Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Polymath257]

It is not possible to convey understanding to another without concepts, and since the true understanding is non-conceptual, any and all conceptual teachings are flawed.

If you want to understand the goal of religious teaching, you must develop a mind that is free from thought, free from concepts, only then will the real be present to the mind.

if you stop thinking and trying to understand, you will magically realize it is all useless.

Sorry, that doesn't go very far for me. If it is good for you, then you do you. I saw what you see and realized it was useless long ago.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Time is part of the geometry of the universe.

Forever simply means 'for all time'. If time is finite, so is forever. If time has a beginning and an end, then so does forever.

OK, OK.....I just don't find this sort of mysticism useful for understanding. I prefer not to turn off my brain when trying to understand things.

Q: What did the Buddha say to the hot dog vendor?

A: Make me one with everything.

Q: How did the hot dog vendor reply when Biddha asked for money back?

A: Change comes from within.

Existence continuing to exist is what the universe does, you use the concept of time to represent that continuance.

Religion is not about trying to understand things, it is about being all things. When the mind is still and free from thought, there is no duality, just the oneness of being. You are the expression of God, God is your source, if you look out, there is duality, if you look within, there is your source, The religious goal is to become one with the source,

 

[metis]

Interesting career metis. I often wondered if the human mind is so conditioned to the beginnings and endings, births and deaths, creation and destruction all around us, that they naturally presume existence itself, the cosmos, must have had a beginning. Iow, the human mind has difficulty conceiving of an eternity, as with infinity. However an eternal universe/God imho makes perfect sense, both subjectively and objectively, only the manifested forms of the eternal universe have beginnings, and endings. Read Genesis, it is only talking about the forms, galaxies are created, stars are created, planets are created, humans are created, only God/eternal universe has no beginning.

It appears that literally everything is interrelated.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yep. That's the mysticism I played with when I was 18. I quickly figured out it was just me playing mind games with myself.

No, that is what you are doing now, mind games. Transcending conceptual reality is the find the source, game over!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

if you stop thinking and trying to understand, you will magically realize it is all useless.

Sorry, that doesn't go very far for me. If it is good for you, then you do you. I saw what you see and realized it was useless long ago.

You didn't see what I see because I don't see anything, I just am what I am.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It appears that literally everything is interrelated.

Yes, it is one, it is the human mind that makes distinctions due to and according to our limited sense perception.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I'm not sure what it even means to have a 'higher consciousness' than another. Some things (like humans) are conscious. Other things (like chairs) are not. I see no evidence that the universe as a whole is conscious.

There may well be beings in the universe that are more aware of many things than we are. For example, we are usually unaware of infrared light. We are usually unaware of neutrinos. We simply don't have the senses to detect those. maybe a being with better senses will be aware of more. Does that make then a 'higher consciousness'? I don't think so.

How about the consciousness of a star, that would be a higher form of consciousness than a human.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And when you stop asking that nonsense question, you will realize there can be no answer.

What is north of the north pole?

My position is that latitude has no beginning or end: you can always go south and always go north. You have to explain how it is possible for there to be a place with no north. At this point, nothing else is relevant.

So it is nonsense to ask what was before the BB, it is nonsense to ask why there was a BB, it is nonsense to ask how the BB happened, if this is science, then God help humanity!

 

[Polymath257]

Existence continuing to exist is what the universe does, you use the concept of time to represent that continuance.

No, The universe doesn't 'continue to exist'. The universe of space and time 'simply exists'. It doesn't 'come into existence'. It simply 'exists'.

When you say 'continue to', you are using time. When you ask about 'coming into', you are using time.

If you want to reject time, you need to get away from both 'continuing' and 'becoming'.

Religion is not about trying to understand things, it is about being all things.

Then I am not interested.

When the mind is still and free from thought, there is no duality, just the oneness of being. You are the expression of God, God is your source, if you look out, there is duality, if you look within, there is your source, The religious goal is to become one with the source,

Yes, I know. But I found it useless.

