[MD] Mother earth -Father sky

[Heather Perella]

     [x]
> I still see all being dynamic and becoming static
> when minds perceive it.
> I hear SA, how can all be no-thing? All is no-thing,
> all is allways changing, all is in a state of
becoming, all is ever
> moving.

     It is not that I don't agree that all is
no-thing.  It is just that anytime we begin to
describe dq, such as it is "always changing, all is in
a state of becoming, all is ever moving." then you've
made dq a static pattern.  As you say above, "all
being dynamic and becoming static when minds perceive
it."  I agree with this.  I really do, also, think
that a tree is saying everything about ultimate
reality, as well.  Thus, a tree is an analogy for
ultimate reality.  A tree is ultimate reality. 
Flowers are ultimate reality as flowers.
     I am just pointing out that when we use the MoQ
to begin to describe dq in static patterns, and ignore
that these are static patterns it is dangerous.  We
are losing out on the meaning of the terminology.  The
innocence of dq.  Yet, if I describe a tree as dq, and
in this whole paragraph I've put into context (key
word) that this tree is a static pattern, an analogy
of dq, which is dq analogizing itself as a tree I am
being respectful of sq and dq in their proper context.
 How does dq analogize?  How does dq do anything?  It
is the static aspect of quality doing all the doing. 
I don't believe dq was ever first and then a beginning
happened and bam sq appears after dq.  All is quality
and the first split is dq/sq.  Dq and sq appear at the
same time, and by saying this it is easy for me to
just say it has always been this way.

thanks.

snowing,
SA


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com.  Try it now.