What came before the Big Bang?

[metis]

The Church used to support the idea that we were at the centre of the universe and animals were just put here for us to use.

Yes, but then I'm obviously not a Christian. However, even traditional Judaism took pretty much the same stance, but then I'm not terribly traditional.

 

[Ouroboros]

What you are doing is anthropomorphizing God, which some of us don't do. To assume that God "thinks" like we think may be a mistake. But then, maybe not.

Yeah. I do think it's a mistake to believe God having a mind, consciousness, awareness, intelligence, etc as we do. Our mind is fundamentally based on (even if it's supernatural) the fact that it is 100% connected and integrated with the experience and ability of our physical brain in our biological body. There's no escaping that fact that this is the place where our (perhaps supernatural) consciousness is bound to. There's over 100 year of knowledge in psychology and biology about how altered chemistry in our physical brain will undeniable alter our mind and perception. This means that if God is exactly that same as us, then his brain is also physical and can be altered by chemicals. I'd say it would be a contradiction to argue a God that is outside our existence that created physics and chemicals is also tied to the same physics and chemicals inside. In simple terms, God's mind, thoughts, consciousness, what-have-you, all must be different all-together in a fashion we can't even imagine, so there's no reason to try to constantly down-size God to our finite level of existence.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Metis ji

That's not entirely correct. Yes, the first part of what you say above is the teaching, no doubt, but Buddhists need not take any teaching at face value or just because someone taught it as such-- thus my question should be valid within Buddhist circles. HHDL, for example, teaches that if the scriptures don't mesh with science, go with science.

I think we have to go very carefully here in one hand HH the Dalai Lama might say go with science regarding Scisntific data relating to the examination of material nature , .....but I very much doubt that his statment would extend to non material phenomena of Which both the Hindu yoga schools and Tibetan Buddhism have been fully aware for countless centuries , ....

in fact if I remenber correctly HH the Dalai Lama on a number of occasions has publicaly said that religion and Science should work together , therefore openly accknowledging that each had something to offer the other .

It's the second part of the above that actually is not correct in that, even what might be part of one's consciousness might not be brought forward completely intact through rebirth. Plus even the whole concept of there being a cosmic consciousness (however worded) to begin with can be questioned.

I think again here we must be very carefull whos definition of Consciousness we are going by , the Consciousness recognised by scientific means or the consciousness understood by experienced practitioners, ...

 

[Yeshe Dondrub]

But the consciousness is changing constantly. At least if we're talking about what we're conscious about and to what level we're conscious about things. Your memory changes too because of continuous experience, and your consciousness (as a focus of things) goes in and out and only highlight one or few things at a time, hence we have things like "change blindness" and such.

Besides, doesn't meditation alter consciousness?

I will try to explain Buddhist views so you can relate it to your views and see if there is similarities, it is often hard to explain in a forum in words.

There is the awareness, consciousness and perceived mind, Mind is often not used because it's western concept is dependent on brain. . and the in conditioned existence where the brain is a receiver the radio signal to conscious.

Some aspects are affected and cause change as a result, some factors do not, so it isn't as simple as yes and no

In translating to western words there is a lack or words that reflect some aspects.

What the Buddha said:

We have the Five aggregates which are:

1. Physical form, the body and all material objects including sense organs ; the sensations or the feelings.

2. One’s emotional response to the phenomena by way of desires anions in which the five senses and mind are involved;

3. Perception or recognition of physical and mental objects

4. Impulses, mental formulations or fabrications – these include volition and attention , the faculty of will , the force of habits etc.

5. The faculty of vijnana the awareness or consciousness, which encompasses mental events and what is generally called sub-conscious in the West. This is not easily explained at times and you can write a chapter on it alone.

All the five aggregates are empty of self nature, in the sense they are dependent on causes and conditions

What the Buddha said in regards to it and changing state:

In scheme of things, consciousness too is conditioned and arises out of interaction with the other factors-(physical or mental) .

The consciousness in turn influences one or more mental factors. Thus consciousness and the mind-body are interdependent; there is no arising of consciousness without conditions.

These form the chain of cause and effect (karmic).Yet, though consciousness and matter do contribute towards the origination of each other, one cannot become the substantial cause of the other

Buddhist teachers suggest that through careful observation, it is possible to see consciousness as being a sequence of conscious moments rather as a continuum of awareness. Each moment is an experience of an individual mind-state: a thought, a memory, a feeling, a perception.

