text:
Is there an end to the suffering in general?
Buddha said that Nirvana is an end to the suffering of an individual.
However if we think from a larger perspective, there is no end to the suffering as a whole. The world will get created again and new Buddha will or will not arise to help us escape the suffering. There were Buddhas in the past and there will be many Buddhas in the future but so has the suffering manifested in the past and will manifest in the future.
My question is: Is it possible to envisage an end to the suffering, absolutely for all, for ever?

Isn't this the same as asking "are beings/universe finite or infinite?"

I think it may be a question central to Mahayana.

Some Bodhisattvas are said to have made vows to save all sentient beings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kshitigarbha And Tara https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tara_(Buddhism) vowed  to who work for the benefit of sentient beings "until samsara is no more / is emptied".

Yes and no. To be is to suffer. Our desire to be is what keeps us on the round of rebirth. Nibbana will come to every being just not all at the same time(Vast time). That's what I've heard from various teachers.
We mix our individual truth up with the truth of society and until we can see the difference we have no business trying to fix society as we seek while ourselves we are broken.  Our business is to fix ourselves then fix society one individual at a time. The society of the entire universe.
So, imho,  I think you should tend to the universe of mind and body, moment by moment instead of the "business as usual", blurry truth of the world.

I am not trying to fix the society. I am trying to save another phenomenon from occurring.I don't want another "He" to appear.

Maybe it would be good to reflect on why you are trying to do that, not that that wouldn't be totally cool.

I am trying to do that out of karuna. I feel distress for others.

Me too! It might sound like a silly question ... but how do you know other beings are suffering?

Because they have told me. It seems to me that everyone is running away from death and diseases. Why ? BEcause death and diseases are the cause of suffering. Suffering is inevitable. And now I believe suffering in general can not be eradicated.

Agreed. The ignorance gave rise to this interaction. Interaction which suggested that there is something else other than Dhamma to understand. Dhamma says I am not you because you are perishable and changeable. Similarly I am not the person who is suffering. I must leave all identities and merge with ultimate inexplicable reality of anatta. Having said that we know that somehow suffering will arise again but so will Buddha. There is no end to suffering in general but there is also no end to Buddhas.

Just some thoughts: Suffering can be eradicated within the universe of you. You help you. The more you help people the more you help people and you are one of the people that you help but there is no you in a very real way..There doesn't have to be any ego involved.

The running IS the suffering. Distraction from  dhamma is suffering and wanting to exist or not exist...even that is suffering, that is what propels us from one rebirth to the next.

The ultimate truth is that there is no suffering, absolutely for all, for ever. Everything is already Nibanna.
However, the mundane truth is that there is suffering, absolutely for all, for ever. Everything is Samsara.
Can you change Samsara to Nibanna?
That would be impossible. How can you change Samsara to Nibanna, if Samsara is already Nibanna? It's impossible.
Can you change Nibanna to Samsara?
That would be impossible. How can you change Nibanna to Samsara, if Nibanna is already Samsara? It's impossible.
An instructed mind, very well versed in the Dhamma, knows: this is change, this is its cessation, and this is its end. Knowing change in this way, he let's go of change. His craving ceases and right discernment arises: From ignorance as a condition comes craving. From craving as a condition comes change. From change as a condition comes suffering.
Thus knowing, an instructed mind, very well versed in the Dhamma, gives up change. Giving up change, suffering ceases, absolutely for all, for ever.

It kind of makes sense. But if Samsara is already Nibanna then why would the future Buddhas arise?

because of their great compassion to beings who experience subjective suffering in Samsara due to the ignorance in their minds.

A possible hint to the answer comes from the Buddha in MN26:

"Then the thought occurred to me, 'This Dhamma that I have attained is
  deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the
  scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. But
  this generation delights in attachment, is excited by attachment,
  enjoys attachment. For a generation delighting in attachment, excited
  by attachment, enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality &
  dependent co-arising are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see:
  the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all
  acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.
  And if I were to teach the Dhamma and others would not understand me,
  that would be tiresome for me, troublesome for me.'

Almost all sentient beings are here because they want to be here and they thoroughly enjoy attachment, eventhough none of it is permanent and none of it is permanently satisfactory. Even if they suffer much (for e.g. in hell), they continue to cling to their selfhood and maintain their craving to-be, not ready to let go.
If you look deep into yourself and find that you're not ready to let go of your selfhood and not ready to let go of your craving to-be, then you could empathize that this is indeed the case for the googolplex of beings out there.
Even if you had the power to end all sufferings, I bet there would be great opposition to that, from the vast majority of beings who are not yet ready to let go.
MN75 provides a reason why sentient beings see "painful" sensual pleasures with a biased perception of being "pleasant":

"Now suppose that there was a leper covered with sores & infections,
  devoured by worms, picking the scabs off the openings of his wounds
  with his nails, cauterizing his body over a pit of glowing embers. The
  more he cauterized his body over the pit of glowing embers, the more
  disgusting, foul-smelling, & putrid the openings of his wounds would
  become, and yet he would feel a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction
  because of the itchiness of his wounds. In the same way, beings not
  free from passion for sensual pleasures — devoured by sensual craving,
  burning with sensual fever — indulge in sensual pleasures. The more
  they indulge in sensual pleasures, the more their sensual craving
  increases and the more they burn with sensual fever, and yet they feel
  a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction dependent on the five strings of
  sensuality.

For the multitude of sentient beings who want to-be, the best thing that you can wish for them, comes from the Karaniya Metta Sutta:

Think: Happy, at rest,
  may all beings be happy at heart.
  Whatever beings there may be,
  weak or strong,
  without exception,
  long, large,
  middling, short,
  subtle, blatant,
  seen & unseen,
  near & far,
  born & seeking birth:
  May all beings be happy at heart.

No. But for your world, as you perceive it, with all it's and you relatives, this very wandering on can/could find an end.
Anamatagga-samyutta — The unimaginable beginnings of samsara

A disjointed answer:

This question sounds like it's central to Mahayana (so to answer it you might want to read Mahayana literature, learn from a Mahayana teacher or school).
I'm not sure that everyone is suffering, in the way that you or I might understand "suffering": I mean, for example, that I didn't get far in explaining the four noble truths to my Mum -- see How to explain what Buddhism is? (and the answer I accepted to that question).
If you are suffering from karuna ("I feel distress for others"), you might want to address that -- more equanimity, perhaps, or less conceit (the conceit that "I" could help someone).
There's what can be inferred from the tenth of the Ten Bulls. One of the (English-language) commentaries to that ends with, "... and everyone I look upon becomes enlightened."
"Envisaging an end to suffering" is also maybe a part of "pure land" doctrines.

I am envisaging Nirvana once and for all. All blessings no sufferings.

I said the Buddha never referred to absolute truth and Nagarjuna argued that he did. Yet you suggest I read Nagarjuna (Mahayana) to correct my misunderstanding!! You obviously support Mahayana over Theravadin teachings. I rest my case.

@RonaldCowen I don't know who you were addressing in this comment, nor why. You're the only person, that I can see, who mentioned "Nagarjuna" on this page; so I don't know who you're replying to. My answer ("you might want to read Mahayana literature") was addressed to the OP (i.e. it's in reply to Dheeraj Verma's question, was not addressed to you, and wasn't meant to imply that you misunderstood anything ... I psted my answer four days before you posted yours). I wasn't intending to say that Mahayana is superior or inferior, but I think the OP's question was a topic central to Mahayana.

My mistake. Nagarjuna is the Buddhist philosopher who began the Mahayana teachings by talking about sunyata and absolute truth.

From a Theravadin point of view, the cessation of suffering is caused by insight, which consists of psychological knowledge about the cause of a specific form of suffering. It is important to bear in mind that the Buddha was addressing the suffering experienced by monks and nuns. His main advice was to set aside greed, hatred, and illusion (of self or god) and get on with the practice of meditation. The Buddha did not deal with the kind of suffering (depression, serious problems with relationships, low self-esteem, inability to find love, etc.) that is caused by physical, emotional, and/or sexual abuse during childhood. Modern psychology is needed to address such problems. Absolute truth does not provide psychological insight (which is a form of relative truth). Not all suffering, such as the loss of child, is caused by lack of insight. If a person feels no suffering, then he is indifferent to the suffering of others. The advice of the Buddha remains valid: Get on with one's meditation in order to deal with one's own lack of insight.

Buddha taught anatta and when a person has realized anatta then as a consequence all his sufferings gets converted into blessings by attaining Nirvana.

"The Buddha did not deal with the kind of suffering (depression, serious problems with relationships, low self-esteem, inability to find love, etc.) that is caused by physical, emotional, and/or sexual abuse during childhood." Really? So doctors do help in real things and the Buddha just metaphorical?

