What came before the Big Bang?

[Thief]

I'm amazed at the concept of Bunyip's conjecture. It's so simple in his meaning.
How does the concept of "before conception" not trigger the realization in one's thinking of what they were before the insemination from parents was performed.
Is that too hard to percieve ? Life is temporary, an awfully short span in the breath of the Cosmos. "After death", is just a continuence of the chemicals that we are. From dust to dust, even the belgium preist had that right, although he had the beginning wrong.
~
We seem to be trapped in some sort of "BOX" here, meaning; "belief in the Big Bang". It's time to get out of that box.
Now....the question is:"what came before the silly idealization of some sudden inflation of nothing to everything, sans:"genisis".
There was no Adam or Eve or whatever they were called....what were they called in the OT, in the original greek, or latin, or whatever.
The Big Bang is just a thiestic interpredation of the creation in a silly old man's mind, no more, no less, but it could be a whole less.
~
Think about it.....explain the pre-bang void...really, really explain what a "void" is, and now...."gravity"...in the "void".
~
Come on people......get out of the box !!!
With or without consciousness or gnosis !
~
'mud

I say .....avoid going INTO the box!

When your last breath leaves you....leave altogether.
It's a big universe.

Gotta be somewhere to go....something else to do.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Nope-- it was caused by way too many people eating way too many refried beans. :thud:

Ah, so it was a brain fart!

Ahhh.....

Then a lit match.

 

[godnotgod]

I had already said that. Seer-Seeing-Seen together is non dual and is of the nature of existence-consciousness-bliss.

OK, but still empty.

 

[godnotgod]

And of course your constant denial won't hold.

Billions of people and no one survives the last breath?
Every soul destined to fail?

You simply won't believe.....in Something Greater.

Too bad.

I neither believe, nor not-believe. I just see.

 

[godnotgod]

I'm amazed at the concept of Bunyip's conjecture. It's so simple in his meaning.
How does the concept of "before conception" not trigger the realization in one's thinking of what they were before the insemination from parents was performed.
Is that too hard to percieve ? Life is temporary, an awfully short span in the breath of the Cosmos. "After death", is just a continuence of the chemicals that we are. From dust to dust, even the belgium preist had that right, although he had the beginning wrong.
~
We seem to be trapped in some sort of "BOX" here, meaning; "belief in the Big Bang". It's time to get out of that box.
Now....the question is:"what came before the silly idealization of some sudden inflation of nothing to everything, sans:"genisis".
There was no Adam or Eve or whatever they were called....what were they called in the OT, in the original greek, or latin, or whatever.
The Big Bang is just a thiestic interpredation of the creation in a silly old man's mind, no more, no less, but it could be a whole less.
~
Think about it.....explain the pre-bang void...really, really explain what a "void" is, and now...."gravity"...in the "void".
~
Come on people......get out of the box !!!
With or without consciousness or gnosis !
~
'mud

Escape from The Box will occur when it is realized that there is no box to escape from.

void: the negation of all negation.

Yes, I agree with you re: Bunyip's insightful post.

 

[godnotgod]

I say .....avoid going INTO the box!

When your last breath leaves you....leave altogether.
It's a big universe.

Gotta be somewhere to go....something else to do.

Take up knitting.

 

[atanu]

OK, but still empty.

OK. If that makes you happy.

But who will experience and re-tell, if so-called Sunyata is not actually existence-consciousness-bliss? Who will want to attain Sunyata, if it is not devoid of death, if it is not devoid of oblivion, and if it is not devoid of pain?

So, the unborn (Atma-Brahman-Prabhu-God) is called Full. It is dense. It is partition less and boundary-less.

 

[godnotgod]

OK. If that makes you happy.

But who will experience and re-tell, if so-called Sunyata is not actually existence-consciousness-bliss? Who will want to attain Sunyata, if it is not devoid of death, if it is not devoid of oblivion, and if it is not devoid of pain?

So, the unborn (Atma-Brahman-Prabhu-God) is called Full. It is dense. It is partition less and boundary-less.