A mind-state arises, exists and, being impermanent, ceases following which the next mind-state arises. Thus the consciousness of a sentient being can be seen as a continuous series of birth and death of these mind-states. In this context rebirth is simply the persistence of this process.

Consciousness is said to act like a life force which runs through the process and through life after life. But, consciousness is subject to change every movement and influenced by the aspects of one’s life. You are not transforming the conscious state at death as much as the consciousness is transforming you as your true state becomes more aware.

It is explained that one’s vocational actions produce karmas which influence the consciousness in a certain manner and determine ones rebirth. It is said, the five skandhas continue on, powered by past karma, propelling births and rebirths. Here, Karma in essence is not action so much, but rather the state of mind of the person performing the action.

The problem with such bad Karma is that it molds our personality, creates ruts or habitual patterns of thinking and feeling. These patterns in turn influence our present and future lives.

A major aim of Buddhism is to become aware of this process, (meditation one such tool) and then to eliminate it by eradicating its causes.


This core teaching can go on in far more detail in the Buddhist point of view, much has to do in reflection from the brahman point of view, to the teachings of the Buddha and how he came to see it.

However all of us still have the Buddha nature within the consciousness, essentially we need to clean away the layers of clouded aspects for it to be clear.

Back to topic what came before the big bang. That will always be based on concepts, theories, and other observations. Some believe the universe expanded but will also contract, then repeat. The energies and aspects repeating itself.

(Note in translation MIND is not often used with Buddhism but in western explanations it is substituted, and may be confused with mind as related to brain. They are not the same.

 

[metis]

namaskaram Metis ji



I think we have to go very carefully here in one hand HH the Dalai Lama might say go with science regarding Scisntific data relating to the examination of material nature , .....but I very much doubt that his statment would extend to non material phenomena of Which both the Hindu yoga schools and Tibetan Buddhism have been fully aware for countless centuries , ....

in fact if I remenber correctly HH the Dalai Lama on a number of occasions has publicaly said that religion and Science should work together , therefore openly accknowledging that each had something to offer the other .



I think again here we must be very carefull whos definition of Consciousness we are going by , the Consciousness recognised by scientific means or the consciousness understood by experienced practitioners, ...

In general I tend to agree with the above in terms of being cautious, but dividing our universe into "material nature" and "non-material" nature implies that these are stand-alone categories that defies dharma.

Secondly, HHDL explained that the texts were written at times when people knew far less than what they now know, plus often pieces of what we might call superstition was often injected.

To me, the teachings are the teachings, and they should never be altered. However, the interpretations and applications of the teachings can be quite variable, not only between the rafts, but also from person to person. And to question any teaching is not only allowable, but is actually expected.

Let me put it another way, if your experience and observations went counter to some teaching, in which direction would you go? [rhetorical question].

 

[Yeshe Dondrub]

In general I tend to agree with the above in terms of being cautious, but dividing our universe into "material nature" and "non-material" nature implies that these are stand-alone categories that defies dharma.

Secondly, HHDL explained that the texts were written at times when people knew far less than what they now know, plus often pieces of what we might call superstition was often injected.

To me, the teachings are the teachings, and they should never be altered. However, the interpretations and applications of the teachings can be quite variable, not only between the rafts, but also from person to person. And to question any teaching is not only allowable, but is actually expected.

Let me put it another way, if your experience and observations went counter to some teaching, in which direction would you go? [rhetorical question].

The understanding of mind and consciousness versus conceived awareness is something teachers or enlightened being are familiar with, as far as all the marvals of the universe, you will have to find that out after the key aspect of ego is let go of.

Buddhism is more of a science then a religion, religion just doesn't apply. Buddhist embrace science, even if the focus is more on nero science. Knowing the way things are is not just in the mind, they accept it in all aspects. There was an understanding of the base components of life, and material objects before hand. What makes up physical objects.

Right now Nero science is very supportive of Buddhism, and Buddhism aspects taught in course work. The core of Dharma is working with mind, realizing how it works, clarity, attachment, cause of suffering, cessation from it. Affects have come from science and vice versa in approaches to teachings for a western world.

When in comes to mind, the aspects of this "realm" if you want to call it, are still all impermanent. Changing. That won't affect working with mind, since we already realize it.

