> > 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