Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Pertaining to Buddha himself, is obesity really the way in which an eminent voice on the religion should present himself?

Philosophically, I admire Greek notions of grandeur and physical perfection as well as perfection on an intellectual plane as well - which was also a representation recurrent in the Italian Renaissance.

The fat Buddha became a symbol, is all. By all historical accounts, we either have no idea what the Buddha looked like, or he was much less rotund. The infamous Buddha pose is, if anything, a representation of happiness, not a statement on a religious figure's BMI.

Beyond that, obesity isn't always looked down upon. Or rather, it shouldn't be when pertaining to religious matters. Would you discount someone's opinion because of their weight? Unless the matter on which they spoke was, say, fitness, I hope your answer would be a resounding "no."

Your admiration of physical perfection is, perhaps, itself admirable. However, it has no bearing on spirituality. Nor happiness, for that matter, which was one of the primary virtues espoused by the Buddha's philosophy.

In summary, this is a silly notion. We might as well deduct points from Jesus because he didn't have hella-ripped abs.

Also, wrong forum.

Originally posted by Digi
In summary, this is a silly notion. We might as well deduct points from Jesus because he didn't have hella-ripped abs.

It just so happens we have an actual likeness painting of the Christ during His biggest moment:


http://www.comicbookmovie.com/images/users/uploads/17602/jesus_buff.jpg

Originally posted by Digi
it has no bearing on spirituality. Nor happiness, for that matter Wrong on both accounts.

Spiritually leanness represents the energy of a healthy, normal youth. Muscular perfection, well that's a step further. As for happiness, scientifically and in the common sense shared among the generations the lived around the time of the actual Buddha (if there was one when the religion was founded), is a better body not the result of increased dopamine reception and therefore increased release of hgh; does a high metabolism, strong immune system, superior central nervous system, better blood circulation, oxygen capacity, does all that not support a healthier, happier, more dopamine enriched mind?

Off-topic; the True Buddha:

gxM79UNvKqc

Originally posted by Oneness
Wrong on both accounts.

Spiritually leanness represents the energy of a healthy, normal youth. Muscular perfection, well that's a step further. As for happiness, scientifically and in the common sense shared among the generations the lived around the time of the actual Buddha (if there was one when the religion was founded), is a better body not the result of increased dopamine reception and therefore increased release of hgh; does a high metabolism, strong immune system, superior central nervous system, better blood circulation, oxygen capacity, does all that not support a healthier, happier, more dopamine enriched mind?

You're confusing "does represent" with "can represent." Important distinction, that.

As mentioned, though, the Buddha didn't preach being fat. One can't help how future generations reduce one's philosophical legacy to a trite and misleading statue. Go do some homework on the Buddha's actual teachings instead of basing an opinion off of a symbol whose metaphoric meaning you fail to grasp.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It just so happens we have an actual likeness painting of the Christ during His biggest moment:
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/images/users/uploads/17602/jesus_buff.jpg

Lol. And thus did atheism weep in defeat.

Originally posted by Oneness
Pertaining to Buddha himself, is obesity really the way in which an eminent voice on the religion should present himself?

Philosophically, I admire Greek notions of grandeur and physical perfection as well as perfection on an intellectual plane as well - which was also a representation recurrent in the Italian Renaissance.

Learn something before you make a fool of yourself. Too late!

The round fat Buddha is not what Buddha looked like. It represented a good life.

What you understand as The Buddha is a total misunderstanding of Buddhism to begin with. There are several branches of Buddhism. THe version you are mocking is the populist version known as Mahayana Buddhism which worships the original Siddhartha as almost like a God. It is a stretched truth version to say the least kind of like the differences between, Protestants, Mormons, Later Day Saints, Catholics, Muslims, Judaism and Orthodox Christians in their interpretations of the Old Testament/Torah. You can say that Mahayana Buddhism is like the Mormon version of Buddhism; a VERY different story from the original. There are several people who attain the capacity of Enlightenment and from what we understand and that they were so saint-like they gave up enlightenment to help others and they are known as Bodhisattva. Your comments in terms of obesity without your knowledge is over one of the Bodhisattva statues that was popularized in populist Mahayana Buddhism. The true characteristics that are considered the hallmarks of a "Buddha" when making a statue are known as "the 32 marks of a great man" http://essays.triratna.info/02-Thirty-two-Signs-of-a-Buddha.html

I took a survey world religion course and two art history courses on Asian Art History. That is why I know this.

