playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on bulk, nor for beautification, but simply for the survival & continuance of this body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the holy life, thinking, 'I will destroy old feelings [of hunger] & not create new feelings [from overeating]. Thus I will maintain myself, be blameless, & live in comfort.' This is how a monk knows moderation in eating.

I feel that when people understand things clearly, they are able to explain them clearly

Do you find the explanation unclear?

Yes, especially the  first quote.
It seems to me the qualities that allow someone to make good kamma are the same that lead to nibanna. Someone full of attachment / greed / delusion / hatred will not be able to follow the path to higher realms or to nibanna on a consistent basis because his passions will contol his fate.


text:
The Practice of Giving: How to Practice Giving "Thusly"?
In the Diamond Sutra (or Vajra Prajna Paramita Sutra) Buddha says to Subhuti:

a Bodhisattva should not dwell anywhere when he gives. He should not dwell in forms when he gives, nor should he dwell in sounds, smells,
  tastes, tangible objects, or dharmas when he gives. Subhuti, a
  Bodhisattva should give thus: he should not dwell in marks.

Below the passage Venerable Master Hsuan Hua (pp.91-94 in the link) explains that this comes down to giving without being aware of or paying attention to:

the one who gives,
the one who receives, and
that which is given

I have read this explanation many times, have attempted to meditate on the matter, and have tried to practice such "giving thusly" actively by being kind, helpful, donating to charities when prompted and to beggars when asked on the street.
However, I cannot help but feel that the manner in which I give is ultimately still contrived and pre-meditated - not free of "conditioned deliberation".
Specifically silly thoughts such as:

"Do I have any change on me to give to this person in the street? - I'll make sure to have change on me at all times in the future."

seem very contrived and not in line with the idea that one must simply "give". Mindfully, perhaps, but not based on logic, not purposefully, or, for that matter, ostentatiously.
Question
Does anyone have any advice in how to practice giving thusly? (practice in the sense of "get better at")
References to relevant literature would be most helpful. We practice Tibetan Buddhism in our family, but as can be seen from the text above, I try not to be a stickler for school-purity.

In DN33, Sariputta discusses eight reasons to give, ranging from least to most skillful. Examine these carefully. They are quite subtle:

DN33:3.1.94: Eight reasons to give. A person might give a gift after insulting the recipient. Or they give out of fear. Or they give thinking, ‘They gave to me.’ Or they give thinking, ‘They’ll give to me.’ Or they give thinking, ‘It’s good to give.’ Or they give thinking, ‘I cook, they don’t. It wouldn’t be right for me to not give to them.’ Or they give thinking, ‘By giving this gift I’ll get a good reputation.’ Or they give thinking, ‘This is an adornment and requisite for the mind.’

Examining the first seven, we see gifts that emphasize personal benefit. Although these gifts may benefit others, they are somewhat unskilled in that the giving is not whole-hearted.
Examining the last, we see "adornment and requisite for the mind." When we give "as an adornment", we give in proportion to others so that we do not induce dependency on the giving. When we give as a requisite for the mind, we give to benefit the recipient in accordance with Buddhist principles. Giving alms food fulfills this. Yet even quietly seeing and picking up litter fulfills this in giving the gift of cleanliness. When we give in this way, we provide benefit effortlessly to all giving as needed without paying attention to the giver, the recipient or what is given.

thank you for this valuable piece of insight

Does anyone have any advice in how to practice giving thusly?

