I have been listening to audiobooks on Buddhism and Hinduism (Dhammapada, Bhagavad Gita, Heart Sutra, Upanishads, Rig Veda, etc.), and am stuck trying to imagine and/or understand how the infinite divine mind (the All, or whatever you want to call it, God, etc..), divides into individual life experiences which have "their own" perceptions and self-experience (atman), and are yet **impermanent**. And how this relates to the **permanent** [anatman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatt%C4%81) (non-self). The way my mind imagines it, there is a ball like a balloon filled with tiny points/particles like grains of sand. Each grain of sand is the self-experiencer, but are all part of the whole ball (and yet where this metaphor breaks down is the grains of sand are actually distinct from the ball, but in the All case, they are but tiny aspects of the all or something like that). In this sense, there is a finite number of grains of sand / selves, and no more and no less can be created. But in the All/anatman case, it seems to subdivide into an infinite number of experiences. So then it's like, afterlife/reincarnation. How does that work? When I die do I get subdivided into several lesser experiences (ranked according to evolution of spiritual development), or merged into a higher single experience composed of many other souls now integrated into one? Or how do more selves get created which have their own perceptions? Why can't we just magically create a self using some physics or biology experiments (which don't involve just having lifeforms reproduce)? Why can't we just "poof" and a new individual experiencer / soul is created out of a test tube of some sort of energy? All those questions boil down to the fact that I don't understand how the permanent anatman, the divine infinite all/perfection (or if I'm mixing up concepts, let me know), divides into individuals which can have their own conscious awareness (like humans), or at least have their own independent life. There is a "spark" there, where does it come from and how does it perceive itself as independent of the whole? How are more individual selves created? Is there a fixed number of them? This meme hits home the most, and yet I still don't get how individuals can have their "own" experience (at least from their own perspective), and how the infinite subdivides into these selves.

The [Sāmaññaphala Sutta (DN2)](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/DN/DN02.html) had often been quoted as the Buddha’s objections towards relying on *“animal”* arts for a livelihood. If one is learned in Mathematics, one can be a Math teacher. If one is experienced in cooking, one can work as a cook. If one is skilled in the *“animal”* arts, is a **shaman** even considered a legal occupation? Reading a paper: [On Buddhism, Divination and the Worldly Arts...](https://digitalcommons.linfield.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=relsfac_pubs) , however, got me thinking deeply on the reasons and contexts of this position. Is there more to it than the grounds of wrong livelihood? Could there be other dangers? Conversely, are there really no benefits whatsoever? What if one used divination and was able to avoid a misfortune...perhaps, even physical harm? Going to a Thai monastery, I have often wondered when devotees bring amulets to the monks to get them blessed. If you worn a white thread after visiting, you will be familiar with the practice of “sai sin”. Similarly, I have known of some devotees who approached monks for divination on matters that falls under serious or mundane. Also, in the paper mentioned above, the Buddha himself, had been approached to divine the subsequent rebirths of devotees on many occasions. I could be wrong but does this mean as long as one adheres to some underlying restrictions, clauses or conditions with regards to the occult arts then one might not ended up on the ***“dark”*** side after all? If this is so, what are those conditions? If not, what are the dangers other than wrong livelihood?

Originally thought it was among some of the list of downfalls but couldn't find it there. I remember hearing somewhere in the suttas perhaps the unskillfulness of believing there are no sages who can see beyond the physical world. Ring any bells? (Oops on the vagueness)