text:
Before Buddhism, was there a way to escape from samsara?
Before the Buddha introduced nirvana and enlightenment, was there any way to escape from the cycle of birth and death? What is written in Buddhist texts?

There were infinite Buddhas before present Buddha (Gautama Buddha)..

Some Buddhist texts say that there were previous Buddhas (and that there will be others in the distant future): that they too taught Buddhism; and that the current Buddha rediscovered Buddhism.
For example, in the commentary to Dhammapada verse 183:

On one occasion, Thera Ananda asked the Buddha whether the Fundamental Instructions to bhikkhus given by the preceding Buddhas were the same as those of the Buddha himself. To him the Buddha replied that the instructions given by all the Buddhas are as given in the following verses:
Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:

Not to do evil, to cultivate merit, to purify one's mind - this is the Teaching of the Buddhas.
The best moral practice is patience and forbearance; "Nibbana is Supreme", said the Buddhas. A bhikkhu does not harm others; one who harms others is not a bhikkhu.
Not to revile, not to do any harm, to practise restraint according to the Fundamental Instructions for the bhikkhus, to be moderate in taking food, to dwell in a secluded place, to devote oneself to higher concentration - this is the Teaching of the Buddhas.

There are even some suttas, such as SN 12.65 which implies that Nirvana and the path the Nirvana was "inhabited in ancient times" and rediscovered by the Buddha.

In the Nagara Sutta, the delightful ancient fortress city [§20.2] clearly refers to nirvana, and the city is
  populated by saints (called “seers,” rsi, in the Sanskrit Nagara Sutra, §5.28). Both the Pali and Sanskrit
  versions of the Sutta speak of ancient people using the path.

Texts also say that a few people (called "private Buddhas") discover Nirvana for themselves, but (unlike a true Buddha) aren't able or aren't willing to teach other people.

Because the Buddha discovered reality as it actually is,  rather than coming up with a personalised conception of what it is, the Dhamma is open and discoverable to all, whether there is a Buddha to light the path or not.
Specifically within Buddhism there is a concept of Pratyekabuddha-hood, which are beings who discover the Dhamma without a teacher -  without a living Buddha or his message being available. They do not teach though.
The Buddha was not the inventor of the Dhamma within Buddhism, he was 'only' an expounder of the Truths and the Eightfold Path. Before him there were past Buddhas within the Tripitaka, and a future one too (Maitreya).
Effectively the path is always discoverable and Nibbana achievable, to any individual willing to search.

Google 'nonduality' and find many modern people who have and are finding out the truths (mostly) for themselves, without Buddhism (although it helps).

According to Theravada tradition, Buddhas come and go over countless eons. Only in the times when their teaching is alive and true will we get a chance of escaping from this endless samsara. Every once in a great while, after a long period of spiritual darkness blankets the world, an individual is eventually born who, through his own efforts, rediscovers the long-forgotten path to Awakening and liberates himself once and for all from the long round of rebirth, thereby becoming an arahant ("worthy one," one who has fully realized Awakening).
In Digha Nikáya Sutta 14,  Mahapadana Sutta (The Great Discourse on the Lineage)) & DN 32 The Ātaānātiiya Discourse, the Supreme Buddha stated that six Supreme Buddhas appeared over 91 world-cycles.  The seven Buddhas, including "our" Supreme Buddha, mentioned in DN 14 & DN 32: Vipassi, Sikhi, Vessabhu, Kakusandha, Konagamana, Kassapa, and Gotama. They were all born in this earth, in the land of the Rose Apple (Jambudipa), in north-central India in the area known then as the Middle Land (Majjhima Desa).
If such a being lacks the requisite development of a Supreme Buddha, he is unable to articulate his discovery to others and is known as a "Silent" or "Private" Buddha (paccekabuddha). These silent Buddhas come to pass a few hundred years prior to a birth of a Supreme Buddha. These Silent Buddhas too are born only in the land of the Rose Apple (Jambudipa), in north-central India in the area known then as the Middle Land (Majjhima Desa). This is a Dharmatha - a set of natural laws.
Only at a time when the Dhamma of a Supreme Buddha is alive in the world will arahants walk this earth because they require a Buddha to show them the way to Awakening. (All Buddhas and paccekabuddhas are arahants) No matter how far and wide the sasana spreads, sooner or later it succumbs to the inexorable law of anicca (impermanence), and fades from memory. The world descends again into darkness, and the eons-long cycle repeats. The most recent Buddha was born Siddhattha Gotama in India in the sixth century BCE. He is the one we usually mean when we refer to "The Buddha."
The next Buddha due to appear is said to be Maitreya (Metteyya), a bodhisatta currently residing in the Tusita heavens. Legend has it that at some time in the far distant future, once the teachings of the current Buddha have long been forgotten, he will be reborn as a human being, rediscover the Four Noble Truths, and teach the Noble Eightfold Path once again. His name is mentioned only once in the entire Tipitaka, in the Cakkavatti-Sihanada Sutta (DN 26; The Lion's Roar on the Turning of the Wheel):

[The Buddha:] And in that time of the people with an eighty-thousand-year life-span, there will arise in the world a Blessed Lord, an arahant fully enlightened Buddha named Metteyya, endowed with wisdom and conduct, a Well-farer, Knower of the worlds, incomparable Trainer of men to be tamed, Teacher of gods and humans, enlightened and blessed, just as I am now.

According to Buddhism, there was no way to escape from samsara (the cycle of ignorance, craving & ego-becoming) before the Buddha.
What is called 'Hinduism' arose after Buddhism. Before Buddhism, the main religion was called 'Brahmanism', which focused on 'Brahma' (god) & the Brahmin caste. There appears to be no evidence Brahmanism found a way to be free from 'samsara'.
If Brahmanism actually knew of a way to be free from samsara, the word 'Buddha' is a lie & false, since the Buddha declared his discovery was something completely brand new, i.e., "never heard before".

This noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering has been developed’: thus, bhikkhus, in regard to things unheard before,
  there arose in me vision, knowledge, wisdom, true knowledge, and
  light.
SN 56.11 The First Sermon

I don't know why, dharmafarer (footnote 185 on page 57) has, "“Things unheard before,” ananussutesu dhammesu. Apparently, this statement on “things unheard before” refers to the fact that the liberating Dharma has been forgotten in India up to the Buddha’s time."

Yes. Which means the Brahmans of the Buddha's time did not have a liberating dhamma. As for past Buddhas, I personally do not believe there were any. The idea of past Buddhas is found in the DN and other literal reincarnation suttas such as MN 81, MN 50, etc. Personally, I doubt these suttas were ever spoken by the Buddha but were composed as propaganda, since Indians like to compete for whose religion is the oldest. Regardless, the idea of past Buddhas still asserts Nibbana was only discovered by Buddhas, as stated in SN 12.65. Regards

this is totally wrong

@DoubtfulMonk That's not a constructive comment/criticism. Would you like to say what's wrong with, include a reference which explains what you're saying, and/or post a different answer of your own?

@ChrisW the answer should be commented by itself : what about Saivism? I think references should be in history , better to study before commenting by dogmatism only.


text:
Buddhist social networking site?
I'm looking for more friends on the Buddhist path and would there for like to ask: Are there any social networking sites for Buddhists? Some features that I'm looking for:

Friends list
Seeing online status of friends
Sending direct messages to a friend
Chatting with a friend
Open forums
Sharing images
News feed

Grateful for help!
Kind Regards,
Tord

My favorite is NewBuddhist, but I don't know that it has all those features.
I'd be interested in developing this as a project, I have been thinking of the "digital sangha" social network and I'm relieved I'm not the only one.

Thank you! I will sign up on this site and check it out more in detail. I used Oxwall to create an online community for a Sangha i was a member on a couple of years ago. I'm thinking of using it again for creating a more general social network for Buddhists. If you are interested in knowing more please contact me at: tord (dot) dellsen (at) protonmail (dot) com

Dhamma Wheel and its sister site
Dharma Wheel are forums where you can add friends, send direct messages, and chat with others.
Those two are probably the closest you will get to a Buddhist social networking site, but keep in mind that they are primarily discussion forums.

Update, to share the merits:
Delta-chat
Mr. Holger, chef of the developer company behind delta-chat, an email-network using, independent chat app, has joyfully given possibility of use of the software toward the Sangha of the Buddha and it's faithfull follower: Giving the possibility to make use of a messanger-software (Delta) by Mr. Holger
May the Venerables, out of compassion for the generous giver, make use of it.
May all find a remorse-less access to the members of the Sangha and fellows with it.
Since good further developments are surely good, one may feel invited to join such undertakings: Use of email-server based messenger - Delta similar - possible for Sangha?
In the case Venerable but also Upasaka, Upasika, would benefit and/or need an conscious given email account, may it be seen as given by the original donor to contact for request via forum.sangham.net or send an email to: samana(dot)johann[at]sangham{dot}net. An comfortable automatical registration for a given email is not developed yet.
May many be able to come together under good conditions with inspiration toward the tripple Gems and Unbond with it.

Anumodana!

Telegram
Dedicated for the members of Sangha of the eight directions, first the Theras and all fellows, their faithfull follower and open for all wishing to build up Upanissaya with the Buddhaparisa, the Triple Gems, by merits of many kinds, like sangham.net and its forum, my person currently looks if such as a common-world-independend possibility of a modification of telegram could be made avaliable.
Currently taken on trust, and as test, the messenger access can be found under: t.me/joinchat

If whoever having the possibilities feels inspired in work on development, currently there is an active topic: Use and implementation of Telegram possible?.
To make it most proper for good monks and serious practicing laypeople, so to be able to use on what is given and without strings, bounds trades, it sure requires some wise and good effort into the right direction, given and rightly independency.

