text:
Why do we need to work?
I am a software engineer. Is it shameful if I became a monk throwing away all the knowledge that I have accumulated all these years(more than a decade). In my previous years, I was amused by programming. But now, I have become dispassioned with everything about my work. I see my accumulation of ideas / knowledge as useless.
I am extremely confused.

You don't seem at all confused to me. Where is the confusion? .

If I spend 6 years of my life getting a PhD, will it bring me out of my suffering? More precisely, if I spend my getting degrees after degrees, solving problems after problems, etc. is it a waste of time ? I am feeling the emptiness of knowledge.

It is not a waste of time. Emptiness of knowledge is constructive.

It's cause and effect. Because of your ignorence(previous) .... desire and so on, You got a life, you got a body, you got a mind. Now you have to maintain it. It's suffering (now you are feeling it). Solution is to understand dhamma and to be enlightened.

If you can attain the real peace of meditation, it is like becoming a millionaire.
Since you have so much knowledge, who can easily get a job and earn a living, you can consider taking a holiday for a year or more to explore meditation.

Op specifies question: should he become a monk? This answer does not address question... yes he is able to take vacation for a year. But maybe he should be a monk! It sounds easy :p

Becoming a monk has too many distractions. Just go to monastery and practise meditation as a layman for a year. Deciding on monkhood can be done later; after testing the waters of meditation. Kind regards

That there are “too many distractions” is true for a monk and a householder or even an ascetic like myself.

Perhaps monkhood is the middlepath of the OP

Yes. But in my experience at a later time. Becoming monk has so many formalities. With metta

I am a software engineer. Is it shameful if I became a monk throwing away all the knowledge that I have accumulated all these years(more than a decade). In my previous years, I was amused by programming. But now, I have become dispassioned with everything about my work. I see my accumulation of ideas / knowledge as useless.

The good news is that you can become a monk without having to throw away all your SWE knowledge. You simply just switch the priority around a little bit, instead of using your skillset primarily to make money for yourself, now you can use it for more wholesome purposes for many others.

In a practical context, would this mean for example to switch to open-source projects that have a philanthropist goal? Would this be in line with the path of the monk?

Notice that the path toward complete final liberation is a gradual path with various different stages/levels from low to high, and obviously the number of rules/precepts to observe are proportional to those stages. Monkhood is considered to be an advanced stage reserved for those who are willing to put enlightenment as the utmost highest priority, hence requires the most numerous number of rules to obey. The open-source approach you proposed might be legit. as long as it's being implemented carefully not to break any of the 227 bhikkhu rules as laid out in the Vinaya.

@Mast I think it might be debatable with some monks agreeing and some not. Many monks study or teach to some extent. It might depend on time-of-life too, with a monk doing different things -- whether more "engaged" or less -- at different times. There may be more monastics reading https://discourse.suttacentral.net/ than this site, maybe there would be a place to ask that question -- bearing in mind that community might tend to be biased or self-selecting towards being engaged.

I am also a software engineer and went through this exact situation about 3-4 years ago.
My personal experience (yours may differ) is that its not the nature of work or the outlook of accumulating knowledge (useful or not) that is causing this.
Ask yourself a few questions open mindedly. Drop the assumption that it may be useful or useless to do something.

Why is it a problem for you to do software (or X)? Go really deep here. What exactly is causing the problem?
Do you wish to learn or do something else, does something else interest you? (monkhood is a lifestyle that doesn't come easy)
What is your current personal/financial situation? Do you need to earn a living for yourself or family or someone else?

What happened with me was that once I started meditating, I started to do things more naturally. I did whatever needed to be done. Work stopped bothering me to be honest. I should stop here to say My mind stopped bothering me.
What I think has happened is that, you were intellectually stimulated by software and the world etc., and all that has come to a standstill. The mind is rebelling and debating about the uselessness or usefulness of X, Y, Z tasks and life etc.,
Essentially, your mind should be taking instructions from you, not the other way round. Meditation helps with that. So I suggest you start off with 5-10 minutes of that and see where it goes. It really helps.
I feel it takes a little bit of inside adjustment to align ourselves with life, not mind. Meditation is required for that. Its like recalibrating yourself everyday. You will become more pleasant and aligned with everyday activity. Doesn't matter if it is software or watering the plants...
[Edit for clarification]
By big picture I meant thinking of the world and how it works as a whole and as a consequence, nihilistic thoughts arising.
Examples:
Why is the world like this?
Why do we have a market based economy? Why capitalist government? Why democracy?
Why am I here? What are we doing here?
Another similar question, What's the use of doing X? -- this is the question OP is having.
These may sound like perfectly logical/valid questions at times. In our current state of mind and body that is lacking clear perception, we will not get sufficient answers to these type of questions. In fact, they may also come from a non-achieving mind that is looking for excuses i.e., one that wants to be lazy and do nothing.
So, what's the point of anything at all? What's the point of life? I think this is where you might logically move towards. But we can also ask, what if there's no point? And we're all here doing something, anything, i.e., whatever we want or whatever is restricted by situations we are faced with.
So maybe also ask yourself, should there be a point at all?

Sorry, there's something I didn't understand... -- you wrote, "Drop the assumption that it may be useful or useless to do something", and, "What is your current personal/financial situation?" Aren't those two related, or contradicting each other? A "software engineer" is probably paid, a professional working for money, because the money seems "useful" and they "do something" (i.e. work as a software engineer) to earn it. Can you clarify a bit what you meant when you wrote that?

Why I said drop the assumption of usefulness/uselessness, is because this kind of thinking comes from looking at a very big picture of all the things happening in the world. Why bother moving the needle everyday? What's going to happen if I don't do anything? Almost nihilistic. It probably comes to usefulness if you think of how it helps with family later on in the thought process.

One more question, to be clear... are you saying that the misleading assumption of usefulness comes from looking at the big picture? Or that the better kind of thinking or of seeing (view) comes from looking at the big picture, after dropping misleading assumptions including "usefulness"?

To clarify, by "big picture" I meant the overall way the world works, why we are here, what are we doing here, what's the use of doing X, and such other "existential" questions. In our current state of mind and body, we will not get sufficient answers to these type of questions. In fact, they may also come from a non-achieving mindset that is looking for excuses i.e., one that wants to be lazy and do nothing.

Edited my answer to make that clear

If you are a software engineer, you can do wonders to propagate Dhamma. Please speak to Bhante Sujato who is the administrator of  Sutta Central.
https://suttacentral.net/

How do I concat him?

@nitrogen Via https://discourse.suttacentral.net/c/the-watercooler or https://discourse.suttacentral.net/c/meta/dev or https://github.com/suttacentral would be my guess -- I don't know a more specific link.

To answer your question: we dont need to work. We dont need to be monks. We dont need to be jobless. We dont need to need. But if we have a job we should be skillful and diligent, this is a responsibility you already undertook. To be dispassionate and useless is okay. I would argue that people accused the buddha of the same things! It is not shameful to be a monk. Lord Buddha became an ascetic “throwing away” or renouncing his right to the throne. My advice: become a monk for one year and then disrobe and come tell us what you have learned.

Is it shameful if I became a monk
I don't think so.
I learned a lot in school that isn't useful to me any more.
I had a colleague who had been a doctor (a "paediatric microbiologist"), and who gave that up to practice software engineering.
I was reading this definition of "conceit" recently:

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

Is learning useful, since its just accumulation of ideas ?

You're echoing my use of the word "useful". I think Buddhism might talk about what's "virtuous", "harmless", "skilful", "wise", and so on. And as for "learning", Buddhism itself is called a "gradual training". And it's practical too and thus not "just ideas", that's how it's beneficial.

I mean there are plenty of things to learn in this world. I can learn playing guitar, sky diving, mountain biking, chess, etc. But, is it worth it to spend majority of our lives pursuing such learning ? Apart from training in buddhism, I find everything pretty useless.

Dhammadhatus's answer sounds like advice, perhaps consider that. The knowledge (of software) is dependently originated IMO, social and the result of practice -- you might find that the skill doesn't go away and that you can come back to it after a year if you wanted to ... or you might not. Incidentally I think his answer is just slightly wrong -- i.e. that "getting a job" might depend on reputation and not just on knowledge, though also on inter-personal skills and motivations.

All the knowledge you current have is saṁvṛiti, or knowledge of the conventional truth. Becoming a monk is in pursuit of paramārtha, or the ultimate truth. In essence you are not throwing anything away.

Now to your point. In essence, obtaining saṁvṛiti is essentially pointless when we look at the goal of nibbana. That being said, it seems that you are feeling depressed and you are considering becoming a monk (maybe thinking this will solve it).
If you want to become a monastic, I would recommend practicing in your everyday life and slowly transitioning. Take on the eight precepts and spend your time in solitude. In Each and Every Breath by Thanissaro Bhikku, he includes a considerable discussion of how to implement meditation into your everyday life.
If you find that this practice leads you to the ending of dukkha, visit a monastery and try it out for a week or a month. After that, you can be confident you are making the right choice.
In my opinion, it would be unwise to quit your job and outright go to a monastery without verifying this is what you want. Monastic life is not all rosy. They work very hard and must be constantly aware. If you do choose the monastic life, you are making the most meriful choice with life and I commend you greatly.