Sarcasm has no value in this kind of discussion. Obviously both doctors and the Buddha help with real things. Theravadin Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism are not the same. Anatta and sunyata are not the same thing. You may believe Mahayana Buddhism is a correction of Theravadin Buddhism, but that is a statement of faith not fact. The Buddha never referred to absolute truth. Nagarjuna argued that he did. You and Nagarjuna are entitled to your opinions, but they are merely opinions. Does this Buddhist stackexchange have the hidden agenda of negating the teaching of Theravadin Buddhism?

Does this Buddhist stackexchange have the hidden agenda of negating the teaching of Theravadin Buddhism? If you think that's happening (or vice versa) please flag it for moderator attention. I suspect both people who commented above aren't doing so from a Mahayana viewpoint, but that they doubt your claim that modern psychology is needed and/because Buddhist doctrine is insufficient.

In the Theravadin teachings, the concept of anatta is entirely in the realm of relative truth in the sense that it points out the fact there does not exist an uncaused self. In Mahayana Buddhist teachings, anatta is the experience of sunyata (emptiness), which is a real experience but it does not "convert" suffering into blessings. The concept of Nirvana is a Theravadin concept that has no equivalent in Mahayana Buddhism. The experience of sunyata brings absolute knowledge but not Nirvana. Theravadin insight is relative knowledge about the causes of suffering and thereby provides a means of dealing with and ending suffering. The experience of sunyata does not bring insight, which is strictly relative truth. Both doctors and the Buddha help in real things, obviously. Where did I say the Buddha was "metaphorical"? I invite objective criticism, but not stupid sarcasm.

Is that an indirect "we are already liberated" approach, that suggest now just look for the real suffering till the end? Or how is this view to be understood in relation of the question?


text:
What would be the secular interpretation for the Assu Sutta and the Mata Sutta?
How would Secular Buddhists and other Buddhists who reject rebirth, interpret the following suttas, which describe:

An ocean of tears?
Everyone being someone we have know in the past?

From Assu Sutta (SN15.3):

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable
  beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident,
  though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are
  transmigrating & wandering on. What do you think, monks: Which is
  greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this
  long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is
  displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — or the water in
  the four great oceans?"
"As we understand the Dhamma taught to us by the Blessed One, this is
  the greater: the tears we have shed while transmigrating & wandering
  this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is
  displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not the water in
  the four great oceans."
"Excellent, monks. Excellent. It is excellent that you thus understand
  the Dhamma taught by me.
"This is the greater: the tears you have shed while transmigrating &
  wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined
  with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not
  the water in the four great oceans.
"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother. The
  tears you have shed over the death of a mother while transmigrating &
  wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined
  with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are
  greater than the water in the four great oceans.
"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father... the
  death of a brother... the death of a sister... the death of a son...
  the death of a daughter... loss with regard to relatives... loss with
  regard to wealth... loss with regard to disease. The tears you have
  shed over loss with regard to disease while transmigrating & wandering
  this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is
  displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than
  the water in the four great oceans.
"Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A
  beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance
  and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have
  you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss,
  swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all
  fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be
  released."

I think that rebirth scenarios are usually explained as different states of mind e.g. animalistic state of mind for animal rebirth -- but how could tears the size of an ocean and everyone being someone that we have known in the past, be explained in this way?
This sutta seem to make sense only if rebirth was actually true.

Similarly from Mata Sutta (SN15.14-19):

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable
  beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident,
  though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are
  transmigrating & wandering on. A being who has not been your mother at
  one time in the past is not easy to find... A being who has not been
  your father... your brother... your sister... your son... your
  daughter at one time in the past is not easy to find.
"Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A
  beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance
  and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have
  you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss,
  swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all
  fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be
  released."

How would you explain everyone being someone that we have known in the past?

Is this essentially a duplicate of this question, and previously of this question?

@ChrisW No. There's also another question on the secular interpretation of animal rebirth. In each case, Secular Buddhists have a different explanation. Now these are 2 cases which seem to fall outside of those explanations. So I'm curious to see how they may be explained

Rebirth scenarios are usually explained as different states of mind e.g. animalistic state of mind for animal rebirth, but how could tears the size of an ocean and everyone being someone that we have known in the past, be explained in this way?

Challenging suttas for Noble Lokuttara (not 'secular') Buddhists. The easy way is to simply reject them as Buddha's words however I will attempt to examine them & provide a Lokuttara explanation later. I have family function to attend. Regards

What is secular Buddhism? Are we defining any Buddhism that takes the Pali canon as only a beginning to truth, with any additional changes or perceived refinements as secular? Or are we wading into the difference between ideologies that contain religion/spirituality/faith and ones that don't? (For example, AN 4.95 would certainly question the bodhisattva goal of the Mahayana as a primary concern of the path, both as a refinement of scripture and as a change in the spiritual nature of the path, but it would not be called free of religion/faith)
The Buddha presented core ideas that define Buddhism. The linking of truth to direct experiential observation, anicca, anatta, the Four Noble Truths including the Noble Eightfold Path are a good start (and all should at least agree that this is at least the spirit of the teaching, if not the exact letter).
What aspects of secular thought come up against and stand to strip away aspects of the teaching?
The idea that modern secularism is a-religious and ideology free (the two words are parallel imo - both aim to define a complete, but not necessarily accurate, world view) is inaccurate. The secular world is rife with ideology and people adhering only to their ideology. Killing people in the name of/for some convoluted form of representative democracy is little more than engaging in that time old dualistic ideology of 'us and them', as one example. Modern thought is rife with philosophical ideology/sophistry, and rejecting rebirth seems to often happen because of some past uncomfortable brush with similar-sounding ideas, as a personally ideological move, not based on reason or evidence with regards to the exact concept that is being rejected, imo.
In addition, whilst rejecting ideology in spirit, but keeping it in the letter, rational secular thought has forgotten reasonable faith entirely. Reasonable faith here being the limited faith that the Buddha asked for - the faith that is gained from direct experience of aspects of the teaching (say anicca at first), leading to a faith that as yet unreached/not-comprehended aspects of the teaching should not be abandoned solely out of personal opinion, at least not until one experiences the contradiction directly. Buddhism asks for no more than a faith in a less numerically defined hypothesis test. Currently though, secular Buddhism doesn't follow MN27.
More directly, there is no interpretation of 'an ocean of tears' that can be contrived to not mean what it means.. It would also be a contrivance. One could argue that rebirth as a whole was added later to the texts, or misinterpreted, but that beings arise spontaneously is part of mundane right view. It would lead to a deep suspicions of the post-Buddha Sangha (and all that follows really), if  such core aspects of the teaching of the Dhamma were so easily changed.
'Everybody' being related to 'someone'.. at 'sometime'.. is a statement that both requires Self and dilutes Self (broadens Self to all conscious Samsara, or even all Samsara), as well as being too broad to provide any useful information: 'Physics is everything, everywhere' doesn't say much about physics, or everything, or everywhere. All this shows me is that making concrete, definitive statements about a process whose range of action is unlimited within Samsara leads to needing to make linguistically empty (tautological) or contradictory statements.
What can be accepted in place of Buddhist rebirth?
Buddhism without rebirth - rebirth as a basic process that runs through Samsara as a whole - is Buddhism with death within Samsara. Buddhism with death is Buddhism with dukkha.
Rebirth as a concept that, using Western language, is not completely deterministic (MN135, and just because otherwise anatta is out). It is also not completely in-deterministic (otherwise kamma, the law of the regularity of action (not unlike Newton's third), is out). Neither Self nor irregularity (arbitrary, a-mathematical irregularity) are evident within direct experience, on any scale. This is true for the secular scientific method too, as like Buddhism, it allocates truth in concordance with observation/measurement.
QM Interpretations offer the least convoluted scientific/secular take on what actuality is considered to be.. not by all people - Einstein famously thought QM to be an intermediary explanation of motion, hiding a completely deterministic one below its surface.. Evidence against hidden variable/local realism is a strong experimental argument for QM being the base laws of motion within Samsara.
Choose your secularist for what their interpretation is! Many lay science people fall towards the deterministic Multiverse hypothesis. It is also a neat one for imagery. 'An ocean of tears' is a perfectly reasonable volume to cry if approximately every 10^10^58 years I come back and experience my impermanence (the logic of impermanence breaks down as this is a deterministic interpretation of QM).
A secular Buddhist would have to accept the relational interpretation though (6% of QM scientists accept this interpretation atm, which given 500m/7.5bn people are Buddhist, just about covers the Buddhist portion!). There are no observer independent (self-referential) objects/properties, just like for Nagarjuna (wave function is not 'real' independent of observation). It is neither deterministic nor non-deterministic (what are you determining, on the whole, given anatta?). There is no unique history (which agrees with the ultimate lack of distinction/uniqueness within anatta, and the Buddha's discussion on the fact that the law of kamma is not completely 'linear').
Dependent origination is relational quantum mechanics, relational quantum mechanics is dependent origination. But unlike for the Multiverse interpretation, there is no simple 'ground', or world-line, from which to concretely conceive of 'one's own' rebirth path.
Finally, what is 'secular'? If secularism is moving away from observer independent ideology such as God or Absolute Time (not just religion in the narrow sense), then the Western scientific method is secular in that it consciously aims for its truths to be rooted in observation/measurement. But the Buddha's method is a scientific method too: a doctor who limits their truths to only those that can be verified observationally, is a scientist. Buddhism, being ideology free at its heart, is scientific and secular.

