I'm Back!
As I simply cant let the following to continue..
Universe after universe is like an interminable succession of wheels forever coming into view, forever rolling onwards, disappearing and reappearing; forever passing from being to non being, and again from non being to being. In short, the constant revolving of the wheel of life in one eternal cycle, according to fixed and immutable laws, is perhaps after all the sum and substance of the philosophy of Buddhism. And this eternal wheel has so to speak, six spokes representing six forms of existence. ---- Mon. Williams, Buddhism, pp. 229, 122.
Problem with that interpretation is the fact that the Inference to "The Universe" is meant to refer to all That - was, is and going to be possible.
The inference to "Universe after universe" does not refer to a definition defined as "The Universe" and whats more violates the definition and therefore is Null And Void, as is any further references made to it there after such as the following statements after my comment
Hows that Guys?:beach: Am I within the protocol? or are we off topic?
If we indeed are, then may I be so bold and suggest the threads title and or heading be changed to better reflect the OP's reason for posting, of course it would help if the OP could have some say, am I right?:run:
The nights and days of Brahma are called Manvantara or the cycle of manifestation, The Great Day that is a period of universal activity, which is preceded, and also followed by Pralaya, a dark period, which to our finite minds seems as an eternity. We are evolving in an eternal oscillating universe which is in the eternal process of evolution itself.
To begin with, the first day or period of manifestation of the seven universal cycles that revolve eternally within the eighth eternal cosmic cycle, consisted of the massive first generation star only, there were no planets or physical bodies behind which those massive stars could hide, thereby creating a shadow that an observer would call night. The first generation of this, the seventh cycle of universal activity consisted of light and Light only. For the Observer said Let there be light: and there was light, then came the evening or period of seemingly non-being that precedes the next day or cycle of universal activity.
"The earth was without form/shape and void/having zero mass. A Photon or wave particle, which is the quantum of electromagnetic energy, is not a particle in the true sense, having zero mass, no electric charge, and carrying angular and linear momentum but is generally regarded as a discrete stable elementary particle.
The Logos, is the divine animating principle that pervades the entire universal body and all therein including you and I. It is the activating or life force, and the Logos was in the infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitesimally small singularity of origin,
"Infinitesimally small"? I ask - to what reference?
and it was the momentum of the universal animating principle that was the cause of the Big Bang which tore asunder or spatially separated the singularity
So if we refer to the Universe one moment in reference to all of its energy and or mass B4 implied singularity inference, and then to the reference implying change to something else, what references prey tell have changed and from what catalyst? but more to the point is the problem of the destruction or creation of energy for such a change..
What I am getting at is if the inference to the Universe is to entail all that is possible, then what we refer to is a closed system that does not allow for the IMPOSSIBLE to enter in our implied definitions inference, unless of course one concedes fiction is indeed fact.. "The Universe" therefore first and foremost is our reference to all that is possible, and if we are to describe change to such an inference, then it needs to adhere to strict truth statements.
For example if the Universe were to be ,it would only ever be 100% of it - if it is indeed all of it, so if its single inference and or dimension is inadequate in describing observed changes, we need more inferences and or references as in "Dimensions"..
The most basic statement that implies to change therefore needs the minimum of four dimensions to express a restrictive change.
for example.. with respects to two portions, two Potentials, two subsystems and or dimensions..
If we have half of the Universe then what we have is the inference to two halves and or two subsystems you being implied as one half.. so that if one half - is to change the other half which in this case is you needs to accommodate and also change if indeed the two are to adhere to the Universe remaining as the Universe..
So to recap, if our two subsystems are to imply change, the only way this is possible is if each portion and or reference reciprocates the other, as each inference is the reciprocal to the rest of the Universe, yes that's right, ones actions effect the entire Universe as it must reciprocate less it violates its own definition pertaining to 100% of its Energy..
Put simply any mass that is deemed part of your makeup, can no longer also be deemed to be elsewhere and or part of the rest of the Universe.
which has evolved to become mankind who is currently the Most high in the evolution, Lord of creatures and the prototype of the Lord of spirits who is the Son of Man or the evolving spirit of the eternal who becomes the next in line in the eternal growth/evolution of the singularity of origin who continues to evolves from within the body of the most high in the creation, which is mankind "the virgin bride of God," whose son inherits the throne of his father the most high, whose Son is the Son Of Man: the Omega who the Alpha becomes or has become, depending on your concept of time.
Comment removed less comment is used to decieve the gullible
At the moment of the spatial separation there was nothing, except for the expanding liquid like electromagnetic energy in the billions of degrees that followed the Big Bang.
When the spatial separation was completed and only the quantum of electromagnetic energy remained,
which violates physical laws that define what is possible and what is not, so the inference is not valid
it was upon the face of this universal cloud of wave particles within the bottomless pit or expanding deep space, that the Logos was moving and gathering those wave particles into subatomic particles, which were then gathered in the formation of atoms, which in turn were gathered together in the formation of the molecules, etc. This gathering process continues and is the evolutionary force that is creating this universal body or galactic cluster, which is being gathered back to its origin, from which the great gatherer, through the power of the Logos, will create a new heavens and a new earth.
Comment removed less comment is used to decieve the gullible
Most Biblical translations of Genesis 1: 2; read, "The earth was without form/shape and void/having zero mass.
Which is a violation to the universe, as the inference to the Universe implies it is closed to the Impossible and zero Mass is an inference to the entire Universes only reciprocal, which has nothing and or zero excluded from it..
Granted at this point in time, this may not be easily understood unless one may be a professor who has been deeply involved with what I have just referred to, so feel free to challenge and or ask more questions about that
This verse would be better translated as, The earth became without form and void. As the Hebrew word Hayah, translated Was, means to become, occur, come to pass, be. The earth of the sixth generation of the universe which was gathered back to the infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitesimally small singularity of origin in the beginning, had become formless and void. (Not some new beginning, but THE BEGINNING, before space and time were created.)
The Inference to some beginning to "The Universe" is in violation to the definition "The Universe" it also violates physical conservation laws, mainly in reference to Mass and or Energy, where in physics, it implies Energy can not be created, nor can it be destroyed ..
I feel I need to further point out -
As much as it seems The Big-Bang Theory is a valid Theory, it is in fact not fully accepted to be a theory being 100% correct and or as yet considered a fact, mainly due to much of the problematic Data that suggests it violates physical laws, and in particular conservation laws pertaining to Energy and or Mass, so I would steer clear from any reference to it if one is endeavoring to deceive the gullible.
There are other problems, but I have removed them, in case the facts that I reveal - are taken in and considered as good points to consider in order to deceive and or further deceive the gullible. mwha~hey!
but I thought I made it clear, that the Big-Bang Theory violates conservation laws, and therefore deemed to be problematic, hence is not a reference one should refer to if one wishes to refer to facts..