Nothing dharma has been defied. Understanding the way things are is the core.

 

[metis]

The understanding of mind is something teachers or enlightened being are familiar with, as far as all the marvals of the universe, you will have to find that out after the key aspect of ego is let go of.

Buddhism is more of a science then a religion, religion just doesn't apply. Buddhist embrace science, even if the focus is more on nero science. Knowing the way things are is not just in the mind, they accept it in all aspects. There was an understanding of the base components of life, and material objects before hand. What makes up physical objects.

Right now Nero science is very supportive of Buddhism, and Buddhism aspects taught in course work. The core of Dharma is working with mind, realizing how it works, clarity, attachment, cause of suffering, cessation from it. Affects have come from science and vice versa in approaches to teachings for a western world.

When in comes to mind, the aspects of this "realm" if you want to call it, are still all impermanent. Changing. That won't affect working with mind, since we already realize it.

Nothing n dharma has been defied.

I was with ya until the last sentence, and I hesitate to support that because it's misleading. I do not accept that any book written by known or unknown authors thousands of years ago are somehow inerrant. Now, what may be errant or inerrant is almost impossible for us to ascertain today to any significant degree, plus much of what is taught is virtually unfalsifiable. For example, how could one possibly know that hungry ghosts don't exist somewhere or that there is no such thing as a cosmic consciousness?

Buddhism can only relate to science if it is willing to be skeptical about dharma and rely heavily on experience and observation, although even "experience" can be tricky in that we humans tend to have vivid imaginations. IOW, we may only imagine certain "experiences" because we so badly want to believe in them, or we may misread real experiences.

What I am doing here is not to tell you or any one else that dharma is wrong and shouldn't be taught, or that somehow we shouldn't seek enlightenment. Instead, a "Buddhism" more involved in skepticism, along with meditation of course, is worth more that a million sutras, imo. IOW, deifying dharma and treating it all as being inerrant is not the best way to go, imo. I would rather see someone saying "I don't know" time and time again that just taking any teaching at face value simply because it's found in a book.

To me, Buddhism is a process to better attain enlightenment, and we can only begin to get there if we begin to discard attachments, and some of those attachments could well be found within dharma itself.

 

[Ouroboros]

I will try to explain Buddhist views so you can relate it to your views and see if there is similarities, it is often hard to explain in a forum in words.

Thanks for your detailed answer. I skimmed through it and will come back to read it in more detail later. Looks good, btw.

This part I'm not sure I understand, perhaps I'll understand it better after reading your post in more detail. Sometimes it takes a little effort to dig into the ideas.

"consciousness is subject to change every movement and influenced by the vicissitudes of one’s life. You are not transforming the conscious state at death as much as the consciousness is transforming you as your mind becomes more aware."

To me, mind and consciousness are very much tied together, co-arising I guess is a word you'd use, which to me suggests that the mind is transforming, and so is consciousness. Becoming more aware is to become more conscious about something. Am I completely off here?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Back to topic what came before the big bang. That will always be based on concepts, theories, and other observations. Some believe the universe expanded but will also contract, then repeat. The energies and aspects repeating itself.

These modern ideas about cosmology are quite reminiscent of Buddhist cosmology, which talks about thousands of world systems, beginingless time and periods of expansion and contraction.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram metis ji

I was with ya until the last sentence, and I hesitate to support that because it's misleading. I do not accept that any book written by known or unknown authors thousands of years ago are somehow inerrant.

any written word could possibly be errant as it is possible that there is some unnececaty or missleading content even if only in the subtlest of inferences , ....thus we know to examine and reflect upon everything even the proported word of the Buddha himself , it is for this reason that we must put everything to the test through contemplation and observation , ....if the word alone was sufficient there would be no need for meditation .

we canot rely on word alone we must work with the instructions untill they become valid experience .

but on the other hand the majority of existant texts have already been tried and tested by countless previous adepts , the job that we must perform is to apply their findings and verify them for ourselves .

Now, what may be errant or inerrant is almost impossible for us to ascertain today to any significant degree, plus much of what is taught is virtually unfalsifiable. For example, how could one possibly know that hungry ghosts don't exist somewhere or that there is no such thing as a cosmic consciousness?

again from observation , ...and a day of dealing with people I can with complete certanty confirm that hugry Ghosts exist , one only has to observe the states of mind of those around us , .....

and to experience cosmic consciousness we must go beyond all concept of , and grasping at self .

