What came before the Big Bang?

[godnotgod]

Perhaps you can bend your awareness for a little while, but it is analogous to taking a deep ocean dive. You must return to the surface, to the dry land that is conceptual reasoning. Whatever you bring back soon dies in this dry air, and there's just no way that it proves that anything comes out of nothing.

There is no other choice, unless you want to say it comes out of something, but then how do you explain IT'S origin?

Contrary to your suggestion, it is via conceptual reasoning that awareness has become bent.

Conceptual reasoning is nothing more than an altered state of consciousness. It is foisted upon us at birth, and so is extremely difficult to overcome. But the ultimate point is that, once understood for what it is, it is seen that the state of mind which existed prior to such conditioning is our true state of being, and when this is accessed, and with the machinations of the discriminating mind subdued, we can then see the relationship of nothingness as the default state of being, and that all things come out of it. There can be no other way, once understood. It's not complicated.

As long as you see the universe in terms of Reason, there will always be Paradox, because nature is not based on Reason. Only when seeing, without thought, comes into play, can one get a glimpse into the true nature of Reality. Until then, we are just nibbling around the edges. Reason, Logic, and Analysis, will NEVER show us the true nature of Reality, as that lies beyond them.

 

[Brickjectivity]

As long as you see the universe in terms of Reason, there will always be Paradox...

So far there are many paradoxes

because nature is not based on Reason.

neither is it based upon awareness. Human nature is based upon not being aware of certain things, certain truths that we cannot handle. We should not just throw away our tricks and shortcuts for dealing with life.

Only when seeing, without thought, comes into play, can one get a glimpse into the true nature of Reality.

An empty promise. Thought is the only thing the people have a lot of and animals don't have much of. It is our speciality, and I'd endure more paradoxes for that.

Until then, we are just nibbling around the edges. Reason, Logic, and Analysis, will NEVER show us the true nature of Reality, as that lies beyond them.

Returning to our animal nature would allow this, but it would not allow us to function as a society the way we do. There are some paradoxes and lies, but mainly its just a matter of not focusing on the negative. We have a Big Bang theory that helps us to think about origins in a way that allows us to study and quantify certain things, and that is very helpful to society. Its all about people, and then beyond people there can be a faint awareness of the more painful and also blissful truths. We cannot live in bliss, and we cannot live in pure pain or pure anything.

 

[godnotgod]

So far there are many paradoxes

But they exist only because of Reason. They do not exist perse.

neither is it based upon awareness. Human nature is based upon not being aware of certain things, certain truths that we cannot handle. We should not just throw away our tricks and shortcuts for dealing with life.

Not-knowing is the point of departure. When you take the path of Reason, your results are determined by your methodology, and those results are paradoxical, because the concepts so derived cannot possibly match Reality. The other path is intuitive, which is not-thinking. It is just seeing, without thought. It is lowering the net to allow the fish to swim in, rather than going after it aggressively with line and hook. It is empty, and therefore can be filled.

An empty promise. Thought is the only thing the people have a lot of and animals don't have much of. It is our speciality, and I'd endure more paradoxes for that.

Animal behavior is relatively fixed. Thought is another kind of fixation. But pure awareness, without thought, is transcendence of both. It is freedom. Then you can see things as they are, rather than how the thinking mind only conceives them to be.

Returning to our animal nature would allow this, but it would not allow us to function as a society the way we do. There are some paradoxes and lies, but mainly its just a matter of not focusing on the negative. We have a Big Bang theory that helps us to think about origins in a way that allows us to study and quantify certain things, and that is very helpful to society. Its all about people, and then beyond people there can be a faint awareness of the more painful and also blissful truths. We cannot live in bliss, and we cannot live in pure pain or pure anything.

But we do. We are immersed in it at this moment, but choose instead to live in ignorance and suffering. We are, so to speak, on a 'troubled voyage in calm weather'.

Why do you say we cannot llve in bliss?

You misunderstand: I am not saying to choose one mode over another. Certainly we need to reason in order to live. But in terms of arriving at an understanding of what the nature of Reality and our own nature is, Reason cannot achieve this. Realization of the true nature of Reality is not thinking. It is Realization; Enlightenment, and that is seeing, not thinking.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Recent theories do say that 'Space' isn't truly empty. These are called 'Speculative Physics' sometimes. The Wikipedia article suggests the three main concerns with the Big Bang theory are Horizon, Flatness and Magnetic Monopoles. Its not known what kind of universe we are in, and technically that is the same as saying we don't know what happened before the Big Bang or even what happened afterwards.

