Tuukka,

I've read the MMK a few times, and I've read enough about the MMK, Emptiness (Dependent Origination) and the Two-Truths to know there are alternative views between different branches of Buddhism and between different scholars.  And, please, I also stated in my previous post that besides liking/disliking, your agreeing/disagreeing is not my responsibility.  What do you mean by "add detail"?  To what will you add detail, Priest's point-of-view or Nagarjuna's point-of-view?  


Marsha





On Feb 15, 2012, at 9:20 PM, Tuukka Virtaperko <mail@tuuk...> wrote:

> Marsha,
> I still want to add detail. Showing the paper to me was important, and that, in any case, is more important than whether I liked it.
>
> -Tuukka
>
>
>
> 16.2.2012 4:09, Tuukka Virtaperko kirjoitti:
>> Marsha,
>> and you were right. I did like to read the paper. Even though I called it rubbish! I was simply happy that a professor cares about these things. That was very unusual 50 years ago.
>>
>> -Tuukka
>>
>>
>>
>> 15.2.2012 23:15, MarshaV kirjoitti:
>>> Tuukka,
>>>
>>> The Priest quote is long ago and far away.  I thought you'd like to read the paper because he was offering a mathematical characterization of Emptiness.  His demonstration was always over my mathematical head.  I feel no responsibility for you agreeing or disagreeing, liking or disliking the paper.
>>>
>>>
>>> Marsha
>>>
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html