The Big Bang didn't happen in the past.

[The0Self]

The Big Bang didn't happen in the past. Also, the Big Crunch won't happen in the future. The Big Bang timelessly appears as the Big Crunch -- the end of every sensation that ever has or will happen. The Big Crunch timelessly appears as the Big Bang -- the beginning of every sensation that ever has or will happen. The beginning of each sensation = its end. The Big Bang = The Big Crunch = everything. There is no separation, not just in terms of there being no one separate from what happens, but in every way -- i.e. whatever you give, you receive, etc. This is both timeless and causeless.

[WaveInTheOcean]

"The Big Bang didn't happen in the past. Also, the Big Crunch won't happen in the future. The Big Bang timelessly appears as the Big Crunch -- the end of every sensation that ever has or will happen. The Big Crunch timelessly appears as the Big Bang -- the beginning of every sensation that ever has or will happen. The beginning of each sensation = its end. The Big Bang = The Big Crunch = everything. There is no separation. This is both timeless and causeless."

What are you talking bout bro!!T Thebig bang happened 13,7 billion years ago - simple fact!!!Hippie. New ager. Spiritual mumbo jumbo!

Straighten your mind! Be rational! Follow science! Listen to science! The world is prickly, material, physical, can't you fucking see? It aint goeey! Consciousness is an illusion produced by the dead matter and energy in your *Physical* brain! Everything is physical! Made of MATTER! Prickly!

Why so deluded? Why so lost? Noob!! Hippie!! Spirituality, buhh!Y Youare a brain! A brain! Not a spirit. Consciousness does not exist at all! Look! See! Think! Think think think. You see, I think, therefore I am! Who's thinking? tHe brain!?

Edited July 2, 2021 by WaveInTheOcean

[GeoLura]

@WaveInTheOcean Based

[RMQualtrough]

Right it's happening now. Is this the best explanation though, for how the cosmos all came together before it was perceived from within space and time? Is there another explanation? What about a universe of just chairs that is never perceived, for in total infinity this must exist (and really should since nothingness is legitimately without boundary).

Though in chair universe the chairs wouldn't objectively be anything, until a human or something is plopped down into it and suddenly the chairs are there.

Edited July 2, 2021 by RMQualtrough

[VeganAwake]

The Big Bang is just a theory of how THIS came to be. 

It's just a theory.

Scientists say it's important to know and understand how existence came to be.

Some people enjoy trying to understand how the cookie came to be.

Either way the cookie is always being eaten.

 

 

 

 

[RMQualtrough]

What do you think of the idea that even quarks etc have some form of awareness? Being inside of awareness, they are made of it. So surely they must do? Same for a human under general anaesthetic etc. Is there some base experience of a quark interacting with another?

Quantum entanglement suggests perhaps knowledge of some descriptor between particles. Unlike a rock moving downstream which would not require awareness, the reaction is based on a property of the particle.

What about the dual slit? People get mad that IFLS type articles clickbait that human consciousness is what alters it only to point out it's just any measurement. So is it the case there is some form of aware interaction between the gate/measuring device and photon?

Is panpsychism the way to bridge understanding of the material universe within a framework of Brahman?

[The0Self]

@RMQualtrough I don't know about all that, but I will say those questions are all in the story that includes time. What I refer to as the Big Bang being the Big Crunch, or nothing being everything, is utterly timeless; beyond time; meta-to time. This whole thing doesn't actually move -- it's like a solid infinite and timeless block/sphere of empty-alive being. Also sort of like perceptions fluctuating in and as emptiness, timelessly. Nothing is happening, as there's only timeless everything. There's an apparent story of the exploration of this, and the scientists seem to be learning more and more and it's pointing them to the absolute empty fullness. Even in the materialist paradigm, and certainly in the view of most in cosmology and quantum physics, it is believed that there is no "before" the Big Bang since the Big Bang is itself the supposed advent of space and time -- so they can at least somewhat intuit the timelessness of what is, even if they can't yet see that it's totally unconditioned/causeless.

Edited July 2, 2021 by The0Self

[RMQualtrough]

In the nothingness there is unmanifest everythingness. The chair universe exists in the unmanifest. When an unmanifest-experience takes place in said unmanifest-universe it becomes perceived and hence manifest?

How about that...

There are perhaps infinite universes just like ours which always remain unmanifest, with unconscious rocks floating around or w.e., because there never develops a perceiver to """collapse the wave function""" from unmanifest into manifest?

Hm. So the infinity contains both infinite manifested things and infinite unmanifested things. That could make sense if not Panpsychism.