Originally posted by RaventheOnly
I took a survey world religion course and two art history courses on Asian Art History. That is why I know this.



Sadly, even this is grossly over-credentialed to refute the OP's premise.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Learn something before you make a fool of yourself. Too late!

The round fat Buddha is not what Buddha looked like. It represented a good life. I contradicted that proclamation without making a fool of myself.

Buddha did in fact starve himself until he nearly died, was that apart of his good life?

I think to say being plump=being happy is against common sense. Obesity literally causes physiological depression, it's called hyperglycemia.

Originally posted by Digi


Sadly, even this is grossly over-credentialed to refute the OP's premise. No one ever even gets my premises.

Excluding you.

She's off trying to explain the entire religion, I'm scrutinizing a very minute portion of it.

Originally posted by Digi
You're confusing "does represent" with "can represent." Important distinction, that.

As mentioned, though, the Buddha didn't preach being fat. One can't help how future generations reduce one's philosophical legacy to a trite and misleading statue. Go do some homework on the Buddha's actual teachings instead of basing an opinion off of a symbol whose metaphoric meaning you fail to grasp.
How do I base anything off his symbol.

Of course if I were Buddhist the very thesis of this post would still be as irrelevant to the religion in and of itself as it is now, silly people.

I'm exposing the obvious joy of being fit by reconsidering the symbolism of tubby-Buddha as a happy one.

Originally posted by Oneness
How do I base anything off his symbol.

Of course if I were Buddhist the very thesis of this post would still be as irrelevant to the religion in and of itself as it is now, silly people.

I'm exposing the obvious joy of being fit by reconsidering the symbolism of tubby-Buddha as a happy one.

You're not exposing sh*t. You're misunderstanding - deliberately or through ignorance - a metaphoric symbol. And the fat Buddha IS a symbol, and this entire thread is about it, so your first sentence here is incoherent.

If you need further proof, the only actual Buddhist on KMC is calling this sh*t as well.

I get it; you want to make some statement about fitness. You're doing it the wrong way, though, because nothing about what you're attempting to attack is commentary on fitness and health.

Originally posted by Oneness
I contradicted that proclamation without making a fool of myself.

You seemed foolish to me.

Originally posted by Oneness
Buddha did in fact starve himself until he nearly died, was that apart of his good life?

Buddha tried many things until he awake to his enlightenment. Get a book about Buddha and learn something.

Originally posted by Oneness
I think to say being plump=being happy is against common sense. Obesity literally causes physiological depression, it's called hyperglycemia.

We are talking about symbolism. Buddha wasn't fat. The oldest statues of Buddha are of a thin man.

When I see a body builder the first thing that comes to my mind is DON'T USE BIG WORDS! hee hee

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You seemed foolish to me.

Misunderstandings are a root cause of otherwise avoidable conflict.





Which was moderation as pertaining to his diet? Yes, but that is called an imbalanced diet, as he kept eating the same thing IIRC. So no, it's illogical and against the rest of what he discovered about blissfulness - applying the perfect balance/moderation in life.

Bodybuilders have don't have a lot of functional muscle. Sprinters almost always look like intellectuals when they're in a normal outfit cause they just look skinny. As do most MMA fighters, yet they have above average muscle, to the extreme actually. But it's all in definition, not in bulk.

theres no way buddha was that fat. he lived on rice and shit

Originally posted by Oneness
Pertaining to Buddha himself, is obesity really the way in which an eminent voice on the religion should present himself?

Philosophically, I admire Greek notions of grandeur and physical perfection as well as perfection on an intellectual plane as well - which was also a representation recurrent in the Italian Renaissance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budai

Really tho

Originally posted by dadudemon
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/images/users/uploads/17602/jesus_buff.jpg Good muscular strength (high street tier?), but poor piercing resistance (though I suspect a good healing factor once the irritations are removed).

Also, impressive pain tolerance.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
without doing any research what so ever. Couple things you must understand:

1) I obviously have some limited knowledge of Buddhism - albeit, mainly pertaining to Buddha himself.

How did I get it? Research.

