If i were to practice some serious brain training regimens for a short period to develop my mundane mental faculties into almost super powers... or even to develop Super mundane powers... 1- Would that enhance my ability to become fully "Enlightened" (not nibanna or arahantship) faster and/or with more ease? 2- Would it help me to help others reach full enlightenment more?

What does the Pali canon, and other respected work, teach about parenting, particularly early fatherhood? In particular the many possibilities for dukkha which arise?

And im looking for a buddhist perspective mainly, preferrably the views of various traditions. But yeah, if i (for example) wanted to be reborn as a bird, would obsessing over and even acting birdlike, practicing a birdlike mentality, living on seed (grain)... even dying with bird thiughts in full swing... stuff like that, would the attachment and desire cause my mind to reform into a bird? (Sidenote- i do not want to be reborn as a bird. It is a valid point i am trying to understand in a round about way).

this subject is so controversial i cant get a solid explanation. i am retrying an attempt to find better advice on the subject of continuing unorthodox methods that are controversial if they are truly of benefit to the individuals practice. (even if they may commonly be detrimental to others.)

What are the scriptural references to working with praise and blame from the Pali Canon? I am specifically looking for answers with - Explanations on the significance of praise and blame, and how they relate to each other. - Stories on how to work with praise and blame. Examples from outside the Pali Canon are also welcome (other traditions, or non-scriptural), but preference will be given to answers that match the above.

I think this all comes from the Visudhimagga's explanation of jhana. I'm not sure there's any references to a term similar to "advert" in the Canon, but I keep running into the term advert without any further explanation in plain English of what that means, and it's a rare kind of word to begin with: > Following this the meditator should try to acquire five kinds of mastery over the jhana: **mastery in adverting**, in attaining, in resolving, in emerging and in reviewing. **Mastery in adverting is the ability to advert to the jhana factors one by one after emerging from the jhana, wherever he wants, whenever he wants, and for as long as he wants**. ... The definition of advert: > 1: to turn the mind or attention —used with to > > 2: to call attention in the course of speaking or writing : make reference —used with to Mastery in adverting means mastery in turning your mind to the jhana factors? So the first step of jhana mastery is the ability to turn your mind to: * applied thought, * sustained thought, * rapture, * happiness and * one-pointedness --after you've emerged from jhana? So after I emerge from jhana, I have to turn my mind to applied thought, then to sustained thought, then to rapture, etc. when and for as my mind wants to, no matter where I am.

There are at least two possibilities, and no doubt many more besides. The first one turns around the Cartesian dictum, "Cogito ergo sum", "I think therefore I am". René Descartes got off to a brilliant start and then promptly took a wrong turn, completely missing the point of his inadvertent discovery. He turned right, taking the very 'doubt' that he took as evidence of his 'existence', making it the keystone of his entire intellectual edifice. Instead, he should have turned left and investigated it. So as to realise it's causal factors, thereby realising it's true nature, "... thus I am simply the result of that thought". The second possibility considers the two Grail Legend questions. "What does it mean?" and, "Whom does it serve?" The first investigates the object of attention. The second investigates the subject himself, using the same principles, in the same way, to find the same answer. One could also think of a teaching given to Carlos Castaneda, Don Juan's "second attention": though others might not agree.

I stumbled across this sutta yesterday (SN 48.58) with a dialogue between the Buddha and Sariputta, which has the following passage: > Considering what benefit, Sariputta, does a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed conduct himself in a way that shows supreme honor towards the Tathagata and the Tathagata's teaching? > > It is, venerable sir, considering as benefit the unsurpassed security from bondage that a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed conducts himself in a way that shows supreme honour towards the Tathagata and the Tathagata's teaching. So far, the question and answer seem a little curious. In the edition I have by Bhikku Bodhi, he added a note pointing out this was puzzling. But there is more. It continues: > And what, Sariputta, is the unsurpassed security from bondage that a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed considers as the benefit when he conducts himself in a way that shows supreme honour towards the Tathagata and the Tathagata's teaching? > > Here, venerable sir, a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed develops the faculty of faith, which leads to peace, leads to enlightenment. He develops the faculty of energy [...] > > Good, good, Saripputa. [...] Now, a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed is, as far as I know, an arahant. Also, even if I were to doubt Bhikku Bodhi's translation, skimming through the pali version (with a dictionary, my pali knowledge is 0) indicated they are not talking about an ordinary bhikkhu ("who has work to be done"), but an arahant -- a *khīṇāsavo bhikkhu*. I tried googling for discussions around this text with no success. So my **question** is: Are there any clues that shed light into this confusion? The confusion of the Buddha approving Saripputa words (and that Saripputa himself would say them, though its not clear if he was already an Arahant himself at the time), which imply that an Arahant still seeks a state of being, devoted to the development of faculties and to reap assiciated benefits. While on a practical side this mostly concerns arahants (ie. if I'm to clear my doubts, I better become one), I'm also curious to know other (possibly notable) suttas that present problems (inconsistencies, etc).

From Theravada view; Recently, I saw the video and I am not sure whether a monk can store food in a refrigerator; From my understanding, a monk cannot store food for next day. I believe this should be in the list of 227 rules but I cannot confirm. Another small question: Is this common sight to see a refrigerator in a monk's room in Theravada monastery? Keeping it like a personal one.

