Talk:Mu (negative)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mu (negative) article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Comment 1

I call into question the accuracy of this article... --Furrykef 04:19, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

With reason. I've removed this sentence: It should be noted that the sound, as well as having the meaning described above, could also be the sound a dog makes, 'woof' in English., as Japanese dogs (or, rather, dogs in Japanese) say "wan", not "mu" or "wu" or anything even remotely related. Jpatokal 14:28, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've seen discussion of this koan in many places, and as far as I have understood, this "dog-sound" comment refers generally to the original Chinese "wu", not Japanese "mu" (which sounds more like a cow, not a dog). Although I'm not familiar with any Chinese dogs, either, so maybe someone better versed in sinokynology could help here. --Oop 20:23, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
I have no idea about dogs, but the onomatopoeia for the howl of a wolf in Chinese is generally considered to be wū, which is rather close to wú, though not quite the same (I'm not at a computer with any sort of Chinese language support, so pinyin will have to do.). siafu 23:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This thread is 3 years old, but I just wanted to comment on this in order to settle any ambiguity. Among the Chinese dialects, it is only the modern Mandarin dialects that has the pronunciation of 無 as wu, which occurred through regular sound change. All the southern dialects retain the m-initial (e.g. Cantonese mou). Chinese negation words all ultimately derive from either m-initial or b-initial words in Old Chinese. The Middle Chinese pronunciation of 無 was mju, which became mvu and then vu in early Mandarin, before becoming the modern wu. On the other hand, the sound that a dog makes never had the m-initial; it was always wu. For this reason, the dog sound etymology of 無 is apocryphal. —Umofomia (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copied text w/o attribution; public domain, but still...

Last para is a near-identical copy of the Jargon File entry; possibly an identical copy of an older version. The Jargon File is public domain, but ESR does request that quoters cite source and version/date. What's Wikipedia etiquette in situations like this? Mike Capp 12:58, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia recommendation is to always cite your sources. --Minority Report (entropy rim riot) 16:34, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Found exact verbage elsewhere

Please see definition 2 in: here . Don't know where it was listed originally, but it seems many sources print the same data. -MexIndian

All of this stuff's wrong. "mu" != "moo"; "mu" = "mue" (Could it be mo/moe?); mu != not, no, nothing; mu = nouht, none. Learn some English. -lysdexia 11:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I don't get it

I don't get how 无 wú is supposed to be so metaphysical. Isn't 无 wú much the same as saying 没有 méiyǒu? i.e. "Q) Have dogs got Buddha-nature? A) No they haven't."

It is sort of cool that it has been turned into an answer to loaded questions, even if that doesn't have much to do with its original meaning.  :) — Helpful Dave 18:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mu != No

In the koan of Joshu, as I've seen it interpreted, his answer of "mu" does not literally mean "no". His mu is closer to the Discordian use of the word. It transcends or nullifies the question. Mumon's commentary on the koan includes a poem that helped me grasp some inkling of meaning:

Has a dog Buddha-nature? This is the most serious question of all. If you say yes or no, You lose your own Buddha-nature.

Source: http://www.ibiblio.org/zen/gateless-gate/1.html

- Rhiannon314

No actually, Mu can be read as "no". Anyone who has read any Chinese Buddhist text will know that there the only term used to express "no", in the sense of "without" or "have not", is "wu". And You (有) and Wu (無) are exactly the two terms used in this debate. The only other commonly used word to express negation is "fei", meaning "is not". Mu does literally mean "no". How you want to understand/interpret it is another matter. Uly 22:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Cantonese character"

I removed the character "冇" from the wiki because it's not equivalent to 無 in Cantonese. They are synonyms, but they have different tones, and are used in different situations in the language.

[edit] Introduction is not great

A couple of comments:

  1. "Some earlier Buddhist thinkers had maintained that creatures such as dogs did have the Buddha-nature; others, that they did not."—This sentence not only interrupts the flow of the explaination. It also IMHO violently misses the point. "Mu" doesn't mean "some say yes, some say no". And it doesn't mean "Both yes and no" either. It means "mu", it means "Nice weather, huh?". I propose we remove this sentence altogether.
  2. "For example, see the accounts of students' struggles with resolving the question of 'Mu' as described in Philip Kapleau's book Three Pillars of Zen."—This is similarly uncalled for. I'll zap it or move it somewhere else, unless somebody can convince me otherwise. Thanks.

