Latest post:

Discernment is not verbalisation
February 2nd, 2014
illustration

illustration (attribution, if any possible, is at the end of the article)

Discernment is not verbalisation

A few hours ago, I wrote about non-duality and explaining how this is different from non-discernment (gplus.wallez.name/F3EAbHBZnTE). Maybe I forgot an important mention though.

Mumon would state:
« To realise this wondrous thing called Enlightenment,
you must cut off all (discriminating) thoughts. »

Was I going against Mumon? How dare I? ;-)

Well, I wasn't.

Discerning nuances, paying attention to them, is different from labelling them.

Imagine the continuous spectrum of perceivable colours (or sounds, etc.) and intensity. No matter how many colour or instrument names you come up with, it will be a finite and relatively small number of discrete words, incapable of capturing the richness of the continuum at hand. You are  already capable of discerning subtleties you cannot talk about! You have buddha-nature… Do you tune in the richness of these nuances, and make your responses wiser and more appropriate from the wealth of clues available, or do you stick to a discretised and caricatural view of the world limited to words and mental fabrications?


Mumon's
« To realise this wondrous thing called Enlightenment,
you must cut off all (discriminating) thoughts. »
is thus interpreted
« To realise this wondrous thing called Enlightenment,
you must cut off all (discretising) thoughts. »
You're naturally able to do so! And this is not the same as dropping discernment, or as becoming stupid and un-responsive! How many words to you have for the nuances in just one "mono-chrome" photo vs. how many nuances can you perceive (knowing that this is a digital photo anyway, i.e. reality is even more nuanced)?


Consider crowd-funding buddhist teachings!
gplus.wallez.name/MaoLAeN8ND5

#Buddhism   #Dharma   #Zen  
Photo: © ИРИНА САВАТЕЕВА (savateeva.com)