What came before the Big Bang?

[godnotgod]

Not buying it.

At the 'point' of singularity there would be only ONE.
And He would be conscious and self aware.

He is credited for being the First to say.......'I AM!'

Of course you don't buy it; that's because you tenaciously cling to the delusion of self and other as a security device.

When Yeshu said "I Am", he was not referring to an individual self, but to the universal Self, which includes all mankind. That is the secret you don't understand, and which makes Yeshu's statement equal to that of the Buddha, in which he said that all beings are capable of attaining Enlightenment. In Western terms, all men are recipients of the gifts of the Incarnation, and not just the historical 'Jesus'.

 

[Mycroft]

Of course you don't buy it; that's because you tenaciously cling to the delusion of self and other as a security device.

When Yeshu said "I Am", he was not referring to an individual self, but to the universal Self, which includes all mankind. That is the secret you don't understand, and which makes Yeshu's statement equal to that of the Buddha, in which he said that all beings are capable of attaining Enlightenment. In Western terms, all men are recipients of the gifts of the Incarnation, and not just the historical 'Jesus'.

And yet you have the conceit enough to claim you do understand? Evidence, please.

 

[godnotgod]

And yet you have the conceit enough to claim you do understand? Evidence, please.

I put the information right under your nose. It's up to you to test it for veracity.

 

[Mycroft]

I put the information right under your nose. It's up to you to test it for veracity.

You showed a lot of pretty pictures with a lot of meaningless language. That is not evidence.

 

[godnotgod]

You showed a lot of pretty pictures with a lot of meaningless language. That is not evidence.

Is your question about Absolute Joy, or about "I Am"?

I wasn't providing evidence; I was making a statement about the way things are.

Higher Consciousness is a direct experience of Reality; it is outside the realm of factual knowledge; there is no factual evidence.

The spiritual world is transcendent of a personal self. That is its nature. Yeshu was referring to his essential being, not his existence as a self, and essential being is universal to all.

Your essential nature is human-ness; my essential nature is human-ness. It is an intuitive understanding of who and what we are, unless it has been corrupted and/or hidden by social indoctrination. It is an ongoing experience of who you actually are. You don't require evidence to know that it is true, and if you are truly being human, you don't need to think about it.

 

[Mycroft]

Is your question about Absolute Joy, or about "I Am"?

I wasn't providing evidence; I was making a statement about the way things are.

Higher Consciousness is a direct experience of Reality; it is outside the realm of factual knowledge; there is no factual evidence.

The spiritual world is transcendent of a personal self. That is its nature. Yeshu was referring to his essential being, not his existence as a self, and essential being is universal to all.

Your essential nature is human-ness; my essential nature is human-ness. It is an intuitive understanding of who and what we are, unless it has been corrupted and/or hidden by social indoctrination. It is an ongoing experience of who you actually are. You don't require evidence to know that it is true, and if you are truly being human, you don't need to think about it.

It's easy to say anything without evidence. But please, do provide us with some evidence.

 

[gnostic]

What is delusional is to think that you can be conscious while the very universe from which you emerged, which sustains you both inside and out, and to which you will return in your entirety, is not conscious. Furthermore, you have been fooled into believing that the center of your consciousness is inside your brain, and that there is a self called "I" that pushes the world around, when, in reality, it is the universe that does you.

Is your question about Absolute Joy, or about "I Am"?

I wasn't providing evidence; I was making a statement about the way things are.

Higher Consciousness is a direct experience of Reality; it is outside the realm of factual knowledge; there is no factual evidence.

The spiritual world is transcendent of a personal self. That is its nature. Yeshu was referring to his essential being, not his existence as a self, and essential being is universal to all.

Your essential nature is human-ness; my essential nature is human-ness. It is an intuitive understanding of who and what we are, unless it has been corrupted and/or hidden by social indoctrination. It is an ongoing experience of who you actually are. You don't require evidence to know that it is true, and if you are truly being human, you don't need to think about it.

This is sort of rubbish that I find utterly contemptible when speaking to religious person, or spiritual person or psychologist/psychiatrist, when they play nonsensical word-games.

If I say awake and aware of my surroundings, but you tell me that I am not, that everything I see, hear, smell or touch to be nothing more than illusion, then I have mind to sock you one on the mouth, then you can tell if my fist in your face was mere illusion, that there is no blood on your lips.

