There is an important doctrinal point: because Daoism is very interested in "natural philosophy", the Chinese translators working w/ the Indian concept of śunyatā used their word, "wu". Which is the correct word choice.
-
-
Replying to @Timber_22 @ericlinuskaplan and
However, along with that, it took a while in Chinese Buddhism to place the correct emphasis on what śunyatā / wu / "emptiness" actually means in practice, and how it is to be understood. Nāgārjuna and his successors used "śunyatā" as an *epistemological* sense...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Timber_22 @ericlinuskaplan and
...not as a claim about metaphysic or physics. Chinese Daoism has a fascinating metaphysic and natural philosophy. The early Chinese Buddhist interpreters arguably *sometimes* placed too much emphasis on sunyata/wu in Buddhism as a claim about the nature of how reality "is"
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Timber_22 @ericlinuskaplan and
Just a brief sidenote: the Chinese equivalent of śūnyatā is kong (空), not wu (無), e.g., the Heart Sūtra's 色不異空 空不異色 色即是空 空即是色 (roughly: form is no other than emptiness, emptiness no other than form; that which is form is emptiness, that which is emptiness form).
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
-
Replying to @ericlinuskaplan @Timber_22 and
Wu (無) most fundamentally means no/not. Its meaning ranges from "without" or "lacking" to "does not have" to "it is not the case" or "there is not," etc. Usually invoked to indicate an absence.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @NoaidiX @ericlinuskaplan and
1~ An especially famous instance is when the Chan teacher, Zhaozhou was asked, "Does a dog have Buddha-nature or not?" Everyone "knows" all sentient being have Buddha-nature, but Zhaozhou replied (in that instance): "Wu." (pronounced, in Japanese, "Mu.")
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @bodhidave3 @NoaidiX and
2~ Tho, as
@NoaidiX highlights, that reply is to be "worked with," not taken as a literal claim. Among the possibilities is to have the "Wu"-koan work as a kind of "just say no" to any and all of our made-up notions, however canonical they may be, and to "look directly," instead.2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @bodhidave3 @NoaidiX and
3/3~ On another occasion, asked the very same question, "Does a dog have Buddha-nature," Zhaozhou said "Yes." My sense is that among the experiential-practice possibilities there is opening to a realization this very moment, this very person, is "yes" the manifestation of That.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @bodhidave3 @ericlinuskaplan and
Coincidentally, I worked for a few years on the "Mu Kōan" with a Sōtō-Rinzai hybrid teacher by the name of Kōan Sensei. My rakusu has "mu" (無, wu) referenced playfully on its inside panel. Dokusan was filled with lots of barking, mu-ing, and the occasional sock in my mouth.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
From the outset, the question assumes Buddha nature is a matter that can be "had" or "not had" (有/無), which misframes it entirely. As Dōgen says, all beings *are* Buddha nature, suggesting Buddha nature is not some*thing* that can be *had* or *not.*
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.