text:
Is it not conceit when you compare yourself to other people?
Are we not thinking of ourselves as either you're better than they are, or equal to them, or worse that they are?

It's not clear what the question is. Could you rephrase it without "not", for example are you asking "Is it conceit to compare yourself to other people?" Are you just asking for a definition of the word "conceit" (Māna)? Most of the question (i.e. "There can be very few times etc.") doesn't seem to be a question at all.

I edited out that extra bit. It confuse things. The idea that I had was more about superiority complex and inferiority complex, and 'mana' - the ego driven self.

From the Buddhist viewpoint, conceit is a delusion that convinces us that we are the sum of our experiences. When we compare ourselves to others, we create a sense of self in our minds. then that sense of self is involved in comparison to others that generates "self" inflicted suffering, which is where the concept of no-self comes into Buddhist thought as an antidote to that particular suffering.
According to the Buddha, there are three conceits. The first conceit, I am better that others, leads to pride and arrogance. The second, I am worse than others, leads to envy or resentment. The third, I am the same as others, generates complacency.
"And what are the three kinds of conceit that are to be abandoned? (1) Conceit, (2) the inferiority complex, and (3) arrogance: these are the three kinds of conceit that are to be abandoned."
from AN 6.106, translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi
Conceit is among that which defiles the mind, and can generate several of the others on that list.
"Imperfections that defile the mind:
(1) covetousness and unrighteous greed
(2) ill will
(3) anger
(4) revenge
(5) contempt
(6) a domineering attitude
(7) envy
(8) avarice
(9) deceit
(10) fraud
(11) obstinacy
(12) presumption
(13) conceit (mana)
(14) arrogance
(15) vanity
(16) negligence"
from MN7, translated by Bhikkhu Nanamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi
Lastly, the short answer to your question is...Yes.

I value the answer that you have provided, Bonnie. It is only an uninstructed person that would keep running around and circling around the wrong view of personality belief and the three conceits, just as a dog tied by a leash to a post.

What is the Sutta reference for: “ The first conceit, I am better that others, leads to pride and arrogance. The second, I am worse than others, leads to envy or resentment. The third, I am the same as others, generates complacency.” I’ve come across this several times but now looking for the Sutta reference(s)

It is useful for thinking: "I can enter the path" but it is useless for actually entering the noble path because entering the noble path is based on abandoning the conceit "I am".
The four Best Kinds of Faith do not include the conceit "I can".

