Talk:Mu (negative)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Wikiproject_Buddhism This article is part of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Mu (negative), or visit the project page for more details on the projects.

I call into question the accuracy of this article... --Furrykef 04:19, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

With reason. I've removed this sentence: It should be noted that the sound, as well as having the meaning described above, could also be the sound a dog makes, 'woof' in English., as Japanese dogs (or, rather, dogs in Japanese) say "wan", not "mu" or "wu" or anything even remotely related. Jpatokal 14:28, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've seen discussion of this koan in many places, and as far as I have understood, this "dog-sound" comment refers generally to the original Chinese "wu", not Japanese "mu" (which sounds more like a cow, not a dog). Although I'm not familiar with any Chinese dogs, either, so maybe someone better versed in sinokynology could help here. --Oop 20:23, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
I have no idea about dogs, but the onomatopoeia for the howl of a wolf in Chinese is generally considered to be wū, which is rather close to wú, though not quite the same (I'm not at a computer with any sort of Chinese language support, so pinyin will have to do.). siafu 23:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Copied text w/o attribution; public domain, but still...

Last para is a near-identical copy of the Jargon File entry; possibly an identical copy of an older version. The Jargon File is public domain, but ESR does request that quoters cite source and version/date. What's Wikipedia etiquette in situations like this? Mike Capp 12:58, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia recommendation is to always cite your sources. --Minority Report (entropy rim riot) 16:34, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Found exact verbage elsewhere

Please see definition 2 in: here . Don't know where it was listed originally, but it seems many sources print the same data. -MexIndian

All of this stuff's wrong. "mu" != "moo"; "mu" = "mue" (Could it be mo/moe?); mu != not, no, nothing; mu = nouht, none. Learn some English. -lysdexia 11:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I don't get it

I don't get how 无 wú is supposed to be so metaphysical. Isn't 无 wú much the same as saying 没有 méiyǒu? i.e. "Q) Have dogs got Buddha-nature? A) No they haven't."

It is sort of cool that it has been turned into an answer to loaded questions, even if that doesn't have much to do with its original meaning.  :) — Helpful Dave 18:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mu != No

In the koan of Joshu, as I've seen it interpreted, his answer of "mu" does not literally mean "no". His mu is closer to the Discordian use of the word. It transcends or nullifies the question. Mumon's commentary on the koan includes a poem that helped me grasp some inkling of meaning:

Has a dog Buddha-nature? This is the most serious question of all. If you say yes or no, You lose your own Buddha-nature.

Source: http://www.ibiblio.org/zen/gateless-gate/1.html

- Rhiannon314

No actually, Mu can be read as "no". Anyone who has read any Chinese Buddhist text will know that there the only term used to express "no", in the sense of "without" or "have not", is "wu". And You (有) and Wu (無) are exactly the two terms used in this debate. The only other commonly used word to express negation is "fei", meaning "is not". Mu does literally mean "no". How you want to understand/interpret it is another matter. Uly 22:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Cantonese character"

I removed the character "冇" from the wiki because it's not equivalent to 無 in Cantonese. They are synonyms, but they have different tones, and are used in different situations in the language.

[edit] Introduction is not great

A couple of comments:

  1. "Some earlier Buddhist thinkers had maintained that creatures such as dogs did have the Buddha-nature; others, that they did not."—This sentence not only interrupts the flow of the explaination. It also IMHO violently misses the point. "Mu" doesn't mean "some say yes, some say no". And it doesn't mean "Both yes and no" either. It means "mu", it means "Nice weather, huh?". I propose we remove this sentence altogether.
  2. "For example, see the accounts of students' struggles with resolving the question of 'Mu' as described in Philip Kapleau's book Three Pillars of Zen."—This is similarly uncalled for. I'll zap it or move it somewhere else, unless somebody can convince me otherwise. Thanks.

PizzaMargherita 18:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

WRT point #1, some background is needed to fully appreciate why a yes/no answer is not suitable: previous Zen thinkers had declared that all creatures had the buddha-nature, so to answer no is to deny their wisdom, wheras to say yes would (appear to, at least) blindly follow their teachings. I'll fix this in a second, as soon as I can find a reference for this. --Sam Pointon United FC 20:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I can't find a suitable reference right now (The first external link talks a little about it, though); I say let it stand for now. On point #2, yeah, it is out of place and needless. It ought to go in See Also, if at all. --Sam Pointon United FC 22:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I added your explaination for point 1, waiting for a reference, because leaving as it is it's worse. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 08:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
it is more famously used as a response to certain koans. Hard to get more famous than musen. The Heart Sutra is probably much more famous than the koan. The wu/mu character features very prominently in the Heart sutra (which only takes 3-4 minutes to recite). Wu/mu appears more than a dozen times there. No form, no perception...no eye...no ignorance, no ending of ignorance...you get the picture.
Some earlier Buddhist thinkers had maintained that creatures such as dogs did have the Buddha-nature; others, that they did not. I'm not sure that's true. If it is true, I think such earlier thinkers would have been alive more than 400 years earlier, in the time of Taosheng, before Bodhidharma, before Zen, certainly before Zhaozhou. Cite?
the expression 'wu' in Chinese is similar to the sound the Chinese use to imitate a dog's 'woof' Uhm, maybe in Cantonese? But not in Mandarin, I don't think...I'm not aware of a scholar here on Wikipedia who knows Old Chinese...anyhow, nowadays the Chinese dog bark is usually transliterated "wang wang", e.g. here
an alternate 'explanation' of the utterance has been proposed suggesting that Zhaozhou was imitating a dog. I think it's simply false. Cite? BTW, that's called using the passive voice to conceal the source. In fact, I think the source was a certain Wikipedian's un-named teacher, and the teacher was totally speculating. I am not aware of any other place you can find this dog bark theory except Wikipedia. And here's a cite that contradicts the "imitating a dog" theory anyway: The Recorded Sayings of Zen Master Joshu, James Green, 1998, Shambala, section 132 on p53; the dialog between Zhaozhou and the monk continues without reference to animal cries; and on page xxi, Green says this text was "in circulation...certainly by the year 1000", well before the Wumenguan/Mumonkan koan collection became available in the 13th century. Also, consider the version of wu/mu koan found in the Book of Serenity/Book of Equanimity. Barking sounds certainly don't seem to have anything to do with that version. Or so it seems to me.
I will get round to fixing this stuff eventually if someone doesn't get to it first. --Munge 09:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I support this cleanup. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 09:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed this parenthetical:

(one anecdote relates of Richard Stallman that he once was asked, in regard to the Editor Wars, if he preferred Vi or Emacs; he answered "Yes.")

As a demonstration of how hackers are sensitive to logical inadequacies it's not interesting enough—answering "yes" to what looks like but is not a disjunction is probably not specific to hackers at all. Delighting in its use as a rhetorical device (as opposed to a stale joke) might be, though. JRM · Talk 22:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simplified character

Is the large image of the simplified character helpful or necessary, really? The text was put down in "traditional" characters, and even in the PRC guwen is often printed using traditional characters. IMHO, the small one in the introduction is plenty, but since it's so big I want to see if there are any objections first. siafu 22:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table

Chinese
Mandarin Wú
Shanghainese
Cantonese mou5
Min Nan
Hakka
Japanese mu
Korean mu

This looks really ugly to me, even if I change it to class="wikitable". There are too many empty boxes. Isn't there a template for this? —Keenan Pepper 19:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/u/_/Talk%7EMu_%28negative%29_7950.html"