In general it's not shameful to give up a lowly pursuit for something more exquisite. Although if one became a bad monk, developed wrong views and got mixed up in some  sect then it might turn out shameful.

Be gentle on yourself. It's okay to feel confused. Feelings come and feelings go.
Such an abrupt change in your life could lead to more suffering. Look deeply into why you feel the way you do. Do this by breathing mindfully. Thich Nhat Hanh has some excellent reading materials to help you with this.
Before you make a decision, take time to understand where you are and why you feel the way you do.

Why work?

Why do we need to work?

I have asked this question myself, especially when I've become dissatisfied with my own career as a software engineer. There is much I could say in response to your question, but I feel it would be more wise to instead suggest that you ask yourself a different question.

Why do I work?

There are many different reasons why people seek employment, but to find direction and clarity, you need to look inside and find the reasons why you have chosen to work in your given career path.
For example:

Do you need to the income to sustain yourself or others who depend upon you?
Do you have financial obligations that you are expected to fulfill?
Do you feel that you are obligated to work?
Are you concerned that your education will be wasted if you don't continue to work?
Do you find your work engaging or fulfilling?
Does your work provide meaning?
Do you want the money to indulge yourself in various material pleasures?
Do you want the prestige that can come from working in your chosen field?

You have already answered some of these questions in your original post, but it's worth exploring them further.
Impermanence
Job Satisfaction
I suspect that your confusion is due, in part, to a lack of appreciation for impermanence. All things change over time, including one's job. A career that may have been nearly perfect at one point may become dissatisfying later, due to a change in the job, a change in the industry, or a change in oneself.
As an example, early in my career, I had a job that I truly enjoyed. I found the work meaningful and it wasn't overly taxing (which I prefer.) I gained a lot of valuable experience, particularly with "soft skills." As a grew as a professional, I gained a deeper appreciation for the software development lifecycle; in particularly, I learned how the way an organization was structured and how it operated could impact how effective I and my colleagues were as developers.
Eventually, I learned about Agile Software Development Methodologies. The philosophies behind it mirrored my own observations, so I embraced Agile whole-heartedly. Unfortunately, the company I was working for was slow to adopt Agile and didn't begin to experiment with it until almost 20 years after the Agile Manifesto was released. Worse, though, I foresaw many obstacles that would prevent it from being successfully adopted. For that reason, I decided it was best I move on to a new company - one where I could leverage my experience to be more productive and contribute better to my peers, my employer, and society as a whole.
The job I worked at hadn't changed substantially. I, however, had changed. My goals and expectations had changed such that I was no longer satisfied with the job I originally was so enthusiastic about.
Knowledge
Being in the software industry, you should appreciate the need to keep your skills current. Knowledge isn't some possession that you acquire and then gain value from indefinitely. It's something that you need to nurture and grow over time; the value you get from it may be more or less depending upon your circumstances.
This isn't to say your education will become worthless, but rather that leveraging your education is an ongoing decision - one that you can change at any time.
In other words, there's nothing wrong with deciding to switch careers. Don't succumb to the sunk cost fallacy; do whatever is the right thing.
Advice
My advice is to schedule some time off to sit and reflect.
It doesn't have to be much; even a day off at home would be helpful. However, if you can arrange it, I would highly recommend finding a Buddhist community nearby. They may have an introductory workshop you can attend or (if you have enough experience) weekend retreats for mediation.
Whatever you do, be informed and intentional in your actions. There are plenty of opportunities for software engineers so don't be afraid to consider a new job. Also don't be afraid to "waste" your education. You may indeed find life as a monk more fulfilling, but not if you rush into it hoping to escape from your current dissatisfaction.
Best of luck on your journey. I wish you well!


text:
What can be the remedy here?
Whenever I go for meditation retreat(self-exploration or in group), my brain remains calm, body remains healthy, digestive system becomes good.
When I try to go for household life or even think about it, my tension increases, digestive system corrupts(whereas it remains better during retreat), can't maintain percept of not eating after midday  because of stomach. Morning workout (physical) makes me more lazy(sleepy), laziness decreases meditation. Metta-meditation makes me to worry about others whereas, if I don't do metta it, makes me feel like selfish?
Should I consult psychologist or should I go for monk-life?
How to stop worrying about others or why do I feel like worrying about others during metta?

Should I consult psychologist or should I go for monk-life?

If you are ready to be a monk and live by the Vinaya, by all mean do.
A householders life is not cut out for fasting for everyone. Even monks who are engaged in lot of activity find it difficult to fast afternoon. If you meditate for long hours fasting afternoon is not a problem, but when you get many worldly activities this becomes problematic.
I don't think this is something a psychologist can help but more to do with the amount or meditation you pratice.

How to stop worrying about others or why do I feel like worrying about others during metta?

There are 4 Brahmavihara of which Metta is one. The objective of Metta meditation is to develop loving-kindness and benevolence and also break mental tendency to classify being as favourable and unfavourable hence reacting with craving and aversion.
In your case, if you are developing worrying thoughts due to the concern for others or their situation, the best is that you concentrate on Upekkha and later develop the other Brahmaviharas.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Why vinaya forbids monk to ordain physically handicapped?
Isn't this a kind of "opposite to empathy, compassion, metta"?
Nowdays, householders(not all) have cruel behaviour towards handicapped ones. If monk also declines to help, would that be called as compassion?

I do not believe the Vinaya rules prohibiting such ordinations are punitive in nature. They are in place to protect the Sangha jewel. Often monks and nuns need to care for each other in old age as householders will not. As such, many communities will not ordain older or enfeebled people simply because it will place too much of a burden on the healthy monks and nuns and which will result in more suffering not less.
The Vinaya rules may are there to preserve the Sangha jewel which is one of the three hopes of the world. Compassion and metta are foremost in the creation and maintenance of such rules.
Here is an explanation from an Abbey in the West:

Why does the Abbey have an age limit for ordination?
The Abbey age guideline is a practical consideration. Many monasteries in Taiwan
  have an age limit, as does Thich Nhat Hanh’s sangha.
In the Vinaya, ordaining preceptors are directed to provide the
  requisites—food, clothing, shelter, and medicine—for their monastic
  followers. Sravasti Abbey commits to lifelong support for monastics
  who ordain here for as long as they live at the Abbey.
At the Buddha’s time, Dr. Jivaka provided free medical care to all
  monastics. There was no health insurance, and if you needed a tooth
  extracted, the barber in the bazaar did it.  Nowadays, medical and
  dental care are costly, insurance premiums are uncertain, and there
  are still out-of-pocket expenses.
Looking long term, we need to be sure that the Abbey can financially
  and emotionally support the monastics we ordain, thus we need a good
  balance of ages in the community. If there are too many elderly
  monastics, it will be a burden on the younger monastics and hiring
  full time care is impossible to afford.
The Abbey is happy to have sangha of all ages visit and train for
  periods of time. The possibility of anagarika ordination remains. We
  also encourage people with monastic aspirations in many other ways,
  including through the annual Exploring Monastic Life program and by
  offering the material in the Monastic Life section of
  thubtenchodron.org.

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


text:
Does anyone have a source reference for Advayavajra in tantric buddhism?
This article on tantra -- Buddhist Tantra - 5 -- says

The deities of the vajrayAna are all manifestations of shUnya.
  Advayavajra says in a very characteristic verse that the deities are
  nothing but manifestations of shUnya and are by nature non-existent,
  and whenever there is manifestation it must be shUnya in essence. The
  process of evolution of deities from shUnya has four stages: the first
  is the right perception of the shUnyatA or voidness, the second is its
  connection with the germ syllable, the third is the conception of an
  icon and the fourth is the external representation of the deity. This
  statement which occurs both in the sAdhanamAlA and in advayavajra is a
  very strong argument against the theory that later Buddhism was
  nothing but gross idolatry.
They are rather the voluntary manifestations of the shUnya in
  accordance with the bIjamantras uttered by the worshippers, with an
  appearance suitable for the function he has to discharge.

Does anyone have the appropiate references to these statements?

