Is "[Racial color blindness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_color_blindness) " covered in the Buddha's teaching? What would be the closest Buddhist concept that covers it? Is there a scripture that teaches colorblindness? Could it have originated from the Buddha's teaching, Christianity, both or somewhere else? Does anyone know what Thích Nhất Hạnh taught MLK about colorblindness?

For a long time I have wanted to ordain and I might be able to do it in 2-3 years from now. I read that as a westerner one can ordain in the Ven. Ajahn Chah tradition in Thailand. He went to great extends to create a monastery where especially westerners, non-thai speakers could ordain and learn the Dhamma. My question is what kind of Meditation practice is being taught?

In what sutta did the Buddha say: *"Don't let the moment pass you by"*? Thanks.

During meditation in past, it was observed that if focus is maintained on nostrils, tip of nose and center of forehead(between eyebrows) then it causes cold and cough within 2-3 days of such practice. Surprisingly, it was observed whenever it was practised. Tried the same experiment with other fellows at that time, they also had same symptoms, if not sooner then later. In tipitaka, anywhere mentioned about ill-effects of such combination of meditation focus points? Are these ill effects or could be something else, not taken into consideration? Analysis so far- Kayanupashyana and vednanupashyana both are all about focus, observe, analyse body parts (though not always at single area but bit by bit within whole body). There might be somewhere mentioned about such ill effects, if not then either those suttas were burned off or this assumption is wrong or assumption is correct & it might be due to wrong concentration & observation, "upward air entering as cold & sensing nose part nearby forehead leading to formation of runny nose, cold, cough"

If I'm understanding correctly, kukkucca refers to the lack of guilt in the face of wrongdoing and ahirika translates to remorse or guilt. If that is the case, when someone does something bad he's trapped in defilement, either by feeling or by not feeling remorse. Am I missing something in translation?

Please answer without reciting suttas. I hear often it said that one will neither confirm nor deny if they have. If you haven't experienced it why would you not just say you haven't? It seems deceptive to me to not just come out and say "I have not" but instead lead people on being mysterious about it. Straight direct question-- What particular living individuals have experienced Nibbana? Or are most likely to have?

I am curious about the idea of calling *sila* (all precepts and vows) as ethics. When did this translation appeared? Or who interpreted *sila* as ethics or something similar to ethics? This is not to say that it is incorrect or comprehensive, but ethics as a western category of thought has been used as an auxiliary concept to understand sila. Which scholar/s did this?

I'm still learning the Suttas to apply The Buddha's teachings to my life. I haven't read much about the jhanas (which I think the below is related to) so I ask. 1. What does it mean when The Buddha says "signless of the heart?" 2. How does this relate to nothingness or immersion of the heart? 3. What are "signs?" Thank you. SN 40.9 “They speak of this thing called the ‘signless immersion of the heart’. What is the signless immersion of the heart? It occurred to me: ‘It’s when a mendicant, not focusing on any signs, enters and remains in the signless immersion of the heart. This is called the signless immersion of the heart.’ (Excerpt) https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn40/sn40.009.wlsh.html 41.7 And what is the release of the heart through emptiness? It’s when a mendicant has gone to a wilderness, or to the root of a tree, or to an empty hut, and reflects like this: ‘This is empty of a self or what belongs to a self.’ This is called the release of the heart through emptiness. And what is the signless heart’s release? It’s when a mendicant, not focusing on any signs, enters and remains in the signless immersion of the heart. This is called the signless release of the heart.(Excerpt) https://suttacentral.net/sn41.7/en/sujato?layout=plain&reference=none¬es=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin

What is effect of heart on mind in reality? Is it the effect due to coziness felt across the walls of heart (similar to the one felt by a child sitting in the parent's lap) leading to the change in perception, can be bad (ill hearted), can be good(emotional), can be right(compassion). Or Is that effect due to the oxygen interchanged blood? Blood having usedup O2 usually accompanied with various deep rooted sankharas/emotions/pictures/previous-deeds and blood which got injected by fresh O2 has very low quanties of them. This 2nd one seems little clearer and unveils some concepts like,"how come compassion around an arhat's body is so strong" at physical level. Any Buddha's teaching/sutta in this meditation context.

I am looking for a translation in english (or french) of the following book in Chinese Mandarin: 大圆满前行法海 It is a book in the Bön tradition about Dzogchen.

