What came before the Big Bang?

[Thief]

...as he spouts yet more dogma! Brazen! (shhhhh....maybe no one will notice...shhhh!)

Nay.
The good reason is there for all to see.

I don't insist on a nod of the head for the sake of pretty words.
(such I have seen of you)

 

[Thief]

I am totally and astoundingly amazed at the way you people can turn a science thread into psycholigical and spiritual meaningless crap.
WHAT CAME BEFORE THE "PRETENSIOUS" BANG ?
AND IT WASN'T GOD OR IT'S ANGELS !
Give me a break, babble your salvation myths on other threads.
Go die on the "after death thread" blog, it would be fitting.
~
I guess I should find another blog site, this one smells of well used socks.
~
'mud

Yeah...it's been a long thread.
But ask what came before the 'bang'.....leads to God.

I say Spirit first.

Substance cannot beget the living.
If substance first, then substance is the source of all things living.
I don't believe that.
If substance first then life cannot go on beyond death.
I don't believe that.

 

[John Martin]

Do you believe in the Big Bang?

Do you think it was a superior being who created the Big Bang?

Do you think the multiverse theory is a good explanation?

Was it something else?

It is true this thread has deviated its main theme and need to come back to its original questions.

Do you believe in the big bang?
It seems the scientific world is proposing it we need to believe. Many things we have not seen but we believe them because scientist tell them and get Nobel prizes for that.
Do you think it was a superior being who created the Big Bang? may be started.
If you mean 'God' when you say superior being, I do not believe that God started the Big Bang. What caused the Bang is the desire born of ignorance.
Creation is the radiance of the divine. This radiance has different layers in which God reflects.The last level of this radiance is speck, the source of the universe. The reflection of God is present in this spark and with the combination with the spark it creates an identity called 'soul'. it is the combination of spiritual and matter. First it identifies with the matter. But since it is also spiritual it wants to go to its source the divine. This desire propels the original speck of the matter which inflates it and evolution of the universe. Hence the desire of the soul to return to God is the cause of the Big Bang, not God since God does not need the creation that evolves. This desire creates time and space.
Do you think the multiverse theory is a good explanation?

I do not think multiverse theory is a good explanation. Multiverse is possible. Each universe may have its own big bang still they belong to the material layer of creation that comes from God. Each big bang initiates each universe and each universe may have its own laws but what unites all the universes is the desire to return to God. The reflection of the divine in the each universe wants to go back to the divine, just like a ray of the Sun would like to go back to the Sun, but its takes the external path of time and space and so creates this universe and also many universes.

Was it something else?

Yes, it is the desire born of ignorance which caused the Big Bang. Just It is the desire in us that propels the movements of our lives.

 

[William Marques]

When we explore what came after or before, we're related to the time and time exists in the physical layer. In the God dimension there is no limitation of time, everything can exist and not exist if we abort this limitation.

 

[godnotgod]

It is true that it is human being's view that is transformed. When the inner view is transformed then what you see as ordinary bread is no longer ordinary bread. It is divine manifestation.
The eucharistic celebration was the original and genius institution of Jesus. It contains the whole truth that Jesus discovered. It represents one hundred percent love of God and one hundred percent love of neighbour. It is elevating our consciousness to the level of divine(love of God) and sharing with others that divine bread( the love of neighbour). I am sorry to disagree with you. It is not imported from Mithraism. It is an original act of Jesus and contains a profound truth for all times. It means every human encounter should be an Eucharistic celebration. It is giving the body of God and receiving the body of God.

You can disagree, of course, but it does not change the fact that Mithra and Christ are the same myth.

When the inner view is transformed, then what you see is still ordinary bread.

'When I began my study of Zen, mountains were just mountains, and trees were just trees.

During my study, mountains were no longer mountains, and trees no longer trees.

When I realized my Enlightenment, mountains were once again mountains, and trees once again trees.'
Zen source

The consumption of bread and wine are merely metaphors for the physical consumption of flesh and blood, but the meaning is the same, and that is the consumption of the deity's flesh and blood as a means of internalizing its power. In the case of the Last Supper, the consumption of bread and wine served as the means for the redemption of sin.

