What came before the Big Bang?

[godnotgod]

consciousness is very much a thing. Even if you say it is a product of a biological brain it is still a thing. Your body is very well synced with time, light, it impacts your emotions, moods, personality. How do you claim that the mind is an illusion?

I am not saying consciousness is a product of the biological brain; I am saying exactly the opposite.

What I said was that our conditioned behavior is both a product of our biology and social indoctrination, and that there is an unconditioned consciousness that lies beyond both.

I make the distinction between consciousness and mind.

Consciousness is non-local; universal. It is what is responsible for the manifestation of this world as the universe, including you and I. IOW, the universe is doing you and I, just as the ocean is doing waves.

The mind is an illusion; it is a self-created principle, and once created, thinks itself a separate entity from everything else. It is the reason why you and others here think consciousness is a thing, and that it is local. That is to say, that it is 'your' consciousness. It's not. That's part of the illusion of you thinking you are a separate 'self'.

Consciousness relegates certain functions to the brain so it does not have to deal with them all the time up front. That way, it can focus on whatever is happening in the present moment.

Proof that consciousness creates the brain comes from studies done of long-time meditators, whose cerebral cortexes are thicker than those of ordinary people.

Can you show me the location of consciousness, as a 'thing'?
Can you show me the location of this thing you call 'the mind'?

 

[YmirGF]

'the name that can be named is not the eternal name': IOW, the Infinite cannot be encapsulated by the mind.

But how would you ever know it truly was infinite. That IS an assumption about reality, as you have no way of discerning of a given thingy is infinite or not. In some ways, I suppose, "infinite" can be a relative term.

'The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth':

IOW, 'Everything comes out of Nothing'

No. It sounds to me more of the case that you are projecting. The nameless is not necessarily nothingness. All it really means is that the so-called origin of heaven and earth (which is debatable) remains nameless or in slightly more technical terms, it remains outside the limitations of our symbol libraries.

I rather suspect the original writer of the comment understood both consciousness and nothingness well enough. I would think they they chose to call it nameless in order to avoid getting enmeshed in dualistic terms. My guess is that they wanted to convey a non-dual quality that cannot be rendered into words without reams of confusing qualifiers.

If consciousness is a thing, as you and others say, then please define where it leaves off as being a thing, and no-thing begins. That is to say, show me the outer boundaries of it as a finite thing, as all things have a finite boundary.

I have written about this edge of awareness a bit, but since it is a non-dual experience it gets very confusing attempting to put it into words.

 

[Leftimies]

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?

Yes, I think multiverse theory is a good explanation - but it only goes so far. Somehow - and I am by no means a scientist but instead leaning towards philosophy - I am tempted to think that universe/multiverse/reality does not have a beginning, nor an end. It would spaciously infinite by all accounts, if we assume that.

The ultimate answer would be a principle responsible for the sustainment of reality as a whole and thus this principle would be inherent in everything that is.

Then again, this begs the question why existence would even need to be sustained? Outside no beginning or end, there can't be existence or inexistence as separate camps. It could be noted, that existence and inexistence are concepts bound to human ego's view on its own life and death - the reality, as it stands, merely prevails without any regard on human life or death. So that for me is enough to hold onto my original view. I don't know. Its late.

But to answer your questions:

1. Yes

2. I do not know that, but I would say no.

3. For what it is, it works well.

 

[godnotgod]

But how would you ever know it truly was infinite. That IS an assumption about reality, as you have no way of discerning of a given thingy is infinite or not. In some ways, I suppose, "infinite" can be a relative term.

Yes and no. We call the temporal world of 'things' the finite world, but once understood as maya, the 'finite' is then understood as being one with the true nature of Reality that manifests it, which is that which cannot be encapsulated. That is the In-finite. We understand the Infinite via our own true nature, which is also that of the Infinite. The finite being illusory, it cannot be relative to the Infinite. And so we can say:

'The universe (the finite) is (in fact) the Absolute (the Infinite), as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation."

There is no other reality than the Absolute.

No. It sounds to me more of the case that you are projecting. The nameless is not necessarily nothingness. All it really means is that the so-called origin of heaven and earth (which is debatable) remains nameless or in slightly more technical terms, it remains outside the limitations of our symbol libraries.

Yes, and it remains so because it (the Infinite) cannot be encapsulated via symbol or name (the finite). That makes it no-particular-thing, or nothing.

I rather suspect the original writer of the comment understood both consciousness and nothingness well enough. I would think they they chose to call it nameless in order to avoid getting enmeshed in dualistic terms. My guess is that they wanted to convey a non-dual quality that cannot be rendered into words without reams of confusing qualifiers.