Faith, monks, also has a supporting condition, I say, it does not
  lack a supporting condition. And what is the supporting condition for
  faith? 'Suffering' should be the reply.
SN 12.23

~~~

Now, any delight in feeling is clinging. From his
  clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From
  becoming as a requisite condition comes birth [of 'self']. From birth as a
  requisite condition, then aging-&-death [of 'self'], sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this
  entire mass of stress & suffering.
Now, there is the case where a
  Tathāgata appears in the world, worthy and rightly self-awakened. He
  teaches the Dhamma admirable in its beginning, admirable in its
  middle, admirable in its end. He proclaims the holy life both in its
  particulars and in its essence, entirely perfect, surpassingly pure.
He [the person discussed above], hearing the Dhamma, gains conviction
  in the Tathāgata and reflects: 'Household life is confining, a dusty
  path. Life gone forth is the open air. It isn't easy, living at home,
  to practice the holy life totally perfect, totally pure, a polished
  shell. What if I, having shaved off my hair & beard and putting on the
  ochre robe, were to go forth from the household life into
  homelessness?'
So after some time he abandons his mass of wealth, large or small;
  leaves his circle of relatives, large or small; shaves off his hair
  and beard, puts on the ochre robes, and goes forth from the household
  life into homelessness.
MN
   38

Thank you, Dhammadhatu, for your clarification. Yes, indeed, this self-identification view (sakkaya ditthi) is abandoned by the Stream Winner – the person who has entered the ‘stream’ , and is never a issue as 'you' have overcome the hardest part and is now flowing inexorably to Nibbana.


text:
As a disciple of the Supreme Buddha, what would you do with an animal that is in severe pain?
You may get to see someone or an animal is sick and suffering in pain. You may be able to give that person or animal a medicine that helps relieve the pain somewhat. But sometimes there’s so much pain that it goes beyond the reach of any morphine, any opium, any painkiller at all. At  such moments what would be your thoughts? Being well informed of the Dhamma, you know in the back of your mind that it is our responsibility for what we are. We were the ones who chose to be born here. It was because of our desires and our cravings that we took birth as human beings or animals for that matter. When you’re responsible for your birth, then you also have to be responsible for how you handle your aging, illness, and death. They all come as part of the same package. So how could you be of help to self and the other in such a situation?

My mother and I saw a cat today by the side of the road, which had probably been hit by a car. Its back legs were outstretched, it didn't walk, I guessed its lower back was broken. It miaowed to us.
We went to find the owner of the nearby house, I told him that I had the regret to inform him that etc., he said that it sounded like his cat and we went to find it. He talked to it (saying, "Oh my poor Fifi") picked it up (it miaowed again) and he told us that he'd take her to the vet, which seemed to me like a good idea. I was glad for the cat's sake that she now had her human companion/friend with her.
My mother told him that (in her opinion) the cat wll probably want to be euthanased (a.k.a. put to sleep or put to death) but I think that Buddhist doctrine denies that and says not to kill, even in that situation.
Here are some references for how to behave with someone who is terminally ill:

There are many other references at A Buddhist Guide to Death, Dying and Suffering (the author is or was a chaplain at a medical centre).
And What nurses need to know about Buddhist perspectives of end-of-life care and dying (registration required) might be helpful.
Also page 82 of this commentary on the Vinaya describes the words a bikkhu might say during the dying process to inspire a patient.

The answers to these questions might be helpful if dying is accompanied by pain as well:

Experiencing physical pain
Buddhism view on mercy

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
The idea of transfer merit
It is said that merit transfer is a later development. We reap what we sow, it is not possible for the merit to be transferred. Is it true any recipient will not be able to receive any merit that is done and transferred by someone?

Of course merit can be transferred, such as when the love or goodness of one person makes another person feel love or goodness, such as when parents love their children & thus transfer their merit to their children.
However, transferring merit to dead or unconnected people, yes, that would bring the results to the giver similar to a metta or gratitude meditation.
Whether there is actual merit being transferred to the dead would be not knowable.

In five ways, young householder, a child should minister to his
parents as the East:
(i) Having supported me I shall support them,
(ii) I shall do their
duties, (iii) I shall keep the family tradition, (iv) I shall make
myself worthy of my inheritance, (v) I shall offer alms
in honor of my departed relatives.
Sigalovada Sutta

Merits(punya/the good deeds) as well as the bad deeds can be transferred/dedicated(anumodana) to others. But there is an element of action involved at the receiving end. For example; someone commits a noble deed and transfers that merit to me. To receive the merit, I should endorse and acknowledge the action. This is usually expressed as "Sadhu! Sadhu! Anumodami". Same applies for evil deeds.

“Chethanaham bikkawe kamman wadami.  Chethaithwa kamman karothi kayena
  wachaya manasa”
Dear Bikkhus, I introduce thought as karma. It is after having thought
  that we engage in action physically, verbally and mentally.

Nibbedhika Sutta: AN 6.63

But how do we know if the merit is received or transferred? Say for example, we transfer merit to an animal or a ghost.

Animals do not receive merits. And among hungry ghost, only paradattupama preta can receive merits. In my opinion, there is no definitive way of knowing.

But according to Cula-Sacakka Sutta merit cannot be transferred: "Aggivessana, whatever has come from (giving to) a recipient such as you — not without passion, not without aversion, not without delusion — that will be for the donors. Whatever has come from (giving to) a recipient such as me — without passion, without aversion, without delusion — that will be for you."

I think that the Paccha-bhumika Sutta implies that people's destiny is influenced by their own actions.
There are other topics on this site about transferring merit which explain the practice in more detail.
Perhaps it's similar to metta meditation, i.e. it could at least have an effect (or begin by having an effect) on the practitioner.

@B1100… your question applies to that of afterlife too. The question that arises is that… Who gets the benefit of the meritorious deeds at the time of one’s death, if there is no 'self'? Is the same person who does deeds will reap the benefits or is it another person who will reap the benefits?
Buddha did not fall into two extremes when explaining who reaps the benefits.  One extreme is to say "it is the same person who reaps the benefits".  The other extreme is to say "it is another person who reaps the benefits".  It is neither the same person nor a completely different person". I am unable to find in which sutta this is explained – hopefully I’ll come across it sooner or later.

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


text:
Physics in Buddhism
What is the difference between modern atomic theory and the Buddhist atomic theory?
Buddhism also employs certain technical terms such as Anu,Paramanu,Cunna,Kapala and so on at same time we can take following terms as counter part of Buddhist terms in modern science,atom,nucleus,electron etc.

A difference between modern atomic theory & Buddhist atomic theory is their respective purposes.
Modern atomic theory culminated in atomic bombs used to kill thousands of people.
Where as the Buddhist atomic theory has the purpose of realizing 'not-self' (anatta) & bringing the peace & love of selflessness.

modern atomic theory has also resulted in advances in medicine and energy. it was probably required for you to be able to write this answer. you convey a very cynical view of science

So far as I know, if people talk about "atoms" in Theravada doctrine, they're referring to Kalapas.
So, an explanation of "kalapas" is an explanation of "the difference between modern atomic theory and the Buddhist atomic theory" (especially since an explanation of 'modern atomic theory' is probably off-topic on this site).
So perhaps the answers to this topic, Meaning of 'kalapas', would answer your question.

In short, modern scientists analyze the external universe from quarks to quasars in pursuit of "the ultimate reality". On the contrary, we Buddhists analyze the matter in our sense experience as patavi, apo, thejo, wayo - Mahābhūta
to get rid of the dilution (avijja) caused by Vijñāna(~consciousness) projected on Mahābhūta. This is the intention of kayanupassana as described in the great Satipattana Sutta.

From Rohitassa Sutta:AN 4.45

"I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by traveling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear. But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without reaching the end of the cosmos. Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos."


text:
Remembering past lives
Why do we not remember our past lives?
If it is possible to recollect one's previous lives by deeply concentrated thought,is it not possible for us to visit the hermits living in Himalaya area and verify the truth of doctrine of rebirth?

Why do we not remember our past lives?
It is a protective mechanism, kind of like how when you enter REM sleep your body paralyzes you to avoid hurting yourself. Similarly most of our chakras are in a semi-open, unpurified state because the full power of it can be harmful to ourselves and others. Many spiritual powers remain dormant. (I would not rely on the explanations of famous modern teachers because most of them are just intellectuals and have not put the prerequisite solitude and focus to attain realization... and sometimes they have to make publicly acceptable comments to avoid attack.)
If it is possible to recollect one's previous lives by deeply concentrated thought?
Yes. By entering the 1st jhana, one can even recall one's past lives. The below passage from MN 36 indicates Buddha went to 4th jhana before doing so, recalling many more. I would refer to the book Mind Experiment by Bavo Lievens for references on Buddhist texts, as well as beautiful Buddhist cosmology and how to go about doing this. Go to page 80.
Here is an excerpt from MN 36:

"When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished,
  rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to
  imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of recollecting my
  past lives. I recollected my manifold past lives, i.e., one birth,
  two...five, ten...fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand,
  many eons of cosmic contraction, many eons of cosmic expansion, many
  eons of cosmic contraction & expansion: 'There I had such a name,
  belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food,
  such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life.
  Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a
  name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my
  food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life.
  Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.' Thus I remembered my
  manifold past lives in their modes & details."

There are some persons, who probably in accordance with the laws of association, spontaneously develop the memory of their past birth, and remember fragments of their previous lives. Such cases are very rare, but those few well-attested, respectable cases tend to throw some light on the idea of a past birth for those who doubt the scriptures. Disciples of the Supreme Buddha believe that there are countless past existences. The most valuable evidence Buddhists cite in favour of rebirth is the Buddha, for He developed a knowledge which enabled Him to read past and future lives. Suttas record that prior to Siddhattha Gotama’s Enlightenment, he had gained the three-fold supernormal knowledge. One of which is the rRecollection of his own past lives (pubbenivasanussati-nana). Following His instructions, His disciples also developed this knowledge and were able to read their past lives to a great extent.
Even some Indian Rishis, before the advent of the Buddha, were distinguished for such psychic powers as clairaudience, clairvoyance, thought-reading, remembering past births, etc. So are the experiences of some modern dependable psychics and strange cases of alternating and multiple personalities. In hypnotic states some relate experiences of their past lives; while a few others, read the past lives of others and even heal diseases.
How are we to account for great characters like Panini, Kalidasa, Homer and Plato; men of genius like Shakespeare, infant prodigies like Pascal, Mozart, Beethoven, Raphael etc.? Heredity alone cannot account for them. "Else their ancestry would disclose it, their posterity, even greater than themselves, demonstrate it." Could they rise to such lofty heights if they had not lived noble lives and gained similar experiences in the past? Is it by mere chance that they are been born or those particular parents and placed under those favourable circumstances?
A Western writer once said: "Whether we believe in a past existence or not, it forms the only reasonable hypothesis which bridges certain gaps in human knowledge concerning certain facts of every day life. Our reason tells us that this idea of past birth and Kamma alone can explain the degrees of difference that exist between twins, how men like Shakespeare with a very limited experience are able to portray with marvelous exactitude the most diverse types of human character, scenes and so forth of which they could have no actual knowledge, why the work of the genius invariably transcends his experience, the existence of infant precocity, the vast diversity in mind and morals, in brain and physique, in conditions, circumstances and environment observable throughout the world, and so forth."
It should be stated that this doctrine of rebirth can neither be proved nor disproved experimentally, but it is accepted as an evidentially verifiable fact. The cause of this Kamma is avijja or ignorance of the Four Noble Truths. Ignorance is, therefore, the cause of birth and death; and its transmutation into knowingness or vijja is consequently their cessation.

For adults
For adults, they can not remember because it is very far over you can remember it.
Take it easy. Don't look too far, just in this life, you have forgoten everything in your 1-2 years old period already.
For babies
For babies, Take it easy. Just see the  amnesia-patient, it is the same but the reborn is worse than amnesia because reborn-human has an amnesia which is caused by loosen brain, not just damage, also has an amnesia which is caused by psychological trauma, which is caused bad environment in mother's stomach, too. So the babies loose whole of their past life memories.
In very advance theory, abhidhamma, babies can not remember because all of their memory-organs [saññāya āyatana] have change to very weak and none ability, similar to the old paralysis-man's  organs. Also, they have to live in stressful stomach that has 37 °C temperature for at least 7 months, without vision. This is called kammajja-vāta [moving/changing form  that arise by kamma] in suttanta-pāli tradition.
Kammajja-vāta is one element of kammajja-rūpa [form that arise by kamma]. All organs arising at the beginning moment of life, especially human organs, are very weak, loose every ability, walk/see/listen/etc, from the past life.
Mind and it's factors, such as saññā (memory factor), arise depend on those kammajja-rūpa which is a elements of purejāta-paccaya (pre arising cause) in paṭṭhāna, the 7th canon of abhidhamma. If this paccaya, sense-organs, so weak, saññā that arise at these sense-organs also weak too. Then saññā cause of sati (mindfulness, recalling ability mind's factor) by the definition "sati thirasaññāpadaṭṭānā". So the babies loose whole of their past life memories.
Theravāda recalling skill practice
In theravāda tradition, you can recall it by jhāna-based ñāṇa, such as pupbenivāsānussati-ñāṇa or paccayapariggaha-ñāṇa. This tradition still going on at pa-auk monastery and some Burmese monastery.

I have heard monks such as The Dalai Lama speak their opinion about the 'reality' of past lives yet these teachers also state they cannot remember their own past lives.
Regardless, just because a person tells us they remembered their past lives does negate what they are saying may not be true. That person might possibly be deluded (i.e., clinging to the sense objects of mental formations as being 'self'; just like clinging to a dream that occurs in sleep as being real). Either way, another person cannot verify past lives for us since we ourselves cannot verify what the other person is saying.
In the oldest Buddhist scriptures (Khajjaniya Sutta), it is stated the Buddha did not remember 'past lives' (despite many Buddhists believing this & mistranslating words to mean this). Instead, the Buddha recollected the myriad times in the past (before he was enlightened) where his mind ignorantly clung to things as "I", "me" & "mine".
Here, it is explained when a meditator recollects 'past abodes' (pubbe nivāsa), what is recollected is only the five aggregates (body, feeling, perception, mental formations & consciousness) and that this recollection is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'
Similarly, in scriptures such as MN 36, 'past abodes' (pubbe nivāsa) is mentioned with previous 'births' ('jati'). The word 'birth' means the conceptual birth of the view of 'beings' ('satta' - SN 12.2) or 'self-identity' (MN 44). SN 23.2 and SN 5.10 state 'beings' ('satta') is a mental state or wrong view; that in reality; there is no 'being' ('satta') to be found.

Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This
  is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found.
Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So,
  when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being.'

So when it was said the Buddha recollected his previous 'births', this was also the recollecting the myriad times in the past (before he was enlightened) where his mind ignorantly clung to things as "I", "me" & "mine".
There are many videos on YouTube by Ajahn Brahm about past lives, where he claims he gives evidence of their verification. I recommend watching these or similar videos.

Do you have a source in which Ajahn Brahm states that he cannot remember his own past lives?

The blog you linked only has other people disagreeing about whether Ajahn Brahm talks freely about experiencing past lives or not. No good evidence to support the claim in your post that says he could not remember past lives. Everything I've read from him or heard him say leads me to believe that he has had past life experiences, though it is true I have never heard him openly discuss one, perhaps, as was noted in the blog you linked to, because doing so is forbidden conduct for a monk. If you cannot find a source to back up your claim, I suggest you remove it.

Buddha did remember all of his countless past lives, please refer to JATAKA.
If you practice meditation and reach samadhi, you will be able to see your past lives, but not everyone can see all of their past lives like buddha did. Please watch the proves of reincarnations.
Published on 8 Feb 2013
Some children can remember exact & verifiable details of their prior life they never could have come to know in this their current child life. These details can be objectively and independently confirmed. Remarkably & quite biologically enigmatic: Some of them have birth marks and birth defects at very same locations as the lethal injury causing their often abrupt and violent past life death. Eg. Born with 5 missing fingers after a prior life accident where they were cut off... Birthmarks at the exact location where they got gunshot wounds in their prior life, which could be confirmed from the autopsy report of their deceased individuality. Furthermore: Some can speak a language they never have learnt in this life (xenoglossy) corresponding to their past life language & nationality.
They can in some cases remember names of siblings and other family members in their past life family who they never have met in this life...
The pioneer in this research was the late Dr. Ian Stevenson.
He founded The Division of Perceptual Studies (DOPS) at the Department of Psychiatry & Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia, in Charlottesville, VA.
A presentation of him is here.


text:
What is a Buddhist ceremony or service called, and what day of the week is it likely to be?
I am a student at Manhattan College. I am in a class on religious discrimination. For my class I must go to a religious service other than mine. I picked Buddhism. However I don't know what a service would be called, or what day of the weekend it would be. I am lucky I have a monastery around the corner from me; what am I looking for?

You might expect there's some difference in form between different denominations of Christian service (e.g. Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Quaker...). Similarly I'd expect some difference between different Buddhist services. It might clarify the question if you'd identify the name (or school, lineage, and/or nationality) of whichever Buddhist monastery or monasteries you're asking about.

There's a answer to this topic, What would one encounter at a Buddhist temple service?, which you might find helpful.

In early times, (and still today in some Buddhist countries), laypeople would intensity their practice on certain days according to the lunar calendar. The special weekly Buddhist holy day is called Uposatha and it is observed on the new moon, the full moon, and the quarter moons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uposatha
Today, particularly in the West where we don't use a lunar calendar, you are more likely to find a weekly, bi monthly, or monthly meeting at a fixed time. At the Laotian temple I attend, everyone is invited twice a month to a Sunday morning service which runs from about 9:00 am through about 1:00 pm. The most significant parts of the service include taking refuge, reciting the precepts, and offering lunch to the monks. In our tradition (Theravada), the monks don't eat anything after noon. So the lunch offered is quite a big event and an opportunity for people to give dana.
But Buddhist meetings and services are not uniform and can be scheduled for purely practical reasons. A temple in my area has a Sunday morning service in Vietnamese and a Wednesday evening service in English. Another has a Sunday morning service in Korean and a Saturday Day of Mindfulness in English. Some groups meet for meditation and others meet for something that is more similar to worship.
Best suggestion would be to call or stop by the monastery to see if they have services or events open to the public. The one universal rule is that shoes should be removed before you enter a monastery or temple. Have fun and be well. :)

If it is a Thai temple (eg. 76-16 46 Ave Elmhurst), the service is where the devotees chant to (take refuge in) the Buddha, Dhamma & Sangha, request the five precepts, generally offer the monks food, and receive a blessing in return, including sprinkling of water, as described here: https://www.yelp.com.au/biz/wat-buddha-thai-thavorn-varanam-elmhurst & here: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Wat-Buddha-Thai-Thavorn-Vanaram/137256256319623
A Vietnamese temple (2222 Andrews West Bronx) would probably have the same service, such as shown in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hwo4JBbpraw
It is best to go to an Asian temple (rather than a meditation centre or even a Zen centre, since meditation & Zen centres are usually run by Westerners & may not do food offerings & blessings) because a traditional Asian service involves an 'exchange' of devotion between the monks and the people. That said, a Zen centre may do a ceremony followed by meditation. You needs to check with your teacher whether 'personal meditation' is a 'service'.
Taking refuge, food offering & blessing service would probably occur on the weekend but could occur each day. Contact the temple & have fun.

Assuming Manhattan College is in Manhattan, here is a website for an SGI-USA center which is in the Lotus Sutra/Nichiren tradition, The New York Culture Center. It is in the old Cooper Union building at 7 E. 15th Street, New York, NY 10003
(bet. 5th Avenue & Union Square West).
The website's calendar shows a variety of meetings throughout the month, not only on weekends. There are various names like World Peace, Chanting, Lecture, and Intro to Buddhism. Other meetings are by interest group. There are also meetings in people's homes called Discussion Meetings. The World Peace Prayer meeting would probably be a good experience for a beginner. There's chanting with quite a few people which is pretty cool followed by a program which varies. People would be open to speaking with you before and/or afterwards. The intro meeting would of course be good also and is usually focused on Q&A.
SGI-USA is a lay organization so no priests with robes. People dress in whatever way is normal for them. Since your class is on discrimination note that one of SGI-USA's core principles is non-discrimination. This principle is based on the historic Buddhist opposition to the caste system in India, and more specifically on the Lotus Sutra's teaching that all people may attain Buddhism. Even women. This results in SGI-USA having a very diverse membership unlike many Buddhist denominations. As such, attendees reflect the diversity of the area, including the LGBTQ community.


text:
what similes buddha gave for removing defilments
Would be interested to hear all similes about removing the difilments step by step
What i vaguely remember is a simile about purifying gold - and maybe there was one on purifying silver ?

Vammika Sutta - The Discourse on the Ant-hill [Similes for the spiritual training] (Majjhima Nikya 23/1:142-145)
http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/28.13-Vammika-S-m23-piya.pdf
Vammika Sutta is one of the most interesting discourses that reveals the Truth of Buddha's Dhamma in a simple, effective way and in unequivocal terms.
ON the impermanence of the body. ON the fifteen puzzling questions that the dazzling non-human put to the Buddha: "What is the anthill? What smokes by night? What flames by day? Who is the brahmin? Who is the sage? What is the tool? What is the digging? What is the bar? What is the frog? What is the forked passage? What is the strainer? What is the turtle? What is the meat cleaver? What is the joint of meat? What is the cobra?" ON the parable of the smouldering anthill; with the Buddha explaining: the anthill symbolizes the body; the smoke by night symbolizes thought; flames by day symbolize words and actions; the brahmin symbolizes an enlightened being; the sage symbolizes the monk; the tool symbolizes wisdom; digging symbolizes effort; the bar symbolizes ignorance; the frog symbolizes passion and anger; the forked passage symbolizes doubt; the strainer symbolizes the five hindrances (passion, ill-will, indolence, anxiety, and doubt); the turtle symbolizes clinging to worldly things (the five aggregates: form, feelings, perceptions, formation, and consciousness); the meat cleaver symbolizes the pleasures of the five senses; the joint of meat symbolizes passion and delight; the cobra symbolizes those who have extinguished all desires.

MN 7 - Vatthupama Sutta: The Simile of the Cloth
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.007.nypo.html
With a simple simile, in this sutta, the Buddha illustrates the difference between a defiled mind and a pure mind. According to the Vatthupama Sutta in the Majjhimanikaya,2 the Buddha says that the cloth that is stained and dirty cannot be properly dyed because the cloth is not clean. Even so when the mind is stained or defiled a bad destination is to be expected. On the contrary when the cloth is quite clean and pure that can be dyed in bright colours. Even so when one's mind is not stained with defilements a happy destination may be expected a good bourne. That is the simile given in this Sutta to explain detachment.

"Just as in the last month of the Rains, in the autumn season when the
  crops are ripening, a cowherd would look after his cows: He would tap
  & poke & check & curb them with a stick on this side & that. Why is
  that? Because he foresees flogging or imprisonment or a fine or public
  censure arising from that [if he let his cows wander into the crops].
  In the same way I foresaw in unskillful qualities drawbacks,
  degradation & defilement and I foresaw in skillful qualities rewards
  related to renunciation & promoting cleansing."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.019.than.html