The Liberal on archery skills:
Let donors build
pleasant hermitages
and there invite the learned to stay.
Let them make reservoirs
   in dry forests (internet)
and walking paths
   where it's rough
Let them, with a clear, calm awareness,
give food, drink, snacks,
clothing, & lodgings
to those who've become
   straightforward.

[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, world-binding trades and also not a rebel-undertaking, but simply a gift toward release from this wheel]

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
How can I remove my desire for a relationship/girlfriend?
For at least half of my life I've had an extremely strong desire to be in a relationship/have a girlfriend and though I've tried, I've been unsuccessful and this has brought me tremendous suffering to the point where I almost committed suicide 2 years ago. I see couples in a similar age group as me every single day and this further increases my suffering. I first encountered Buddhism 2 years ago and through its teachings I've detached myself from the past and have removed my strong desire for material wealth and this indeed has removed a lot of suffering from my life, however, I just can't seem to let go of immense desire to have a girlfriend even after realizing that external circumstances never bring lasting happiness and fulfillment.
How can I let go of this destructive desire?

Perhaps Patikulamanasikara meditation practices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patikulamanasikara

What helped me tremendously distance myself is this:
Contemplate the various advantages and disadvantages of having a girlfriend--particularly the one that you think you would get--not the dream-woman-that-you-have-to-be-on-a-certain-level-you-are-not-at-to-get.
For example, here is a personal list of benefits of celibacy:

Jing retention for transmutation into spiritual energy (chi, shen)
Time saved for spiritual and personal goals.
Money saved for spiritual and personal goals and fun.
Mental energy saved from all the headache and back and forth.
Social energy that can go into practical things like helping people or myself rather than feeding a woman's ego.
Less stress for managing a relationship... peace
Less stress about her cheating on me every day... peace

And disadvantages:

Lack of endorphins and excitement
Tactile loneliness
Social ignorance
Sexual ignorance
Intellectual ignorance about X

At this point you should have an overall idea if there is more advantage or disadvantage.
The last step is to FIND activities which address the disadvantages.

exercise
joining a sangha and doing social activities together
learning more more about female evolutionary psychology via videos/books (see Red Queen, Sperm Wars)
getting actual results of Buddha dharma

Lastly, I would say that it is best to pursue your path and not look for anything external because that external (i.e. girlfriend) when it comes to you "naturally" will be extremely well-matched for you (a great companion on your spiritual journey). Maybe it's because you started teaching or you were really successful and someone who values it took notice, etc.... let her find you.
Pursuing an un-ideal relationship would take you off the market and you might miss that girl of your dreams BECAUSE you were looking for her consciously and/or are with someone! Strange, isn't it? The best thing may be to be celibate until hotly pursued by someone well-matched. If it doesn't happen and you put all your 100% effort into the benefits list... then not much is lost!
But had you done the opposite... you will regret the sexual life for maybe eons or however long you think until you are a human and above with Buddhadharma.

I believe this answer is better suited for a personal relationships community. Nothing wrong with your personal experience, of course, but it would be good if the answer included more clearly a basis in the Buddhist teachings.

@arturovm almost all of these have supportive phrases from the gamut of Buddhist texts, I just didn't reference it. I can just imagine the Theravada and Mahayana texts but am too lazy to reference...

A lot of people use Buddhism and spirituality in general as means to escape their suffering.  They see the dharma as a panacea for their problems.  While the Buddha is quite clear that his path is one leading towards the end of anguish and dissatisfaction,  what a lot of people miss is that in order for us to arrive there, we are going to have to confront those issues that drove us to the Buddha-dharma in the first place.
Rather than running towards the dharma, it sounds an awful lot like you are trying to runaway from your obstacles.  Diving headlong into your practice may provide you with some temporary relief, but when the samadhi ends and you come off your cushion, those issues will bounce back up like bamboo shaken free of snow.  At some point, you are going to have to confront these issues.  You are going to have to ask yourself a number of difficult questions about yourself, your relationship history, and even why you came to the dharma in a hope to resolve them.  Meditation will help you see these obstacles from a different perspective, but they will remain your obstacles.  And they are going to have to be confronted and addressed before your practice can evolve.

Thanks for your reply. How can I confront this issue in particular?

This issue is no different than any other.  Sit, go into samadhi, then apply your concentrated mind to what comes up.  I would strongly caution you against trying to "solve" a particular issue of your choosing, however.  It's best to work with what arises on it's own rather than force an issue.  Our obstacles are related to each other in very complicated ways.  Some are deep, some superficial.  Some are symptoms, others are causes.  Figuring out which is which is the beauty and the challenge of practice.

I also think that you may want to rethink your approach to the dharma.  Buddhism isn't a collection of solutions to various problems.  That would be very intellectual and ultimately very ineffective.  Changing the mind is temporary and superficial.  You really need to be working with the heart.

In a nutshell. Buddhism is not about removing desires. It's about recognising what is present in any given moment and then responding skillfully or in a wholesome way so as not to cause suffering. You are human, you have and will continue to have desires.

Thanks for the reply. In what way would you recommend me to respond skillfully or in a wholesome way to this particular desire?

Hi Hamza, sorry for late reply. Notice the way your mind reacts.  You want to cling to the pleasant and push away the unpleasant. but we cannot cling to things because nothing lasts. The more we cling the more we suffer. The more we try to rid ourselves of something that is present the more we suffer.  You have a very natural human desire to be close to another person, to connect and share a bond. It is hard wired. If at this moment in your life you do not want a relationship then don't try to get rid of the feelings but instead just notice when they are there and accept them with compassion.

I would agree celibacy if you feel you are strong for it and are willing to live as a monk, meditation/shamata or Green Tara Mantra or Kurukulle Mantra. You should receive the LUNG/Transmission from an authorized Lama.
If you pray enough you probably won't feel so much desire or get a girlfriend.
https://taramandala.secure.retreat.guru/program/live-webcast-oral-transmission-tib-lung-for-green-tara-cnnr-chod-and-riwo-sangcho-copy/
https://padmarigdzinling.org/contact/

This answer is useful. A suggestion to improve it a little would be to explain briefly what is covered in those links you posted.

Buddhism warns against attachments to desires, not against desires themselves. There's nothing wrong with the rise of a desire for a relationship; that kind of arising is natural even for experienced practitioners. The question is whether we allow ourselves to become attached to that arising, causing ourselves misery.
With that in mind, observe that what you are really suffering over is an abstract mental object: an unspecified 'girlfriend', or an undefined 'relationship'. It's not as though you ran across a particular woman and are suffering because you've developed a crush on her. If you developed a crush on a particular woman you could resolve it quickly by asking her out: either you'd head towards a relationship, or you'd discover it isn't to be, neither of which will cause the suffering to persist. But fixating on these abstract mental objects — wanting a 'relationship' or a 'girlfriend, without any real-world connection except you see other people have it — is unhelpful. The only way you can resolve abstract mental suffering is by uprooting it from your mind: removing the attachment you have to it. Then your longings will come and go as they please, and will gradually lose power and urgency.
If there is someone in front of you that you are attracted to, consciously act, or consciously choose not to act (whichever strikes you as correct). You'll gain a relationship or you won't, but either way the issue will be settled. If there is no one in front of you, stop clinging to the abstraction. A real relationship is not a mental object. It's an energetic connection, and you want to free your mind of those abstract mental objects so that you can properly feel if the energetic connection is there.

Hope i will be able to help....or hopefully someone else can chip in to be able to unlock the tied knot in your heart....but hope you don't get devastated whatever it is.
First...as a buddhist....you should be able to accept the theory everything happened for a reason. Causes and effects.
Couple or people get together according to their own karma link. As of now....your partner may have not arrived. Maybe they will come a later stage....and perhap this is a blessing in disguise for you.
If you can minimise your desire for wealth( or did you just give up because it is not practical?, note that these are two different things)...you should be able to minimise your desire for a partner using the same method. Unless your way of minimising the desired is wrong but perceived that you had done it successfully...then you need to revisit the method again...
Chanting and meditation is the only way to help you end all suffering.
First..
Chanting with great mindfulness allow your mind to be focus, pure and thus able to radiate loving kindness(good wishes) to all beings. This will bring more affinity with others. Perhap in your past lives you had been a monk or priest with no desired for love...thus it does not create a karma link with the opposite sex. There are more other reasons....but dwelling into that won't help...so lets move on below...
Meditation train your brain to be less disturbed when you encounter all undesired situation(such as your case )....many says it don't works and it only works during that half to one hr of practise..and once you are off meditation and confronted with situation...it is still easy to get frustrated.......so my question is? How often do you meditate? How long do you meditate ea time? Since when you start meditate? If you only started few years back and meditated 10 -15 mins every day or sometime skipped...then how do you attain peace easily? So how much is enough? I won't and will not answer this question. Why? Cos everyone are borne with different stage of mindfulness(ability to focus ) during their birth and thus everyone progress will be different....even buddha in his last birth takes years to meditate, and go thru all the suffering before total wisdom arised and able to share his discourse. So you sure you have practise correctly and successfully.
Note that desired come from inner heart and only self help will help with good advise from anyone ( your affinity).
Regards.