I'm not saying that Piya Tan is a secular Buddhist but I wondered what he had written about these phrases.

In Time and Time Again --
Reflections on cyclic life he says of the Assu Sutta:

The experiential part of the Discourse on Tears (“weeping and wailing…”) is in ultimate language
  because the truth reference is a direct one, that is, the discourse relates personal experience. The imagery
  portion (“the four great oceans…”, “death of a mother…” etc) uses the conventional language of the
  world.

Looking for his definition of ultimate and conventional, in Language and Discourse he writes,

There are two rules of thumb for detecting whether the language used is conventional or ultimate. The
  first rule of thumb is that the conventional language consists of referents (the finger pointing to the
  moon), while the ultimate language speak directly of realities (the moon).
  Secondly, it is not too difficult
  to detect a passage using the Dharma language: they directly refer to the reality of the three universal
  characteristics of impermanence, suffering and non-self, or any of them.

Before that,

In conventional (or worldly) terms, we say that someone is “born of a mother.” But in Dharma (or
  ultimate) language, birth is really the arising of the notion of the ego, the “I” resulting from ignorance,
  craving, clinging, etc. This is clearly explained by the Buddha in the teaching of dependent arising.

And before that,

The language of the Buddha’s teaching—whether that of the Buddha himself or of the early saints—
  employ two levels of truth or meaning: the conventional (sammutti,sacca) and the ultimate level (param’-
  attha,sacca). The Buddha, the saints and Dharma teachers speak on these two levels, namely, the
  worldly or layman level, using stories, images (comparisons, metaphors, etc), dealing with causes and
  conditions, and with conventional reality, and the Dharma or spiritual level, using technical terms (impermanence,
  suffering, non-self), directly dealing with the path and liberation, that is, ultimate reality.

Perhaps some people read "oceans" as an image or metaphor, rather than as a literal/exact comparison.

He hasn't translated/explained the Mata Sutta (SN15.14-19) -- I don't know why he hasn't, and (who knows?) maybe he will later, but maybe that implies he finds them less important than other suttas whose translations he finished earlier.

Also, in a (now-deleted) comment someone pointed out that the answer depends on who "you" are in the suttas, i.e. on who "we" are to who the Buddha's message is addressed. If "we" are all humanity, the human race or species, then yes there have been a lot of past lives (billions), a lot of wailing.
When I considered this argument -- trying to understand the message without identity-view, by interpreting "you" as "everyone" -- I wondered why he'd say "not easy to find" instead of "impossible" -- why did he say, "A being who has not been your mother at one time in the past is not easy to find", instead of saying, "Every being has been somebody's mother".
That reminds me of the story of the Mustard Seed, where he sends Kisa Gotami looking, for a mustard seed from a house/family in which no one had died -- an impossible task, but he made her look, rather than just saying "it's impossible".
So maybe "not easy to find" in that context can mean just, "it doesn't exist" or "it isn't evident".

Needs a lot of "I-making" to answer such a question and possible has less release, or? For the Buddha such situation of debts was lesser to even further cause additions but to get a feeling of "enough" of that and in that way he taught.

And as mostly ever teacher today, especially popular, Piya Tan is a secular Buddhist, has his aspiration bound to the world.

Sorry, but, I don't understand the comment about "I-making"? Are you saying I included the word "I" in the answer too much? Or that the last part of the answer talked too much about self-views, and identifying people (as mothers, etc.)? I think that the next part of the comment ("possible has less release") is your saying that there's a good soteriological reason to interpret it literally, i.e. that a literal (not "secular") understanding is more likely to lead towards liberation.

The taking on the right object to gain release is what is meant by yoina manasikāra, proper attention, Nyom Chris.

yoina manasikāra explains you're thinking that "to answer such a question" was unwise reflection, for example, "what was I in the past?" etc. ... views of self, a thicket of views.

Sometimes there are questions which can not be used to form a liberating trace of answer out of it, but seek after grasp. Such cases have been layed aside by the Buddha, since they are not conductive for the path.

Please bear with me in this answer as it needs a longer introduction in order to understand properly the main issue regarding your question.
In most cases, people who study Buddhism and interpret it in a secular way (by denying rebirth) are incapable of adopting the Buddha's middle way - they must (unknowingly) either side to one extreme ("self exists") or to the other extreme ("self does not exist") (which is in fact same as the first extreme ('self exists'), because there is a self who denies the existence of self).
The avoiding of extremes regarding self ("self exists" or "self does not exist") is clearly stated in this sutta:

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view
  arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true &
  established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely
  by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely
  by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is
  precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as
  true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of
  mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of
  good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant,
  everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it
  is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of
  views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views.
  Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is
  not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering &
  stress.

Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html
Siding to one of these two extremes ("self exists" and/or "self does not exist") is not in accordance to the Dhamma and is an indication of a wounded self (suffering).
(Please read until the end as it will become clear to you why I'm writing all this)
When self is wounded and this wound can't be healed by eradicating ignorance (with realization of anatta), there are only two options to ease this suffering:

Kill the wounded self by rejecting its existence (altruism) ("self does not exist")
Make the wounded self grandiose by decorating it (narcissism) ("self exists")

The above is nicely described by the Buddha:

"There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one
  who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual
  pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common,
  ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction:
  painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the
  middle way realized by the Tathagata — producing vision, producing
  knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to
  Unbinding."

Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.than.html
In the above sutta, "That which is devoted to sensual pleasure with reference to sensual objects" is indulgence in desire which is typical narcissistic behavior and "that which is devoted to self-affliction" is self-mortification or the lack of appetites or desires by self-denial or self-discipline as an aspect of religious devotion which is typical for altruistic behavior.
Thus, the more the self is wounded (the bigger the suffering), the more he/she is an altruist or narcissist. Both altruist and narcissist suffer (have a wounded self) and the more they suffer, the more they make others suffer (altruist gives to others so much that others can't learn how to be responsible for their own suffering; narcissist takes from others so much that others suffer too much to learn how to be responsible for their own suffering).
An altruist who kills his/her wounded self and enters a spiritual path, usually believes in "rebirth but rejects its cessation", because he/she hopes for a better self in the next life ... actually, this next life is heaven, which is eternal life without suffering. Such person is more inclined to follow a religion and scorn Buddhist views. For an altruist religion can make perfect sense.
On the other hand, a narcissist who makes his/her wounded self grandiose and enters a spiritual path, usually believes in "no rebirth", because his/her self is so grandiose that it transcends EVERYTHING. In essence, his/her self is so grandiose that it becomes (a fabricated) Nibanna. He/she does not hope for the next life, because he/she is too perfect for it, that's why he/she rejects it. Such person is more inclined to follow Buddhism and scorn religious views. For a narcissist Buddhism can make perfect sense.
This fabricated Nibanna with which the narcissist's wounded self is decorated is so grandiose that is reachable only to the narcissist. It's for those reasons, that he/she has the belief "after death suffering ceases for all beings, no matter if ignorant or enlightened", because if it were otherwise, it would mean his grandiose self (fabricated Nibanna) is nothing special because it would be attainable to everybody after death. That's why he/she has the view that Nibanna is only meant for this one and only life (for HIM) and that after death there is actually "nothing"/"cessation of everything"/"void"/"emptiness". In reality, being ignorant and having such wrong views, he/she destines himself to a veryyyyyy long suffering in this very same "voidness". In reality, his/her wounded self is this very same "voidness", but he/she is denying it by projecting a fabricated Nibanna onto it. It's because of these very same reasons that he/she is destining him/herself to "(eternal) voidness".
Here comes the answer to your question ...
The more a person is a narcissist, the more that person distorts reality. Remember, he/she has no other choice ... his/her self is so much wounded, that he/she needs to fabricate a distorted self and decorate it in order to hide the wounded self. His/her distorted self can become so much decorated that in order for reality to conform with his/her decorated self, he/she needs to change reality itself. That's why he/she distorts reality and fabricates lies about reality. That's why he/she makes others believe in his/her lies. By making others believe in his/her lies, his/her wounded self is protected, because when others believe in his/her lies that is proof for him/her that his/her grandiose (decorated) self exists and that reality conforms with his/her grandiose (decorated) self. If someone sees through his/her mask (decorated self) and sees his/her lies, his/her wounded self becomes exposed to him/her, because when someone sees his/her lies, that is proof for him/her that reality does not conform with his/her grandiose (decorated) self, thus he/she sees his/her distorted (decorated) self is a fabrication and his/her wounded self becomes exposed. Because the wounded self is so much in pain, it is easier for him/her to deny the truth and fabricate new lies and make others who exposed him/her liars.
They are masters in presenting an obvious lie as being the truth. They have been doing this since childhood. They are masters in projecting their (fake) reality onto others. They are delusional, but they make you think that you are the one who is delusional. They are very intelligent and clever. They make you think they are enlightened and know it all, and that you just can't understand what they know. When asked a question, they don't answer it, but provide ambiguous and complicated explanations or "proofs", so:

that you yourself can interpret the answer in the way that fits your
own views or
the answer is just too complicated for you to understand
(sarcastically: because you don't have the Buddha knowledge, as they
do) and you let it go without bothering to ask for clarifications or
the clever and confident tone of the answer makes you feel like you're too stupid
to comprehend it and you, too ashamed to admit that you don't
understand it, fabricate a lie to yourself that you actually do
understand it, following by you giving praise to the narcissist for his elaborate knowledge.