Buddhism can only relate to science if it is willing to be skeptical about dharma and rely heavily on experience and observation, although even "experience" can be tricky in that we humans tend to have vivid imaginations. IOW, we may only imagine certain "experiences" because we so badly want to believe in them, or we may misread real experiences.

this is where we must repeatedly test the same reactions and observations , ..to my mind not so much with Scepticism but with unbiased vigilance . this is were we also need to learn to peal away the layers of ego and conditioning . ...learning to see , but not through the veil of self . ...but to be utterly objective rather than Sceptical , ...but even still these are merely words and are some what inept at conveying true depth of meaning , ....to comprehend meaning one would have to have equal depth of experiencial knowledge as the speaker therefore we must assume nothing and remain open to what ever lay before us .

What I am doing here is not to tell you or any one else that dharma is wrong and shouldn't be taught, or that somehow we shouldn't seek enlightenment. Instead, a "Buddhism" more involved in skepticism, along with meditation of course, is worth more that a million sutras, imo.

if you dont mind my removing the word ''scepticism''and defining it prehaps as purely objective observation , ...then I am with you all the way . ...as '''scepticism' has the conotation of a conditined responce , that we should actively dissbeleive untill it is proven , ....to my mind we should be neither the sceptic or the beleiver but the unbiased observer .

IOW, deifying dharma and treating it all as being inerrant is not the best way to go, imo. I would rather see someone saying "I don't know" time and time again that just taking any teaching at face value simply because it's found in a book.

thus the need for meditation , ....I dont know , .....I will sit and reflect upon it untill I either know , or know that there is actualy nothing to even be known . .....or to be known by a specific self ,.......so many questions to be sat upon untill there are no more questions and no distinct sence of self only Buddhi , ...pure inteligence ., ...prehaps that is what you mean by cosmic consciousness ...

To me, Buddhism is a process to better attain enlightenment, and we can only begin to get there if we begin to discard attachments, and some of those attachments could well be found within dharma itself.

most deffinatly , ..it is possible that we might attatch to a preconceived or second hand unexamined notion of Dharma , ..it is this which causes so many arguments as to what Buddhism is and is not !

 

[Yeshe Dondrub]

To me, mind and consciousness are very much tied together, co-arising I guess is a word you'd use, which to me suggests that the mind is transforming, and so is consciousness. Becoming more aware is to become more conscious about something. Am I completely off here?

(some of my comments get translated for me-so to clarify)

At times when I type on this smaller tablet computer it seems to jump up into a random paragraph, not certain why itit moved up and over typed the typed area, so it intermixed into a previous area.

-
Interdependent is about how you can say it, co-arising is close but arising out of a non-physical form of brain as westerners think of mind will confuse many.

We have body, brain, and out of it some will consider mind, dependent on brain. Consciousness due to chemical reactions in brain. However newer studies change that. Consciousness-and Mind are interdependent states , the word that was wrong in my type and shifted is awareness. Perception as we know it.

A good study is as follows, applying neuroscience and Buddhism.

One concept of consciousness as a state of awareness is a primary. It cannot be broken down any further or defined by reference to other concepts to which it can be reduced. Hence it is an irreducible primary. It means that at birth, man’s brain produces consciousness due to chemical reactions. On this basis it necessarily follows that consciousness must cease with death.

The facts of neurology demonstrate that everything about the mind from the memory motor periphery to the inner sense of self is minutely controlled by the brain. If your brain lacks certain chemicals or locally gets damaged, your mind is apt to fall apart at the seams. If parts of the mind depend for their existence upon parts of the brain, then the whole of the mind must depend too. Hence the conceived idea of soul dies with the brain which is to say, it is mortal.

However:

These theories, however, are in conflict with what hypnosis reveals. Some patients hypnotized for diagnostic purposes, spoke about their previous births, giving vivid details which when investigated were found to be unbelievably accurate. That was proof that consciousness did not cease with death but continued to manifest itself. Awareness -Consciousness- in mind.

So if consciousness comes into being from no cause, this would go against the fundamental principles. Buddhists therefore consider that every instance of consciousness must be produced by causes and conditions of some kind. Of the many causes and conditions, the main or substantial cause of consciousness must be some form of experience since matter alone cannot produce consciousness. Consciousness must come from a previous instance of consciousness, which is experience. Clear Awareness the primary.