I'm not at liberty to say what science knows or doesn't know but to my understanding the big bang theory as well as a few others theories have trouble because we have a very limited understanding of physics. We don't know what happens below the quark level as we can't measure it. There is some dispute (rather small by comparison) on if time actually even exists.

So we don't know about the big bang because it breaks down all the rules that are required for physics as we know it. Even the strange and weird M theory has its limits.

The main thing I was stating though is that "space" is not the same thing as "nothing".

 

[godnotgod]

neither is it [nature] based upon awareness. Human nature is based upon not being aware of certain things, certain truths that we cannot handle.

Are you sure of that? Could it be that we are ignorant because we have been so thoroughly indoctrinated by our society that a vision of our true natures is completely distorted, if not unavailable to us simply because we have suppressed it into a kind of waking sleep, and when any signs of real spiritual awakening do occur, we do everything possible to discourage and abort such an awakening?

If nature is not based upon awareness, how is it that it seems to know how to behave, how to regulate bodily functions, how to regulate the motions of the planets, how to create environmental balances so that life can flourish in so many different forms, even providing us with the intellect we are now using to communicate with one another?

 

[Brickjectivity]

But they exist only because of Reason. They do not exist perse.

You reason that this is the case, but we don't know. According to reason there should be no paradoxes.

But we do. We are immersed in it at this moment, but choose instead to live in ignorance and suffering....Why do you say we cannot llve in bliss?

The blissful are merely ignorant of suffering. The suffering is still there. Starving people can live next door to a restaurant. People inside the restaurant may not know about them, yet they are still starving.

You misunderstand: I am not saying to choose one mode over another. Certainly we need to reason in order to live. But in terms of arriving at an understanding of what the nature of Reality and our own nature is, Reason cannot achieve this. Realization of the true nature of Reality is not thinking. It is Realization; Enlightenment, and that is seeing, not thinking.

That sounds good, but perhaps its not possible to realize our true nature either. A dog can be a dog, but it cannot realize. Computers can compute, but they don't know what they are.

Are you sure of that? Could it be that we are ignorant because we have been so thoroughly indoctrinated by our society that a vision of our true natures is completely distorted, if not unavailable to us simply because we have suppressed it into a kind of waking sleep, and when any signs of real spiritual awakening do occur, we do everything possible to discourage and abort such an awakening?

Societies do indoctrinate, but sometimes they hide very difficult truths, too. Do we really want to know what humanity was like before indoctrinations? Maybe it was much worse!

If nature is not based upon awareness, how is it that it seems to know how to behave, how to regulate bodily functions, how to regulate the motions of the planets, how to create environmental balances so that life can flourish in so many different forms, even providing us with the intellect we are now using to communicate with one another?

It can have awareness, but that is different from based upon awareness. Imaginary people are based upon awareness. Living people are a mixture.

 

[godnotgod]

You reason that this is the case, but we don't know. According to reason there should be no paradoxes.

But there are, so doesn't that suggest that Reason may be the wrong approach to a true understanding of nature? That the answers we seek lie beyond Reason?

The blissful are merely ignorant of suffering.

You must be adopting the old adage: "ignorance is bliss", but that is not what I am referring to. A person in real bliss is very aware of the suffering of others, far more so than the ordinary person. It's just that, for the most part, he sees the cause of their suffering quite differently than they do.

The suffering is still there. Starving people can live next door to a restaurant. People inside the restaurant may not know about them, yet they are still starving.

The blissful person does not deny that; the ignorant do. But while the ignorant may try to 'fix' the problem via aggressive action, which may have negative repercussions, the blissful person may only shine his light on the problem, which may, in fact, be more effective. Take Ghandi, for example, who sent the British home without firing a single shot.

That sounds good, but perhaps its not possible to realize our true nature either. A dog can be a dog, but it cannot realize. Computers can compute, but they don't know what they are.

A computer has no consciousness, while a dog is just spending all of it's time exercising it's dog nature; ie, just being a dog. But we, as humans, don't know how to simply be naturally human. We find this the most difficult of tasks, and actually spend much of our time doing things against our own human nature. But it is possible to follow our human nature, and if we did, the world would take on a much different appearance than it now does, and our view of the universe would be completely transformed as well. Primarily, the problem is that we want to look at the universe as an object, when we ourselves are the universe.

Societies do indoctrinate, but sometimes they hide very difficult truths, too. Do we really want to know what humanity was like before indoctrinations? Maybe it was much worse!