Is there such a thing as objectification in Buddhism? Namely, objectification here means treating someone else as an object, or for their appearance. However, it means also many other things, so I'll just leave the question open. Hence: **What does Buddhism say about objectification?**

I've recently begun reading the new book Cynicism and Magic - Intelligence & Intuition on the Buddhist Path by Chogyam Trungpa. This is my first book by this renowned teacher. In Chapter 3 of this book I read an explanation of the five skandhas I've never seen before. The explanation mesmerized as it stirred memories of a profound experience long ago in my past. After reading this chapter I was struck by the seeming similarity to an answer I vaguely remembered reading on this site about dependent origination. With a little bit of search of the site and remembering it came from our Andriy - I've found it. This answer on D.O. (dependent origination) resonated deeply with me at the time although I was not really sure why. Here is a small excerpt from Chapter 3, page 25-28 of the book: > The starting point for the skandhas is bewilderment. We are completely > bewildered. Not in the sense of stupidity or ignorance, but we are > bewildered in the sense of not having anything to lay our hands on. > Everybody possesses this bewilderment. Whether you call it emptiness, > openness, or groundlessness, it is always there. > > THE FIRST SKANDHA: FORM > > At some point, we try to make a home out of this situation. We would > like to build a secure home out of our bewilderment. We grope all over > the place, not having such a thing as ourselves. Though there *is* a > sense of flow, we make that flow itself an entity, a false entity. > That constant groping creates "you" and "other." A sense of duality, a > sense of separateness develops, which is a false notion. But that > falsity seems to be much more secure than the truth, which has no > substance and which we find somewhat overpowering. We don't want to > face reality -- it's too brilliant, too dazzling, too hot, too cold. > We would like to compromise and make ourselves comfortable. > > You have no idea whether you have the right to do this or not, because > nobody's judging, and that groping process, trying to find a base of > some kind, creates a further sense of being lost. You begin to realize > that you have to provide your own ground, your own seat, your own rug, > your own chair, your own table, your own ceiling, and your own walls. > All kinds of things have to be created, otherwise there isn't anything > at all. That kind of basic panic, or perhaps you could call it basic > creativity, is the origin of the first skandha, what's known as the > skandha of form. You made everything out of nothing. There is a > dichotomy there: you haven't made it, but you have made it, somehow. > You made false out of true. > > According to Buddha's teaching, this first experience of bewilderment > is called "basic bewilderment." It is basic to everything; it's a > constant experience in everyday life. It takes place in every > conversation, between activities, and during activities. Our life is > governed by this false notion of something that we are holding on to. > Traditionally this basic bewilderment is known as *avidya.* *Vidya* in > Sanskrit means "inner cognitive mind functioning," and the *a* at the > beginning means "non," so *avidya* means "ignorance." Avidya is not > cognition in the ordinary sense of the consciousness that functions in > daily life; it is the subconscious mind that has a sense of > double-ness, two-ness and duality. It has a sense of wholesomeness, a > sense of *being.* "I exist because the other exists. Therefore, I > could create my realm and have a sense of being." That experience also > becomes, ironically, very powerfully joyful to a lot of people. We say, > "Phew, we made it. We found it." We found what? We found *it.* There > is *something,* at least there is *something.* What is it? "I don't > know, but nevertheless there is something happening. Isn't that great? > Something is taking place." It is extremely hopeful. It's worth > celebrating. But at this point we are celebrating avidya. We are > celebrating that we are completely stupid. > > And then stupidity replaces bewilderment. Of course, it is really > comfortable to be stupid. You could play dumb, as if nothing is > happening around you, as if everything's okay. You never look around > and you never ask questions. Questions such as "How?" "Why?" "When?" > "Where?" and "What?" are regarded as very dangerous to utter. We > simply say, "is," "am," and "I am." "I," if you just say it by itself, > feels somewhat shaky, unless you say "am," which qualifies the I-ness. > Then we need a further reference point and reassurance, so it becomes > "I am happy," or "I am sad," which qualifies the whole, stupid > statement. "I am happy," or "I am sad," or "I am such and such," is > the utterance of stupidity. > > That's the basic form that we have created, which isn't to say -- and > I would like to emphasize this -- that this situation was created > "once upon a time," that there was a "fall of man" and then everybody > was bad and confused. This experience, this situation, takes place > constantly in our everyday lives. The basis of our operation, and > activity, is bewilderment and stupidity. > > THE SECOND SKANDHA: FEELING > > From there, we develop the second stage of ego's development, which is > the skandha of feeling. You feel piggish, dumb and you are growing -- > now that you have created a solidified self. You have developed a big > head, a thick neck, and a swollen face. Your eyes are tiny, your mouth > can hardly move, and your ears are sinking in. You are almost a > cast-iron statue of "me" sitting there. You can't even turn your head > because your neck is stiff and swollen. You begin to feel that the > silence of the stupidity that you have created is somewhat suspicious. > There may be something wrong. You turn to look around, back and forth, > trying to develop some kind of feeling. From there, we grope around to > experience distinct feedback -- pleasurable, painful or neutral > feelings. It's like the traditional analogy of the pig exploring > piggery, trying to find food, trying to develop some kind of > discrimination. So if you come across a pebble, you reject it; if you > come across a piece of meat or fruit, you try to eat it up. It's a > very simple level of feeling, an animal or ape instinct. > > Maybe you have developed an eloquent or beautiful style, as if nothing > is wrong. You try to hide your clumsiness and try to avoid letting > anybody else see it. We usually try to be very smooth and genteel. > However, that sense of animal-ness or ape-ness is still there, and is > particularly evident when we begin to deal with the sharp edges of our > experience, which we usually ignore. The sharp edges of situations > challenge our stupidity, and present the potential of nonexistence, > nonego. You try to be graceful, but never quite succeed. You feel as > if someone is watching over your shoulder all the time. You are being > extremely clumsy, but at the same time, you are inquisitive. You want > to explore the world outside. You want to give and take at a very > simple level. This is feeling. I want to note a few points that I find unique about this presentation. Please let me know if you read this in the same way? 1. The emphasis on the fact what is described is a constant occurrence in every moment of life. Trungpa specifically emphasizes that he is not talking about a singular event, but rather "this situation, takes place constantly in our everyday lives." 2. In explaining form, Trungpa seems to be starting with the first link in D.O. of Avidya which he describes as basic bewilderment that comes about when primordial mind experiences a non-existent or groundless base. Groundless experience is described as overpowering and uncomfortable. This uncomfortable-ness gives rise to bewilderment. 3. The description of the second skandha really comes across to me vividly as a description of how a baby might see the world. The other impression I get is of someone very confused or high trying to disguise the fact and play off like they are fine. Like someone freaking out or paranoid on weed, but acting as if - or not wanting to admit it to themselves - that everything is fine. And now some questions... Is this presentation unique to Trungpa or can it be found in other dharma? Where can I find Trungpa laying out his presentation of D.O. explicitly? If you read the rest of the chapter he goes on to talk about the other skandhas and it all seems to me like a description of D.O. inline with Andriy's answer but he never mentions D.O. explicitly. Anyone else read this book yet? Any other impressions?

