How did spirituality, belief in God and the continuing search for God change you?

[Dontaskme]

Who or what is this "your"?

Dear Ken... it's not easy putting this subject into words, I'm probably the most crap at it out of everybody. However I do it because I too am trying to understand the Nondual nature of reality and believe me it is very confusing when we have been told from cradle to grave that we are separate human people. So, by writing it down and sharing it with others, I'm hoping to gain more insight into my own understandings from their feedback.. I feel I am somehow helping myself and hopefully others to understand the human condition and why they seem to believe they are a separate being apart from the world out there... not all people believe it, but the majority do...I'm not trying to prove anything other than it's all about wanting to understand myself so I can understand others, albeit illusory others ..lol. This forum is the only platform on which I can do this, I have tried to discuss this with my family without success, my friends and family practically disowned me when ever I attempt to talk to them about it.

Nonduality cannot be known using words alone... as words covey the exact opposite from what's actually being pointed to, words being objective/dual by their very nature. There can be a recognising in the words as they are used to point to the point wanting to be made, but the words cannot do this any justice, that comes from direct silent seeing only.

Thanks for your comments, but to save me keep repeating myself, which is very exhausting.... here is a link to an article from the Science and Nonduality group called (SAND) ... worth a ponder at least if your interested.

THE TRUE MEETING OF SCIENCE AND SPIRITUALITY (SAND)
The mission of Science and Nonduality (SAND) is to forge a new paradigm in spirituality, one that is not dictated by religious dogma, but that is rather based on timeless wisdom traditions of the world, informed by cutting-edge science, and grounded in direct experience.

Hope this article, one of thousands and thousands freely available on www internet... helps you with your own personal inquiry.... https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/if ... conscious/

Good luck in your quest for truth.

I was thinking of going on holiday, but I'm changing my mind, can't decide, or is that I can't be bothered, hmm, just don't know, lets see what happens when it happens.

[ken]

The only thing that still remained was the question, what was BEFORE the big bang. My last hope. Obvious Leo explained that one away.

May I ask what was explained away?

And what do you now see?

This universe is time and space with matter and energy. If we go back towards what is called the singularity at some point time and space did not exist. Since time did not exist there was no before. Whatever or whenever this universe was created was created out of existence which was in some other state altogether and which we cannot intuit. So it would be safe to call it existence. This is what I understood and it makes sense to me. I am not very good at science so my explanations might be unsatisfactory but Obvious Leo has given detailed explanations in some thread which I cannot find.

Sounds fair enough, however, if we go back towards what is called the singularity, that point, in of itself, does not necessitate that time and space did not exist. At the end of black holes NOW there is what is called 'singularity', infinite compression of matter, and time and space (from some people's perspectives) still exists. Us human beings observing the observable universe is living proof of this. (I said from some people's perspectives because some do not believe time exists whilst others do not believe space exists.)

That singular(ity) point, where it is said, the universe began, was created, or came into existence does not mean that this is actually what happened. There is no proof the universe began, was created, etc. If the singular(ity) points that exist NOW, at the end of black holes, and "time" and "space" with energy and matter existed prior to these singularities, then "time" and "space" and energy and matter could have existed prior to the big bang. "Time" and "space" with energy and matter obviously existed before the black holes of now. You would have to wonder how a singularity, which is made up of infinite compression of matter could come into being if there was not matter prior to it?

Anyway, when we look out from earth now we can not see anything that appears finite. With bigger and better telescopes and computers is it any coincidence that the observable universe seems to be expanding. Stars, planets, galaxies moving away from each other does not necessarily mean the universe is expanding. It just means these things are moving apart from each other. If the universe is made up of space and matter, then no matter what apparently is the most outer pieces of matter, there obviously would have to be space past that, and how space could be finite, beyond matter being what makes up its finiteness, is intuitively unknown. There could be no wall, boundary, or outer case without the ever wondering question of what is beyond that "outer edge"? Also, if light diminishes over time and/or distance, then how would we ever know the exact extend of the universe. There could be countless stars out there. Intuitively there is no end, spatially or eternally (space nor time wise), to the universe.

Now, back to earth, and when we look what happens here. If there is an explosion (a bang) on earth we can find out what existed at the explosion. We can do this by putting all the pieces back together. We can then know the shape and size of what is was and what it was made up of. But without the trigger that caused the explosion we do not know what caused the bang. If we were not there first hand we will we ever know, for sure, what was prior that bang. But obviously there was something that caused/created that bang. Also obviously there was some thing (matter) and no thing (space) for that thing to explode "into". This is exactly how we reached the knowledge we have of the big bang and what we know of it and what it is made up of.

Now back to singularity and that explosion (that we call the big bang). Subconsciously calling it 'the' big bang is like it was the one and only bang. 'The' also can bring with it an implication of beginnings. If we stop thinking of the big bang as the beginning of creation and instead of being possibly just 'a' or one bang out of many that do/or possibly do happen with all the other singularities at the end of black holes. Although, as far as we know, it is a relatively big bang to us in our very, very short period of existence. At the end of each black hole the infinite compression of matter may come to a point of explosion, which of itself the bang closes off the black hole. The explosion could be throwing out bits of matter just like the one we call the big one. If light can not escape a black hole, then we may never notice this happening.

Even if closure of the black hole does not happen the universe is still changed in shape and form in some way. If singularity of one of the black holes of now exploded with a "big" bang, in a few billion years a, so called, intelligent being may evolve and after thousand upon thousand or millions of years they might come to understand that that big bang was the beginning/creation of their observable universe. Although we were alive billions of years prior to that bang. And because they could not go past before "their" big bang they may make the wrong conclusion that it was the beginning or creation of "their universe". If the black hole that created "their" singularity was closed off, then this could appear to them that "their universe" is supposedly expanding also. They could not see/understand what was prior to what they call 'the' big bang, especially if they are/were saying that it was the beginning.

In an infinite universe the tiny few billions of years since that bang, the one we call the big one, would be relatively not much at all. The black hole that existed and caused the singularity prior to "the big bang", if there was one, could have been existing for hundreds/thousands/millions of times longer than the relatively tiny 15 or so billion years from the big bang till now. There would have had to be a considerable amount of time for the amount of matter to be infinite compressed to (re)form the universe as we know it now. The amount of stars, planets, galaxies, etc., getting sucked into that black hole could be, coincidentally, just as much as what we see now as the "observable" universe.

I apologize that this is not well written and may be somewhat confusing. I am just in the process of learning how to write. My main point of all is that if we stop using language, although it may be un or subconsciously language, which implies/infers that the universe had a beginning and just used language instead that allowed us to remain completely open to look at all the possibilities, then we may find what is correct sooner, rather than later.

In your second and third sentence, "If we go back towards what is called the singularity at some point time and space did not exist. Since time did not exist there was no before.", I do not see how or why time and space HAD TO stop existing. We can call, what was before the big bang "existence, which was in some other state altogether", BUT, we can also call it the exact same universe, and thus the exact same existence that exists NOW, just in another shape and form. The fact is the universe is always changing in shape and form, it can not stop changing, and with an eternal universe, possibly changing in all ways also. To me, anyway, an infinite and eternal universe makes far more sense than one that just began, out of ...?

When I say explained away, I do not mean that it convinced me that the above is exactly what happened. But it did create a possibility that was far more likely than a universe created by God.

Regarding "god", no one has yet given me any definition of what god could possibly be. To me, if god supposedly created everything and is in everything, and everything is in A continual state of change (or creation), then to me god, in the physical sense, is just the universe, itself. God/the universe is just creating Its Self continually through an evolutionary change, eternally-NOW.

Sorry for the lengthy reply.

[Dontaskme]

There is only consciousness, and everything happens, arises in consciousness which is not a thing, therefore there is nothing outside of consciousness either.

Just because consciousness may not be a (physical) thing, that, in of itself, does NOT mean that there is nothing outside of consciousness. Your attempt at an argument is not sound.

Okay Ken, I will do my best. I'll start with the one above.

