If I suggest that our reality of enduring particulars (things) are not things of and by themselves, but are “becomings” could you see that? There is a perspective that suggests that all things come into being, mature, and then return to the field of energy and matter from whence they came. This is an observable proposition. You, me, stars, and galaxies come into being, mature, and then fade once more into the field. If this seems to be a reasonable observation, then would we not cease to consider things as things but as process? It just might be that the term translated as emptiness means fullness without form. There is no need to make such a statement as something mystical, it is commonly observed. There is no cowardly withdrawal, quite the opposite. It is embracing all of that which we call real. It is seeing both the field and enduring particularness as one and the same, but simply different manifestations that come in spontaneous ways. It does not change our “substantial” oburate daily reality, but we might see it in a bit different light.
One thing you are missing, and I think you do so on purpose. You came into (aware) being from a particular set of causes/effects and embody a distinctive body through which you experience the world…this is your distinctive “self”. The chances of this repeating again, that is of having this distinctive ‘self’ identity again, are, well…let’s just say I don’t think it will ever happen again. I don’t think ‘you’ as ‘you’ go back into cosmic energy field or what not. ‘You’, your self, you particular awareness will stop existing. Whatever will continue existing in whatever form will not be ‘you’ anymore.
I have never experienced such a thing; just as I’ve never experienced “infinity”. And when one dies and its body/energy or whatever gets incorporated into cosmic energy field, he won’t be able to experience it either. What is the point of talking about this cosmic oneness if ‘self’ does not even exist in it? If “I” stop existing before the rest of my energy goes back into the whole why would I care; I won’t exist anymore and it is not “me” anymore.
I actually agree with this view. However, some people do not stop at this but go a step further and devalue ordinary experience as illusory. If this is simply as it is then why connect “empiness” with “virtue” (or wisdom)?
Was this really necessary?
There is nothing that cannot be misunderstood and/or misused. Plato and his frigging cave created a lot of problems for western man. Awareness isn’t necessary for those who choose to live in naive materialism, and there is nothing wrong with that. It works for most people. But for those who can see a bit beyond that, finding awareness is… I don’t want to attach labels… a more complete understanding?
That’s the problem. Open Pandora’s box and all hell breaks loose.
Buddhism uses many vague and contraditory concepts that are often confusing and misleading. It also favors a passive mindset which can be (and was) exploited by some.
See? You call materialism naive, as if Buddhist view is somehow superior. Preaching one thing and doing another. It’s like saying, “I am better than you, but that’s okay.”
You just did…attach a superlative label…to a mindless perspective, a passive mind, and called it a “more complete understanding”. Do you even see what other people are likely to see when you say these things? Their expectations?
Well, sorry to have disturbed your nirvana, there.
I think I’ve fixed all the formatting issues at this point, in case anybody cares. The essay’s back to how it looked originally. It’s a lot more readable now.
