I am the Hearing of hearing,
... I am the source of all hearing, therefore I hear no sound,
I am the Seeing of seeing,
... I am the source of all seeing, therefore I see no form,
I am the Feeling of feeling,
... I am the source of all feeling, therefore I feel no touch,
I am the Smelling of smelling,
... I am the source of all smelling, therefore I smell no odour,
I am the Tasting of tasting,
... I am the source of all tasting, therefore I taste no flavour,
I am the Cognising of cognising,
... I am the source of all cognising, therefore I know no concept.
Being the source of all sentience, I am Insentient.Sound, sight, contact, odour, flavour, knowledge are not as such,
For what I am they are.
What is heard is my Hearing, seen is my Seeing, felt is my Touching,
What is tasted is my Tasting, cognised is my Cognising,
But I am neither cogniser nor cognised,
For the suchness of cognising is my nature.
I am the Acting of acting, the Functioning of functioning,
But I neither act nor function,
I am the Experiencing of experiencing,
But I cannot experience experiencing,
For I have no self.
I am time-less and in-finite,
For what space-time is I am.
Note: As far as I happen to be aware, no one has stated in print what was factually implied by the terms Prajna and Dhyana as used by the great Masters of China - except Dr. Suzuki. Since this essential meaning is completely obscured by the usual scholastic rendering, the above attempted definition may be submitted.
Dhyana, of course, implies the static or potential aspect of what we are, whose dynamic aspect is Prajna, and Prajna may be described as the immanence of Dhyana which is our transcendence.
