On the objects of gravity - And the dog

"A monk asked Joshu, a Chinese Zen master: 

`Has a dog Buddha-nature or not?'

Joshu answered: `Mu.'" [無 = emptiness, nothingness, 'not']

(excerpt from https://www.ibiblio.org/zen/gateless-gate/1.html)

Taking into consideration the text above, and If we discard any prejudices that may come with the understanding of what religion is and its purpose, we will realise that reading Buddhist literature is one good way to open our minds to a different pathway: the "no concept" stream of consciousness.

It's true that to read the excerpt above from a conceptual and prejudiced perspective will only add to our prejudices, either in regards to the uselessness of religion or the inferiority of dogs or some other stereotypes that may be roaming about our minds. The first impression, however, will always be that of outrage, from a Western point of view.

But what if the way we are reading it is wrong?

If you follow the Buddhist thought process, you will know that we must disregard the emotions that come as a reaction, and try to understand the text we are reading without underestimating what it is trying to provoke on us. In addition, in Buddhism, the path to right understanding will never be that of conceptualization, even though many scholars may try. And, in some way, I am trying here.

Therefore, by first ignoring our prejudices and emotions, we can then open our minds to discard them and consequently try to understand the aforementioned excerpt -- without conceptual thought. And by not conceptualizing the meaning of the words, we will arrive at a different understanding of the text, which is a much more all-inclusive than fragmentary one.

That which I defend here is to follow the same thought process in considering objects and tools when investigating or even in our daily lives. There is a great probability that the way we approach and use tools is wrong from the start, because of our biases, dogmas, and prejudices. When we use them, the tools, in a scientific investigation, for example, in a way or another we are deciding their results in advance. And the objects will never truly show themselves to us beyond what we are inclined to see, which is, in most cases, fragmentary and incomplete.

In a possible field of new physics, this change in approach may be what is missing for us to start understanding and translating things in a more all-inclusive way, and thus be able to progress in the fields of physics and, possibly, consciousness' awareness too.

Karinna Alves Gulias