Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Robert,
It is my current understanding that Nagarjuna attempted to impart wisdom unto others, and it was for that purpose he used such words as "mu" - which I guess equates to "toilet brush" or "sticky buns." When Nat and Philo used such words on me a year or so ago, no such wisdom was imparted in the use. As a relative newcomer to various philosophies, I did not have a reference point for these words. As a result, when they were used on me - especially sequentially and repeatedly by both, the only result was that I regarded it as something similar to children doing schoolyard taunting. I suspect that Nagarjuna would not have used such things on people whose response would have been to regard it as nothing more than childish taunting.
Nat's philosophy of the toilet brush needs to be flushed.
Hey, Elizabeth.
I've seen some references to the 'toilet brush' but I'm not entirely sure what's involved with it, who coined it, what precisely it means, etc.
Your description of the encounter with Nat and Philos suggests it was a very unpleasant one and it's unfortunate when 'good folks' get into it. You're all three friends of mine, people I respect and admire, and so I am very glad I was not in it. However, the use of such words as taunts in no way can negate their usage in Ch'an and Zen.
'Mu' is the Japanese for the Chinese 'wu' and Nagarjuna likely did not use either of them. Nagarjuna wrote about the limitations of thinking and about getting beyond them. His equivalent in Daoism is Zhuangzi, both in terms of their influence - both are widely regarded as the second most important contributors following the Buddha and Laozi - and their meanings. Both of them have had far more influence on me than have either the Buddha or Laozi and perhaps that is what really matters, who can reach us. We must use words because we are thinking and communicating creatures but we generally fail to understand the purpose of words and their limitations. Most of us spend our lives as 'the monkey chattering' and it need not be that way - 'the monkey chattering' is too often a painful thing.
Zhuangzi wrote:To use a finger to illustrate how "a 'finger' is not a finger" is not as good as using something other than a finger to illustrate how "a 'finger' is not a finger." To use a horse to show how "a 'horse' is not a horse" is not as good as using something other than a horse to show how "a 'horse' is not a horse."
Heaven and earth are one finger, myriad beings are one horse. Approving the appropriate and disapproving the inappropriate, a road is made by travel, things are affirmed by saying so; but how are they so? They are so insofar as they are affirmed. How are they not so? They are not so insofar as they are denied.
Beings inevitably affirm something, so they inevitably approve something. No one does not affirm, so no one does not approve.
For this reason, we may bring up the horizontal and the vertical, the ugly and the beautiful, the enormous, the suspicious, the deceitful, and the strange, and the Way comprehends all as one. When there is division, there is definition, but whatever is defined also disintegrates. Whenever there is no definition or disintegration, all things are again resolved into unity.
Zhuangzi, 2. On Equalizing Things, in The Taoist Classics The Collected Translations of Thomas Cleary, Volume One, p. 59.
What we can think of must disintegrate; it must fail to hold.
Nagarjuna wrote:
The victorious ones have said
That emptiness is the relinquishing of all views.
For whomever emptiness is a view,
That one will accomplish nothing.
- Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way, tr. Jay L. Garfield, p. 36.
'Whenever there is no definition or disintegration, all things are again resolved into unity.' '... emptiness is the relinquishing of all views.'
It is a rich subject, Elizabeth. Words like 'mu' and 'wu' point the way and not to any conceptualized meaning which must disintegrate. 'Emptiness is the relinquishing of all views' can be defined to be a view but that misses the point. We are forced to use words after all, but Daoism, Zen, and Buddhism say there really is 'the relinquishing of all views' and which is what the sage or enlightened person comes across. When he has done so he does not then tell you that fire is light. He tells you instead what helped him. He tells you, 'don't know', 'the ultimate truth is not even to think', 'whatever is defined also disintegrates', 'emptiness is the relinquishing of all views', and '"empty" is an empty word'. It is a rich subject but it is not an easy one. Understanding it is not like understanding 'fire is light'. If someone is telling you 'fire is light' pay no attention to him because he is the monkey chattering.