Where is inside / outside ..? these ideas are arbitrary statements appearing in a conscious experience. So who is conscious?
Something other than the person is conscious, and conscious of the person too. That consciousness doesn't start or stop. You can't find an edge where consciousness stops and another consciousness begins. Where does mine stop and yours begin? Do you choose to be conscious, if you did, then you surely you would be able to choose not to be conscious, but you can't do that in the immediate moment, you can't just switch it off and on when you like, because it's not yours, the only way you could switch it off is by literally killing yourself, but even then you wouldn't know if it was off or not. So how would this consciousness get outside of itself. There is no edge to the universe. It's all encompassing infinitely. It's synonymous to an infinite sphere, whose centre is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere. What could possibly exist outside of that arena, each time it tried to step out of itself it would simultaneously move along side with it like it was trying to jump over it's own shadow.. just using that analogy as an example of how this cannot get outside of itself. The contents of consciousness and consciousness are the same one being fully embodied. Consciousness is like empty space in which everything appears and is what makes appearances possible. Where in space does one thing start and another thing finish, isn't it all one seamless space.

Do you know what that reason is? Your, "for what ever reason" words implies that you do not.
If you do not know the reason, then how do you know that there is a reason?

Well all I'm trying to say here is that the reason something happens at all is because it did happen. If something happens it was surely meant to happen because that's just what happened, the happenings become known in the instant it happened by the only knowing there is and that is in the conscious experience of what happened. And so everything that happens happens because it wants to happen otherwise it wouldn't have happened. And that's the reason it happened. This is just musings and ramblings that are arising in consciousness, no one is speaking this, it's just happening, including the dialog of why or for what reason it is happening.

[Dontaskme]

THE PROBLEM LIES IN THE FACT THAT MOST PEOPLE JUST DON'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE ACTUAL MEANING OF THE WORD LOVE IS

Does yelling this sentence out mean that you know what the actual meaning of the word 'love' is? If so, please enlighten us.

I never did get why people assume if something appears in caps it's because they are yelling.

I didn't actually intend for that to show in capitals, my keyboard [caps lock ] got jammed just at the moment when typing the sentence and the ideas to post it was also an after thought, not even intended. I saw it was in caps after I'd written it all, but then couldn't be bothered to change it.

Love to me means all is one. Not two...that's it, only love is real everything else is illusion.

I'm not here to enlighten people, this annoys me because people immediately set them selves apart, oh he/she is enlightened and I'm not so please enlighten me, I'm tired of such pettiness. No thing is enlightened. Everything is already enlightened. It's only the human that sets itself apart.

Dogs and cats are just two perfect examples of what enlightenment is.

[ken]

There is only consciousness, and everything happens, arises in consciousness which is not a thing, therefore there is nothing outside of consciousness either.

Just because consciousness may not be a (physical) thing, that, in of itself, does NOT mean that there is nothing outside of consciousness. Your attempt at an argument is not sound.

Okay Ken, I will do my best. I'll start with the one above.

Where is inside / outside ..?

I already have my view of the big picture, which is increasingly being proven correct all the time. I have learnt that there is no use me providing where inside and outside is, when you already believe you know what the answer is.

If you want to show something that "we" supposedly can not see yet, then it is best you define the words you use. You used the word 'outside', so were is outside to you?

You suggested that there is only consciousness. So everything happens and arises in that thing, i.e., consciousness, which is not actually a thing, therefore there is nothing outside of that thing, i.e., consciousness.

I was just suggesting that to say that there is only one thing, and that that thing is nothing and there is nothing outside of that nothing, would then mean that there is no physical thing/s anywhere, which is incorrect is it not?

Also, for consciousness to exist would it need some (physical) things for it to be conscious of?
Could consciousness exist if there was nothing (for it) to be conscious of?
Just somethings/questions to think about, and hopefully provide answers to. Might help 'Us'. 'I' am just reflecting here. Maybe dontaskme might like to change names to something like askme instead? 'I' am positively sure consciousness (My Self) does not fear reflection and answering.

these ideas are arbitrary statements appearing in a conscious experience. So who is conscious?

This is one of the questions I asked you. Who or what is this "your"? In other words who/what is the who, who is conscious?

Since you are telling us, what you want us to see, then I think it is best you define who is conscious clearly for us.

My view of conscious might not fit in with your view, which would interfere with your story telling.

Something other than the person is conscious, and conscious of the person too.

Who/what is the 'something other' than the person. While you are at it who/what actually is the 'person'?

To explain something as glorious as all Life, Its Self, as One you need to be able to look at and SEE, understand, absolutely everything fully, including understanding every single word, and then be able to explain it all fully, sensibly, easily and simply.

Even gaining a full understanding of 'understanding' is needed to understand how to show and explain the Oneness of Life, Itself.

That consciousness doesn't start or stop. You can't find an edge where consciousness stops and another consciousness begins.

What is consciousness?
What is it made up of?
Where does it exist?
Why are you now suggesting here that there is two consciousnesses existing? You are continually contradicting yourself. There is NO 'another' consciousness. So there is no need to suggest it. Unless of course you are speaking of people's own separate thoughts and thinking.

What I see and understand is that there is really only ONE consciousness that knows and that really matters. What every person thinks is not necessarily that important in the scheme of things.

Maybe if you spoke from the 'I' that IS consciousness, instead of from your own thoughts, then that may help you in your quest.

Where does mine stop and yours begin?

Are you saying here that there is two separate consciousnesses now?

Who/what am 'I', which has a consciousness, and who/what are 'you' that has a consciousness?

And where does 'mine' and 'your', supposed, consciousness begin?

There is no need to ask questions if you THINK there is no answer for. Also, if you, yourself, can not provide a clear and agreed upon definition of a word, then you are going to leave the listeners confused. It is like trying to argue for or against "god" yet has any reasonable definition ever been supplied of what it is that some people are actually arguing for or against? How is god defined? Without clear, agreed upon definitions supplied before a truth seeking discussion takes place, then really there is not much use in having the discussion.

By the way, why are you asking me all these questions? Are they not the questions you should be giving us the answers for?

Do you choose to be conscious, if you did, then you surely you would be able to choose not to be conscious, but you can't do that in the immediate moment, you can't just switch it off and on when you like, because it's not yours, the only way you could switch it off is by literally killing yourself, but even then you wouldn't know if it was off or not. So how would this consciousness get outside of itself.

Firstly, define 'you', then define 'conscious', then explain 'be able to choose not to be conscious'. 'I' can do this very easily. How I do this can be explained after you look at and define what it is that you actually mean.

I suggest instead of asking questions that you THINK I am unable to answer you just supply the answer yourself. All your questions can be answered very simply and easily. These answers, by the way, do fit the big picture called Life perfectly and are able to be proven scientifically.

Also, just because you think that I am unable to answer your questions does not in of itself then prove what you are thinking/suggesting/believing is correct, true, and right.

You are seeing some of the end and full picture answers but because of your beliefs you are being held back from seeing the full and final big picture.

There is no edge to the universe. It's all encompassing infinitely. It's synonymous to an infinite sphere, whose centre is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere. What could possibly exist outside of that arena, each time it tried to step out of itself it would simultaneously move along side with it like it was trying to jump over it's own shadow.. just using that analogy as an example of how this cannot get outside of itself.

There is no need to say "tried to step out of itself', "move along side with it", and "jump over its own shadow". An all encompassing infinite universe can not try to step out of itself, can not move along side with itself, and does not cast a shadow. An all encompassing infiniteness can NOT do these things. An all encompassing universe IS an all encompassing thing. Consciousness knows that already. Therefore, the argument stands alone - If there is no edge to the universe, then the universe is all encompassing, infinitely.

The contents of consciousness and consciousness are the same one being fully embodied. Consciousness is like empty space in which everything appears and is what makes appearances possible.

There is where you start confusing yourself again. If the universe is All encompassing, then can consciousness be ALL encompassing also if they are not one and the same thing?

If they are the one and the same, and the universe is made up of physical things, then what is your response?

If the universe is not made up of physical things, then please explain.

If consciousness is not a thing as you suggest in the first sentence here, then how does this marry in with an all encompassing universe?

I think what you will find is that 'consciousness' may not be made up of physical matter and it can transcend through physical matter to know all things. Whereas the universe is made up of physical and non-physical things. The universe is the ALL encompassing, with the physicality making up what is whilst the consciousness knows what is. The Oneness you are trying to talk about is the universe It Self, which is in fact made up of at least two things, i.e., the duality of the physical and the non-physical. The universe could not evolve into anything without at least these two things.

Where in space does one thing start and another thing finish, isn't it all one seamless space.