No, that is what you are doing now, mind games. Transcending conceptual reality is the find the source, game over!

The Buddha can clean the dishes.

You didn't see what I see because I don't see anything, I just am what I am.

Funny. So are we all.

How about the consciousness of a star, that would be a higher form of consciousness than a human.

Are stars conscious? I highly doubt it. More powerful, sure. More massive, definitely. But conscious? Unlikely.

Do you have any evidence for the consciousness of stars?

So it is nonsense to ask what was before the BB, it is nonsense to ask why there was a BB, it is nonsense to ask how the BB happened, if this is science, then God help humanity!

It is nonsense to ask what is before existence. it is nonsense to ask why existence exists. It is nonsense to ask about coming into existence without time.

It *may* be that time makes sense before the BB and we *should* ask about that possibility. But it is also quite possible that the universe had a start (a time for which there is no before) and yet has existed for all time.

Humanity needs no Gods to help it. It helps itself.

 

[Polymath257]

You didn't see what I see because I don't see anything, I just am what I am.

Quite an admission that you don't see anything.

Also, you seem to be denying that unity you have been claiming.

 

[Polymath257]

It appears that literally everything is interrelated.

Yes, because literally everything is part of existence and subject to natural laws.

Humans make connections and distinctions to try to understand this tapestry.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, it is one, it is the human mind that makes distinctions due to and according to our limited sense perception.

Way too dualistic. Our minds are also one with existence.

 

[gnostic]

It is not possible to convey understanding to another without concepts, and since the true understanding is non-conceptual, any and all conceptual teachings are flawed.

If you want to understand the goal of religious teaching, you must develop a mind that is free from thought, free from concepts, only then will the real be present to the mind.

The problem with religions, is that they are free from reality, especially ones of theism (belief in the existence of deity or deities), or spiritualism (belief in spirits). No one have shown either are demonstrably real...resorting to superstition.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, The universe doesn't 'continue to exist'. The universe of space and time 'simply exists'. It doesn't 'come into existence'. It simply 'exists'.

When you say 'continue to', you are using time. When you ask about 'coming into', you are using time.

If you want to reject time, you need to get away from both 'continuing' and 'becoming'.

Then I am not interested.

Yes, I know. But I found it useless.



The Buddha can clean the dishes.



Funny. So are we all.



Are stars conscious? I highly doubt it. More powerful, sure. More massive, definitely. But conscious? Unlikely.

Do you have any evidence for the consciousness of stars?



It is nonsense to ask what is before existence. it is nonsense to ask why existence exists. It is nonsense to ask about coming into existence without time.

It *may* be that time makes sense before the BB and we *should* ask about that possibility. But it is also quite possible that the universe had a start (a time for which there is no before) and yet has existed for all time.

Humanity needs no Gods to help it. It helps itself.

Sorry but you have not considered it properly. Here is a rock, we agree that the rock exists. Now if we continue to look at the rock, it does not disappear, it continues to exist. The same goes for the universe, it just exists, but mankind conceives of this persistence of existence as 'time' and creates aa proxy device such as a pendulum for example and counts the cycles to create a measurement of finite segments of the eternal nature of existence existing.

I don't reject the concept of time as a measurement for I am well aware that it is an intelligent human created concept, but at the same time I am acutely aware that what is really happening is just existence continuing to exist.

If you claim you found it useless, it is because the still mind state was not realized, if it were, in that state there is no personal 'I' existing to have any opinion whatsoever. In any event to reject the state of oneness is to reject 'God', 'Nirvana', 'Allah', 'Tao', 'Brahman', 'the source of your own existence'.

Humanity is an expression of God, Universal existence, universal reality, you are an actor, your source is within you, to the extent you are not aware of what and who you really are in the context of universal existence, is to same extent a creation of a karmic mess that will one day need to be cleaned up.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Quite an admission that you don't see anything.

Also, you seem to be denying that unity you have been claiming.