2) The purpose of my question has seemingly alluded everyone but Digi based on the responses I'm getting. Which doesn't surprise me, as Digi is an exceptionally deductive and comprehensive reader. Why would robustness have become the symbolism for an enlightened man who’s achieved a mental state of perfection, as opposed to perfection of body?

It is more than just common sense that a fit person will have more dopamine due to better blood circulation and higher energy levels. And that a fit body is also the result of a balanced diet and exercise routine. Fitness should be an integral part of Buddhism for these reasons.

So, yeah.

Oneness,

Where are you getting this obese Buddha from? Could you post a pic or link?

Originally posted by Robtard
Oneness,

Where are you getting this obese Buddha from? Could you post a pic or link? Tell me, do the majority of us recognize a fat Buddha, or a "skinny" Buddha?

Originally posted by Oneness
Why would robustness have become the symbolism for an enlightened man who’s achieved a mental state of perfection, as opposed to perfection of body?


The answer is because perfection of body is subjective, and our current cultural norms are not universal. As such a large or obese body can be considered the pinnacle of human shapeliness in other cultures.

Originally posted by Oneness
Tell me, do the majority of us recognize a fat Buddha, or a "skinny" Buddha?

Stupid westerners that haven't done the tiniest bit of research associate the image of Budai with Buddha and therefore recognize a "fat Buddha" (see previous link)

Originally posted by Bardock42
The answer is because perfection of body is subjective, and our current cultural norms are not universal. As such a large or obese body can be considered the pinnacle of human shapeliness in other cultures.



Stupid westerners that haven't done the tiniest bit of research associate the image of Budai with Buddha and therefore recognize a "fat Buddha" (see previous link)

Perfect answer! Time to close this thread.

Originally posted by Oneness
Tell me, do the majority of us recognize a fat Buddha, or a "skinny" Buddha?

Most of the Buddha pics/sculptures I see are of the thin East Asian depiction. Likely due to my love of Thai food.

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/images/h2/h2_2002.131.jpg

Anyhow, where are you getting your obese Buddha from? Post a pic or link?

Robtard, maybe he's so stone that he doesn't know.

He should probably just eat more Thai food.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The answer is because perfection of body is subjective, and our current cultural norms are not universal. As such a large or obese body can be considered the pinnacle of human shapeliness in Obesity and anorexia are the result of an imbalanced lifestyle; (poor sleeping patterns, eating terrible foods, using drugs, not getting ample amounts of activity from day to day). In fact, meditation in and of itself can aid in preventing addictions to drugs, sex, or food because it produces dopamine as well, but in a more natural, more healthy, and less destructive way.

Perfection of body in the way Greek Spartans defined it as the standard for any soldier within their ranks. Both women and men can be fit and slim. Neither Buddha nor "Budai" have that image physical perfection which the Greeks always utilized when depicting their preeminent deities.

Anorexia is not the opposite of obesity.

The Spartans were also a culture that had their subjective ideas for what perfect bodies are. They are no more absolute than any other. Again you are asking why do some cultures have a different ideals for bodies, it's because it is subjective.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Anorexia is not the opposite of obesity.

The Spartans were also a culture that had their subjective ideas for what perfect bodies are. They are no more absolute than any other. Now we're getting into the issues I want to get into.

They are, for the reasons I explained above. The apprehension of such physiques are more easily acquired by practicing moderation in diet, activity (rest versus exercise), and in distractions (sex and drugs).

No, it's because, culturally, Greece was superior. It lacked the standardized denials of the true nature of experience in which many modern day cultures accept.

The Greek ideologies of that day and age are no longer prevalent anywhere outside of martial arts and athletic communities, and that's just in that aspect.

A more philosophically important aspect in which all cultures should adopt is the aspect of the idol, the ideal role model on a national, as opposed to an individualistic, level.

He/she has been warped, culturally, we strive for the wrong things. Most cultural idols of the modern world are lacking in moderation, discipline, collaboration, and creativity (breaking away from the standard to create one's own group or idea as opposed to exploiting other groups and ideas). A lack of these virtues are why America is going down-hill.

The idea of Greece superiority is really more based on eurocentrism and white supremacy than real objective superiority.

Martial Arts, coincidentally, seem to be extremely influenced by Asian philosophy.

At any rate, I don't think you have to worry that any dominant culture currently strives for obesity.