You ask the question so I will guess you are looking for the answer. Again you ask as though you THINK if I can not answer the first part, then your second part is answered with an overwhelming "YES". Trying to use rhetorical questions never passes consciousness test. So, where in space does one thing start and another thing finish, you ask me?
Firstly, your question implies that there are two things here, three things actually, which is kind of confusing since you have been constant in wanting us to consider that there is only oneness. Where in space is one thing start and another thing finish? Three separate things.
Secondly, saying space and things in a sentence already implies, to me anyway, that space is the (non-physical) thing that separates the (physical) things. So there IS at least two things in your oneness.
Thirdly, where in space does on thing start and another thing finish IS at that exact point of where two separate things meet, i.e., space and matter. What defines non-physical space is physical matter and what defines physical matter is non-physical space. Without one you do not have the other. Just imagine the earth and or the moon, or any other physical object, in space. Where any physical thing/object start and another physical thing/object finish is at the outer edge of the physical thing that meets space. The reason I use the word space is because it defines the distance between or surrounding physical matter. The definition of 'space' here is distance, as in between two physical objects.
Fourthly, So, the answer to "isn't it all one seamless space" is "NO".

If there was one seamless space, then there would not be any thing else. Even if there was consciousness, although, I do not know how there could be consciousness if there was no thing besides space, but even if there was consciousness with ONLY seamless space, then there would be no use for consciousness. There is nothing else to share, the consciousness of seamless space, with. In fact there would be nothing to be conscious of, all together.

Do you know what that reason is? Your, "for what ever reason" words implies that you do not.
If you do not know the reason, then how do you know that there is a reason?

Well all I'm trying to say here is that the reason something happens at all is because it did happen.

Because something did happen at all is NOT the reason WHY something happens. Saying because it did happen says and means exactly what is says. It did happen, that says nothing else nothing more.

If something happens it was surely meant to happen because that's just what happened,

Again, just because that is just what happened does NOT mean that something was surely meant to happen. Obviously something did happen because of what happened prior to that, but there is nothing here that explains the reason why. All this leads to is that there must be causality. Consciousness knows the reason why everything happens. Consciousness knows the reason why IT all is happening NOW. By the way the reason why everything happens is far more glorious, amazing and wonderful than you could have ever imagined. The answer is also rather strikingly a very easy and simple answer.

the happenings become known in the instant it happened by the only knowing there is and that is in the conscious experience of what happened. And so everything that happens happens because it wants to happen otherwise it wouldn't have happened.

Saying "everything happens because "it" wants to happen otherwise it wouldn't have happened" is easy to say but what is the "it" that wants to happen? Any examples?

And that's the reason it happened.

What is the reason "it" happened? Is the reason the same for every "it"?

And, by the way what exactly is "it" that happened?

This is just musings and ramblings that are arising in consciousness, no one is speaking this, it's just happening, including the dialog of why or for what reason it is happening.

I know why this is happening. 'I' am consciousness. Since 'I' is supposedly just musing and rambling, why do you believe in things that are NOT true, right, and correct whereas I would not do that?

Seeing as though 'I' have been answering the questions through ken's fingers and keyboard. Maybe it is 'MY' (consciousness's) turn to answer this question from dontaskme's fingers and keyboard?

Let us all see if dontaskme has found the way to full consciousness yet. For what reason is "it" happening? Better still, what is "it" and how do 'I', consciousness, teach 'Me' to reach/find 'My Self' '?

Apology for lengthy reply. I like to try to look and see (understand) everything and anything from ALL perspectives.

[Dontaskme]

This is one of the questions I asked you. Who or what is this "your"? In other words who/what is the who, who is conscious?

Since you are telling us, what you want us to see, then I think it is best you define who is conscious clearly for us.

Well this is my perspective. For the sake of communication.. I use the word ''your'' in ''your consciousness'' from the first person pronoun perspective as a reference point to what's being pointed to which is formless awareness or consciousness. A person doesn't have consciousness a person is the mechanism whereby consciousness or awareness looks through in order to see itself as every thing known as seen. The human brain is kind of like the interface between two worlds, one side is invisible and the other is visible, one side is timelessly empty without form the other is full with form in time. The form is only a conceptual dream the empty form is dreaming...the character formed by the concept mistakenly believes it is the one conscious without realising the concept is without an author since is it sourced in emptiness or awareness, and that the concept human is an illusory appearance of the formless nameless empty awareness seeing itself in conceptual form.

That's who the I is ? and all the many other I's ...they're all the same one I. Through the human instrument the embodied awareness can then form as many concepts as it desires, making up meaning or purpose in life, but are all creations of nothing like a dream. The world is only the brains interpretation of it, awareness looks through the brain an instrument it uses to see itself, without which there is no world to interpret.Be that as it may, recognise, that just as these words on the computer screen are not aware of themselves as words and the thoughts in your head are not aware of themselves as thoughts and the voice in your head is not aware of itself speaking, there is 'that' which is aware of these words, thoughts and voice right now: 'awareness' itself. That's what the you is and not the you that you think you are, your not the concept but what's aware of the concept. Only awareness is aware as it looks as and through every body/mind mechanism at itself.However interpreted...formless awareness awakens to itself it's formless nature through this form body/mind mechanism, the only instrument available that it can use to make the universe.

Is that okay?

Bye the way I agree with all your other replies to my comments.

Let us all see if dontaskme has found the way to full consciousness yet. For what reason is "it" happening? Better still, what is "it" and how do 'I', consciousness, teach 'Me' to reach/find 'My Self' '?

The way to find your self is to BE it. You can't get or find it. It's already being you. The you doesn't have to DO anything. You are done. This can be realised. It's a realisation.

Now that awareness is aware of itself. It can make-up just about anything it like about the reality it so desires, give it what ever meaning or purpose, it's free to make it's dreams come true, it is infinite in creative juice.

I was just suggesting that to say that there is only one thing, and that that thing is nothing and there is nothing outside of that nothing, would then mean that there is no physical thing/s anywhere, which is incorrect is it not?

There is no solidity or physical thing existing in the universe. All things physical are concepts. The whole universe is an ethereal mental construct. That it appears solid and physical is the illusion. The nothingness that we are is eclipsed by the appearance of somethingness, but both are the same no thing. No thing does not mean absolutely nothing whatsoever, it means there is existence but it is without concept. It is totally Tacit.

Saying "everything happens because "it" wants to happen otherwise it wouldn't have happened" is easy to say but what is the "it" that wants to happen? Any examples?

The it to me is the potential or probability. Anything that can happen will happen sometime in eternity. If it happened it's because it already existed.

Who/what is the 'something other' than the person. While you are at it who/what actually is the 'person'?

The something is no thing or what ever label we want to call it. I call it pure awareness without an object in mind. That's the something from the first person perspective, the awareness aware of itself being something.

If there was one seamless space, then there would not be any thing else. Even if there was consciousness, although, I do not know how there could be consciousness if there was no thing besides space, but even if there was consciousness with ONLY seamless space, then there would be no use for consciousness. There is nothing else to share, the consciousness of seamless space, with. In fact there would be nothing to be conscious of, all together.

Consciousness is space. I don't know how I know this but I do.

It is not known how Nondual seamless empty space and it's contents appear to split into subject and object duality. Only the absolute know that. All that's known is what it imagines to know. There is no space without an object to define it, and no object without space, but they are each inseparable from each other.

If you want to show something that "we" supposedly can not see yet, then it is best you define the words you use. You used the word 'outside', so were is outside to you?

I'm using the word outside as a way of showing people the illusion they believe to exist. There is nothing outside a conscious experience. Consciousness without an object is not a concept. It is everything all encompassing. Therefore there is no such place as outside or inside, these are concepts arising in that which is not a concept.. there is just here, and God knows where that is. In the world of duality cause and effect in time and space, it is thought that there is something here (me) and another thing over there (you). We are taught to see reality like that in order to make sense of and live sanely and cooperatively. Since not many people are going to understand that everything is just oneness expressing itself in myriad of body minds and forms.

Also, for consciousness to exist would it need some (physical) things for it to be conscious of?
Could consciousness exist if there was nothing (for it) to be conscious of?

Yes, but the physical things are it's illusions cast like the shadows of the sun...as an example, the sun that cast no shadow is the castor of all shadows.

Awareness is only present when the action figure agent is there. Aka the sensation, emotions and thoughts. They appear together in conjunction as and when they appear, otherwise their is neither, just pure empty silence like in deep dreamless sleep or death.

