Thousands flock to see 'Buddha Boy' in Nepalese jungle

No.

Are you sure? and does this mean that you believe this story?

The Buddha Siddhartha was actually quite trim. However, I doubt this boy is the reincarnation of anyone special.

1.Yes.

2. No

Why would not believing the traditional Chinese interpretation of Buddha is an accurate portrait lead you to think I believe that some person is a reincarnation of the Buddha?

Actually, Buddha was a fag . . . he was as gay as argyle socks . . . he was always on the look-out for hot young studs, and he was very much into buffed, body-builder gay boys, and hung out in gyms a lot . . . he was very obsessed with his abs . . .

Okay, so Buddha in question was not "fat and bald", and you've stated that you do not believe this story but since you do "believe" that he was not "fat and bald" does imply that you believe in buddhism? Are you a Buddhist?

Um...are you sure about this Setana?

This means that you're the wrong type of guy, the type he'd probably use to sit his big fat butt on and use as toilet seat?

Nick, all i can say is that if you took my post seriously, i have a very lucrative bridge which i can let you have at a deep, deep discount . . .

Zippo, you are reaching new lows of incoherence and illogicality . . . precisely why would a reluctance on the part of the Cunning Coney to believe this silly story, or an allegation on her part that Buddha was not fat or bald constitute evidence that she "believes in" Buddhism?

Why do you always butt in on other peoples questions? Cant she defend herself?

It implies nothing of the sort.


If you said Queen Elizabeth I was fat I would contradict you.

This does not imply that I am a monarchist.

It clearly implies that you BELIEVE he was not "fat and bald". SO you do "believe" in Buddha ? You said you were sure he was not "fat and bald". How can you be so sure about something and not believe in it?

Do you just believe the pictures you saw on the net then?

Bite, me, Antisemite Boy . . . you come up with utter tripe, and then complain about the tenor of the responses . . . that's rich . . .

Defend implies she was attacked . . . why are you attacking her?

Believing there was an historical figure called Siddhartha, whom many now know as the Buddha, is not to imply belief in Buddhism.

I have no trouble believing there was some historical figure upon whom the myths of Christianity are based. Likewise, this does not make me a Christian. Similarly, I do not believe the white, fair-haired depictions of this figure made by later Christians.

When it comes to physical descriptions of Siddhartha, I tend to believe descriptions contained in scholarly histories.

With figures such as Siddhartha, of course, one may never be sure, but I am far more likely to believe Indian sources than images made over by the Chinese later, and valuing Chinese ideals and wants in their representation.


You're a strange little troll, Zippo.

Tell me what has made you what you are?

You seem to get so excited and het up about your obsessions.

Are your fevered obsessions just trolling bait, or do you really believe in them?

I think that is his only mode, isn't it?

I normally never read him. I thought he was just a troll, though?

It was just fun to make a response to his rhetorical question this time.

Of course, you're right, Cunning Coney . . . and i should ignore him . . . i have this nasty little pleasure, though, in occasionally poking the trolls . . .

Well, that's what I was doing.

But it's more fun for me if I do it calmly.

How Ive longed to see such pointless humour laden discourse on the boards of late.

Im gonna have me a bacon and penut butter sammich , just in honor of sidharta gautama

I can see a movie starring David Spade as Buddha Boy