Zen wisdom
++ CLICK for: Daily latest trending videos ++
How do we explain what cannot be explained? This question has inspired many myths, religious practices, and scientific investigations.
But the followers of Buddhism who practiced their rituals across China from the ninth to thirteenth centuries, they asked another question. . Why do we need an explanation? For these monks, it was a blind pursuit.
Behind the answers is a sin that must be eliminated, and learning to accept the mysteries of existence was the right way to enlightenment. However, resisting the desire to explain.
What cannot be explained can be difficult. So to help live with these secrets, meditating monks use a group.
It includes about 1,700 mysterious and mysterious philosophical experiences called. The name, originally in Chinese ,Translates into “public record or case.”
But unlike real-world court cases, a group was intentionally opaque. It was strange, fictional.
On the monastic law of Buddhism, such as living without a physical or mental attachment to anything, avoiding binary thinking and realizing the true “nature of Buddha” of an individual.
But putting those lessons in a frame Illogical tales have become tests that help practicing monks learn to live with mystery and contradiction.
Through attempts to solve these confusing issues, the contemplative monks were able to comprehend Buddhist teachings and practice.
Hoping they will give up the search about one correct answer and achieve a spiritual achievement. Since these things are not explained intentionally, it would be misleading to try to decode these stories are our own.
But like the monks who have preceded, we can try to solve them together, and consider how resistant they are to simple interpretations.
Here are the illustrations. The principle of non-attachment. There are monks, and, they travel together on a muddy road in front of them, an attractive traveler unable to cross the muddy road.
He displays her help politely, carrying the woman traveling on his back, crossing the street, and then putting her down on the floor without a word.
He was shocked. According to the monastic law, monks are not supposed to get close to women, let alone touch a beautiful stranger. After miles of walking, he can no longer restrain his anger. “How did you get pregnant with that woman?”
He smiled, saying, “I left traveling there. You still carry it? ”Like all types of koan, this story has many interpretations.
But one famous explanation suggests that although he was not physically induced to travel, he broke the monastic law by “attaching” it to the woman mentally.
This type of discrepancy, which falls within the gray area between the text and the spirit of the law is common in groups.
In addition to exploring mystery, she often made fun of characters who claim a full understanding of the world around her.
Examples include three monks, discussing a temple flag fluttering in the air. The first monk refers to science as a moving flag, the second monk insists however, they do not see the movement of science, but rather the gusts of wind.
They keep arguing Until a third monk finally interferes, “It is neither the movement of science nor the wind blowing, but rather the movement of your minds!”
In the alleged wisdom of the two controversial monks – the first stresses the importance of the visible world, and the second prefers a deeper knowledge we can inferred from that world.
But every monk held fast to his blind “response” from the other’s point of view and thus, violates a basic principle of Buddhism: Stay away from binary thinking.
The third monk describes their conflict as cognitive conflict, incapable of both contending monks about seeing the big picture.
Of course, all these explanations only indicate how to try to solve this. No wisdom practicing monks who were before us, nor the characters that are supposed being wise in these canes can solve it for you.
This is because the purpose of this It is not a simple solution. He did the feuding himself to try solving these paradoxical puzzles, which challenges our desire to arrive at an answer, and our understanding of the understanding itself.