Ask a scientist if a thing is solid whether it can become liquid or gas. They will of course tell you that a thing's state may change. Then if you ask them, since you say that a thing can change forms, does that mean that each form is the same thing? If the scientist says that each is still the same thing, then you can ask, is the thing really its permanent aspects? What if its permanent aspect is aspect impermanence? Does that mean the thing is truly its essence, or its formless non-being? If all things are formless in essence, then isn't the true essence of everything formlessness, or vacuity? If the essence of everything is formlessness, then does not all formation and its relative transformation exist in total unity? Isn't depth characteristic of all superficiality?
I'm not sure if I follow either. Solid, liquid and gas are just terms for it's present state, but the atoms that make up those states are permanent. Melting a solid creates liquid and some gas and all that changes is the bonds between atoms and how close they're linked together. The atoms that make up you and I will never disappear, making everyone technically permanent. But I'm probably way off what you were getting at.
What the mind perceives as nihilism is total love To be completely empty is to be full of life The void is not void, it is more full then any 'thing'
What I'm getting at is that we try so hard to keep this dream we consider to be life afloat, when at any moment we can let it go and merge with total non-being. We spend our time labeling and trying to construct a "modern unreal" "built to last" but it will end when we choose it to. How is not a worthy question because it distracts us from the Now, from which our experience springs. We can stress, complain about the world, argue with others about just how real reality is, but at some point we all just let it go. At some point, being returns to non-being. Show me an atom. Show me what makes up an atom. Show me what makes up what makes up an atom. etc... An atom, even by scientific explanation, is made up of a nucleus, and then a relatively vast space where electrons may be found. Overall, in spatial terms, an atom is 99%+ empty space. The same is true for each subatomic particle. So where is the "real" physicality, or permanence? It must be in the essence of being, which is total non-being. You're talking about labels, when I'm trying to say that labels are full of spaciousness. Did your mind perceive what I wrote as nihilism? What is the nature or essence of love? I would say depth, not density.
Scientists say that atoms are mostly (by a large percent) empty space. We are made up of an inconcievably large amount of atoms. We are mostly empty space. I don't really get your question.
I thought of depth and seeing 'is' from all different scales. What would scientists say earth was if they had eyes the size of Orions belt?
I'd say that's how scientists already are. In terms of coming to terms with the Great Totality/Integrity, scientists have it all wrong unless they have a deeply spiritual side bubbling under as well. Not that it really matters if it doesn't matter to them personally. And what are those made of buddy? Oxygen comes in atomic form, light has no substance (right?!?!?!), and dust is what?
empty space is made of nothing for something (atoms particles and shit) to exist, nothing has to exist, because how else would something be something?
Then I daresay we've come to an agreement that the origin of all things (manifestations/forms) is non-being/vacuity. Now can we stop acting like we know so much more than everyone else just because we know nothing (which is not the same as not knowing anything).
Oh, I misunderstood what was going on. I meant density in terms of 'thick' but you were going down another path.