The moment we call it 'nameless', we shift from conceptualization and thought to seeing. We SEE that the nature of the Tao is nameless. It is beyond words, beyond thinking, beyond the rational conceptualizing mind.

I have written about this edge of awareness a bit, but since it is a non-dual experience it gets very confusing attempting to put it into words.

Well you and others here persist in naming consciousness as a thing. Then please provide a working definition of what a 'thing' is. Otherwise, how can you continue to call it a thing?

footnote: I should add that the nameless is called the nameless because it is the un-nameable, and it is un-nameable because it is the Reality that precedes the named, which cannot be encapsulated by the thinking mind.

re: 'nothing': there is the reality of nothingness, and then there is the concept; the idea, of nothing. The two are being confused here.

 

[captainbryce]

Do you believe in the Big Bang?

Yes

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

Yes

Do you think the multiverse theory is a good explanation?

Yes, (although it is also a highly speculative theory which is just as unprofitable as God).

Was it something else?

It's possible, but it wouldn't be reasonable to conclude that given the information at hand. The big bang is widely accepted because it's the only theory so far that happens to fit all of the observable facts (ie: universal expansion radiating out from a central point in space-time).

 

[godnotgod]

Then again, this begs the question why existence would even need to be sustained? Outside no beginning or end, there can't be existence or inexistence as separate camps. It could be noted, that existence and inexistence are concepts bound to human ego's view on its own life and death - the reality, as it stands, merely prevails without any regard on human life or death. So that for me is enough to hold onto my original view. I don't know. Its late.

Could it be that existence is sustained as a kind of creative activity, in the sense of delight in playfulness? For example, the universe is filled with an overabundance of stars, planets, galaxies, etc, all without rhyme or reason. Our own Earth follows suit with an immense variety of forms, some of which are even infinitely variable, such as the designs of snowflakes.

Life is prolific, and death imminent to everything. But from a Buddhist point of view, (and I see you are a Zennist?) life and death are seen as illusory, both being necessary for the continuation of the delightful kaleidescope.

 

[crossfire]

But from a Buddhist point of view, (and I see you are a Zennist?) life and death are seen as illusory

Um, no. The concept of atman is seen as illusory. Life is indeed life, and death is indeed death.
{Please do not cite Alan Watts in support of your claim, as he has been known to teach Vedanta as Buddhism. Actual Buddhist suttas would suffice. Thank you.}

 

[godnotgod]

Um, no. The concept of atman is seen as illusory. Life is indeed life, and death is indeed death.

Who is it that lives?
Who is it that dies?

The Human Route

Coming empty-handed, going empty-handed – that is human.
When you are born, where do you come from?
When you die, where do you go?
Life is like a floating cloud which appears.
Death is like a floating cloud which disappears.
The floating cloud itself originally does not exist.
Life and death, coming and going, are also like that.
But there is one thing which always remains clear.
It is pure and clear, not depending on life and death.
Then what is the one pure and clear thing?

Zen Master Seung
*****

All of life is filled with coming and going*
Show me the path where there is no coming
and there is no going.

source unknown

*coming and going = birth and death

re: atman: The Buddha saw the notion of an eternal soul (ie atman) maintained by the eternalists, and the notion that death is a finality, maintained by the materialists, both as being extreme views. He chose what is called the Middle Way:

"The Tathāgata teaches the Dhamma by the middle without veering to either of these extremes – eternalism or annihilationism – having abandoned them without reservation. He teaches while being established in the middle way. What is that Dhamma? By the formula of dependent origination, the effect is shown to occur through the cause and to cease with the cessation of the cause, but no agent or experiencer [...] is described."

Wikipedia

IOW, there is no experiencer of the experience; there is no self that lives; no self that dies. There is only living/dying, which are dualistic notions of a single reality.

The belief that there is a real person living and dying is understood as 'Identification'. Zen says that life is fiction.

 

[crossfire]

Who is it that lives?
Who is it that dies?

The Human Route

Coming empty-handed, going empty-handed – that is human.
When you are born, where do you come from?
When you die, where do you go?
Life is like a floating cloud which appears.
Death is like a floating cloud which disappears.
The floating cloud itself originally does not exist.
Life and death, coming and going, are also like that.
But there is one thing which always remains clear.
It is pure and clear, not depending on life and death.
Then what is the one pure and clear thing?