Hopefully, the Pali Canon is vast enough, so it's easy to see through this facade of lies.
So, what would be the secular interpretation for the Assu Sutta and the Mata Sutta?
You already know the answer. Just use your imagination. Remember, the interpretation given is delusional, but it seems legit, because he/she distorts reality in order to conform it with his/her "good looking self" which is just a mask for his/her "wounded self". The more the wounded self hurts, the more the interpretation will be delusional, or out of place, or just too complicated to comprehend for us poor mundane beings.
An uninstructed mind, not very well versed in the Dhamma, can quickly fall for such elaborate lies.
But an instructed mind, with an open mind, can't fall for it and will see through the lies by looking at the whole picture, not merely at the details that the narcissist points to. That's his/her game: he/she doesn't want you to see the whole picture, because if you see it, his/her mask would fall.
So, what would be the secular interpretation for the Assu Sutta and the Mata Sutta?
I'll try to answer this question. Thinking about it, it's not an easy task, but I'll try:

"Transmigration" is just a word given for arising and passing of
mental states in this one and only life.
"a being" or "being" is just a word given to a mental state where
there is grasping on the "I".
"father", "mother", "sister", "son" are merely a mind
state with grasping to the "I".
"water in the four great oceans" is just a metaphor used to deliver
the message how big is the suffering in this one and only life.

I'll add some more, which I found and can be related to other suttas:

"Birth is suffering" is interpreted as giving birth to children in
this one and only life.
"Physical birth" and "physical death" is just a
mental state with grasping to the "I".
When Buddha mentions the word "birth" he is really thinking about the
arising of a mental state with attachment to the "I" in this one and
only life.
When Buddha mentions the word "death" he is really thinking about the
ceasing of a mental state with attachment to the "I" in this one and
only life.
When the Buddha talks about eternalism and nihilism he is not
relating eternalism and nihilism to life after death, but merely to
forms of grasping to the "I" in this one and only life.
Nibanna means that suffering stops in this one and only life. Nibanna
is meant just in the here & now, for this one life.
"heaven" and "hell" are just descriptions of mental states of mind in
this one and only life.
When Buddha talks about "descending of consciousness into the
mother's womb", he does not talk about the consciousness of the baby,
but the consciousness of mother perceiving (hence "descending") she
is pregnant.
"Realms" refer to different states of mind in people in this one and
only life, where 'heaven' is pleasure, human is wisdom, animal is
instinctual behavior, ghost is craving and addiction and hell is
suffering.
"ending of rebirth" refers to ending of the arising of unpleasant
mental states in this very same and only life.

Side note: Did you catch it? For them everything is a "mind state" ... nothing is real. The mundane truth is not real. They deny materialism. In fact, they are denying this very same existence. That's why this is nihilism and has nothing to do with real Buddhism. Denial of existence is so typical of narcissists. This very same denial is actually making them materialistic (carnal). Furthermore, the existence of their very same grandiose self is making them materialistic (carnal). Because of lack of insight due to a strong sense of self they can't see this. They actually think they are in conformation with the Dhamma, neither nihilists nor existentialists, etc. and they fully believe it as the truth. Off course they will deny my claims by using distortion and prove that, actually, it's me who is materialistic, a nihilist, a liar, Mara, religious, a Christian, delusional, etc. ... but that would merely be their projection of their own issues (strong belief in non existence of rebirth, which is actually coming from their grandiose sense of self which is actually coming from a wounded self) onto me. They are masters of distorting reality by making the victim look like the abuser.
To be a radical secular buddhist you have to deny existence by claiming that it's just a mind state or, if you are really clever, deny existence by claiming that existence is Nibanna. Off course this Nibanna that you claim must not be anatta, but atta - your grandiose narcissistic self ... but your listeners would think that you're talking about anatta, so no worries ... you made a big enough distortion so that you feel important, which is better than feeling ugly, like your wounded self. Jokes aside, such denials of existence stem from narcissistic wounds inflicted upon the person in his/her childhood.
When a sutta is in contradiction to the narcissists grandiose views, they deny the sutta, distort it by cleverly twisting it and interpret it in such a manner to conform to their grandiose views of self which is some kind of (fake) Nibanna. If any sutta is too difficult for twisting, they use denial and distortion by raising issues with the authenticity of the sutta.
Looking at secular Buddhism in this way, it's clearly evident that secular Buddhism is really a kind of religion, no different than Christianity or any other religion, because both religion and secular Buddhism stem from self-views.
Off course there are other secular Buddhists who are less extreme and more open minded than presented here in this answer. Don't get me wrong, all of us have narcissistic wounds and use different methods to ease this suffering. The bigger the wound, the more grandiose can our wounded self become. By believing in no post-mortem rebirth, we actually prolong the healing process of this wound, that's why secular Buddhism is not the best solution. The best solution is to let go of all views as it was originally taught by the Buddha.
I hope you now see the truth behind it all.
Please note, I'm not an advocate of believing in rebirth nor rejecting rebirth nor do I think negatively about secular Buddhists or secular Buddhism. Everyone has wounds and uses whatever works to feel better. There's nothing wrong in it. With metta

This post is wrong because the "middle way" explained in SN 56.11 does not include "rebirth". Also, the middle way is not something between self & no self. The Buddha taught the self does not exist, which is called SUNNATA. This is the middle way. I also marked this post down because it does not include any references to suttas, therefore if is only a personal opinion. Worse, this answer gives the impression of stealing ideas from others yet attempts to criticise those same others; similar to a dog that bites the hand that feeds it. This post is mostly plagiarism, therefore I marked it down.

"The Buddha taught the self does not exist" is not true. See MN 2. "the middle way is not something between self & no self" is also not true. In SN 56.11 it is stated that the middle way is the Noble Eightfold Path, which consists of "right view" -> In MN 2 it is stated that "self exists" and "self does not exist" are wrong views, thus the middle way is to avoid these wrong views. (see my updated answer with suttas references) As for your accusations that I'm stealing ideas from others and plagiarizing, that's also not true. I wrote my post solely from personal experience and own insight.

MN 2 does not say this. Also, there is not such thing as "personal" insight.  If your post was submitted as a university essay, it would be failed due to plagiarism, because it includes no references. You appeared to steal the ideas I taught you. Also, to repeat, MN 2 does not say what you claim.

MN 2 states: "The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self." The reason both views are wrong is because both views include the idea of "I", i.e., "I" have a self and "I" have no self.

SN 56.11 states "devoted to self-affliction", which means to punish the physical body. It does not mean no-self.

I suppose that the wrong views in your answer & clear misunderstandings of the two suttas belated posted might be reflective of "personal" practice.

In conclusion, the main reason why your sentiment is wrong is because if "birth" & "re-rebirth" are realised to be mental, resulting in the here & now end of suffering, the whole idea of physical post-mortem rebirth is rejected because there can only be one meaning of "birth". In other words, the teachers of physical rebirth never teach there are two kinds of rebirth. In short, logic leads to choosing only one interpretation. But you seem to want to please everyone rather than adhere to one position. Since physical rebirth cannot be confirmed in "personal" practise, your claim is false.

I guess it's best to let each individual reader read MN 2 and SN 56.11 and come to their own conclusions.

If you start a question about the meaning of it; without your proliferation of personal interpretations; most people will disagree with your view. Sorry. But MN 2 & SN 56.11 do not support your position. With metta

I'm sorry, but the way you communicate with me, I'm getting strong feelings something's wrong with my mind. https://thoughtcatalog.com/shahida-arabi/2016/06/20-diversion-tactics-highly-manipulative-narcissists-sociopaths-and-psychopaths-use-to-silence-you/

Your sutta interpretation was incorrect, which is very common among Buddhists. It is normal for misinterpretations of the suttas to occur therefore there is nothing wrong with your mind if you misinterpret suttas. Here, your mind is normal. But if you expect your mind to be enlightened when it is not enlightened then there is certainly something wrong with your mind. With metta. However, it is best to not debate Buddhas because this results in your head exploding into several pieces. In short, the Buddha's words do not support your interpretation therefore stop rebelling against the Buddha.