I think one needs to closely analyze the meaning of "thusly". It's valid to think of it as practicing charity with a serene, equanimous, AND wise mind. It doesn't mean one just carelessly gives to everyone, even if that means giving to evil people so that they'll have the means to carry on with their evil way. Remember the merits of giving is proportional to not only the mind state of the giver, but also that of the receiver:

[The Buddha:] "I tell you, Vaccha, even if a person throws the rinsings of a bowl or a cup into a village pool or pond, thinking, 'May whatever animals live here feed on this,' that would be a source of merit, to say nothing of what is given to human beings. But I do say that what is given to a virtuous person is of great fruit, and not so much what is given to an unvirtuous person. And the virtuous person has abandoned five factors and is endowed with five". ~~ AN 3.57 ~~

Thank you for your answer and the accompanying reference. I will read some more of the text you cited over the next few days. I attempted giving "wisely" in that sense for some time, however I found assessing the "mind" or "motivation" of the receiver is quite problematic, at times even impossible. It was with these doubts that I discussed the matter with members of the sangha as well as acquaintances, they pointed me to the path of giving without "mark" - without concern for giver, receiver and given. I wonder if we might consolidate one manner of giving with the other?

@Uralan, I think the most reliable way is the Buddha's words, not other people's words. Even if Dhamma teachers say it, they will need to provide backup evidence from the Suttas or the Vinaya. And if they provide excerpts from some Commentary, the Suttas would indeed take higher precedence. We should examine the Dhamma with an objective mindset, sorta like a scientist investigating his subject of research. So bottom line is, different people will give you different advices, be objective in your assessment and only go with those with solid backup literature and references.

Thanks again for your valuable response. Indeed, Buddha and Dharma come before the words of the sangha. That being said, how do we navigate the difficulty of assessing whether the receiver is "virtuous" or has the "right motivation"? After all, the Buddha's words in the original implore Subhuti not to "dwell in dharmas" when giving. Here meant to mean "chaitasika dharma" or "mental dharmas/factors". Surely, Buddha was not urging Vaccha to base his actions on assumptions about others. These could well amount to "moha" (delusions), no? How do you view this practical problem?

@Uralan, of course there's no 100% accuracy on the assessment of the receiver's virtue unless one possesses the supernormal power of reading people's mind. However, the key point AN 3.57 pointed out is that it does requires certain level of inspection and investigation before giving as opposed to the erroneous idea of equating "thusly" to "ignorant giving", or "giving without wisdom". By at least trying to investigate first before giving, one has fulfilled all the required elements of proper giving, and hence the ball is now on the receiver's court. If s/he deceives, it's their bad kamma now.

When something doesn't make any sense even after you considered it carefully for a long time, it might actually be because it doesn't make sense and not because you are unable to make sense of it.
Doesn't matter who taught it to you.

Hi @ian3111 , yeah, it's not even so much that I can't make sense of it. It makes sense, it's just that I have trouble mastering the skill. That being said, you're point is a good one. Shouldn't take things to be true just because they were said by a wise person

Maybe the meaning of that suttas is that someone shouldn't give for reward, with attachment to what is given, or with self gratification in mind. This should be done out of pure morality and not out of vanity or of loving of the self, and without consideration for the actual value of what is offered. This would help one to become more generous and more selfless.
I don't think strict emptiness makes any sense in that context.


text:
How do enlightened people think?
Most of our thoughts are caused by desire. So, what are the thoughts of a person who has no desire?
Another way of asking the same question: if we remove desire based thoughts, what will remain?
Edit: I'm asking this because I want to experience enlightenment. I know I am not enlightened, but If I am enlightened, how would my thoughts be? How would I feel it through awareness?

"Such" is the Sublime Buddhas answer.

Enlightened people do not overgeneralize.
(This can be supported by both Pali Canon as well as Mahayana sources.)
Concepts like "enlightened", "person", "I", and "thinking" are all overgeneralizations, which enlightened people do not dwell in.
They may use generalizations as skilful means, to communicate the teaching, but they themselves are not bounded by them.

The enlightened ones can think, and do have thoughts, as shown in the quote below. But their line of thinking is always without defilements (kilesas) - see this answer and this answer.
Thoughts are not necessarily caused by desire, craving and clinging. Thoughts can arise due to sensory stimuli from the other senses (sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch), and also from other thoughts.
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.

Given that avijja phassa is eliminated, what the touch that causes thoughts?