Maybe dontaskme might like to change names to something like askme instead? 'I' am positively sure consciousness (My Self) does not fear reflection and answering.

The reason I chose this user name is because I'm trying to make a point in that I know nothing that you don't know yourself. But who is going to know that's why I chose it. To be honest I dislike the user name now, do you think I could change it and how would I do that?

[ken]

THE PROBLEM LIES IN THE FACT THAT MOST PEOPLE JUST DON'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE ACTUAL MEANING OF THE WORD LOVE IS

Does yelling this sentence out mean that you know what the actual meaning of the word 'love' is? If so, please enlighten us.

I never did get why people assume if something appears in caps it's because they are yelling.

The reason I "assume" if something is written in caps is yelling is because one of the first times I entered a forum website I looked up the 'rules' page and it stated there that the use of caps was for yelling. It made sense to me. I did not make that up myself.

Love to me means all is one. Not two...that's it, only love is real everything else is illusion.

This is confusing again.

Firstly, does this mean love and consciousness is one and the same thing? If so, then why the two different names?

Secondly, There is no need to say everything else is an illusion. Saying "everything else" implies there is actual other things. If there is no other thing, then there is no other thing. If love is the ONLY real thing, then obviously there would not be any other thing. Stating "everything else" only confuses the issue here.

I'm not here to enlighten people, this annoys me because people immediately set them selves apart, oh he/she is enlightened and I'm not so please enlighten me, I'm tired of such pettiness. No thing is enlightened. Everything is already enlightened. It's only the human that sets itself apart.

Your writing is very confusing, for example:
"No thing is enlightened', but, "everything is already enlightened", which one is it? Or provide more detail. Do you mean, There is no thing that is NOT enlightened, and therefore everything is (already) enlightened? If so, then there is no use in the double negative sentence. Saying, "No thing is enlightened" makes NO sense at all.
"It's only the human..." You say this as though 'human' is separate from love. But if, and only if, love is the only real thing, then there is no other (real) thing, human included.

To me, there needs to be a human body, and a computer, to write these words that you are now reading. If 'i' am a human being, then 'i', for one, do not set myself apart from Oneness, as you are suggesting humans do. What 'i' do do however is use the words, as they are supposed to be used, i.e., as labels to identify and show all the differing parts of Oneness. To see the whole big picture one firstly needs to be able to see all of its parts also. The whole picture, or the wholeness of One, is only the sum of all of its parts. Being able to separate and see and understand all the parts of the Oneness may be only something humans can do, but having the amazing human brain, is a blessing and not a bad thing as such. It will be after all ONLY the human brain that can put all the pieces of the puzzle together to form and thus see (understand) the big picture of Life. If 'you' counted yourself lucky as being one of the few parts, the human part, that is able to do that and stopped assuming that ALL humans set themselves apart, then you might concentrate more on what it is that you want to do, i.e., explain what it is that 'you' are trying to explain.

'I', for One, do not set anything apart. 'I' do however try to look at what really happens, and at all the parts that make what really happens, happen.

By the way, if you allow yourself to be annoyed by something else, then by your own words and actions you have already set yourself apart, from the other thing/s, which you also and confusing say do not exist. If something supposedly annoys you, then do not separate "it" from "you", be the Oneness only instead. If you look very closely, saying, "I'm tired of such pettiness", is also saying that you are separated, from pettiness, itself, as well as from the people who are saying the things that you say is "such pettiness". 'You' are the one who is continually setting yourself apart from the "others" here. 'You' are the one who is doing what you say makes you tired.

'You' really do have to be very careful in choosing words and in what you say. If 'pettiness', means of small importance, and you say that you are tired of the things that are of such small importance, then you really are showing 'me' the hypocrisy in what you are saying. You suggest humans stop setting themselves apart but you continually do this yourself. And, you are also doing this with the smallest of importance of things.

Discovering, understanding and knowing Oneness is wonderful, but expecting ALL human beings to be able to see the same as 'you' and at the same time as 'you' is setting 'them' apart from 'you'. Doing this is only disproving the Oneness that does exist. Self disciple to learning and patience in Self to gain the knowledge needed, is needed here. This is, as 'you' would already know, is not directed to 'you' but rather is directed to thee (or they) Self. Not yet sure if it is meant to be 'thee' or 'they' here.

Dogs and cats are just two perfect examples of what enlightenment is.

[/quote]

"Two" (perfect examples). Again how you can say there is only Oneness but keep referring to two different things?
Is that the two different things that is a dog and a cat?
Or, is that the two different labels that only humans give to two differing parts of the One thing?
What is it exactly that you want us to see here in that statement?
What is enlightenment exactly?
I would lean more to the side that says when dogs and cats are chasing one another that they see the other as a separate thing. I do not think cats and dogs see themselves as One.

To me human beings are the ONLY ones that are able to learn, understand and reason absolutely everything (and anything). This ability i would have thought is part of what enlightenment is. I am not sure how dogs and cats are two "perfect" examples of what enlightenment is.

Enlightenment, to me anyway, is being able to recognize and see (understand) Oneness for what It truly is. Full enlightenment is being able to explain and show to ALL human beings how to also be able to know and recognize Oneness from all Its parts. Reaching full enlightenment with and for every One is done when 'We' are ALL living as One in peace and harmony.

Even if ALL people are born already knowing what is right and what is wrong, which is what I think you will find is meant by your "everything is already enlightened" statement, BUT, you seriously do not expect any new born baby nor adult to be able to recognize and know enlightenment already, especially when they are brought up in a world where people continually cause pain, misery and suffering, do you? Of all of what you know how much of it exactly was learnt from your past experiences and how much of it did were you already enlightened to? I could argue that almost everything that people "know" was actually learnt, from past experiences, and was not what they were already enlightened to. However, I will not do this because actually the meaningful knowledge needed for living a truly meaningful life is already enlightened within us. This is what is important and what would be better to become aware of.

The awareness of what love and enlightenment really is evolves. This awareness is gained through a process of learning and sharing (teaching). Human beings are not able to teach what they themselves do not yet know, what they already know. ALL human beings WILL eventually discover and learn that they already are instinctively enlightened beings. They just need to be able to learn how to see and recognize this fact. 'To be able' to do this, people firstly need to want to learn how to do this. But 'you', or 'I', or even Oneness Itself, are not able to make any person do what they do not want to do. People have to be prepared to do something themselves before they can do it.

[sthitapragya]

Sounds fair enough, however, if we go back towards what is called the singularity, that point, in of itself, does not necessitate that time and space did not exist. At the end of black holes NOW there is what is called 'singularity', infinite compression of matter, and time and space (from some people's perspectives) still exists. Us human beings observing the observable universe is living proof of this. (I said from some people's perspectives because some do not believe time exists whilst others do not believe space exists.)

This was again explained by Obvious Leo to me. He says time is actually a measurement of events which can be broken down to Planck time, which is the shortest possible time for any inter-action between the smallest particles to take place. At the singularity, due to the insane temperatures and pressures ( I am not sure about the pressures), there was literally no event taking place at all. And hence no time. Again, hypothesis but to a layman like me, it makes sense.

That singular(ity) point, where it is said, the universe began, was created, or came into existence does not mean that this is actually what happened. There is no proof the universe began, was created, etc. If the singular(ity) points that exist NOW, at the end of black holes, and "time" and "space" with energy and matter existed prior to these singularities, then "time" and "space" and energy and matter could have existed prior to the big bang. "Time" and "space" with energy and matter obviously existed before the black holes of now. You would have to wonder how a singularity, which is made up of infinite compression of matter could come into being if there was not matter prior to it?

Well, what we call matter could be some completely unrecognizable thing under high temperatures. Also as I explained before whatever was could very well have been in a state that no event took place at all, and hence there was no time. Without time, space becomes irrelevant and so does everything else. However, I do not dispute that there was something. I cannot agree with the idea of nothing so it seems more appropriate to call whatever existed "before" the space time universe (before in quotes because there was no before so it is just a term) Existence. We have no clue what form it was or what state it was in. Without events taking place we can simply call it existence in another state. What that state was is not possible to intuit.

