RAF and Bill, I need to explain to RAF here that Bill uses the term zen (uncapitalized) to equate to realization or Buddha Nature which he and I and you agree existed BEFORE Siddhartha Buddha. Note however that I use Zen (capitalized) to mean this and I gather you do too.
But Bill uses Zen (capitalized) to refer to the historical Buddhist sect (which I refer to as zen (uncapitalized since it's less important than Zen)). So my reading here is that Bill does agree with you but was mislead by your using Zen capitalized as I do rather than uncapitalized as he does. Edgar On Nov 30, 2012, at 7:47 PM, Bill! wrote: > > 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 > > > >