When the ear hear noise, thought arises and thus is good /bad feeling. So how? Stop the noise at the ear.(acknowledge sound, sound, sound...)
When the eye see form, thought arises and thus is good/bad feeling. Stop the sighting at the eye.(acknowledge seeing, seeing, seeing...).
When the nose smell thing....etc etc
When the tongue taste thing....etc etc...
When the body feel thing ....etc etc....
When it is too late and the sensation get into the heart (mind )...acknowledge whatever the feeling, sensation is...and let it go....it will take many practises before it become a habit and thus easy to end unnecessarily suffering arised.

Try satipattana sutta (meditation) and apply it to yourself and others.

See my comment on your other answer. This is a Stack Exchange format meaning we are looking for high-quality answers. See also How do I write a good answer?.

See also Are answers that just contain links elsewhere really “good answers”? Sometimes (for example if the question is a [tag:reference-request]) then a reference is all that's needed in an answer. In this topic though I suggest you explain, at least a little, how or why this reference is relevant to the OP's question.

Maybe it's good to have friends and to be a friend.
Some forms of Buddhism put more emphasis than others, on the benefits and virtues of companionship. The Dalai Lama for example says things like:

From my own limited experience I have found that the greatest degree of inner tranquility comes from the development of love and compassion.
The more we care for the happiness of others, the greater our own sense of well-being becomes.

I recommend you read that whole article.
I'm sorry if this only makes you more unhappy (about not "having someone to love"); I post it in case your "destructive desire" is mis-placed. Perhaps it could be a wholesome desire.

Also, you're presumably right that "external circumstances never bring lasting happiness".
Even so, perhaps there are Buddhist recommendations about how to look for a marriage partner: see for example here.
I say that because if you will continue to desire a girlfriend, it might help you to know what qualities to look for.

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


text:
Why are there are only one Buddha per universe?
Why there are only one Buddha per universe?
And why there are not more or less at any time?

The teaching attributed to the Buddha of 'there can only be one self-enlightened Buddha in a world-system (lokadhātuyā)' is found in the Bahudhātuka Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya, which states:

He understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that two Accomplished Ones (arahanto), Fully Self-Enlightened Ones (sammāsambuddhā), could arise
  contemporaneously in one (ekissā) world-system (lokadhātuyā) ― there is no such possibility.’
And he understands: ‘It is possible that one Accomplished One, a Fully
  Self-Enlightened One, might arise in one world-system ― there is such a
  possibility.’
Bahudhātuka Sutta

The Milindapañha, which is a later-day commentary (c. 100BC), provides a detailed explanation:

This world system, O king, is a one-Buddha-supporting world; that is, it can bear the virtue of only a single Tathāgata. If a second
  Tathāgata were to arise the world could not bear him, it would shake
  and tremble, it would bend, this way and that, it would disperse,
  scatter into pieces, dissolve, be utterly destroyed. just as a boat, O
  king, might be able to carry one passenger across. Then, when one man
  had got on board, it would be well trimmed and able to bear his
  weight. But if a second man were to come like to the first in age and
  caste and strength and size and stoutness of body and build of frame,
  and he too should get on board the boat—would that boat be able, O
  king, to carry them both?
Or suppose, O king, that a man had eaten as much food as he wanted, even so that he had filled himself with nourishment up to the
  throat, and he—thus satiated, regaled, filled with good cheer, with no
  room left for more, drowsy and stiff as a stick one cannot bend—were
  again to eat as much food as he had eaten before—would such a man, O
  king, then be at ease?’
Suppose, O king, there were two carts quite filled with precious things up to the top, and people were to take the things from the one
  cart and pile them up on the other, would that one be able to carry
  the weight of both?’
If, O king, two Buddhas were to arise together, then would disputes
  arise between their followers, and at the words: “Your Buddha, our
  Buddha,” they would divide off into two parties—just as would the
  followers of two rival powerful ministers of state. This is the other reason, O king, why two Buddhas could not appear at the same
  time.
The passage (of Scripture) that the Buddha is the chief would become false, and the passage that the Buddha takes precedence of all would
  become false, and the passage that the Buddha is the best of all would
  become false. And so all those passages where the Buddha is said to be
  the most excellent, the most exalted, the highest of all, the peerless
  one, without an equal, the matchless one, who hath neither counterpart
  nor rival—all would be proved false. Accept this reason too as in
  truth a reason why two Buddhas cannot arise at once.
Of other things also, whatever is mighty in the world is singular. The broad earth is great, O king, and it is only one. The ocean is
  mighty, and it is only one. Sineru, the king of the mountains, is
  great; and it is only one. Space is mighty, and it is only one. Sakka
  (the king of the gods) is great, and he is only one. Mara (the Evil
  One, Death) is great, and he is only one. Mahā-Brahmā is mighty, and
  he is only one. 51 A Tathāgata, an Arahat Buddha supreme, is great,
  and he is alone in the world. Wherever any one of these spring up,
  then there is no room for a second. And therefore, O king, is it that
  only one Tathāgata, an Arahat Buddha supreme, can appear at one time
  in the world.’
Mil 5.5 11; Mil 235

According to Theravada tradition, Buddhas come and go over countless eons. Only in the times when their teaching is alive and true will we get a chance of escaping from this endless samsara. Every once in a great while, after a long period of spiritual darkness blankets the world, an individual is eventually born who, through his own efforts, rediscovers the long-forgotten path to Awakening and liberates himself once and for all from the long round of rebirth, thereby becoming an arahant ("worthy one," one who has fully realized Awakening).
In Digha Nikáya Sutta 14,  Mahapadana Sutta (The Great Discourse on the Lineage)) & DN 32 The Ātaānātiiya Discourse, the Supreme Buddha stated that six Supreme Buddhas appeared over 91 world-cycles.  The seven Buddhas, including "our" Supreme Buddha, mentioned in DN 14 & DN 32: Vipassi, Sikhi, Vessabhu, Kakusandha, Konagamana, Kassapa, and Gotama. They were all born in this earth, in the land of the Rose Apple (Jambudipa), in north-central India in the area known then as the Middle Land (Majjhima Desa).
As per the scriptures the next Buddha to come will only come to pass when the life expectancy of mankind is 80,000 years. To come to the question proper... the very question that you asked was once asked by King Milinda, and Arahant Nagasena replied to it as posted in the earlier answer by Dhammadhatu.
Also if you would want to read Bahudhātuka sutta (MN. 115), Mahāgovinda sutta (DN. 19), Sampasādanīya sutta (DN. 28), etc. Buddha has said:

"He [i.e., the bhikkhu who understands the possible and the impossible] understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that two Arahants who are Sammā-sambuddhas could arise contemporaneously in one world-system — there is no such possibility.’"

Buddha fully understood the universe when He declared this, and this is what is said in the scriptures:
According to the Scriptures the universe is infinite in time and space. By infinite what is meant is the length, width or number of solar systems (lokadhātu) in the universe are infinite. Within that infinite space there are sections that consist of one billion solar systems are called “Thri Sahashri Loka Datu” (equivalent to a galaxy). Such unfathomable spaces are always explained by similes. One such is -  If someone takes mustard seeds amount equal to the volume of Thri Sahashri Loka Datu (equivalent to a galaxy) and travel in one direction placing one seed on one solar system, the seeds will come to an end but not the universe.
Buddha has not refereed to space as impermanent or not, but all things within it are. All the worlds of the devas, and the Brahma worlds are found within this time and space. For instance the scriptures talk about realms of the gods of the base consisting of the infinity of space... realms of the gods of the base consisting of the infinity of consciousness... realms of the gods of the base consisting of nothingness...
All of us beings of all these diverse worlds, whatever we do in time and space is going to come to pass sooner or later, like a picture you draw with a stick in flowing water.  But there is one realm outside of time and space, Nibbhana, that Buddha wants us to reach, where we find the deathless. Once you’ve found the Deathless it’s always there as it is beyond time and space.
A collection of 1000 solar systems are called “Sahashri Loka Dhatu” in the scriptures. A collection of 1,000,000 solar systems are called “Divi Sahashri Loka Dhatu”.  The universe may not be impermanent (as there is no mention of it).  Within it, the solar systems are born, gets destroyed and it will be made again. Such cycles are called “Maha Kalpa(great kalpa)”.
Maha Kalpa are further divided:  time of solar system formation ( Sanwatta Kalpa), time of existence (Sanwatta Sthayi Kalpa), time of destruction (Wiwatta kalpa) and time of emptiness (Wiwatta Sthayi Kalpa). The time intervals are termed “Asankya Kalpa”.

please don't consider Buddha as person or reincarnation of any sort of external power. every one has potential to become Buddha.become a Buddha is completely depend on commitment.its a states of mind any one can achieved by own human effort and commitment.
 danuka form sri lanka

The final truth is that there is only one buddha... that can emanate as millions of buddhas. Think of how the buddha Green Tara emanated from the tears of Avalokiteshvara. And then 21 Taras emanate from Tara. Etc.

Because of focus. It is easier to rely on one buddha 24 hours a day 7 days a week.


text:
I don't like people
I'm trying to follow Buddhist teachings but I generally don't like people so I don't feel like practising metta towards them. They just irritate me and I don't care if they suffer or not. I usually just want them to F off and leave me alone.  How can I be Buddhist if I feel this way?  I cannot force a warm fuzzy feeling of metta.

Possible duplicate of Why is Metta Practice so Hard?