Then you go around saying that the spiritual world is real or that transcendent reality and the self, but I would have to ask the same thing as Quatermass, show me some evidences that such spirits or spiritual world exist. But if you can't or unwilling to show us any, then I would have to conclude one of the followings:
A) the spirit world don't exist,
B) you're hallucinating, and therefore delusional,
C) it is just faith, that there are no evidences to support such existence, transcendence.

In any of those conclusions is true, or any combination of the two, or all of them, then why should I believe anything you say or write about?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Well put. This sort of nonsense is easy to spout- there are no rules and you can say whatever you want, and it (superficially) sounds sort of profound and mysterious. Unfortunately, when pressed for something by way of substantiation or corroboration, it turns out to be nothing more than mere fiction.

 

[godnotgod]

It's easy to say anything without evidence. But please, do provide us with some evidence.

You don't pay attention to what people say to you, do you? You just bulldoze ahead with your agenda, disregarding what I've said. It's just a pity that your view is so rigid that you cannot see that there are other kinds of knowledge. I recognize facts and science, as well as the mystical view, but you can only see one way. We call that ignorance, in general.

Once more: HIGHER CONSCIOUSNESS IS TRANSCENDENT OF THE SENSORY WORLD. IT IS OUTSIDE THE REALM OF REASON, LOGIC, AND ANALYSIS. GET IT?

Validation of the experience is possible, but it requires you to go see for yourself. I cannot see for you.

Do you agree that, for example, human nature is a universal aspect of human beings?

I'm going to politely ask you once more: Is your question about Absolute Joy, or about "I Am"?

 

[godnotgod]

This is sort of rubbish that I find utterly contemptible when speaking to religious person, or spiritual person or psychologist/psychiatrist, when they play nonsensical word-games.

If I say awake and aware of my surroundings, but you tell me that I am not, that everything I see, hear, smell or touch to be nothing more than illusion, then I have mind to sock you one on the mouth, then you can tell if my fist in your face was mere illusion, that there is no blood on your lips.

Then you go around saying that the spiritual world is real or that transcendent reality and the self, but I would have to ask the same thing as Quatermass, show me some evidences that such spirits or spiritual world exist. But if you can't or unwilling to show us any, then I would have to conclude one of the followings:
A) the spirit world don't exist,
B) you're hallucinating, and therefore delusional,
C) it is just faith, that there are no evidences to support such existence, transcendence.

In any of those conclusions is true, or any combination of the two, or all of them, then why should I believe anything you say or write about?

Nothing you've said here makes any sense at all, because all you're saying is that you don't like it, but you fail to address any particular point. So your entire post is pure rubbish.

Now, if you wish to have a discussion, OK. If you don't know how to see beyond your own mindset, then you'll never get a glimpse of what spiritually oriented people are talking about.

I have never asked you to believe anything I've posted; I just put the information out there so you can run it by your own consciousness, but your intolerant (an maybe angry) attitude is an indication of a mental block and knee jerk reaction you have to anything your conceptual mind cannot understand. If your conceptual mind can't put it into a nice neat little box and control it to make it fit its concepts, then its rubbish, right?. Wrong!

I see by the content of your reply that you've completely misunderstood what I said to you. I said that sensory awareness is not validation of reality. It is validation of something, but that something is only what you think is real. And you won't see it any other way until you expand your consciousness. Your indoctrination that this is the real world is keeping your mind, via your senses, convinced that this is the case. That is how convincing the illusion is. It's just as convincing as a vivid dream in which you firmly believe that what is occurring is real. When you wake up, you know instantly that it was not real. The same is true from this level of 'Waking Sleep' to the next level. It is typical of people who are asleep that when you tell them they are asleep and dreaming, they become angry, as you have, and want to do something irrational like socking someone in the mouth to prove your point, which it cannot. All it does is to further galvanize the illusion and your own ignorance as real. People become angry when told this because they are in Identification, in which they believe the role they play in life is actually real, and that it is worth something. The ego feels slighted and reacts angrily, because it is no longer being adulated; no longer in control; no longer a valid entity. Their false identity, or fiction, is valuable to them because it provides emotional and psychological security. Without that, they begin to feel lost and become fearful.

Do you think history is real, or fiction?

What is it about the following that you don't understand? I understand it perfectly. Not sure what your problem is:

 

[godnotgod]

Well put. This sort of nonsense is easy to spout- there are no rules and you can say whatever you want, and it (superficially) sounds sort of profound and mysterious. Unfortunately, when pressed for something by way of substantiation or corroboration, it turns out to be nothing more than mere fiction.

