[MD] The Relativist's journey

[MarshaV]

Hi Mark,

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 4, 2011, at 2:46 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> 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.