The first step is to let go of the question. After all, when we hold on to questions such as these we are attached to them.
The matter is illustrated aptly by a painting found on the road between Taiwan's old and new Foguangshan Temples:

One day a man stepped out to run errands. On his way he passed a
  cliff. Not paying attention to the road, he slipped and fell. Seeing
  his life was in danger, he only just managed to grasp a branch sticking
  out from the cliff wall. As he saw no way up or down, he was stuck.
  Until out of thin air a Buddha appeared floating on a
  cloud.
The man saw his chance and begged the being: "Please save me!"
"I can save you, alright." said the Buddha "but only if you listen
  carefully and do as I say."
"Enlightened One, at this point how could I dare disobey you. I will
  do whatever you say. I am listening." replied the man.
"Alright then" said the Buddha, "then let go of the branch you are
  holding on to!"
Upon hearing these words the man's thoughts started racing. If I > let go, how could I ever survive the fall. My bones will surely be
  shattered. How will this save my life?
  Consequently, he held on to the branch all the more tightly.
  The Buddha, observing this, left the man where he was.

If we want to see clearly, we must follow the Buddha's instructions and let go. At the cliff egde, you can save yourself by letting go. Otherwise, if we are desperately clinging on, how can we ever get out of danger.
Set aside your discrimination between concept and reality. Non-duality and non-discrimination are key. Stop thinking.

The issue is attachment, not desire.
Whenever one takes an action the world — be it as basic as deciding to eat food or go to sleep, or as refined as choosing to teach dharma for the benefit of others — that action arises from desire. Hunger, tiredness, compassion... all of these are organic experiences that well up in us and motivate us to take action in the world, and that 'welling-up' and 'motivating' is the essence of a desire.
The problem (from the Buddhist perspective) is that the ebb and flow of these natural 'upwellings' becomes entangled in the thinking, egoic mind. We become dissatisfied (dukkha) with the way the world is and the options laid before us; we become intent on (tanhā) altering the world to fit our preconceptions of what it ought to be, fixated on relieving dukkha through main force. We fight against the world in our indignation, and are surprised and dismayed when the world doesn't immediately bow before us.
Enlightenment merely means that we have seen how thoroughly, deeply, and expertly the thinking, egoic mind ensnares the natural ebbs and flows of our life, and have cut through the mass of tangles it has wrapped us in. It doesn't mean we stop having desires; if it did, every enlightened person would sit quietly on a cushion until they collapsed from thirst. It means that our desires are no longer abstracted and codified in the mind to become elements of a 'self': immutable and necessary elements that cannot be denied without threatening the continuity and existence of the self. Enlightenment doesn't change how we think; enlightenment changes the premises on which we think. We learn to think without attachment: to think without filtering all our thoughts through that desperate, urgent fixation on discontentment.

Without thinking, spontaneously, and according to the needs of sentient beings.

Sharf explains ganying resonance as the mechanism through which
categorically related but spatially distant phenomena interact, as a
mode of seemingly spontaneous response (although not in the sense of
"uncaused") natural in a holistic universe of pattern and
interdependent order.

and

Stimulus-response is the great tenet of the buddha-dharma, the
essential teaching of the many sutras. To "stimulate" means to bring
or summon forth, and to "respond" means to go forth and meet in
welcome. As all sentient beings possess [the seeds of] goodness, they
may induce the Buddhas to descend and take shape in front of them, and
[the Buddhas] will meet them in welcome. The principle [is such that
they] neither deviate nor overshoot [the mark]. This is called
stimulus and response. The common person stimulates but does not
respond; the Buddhas respond but do not stimulate; and bodhisattvas
both respond and stimulate. (tr. Sharf 2002: 121-122)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganying#Buddhism

I've read that when, indeed, bhikkhus, evil unskillful thoughts due to reflection on an adventitious object are eliminated, when they disappear, and the mind stands firm, settles down, becomes unified and concentrated just within, through his reflection on an object connected with skill, through his pondering on the disadvantages of unskillful thoughts, his endeavoring to be without attentiveness and reflection as regards those thoughts or through his restraining, subduing, and beating down of the evil mind by the good mind with clenched teeth and tongue pressing on the palate, that bhikkhu is called a master of the paths along which thoughts travel. The thought he wants to think, that, he thinks; the thought he does not want to think, that, he does not think. He has cut down craving, removed the fetter, rightly mastered pride, and made an end of suffering."