Yet it remains the case, there is nothing "out there". So what do we interact with? Well I suppose we too are part of the apparent outer world and interact with it thusly.

A solid concrete wall will always represent something impassable regardless of how it is perceived? Even though it is fundamentally nothing outside of perception.

Edited July 2, 2021 by RMQualtrough

[The0Self]

15 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

A solid concrete wall will always represent something impassable regardless of how it is perceived? Even though it is fundamentally nothing outside of perception.

The solid concrete wall has no underlying "thing that it is." I wouldn't say that it's nothing outside perception, rather it is nothing and it is a perception. Objects aren't viewed -- they are the view, which is all there is, and not an object.

15 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

Yet it remains the case, there is nothing "out there". So what do we interact with? Well I suppose we too are part of the apparent outer world and interact with it thusly.

Well there's just no "out there" or "in here" in the first place. Interaction and relationship are appearances but there isn't an outer world to be a part of -- there is just the appearance of the world which is all there is, blindly itself -- timeless/stationary infinity.

Edited July 2, 2021 by The0Self

[Mafortu]

6 hours ago, VeganAwake said:

The Big Bang is just a theory of how THIS came to be. 

It's just a theory.

Scientists say it's important to know and understand how existence came to be.

Some people enjoy trying to understand how the cookie came to be.

Either way the cookie is always being eaten.

 

 

 

 

What we do know all celestial bodies are growing apparat from each other, so its very likely that at one point everything was extremely close together

[The0Self]

3 hours ago, Mafortu said:

What we do know all celestial bodies are growing apparat from each other, so its very likely that at one point everything was extremely close together

?‍♂️ 

jk!

But, you said “at one point” (presumably, in time). Stuff can appear to happen in time but what the Big Bang really is, is timeless. Of course there will appear to be an apparent beginning — how else would anything appear at all? Imagine if there wasn’t even origination in the story — doesn’t even compute. So of course there will appear to be a real origin if you’re still in the story of time.

From the timeless perspective, the Big Bang (everything) is all there is, and it’s the exact same as the Big Crunch (nothing).

Edited July 3, 2021 by The0Self

[cetus]

 

25 minutes ago, The0Self said:

Stuff can appear to happen in time but what the Big Bang really is, is timeless.

Thanks to the big bang the singularity is spread out all over the appearance of time and space.

[The0Self]

8 minutes ago, cetus said:

 

Thanks to the big bang the singularity is spread out all over time and space.

Exactly! ? 

Apparently.

Edited July 3, 2021 by The0Self

[4201]

Yet there is a past that always feels more correct than other pasts. If I yell something loud and then try to convince you I haven't yelled it wouldn't work out so well. If you experienced something directly in the last 5 seconds it's quite "true". Maybe it's not Absolutely true but it's really close to true.

Even if you construct reality and construct the past right now, there is a past that aligns with source and pasts that we could say are dishonest (the imagined past in which I did not yell).

This idea that space time was more dense in the past seems to be a past that aligns with source, it is in accordance with the evidence we have. It differs from lies I could create right now.

What is this distinction? Past created by God vs past created by Ego? It sure puzzles me and holding a past as true can be risky since it can be defined to be whatever. But without a past you can't really do much. How could you understand this message if you don't remember the last sentence you just read? How could you understand this message if you don't remember the last sentence you just read? How could you understand this message if you don't remember the last sentence you just read? How could you understand this message if you don't remember the last sentence you just read? How...

Edited July 3, 2021 by 4201

[The0Self]

5 minutes ago, 4201 said:

Yet there is a past that always feels more correct than other pasts. If I yell something loud and then try to convince you I haven't yelled it wouldn't work out so well. If you experienced something directly in the last 5 seconds it's quite "true". Maybe it's not Absolutely true but it's really close to true.

Even if you construct reality and construct the past right now, there is a past that aligns with source and pasts that we could say are dishonest (the imagined past in which I did not yell).

This idea that space time was more dense in the past seems to be a past that aligns with source, it is in accordance with the evidence we have. It differs from lies I could create right now.

What is this distinction? Past created by God vs past created by Ego? It sure puzzles me and holding a past as true can be risky since it can be defined to be whatever. But without a past you can't really do much. How could you understand this message if you don't remember the last sentence you just read? How could you understand this message if you don't remember the last sentence you just read? How could you understand this message if you don't remember the last sentence you just read? How could you understand this message if you don't remember the last sentence you just read? How...

I agree with all that. I was pointing to something entirely different than the story of the Big Bang, which seems to be true in the story, as you seem to indicate. I was pointing out a view which itself points to nonduality. This is timelessly the Big Bang right here and now, but as the unconditioned.

