I meant dependent arising... Sent from my iPad
On Dec 4, 2011, at 11:52 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 dependent 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 > 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
