There you go again, Deej. Never once in my essay did I say “he”. There are, in chickendom, females AND males (never mind capons and such), and so I used the conventional word “it”. I applied “he” to the Sludester. So there.
But as to your own subsequent points, I am in wholehearted agreement. Still, we may after all address causality as viewed from outside of the realm of buck-headedness ( a fine term, I might add), as non-non-nondualist observaton leads us away from the question, and while enlightenment is all well and good, it can appear to avoid rather than negate the question of “why”. Hardly scientific, old chap.
But chickens and roosters don’t have much intelligence, so I doubt that the chicken knew it was on a road or it knew what a road was. Thus it couldn’t being crossing the road in its little brain. So this must be a human supposition of what a chicken might be doing as if it were observed to be doing such a thing a the time on the road.
