Did those guys wear helmets? It seems like all those sculpts have the same 
helmet. BTW, he looks really skinny, did he have to sit during the sculpture? 
Looks like he should have made friends with Bodhidharma's staff. 

So who is the fat guy? I thought that was Buddha? Sitting without getting 
exercise is not good. He was definitely living out of balance. 




  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>>

Reply via email to