~~~~

Just as a skilled carpenter or his apprentice would use a small peg to
  knock out, drive out, and pull out a large one; in the same way, if
  evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion
  — arise in a monk while he is referring to and attending to a
  particular theme, he should attend to another theme, apart from that
  one, connected with what is skillful.
Just as a young woman — or man — fond of adornment, would be
  horrified, humiliated, and disgusted if the carcass of a snake or a
  dog or a human being were hung from her neck; in the same way, if
  evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion
  — still arise in the monk while he is attending to this other theme,
  connected with what is skillful, he should scrutinize the drawbacks of
  those thoughts: 'Truly, these thoughts of mine are unskillful, these
  thoughts of mine are blameworthy, these thoughts of mine result in
  stress.'
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.than.html

SN 22.100 Gaddula Sutta: The Leash
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.100.than.html
"It's just as when a dog is tied by a leash to a post or stake: If it walks, it walks right around that post or stake. If it stands, it stands right next to that post or stake. If it sits, it sits right next to that post or stake. If it lies down, it lies down right next to that post or stake.
"In the same way, an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person regards form as: 'This is mine, this is my self, this is what I am.' He regards feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness as: 'This is mine, this is my self, this is what I am.' If he walks, he walks right around these five clinging-aggregates. If he stands, he stands right next to these five clinging-aggregates. If he sits, he sits right next to these five clinging-aggregates. If he lies down, he lies down right next to these five clinging-aggregates. Thus one should reflect on one's mind with every moment: 'For a long time has this mind been defiled by passion, aversion, & delusion.' From the defilement of the mind are beings defiled. From the purification of the mind are beings purified.

There is a collection of similes at accesstoinsight.org. If you search for {defilements} you'll find them. You may also want to look for similar keywords like {craving}, {clinging}, {sensuality}, {fetters} ...
Similes for defilements:

Barley reaper: {defilements} Miln II.1.8
Boat being bailed out: {defilements} Dhp 369
Rafters of house: {defilements} Dhp 153
Reeds or rushes: destroyed by their own fruit {defilements} SN 3.23
shedding its skin {defilements} Sn 1.1


text:
Naraka/hell realms in Buddhism
A being is born into a Naraka-Niraya or Hell as a direct result of his or her accumulated actions (karma) and resides there for a finite period of time until that karma has achieved its full result. It is said that the Yamaraja assesses the vices of the sinful and accords judgement, assigning them to appropriate hells as punishment commensurate with the severity and nature of their sins.
Yama dutas also assigned the job of executing punishments on sinners in various hells.
In the Pali canon,the Supreme Buddha states that a person who has ill-treated their parents, ascetics, holy persons, or elders is taken upon his death to Yama.
So how does the karma affect to yamaraja and his servants,yama dutas for thier actions in assignig punishments?

I think this is a duplicate of (i.e. already answered by the answers to) Where do Hell Guards fall?.


text:
Doctor assisted suicide - does doctor break the first precept?
Doctor assisted suicide - a hot potato in the western countries these days. Although this is a kind of suicide, the patient is fully awake and living human being in contrast to a patient in life support due to brain death. According to the Buddhist teachings, what are the karmic repercussions for the doctor who assists the suicide?

FWIW the Wikipedia article you linked to says, Physician-assisted suicide is often confused with euthanasia (sometimes called "mercy killing"). In cases of euthanasia the physician administers the means of death, usually a lethal drug. In physician-assisted suicide (PAS) the patient self-administers the means of death.

Assisting suicide would be considered an offence of defeat in a monk.

Whatever monk should intentionally deprive a human being of life, or should look about to be his knife-bringer, he is also one who is defeated and is no more in communion.

-- Attitudes to Euthanasia in the Vinaya and Commentary

First among the five precepts, acknowledged by all Buddhist practitioners, is not to take a life, especially a human life. Consequently, from the Buddhist point of view, that the time of death is uncertain precluding the taking of life to be determinable, both suicide and the one who assists suicide generate extreme negative Karma. In the case of euthanasia, the individual concerned is already actively dying, and the outcome is certain. It can be argued that "mercy killing" in the last hours is an act of compassion where the Karma is neutral; i.e., the patient will die if I act...the patient will die if I do not act.
Finally, I would point out that your example of the patient who is brain dead, by definition cannot make a decision for Physician assisted suicide; and one cannot determine the number of years (with an otherwise healthy body) that that individual would live. So to take that individual's life would be a clear case of murder. It is the karma of such a person describe in your example to be and remain in that state until karma determines their life span.

I think that in Western countries at least, a patient who is literally brain dead is by definition already dead ... is not alive and cannot be murdered ... also doesn't have an "otherwise healthy body" in that the body cannot breathe without a respirator, although individual organs may be considered healthy (and suitable for organ donation/transplant).

That said, Buddhists may want to leave a recently-deceased body undisturbed for a while, see e.g. How long to leave a body undisturbed after death?

"Otherwise healthy body" is meant to be considered as a body that needs no extra ordinary assistance to maintain biological function. Wikipedia's topic on death defines it as " the termination of all biological functions that sustain an organism." I would agree that in many Western countries brain dead on life support where it is assumed that withdrawing that support would lead to biological death is in legal terms death.

I think that a brain dead body won't breathe without extraordinary/artificial assistance.

I offer from the same Wikipedia article: " However, the category of "brain death" is seen by some scholars to be problematic. For instance, Dr. Franklin Miller, senior faculty member at the Department of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health, notes "By the late 1990s, however, the equation of brain death with death of the human being was increasingly challenged by scholars, based on evidence regarding the array of biological functioning displayed by patients correctly diagnosed as having this condition who were maintained on mechanical ventilation for substantial periods of time....

....These patients maintained the ability to sustain circulation and respiration, control temperature, excrete wastes, heal wounds, fight infections and, most dramatically, to gestate fetuses (in the case of pregnant "brain-dead" women)."[13]  (Reference:  Miller, F.G. (October 2009). "Death and organ donation: back to the future". Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (10): 616–620.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

The Pali scriptures explain 'kamma is intention' (AN 6.63). Thus the results of kamma (an action) will follow the quality of intention. The moral precepts are training rules thus not 100% fixed for lay people (however, the killing precept is 100% fixed for monks, since many of the monks rules are about the public image). That said, it is not considered bad karma for a mind free from greed, hatred & delusion to commit suicide. Therefore, a person that commits suicide due to unbearable physically debilitating (rather than emotional) pain is blameless. As for the doctor or helper...?

[Channa said]...Friend Sāriputta, I am not getting well, I am not comfortable. My
painful feelings are increasing, not subsiding;…their increase and not
their subsiding is apparent. I shall use this knife, friend Sāriputta;
I have no desire to live...
[The Buddha said]...Sāriputta, when one lays down a 'body' ['kaya': grouping of five aggregates] & takes up a new 'body', then I say one is blameworthy.
This did not happen in the case of the bhikkhu Channa; the bhikkhu
Channa used the knife blamelessly.
MN 144

I do not like the translation of the word Chetana as "Intention". That should be translated as "Volitional".

@Sajeewa Welendagoda meaning of words is not hinged on favor or disfavor
https://suttacentral.net/define/cetan%C4%81
plus "cetana" is not a form of adjective but of a noun, a version  semantically closer to your preference is "will"

Suicide is one of the greatest of sins that one could do unto self. In the Vinaya generally, suicide is condemned. Assisting or encouraging suicide is equal to the gravest offences. A monk who deliberately ends the life of a patient, even from compassionate motives, is expelled from the monkhood and can never re-ordain in this life, so there’s no room for assisted suicide in Supreme Buddha’s dispensation. It is said that this act will take you to the worst hell - the great hell / Ānatareika Niraya. Now you know the danger of this Samsara. You and I would have committed suicide a countless number of times in our previous births. This shows the urgency and importance of becoming a Sotha-Aapanna – to get into the stream – the Noble Eight-fold Path.

authors: Баян Купи-ка


text:
Sudden arising of disgust
I was meditating today on accepting and letting go of fear, anger and anxiety (which were very loud in my mind at the time) when suddenly my reactions to these states turned into disgust: whenever anger came up, I quickly became disgusted by it. Same thing happened for fear and anxiety. As soon as I sense the suffering in my thoughts, I become disgusted by them. Why is this happening?

Why is this happening? The mind could be becoming clear & attuned to what is healthy & peaceful. Inner wisdom could be functioning.
Below is a quote from The Removal of Distracting Thoughts sutta:

Like a well-dressed young man or woman who feels horrified, humiliated and disgusted because of the carcass of a snake, dog or
  human that is hung round his or her neck...the monk in whom
  unskillful thoughts continue to arise...ponders on the disadvantages
  of unskillful thoughts thus: Truly, these thoughts of mine are
  unskillful, blameworthy and productive of misery. Then the evil,
  unskillful thoughts are eliminated; they disappear. By their
  elimination, the mind stands firm, settles down, becomes unified and
  concentrated, just within (his subject of meditation).

The Fire Sermon describes the liberation that results from clearly seeing the 'fire', burning or oppressiveness of lust, hatred & delusion. In the text, the word translated as "estrangement" is 'nibbindaṃ', which also means 'disgust' or 'revulsion'.
The quote below explains the word 'nibbindaṃ':

The more common translation of nibbidā is “disillusionment, disenchantment” but the more serious spiritual practitioners generally
  prefer “revulsion,” even “disgust.”
http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/20.1-Nibbida-piya.pdf

In some commentaries, 'nibbindaṃ-disgust' (nibbidanupassana-nana) precedes or creates the 'desire for liberation' (muncitukamyata-nana) rather than liberation itself (as found in the scriptures).
Note: 'Disgust' is not the same as 'hatred/aversion'. 'Disgust' leads to freedom, since it leads to the rejecting, dropping & subsiding of the negative emotion.

Here's a definition of Nibbindati which is used e.g. in SN 35.60. I suppose it doesn't mean quite the same thing as dosa.

I didn't post 'nibbindaṃ' had the same meaning as 'dosa'. However, Bonnie Topits has mentioned 'dosa'. Thus Steve can investigate whether his experience is that of nibbinda or of dosa.

You didn't, no; but I don't see a clear difference between the English terms "disgust/revulsion" compared with "aversion/hatred".

Genuine nibbindaṃ results in dispassion, liberation & peace. Genuine nibbindaṃ leads to 'vomiting up' or dropping the negative emotion. Where as aversion is clinging, obsession with & building up the emotion. Nibbindaṃ (disgust) sides with liberation. Dosa (aversion) sides with bondage.

Thank you. If you have time I'd suggest you edit that description of its distinction from dosa into the answer ... I think it makes the explanation clearer. Otherwise let's leave it as a comment.

I can only describe the feeling of disgust as a kind of nausea -- like when you know you've eaten something that is not good for you. When negative self-referential narratives come up, I can viscerally feel that they are bad for me, like eating rotten food. I don't have enough insight to see if this is aversion or nibbindaṃ.

If the mind senses "something that is not good for you", this is wisdom; this is a form of nibbindaṃ; of the preliminary or immature type found in the Commentaries (which generates the desire for freedom from the negative emotion). I used the word "vomiting". If it makes you feel like vomitting, it is a preliminary form of nibbindaṃ, which is good. Regards.

This is a very helpful post. I'm going to leave the question open for now to get some more opinions. Thanks for the help,

The Buddha said that all suffering is caused by craving, which is also interpreted as attachment. Your meditation started out as letting go of these afflictive emotions, which you were clinging to as evidenced by the loud noises in your mind. It was a good start, but what happened is rather than letting go you flipped to the polar opposite of attachment, which is aversion. This is not an uncommon event when one is trying to cope with afflictive emotions. Our conceptual mind outside of Buddhism has learned that what we do not like/love we must dislike/hate. Your meditative practice needs to find the middle...and I do not mean apathy...rather that you neither like nor dislike these emotions; that they do not influence your life in any positive way, and that you can let go of them without acting on or reacting to them in any manner. They will still crop up on occasion, so repeat the process until you can go through life without any need for these emotions to arise. Lama Surya Das devotes a large section of his book, "Awakening the Buddha Within", to meditation training.

there is also the skillful kind of aversion and attachment: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn46/sn46.051.than.html; otherwise there could not be, for example, disenchantment with the sense pleasures, disenchantment being a form of aversion.