If by Advayavajra they mean Maitripa then it must come from Maitripa's Amanasikara.
Specifically, in Mahasukhaprakasa, text #16 in above translation, so pages 181-187.
In addition, for an English translation of a small but relevant part of Sadhanamala see "Two Tantric Meditations: Visualizing the Deity" by Luis O. Gómez. in Buddhism in Practice pages 236-245.


text:
Anicca, dukkha, Buddhism and depressive nihilism
(English is not my mother tongue, sorry in advance if I make mistakes)
I am currently reading a philosophical book that I stumbled upon by chance, a unique work by a young (23yo) Italian of the early 20th century, after what he killed himself: Persuasion and Rhetoric by Carlo Michelstaedter. I don't know if anyone here has read it? I hope so, because I may not be the clearest.
At first I must confess that I didn't understand it at all, but as I progressed through the book I began to see what he was talking about: I haven't finished his book yet, but I can already tell - it's amazing. There's so much to say, I'll try to keep it synthetic.
This book had been sold to me as "the most depressive philosophical book (that my interlocutor had read)". I'm not disappointed, I got my money's worth. But in fact, its analysis is incredibly deeper than that. Let me be clear: the more I read it, the more I am struck by his observation: his whole book seems to me to be about dukkha. It's really incredible, I'm pretty sure he's never heard of Buddhism and yet his whole book is a wonderful analysis of dukkah, this cosmic suffering-unsatisfaction hidden in the hollow of all phenomena, like a cursed mark on (conventional) life.
He analyses both dukkha caused by boundless desire, dukkha caused by the impermanence of all things, and dukkha caused by conditioning itself. This is wonderful. I would like to quote entire passages from the book to show you that a Buddhist monk could approve everything.
My point is that he committed suicide after this book. And when you read it you can understand why, it's even almost logical: he didn't know Buddhism and therefore the radical teaching of Buddha: certainly dukkha exists and is everywhere, but it is not absolute; a way out is possible (nirvana). Except that Carlo didn't know this way out, and when one realized only dukkha, what's the point of living?
The problem is that I recently read a very good article (PS 5) in the blog 'Politically Incorrect Dharma' about the difficulty of reaching enlightenment: in this day and age, in fact, hardly anyone achieves nirvana. Therefore, even if we can believe the testimonies of the historical enlightened about the existence of a way out (nirvana), when the chances are infinitesimal that we reach it, for us, it is as if there is no way out.  From that point on, how can we not be depressed when we have (at least partially) realized dukkha? I'm not talking about a purely intellectual understanding, but a real beginning of realisation. How not to end up like Carlo, or completely depressed at the very least?

PS 1:
At the risk of repeating myself, I have chosen only one part of the book's topics here, apart from the absence of solution (nirvana) because of his ignorance of Buddhism, his whole book sounds deeply Buddhist to me, as it delivers a brilliant and profound analysis of impermanence, desire (tanha), conditioning, life, phenomena and suffering-dissatisfaction.

PS 2:

“Are you persuaded of what you do or not? Do you need something to happen or not in order to do what you do? Do you need the correlations to coincide always, because the end is never in what you do, even if what you do is vast and distant but is always in your continuation? Do you say you are persuaded of what you do, no matter what? Yes? Then I tell you: tomorrow you will certainly be dead. It doesn't matter? Are you thinking about fame? About your family? But your memory dies with you,with you your family is dead. Are you thinking about your ideals? You want to make a will? You want a headstone? But tomorrow those too are dead, dead. All men die with you. Your death is an unwavering comet. Do you turn to god? There is no god, god dies with you. The kingdom of heaven crumbles with you, tomorrow you are dead, dead. Tomorrow everything is finished—your body, family, friends, country, what you’re doing now, what you might do in the future, the good, the bad, the true, the false, your ideas, your little part, god and his kingdom, paradise, hell, everything, everything, everything. Tomorrow everything is over—in twenty four hours is death.
Well, then the god of today is no longer yesterday’s, no longer the country, the good, the bad, friends, or family. You want to eat? No, you cannot. The taste of food is no longer the same; honey is bitter, milk is sour, meat nauseating, and the odor, the odor sickens you: it reeks of the dead. You want a woman to comfort you in your last moments? No, worse: it is dead flesh. You want to enjoy the sun, air, light, sky? Enjoy?! The sun is a rotten orange, the light extinguished, the air suffocating. The sky is a low, oppressive arc. . . .No, everything is closed and dark now. But the sun shines, the air is pure, everything is like before, and yet you speak like a man buried alive, describing his tomb. And persuasion? You are not even persuaded of the sunlight; you cannot move a finger, cannot remain standing. The god who kept you standing,made your day clear and your food sweet, gave you family, country, paradise—he betrays you now and abandons you because the thread of your philopsychia (love of life) is broken.
The meaning of things, the taste of the world, is only for continuation’s sake. Being born is nothing but wanting to go on on: men live in order to live, in order not to die. Their persuasion is the fear of death. Being born is nothing but fearing death, so that, if death becomes certain in a certain future, they are already dead in the present. All that they do and say with fixed persuasion, a clear purpose, and evident reason is nothing but fear of death– ‘indeed, believing one is wise without being wise is nothing but fearing death.”

PS 3:

“Likewise, however little man, in living, demands as just to himself, his duty toward justice remains infinite. The right to live cannot be paid by finite labour, only by infinite activity.
Because you participate in the violence of all things, all of this violence is part of your debt to justice. All of your activity must go toward eradicating this: to give everything and demand nothing; this is the duty—where duties and rights may be, I do not know.”

PS 4 (>Xbox):

“I know I want and do not have what I want. A weight hangs suspended from a hook; being suspended, it suffers because it cannot fall: it cannot get off the hook, for insofar as it is weight it suspends, and as long as it suspends it depends.
[...]
Its life is this want of life. If it no longer wanted but were finished, perfect, if it possessed its own self, it would have ended its existence. At that point, as its own impediment to possessing life, the weight would not depend on what is external as much as on its own self, in that it is not given the means to be satisfied. The weight can never be persuaded.
Nor is any life ever satisfied to live in any present, for insofar as it is life it continues, and it continues into the future to the degree that it lacks life. If it were to possess itself completely here and now and be in want of nothing—if it awaited nothing in the future—it would not continue: it would cease to be life.
So many things attract us in the future, but in vain do we want to possess them in the present.”

PS 5:
http://politicallyincorrectdharma.blogspot.com/2019/12/why-ive-almost-stopped-meditating-part_15.html
Edit:
I just learned that Evola was a reader of Michelstaedter, that he wanted also to kill himself at 23, and that he changed his mind after reading the Pali Canon. Amazing. My hunch didn't come out of nowhere!

Carlo certainly discovered the first Noble Truth of suffering, but there are three others:

SN56.32:4.5: ‘After truly comprehending the noble truths of suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path, I will completely make an end of suffering.’

Indeed he understood the fickleness of craving and its role in suffering, which is the second Noble Truth, the origin of suffering.

SN35.106:1.11: Mind consciousness arises dependent on the mind and thoughts.  The meeting of the three is contact. Contact is a condition for feeling. Feeling is a condition for craving. This is the origin of suffering.

But without the third Noble Truth, the cessation of suffering, one might be driven to despair:

SN35.106:2.5: When that craving fades away and ceases with nothing left over, grasping ceases.  When grasping ceases, continued existence ceases. When continued existence ceases, rebirth ceases.  When rebirth ceases, old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress cease.  That is how this entire mass of suffering ceases.

And without the fourth Noble Truth, the path to end suffering, one would be definitely be lost:

MN9:70.4: Defilement originates from ignorance. Defilement ceases when ignorance ceases. The practice that leads to the cessation of defilement is simply this noble eightfold path, that is: right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right immersion.

Carlo's despair is stated as If it were to possess itself completely here and now and be in want of nothing—if it awaited nothing in the future—it would not continue: it would cease to be life. Carlo fell into the trap of defining delight and relishing as life. The Buddha's counterpart is:

MN60:56.2: They live without wishes in the present life, extinguished, cooled, experiencing bliss, having become holy in themselves.”

As i see it, one can't rightfully declare suicide to be a solution to the drudgery of mundane life lest one knows exactly what life is.
Saying things like 'life is unjust' ie is quite rediculous because it begets the question what exactly is unjust about it, is the spin of an electron unjust? Is the speed of causality ulucky? Hence when one thinks about life in terms like these ie 'there is so much inequality, misfortune and injustice in the world, it is making me sad' it is really not scientific at all and is rather delusional.
Therefore one can't rightly arrive at the conclusion of suicide being a solution for this kind of existential depression.
On how not to fall victim to this kind of depression;
Just don't give attention to this kind of faulty reasoning about the world. Remove the attachment to wrong views and the doctrine of self. Develop insight and be devoted to the truth, think thoughts connected with knowledge and do your own work.
People don't achieve Nibbana not because it's 1:1billion chance of success but because so few actually take time to read the texts for themselves, to make their own analysis of teachings, to detach himself from a group and do the work wholeheartedly.
Most people just look for a teacher, they prefer reading works that are entertaining or are popularizations rather than the nitty gritty of the pali canon, they to rely on commentators or authority for interpretations, like children relying on parents, with little faith in their own ability, they seek belonging, take pride in following a tradition and are delighted in a group. They look for ways to pace themselves, to combine work and pleasure and with mediocre effort they get mediocre results.

