UN: i do not have buddha

1 view
Skip to first unread message

vic metcalfe

unread,
Nov 9, 1993, 9:51:53 PM11/9/93
to
OK, I've been lurking for a while here, trying to define that which is
not definable (how am I doing so far?) and I saw this little bit:

B > 1. Life is suffering.
B > 2. Suffering is caused by desire (for the world, which isn't really real)
B > 3. The way to end suffering is to end desire.
B > 4. The way to end desire is to sever one's attachment to the world.

This looks like it sort of fits what has been said here, but I do have
a question.

Without desire, what is our motivation to do anything? We are
motivated to eat and fornicate, and these things easily lead to desire
for money, good looks, etc. Without motivation would buddha have had
the motivation to become a short *fat* guy? I can not imagine finding
happiness without spiritual wealth, and so I desire the love and
friendship of others and I desire understanding of things like buddha
nature.

I think I am a fairly happy person. Maybe this is only because I'm
not smart enough to realize how unhappy I should be, but that's fine
by me. I have lots of material things, and I desire more. If I loose
something, I don't think twice about it. I'm not tied to my "stuff".
I enjoy reading books that make me think, and I think I'm happier
being bothered by moral and philisophical issues than just plugging
into the TV for "Three's Company" for intellectual stimulation.

I don't mean to put down any of this Buddha stuff, and I'm sorry for:
1. Posting a reply to (what is probably by now) an old thread.
2. My spelling
3. My happyness (well, not really)

Signed,

One very un-enlightened guy.

B > Buddhism is not nilism. Buddhism is not about sadness, it is about joy,
B > a much purer joy than one can get from worldly things. Think of it this
B > way: to be Buddhist is to lack the desire to be harmed, as well as the
B > desire to do harm to others. A buddhist feels no greed. He/she isn't
B > jealous. At least, a buddhist who has enlightenment. Otherwise, the
B > buddhist is just like you and me. Well, you anyways.
B >
B > Sorry about that folx. I waxed serious for a moment. I'll try harder
B > next time.
B >
B > Bill.
B > Also not enlightened, but I do enjoy my work. Does that count?
B > Blowing up DevilBunnies since 1978.
B >
B > PS -- If you want to talk about it, write me. Mu. No, really.
B >
B >

---
RoseReader 2.10 P005331 Entered at [ROSE]
RoseMail 2.10 : RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285

JE NE SAIS RIEN.

unread,
Nov 10, 1993, 11:08:30 PM11/10/93
to
In article <1993Nov10.0...@rose.com>, vic.me...@rose.com (vic metcalfe) writes:
> OK, I've been lurking for a while here, trying to define that which is
> not definable (how am I doing so far?) and I saw this little bit:
>
> B > 1. Life is suffering.
> B > 2. Suffering is caused by desire (for the world, which isn't really real)
> B > 3. The way to end suffering is to end desire.
> B > 4. The way to end desire is to sever one's attachment to the world.

The four basic Truths, as I recall.


>
> This looks like it sort of fits what has been said here, but I do have
> a question.

When is a question not a question?


>
> Without desire, what is our motivation to do anything? We are
> motivated to eat and fornicate, and these things easily lead to desire
> for money, good looks, etc. Without motivation would buddha have had
> the motivation to become a short *fat* guy? I can not imagine finding
> happiness without spiritual wealth, and so I desire the love and
> friendship of others and I desire understanding of things like buddha
> nature.
>
> I think I am a fairly happy person. Maybe this is only because I'm
> not smart enough to realize how unhappy I should be, but that's fine
> by me. I have lots of material things, and I desire more. If I loose
> something, I don't think twice about it. I'm not tied to my "stuff".
> I enjoy reading books that make me think, and I think I'm happier
> being bothered by moral and philisophical issues than just plugging
> into the TV for "Three's Company" for intellectual stimulation.

