Sent from my iPad
On Dec 4, 2011, at 10:53 AM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Marsha, > Thanks, that is what I thought you meant originally. I was kind of > thrown off for a bit. And yes, words such as that are descriptive and > do not replace the actual thing (which, as you say, do not need to > exist as our compartmentalization of it would seem to imply). I agree > with you that everything that we conceptualize is tied together in a > "dance", and can be subdivided into dances all the way down to > nothingness, and put together all the way up to everything-ness. > > Independent existence is tied to clinging, and I think it is > especially the ego that Buddhism is trying to balance. Times were no > different then than they are now, and spirituality was on the rise in > Buddha's time since materialism was not working for many people. > Currently we live in an objectified world which we treat with disdain > as if it were mindless and had no spirit. > > If we consider ourselves to not be separate from the environment, but > a continuation of it, our respect for all else could increase. It can > be useful to see ourselves as a tornado (or a waterfall). We are > continually exchanging our matter for new molecules from the > environment, and therefore there is nothing that is really "ours". > With a tornado, it is the movement that makes it, and not the > individual air (or dust) particles that are moving. With a waterfall, > if one takes away the water, the waterfall still exists as potential > for expressing itself in material terms at any time. The only thing > missing from such a dry waterfall is the water, everything else is > still there. > > The problems that I have run across when trying to explain emptiness, > is that people become insecure and accuse me of nihilism. The ego is > a hard thing to tame. So, I have dropped that term. It is a > translation of some other word from another time, and our current use > of the term emptiness is counter to our ideas that life should be > full. Nonsense! Buddhism is still an active philosophy, and gaining an increased scholarly perspective and interaction within quantum philosophy and philosophy of mind/consciousness. I equate Dynamic Quality with Emptiness. Quantum theory's non-locality, as I defined it (Static quality exists in stable patterns relative to other patterns. Patterns have no independent existence.), could certainly be understood as suggesting independent arising (Emptiness). Unfortunately, you chose to ignore its metaphysical underpinnings in favor of defining it as a mathematical equation. And "should"? Don't make me laugh... You and the church fathers going to decide what patterns should be presented? Shall I point to RMP's statement in the Oxford interview, where he pronounces free speech as a morally higher pattern than than censorship. > That was why I said that existence is full of meaning and joy > (and everything else). These terms of endearment can come from > moderation (not obsession), and treating the world around us as > spiritual beings with choice (yes even the electron) brings much > meaning and joy. We are not alone on this planet, our intelligence > cannot come from nothing, just like a grape cannot come from thistles. > We are representatives. Zzzzzzzzzz.... Marsha > On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 12:19 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Mark, >> >> Emptiness represents the fundamental nature of all patterns being >> dependently arisen: dependent upon innumerable causes and conditions, >> dependent on wholes and parts, and dependent on mental designation. >> Emptiness is a non-affirming negative because it posits no replacement for >> the false notion of independent existence. But Emptiness, too, is empty of >> independent existence; this is what I meant by analogy, that it should not >> be understood as anything that exists independently. Emptiness is empty of >> independent, inherent existence. >> >> >> Marsha >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Dec 3, 2011, at 10:47 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Marsha, >>> I do not understand. What is Emptiness an analogy for? That is, what does >>> emptiness represent? It has struck me that I do not know what you mean by >>> emptiness. >>> >>> My point was that emptiness can be full of joy, for example. This is not >>> an analogy which is representing something else. >>> >>> Confused, >>> >>> Mark >>> >>> Sent laboriously from an iPhone, >>> Mark >>> >>> On Dec 3, 2011, at 9:19 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Mark, >>>> >>>> Okay, but I tend to think of both emptiness and full as analogy. >>>> >>>> >>>> Marsha >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Dec 3, 2011, at 10:39 AM, 118 wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Marsha, >>>>> >>>>> I will stop thinking about it. At the same time, you consider that >>>>> Emptiness is full. >>>>> >>>>> Sent laboriously from an iPhone, >>>>> Mark >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ___ >>>> >> 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 > 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 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