If, as you say, 'every human encounter should be an Eucharistic celebration', then that can only mean that all such encounters are nothing special, and being nothing special, are quite ordinary.

The sharing of bread and wine in brotherly love can occur without them being metaphors for sacrificial flesh and blood, which is what is stated in the Last Supper. The allusion to sacrificial flesh and blood can only have come from pagan beliefs. People who are attuned to higher consciousness give it no credence.

 

[godnotgod]

Nay.

Again, in denial.

The good reason is there for all to see.

It is not self evident. You are making more dogma.

I don't insist on a nod of the head for the sake of pretty words.
(such I have seen of you)

They seem pretty to you simply because you insist that your dogma is Truth.

 

[John Martin]

You can disagree, of course, but it does not change the fact that Mithra and Christ are the same myth.

When the inner view is transformed, then what you see is still ordinary bread.

'When I began my study of Zen, mountains were just mountains, and trees were just trees.

During my study, mountains were no longer mountains, and trees no longer trees.

When I realized my Enlightenment, mountains were once again mountains, and trees once again trees.'
Zen source

The consumption of bread and wine are merely metaphors for the physical consumption of flesh and blood, but the meaning is the same, and that is the consumption of the deity's flesh and blood as a means of internalizing its power. In the case of the Last Supper, the consumption of bread and wine served as the means for the redemption of sin.

If, as you say, 'every human encounter should be an Eucharistic celebration', then that can only mean that all such encounters are nothing special, and being nothing special, are quite ordinary.

The sharing of bread and wine in brotherly love can occur without them being metaphors for sacrificial flesh and blood, which is what is stated in the Last Supper. The allusion to sacrificial flesh and blood can only have come from pagan beliefs. People who are attuned to higher consciousness give it no credence.

I am very sorry I see differently. It is nothing to do with the pagan beliefs. We should not take flesh and blood literally. They reveal only the intimacy of action. In the Old Testament there is an expression, you are my flesh and blood, it means you are my close relative. Eating and drinking were profound symbols of intimate communion. Any how what is important is the transformed human relationships. It is not so much of an external act. Rituals can be changed. They need not be eternal. Zen is very profound. I have great respect for it. I also attended Zen sessions and practiced Zen.It is something very personal and individualistic. What I found in it lacking is the love of neighbour and socially trans-formative action. It is not sufficient to cut the wood and fetch the water. Jesus had to die on the cross because he wanted to transform the society according to his vision of the Kingdom of God, which is to transform our actions into actions of God, our life into the life of God and our children as the children of God.We look for a society where justice, equality and freedom reign. Any spiritual realization without socially trans-formative vision and action is something limited. Our human relationships should be transformed and then the whole society will be transformed.
When the scientists tried understand the nature of the matter, they realized that it is not solid but only vibration of energy. After this truth when a scientist looks at the matter he does not see it as a solid object but only energy vibrating in a certain density. When the ice is solid it looks like a stone. When it melts it knows that it is nothing but water. When it comes back to the form of ice, it knows that it is not a solid object but water. Water and ice one essentially but different functionally.This is how I see the realization of Zen.
This thread is about what came before the Big Bang and I think We need to focus on that question.

 

[Thief]

Again, in denial.



It is not self evident. You are making more dogma.



They seem pretty to you simply because you insist that your dogma is Truth.

Hypocrisy!

And you know I have no dogmatic faith.
Note my banner and my signature.

 

[Thief]

When we explore what came after or before, we're related to the time and time exists in the physical layer. In the God dimension there is no limitation of time, everything can exist and not exist if we abort this limitation.

No problem.
Time does not exist.

 

[godnotgod]

Hypocrisy!

And you know I have no dogmatic faith.
Note my banner and my signature.

And yet you brazenly declare the afterlife to exist as if it were Absolute Truth. That is dogma.

 

[AlphaAlex115]

No problem.
Time does not exist.

Yes it does. I met him.. nice guy

 

[godnotgod]

I am very sorry I see differently. It is nothing to do with the pagan beliefs. We should not take flesh and blood literally. They reveal only the intimacy of action. In the Old Testament there is an expression, you are my flesh and blood, it means you are my close relative. Eating and drinking were profound symbols of intimate communion.

