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. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], "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 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! > > --- In [email protected], "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, 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. > > > ------------------------------------ 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: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[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/