Try to start with yourself. If you cannot generate metta towards yourself that is fine. It just means that there is work to be done. With consistent practice you will able to do it.
When you can generate metta towards yourself you have a pure and clean source meaning you can then extend it to other beings. If you do not have a clean source then other beings who drink from it risk being tainted.
There are four types of persons one should learn to generate metta towards. These are:

A respected, highly valued, person, e.g. ones teacher.
A dearly beloved person such as a parent or a close friend.
A neutral person e.g. one who works in a store one often visits.
A hostile person, i.e. a person who one is struggling with.

One starts with oneself and then progress to the next person once one becomes familiar with the practice. If done correctly one will be able to progress through the stages ending up with the hostile person.
One does not start with a hostile person since that would be too difficult. Its like trying to run before one can walk. It will only generate too much resistance.
Start with yourself. How to do it? There are several methods to use.

Visualization: bring forth a mental picture of yourself smiling or a person (teacher, parent etc.) smiling at you.
Reflection: reflect upon the positive and wholesome qualities of yourself or a person, e.g. how you have helped someone or how someone did wholesome things for you. You could also reflect upon beings who possess wholesome qualities such as a Buddha.

The goal with these methods is to generate metta, the feeling of loving-kindness. When practicing you might experience this feeling getting stronger or weaker. If it becomes weaker then return to the methods (reflection or visualization) until the feeling becomes strong again. You should only direct metta towards yourself or another person when the feeling is strong. You will know when that is through practice.
Ultimately metta-practice ends up with one directing metta towards ones entire building (neighbours), the city (like minded communities), the country, then all directions: north, south, east, west, then all beings in the Universe.
Don't worry about the last part yet. It will come when you are ready for it.
Start with yourself then the four types of persons.

You're answer is quite helpful. I'm struggling a bit with the same issue, although I wouldn't say "I don't like people" I have a real problem to generate a really untainted feeling of love towards them. When you say:  "start with yourself then the four types of persons", is that in the same sitting session ?

@BlackSwing. Thank you. I'm happy it could be of help to you. You do not need to incorporate all factors in one sitting. Break it up, learn about the practice and become comfortable with it. Start with yourself. When you can generate metta towards yourself go to the 1st of the four persons. Then become comfortable with that until you can progress to the next person and so forth. Its about the quality of the practice. Hope that helps or else feel free to mail me.

One of the translations for metta/maitri is kindness. There are two uses of the word kind in English, as an adjective referring to a friendly disposition and as a word meaning sort or category e.g. two of a kind. Consider how the two meanings relate and how seeing yourself in others and others in yourself might be beneficial. Kind also shares the same root as kin and king.

I'm going to take a different approach from the answers already given...
I don't think this is a hindrance at all.  It only seems a hindrance because we live in a world that unfortunately has put a high price on feelings and elevated them to the status of truth.
Metta isn't a warm fuzzy feeling. It's not a feeling at all. To see what I mean, do this thought experiment...

You see a person in pain.  You can help the person, but your arm
  itches.  What do you do?  You disregard the itch (let it be) and help
  the person anyway.  Why should the itch affect anything?

Feelings are like an itch.  They don't mean anything, and we can accept them for what they are and continue to act.  They only mean something if we make them mean something.
When you are on the cushion practicing metta, don't worry about feelings. Instead, try to cultivate this same well-wishing-despite-feelings that you would when you help someone you know is hurting. Adopt a mindset like you would in the thought experiment I presented earlier.  That well-wishing need not be a warm fuzzy feeling or any feeling at all.  Just send them your good wishes.
Compassion and the desire for all beings to be happy can be a purely logical attitude that's devoid of feelings.  In fact, if you look at it, it's quite logical.  If you start with the axiom that pain is bad, then you logically arrive at the conclusion that pain should be alleviated.  Feelings don't enter into it anymore than feelings enter into an equation like 1+1 = 2.

Metta isn't feeling compassion for a hungry person; it's feeding the
hungry person.
Metta isn't feeling anger with a friend because s/he was injured;
it's trying to get the friend to get beyond the injury.
Metta isn't feeling compassion for a world gone bad; it's acting to
fix that world.

In fact, I wonder if the warm fuzzies are a hinderance to metta?  It seems all too easy for that to turn metta practice into a self-absorbed emotional masturbation session. But even more to the point, shouldn't we aim for non-attachment to feelings?  And isn't one consequence of this non-attachment that we don't let our feelings dictate our actions?  As long as our actions are subject to feelings, as long as we're trying to invoke certain feelings (especially to produce certain actions), then aren't we still attached to those feelings?
So in a way, doing metta despite disliking people, and not letting that dislike actually affect anything or be a big deal may be a better sign than someone who does metta because s/he "loves" people or can call upon the warm fuzzies on demand.
In short, don't confuse metta with feelings, and don't take feelings so seriously and you may find that this problem was an illusion to begin with.

I read this question at the beginning of my day and have been thinking about it for some time. I've been in a similar situation myself, having many negative thoughts about people, being angry etc. In my case things changed when:

The external situation changed
My thoughts, expectations and perceptions of the actions of other people changed

Now things are much better for me but I still have negative thoughts about people from time to time, and I "get stuck" in these thoughts. When this happens what I try to do is to:

Practice self-compassion (Guided meditations by Kristin Neff)
Think about people that are easily likable (for example the Dalai Lama), either visualizing them or looking at a photograph

I could say more but I wanted to share what has worked in my own experience. I hope this will help you in some way
Kind Regards,
Tord

I would suggest investigating and understanding why you feel that way, what are the external and internal factors that cause you to feel that generalized hostility towards other people. After having understood that, it should be much clearer, and easier from there.
I want to also advise you, based on my experience, to try and not fool yourself in the process. Don't make up reasons for it, the goal is to simply  understand the true reasons, which are already there. If you can and feel it is genuine, accept that you feel that way towards others and that that doesn't make you a bad person - you are as you are, and you are trying to improve, which is amazing to me. This acceptance will extinguish the need to make up excuses (or false reasons that don't make you feel bad) for the hostility, and allow you to see deeper and much more clearer the truth.
Nice voyage!

Don't worry too much. You feel the way you feel, and there is nothing wrong about it. Actually, I don't like many people myself and I prefer to stay alone the whole day so I know exactly what you mean. Except maybe, I always feel pity when people suffer.
This does not conflict with being kind. If you are greeted, greet back. If you are smiled up on, you can make sure the other person knows you acknowledged. You can even wish everybody the best: everybody can find his own luck. It has nothing to do with you.
If you start being respectful, kind and benevolent, the "warm fuzzy feeling" might come, or maybe not. You should not try to enforce any feelings. It's not necessary to feel everything others feel. In example, I have 10 fingers, but I don't need to feel how it is to have only 5.
You don't even need to be part of social activities. You can stay alone, if you prefer. But I strongly recommend you to practice in a group. A meditation group (I prefer Zen, can just speak about this) helps you to practice harder and avoid pitfalls. Being with likeminded you might have a good start with practicing kindness.
The good thing is: you have recognised what's inside you. Now you can work further. Next stop would be to accept what you are and to accept what others are. Then you can start to tell people in a friendly, kind way to leave you alone.

Have you tried the 4th component of Brahmavihara?
Upekkha might work better for you?
Buddha said he could not see any drawbacks from Upekkha other than it's subject to ending.

Could you provide references to "Buddha said he could not see any drawbacks from Upekkha other than it's subject to ending"?

Continuous mindfulness is the key.
You must learn to let go of that hatred. You must renounce hatred, anger, once and for all.
Whenever such a thought arise ''I don't like people, I hate people'', you must be aware and know it as it is.
Observe the related thoughts and feelings in an objective manner, without reacting, by simply turning, holding and sustaining your attention to what has just appeared, just at time of its duration.
You must ''decondition'' the habit pattern you have created.
Later on, metta will arise naturally. Or at the very least it will be quite easy to cultivate.