[4201]

16 minutes ago, The0Self said:

I agree with all that. I was pointing to something entirely different than the story of the Big Bang, which seems to be true in the story, as you seem to indicate. I was pointing out a view which itself points to nonduality. This is timelessly the Big Bang right here and now, but as the unconditioned.

I wouldn't agree with myself honestly, I feel quite contradicted hahaha

I thought you were referring to the idea that all past is imagined right now, using the big bang as one example of a past event which is only experienced right now as an idea.

But my bad, let me take what you said more directly then. 

Quote

The beginning of each sensation = its end

I really struggle to see what you mean there and the analogy with the big bang and big crunch. Right now if I feel into my body, I have sensations but there's no beginning or end to those. The idea of beginning and end doesn't come. I could use a clock to write down when I start sensing something and stop sensing something but it would be quite funny to do so. What are the beginnings and ends of sensations, and why are they equal?

If I were to try and define beginnings and ends to sensation, it would be entirely through memory. I could define a story in which I started feeling at some point and stopped feeling at some other point. But that wouldn't be feeling, more like ideas about past feelings.

Edited July 3, 2021 by 4201

[The0Self]

13 hours ago, 4201 said:

The idea of beginning and end doesn't come.

I’m talking about beginnings and endings on a very basic level. Look at this screen. Now look away from the screen. The sensations of looking at the screen ended. Simple as that. And each apparent moment of sensation is a sensation itself, the beginning of each of which, is simultaneous with (and is) its end. Simple anicca. Of course there’s no real beginning and end but that’s precisely because there’s no separation between them.

13 hours ago, 4201 said:

If I were to try and define beginnings and ends to sensation, it would be entirely through memory. I could define a story in which I started feeling at some point and stopped feeling at some other point. But that wouldn't be feeling, more like ideas about past feelings.

I’m not talking about it on that level. I’m referring to the beginning of EACH / every single apparent individual sensation unit in time.

Every individual sensation of the infinite. This is the beginning and end of all of them — though it may not appear that way. It points to a meta perspective that itself can spill over into timeless non-duality.

Does that clarify what I meant?

Edited July 3, 2021 by The0Self

[4201]

56 minutes ago, The0Self said:

The sensations of looking at the screen ended.

That's an idea. The only sensations are right now, the idea that I looked at a screen is a story that I believe. After I no longer look at the screen, there is nothing left of it but the thought of me having looked at it.

56 minutes ago, The0Self said:

And each apparent moment of sensation is a sensation itself, the beginning of each of which, is simultaneous with (and is) its end. 

Now we are on the same page. The idea of "a me having looked at a screen" is experienced right now as "what happened" and this is a sensation, right now. There is no beginning nor end, only a present moment and ideas about the past which is experienced right now.

56 minutes ago, The0Self said:

I’m not talking about it on that level. I’m referring to the beginning of EACH / every single apparent individual sensation unit in time.

Every individual sensation of the infinite. This is the beginning and end of all of them — though it may not appear that way. It points to a meta perspective that itself can spill over into timeless non-duality.

Does that clarify what I meant?

I'm sorry but no this paragraph only complicates it hahaha

Dualities are being created in order to be able to talk about specific sensations. If my finger hurt I'm creating a duality (an "invidivual" sensation) about my finger being separate from the rest of my body (which does not hurt as my finger does). But I'm also creating it "in time" that is I'm comparing the sensation of my finger hurting to perhaps a past (or future) in which it did not hurt, thus creating another duality.

Those dualities of HERE vs THERE or NOW vs NOT NOW seems to me to be the most basic dualities one create when trying to express a sensation. It's true that NOT NOW is can be both past or future as long as it's not now. If this is what you are trying to say with beginning = end (past ~= future = not now) then fine but this whole chronological way of defining sensations as events with beginnings and ends is quite absurd to me. 

The only concern I had with my initial reply was to the idea of "The past did not happen!!" when in fact there is a past that feels correct and pasts that feel like lies. This perhaps is my personal problem with the deconstruction of time and doesn't seem to have to do with what you were saying in the first place.

Edited July 3, 2021 by 4201

[The0Self]

@4201

I hear you. But what I’m pointing to is just “a little to the left” so to speak. All you have to do is give up the notion that what I’m talking about happens in time.

 

7 minutes ago, 4201 said:

The only concern I had with my initial reply was to the idea of "The past did not happen!!" when in fact there is a past that feels correct and pasts that feel like lies. This perhaps is my personal problem with the deconstruction of time and doesn't seem to have to do with what you were saying in the first place.

You are correct in that this has nothing to do with what I’m talking about.