Buddhist Metaphysics Is Lonely

I think impermanence is implied by interdependence. If everything is interconnected and interaction means change, then impermanence seems necessary. If everything is static interdependence could still be true but impermanence would not since nothing ever changes. Arguably under that condition nothing actually truly exists. Or at least it is hard to imagine that a thing exists under that condition if there is no observation, characteristic or process through which to define it since none of those would be the case if nothing changes. And it certainly doesn’t seem like we live in a static world. If anything it seems like it is changing constantly. 

So as long as there is any change in any part of anything at any time, then interdependence requires that everything will eventually and continually change. Of course it says nothing about the type or rate of change, only that happen and will continue to happen so long as anything exists. So if that is the case (and I think it clearly is) then interdependence implies impermanence.

But what is it that is interdependent? What is changing. Things? What do you mean by that? Me? The chair I’m sitting in? Are any of these independently real without an observer? Doesn’t Buddhism point out that all of these things are impermanent and illusory, right down to the idea of the self? Is there just a world of independent and interacting particles that we assign labels and characteristics to based on the arbitrary distinction and naming of these “things”?

Where / how is the opportunity for love in this framing? Is this just as illusory as the self? That seems truly empty.

Is this framing a choice? In other words, is there an objective truth about the ground reality we are in that is independent of our beliefs about it?  And if this concept of an interdependent physical world of base particles interacting that just creates illusions of things and ideas is true, is it just incorrect to say that the love one person has for another is real? Is how I feel about my children just an arbitrary mistake as a result of failing to see the world as it truly is? That seems really nihilistic. And sort of sterile. So should I just ignore the implications of this metaphysics and choose that how I feel about other people is real?

For me, everything about Buddhist metaphysics seems reasonable all the way down to the concept of “emptiness” (which to me is more experientially like unbounded possibility than empty). But where, then, is the space for “good”? Or love? Or kindness? Buddhism espouses loving kindness, but it’s unclear why or how this is implied by the core truth/ reality of emptiness, other than that we might want it to be so. Or that we just don’t like a truly nihilistic interpretation of the implications of interdependence and impermanence.  That everything we think is good is actually wrapped up in samsara and that there is nothing left when we acknowledge this.

I will agree that my few, brief glimpses/ interactions with what gets called emptiness feel good. Really good. Like unopposed and effortless connection with everything. That I am nothing but the inextricable interconnection with everything. And an unlimited possibility to realize this connection as anything.  In fact, this has been a strong enough feeling to move me away from the nihilistic conclusions of my prior breadcrumbing. But why shouldn’t I just see this as another illusion or another mistake just like my sense of self? Since when is my intuition good enough? Why would my feeling that this experience is good mean anything? That seems very lonely.  And not at all ameliorated by recognizing that I’m not real and not really having this experience anyway.

How should I reconcile the conception that “things”, including me, are just arbitrary cutouts of the full, whole, interdependent underlying reality of emptiness without trading any sense of good, love or personal connection that seems to lie at the core of metta? And where is inspiration, purpose and meaning without these as the underlying basis? Where should we look for a direction for the unbridled possibility of emptiness? 

Or maybe thinking of the outcome of that reductive process is the “truest reality” misses the whole point. Maybe the creation of “things” and self and good and love and direction are not mistakes or illusions. Maybe they are an opportunity provided by interdependence. Maybe they have no less value just by virtue of being conjured by an observer. Maybe and are just as valuable in their subjectivity as they would otherwise be if they were the objectively real basis at the end of the reductive process. Maybe they are the value. Maybe the emptiness is the possibility of anything and that recognizing this as the fullest opportunity, the gift, to best use it to put more kindness and connection and good in the world is the whole point. Maybe the dissolution of self and the nihilism of interdependence is not the end but the beginning. The possibility of a purpose to put the love and kindness out into the world.