RAF, I think Bill and I both agree with you here. I do. What I mean to convey is that all reality itself is Buddha Nature (what I call 'ontological energy', the reality of existence, and which others call Tao) has existed since the beginning.
Siddhartha just discovered or realized what had always existed. So in my usage Zen always existed, but the zen tradition began with Siddhartha... Edgar On Nov 30, 2012, at 11:36 PM, R A Fonda wrote: > On 11/30/2012 7:59 PM, Edgar Owen wrote: > >> 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)). > > Okay, thanks for that explanation. I usually capitalize it simply as a sign > of respect, though when I say someone 'has' or does not have Zen I might not > capitalize it because I am no longer referring to the Way of Zen but > someone's realization ... which may be crap, as in 'she is just a zen poser'. > > So, Bill says: > > 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. > > And I have to agree with Bill that Zen is, as he points out, "a process which > humans have developed", and that process occurred after the historical Buddha > taught. So he is right that, "Zen did not exist before Siddhartha Buddha". > When yer right, yer right, and I acknowledge it. > > What I was trying to get at with "Ur-Zen" is that I don't feel as if ALL that > "process" occurred AFTER the Buddha's awakening. I feel that there has been a > seeking for the state of being Bill calls Buddha nature (or a state > antecedent to but still evolving toward that state) from VERY early times. > And I see the Way of Zen as coming from that ancient striving, and ALL of it > tied up with human evolution. That is what I am getting at when I say that I > can't believe Zen is in conflict with evolutionary psychological adaptations. > > RAF > >