Life is suffering. Not getting what you wish is suffering. We do not wish to be associated with things or persons we dislike, nor do we wish to be separated from things or persons we love. We do not get our wishes and desires always. What we least expect or what we least desire is often put on us. At times, such unexpected unpleasant things become so intolerable and painful that weak ignorant folk are compelled to act on such impulses of aversion. I hope that you are not weak or ignorant to do any wrong doings. The nature of this mind is changed by accentuating the opposite – in this case by METTA. So do not trust the mind. Only place your trust in the Dhamma of Supreme Buddha.
I hope that you will take this answer of mine in a positive light.  It is not my personal views but is in keeping with Supreme Buddha’s advice. Supreme Buddha’s teachings are filled with advice and we must learn to welcome advice. You say the practising of the Metta meditation is difficult because you do not feel that way towards others. If so, don't go to the meditation state at once as it sure is a difficult one for you. When thinking of doing something difficult what have we got to do to make it successful? The mind must like to do it because it is done with the mind. We must make the mind agree to do it. If there is no agreement it cannot be done. What have we got to make the mind like it?
Just focus on the good aspect of it. That is a strategy. Before commencing the practising of Metta Bhavana think "I must practise meditating on Metta. It is something explained to us by Supreme Buddha. This meditation gives rise to a lot of merit. The merit is enormous. When I remain with a mind like this it is good for me. Good for others also. It is a good thing to remain with a mind of Metta towards all. If I live with a mind of spreading friendliness my mind gets one pointed. Concentration arises. That will exist for my benefit. It will help me to attain fruition in this Path.
Therefore, I must live with a mind of Metta - generating Metta - practicing Metta".
After that slowly get on to focusing attention relevant to Metta Bhavana. Now we have generated mindfulness, we are remaining in that mindfulness, we have generated a liking for meditation and slowly commence practicing the relevant meditation. Then we get the opportunity to practice that meditation successfully.
Having commenced in this manner we do not perform the entire meditation at one stretch. Practice little by little, by meditating for a short while. First spread metta to self.
May I be free from hatred, may I be free from anger, may I be free from jealousy, May I be free from all ill-will, May peace engulf me…
When spreading metta to others, do not think of individual people, like your friends and loved ones. First spread metta to all beings, be it humans, animals, birds, insects, to all. Metta is a companionship that one feels within one’s heart.
One will always make sure that no harm is caused to oneself as one genuinely feel for ones own life. One will never cause any harm or pains to those beings (humans, animals, birds, insects etc.) around him, because he genuinely cares for others as much as he does for himself. There are two ways to spread loving kindness to oneself as well as to others as the Blessed One pointed out. As per Anuruddha Sutta in Majjhima Nikaya, they are boundless deliverance of mind & exalted deliverance of mind.
Boundless deliverance of mind is the spreading of loving kindness is to all directions without limit. It is limitless release of mind.
May all being in north direction be free from hatred, be free from anger, be free from jealousy, be free from all ill-will, lead a comfort life, feel the soothe and ease of their lives…
May all being in north east direction be free from hatred….
May all being in east direction….
May all being in south east direction…
May all being in south direction….
May all being in south west direction….
May all being in west direction…
May all being in north west direction…
May all being in upper direction…
May all being under directions….
Exalted deliverance of mind is the extending of the range. Firstly, one extends loving-kindness upon oneself, then to the community, country and the world.
May I be free from hatred, may I be free from anger, may I be free from jealousy, May I be free from ill-will, May peace engulf me…
As well as I am, may all other beings in this village
May all other beings in this town…
May all other beings in this district …
May all other beings in this country…
May all other beings in this world…
As well as I am, may all beings be free from hatred, be free from anger, be free from jealousy, be free from all ill-will, May peace engulf them….

How can you start an answer with "life is suffering"? That doesn't equate at all. Life is life. When you attach meaning to what happens in life, you may suffer. Depending on the meaning you have attached. Life in itself has nothing to do with suffering. How could you otherwise end suffering in this life time?

@Mike de Klerk...  Life is suffering because the “made-up mental pleasures” or “käma äsväda” have consequences as per paticca samuppada. Thus the end point is suffering. The problem is that each time we enjoy käma äsväda, we do (abhi)sankhara. They lead to future suffering. This is what we have been doing in countless number of births up to now. That future suffering can arise both in this life as well as in future lives via as per paticca samuppada (dependent origination) that can materialize at different levels depending on the “strength of the käma äsväda“.

The made up mental pleasure doesn't have to be present in order to live. Suffering is an indication of malfunctioning mental activity. It is possible to find out what you are doing, that causes the suffering. Seeing that the base of that mental activity is an illusion, like ego, or confusing subjective experience for objective reality. Life exists without the mental activity, the experience of life however doesn't. But you don't need malfunctioning mental activity in order to experience life.

What you said is correct @Mike. It is important to realize that there are two dukkha. One is the Vipaka Dukkka / sukha that even an Arahant / Buddha feels. It is the other Dhukka/ äsväda that can be removed. Once we truly realize this other dukkha, we will see that anything in this world has the anicca nature; nothing in this world can provide long-lasting happiness in the long term. This is the other more important but hidden meaning of Anicca. Being Impermanent is true in only a couple of situations. Also for Loving Kindness there is a higher meaning but not mentioned above.

Thank you for elaborating on the matter. This gives me new material to get into! Parinibbana seems like unexistence, I wonder what remains.

Nibbana is ragakkhayo ( greed elimination), dosakkhayo (hate elimination), mohakkhayo (delusion elimination). READ. I will create a similar website “A Meditative Life” giving Scripture References to this Hidden Aspects shown in PureDhamma – hopefully within one year. At PariNibbana, it is beyond Time & Space, & it is futile to spend time on such. Just try to understand the real meanings of anicca, dukkha, anatta. Then you are a Sotapanna (Stream Entrant). Then try to learn the Ariya Meditation (not about breathing).

I am usually pretty adept at finding a kernel of compassion, but that's not to say I have always been so well equipped. This is an on-going struggle for many like me. Maybe you find yourself in the same position.
I had a long, drawn-out answer and it just sounds all blah blah blah. I know reaching that point when you just can't muster an iota of sympathy for someone. When there's just nothing there for anyone outside of my little world. It usually comes when I have developed some kind of initial contempt.
I convert that contempt to kittens.
OK, fine. a puppy. Who can resist a puppy? Or even just whoever is the object of my scorn as a small child ... and what must have happened to them to make them feel this way. What were they scared of and who didn't come to their side? Because it all comes down to trust.
Anyway, that usually helps me hack up some compassion. Or it at least makes me think so I don't just immediately dismiss them.

Christians express this as: "there but for the grace of God go I." In other words, seeing yourself in others, or putting yourself in their position. Thich Nhat Hanh wrote a poem / story about this called "Please call me by my true names"

I think that all humans and non-humans are Buddhists as in subject to laws of mental and physical realities expounded by the Buddha. Whether a person identifies as a Buddhist or not, does not essentially matter, they are still part of the same system. To me "a being" is synonymous with "a Buddhist" in that sense, although "a Buddhist" is a far more innacurate term in the sense that identifying as a Buddhist does not guarantee right view which is seemingly expected of a Buddhist but not of a Being.
If OP does not like people then that is Aversion. Disliking is suffering. It is of little use to identify oneself with it as in saying i am such and such person, when likes and dislikes are very much conditioned and are subject to change, it is not appropriate to regard it as self.
There is disliking, it will change, it is what it is. Do not make more out of it than it is, for when you extrapolate and worry about it you do it by means of attaching to it extra characteristics, this is attachment to likes and dislikes.

Buddhism has different practices according to one's ability. Such as Theravada practices does not require use of people as object of practice. Just liberating oneself is already a good practice.

If you find that dislike (of people) and irritation are "painful" in some way  (which you might, since you're presenting it in a question, possibly as a problem to be solved), then maybe Metta would benefit you.
For example:

Q: "I find that when I fight with people, I get hurt?"
A: "Then don't fight with them!"

Or for example the Dhammapada includes verses like,

Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.

Isn't that, I don't know what to call it, sensible and ... obvious?
How can I be Buddhist if I feel this way? I cannot force a warm fuzzy feeling of metta.
A warm fuzzy feeling isn't required. For example if people are living in a "burning house", as the metaphor goes, a "warm fuzzy feeling" isn't the appropriate reaction.
I'll mention, in case you didn't know, "Metta" is not one but one of a group of four related attitudes:

These four attitudes are said to be excellent or sublime because they are the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings (sattesu samma patipatti). They provide, in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact. They are the great removers of tension, the great peace-makers in social conflict, and the great healers of wounds suffered in the struggle of existence. They level social barriers, build harmonious communities, awaken slumbering magnanimity long forgotten, revive joy and hope long abandoned, and promote human brotherhood against the forces of egotism.
The Brahma-viharas are incompatible with a hating state of mind, ...

I'm not sure what Buddhist teachings you're trying to follow, but "aversion" is one of the problems, unwholesome roots, which Buddhism tries to solve or free you from. I think you can infer that from the first noble truth, which includes:

to be with "the unpleasant" (also translated as "what one loves not") is suffering

Also if you're worried that you're expected to force warm fuzzy feelings to be a Buddhist, I don't think that's true. Buddhism is kind of a Middle Way. Sometimes its doctrine is pretty absolute (e.g. "no killing, no lying, etc."), at other times I find that there are two sides: for example it teaches compassion but also dispassion, good-will but also non-attachment, non-aversion but also dismay and urgency, having "admirable friends" but also "solitude" and renunciation, release.

What you are experiencing as such, is not your "own". As you are well aware, you are unable to control it as your "own". Just constantly ask yourself to detach with these anger and any attachment. Buddha himself praises being alone so spend time alone contemplating dhamma.

Yes, that follows from the "Anatta-lakkhana Sutta".

Are you ambivalent to all people, or just the vast majority? Are you a solitary person? Do you get enough time/freedom for yourself? What is your opinion of yourself?
People are generally reflections of oneself imo, act happy they will likely act happy, act scared and so will they, tempted, cautious etc.. In the end it's all a bit predictable, so why not just detach? Aversion is very much like attachment. People will float into your field of view now and then, just part of living on a small planet.

Metta is very hard for me too. If any help, I noticed in my own experience that metta meditation is easier if practiced once you have developed calm in your mind with samatha or vipassana bhavana because you trigger a lot less feelings of aversion or anger.
I don't know your experience in meditation but I would suggest in your case to start by doing samatha bhavana first, once your mind has become a little quieter start metta bhavana.

Metta meditation will enable you not to suffer on the account of other. Each time you generate dislike you generate misery for yourself. Though Metta mediation if you manage to stop your metal reaction of other with negativity this will help you also to be happy without irritation.
Following answer has more detail of the practice.