These things are pleasureable in this world, and the more pleasureable
they are, the more we tend to desire them. This, Buddah says, is part
of the problem. You have lots of cool stuff, but you want more.
This is a never-ending cycle of acquisition and desire, and the more
you have, the harder it is to give it up, much less not desire more.
Given this, Buddah also notes that the things of this world, while
possibly diverting, are transitory and ultimately unsatisfactory
as long-term happiness goes. Even if "Three's Company" was the
most interesting thing on the planet for you, it would get stale
eventually, and then what? The solution is to free yourself from the
bondage of this world and head for the ultimate thing: Nirvana.
Absolute pleasure, no waiting. But you have to leave your baggage
of the world at the door; you can always come back...


>
> I don't mean to put down any of this Buddha stuff, and I'm sorry for:
> 1. Posting a reply to (what is probably by now) an old thread.
> 2. My spelling
> 3. My happyness (well, not really)
>
> Signed,
>
> One very un-enlightened guy.
>

Like we are?


>
>
> ---
> RoseReader 2.10 P005331 Entered at [ROSE]
> RoseMail 2.10 : RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285


Peter

Neil Bernstein

unread,
Nov 11, 1993, 10:07:43 PM11/11/93
to
Si Rowe (sir...@minerva.cis.yale.edu) wrote:
: Um, just a technical point: Nirvana is *not* absolute pleasure. Nirvana is
: *beyond* pleasure, beyond pain, beyond perception, beyond non-perception,
: beyond existence, beyond non-existence.

And at least in most of their songs, beyond comprehensibility.

: And if you can figure that out, you must be closer to it than I am.

That's my point...

- N. "entertain us" B.
--
nwbe...@unix.amherst.edu
...in omnibus requiem quaesivi, et nusquam inveni nisi in angulo cum libro...

JE NE SAIS RIEN.

unread,
Nov 11, 1993, 10:26:46 PM11/11/93
to
In article <sirowe-11...@stiles-42-kstar-node.net.yale.edu>, sir...@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Si Rowe) writes:
> In article <1993Nov10.2...@desire.wright.edu>,

> pgunt...@desire.wright.edu (JE NE SAIS RIEN.) wrote:
>
>
>> The solution is to free yourself from the
>> bondage of this world and head for the ultimate thing: Nirvana.
>> Absolute pleasure, no waiting.
>
> Um, just a technical point: Nirvana is *not* absolute pleasure. Nirvana is
> *beyond* pleasure, beyond pain, beyond perception, beyond non-perception,
> beyond existence, beyond non-existence. And if you can figure that out, you

> must be closer to it than I am.
>
> Yours, Si Rowe
> --------------------------------------------\ sir...@minerva.cis.yale.edu
> "Wooly thinking, Doctor!" \--------\
> "Yes, but very comforting when worn close to the skin."| Si Rowe: not just
> -- the Master and the Doctor, _Logopolis_ | a couple of Greek
> **November 23, 1993: 30th anniversary of _Doctor Who_**| letters!
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whoop, my mistake. I'm on the first couple of steps down the Path; trying
to describe a non-dualistic concept in dualistic terms is tricky at best.
By pleasure, perhaps I should have written `innately fulfilling'?
Something like that...

Adam Turoff

unread,
Nov 11, 1993, 11:04:04 PM11/11/93
to
In article <sirowe-11...@stiles-42-kstar-node.net.yale.edu>,

Si Rowe <sir...@minerva.cis.yale.edu> wrote:
>In article <1993Nov10.2...@desire.wright.edu>,
>pgunt...@desire.wright.edu (JE NE SAIS RIEN.) wrote:
>> The solution is to free yourself from the
>> bondage of this world and head for the ultimate thing: Nirvana.
>> Absolute pleasure, no waiting.
>Um, just a technical point: Nirvana is *not* absolute pleasure. Nirvana is
>*beyond* pleasure, beyond pain, beyond perception, beyond non-perception,
>beyond existence, beyond non-existence. And if you can figure that out, you
>must be closer to it than I am.