No, we want to know what man's true nature is prior to indoctrination, and return to it. What we are experiencing now is the problem that has come about because of indoctrination. Indoctrination is the superimposition of a forced morality onto man's nature which only creates conflict and division. IOW, man's true nature is non-dual. It is in harmony with itself and the environment because it is awakened consciousness. Social indoctrination puts man to sleep.

It can have awareness, but that is different from based upon awareness. Imaginary people are based upon awareness. Living people are a mixture.

So do you think the universe is conscious or not?

 

[garrydons]

Yes I believe in the Big Bang as there is no reason to not believe in something that has substantial proof for the theory.

Yes I believe something created although I would not call it a being.

shalom do you mean you dont believe in a Creator and yet believe in creation?

 

[garrydons]

if to some, God is only a sort of a fiction, I strongly believe that neither is there evidence for the so called big bang theory. it was just an assumption that there is such. but suffice it to say that personally I have peace of mind in believing that God created everything than to accept all those supposed theories. Anyway I am not forcing anybody to accept my view but as i have said. I am at peace for being a believer in God. i just wish all atheist to have the same feeling as mine.

 

[garrydons]

By the way let those who believe in the Big bang theory answer your question as to what came before the Big Bang?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

By the way let those who believe in the Big bang theory answer your question as to what came before the Big Bang?

The big bang wasn't an explosion, so much as it was an expansion, before it the universe would in theory have been in the form of a singularity. A condensed point.

 

[Brickjectivity]

No, we want to know what man's true nature is prior to indoctrination, and return to it. What we are experiencing now is the problem that has come about because of indoctrination. Indoctrination is the superimposition of a forced morality onto man's nature which only creates conflict and division. IOW, man's true nature is non-dual. It is in harmony with itself and the environment because it is awakened consciousness. Social indoctrination puts man to sleep.

It is natural for us to indoctrinate our children, natural to be aggressive and natural to suffer. Soon all of us (awakened or not) will die, sending off the next generation without awakened consciousness. It is so far an endless cycle that we have been struggling to beat. Yes, Gandhi dealt cleverly with the British, and with USA too by extension. He helped secure a unique place for India in the world, an honored place. He died, though. Who is his equal today?

I'm not trying to make you believe these things, but I'm explaining how I see it. We are getting away from the Big Bang topic.

 

[Athan]

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?

I believe there was no beginning, and I believe there will be no end. I think atheists put caps on the Universe to keep their heads from exploding.

 

[Riverwolf]

By the way let those who believe in the Big bang theory answer your question as to what came before the Big Bang?

Why does believing in something automatically mean having all answers to the questions regarding it?

 

[godnotgod]

It is natural for us to indoctrinate our children, natural to be aggressive and natural to suffer. Soon all of us (awakened or not) will die, sending off the next generation without awakened consciousness. It is so far an endless cycle that we have been struggling to beat.

I'm not trying to make you believe these things, but I'm explaining how I see it. We are getting away from the Big Bang topic.

Not really, as the kind of conscious awareness with which we approach the BB has everything to do with it.

You seem to acknowledge that there is a difference between indoctrinated consciousness (ie; 'Identification'), and an awakened consciousness. I include Science as a state of altered consciousness. It deals with the outward appearances of Reality and prediction. So far, it has failed to provide answers as to the very nature of the universe and the BB. It deals with the nuts and bolts, but not with the essence. What I am suggesting to you is that, in our analytic and rational approach to nature, we have placed the cart ahead of the horse. This approach is much like studying the parts of a piano in order to understand what a piano is. But a piano is a mechanism, an artifact. Unwittingly, we are approaching the universe in that same way, where, by analysis of the various 'parts', we suppose that someday we will reach an 'Ah Ha!' moment of total understanding. But the universe is not a mechanism. It is conscious and alive, and we are intelligent beings which have emerged from an intelligent universe. We were not made, as an artifact; we were grown. And so, in order that the cart be properly placed behind the horse. an intuitive approach to the universe and ourselves must be made, where union with its essence is first established, which in turn will make the details discovered by Science make perfect 'sense'. We need to pay attention first to the music that emanates from the piano, so we can better understand the functionality of the various parts. As for the BB, this approach will place it in context of the greater Reality that is the Infinite itself.

So, consciousness is what it's all about. When the mind has been completely transformed beyond social indoctrination and knowledge, how we then see nature becomes completely different than how Reason, Analyis, and Logic tells us it is.

 

[godnotgod]

The big bang wasn't an explosion, so much as it was an expansion, before it the universe would in theory have been in the form of a singularity. A condensed point.

When you say 'point', it can only be understood as such when there is a background against which such a point can be seen. What would be the background to the singularity, which, BTW, would be every bit as significant to the BB as the singularity itself.