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

I believe this is one of those questions which we need to make less complicated, rather than more.
In my opinion 'dukkha' doesn't take some kind of profound realization. That life is difficult is something that most people intuitively understand, whether or not they've studied Buddhism.
The question from that point - life is hard - forward, is how you deal with it.
In my opinion, the first step is acceptance. If life is hard no matter what we do, refusing to accept it will only cause me to fight and squirm against something I can't control. Rather than fight, just accept and embrace it.
After that point, what Buddhism does is give us a guide on how to live within that framework. How can we orient our behavior in such a way to reduce our pain, and maximize our well-being. If you're expecting to one day find enlightenment and never feel pain again you're bound for disappointment. Rather, enlightenment is accepting that you will feel pain, and that this is life - which minimizes the impact of the suffering you're feeling.
Beyond that I'd say that just because life is hard, doesn't mean it can't be enjoyable. There are difficult parts, and there are enjoyable parts. Learn to appreciate the good in your life.
Oh, and take care of your body too.
Hope that helps.

How not to end up like Carlo, or completely depressed at the very least?
Keep on questioning, keep on looking for truth. If everything is  dukkha, which it is, don't run away - keep getting closer until it's right here. Keep getting closer so you can see dukkha for what it is.
Dukkha has to be fully understood, first-hand, directly in front of your own eyes. What dukkha is (its nature), how (why) it arises, and when (why) it does NOT arise.
P.S. This guy who wrote your PS 5 has gold in his backyard while begging for food. Perhaps he can open his eyes and consider Mahayana. Then everything may suddenly get clear, who knows.

You wanna read “Myth of Sysphus” by Camus who basically says, if life is meaningless and dukkha, so does suicide.” Did anyone tell you that it gets better after that?


text:
Is there a ninth fold to the Eightfold path or is it just eight?
For the longest time, I never had much to question about it but I've taken to wondering about an extra one, one that wasn't there before. I get to feeling that "right spirit" should be another fold. Can Buddha's spirit be tested for this?

There is the:

8 Fold Path is the practice up to Sotapanna, and
10 Fold Path for full enlightenment

The Noble 8 Fold Path is the practice up to Sotapanna.

Source: Maha Cattarīsaka Sutta intorduction
To go beyond Sotapanna one must add 2 more elements under liberation/release which are:

right knowledge
right freedom

Maha Cattarīsaka Sutta

Good post-Suminda. I thought that the right knowledge and right release for Arahants.

Yes. It is for arahants.

Just as the ocean has one taste, the taste of salt, even so, this teaching and training has one taste too, the taste of liberation.

This taste of liberation is the taste of dispassion. The taste of dispassion is the taste of non-clinging.
Non-clinging is not clinging to the past, not clinging to the future, not clinging to the present.
Not clinging means not denying the reality, not denying the truth.
Not denying the truth, means being willing to know the truth, handle the truth, and live with the truth.
To know the truth one must look for truth.
To look for truth one must be unsatisfied with half-truths.
To be unsatisfied with half-truths one must see that half-truths are dukkha.
To see half-truths as dukkha, one must have something to compare with, a basis for comparison. One must have glimpsed or have been shown that "everything is right" is sukha.
To understand that "right" is "sukha" one must have the right notion of "right" and "wrong".
Having the right notion of Right and Wrong is called The Right View.
So the spirit of Buddhism is The Right View, nothing else missing.


text:
How I can purify my physical body?
I don't like the shape of my body. My skin is poor. I lack physical stamina and strength. I feel hungry but I don't eat. I just don't like myself. How can I purify my body so that I feel good in it? My body is just lethargic, fatigued and weak. Did Buddha share any techniques to purify and strengthen the physical body? Also I masterbate a lot which is the cause of my weak and ugly body. I don't even have the strength to exercise the way I want. This is all topped with immense guilt that I want to wash away.

Also I masterbate a lot which is the cause of my weak and ugly body. I don't even have the strength to exercise the way I want.

I think you've already identified the crux of the matter. You've been directing most of your energy into a frivolous un-productive activity and have nothing left for other productive ones. So, the next time there's an urge, get outdoor and start doing some cardio exercises. There's nothing better for your body than doing cardios out in the open air, running, jogging, biking, walking, etc. Since your body is still weak, don't overdo it. Start out light, and build up the strength and stamina gradually. Combining exercises with adequate sleep and a healthy nutritious diet, and also nurturing your spiritual side with meditation and Dhamma cultivation, you should be on your way back to a strong healthy body and mind in a few months.

About ”You've been directing most of your energy into a frivolous un-productive activity and have nothing left for other productive ones”, do you mean that masturbation takes so much energy that it undermines everyday tasks? If so, what is this based on?

Yes, of course, if one "masturbates a lot" as per the OP.

Dhammapada;

109(?) If one maintains respect for worthy people four things increase; health, beauty, happiness, vigor
  ...
  Sloth corrupts physical beauty... (chapter 18)

I also heard that once Buddha said that his monks look as they are similar to flowers that are well rooted because they (monks) were nourished by the mindfulness immersed in the body. No reference for this.
Skin problems can have many causes like dietary ie and it's probably not due to attacking with hand which nevertheless is an obstacle to states that are good, heavenly rebirth and ariya stages.
Body is a disintegrating ground for disease, quickly worn out, if one wastes time and is nourishing it for no good reason then it is very regretful.
One is purified by good actions basicly.

If one is angry and resentful of one's own body, that is a good place to start. No matter what body one has, it is a gift of opportunity.

SN56.48:1.1: “Mendicants, suppose the earth was entirely covered with water. And a person threw a yoke with a single hole into it. The east wind wafts it west; the west wind wafts it east; the north wind wafts it south; and the south wind wafts it north. And there was a one-eyed turtle who popped up once every hundred years. What do you think, mendicants? Would that one-eyed turtle, popping up once every hundred years, still poke its neck through the hole in that yoke?”
SN56.48:1.7: “It’s unlikely, sir.”

A human life is a rare gift:

SN56.48:2.1: “That’s how unlikely it is to get reborn as a human being.

Knowing how precious human life is, we might feel guilty about resenting our body. We might feel guilty of wanting a "better body for a better opportunity". And then we might abuse ourselves in some way. And then all would spiral down unskillfully into despair.
Or we might simply let go of resentment and start afresh. Even if we resent our own bodies, we can start afresh:

AN5.161:1.3: You should develop love for a person you resent.

Letting go of resentment, we can hug ourselves and celebrate sweating a little more than yesterday, walking a little more than yesterday, trying a little harder than yesterday.
Is this easy? No, it is not easy to give up resentment. I know it is not easy because I am losing my eyesight. And in letting go of my own resentment at loss of sight, I have discovered a brighter world filled with the generosity and kindness of others. Resentment never helped me, so I had to let it go.
Please do not give up hope. Give up resentment. Start by giving yourself a well-deserved hug of acceptance. Then slowly, gently and kindly, lift yourself up and take care of this one body that you have. Use this very short, precious life that you have to be kind to yourself and others. Exercise a little, then a little more. Cheer yourself and others onward with your efforts. Give up resentment--it is useless.
And when you give up resentment, guilt evaporates. Give up resentment and focus on the goodness inside of you:

AN5.162:8.1: In the same way, at that time you should focus on that person’s pure behavior by way of body and speech, and on the fact that they get an openness and clarity of heart from time to time.

Give up resentment, open and clarify your heart. Focus on "that person's pure behavior". That person is you. There would not be guilt without a knowledge of pure behavior. Give up resentment. Extend love and kindness to yourself and others.
The first step in the Noble Eightfold Path is simply Right View. Give up resentment and choose loving kindness to yourself and others.


text:
How could we have so many past lives without reaching some degree of wisdom or enlightenment?
While I do have a personal and intimate belief in reincarnation, I really struggle with the Buddhist belief that we have innumerably many past lives.
A monk I listened to explained that all the beings we meet everyday were once our parents in a specific past life, as well as our enemies.
Honestly, i find this perspective quite hard to believe.
It seems to me that if had so many past lives, we should have reached wisdom and Buddhahood at some point already.
How (according to Buddhism) is it possible to have such an accumulation of experience, without reaching some degree of wisdom or enlightenment?

In struggling to help this poster with an answer in a Buddhist context it finally dawned on me that the question itself does not have any explicitly Buddhist content. Rather, the question is about math and rebirth neither of which is exclusive to Buddhism. Moreover, the answer has to include a mathematical fact that has nothing to do with Buddhism: infinite set theory by Cantor. As such, I think the question would be better posted on math stack exchange.

Actually, there is a misunderstanding. the most important question is not if it is possible or not to have an infinity or past lives,(altough this question is perplexing in itself) but more how is it possible to have such an accumulation of experience without reaching some degree of wisdom or enlightenment. (especially an infinite one).

Although there are several answers posted already, I edited the question based on this comment so as to better focus on "the most important question" (the edit also removes the word "infinity", which wasn't the main point, and which attracted several more-or-less off-topic answers based on semi-modern mathematics).

Thank you ian, and chris. I think I now understand what the actual heart of the question is about and you're right the actual nuances of mathematical treatment of infinity are not what Ian is strugging with. Will try to formulate an appropriate answer given this.

