[MD] Static Patterns Rock!

[MarshaV]

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.
> 
 
 
 







 
___