Zen Master Seun
*****

All of life is filled with coming and going*
Show me the path where there is no coming
and there is no going.

source unknown

*coming and going = birth and death

I counter with this Pali Sutta

Bhāra Sutta: The Burden

At Sāvatthī... There the Blessed One said this:

“I will preach to you, monks, the burden,[1] the bearer of the burden,[2] the taking up of the burden,[3] and the putting down of the burden.[4] Hear this.

“And which, monks, is the burden? That of which it should be said: the five clung-to aggregates. [5] “Which five? The form clung-to aggregate, the feeling clung-to aggregate, the perception clung-to aggregate, the formative mental functions clung-to aggregate, the sensory consciousness clung-to aggregate. This, monks, is called the burden.

And which, monks, is the burden-bearer? That of which it should be said: the individual person, [6] who is this venerable one, of such a name, of such ancestry. This, monks, is called the burden-bearer. [7]

“And which, monks, is the taking up of the burden? That which is this craving leading to rebirth, connected with delight and passion, finding delight here and there: namely, craving for sensual pleasure, craving for being, and craving for extinction. This, monks, is called the taking up of the burden.

“And which, monks, is the putting down of the burden? That which, of just this craving, is the cessation by means of the absence of desire without remainder: the abandoning, the forsaking, the freedom, the non-attachment. This, monks, is called the putting down of the burden.”

This said the Blessed One. Having said this, the Fortunate One, the Teacher, furthermore said this:

Ah, surely, the five aggregates are burdens,
And the individual person is the burden-bearer;
Taking up the burden is suffering in the world,
Putting down the burden is bliss.

Having put down the heavy burden,
Without taking up another burden,
Pulling out craving along with its root,
One is without hunger, fully extinguished.

​

It would be interesting to note that the word "clinging-clung to" near the beginning of the sutta is a noun as used in the Pali here.

 

[godnotgod]

I counter with this Pali Sutta

Bhāra Sutta: The Burden

At Sāvatthī... There the Blessed One said this:

“I will preach to you, monks, the burden,[1] the bearer of the burden,[2] the taking up of the burden,[3] and the putting down of the burden.[4] Hear this.

“And which, monks, is the burden? That of which it should be said: the five clung-to aggregates. [5] “Which five? The form clung-to aggregate, the feeling clung-to aggregate, the perception clung-to aggregate, the formative mental functions clung-to aggregate, the sensory consciousness clung-to aggregate. This, monks, is called the burden.

And which, monks, is the burden-bearer? That of which it should be said: the individual person, [6] who is this venerable one, of such a name, of such ancestry. This, monks, is called the burden-bearer. [7]

“And which, monks, is the taking up of the burden? That which is this craving leading to rebirth, connected with delight and passion, finding delight here and there: namely, craving for sensual pleasure, craving for being, and craving for extinction. This, monks, is called the taking up of the burden.

“And which, monks, is the putting down of the burden? That which, of just this craving, is the cessation by means of the absence of desire without remainder: the abandoning, the forsaking, the freedom, the non-attachment. This, monks, is called the putting down of the burden.”

This said the Blessed One. Having said this, the Fortunate One, the Teacher, furthermore said this:

Ah, surely, the five aggregates are burdens,
And the individual person is the burden-bearer;
Taking up the burden is suffering in the world,
Putting down the burden is bliss.

Having put down the heavy burden,
Without taking up another burden,
Pulling out craving along with its root,
One is without hunger, fully extinguished.

​

It would be interesting to note that the word "clinging-clung to" near the beginning of the sutta is a noun as used in the Pali here.

But there is no agent of clinging; no agent of burden-bearing.

The Sutta states:

And which, monks, is the burden-bearer? That of which it should be said: the individual person, who is this venerable one, of such a name, of such ancestry. This, monks, is called the burden-bearer.

This 'venerable one, of such a name, of such ancestry', is the fictional self of Identification. IOW, it is the illusory self of history, of social indoctrination.

One is Joe Blow, who was born in such and such a town, on such and such a date, son of such and such parents, who attended such and such schools, worked for such and such company, married so and so, and died. That person is a complete fiction, this 'burden-bearer'.

As the Sutta says: "One is without hunger, fully extinguished." The fictional self is extinguished. One hungers because the fictional self is karma-driven via desire, whereas the awakened Self is Way-driven.

We are not our history!

note: there is nothing that is clung to, nor any clinger that clings; nor is there a burden to bear or put down, nor a burden-bearer. All are illusion.

Remember:

There never was a Bodhi tree.
Nor a bright mirror standing.
Fundamentally, not one thing exists,
So where is the dust to cling?

Sixth Zen Patriarch

 

[crossfire]

But there is no agent of clinging; no agent of burden-bearing.