I can substantiate anything I've posted here, but it requires intelligence in order to process the information. I'm not about to provide formulas which provide black and white answers palatable to your conceptual mind. This is not about the conceptual mind, and, in keeping with the thread's topic, neither is the Big Bang. The BB was not conceptualized into being. You are dealing here with something beyond the thinking mind, and the day you get that, you will begin to get a glimpse of something that simply refuses to fit into nice neat little cubbyholes. You will just need to learn to think in a radically different way if you are ever going to begin. Maybe what I've said sounds 'profound or mysterious' to you, but that is your problem. I'm not trying to make it sound like either. If you don't understand something I've said, then please point out something specific, instead of just labeling everything in general as 'nonsense', and I will try to explain. But don't expect factual proof as you would for some science experiment. Not gonna happen, as rational explanations for the behavior of the universe continues to elude scientists themselves.

 

[godnotgod]

The problem here is that none of you can admit how intelligent the universe actually is. You just want it to conform to your little anal mathematics and science calculations and experiments so your limited minds can think they are in control. Then everything will be alright, won't it, and you can throw another steak on the barbie and have a nice cold beer. You think that someday you will know all there is to know, and you can then put it aside as you would a rubrics cube after its solution. But the universe has already got you figured out from Day One, and knows you better than you do yourself. If you were truly intelligent, you would calm the chatter of the monkey mind, sit down, and listen, but you want to do all the talking, thinking you're going to clinch this thing once and for all by thinking about it. All you've succeeded in doing is to create more paradoxes for yourselves as the new information you uncover is more perplexing to the rational mind than ever. You like to think you are understanding more and more, but all you're doing is accumulating more and more data and knowledge, which is not understanding.

If you want real understanding, you're simply going to have to use another approach. Not to say that you need to discard science, but it alone cannot tell you what the nature of the universe and of Reality is.

If you cannot come to grips with a conscious universe yet, you should at least recognize that you still cling to an old paradigm about what we call reality that has now been superseded by Quantum Physics. It's your own science that is showing it to you.

Are you listening?

 

[Slapstick]

The problem here is that none of you can admit how intelligent the universe actually is. You just want it to conform to your little anal mathematics and science calculations and experiments so your limited minds can think they are in control. Then everything will be alright, won't it, and you can throw another steak on the barbie and have a nice cold beer. You think that someday you will know all there is to know, and you can then put it aside as you would a rubrics cube after its solution. But the universe has already got you figured out from Day One, and knows you better than you do yourself. If you were truly intelligent, you would calm the chatter of the monkey mind, sit down, and listen, but you want to do all the talking, thinking you're going to clinch this thing once and for all by thinking about it. All you've succeeded in doing is to create more paradoxes for yourselves as the new information you uncover is more perplexing to the rational mind than ever. You like to think you are understanding more and more, but all you're doing is accumulating more and more data and knowledge, which is not understanding.

If you want real understanding, you're simply going to have to use another approach. Not to say that you need to discard science, but it alone cannot tell you what the nature of the universe and of Reality is.

If you cannot come to grips with a conscious universe yet, you should at least recognize that you still cling to an old paradigm about what we call reality that has now been superseded by Quantum Physics. It's your own science that is showing it to you.

Are you listening?

This post made me laugh so hard, but I will give you some credit and post my response in pretty colors like you do.

If you would just say that there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum then you might not have so many problems. This entire thread has gone from something to absolutely nothing so find the inverse square of that.

 

[godnotgod]

This post made me laugh so hard, but I will give you some credit and post my response in pretty colors like you do.

If you would just say that there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum then you might not have so many problems. This entire thread has gone from something to absolutely nothing so find the inverse square of that.

Laughter and humor are keys to the Enlightenment experience. All you need now is a little nudge to get you over yourself, LOL.

This thread was nonsense from the very beginning, since it asks a question that has no answer. Science tells us that Space and Time were created with the BB, so there cannot have been a 'before' the BB. There is no space or time. The BB occurred in this timeless present moment and is still occurring. It occurs purely in consciousness, is a projection of consciousness, will return to consciousness, and is an illusion of consciousness. The only reality is consciousness itself, because it, unlike the BB, has no beginning, no end, and is causeless.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

@godnotgod

The key factor to your argument that you are missing is a compelling nature. It lacks the evidnece but evidence is a means to and end to provide a compelling argument. You have to provide a reason for us to give heed to any of your claims.