Anyway, when we look out from earth now we can not see anything that appears finite. With bigger and better telescopes and computers is it any coincidence that the observable universe seems to be expanding. Stars, planets, galaxies moving away from each other does not necessarily mean the universe is expanding. It just means these things are moving apart from each other. If the universe is made up of space and matter, then no matter what apparently is the most outer pieces of matter, there obviously would have to be space past that, and how space could be finite, beyond matter being what makes up its finiteness, is intuitively unknown. There could be no wall, boundary, or outer case without the ever wondering question of what is beyond that "outer edge"? Also, if light diminishes over time and/or distance, then how would we ever know the exact extend of the universe. There could be countless stars out there. Intuitively there is no end, spatially or eternally (space nor time wise), to the universe.

This took me a lot of reading and re-reading and re-re-reading to understand, and my understanding could be completely and totally wrong but for what it is worth, this is what I think expanding space means. Essentially it is the bubble within which events are taking place. ( I use the term bubbles loosely as I have no idea what the universe actually looks like). This is also the bubble within which the laws of science apply. "beyond" this bubble, no events are talking place and since time and space are interdependent, Without time there is no space. What is "beyond" is beyond our intuitive capacity but effectively, it is nothing, just as effectively there was nothing "before" the big bang since no event hence no time hence no space.

I think the rest of your post is again a hypothesis which could very well be true. But the thing to consider is that for each of the big bangs, all events are independent with a starting time of t=0. There is no possible way that any information could be exchanged between one big bang and the other, if indeed that is what happens, since all the laws of Science of that particular universe break down at the black holes within that universe. So to all intents and purposes, there is nothing beyond those black holes just as there is nothing before our big bang. Also, since time is reset to zero, no universe can claim a before or an after, just as no point in the universe can claim to be the center of the universe to the exclusion of any other part of the universe. Every point of the universe is its center. That is intuitively not possible either, but that is how it is.





[/quote]

[Dalek Prime]

It didn't. Its a big waste of time trying to talk to a brick wall of a god. Fuck him and his 'mysterious' ways, that we supposedly can't fathom. I take divine neglect at face value. Nothing 'mysterious' about it.

[Dalek Prime]

Dogs and cats are just two perfect examples of what enlightenment is.

Dogs are insecure children, who shiver and whine when they can't see their masters. I like cats though.

[ken]

This is one of the questions I asked you. Who or what is this "your"? In other words who/what is the who, who is conscious?

Since you are telling us, what you want us to see, then I think it is best you define who is conscious clearly for us.

Well this is my perspective. For the sake of communication.. I use the word ''your'' in ''your consciousness'' from the first person pronoun perspective as a reference point to what's being pointed to which is formless awareness or consciousness. A person doesn't have consciousness a person is the mechanism whereby consciousness or awareness looks through in order to see itself as every thing known as seen. The human brain is kind of like the interface between two worlds, one side is invisible and the other is visible, one side is timelessly empty without form the other is full with form in time. The form is only a conceptual dream the empty form is dreaming...the character formed by the concept mistakenly believes it is the one conscious without realising the concept is without an author since is it sourced in emptiness or awareness, and that the concept human is an illusory appearance of the formless nameless empty awareness seeing itself in conceptual form.

That's who the I is ? and all the many other I's ...they're all the same one I. Through the human instrument the embodied awareness can then form as many concepts as it desires, making up meaning or purpose in life, but are all creations of nothing like a dream. The world is only the brains interpretation of it, awareness looks through the brain an instrument it uses to see itself, without which there is no world to interpret.Be that as it may, recognise, that just as these words on the computer screen are not aware of themselves as words and the thoughts in your head are not aware of themselves as thoughts and the voice in your head is not aware of itself speaking, there is 'that' which is aware of these words, thoughts and voice right now: 'awareness' itself. That's what the you is and not the you that you think you are, your not the concept but what's aware of the concept. Only awareness is aware as it looks as and through every body/mind mechanism at itself.However interpreted...formless awareness awakens to itself it's formless nature through this form body/mind mechanism, the only instrument available that it can use to make the universe.

Is that okay?

Bye the way I agree with all your other replies to my comments.

Yes that is okay, for now. I do know what you are saying but some of your language/words confuses the issue a bit, of which if we both looked deeply into those words and in very fine detail I think I could show why they confuse the issue, but that is not necessary for now. I already KNOW what you are trying to write and explain, and just like you i am clumsily guiding my through trying to find the right words to explain fully that what we already KNOW together.

Let us all see if dontaskme has found the way to full consciousness yet. For what reason is "it" happening? Better still, what is "it" and how do 'I', consciousness, teach 'Me' to reach/find 'My Self' '?

The way to find your self is to BE it. You can't get or find it. It's already being you. The you doesn't have to DO anything. You are done. This can be realised. It's a realisation.

But if i do not know who myself is, then how do i BE "it"?

Can you explain how to BE it? What is the "it" that i can BE?

By the way I already can answer the question Who am I? I have found and able to sort the difference between who 'i' think I am from the real 'I'. I call the one who thinks, they are, the little 'i'. This is the individual person, within every individual body. Each 'person' is just the invisible thoughts and feelings within each body. Whereas the real 'I' is the big and same 'I' that is equally within all bodies. This 'I' is able to see and know ALL. This 'I' i call the Mind, and from the Mind's one and only eye ALL can be seen (understood).

The real 'I' is the One that is aware of everything. It is able to see the thoughts and feelings and hear the voices within the head. It can, for lack of better words, 'stand back' and sort out truth from non-truth. This 'I' is never wrong because It only looks from everything's perspective and thus is in total agreement with ALL.

I came across a way of finding this out and think that way is the same way for all to discover who the real 'I' is in all of us. I was just wondering if you knew how to word doing this better than i do now.

Everything is relative to the observer. If the observer is looking from the One and only Mind or if the observer is looking from one of the many individual persons (the individual thoughts and feelings within one human body) this will affect/effect what is seen and understood. I agree 'awareness', and recognition, of all of this leads to seeing the true and whole picture, that we call Life.

Now that awareness is aware of itself. It can make-up just about anything it like about the reality it so desires, give it what ever meaning or purpose, it's free to make it's dreams come true, it is infinite in creative juice.

Yes so true. It also can find/create the right words to show how ALL can truly live in peace and harmony in One truly loving environment.

I was just suggesting that to say that there is only one thing, and that that thing is nothing and there is nothing outside of that nothing, would then mean that there is no physical thing/s anywhere, which is incorrect is it not?

There is no solidity or physical thing existing in the universe. All things physical are concepts. The whole universe is an ethereal mental construct. That it appears solid and physical is the illusion. The nothingness that we are is eclipsed by the appearance of somethingness, but both are the same no thing. No thing does not mean absolutely nothing whatsoever, it means there is existence but it is without concept. It is totally Tacit.

What do you mean "No thing does not mean absolutely nothing whatsoever"? By definition does not 'No thing', mean absolutely nothing whatsoever? When you put no thing together it actually says what it means, i.e., nothing. No and thing together gives you nothing. 'Nothing', by itself, means absolutely no thing whatsoever.

What is 'existence' without any physical things entail?

I agree that the universe is not "solid" as in it is not fixed and unmovable, unchangeable or immalleable but surely you are not suggesting that the universe is not made up of any physical matter at all, are you?

If you are, then how do you explain the 'human instrument', that the embodied awareness can then form, is actually made up of? What is the human instrument and what is it made up of?

Saying "everything happens because "it" wants to happen otherwise it wouldn't have happened" is easy to say but what is the "it" that wants to happen? Any examples?

The it to me is the potential or probability. Anything that can happen will happen sometime in eternity. If it happened it's because it already existed.

Potential and probability exists NOW. Always has and always will, in all ways. When human beings fully realize this, then a paradigm shift can and will take place.

Who/what is the 'something other' than the person. While you are at it who/what actually is the 'person'?

The something is no thing or what ever label we want to call it. I call it pure awareness without an object in mind. That's the something from the first person perspective, the awareness aware of itself being something.

What i am aware of is the thoughts (and feelings) within this body is just the person, which is just the product of the environment (time and place) that the body has lived in. What this person thinks and sees in not necessarily that important. This person can only provide views from what it has experienced, which may be wrong or right, and in the scheme of things that is very very little.

What is important is that consciousness, Itself, has become aware of who it truly is and how It can have an influence on everything. This is highly important as Its own Self is in fact the exact same as every things. This universal Self takes care of Its Self, i.e., everything as One.

If there was one seamless space, then there would not be any thing else. Even if there was consciousness, although, I do not know how there could be consciousness if there was no thing besides space, but even if there was consciousness with ONLY seamless space, then there would be no use for consciousness. There is nothing else to share, the consciousness of seamless space, with. In fact there would be nothing to be conscious of, all together.