You are making a few mistakes, which causes you to have illusions, rather than truth. You want to get rid of those illusions and see truth, that is why you asked this question.
There is no such thing as annoying people. That 'annoying' only 'lives' in YOUR mind because of what you focus upon. You are confusing something in subject reality to be objective, which I conclude from the sentence "They just irritate me". They can't, nobody can decide for you when you need to feel irritated. So there you have an illusion, that is, an erroneous perception of reality. So you are simply not seeing the things for what they are, apparently. You construct this irritation, why continue doing so?
That said, your emotion (feeling irritated) is a sense. It bluntly states "this hurts, do not do it again, whatever it was." Like putting your hand in a flame, it hurts, because it destroys. You feelings of irritation destroy instead of creates, that is what your emotion is telling. Your focus is destructive instead of constructive. So your feelings of irritation say a 100% something about the value of your mental activity, and nothing about other people. You see, the value of your mental activity towards other people is negative, that is why you feel it as such. Couldn't it be more simple?
Why would you want to continue doing that? Do you like feeling irritated? First get rid of the illusion by investigating what is real and metta follows naturally.
Also loving other people has nothing to do with them. What you 'think' them to be isn't objective reality. So when you love or hate someone, that shows a quality (or not) of you.
So it is not the question of practicing metta towards other people. It is a question of whether you want to improve the quality of your very own state of being. Quality mental activity can only arise from truth, not from illusion. You can't build a house of lego if you can't truthfully see the plans for what they are (the illusion). Life can't manifest on all that is based upon illusion. Have you ever seen an illogical vehicle being constructed upon things that aren't real? There is no such vehicle as it can't exist.
So you are limiting your own existence by holding on to your current perspective. Don't practice metta before you feel doing so. Investigate what it is that you are doing when feeling irritated. Because it is your own doing, it always has and always will be.
Go ahead and think of yourself to be a buddhist if you like, who is there to stop you, but you?

Before you read this answer you have a small home work to do.
Take a piece of paper and write three names that you most love.  Be honest to your heart consciousness. Keep that aside then start reading this answer.
I did this in Sunday school grade 11 students class.  Same in elderly dhamma session. All have written three names except their names. Someone else's names.  Like My Mother, My Father, My son, My daughter. But the person who wrote that paper his or her name is not there. It means he or she does not love himself or herself first and foremost.  Lord Buddha taught us when you start "Mettha meditation"  Start from myself. Then parents, teachers, neighbours, village, town, state, country, world.... etc. In short it convinced us If I do not like anything so as well others.  If I do not willing to someone hurting me. Others also not willing to be hurted.
So in your case first you start spreading metta to yourself. You don’t need any special equipment or gear to get started with metta meditation.
Another bonus is that you can do it anywhere you like — in a quiet corner of your home, outdoors in a yard, or even at your desk. Try to choose a spot where you’re least likely to be distracted, then follow these steps:
01. Sit in a comfortable position. Close your eyes. Take a slow, deep breath in through your nose and continue breathing deeply.
02. Focus on your breathing. Imagine your breath traveling through your body. Focus on your heart.
03. Choose a kind, positive phrase. Silently recite the phrase, directing it toward yourself. You can say, “May I be happy. May I be safe. May I find peace.”
04. Slowly repeat the phrase. Acknowledge its meaning and how it makes you feel. If you get distracted, avoid judging yourself. Just return to the phrase and keep repeating it.
05. Now, think about your friends and family. You can think about a specific person or a group of people. Recite the phrase toward them, “May you be happy. May you be safe. May you find peace.” Again, recognize the meaning and how you feel.
06. Continue reciting the phrase toward others, including neighbors, acquaintances, and difficult individuals. Recognize your emotions, even if they’re negative. Repeat the phrase until you experience compassionate feelings.
Some people use visual imagery while reciting each phrase. For example, you can imagine light emitting from your heart or the person you’re thinking of.
You can also change the phrase throughout the practice. In first instances try to understand yourself. Your thoughts. Why you are receiving these kind of thoughts?  Why not others? who am I? What makes me to feel about people like this way?  What they have done to me? question yourself by keeping ego aside. Ego is the most dangerous man that avoiding you to think about the people compassionately with loving kindness.
You have the superego thinking that you are the only person loving nature not others. so I hate them. First you need to come out of this thought by breaking that ideology. For that you have to come out of the box that you stuck and look around. You stuck in side the box that "I am the only person loving the nature not others".
These all happening because of ignorance of not knowing the truth. The ultimate truth of this world. If you come to know this truth then you become so calm and quiet person. If you exactly understood this ultimate realities then you realize there is no I, my, mine, myself, because of these words relatively, all other relationships occurring. My Car, My son , My house etc..  This I, My, Mine, Myself is called ego. Once you remove ego then you are the world happiest man.
To learn this from the beginning start here: Loving Kindness then follow the lessons one by one while understanding the concepts.If you do not understand then do not move forward. Read it several times. Still have problems search few related words in the google and read one or two articles. Clear the concept and then move forward. Else you can raise the question on the page or to me.  So that I can answer. At the end of the lessons you will be able to find this world have only one Mind[Consciousness -Chitta] in its activities that become 89 or 121, 52 Mental factors[chetasika], 28 Matters[Rupa], and Nibbana. Nothing else other than the illusion created by the ignorance of not knowing the truth.
My Lord, Lord Buddha before he attain Nibbana in his "Bodhisaththa" period [Before Buddha period] This is how he think about the world and his thoughts. This may helpful for you to understand how do you adjust your thinking pattern. Bodhisatta Sutta
May Triple Gem Blessed you to find the reality.


text:
How to get involved in feelings maintaining Equanimity?
Sir, when I talk to my wife over phone (maintaining equanimity) she suddenly recognize that either i am not in a mood to talk, and its obvious becuase even I know that its impossible to remain equanimous and get involved in the conversation whole heartedly, I am not sure I am making myself clear.
My question is lets say I often make jokes on phone and laugh a lot when I talk to my friend, but I find these things stupid while trying to maintain Equanimity.
Kindly explain is it possible to do both the things?

It is your perception which recognises and classifies it as funny or not. Tired with it arises the sensation which is pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. You have to be equanimous towards it.
Also if the chattering is senseless chattering this is not right speech also. Why idle chattering is not conducive is with whatever you say the other person likes it or dislikes it reacting with craving or aversion. Also it creates verbal fabrications. And makes your mind distracted, than concentrated.
So limit conversation to what is important. Try to maintain equanimity towards sesations when talking also.

Thankyou Sir, can you please shed some light on craving, e.g. I want to purchase a motorcycle, then I think it will be an extra weight on my pocket.
I like riding (generally), so how should one take decision on this kind of situation?
Another craving is watching YouTube.

Craving -> searching -> gain -> decision-making -> desire and lust -> attachment -> possessiveness -> stinginess -> safe-guarding -> various evils, unwholesome phenomena - Mahā,nidāna Sutta. Main thing is try to keep the 5 Precepts. It is good to avoid subtle craving, but as a householder this will not entirely be possible and practicle.

If you can be on an even keel - regular and well-balanced and not likely to change suddenly when interacting with your loved ones and friends, then you are maintaining equanimity. It is important that you be the same person when you are talking to your friend or your wife. So that occasional sense of humor should be the same towards both of them.
We sorrow when we face of our everyday sufferings and troubles. And we joy when we face the moments of pleasure and happiness. When we behave indifferently in front of such pleasure/joy or sufferings/troubles it is equanimity that we are cultivating. One who practices equanimity will not mourn when sufferings, troubles find that person. He will not get excited when pleasure, happiness find him. He/she will feel all with an indifferent mentality.
You can cultivate this quality by repeating to self (as a meditation)…  May I not be joyful because of gain… May I not be sorrowful because of loss… May I not be joyful because of praise… May I not be sorrowful because of dishonor… May I not be happy because of fame… May I not be sorrowful because of disgrace… May I not be happy by bodily pleasure… May I not be sorrowful by bodily suffering… May I not be happy by mental pleasure… May I not be sorrowful by mental suffering… May I be peaceful…


text:
How can we include meditation in our daily activities or day to day life?
Given that if a person is extremely busy & unable to give full time to meditation but wants to penetrate mind to eradicate past live impressions, how can he/she do so?

Hello Seeker and welcome to Buddhism SE. Great question. Is there two questions here, i.e. a question about the integration of meditation into daily life and a question regarding methods on how to eradicate past life impressions?

Yes. Actually, aim is to eradicate past karmas via meditation. :) @Lanka

It simply comes down to two words… sati sampajanna.  Sati is mindfulness.
The Pali word for alertness is sampajañña. It doesn’t mean being choicelessly aware of the present, or comprehending the present. Sampajañña means being aware of what you’re doing in the movements of the body, the movements in the mind. This is why mindfulness and alertness should always be paired.
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.
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.

Please read satipattana sutta. It speaks about four forms of mindfulness, which gives you the benefit of Nibbana as well.

Personally, I commute one hour each way on a direct train to work every day.. It's surprising how silent rush hour is often (Friday evening is a slight exception!). It's not secluded in the traditional sense, but if you have some decent earphones to kill ambient sound it gets pretty comfy, and I can get on with concentrating on meditating. It's nice as well because otherwise I'd sit there wasting time mostly!

It is meditation if we can remember the 3 refuge every second, every minute, every hour, or at least every day.


text:
Does dukkha apply to name-and-form?
That is to say, anicca and anatta obviously apply to all 5 skandhas, but 'stress/suffering' is a psychological phenomenon. Is it the 'name' within name-and-form that links it back to dukkha?

