Edgar, I've been thinking for a long time that our seeming differences were only semantic or at least not fundamental.
Maybe there's hope for us yet! ...Bill! --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