text:
Why does the mind always want to 'do something' and how to cultivate 'non-doing'?
There is a Zen saying, 'Sitting quietly, doing nothing, Spring comes, and the grass grows, by itself' by Basho.
But I have observed the nature of my mind that it always wants to 'do something', it finds respite only when I apply it to solve problems. Why does doing nothing just sitting makes me feel like I am wasting my time? OR am I taking the teaching of Basho in the wrong way?
How can I train my mind to just be?
Edit: I am asking about all the time when I am not meditating.

Why does doing nothing just sitting makes me feel like I am wasting my time?

There may be several reasons for this, and i can't say what is relevant in your particular case. However, generally speaking, the feelings you are describing is the consequence of one or several conditioned causes listed below:

the assumption that it is wrong to spend time reflecting on your inner workings
the assumption that self worth is only built on being productive
the fact that you are facing real problems that require real solutions
something else, yet to be discovered

OR am I taking the teaching of Basho in the wrong way?

It seems that you have caught on to something in Bashos quote. Have you asked yourself why that interests you?

How can I train my mind to just be?

It seems to me that your training already has begun, because you are reflecting on these tendencies and asking the right questions (from a buddhist understanding) as far as i can tell.
Roughly speaking, training to "just be" from a buddhist framework builds on:

meditation and investigating these thoughts, emotions and tendencies (samadhi),
studying what is truly helpful according to buddhism (panna), and also
making the habitual adjustment for improved wellbeing for yourself and others (sila)

A good continuation would be a meditation called anapanasati (perhaps you're already familiar with it). More information about how and why it is recommended can be found here:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/ariyadhamma/bl115.html

thank you so much for the answer, you cleared up my mind a bit. It seems that I take this as my problem,'the assumption that self worth is only built on being productive'... What can be an alternate or buddhist way to think about self-worth if not by being productive...also I practise annapansati and Zazen..

@Newbie glad to help. Keep doing what you're doing. It's rather hard to cover an answer in a comment section like this, but in buddhist terms this assumption could be considered "attavadupadana". Looking into it's meaning may give you a direction further. Hope this helps.

Imagine for a moment that you picked up a hammer from your toolbox, and then forgot that you were holding it. You'd walk around all day with the hammer in your hand: You'd open doors with it, use it to shift gears in your car, poke people with it to get their attention, tap it on the table when you're bored, use it (somehow) to eat your food... If you have a forgotten hammer in our hands, you'll use it for all sorts of things whether it's useful or not, merely because you have it in your hand.
The thinking mind is a tool we use to solve problems. That's what it does. Unfortunately, most of us don't remember that we're holding it, most of the time, and we don't know how to put it down when we don't need it. And so we find ourselves using our mind for things it's not really useful for, or to entertain ourselves when we're bored, or whatever. It's always there, something we're clutching without realizing it, and using for no other reason than that we're clutching it.
That's the value of meditation. It teaches us to put the tool of the mind down, by creating a context where we just don't need to use the mind at all. But whether or not you're in meditation, if you feel an irrepressible urge to do something or think something, ask yourself whether you actually need to use that tool at just that moment. If you don't, then stop. You have to keep reminding yourself that the thinking mind is a tool you use when you want or need to, not a thing constantly held at the ready.

To address the "cultivate non-doing" part specifically:
Wu-wei (not-doing) is not the practice of literally not doing absolutely anything (is that even possible?), it is the practice of un-doing the samsaric mind with its patterns and stereotypes.
For example, to stop the inner monologue is not-doing. To stop thinking in terms of, "I am the doer" is not-doing. To stop thinking in terms of "I am a human being" is not-doing. To stop thinking in terms of doing vs not doing is not-doing. To stop seeking sustenance in enjoyable activities is not-doing. To stop defending one's ego is not-doing. Etc.

