[MD] emptiness

[Ham Priday]

Hi Marsha, and all "emptiness" followers --


On Wed, 12/21, 2011 at 3:06 AM, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> said to Joe 
Maurer:

> Hi Joe,
>
> There is no "something" that inherently exists.  I never said of
> anything that it _did not exist_. Things or patterns conventionally
> exist.  They do not exist from their own side.  Static patterns of
> value are processes, conditionally co-dependent, impermanent,
> ever-changing and conceptualized, that pragmatically tend to
> persist and change within a stable, predictable pattern.  Within
> the MoQ, these patterns are categorized into a four-level,
> evolutionary, hierarchical structure:  inorganic, biological, social
> and intellectual.  This static value exists in stable patterns relative
> to other patterns.  Patterns depend upon innumerable causes and
> conditions (patterns), depend upon parts and the collection of
> parts (patterns), depend upon conceptual designation (patterns).
> Patterns have no independent, inherent existence.  Further, these
> patterns represent "what works" depending upon on an individual's
> static pattern of life history.

This is a concise, well-presented cosmology overview, Marsha.  What it lacks 
is a proper explanation that will relate it to the "reality" you have in 
mind and make it comprehensible.  For example, immediately following your 
opening premise that no "something" inherently exists, you deny that 
anything does NOT exist.  I can only assume this means that nothing exists 
"inherently".  If I understand you correctly, your conception is that 
(conventional) existence is not intrinsic to Ultimate Reality, and we are in 
agreement.  (If I'm wrong, please correct me.)

You state that things or patterns "do not exist from their own side" but 
"depend upon innumerable causes and conditions" and also "upon parts and the 
collection of parts," which I don't understand.  Do these causes and 
conditions represent the other side of existence?  In other words, is 
Reality (DQ?) the cause or creator of existents?  Or do patterns arise from 
nothingness (emptiness)?

And what about this "static value" that you say "exists in stable patterns 
relative to other patterns"?  Is Value also a pattern which has no 
independent, inherent existence, or is it the Reality of DQ itself?  And, 
Finally, are you sticking to your view that "individuals" are only 
collections of interrelating patterns?

I realize this challenges you with a lot of questions, but your answers will 
help to clarify not only this exposition but much of the confusion regarding 
your reality concept.  I'll hold my own cosmology in abeyance until I've had 
an opportunity to compare yours.

Thanks, Marsha, and enjoy the holidays,
Ham