I thought Nirvana was in Seattle. Or are they just from Seattle?
Must be something else. Nirvana is not beyond pain. It IS pain.
You stay locked into a sniffing teen spirit constantly for a few days.

Z.
zi...@panix.com

Si Rowe

unread,
Nov 11, 1993, 1:36:58 PM11/11/93
to
In article <1993Nov10.2...@desire.wright.edu>,
pgunt...@desire.wright.edu (JE NE SAIS RIEN.) wrote:


> The solution is to free yourself from the
> bondage of this world and head for the ultimate thing: Nirvana.
> Absolute pleasure, no waiting.

Um, just a technical point: Nirvana is *not* absolute pleasure. Nirvana is


*beyond* pleasure, beyond pain, beyond perception, beyond non-perception,
beyond existence, beyond non-existence. And if you can figure that out, you
must be closer to it than I am.

Yours, Si Rowe

Douglas Satterfield

unread,
Nov 12, 1993, 10:44:39 AM11/12/93
to
Article 1352 of alt.buddha.short.fat.guy:

In article <1993Nov10.0...@rose.com>, vic.me...@rose.com (vic metcalfe) writes:
> OK, I've been lurking for a while here, trying to define that which is
> not definable (how am I doing so far?) and I saw this little bit:
>

> Without desire, what is our motivation to do anything? We are
> motivated to eat and fornicate, and these things easily lead to desire
> for money, good looks, etc. Without motivation would buddha have had
> the motivation to become a short *fat* guy? I can not imagine finding
> happiness without spiritual wealth, and so I desire the love and
> friendship of others and I desire understanding of things like buddha
> nature.
>
> I think I am a fairly happy person. Maybe this is only because I'm
> not smart enough to realize how unhappy I should be, but that's fine
> by me. I have lots of material things, and I desire more. If I loose
> something, I don't think twice about it. I'm not tied to my "stuff".
> I enjoy reading books that make me think, and I think I'm happier
> being bothered by moral and philisophical issues than just plugging
> into the TV for "Three's Company" for intellectual stimulation.

>

> I don't mean to put down any of this Buddha stuff, and I'm sorry for:
> 1. Posting a reply to (what is probably by now) an old thread.
> 2. My spelling
> 3. My happyness (well, not really)
>
> Signed,
>
> One very un-enlightened guy.
>

I'm responding to Vic the "un-enlightened Guy", it is nice to be a
basically happy person as you have stated, it sounds like you are living
in the Present and Have a "Buddha Nature" without realizing it. The things
of this world are very transitory, the life you lead now can change very
drastically. When it does you may be in Pain and searching for the answers
instead of watching Three's Company. When that time comes much of this
philosphy you read here may come in handy, but it is not an over night
process, there will be a great learning curve (we all go through it, it is
Called LIFE). So, by all means enjoy your life now, it is a tremendous
gift. The road has many twist along the way, enjoy the view and keep an
open mind if you get lost.


Doug

Marc S. Meyer

unread,
Nov 12, 1993, 11:47:28 AM11/12/93
to

No need to apologize; you are trying to wrap words around a concept
that cannot be contained. It does not matter how you try to say
it or think it, you will come up short of the truth anyway.

Have an apple while watching the clouds drift by.

Marc Meyer

Tim Poston

unread,
Nov 15, 1993, 3:32:01 AM11/15/93
to
JE NE SAIS RIEN. (pgunt...@desire.wright.edu) wrote:

A fulfilling Void, hmmm.

"Allegiance to the Void implies denial of its voidness;
to banish Reality is to sink deeper into the Real."

You can't get the wood, you know.