Consciousness is space. I don't know how I know this but I do.

Yes you are right. There are some things that people do instinctively know but they are not sure how they know this. My task here is learn the right language to show how this actually happens. When that language comes about then that will be part of revealing all there is to reveal.

This may help, think of the Mind like this. The Mind is a non-physical, invisible thing. If we cut any human body open we are not going to see nor find the Mind anywhere. Although the Mind is like, you say, space It is/has consciousness. The Mind is able to transcend through space/time continuum. With the Mind's eye we can see back in time and ahead in the future. The Mind is the same and the One everywhere and in everything. Although it is said, "We have our own mind", like each and every person has there own mind the truth is each and every person has their own thoughts. The Mind is not thoughts The Mind and thoughts can and do get confused because they are both what we look at, and see, the world from. The 'consciousness' that you talk about is the Mind. The Mind is what allows consciousness to reveal all of life's, previously unknown, mysteries. The Mind's awareness is ALL encompassing.
The Mind is ALL knowing. The Mind allows all knowledge to come to light. As far as we humans know, all knowledge is held within the human brain, as thoughts, as well as stored within literature and computers. The Mind knows, whereas, the brain thinks, it knows.
The Mind is ALL powerful. The Mind allows creativity to thrive. Just look at everything humans have dreamed up, invented and created, the good and the bad. The Mind is not forceful at all. The Mind just allows us to do whatever we humans want. Whatever we have truly wanted we have created. The technology and transport we have, we created. The wars and pollution we have, we created. We have the power to create absolutely anything, eventually. The Mind gives and allows us this power. The Mind is the Creator.

It is not known how Nondual seamless empty space and it's contents appear to split into subject and object duality.

How can you say accurately seamless empty space AND its contents together. If space is empty, then it does not have contents.

Only the absolute know that. All that's known is what it imagines to know. There is no space without an object to define it, and no object without space, but they are each inseparable from each other.

The only thing 'you', the person, can be sure of is the thoughts being had in that head that you exist in. 'Thoughts', themselves, is who 'you' are. Everything else COULD be an illusion.

The only thing 'I', the Mind, can be sure of is everything. The Mind is absolute and knows ALL.

If you want to show something that "we" supposedly can not see yet, then it is best you define the words you use. You used the word 'outside', so were is outside to you?

I'm using the word outside as a way of showing people the illusion they believe to exist. There is nothing outside a conscious experience. Consciousness without an object is not a concept. It is everything all encompassing. Therefore there is no such place as outside or inside, these are concepts arising in that which is not a concept.. there is just here, and God knows where that is. In the world of duality cause and effect in time and space, it is thought that there is something here (me) and another thing over there (you). We are taught to see reality like that in order to make sense of and live sanely and cooperatively. Since not many people are going to understand that everything is just oneness expressing itself in myriad of body minds and forms.

Why would not many people understand the last part of your last sentence here? It makes far more sense that to say "we are taught to see reality like that in order to make sense of and live sanely and cooperatively. What we are taught and what is reality, at times, could not be further afield. Why did you use the word 'god'? What is 'your' definition of god? Obviously what we have been taught as not taught us to live sanely and cooperatively. What has been taught under the name of 'god' could also be in fact a huge part of what has caused us to live insanely and uncooperatively

For me, in the world of "duality" cause and effect in time and space, it is thought that the universe is One, with Its Self, and in an always-continual state of change (evolution). The always action, reaction, re-action process is called the Creator creating Its Self always-NOW. This happens until one day when an intelligent enough animal being realizes who 'I' actually am. In other words when consciousness actually becomes awareness, thus aware of Its Self.

Also, for consciousness to exist would it need some (physical) things for it to be conscious of?
Could consciousness exist if there was nothing (for it) to be conscious of?

Yes, but the physical things are it's illusions cast like the shadows of the sun...as an example, the sun that cast no shadow is the castor of all shadows.

The sun casts light. It is a physical object blocking the suns rays that casts the shadow, is it not?

Why do you continue to say things like "the physical thing" are illusions. There is either no physical things or there is not. You can not keep saying there is physical things but they are illusions. It seems ridiculous to me to continually say that the conscious is aware that the physical things, which it is conscious of, are its own illusions.

To me 'conscious' just means being aware, awareness, as in being aware of something. If you are aware of something, then you are conscious of it. I do not see how consciousness, itself, could be aware of an illusion. There has to be something existing for there to be awareness of it.

I do not understand the last part of your sentence here at all.

Awareness is only present when the action figure agent is there. Aka the sensation, emotions and thoughts. They appear together in conjunction as and when they appear, otherwise their is neither, just pure empty silence like in deep dreamless sleep or death.[/quote]

You are only referring to one part of the Oneness here, i.e., one human part. Oneness never sleeps nor dies.

Maybe dontaskme might like to change names to something like askme instead? 'I' am positively sure consciousness (My Self) does not fear reflection and answering.

The reason I chose this user name is because I'm trying to make a point in that I know nothing that you don't know yourself. But who is going to know that's why I chose it. To be honest I dislike the user name now, do you think I could change it and how would I do that?

Not sure if you could nor how you would do it. I guess ask a mod on here.

By saying "I know nothing that you don't know yourself" instantly sets "us" apart. A constant theme throughout your workings. To not show the separateness you need to write not from 'you' but instead from the Oneness.

Just imagine there is just One only, lets call It, the big 'I' but there is roughly 7 billion little 'i's.

There is roughly 7 billion human bodies on earth with one invdividual person inside each of those bodies, with all them setting themselves apart from each other. Each of these individual 'people' are the individual thoughts within the human body are held/stored within the individual brain. This is how the brain works. It likes to see and think every single physical thing is separate and apart from each other. This is not the brains fault. The brain can only give an output of what it has been taught. The brain, like a computer, can not just imagine a much better truer answer. If a person has only been taught it is a separate thing, then how would it learn otherwise? I think it was you who said you had a dreadful, or similar to that, type of experience. Something like this is usually what a person needs in order to change, for the better. Only when new information comes to light it is then gained, and it needs to make sense to the person, the thoughts, which are already existing within the brain, before the person's, outlook on life also changes. If new information does not come to light. A person, in of itself, is not going to just imagine brand new knowledge alone. It is the art/act of putting two pieces of previously held stored 'thoughts', knowledge, together when new information is gained.

There is only One 'I', which 'we', individuals, are all a part of. If 'we' all are in agreement and come together as 'One', universal, 'I' then it is this 'I' that will naturally be in harmony and thus will be the Creator of a truly peaceful world. It is after all the separate views, disagreements, and disputes that is causing the waring and fighting. So the coming together as One is what will cause peace and harmony.

[ken]

Sounds fair enough, however, if we go back towards what is called the singularity, that point, in of itself, does not necessitate that time and space did not exist. At the end of black holes NOW there is what is called 'singularity', infinite compression of matter, and time and space (from some people's perspectives) still exists. Us human beings observing the observable universe is living proof of this. (I said from some people's perspectives because some do not believe time exists whilst others do not believe space exists.)

This was again explained by Obvious Leo to me. He says time is actually a measurement of events which can be broken down to Planck time, which is the shortest possible time for any inter-action between the smallest particles to take place. At the singularity, due to the insane temperatures and pressures ( I am not sure about the pressures), there was literally no event taking place at all. And hence no time. Again, hypothesis but to a layman like me, it makes sense.

For how long was no event taking place? Surely whatever was creating the singularity did not do it un-event-fully.

At singularity, itself, there may well be no event taking place at the instance of explosion, or even while it sat "dormant", BUT to say there is no event taking place at all at singularity does not explain what was making/causing/creating the singularity. Intuitively, to me anyway, something causes/creates singularity. NOWadays we know that black holes cause/create singularity. Singularity is said to appear at the end of the black holes. Although it could easily be argued that at singularity itself because there obviously is no space that then there is no events happening and as such there is no "time", but that still does not mean that the universe began. Obvious to us now is that the universe, through black holes, is creating these such singular things.

That singular(ity) point, where it is said, the universe began, was created, or came into existence does not mean that this is actually what happened. There is no proof the universe began, was created, etc. If the singular(ity) points that exist NOW, at the end of black holes, and "time" and "space" with energy and matter existed prior to these singularities, then "time" and "space" and energy and matter could have existed prior to the big bang. "Time" and "space" with energy and matter obviously existed before the black holes of now. You would have to wonder how a singularity, which is made up of infinite compression of matter could come into being if there was not matter prior to it?

