RAF, You have now defined EP as: "Evolutionary Psychology, and by extension, in common usage, the body of adapted behavior in humans mediated by genetic propensity." Thanks for that. I can now answer the very important question you posed in your closing paragraph below, but before doing so I need to post this caveat: All my posts are my own opinion based primarily on my own experience, but in part on other sources (discussions, books, etc...), and should not be construed to be a dictatorial pronouncement or authoritative claim of Truth; and should not be taken as representing the position of any of Zen Buddhism or any of my teachers. RAF wrote:> > 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!
First of all I need to understand what you mean by Zen. In a very recent post I wrote what I meant. For this answer I'm going to assume you mean the same thing as I mean when I say Buddha Nature - which is a holistic (non-dualistic) experience which is referred to in Japanese Zen Buddhist literature as kensho or satori and in English is commonly translated as enlightenment. Buddha Nature pre-dates Zen Buddhism, Siddhartha Buddha and even human beings. Buddha Nature a fundamental quality of all sentient beings and is not itself affected by subsequent evolution such as EP. In the case of human evolution the later-evolving discriminating mind (human intellect) can actually obscure Buddha Nature. This seems to be the case in the majority of humans. I have a theory that a newborn human is fully enlightened (does fully experience Buddha Nature) but as the newborn's intellect grows stronger it begins to obscure Buddha Nature. In most adult humans Buddha Nature is almost completely obscured, but not entirely. All humans I know do have glimpses (experience) of Buddha Nature occasionally, but are not aware of what it is or the significance of that experience. Over thousands of years many humans have experienced Buddha Nature, and some of those experiences have been profound. I believe some examples of profound experiences are Siddhartha Buddha and Jesus. There are many, many others. These individuals then tried to teach others about their experience of what I call Buddha Nature. Many of these teachings became religions. Buddhism is one of these religions, and Zen Buddhism is a sect or subset of Buddhism. What you call Ur-Zen or American Zen evolved or morphed or coalesced from Zen Buddhism and other related religions such as Taoism and modern philosophies such as transcendentalism. So, you can go with traditional Zen, the new American Zen, your version of whatever you want to call zen or even EP. I'll stick with my zen practice which is based on my experience of Buddha Nature and on what I believe is a fairly traditional platform of Japanese Zen Buddhism with components from both the Rinzai and Soto schools. I will continue to try to explain how I practice zen and strive to reconcile it with whatever practice you call Zen. What I will never do however is ever compromise or tolerate or accept any other radically different description of the experience of Buddha Nature - such as Edgar's. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@...> 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 > > >