Thank you for your answer. Can you please throw some light about how to attain this 'not-doing' in the times I am not sitting in meditation.

Reread my last paragraph, or actually the entire answer.

Ok got it now....thanks.

That twinge you feel to "do something"?  That's your small mind making a desperate attempt to remind you that it's in charge.  If you listen to it, it will continue to be your master.  If you really want to wake up, you have to stop letting it rule you.  This is hard.  Make no mistake about it.  Buddhism calls this process sila or moral discipline, but other traditions use words like "mortification" or "purification".  If those words sound harsh, then they are hitting the mark.  This is not a comfortable process and it can involve monumental, willful efforts to modify, soften, and expunge negative patterns of behavior in body, speech, and mind.  In the modern world, this means getting off the internet, putting down your phone, and restricting your intake of negative influences (media, intoxicants, negative people, etc.).  In Zen, we'd moreover advise that you sit down on the cushion and bask in that discomfort.  Don't worry so much about watching the breath or entering samadhi just yet.  Instead, when those urges to "do something" come, just stop what you are doing and let them wash over you.  Let those urges kill you.  Trust the process and you will eventually come out the other side better prepared to ignore the dictates of your small mind.  In fact, those very dictates will begin to lessen.
Once the demands of your small mind begin to abate, I promise that you will begin to hear another another voice calling from a deeper place.  At first it will be quiet, distant, and unintelligible.  If you continue to apply yourself with moral discipline, it will become louder and clearer.  When you've reached the place when your small mind in no longer pulling you this way and that, you are ready to add samadhi practice.  The rest of the way up the mountain involves using a mind made clear and stable by zazen to focus in on that deeper voice and really learn what it has to teach.

Committing wholeheartedly to what we do each moment by moment, we experience increasing clarity and peace.

SN35.95:10.1: “In that case, when it comes to things that are to be seen, heard, thought, and known: in the seen will be merely the seen; in the heard will be merely the heard; in the thought will be merely the thought; in the known will be merely the known.

If necessary, observe your breaths (e.g., counting is a way of observing) as you engage with everyday tasks. Your breaths repeat and sustain no matter the distraction. When I started Zen, I was told to count my breaths. That was four decades ago. I still count my breaths. The distractions come and go. Greet each distraction with an acknowledgement and let each fade away without greed, aversion or delusion.

MN10:4.3: Just mindful, they breathe in. Mindful, they breathe out.

.

Non-doing does not mean simply sitting doing nothing. Non-doing means you put yourself and more with full involvement/intensity into that activity that you do, (even sitting), so much so that you forget you exist. Like Flow. Only that action and the activity is going on.
This "you" is an identity created for social/survival purposes according to karmic tendencies/compulsions. This body is also chosen for that presence. Until these tendencies/compulsions go away, you cannot simply sit.
Always wanting to do something is because somewhere inside, we are/feel "incomplete". Do you observe? When you buy something or finish doing something, you feel a little relaxed and then sometime later, the mind comes up again, the body comes up again, needing to do something. This is because of our karma/karmic tendencies. We don't feel complete. That's the only problem. Until we finish our karmic bag, we are going to be here trying to do something all the time.

This question is very significant and is really where all seekers are tripping .You said something very significant ,

How can I train my mind to just be?

.Its important to understand that identification is the sole reason for doing.Every part of your body is doing something ,your organs are functioning ,you don't have to make your heart beat or your stomach digest the food ,they work by themselves.But what we fail to notice is that the mind is also an organ .If I say Iam just my stomach then I will feel responsible for its success and failure .Iam identified with it ,same is our identification with the mind ,from childhood we are told to concentrate or to memorize something,when these are really just mind functions ,and we are not the mind.
So removing the identification with mind is necessary .its also important to understand that just like a computer game, the mind creates an object called truth or non-doing ,a distance or a path and a virtual character seeker who wants to get there .Recognizing this whole play or matrix is meditation.Vipassana is a methodological way of dissecting the game and watching it all with every seeing there is a dis-identification,The non-doing is not the mind's idea of non-doing ,its so simple there is no distance to it ,because distance is also mind creation,lastly identification with the seeker is gone and now the mind can do and play its game just like your other organs and there is no identification with a you that has to do anything because it was simply a virtual character created by mind.