Originally posted by Oneness
Obesity and anorexia are the result of an imbalanced lifestyle; (poor sleeping patterns, eating terrible foods, using drugs, not getting ample amounts of activity from day to day). In fact, meditation in and of itself can aid in preventing addictions to drugs, sex, or food because it produces dopamine as well, but in a more natural, more healthy, and less destructive way.

Perfection of body in the way Greek Spartans defined it as the standard for any soldier within their ranks. Both women and men can be fit and slim. Neither Buddha nor "Budai" have that image physical perfection which the Greeks always utilized when depicting their preeminent deities.


Anorexia is a medical condition, an eating disorder and likely a mental disorder as well dealing with one's skewed self image. Obesity can also be caused by eating and mental disorders as not all obese people have a physical medical reason why they're obese.

You've been watching too many films. Spartans were not all these 6-pack carrying low body fat oiled guys running around in adult diapers. They were soldiers and trained rigorously for battle prowess, so while they were fit due to this, they didn't spend hours in the gym targeting certain muscle groups to body-sculpt.

Another example, Roman gladiators in films are often depicted as extremely muscular and/or ripped guys. This is far from reality.

Originally posted by Robtard
Spartans were not all these 6-pack carrying low body fat oiled guys running around in adult diapers. They were soldiers and trained rigorously for battle prowess, so while they were fit due to this, they didn't spend hours in the gym targeting certain muscle groups to body-sculpt. This makes it an even better example of objectivism. Being fit for the sake of survival. Yet there's more than just an increased survival rate to be benefitted from being fit or toned in any sense: You look better, you feel better, you are better in the most naturalistic sense. You'll more easily meditate, you'll more easily fight addictions, in the process of becoming healthier and fitter.

Another good way of describing non-subjective definitions of superiority is looking at how systems were designed to operate. Was modern society designed to overcome scarcity of food and resources? Yes. Is modern society unable to obtain food and resources currently? No. And what you get is big businesses taking control of militaries and doing terrible, terrible things; destroying lives, damaging society's capacity as a whole, preventing systems from operating how they're supposed to, by creating social classes with unfair advantages over others, etc.

It's a growing cascade of imbalances, of evils.

Originally posted by Oneness
This makes it an even better example of objectivism. Being fit for the sake of survival. Yet there's more than just an increased survival rate to be benefitted from being fit or toned in any sense: You look better, you feel better, you are better in the most naturalistic sense.

Another good way of describing non-subjective definitions of superiority is looking at how systems were designed to operate. Was modern society designed to overcome scarcity of food and resources? Yes, is modern society unable to obtain food and resources currently? No. And what you get is big businesses taking control of militaries and doing terrible, terrible things; destroying lives, damaging society's capacity as a whole, preventing systems from operating how they're supposed to, by creating social classes with unfair advantages over others, etc.

It's a growing cascade of imbalances, of evils.

"Look better" is subjective. Not all that long ago in the USofA being heavy-set was seen as more attractive. "Most naturalistic sense", do you think humans are naturally these muscle-bound ripped beings? They're not. As far as "survival" goes, having a measure of body fat is more beneficial then being so lean you see the abdominal muscles.

I'm a proponent of being fit, eating well and working out, but what you try to pass off as "facts" is a bit odd.

Originally posted by Robtard
"Look better" is subjective. Not all that long ago in the US of A being heavy-set was seen as more attractive. "Most naturalistic sense", do you think humans are naturally these muscle-bound ripped beings? They're not. As far as "survival" goes, having a measure of body fat is more beneficial then being so lean you see the abdominal muscles.

I'm a proponent of being fit, eating well and working out, but what you try to pass off as "facts" is a bit odd. More often than not regular athletes have more appealing physiques than bodybuilders who just want lean muscles; as well as inactive twigs and lumps who have no regard for a healthy lifestyle.

Originally posted by Oneness
More often than not regular athletes have more appealing physiques than bodybuilders who just want lean muscles; as well as inactive twigs and lumps who have no regard for a healthy lifestyle.

"Regular athletes", which is what exactly?

Originally posted by Robtard
"Regular athletes", which is what exactly? Athletes trained for skills pertinent to survival in a natural setting as oppossed to just having the maximum amount of muscular size, definition, and symmetricality, for our purposes here.

Mma works, covering ground and terrein obstacles faster (track and field) works, football soccer, swimming, rock climbing, ninja warrior competitors, to name a few, they all work.