The idea of meditation is to focus on your meditation no matter what. To be disgusted simply following your anger, fear, anxiety etc. means you are losing focus on meditation.
Every meditator goes through the same. Just bring your thoughts back on meditation again and everything is ok.


text:
When is it okay to think?
It seems like you're supposed to do the dishes, drive your car, etc. and always be mindful of the present moment, but when is it okay to think about something like a work project or a hobby or something besides the moment? Even when you're meditating you're supposed to not be thinking... It feels like the only time you're allowed to think about things is when you're sitting alone in a dark room.

the answer is always imho

Maybe you could elaborate on your sentence: "Even when you're meditating you're supposed to not be thinking... ".

"In the original Mindfulness Sutra, The Buddha described what he called the Four Foundations of Mindfulness. These teachings remind us to be aware of our bodies; aware of our feelings and emotions; aware of our thoughts; and aware of events, as they occur, moment by moment." Lama Surya Das, Awakening the Buddha From Within, pg 301-302. (Italics are mine.)
Obviously, mindfulness does not mean that we should not think, rather that we do not dwell on the past, and stay in the present moment. If the present moment means that you need to think about future plans, that is acceptable. Just realize that those future plans are not set in stone, are subject to change, and will be in the present moment when they are implemented in the future.
As for meditation, it sounds like you are describing Samatha, or Calm Abiding Meditation. This does indeed call for training the mind to not have as many conceptual thoughts during the meditation. If one arises, we are aware, and dismiss the thought by returning to the object of focus, such as mindful breathing. The following link may be of assistance to you.
Contemplation and meditation and thinking

Thanks Chris. I appreciate the input. Could you tell me how to Make the title tag the link?

You're welcome. I format hyperlinks like this [An example title](http://example.com). When you're editing (using a normal browser, I don't know about when using a mobile device) there's a toolbar above the input textarea to help with formatting. See http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/editing-help for further details. I guess the most important formatting elements are a) empty line separator for paragraphs b) hyperlinks c) using a > for block quotes.

We all know what thinking is. I would like to add this instruction on mindfulness by Bhikkhu Bohdi on an online lecture.
Mindfulness "functions in an atmosphere of detachment...[and] aspires toward a pure objectivity, an awareness which reflects the nature of objects exactly as they are as, without adding to them, without elaborating on them, without interpreting them through screens of subjective evaluation and commenting."

Bonnie, These posts are helpful to me. I have been sampling Unity, a new thought movement for the past four years. What does not ring right for me is the use of auto suggestion in meditation. It seems to encourage the development of a an enviornment within which the meditation is taking place. It in itself seems to be imaginative and to fabricate a setting within which ones thinking can take place. I continue to return to Buddhist practice of focusing on the breath and freeing the mind from preoccupation with topical thinking. I accidentally came across your thoughts on Google and read several

The term "mindfulness" (sati) does not mean 'non-thinking'. It means to 'remember' or 'keep in mind' (the factors of the eightfold path).
Mindfulness does not exclusively apply to the (non-judgmental) observation practise in the 7th factor of the eightfold path.
If right thinking (2nd factor of eightfold path) is practised, this is also an application of right mindfulness in Buddhism.
A (complex) quote below about how right mindfulness also applies to right thinking:

And what is the right resolve (thought) that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The thinking, directed
  thinking, resolve, mental fixity, mental transfixion, focused
  awareness & verbal fabricators in one developing the noble path whose
  mind is noble, whose mind is without effluents, who is fully possessed
  of the noble path. This is the right resolve that is noble, without
  effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
One makes an effort for the abandoning of wrong resolve & for entering right resolve: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to
  abandon wrong resolve & to enter & remain in right resolve (thought): This is
  one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view,
  right effort & right mindfulness — run & circle around right resolve.
MN
  117

The 2nd is right "intention or resolve", right mindfulness (sati) is the 7th.

'Intention' (cetanā) is a form of  'thought' (vitakkā), regardless of how subtle. 'Saṅkappa-vitakkā' is the term in AN 9.14 translated as 'purposeful-thoughts'. The three samma-saṅkappa of the 8 fold path are found as the three skilful vitakkā in MN 19. SN 22.57 defines sankhara khandha as intention (cetanā). These terms are basically synonymous.

'Right mindfulness' (7th factor) can also include some thinking or wise reflection when engaging 'sampajanna' (clear-comprehension or applied wisdom). While the primary goal of the 7th factor is 'observing' (anupassi), mindfulness (sati) is the 'supervisor' of this process, keeping the mind free from covetousness & distress. Mindfulness does not observe. Instead, mindfulness keeps the mind in a state so consciousness/the mind can observe.

ChrisW is a tough moderator. OK. I fixed the answer.

I hope my questions/comments aren't being too tough. Sometimes I comment even when I understood an answer, to double-check that I understood it.


text:
Is enlightened cognition more than its parts?
Is enlightened cognition, in any Buddhist tradition, more than its parts?
I'm asking cos:

(philosophical interpretations) they say that for Buddhists there is nothing more to a thing than its parts. But,
every part of anything (it seems) is conditioned and only of a practical value.

According to which tradition, and to which school of thought ? And could you tell what you mean with 'enlightenment'?

Mahayana-Nagarjuna philosophy states everything is conditioned & comprised of parts. Original Buddhism does not. The impression is your question arises because of illogical philosophy, which makes the philosophy sound contradictory to you. The original Buddha was fully enlightened thus explained reality without flawed description. Enlightenment leads to the permanent end of suffering. Since enlightenment 'uproots' the causes of suffering, there is no longer spiritual work to do. So the 'parts' either end (in redundancy) or, otherwise, are permanently established.

To summarize, I think you're saying that the original Buddha rightly described nirvana as "unconditioned" (and permanent), and saying that if a philosophy said that everything including enlightenment is comprised of conditioned (and impermanent) parts then that philosophy would be illogical.

Yes. Nirvana, the laws of nature, full enlightenment, etc, are permanent (but still not-self or empty). Standard original theory.

i thought pali buddhism likewise said that every element is conditioned. not sure what i said that was illogical, and nowhere did i say that enlightenment is suffering. i downvoted because you seem to be being polemical rather than answering the question in front of you. it's a bad habit

also, and i'm not totally sure it's what you're suggesting, but IIRC any nirvana, not just great nirvana, is said to be unconditioned

@Dhammadhatu sorry if i sound hostile?

No need to apologise for anything. Also, I did not say you were illogical. I said the philosophy of Nagarjuna can be illogical because it appears to state emptiness is proved by conditionality. Back to the topic, Pali Buddhism states the Nirvana element is unconditioned (MN 115) & states the enlightenment wisdom of a Buddha is permanent for the entire lifetime (MN 12). My point in my reply is everything cannot be viewed in terms of conditionality (that is, made up from parts). If we try to view everything in such a fixed & rigid way contradictions will arise. Kind regards.

i like contradictions, they help me think :) @Dhammadhatu

From the flow of your words, I think that you may be confusing enlightenment with emptiness. Both can be confusing, but I will try to clarify each. According to Khenchen Konchog Gyaltsen Rinpoche, enlightenment is the ultimate achievement of buddhahood; and emptiness is the lack of inherent reality of a phenomenon or person. I have often heard lamas teach emptiness as the breaking down of phenomenon in their parts in order to establish that it does not exist as and of itself. In other words, we see a mundane table and we believe that it has an inherent existence, but the table is made up of legs,top,nails,screws,glue...not fixed, but constantly changing from moment to moment from the atomic level up to the fact that it ages and rots. All is impermanent.
Also, in the mundane world one would look at the collective parts as having a practical value as they appear to make the table. However, within Buddhism we see all things as dependently arising; all is depend for its existence upon something else, cause and effect, which is karma. Ergo, the table is dependent upon its parts to make a table. A person is dependent upon karma to make a life. these principles can be applied to all that we perceive in this world.
When it comes to explaining enlightenment, I do not feel that I can explain it any better than Lama Surya Das:
"Enlightenment is not about becoming divine. Instead, it is about becoming more fully human.In examining the archetypical experience of the Buddha, we see that his enlightenment represents the direct realization of reality---how things are and how they work. Enlightenment is the end of ignorance. when we talk about walking the path to enlightenment, we are talking about walking the path of an enlightened being."
If I have misinterpreted your question, please kindly rephrase the question.

no i don't mean "emptiness" that would surely be to misinterpret it as some sort of entity. i mean enlightened cognition, as you say "direct realisation of reality"

I am going to break this down for clarity in my own mind, if not in the minds of others. By definition "enlightened cognition" means that one is "freed from ignorance and misinformation" in order to pursue "the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding thought experiences and the senses" (quotes from a couple of dictionaries). So to paraphrase, is the acquired knowledge and understanding of wisdom, in any Buddhist tradition, more than its parts? Wisdom, is insightful understanding. Simple put the question seems to be, is wisdom more than its parts?
Alright, now let's add the comment's reference to "direct realization of reality", which from the Buddhist view means Ultimate Reality, the direct realization of emptiness which leads to the end of suffering completely which is enlightenment, or buddhahood.
Both Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism translate Prajna and Bodhi as Wisdom. In the deeper sense, Prajna is insightful understanding; and Bodhi is the perfection of wisdom, or the teaching that all phenomenon are empty of self essence, which ties back into the direct realization of reality.
This also takes care of the "in any Buddhist tradition" part of the question.
Is wisdom more than its parts? In the mundane world it is not, since one accumulates pieces and parts of wisdom, conventional wisdom, without sensing a higher pursuit. However, upon the realization of Ultimate Reality, the parts cease to play a role as they too become impermanent through emptiness.


text:
Keeping rooted in the present in the face of past realities
I have remembered at least 4 past incarnations, two being particularly influential throughout my current life before the memory of them. I had been cleaning my psyche and spirit during this time, but I still had a hard time keeping rooted in the present with all these different realities suddenly apparent.
I thought I was ready, as I had been studying reincarnation and the possible implications for years before the memories started. Once they came, it was unlike anything I expected. They were visceral, real, encompassing and completely immersive. I could see so many parallels through them all, and deeply rooted throughout my current incarnation. It began to be too much, and I found it becoming hard to keep rooted in the present.
I started to wonder if I really was just living the same mistakes again that I saw reflected in the most vivid life, and became scared I would suffer the same pain no matter what I did to stop it. I desperately wanted to seek advice, but had no one near me at the time that I felt would know any answers.
So, even though it is years past now, I have found this forum, so I ask those who may know from experience:

How do you keep rooted in the now when all your pasts are constantly running through your mind, sometimes as clear as this moment?
How do you keep this present clear, and not let the other faces and experiences overlay everything?

Thank you for your kind words and suggestions. I can feel the compassion in your words, and feel like I have found a treasure in this site and its readers.

Do vipassana, a retreat if possible. In every moment you have a memory, know that it is a memory, know about feelings which are coming up and so on. Your mind is in the habit of believing the images, but in fact what you see is just mental noise. Maybe you had past lives like that, but it does not matter (I bet you think it does matter; that's exactly the power these images have over you). The training in returning back to the present moment (by acknowledging whatever is happening and letting it go, time and again) will gradually break the attachment of mind to those images, so you will be able to stay more stable even if these images come.
Whatever in the mind is not a hindrance to be present, if seen clearly for what it is (body sensation, feeling, mind, mind object -- technically speaking); present cannot be destroyed but we are sometimes unable to tune in back to it, and that's why we train.
As a side note: if your condition is psychiatric (you are not able to take care of yourself in regular matters, often can't distinguish hallucinations from reality etc), do seek proper treatment first.

Kashalha, as vipassana is a too broad a word encompassing many aspects of Dhamma, I would recommend this one meditation, that can be done when you are walking, sitting, lying, or any other posture that when sleeping. It is called Sati Sampajañña. Alertness and awareness come under the Pali word, sampajañña. Sati means keeping something in mind, like remembering to stay with the breath, remembering the various things that help in the training of the mind. Our happiness, our lack of happiness, depends on our actions. So that’s where we focus our attention. That’s what we should keep in mind. This is called dhammanussati, keeping the Dhamma in mind. This is why the Buddha has us listen to the Dhamma, read the Dhamma. Whatever thinking that you do, it needs to be through the Dhamma.
When you create a frame of reference here in the present moment, there are lots of things you can tune in to. You can choose the body in and of itself. You can choose feelings, mental states, mental qualities in and of themselves. Those frequencies are on the path. Other frequencies are off the path—there is such a thing as Wrong Mindfulness, you know. Our meditation consists of choosing the frequencies most beneficial for the mind.
Whenever your thoughts go to recollecting your past incarnations, try to get them out of your mind, as they are a-Dhamma. To be consciously forgetful in that way requires an act of mindfulness—in other words, deciding which level you’re going to tune in to while you let everything else go for the time being. Of all the sensory input that comes in at any one particular moment, you make a choice of what you’re going to pay attention to, what memories, what frame of reference you’re going to bring to that particular moment. And it’s an important mental skill to be able to shift your frame of reference as necessary.
Being mindful means being very deliberate and clear about what you bring to whatever you’re doing: what you’re going to remember, what you’re not going to remember, what you’re going to recollect, what you’re going to let go, which things are useful to recollect right now. If you wanted to, you could sit here and spend the whole hour thinking about facts that would make you totally miserable, but what does that accomplish? We’re sitting here to think about things that are useful for the mind, so remember the things that are useful for the mind, that will help it develop. As for the other voices coming in and out of the mind, listen to the ones that are helpful and ignore the ones that are not. You can be selective.
This way, mindfulness becomes a quality we can apply to everything we do. And instead of making us unable to function, it actually heightens our ability to function, because we understand the process that the mind goes through.

Thank you very much. This was my problem, the inability to focus on a particular moment mindfully. There was so much coming in at once, and the connections were astounding- I quite simply was overwhelmed. At the time, I had to make a mindful choice to ignore the entire thing, and was able to gradually lessen my attachment to those past memories. But the implications still arise in my life often. I will take some deep breaths, and when I feel I can be ready again, I believe I will do as you suggested when I feel too much crossover may be occurring.  Thank you, your words resonate deep within.

A lot of people are recommending Vipassana but this is incorrect.
Samatha (calm-abiding) is the appropriate one.
Why?
Because you need to bring yourself to this present moment, centering on your breath.
Then, only when you make an intention to remember these things will you remember them.
Read Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha for more information regarding this tip. There is an explanation on there on a single page...


text:
Is generating intention necessary?
Any intentional action is kamma. We do good and bad actions. Like any other actions, sometimes we do it intentionally, sometimes we just do it without intention.
Is it necessary to generating good intention before/when doing wholesome deed? The more we do good deeds the more frequent we create this intention which can easily become an obsession of the mind and create (new) sankhara. But if there is no intention, how can a good action become a good kamma?

Could you explain what you mean by an action without a prior intention?

Mental intention is always necessary for an action. However an intention (such as Right Intention of the Noble Eightfold Path) does not always have to have 'self' or 'attachment' involved with it.
There are three kinds of kamma: (1) bad kamma; (2) good kamma; & (3) void kamma.
The intrinsic meaning of 'good & bad kamma' is there is attachment or 'self' invested in the action & its results. To quote the scriptures:

And what is the right view with effluents (defilements), siding with merit (goodness), resulting in acquisitions (attachment)? There are
fruits & results of good & bad actions.
MN 117

'Void kamma' means there is no 'self' invested in the kamma.
Buddhas appear in the world for the primary purpose to teach about void kamma or ending kamma. The higher practise of Buddhism is doing necessary & compassionate kamma with a void mind or 'doing without a doer' (rather than for the accumulation of good karma). It is for stopping obsession with kamma & stopping creating (new) sankhara. To quote the scriptures:

And what is the cessation of kamma? This noble eightfold path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood,
right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration — is the path of
practice leading to the cessation of kamma.
Nibbedhika Sutta

In summary, the enlightened view is 'ignorance' is the doer of both good (meritorious) & bad (demeritorious) kamma and 'wisdom' is the doer of enlightened void selfless kamma.

Bhikkhus, if a person immersed in ignorance generates (abhisankharonti) a meritorious (good) formation (saṅkhāraṃ), consciousness fares on to the
meritorious; if he generates a demeritorious (bad) formation, consciousness fares on to the demeritorious; if he
generates an imperturbable formation, consciousness fares
on to the imperturbable. But when a bhikkhu has abandoned ignorance
and aroused true knowledge, then, with the fading away of ignorance
and the arising of true knowledge, he does not generate a meritorious
(good) formation or a demeritorious (bad)
formation or an imperturbable formation. Since he does not
generate or fashion formations, he does not cling to
anything in the world. Not clinging, he is not agitated. Not being
agitated, he personally attains Nibbāna. 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.’
SN 12.51

This link may be helpful: Kamma in Buddhism

With or without intention, volitional actions are defined as kamma.
For example, killing an animal in excruciating pain while the intention was to free it from agony.
Even in habitual or involuntary actions, there might be an element of intention. It is just the lack of awareness or mindfulness. For example; one could slap a mosquito involuntarily; but the thought process required to kill is complete, hence bad kamma is accumulated.

an example, someone sprays insecticide to kill mosquitoes. Because of this insecticide, it triggers neighbor's asthma. Next time, he does the same thing again i.e. sprays insecticide with intention to kill insects, again his neighbor suffers from asthma. He does that repeatedly and his neighbor got asthma again and again. Since he has no intention to make his neighbor suffers from asthma, why should he stop his action?

B1100, The intention of killing the insect in this scenario is one sin.
Looking into the neighbor, If you happened to know that he is getting an asthma because of the insecticide that you spray and still you have no idea to create asthma to him yet you continue to spray insecticide knowing there is a chance it will cause asthma to your neighbor, then it is bad karma, because you actions create a negative affect on another and knowing that it does, you do not stop you actions.

If you give a glass of coca cola to a person because he looked thirsty and its good karma.
If you give a glass of coca cola to a person with the intention of
increasing his/her sugar level in order to fall sick, then it is bad
karma.

Most of the actions come from an intention.
If you were walking listening to music and looking around and you happen to step on a cockroach, then its not bad karma for you, because you never knew a cockroach would be there nor you saw it before you took that footstep.
But if you were walking in the path knowing there are cockroaches and there is a chance that you step on one but still you continue to walk carelessly and suddenly you step on a cockroach, then it is bad karma. This is because it is ignorance. True that you did not meant to step on one, yet you stepped. You walked carelessly knowing there is a chance that another living being could be harmed if you are not careful. But you continued to do so anyway and it harmed a living being. That is a sin.

