Thanks for clarifying that, I know one of them was a lazy bastard. If I sat in a cave for nine years nobody would be dropping by with sandwiches after the first couple of weeks. Its called GET A JOB. ----- Original Message ----- From: Edgar Owen To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 7:50 AM Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: JUDO
Hi Al,
Aren't you confusing Gautama Buddha with Bodhidharma? Bodhidharma is the one
who sat in the cave facing the wall for 9 years, not Gautama. As for Gautama
being fat here's a sculpture of him during his ascetic period.....
Edgar
On Sep 12, 2008, at 12:52 AM, Fitness63 wrote:
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.
�
Al
�
�
----- Original Message -----
From:�Bill Smart
To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:�Thursday, September 11, 2008 8:35 PM
Subject:�[Zen] Re: JUDO
Al,
Exactly!
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?
Bill!�
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED], "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�
chi,�
> weak chi, etc..., you are no longer talking about chi, you're just�
babbling�
> 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�
all,�
> they are part of the real world and thus there are all kinds.
>
<<180px-EmaciatedBuddha.JPG>>
