BOOK OF EQUANIMITY - Case 18

[Jundo]

Buddha nature ....is the dog's nature, my nature and Buddha's nature. We can't be any other nature other than what we are. However this 'nature' is the nature of all things. So my nature is your nature in a flowing universal nature kind of way! MU!

Don't think about it so much, don't turn it into a formula.

Are you and the dog and the Buddha, same or different? ARF!

[Heisoku]

ME..OW! Gassho.

[AlanLa]

Mu stumps me, so maybe I need to say "mu" to mu and move on from there.

[Kaishin]

I we open our mouths and say "dog," we already create the animal world and the human world, buddha-nature and not-buddha-nature. There's nothing we can say without losing it.

What deep, personal issue or question in your life might be resolved not by "yes" ... not by "no" ... but by "MU!" or "YES! YES! YES!" that swallows whole both yes and no?

"Is there any point to all this Zen practice, any benefit--is it the 'right choice' ?!!?????" -- I used to try to define answers to these questions, put things into neat little boxes. I don't think that gets me anywhere, and--in any case--I don't have the time to grapple with them. My answer to these questions is just to sit and live the Bodhisattva way, throwing myself down the well whether or not there is water in the bottom or perhaps no bottom at all. What else can I do? (another question...)

[Omoi Otoshi]

I we open our mouths and say "dog," we already create the animal world and the human world, buddha-nature and not-buddha-nature. There's nothing we can say without losing it.

You and the dog and the Buddha: Same, same, but different!

Originally there may be no dogs, no humans, only emptiness. But in the mirror of the mind, humans, dogs and Buddha appear alongside ten thousand other shapes, forms, dharmas. Arising as One. What can be said that would cause you to lose your Buddha nature?

Gassho,
Pontus

[Kaishin]

My mind isn't a mirror--it's an abusive critic!

[Mp]

Bodhi and I both say, "Ruff".

Gassho
Michael

[Daitetsu]

joshubuddhadogjundotimo

Gassho,

Timo

[Daitetsu]

About the Question

What deep, personal issue or question in your life might be resolved not by "yes" ... not by "no" ... but by "MU!"

This reminds me of the "baby question"...
There was a time in which the question whether to have a child or not became more and more pressing.
Since I am a very logic thinking guy this posed a dilemma to me. I thought about reasons for having a child (or not).
I asked other fathers what they think. I wrote lists with pros and cons.
But then it finally dawned upon me that this "approach" was completely wrong, even ridiculous.
The decision for having a child has nothing to do with logic, with pros and cons. There are no arguments for or against this.
It is just about "Do I want it?" - nothing more, nothing less. So I kind of plunged into the question, and it really was a big Yes!
And now I am happy I made the right decision.

Gassho,

Timo

[Onken]

Confused...I guess I'll just drop it.

[AlanLa]

I really do prefer this version of the mu koan because it has the yes and no (wu and mu) component. Previously, all I've ever seen or heard on this is just mu, which leaves me lost, which I understand is a perfectly ok Zen place to be. But seeing the other side of the coin/koan is helpful, and Jundo's take on it also clears some things up for me because it feels very fresh (mu gets tiresome, I think many of you might agree). What I am trying to say is that it seems a whole lot more accessible when presented this way, and the result of that is I finally feel like I have something to take away from this koan, and that is:

Quit all the navel gazing and just BE something!
Quit with all the intellectualizing Q&A and just DO something!

It ain't much, but it's all I got.

[galen]

The Preface seems to say... if you puncture a floating gourd it loses its balance, or way. The same could be said for a balloon, or ones ego. Suzuki seems to point to this when he says we should fine pleasure in our suffering (delusions of the ego), because this is the teaching (of Buddhism). This is what we fight, tooth and nail, in resisting the truth of the Way. "We should find the truth in this world, through our difficulties, through our suffering". Also, " we should find perfection in imperfection; or we should find perfect existence through imperfect existence".

The same with the sun exposing no 'fixed' shade of color in a diamond. Once again, this seems to point to exposing the ego for what it really is, nothing but delusion, a false small little self once brought out into full light, exposing it for what it really is... a sham!

'No-mindedness cannot understand'.... is that not a good thing !? That seems to leave it to the 'great question'... ie, 'the great answer'-no answer, by intellectualizing from the ego of our insecure little self.

The last sentence in the Preface seems to sum up all the above probing... 'is there any way to escape that?' That answer is seemingly is Hell NO. We can hide but we cannot run from our true selves; this is the Way of the masters, by using these beautiful paradoxical dialogs in these Koans.

[Risho]

A moment of living, of true action is beyond "Yes" or "No". When we had to euthanize our dog a couple years ago, there were no clear cut answers. She may have had a blood cancer. THe day after Thanksgiving, she passed out. We at first thought it was a seizure, but it was from anemia. Her body was not producing red blood cells. No red blood cells, no oxygen. This sort of hit us out of nowhere. She was our middle dog, only 8 years old. It couldn't be her time yet. The truth is, it could be our "time" any time. We don't know.