The Sutta states:

And which, monks, is the burden-bearer? That of which it should be said: the individual person, who is this venerable one, of such a name, of such ancestry. This, monks, is called the burden-bearer.

This 'venerable one, of such a name, of such ancestry', is the fictional self of Identification. IOW, it is the illusory self of history, of social indoctrination.

One is Joe Blow, who was born in such and such a town, on such and such a date, son of such and such parents, who attended such and such schools, worked for such and such company, married so and so, and died. That person is a complete fiction, this 'burden-bearer'.

As the Sutta says: "One is without hunger, fully extinguished." The fictional self is extinguished. One hungers because the fictional self is karma-driven via desire, whereas the awakened Self is Way-driven.

We are not our history!

note: there is nothing that is clung to, nor any clinger that clings; nor is there a burden to bear or put down, nor a burden-bearer. All are illusion.

Ahh, so Buddha preached illusion... Gotcha. :run:

“I will preach to you, monks, the burden,[1] the bearer of the burden,[2] the taking up of the burden,[3] and the putting down of the burden.[4] Hear this.​

...and then explained what the burden is, that which the burden bearer is, that which the taking up of the burden is, and that which putting down the burden is. Buddha did not name them as illusory, as you claim.

 

[Leftimies]

Could it be that existence is sustained as a kind of creative activity, in the sense of delight in playfulness? For example, the universe is filled with an overabundance of stars, planets, galaxies, etc, all without rhyme or reason. Our own Earth follows suit with an immense variety of forms, some of which are even infinitely variable, such as the designs of snowflakes.

Life is prolific, and death imminent to everything. But from a Buddhist point of view, (and I see you are a Zennist?) life and death are seen as illusory, both being necessary for the continuation of the delightful kaleidescope.

Yeah I am a Zenist. In many ways my views defy the long-established rules in Buddhism, perhaps in that I do not see rebirth and death of soul per se, rather I consider the results and consequences of one's actions to constitute the 'rebirth'. Whether the action result is a child, or merely inspiring someone later on. So a 'soul stream' for me is a continuum of causes and effects, 'karmic stream'.

That being said, it is obvious I don't consider the birth or death of a human to have any grand impact on reality. We humans are but an aspect of reality. If string theory is correct, then in the end, everything is made up of same little particles. Where do the boundaries exist, then? Where does my arm end and air begin? Nowhere really - its same substance in the very end. The difference is in the value and arrangement of that substance. It can take various forms, different manifestations of possibilities within the realm of an universe.

This assumed, its just one existence with differing aspects, the reality I mean. Reality is, of course, present moment, although Past and Future, too, are in present moment. I guess you could call this One Existence of differing aspects and manifestations of possibilities a sustained 'creative activity', yes.

Consider the following with the context of what is mentioned above, and see if it gives you any idea:

"The high mountains are Buddha's body, the sound of running river his great teaching."

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

1. Do you believe in the Big Bang?

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

3. Do you think the multiverse theory is a good explanation?

4. Was it something else?

1. In a way, but not exactly how modern-day Physics believes/explains how it 'happened'.

What came before the 'Big Bang'? super-condensed and charged 'Dark Matter' probably the result of a very large 'white hole'. This would create enough anti-gravitational forces needed to create a material universe.

2. I don't think a superior being 'created' anything, even the universe, as the whole of the universe and the whole of creation exists within the Superior Being, or the 'Great God' (Maharaja Dewata)

Maharaja Dewata (Great God) is my Sanghyang Widhi Wasa....Achintya....formless, but from whence all form issues...

I am digressing.

3. I believe the 'Multiverse Theory' is a very good explanation that logically circumvents the 'Grandfather Paradox' in the theory of time travel, but that's about as far as that one goes. lol

4. Like I said in answer to question 1, some kind of anti-matter or an 'unknown energy source' from without our known understanding of 'life within the confines of this bubble' reaching gravitational mass, collapsing inward in infinite entropy, before expelling/releasing mass in the subsequent 'explosion'.

Whether that 'unknown energy source' was God, or indeed, Goddess Shakti herself is anybody's guess.

 

[crossfire]

But there is no agent of clinging; no agent of burden-bearing.

The Sutta states:

And which, monks, is the burden-bearer? That of which it should be said: the individual person, who is this venerable one, of such a name, of such ancestry. This, monks, is called the burden-bearer.

This 'venerable one, of such a name, of such ancestry', is the fictional self of Identification. IOW, it is the illusory self of history, of social indoctrination.

One is Joe Blow, who was born in such and such a town, on such and such a date, son of such and such parents, who attended such and such schools, worked for such and such company, married so and so, and died. That person is a complete fiction, this 'burden-bearer'.