Well, what we call matter could be some completely unrecognizable thing under high temperatures.

If it is a thing, then it is either a physical thing, a non-physical thing, or an unrecognizable thing. Either way a thing is something. For an explosion to occur I would think at least two things are needed, i.e., some thing, and a space for that thing to expand into. Therefore, some things, unrecognizable or not, existed prior to the big bang. We are now able to recognize what those things were that exploded. The evidence is everywhere around us. It appears as matter and energy.

Also as I explained before whatever was could very well have been in a state that no event took place at all, and hence there was no time. Without time, space becomes irrelevant and so does everything else.

Only within infinite compression of matter or within infinite space could no event take place. Even at singularity, singularity is being added to, over how long of a time and at what rate of occurrences, does not matter, but the fact stands from the evidence provided from looking at black holes that items, such as planets, stars and galaxies are being added to singularity for as long as that black hole exists for.

Obviously, if 'singularity', is an infinite compression of matter, then there would be no space. Therefore there would be no event, as such, taking place at its center point. But the singularity itself is being continually added to, that is until a certain instance when singularity changes from an infinite compression of matter into and "ever" expanding explosion of matter.

For an event to occur space and matter together is needed. However we need to be looking at and thinking about what was/is causing/creating the singularity event, itself, and not just keep focusing on the non-eventful center of singularity, itself. Matter moving within space, relative to other matter, is how time is a measurement of events. We can not know see past/before the big bang so we can not measure the event before the big bang. Even if we could see past/prior to singularity we would have nothing we can compare singularity in relation to. If light can not escape a black hole and we are trying to look from the "other" side of singularity outwards, that is prior to singularities explosion, then obviously we could not see anything. From singularity's perspective prior to exploding there is nothing to be seen. Light is sucked up within itself. If light is not reflecting off anything, then there is nothing to be seen, and thus nothing to be relative to.

However, I do not dispute that there was something. I cannot agree with the idea of nothing so it seems more appropriate to call whatever existed "before" the space time universe (before in quotes because there was no before so it is just a term) Existence. We have no clue what form it was or what state it was in. Without events taking place we can simply call it existence in another state. What that state was is not possible to intuit.

To me, anyway, it is intuitively known that what is causing singularity is obviously what was before singularity. If the 'universe', is ALL things, then EVERY THING, including Existence, is a part of the One universe. So, whatever that existed prior to and thus caused singularity it IS still part of the One and only universe that we are in NOW, whatever state it is in and whatever we want to call it 'back then'. Calling 'It' existence does not change the fact that it is still the One and only existence/universe. We now know that black holes create singularity so that is the something "before", that you do not dispute was there. The One space time universe IS Existence, Itself. The only thing that this One and only existing universe does is change in shape and form, continuously. There is nothing other than this universe. There is no other thing besides this universe. There is no multiverses.

Anyway, when we look out from earth now we can not see anything that appears finite. With bigger and better telescopes and computers is it any coincidence that the observable universe seems to be expanding. Stars, planets, galaxies moving away from each other does not necessarily mean the universe is expanding. It just means these things are moving apart from each other. If the universe is made up of space and matter, then no matter what apparently is the most outer pieces of matter, there obviously would have to be space past that, and how space could be finite, beyond matter being what makes up its finiteness, is intuitively unknown. There could be no wall, boundary, or outer case without the ever wondering question of what is beyond that "outer edge"? Also, if light diminishes over time and/or distance, then how would we ever know the exact extend of the universe. There could be countless stars out there. Intuitively there is no end, spatially or eternally (space nor time wise), to the universe.

This took me a lot of reading and re-reading and re-re-reading to understand, and my understanding could be completely and totally wrong but for what it is worth, this is what I think expanding space means. Essentially it is the bubble within which events are taking place. ( I use the term bubbles loosely as I have no idea what the universe actually looks like). This is also the bubble within which the laws of science apply. "beyond" this bubble, no events are talking place and since time and space are interdependent,

But if there is no logical boundary to this so called bubble, then there is no bubble as such.

Just because some people may say the 'observable universe' this in of itself in no way infers that there is a bubble as such also, with a "beyond". How in the hell would any person on earth know for sure that there are supposedly no events taking place "somewhere" out from earth. We do not even know for sure what is happening beneath our feet on the bottom of the ocean floors let alone what is way out beyond that what we can not even see. It is said that things/objects exist past the observable universe but for some reason people still want to insist that there is a boundary "somewhere". Just because objects may be expanding away from each other that in now way means that "beyond" a certain point there are no events taking place. The only thing that objects, stars, galaxies, etc., could be "beyond" is beyond some people's imagination. Some humans have a tendency to amorphous themselves into other things, including the universe, itself. Just because people have a beginning, a middle, and an end does not in of itself mean that the universe also behaves in this manner.

I am not insisting that the universe is infinite and eternal, I just do not know, but to me there is far more evidence of this than there is for a finite universe.

Without time there is no space. What is "beyond" is beyond our intuitive capacity but effectively, it is nothing, just as effectively there was nothing "before" the big bang since no event hence no time hence no space.

This does not, for me anyway, logically follow, for the reasons I gave above. This of course is not to say it is not true, but that it just does not follow for me.

It also sounds like a 'cop out'. Some human beings can be known to say anything instead of just saying, "I do not know". The fear of appearing stupid can make some people say and/do rather particular things. I am not saying you are doing this here. I am just saying that 'we' me included sometimes prefer to say something else rather than "I do not know".

How I explain your view is that you are relying solely on information that is stored within the brain to look at this issue. Looking at anything solely from the brain will give a closed view of, dare I say it, reality. If, however, looking at anything from the truly open Mind, will provide a much smarter, clearer picture. The brains already held stored beliefs, prejudices, preconceptions prevents the truly unique Mind from looking at and seeing (understanding) everything. There is no such thing as a closed Mind but the Mind is not fully functional with a brain that has or already holds beliefs. What I found the best thing to do is to look at anything from a completely open viewpoint, which can only come from the truly open Mind, AND THEN use the brains already held and gathered information and knowledge to verify what is true, right and/or correct.

I think the rest of your post is again a hypothesis which could very well be true. But the thing to consider is that for each of the big bangs, all events are independent with a starting time of t=0.

Thanks, but to say that all big bang events are independent with a starting time of t=0 could also be said and applied to absolutely every event that begins from NOW that is equivalent to a planck time length. The universe can be broken down, by humans, into separate planck time events, each and all of those events with a beginning, a middle, and an end. I do not, however, consider each of the big bangs as independent events with a starting time. To do so would be just as unnecessary as it would be to do that with each planck time length. The universe does not work on a stop/start process. Every thing is dependent upon every other thing. Every thing works together with every other thing to create the One and only thing, i.e., the universe or everything. Every thing as One is everything.

There is no possible way that any information could be exchanged between one big bang and the other, if indeed that is what happens, since all the laws of Science of that particular universe break down at the black holes within that universe.

I think you are looking at this, and thus continuing to see this, as a multi-verse scenario.

There are no different universes. There is the only the One universe. The 'uni' part implies, One and only. The 'uni' part provides the answer here to there only being One. Just imagine, without any preconceived thoughts or ideas that what I am saying is every thing that happens happens in a One and only universe. Stop imagining or thinking there is a multiple of universes. By definition the 'universe', can only be one.

We are not positively sure that the laws of science break down completely at the black holes within THE One universe. What we are sure of however is that we are unable to know what happens exactly inside black holes. But we have to remember that what is sucked into and becomes part of singularity in a black hole would have to be "exchanged" between "this" part of the One universe and "that" part of the One universe, which has now come into "existence", if indeed that singularity exploded with a big bang. The "exchange" or passing over of matter, light, energy and gases, from this part to another part of the same universe, is obvious here. However, as for any 'information' being exchanged I will leave explaining that with the One consciousness, which is coming into awareness, that exists eternally and infinitely.

So to all intents and purposes, there is nothing beyond those black holes just as there is nothing before our big bang.

That seems a strong conviction. I thought the natural causal and effect process that this One universe works under would override this statement.

