[ QUOTE ]
I am going to use the terms "
nirvana" and "
samsara" merely as a launching point, so please keep in mind that what I intend when I use these two words is different from the traditional Buddhist usage. By "nirvana", I mean indefinite unity, and by "samsara", I mean finite fragmentation. Like a Buddhist, I believe that nirvana and samsara are identical, yet in opposition to each other. To put it simply, love is the difference between samsara and nirvana, but in order to give a more detailed answer, I need to discuss a little physics.
A wave never truly dies down to zero, so it lacks the traditional boundaries of a particle. Also, waves exhibit the property of
superposition. If we assume that all waves are three-dimensional, then from these two properties, it logically follows that all waves exist everywhere, in unison.
Our senses present us with a material universe dominated by particles, so it is understandable that our interpretation of the immaterial would subscribe to a particle theory. However, as modern physics has shown us, particles can present themselves as waves under certain circumstances, so it would seem that the particle and wave theories are ways in which we experience the universe rather than inherent properties of that universe. Love then becomes an experience of the immaterial as a wave.
That is all that I feel like explaining for now, but hopefully it will be enough. For anyone who seeks further thought on this, here are two additional, unexplained statements about love.
I do not believe in the dualistic assumptions that underlie the separation into material and immaterial.
Scott
[/ QUOTE ]
You sound like a Michael Talbot acolyte.