So essentially Experiences play a role, to effects on it. At the core there is still true awareness and nature, that can be obstructed by mind and experiences. While the are interdependent, there is a subtle level to play, as well in explaining it to the western concept of mind, and the physical independency on brain. (but physical is not what it is).

Buddhism teaches the cleansing of one’s mind (experiences) of its defilements arising from craving, anger and ignorance in order to see and comprehend things in their authentic form.

A note with some on forums who find debating Buddhism approaches . Debate is welcome and respected openly and compassionately. This is a normal aspect in some Buddhist schools to help clarify wording, understanding It helps each other greatly and those who help are greatly appreciated for doing so.

Above note on attachment and dharma. The Buddha, and teachers have warned students themselves that you can become attached to meditation and practice. You do not want to desire enlightenment, attach to practice or meditation. That will obstruct you. Nor misunderstand Guru respect. Being attached will not be beneficial, seeing it for what it is by cutting through ego is the benefit.

Nor does one need to complete all foundational practices. You may be at a different state. Meditation as a tool of reflection will help when in proper amounts. For many the "Monkey Mind" is normal but will calm.

There are many deep practices, studies, understanding into Buddhism. At times the basics of dharma are more beneficial.

(Word translation confirmed by lundro.)

 

[metis]

namaskaram metis ji



any written word could possibly be errant as it is possible that there is some unnececaty or missleading content even if only in the subtlest of inferences , ....thus we know to examine and reflect upon everything even the proported word of the Buddha himself , it is for this reason that we must put everything to the test through contemplation and observation , ....if the word alone was sufficient there would be no need for meditation .

we canot rely on word alone we must work with the instructions untill they become valid experience .

but on the other hand the majority of existant texts have already been tried and tested by countless previous adepts , the job that we must perform is to apply their findings and verify them for ourselves .



again from observation , ...and a day of dealing with people I can with complete certanty confirm that hugry Ghosts exist , one only has to observe the states of mind of those around us , .....

and to experience cosmic consciousness we must go beyond all concept of , and grasping at self .




this is where we must repeatedly test the same reactions and observations , ..to my mind not so much with Scepticism but with unbiased vigilance . this is were we also need to learn to peal away the layers of ego and conditioning . ...learning to see , but not through the veil of self . ...but to be utterly objective rather than Sceptical , ...but even still these are merely words and are some what inept at conveying true depth of meaning , ....to comprehend meaning one would have to have equal depth of experiencial knowledge as the speaker therefore we must assume nothing and remain open to what ever lay before us .

I agree with most of what you say here, but I am a bit skeptical on some items. Let me use one of these, namely the concept of "cosmic consciousness".

Yes, I do believe we can agree that there's "consciousness", but how could we possibly know that it's "cosmic"? I love to travel, but never had the opportunity to scope the entire cosmos to see if "consciousness" pervades our universe.

I think being skeptical is mostly a strength, not a weakness. In science, this is how we must operate, which tends to make us not very good theists, btw. We have to question, and even if we find an answer to one of our questions, more questions are typically generated.

This is one thing I so much not only admire about dharma, but that which I use it as well as I know you do too. I may not be Buddhist, but there's no law that says I can't learn from it and use what I find useful.

namaste and shalom

 

[metis]

One concept of consciousness as a state of awareness is a primary. It cannot be broken down any further or defined by reference to other concepts to which it can be reduced. Hence it is an irreducible primary...

So if consciousness comes into being from no cause, this would go against the fundamental principles. Buddhists therefore consider that every instance of consciousness must be produced by causes and conditions of some kind...

First of all, let me just state at the beginning that I very much enjoy your posts and I do agree with a great deal of what you say. However, I don't necessarily agree with all Buddhist teachings, although that shouldn't translate out to me disagreeing. IOW, skepticism is not necessarily disagreement.

We know consciousness is an energy form produced out of our organic matter (brains in humans), but there's no indication scientifically that non-organic matter can produce consciousness.

Since consciousness is energy, and since energy by definition is fluid and changeable, we need not assume that consciousness was always present. IOW, it could have evolved from other energy forms under certain conditions (organic).

This is still compatible with both the teachings of "dependence rising" and "impermanence". Now whether this is exactly what happened, how could I possibly know since I was not conscious billions of years ago? I cannot discount what you're saying above, but neither can I confirm it.