Also, when you engage in dhamma discussion, have fun. Put some pictures in your posts like I do when answering fun questions. Dhamma is for happiness!

What would be the secular interpretation for the Assu Sutta and the Mata Sutta?

The Buddha's teachings are two-fold: (i) worldly; and (ii) supramundane (lokuttara). Therefore, there is no such thing as "secular Buddhism". The question should be:

What would be the non-materialistic Noble Supramundane (Lokuttara) interpretation for the Assu Sutta and the Mata Sutta?

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration.

The Buddha did not speak in English. 'Saṃsāro' does not mean 'transmigration'. Samsaro is explained in SN 22.99:

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

A beginning point is not evident, though beings (sattānaṃ) hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are roaming around & wandering on.

The above translation is probably inaccurate because the central concept of the quote is the word "sattanam" or "beings". As explained or defined in SN 23.2 and SN 5.10, "a being" ("satta") is merely a state of attachment & a view, idea or convention. SN 5.10 unambiguously states to believe the five aggregates are "a being" is the view of Mara because, for the arahants, "a being" is only a wrong view.

Therefore, the above quote is probably saying something like: "from an unknowable beginning ignorance & craving have been producing the delusion of beings which cycles, runs & roams around like a monkey mind".

What do you think, monks: Which is greater, the tears you have shed while roaming around & wandering this long, long time — crying &
  weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated
  from what is pleasing — or the water in the four great oceans?"

This can only be a metaphor or teaching principle. It cannot be literally or materially true, otherwise stories like Noah's Ark in the Bible would be true.

As we understand the Dhamma taught to us by the Blessed One, this is the greater: the tears we have shed while roaming around & wandering
  this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is
  displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not the water in
  the four great oceans."

The Dhamma taught by the Buddha was explicitly defined by the Buddha as visible here-&-now, inviting inspection, to be experienced by the wise.
This makes the above verse, if taken materialistically or literally, contradictory & questionable.

"Excellent, monks. Excellent. It is excellent that you thus understand the Dhamma taught by me.

This cannot be true because the Dhamma taught by the Buddha is not blind faith in ridiculous ideas such as a person (atta) has transmigrated over billions of personal lifetimes and has cried more tears (over their family members) than the four great oceans. Given there is a water cycle on the planet earth, it would be impossible that millions of selves (atta) could cry tears over millions of lifetimes greater than the four great oceans, otherwise the planet Earth would have flooded.

Those reincarnation scholars, such as Bhikkhu Bodhi, Sujato, Analayo, etc, who also believers in climate change, particularly concerned ocean rising, should understand how ridiculous 7 billion people crying more tears than the great oceans would be.
In summary, if the Buddha did speak the above words, it was obviously a metaphor rather than literally or materialistically true.
More importantly, the belief in reincarnation does not lead to enlightenment. Instead, the perception of impermanence leads to enlightenment.
When the Buddha was passing away, his final words were: "All things are subject to vanish" rather than "all things are subject to reincarnation".

"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother. The tears you have shed over the death of a mother while transmigrating &
  wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined
  with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are
  greater than the water in the four great oceans.

The important word above is "mother", which is another ignorance-created "being" (satta), as described in SN 12.2, where 'jati' is defined as the mental production of the idea of "beings" & various orders or groups of "beings".

"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father... the death of a brother... the death of a sister... the death of a son...
  the death of a daughter... loss with regard to relatives... loss with
  regard to wealth... loss with regard to disease. The tears you have
  shed over loss with regard to disease while transmigrating & wandering
  this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is
  displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than
  the water in the four great oceans.

Similarly, the various groups or orders of "beings" are described above, where the ignorant mind creates craving-attachment-becoming based ideas of "beings" that cause suffering due to aging & death, such as "my father", "my son", "my daughter", "my (diseased) body", etc.
The "beings" described above are not strangers. They are "beings" created from craving & attachment which are a "being's" hierarchy of "beings", which causes suffering.

"Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance
  and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have
  you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss,
  swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all
  fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be
  released."

The final excerpt above shows the hypocrisy of the reincarnationists who passionately use SN 15.3 to argue in favour of reincarnation because the whole purpose of the teachings is to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released.
SN 15.3 is simply describing the meaningless characteristic of life, where from an unknowable beginning, people have been engaging in sex, reproducing & crying over loss of loved family members, generation after generation after generation.

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

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Emotional Eating
I have a simple question. Since emotional eating is connected with the drive of hunger, it is difficult to tackle. What would be the Buddhist method of combating such a drive-related issue?
Here, I use the term 'emotional eating' to encompass:
1) eating for mere pleasure (attachment)
2) eating to avoid negative emotions (aversion).

The answer is mindfulness.
To see why, we need to look back to what caused this question to arise in the first place.  Surely, the overeating caused some suffering and some wisdom could see that overall, this is a negative thing and needs to stop.
But that was not the winning decision at the moment of eating.  The desire to eat stepped up powerfully, obscuring the wisdom and was the winner at that moment. The Buddha taught about sensual experiences -  (the noble disciple), sees the allure of it (assāda), the drawback (ādīnava) and the escape from it (nissaraṇa)...
The reason wisdom did not win the battle at the moment of action is that the drawback was not fully understood (except intellectually). With continuous mindfulness, the causes and effects are seen...again and again.  Seeing how, not wanting to fall, one falls into the trap anyway... When the allure, drawback and escape are seen, no techniques or restraint are needed, the desire falls away on its own.
This takes many instances, so need not to be harsh on oneself in the meantime.  Just keep...observing the arising of the desire, the wisdom fighting that...and then either the wisdom wins in that instance and mindfulness then recognizes the ease that results...or the desire wins and mindfulness recognizes the drawbacks as they take shape...
Again and again....only two ingredients required -

mindfulness and
The wisdom gained so far

Please see this answer about a video by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu on addiction to pornography and addiction in general. That answer also states:

The other technique he proposes is to watch your mind for triggers and
  observe how lust arises in the mind and recognize it (basically
  insight meditation). You can find more info on this in his chapter
  entitled "Daily Life" of his booklet "How To Meditate".

I would say that the same technique could be applied to emotional eating as well.

Food, what ever kind, is used to simple cross to the other shore. Not for enjoyment, to "take on bulk", to "beauty" oneself, for the abounding of past unpleasant feeling (of hunger) and the abounding of future aviding unpleasant feelings (from overeating). Food is taken to get ride of desire for food.

The Four Nutriments of Life: An Anthology of Buddhist Texts, translated from the Pali, with an Introductory Essay by Nyanaponika Thera (2006; 33pp./98KB) [PDF icon]
Among the Buddha's most profound teachings is his observation that, like our bodies, our minds demand food for survival. Like a starving person, the mind hungers for sense-impressions; it feeds on thoughts, memories, ideas, and dreams; it even yearns for consciousness itself. This book includes carefully chosen excerpts from the suttas and commentaries that, together with the introductory essay, provide an excellent introduction to this vital topic.

[Note: This is agift of Dhamma and not meanr for commercial purposes or other low wordily gains in trade or exchange]

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


text:
How do we know numbers of past lives and rebirths?
I can understand how the Buddha and various arhats and the like can surmise the existence of past lives and rebirth. What I dont see is how they come up with actual numbers of times they have been reborn and the total number of times anyone is and how long the universe has been contracting and expanding and things like that? At some point isn't that delving into the unknowable?

Generally is spoken about "a beginning" is not to see. It's not clear where Kauva gets the idea of numbers of past lives from.

Ive seen canon described where they stipulate "no more than 7 more rebirths" and the like.

It, if that is the reference, would be maybe better to raise the question specific, to do not "mix up apple with pears, Kauva.

@SamanaJohann also perhaps it is better not to use Google Translate everytime. Try to arrange your words properly. It is very difficult to understand what you are saying most of the time.

Apparently in Buddhist cosmology, the universe of worlds begins and ends cyclically. That's called an aeon or eon or kalpa. The Visuddhimagga calls this a Maha Kalpa (Great Aeon).
This wikipedia page (without sufficient citations) gives some statistics on the duration of a Maha Kalpa:

Imagine a huge empty cube at the beginning of a kalpa, approximately
  16 miles in each side. Once every 100 years, you insert a tiny mustard
  seed into the cube. According to the Buddha, the huge cube will be
  filled even before the kalpa ends.
Imagine a gigantic rocky mountain at the beginning of kalpa,
  approximately 16 x 16 x 16 miles (dwarfing Mount Everest). You take a
  small piece of silk and wipe the mountain once every 100 years.
  According to the Buddha, the mountain will be completely depleted even
  before the kalpa ends.

