"Enlightened" AND Obese and Indolent?

xerosaburu · Post by **xerosaburu** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 2:56 am

Is that even possible?

Tharan · Post by **Tharan** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 3:48 am

In the same way that Unenlightened and Fit Cardiovascularly might be possible.

xerosaburu · Post by **xerosaburu** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 8:06 am

Tharan wrote:In the same way that Unenlightened and Fit Cardiovascularly might be possible.

You see, that's where you're wrong. A person may be physically fit as an animal might be fit and yet be as unenlightened as an animal, however a truly enlightened person knows how to control the physical.

That's why the fatuous and obese cannot be "enlightened".

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 9:06 am

What is your basis for this? How do you define "enlightened"?

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 9:30 am

I actually agree with Xero here, though the indolent part is somewhat dependent on how indolence is being conceived. However, there's no way an obese person could be enlightened - with the following exceptions:

# the person's mentality changed after they became obese.

# the person's obesity is a consequence of clinical problems such as thyroid screw-ups.

Hmm, those are actually the only two exceptions I can think of. Is it really necessary to explain why an obese person would not be enlightend? I wouldn't have thought so.

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 9:49 am

Dan, fat doesn't get in the way of thinking. It's only the processes that lead to obesity that can indicate lack of wisdom (obsession with food, etc.) -- as you yourself showed through your examples. But there are many reasons a person may be obese, and not all of them are within the control of the person.

In fact, I can just as easily imagine someone in the peak of physical health being unwise (obsession with exercise or appearance); as well, people of average body type are also just as prone to unwise behaviour.

Frankly, wisdom is such a rare phenomenon that it would be near impossible to establish a direct link between body type and wisdom. You can only make educated guesses (he would be concerned with health, so would likely not be over-the-top fat).

As far as "indolence" is concerned: a poor factory worker may be seen as lazy by his employers, or a poor student may be seen as lazy by his teachers -- the same employers and teachers who would shrivel at the thought of sitting in a chair thinking about one topic for a few hours. Whereas, it's likely the very same poor factory worker/student would have no problem armchair philosophizing.

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 9:58 am

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Dan, fat doesn't get in the way of thinking. It's only the processes that lead to obesity that can indicate lack of wisdom (obsession with food, etc.) -- as you yourself showed through your examples. But there are many reasons a person may be obese, and not all of them are within the control of the person.

Sure, but I think I made that point. In most cases, however, obesity is the result of a mentality that is not conducive to thinking. The one qualification I'd add to that is that the resultant suffering caused by that mentality may possibly create a paradigm shift in that person's perspective. That of course is potentially the case with all egotistical behavour.

In fact, I can just as easily imagine someone in the peak of physical health being unwise (obsession with exercise or appearance); as well, people of average body type are also just as prone to unwise behaviour.

I agree. I would put most really fit people in much the same category as the obese. Xero will hate that of course, since he likes to run....

Frankly, wisdom is such a rare phenomenon that it would be near impossible to establish a direct link between body type and wisdom. You can only make educated guesses (he would be concerned with health, so would likely not be over-the-top fat).

Again, agreed. Such a person would tend not to overly abuse his body, but neither would he be obssessive about it.

As far as "indolence" is concerned: a poor factory worker may be seen as lazy by his employers, or a poor student may be seen as lazy by his teachers -- the same employers and teachers who would shrivel at the thought of sitting in a chair thinking about one topic for a few hours. Whereas, it's likely the very same poor factory worker/student would have no problem armchair philosophizing.

Yeah, the indolence part of Xero's post is pretty nebulous. He'd have to expand on his point for it to make any sense to me.

Katy · Post by **Katy** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 3:58 pm

A wise person could be obese because they're on welfare and thus perpetually broke and eating ramen?

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 4:23 pm

I don't think living soley off noodles will ever make you obese. You'd have to eat more of them than your budget could afford.

Katy · Post by **Katy** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 4:44 pm

Dan Rowden wrote:I don't think living soley off noodles will ever make you obese. You'd have to eat more of them than your budget could afford.

