By Steven Heine
The Mu Koan (or Wu Gongan in Chinese pronunciation), in which
master Joshu says “Mu” (literally “No,” but implying Nothingness) to an
anonymous monk’s question of whether a dog has the Buddha-nature, is
surely the single most famous expression in Zen Buddhist literature and
practice. By virtue of its simplicity and indirection, this expression
becomes emblematic of East Asian spirituality and culture more
generally. Entire books have been published on the topic on both sides
of the Pacific.
However, in conducting research for a new monograph titled Like Cats and Dogs: Contesting the Mu Kōan in Zen Buddhism,
I have been surprised to find how little seems to be known about the
origins and implications of the koan case record. My studies suggest
that this is one more example of commonly-held myths based on long-held
beliefs and customs often overtaking and suppressing investigative
scholarship.
Myth One. An Expression by Joshu
Although almost all commentators attribute the word Mu to Joshu, who
was said to have lived for 120 years and died near the end of the ninth
century, the case is not mentioned in the earliest records of his
teachings composed in the tenth and eleventh centuries. Joshu was better
known at the time for many other famous koans, including a case in
which his master Nansen cuts a cat in two and Joshu, in response to this
violent act, puts his sandals on his head. Early Zen records do include
a dialogue about the dog’s Buddha-nature involving another monk who
lived a generation prior to Joshu, which concludes in a much more
open-ended and ironic fashion, as well as a dialogue about the
Buddha-nature in relation to an earthworm being cut in two featuring yet
another disciple of Nansen.
Myth Two. Doctrine of Unapologetic Denial
While commentators generally refer to Joshu’s unapologetic denial in
response to the monk’s probing query about the doctrine of the
universality of ultimate reality, reading over the voluminous Zen texts
from China and Japan reveals that the koan tradition holds at least a
dozen versions of the case. These include: (1) the Mu response
accompanied by a dialogue probing why not (there are at least two
variations of this dialogue); (2) two versions of the case where the
answer is positive, one of these with “Yes” (Jpn. U, Chn. You),
and including a brief dialogue searching for the reason; and (3)
several versions combining the positive and negative responses with or
without the follow-up dialogues, and with the No answer appearing either
prior or subsequent to the Yes answer.
Myth Three. Mu Must Not be Analyzed
The main interpretations suggest that the term Mu puts an abrupt end
to any discourse or analysis of the meaning of the question and
response. However, the classical records reveal that there are dozens or
even hundreds of verse and prose commentaries in Chinese and Japanese
texts. Many of these do support the head-word method, while countless
others, which prefer one of the other versions of the case, tend to
bypass, disagree with, or even contradict that outlook. In one example, a
Zen master says simply, “Daie affirms No, but I affirm Yes.” It becomes
clear that the head-word device is rooted in a particular era of
Chinese religious and cultural history. Daie’s comments on the koan
probably originally targeted an audience of lay disciples whom he
accumulated during his abbacy stints in both the remote countryside,
while he was exiled for political reasons for over fifteen years of his
career, and the capital, when he regained the favor of the authorities
during the final period of his life. However, other important texts from
the era, such as the Record of Serenity (Chn. Congrong lu, Jpn. Shoyoroku) in addition to the “Bussho” or “Buddha-nature” fascicle of Dogen’s Shobogenzo,
both of which are available in several English translations, reveal
multiple possibilities for interpreting one or more versions of the
case, especially the rendition that has both positive and negative
responses as well as additional dialogues about each of these
alternatives.
Myth Four. Conceptual Entanglements are Wrong
In light of the tremendous degree of variation and variability in
koan commentaries, we must ask what has led to many interpreters
insisting that the true message of the case is absolute nothingness,
which might result in a reification of nihilism, while others argue that
the point of the case is the relativity of affirmation and negation,
which might result in a antinomianism. It seems clear that the full
implications are not revealed by translations/interpretations focusing
exclusively on the emphatic “No” response, which is sometimes given with
an exclamation point or a transliteration of the Sino-Japanese original
for stress (as in “Mu!” or “無!”). Instead of remaining bound to one
view or the other, the conceptual entanglements indicated by
contradictory or paradoxical versions of the koan can be continually
explored without seeking a firm conclusion.
The reason for apparent misconceptions is the extent to which one
specific view of the case has been portrayed in numerous writings as the
only valid approach by leading contemporary scholar-practitioners who
represent three different schools — Korean Zen, the Rinzai (Chn. Linji)
school of China and Taiwan, and the Japanese Soto sect. The standpoint
they endorse focuses exclusively on appropriating the best-known version
of the case from the Gateless Gate (Chn. Wumenguan, Jpn. Mumonkan)
kōan collection of 1229. The common approach espoused by three
different advocates emphasizes a particular understanding of the role of
the koan based on the “head-word” or “critical phrase” method developed
by the prominent twelfth century Chinese master, Daie. This approach
takes the “Mu” response in a non-literal way to express a transcendental
negation that becomes the topic of an intensive contemplative
experience, during which any and all thoughts or uses of reason and
words are to be cut off and discarded for good rather than investigated
for their expressive nuances and ramifications. Yet, historical studies
demonstrate quite persuasively that an overemphasis on this single
approach to one version of the kōan is somewhat misleading.
Steven Heine is an authority on Japanese religion and
society, especially the history of Zen Buddhism and the life and works
of Dogen. He is the editor of Dogen: Textual and Historical Studies. He has published two dozen books, including Did Dogen Go to China? (2006); Zen Skin, Zen Marrow (2010); and Zen Masters (2010).
Subscribe to the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Subscribe to only religion articles on the OUPblog via email or RSS.
View more about this book on the