I found that a tiny mustard seed could have a diameter of around 1mm. If I make it easier by assuming that it is a cube with the sides of 1 x 1 x 1mm, then it has 1 cubic mm of volume.
Meanwhile, a huge empty cube of 16 miles on each side has 17 billion cubic mm of volume. So, if this huge empty cube is filled up at 1 cubic mm per 100 years, then how many years does it take to fill up 17 billion cubic mm of volume?
In my calculation, it would be 1.7 trillion years. So, the description is that this huge empty cube will be filled up before the aeon ends. Currently, physicists estimate that the age of our current universe is 13.82 billion years.
The same page also states:

If you count the total number of sand particles at the depths of the
  Ganges river, from where it begins to where it ends at the sea, even
  that number will be less than the number of passed kalpas.

I'm not sure how many sand particles there are at the depth of the Ganges river from the beginning to the end of it, but I guess there must be at least trillions of particles based on this article. So, according to this description, we have had at least trillions of aeons in the past, with each lasting over 1.7 trillion years each.
In the Assu Sutta, it is taught that the amount of tears that we have shed in past lives exceed the volume of the four great oceans.
According to this article, the average amount of tears shed by a human being in a lifetime is 64 litres. And according to this article, the ocean has 321,003,271 cubic miles of water which is 1.34x10^21 litres. So, for one person to cry that much through all his past lives, he needs to have lived for 1.34x10^21/64 lifetimes, which is still in the order of 10^19, which is more than a quintillion lifetimes.
Based on these descriptions, I would say that the existence of the universe (with all its worlds) where sentient beings live, and the amount of past lives that we have had, is effectively infinite. The past lives recalled by the Buddha are only the last n lives, rather than ALL of it.

No, it is the number of eons since a certain point of time. ex: number of eons since the Bodhisatta thought to become a Buddha, the number of eons since the Bodhisatta got the blessing to become a Buddha from the Buddha Deepankara and so on.
Except for the countless beginnings and destructions of world systems, there is no beginning of time in Buddhism.

The Buddhas recollect past abodes or adherences (nivasa) rather than past lives (jiva). This means they recollect each time in the past the mind ignorantly clung to one or more aggregates as 'self'. Refer to SN 22.79, which literally explains this.
Therefore, if it is counted each time the mind clung to something as "I", "me" & "mine", this is counting "pubbe nivasa" (past abodes; not "past lives", which is a mistranslation).


text:
Is there any kind of stress and suffering the Buddhas medicine would not help?
Often my person comes accross certain "disclaimers" in regard of the use of Dhamma-Practice, the medicine of the Buddha, his therapy, saying, like just read again here in an answer:

"The Buddha did not deal with this kind of suffering. Modern mindfulness centers have therapists who understand this kind of suffering."

So coming from such kind of predication, my person would like to ask:

What is the fundation and/or the possible reason of such a claim?
What kind of suffering it should include? and
Where to find possible references in the teachings of the Buddha for such?
Are there any instances where either he or his disciples (with approve) encouraged to seek for diverent ways to cure certain suffering?

In the Virecana (Tikicchakka) Sutta (AN10.108):

"Monks, doctors give a purgative for warding off diseases caused by
  bile, diseases caused by phlegm, diseases caused by the internal wind
  property. There is a purging there; I don't say that there's not, but
  it sometimes succeeds and sometimes fails. So I will teach you the
  noble purgative that always succeeds and never fails, a purgative
  whereby beings subject to birth are freed from birth; beings subject
  to aging are freed from aging; beings subject to death are freed from
  death; beings subject to sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair
  are freed from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair. Listen &
  pay close attention. I will speak."

The Buddha claimed above to be a doctor who treats the disease of suffering of samsara and all its symptoms: birth, death, aging, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress and despair.
From Kucchivikara-vatthu of the Vinaya, the Buddha taught:

"A nurse endowed with five qualities is fit to tend to the sick: He is
  competent at mixing medicine; he knows what is amenable or unamenable
  to the patient's cure, taking away things that are unamenable and
  bringing things that are amenable; he is motivated by thoughts of good
  will, not by material gain; he does not get disgusted at cleaning up
  excrement, urine, saliva, or vomit; and he is competent at
  instructing, urging, rousing, & encouraging the sick person at the
  proper occasions with a talk on Dhamma. A nurse endowed with these
  five qualities is fit to tend to the sick."

He treats the general disease of the suffering of samsara, but not the specific diseases of the body like diabetes or malaria or even neuropsychological diseases.
So, if you need specialized treatment for a specific disease, you should see the doctor who is specialized in that area. The Vinaya quote above implies that the nurse should know how to mix medicines and be competent to treat the disease in question.
In this question, you can see that sometimes apparent psychological disorders actually originate from physical ailments. That's why medical doctors are still needed to treat them. Buddhist teachings do not treat all diseases because that is not their objective.
This answer is also relevant here. In DN16, the Buddha experienced dysentery:

And soon after the Blessed One had eaten the meal provided by Cunda
  the metalworker, a dire sickness fell upon him, even dysentery, and he
  suffered sharp and deadly pains. But the Blessed One endured them
  mindfully, clearly comprehending and unperturbed.

So, although he had attained Nibbana, he could still experience dysentery and all its pains. However, he was unperturbed by it because suffering had indeed ended for him due to him having attained Nibbana. And after his passing away, suffering does not continue in a new life.
So what does this show? The Buddha's cure or medicine of Nibbana ends the suffering of samsara, but it does not end dysentery as a physical disease. For curing dysentery, please see a medical doctor. To cure all suffering permanently through Nibbana, please see the Buddha's teachings (which is same as seeing Dr. Buddha according to Vakkali Sutta).
The medical doctor only treats a temporary disease. If the treatment is successful, you get cured, but you could still get another disease later. But that's the point, for neuropsychological diseases and other medical diseases, you should get treated by a doctor, but to end all suffering permanently, you should seek Buddha's treatment. If you are suffering from severe pains, it's very hard to meditate isn't it? It's easier to get a doctor to treat it first, then you can meditate better.

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

Is there any kind of stress and suffering the Buddha's medicine would not help?

Of course not. The ultimate medicine turns everything into emptiness without changing anything.

There can be no suffering where there is nobody to suffer and the type of suffering would make no difference.
But until there is nobody to suffer other all sorts of other methods and practices might help, and the method would depend on the type of suffering.
In the long run, though, the only way to end suffering is to end all of it. The 'cessation of suffering' means just that.

Buddha's teaching is on The Mind. And Mind is the creator of all the stress and sufferings (except physical pains and etc.). And once you attain Nivana = The Enlightenment you will no more get any kind of body to feel the physical pains any more.
So simply the answer is Buddha's medicine, which is attaining Nivana, is the one and only treatment to all the stresses and sufferings including physical pains and it covers everything.

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


text:
Why is sniffing a flower considered to be stealing?
According to the Gandhatthena Sutta (SN 9.14), a monk sniffing a flower in the wilderness, that was not given to him, is considered stealing, even if it's only a hair-tip's worth of evil.
Why is sniffing a flower in the wilderness considered to be stealing?
Does that apply to lay followers too?

I have heard that on one occasion a certain monk was dwelling among
  the Kosalans in a forest thicket. Now at that time, after his meal,
  returning from his almsround, he went down to a lotus pond and sniffed
  a red lotus.
Then the devata inhabiting the forest thicket, feeling sympathy for
  the monk, desiring his benefit, desiring to bring him to his senses,
  approached him and addressed him with this verse:
[Devata:]
You sniff this water-born flower
  that hasn't been given to you.
  This, dear sir, is a factor of stealing.
  You are a thief of a scent.
[The monk:]
  I don't take, don't damage.
  I sniff at the lotus
  from far away.
  So why do you call me
  a thief of a scent?
One who
  digs up the stalks,
  damages flowers,
  one of such ruthless behavior:
  why don't you say it of him?
[The devata:]
  A person ruthless & grasping,
  smeared like a nursing diaper:
  to him
  I have nothing to say.
  It's you
  to whom I should speak.
To a person unblemished,
  constantly searching for purity,
a hair-tip's worth of evil
  seems as large
  as a cloud.
[The monk:]
  Yes, yakkha, you understand me
  and show me sympathy.
  Warn me again, yakkha,
  whenever again
  you see something like this.
[The devata:]
  I don't depend on you
  for my living
  nor am I
  your hired hand.
  You, monk,
  you yourself should know
  how to go to the good destination.
The monk, chastened by the devata, came to his senses.

Did Buddha confirm this?  Or just an opinion of the devata?   If Buddha didn't confirm that it was stealing,  then I wont worry much next time i stop and smell the roses.