I gained about 20lbs eating nothing but two packs of ramen and four pieces of toast a day for a semester... (which is the only way I found to eat for $1 a day)

besides, Ramen may not really be the point - healthy food is significantly more expensive than unhealthy. Fruits and veggies are ridiculous - I very very rarely get them at all.

Matt Gregory · Post by **Matt Gregory** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:34 pm

Ramen noodles are fried.

Oatmeal is pretty cheap and good.

Kelly Jones · Post by **Kelly Jones** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 8:07 pm

If comfort and health are holy veal, then an enlightened person might choose to be extremely fat and filthy.

Mightn't live so long, but in another way he might.

LooF · Post by **LooF** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 8:55 pm

i seem to be unable to gain weight even if i eat the most unhealthy foods

Matt Gregory · Post by **Matt Gregory** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 8:56 pm

I think it makes more sense to concentrate on people's philosophical attachments rather than their physical ones. Becoming fat and filthy in that situation would be like wearing an inverted cross around Christians or something.

Kelly Jones · Post by **Kelly Jones** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 10:04 pm

I agree, yet the sense-world is the mental world. So it can be a mine-field of philosophical attachments. Like a website full of interactive scripted objects.

Kelly Jones · Post by **Kelly Jones** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 10:09 pm

Generally though, i think the best form a wise person could take is a voice and words like honey, or golden yolk, that runs down into every crevice.

All their activities could be metaphors in the alert mind.

I like the idea of the plain ordinary joe - no different to anyone else, and does what everyone does. Yet also does what everyone else can't, namely, be completely empty and float like a cloud above everything, good fortune or bad.

Matt Gregory · Post by **Matt Gregory** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 10:27 pm

I agree, yet the sense-world is the mental world. So it can be a mine-field of philosophical attachments. Like a website full of interactive scripted objects.

I don't think it makes sense to equate the sense world with the mental world in this context. I agree they're the same in a philosophical way, but when we go to enact change in the physical world it makes sense to separate them in order to clarify what's effective and what isn't.

I see philosophizing and acting as completely different activities with different conceptual requirements. With acting you want as many different categories as you can manage, but it's the opposite with philosophizing when you're trying to peer into their underlying substance.

Generally though, i think the best form a wise person could take is a voice and words like honey, or golden yolk, that runs down into every crevice.

All their activities could be metaphors in the alert mind.

Yeah, I know what you mean.

I like the idea of the plain ordinary joe - no different to anyone else, and does what everyone does. Yet also does what everyone else can't, namely, be completely empty and float like a cloud above everything, good fortune or bad.

Yeah, I also think of the plain ordinary joe as someone who responds to the situation spontaneously without reliance on rules and that sort of thing.

Carl G · Post by **Carl G** » Sun Jan 07, 2007 1:13 am

This is ludicrous. The fucking poster child for Enlightenment, The fucking Buddha himself, is obese.

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Sun Jan 07, 2007 5:26 am

The Laughing Buddha (Fat Buddha) is not the same as Guatama Buddha (who is believed to have been a real person, and is the supposed founder of Buddhism). Fatty exists only in mythology and prophecy.

Statues of Guatama depict a thin man with crossed legs and a serene expression.

Carl G · Post by **Carl G** » Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:37 am

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:The Laughing Buddha (Fat Buddha) is not the same as Guatama Buddha (who is believed to have been a real person, and is the supposed founder of Buddhism). Fatty exists only in mythology and prophecy.

Statues of Guatama depict a thin man with crossed legs and a serene expression.

Oh, then, my bad. But the depiction is still pleased obesity. Maybe it's supposed to represent fullness of understanding or something. Pretty weird, anyway.

Tharan · Post by **Tharan** » Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:43 am

The "fat" archetytpe is derived from a food scarcity context. The opposite archetype-as-ideal is true today.

Unidian · Post by **Unidian** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:00 pm

Jeez, guys, this thread! "Enlightenment and Obesity?" Wisdom and body type? What kind of rubbish is this? LOL!