Spirit in whose body?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What came before the Big Bang?
- Thread starter yoda89
- Start date
Spirit in whose body?
godnotgod
Thou art That
No.
'In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word became Flesh'
Yeshu is spirit embodied in the flesh of man, the same spirit that is of 'the Kingdom of God within' all of us.
You want to keep man and God separated. Flesh is temporal; mutable; spirit is eternal, immutable. Yet they are not separate.
It is actually incorrect to say that spirit is 'embodied' in the flesh, as that implies that the spirit is somehow trapped in the body and needs escape. But entrapment is an illusion. Because we identify with the body as who we are, there exists the notion of entrapment. When it is realized that we are not the body, nor our history; not a personal self, we see that we are already free. We see that we are nothing less than the 'Indestructible Sunyata' itself, only pretending to be the temporal, perishable self.
We call this understanding 'The Wisdom of No-Escape'.
The Carpenter told you about it in his 'Parable of the Lilies of the Field'.
Remember?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
You misquoted Genesis.....
And the Word made flesh is a salvation rant for the congregation.
Have 'you' joined up?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
godnotgod
Thou art That
No, I paraphrased Genesis just for the essential information.
There is nothing to join since I have never been apart.
Who is it that is apart? Who is it that joins?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Where's that owl for an avatar?
godnotgod
Thou art That
William Marques
Member
I believe the body is a temporal expression of the divine essence that dwells within us, God is omnipresent transcending time and matter.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Since we, as humans, came out of the universe. is not the universe also a temporal expression of divine essence? Or rather, should I ask: since the universe is a temporal expression of divine essence, are we, as humans, also the same, since we emerged from the universe itself? In fact, is not the universe, which includes us, the Absolute itself, once the concepts of Time, Space, and Causation are stripped away? So what's left? The Changeless, pretending to be changing all the time, in a sophisticated cosmic game of Hide and Seek. We are that Reality, seeking Reality.
Last edited:
atheistsincesix
New Member
What's north of the North Pole? What's below the center of the earth? What created god?
godnotgod
Thou art That
Consciousness. It's not in Time, Space, or Causation. It's Everywhere...and Nowhere. It's Formless, Tasteless, Silent, Invisible, Odorless, and Changeless.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
That would be as good a definition for 'non-existent', non-existent things are also timeless, causeless, occupy no space are formless, tasteless, silent, invisible, odorless and changless.
So you have a definition for consciousness that would as ably define non-existent.
So my question is, what the difference between consciousness and non-existence?
TheScholar
Scholar
Nothing. A complete void of nothingness.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Consciousness is a property of what exists (Brahman, physical energy). Although we do not know what is the difference between existence and non-existence. Perhaps non-existence also is conscious.
Really? You think that we do not know the difference between existing and not existing?
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
No, we do not. If that was the case you would have been able to tell me what existed before 'Inflation' or 'Big-Bang'? Or from where the universe came about or is eternal? RigVeda said in 'Nasadiya Sukta':
सतॊबन्धुमसति निरविन्दन्हृदि प्रतीष्या कवयॊ मनीषाl
Satobandhumasati niravindanhridi pratishya kavayo manisha.
(The sages who have searched their hearts with wisdom know that 'which is' is kin to that 'which is not'.)
Nasadiya Sukta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
सतॊबन्धुमसति निरविन्दन्हृदि प्रतीष्या कवयॊ मनीषाl
Satobandhumasati niravindanhridi pratishya kavayo manisha.
(The sages who have searched their hearts with wisdom know that 'which is' is kin to that 'which is not'.)
Nasadiya Sukta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited:
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Of course I can tell you that.
You ask: What existed before the Big Bang?
Answer: There was no 'before' the Big Bang, time began at the BB.
Surely the difference between existence and non-existence is obvious?
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
No. We do not know anything beyond 'Inflation'. That is a singularity. We do not even know whether there was a 'Big-Bang' or not. It is only a projection which may be correct or it may not be. 'Inflation' wiped out all information. Things in Physics are not as simple as that."Physicists remain unsure about what, if anything, preceded the Big Bang. Many refuse to speculate, doubting that any information from any such prior state could ever be accessible. There are various multiverse hypotheses, in which some physicists have suggested that the Universe might be one among many or even an infinite number of universes that likewise exist."
Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited:
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
"Physicists remain unsure about what, if anything, preceded the Big Bang. Many refuse to speculate, doubting that any information from any such prior state could ever be accessible. There are various multiverse hypotheses, in which some physicists have suggested that the Universe might be one among many or even an infinite number of universes that likewise exist."
Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Uh huh, but how is any of that relevant? You asked what existed before the BB, and I told you that there was no before the BB. I know that the BB is just one theory - but the amswer still stands.
The difference between existence and nonexistence is abojt as clear and fundamental as you could get. What point are you trying to make by equivocating opposites?