In my understanding, this story illustrates a different point. The key verse is:

To a person unblemished,
  constantly searching for purity,
  a hair-tip's worth of evil
  seems as large
  as a cloud.

Meaning, when we cultivate purity, we shouldn't stop at the literal fulfillment of precepts, we should take it all the way to perfection (paramita) and ensure that in our mind there's not even a trace of egoistic/indulging intent.
This level of perfectionism is excessive for lay people, but for professional practicioners of dharma, this level of scrutiny is minimum requirement for developing the right level of detachment from this world, before Jhana practice can come to fruition.

This sounds like - She told Ajaan Fuang that her mind seemed more of a mess than it was before she began meditating. He replied: "Of course it does. It's like your house. If you polish the floor every day, you won't be able to stand the least little bit of dust on it. The cleaner the house, the more easily you'll see the dirt. If you don't keep polishing the mind, you can let it go out and sleep in the mud without any qualms at all. But once you get it to sleep on a polished floor, then if there's even a speck of dust, you'll have to sweep it away. You won't be able to stand the mess."

I guess one possibility is that "steal" is an inaccurate translation, and that a better translation might centre more on the "conceal" and "stealth" meanings of the words (e.g. concealing or taking a scent by stealth, secretly ... and observed only by a deva).
Another possibility is that it's taking what is not given: what is given (by lay-people to bhikkhus) are "requisites" -- food, medicine. The scent of a flower is not a requisite; taking the scent might be considered a sensual craving.

It's like if a person, maintaining his live by sensuality, lives on pleasure gained bt sensuality, would take the Dhamma, make use of it for his/here livelihood, which run out in the same way.
Maintaining one selfs needed pleasure, entertaining, by unrightouse means. Such counts as stealing, because the sacrify for it has not been done.

One    should not make an effort everywhere,
should not be another's hireling,
should not live dependent on another,
should not go about
as a trader in the Dhamma.
Paṭisalla Sutta: Seclusion

That is why it is good to stay in ones own range.
Sakunagghi Sutta: The Hawk.
Maintaining one livelihood, physical and mental, within the wrong range is very risky and destructs the certain economies, leads to inbalance and the hawk might catch.
It's very compassionated by a certain Deva if pointing out such dangers.
(Maybe it is understood good in that unusual way of comparison)
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wodily gains by means of trade and exchange]


text:
When were Buddhist suttas written?
When were Buddhist suttas written?
Does anybody know any source with a compiled list of suttas and their approximate date of writing?

This question is partially answered here: Which are considered to be the oldest suttas?

On this page and this page, you can find the "Chronology Of The Pali Canon" by Dr. Bimala Churn Law.
Here, it is written in the beginning:

Rhys Davids in his Buddhist India (p. 188) has given a chronological
  table of Buddhist literature from the time of the Buddha to the time
  of Asoka which is as follows:--

The simple statements of Buddhist doctrine now found, in identical words, in paragraphs or verses recurring in all the books.
Episodes found, in identical words, in two or more of the existing books.
The Silas, the Parayana, the Octades, the Patimokkha.
The Digha, Majjhima, Anguttara, and Samyutta Nikayas.
The Sutta-Nipata, the Thera-and Theri-Gathas, the Udanas, and the Khuddaka Patha.
The Sutta Vibhanga, and Khandhkas.
The Jatakas and the Dhammapadas.
The Niddesa, the Itivuttakas and the Patisambbhida.
The Peta and Vimana-Vatthus, the Apadana, the Cariya-Pitaka, and the Buddha-Vamsa.
The Abhidhamma books; the last of which is the Katha-Vatthu, and the earliest probably the Puggala-Pannatti.

But later, after in-depth analysis, the author comes to the conclusion:

The results arrived at concerning the chronology of the Pali canonical
  listerature are preseented in the subjoined table:
(1) The simple statements of Buddhist doctrines now found, in identical words, in paragraphs or verses recurring in all the books.
(2) Episodes found, in identical works, in two or more of the existing books.
(3) The Silas, the Parayana group of sixteen poems without the prologue, the atthaka group of four or sixteen poems, the sikkhapadas.
(4) The Digha, Vol. l, the Majjhima, the Samyutta, the Anguttara, and earlier Patimokkha code of 152 rules.
(5) The Digha, Vols. II & III, the Thera-Theri-Gatha, the collection of 500 Jatakas, the Suttavibhanga, the Partisambhidamagga,
  the Puggala-pannatti and the Vibhanga.
(6) The Mahavagga and the Cullavagga, the Patimokkha code completing 227 rules, the Vimanavatthu and Petavatthu, the Dhammapada
  and the Kathavatthu.
(7) The Cullaniddesa, the Mahaniddesa, the Udana, the Itivuttaka, the Suttanipata, the Dhatukatha, the Yamaka and the Patthana.
(8) The Buddhavamsa, the Cariyapitaka and the Apadana.
(9) The Parivarapatha.
(10) The Khuddakapatha.

But there is no table available listing each sutta with its date of writing.


text:
The Experience of What Arises
I just read within this question that the accomplished arhats, and perhaps the Buddha, still feel pain though they lack aversion to it. I had contemplated for a long time to generate insight and reasons, analytically, to tackle the arising of negative thoughts and attitudes.
However, this process was seemingly effective in preventing the arising of negativity, but seems contrary to fully experiencing reality without attachment or aversion.
1) When a person just sits, aren't they, in a sense, with equanimity towards all that arises? Any orientation towards thoughts or experience changes with time, and it is time--in meditation--which determines the untangling of what arises.
2) Wouldn't equanimity towards all aspects of experience create a different result than either distraction or insight relative to what arises?

It's a gradual training. According to Buddha, we need to develop skill at the coarser, more invasive levels before proceeding to the more refined and subtle.
So initially we learn to stop, to suppress, to manipulate by switching attention. Then we learn to stimulate positive emotions through discursive sequences. Then we learn to tune our mood directly through immediate effort. Then we get to levels when we are practically effortless and purely contemplative, but that comes only with great mastery.
From Gavi Sutta:

"Suppose there was a mountain cow — foolish, inexperienced, unfamiliar with her pasture, unskilled in roaming on rugged mountains — and she were to think, 'What if I were to go in a direction I have never gone before, to eat grass I have never eaten before, to drink water I have never drunk before!' She would lift her hind hoof without having placed her front hoof firmly and [as a result] would not get to go in a direction she had never gone before, to eat grass she had never eaten before, or to drink water she had never drunk before. And as for the place where she was standing when the thought occurred to her, 'What if I were to go where I have never been before... to drink water I have never drunk before,' she would not return there safely. Why is that? Because she is a foolish, inexperienced mountain cow, unfamiliar with her pasture, unskilled in roaming on rugged mountains.
...
"But suppose there was a mountain cow — wise, experienced, familiar with her pasture, skilled in roaming on rugged mountains — and she were to think, 'What if I were to go in a direction I have never gone before, to eat grass I have never eaten before, to drink water I have never drunk before!' She would lift her hind hoof only after having placed her front hoof firmly and [as a result] would get to go in a direction she had never gone before... to drink water she had never drunk before. And as for the place where she was standing when the thought occurred to her, 'What if I were to go in a direction I have never gone before... to drink water I have never drunk before,' she would return there safely. Why is that? Because she is a wise, experienced mountain cow, familiar with her pasture, skilled in roaming on rugged mountains.


text:
Which is the easiest of the four paths for a novice lay practitioner?
In the Yuganaddha Sutta (AN 4.170), there is described the four paths stated below. Insight refers to vipassana and tranquility refers to samatha.

Development of tranquility before development of insight
Development of insight before development of tranquility
Tranquility developed in tandem with insight
Mind's restlessness concerning the Dhamma well under control (I guess this is "dry insight")

Of these four paths, which is the easiest, smoothest and most pleasant to a novice lay practitioner? And why?
Or is this question invalid, because meditation, insight and jhana is not suited to the lay practitioner?
Please provide quotes to support your answer from the Buddha's words, if possible.
I personally suspect that it is tranquility (at least the first jhana) before insight.

In this essay, Henepola Gunaratana promoted tranquility before insight:

The Buddha is constantly seen in the suttas encouraging his disciples
  to develop jhana. The four jhanas are invariably included in the
  complete course of training laid down for disciples. ... Though a
  vehicle of dry insight can be found, indications are that this path is
  not an easy one, lacking the aid of the powerful serenity available to
  the practitioner of jhana. The way of the jhana attainer seems by
  comparison smoother and more pleasurable (A.ii,150-52).

However, Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu has a different view in this video from timestamp 9m 34s, where he said:

Samatha meditation - these meditations exists. There's no question
  that there are meditations out there that will not lead you to
  enlightenment. They can't, because they are not focused on reality.
  They are creating an illusion in the mind. The only way that they
  could lead to enlightenment, is as I said, if you use that to gain
  insight. ... and because of the strength of the mind, you can see it
  clearer than you would have, otherwise. It's kind of taking a
  shortcut, but having to do a lot of preparation. So, not gaining
  anything (during this preparation phase), except for these nice states of peace and calm, and maybe
  some magical powers along the way, which is probably best suited for
  someone living in the forest. So, which should be first? It's
  totally up to you ... if you want to start with just vipassana, it was
  very clear that ... the Buddha gave this (vipassana) as the quickest
  way. A monk came up to the Buddha and said, "I'm old and I don't have
  a lot of time and my memory is not good, I don't want to learn a lot,
  give me the basics of the path" .....

So, there's obviously two camps out there. On one side, those who promote tranquility first like Ven. Henepola Gunaratana and Ajahn Brahm. But on the other side, you have those who promote insight alone or insight first like Ven. Yuttadhammo or S.N. Goenka.
And then there's the interesting opinion in this answer by Dhammadhatu and this answer by Andrei Volkov, which imply that attainment of Jhana through meditation is not for lay people, which is echoed by Ven. Yuttadhammo's statement that samatha meditation is "probably best suited for someone living in the forest".

Samādhi based vipassanā, so practitioner who has not enough samādhi must try the 1st step only. It is a step that can't not be cross. It is not a choice for choose. Practitioner who has not any skill must do from 1st step. He has not any way to cross the step. https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/22512/10100

I don't know. Maybe Chenrezig 600,000 mantra accumulation or Ngondro if you have it?

The sutta was spoken by Ananda. It is not the words of the Buddha. The Buddha taught samatha & vipassana are developed in tandem (MN 149; Dhp 372); as demonstrated in MN 118 (when it is properly understood). In short, given the path is the Eightfold Path with Three Trainings, how can there be a path that separates wisdom from the development of the path?

Any view belonging to one who has come to be like this is his right view. Any resolve, his right resolve. Any effort, his right effort.
  Any mindfulness, his right mindfulness. Any concentration, his right
  concentration: just as earlier his actions, speech, & livelihood were
  already well-purified. Thus for him, having thus developed the noble
  eightfold path, the four frames of reference go to the culmination of
  their development. The four right exertions... the four bases of
  power... the five faculties... the five strengths... the seven factors
  for Awakening go to the culmination of their development. [And] for
  him these two qualities occur in tandem: tranquillity & insight. MN
  149

Also, insight cannot occur without tranquility because true insight, as described in many suttas, results in dispassion (viraga). A mind with dispassion will naturally have tranquility. Wrong concentration can lead to developing some degree of tranquility, but genuine insight cannot exclude tranquility. The fact the Goenka & Mahasi (Yutadhammo) paths rarely discuss tranquility shows the "insight" ("vipassana") they preach is not genuine vipassana but just a form of indoctrination.

As for the idea of "novice lay practitioner", this is contrary to the teachings of the Buddha. For example, Sariputta & Moggallana were novices yet the Buddha immediately knew they would be his chief disciples. Also, the Buddha rarely taught meditation to lay people. Most lay people do not have the conditions to develop jhana. Therefore, the questions here are not realistic. Lay people should develop morality so to avoid unnecessary problems with their lives.

I believe that many/most people understand the meaning of jhana incorrectly. Bhikkhu Kumara has written a book recently to address this. He is waiting on more feedback before allowing people to post the link publicly, but his arguments are extremely persuasive that Jhana in pali just means meditation. The psychedelic hindu/visuddhimagga "jhanic states" are not what are being referred to, and the jhanas that Buddha taught are not about concentrating the mind but rather collecting the mind.
It is only because of the mistranslations that people promote the idea that samatha isn't necessary for insight.

It's astonishing the degree of over-emphasis that has been off-loaded onto the term jhana and thus made into something reserved only for special people performing very particular types of specialized meditations - it's really astonishing. I guess its human nature to feel like they are obtaining something special. Theravadins are notorious for this.

Please also see this question: Sutta jhana vs. Visuddhimagga jhana

Mind's restlessness concerning the Dhamma well under control (I guess this is "dry insight").

Yes "dry insight". BUT it would just work if the kammic conditions (paramis) are there, at certain occation. So generally the message given in Dhammadhatus answer is right (in regard of layman-novice, a modern overestimation of those not really having taken refuge, served by monks living with improper livelihood, making wordily gain as well on the cost of the sublime gems)
"One way is that in the world, and another the way beyound", to mix these two things up does neither support a good way in the world not keep the way beyond possible visible.
It's good to practice firm generosity (Dana), virtue (Sila) and reflect and develope Vision (Bhavana) and having done ones duties well, seek for seclusion from time to time, rightouse earned and therefore possible benefical.
What ever one traces on meditation centers and other lay mans or missguided monastics livelihood undertakings, this is not really destinated for any gain beyond, so it's better to take refuge and serve and follow those who are in front, doing ones own task and gain things in proper and rightous ways.
Useful talks:

Respect, Confidence and Patient

There are lots of techniques for dealing with all different kinds of problems in the mind. When teachers give you just one technique, it’s sort of one-size-fits-all, or Henry Ford’s old maxim: People can have whatever color car they want as long as it’s black. Given the complexity of the mind, there’s no way that one single technique is going to work in all cases, or that one particular person will have to stick to one technique all the time. You have to realize that the Buddha offers a whole toolbox here, lots of different methods, lots of different approaches.

Better to Give than to Consume
Sensitivity through Generosity

What ever approach might fit to one, if it has deep respect, confidence and patient as it's leading attitude, will be well. No matter if at home, in the forest, monastic or lay person. People who just trade stick and sell things as if they would be the only truth. Why? Because custumer seek for easy gainable security, inpatiently, yet would happily pay...
It might be that many words in the right direction do not easy make people at large a favor and are not that "business-increasing", enlarging the cemeteries.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose and other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]

I suppose it depends on the needs of the individual.  If you were attracted to Buddhism in order to find inner peace, then tranquility before insight, all the way; and run away fast from dry insight.
If you were already peaceful, and studied Buddhism out of intellectual curiosity, then you are ready for insight before, or in tandem with, tranquility.

I think generally people should

read the techer's message
memorize the message
investigate & analyze the message
come to agreement with the message
contemplate the message
become willing to pursue the goal

Serious samadhi development requires monastic level asceticsm & cotemplation, it won't be enough to force sit even 2 hours a day if one is bent on worldliness.
Insight requires contemplation & investigation but it is also like a like light which makes clear. A light is made brighter by adding energy and Insight is likewise supported by effort in development of samadhi & other spiritual faculties.
There is obviously a lot of value in reading the earliest texts in SN, MN, AN, DN, Dhp, Snp, Iti, there is no need to read commentary but one should learn 10-15 pali words well and investigate all uses of those words in the Sutta expression.
Insight may or may not mature to modicum discernment at this point of being well familiarized & having entertained the teacher's message. These are people who kind of get it but you probably won't be able to pin it down because their expression isn't sharp and they might confuse nonessential things.
This level of modicum understanding is what one should get to first i think.
First here one should identify and get rid of pernicious wrong views and if right view is obscure one should be established in foremost wrong view (maybe it's true maybe it's not true) for the time being. One can research Sutta for listing of wrong views.
Knowing the Sutta expression is crucial for one developing for modicum understanding. Sometimes one might think 'maybe it is like this!' but then merely knowing the sutta expression will eliminate the wrong option.
If one doesn't yet have a modicum understanding of the techer's message one will be able to tell as the texts dealing with noble samadhi attainments don't make much sense until you do.
At this point one is either an outsider if one has wrong views; or one is a faith follower if one is inclined to believe the right things even if not understanding.
As for samadhi. Imo it's actually very difficult to arrange good let alone optimal circumstances for deep samadhi development.
If one chooses samadhi then one should generally uphold decent asceticism and go through as many jhana as necessary for insight to mature.
Many people could study the texts, observe the uposatha and do meditation retreats. These would gain a lot.
Others might be able to not work and meditate more than uposatha. Of these some might try to do hardcore asceticism.
To do samadhi succesfully & fast one needs very good environment, having few duties, moderation in eating, guarding the senses and be devoted to wakefulness.
Guarding of the senses should go as far as not seeing womenfolk for men and as far as not seeing menfolk for female yogis, one should not tolerate even the thought a sign associated with objects of sense desire.
Furthermore one needs to learn how to direct the mind to develop the proper perceptions necessary for stilling of gross perceptions such as those associated with sensuality.
Furthermore one needs to learn how to stir up energy and eliminating all hindrances.
Furthermore he should have little to no doubt about doing things correctly.
Behavior must be personal best and recovery from offenses efficient.
Effectively one would spend the whole day directing the mind by thinking good & appropriate things or stilling thoughts altogether.
Another person might quickly attain understanding but not attain fruition before death due to not doing the samadhi much.