On Oct 7, 2010, at 11:55 AM, John Carl wrote: > Well Marsha and Mark, > > In the snipped interview of B. Allen Wallace, he says, in disparaging the > idea of emptiness as being an object of creed or belief, that it'd be as > ridiculous to say that one believes in wood. "that's great. You believe in > wood. Now the question is, can you build anything of it?" > > If you make Emptiness your creed, you're a Nihilist. He also disparages > that common mistake. > > The way he uses "emptiness" is in his explanation of SOM. > > "When we think about a subject, in itself or an object, in itself, we're > talking about nothing at all - a null set." > > I agree completely. > > He's a good speaker, and I enjoyed the clip. Thanks for posting, although I > think he completely negates the idea that Emptiness=Quality. > > Quality is a positive goal. > > John
Hi John & Mark, There have been many centuries of explaining Emptiness, and so far most here cling to Quality being indivisible, undefinable and unknowable, but still I understand them to be the same: not this, not that. Not a creed, more a frame of reference. No _independently existing_ self or objects. Ever-changing, interdependent, impermanent static patterns of value is a good way of understanding phenomenon. imho. Can (q)uality as a goal be attained by paying attention? I think so. And paying attention can be attained when you understand Quality. Marsha ___ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
