Editing Mu (negative) (section)

===Interpretations===
This koan is one of several traditionally used by [[Rinzai school]] to initiate students into Zen study,<ref name="baroni"/> and interpretations of it vary widely. [[Hakuun Yasutani]] of the [[Sanbo Kyodan]] maintained that
{{blockquote|The koan is not about whether a dog does or does not have a Buddha-nature because everything is Buddha-nature, and either a positive or negative answer is absurd because there is no particular thing called Buddha-nature.<ref>Grenard, Jerry L. "The Phenomenology of Koan Meditation in Zen Buddhism". ''Journal of Phenomenological Psychology'' 39 (2008) 151–188.</ref>}}

This koan is discussed in Part 1 of Hau Hoo's ''The Sound of the One Hand: 281 Zen Koans with Answers''. In it, the answer of "negative", mu, is clarified as although all beings have potential [[Buddha-nature]], beings who do not have the capacity to see it and develop it essentially do not have it. The purpose of this primary koan to a student is to free the mind from analytic thinking and into intuitive knowing. A student who understands the nature of his question would understand the importance of awareness of potential to begin developing it.<ref>Hau, "The Sound of the One Hand: 281 Zen Koans with Answers", 1975</ref>

====Yoshitaka and Heine====
The Japanese scholar {{ill|Iriya Yoshitaka|ja|入矢義高}} made the following comment on the two versions of the koan:
{{blockquote|I have held doubts for some time even with regard to the way the so-called "Chao-chou's Word No" has been previously dealt with. To the question "Does a dog have the Buddha-nature?", on the one hand Monk Chao-chou replied affirmatively, but on the other hand he replied negatively. However, Zen adherents in Japan have rendered the koan exclusively in terms of his negative response, and completely ignored the affirmative one. Moreover, it has been the custom from the outset to reject the affirmative response as superficial compared to the negative one. It seems that the ''[[The Gateless Gate|Wu-men kuan]]'' is responsible for this peculiarity.<ref>{{cite book |title=The Zen canon: understanding the classic texts |last=Heine |first=Steven |author-link=Steven Heine |year=2004 |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=Oxford, UK |isbn=978-0-19-515067-4 |page=230 }}</ref>}}

A similar critique has been given by Steven Heine:
{{blockquote|The common approach espoused [...] 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, [[Dahui Zonggao|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.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://blog.oup.com/2012/04/four-myths-about-zen-buddhisms-mu-koan/|title=Four myths about Zen Buddhism's "Mu Koan"|date=April 28, 2012|website=OUPblog}}</ref>}}