Q. I wasn’t sure of something in the passage you read. Did you say death was the collapse of a field and birth a collapse of a field in the formation of the embryo?
I am confused as to what the field is.
A. For me at this moment, no other image, past or present, sums up so neatly our direct perception and also fits with the preferred contemporary perspective.
The big question is the nature of this field.
In the passage, the first collapse of birth is like particle from wave, coming into individual life. The second collapse at death is of the particle back into the wave-form of field. But the field determines both these events. It exists in and as both, and is unaffected by them.
It has one characteristic which we know unarguably - that it is conscious. It has to be because we are, and these events of coming and going are movements of consciousness - arising and departing. Unlike most experience, it is provable.
Q. What about love? What about feeling etc—a Field doesn’t have feeling?
A. I know it sounds very impersonal and neutral, but think about it, what is your personal conscious field capable of? Are you not able to love, feel joy and sorrow, and generally feel everything a humanly conscious entity is capable of feeling? Where did these capabilities come from? And not just you, but every other human field of being knows such feelings simply because they are conscious. It is the nature of consciousness to know, feel and think.
So extend those same abilities to a greater conscious Field, and what do you have?
Something rather close to the old ideas of God it seems!
The ability to relate (personally) to something of divinity is extremely important for many, while others prefer to leave ‘God’ out of it. The Field caters for both. It is the one, and the other, assuming it is conscious.
Moreover, there is always an observer. Always One who is looking, from a centre which is everywhere, to a circumference which is nowhere.