RAF,
One answer with a caveat and explanation, one question and one closing
multi-topic comment:
ANSWER: Zen did not exist before Siddhartha Buddha - at least to my
knowledge.CAVEAT: Buddha Nature existed before Siddhartha
Buddha.EXPLANATION:
* I use the term zen to describe a process which humans have
developed to first assist a student in becoming aware of Buddha Nature
and then as a personal practice as a guide to more fully realize Buddha
Nature (integrate) into daily life.
* I use the term Buddha Nature to describe experience, to which I
sometimes add the unnecessary qualifies of direct, sensory and of
reality. Neither Buddha Nature and experience, as I use these terms,
,include illusion.
QUESTION: What does EP mean? Depending on the answer I may have some
more answers and/or comments on your post below.
COMMENT: I like your fonts but find your posts a little too wordy to
hold my complete attention.
...Bill!
--- In [email protected], R A Fonda <rafonda@...> wrote:
>
>
> > > 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
>