PizzaMargherita 18:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

WRT point #1, some background is needed to fully appreciate why a yes/no answer is not suitable: previous Zen thinkers had declared that all creatures had the buddha-nature, so to answer no is to deny their wisdom, wheras to say yes would (appear to, at least) blindly follow their teachings. I'll fix this in a second, as soon as I can find a reference for this. --Sam Pointon United FC 20:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I can't find a suitable reference right now (The first external link talks a little about it, though); I say let it stand for now. On point #2, yeah, it is out of place and needless. It ought to go in See Also, if at all. --Sam Pointon United FC 22:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I added your explaination for point 1, waiting for a reference, because leaving as it is it's worse. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 08:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
it is more famously used as a response to certain koans. Hard to get more famous than musen. The Heart Sutra is probably much more famous than the koan. The wu/mu character features very prominently in the Heart sutra (which only takes 3-4 minutes to recite). Wu/mu appears more than a dozen times there. No form, no perception...no eye...no ignorance, no ending of ignorance...you get the picture.
Some earlier Buddhist thinkers had maintained that creatures such as dogs did have the Buddha-nature; others, that they did not. I'm not sure that's true. If it is true, I think such earlier thinkers would have been alive more than 400 years earlier, in the time of Taosheng, before Bodhidharma, before Zen, certainly before Zhaozhou. Cite?
the expression 'wu' in Chinese is similar to the sound the Chinese use to imitate a dog's 'woof' Uhm, maybe in Cantonese? But not in Mandarin, I don't think...I'm not aware of a scholar here on Wikipedia who knows Old Chinese...anyhow, nowadays the Chinese dog bark is usually transliterated "wang wang", e.g. here
an alternate 'explanation' of the utterance has been proposed suggesting that Zhaozhou was imitating a dog. I think it's simply false. Cite? BTW, that's called using the passive voice to conceal the source. In fact, I think the source was a certain Wikipedian's un-named teacher, and the teacher was totally speculating. I am not aware of any other place you can find this dog bark theory except Wikipedia. And here's a cite that contradicts the "imitating a dog" theory anyway: The Recorded Sayings of Zen Master Joshu, James Green, 1998, Shambala, section 132 on p53; the dialog between Zhaozhou and the monk continues without reference to animal cries; and on page xxi, Green says this text was "in circulation...certainly by the year 1000", well before the Wumenguan/Mumonkan koan collection became available in the 13th century. Also, consider the version of wu/mu koan found in the Book of Serenity/Book of Equanimity. Barking sounds certainly don't seem to have anything to do with that version. Or so it seems to me.
I will get round to fixing this stuff eventually if someone doesn't get to it first. --Munge 09:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I support this cleanup. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 09:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed this parenthetical:

(one anecdote relates of Richard Stallman that he once was asked, in regard to the Editor Wars, if he preferred Vi or Emacs; he answered "Yes.")

As a demonstration of how hackers are sensitive to logical inadequacies it's not interesting enough—answering "yes" to what looks like but is not a disjunction is probably not specific to hackers at all. Delighting in its use as a rhetorical device (as opposed to a stale joke) might be, though. JRM · Talk 22:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simplified character

Is the large image of the simplified character helpful or necessary, really? The text was put down in "traditional" characters, and even in the PRC guwen is often printed using traditional characters. IMHO, the small one in the introduction is plenty, but since it's so big I want to see if there are any objections first. siafu 22:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table

Chinese
Mandarin Wú
Shanghainese
Cantonese mou5
Min Nan
Hakka
Japanese mu
Korean mu

This looks really ugly to me, even if I change it to class="wikitable". There are too many empty boxes. Isn't there a template for this? —Keenan Pepper 19:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mu in reference to koan studies

I have to agree that this article regarding Mu as Chao Chu's answer to "Does a dog have Buddha nature?" is way off the mark. IMHO there should be a separate entry for Mu (Wu) as understood in Zen practice. I'm afraid that the way this is written at the moment it will give quite the wrong impression of the importance of Mu in koan study by Zen practitioners. This is one of the most important koans in Zen and this article does not do it justice. Thinman10 06:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)thinman10

Since you seem to be at least somewhat knowledgeable about the topic, why not contribute yourself? Be bold! Dforest (talk) 20:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding computer analogy

First off, may i say i have no experience using wikipedia (or indeed anything to do with buddhism) other than to find information so i apologise if i have done anything wrong in my post but just wanted to point this out. The computer analogy doesnt make sense, and it does not correctly refer to how data is stored. The following is presented:

1). A "(+)" voltage pulse,(or a "Yes" response). 2). A -(0)- voltage (a no-voltage response, or a "No-Thing" response. It may also be considered the reference point for the other two possible responses). 3). A "(-)" voltage pulse, (or a "No" response).

This is incorrect. In general, there are thresholds for logic '1' and logic '0'. above a certain threshold voltage, its is 1, below a certain threshold it is 0. Negative voltage is not normally used. Hence my main point is, a zero voltage is logic zero, and so the analogy used for the term 'mu' doesnt apply. (if you turned a computer off, then there would be no power and so every bit would be zero voltage, and so logic '0'). i am referring to RAM, i suppose it would make sense for a hard drive but it is not written as such.

The computer analogy could however be applied in a different way. In a system that say uses 5v as its supply, a logic level of 2v would be undefined (could be either 1 or 0) and so it could be said is in a 'mu' state. Sorry if this is too nit-picky it probably is lol. 62.31.59.160 00:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Negative?