So far, so good. But that is not what Jesus said at the Last Supper. This event was not simply a matter of comraderie and jovial brotherhood. Even though there was no actual eating and drinking of literal flesh and blood, the metaphors of bread and wine symbolized the exact same belief: that consumption of divine flesh and blood, in the form of bread and wine, had the inherent power to wash sin away:

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you.

This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

(The modern Church maintains the doctrine of transubstantiation, which holds that bread and wine blessed by a priest is actually the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. )

Any how what is important is the transformed human relationships. It is not so much of an external act. Rituals can be changed. They need not be eternal.

As I understand it, in Medeival times in Europe, the whole community sowed, grew, and harvested wheat, and then baked bread and ate of it as a communal act of contrition/repentance for sin.

Zen is very profound. I have great respect for it. I also attended Zen sessions and practiced Zen.It is something very personal and individualistic. What I found in it lacking is the love of neighbour and socially trans-formative action. It is not sufficient to cut the wood and fetch the water.

Oh, what a shame! You have missed the very heart of Zen. Cutting wood and fetching water is merely an illustration that the Ordinary and the Miraculous are one and the same. The ultimate experience of Zen is filled with deep and genuine love and compassion for the entire world. Otherwise, it would not be real Zen.

Jesus had to die on the cross because he wanted to transform the society according to his vision of the Kingdom of God, which is to transform our actions into actions of God, our life into the life of God and our children as the children of God.We look for a society where justice, equality and freedom reign. Any spiritual realization without socially trans-formative vision and action is something limited. Our human relationships should be transformed and then the whole society will be transformed.

True, but such a social transformation does not include the shedding of blood via crucifixion. That is a pagan belief, no different than the Jewish practice of animal sacrifice as a mysterious device for the redemption of guilt and sin. You are reading corrupt text, which has been overwritten onto the pure, non-sacrificial teachings of Yeshu. Yeshu was the real man; 'Jesus' is the myth.

Zen is more pure than Christianity in terms of a socially transformative vision. Why do I say that? Because it is true to the realization that to reform/transform oneself is to transform society, which Christianity seeks to create social change by imposing its will externally onto society, while forgetting the lesson of the beam in one's own eye. IOW, Christianity sees the world as evil, and in need of correction. Zen accepts the world wholeheartedly as it is, warts and all, and sees the pure goodness of Buddha nature within all things. Christianity maintains an ulterior motive, which is that of personal gain. It is a system of Reward and Punishment. The goal of Zen, while being Enlightenment, must include the salvation of the entire world. This is Mahayana 'Big Boat' Buddhism and not Hinayana Buddhism. Christianity relegates salvation only to the 'worthy', while sending the majority of unworthy mankind to an eternal hell, no different than the Muslim belief in killing the Infidel.

Somewhere in the Christian texts is the story of the rich man who, kneeling before Jesus, says: 'Oh, Lord, please help me reform the world beginning with myself'. I see this as a reflection of the original teachings of Yeshu telegraphing through.

When the scientists tried understand the nature of the matter, they realized that it is not solid but only vibration of energy. After this truth when a scientist looks at the matter he does not see it as a solid object but only energy vibrating in a certain density. When the ice is solid it looks like a stone. When it melts it knows that it is nothing but water. When it comes back to the form of ice, it knows that it is not a solid object but water. Water and ice one essentially but different functionally.This is how I see the realization of Zen.
This thread is about what came before the Big Bang and I think We need to focus on that question.

Don't worry. It is all the same question, though it may not seem apparent to you.

When you practiced Zen, before and after each session, do you not remember chanting:

“Sentient beings are numberless, I vow to save them,

“Desires are inexhaustible, I vow to put an end to them,

“The dharmas are boundless, I vow to master them,

“The Buddha Way is unattainable, I vow to attain it.”

Is this not a reflection of pure, unconditional love and community?

