What are they? Where are they found in the literature? Are there any significant differences in them among the traditions?

In many suttas, the Buddha affirms his omniscience about the past of all the beings. Why didn't the Buddha say something about his omniscience about the future of all the beings, in suttas?

Specifically when someone you love or whose opinion matters to you greatly attacks your way of life, your beliefs, or even on a smaller scale just makes you feel ignored, pushed around, etc. I find I quickly lose confidence in my "inner voice" when my loved ones, particularly family, do this. Generally when a stranger does this to me it's easier to let go. Does anyone have a useful visual metaphor or story around this? I try to see myself as a rock and their words like arrows pinging off me but it doesn't work.

I'm new to the concept of Buddhism, and am failing to understand perhaps something very basic. I understand that one is not expected to hold anything close or dear as it is impermanent and could change at any moment so how does one love another person? How does one become close to another person. As I understand it, a relationship would just consist of two people who aren't _that_ close to one another. "Therefore hold nothing dear, for separation from the dear is painful" - this seems to suggest that you should build a wall around yourself and separate yourself from potentially wonderful feelings just because they could cause pain, and pain is bad. I think pain is a part of life; denying that pain, or ignoring it is not part of a healthy life. I think of this concept of Buddhism similar to "don't smell the flowers because you may prick yourself on a thorn" thus denying yourself of the delights found in the smell and also the growth / knowledge from the pain of the thorn prick. Both of which you can learn and grow from. Am I missing something here?

Many years ago, a Zen Roshi said in a class that "nobody else is your boss except for you. Only you can make the decision and apply yourself to practice, nobody else can." So, I've heard this many times from various Buddhist traditions. However, Buddhism also has this idea of "taking refuge" in various things. If you are responsible for yourself what is the point of "taking refuge?" What is the proper understanding of "taking refuge" in Buddhism?

Is it fundamentalism if Buddhists believe Buddha's path is the only path, and that all other spiritual traditions or sects are false? And if so, does it exist much in Buddhism? By fundamentalism, I mean a person believing that their path is the only path, for them and others who believe like them. I.e. can a Buddhist see another spiritual tradition as valid, even if it is not Buddhism? Such as an agnostic or a mystic from that tradition?

I have read that Dharma refers to reality as-is (in this wikipedia article ). I have also read that it refers to the teachings of the Buddha. Does Dharma refer to both these things? The former seems more like "mindfulness of the present".

**EDIT** At the request of yuttadhammo and Lanka, i am attempting to focus the question. Please let me know if it still remains unclear. The environment is full of daily encounters through the physical, visual, auditory, mental and emotional faculties. Some of these interactions are positive in that they help promote the well being of one-self and other whilst others are negative. It seems all is an illusion especially when some of these interactions out-weigh the other e.g. positive vs negative and vice versa. Often this feels like a battle to bring more positive in light of the negative. The emotional and mental effort required to keep forging ahead seems futile. Repeatedly i am told that meditation is the path however i fail to see how when it seems that it is intended more for me than for me and others. I feel like a battered and wounded lion or soldier. I feel lost. Concepts are unedifying since they further cloud the situation e.g. where truth end and lies start, where right and wrong are right and wrong, etc What does one do? **Original Question** The definition of environment in the context of the question is to do with the daily encounters one has with the world be it through physical interaction, auditory, visual, emotional or mental. Each day, these interactions are positive or negative. An example of positive may be someone assists another in need of help. An example of negative may be when someone is not conducive to the problem or issue at hand or a war stricken land. Sometimes the positive outweigh the negative and vice versa. Sometimes it feels like a battle to bring positive possibilities as you are attempting to shine light in a large area of darkness. - How does one approach this? - How does one remain motivated? - How does one help another through their suffering? - How does one trust another? I may be wrong in my understanding however meditation appears to be an activity for oneself. It does not encompass the wider world. If all is interdependent and interrelated, is this not futile?