I may actually make my first functional topic, a paper as to why and how naturalism could be used scientifically to develop a factual religion/ideological belief system that would not be fully completed until the end of time, just like the rest of the scientific fields. Of course it would imply measuring influence of, for all intents and purposes, a conscious element of the cosmos as oppossed to a mindless, systemic, and anomalous one.

Originally posted by Oneness
I may actually make my first functional topic, a paper as to why and how naturalism could be used scientifically to develop a factual religion/ideological belief system that would not be fully completed until the end of time, just like the rest of the scientific fields. Of course it would imply measuring influence of, for all intents and purposes, a conscious element of the cosmos as oppossed to a mindless, systemic, and anomalous one.

When are you going to write that first functional topic?

Originally posted by Oneness
Athletes trained for skills pertinent to survival in a natural setting as oppossed to just having the maximum amount of muscular size, definition, and symmetricality, for our purposes here.

Mma works, covering ground and terrein obstacles faster (track and field) works, football soccer, swimming, rock climbing, ninja warrior competitors, to name a few, they all work.

Not sure if any of what you listed would help anyone survive better than say an average healthy/fit person in a "natural setting", which I assume you mean to be as a wilderness setting.

ie not sure if being a greatly skilled fighter, runner, ball kicker/catcher, swimmer or climber will help you with the skills needed to build a fire, shelter, have knowledge of the local fauna for consumption and medical purposes or help you hunt for that matter.

Unless you intend to run an animal to the ground and beat it up with your fist?

Originally posted by Robtard
Not sure if any of what you listed would help anyone survive better than say an average healthy/fit person in a "natural setting", which I assume you mean to be as a wilderness setting.

ie not sure if being a greatly skilled fighter, runner, ball kicker/catcher, swimmer or climber will help you with the skills needed to build a fire, shelter, have knowledge of the local fauna for consumption and medical purposes or help you hunt for that matter.

Unless you intend to run an animal to the ground and beat it up with your fist? After a certain point, as far as bodytype is concerned, the aesthetic result is the same. Movement itself can have a sort of aestheticism, and many of those tasks mentioned invovle like levels of kinesthetic skill.

The usage of the neurons in your muscles can improve the neuronal functions of the neurons responsible for cleverness or problem solving in the form energy metabolism. Although indirect, cognitive and athletic intelligence are interrelated.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
When are you going to write that first functional topic? "Proper essay", more like.

Originally posted by Oneness
"Proper essay", more like.

No, I wanted to see your first functional topic on this forum.

If ever I were to decide to create an essay pro-anything, fully invested and backed by credible, authentic fact; any counter-argument made against that essay would be futile.

Even if countered by Digi.

Originally posted by Oneness
If ever I were to decide to create an essay pro-anything, fully invested and backed by credible, authentic fact; any counter-argument made against that essay would be futile.

Even if countered by Digi.

Before you make any essay, first try to make a coherent thread.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, I wanted to see your first functional topic on this forum. Topics are meant to be essays.

How many citations do you ever see in my topics?

They aren't proper essays but they're good practice none-the-less. Plus, they help me get my thoughts down.

Now if you've never taken our conversations in the general discussion forum seriously, as you clearly are not now, than I suggest you keep our conversations exclusively in the reprise bar thread from here on out.

Originally posted by Oneness
Topics are meant to be essays.

How many citations do you ever see in my topics.

They aren't proper essays but they're practice none-the-less and they help me get ny thoughts down.

Now if you've never our conversations in the general forum aeriously, aa you clearly are not now, than I suggest you keep our conversations exclusively in the reprise bar thread from here on out.

I give up!! It's like insulting a brick wall

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Before you make any essay, first try to make a coherent thread. Nothing about the topic post is incoherent. Confusing? Maybe. But the deductive have no problem deciphering anything written properly in English that isn't just word-soup.

Originally posted by Oneness
Nothing about the topic post is incoherent. Confusing? Maybe. But the deductive have no problem deciphering anything written properly in English that isn't just word-soup.

Hyper-time quantum entanglement is the consequence of squirrels playing with their nuts.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I give up!! It's like insulting a brick wall loveu

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Hyper-time quantum entanglement is the consequence of squirrels playing with their nuts.

Good response.