> Robin Faichney wrote:
>
> > > From: Marie L. Foster[SMTP:mfos@ieway.com]
> > >
> > > >I must admit that the early part of the Universe's history is
> > > difficult
> > > >to conceive of, for me anyways. I don't have trouble with "life
> > from
> > > >none living matter though". Why do you have trouble with that?
> > > >
> > > >Sodom
> > >
> > > I do not have any problem with it. It is creation at work. We are
> > > the
> > > best creators that we know of. I contend this is why we have
> > defined
> > > God
> > > in our own image. Ironic.
> > >
> > Traditionally, Buddhism views the cosmos as eternal.
> > On a purely factual level, that may be as wrong as
> > seeing it as God's creation, but it seems much more
> > healthy to me. There's a theory that all the dualistic
> > Western thinking typified by Descartes derives from
> > this artificial distinction between creator and created,
> > the mechanism and the maker, body (mechanism)
> > and soul (what matters to the Maker). The great
> > advantage of the Buddhist view in this context is that
> > we are identified not with a transcendant God, but
> > with reality as a whole, outside of which there is
> > nothing.
> >
> > Robin
>
> It seems that Buddhism is good for associating "self" with
> "Universe". I mean that we are obviously a part of the Universe, and the
> seperation of the two is folly. But I do not believe that Buddhism is
> any better than any other religion at describing the Universe on a
> physical level. The Universe is not constant, by every indication, it is
> expanding. This obvious factual flaw makes me question everything
> Buddhism has to offer regarding "physical reality". I do agree that
> Buddhism is a "better" meme than most though when it comes to things of
> a "spiritual" nature.
>
> Sodom
does the whole of the universe have greater or less density now then it
did as
a sigularity?? the universe is a constantly re-arranging constant. infinity
+ infinity = infinity.
gomorah