[MD] Zen at War

[MarshaV]

Andre,


> On Oct 23, 2013, at 12:58 PM, Andre <andrebroersen at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Andre to Marsha:
> I have no problems with this except for your use of the word 'projections'. I prefer to call them 'manifestations'. I see sq as a 'manifestation' of DQ. Form as a 'manifestation' of the formless. That is why sq is grounded in DQ. For metaphysical reasons there must be a discrepancy between static concepts and reality (DQ). This is not the Heart Sutra we are discussing. We are here discussing a metaphysics.
> 
> What are you doing here?
> 
> Marsha:
> Not baffled by the ditty, baffled by Andre's clueless questions. Poor Andre, like you, he seems unable to carry on an amiable intellectual discussion, and, like you, he seems to need to event a fierce rival to use as a foil.
> 
> Andre:
> Still waiting for an answer Marsha.

I am waiting for answers from you too, but you offer excuses, not answers.


> Marsha to dmb:
> You want to criticize my understanding of Buddhism. Hahahaha.
> 
> Andre:
> Projection Marsha, all the way down. And you suggest there is no self? Now that is a laugh and a half coming from you.

Of course.  Or it could be turtles all the way down, or analogy...

Fantastic, Phædrus thinks, that he should have remembered that. It just demolishes the whole dialectical position. That may just be the whole show right there. Of course it's an analogy. Everything is an analogy. But the dialectician don't know that.
     (ZAMM, Ch. 30)


Marsha

p.s.  I have never claimed to be greater than a student of Buddhism, a mere grasshopper, a bug.  



> And you also suggest dmb and I are 'unable to carry on an amiable intellectual discussion'. I get the sense that you'll do any slipping and sliding (i.e. slithering) with a presentation of quotations and personal insults to indeed create a hostile discussion which, as you seem to think from your efforts is 'intellectual'. Oh boy, Lila will cringe at the thought.
> 
> It seems the joke is on you as far as 'intellectual' is concerned and as far as your understanding of Buddhism is concerned IN RELATION TO Pirsig's MoQ...and of course on its own.
> Talking about 'clueless'.
> 
> But let me help you...I'll say it again: the MoQ is a static intellectual pattern of value. It is different from the world it describes...which is ever changing....ever moving. The MoQ isn't. It is quite static. Your clueless new age-Buddhist ideas do nothing to further the MoQ that we are discussing here.
> In fact, they can be described as stale, useless and outmoded.
> Come on Marsha. Practice what you preach. BE the clueless, senseless non-apparition that you proclaim yourself to be. You don't know anything anyway eh? (you mentioned this a while back as 'defense').
> Empty your cup and...for once...own up.