Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Beginning koan, or the dreaded "MU!"
Cinorjer
Veteran
I've put this in Buddhism for Beginners because this koan is frequently the beginning koan for anyone choosing to follow a Zen school that uses these.
Let's face it, koans are scary. Facing a Master with your feeble and flawed understanding of one of these is like taking a test where the Teacher lectures in a foreign language and responds to your own questions with, "Work it out for yourself!"
So here's the most famous koan in the world, for some reason:
A monk asked Joshu, "Does a dog have Buddha-nature or not?"
Joshu replied, "Mu!" (Not!)
So, what did Joshu mean by "Mu!"?
All right, a big part of the fame in the English world is the happy accident that Mu and Moo sound the same and every child knows what sound a cow makes. So first get it out of your system. "Moo! I'm an enlightened cow!"
Everyone back from the pasture? Now, the next thing to notice is that, no matter what language the koan is translated into, Joshu's answer is left untranslated. Mu means without, not, nothing, and in fact is a prefix that means without. Muichimon means without pennies, penniless, for instance. This is because the sound "Mu" is used as a mantra or aid to meditation for beginners, like some people use "Om". The beginner focuses on the answer, not the question. You repeat "Mu" with each outgoing breath until Mu fills your mind.
(inhale, exhale...mu)
(inhale, exhale...mu)
Mu what? Just mu. Mu, mu, mu.
For us, we might as well meditate on the word "Without". Without what? Just without.
But the koan also contains wisdom within its nonsense. To go further, here is the entire, original koan.
A monk asked, "Does a dog have a Buddha-nature or not?"
The master said, "Nothing!" (Mu!)
The monk said, "Above to all the Buddhas, below to the crawling bugs, all have Buddha-nature. Why is it that the dog has not?"
The master said, "Because he has the nature of karmic delusions".
Now, to answer the koan means penetrating Buddha-nature. Hidden within this brief exchange is something fundamental, something new students of Zen must realize before they can start down the path.
So, why did the Master tell the monk that the dog had karmic delusions? What is the Master trying to point out to the monk?
Let's face it, koans are scary. Facing a Master with your feeble and flawed understanding of one of these is like taking a test where the Teacher lectures in a foreign language and responds to your own questions with, "Work it out for yourself!"
So here's the most famous koan in the world, for some reason:
A monk asked Joshu, "Does a dog have Buddha-nature or not?"
Joshu replied, "Mu!" (Not!)
So, what did Joshu mean by "Mu!"?
All right, a big part of the fame in the English world is the happy accident that Mu and Moo sound the same and every child knows what sound a cow makes. So first get it out of your system. "Moo! I'm an enlightened cow!"
Everyone back from the pasture? Now, the next thing to notice is that, no matter what language the koan is translated into, Joshu's answer is left untranslated. Mu means without, not, nothing, and in fact is a prefix that means without. Muichimon means without pennies, penniless, for instance. This is because the sound "Mu" is used as a mantra or aid to meditation for beginners, like some people use "Om". The beginner focuses on the answer, not the question. You repeat "Mu" with each outgoing breath until Mu fills your mind.
(inhale, exhale...mu)
(inhale, exhale...mu)
Mu what? Just mu. Mu, mu, mu.
For us, we might as well meditate on the word "Without". Without what? Just without.
But the koan also contains wisdom within its nonsense. To go further, here is the entire, original koan.
A monk asked, "Does a dog have a Buddha-nature or not?"
The master said, "Nothing!" (Mu!)
The monk said, "Above to all the Buddhas, below to the crawling bugs, all have Buddha-nature. Why is it that the dog has not?"
The master said, "Because he has the nature of karmic delusions".
Now, to answer the koan means penetrating Buddha-nature. Hidden within this brief exchange is something fundamental, something new students of Zen must realize before they can start down the path.
So, why did the Master tell the monk that the dog had karmic delusions? What is the Master trying to point out to the monk?
0
Comments
Stingy in Teaching
A young physician in Tokyo named Kusuda met a college friend who had been studying Zen. The young doctor asked him what Zen was.
"I cannot tell you what it is," the friend replied, "but one thing is certain. If you understand Zen, you will not be afraid to die."
"That's fine," said Kusuda. "I will try it. Where can I find a teacher?"
"Go to the master Nan-in," the friend told him.
So Kusuda went to call on Nan-in. He carried a dagger nine and a half inches long to determine whether or not the teacher was afraid to die.
When Nan-in saw Kusuda he exclaimed: "Hello, friend. How are you? We haven't seen each other for a long time!"
This perplexed Kusuda, who replied: "We have never met before."
"That's right," answered Nan-in. "I mistook you for another physician who is receiving instruction here."
With such a beginning, Kusuda lost his chance to test the master, so reluctantly he asked if he might receive Zen instruction.
Nan-in said: "Zen is not a difficult task. If you are a physician, treat you patients with kindness. That is Zen."
Kusuda visited Nan-in three times. Each time Nan-in told him the same thing. "A physician should not waste time around here. Go home and take care of you patients."
It was not yet clear to Kusuda how such teaching could remove the fear of death. So on his fourth visit he complained: "My friend told me when one learns Zen one loses the fear of death. Each time I come here all you tell me is to take care of my patients. I know that much. If that is your so-called Zen, I am not going to visit you any more."