As the Sutta says: "One is without hunger, fully extinguished." The fictional self is extinguished. One hungers because the fictional self is karma-driven via desire, whereas the awakened Self is Way-driven.

Let me requote myself:

Um, no. The concept of atman is seen as illusory. Life is indeed life, and death is indeed death.

 

[Thief]

There remains discussion as if...'something'....has always existed.
Resistance to the moment of...no moment.

Before the bang......

The item we can't seem to grasp is the void.

No light....no shadow.
No heat...no cold.
No touch....no substance.

Void.

We humans cannot fathom the void. In this regard there is no 'enlightenment'.
You can't go there.

The Creator came from there.

And so it is written....'they who understand (I AM!)...will know whose Word this is.'

 

[Pegg]

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?

yes i believe in the big bang.
yes i believe it was a powerful superior being who caused it.
Multiverse theory may be right it may not be...but either way, it doesnt discount the law of 'cause and effect'....even if there are multiverses, something must have caused the first of them to come into existence. To me, that something is God.

 

[godnotgod]

Ahh, so Buddha preached illusion... Gotcha. :run:

No, but illusion cannot be known as illusion unless Reality is also known. The Buddha was essentially trying to show how to know the difference.

“I will preach to you, monks, the burden,[1] the bearer of the burden,[2] the taking up of the burden,[3] and the putting down of the burden.[4] Hear this.​

...and then explained what the burden is, that which the burden bearer is, that which the taking up of the burden is, and that which putting down the burden is. Buddha did not name them as illusory, as you claim.

I think you're misreading.

The Buddha asks: 'who is the burden-bearer?', meaning: 'what is the nature of the burden-bearer?'. The nature of the burden-bearer, he explains, is 'the individual person, who is this venerable one, of such a name, of such ancestry.' IOW, the temporal self; the creature that is a product of his social indoctrination and history. The self of Identification. IOW, everything that the so-called 'burden-bearer' is, are merely attachments. There is no 'individual person', because, as he goes on to explain, that person, when without desire (ie hunger) becomes 'fully extinguished'. Notice he refers to the identity of the burden-bearer as one 'of such a name, of such ancestry', implying a concocted personage, one who considers himself 'venerable'. An awakened mind sees both praise and blame equally, and sees oneself as 'Nothing Special'. Why? Because the awakened mind sees Enlightenment as our ordinary state of mind.

“And which, monks, is the burden? That of which it should be said: the five clung-to aggregates. [5] “Which five? The form clung-to aggregate, the feeling clung-to aggregate, the perception clung-to aggregate, the formative mental functions clung-to aggregate, the sensory consciousness clung-to aggregate. This, monks, is called the burden.

The 'clung-to aggregates' are illusory.

“And which, monks, is the taking up of the burden? That which is this craving leading to rebirth, connected with delight and passion, finding delight here and there: namely, craving for sensual pleasure, craving for being, and craving for extinction. This, monks, is called the taking up of the burden.

Craving is the taking up of the burden. One of the central teachings of the Buddha was that craving is the cause of suffering, and the cessation of craving is its end. But craving is not the only problem. The notion of a self that craves complicates things. So not only must craving come to an end, the notion of a separate self must also be extinguished. Nirvana means 'to extinguish'. That is the moment of awakening of the authentic Self, in which it is seen that there never was a burden-bearer to begin with. If such a creature does exist, as you seem to be saying, then can you show where this 'burden-bearer' dwells? Or are we back to the 'burden-bearer being no more than a collection of illusory aggregates?

 

[godnotgod]

There remains discussion as if...'something'....has always existed.
Resistance to the moment of...no moment.

Before the bang......

The item we can't seem to grasp is the void.

No light....no shadow.
No heat...no cold.
No touch....no substance.

Void.

We humans cannot fathom the void. In this regard there is no 'enlightenment'.
You can't go there.

The Creator came from there.

And so it is written....'they who understand (I AM!)...will know whose Word this is.'

If the Creator came from the void, then so did the creation, if there be either in Reality. And if the Creator/creation came from the void, then we can say:

'Everything comes out of Nothing'

 

[godnotgod]

Let me requote myself:

If you are equating my mention of the awakened Self as atman, that is erroneous, because the atman is the notion of the individual eternal soul that is subject to birth and death, whereas the awakened Self is the universal mind that is unborn, ungrown, unconditioned, and deathless.

 

[godnotgod]

Here is something to think about concerning the seeming paradox of the Big Bang, and it coming into being when Time did not yet exist:

In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus said, "Blessed is he who came into being before he came into being."