How can you not understand what is being conveyed to you after all this time, surely my English is not that bad. In the state of a still mind, there is no thinker thinking, no ego present, no'I' arising, there is just pure awareness, non-conceptual reality, oneness, non-duality.

If you go back and read every thing I've ever written on this, I've never claimed I have experienced a still mind. Certainly the still mind state has been realized, but in that state, 'I' am not present, and can't be present because if there is an I present, there is duality, I and enlightenment. which would be a delusion.

Now do I have memory of the still mind experience, yes, but it was not I having the experience of pure awareness, it was non-dual, just pure awareness. If you want to try still mind meditation, please understand that the personal 'I' of the body must be transcended. So long as there is an 'I' present, there will naturally be duality.

 

[Polymath257]

Sorry but you have not considered it properly. Here is a rock, we agree that the rock exists. Now if we continue to look at the rock, it does not disappear, it continues to exist.

Because there continues to be time.

The same goes for the universe, it just exists, but mankind conceives of this persistence of existence as 'time' and creates aa proxy device such as a pendulum for example and counts the cycles to create a measurement of finite segments of the eternal nature of existence existing.

Persistence of existence is *time*. To go beyond that focus on time, you need to go to a 4-dimensional perspective. In that, the rock 'just is' as a rock *through time*. The universe 'just exists' as a universe 'through time'. The 4-dimensional geometry is 'fixed' with time and space *within* it.

I don't reject the concept of time as a measurement for I am well aware that it is an intelligent human created concept, but at the same time I am acutely aware that what is really happening is just existence continuing to exist.

Continuing to exist *is* time. You need to jump up a level and look at spacetime as an entity.

If you claim you found it useless, it is because the still mind state was not realized, if it were, in that state there is no personal 'I' existing to have any opinion whatsoever. In any event to reject the state of oneness is to reject 'God', 'Nirvana', 'Allah', 'Tao', 'Brahman', 'the source of your own existence'.

Humanity is an expression of God, Universal existence, universal reality, you are an actor, your source is within you, to the extent you are not aware of what and who you really are in the context of universal existence, is to same extent a creation of a karmic mess that will one day need to be cleaned up.

Such is your claim. I find it to be a useless viewpoint.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Way too dualistic. Our minds are also one with existence.

If you look out, the mind is dualistic, when the mind looks within, the potential is there to be one with existence. But seriously, it will take a lot of religious practice looking in before the mind is one with existence, But seek with all your heart, mind, and soul, and it will be realized,

 

[Polymath257]

If you look out, the mind is dualistic, when the mind looks within, the potential is there to be one with existence. But seriously, it will take a lot of religious practice looking in before the mind is one with existence, But seek with all your heart, mind, and soul, and it will be realized,

If you look in, you only see yourself. If you look out, you have a chance to learn about existence. Looking in sets one up for confirmation bias. Looking out allows for real testing and checking that we got things right.

If you look in hard enough, you will *think* you are one with everything. But that is, I believe, a falsehood. You are just as connected or disconnected as always.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The problem with religions, is that they are free from reality, especially ones of theism (belief in the existence of deity or deities), or spiritualism (belief in spirits). No one have shown either are demonstrably real...resorting to superstition.

Like science, there is poor science and great science, it all depends on the scientist, so it is with religion. The difference between science and religion is that one primarily is looks out into the universal expression, and the other is looking into the source of that expression. Human religious institutions are mostly corrupt, and can not be held up as to what religion is meant to represent. If I were to suggest what the most important religious goal is, it would be to find out what and who one really is in the context of universal existence, not conceptually but really.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If you look in, you only see yourself. If you look out, you have a chance to learn about existence. Looking in sets one up for confirmation bias. Looking out allows for real testing and checking that we got things right.

If you look in hard enough, you will *think* you are one with everything. But that is, I believe, a falsehood. You are just as connected or disconnected as always.

So that is an admission that you can't or won't allow your 'I' to become one with all, for that is the purpose of looking in, to dissolve the temporary separate self (which is going to happen anyway at the death of your body), and transfer self identify to a permanent Self.