Does ‘damage’ occur?
Just wondering, because though we see chaos and destruction at the macroscopic level, at the atomic level particles are simply passing from one atom’s nucleus to another. Energy is a constant too, ergo nothing is ultimately being lost ~ no damage nor destruction is actually occurring.
Is the universe indestructible then? Or is it just not ‘physical’?
A ‘form’ can be damaged or destroyed.
isn’t that at the macroscopic scale though?
When you say ‘actually’, you’re implying to something that is ‘more real’.
I am a form. I live in the world of forms so destruction of forms is very real, to me anyway. A floating subatomic particle may exist forever but the form which it was part of is ‘destroyed’. I would flip your argument and say, although individual subatomic particles may exist through time, forms are impermanent. The Buddhists may claim that the world of forms is illusory, but I’d say impermanence does not make a form less real just on the account of it’s temporal nature.
That is the only level you have need to worry about (unless you are involved in nuclear radiation).
Sub atomic particles take care of themselves (as should you).
It makes a form that is impermanent appear to be permanent. “Illusion” refers to exactly this kind of misapprehension.
It seems like the actual question is
Can the universe get damaged? (most of the time we connect damage to objects or people, things that can get damaged)
Damage relates to function. WE would need to determine what the function of the universe is to know if it can get damaged.
Anon
Spot-on! Sometimes I wish I went to school lol
moreno
Yes that’s an overall question, I am also questioning; what is physicality. …and is our perception of damage ultimately illusory?
I think if you tie it to function, then it depends on how your view function. If I damage my leg in a car accident, this generally means there is a (temporary perhaps) loss of function. It you cut you leg, you might call it damage and there would be a local lack of boundary function where the cut is - you may get infections. A lot of Eastern/new age religions then go at this by saying the functions are illusions or one is hallucinating a self-definition. I am someone who can walk, for example. And then you get whittled down to being love or Brahma or the Buddha and really you do not need this function.
Me I think damage is a useful concept, given that we have goals and desires. Certain spiritualities see these as the roots of problems.
Though imagine if they are wrong? Whoops!
Nothing can be destroyed, merely transferred.
Not sure where you’re getting this idea that “damage” is a problematic concept in Buddhism. In fact I’m 100% certain that good Buddhist practice involves not damaging other sentient beings, not damaging your personal integrity, not damaging the environment, etc. The list is pretty endless.
If by “hallucinating a self-definition” you mean that objects are defined in ways that are intelligible and useful to the subjects doing the defining… I’d counter that this is not hallucinating at all. In other words, a person doesn’t hallucinate the idea that water is something you can’t breathe in, and a fish doesn’t hallucinate the idea that water is the best thing to breathe. The delusion (still, no hallucination) is in thinking that your own conception of a thing (i.e. of water) is the only possible one.
And I have no idea what it means to be “whittled down to being love or Brahma or the Buddha”. Whittled down to being love? Lol!
I agree that damage is an illusion.
Could be that applying old words to innovative concepts creates gaps, confusion or misconceptions. To use the word illusion with this topic feels wrong or inaccurate. There should be a better way to describe.
Hm, well, I see both hinduism and Buddhism as saying the self is an illusion, though Buddhism will use metaphors more around emptiness and in Hinduism it is more like you are a part of whichever deity your culture focuses on. Hence the self gets whittled down, no longer this or that.
Further Love is not really a Buddhist word, compassion would be the word, which is different - not so much for this issue, but in general.
As far as damaging others, of course, you are to be compassionate to others in Buddhism. I was not saying Buddhism encourages people to damage others. But damage would be consider illusory in Buddhism. So you shifted to the moral tenets of Buddhism when I was talking about ontology. The attitude is the key in Buddhism - for practice, for seeing through the subject object split illusion and more - so one does not harm others or foster the urges to, but this does not make damage real ontologically in Buddhism.
My post could have been written more clearly, so I can understand to some degree why you wrote some of what you wrote. I hope this is clearer.
that’s a good point, if there is no damage at the atomic level there is still a kind of physical entropy at higher levels. That ‘illusion’ is or has function, behaviour, and that are working to effect the lower level too. I don’t know if said function can be classified as ‘being physical’ or is ‘actually physical’, more that that is our perception of it. Hmm that perception relates to an effect though? Is effect ‘physical’ then? Aren’t we still talking about something that essential has no physicality, and are an appearance.
I happen to believe that the universe recycles almost everything it can. Especially life force and consciousness. Getting out of this circle is incredibly difficult. Most people are not prepared for it. They do not know the origins of humanity and life on earth. To them it’s just natural matter. No aliens, no spirits, no nothing, just a base inanimate universe. That’s not the truth though.
Also Good points, perhaps mathematical language would work the best for now. Are there any known experiments or working studies? A mathematician or scientist would have the best grasp of labeling, maybe?
I would go further and say that it must ultimately recycle completely, and that’s if anything is lost in any case. All matter is limited, therefore to fill the gap between the apparent finiteness and the eternal and infinite, reality must have a given other aspect than matter/particles et al.