Hi Mark, Sent from my iPad
On Dec 4, 2011, at 2:46 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > 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! You can use any terms that you would like, but as far as I am concerned your choice goes no further than being your own pattern. The same with the paragraph above. I have no inclination to adopt your point-of-view. > So my statements were to bring meaning to MoQ in terms which not just > out of touch people like you can understand. Any generalization you make about "people" is likewise a supposition based on your own biases. > 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. I never used the term 'exactly'. I claim that DQ is unknowable, individeable and undefinable. In comparing the MoQ and Buddhism, I equate Buddhism's Ultimate Truth/Emptiness and Dynamic Quality. > 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. No meaning to you does not equate to no meaning to anybody. > 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! That's empty if independent, inherent existence. > 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. Hahahaha... Good bye. 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