@B1100… it is worth checking the Atthi Raga Sutta (where there is passion) in Samyutta Nikaya.
SN 12.64 - Atthi Raga Sutta: Where There is Passion
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.064.than.html
In this Sutta the Buddha explains the causes for the continuation of life from one existence to another or the life through samsara. In it the Buddha talks about four types of ‘food’ that are nourishment for the continuation of life from existence to existence, that is for the continuation of the process of birth, aging, sickness and death. One is material or physical, while the other three are mental nutriments. We were born because we had these four nutriments and as long as we are nourished by these nutriments, life will continue in countless numbers of various existences.
The third of the four is Nutriment of intellectual intention (manosancetana ahara). This consists of mental formation and intentions (volition) which the mind creates and with which it becomes involved in regard to the object with which it comes into contact. When the eye sees form, the nose smells odours, the tongue tastes, the body contacts tangible objects, volition and intentions arise in the mind.  This too is a nutriment which results in repeated births.
The arising of volition (cetana) is the result of mental factors.  They may be wholesome or unwholesome intentions.  Mental factors are not permanent, they constantly change.  They are the result of desire.  If we are mindful we could realize this and understand the nutriment of intellectual intention in this manner.  If someone binds your hands and legs together and tries to throw you into a pit of glowing embers, what would you do?  You would try to run away and escape.  This is how the nutriment of intellectual intention should be regarded.

Generating intention before doing good will reduce the karmic reward.
Generating regret after doing bad will reduce the karmic punishment.
For deeper explanation see the chapter on the 6 Root Afflictions about Doubt in the book "How to Measure and Deepen your Spiritual Realization".


text:
Does Nagarjuna's Middle Treatise 24:18 teach real knowledge?
I like this verse, it is simply stated, and I like simple statements that can be made into something, or understood as, important.

But I'm totally unsure how to make sense of its four (famous) components! I probably think that "emptiness" means no causation, the idea that conditioned (caused) things don't exist in reality: that any supposed knowledge about them is bound to be found out as a form of ignorance. So then I understand them as:

causation isn't real
this is real
we can study this
and we already are

Is that an OK-ish understanding, or have I fallen into a trap? If it is, do all four of these teachings permanently replace our deluded conceptualisations?

No, this is not an OK-ish understanding, since it does not approach traditional interpretations (whether that of Tsongkhapa or his opponents belonging to the Jonang school or the Nyingma tradition).
First, from the Madhyamika-Prasangika viewpoint (Buddhapalita, Candrakirti, Shantideva, Tsongkhapa, etc) there are thee types of dependent-arising:

Dependent on causes and conditions
Dependent on parts
Dependent on names

From the Madhyamika-Svatantrika viewpoint (Bhavaviveka, Haribhadra, Kamalasila, etc). There are only the first two types (or maybe this is forced on them by Prasangika proponents).
The point is: all objects of knowledge are dependent arising, even those that do not arise from causes and conditions and are therefore permanent phenomena (such as space, cessation, emptiness). This accords with the next verse of the same chapter:

Something that is not dependently arisen, Such a thing does not exist.
  Therefore a non-empty thing Does not exist.

Traditionally, we say that the meaning of dependent-arising is emptiness. This is an interpretation of the verse, since dependent-arising is not said to be emptiness, but the meaning of emptiness. This is because realizing emptiness does not equate realizing dependent-arising.  One can not realize something as being a dependent-arising without having emptiness prior. That 'this is a provisional name' refers to emptiness being dependent-arising. Since it is a permanent phenomena, it does not depend on causes and conditions. However, it depends on parts and names: the emptiness of the mind, for instance, depends on its basis (i.e. the mind). Emptiness is necessarily emptiness of something and depends on its basis, therefore it is a dependent-arising.
This was stated because some think that emptiness exists truly (inherently) while it is not the case.
I suggest you attend teachings on this text and commentaries. One needs to rely on a teacher to study such texts. You started saying that you like simple statements, but it might be a trap leading you to think you can understand on your own.

hi, i appreciate the reply... i have actually read a fair bit on this, including the authors you mention, i just like simplifying things too much :/

is causation real? 2. if not, is that real? 3. and can we have non deluded knowledge about what causes what?

From a Prasangika viewpoint, causation is not real (because there is no 'real  conventionalities'), but it is 'real in relation to just the world' because it is an existent. On the other hand, the horns of the rabbit are not real even in relation to just the world, since they are utterly non-existent. Causation does exist conventionally. What is refuted is not causation altogether, but the four extremes of production, that is: inherent production.

The omniscient mind of a buddha is divided into two: the second disivion is "the exalted knower of all aspects that knows the main causes and effects with regard to the seventy topics". (so, yes, one can have non deluded knowledge about what causes what)

hey thanks for the reply, that is really great of you to do so, so clearly etc. :( !!

Nagarjuna is the master who gave a clear definition to the school of Buddhism that is known today as Mahayana Buddhism. So when you question whether what he thought in the quoted text is the real knowledge or not, it brought a smile to my face. How "emptiness" is defined in the Mahayana, and in the Pali Canon is different. I cannot remember where I came across it, so I will not comment further on this. You are not sure whether you have fallen into a trap or not.
All what I can tell you is that the Buddha taught us to be vigilant in the present and strive to understand the Dhamma by analyzing and investigating carefully. In society there are two predominant views. They are right view and wrong view. Right view leads to the proper path while the latter to a wrong road.  One thing that I know is that both the Mahayanins and the Theravadins believe in the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Noble Path, the Dependent Origination, the Three Characteristics of Existence and a number of other basic tenets. Above all, both the schools accept Gotama Buddha as their Teacher. So that is a good place to start.

I apologize for downvoting this; I did because I thought it didn't answer the question at all.

@ChrisW I upvoted because I think that it points to what the referenced "Middle Way" is. Define that, and the answer is clear. As I understand it, Buddhism asserts that we can only really know for ourselves, through experience and perhaps reflection. So looking outside oneself for direction might be a help, but it can never be an "answer". This Answer basically says this... "you are not sure whether you have fallen into a trap or not." This is the beginning of Knowledge.

@nocomprende Maybe it's a mystic, read-into-it-what-you-will answer (of a style that might appeal to you). I read it as saying, "That is a question about 'emptiness' in Mahayana, but I've forgotten where I came across that so I won't comment. The Buddha did tell us to be vigilant and investigate carefully, and here's a list of some doctrines which all schools of Buddhism have in common." The problem IMO is that an answer like "I don't know but the Buddha told us to investigate carefully" could be copy-and-pasted as an answer to any/every question: it's therefore not a (specific) answer at all.

@ChrisW I agree with you that on the face of it, this does not appear to be an answer, and I agree with your point that it could be "the answer" to lots of questions about undefined terms in Buddhism. The question is basically: "Does X = Y, because someone clearly said this, but I don't understand X?" One possible answer is to say, "Well, continue with Y then, which you have some understanding of, and eventually X will become apparent." This Answer tackles the Middle Way half of the equation, and the others try to address the Dependent Co-arising / emptiness side. I think that both are useful.

Work towards experiential knowledge of the realization of the Dhamma. Right view (Sammaditthi) is twofold:  conceptual right views or the intellectual grasp of the principles in Buddha's teaching, and the true (experiential) right view.  It is the wisdom that arises by direct penetration of the teaching.  You will never come to the true right-view if you are not rooted in faith in the Triple Gem and driven by a keen aspiration to realize the truth. It starts with confidence and the state of Sotha-Aapanna – to get into the stream – is the arrival. Then you will see the otherness.

It is good to answer from your own experience (and/or answer with references). But I think every answer should also address/answer the OP's question, for example to be an answer to this topic the answer ought to say something about Nagarjuna, emptiness, whether or not and why anything which dependently co-arises is "empty", and/or whether such things "really exist". If an answer doesn't include any of those elements then IMO it doesn't answer, doesn't address, the OP's question.

Some philosophical interpretations of Nagarajuna do phrase it in terms of dependently arising things not really being caused.

there is no causation, when causation is thought of as involving
  causal activity. Nonetheless, he [Nagarjuna] notes (1: 2), there are
  conditions...  Suppose that you ask, "Why are the lights on?" I might
  reply as follows: (1) Because I flicked the switch. I have appealed to
  an efficient condition. Or (2) because the wires are in good working
  order, the bulbs haven't burned out, and the electricity is flowing.
  These are supporting conditions... [etc.] none of them makes reference
  to any causal powers or necessitation.

Garfield seems here to be saying that things are caused, but their causes aren't real.
I am quite unsure though whether he would say:

that's because knowledge of what causes what is deluded;
we can have non deluded knowledge

I'm sorry I don't understand the subject matter well enough to understand/judge this, but: is this as an answer to your original question, or, is it an addition/supplement/follow-on to the original question, or is it a comment/question to Tenzin Dorje's answer?

hi @ChrisW don't be sorry. i suppose it's an incomplete answer to my question

I will wade in to the conflagration and say that I think that one possible understanding is that #2 is false: we are unable to have non-deluded knowledge. But we can be clear about that and not get further deluded and wander farther into the maze. To me, knowledge of Dependent Co-Arising means seeing that causes, reality, concepts, etc are all made-up. We cannot have 'knowledge' of something that we just created in our minds out of nothing. Realizing that that is the state of affairs, is what I would call Emptiness.

You are actually misunderstanding the verse.
The verse is in fact the KEY to unlocking the understanding of the Prajñāpāramitā sutras - Heart Sutra, Diamond Sutra as well the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra.
Here is an alternative English translation (You Zai) of the verse from Mulamadhyamaka Karika from the Chinese translation by Kumarajiva

All dharmas that arise from causes and conditions,
I call them emptiness.
They are also provisional names,
And also the Middle Way.