Heh...heh...We are both 'correct'. Fullness cannot exist without Emptiness.

Is there an experiencer? A 'reteller'? An attainer?

Or is there simply experiencing, without an experiencer of the experience? Is there not only an experiencer when you think about it? Otherwise, when you unexpectedly burn your finger on a hot stove , immediately there is only 'Ouch!'. Then, immediately afterward, one thinks: ' I burned my finger!', as if one is the burner of the burned finger. No such burner is to be found. No such experiencer of Sunyata can be found.

Have you seen him?

 

[Willamena]

"Fullness is emptiness" is non-dual.

 

[atanu]

H.... ... No such experiencer of Sunyata can be found.

Have you seen him?

I have repeated many times: The experiencing cannot be devoid of the experiencer in its fullness. The experiencing cannot be in a state of unconsciousness too.

...........

I will not repeat it any further.

 

[Thief]

I neither believe, nor not-believe. I just see.

and herein the chase around the burning bush.

You have no stance to take...you just offer word salad.

shallow

 

[s2a]

Escape from The Box will occur when it is realized that there is no box to escape from.

void: the negation of all negation.

Yes, I agree with you re: Bunyip's insightful post.

Odd that "belief" is sooo simple, yet sooo complex.

Calling BS what it is simplifies matters greatly....

"The box is invisible, yet seen by all that choose to see".

"See"?

"The box is a box, except when it's not a box".

Geez.

 

[godnotgod]

"Fullness is emptiness" is non-dual.

You got it.

 

[godnotgod]

I have repeated many times: The experiencing cannot be devoid of the experiencer in its fullness. The experiencing cannot be in a state of unconsciousness too.

...........

Thus Spraketh Lord Atanu!

I will not repeat it any further.

You promise?

Show me this so-called 'experiencer' of which you speak.

That which sees that all phenomena are empty is fully conscious, but there is no agent of seeing. There is only pure seeing itself. Seeing is consciousness.

That you see some 'agent' of seeing only occurs when the mind creates such an image. It is an illusion. It is duality.

edit:

Through such [enlightened] awareness it is seen that the separation of the thinker from the thought, the knower from the known, the subject from the object, is purely abstract. There is not the mind on the one hand and its experiences on the other: there is just a process of experiencing in which there is nothing to be grasped, as an object, and no one, as a subject, to grasp it.

[The Way of Zen, Thames and Hudson, London, 1957, p 53]

 

[godnotgod]

and herein the chase around the burning bush.

You have no stance to take...you just offer word salad.

shallow

Why should I take a stance either for or against when to do so is to create defense, which creates offense? I follow the Middle Path of the Buddha, and avoid extreme positions. The Buddha himself saw that two extreme views persisted in his time, namely, that of the Materialists vs the Eternalists, the former asserting that when the body dies, that is the final end, and the latter that an individual soul goes on into an afterlife. Neither position can be confirmed, unless you can return to tell the tale. So the Buddha found another path, that of Awakening, in which he saw the illusory nature of both birth and death, and the eternal nature of the awakened state.

I never stated that there was not Something Greater; but it is not the same image of a 'Something Greater' you hold merely as shallow belief.

 

[godnotgod]

Odd that "belief" is sooo simple, yet sooo complex.

Calling BS what it is simplifies matters greatly....

"The box is invisible, yet seen by all that choose to see".

"See"?

"The box is a box, except when it's not a box".

Geez.

There never was a box from the very beginning.

 

[s2a]

*Facepalm*

lol!

It's a good thing I don't really exist...

...or if I do, my apologies.

 

[godnotgod]

*Facepalm*

lol!

It's a good thing I don't really exist...

...or if I do, my apologies.

You never existed from the very beginning, though you may like to think so.

 

[idav]

You never existed from the very beginning, though you may like to think so.

Its a good thing you dont exist or what you post wouldnt just be an illusion.

 

[godnotgod]

Its a good thing you dont exist or what you post wouldnt just be an illusion.

"I" don't exist at all, and neither do you, but there IS consciousness at both ends of this screen. Of this, there is no mistake.