> Edgar and RAF,
>
> Why are you concerned with Hindu Cycles? Don't we have to get
through the Aztec Calendar thingy first?
Actually, Bill, I'm pretty sure it is the MAYAN calendar "thingy", but
what the heck, it is all just THIS! and THAT! anyway, right?
Now, there are several aspects to my "concern" with the age of Kali. To
begin with, as a father, husband, and grandfather, I feel a sense of
responsibility to provide for my family, and I have given a synopsis of
(what I take to be) my right action in that regard. Then I "consider" my
extended kinship group: what right action obligations do I have toward
them? I contend that a 'heads up' is all I owe them; and if, like Chris
they think there is no problem; or, like you, they mock me for even
mentioning it, do you think that "concerns" me? If so, you have mistaken
me for someone who gives a rat's rump. In fact, as one who views
phenomena from the perspective of evolutionary psychology, the 'die off'
(as this anticipated event is commonly called) is a selection event. Far
from dreading such an event, or being sorrowful about it, let alone
feeling that I have some responsibility to make futile attempts to
prevent it, I regard it as not only inevitable, but beneficial.
Just because I mention this putative era does not mean I am "concerned"
about it, in the sense of dreading it. I /anticipate/ it, and make what
I consider proper /provision/ for it because I come from a long line of
primates who succeeded better at surviving and reproducing than their
competitors through such behavior. If you believe that 'having Zen'
means ignoring or eschewing such behavior, then you are either mistaken
about Zen, or Zen (at least as it is conceived of today, in America) is
in conflict with evolutionary fitness. I don't believe the latter.
Is Zen whatever a bunch of new-age, PC posers agree it is, or did what
we CALL Zen exist long before Gautama sat under the Bodhi tree, and we
might /discover /it (or part of it anyway)? I take the view that we are
trying to discover something that pre-exists, rather than inventing it.
So, if Ur-Zen existed long before there were people such as ourselves to
follow practices intended to allow us to /realize /what we now call Zen,
is it even /possible /that Ur-Zen could conflict with the evolutionary
adaptations that allowed us to become humans who can consciously seek to
realize Zen? I doubt that.
But, just for the sake of argument, let us suppose that modern American
Zen, as exemplified by yourself, IS true-to-the-bone Ur-Zen, and it DOES
conflict with EP (and I don't believe either of the latter two
conditionals) then I would have to go with EP ... because that is just
/my /SUCHNESS!
RAF