'Dukkha' as one of the three characteristics is not a psychological phenomenon (unlike 'dukkha' in the four noble truths). As one of the three characteristics, 'dukkha' means 'unsatisfactoriness', namely, the inherent inability of impermanent conditioned things to bring lasting happiness.
For example, apples, motor cars & cocaine are 'unsatisfactory' because there is no characteristic within those things that can bring lasting happiness.
The following correct translation makes the different usages of 'dukkkha' clear:

Sabbe baṅkhārā dukkhā'ti yadā paññāya passati Atha nibbindati dukkhe esa maggo visuddhiyā.
"All conditioned things are unsatisfactory" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to
  purification.
Dhammapada 278 translated by Acharya Buddharakkhita

As for 'nama', for Buddhist purposes, it is defined in the suttas (SN 12.2; MN 9; etc) as the 'mentality' or 'mental faculties' of feeling, perception, intention, contact & attention and also mindfulness, zeal, energy, decision, etc (MN 111).
'Nama' for the purpose of converting & teaching Brahmans (eg. DN 15, DN 11, SN 7.6), namely, 'name', is not for Buddhist purposes & should be ignored by those wanting to comprehend Buddhism.
In other words, in the context of Buddhist suttas such as SN 12.2, MN 9, etc, 'name-form' is an incorrect translation. The correct translation here should be 'mentality-materiality'.
'Name-form' is only a correct translation for Brahman suttas, such as DN 15, DN 11, SN 7.6, etc.
Thus, in terms of the three characteristics, nama-rupa is dukkha (unsatisfactory); just as SN 22.85 states the five aggregates of a Buddha are unsatisfactory (dukkha).
However, in terms of the four noble truths, nama-rupa is not dukkha because the 1st noble truth summarises all psychological dukkha as attachment (upadana) to the five aggregates.

Thanks for the answer.. On a small note though, would an Arahant, having cut off suffering still experience unsatisfactory-ness? That seems like it would be a bit of a half victory!

Of course. It is the experience of unsatisfactory-ness that results in liberation via the destruction of craving. Its like being in love with a girl who has left you & you can't get over her. But then you learn she poisoned her previous five lovers. & stole all their money. When you realise how unsatisfactory that girl was, you are completely liberated from her. Because all conditioned things are totally unsatisfactory for an arahant, the arahant has no desire towards those unsatisfactory things, as explained in SN 22.59. It is a total victory. regards

In Conditioned Genesis (Paticca- samuppada),  consciousness leads to mentality & materiality (Nama Rupa).  Feeling, perception, intention, contact & attention are called ‘name/mentality’ or nama and the body dependant on the four great elements (Earth, fire, water & air - ‘Patavi’, ‘Apo’, ‘Thejo’, ‘Vayo’) is form/ materiality or rupa). The Buddha taught that nominal and physical things (nama rupa dhamma) which are subjected to the three characteristics of existence impermanence, suffering and soullessness, are nothing but a state of Conditioned Genesis (Paticca- samuppada) which exists without a doer or causer.  Those causes and effects are subjected to cessation on the same spot and thus manifesting this state of cessation from within oneself, can attain the state of Extinction, the Nibbana. Thus all of these are Suffering (dukkham) and arising of Suffering (dukkha samudayam).

Nama is vedhana, sangna, sankhara, vingnana. Rupa is solid, liquid, gas and heat. This is pancha upadhanakkandha.
Pancha upadhakkandha is by definition dukkha, a noble truth.


text:
Does a monk wearing a samue break a prātimokṣa vow?
Monks and nuns take the vow of not wearing lay clothes. Zen monks sometimes wear a casual "working clothing" called a samue. It looks like a regular kimono, without the belt. Since lay people also wear it, I understand that a samue is actually lay clothes.
To distinguish the monks from lay people, the monks have to shave and to wear either the kasaya or a small version of it (the rakusu). Does a monk wearing a samue break a vow, even when he wears a kasaya or rakusu?

Are you asking about Japan, specifically? And, do you know, which school of Zen?

@ChrisW I don't know how it is in China and Vietnam. I was thinking of Japan and Korea. In a Soto Zen school, they requested of me that I wear a samue, when I was doing retreat. I wondered whether I broke a vow by doing so. The Korean Kwan Um school of Zen also wants retreatants to wear a samue (except the color is not black, but grey) that laity wear as well.

As others have pointed out, Japanese Zen buddhists (and virtually all other buddhist traditions in Japan) do not take the vinaya precepts when they ordain. In the Soto Zen tradition, we receive 16 precepts: the three treasures, the thee pure precepts (embracing moral codes, embracing beneficial action, and helping all beings achieve awakening), and the 10 major precepts (no killing, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct, intoxicants, slandering, self-praise, stinginess with the teachings, or insulting the three treasures). These are based on the Brahma Net Sutra, but are just a subset. Therefore, no vows about clothing are made.
Nonetheless, in Japan samu-e are understood to be priest's clothes and not lay clothes, although some lay people do wear them. If your vow was not to wear lay clothing, I would say wearing samu-e would not be a violation.
Also, my understanding of the Theravada vinaya is that only the three robes may be worn, and thus both Japanese and Tibetan buddhists are usually in violation of this rule.

What I read about samue is for example this:

"Samu" of samue means daily works of Zen monks such as cleaning and wood chopping.
  The working costumes Zen monks wore were called samue, and it is said that the origin of "samue" is the working costume.
  It used to be worn only the longer length (to the knees) of the tops without the pants.
  Pants are adopted in order to make it more comfortable and active style later on.
Samue is still worn as working clothes. You can see the Zen monks wearing samue when you visit Zen temples. Because samue is originally made as working clothes, it is very functional, easy to wear and it also allows freedom of movement. Now samue is popular among ordinary people as home wear and street clothes.

So perhaps samue was a traditional uniform of Zen monks; and so, perhaps it isn't that monks are wearing lay clothes, but some lay people have started to wear what were traditionally monks' clothes.

Also, this History of the Soto Zen School writes,

The Soto school did deviate in one significant way from the Vinaya tradition as it was preserved in the public monasteries of Sung China, for it did not make use of the ten novice precepts (shami jikkai) to ordain novices or the 250 "complete precepts" (gusokukai) to ordain full-fledged monks and nuns. Instead, it followed the precedent of the Japanese Tendai school in basing even its monkish ordinations on the bodhisattva precepts (bosatsukai). In China, the traditional two-stage Buddhist ordination was practiced in part because it was required by the government, which used it to restrict the size of the sangha. In Japan, there was no single Buddhist sangha controlled by the state, and each demonination was more or less free to decide its own criteria for ordination.

So, the various prātimokṣa vows, which you may be familiar with, are not the letter of the law that's followed by the Soto Zen school.
Apparently you're right that there's a rule about clothing – it's embedded in rule number 40 of the 48 minor/secondary precepts of the Brahma Net Sutra vows:

Discrimination in Conferring the Precepts
  A disciple of the Buddha should not be selective and show preference in conferring the Bodhisattva precepts. Each and every person can receive the precepts -- kings, princes, high officials, Bhiksus, Bhiksunis, laymen, laywomen, libertines, prostitutes, the gods in the eighteen Brahma Heavens or the six Desire Heavens, asexual persons, bisexual persons, eunuchs, slaves, or demons and ghosts of all types. Buddhist disciples should be instructed to wear robes and sleep on cloth of a neutral color, formed by blending blue, yellow, red, black and purple dyes all together.
The clothing of monks and nuns should, in all countries, be different from those worn by ordinary persons.
  Before someone is allowed to receive the Bodhisattva precepts, he should be asked: "have you committed any of the Cardinal Sins?" The Precept Master should not allow those who have committed such sins to receive the precepts.
  Here are the Seven Cardinal Sins: shedding the Buddha's blood, murdering an Arhat, killing one's father, killing one's mother, murdering a Dharma Teacher, murdering a Precept Master or disrupting the harmony of the Sangha.
  Except for those who have committed the Cardinal Sins, everyone can receive the Bodhisattva precepts.
  The Dharma rules of the Buddhist Order prohibit monks and nuns from bowing down before rulers, parents, relatives, demons and ghosts.
  Anyone who understands the explanations of the Precept Master can receive the Bodhisattva precepts. Therefore, if a person were to come from thirty to three hundred miles away seeking the Dharma and the Precept Master, out of meanness and anger, does not promptly confer these precepts, he commits a secondary offense.

I don't know whether Soto follows all these minor rules ... maybe it doesn't.
Wikipedia's article about the Bodhisattva Precepts says,

The Brahmajala Sutra translated by Kumārajīva (c. 400 CE) has a list of ten major and forty-eight minor Bodhisattva vows.[1] The Bodhisattva Precepts may be often called the "Brahma Net Precepts" (Chinese: 梵網戒; pinyin: Fànwǎng Jiè), particularly in Buddhist scholarship, although other sets of bodhisattva precepts may be found in other texts as well. Typically, in East Asian Mahayana traditions, only the 10 Major Precepts are considered the Bodhisattva Precepts.

And (this says 16 precepts in the Soto school, not 10 plus 48):

The Sixteen Bodhisattva Precepts in Sōtō Zen
  In the Sōtō school of Zen, the founder Dōgen established a somewhat expanded version of the Bodhisattva Precepts for use by both priests and lay followers, based on both Brahma Net Sutra and other sources.

