‘Empty Logical Classes. Ontological Assumptions. Teleological Fulfillment.
Which planet are you from? This is pretentious bunk. Male testosterone rutted in a linear groove.
I pine for Rumi’s ‘Beloved’; not Heidegger’s ‘Being’.
‘Luckily for me, I never took any of it seriously. I am a woman. I move with my Heart. I dance with the Gopis, I too am in love with Krishna.
All this is ‘Man-Stuff’. I don’t see a single woman-author quoted in the list. Like every other Religion, the Dharma got hijacked by the male-monks and they get to write the Manual’.
But what applies for ‘Man-Stuff’ applies equally to ‘Woman-Stuff’. Unfortunately. Lady-Gurus rarely talk ‘Being’; it is on the splendors of Love rediscovered. But you can’t get stuck on ‘Love’ [although I would very much like to do so].
‘Love’, far more pleasing at every level than stiff and faceless characters like ‘Being’, is unfortunately prone to the same pitfalls. There is nothing particularly special or stable about it [even if ‘stability’ were to be our goal, which it is not].
Do men genuflect to stern high abstractions more readily? And do women love ‘Love’ a little too much? Ask the Poets; this is just Philosophy drone.
Shūnyam does not stand in opposition to ‘Love’. Or any enriching emotion. Or any emotion, for that matter.
You just can’t pin a feature on it like ‘Love’ and expect it to respond in a way that you believe ‘Love’ [or any emotion] should respond. You will feel let-down but it will not be the fault of Shūnyam.
Just as you revel in that most desirable stupor of a new amorous intimacy, the man you thought you would spend the rest of your life with leaves town with your best-friend. And you will blame poor old Shūnyam all over again.
Gosh, this must be one of my oldest Posts on file, likely late nineties. Wouldn’t change anything really.