When performing the Nine Purification Breaths (I have it from a separate source, but it is close to the one described by Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche in *Healing with Form, Energy, and Light*) the position of the energy channels depends on whether the individual is male or female. It is described as: > In women the right channel is red and the left is white. In men the right channel is white and the left is red. The central channel is blue in both men and women. The process first removes obstacles linked with male potencies and then obstacles linked with female potencies, breathing in through the red channel first and out through the white, then in through the white and out through the red. Several people I know identify as agendered, genderfluid, or bigendered or otherwise genderqueer. I also know several people who are various forms of intersex. For these individuals, is there a good way to adapt the practice (along with similar practices)? Alternatively are there adaptations for other practices that might be applicable (such as alternations made for *ubhatovyanjañakas* and *paṇḍakas*) or good rules of thumb for approaching these issues?

As the Bodhisattva had to leave his wife and son behind to become the Buddha and as the monks do a similar thing (avoiding marriage etc), I would like to know if this is some kind of precondition to enlightment, if a being needs to stay away from his family for a while and avoid new karmic bonds (marriage/children) in his way to enlightment.

I would like to know if the idea of having a council was something suggested by the Buddha, also I would like to know if he had any influence in the way the teachings are currently grouped.

The main difference (I know) between Buddhism and Hinduism is that the first defends Anātman theory whereas the second defends Ātman theory. What are the main arguments in favor of the Anātman view over the Ātman view?

The Tibetan book of the dead is very famous and widely known, but how about rebirth in the Theravada tradition? Is there anything similar to an intermediate dimension or does death automatically lead to rebirth?

Nagarjuna's ideas are considered to represent the historical starting point of Mahayana Buddhist philosophy. Can his ideas be considered a clarification of the philosophy presented in the Pali canon? And if so, what are the specific ideas in Nagarjuna's thought that are important for that clarification? Or, am I completely wrong in my assumption that Nagarjuna actually contributed anything significant to Buddhist thought? (I'm not afraid of criticisms of my pronouncements).

In [this article](http://himalayancollections.commons.yale.edu/exhibits/show/economic-and-urban-development/commercial-tourism-and-thangka) the author discusses the problems of the commercialization of creating thangkas. Nowadays thangkas are created quickly and sold to tourists in shops in the streets of Lhasa. I was wondering, what exactly makes a Tibetan Buddhist painting a genuine thangka? I know that traditionally thangkas are made according to a ritualistic process and have to follow strict iconography rules. But what exactly is this process? And where can I find information about these rules? In the article the author gives an example of a iconography rule that apparently is formalized somewhere: > Buddhist texts dictate that the Ghanta is at the left hip and the Dorje in the right hand. I know there are books available on this (e.g. [this one](http://www.amazon.com/Tibetan-Thangka-Painting-Methods-Materials/dp/1559392576)) . However, I'm not sure if the information in there is correct and complete. I'd prefer more original sources (translated scriptures) if that's possible.

In Buddhism they teach that life is suffering, that it's all about pain (which is true) and that you should try your best to achieve Nirvana and become someone who won't have any more rebirths. This is something that I've learnt since I was young. So I was wondering, if parents love their child, why do they decide to have a child? I mean Buddhist parents. Now think about it. If parents know life is about suffering and pain and it's not the best thing why would they want it for their child? I mean seriously, if they really love their child and they are pure Buddhists, according to Buddhism they should not feel the need to have a child because that will cause the child to experience all the pains, etc. So as a mother or father, who wants their child to be in pain? I just don't understand, correct me if I'm wrong. I'm a Theravada Buddhist.

I have heard both interpretations, for me it would make more sense to be something from the mind as there is no creator God or its opposite in Buddhism, the image of a "temptator creature" like Satan sounds strange when we think about impermanence, on the other hand, some suttas that mention Mara may fit better with the concept of an external creature, I know this interpretation is questionable, so I'm making the question!

This is inspired by a comment on this meta post . Is the Pali Canon the only canon in Buddhism as it currently stands today? So would the term canon be completely synonymous with Pali Canon in the context of Buddhism? If that is true then what is the status of texts such as Bodhicaryāvatāra which aren't in the Pali canon?

Recently, I found a rather interesting quote of HH Dalai Lama XIV, which he said in Bodhgaya interviews, 1981: > *“Buddhists believe in rebirth. But suppose through various investigative means, science comes one day to a definite conclusion that **there is no rebirth**. If this is definitely proven, then **we must accept it** and we will accept it.”* — [see, for example, here](http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/private/flanagan_lectures/Science_for_Monks.pdf) First of all, it's worth mentioning that this phrase seems to be one of the most progressive thought I have ever seen. However, I would like to know, **how exactly the Buddhist community will behave** in case if, indeed, scientific method proves some day that one of key concepts of Buddhism (not necessarily, rebirth) is not correct. Obviously, it's impossible to rewrite sacral books, rethink important consequences of a mentioned concept, restructure rituals, etc. Also, many people are *happy* with current paradigms, and such discovery may have disastrous effect on many of them.