Glad to hear that! Koan work-with patience-can be increasingly enlightening! Patience and curiosity, and a willingness to go beyond the known and words, will bring you great gifts!
Love this one. Thank you. Somehow I'm reminded of the wonderful statement from Alfred Korzybski: "THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY". When the 'Buddha Nature' is some kind of verbal or conceptual description or "map" then the dog is not the map. The dog is the non-conceptual territory itself. So, no, the dog does not HAVE Buddha Nature. And yet at the same time that's all there is as the dog (and the one who is aware of it). Buddha nature has the dog. Hmmmmmm.......
The monk was misled by his assumptions about dogs and about Buddha Nature. Chozu was not misled when he said "No" one time and "Yes" on another occasion.
@@MountainGateNM indeed, for when a topic is moot, both answers are incorrect and correct at the same time. Curious, incongruous, trans-linguistic puns aside, Chuzo was probably answering the questioner rather than the question. And in a sense this is what we all do.
According to an obscure manuscript only discovered in 2018, the original character in the koan is actually "哞" (mōu). This is the sound a cow makes. Obviously this means that that guy was calling the monk a cow for asking such a question, and as we all know the Japanese worship cows as divine brutes.
This is interesting. How really is it different from meditating without a koan? I've been meditating without koans for a while now. Does it just give me something to come back to, or should I take it as an object of my concentration? I usually just try to stay in my awareness and try to pay attention to where it goes, falling back to sounds or breath if need be.
Koans are used for two different reasons. The first is that it can help keep people engaged in their practice because of the conundrums they pose, and the second is that unless people have a "natural" koan that would keep them curious, exploring wordlessly (because that's the only true route to enlightenment), it can fulfill that need. The idea in working with koans is not to use it as an object of concentration, but to use the doesn't-make-sense-yet-ness of a koan to engage that beyond-words questioning/curiosity. (What do you mean, "Does a dog have the Buddha nature? Of COURSE it does!" Except that Joshu said, "No," it doesn't. It is the puzzlement, the perplexity, that comes up when working on a koan that is the real "meat" of the koan. Koans are not mantras, which are words or phrases used to bring the mind back to a word or phrase when it strays. That provides a mindfulness basis, but working with koans-and true Zen practice itself-doesn't stop there. It can go far, far deeper if we're willing to do so. I hope this helps answer your question?
@@MountainGateNM oh thank you. that gives me some perspective as to their use. i am trying to advise myself as to whether i want to be interested in koan study. i have a few people to talk to about this. i attended sesshin a month ago and that was very rewarding and it is still integrating itself into my life (and the lives of the people around me, who didn’t ask for anything at all to change with me). i have no lack of curiosity while sitting these days it seems. i think i could do koan study, or stay with zazen, at this point. thank you for your response. i like your videos and your voice.
It’s funny. I am staying up at my mom’s while our apartment is painted. She’s up near a beautiful park (maybe you know it, Fort Tryon in NYC) and I’ve been going there because it’s nice and I have nothing to do. People come there with their dogs. I don’t have a dog, but I often feel like I can relate to the person-dog dyad in that I’m taking myself on a walk, leash and all. So the thing I found interesting, is that one reason people have dogs, is because their dogs have such unconditioned awareness, and people can become very happy being around this and in fact feed off of it. However it’s not as easy for people to be there for themselves in the same way. The list of reasons is long.
I thought the dog story was that a dog behaves naturally and without artificial intent and that the nature of being a Buddha is to be content and organic within your nature? Whereas the monk saying Mu finds the idea of the dog derogatory in analogy. If it's present in the dog no it's because it doesn't think exactly like a buddha but yes because it is natural in it's expression.
@@MountainGateNM Intellectual or not, ignorance is evident for the inattentive. Also the Buddha was a very logical entity. All kinds of Buddhism have their different emphasis. Shinto for example's axiomatic principle is that the universe is nature and that nature and all things natural are good. To purge yourself and become less or open like the circle is the part of goodness in essence. This same view can be easily applied to the dog and that all things in nature are good, but not all things in nature are exactly like the Buddha. If you go with Vajrayana Buddhism then experience and thought are necessary towards escaping the reincarnation cycle. Wisdom comes from intelligent observation and reflection, Zen, to meditate and absorb. Whereas concepts of Mushin and Zanshin have their own place. But without intelligent discourse why would the Tibetans spend so much of their time creating an apprenticeship? Same thing in the book Zen in the Art of Archery by TP Legett. The whole experience is one of profound guidance, practice and reflection. Sharing the experience more than words but plenty of guidance still. Also, I don't think a human would invent puzzles that couldn't be easily understood eventually otherwise what's the point of leaders if they can't convey their wisdom accurately in any field? Civilisations would have fallen if Zen and Buddhist practices were truly impossible to fathom. Innocence, sincerity and openness of mind seem to the greatest applications. If intelligence was a poison it would be listed as one of the three poisons. A truly intelligent person is enlightened by their experience as they progress. Delusion, Attachment and Aversion are not intrinsic of intelligence but the hearts of people. The greatest sin of Buddhism that was rectified from poor practitioners who exercised detachment to a point of apathy. Individuals of the Samurai class were examples of this to excuse nonchalant bloodshed. But Neo-Confucianism would not have sprung up at all if not for this fact, I hope your meditations find deeper wisdom. But in case you haven't understood me properly I will finish with Einstein. The story may not actually be true but like a good Koan it has obvious wisdom and the event itself isn't of importance. "One day Albert Einstein wrote on the board: 9 x 1 = 9 9 x 2 = 18 9 x 3 = 27 9 x 4 = 36 9 x 5 = 45 9 x 6 = 54 9 x 7 = 63 9 x 8 = 72 9 x 9 = 81 9 x 10 = 91 The chaos started suddenly in the hall because Einstein made a mistake. This was Einstein! How could this genius get such a simple equation wrong? Correct answer 9 × 10 =. And all his students ridiculed him. Einstein waited for everyone to be silent and had a powerful lesson that no one soon forgot: "Despite the fact that I analyzed nine problems correctly, no one congratulated me. But when I made one mistake, everyone started laughing. This means that even if a person is successful, society will notice his slightest mistake. And they'll like that. So don't let criticism destroy your dreams. The only person who never makes a mistake is someone who does nothing. "" You quickly assumed my western logic and asked no questions and gave no positive thoughts. Buddhism is definitely about more generosity but in the Einstein fashion, intelligently.
@@DinoDiniProductions banbutsu ruten, ritsu do and chowa. Your words are an illusion because all things are in a state of motion, everything is rhythmic and flowing, but a mind not capable of mushin and zanshin cannot understand harmony. Buddhism is an exploration of the self and all states of being. Not a void. Try again.
Best explanation I've heard so far about how to work with "mu." I felt for awhile that there's a cultural context that's usually not explained; for example, in Kapleau's Three Pillars of Zen his teacher, Yasutani Roshi, emphasized becoming one with the koan without providing this context. For this reason, Americans often treat MU as a mantra, like OM, but it's really more akin to asking an Orthodox Jewish person, "does a pig have Buddha nature or not" or asking a Hindu person, "does a cow have Buddha nature or not?" Thank you for the clarification.
