Hi Marsha, Well, nothing in my post negated anything you said, so I must assume from your tone that you want another silly debate.
My point was that in the Western world, "Emptiness" does not have the same meaning. Emptiness is the opposite of Fullness, and I don't think you would say that this life is not full. Yes, Buddhism was alive and well thousands of years before Buddha as well. Even he said this using his previous lifetimes as proof. Buddhism is a Western term coined about 100 years ago. Buddhism did not exist until the West got a hold of it. It is Hinduism through and through. Now, I am sure you are going to go down google lane to find some obscure quote that you will use like a good Christian and once again throw the book into the forum. Cheep Tricks indeed! So my statements were to bring meaning to MoQ in terms which not just out of touch people like you can understand. So, you claim that DQ is empty. Is DQ the result of emptiness, is emptiness the result of DQ, or do Emptiness and DQ mean exactly the same thing. It does not seem that you have thought this thing through yet and are perfectly happy to let your Preachers say what you need to believe. My church is not the church of reason, nor is it the church of whim. I have never told anyone how they should think since that is an impossibility and is simply the Ego. You keep trying to spread your DOGMA in terms that have no meaning. It is like going to see a play in Greek! sq exists in stable patterns relative to other patterns? What in the heck does that mean. You have converted MoQ into a nursery rhyme. Let see, what does pattern rhyme with so that I can remember how it is supposed to be. You have objectified Quality beyond belief. All these rules and measurements for static quality and dynamic quality. They both HAVE to be EMPTY. Silly girl! So, if I get you right, everything is a pattern, just sq has some kind of "special property" that makes it static. What absolute nonsense, especially since you cannot support this contention and simply recite verses from the Bible. You remind me of those dogmatic Christians that throw sayings from the bible at everyone. Even worse, talking to you is like talking to a right wing Christian. Now, you may love your money, but if so, please use your own words to explain why. Go back to your right wing talk radio and stop spreading its format all over this forum. It is low quality indeed. If you to destroy the planet by saying it is empty then keep that to yourself. In my opinion it is full. There is no meaning according to you, and for this I feel sorry for you (seriously). Everything is contingent for you and on you, it must be hard to live that way. You try to place yourself in some kind of relative framework against everyone else. And because of that you feel hurt if somebody disagrees with you for that places you a little farther down on your misguided rungs on the ladder. Drop it Marsha! It's not hard. We were all Awakened when we were born. There is nothing to do except to stop destroying it. Go watch your Fox news and settle down a bit. I thought we were having a meaningful discussion. But once again I see that this was just another ego trip for you. Sorry to pull your covers, but destroying MoQ is not something that I am about. There are forums for that. Come back when you understand Buddhism and can present it in your own words. You are not a spokesperson for Pirsig. You do not understand a thing he has presented as shown by your posts. Citing him is only dragging him down to your level. Leave him alone! Leave Steve Hagen alone! It is embarrassing. Cheers, Mark On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 8:52 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 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 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
