Are we talking about "discrimination" or 'discernment' here?
Just because the Buddha bhagavāns are free of all discrimination, doesn't mean that every kid in the park plays football as well as Pele David Beckman ... which is why the Tibetans have never won the World Cup.
Probably translating Viveka - discrimination. Discernment is a synonym, a word meaning separate out and originally popularly applied to tasks like separating out usable charcoal from ashes, wheat from chaff, sheep from goats etc.
There is no dispute within Buddhism that discrimination exists conventionally, the ego exists conventionally, and so on. Buddhism is relativist in that it is both about seeing the world as it is, but also that nothing ”is” permanent. That there is a matrix within which we function but that it’s limited by who we are as human beings, and that with intellect and right thinking/seeing we stay aware of our own limitations and don’t ”grasp” or try to hold onto anything, expecting it to be anything other than transient.
Hence, as per the extract from the Diamond Sutta, that there is both discrimination and non-discrimination, and that one who chooses the way (vehicle) of the boddhisattva is aware there’s choice in ways of seeing, between whether to be discriminating or non-discriminating, and chooses non-discrimination - whilst staying aware of the ”everyday” discrimination that goes on ( - as the choice to be discriminating or not is always present).
I.E. to be in the world but not of it, to 'have nirvana in one eye and samsara in the other' - as the great philosopher
Nagarjuna put it.
The problem with the BKs has been, since the beginning, that everything is hyperbolic and exaggerated.
I would add, absolutist.
The BK beliefs are absolutist and idealist, that conceptual things have own existence, that events are fixed - to the point that the past exists in the future and vice versa, that drama is fixed, that there is such a thing as spiritual status, that it is not only possible for a non-active, non-effective, non-dimensional, thing to be a ‘thing’ - talking about "Supreme Soul God Shiva” here - but that it can then, at a certain time, become active, effective, and interact dimensionally - engage in karma, including making errors - without being altered in any way by it (but mysteriously altering ’the drama’ for the better - in mysterious ways. Faith-demanding gobbledygook.
At every step, the BK teachings, from early Karachi days till now, have been attempting to rationalise a self-absorbed insular narcissism that is overlaid on a common innate human propensity for spiritual experience and experience of individuality/ego differentitation.
It has taken it in the form of spiritual exceptionalism, superiority & persecution complexes, derision of others as inferior and ignorant, fated to be less important, and via appeals to authority, one they self-declare as the highest, to justify whatever belief they are currently peddling.
The creation of "Parampita Paramatma God Father of all souls Shiva” in the 1950s is itself another extraction from the melange that is Hindu culture, probably in the hope of being universally appealing and universally relevant. That would take BKs out of the hindu-acceptable-only godman avatar culture (Prajapati God Brahma) and allow influence by Islam, sikhism, Christianity and Christian school educated followers like ”Mama” to re-rationalise it all and replace it with an ”incorporeal”monotheistic deity - which is still counterproductive because of its parochial claims (eg Mahabharat, Ram Raj, 5k year Kalpa etc).