First off great article, I've been using the term for a number of years now, and wanted to reference it in a wikipedia discussion, so I went after a link, at the DAB page for "Mu" I almost didn't click on the link because it was labeled "Mu (negative)" and I don't think that it's best used as a negative, if a negative answer was meant, then "no" would be used. "mu" means "unask the question" or "the question cannot be answered because it depends on incorrect assumptions" I'm proposing a move. Mu (unask)? or Mu (response)? or something. I don't know the topic well enough to say anything very well, but whatever. I think I'll at least bring it up for you all to think about. (oh, and I'm watching the page now, so I'll be back :D) McKay 04:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Mu (Zen)? I think most people are expecting it as such a response. I'm not satisfied with the current name either. --Gwern (contribs) 05:52 16 February 2007 (GMT)
Mu Zen sounds pretty good to me. I think it would give people a good idea of the contents of the article if that's what they're searching for. Thinman10
I think it sounds ridiculous. Mu (negation), on the other hand, would accurately describe the meaning: at the end of the day it's just the Japanese way of saying "not X" or "X-less". Jpatokal 05:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't meant to be a Japanese translation guide. This article should reflect how the word is being used in english culture, so the Japanese definition is irrelevant. On the other hand, because the word came from the Japanese, Mu (Japanese) does have some merit. McKay 15:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps Mu (philosophy) or something along those lines would work. Mu (metaphysics)? Milkfish 11:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
McCay, how the word is used in Japanese culture is a relevant piece of knowledge, as are the other culturally idiosyncratic usages -- how English speakers have interpreted it, how French speakers have interpreted it, etc. It seems the larger question is, when does a foreign word qualify for consideration as an Wikipedia entry rather than a mere Wiktionary entry? I think the answer is rather simple: if there's enough to say about the word, let's put it into Wikipedia. Mu certainly meets that standard. Omphaloscope talk 22:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree Mu (negative) is a less than ideal name. In my understanding, in Japanese, 不 (fu) is more of a negative per se; 無 (mu) expresses a lack or absence of something. How about Mu (without) or Mu (lack) or Mu (nothingness)? Dforest (talk) 21:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Exception Handling

I added a link to exception handling to the "see also" section but it was removed by Jpatokal with the comment "err, no (and I'm a software engineer)". I disagree; I think exception handling is closely related to the answer "mu", but would like consensus.

Consider an array class that throws an exception if you overrun the array (the equivalent of using vector::at(size_t) in C++). That is, if you have a size-two array and access element five, it throws an exception. This seems exactly like the exchange

Q: What is element five of this two-element array?
A: Mu.

Am I mistaken? It seems like throwing an exception makes sense exactly when a function call makes invalid assumptions, just like mu is an appropriate answer to questions that make invalid assumptions. —Ben FrantzDale 12:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I understand what you're saying, and it's interesting, but the connection is not obvious. Also, not all exceptions being thrown are "mu" responses. what's 2 billion plus 2 billion. If you've got bounds checking an exception will be thrown, but that doesn't mean the answer is Mu. the answer is 4 billion, but the computer can't give that answer. Also, in C++, it's totally "legal" for me to say:
  • int arr[2];
  • arr[5] += arr[0];
because the array indexing operation is just a dereferenced pointer. The answer is not clearly Mu. So, I see where you're coming from, but it's a large leap. Is it WP:Attrubutable? McKay 16:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, it smacks of original research to me. If you can find a source for somebody saying exceptions are mu, then fine, but I think the Pirsig quote already more or less makes this point and is notable. Jpatokal 17:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
As for the 2e9+2e9 example, one could consider mu to be the correct response to "What 32-bit signed integer is twice two billion?", since the question is not sensible. (OTOH, one could say that 32-bit addition says the answer is -294967296, so that's the answer; it depends how you want to be pedantic.)
At least in C++, exceptions only happen when someone wrote them in; e.g., *NULL does not throw a C++ exception even though it might. In another language, the arr[5] += arr[0] example would throw an exception. Just because C++ doesn't throw an exception doesn't mean it's not logically an exception.
I'll concede that this claim should have some citation, but I see the "See also" section as a place for related ideas, which this clearly is. —Ben FrantzDale 15:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Sure, I see where you're coming from, "mu" could be considered a correct answer to some of these questions, but the fact of the matter is, is that it doesn't make it into the article unless it's WP:Attributable. McKay 18:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

McKay is right: this is fanciful, at best. You can draw connections between any number of concepts of nothingness in religion, philosophy, science and mathematics; there is nothing particularly pertinent or notable between exception handling and Zen mu. —Piet Delport 03:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed paragraph needing citation.

This wants a citation:

This answer has also been interpreted in a humoristic way, as "WuuUU." In other words, the disciple laughs, and this also shows the wisdom of the ideal teacher.

It seems whimsical enough that it might unfortunately be false, so I've moved it here in the hopes that a knowledgeable individual will corroborate its truth. Omphaloscope talk 22:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese Words and Phrases?

"Category: Chinese Words and Phrases" uses the Japanese pronunciation. I tried to add "wu" as the Chinese pronunciation on but don't see how to do it. Could anyone help? ch (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)