This question was beguiling because on the surface it appears to be about two different subjects that are not necessarily Buddhist: various doctrines of rebirth/reincarnation and the mathematical treatment of infinity. However, after clarification and looking at Ruben's excellent answer I see that that my actual answer from a Buddhist perspective is only tangentially related to these because the core of the question actually involves a subtle assumption that I think is false.
First, let's reiterate and emphasize what Ruben laid out. The Buddhist doctrine of rebirth when properly understood is not one of reincarnation. The Buddha specifically and emphatically refuted the idea of an atman that transmigrates from life to life. Moreover, and even more importantly he specifically refuted that an atman exists at all! That is, even in this very life... there is no real self that inhabits the body and carries over from moment to moment. So let's just set aside rebirth for now and concentrate on this very life and what happens from moment to moment.
In this very life, sentient beings go around from moment to moment believing and acting as if there really is a soul or atman inhabiting their body and mind. That there is some unchanging entity that exists continuously and that is the proper object that we refer to as "I" and is the owner of "Mine" and is distinct from all other things that inhabit the world whether they be other sentient beings or inanimate objects. Isn't this the case? Don't we all feel very deeply and believe and act as if this was the case?
Now, if you look at the question and take out the rebirth and talk of infinity the question might very well be formulated as, "How is it possible to have such an accumulation of experience from moment to moment in this very life without reaching some degree of wisdom or enlightenment?" That is, as a sentient being grows older in this very life how is it not possible that we'll end up wiser and closer to enlightenment near the end of our life compared to the beginning of our life?
And that's the subtle assumption I was talking about earlier... Is it actually true that sentient beings inexorably end up with more wisdom and closer to enlightenment at the end of life as compared to the beginning? The real question is whether this subtle assumption is true. Do we inevitably get more wise with age? Do we become more enlightened? Here's how I would definitively formulate the question/assumption at the heart of this post:

Is wisdom and enlightened activity subject to some universal law that
  says it inevitably increases on longer times scales even if subject to
  some ups and downs on shorter time scales?

I think with just a little bit of reflection and examination of experience we can see that this assumption is just not true and the answer to the question is an emphatic no. Lots and lots of sentient beings are born, grow older, enter adult life, grow sick and die and there is no net gain in wisdom or enlightened activity. Many many beings end up less wise than when they began. They might have been happy children who made wrong life choices or decisions and ended up in miserable adult lives. Or they might have been met with traumatic brain injury due to karma and their intelligence and wisdom could have dropped precipitously.
It is just not true that in this very life with the accumulation of experiences that wisdom or enlightened activity necessarily increase.
Which brings us back to rebirth...
What many fail to understand is that the Buddha taught that the process of rebirth for transmigrating beings is exactly the same thing that happens from moment to moment in this very life. To the EXACT SAME EXTENT AND MANNER that sentient beings exist and go from moment to moment in this very life... they go from life to life. There is nothing whatsoever different in the manner that beings transmigrate in this very life to the manner in which they transmigrate from life to life. To think there is a difference is to not understand the Buddha's most subtle teachings.
Atman does not exist even in the slightest. The way sentient beings exist and move from moment to moment in this very life is like an illusion and subject to dependent arising. There is no universal law that wisdom accumulates on longer time scales as compared to smaller time scales. The way beings exist and move from life to life is like an illusion and subject to dependent arising. The belief that atman exists and the ignorance that it does not exist is what propels beings from moment to moment and from life to life in samsara.
Sincerely hope this answer is helpful and wish you well-being Ian.

I will accept this as the best answer provided.
According to my own limited and subjective understanding,I would say that the reason people do not "progress" despite innumerable lifetimes is because of their clinging to negative spiritual value and attitudes.
These powerful karmas bind beings for aeons.

As I understand, the Buddha meant that we collectively had gone through an uncountable number of existances, in all shapes and forms. From this mass of existances, some were able to attain Enlightenment (thereby arising as the Buddhas and their students) and some weren't.
Wisdom and knowledge is definitely accumulated, but not everyone can take advantage of it. The reason for that is karma, which is the law of self-reinforcing tendencies. If someone steps on the wrong path, they create circumstances that lead further and further away from those situations where the wisdom is known to manifest -perhaps delaying or making it harder to get out of that loop.

Can you substantiate the statement 'the Buddha meant that we collectively had gone through an uncountable number of existances'

It is my interpretation of suttas in SN's Anamatagga-samyutta: SN 15.1, SN 15.13

It is said to have taken the last Buddha more than four uncountable time periods from the time he received confirmation from an earlier Buddha to become a Buddha. That's already a fairly unfathomably long period of time, and he was of course a very special, rare exception to the norm. Even among Buddhas his journey is said by the commentaries to have been relatively short (it can take up to more than eighty uncountable periods, iirc).
Becoming enlightened isn't just something one falls into accidentally. It is beyond all forms of worldly wisdom and requires exceedingly special circumstances to occur. Even worldly insight into reality that might help us reach enlightenment comes and goes and is replaced by ignorance and delusion, so just because we may have at times gained worldly wisdom in the past does not mean we will eventually become enlightened as a result.

Infinities can be one-way. Consider the negative numbers.
What the Buddha said is that there is no "first point".

SN15.19:1.3: No first point is found of sentient beings roaming and transmigrating, hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving.

And with the ending of ignorance, one does not return.

AN2.36:4.7: When they pass away from there, they are non-returners, not coming back to this state of existence.

Non-returners (anāgāmi) and arahants do not return. They have left behind the negative infinity of suffering.

It seems to me if had an infinity of past lives we should have
reached wisdom and buddahood at some point.

Indeed.
The Buddha himself did not teach about "past lives". The words commonly translated as "past lives" in the original scriptures are "pubbe nivasa". The word "nivasa" means "homes", "abodes" or even "adherences" (in the related word "nivesa").
A "nivasa" is when one or more of the five aggregates (body, feelings, perception, mental formations & sense consciousness) are attached to as "self".
Therefore, in this life, each mind has clung to aggregates as "self" infinite times. The relevant scripture, properly translated, says:

At Savatthi. Bhikkhus, those ascetics and brahmins who recollect
their manifold past abodes (pubbe nivasa) all recollect the five aggregates subject
to clinging or a certain one among them. What five?
When recollecting thus, bhikkhus: ‘I had such form in the past,’ it
is just form that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such a
feeling in the past,’ it is just feeling that one recollects. When
recollecting: ‘I had such a perception in the past,’ it is just
perception that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such
volitional formations in the past,’ it is just volitional formations
that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such consciousness in
the past,’ it is just consciousness that one recollects.
Therefore, bhikkhus, any kind of form whatsoever … Any kind of
feeling whatsoever … Any kind of perception whatsoever … Any kind of
volitional formations whatsoever … Any kind of consciousness
whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external,
gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all consciousness
should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not
mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’
This is called, bhikkhus, a noble disciple who dismantles and does
not build up; who abandons and does not cling; who scatters and does
not amass; who extinguishes and does not kindle.
And what is it that he dismantles and does not build up? He
dismantles form and does not build it up. He dismantles feeling …
perception … volitional formations … consciousness and does not build
it up.
And what is it that he abandons and does not cling to? He abandons
form and does not cling to it. He abandons feeling … perception …
volitional formations … consciousness and does not cling to it.
And what is it that he scatters and does not amass? He scatters form
and does not amass it. He scatters feeling … perception … volitional
formations … consciousness and does not amass it.
And what is it that he extinguishes and does not kindle? He
extinguishes form and does not kindle it. He extinguishes feeling …
perception … volitional formations … consciousness and does not kindle
it.
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.79/en/bodhi

It is clearly noticeable how the answers provided to your question by the common Buddhist are contrary to what is written above. The common Buddhist refers to infinite past lives yet the above says the Noble Disciple "dismantles, does not build up, does not amass, does not kindle".