BTW, my rabbi studied both Hinduism and Buddhism in Nepal, and he periodically uses dharma in his teachings at my synagogue.

BTW, my favorite theologian is Matthieu Ricard, and I have read several of his books.

namaste

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Metis ji

I agree with most of what you say here, but I am a bit skeptical on some items. Let me use one of these, namely the concept of "cosmic consciousness".

if Scepticism allows one never to be satisfied untill all problems are answered , ....then that is fine by me , ... all that concerns me is that the sceptical mind might be pre disposed to accept only what it can find concrete evedence to support , therefore ruling out the less tangable as impossible , .....

Yes, I do believe we can agree that there's "consciousness", but how could we possibly know that it's "cosmic"? I love to travel, but never had the opportunity to scope the entire cosmos to see if "consciousness" pervades our universe.

of course yes , ..at present our consciousness is extremely limited , but that is the natural state of an embodied being , ....but if we take that trancendance of embodied form is possible then there is a trancendance of consciousness from limited to unlimited , therefore it pervades more than our known limited universe ,

I think being skeptical is mostly a strength, not a weakness. In science, this is how we must operate, which tends to make us not very good theists, btw. We have to question, and even if we find an answer to one of our questions, more questions are typically generated.

yes , yes , I can see its benifits within the realms of scientific questioning , where upon the conditioned being wishes or needs to examine material matter , Scepticism may well have its benifits , ....but for those whos concern is of a more trancendental nature , and who realise all material matter to be of a temporary nature , and who searches for what lay beyond our temporary existance and mundane consciousness , then scepticism is of no value what so ever , ...as you say ..... ''which tends to make us not very good theists''

then for exactly the reasoning you identify here we need to seeperate the Supramundane from the mundane , as both may be if interest to an individual being , unless he is of the mind that he is no more than Matter , ....?

This is one thing I so much not only admire about dharma, but that which I use it as well as I know you do too. I may not be Buddhist, but there's no law that says I can't learn from it and use what I find useful.

as prehaps we have discussed before I have no objection to anyone examining dharma and only hope that it will be complementary to any path of enqirie Spiritual or Scientific , .....

namaste and shalom

jai jai , .... Shalom , Shanti , Shalom

in fact if you do not mind my proposing such an idea , ...if we wish to find the eternal all pervasive cosmic consciousness then it canot be so different fron the deeper meaning of Shalom (or for that matter Shainti ) , ..complete harmony , peacefullness and contentment , is this not some what simmilar to our understanding if Nirbana ? .... it is not just an absence of craving , not just the trancendance of material concerns , ...but more it is complete consciousness where upon there are no more questions , everything becomes known therfore there is everlasting peace and contentment in full knowledge .


just a thought

 

[metis]

namaskaram Metis ji

if Scepticism allows one never to be satisfied untill all problems are answered , ....then that is fine by me , ... all that concerns me is that the sceptical mind might be pre disposed to accept only what it can find concrete evedence to support , therefore ruling out the less tangable as impossible , .....

But I don't rule much of anything out. As a scientist (retired anthropologist), I know there will be myriads of questions I'll not likely ever know the answer to, but that OK because much of our learning and growing is in the inquiry.

...but for those whos concern is of a more trancendental nature , and who realise all material matter to be of a temporary nature , and who searches for what lay beyond our temporary existance and mundane consciousness , then scepticism is of no value what so ever , ...

I disagree because, if we aren't at least somewhat skeptical, then there's the danger of accepting something just because it may sound nice or maybe that it just fits our preconceived paradigm ("confirmation bias").

in fact if you do not mind my proposing such an idea , ...if we wish to find the eternal all pervasive cosmic consciousness then it canot be so different fron the deeper meaning of Shalom (or for that matter Shainti ) , ..complete harmony , peacefullness and contentment , is this not some what simmilar to our understanding if Nirbana ? .... it is not just an absence of craving , not just the trancendance of material concerns , ...but more it is complete consciousness where upon there are no more questions , everything becomes known therfore there is everlasting peace and contentment in full knowledge .

just a thought

And a nice thought at that. Yes, "shalom" tends to cover a lot of bases, and in Judaism it is considered to be the greatest gift that we can try and bestow on another. So, ...

shalom, and have a great weekend.