Tim


--
___________________________________________________________________
Tim Poston Institute of Systems Science, Nat. Univ. of Singapore
sig = +--- (time is positive)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Jrrrr-Lwssss

unread,
Nov 10, 1993, 3:19:04 AM11/10/93
to
In article <1993Nov10.0...@rose.com> vic.me...@rose.com (vic metcalfe) writes:
>OK, I've been lurking for a while here, trying to define that which is
>not definable (how am I doing so far?) and I saw this little bit:

Lurker alert! Lurker alert! A-whoop! A-whoop!

Sorry about that. Hadda be said.

>B > 1. Life is suffering.
>B > 2. Suffering is caused by desire (for the world, which isn't really real)
>B > 3. The way to end suffering is to end desire.
>B > 4. The way to end desire is to sever one's attachment to the world.
>
>This looks like it sort of fits what has been said here, but I do have
>a question.

Guys? Howcum I'M always the one to answer the serious ones? Huh?

>Without desire, what is our motivation to do anything? We are
>motivated to eat and fornicate, and these things easily lead to desire
>for money, good looks, etc. Without motivation would buddha have had
>the motivation to become a short *fat* guy? I can not imagine finding
>happiness without spiritual wealth, and so I desire the love and
>friendship of others and I desire understanding of things like buddha
>nature.

To quote from the old Buddhist/cowboy mantra:
"I eat when I'm hungry,
I drink when I'm dry,
And if nothing happens,
I'll live 'til I die."

There are certain things every human being needs to have to survive,
enlightened or not. Everyone needs to eat. Everyone needs sleep and
water. And everyone needs companionship of some sort.

(as an aside, I once saw a monk in India. He was meditating. I sat
and watched him for hours (well, not really, my attention span is more
like 15 minutes, but I sat near him reading a newspaper, sort of glancing
in his direction every once and a while). I only saw him move once. He
reached out his left hand and picked up a bowl of water his students
left for him. He drank it. He put it back. Never opened his eyes.
Never moved anything but his arm. Fuckin' amazing. Anyways...)


The shortfat one didn't deny these things (actually, at one point in
his life he did, but discovered that this was a dumb idea). The main
thrust of his teachings is not to desire *much*. OK, when you are
hungry, go ahead and want to eat. That's cool. Just don't want it
too much.

And what is too much, you ask? You'll have to decide that for yourself.
As you said, the shortfat one is indeed a fat one.

Basically, once you are enlightened, you don't really desire things so
much as realize your own needs and limitations. That's about as
simple as it gets.

>I think I am a fairly happy person. Maybe this is only because I'm
>not smart enough to realize how unhappy I should be, but that's fine
>by me. I have lots of material things, and I desire more. If I loose
>something, I don't think twice about it. I'm not tied to my "stuff".
>I enjoy reading books that make me think, and I think I'm happier
>being bothered by moral and philisophical issues than just plugging
>into the TV for "Three's Company" for intellectual stimulation.

Hey, if the world felt the same way as you do, it'd be a much happier
place. Don't worry if you aren't enlighten, or don't understand/believe
in buddhism. Whatever works for you. Have a cigar. Drink some really
strong, painfully black coffee. Whatever. Mu.

It comes down to this: Take no shit, do no harm. That's what the
shortfat one wanted. Hell, that's what all the great teachers of the
world wanted.


>
>I don't mean to put down any of this Buddha stuff, and I'm sorry for:

As (I believe) Alf the poet once said, the Buddha didn't want veneration.
Tease him unmercifully. If anyone deserves it, it's the short fat one.
:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

>1. Posting a reply to (what is probably by now) an old thread.

It's only a week or two old. Chill.

>2. My spelling

OK but don't let it happen again.

>3. My happyness (well, not really)

Don't be sorry for it. Be suspicious of it, if you like. ;)
>
>One very un-enlightened guy.

Bill.
Also unenlightened, but hey! Bite me. It's fun.
Forever.
>

Lee Rudolph

unread,
Nov 17, 1993, 6:31:56 AM11/17/93
to
>As you said, the shortfat one is indeed a fat one.

All Mammon's children love shortening Buddha.

LR

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages