is buddhism satanism? [my appologies for the mere suggestion!]

[_Z_]

is buddhism satanism? [my appologies for the mere suggestion!]

please someone clear this up for me!

i just had this strange notion whilst pondering as to what is you and what is manifest of a given other; if you were in heaven and did something by which god felt he had to cast thee down - so to say, then what can god destroy of you?...

it strikes me that the only aspects of ‘you’ that can be destroyed are that which is created! the aspects of you that belong entirely to you cannot be destroyed nor taken from you in reciept of its original owner, this then is why satan cannot be destroyed, as he has no created body or form made from god. perhaps he is that which has been stripped of it created entity by his own doings?

then i thought aargh, buddhism is entirely a ‘religion’ of the uncreated self [or the self without body] and declares that the said created self and all manifestation is false - a denouncing of god and his creation. it also tries to strip you of all your created self/body.

i am terrible sorry to suggest it as its a terrible idea, but it came to my mind and i must find an answer?

the buddhist question aside; is satan an entity without body? i have always had a problem with the idea of a real devil with a real place that is hell, but their appears to be an evil force at work in the world, yet it is never entirely manifest - it doesn’t have body of its own. this is why it is the most heinous of crimes to let gods created body [the human form] be controlled by it.

what then of animals, are they satanic bodies or evolutions which through ignorance allows satan to take form or have an effect upon form?

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Z,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by _Z_

is buddhism satanism? [my appologies for the mere suggestion!]

please someone clear this up for me!

no worries

the short answer is "no Buddhadharma has nothing to do with Abrahamical notions of angels and their downfalls."

the longer answer is, well, longer and likely not really germane to your query so i shant go into it here unless you have that desire.

then i thought aargh, buddhism is entirely a ‘religion’ of the uncreated self [or the self without body] and declares that the said created self and all manifestation is false -

we do? that's news to me as we don't talk about a "created self" in any of the Suttas/Sutras that i've had the priviledge to read. more importantly, perhaps, is that the nominal Buddhist position regarding phenomena and noumena is not that they are false but rather they are empty of any aspect by which a being could consider them to be eternally existing and independent of the causes which allow them to arise.

metta,

~v

[_Z_]

hi vaj

namaste

one needs a large spoonful of humour for this one i know, but those little things that come to mind need clearing up however metaphoric they are.

more importantly, perhaps, is that the nominal Buddhist position regarding phenomena and noumena is not that they are false but rather they are empty of any aspect by which a being could consider them to be eternally existing and independent of the causes which allow them to arise.

i thought we might get some interesting ideas form this, thank you.
so if they are empty of causes which allow them to arise, then they are connected to what makes them arise and hence are created/creations? i think that is somewhere along the lines of what brought this ghastly idea to my mind.

is anything eternally existing then?

thanks

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Z,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by _Z_

hi vaj

namaste

one needs a large spoonful of humour for this one i know, but those little things that come to mind need clearing up however metaphoric they are.

not sure about that.. what i am sure about is being sincere.. and i tend to find that your posts are certainly that.. even when they are questioning and probing.

i thought we might get some interesting ideas form this, thank you.
so if they are empty of causes which allow them to arise, then they are connected to what makes them arise and hence are created/creations?

not empty of causes.. empty of an intrinsic nature.

generally speaking the idea of cause and effect requires no deities to be operative espeically in a tradition such as Buddhism. if you place your finger in a fire and it gets burned was this created by a deity in some manner or is it an example of cause and effect in our ontological reality? given the nature of my religious paradigm and my particular school of philosophical tradition, i would posit that it is a natural process without any deities involved.

a flower only blooms is the correct causes and conditions are present yet we do not ascribe this activity to the sphere of the supernatural what we find upon investigation is that the flower blooming is a result of rain, sunlight and food.. if any of these conditions are missing the flower does not bloom.

i think that is somewhere along the lines of what brought this ghastly idea to my mind.

within the Buddhadharma the only creator of which we speak is the mind.

is anything eternally existing then?

thanks

this is a recondite point within the Buddhadharma and consequently there will be Buddhists that disagree with my answer here which, i should say, is somewhat provisional. no, there is nothing with exists eternally from its own side nor are there things which exist eternally dependent upon it's causes and conditions.

satanism is the practice of worshipping Satan. since such a being does not exist within the Buddhadharma it is a pretty sure bet that we aren't worshipping such a thing

metta,

~v

[_Z_]

vaj

not sure about that.. what i am sure about is being sincere.. and i tend to find that your posts are certainly that.. even when they are questioning and probing.

you are very wise! and have the 'seeing' ability of an advanced druid i was trying to cover up my embarrassment at myself for being so seamingly dumb. but as you say these ideas come to mind by something that is nagging us.

not empty of causes.. empty of an intrinsic nature.

i see - hollow kinda.

given the nature of my religious paradigm and my particular school of philosophical tradition, i would posit that it is a natural process without any deities involved.

absolutely. one form of Armageddon in my head asks weather there has to be that which brings things into being - a creating force that probably isn’t a god nor a deity.

a flower only blooms if the correct causes and conditions are present yet we do not ascribe this activity to the sphere of the supernatural what we find upon investigation is that the flower blooming is a result of rain, sunlight and food.. if any of these conditions are missing the flower does not bloom.

true. now imagine a tao of synchronicity - if you will, whereby the flower exists by the rain and the sun, all of which exist as there is [?] a creational force which sets [causes and conditions, patterns, 'forms' and evolutions etc] all reality to perform their tasks, each relative to one another. so the flower was decided before existence and that its relationships were also set in their courses.

within the Buddhadharma the only creator of which we speak is the mind.

you see how i arrive at the above; the mind creates why not then a universal mind?

> no, there is nothing which exists eternally from its own side

> nor are there things which exist eternally dependent upon it’s causes and conditions.

interesting. the first statement is most profound! i feel that you mean, hmm if we primarily divide things into two halves the real and the manifest, then all things that exist [the universe etc] are not eternal - real. but beyond ‘things’ lies the eternal? [presumably without form or formlessness].

to the second statement, i presume you mean that the real has no causes and conditions... and hence nothing is eternal from it?

satanism is the practice of worshipping Satan. since such a being does not exist within the Buddhadharma it is a pretty sure bet that we aren’t worshipping such a thing

haha yes. i was seeing ‘satan’ as a non created being or one which had lost its bodily form, hence the connection to buddhism doctrine of ‘eliminating’ ones forms. this is where i got tied up in knots, if there is a creative force that produces ‘body’ then we destroy what is given then that would be a simile of ‘satan’ being the opposite to the creational force and the remover of entity.

great reply there vaj, not may people can make my brain dissolve so.

metta

[China Cat Sunflower]

Satan is terrestrial electricity. God needs a loyal opponent to create electromagnetic friction. Satan does that. Sure it causes death, but it also animates life.

Chris

[Francis king]

no need to apologise... I have heard buddhism described as satanism before, so the notion isn't too crazy...

my thoughts are... buddhism is sometimes believed to be all about negation, destruction of self, ego, etc, but this is just the result of poor translation.

Because of this poor translation ppl who believe in souls and eternal life get worried, as they think this means that there must be no God, and there must be no eternal life, and they think then that nirvana is extinction, the end, a nothing place... sounds quite frightening, doesn't it?

however, in truth, Buddha never mentioned God... there are lots of buddhists texts, though, that mention Buddha talking to the old Hindu Gods such as Brahma, but Buddha himself, he "turned his face away from teaching doctrine concerning Ultimate Truth" (i.e, God), and the reason for this was quite simple...

he wanted to end suffering for ppl so they could be happy... he suggested a philosophy, devised a way out of suffering... it did not involve the Gods, it involved the self, working on the self, to be a bit happier, as really, that is all humans want... ending the many sufferings of mankind meant mankind had to work on itself, stop spreading poisons (being greedy, aggressive, etc), stop clinging to afflictions, etc (such as worry and doubt, etc), and they would be a bit happier... if they then became ethical, and decent, this would radiate outwards, and ppl would have a better quality of life...

Buddha himself said- I come to teach about suffering, the origin of suffering, the cessation of suffering and a way out of suffering...

these are the four noble truths... a) we all suffer, b) suffering, as a state, is self generated, c) sufferings can cease d) following the noble eightfold path is a way out...

the noble eightfold path consists of a set of ideas a bit like the ten commandments, and cover the three doors of activity- the body, speech, and mind... the idea then is, u work on your actions, and mindset and delivery, and eventually, u become a better person, u suffer less, and other ppl suffer less too, all because of you!

a precious gift u give to others, and which u should expect in return...


now, on the other hand, in Buddhism, in the philosophy, the premise is... there is no "you". everything about "you" is created, and by the very nature of you being a creation, you will constantly evolve, and eventually you will wither and decay and die, and perhaps, then be taken up into something else, reclycled, recreated, as atoms... this is not something to fear- we can't avoid it, it will happen, it happens to men, to plants, to stars...

some buddhists believe in the Gods, some buddhists believe that the consciousness/soul, can remain, after death, that the consciousness is able to perform great feats of psychic brilliance- telepathy, clairvoyance, etc, but this has nothing to do with buddhism, really, and nor does God, or eternal life.

It deals with here and now, this life, an attempt to make it a little better for you.

It is up to the individual buddhist what he or she feels about Gods, and heavens.

....

as for satan... satan, in hebrew, means adversary... the adversary of God, Jehovah, is Lucifer, who inspired the rebellion in heaven and was thrown down to earth and given dominion.

Hell, comes from sh'oel (although my spelling might be off!) which means the place of shells, a place of empty things, a place where things have no merit or value, and this is where the "devil" lives, in misery, in abjection, in loss of hope...

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by _Z_

is buddhism satanism?

Yes, clearly....

Sheol? A place of shells? Where did you get that information from please. I know sheol is the abode of the dead... But what is the shell all about?

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Satan is terrestrial electricity. God needs a loyal opponent to create electromagnetic friction. Satan does that. Sure it causes death, but it also animates life.

Chris

This is the most sensible thing I have seen all week. Thanks, Chris. All confusion is cleared up now.

[_Z_]

thank you for your interesting post francis.

after reading it all [made sense!] i come to the end part and am taken back to where i started, the emptiness seams to be like a removal of all that we are. if the only way to end suffering is that we have to remove everything, then it appears rather pointless and obvious - if i may. sure if we take away everything we are then there will be nothing left to feel the suffering. secondly doesnt suffering take us somewhere? to greater depths! once we are 'there' then suffering is of no concequence.


what made me laugh about this thread was that you could use both religions to cast down one another. perhaps the cosmic jester has the upper hand here.
our created bodies die, as they are of the earth. i would think that the soul would not die as it is a gift from god? thence all created things do not end and the soul is full not empty - you see the apparent oppositeness of the two faiths!

17th

Yes, clearly....

elaborate?

CCS

Satan is terrestrial electricity. God needs a loyal opponent to create electromagnetic friction. Satan does that. Sure it causes death, but it also animates life.

i see electromagnetism simply as electromagnetism. i presume you are using it as an analogy for polarities, but how does it cause death and animation? death would be a cessation of EM in the body, but life is a continuance from one to another.

[Nick the Pilot]

Z, Allow me to give my perspective. You asked,

"...if you were in heaven and did something by which god felt he had to cast thee down - so to say, then what can god destroy of you?..."

--> I believe we cannot do such a thing in Heaven.

"...it strikes me that the only aspects of ‘you’ that can be destroyed are that which is created!"

--> I would say we are taking on forms. These forms will be discarded when they are no longer necessary.

"...buddhism is entirely a ‘religion’ of the uncreated self [or the self without body]..."

--> Think of it this way. The day will come when we no longer have a body. What do you think that will be like? That is what Buddhism is trying to prepare you for.

"...and declares that the said created self and all manifestation is false - a denouncing of god and his creation. it also tries to strip you of all your created self/body."

--> There are two issues here. One is the self. The self means I am separate from you. That separateness is an illusion. The day will come when the illusion is lifted, and you and I (and every other being in the universe) become one.


The other issue is the issue of no body. As I said, we only have solid bodies for as long as we need them.

"is satan an entity without body?"

--> I do not believe in Satan.

"there appears to be an evil force at work in the world...."

--> The evil is merely selfishness, caused by our illusion of separateness.

"...it is the most heinous of crimes to let gods created body [the human form] be controlled by it."

--> We had to be given free power to use our bodies. We learn by trial by experimentation. It could not be done any other way.

"what then of animals, are they satanic bodies or evolutions which through ignorance allows satan to take form or have an effect upon form?"

--> Animals are not embodiments of Satanic power. They are points of consciousness trying to figure out what is going on, just like us.

"...the nominal Buddhist position regarding phenomena and noumena is not that they are false but rather they are empty of any aspect by which a being could consider them to be eternally existing and independent of the causes which allow them to arise."

--> They are empty of any permanent aspect. The day will come when all physical, astral, etc., things disappear.

"...if they are empty of causes which allow them to arise, then they are connected to what makes them arise and hence are created/creations?"

--> I believe something did cause them to exist -- The Creators.

"...is anything eternally existing then?"

--> Two answers come to mind. (1) The finite mind cannot understand the infinite. (2) Regarding infinity, you are considering an mount of time that has "no conceivable beginning nor imagineable end."

"one form of Armageddon in my head asks weather there has to be that which brings things into being - a creating force that probably isn’t a god nor a deity."

--> This is exactly how I see it.

"the mind creates why not then a universal mind?"

--> I believe in a universal mind.

"...if we primarily divide things into two halves the real and the manifest, then all things that exist [the universe etc] are not eternal - real. but beyond ‘things’ lies the eternal? [presumably without form or formlessness]."

--> In order to something to be perceived, there must be something or someone which perceives it. This is called Duality. The real nature of reality cannot be split up into such a duality.

"...the real has no causes and conditions... and hence nothing is eternal from it?"

--> This is exactly how I see it.

"...if there is a creative force that produces ‘body’ then we destroy what is given...."

--> This assumes we will have our bodies forever. There is no reason to make this assumption.

"...the emptiness seams to be like a removal of all that we are."

--> Actually, it is just the opposite. Emptiness means the removal of the temporary forms that we are using.

"...if the only way to end suffering is that we have to remove everything, then it appears rather pointless and obvious...."

--> That is called Nihilism, and in my opinion it does not happen. Just the opposite happens (in my opinion).

"if we take away everything we are then there will be nothing left to feel the suffering...."

--> If we take away the physical body, physical pain will stop. If we take away the astral body, emotional pain will stop. Since we will have neither a physical nor astral body in Heaven, we will suffer neither physical nor emotional pain in Heaven.

"the soul would not die as it is a gift from god?"

--> The soul will not die, because the idea that your soul and my soul are separate is an illusion. Once the illusion is removed, we will all become one big soul -- the universal mind.

"thence all created things do not end...."

--> All temporary illusions eventually end. The physical body is nothing but a temporary illusion.

"i see electromagnetism simply as electromagnetism. i presume you are using it as an analogy for polarities, but how does it cause death and animation?"

--> Remove the electromagnetism, and the form ceases to exist.

"...life is a continuance from one to another."

--> Yes!

[_Z_]

nick, hi

--> I believe we cannot do such a thing in Heaven.

i thought ‘satan’ was originally an angel and that he rejected god and hence was cast down. i would think that the casting down would be of satans own doing rather than gods. indeed all who are ‘damned’ are only so by their own doing not by gods.

--> I would say we are taking on forms. These forms will be discarded when they are no longer necessary.

what i meant was; the created forms are given to us and hence can be taken away or discarded by our own means!

--> Think of it this way. The day will come when we no longer have a body. What do you think that will be like? That is what Buddhism is trying to prepare you for.

sure that day will come. what about having no entity? i mean of mind or anything. a form or body can be manifested or given to us, a heavenly soul would be a gift from god - perhaps earned with our earthly body? of course we may arrive at a point where we discard such things, but would you really want to not love or be or live? nirvana may be a state which somehow encompasses such things, but love and individual mind are both respective of other such entities!

i can see how love is largely based in the world of duality, and that mind when centralised and distinct in any way, would also be of that world.

--> There are two issues here. One is the self. The self means I am separate from you. That separateness is an illusion. The day will come when the illusion is lifted, and you and I (and every other being in the universe) become one.

i don’t believe in illusion as such, perhaps delusion is more appropriate. otherwise there are arguments about the physically real being real just as the ultimate reality is - however i see what you mean.
when ‘the day’ comes, we arrive at that place where the initial duality began. there we must ask ourselves what makes existence, what causes the duality to begin in the first place, by which the universe began? it seams to me an impossible situation, i can only presume that both the manifest and unmanifest worlds are eternal!!! this then contradicts the idea in buddhism where transients is limited? having said that i do believe that if both eternities are equally real, we may still cross from one to the other. ha, its a bit like going ‘in-the-out-door’ - now theres one to ponder .

--> The evil is merely selfishness, caused by our illusion of separateness.

not if the above is true! if both worlds [within the one obviously] are real then it is not illusion but a different side to reality where separation resides. as individuals we may cross into nirvana by resolving the parody of separateness in each way it presents itself to us, the separation itself thence remains. within that eternally remaining element we can perhaps see ‘satan’ not as a being but as the eternally duel by which some are caused to do ‘evil’.

--> Animals are not embodiments of Satanic power. They are points of consciousness trying to figure out what is going on, just like us.

sure they are not, they merely get by in the separated eternity. i don’t know if they are trying to figure anything out, or just being. obviously an amoeba isn’t trying to gain enlightenment nor is it the aim of evolution for it to eventually arrive at where it does?

--> In order to something to be perceived, there must be something or someone which perceives it. This is called Duality. The real nature of reality cannot be split up into such a duality.

i see. so it is a lot to do with observational perspective, rather than natures of reality. that makes a lot of sense.

--> All temporary illusions eventually end. The physical body is nothing but a temporary illusion.

again we go to the place at the ‘end of things’ and find the greatest paradox of all; ‘it is true to say that all things are temporary before that place, equally so it is true to say that all things are not temporary because of that place’.
[i enjoyed that one coming to my mind - thanks all for taking me there ]

--> Remove the electromagnetism, and the form ceases to exist.

...and all things arise from that place where everything has ceased to exist!

thanks for post.

_Z_
richard

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Z,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by _Z_

you are very wise! and have the 'seeing' ability of an advanced druid i was trying to cover up my embarrassment at myself for being so seamingly dumb. but as you say these ideas come to mind by something that is nagging us.

i am nowhere close to being wise, if you found any benefit in my words it is due to your own good karma ripening.

i see - hollow kinda.

hmm.. not hollow, really... more insubstantial than hollow. in the traditional literature phenomena are regarded as illusions.. having the appearence of being solid yet having no solidity, like a mirage so to speak.

within the various philosophical traditions the view of emptiness is towards beings and phenomena and each philosophical tenet system presents an ever more subtle and refined understanding of these ideas.

absolutely. one form of Armageddon in my head asks weather there has to be that which brings things into being - a creating force that probably isn’t a god nor a deity.

there doesn't seem to be one.

true. now imagine a tao of synchronicity

umm... what?

- if you will, whereby the flower exists by the rain and the sun, all of which exist as there is [?] a creational force which sets [causes and conditions, patterns, 'forms' and evolutions etc] all reality to perform their tasks, each relative to one another. so the flower was decided before existence and that its relationships were also set in their courses.

such a view seems tantamount to than having a view of predestination; moreover "decided" requires a being to decide neither of which seem to be evidenced.

you see how i arrive at the above; the mind creates why not then a universal mind?

what is meant by the "mind being the creator" is that it is through the process of conceptual overlay that sentient beings experience reality rather than direct, naked awareness. you may find this link of some interest:

Buddhist Philosophy

interesting. the first statement is most profound! i feel that you mean, hmm if we primarily divide things into two halves the real and the manifest, then all things that exist [the universe etc] are not eternal - real. but beyond ‘things’ lies the eternal? [presumably without form or formlessness].

i'm sorry for not being more clear. there is no phenomena or noumena which is viewed as eternal from the Buddhist point of view, as i understand it. in a pretty famous Sutta the Buddha states that there is nothing which can rightly be considered the "ground of being" (to paraphrase from Paul Tillich) not Nibbana or Buddhanature nor any sort of sentient being from which all things emmanate forth.

to the second statement, i presume you mean that the real has no causes and conditions... and hence nothing is eternal from it?

nothing is 'real' anymore than anything else is. to view phenomena and noumena as illusions, mirages and passing clouds in the sky are the typical ways in which the Sutta is presented. though, perhaps, i should clarify this a bit and say that the innate luminisotity of mind is, to a certain extent, real insofar as we have to work with this to attain to the Other Shore. once there i'm not sure that such conceptions are relevant.

metta,

~v

[Nick the Pilot]

Richard the Z! You said,

"i thought ‘satan’ was originally an angel and that he rejected god and hence was cast down."

--> You are conveying the Christian and Hindu version of the story. I have a different take. First of all, I see the story as being about a group of gods called the Kumaras. Over the centuries they have been combined into a single entity called Satan.

"i would think that the casting down would be of satans own doing rather than gods."

--> I believe Satan (the Kumaras) did what they did because they thought they were doing the right thing. Whatever they did, I too believe it was their own doing.

"...indeed all who are ‘damned’ are only so by their own doing not by gods. "

--> I agree. All of us will be held responsible for the bad karma we create, just like the Bible says.

