Andre,
On Oct 15, 2013, at 1:55 PM, Andre Broersen wrote:
> Andre to Marsha:
> I was using the terminology because you are using similar expressions. I did
> this in an effort to understand, with clarity, your position. Now you are
> using this against my sought after clarification of your position. You refuse
> to commit yourself yet again. This is yet another Lucy trick.
>
> Let me put another question to you (but is closely related):'Do you believe
> that the Nazis killed 6 million human beings in what is
> conventionally/conditionally referred to as the holocaust?'
>
> Marsha responded with:
> I answered your last question: The atomic bombs that dropped on Hiroshima
> and Nagasaki were/are as conditionally real, as "real as rocks and trees".
> That's it. Bye.
>
> Andre:
> I still do not see why you use the adjective 'conditionally' when asked a
> direct question as Pirsig did the professor in Benares. To be more precise, I
> do not see why you fail to answer this question by appealing to the
> 'conditioned' status of phenomena in this world which, in my book simply
> means co-dependent arising.
>
> You may bring up the 'illusory' aspect when phenomena are considered
> permanent, independent and unchanging. But the MoQ has already resolved this
> diversion appeal as well.
>
> I know that as far as you are concerned the question (and your answer) is
> dead and buried (so much for impermanence eh?) but I am extremely
> disappointed that anyone who claims to adhere to Pirsig's MoQ cannot give a
> straightforward yes/no answer to the question: Do you believe that the atomic
> bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were illusory? Or: Do you believe
> that the killing by the Nazis of 6 million human beings in what is referred
> to as the holocaust is illusory?
>
> This is cowardice of the worst kind. Sharing a discussion site with people of
> this ilk makes me seriously re-consider my participation and subscription.
Marsha:
No Andre, I did not bring up the illusory question you did with the little
ditty below. I accused you of not being a mind reader and you changed the
topic. Look below. See for yourself.
So you answer my questions. I wasn't familiar with this MoQ ditty:
'The world is an illusion
Brahman alone is real
Brahman is the world'
I am unfamiliar with RMP's use of 'Brahman'. Please explain how this relates
to anything?
Game over!
Marsha
On Oct 13, 2013, at 4:52 AM, Andre Broersen wrote:
> Marsha to Andre:
> Since you are not a mind-reader, those labels are merely a projection coming
> from your own mind.
>
> Andre:
> Not really. They arise from reading your throw away comments in your posts.
> Are we not suppose to use words and sentences as creatively as we can, even
> going so far as 'reading between the lines' to get to the gist (if need be)
> of what the other poster is trying to communicate? So that we try and do our
> best to understand, as clearly as possible, the other poster's message?
>
> Oh. Oops. I just remembered, you think that words are a prison. Oh well, that
> clarifies a few things.
>
> But, to you 'it matters little'. I am beginning to wonder if anything matters
> to you at all since all sq is hypothetical to you. This is what you generate
> strongly in and through your posts.
>
> 'The world is an illusion
> Brahman alone is real
> Brahman is the world'
>
> You pay no attention whatsoever to the last sentence of this 3-line
> assertion. Doing this would help clarify the first line.
>
___
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
