Bill, Very strange. I do essentially agree with everything in your post below except the last part where you condemn me for NOT AGREEING WITH IT! :-)
I can only conclude you still don't realize what I'm saying.... Edgar On Nov 30, 2012, at 11:59 PM, Bill! wrote: > 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 > > > > > > >