Its great and all that you have your spiritual beliefs but in the debate section it doesn't absolve you of the burden of proof to state that the proof or evidence is beyond logic, reason, ect.

So feel free to have your beliefs but debate wise you haven't prepared a compelling argument or given me any reason to accept what you say as true.

 

[godnotgod]

[youtube]EraN4tujhdU[/youtube]
PL1 - TSC12 Deepak Chopra, Primary Consciousness versus Materialism - YouTube

 

[godnotgod]

@godnotgod

The key factor to your argument that you are missing is a compelling nature. It lacks the evidnece but evidence is a means to and end to provide a compelling argument. You have to provide a reason for us to give heed to any of your claims.

Its great and all that you have your spiritual beliefs but in the debate section it doesn't absolve you of the burden of proof to state that the proof or evidence is beyond logic, reason, ect.

So feel free to have your beliefs but debate wise you haven't prepared a compelling argument or given me any reason to accept what you say as true.

As I explained in the previous post, the thread's question is nonsensical to begin with.

In the example of Plato's Cave, the prisoner who went topside to view the Sun has no way of presenting any evidence whatsoever. It is a direct experience of Reality, while the other prisoners are experiencing a concocted reality they believe to be real. The only way the other prisoners can verify that what the first prisoner is saying is to go see for themselves.

However, there are other ways of presenting the argument which do not require factual evidence, again, which cannot be presented due to the nature of Higher Consciousness, which is an experience outside the realm of Reason, Logic, or Analysis. That does not make it irrational, but simply non-rationally based.

Think about the irrational nature of your request: you want me to present factual evidence about an experience of the non-material world, when I should be requesting evidence from you that the world you call 'material' is real. Just because it interacts with your sensory awareness does not make it real. The senses are known to deceive us. That is precisely why they must be transcended so reality can be apprehended via another kind of conscious awareness; one more reliable than the senses; one that is pure and pristine, and unconditioned. When the Emperor of China asked Bodhidharma, he great Indian monk, 'what of the holy scriptures?', Bodhidharma replied: 'no holiness is clear, like space.' Higher Consciousness is about seeing clearly into the nature of Reality, without thought. Reason and Logic are in the realm of thought, of the mind, which are distortions between Consciousness and Reality.

I have shown that some of the logical arguments of science operate on various assumptions, primarily that the material world is real. However, science itself, via Quantum Physics, shows us that it is not so 'real' after all. There are only two possibilities, actually three: that the material world is real; that it is an illusion; that it is neither.

It may be of some use to you to watch the video prior to this post.

 

[Slapstick]

Laughter and humor are keys to the Enlightenment experience. All you need now is a little nudge to get you over yourself, LOL.

This thread was nonsense from the very beginning, since it asks a question that has no answer. Science tells us that Space and Time were created with the BB, so there cannot have been a 'before' the BB. There is no space or time. The BB occurred in this timeless present moment and is still occurring. It occurs purely in consciousness, is a projection of consciousness, will return to consciousness, and is an illusion of consciousness. The only reality is consciousness itself, because it, unlike the BB, has no beginning, no end, and is causeless.

You made a few good points earlier this thread that I might try to dig up later, but I think you might be slightly over thinking it. You have made some significant progress though I can say that.

 

[gnostic]

I am not denying the universe is wondrous and all, godnotgod.

I just don't think there was any intelligence or awareness (consciousness) involved in the formation of this universe.

Nature doesn't require any conscious effort to make something happen.

 

[godnotgod]

I am not denying the universe is wondrous and all, godnotgod.

I just don't think there was any intelligence or awareness (consciousness) involved in the formation of this universe.

Nature doesn't require any conscious effort to make something happen.

You're not getting what I'm saying: nothing happened! It's all an illusion. The only reality is consciousness itself, which is changeless. When you awaken from this dream where there appears to be action, you will see that nothing is real. It's just that you're caught up in the drama because you believe it is real.

Your response makes consciousness and the universe separate things. Even your own consciousness is fully integrated with the universe, but your discriminating MIND tells you otherwise. If you are familiar with the rope/snake metaphor, the illusory 'snake' is none other than the rope. In the same manner, the universe is none other than pure consciousness, projected as the universe.

But even if what you say about nature is true, consciousness is necessary for nature to exist at all. What you're not taking into account is the background against which nature exists. What is that background?