"These forms will be discarded when they are no longer necessary. --> what i meant was; the created forms are given to us and hence can be taken away or discarded by our own means!"

--> You and I agree. We will discard those forms by our own means, when they become no longer useful.

"what about having no entity? i mean of mind or anything. a form or body can be manifested or given to us, a heavenly soul would be a gift from god - perhaps earned with our earthly body?"

--> No Entity means no physical body, no emotions, no intellect. We have levels of consiousness that are higher than even these. We forgot how to use them. The purpose of life is to re-remember how to use them.


Think of the human "soul" as being consciousness at several different levels, each level functioning simultaneously. The day will come when we no long have a physical body. After that, the day we come when we no longer need an astral body. The day will come when we no longer need a mental body, a "body" which allows us to intellectualize. The idea is, we have levels of consciousness that are higher than our intellect. (Most people find this hard to imagine.) The whole idea behind meditation is to become consciousness at these higher levels of consciousness.

"of course we may arrive at a point where we discard such things...."

--> We will.

"but would you really want to not love or be or live?"

--> This is the mistake the Buddhists make. They see Nirvana as annihilation. It will an annihilation of only our lower "bodies", and a rising to a higher level of consciousness.

"nirvana may be a state which somehow encompasses such things, but love and individual mind are both respective of other such entities!"

--> I agree.

"there are arguments about the physically real being real just as the ultimate reality is...."

--> Can you imagine how things will be when you finally get rid of your physical body forever?

"when ‘the day’ comes, we arrive at that place where the initial duality began. there we must ask ourselves what makes existence, what causes the duality to begin in the first place, by which the universe began?"

--> The finite cannot comprehend the infinite.

"...i can only presume that both the manifest and unmanifest worlds are eternal!!!"

--> You are discussing a period of time that has "no conceivable beginning nor imagineable end."

"this then contradicts the idea in buddhism where transients is limited?"

--> No. Only our lower selves are limited.

"having said that i do believe that if both eternities are equally real, we may still cross from one to the other."

--> It is more like raising and lowering ourselves through various levels of consciousness.

"The evil is merely selfishness, caused by our illusion of separateness. --> not if the above is true!"

--> Yes, it is. Evil is caused by thinking this level of consiousness is the real level of consciousness. Becoming conscious at a higher level will immediately remove the problem.

"if both worlds [within the one obviously] are real then it is not illusion but a different side to reality where separation resides. as individuals we may cross into nirvana by resolving the parody of separateness in each way it presents itself to us...."

--> I agree. Nirvana is the removal of separateness.

"within that eternally remaining element we can perhaps see ‘satan’ not as a being but as the eternally duel by which some are caused to do ‘evil’. "

--> It has been said the theists created the idea of Satan. God was good, so we needed a bad Satan. The idea is, you cannot have good without a bad to compare it to. It is the same old problem of duality. God cannot exist without Satan, because Satan is defined as that which is not God, and God is defined as that which is not Satan. (This is another reason why I do not have the concept of an Almighty God in my belief system. The ultimate reality is at a level above even good and evil.)

"Animals are not embodiments of Satanic power. They are points of consciousness trying to figure out what is going on, just like us. --> sure they are not, they merely get by in the separated eternity. i don’t know if they are trying to figure anything out, or just being."

--> Animals are conscious, but not self-conscious.

"obviously an amoeba isn’t trying to gain enlightenment nor is it the aim of evolution for it to eventually arrive at where it does?"

--> An amoeba is being urged on towards Nirvana by an unconscious force called Daiviprakriti. It IS making progress towards Nirvana, although it is not aware of it. An amoeba will gain Enlightenment just like we will, although it is much further behind in the process. An amoeba will become self-aware when it finally becomes human, zillions of years in the future.

"Remove the electromagnetism, and the form ceases to exist. --> ...and all things arise from that place where everything has ceased to exist!"

--> Rather, I would say: All things of this universe arise as an illusion, and they all come from the One Reality.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Nick,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> This is the mistake the Buddhists make. They see Nirvana as annihilation.

did you know that no school of Buddhism views Nibbana/Nirvana as annihilation? moreover, that such a view is derived from a mistaken conception of the Buddhist term Shunyata? it is a common mistake for beings to make if they lack a proper grounding in the Buddhadharma.

--> I agree. Nirvana is the removal of separateness.

can you explain why you think Nibbana/Nirvana is a removal of seprateness rather than how it is described within the religious paradigm that uses the term?

metta,

~v