We brought her to the vet, and they ran a lot of tests and determined it could be a blood disease or cancer. If it was cancer we'd have to start treatment immediately, which involved chemo and a lot of anti cancer drugs. The remission rate, at best, would give her 6 more months after a lot of suffering through the treatment. If it was a blood disease, then they would still use hte anti cancer meds, which would be much less painful to her.

We went with the latter route. They gave her a blood transfusion and anti cancer meds. After a week, she was back to being really sick again. It wasn't working. Do we treat for cancer or not? It wasn't an easy yes or no answer. We had to think for her... what was best for her.

There is no yes or no. The best answer came forth when we thought about her, without our selfish wants of keeping her around as long as possible. In the end, we euthanized her. I still question it to this day of course. It's my nature, but in terms of preventing more suffering it had to be done.

That just leads me to the larger answer to this beyond yes or no. My understanding and relationship to these koans will deepen over the years (if I'm lucky enough to have years) of practice. This happens naturally by sitting, chanting, reciting the Bodhisattva vows, participating with all of my Sangha here, living in the world... living intentionally in the world with an intention to wake up. With that said, life is not a problem to be resolved. Life is meant to be lived and, for those of us lucky enough to have found a practice, to have vows to break (I'm paraphrasing that), we can live with an intent towards being with things instead of possessing or controlling them.

That is beyond yes or no, just like how life is beyond yes or no.

Gassho,

Risho

P.S. My dogs certainly are buddhas. Well my younger one is a little nutty (so he's in training. hahaha), but my older one continuously teaches me what it means to live and not give up. She turned blind a few years ago, and she's as bullish and stubborn as ever at almost 13.

[galen]

My deep personal issue, which seemingly dissolves most all issues, not only for myself but my fellow Zen brothers and sisters, is delusion, letting our/my ego run all over me and thus other. While, for the most part I seem to grasp most of Zen intellectually, but to embody other as my self, to meet them in that tiny tiny gap between the rubber and the highway, is still only in small doses and sometimes even a widening gap. But this realization of this issue, only makes me more steadfast to sit, reflect and breathing through my hara, all the while knowing this hara is a shared commodity, that just as well belongs to other, the hara of the Whole.

I find, probably like most, when I am in conversation personally by phone or in person, my mind is quite busy and for the most part, not totally vested in the others problem (mine) or what they are truly trying to say. I am already building an answer for them, as my ego is chattering up a storm to resolve 'their' issue, all the while when just staying in touch with my hara in these moments puts me closer to embodying what they are saying, and thus shutting down the chatter. My true nature is theirs, the more I can spend time in that realm the more I am realizing I am spending more time in theirs. No separation.

Very good opening, Jundo.

Gassho

[galen]

Everything is Buddha nature. Everything is thus, just as is. Even ignorance is Buddha nature. Without ignorance, how could there be any awakening of the Bodhi mind?
Even the lowly dog is Buddha completely. The dog doesn't care about buddha nature. He doesn't need it. With or without it, he will keep barking out the Dharma everywhere he goes, for anyone who will listen.
The meaning of yes and no are both useful to analyze, in order to understand what Buddha nature is not. But not very helpful in determining what It is. Neither reply is the truth, just views. No refuge in yes. No refuge in no. Both can be Right View. Both can be true, for someone, in some situation. But not always so. A diamond in the sun has no fixed shade of color. Sometimes we need a yes, sometimes a no, sometimes we need to rephrase the question or drop it altogether. Sometimes we need someone to point at the oak tree in the garden.

I used to think a lot about Buddha nature and Mu. I kept returning to it for years. These days I mostly let it be.

When someone asks me if I believe in God, I'm tempted to reply Mu... For me, in a way, Mu clarified the existance of God. By resolving Mu for myself, I simultaneously resolved the question of God. When I'm asked if I believe in God, It feels wrong to deny God, so a simple no won't do. I don't buy the whole personal God in heaven concept, so yes doesn't seem entirely right either. Sometimes I say yes, sometimes no. It depends on who's asking and the purpose of asking the question. Sometimes I try to explain my view, sometimes I don't. Sometimes I just avoid the question. But I don't feel threatened by the question anymore.

Gassho,
Pontus

PS. Saying "I am God" may be misunderstood...
I haven't tried YES! YES! YES! DS.

For me, when asked if I believe in God, my usual reply is, not the Christian god. It seems you make a very valid point to just answer with Mu. Why not, instead of just the temptation? Of course, like my answer, there might be some explanation needed, depending on the questioner, but I feel we need to come clean and absorb the consequences of where this leads the discussion, its a very valid question, and especially realizing there is no right or wrong, good or bad. Thanks for you thoughtful post.

Gassho