"When the iron bird flies and horses run on wheels, the dharma will come to the land of the red faces" is a quote from ~700AD that is too good to check. It is also the title of a reasonably good documentary about Tibetan Buddhism in the US. Google already said that the "iron bird" is actually the name of a year. What is the surrounding context of this quote?

Having come across someones attraction to the answer, it might be a good question into your community here: So how does the shortest path to liberation looks like? How to abound the five aggregates for a no more take on? *(note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or binding entertainment, but for your possibility to lay down the burden)*

I find it difficult to meditate without guidance. I wish to use guided meditations for my practice. How effective are guided meditation sessions in achieving the benefits of meditation? What is the best way to use guided meditations to maximise their benefits?

I am trying to wear my kasaya while awaiting temporary ordination. I have watched some videos but I seem to be getting stuck after finding the center point and rolling towards me. When I try to put my left arm in and extend it out I’m getting stuck with not enough or too much fabric too, I can’t seem to make it work. Does anyone have any resources? For reference, I have watched these videos a lot: https://youtu.be/YRRzKneG238 https://youtu.be/5mAQa2BOvRw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RwqLJo5_-c&t=92s

Some Indian Hindu philosophers (AFAIK from the Vaisheshika school) argued for the existence of atman like this: ideas, feelings, desires and knowledge need a vessel in which they are contained. And this vessel is what constitutes the eternal, unchanging atman. I'm looking for criticisms of this argument by Buddhist philosophers, i. e. source in English translation (I came across one in a lecture a long time ago - sadly that's all I know).

> As the Buddha says, "What a person considers and reflects upon for a > long time, to that his mind will bend and incline." The above quote is from Nyanaponika Thera, found here at Access to Insight. Does anyone know where the Buddha says that, in the Pali Canon? A google search of the quote was not helpful.

I've hurt a beloved one a lot. I've done something which is unforgivable to this person and the contrition is eating me up. Contrition is, of course, a essential part in learning and preventing mistakes from beeing done multiple times. However, my regret is blocking me, I can't think about anything else. Has Buddha told us anything about this? Of course I have to, and already do, a dialoge with this person. However, how should I handle this within myself?

I've read a lot of english language scholarship on the mahayana, probably about 150 books thoroughly, with notes, though not always with very good notes. I wanted an opinion from a broadly Mahayana perspective, so here's my story. I was a sensitive youth, and had a number of religious like epiphanies while backpacking, before a more intense near visionary one with a basic Buddhist textbook. But this was truncated by a frank insanity: there is schizophrenia in my family. Anyway, my psychosis is doing a good job of shrivelling up with medication and therapy. But before all that, and before I clawed back some sense of Buddhism from my relatively committed reading habits, did I have an authentic religious (or Mahayana) moment? Or was it a religious delusion and / or escapism? How do I tell? I had taken a couple of Thai meditation classes, and since then have sat with a couple of zen groups, and attended a 7 day ch'an retreat. No-one took much interest, but then I am **near** broken now. I'm not asking for authentication from a web community, only: 1. What is bodhisattvahood in personal practice: is it OK to believe one (has or) did have that quality? 2. Does anyone *here* suppose they are a bodhisattva, without any group accreditation and with little engagement - outside their own personal striving / story / narrative? More esoteric or indeed polemical answers, are of course weclome.