 

[Dhyana]

No space or time before Big Bang , so both "before" and "what " are meaningless. Nothing can be said. The Big Bang is a barrier through which what exists within the universe caused by the Big Bang , including human beings with their brains, reason , and science, cannot penetrate.

 

[`mud]

hey Dhyana,
Quite interesting is this approach, but the 'barrier' aspect has to be questioned.
To accept that the singularity really existed, the 'barrier' would have to exist around the singularity.
One would have to invent a negative approach of the direction of the BB, and that wouldn't be possible.
Humanity with it's attributes cannot be taken negatively, the 'barrier' cannot be reflective, it's one sided only.
Soooooo.....how can there be a 'void' if all you say is accurate, I get the direction, but not the source.
~
I do question the existance of a 'barrier' or 'container' seperating the 'void' from the 'singularity',
That's why I question both of these entities ever existing in solidarity, or intact at one 'time'.
'Time' is the important factor here, agreed ?
I will back up and wait for you rebuttal, if any. Maybe I'm not understanding your points here,
if so...please explain them more clearly as to the 'time' factor and directionality of the after effects.
~
Without considering a 'beginning' we will never find the answer, will we ?
~
'mud

 

[Dhyana]

hey Dhyana,
Quite interesting is this approach, but the 'barrier' aspect has to be questioned.
To accept that the singularity really existed, the 'barrier' would have to exist around the singularity.
One would have to invent a negative approach of the direction of the BB, and that wouldn't be possible.
Humanity with it's attributes cannot be taken negatively, the 'barrier' cannot be reflective, it's one sided only.
Soooooo.....how can there be a 'void' if all you say is accurate, I get the direction, but not the source.
~
I do question the existance of a 'barrier' or 'container' seperating the 'void' from the 'singularity',
That's why I question both of these entities ever existing in solidarity, or intact at one 'time'.
'Time' is the important factor here, agreed ?
I will back up and wait for you rebuttal, if any. Maybe I'm not understanding your points here,
if so...please explain them more clearly as to the 'time' factor and directionality of the after effects.
~
Without considering a 'beginning' we will never find the answer, will we ?
~
'mud

The barrier I speak of is intrinsic, not a physical container. Our minds can only comprehend things which exist within time and space as we exist within time and space. That which is not within time and space is incomprehensible or even transcendent of mind and reason. That is the barrier. A cosmological limit ( barrier) if you will. The singularity must also not be within time and space, since time and space arose after the Big Bang. So it can't be a "thing" either. Void is also transcendent of time and space. Therefore it is futile to attempt to figure it out. Nothing can be said of that about which nothing can be said.

It helps, for me, to think of Void and universe as two sides of one coin. Universe is how void or nothing appears: Void is (appears as) Form. Form is (consists of) Void. Combining Buddhism with Advaita Vedanta. Indeed, there is historical debate as to how much Sankara, the preeminent interpreter of the Hindu Upanishads, was or was not influenced by Mahayana Buddhism. I believe these are mere intellectual distinctions without an essential difference.

 

[`mud]

In my mind I repeat your thinking:
"Nothing can be said...." about something that didn't exist, "....about which nothing can be said."
Going into Buddhism as a belief or practice of understanding, just gives me a gigantic migrain.
Most of that 'above the head' transpondence is just smoke and mirrors to me.
~
I don't believe that there ever was a void nor a singular singularity.
But one must still question the possibility of a beginning back there,
but finding the center of that singular point is not at all do-able.
~
Not in agreement here, but that's ok, I ejoyed the exchange of ideas.
~
'mud

 

[Dhyana]

In my mind I repeat your thinking:
"Nothing can be said...." about something that didn't exist, "....about which nothing can be said."
Going into Buddhism as a belief or practice of understanding, just gives me a gigantic migrain.
Most of that 'above the head' transpondence is just smoke and mirrors to me.
~
I don't believe that there ever was a void nor a singular singularity.
But one must still question the possibility of a beginning back there,
but finding the center of that singular point is not at all do-able.
~
Not in agreement here, but that's ok, I ejoyed the exchange of ideas.
~
'mud

That which does not appear in time and space does not, did not, and can not exist. God does not exist, Void does not exist; singular singularity does not exist; the Source does not exist. At the same time, existing or not existing is not necessarily a condition for or determinative of truth.