You state 'before the singularity....', but the singularity is the universe itself, so you are, in effect, saying that 'before the universe, there was the singularity', which is none other than the universe. This also implies Space-Time, which did not exist until the BB.

So the only possible answer is that the BB occurred in this endless, timeless Present Moment. It occurred NOW, and is going on NOW. There was no 'before' or 'after', in any linear sense, because there is no such thing as Time.

IOW, it occurred in consciousness, where there is no history, no memory, no space, and no time.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

When you say 'point', it can only be understood as such when there is a background against which such a point can be seen. What would be the background to the singularity, which, BTW, would be every bit as significant to the BB as the singularity itself.

You state 'before the singularity....', but the singularity is the universe itself, so you are, in effect, saying that 'before the universe, there was the singularity', which is none other than the universe. This also implies Space-Time, which did not exist until the BB.

So the only possible answer is that the BB occurred in this endless, timeless Present Moment. It occurred NOW, and is going on NOW. There was no 'before' or 'after', in any linear sense, because there is no such thing as Time.

IOW, it occurred in consciousness, where there is no history, no memory, no space, and no time.

No I stated that before the Universe there was a Singularity. The singularity was not the Universe but there would be a point when it would become the Universe.

And for the most part Time and Space didn't exist prior to the BB.

 

[The Wizard]

But there are, so doesn't that suggest that Reason may be the wrong approach to a true understanding of nature? That the answers we seek lie beyond Reason?

I think this depends on the type of reason. Then again, reason itself is not the source for attaining some of the most valuable information and understanding that exists concerning, what I term, real reality and the nature of everything. As a meditator, I can certainly express that without a doubt. All reason or attempting of logic just gets in the way of a true, super-wide awareness...

You must be adopting the old adage: "ignorance is bliss", but that is not what I am referring to. A person in real bliss is very aware of the suffering of others, far more so than the ordinary person. It's just that, for the most part, he sees the cause of their suffering quite differently than they do.

The blissful person does not deny that; the ignorant do. But while the ignorant may try to 'fix' the problem via aggressive action, which may have negative repercussions, the blissful person may only shine his light on the problem, which may, in fact, be more effective. Take Ghandi, for example, who sent the British home without firing a single shot.

True, a blissful person may also just detach from the very mechanism that creates the problem. Which is, many times, him or herself, in the first place- as the creator. When the light shines, we usually find the problem is adverse human nature going the wrong way and definitely too many attachments and desires...

A computer has no consciousness, while a dog is just spending all of it's time exercising it's dog nature; ie, just being a dog. But we, as humans, don't know how to simply be naturally human. We find this the most difficult of tasks, and actually spend much of our time doing things against our own human nature. But it is possible to follow our human nature, and if we did, the world would take on a much different appearance than it now does, and our view of the universe would be completely transformed as well. Primarily, the problem is that we want to look at the universe as an object, when we ourselves are the universe.

We have 2 states. One is our biological human side. But, since we have acquired consciousness, which surpasses ALL of this old design, we have to learn to live and operate as conscious beings- in the human form, body and mind. Tis is why it is the most difficult of tasks... To be completely human is to be back to hearing voices of the gods, being unconscious and mostly schizophrenic.. so, a balance is required. However (wink) perhaps the term is just simply to be a conscious human being...

No, we want to know what man's true nature is prior to indoctrination, and return to it. What we are experiencing now is the problem that has come about because of indoctrination. Indoctrination is the superimposition of a forced morality onto man's nature which only creates conflict and division. IOW, man's true nature is non-dual. It is in harmony with itself and the environment because it is awakened consciousness. Social indoctrination puts man to sleep.

Agreed, puts man to sleep.... a walking automaton. And orderly, unconscious robot. This probably falls under man following the authority of everything else except is own self and mind.

So do you think the universe is conscious or not?

Yes, definitely. We are the final extension of it- as a conscious controller of most of its parts... Not sure what all of it means, but certainly invigorating... I just wanted to comment with this here insightful post...

 

[godnotgod]

No I stated that before the Universe there was a Singularity. The singularity was not the Universe but there would be a point when it would become the Universe.

And for the most part Time and Space didn't exist prior to the BB.

So, in which context did the singularity exist?

Do Time and Space exist in actuality now, or are they merely concepts?

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, definitely. We are the final extension of it- as a conscious controller of most of its parts... .

Or is it that we only are deluded into thinking that we are the 'controllers', when, in actuality, the whole is playing us, along with all the other 'parts'?