Al, of course the story about Buddha is a myth; like the story about 
Jesus's virgin birth and his bodily assent into heaven.  And, of 
course 'Buddha Nature' (or the ability to have a direct experience of 
reality free from corruption by your rational mind)existed before the 
myth; just as the ability to be 'reborn' and take God into your heart 
existed before Jesus.

All the valid points you've made in your post below are part of the 
reason zen discourages the use of words, and encourages you to 
experience this for yourself.  That he only way you can really truly 
know - just as the only way you can know 'chi' is to experience it.


--- In, "Fitness63" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 
> 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 
> Al
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Bill Smart 
>   To: 
>   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 
>   an illusion you shouldn't use qualifiers. For example, you 
>   talk about 'my Buddha Nature and your Buddha Nature, or good 
>   Nature and Bad Buddha Nature, etc...; would you?
>   Bill! 
>   --- In, "Fitness63" <fitness63@> 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, 
>   chi, 
>   > weak chi, etc..., you are no longer talking about chi, you're 
>   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. 
>   all, 
>   > they are part of the real world and thus there are all kinds.
>   >


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:

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to