I think Buddha Nature is a bigger illusion than CHI. I never talk about it at 
all, because I do not think that there is Buddha Nature. Buddha was not God, he 
was just some fat prince that could afford to sit in a cave for nine years 
without starving to death because there was some other unknown bastards 
bringing him food and water and busting their respective asses so that one rich 
fucker could find enlightenment. 

So whatever he found, it existed before he found it, and I don't think of it as 
Buddha Nature anymore than I think of it as "Rich Lazy Fat Bastard Nature." 

So Chi means more to me as a word than Buddha Nature. When you think about the 
whole story of the Buddha it brings up some issues, like why wasn't that fat 
bastard working in the fields helping people instead of sitting in a cave. 

Not to mention that he gives no mentions to the staff of people that took care 
of him for nine years. He wasn't coming out of the cave to hunt and fish so 
someone else was doing that for him, and those guys and gals got no credit at 
all. That seems very selfish. It should be called "Dedicated Servants Nature" 
in honor of the folks that actually were working during the nine years that fat 
boy was meditating. 


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bill Smart 
  To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 8:35 PM
  Subject: [Zen] Re: JUDO



  IF (and that's a big IF) you realize something is an illusion and 
  identify it as such, you can qualify it as much as you'd like.

  BUT (and that's a bodacious booty) if you're saying something is not 
  an illusion you shouldn't use qualifiers. For example, you wouldn't 
  talk about 'my Buddha Nature and your Buddha Nature, or good Buddha 
  Nature and Bad Buddha Nature, etc...; would you?


  --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Fitness63" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  > From: Bill Smart<as soon as you enter into a
  > dualistic despription of chi, assigning it such qualities as 
  personal chi, 
  > universal chi, good chi, bad chi, feminine chi, masuline chi, stong 
  > weak chi, etc..., you are no longer talking about chi, you're just 
  > about some illusions and attachments you have in regards to the 
  concept of 
  > chi.>
  > Chi is an illusion anyway, so why not qualify your illusions. After 
  > they are part of the real world and thus there are all kinds.


Reply via email to