 

[John Martin]

Liberation in Buddhism is very much limited to spiritual liberation. It does not extend to the social,political and economic areas. In Hinayana, the lesser path, each individual has to become an arhat. In Mahayana, the greater vehicle, one does not strive only for one's liberation but also helps others to achieve liberation. There are Bodhisattvas. This liberation is freedom from samsara, the wheel of birth and death.
Liberation for Jesus is not just spiritual but embraces all areas.It is not just freedom from samsara, birth and death, but to transform our birth as the birth of God and our death as the death of God.
Jesus death on the cross was the consequence of the refusal of the Jewish spiritual leaders and political leaders of that time, to grow into the higher level of divine-human relationship.
It was the consequence of the refusal of Jesus Christ to deny his spiritual realization for the spiritual growth of every single human beings, for the liberation of human beings from all the oppressive structures(religious, social, political and economical), and for the unity of mankind.


“Sentient beings are numberless, I vow to save them,

“Desires are inexhaustible, I vow to put an end to them,

“The dharmas are boundless, I vow to master them,

“The Buddha Way is unattainable, I vow to attain it.”

This is what I recite:

Sentient beings are numberless, I do not need to save them. They are already saved. I need to see that truth.
Desires are inexhaustible, I do not need to put them to an end. I need to transform them into God's desires.
Religions are boundless, I need not master them. I need to go beyond them by surrendering my ego, the source of all religions.
Freedom is unattainable if I want to attain it by own effort. It can only be discovered because it is my birth right, natural state. I discover it already present in my heart.

Jesus Christ said: The kingdom of God is within you,look into your heart and find it.

 

[godnotgod]

“Sentient beings are numberless, I vow to save them,

“Desires are inexhaustible, I vow to put an end to them,

“The dharmas are boundless, I vow to master them,

“The Buddha Way is unattainable, I vow to attain it.”

This is what I recite:

Sentient beings are numberless, I do not need to save them, they are already saved. I need to see that truth.
Desires are inexhaustible, I do not need to put them to an end, I need to transform them into God's desires.
The dharmas are boundless, I need not master them but I need to go beyond them by surrendering my ego, the source of all dharmas.
The Liberation is unattainable if I want to attain it by own effort. It can only be discovered because it is my birth right, natural state. I discover it already present in my heart.
The kingdom of God is within you,look into your heart and find it.

So is it clear at all to you that Zen, contrary to what you stated, is filled with unconditional love and compassion for all of mankind, and that to realize such a state one must focus, not on changing the world, as Christianity seeks to do, but via changing oneself?

I think you need to warm up that zaku and return to have a closer look.

Shalom

edit: Christianity wants to change the world via its doctrinal beliefs. Zen wants to change the world by self-reformation, recognizing the individual as what comprises society itself. This self-reformation is the realization of Enlightenment, which is necessary if you are going to save those suffering in the throes of ignorance. Without such Enlightenment, the ignorant are merely leading the ignorant. Alan Watts has said that 'Christians are like men huddled in the dark, shouting to lend comfort to one another'.

 

[John Martin]

So is it clear at all to you that Zen, contrary to what you stated, is filled with unconditional love and compassion for all of mankind, and that to realize such a state one must focus, not on changing the world, as Christianity seeks to do, but via changing oneself?

I think you need to warm up that zaku and return to have a closer look.

Shalom

edit: Christianity wants to change the world via its doctrinal beliefs. Zen wants to change the world by self-reformation, recognizing the individual as what comprises society itself. This self-reformation is the realization of Enlightenment, which is necessary if you are going to save those suffering in the throes of ignorance. Without such Enlightenment, the ignorant are merely leading the ignorant. Alan Watts has said that 'Christians are like men huddled in the dark, shouting to lend comfort to one another'.

I fully agree with what you have written in the edit section. I have no arguments about it. It is hundred percent true. The only thing is:
The Christianity you are speaking about is not the Christianity I believe in and speaking to you. If you are able to perceive that then we can have a real and fruitful dialogue. If you continue to speak to me as you are speaking to the traditional Christian then we are flying at different heights and we can not meet.