Other common false translations found in this type of topic are "sentient beings" and "transmigration".
The Pali word falsely translated as "sentient being" is "satta". "Satta" merely means "a being" and, similar to "nivasa", refers merely to an attachment or a view, as explained in SN 23.2 & SN 5.10.
The Pali word falsely translated as "transmigration" is "saṃsāra". "Saṃsāra" merely means "continuance" and, similar to "nivasa", refers merely to the continuance of attachment, as explained in SN 22.99, as follows:

Just as a dog, tied by a leash to a post or stake, keeps running
around and circling around that very post or stake; in the same way,
an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble
ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no
regard for people of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in
their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self, or the self as possessing
form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.
He assumes feeling to be the self...
He assumes perception to be the self...
He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self...
He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing
consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in
consciousness.
He keeps running around and circling around that very form... that
very feeling... that very perception... those very fabrications...
that very consciousness. He is not set loose from form, not set loose
from feeling... from perception... from fabrications... not set loose
from consciousness. He is not set loose from birth, aging, & death;
from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. He is not
set loose, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

Why false translations occur was explained by the renowned Thai Buddhist monk Bhikkhu Buddhadasa, as follows:

People language is used by the ordinary people who don't understand
Dhamma very well and by those worldly people who are so dense that
they are blind to everything but material things.  Then, there is the
language which is spoken by those who understand reality (Dhamma),
especially those who know and understand reality in the ultimate
sense.  This is another kind of language.
People who are blind to the true reality (Dhamma) can speak only
people language, the conventional language of ordinary people. On the
other hand, people who have genuinely realized the ultimate truth
(Dhamma) can speak either language.  They can handle people language
quite well and are also comfortable using Dhamma language, especially
when speaking among those who know reality, who have already realized
the truth (Dhamma).  Amongst those with profound understanding, Dhamma
language is used almost exclusively, unfortunately, ordinary people
can't understand a word.  Dhamma language is understood only by those
who are in the know.  What is more, in Dhamma language it isn't even
necessary to make a sound.  For example, a finger is pointed or an
eyebrow raised and the ultimate meaning of reality is understood. So,
please take interest in these two kinds of language--people language
and Dhamma language.
No Religion

More can be read, here: Two Kinds of Language

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

From SN 15.3:

“...  What do you think? Which is more: the flow of tears you’ve shed
  while roaming and transmigrating for such a very long time—weeping and
  wailing from being united with the unloved and separated from the
  loved—or the water in the four oceans?”
“As we understand the Buddha’s teaching, the flow of tears we’ve shed
  while roaming and transmigrating is more than the water in the four
  oceans.”
“Good, good, mendicants! It’s good that you understand my teaching
  like this. The flow of tears you’ve shed while roaming and
  transmigrating is indeed more than the water in the four oceans. For a
  long time you’ve undergone the death of a mother … father … brother …
  sister … son … daughter … loss of relatives … loss of wealth … or loss
  through illness. From being united with the unloved and separated from
  the loved, the flow of tears you’ve shed while roaming and
  transmigrating is indeed more than the water in the four oceans.
Why is that? Transmigration has no known beginning. … This is quite
  enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed
  regarding all conditions.”

It's true that according to the sutta above, you have been reborn innumerable times, with no known beginning to suffering.
But usually, people take this to mean that the very same consciousness that is reading this sentence has been reborn many times and experienced all that has been experienced through this body since birth.
However, according to MN 38, this is not the case:

The Blessed One then asked him: “Sāti, is it true that the following
  pernicious view has arisen in you: ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught
  by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and
  wanders through the round of rebirths, not another’?”
“Exactly so, venerable sir. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the
  Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders
  through the round of rebirths, not another.”
“What is that consciousness, Sāti?”
“Venerable sir, it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here
  and there the result of good and bad actions.”
“Misguided man, to whom have you ever known me to teach the Dhamma in
  that way? Misguided man, have I not stated in many ways consciousness
  to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no
  origination of consciousness? But you, misguided man, have
  misrepresented us by your wrong grasp and injured yourself and stored
  up much demerit; for this will lead to your harm and suffering for a
  long time.”

Consciousness is always changing and it is dependently originated. However, it may appear to be the same just as the water stream of a river appears to be the same, when in fact, the droplets of water in it are constantly changing. Please see this answer.
So, yes - you have been reborn innumerable number of times and have shed so much tears mourning the deaths of innumerable loved ones. But who are "you"? You are not the same consciousness that moves through the births.
"You" refers to the self i.e. the thought or idea of the self. It's not a soul. It's simply the thought or idea or view of the self in the mind. It's not the same common self for every person. It's also not the same thought that exists at all moments in time - it's dependently originated.
When there is the thought of the self, there is the objectification and classification (papanca) of everything else that is perceived as non-self, relative to its relationship to the self. This causes the arising of craving and suffering. This is elaborated in this answer.
So, there is definitely rebirth - not the rebirth of a permanent consciousness or soul, but rather the rebirth of the mental idea of the self, and together with it, the rebirth of suffering.
So, the Buddha looks at YOU - yes, that's right - YOU - the SELF - and tells you that you have been reborn innumerable number of times, with no known beginning. You (the SELF) have also shed oceans of tears, mourning the deaths of innumerable loved ones of your's. This to me, is definitely proof that there is rebirth in Buddhism, just not the rebirth that you may have imagined.
And who says that you have not reached some level of wisdom? The very fact that you are writing this question or reading this answer, shows that you have at least enough wisdom to consider that you should seek the end of suffering.

Bravo! This is excellent. The only thing I would add is that the self that is reborn from life to life is no more real than the self that is reborn from moment to moment in this life. And, importantly, which so many wish to ignore... the self that is reborn from life to life is NO LESS REAL than the one that is reborn from moment to moment in this very life. To the exact same extent - that feeling/idea of YOU that is carried with you from moment to moment in this life... to that EXACT SAME EXTENT... no more and no less... that is what is reborn from life to life and in the same manner.

i had to mark this down because the word "rebirth" appears not found in SN 15.3

You should perhaps be more specific in your question, heres how it sounds to me:
How can I have so many past lives and not already be enlightened? Well, how do you know youre not already? If you are already enlightened you could have hidden knowledge from yourself that would be too painful or hard to comprehend right now so you are being willfully ignorant and waiting until the conditions are right to fully awaken (like a bodhisattva does). Whether or not you remember tasting nibanna does not matter. I personally dont think you have to believe in the vast number of your own past lives. Even if you could accept as fact one past life and recall it and learn from it, this would be benficial.
Your problem sounds more like doubt. You doubt that the people around you are connected to your past lives? I would propose that you do an experiment. Can you do brahmavihara meditation? We are supposed to recall acquaintances and family and different people in our lives to aid in cultivating those feelings of love. The instructions to do this always warn to choose carefully who you bring to the mind because your attraction to them or the feelings of hurt or victimization by them could interfere. So usually that person we bring to the mind in the category of “the adversary” the person to whom it is initially difficult for us to give  our metta.
Who is that person to you?? Why do you have so much melodrama with this person? Sex and love and all that usually complicates relationships sooo much that we are left barely even able to muster up the metta to give to the person we loved so much at one point and who now is like an enemy. This is the person who can probably teach you the most about your past life your “sweet karmic enemy”

It seems to me if had an infinity of past lives we should have reached wisdom and buddahood at some point. How couldn't it be the case since infinity guarantees every possible outcome happens? What would a buddhist ansnwer to me?

Well, the key point is highlighted above. If one places a time limit "cap" on that "at some point" (ie limit it to the past or present moment), then it wouldn't be called "infinity" anymore. So, "at some point" could mean at any time, depending on how hard one's willing to cultivate the Dhamma. It could be tomorrow, in 7 days, 7 weeks, 7 months, ... 7 aeons, or... infinity!

Now, if anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for seven years, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or — if there be any remnant of clinging/sustenance — non-return.
"Let alone seven years. If anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for six years... five... four... three... two years... one year... seven months... six months... five... four... three... two months... one month... half a month, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or — if there be any remnant of clinging/sustenance — non-return.
"Let alone half a month. If anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for seven days, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or — if there be any remnant of clinging/sustenance — non-return.
"'This is the direct path for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow & lamentation, for the disappearance of pain & distress, for the attainment of the right method, & for the realization of Unbinding — in other words, the four frames of reference.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said."
That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the monks delighted in the Blessed One's words. ~~ MN 10 ~~

As with all things religious and philosophical, it's a good idea to reach for the metaphysical point, and avoid getting hung up on the physical logistics of the idea. The point here is to deconstruct relationship roles that we would otherwise be blind to. For example, the relationship of child to parent is a distinct identity role that we naturally think of as immutable; we are our parent's children, and questioning that fact (and the roles it entails) seems absurd on the face of it. Suggesting that our parents may have been our children in a previous life, however, forces us to see the parent-child relationship as contingent — a dependent arising of this lifetime — and allows us to separate ourselves from our role as child.
Whether or not reincarnation as such exists, this point is valid. If we want liberation then these kinds of role-relationships must be rendered contingent so we can free ourselves from them. The mind-puzzle of how this could possibly be is fun, I suppose, but it is anti-liberation: the ego focusing on a physical problem because it is having difficulty with the metaphysical one (in much the same way that one might kick a malfunctioning TV, because learning how to actually fix a TV is too much trouble).


text:
What is the mean of true love according to the buddhism?
I really need to know what is the mean of true love according to Buddhism?

Welcome to the site. I think this is a duplicate of other questions, which might already have good answers -- see also Posts containing 'love'

@ChrisW Sure I will check.Thank you


text:
Guidance for how to handle stomach problems arising during Vipassana?
During concentration the main thing I can feel during the first half hour or so is the feeling of the stomach/ top part of the intestine area or feelings inside the belly. There's really nothing else for me to feel, especially when mediating topless so that the skin's interaction with fabric doesn't give a sense of rising and falling. Although I'm aware painful sensations can be expected, this uncomfortable feeling does feel like the wrong type of discomfort but is my only point of focus. It seems like something I shouldn't be focusing on, or maybe I am over extending when breathing, but I don't think so. That being said, my practice has eventually led to pleasant sensations and having a tension to wave-like movement when breathing.
Anyone have any guidance or suggestions?
NB my posture is quite straight.
Thanks!