You ask: How can I train my mind to just be?
Show me this 'I'. What is 'my mind'?
You cannot show me because there is no 'I'. If there was, no-one would have bad habits, because their 'I' would stop them.
Keep on with Zazen. If you were in a Rinzai monastery like I was, you would have to solve a 'Ko an', such as 'what was my original face before I was born? Rather than thinking about being try to solve this Ko an.

Maybe the tragedy of human life is that we cannot stop thinking.
Meditation can be useful for getting some distance from our thinking.
Nagarjuna came up with this non-doing, if I remember right. I think this is profound, disturbing.
The mind is conditioned. It got this way over a long time. It keeps us alive, usually.


text:
What are the requirements for Once-returner?
I know about the ten fetters model. I read that a Once-returner has very reduced desire and aversion to the point that they only appear when tired or unmindful.
Are there other relevant requirements?
Are there stuff that hint that the person is or is not a Once-returner? For example, if the person doesn't reach jhana, does that HINT that maybe he is not a Once-returner?

Good householder, Bhante Nyanadasanas tables give a good overview in regard of fetters and qualities: Mental Fetters, etc. Abandoned by Each Path-Knowledge, and concentration is sufficent developed starting with No-returner. Others would return. Grave Sensual lust and anger are reduced, compaired to the Streamenter.

The once returner just destroys the 3 fetters and reduce lusts

Again, Sāriputta, consider the person who is accomplished in the precepts, but not in concentration, nor in wisdom — by destroying the
  three fetters and reducing lust, hatred and delusion, he becomes a
  Once-returner, who returns to this world again once only and makes an
  end of ill.
This, Sāvatthi, is the sixth person, who, dying with some attached
  remainder, is altogether freed from hell, rebirth in the womb of an
  animal, the realm of ghosts, from the untoward way, the ill way, the
  abyss, hell.

http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/an/09_nines/an09.012.hare.pts.htm#p1
Apparently the first people who are ''moderately'' good at concentration are the ''Clan-to-clan-goer''


text:
Is it necessary to be socialize to understand dhamma?
If some one is a anti-social person , there is no reason to get angry, to be jealous, to have conciet .... All those problems arise when people socialize. So, Is it necessary to be socialize ?

If it is, Why buddha said, go to a forest to meditate ? Get a free and quite time ?
If it isn't How do I recognize those thoughts ? (If we have no reason to get those feelings, we might think we haven't those thoughts)
Or should I not think about that ? (Being social or not being social is out of my control ?)

Yes. Wouldn't work in other way. Nothing is more importand outwardly then a admirable friend, not to speak with association with the Gems.

So, Is it necessary to be socialize ?

Life would be difficult, even impossible, living completely alone. There is a reason that the sangha is considered one of the three jewels in buddhism.

If it is, Why buddha said, go to a forest to meditate ? Get a free and quite time ?

Yes. Your understanding is on point. Withdrawing into reflection is helpful for developing a buddhist practice from time to time.

If it isn't How do I recognize those thoughts ? (If we have no reason to get those feelings, we might think we haven't those thoughts)

Perhaps you are right, one could possibly avoid developing aversion in solitude. However, to a larger extent, it seems to have a tendency to foster a feeling of alienation. Too much time alone may make us less accustomed to relate to others, even though we may have good intentions.
In the noble eightfold path, right effort isn't just about preventing aversion to take a hold of us. It is also about developing skills that we may not have right now. Prosocial virtues, such as the brahmaviharas is most likely impossible to cultivate in complete solitude.
From Magga-vibhanga Sutta:
"And what, monks, is right effort? (i) There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen. (ii) He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen. (iii) He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen. (iv) He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This, monks, is called right effort.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.008.than.html

Or should I not think about that ? (Being social or not being social is out of my control ?)