 

[godnotgod]

I fully agree with what you have written in the edit section. I have no arguments about it. It is hundred percent true. The only thing is:
The Christianity you are speaking about is not the Christianity I believe in and speaking to you. If you are able to perceive that then we can have a real and fruitful dialogue. If you continue to speak to me as you are speaking to the traditional Christian then we are flying at different heights and we can not meet.

Good that you pointed this out, because I do agree with just about everything you wrote earlier. The only place where I took objection to your beliefs revolves around the issue of blood sacrifice as a means of sin redemption, the reasons for which have already been outlined. I do not see it as a valid spiritual pathway. Instead, I see it as based upon superstition and gross ignorance. That is why I am very surprised that someone who exhibits an understanding of mystical Christianity and claims to have practiced Zen,includes blood sacrifice into your beliefs.

If you are not familiar with Yeshu, whose real teachings did NOT include blood sacrifice, the virgin birth, or bodily resurrection as the Romanized version of Christianity does, I can suggest a place where you can get a picture as to how his original teachings became corrupted by Paul and Rome, and became modern Christianity. Look around here, if you like:

Paul and the Mystery Religions

 

[Twilight Hue]

Do you believe in the Big Bang?

Do you think it was a superior being who created the Big Bang?

Do you think the multiverse theory is a good explanation?

Was it something else?

Theres enough evidence to support the big bang theory, especially by way of radiometric mapping. Therefore it's strong enough to say that the big bang had happened. It's credible and believable in light of evidence so far.

On a more fantastical muse, its fairly safe to say a superior being was not responsible for the big bang. :0)

The multiverse theory obviously requires more research but it has a good start by the experts.

 

[John Martin]

Good that you pointed this out, because I do agree with just about everything you wrote earlier. The only place where I took objection to your beliefs revolves around the issue of blood sacrifice as a means of sin redemption, the reasons for which have already been outlined. I do not see it as a valid spiritual pathway. Instead, I see it as based upon superstition and gross ignorance. That is why I am very surprised that someone who exhibits an understanding of mystical Christianity and claims to have practiced Zen,includes blood sacrifice into your beliefs.

Paul and the Mystery Religions

I am really amazed to see what you write. Did I ever mention blood sacrifice as a means of sin redemption? I will be grateful if you can quote from my answers.

 

[godnotgod]

I am really amazed to see what you write. Did I ever mention blood sacrifice as a means of sin redemption? I will be grateful if you can quote from my answers.

No, but scripture clearly does.

I surmised that your acceptance of Jesus Christ also meant your acceptance of his pronouncements regarding the symbolic meanings of bread and wine as metaphors for sacrificial flesh and blood and their consumption as a means of sin redemption.

'Drink, for this is my blood of the New Covenant, which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins'

You seem only to want to accept the consumption of bread and wine as a symbol of brotherly love, without the metaphorical or sacrificial aspects.

You had stated that Jesus had to die on the cross for certain social purposes, but Jesus himself did not know he was to be crucified, nor was it in his plans.

Both the idea of sin redemption via blood sacrifice and necessary crucifixion are themes that were overwritten onto the tragic story of one spiritual leader named Yeshu, who was crucified on the one hand for blasphemy by the Jewish high priests, and on the other for treason and sedition by the Romans.

 

[John Martin]

No, but scripture clearly does.

I surmised that your acceptance of Jesus Christ also meant your acceptance of his pronouncements regarding the symbolic meanings of bread and wine as metaphors for sacrificial flesh and blood and their consumption as a means of sin redemption.

'Drink, for this is my blood of the New Covenant, which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins'

You seem only to want to accept the consumption of bread and wine as a symbol of brotherly love, without the metaphorical or sacrificial aspects.

You had stated that Jesus had to die on the cross for certain social purposes, but Jesus himself did not know he was to be crucified, nor was it in his plans.

Both the idea of sin redemption via blood sacrifice and necessary crucifixion are themes that were overwritten onto the tragic story of one spiritual leader named Yeshu, who was crucified on the one hand for blasphemy by the Jewish high priests, and on the other for treason and sedition by the Romans.

Thanks. I am willing to discuss this issues. But I feel this thread is not for this and we should not hijack it for our theme. May be we should look some other thread where we can discuss these issues. Thank you for your input. I greatly appreciate it.