Nan-in smiled and patted the doctor. "I have been too strict with you. Let me give you a koan." He presented Kusuda with Joshu's Mu to work over, which is the first mind enlightening problem in the book called The Gateless Gate.
Kusuda pondered this problem of Mu (No-Thing) for two years. At length he thought he had reached certainty of mind. But his teacher commented: "You are not in yet."
Kusuda continued in concentration for another year and a half. His mind became placid. Problems dissolved. No-Thing became the truth. He served his patients well and, without even knowing it, he was free from concern over life and death.
Then when he visited Nan-in, his old teacher just smiled.
the student probably heard about buddha nature from somewhere and he/she held onto that as wisdom/knowledge.
the master knowing this and in his being knowing that all is buddha nature in that moment ask the question and said NO.
obviously the master doesn't care about being wrong/right because he was trying to get the students mind to stop and realize. the master brought the koan up in the right moment and situation to awaken his student.
this koan is a koan that many use to awaken students. mostly in the function to break prior assumptions on language and conceptual overlay. buddha nature is reality but not "buddha nature".
the words point to something that cannot be named.
well that's my take on it.
I once pointed out to a Teacher that one of the old Masters disagreed with his teaching, and asked if that meant the old Master was wrong. His reply, "That is his understanding, this is mine. What's yours?"
we work with where our minds are.
I loved the story and have begun to enjoy the "101 Zen Story" website. I love these old zen stories.
So don't disregard simple understanding as a necessary starting point to knowing, even if there is a difference between saying "I understand" and "I know". A tiny step that makes all the difference in the world.
So start with understand, because only then can you move to know. Don't use the incomplete nature of understand as an excuse not to dive into the koan and chew on it. Chewing comes before the swallowing, that's all.
In the complete koan above, the dharma combat is subtle but follows an ancient pattern between monk or student and Master. The monk asks a simple question about Buddha-nature, so simple he might as well have asked, "Does the sun rise in the East or West?" He asks if dogs have Buddha-nature, while the next words out of his mouth show he's well aware of the answer. After the Master answers with the obvious wrong choice of "Mu" or no, the monk even gives the right answer that he knew all along, the one he expected the Master to give. The one the Master probably taught him. "All beings have Buddha-nature."
And the final words from the Master point to the lesson he's trying to teach the monk. Illusions have no Buddha-nature, only reality. The Master says the hypothetical dog that the monk is asking about is made of (has the nature of) illusions. So the Master's answer holds a deeper understanding. Which dog has no Buddha-nature? The dog that the monk has in his head. The monk's idea of what a dog is, not the reality. That dog has no Buddha-nature because it's not the real dog walking around. The Master is making this point.
To ask, "Does a dog have Buddha-nature" is exactly the same as asking "Do I have Buddha-nature". No difference. You want an answer? Then instead of worrying about a dog, ask yourself, What am I? Do I have Buddha-nature? If so, then where is it? What is it?
So the monk understands Buddha-nature, but the Master knows Buddha-nature. The difference between understanding concepts and knowing is all the difference in the world.
The sun shines on the hill.
Why do koans use the language of metaphor of dharma combat rather than other systems of communication and organization of thought?
One immediate problem a teaching that stresses intuitive knowledge beyond words has, how do you teach it when all you have are words and concepts? We use a lot of metaphor and illustrative stories. But having taught "it", how do you know if the student "gets it"? Well, thinking through concepts and deciding between right and wrong answers takes time. So Dharma Combat allows the student to test his or her understanding, because it requires a spontaneous reaction. No time to ponder or choose what you think the Master wants to hear, or what the old Masters said should be the answer, or do what we call "checking". You are presented with a situation, and you respond. It is, in fact, a martial art of the mind.
The combat has a limited range of topics, and a symbolic language. It has opening moves and counter attacks. It can involve ancient koans or be something the monk does on the spur of the moment.
But better have your Dharma warmed up and ready to go if you take on one of the Masters. That koan where the unknown monk took on Master Joshu with the trick question about Buddha-nature? The monk got curb stomped by the Master.
Thats interesting. I think it has the advantage of piercing through clinging to intellectual. At the same time not every realization is rapid I would guess. And those that were not rapid would go unheard. If you have insight too slow it does not mean you do not understand anything. Insight is NOT conceptually bound and thus is outside of time.
I dug around, and here is a link to a transcript of an actual formalized dharma combat session in the Kwan Um Zen school. http://www.kwanumzen.org/2001/transmission-dharma-combat-2/
This is after a dharma transmission ceremony for Master Dae Kwan, where the guests get to challenge the new Master with questions. Note the formal but playful nature. After the question, the Master responds first "You already understand", is asked to answer anyway, and gives her answer, a followup if needed and then eventually is thanked. The questions and answers are mostly of the "Just like this" variety with a few "Silly questions get silly answers" thrown in. The new Master will also give a dharma speech, and the Kwan Um website contains some great transcripts of these.
Note also Kwan Um ordains both men and women as Masters, no distinction. Master Dae Kwan is remarkable woman.
Question: Am I correct in saying that often the teacher in the dharma combat directed the student to come to the present moment?
Answer: You already know!
Question: But can you please explain?
Answer: Where were student and the teacher?