Um wow, that was very articulate Ryhorikawa, gave me many things to think about. I find it interesting the different places we are all at and the different ways one thing can be seen by all. Again I guess perception is key when we ask a group what is Zen or to explain Mu. And if we are being in the moment then our perception of the answer we gave is truly in the past right? And each of our perceptions of the world are truly subjective no? When compared to the larger context of the world we are only perceiving just a small part. I am fairly new to Zen, no teachers, so please forgive me if my perceptions may differ, again ::big smile:: I am in flux no? And I teach myself to the best I can understand. For me there are two points that have led me to Zen, one in the past and one that is in constant flux and a constant struggle. I hope this does not sound silly, but it means something to me. 7 years ago I had a dream, and in the dream I laid down and went to sleep, so I was dreaming inside my dream, and from that inner dream I was shown that everything is "Make Believe", if we believe it, we make it..I woke up from the dream within the dream and I started laughing because I realized how simple it all was I was laying on a make believe bed, with a make believe body, surrounded by make believe walls. There was something about it that seemed absurd, in the sense of the importance we place on things, and with this laughing I had a strange sensation. It felt like my body was liquid and I was being squeezed from a tube of toothpaste...and being pushed out into nothingness. I actually stopped laughing and started crying I became scared. This dream pushed me out of the everyday acceptance of my world and asking questions. The second thing: My mind never stops. Since I was a child, there seems to be a need for constant input. I'll read six books at a time, I won't sleep for days because my mind cannot let go of a theory or an idea. I try hard to meditate and find a place of "no mind" but it's a struggle, it's as if my mind is it's own entity and I have to try to interrupt it's talking long enough to ask it to please be quiet. I do believe my over thinking things and over analyzing things leaves me not experiencing the moment, myself, the world, others around me. I sometimes think myself right out of an experience with all the "what ifs", letting fear creep in. So for me Zen is my companion, my reminder, my guide and my compass to "no mind". I think if I can finally turn my mind off and learn to be, I won't be scared of that dissolving into nothingness feeling. That for me is Zen, at least at this moment, in this particular wave of flux ::wink:: Theresa
ryhorikawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- In [email protected], Theresa Lovegrove < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I took it as Mu meant it's not yes it's not no, it has no answer..yes? -Theresa Bill, thanks for that really thoughtful and articulate posts on Mu and koans... Let me be transparent about where I'm coming from: I'm am not speaking from a place of confidence at all. I have faith that I am "on the Journey" but whether or not I am is another issue. At times I feel like I have tremendous clarity... at other times, I know I am buried deep in the muck... "Mu" ... "koans".. I guess it really comes down to how each of us answers the question "What is Zen?"... In addition to what you and everyone has so eloquently said in previous posts, for me, Zen is also the rejection of certainty. Certainty - for me - arises from a place where one has taken refuge. I think Zen is about the radical rejection of these places of refuge (which includes teachers and teachings). What resonates with me about Theresa's above post is the sense of this embrace of the journey of "ambiguity"... of the relentless rejection of certainty and refuge. From where I'm standing (and again it is without doubt a flawed "place"), koans - for someone like me - have "outcomes" but I'm not sure I "agree" with you, Bill, that koans "definitely have answers/responses"... I do totally agree with you, Bill, that Joshu's response of "mu" to the question of whether a dog has Buddha-nature really has nothing to do with a dog, Buddha-nature or "mu". If pressed to articulate what I think is the outcome of koans, clearly, for me, it comes around to "What is Zen?" And so, as I said in a previous post: Zen is the "erasing" of the boundaries between the "transcendent" and the "phenomenal" in whatever way we "chop our wood" and "carry our water" ... AND where every "act"/action (i.e., every aspect of our "chopping of wood" and "carrying of water") works to alleviate the suffering of all sentient and non-sentient beings. Flawed as it is, this is the nature of my Zen journey... As a sidenote, in the "Chao-chou-ta-shih-yu-lu" where the Joshu's "Mu" koan appears, Joshu (or Chao-chou in Chinese) has three responses to the question as to whether a dog possesses Buddha-nature: 1) "Mu"/'nai" ; 2) "U"/ "aru" and 3)no response at all - only silence The first response is the one most people have heard and in English "mu" is commonly translated as "no". On a totally petty and technical note, Bill, I lovingly disagree with you that "Linguistically the Japanese word 'mu' just means 'no'..." The character "mu" is held up in many circles as a classic example of what Japanese call "aimai kotoba" or "ambiguous language". Unlike Chinese in which each character has only one pronunciation, Japanese characters usually have several ... In the case of "mu", the character can be pronounced several ways in which "mu" is just one. ... And, in terms of meaning, there are differences in nuances between the pronunciations. If the "answer" to the koan was intended "simply" to be "NO", the Japanese Zen commentators would undoubtedly have indicated this nuance by pronouncing the character not as "mu" but as "nai". But it is clear that the prounciation is not "nai" but "mu". I think there is "intentionality" in the use of the pronunciation "mu" and that intentionality is a nod (or finger pointing) towards "emptiness". For me, what works is saying that Joshu responded "Empty!" (rather than "nai" or "NO!") - or "Form!" (rather than "aru" or "YES!" )to the question as to whether a dog possesses Buddha-nature. In any event, this linguistic pairing of "Mu" (--> emptiness) and "U" (--> form) is what I think Frank was getting at in his really well written post on the non- duality of form and emptiness. (Frank, forgive me if I am misrepresenting your position) If it is, then isn't this the metaphorical "context" in which the Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara (the personification of unconditional compassion for the suffering of all sentient beings) delivers the "Heart Sutra"? Struggling in the Dharma :-), ryhorikawa Current Book Discussion: Appreciate Your Life by Taizan Maezumi Roshi SPONSORED LINKS Zen buddhism Zen practice Theravada buddhism Tibetan buddhism Zen alarm clock Zen garden --------------------------------- YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "ZenForum" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Click here to rescue a little child from a life of poverty. http://us.click.yahoo.com/rAWabB/gYnLAA/i1hLAA/S27xlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Current Book Discussion: Appreciate Your Life by Taizan Maezumi Roshi Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZenForum/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