When practicing vipassana, you simply just witness whatever sensations that are happening moment to moment. If a mental reaction arises as you focus on the belly, like a thought, an opinion or a feeling then simply note it and go back to the belly. If you can't  feel anything then note whatever reality is in your attention at that moment and if it seems like nothing then it's ok to note "nothing". Maybe you would be waiting for the breath to arise, if so you could note "waiting". You know, even if you get confused in your practice you can note "confused".
Truth itself is not dangerous but our reactions to truth can be dangerous. If you feel a bodily sensation isn't right then you might note in your head "doubt", "fear or whatever seems appropriate. Of course call a doctor if by "not right" you mean you might have something physically wrong.
Getting a good teacher is one of the most fundamentally  beneficial things a meditator can do. If you have one be sure and ask them about any outside advice you get.

This is great advice. I might only add that you can try relaxing your posture a bit to allow for relaxed breathing, or try putting your hands on your abdomen until you become familiar with the movement. As you relax over time, the breath should naturally move to the abdomen making it an ideal object of focus. In the mean time, be aware that the task of the first noble truth is to understand suffering fully, which means confronting unpleasantness is a part of the practice.

Thanks for the advice,
I'm aware of the noting process and do note it as ',uncomfortable' or 'sharp'. It just seems that lying down or sitting, as soon as I put attention to the belly area I am more aware of an internal sensation which leads to discomfort and gurgling noises/ feelings.but as a result, is easy to concentrate on.
It is not something I'd see the doctor about but I am concerned that too much attention to one spot could cause some sort of energy blockage/pooling/ or stress internally.
I have my first vipassana course in a couple of weeks, but have read numerous books and watched numerous videos on the process. That's why I'm aware unpleasant sensations may arise, I just feel like my concentration is causing them to arise because its more internal.

OP: Although I'm away pain sensations can be expected, this uncomfortable feeling does feel like the wrong type of discomfort but is my only point of focus. It seems like something I shouldn't be focussing on, or maybe I am over extending when breathing, but I don't think so. That being said, my practice has eventually led to pleasant sensations and having a tension to wave like movement when breathing.

Judging the type of sensation can lead to negative latent tendencies:

(1) the latent tendency to lust reinforced by being attached to pleasant feelings;
(2) the latent tendency to aversion reinforced by rejecting painful feelings;
(3) the latent tendency to ignorance reinforced by ignoring neutral feelings.

Pahāna Sutta
Whatever feeling on feels one should:

If he feels a pleasant feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a painful feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a neutral feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.
If he feels a painful feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.
If he feels a neutral feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta

OP: During concentration the main thing I can feel ...

Since you seem to be practising concentration meditation, one should:

know your mind has wandered off
know the sensation or stimuli experienced while being equanimous without any aversion to the unpleasant or attachment to the pleasant
know the sensation or stimuli experienced is impermanent
bring back your focus to the object of meditation (initial application - vitakka)
after bringing it back try to sustain the focus with the object of meditation (sustained application - vicāra)


text:
samatha after vipassana

Can one correctly practice anapanasati when one is very used to Mahasi vipassana?

How? Why?

Can one correctly practice vipassana when one is very used to anapanasati or any other samatha practice?

How? Why?

A person who is used to vipassana is supposed to turn off the habit of seeing things as they are? Can vipassana be useful during anapanasati or would it be more of a distraction to onepointed consentration?

How? Why?

OP: Simultaneous vipassana & samatha - in this version of the question

(Yuga,naddha) Paṭipadā Sutta mention there are 4 types of practitioners:

(1) “insight preceded by calm” - samatha,pubb’angama vipassanā
(2) “calm preceded by insight” - vipassana,pubb’angama samatha
(3) “calm coupled with insight” - samatha,vipassana,yuga.naddha
(4) “a mind seized by dharma-restlessness” - dhamm’uddhacca,viggahita manasa

Practising Samatha and Vipassana together is:

(3) “calm coupled with insight” - samatha,vipassana,yuga.naddha

Regardless of which practice you start with, both Samatha and Vipassana is needed to reach the ultimate goal:

(Mūla) Samatha Vipassanā Sutta
Also, it is best one allocate time for both:

Catu Kāla Sutta 1
Also, vipassana practises (body contemplation - breath meditation, posture, movement, body parts, elements, corpse) leads to Samadhi as per Kaya,gatā,sati Sutta:

As he dwells thus diligent, exertive, resolute, his memories and thoughts of the household life are
  abandoned. With their abandoning, his mind steadies itself internally, settles, becomes one, attains samadhi [becomes concentrated].
In this way, bhikshus, a monk cultivates mindfulness regarding the body.

Which intern leads to the 6 super knowledges:

Kaya,gatā,sati Sutta
Edit:

OP: samatha after vipassana

This is:

(1) “insight preceded by calm” - samatha,pubb’angama vipassanā

.

OP: Can one correctly practice anapanasati when one is very used to vipassana?

Anapanasati is also a form of vipassana which takes you to the highest goal of Nibbana.

Source: Anapanasati

Can one correctly practice vipassana when one is very used to anapanasati or any other samatha practice?

If you are skilled in Vipassana it is recommended to seek a Samatha teacher and practice Samatha:

Source: (Samatha Vipassanā) Samādhi Sutta 3
(Samādhi) Bala Sutta describes how one should develop skills in Samatha:

OP: A person who is used to vipassana is supposed to turn off the habit of seeing things as they are?

No, not necessarily:

Even this first dhyana is (mentally) constructed [mind-made], intentionally formed.
What is
  constructed and intentionally formed is impermanent, subject to ending.
If he is steady therein, he attains the destruction of the mental influxes.

Similarly in other Jhanas as given in Aṭṭhaka,nāgara Sutta
Here one sees the true nature of things while doing Samatha/Samadhi.
Also, Saṅkhitta Dhamma Sutta discusses the teachings in concise form, mentions the practice of mindfulness with Jhana ultimately resulting in full enlightenment:

When, bhikshu, this samadhi has been cultivated, well cultivated by you, then you should train yourself thus:
“I will dwell exertive, clearly aware, mindful,
observing [contemplating] [body | feeling | mind | dhamma] the in the [body | feeling | mind | dhamma],
removing covetousness and displeasure [discontent] in regard to the world.”
Thus, bhikshu, you should train yourself.
When, bhikshu, this samadhi has been cultivated, well cultivated by you, then, you, bhikshu,
THE 1 ST DHYANA:
should cultivate this samadhi with initial application, with sustained application;
should cultivate this samadhi without initial application, with only sustained application;
THE 2 ND DHYANA:
should cultivate this samadhi without initial application, without sustained application;
should cultivate this samadhi with zest;
THE 3RD DHYANA:
should cultivate this samadhi zest-free;
should cultivate this samadhi attended by comfort;
THE 4 TH DHYANA:
should cultivate this samadhi attended by equanimity.

Saṅkhitta Dhamma Sutta

OP: Can vipassana be useful during anapanasati or would it be more of a distraction to onepointed consentration?

Each triad corresponds to a Satipattana, which is Vipassana.
The last triad of Anapanasathis is explicitly to see things as they are which is vipassana:

Source: Ānâpāna,sati Sutta
Essentially one is doing Vipassana when one is doing Anapanasati.

The need of Samadhi in tandem is evident from the following Suttas.
Also, a meditation how can attain and also have a theoretical understanding of Samadhi is the foremost meditator:

Samādhi Samāpatti Sutta. Similar one who understands Samadhi can remain in Samadhi is the foremost:

Samādhi Mūlaka Ṭhiti Sutta
Similarly, one who understands and skilful in emerging from Samadhi is the foremost meditator. - Samādhi Mūlaka Vuṭṭhāna Sutta
Similarly, one who understands samadhi and is fitfor Samadhi is the foremost meditator. - Samādhi Mūlaka Kallita Sutta
Similarly, one who is understands samadhi and is skilled in the concentration object is the foremost meditator. - Samādhi Mūlaka Ārammaṇa Sutta
Similarly, one who understands and resorts to samadhi is the foremost meditator. - Samādhi Mūlaka Go,cara Sutta
Similarly, one who understands and has resolution in samadhi is the foremost meditator. - Samādhi Mūlaka Abhinīhāra Sutta
Similarly, one who understands and care about samadhi is the foremost meditator. - Samādhi Mūlaka Sakkacca,kārī Sutta
Similarly, one understands and is committed to samadhi is the foremost meditator. - Samādhi Mūlaka Sātacca,kārī Sutta
Similarly, one who understands and is skilled in what is suitable regarding samadhi is the foremost meditator. - Samādhi Mūlaka Sappāya,kārī Sutta
Following skills:

Himavanta Sutta. Also Vasa Suttā which includes theoretical knowledge.
And the following masteries are useful:

Vipassana and samatha are ultimately the same practice.  You can't practice one without the other.  The more you proficient you become in one, the more effective the other will be.
I think how samatha can aid in - I'd even say undergirds - vipassana practice is well established specifically in the suttas.  This is basically the path that the Buddha used under the Bodhi Tree.  With his mind made malleable by jhana, bright, and unblemished, he turned his attention to latent mental content and saw its impermanence, non-self, and inherent suffering.  You don't necessarily have to use the fancy subjects that the Buddha used.  Just experiencing the sound of water dripping from a facet can be enough vipassana to liberate a mind made bright by jhana practice.  You also don't necessarily have to achieve jhana to arrive at insight, but a certain degree of calm is required in order for insight to occur (how much calm/samatha is a debatable topic which is outside the scope of this post).  The important take away, of course, is that ruminating alone won't get you there.  Just noting won't get you there either, not without some degree of calm.  Our normal waking mind is entirely too unsteady and diffuse to observe reality in any kind of sincere and effective way.  Unification is necessary.  There's a reason, after all, why a vipassana retreat isn't an out patient program!  Retreats help settle our minds.  They are one kind of seclusion from which rapture, bliss, and other jhana factors can be born.
How vipassana can aid in samatha is a bit more tricky to explain, but I think this largely because so many people misunderstand what samatha actually is.  Don't think of it as concentration practice.  Think of it as a balancing act.  Any talk of one pointedness refers to the one spot you've chosen for your mind to settle (e.g. the breath, the tip of your nose, a kasina, etc.).  Just as you wouldn't push up on a broom stick balanced on your fingertip, you likewise shouldn't apply any force to that single point of attention.  Viewed this way, vipassana in the context of samatha practice starts to make a little more sense.  Just as that broom stick might start veer to the left, so too might doubt (or any of the hindrances) cause your attention to slip off that settling point.  When these distractions arise, you simply note them.  This is usually enough to get them to pass, at least temporarily.  When they do, just let your mind settle back on its own.  You might find the same distraction rising over and over again.  Just keep repeating the process.  It's important to be aware that if you over correct - if you really try to banish whatever is distracting you - your mind will become completely destabilized just as that broom stick would go flying if you made any exaggerated motions.  As the Xin Xin Ming puts it, "when you try to stop activity to achieve passivity, your very effort fills you with activity".  Just let things be in their own way.  It is the nature of things to pass away.
Over the course of a sit, you'll have these little instances of vipassana literally hundreds of times.  Every time you do, the mind settles a little more heavily on your balance point.  After a time, that balance point begins to take on a gravity of its own.  You can actually feel the weight of it.  Now, when distractions do arise, your mind is pulled back to your settling point.  Noting them becomes less of a necessity.  Eventually, that weight reaches a critical mass.  Like a black hole, you feel its energy, its enormity, but...a repulsion.  If you aren't afraid (noting and passing through fear and aversion is one instance of vipassana you still have to make; the gate to jhana is made of swords), that repulsion inverts into an inescapable pull, energy becomes rapture, and 'you' disappear into the singularity of full absorption.
So a little vipassana for your samatha, a little samatha for your vipassana.  You can't ignore one and hope to develop the other.

Well, I suppose everything ultimately is the same thing.

Well no.  Fairly certain hitting your hand with a hammer is slightly different than napping in a rocking chair.  Likewise, there are quite a few Buddhist practices especially out of the Vajrayana camp that are neither vipassana or samatha.

Can one correctly practice anapanasati when one is very used to
  vipassana?

The above has never practiced real vipassana if this question is asked. Brainwashing oneself via Goenka or Mahasai mental gymnastics is not vipassana.
Vipassana is not continuous mental noting. Nor is vipassana enduring pain & trying to see changing pain sensations.
Vipassana starts with directly seeing what is easily, simply, obviously & clearly seen to be impermanent & not-self.
For example, each in breath & each out breath is directly seen (without any thinking) to be impermanent; in that each breath appears, lasts, moves then disappears. Also, it is directly seen (without any thinking) the breathing or body breathes itself (rather than the sense of 'self' breathes). When it is experienced the body breathes rather than the 'self' breathes, this is seeing not-self (anatta) of the breathing & body.
This is vipassana while doing anapanasati.

Can one correctly practice vipassana when one is very used to
  anapanasati or any other samatha practice?

Anapanasati is not exclusively samatha. Steps 4, 8, 10 &  11 of Anapanasati are related to samatha.
Steps 3 (called experiencing all bodies), 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16 of Anapanasati are related to vipassana.

A person who is used to vipassana is supposed to turn off the habit of
  seeing things as they are?

Brainwashing oneself is not seeing things as they are. Truly seeing the way things are involves only direct seeing & does not involve any "thinking" or "mental noting". If one truly had the habit of seeing things as they are then one would be an Arahant.

Can vipassana be useful during anapanasati or would it be more of a
  distraction to onepointed consentration?

Both ideas above of 'vipassana' & 'one-pointed concentration' are wrong.
For example, developing samatha with anapanasati does not necessarily involve being "one-pointed" with a narrow focus (such as Goenka watching the nose-tip). When the mind is equanimous, non-attached, naturally awake, silent, open & clear, the breathing will calm & samatha will be felt. Vipassana will also occur.
Directly seeing the mental conditions or causes that result in samatha is also an insight of vipassana. Seeing directly interactive processes of 'cause & effect' is vipassana.
MN 149 says when the eightfold path is developed, which includes anapanasati/satipatthana as the 7th factor, the result will be samatha & vipassana occurring in tandem.

For him, having thus developed the noble eightfold path... these two
  qualities occur in tandem: tranquillity & insight.
MN 149

May I ask what method  you use to brainwash yourself?    I'd like to know what I am believing that isn't true.

I'm guessing you practice anapanasati? I respect your answers, so when you tell me I'm doing something  wrong I get really curious as to what specifically I am doing wrong. Is it the noting? Also, the title I wrote was totally bonkers, "simultaneous"? I have no idea where I was coming from with that. Anyway, sorry if it was confusing.

yes... the noting. noting is not vipassana. vipassana starts with directly seeing impermanent & not-self. For example, you see each in breath & each out breath is impermanent, in that each breath appears, lasts, moves then disappears, You see the breathing or body breathes itself (rather than  the sense of self breathes). This is vipassana while doing anapanasati.

I agree with that. Noting is kind of like training wheels. We already note an object when we pay attention so putting a broad and generic label on it only serves to make the subjective more objective. I can tell you from personal experience that noting is very helpful.


text:
Does every Buddha have knowledge of the past, present and future?
I quote from the “King of Samādhi” Sutra. First Buddha says “What is the samādhi called the revealed equality of the nature of all phenomena?” Then a bit further down the text he says “It is knowledge of the past. It is knowledge of the future. It is knowledge of the present.”
Is every Buddha omniscient according to this sutra?

This is not an answer to the question about omniscience, but I would just add that many sentient beings and lowly beings also have knowledge of the past, present, and future. In fact, I dare say everyone on this forum who is reading this has such knowledge.

Questions about omniscience often arise, but the answers point us to a different knowledge:

MN90:17.4: “Sir, I asked you about omniscience, and you answered.

The Buddha taught us to not get trapped in the net of views worrying about omniscience. The Buddha taught the Four Noble Truths, which apply to the past, present and future for all sentient beings.

DN1:3.72.3: In the same way, all of these ascetics and brahmins who theorize about the past or the future are trapped in the net of these sixty-two grounds, so that wherever they emerge they are caught and trapped in this very net.  The Realized One’s body remains, but his attachment to rebirth has been cut off.  As long as his body remains he will be seen by gods and humans. But when his body breaks up, after life has ended, gods and humans will see him no more.

The Buddha taught us how to escape that net to end suffering. And when pressed on particular points of omniscience, he would teach about the path:

MN90:10.1: “Sir, I am not asking you about the present life, but about the life to come.”
MN90:10.6: “Great king, there are these five factors that support meditation.

And in that teaching, the teaching of the universal knowledge of the Four Noble Truths, the teaching of the knowledge of the Noble Eightfold Path that leads to the end of suffering, we have:

DN28:19.16: “The perfected ones, fully awakened Buddhas of the past and the future are equal to myself when it comes to awakening.”

They're all omniscient. However, there's a "scope" to their omniscience, which was discussed in MN 71. And Ven. Bodhi's note citing the Commentary's explanation:

MA explains that part of the statement is valid is the assertion that the Buddha is omniscient and all-seeing; the part that is excessive is the assertion that knowledge and vision are continuously present to Him. According to Theravada exegetical tradition, the Buddha is omniscient in the sense that all knowable things are potentially accessible to him. He cannot, however, know evertyhing simultaneously and must advert to whatever he wishes to know. At MN 90.8 the Buddha says that it is possible to know and see all, though not simultaneously, and at AN 4:24/ii.24 He claims to know all that can be seen, heard, sensed, and cognized. This is understood by the Theravada commentators as an assertion of omniscience in the qualified sense. Also see Milindapanha/Miln 102-7.