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?
On Feb 15, 2012, at 9:20 PM, Tuukka Virtaperko <mail@tuuk...> wrote:
> 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.
> 16.2.2012 4:09, Tuukka Virtaperko kirjoitti:
>> 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.
>> 15.2.2012 23:15, MarshaV kirjoitti:
>>> 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.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.