It is likely within your control, and i believe it is a form of control that is beneficial, and not the clinging/grasping type of control.

Ānanda brought a similar question to the Buddha, attempting to hedge and bridge the issue of solitude and social interaction:

SN3.18:3.3: ‘Sir, good friends, companions, and associates are half the spiritual life.’

But the Buddha would have none of that and corrected Ānanda immediately:

SN3.18:4.2: ‘Not so, Ānanda! Not so, Ānanda! Good friends, companions, and associates are the whole of the spiritual life.

"Socialization" is conventionally conducted to seek and provide affirmation of individual identity or conformance to group identity. One compliments a hair style, for example. Or one suggests a current fashion of dress.
The purpose of the Saṅgha is different. The purpose of the Saṅgha is to support all those on the Noble Eightfold Path:

SN3.18:4.4: A mendicant with good friends, companions, and associates can expect to develop and cultivate the noble eightfold path.

That said, solitude does support deeper study. Indeed, AN4.138 details ways of accomplishing such retreat with body and/or mind.

AN4.138:5.1: And how is a person on retreat in both body and mind?  It’s when a person frequents remote lodgings in the wilderness and the forest. And they think thoughts of renunciation, good will, and harmlessness.

Case 57 of the Blue Cliff Record I Alone Am Holy
A monastic said to Zhaozhou, "It is said, 'The real Way is not
  difficult. It only abhors choice and attachment.' Now, what are
  nonchoice and nonattachment?" Zhaozhou said, "I alone am holy
  throughout heaven and earth." The monastic said, "It is still choice
  and attachment." Zhaozhou said, "You country bumpkin! Where are choice
  and attachment?" The monastic was speechless.

If you're going to practice Buddhism, expect to have everything challenged.  There's not a single thing about you that is going to go unexamined.  All those soft places in your psychological underbelly will be prodded until you are sore, bleeding, and begging for mercy.  This is the only way to wake up.  All of your petty fears and preferences are way stations on the one going road to Buddhahood.  Confronting them, gaining insight into them, and eradicating them is the very essence of the great way.
The great way is not difficult for those who have no preferences.  When love and hate are both absent, everything becomes clear and undisguised.  Make the smallest distinction, however, and heaven and earth are set infinitely apart...to set up what you like against what you dislike is the disease of the mind (from the Hsin Hsin Ming).
Of the two possibilities - being social and distancing yourself from others - which of the two is more difficult?  Which of the two challenges you?  Which would you rather not do?  Pick the harder way.  You alone are holy throughout earth and heaven but only when the barrier between you and others - when petty concerns of liking and disliking - dissolves.  When that happens, who are you?

No it is just another life experience .Buddha did this because he was just starting the way ,so you can start like that but ultimately you have to interact with life .Actually sometimes its harder to be by oneself if one is used to socializing or not used to solidarity .So don't mind that ,just take it step by step .


text:
Must I continue a relationship with my abusive parents?
My parents were physically and mentally abusive to me as a child. As an adult, they have never recognized what they have done to me and even try to guilt me into having a relationship with them that I do not want. I practice often, but I can’t make myself feel a forgiveness that I do not feel at this time. In the buddhist view, am I wrong if I choose not to have a relationship with them?

A related question (a near duplicate of this one) with already-existing answers: How should a Buddhist approach honoring parents who abused them?

It takes time ,don't force a feeling ,keep the meditation and the dis identification occurs .I think you can meditate on your inwardly reactions .