And:

Japanese traditions
  In Buddhism in Japan, the "Four-Part Vinaya" was deemphasized with the rise of Saichō and the Tendai sect[7] and a new monastic community was set up exclusively using the Brahmajala Sutra's Bodhisattva Precepts. All Vinaya ordinations at the time were given at Tōdai-ji in Nara and Saichō had wanted to both undermine the power of the Nara Buddhist community and to establish a "purely Mahayana lineage",[8] and made a request to the Emperor to Later Buddhist sects, which was granted 7 days after his death in 822.
Later Buddhist sects in Japan, including the Sōtō school of Zen, Jōdo-shū and Shingon Buddhism, adopted a similar approach to their monastic communities and exclusive use of the Bodhisattva Precepts. By this time in Japan, the Vinaya lineage had all but died out and Japan's remote location made it difficult to reestablish though limited efforts by Jōkei and the Shingon Risshu revived it for a time. This was further enforced during the Meiji period, when the Nikujiku Saitai Law (肉食妻帯?) of 1872 decriminalized clerical marriage and meat-eating.

Could you elaborate on the first part of your answer? Maybe my question was not clear, but I wanted to know whether someone having the prātimokṣa vow was breaking the one that says "not to wear lay clothes." The idea was to determine whether a theravadin, or for instance myself, would incur a downfall by wearing a samue during a retreat.

Only, maybe sometimes the color is used to distinguish: this says, " In Soto Zen, blue is for laypeople, black is for priests, and brown is the highest, for people who have received Dharma transmission from a lineage teacher. However, not all Soto temples, even in Japan, follow the Dharma level color coding. One might receive a brown rakusu at lay ordination at one temple, but be chided at another temple for wearing a color reserved for someone at a much higher level."

If it troubles you perhaps it's a topic to discuss "in real life" (i.e. with your peers), rather than here.

According to Vinaya, wearing lay clothes is a minor offence for a monk / Bhikkhu. It is not so for a Bhikkhuni Sangha (nuns). The day that she wears a white dress or anything other than the robe, she is not considered a bhikkhuni anymore. But she will always be part of the Arya-Sangha, if she is one who has realized one of the 8 stages of Nobility. The type of clothes that you wear does not make you to not belong to the Noble Ones (ariya-sangha), if you have realized one of the 8 stages of Nobility.
Shaving off of head hair and beard, dressing rag-robes were common feature among sramanas of the time of the Buddha.  So at the early stages sramanas were addressed as bhikkhus.  Later on this became the specific designation used to denote Buddhist clergy.  Among disciples of the Buddha those who entered the order are designated as bhikkhus; and the female counter-parts are bhikkhunis.  The lay male and female devotees are called upasaka - male lay adherent, upasika - female layadherent respectively.
Today how many of us are aware that when we say Sangha, it is a fourfold phenomenon. Namely: 1. Bhikkhu Sangha (monks); 2. Bhikkhuni Sangha (nuns); 3. Upasaka Sangha (laymen); 4. Upasika Sangha (lay women). The Buddha's definition for Sangha is quite different and is deep in its meaning. Anybody who has  realized one of the 8 stages of Nobility belongs to this noble ones.


text:
Saying May God Bless you
Recently I encounter a situation where one of my close people and I went see a patient. While  we were about to leave the place, my close person said May God Bless you. Me and my close person are both Buddhist. I asked why didn't you say May the triple gem bless you. And close person replied saying since they Christians I said God bless you. But I also observed that the patients people said May God bless you.
Does saying May God bless you comes under a wrong view or wrong speech or etc or is it okay to tell? I'm just curious to know since my close person is also a Buddhist"

It wouldn't be wrong but if you'll say someone "May triple gem bless you." Does patient know what is tripple gem or any other person who isn't Buddhist. If you wouldn't use god then you can use "May you'll be fine soon" and something like this. May this will help you.

If you're uncomfortable, split the difference and simply say "Bless you." Leave the matter of what is going to do the blessing ambiguous, and everyone will fill in the blank in their preferred way. The operative principle is that you want to extend blessings to the person; forget worrying about sectarian differences and let the blessings flow from any and every source.

Just think of the flip side of it @Akila… If the patient is a devout Buddhist.. still almost all  will say "may god bless you" at the time of leaving. Will they ever say "Namo Buddhaya" when arriving, or at the time of leaving? I doubt it. It is because very few know that we Buddhists say 'Namo Buddhaya' whenever we meet or depart. At the time when the Supreme Buddha was alive, it was the practice observed by His disciples to place both hands together in a gesture of worship and greet each other by saying ‘Namo Buddhaya’, whenever they met. Today, whenever Hindus meet one-another, they too bring their hands together and say ‘Namo Narayana’ or ‘Oh Namah Shivaya’. Some say ‘Namo Sairam’ when they enter the ashram of Sai Baba.
But in a way it is OK to say “may god bless you" as the point of the Buddhist teachings isn't to reinforce the identity of "I am a Buddhist and this is what I believe." It's to cultivate compassion and loving kindness and purify anger and aversion from your life. Then your focus would be on "How can I compassionately reply to these people in a way that feels authentic to me?"  You need to be able to connect with the human being in front of you, and look past beliefs and value systems and connect with their humanity.
So focus less on yourself and focus more on the other. What words can you say to bring this being happiness and reduce his/her suffering? Intention is the most important factor and can often supersede other factors. If you feel that by replying "God bless you," (which is personally my own response), this person might experience a sense of comfort, ease, and happiness that would not be experienced otherwise, then there is nothing wrong in saying it.

Thank you for the response. I think I got a good conclusion :) Maybe I shouldn't intervene with what other people do. Better to focus on what I do and what I say.

If the patient is a devout Christian and saying "may god bless you" helps him to recover, by all means say "may god bless you".
If the patient is a BUDDHIST, saying "Namo Amitabha" and remembering the three refuge can be helpful..

Not as so far as some one saying "May the minister help you", "May X help you find a job", etc. This might not make it a wrong view.
If you hold on to the view that God, controls everything, can give you salvation, is almighty, etc., then perhaps yes, it might be wrong views. But there are Deities who can help you perhaps like any other person. Getting the blessing of say  someone who can help you out is not wrong. Think of deities like entities who are well wishers due to past connection of they need to do good karma to keep their blissful existence.

Okay I understand that. But what if you are saying it for the sake of the other person's believes? Just to blend in?

By just saying this do you renounce all your existing views and solely subscribe to belief system which might fall into being wrong. Merely saying it does not change your belief system? If it does not. What is wrong in blending in? Are you trying to deceive any one as to you are believer in God? In which case why not?

So if the other person is decieved as to the other one is a believer in God and if that person believed that the other person believes in God, does it comes under wrong speech especially "Idle speech(His wachana)"?

This is a grey area. Question is of all what you have said in a day will this be the only Idle Speech? If so maybe avoid. Also look at the motivation. If it blending in perhaps which might not be idle chatter after all.

I think reinforcing other people's wrong view is unwholesome.
Undoubtedly the meaning of the expression has been fully drawn out and we pretty much know how this expression is going to be interpreted by the christian recepient and what it is we are communicating when we say these things.
As it is one is affirming that there is a God creator; at the very least we are giving an impression that we think there might be an Eternal being like that and that we think it would be good if it blessed the person and are making resolves and determinations accordingly. Alternatively we are sarcastic?
Now since as it actually is, there is no God creator and we do not believe that there is a god creator of all things, it follows that we in no capacity can be wishing for a non existant entity to bless anyone.
Therefore that speech is not true, not beneficial but is agreeable and pleasing to that person. Speech that is untrue, unbeneficial but is pleasing is not to be spoken, is an offence of wrong-doing imo.

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them

It doesn't matter cause in Buddhism Buddha taught about Devas(many gods)... And the one who lives with a good loving-kindness life always has the blessings of Devas or the many gods. Specially, the Sakra(god Indra), the king of gods is known as the respected god in Buddhism.
So no problem with saying God bless you. Cause it can be any God or gods that you believe. From Buddhist to Buddhist, "May triple gems bless you" is the most perfect way to bless.

In my opinion, saying "May God bless you" is a very Buddhist thing to do.
According to the Buddha in Mettanisamsa Sutta, there are 11 benefits that would be experienced by one who practises loving kindness or metta, as follows:

"1. He sleeps in comfort. 2. He awakes in comfort. 3. He sees no evil dreams. 4. He is dear to human beings. 5. He is dear to non-human
  beings. 6. Devas (gods) protect him. 7. Fire, poison, and sword cannot
  touch him. 8. His mind can concentrate quickly. 9. His countenance is
  serene. 10. He dies without being confused in mind. 11. If he fails to
  attain arahantship (the highest sanctity) here and now, he will be
  reborn in the brahma-world."

Note that No. 6 states that the devas (which could be translated as gods) would protect one who practises metta.
Hence, saying "May God bless you" is indeed Buddhist, because it is supported by the words of the Buddha.
Of course, the Buddhist should keep to himself the view that the God(s) are not permanent (anicca). If one has the view that God is permanent and eternal, then that would be a wrong view, from a Buddhist perspective.

It’s okay to say, “May God bless you.”
According to Buddhist teaching, we can do good karma and wish to gods for a more luxurious life. Some gods can receive our positive karma if we offer it to them.
Also, gods can help humans if they are interested. So, a god can bless you. But remember, no one can change karma.
Unlike gods, Buddha (who has already achieved Nirvana so he is not there) will not come to help you. But if you practice his teachings, you will definitely get more than a blessing because it’s a universal law.