The Chinese text

眾因緣生法，我説即是空；
亦為是假名，亦是中道義。

What Nagarjuna is saying, is that because all dependent originated phenomenon are due to causes and conditions, by their very conditionality they are impermanent and without self. As stated by the Buddha.

Pratītyasamutpāda
"When this is, that is;
This arising, that arises;
When this is not, that is not;
This ceasing, that ceases."

Therefore because things are impermanent and without a true lasting self. He call them 'empty'.
However the term 'emptiness' is also just a convenient label, because it does not fully explain the complexity of the phenomenon and all the causes that made up something. To say something is 'empty' is that it ultimately lacks an underlying 'essence', but does not mean that it does not exist but that it does not truly exist.
This is therefore the Middle Way between Eternalism and Annihilationism. To be annihilationist is to say nothing exists and that there are no causes for anything to occur. This isn't the definition of emptiness as used by Nagarjuna. It is because there are causes, there are outcomes, but because they are made up of causes, there are also impermanent, hence is not Eternal.
So whenever you come across a text like the following:

Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is form.
Heart Sutra

Your should consider the meaning of emptiness.
Form is dependently generated, Dependent origination is form.
Form is impermanent, Impermanence is form.
Form is without self, Without self is form.
So the question would be, why did Mahayana Buddhist Nagarjuna rephrase what is already a known Buddhist concept into 'emptiness'.
It because of what they perceived as the reification of Buddhist teachings in the Abhidhamma by schools such as the Sarvastivada (one of the ancestors of the Theravada), recall that even in modern Theravada teaches that Nibanna is unconditioned, a deathless dimension, and that the Arahants are perfect etc.
Nagarjuna denies such permanence and eternalism.
This is why it is stated:

There is No Wisdom, and There is No Attainment Whatsoever.

Because wisdom is itself conditioned (by the practice of the Noble Eightfold Path), and therefore wisdom too is impermanent. Hence the fruit of Four Stages of Attainment (Stream Entry, Once Returner, One Returner, Arahantship) are impermanent too.
It is not saying that there wisdom does not exist or the fruits of the contemplative life does not exist. They do exist, but like everything else are impermanent and not self.
Nagarjuna is breaking our attachments to the attainments within the very Dharma itself! Even Nirvana itself is impermanent! The end of suffering as is suffering is caused and conditioned and is impermanent!


text:
If a Buddhists was trapped with a predator animal in a cage, would they kill it?
Since Buddhists believe that we shouldn't hurt animals, then would they kill one for survival?

FYI one of Stack Exchange's general policies says, "You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. Chatty, open-ended questions diminish the usefulness of our site"

The question seems too general and there could be a spectrum of answers based off some of the vague terms you used in the question itself such as "Buddhist" . And there a lot of assumptions to be made in answering. I'd suggest, explore a little bit about Buddhist ethics (sīla); you will be able to come up with a better question.

Question closed due to being purely hypothetical and not serving a real purpose. Please read the policy on "What types of questions should I avoid asking?".

Lanka, why is this question closed? If you just think a little more, he is trying to know the karma of handling a life or death situation through a papa karma. Treeschapter should be given a chance to get a proper answer. Infact, this is questioned by lot of young followers. Most likely, in this case which is where Treeschapter is searching for an answer as he is still learning. He deserves a chance for an explanation.


text:
Does the universe ever end?
I have meditated and come to the conclusion that the world never ends, that conciousness goes on infinitely. This was ok when I felt I had free will, when I believed I was helping other people, when I thought that even what was apparently nonsense had purpose and when I felt like I could at least to some degree affect the feelings I have and those of others; to make things better for everyone.
But sometimes I feel like I can't, like everything is predestined and there's no control over anything. Like we're all trapped in a giant hamster wheel that runs around and around forever with no exit.
What is the correct way to view this problem?
(Also, you probably need an 'eternal return' tag.)

Related: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/15456/is-it-possible-to-be-reborn-for-all-eternity

@Fiksdal I am currently unable to upvote being reborn for all eternity.

As far as I know, your upvote is still saved in the system. Once you get above 15 (I believe), your previous votes will come into effect. (If I'm not mistaken.) If you ask a few more questions or make some answers, you'll get some rep and then we can discuss these things in chat, etc. http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/15162/buddhism

@Fiksdal Ok. I had a few other things come up in meditation recently. I might ask about those, I think.

Sure. You just need to provide a few more answers or questions here first, so you can get enough reputation to talk in chat. When you want to talk to a particular user, remember to use the @ and then their name.

@Fiksdal I tried to ask a question but I don't know if it would be useful to others.

If you're unsure, you can ask in meta.buddhism.stackexchange.com first to find out whether your question is suitable.

@Fiksdal Ok. I am sorry and will seek guidance before asking in future.

What are you sorry about? Have you asked any unsuitable questions? I haven't seen any.

You just need 2 more reputation now, and you'll be able to chat. And you can already upvote.

@Fiksdal Was my newer question a good question? I wondered if it was too personal to be answered.

I'm not sure. It seems kind of broad. But I'm new to this site myself, so I'm not sure what the requirements are here.

@Fiksdal I think "too broad" isn't a reason for closing a question on this site: this site is in some ways more liberal than many other SE sites, see Moderation policies for Questions for details.

@ChrisW Oh, that's cool. Thanks for letting me know.

@user8501 When this is Buddhism and our perspective is scientifically  to look at anything. So I gotta when you said felt eternal and infinite that awaken mind can't loose ever and it would be eternal. Once I was watching show visitor in monastery asked a monk "Is there a judgment day?" He said "There's only change and no judgment day." And for more about "universe" you can see what Buddha said about it.

There were fourteen questions to which Buddha remained silent. The universe is eternal,  The universe is not eternal.. were two of them. Read the following sutta.
MN 63 - Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta: The Shorter Instructions to Malunkya
One day a man called Malunkyaputta approached the Buddha and demanded that He explain these questions to him. He even threatened to cease to be His follow if the Buddha's answer was not satisfactory. The Buddha calmly retorted that it was of no consequence to Him whether or not Malunkyaputta followed Him, because the Truth did not need anyone's support. Then the Buddha said that He would not go into a discussion of the origin of the Universe, whether it is eternal or not eternal etc. To Him, gaining knowledge about such matters was a waste of time because a man's task was to liberate himself from the present, not the past or the future. To illustrate this, the Enlightened One related the parable of a man who was shot by a poisoned arrow. This foolish man refused to have the arrow removed until he found out all about the person who shot the arrow. By the time his attendants discovered these unnecessary details, the man was dead. Similarly, our immediate task is to attain Nibbana, not to worry about our beginnings.
Another Sutta to read in this context is AN 4.45  -  Rohitassa Sutta: To Rohitassa

Once I was a seer named Rohitassa, a student of Bhoja, a powerful skywalker. My speed was as fast as that of a strong archer—well trained, a practiced hand, a practiced sharpshooter—shooting a light arrow across the shadow of a palmyra tree. My stride stretched as far as the east sea is from the west. To me, endowed with such speed, such a stride, there came the desire: ‘I will go traveling to the end of the cosmos.’ I—with a one-hundred year life, a one-hundred year span—spent one hundred years traveling—apart from the time spent on eating, drinking, chewing & tasting, urinating & defecating, and sleeping to fight off weariness—but without reaching the end of the cosmos I died along the way. So … ‘I tell you, friend, that it isn’t possible by traveling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one doesn’t take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear.’”
[When this was said, the Blessed One responded:] "In this very one-fathom long body along with its perceptions and thoughts, do I proclaim the world, the origin of the world, the cessation of the world, and the path leading to the cessation of the world."
When the Buddha uses the term “world” or “cosmos” (loka), his primary meaning is the cosmos as experienced in terms of the six senses. As with the other factors of dependent co-arising, there is no need to study the cosmos “out there” behind our experience of the senses. It is enough simply to understand the cosmos as directly experienced for that experience to be brought to an end.

Does the universe ever end ?
I am not sure anyone has the answer, quite frankly.
Who knows.
But in our case, it doesn't really matter that much : we're mostly concerned with the here and now, to my mind.

In using the word "we", you give the impression of viewing life collectively.
The universe may never end, many things may be predestined & not controllable; often, we may not be able to help others or make the world a better place; but 'our own' individual mind can be set free from suffering about  the world of conscious experience.
Unlike you, when the Buddha meditated, he came to the conclusion consciousness is impermanent or finite. However, regardless of whether consciousness is finite or infinite, the Four Noble Truths in Buddhism explain the method to be free from suffering by abandoning craving, liking & disliking and attachment towards the world of conscious experience.

You are having a subliminal taste of the Infinite Consciousness jhana.
There are a lot of thoughts and states that we enjoy and pursue through various activities that would be fully satiated by entering into the respective jhana.
So maybe it is not about more thinking but cultivating that jhana (which require 1st jhana as prerequisite) to really understand consciousness and satisfy one's confusion.
So similar to what Sapta says, it is best to practice to convert this ideation into true transformations and  realizations that jhana would produce.

Whoever downvoted me thanks for the feedback, I clarified my answer to make it more understandable.

Can you recommend any good reading on the 1st jhana?

Look for samatha meditation. "Experience of samadhi"  .. Meditationexpert.com has my personal favorite articles. Jhana is one of the top 3 important things Buddha spoke about so you can find more about them by searching for samadhi/jhana.