I wrote an extensive answer for the question: How should a Buddhist approach honoring parents who abused them?
In summary, you are not wrong if you choose to not to have a relationship with them. Love is something earned. Core on-going relationships require the maintenance of on-going wholesome qualities from both sides. In Buddhism, parents have the duty of being compassionate towards their children & protecting their children from harm.
Naturally, it is up to your judgment, but if your parents insist you have relationship with them, you can honestly communicate to them your reasons for your reluctance. Note: this may be very hurtful to them; even though such hurt is self-made by them.
Buddhism teaches family relationships have four necessary qualities: (i) honest straightforward communication; (ii) training in self-improvement; (iii) patience/forbearance; and (iv) unselfishness.
Therefore, the 1st step is honest straightforward communication. The 2nd step is self-improvement, that is, your parents' willingness to recognize what they have done (which may be difficult for them).
Most of all, keep in mind, your parents acted as they did due to ignorance/not-knowing. Their minds were controlled by ignorance. Buddhism teaches ignorance an element in nature; like a disease, sickness or blindness people can have.

A little personal background: my mom is Filipino, and my dad is Sinhalese (he professes to be Buddhist but is verbally, physically, and psychologically abusive). My mom is not a Buddhist but her life insights have enriched my Dhamma practice.
I see toxic people as bottles of poison or pesticide: you know they’re harmful if in contact with but you don’t have any hatred or animosity. Because that’s just what they are: bottles of poison, nothing to hate there. You just avoid any contact with it.
Same approach with toxic parents: I don’t interact with them. Occasionally I get angry when I recall dad did but I counter that by:

Calming myself and acknowledging that the thought of hatred arose. I know aversion (dosa/dvesha) has arisen and that I shouldn’t act on it. A mind engulfed in raga, dosa/dvesha, and moha is like a murky glass of water stirred with dust: you can only see the water clearly when the dust has settled.

Acknowledging the thought is impermanent. I don’t reject the thought as it arises because it adds to the stress. I merely observe it BUT don’t act on it. The thought arose, sustains, and will eventually die.

Radiate metta (friendliness, not necessarily compassion) to the person because they:

(a) have unresolved issues and are victims of previous abuse and weren’t aware of that when they did those same things to me;
(b) there is no person as such to ‘hate’ because the so-called person is a constantly-changing entity composed of constantly-changing matter (rupa)  and non-matter (vedana, sanna, sankhara, vinnana). There is nothing to like or dislike in something that is constantly changing. The hatred doesn’t go overnight but if you practice, it will erode over time.
So if at first I was hateful of the toxic parent, now I acknowledge they’re toxic but with less aversion. Its not good to harbor thoughts of hatred because they harm you, in the short and long run. I can acknowledge that a person is abusive but at the same time have metta for them because they’re harming themselves. And it also does not mean I have to embrace them again, unless they’ve genuinely changed; and if they haven’t changed, they’ll just hurt/harm you again and you become an enabler for their bad actions. “Loving the tiger from a distance”
Forgiving toxic people does not mean rekindling a relationship with them: it’s about you healing from the past and rewiring how you perceive them and what they did. Knowing they’re toxic doesn’t mean you’re hating them: you’re just acknowledging they’re toxic and that they aren’t helpful to you. Bottles of poison
Dosa/dvesa (aversion) doesn’t go away overnight and takes diligent practice. Its not easy to practice these but its not impossible (if Buddhas and Arahats uprooted their aversion, why not I too). As much as possible, I don’t intellectualize my practice because it hinders the practice. Over time I understand the deeper meanings of some Pali terms because of my practice, so I know I’ll be fine as long as I keep steadfast on this Dhamma path. The point of Dhamma practice is to avoid and uproot raga, dosa/dvesha, moha. The Buddha laid out the path/practice but everyone treads it according to their own capacity.
Hope this helps, fellow wayfarers

(I write this without knowing the specific circumstances in your life, so i hope my answer don't come across as too blunt).
How honorable it may be to forgive those who hurt us, it is also a matter of allowing it to take time. We can't force a tree to grow, and beating ourselves up for not having a specific desirable emotion such as being forgiving will likely add insult to injury.
It may seem like a tough pill to swallow, but accepting pain first hand fosters non-attachment and allows emotions to subside. At best, acceptance will help in developing an equanimous perspective on things. Acceptance and equanimity can in turn be preparations for forgiving, in case you choose to do so in the future.