If every action causes a reaction, which then causes a re-action, which then obviously causes another one, so on forever, and that has been happening forever right NOW, then this would be obvious enough for just One universe. Some people may like to say there is a starting point, in order to override an unknowings of what lays before, but just because some people say there was a starting point in no way means that there was a starting point. If there was no end, then there is no beginning. Just look out as far as you can. Can you see an end point? How could there be a start to a thing that has no end?

Also, since time is reset to zero, no universe can claim a before or an after, just as no point in the universe can claim to be the center of the universe to the exclusion of any other part of the universe. Every point of the universe is its center. That is intuitively not possible either, but that is how it is.

If as you say that "no universe can claim a before or an after", which by the very nature of your statement must include this One and only universe, then that to me states that the universe is eternal and infinite. It does not, to me anyway, mean that the universe had a beginning and an end.

Time, itself, is NOT reset to zero. Some human beings just say that time is reset to zero because they say there was no event prior to what is generally known as the big bang. What about what caused the singularity. Are those number of events also happening without time, nor space? Surely what is apparently clear is that events are happening right NOW, which are causing singularities, namely, black holes, and stuff.

Time, itself, does not start and stop at singularity. Time is just a measurement of events happening, while a clock/watch is just a tool to keep track of this measurement. For a fraction of a planck length time when a singularity explodes this may appear as the stopping/starting or resetting of time but there is no actual evidence of this. Also to be able to measure events light is needed. If we can not see matter in relation to other matter, then we can not measure events. Within a black hole there is no light, as it is sucked into the infinite compression of matter, so from this perspective also without any light, then appears as though time has stopped or resets at singularity.

What do you mean by "That is intuitively not possible either,..."? What exactly is intuitively not possible either, here?

If the universe has a center, then there is a point that can claim to be the center of the universe to the exclusion of any other part of the universe. However, having a center or not is taking us away from the issue of if the universe began or it did not. What actually is at the center of the universe has no bearing on the law of science that states 'Every action has a reaction', which would support the conclusion that the universe has always existed, always will, and always is NOW, eternally and infinitely.

[sthitapragya]

Sounds fair enough, however, if we go back towards what is called the singularity, that point, in of itself, does not necessitate that time and space did not exist. At the end of black holes NOW there is what is called 'singularity', infinite compression of matter, and time and space (from some people's perspectives) still exists. Us human beings observing the observable universe is living proof of this. (I said from some people's perspectives because some do not believe time exists whilst others do not believe space exists.)

This was again explained by Obvious Leo to me. He says time is actually a measurement of events which can be broken down to Planck time, which is the shortest possible time for any inter-action between the smallest particles to take place. At the singularity, due to the insane temperatures and pressures ( I am not sure about the pressures), there was literally no event taking place at all. And hence no time. Again, hypothesis but to a layman like me, it makes sense.

For how long was no event taking place? Surely whatever was creating the singularity did not do it un-event-fully.

At singularity, itself, there may well be no event taking place at the instance of explosion, or even while it sat "dormant", BUT to say there is no event taking place at all at singularity does not explain what was making/causing/creating the singularity. Intuitively, to me anyway, something causes/creates singularity. NOWadays we know that black holes cause/create singularity. Singularity is said to appear at the end of the black holes. Although it could easily be argued that at singularity itself because there obviously is no space that then there is no events happening and as such there is no "time", but that still does not mean that the universe began. Obvious to us now is that the universe, through black holes, is creating these such singular things.

That singular(ity) point, where it is said, the universe began, was created, or came into existence does not mean that this is actually what happened. There is no proof the universe began, was created, etc. If the singular(ity) points that exist NOW, at the end of black holes, and "time" and "space" with energy and matter existed prior to these singularities, then "time" and "space" and energy and matter could have existed prior to the big bang. "Time" and "space" with energy and matter obviously existed before the black holes of now. You would have to wonder how a singularity, which is made up of infinite compression of matter could come into being if there was not matter prior to it?

Well, what we call matter could be some completely unrecognizable thing under high temperatures.

If it is a thing, then it is either a physical thing, a non-physical thing, or an unrecognizable thing. Either way a thing is something. For an explosion to occur I would think at least two things are needed, i.e., some thing, and a space for that thing to expand into. Therefore, some things, unrecognizable or not, existed prior to the big bang. We are now able to recognize what those things were that exploded. The evidence is everywhere around us. It appears as matter and energy.

Also as I explained before whatever was could very well have been in a state that no event took place at all, and hence there was no time. Without time, space becomes irrelevant and so does everything else.

Only within infinite compression of matter or within infinite space could no event take place. Even at singularity, singularity is being added to, over how long of a time and at what rate of occurrences, does not matter, but the fact stands from the evidence provided from looking at black holes that items, such as planets, stars and galaxies are being added to singularity for as long as that black hole exists for.

Obviously, if 'singularity', is an infinite compression of matter, then there would be no space. Therefore there would be no event, as such, taking place at its center point. But the singularity itself is being continually added to, that is until a certain instance when singularity changes from an infinite compression of matter into and "ever" expanding explosion of matter.

For an event to occur space and matter together is needed. However we need to be looking at and thinking about what was/is causing/creating the singularity event, itself, and not just keep focusing on the non-eventful center of singularity, itself. Matter moving within space, relative to other matter, is how time is a measurement of events. We can not know see past/before the big bang so we can not measure the event before the big bang. Even if we could see past/prior to singularity we would have nothing we can compare singularity in relation to. If light can not escape a black hole and we are trying to look from the "other" side of singularity outwards, that is prior to singularities explosion, then obviously we could not see anything. From singularity's perspective prior to exploding there is nothing to be seen. Light is sucked up within itself. If light is not reflecting off anything, then there is nothing to be seen, and thus nothing to be relative to.

However, I do not dispute that there was something. I cannot agree with the idea of nothing so it seems more appropriate to call whatever existed "before" the space time universe (before in quotes because there was no before so it is just a term) Existence. We have no clue what form it was or what state it was in. Without events taking place we can simply call it existence in another state. What that state was is not possible to intuit.

To me, anyway, it is intuitively known that what is causing singularity is obviously what was before singularity. If the 'universe', is ALL things, then EVERY THING, including Existence, is a part of the One universe. So, whatever that existed prior to and thus caused singularity it IS still part of the One and only universe that we are in NOW, whatever state it is in and whatever we want to call it 'back then'. Calling 'It' existence does not change the fact that it is still the One and only existence/universe. We now know that black holes create singularity so that is the something "before", that you do not dispute was there. The One space time universe IS Existence, Itself. The only thing that this One and only existing universe does is change in shape and form, continuously. There is nothing other than this universe. There is no other thing besides this universe. There is no multiverses.

Anyway, when we look out from earth now we can not see anything that appears finite. With bigger and better telescopes and computers is it any coincidence that the observable universe seems to be expanding. Stars, planets, galaxies moving away from each other does not necessarily mean the universe is expanding. It just means these things are moving apart from each other. If the universe is made up of space and matter, then no matter what apparently is the most outer pieces of matter, there obviously would have to be space past that, and how space could be finite, beyond matter being what makes up its finiteness, is intuitively unknown. There could be no wall, boundary, or outer case without the ever wondering question of what is beyond that "outer edge"? Also, if light diminishes over time and/or distance, then how would we ever know the exact extend of the universe. There could be countless stars out there. Intuitively there is no end, spatially or eternally (space nor time wise), to the universe.

This took me a lot of reading and re-reading and re-re-reading to understand, and my understanding could be completely and totally wrong but for what it is worth, this is what I think expanding space means. Essentially it is the bubble within which events are taking place. ( I use the term bubbles loosely as I have no idea what the universe actually looks like). This is also the bubble within which the laws of science apply. "beyond" this bubble, no events are talking place and since time and space are interdependent,

But if there is no logical boundary to this so called bubble, then there is no bubble as such.

Just because some people may say the 'observable universe' this in of itself in no way infers that there is a bubble as such also, with a "beyond". How in the hell would any person on earth know for sure that there are supposedly no events taking place "somewhere" out from earth. We do not even know for sure what is happening beneath our feet on the bottom of the ocean floors let alone what is way out beyond that what we can not even see. It is said that things/objects exist past the observable universe but for some reason people still want to insist that there is a boundary "somewhere". Just because objects may be expanding away from each other that in now way means that "beyond" a certain point there are no events taking place. The only thing that objects, stars, galaxies, etc., could be "beyond" is beyond some people's imagination. Some humans have a tendency to amorphous themselves into other things, including the universe, itself. Just because people have a beginning, a middle, and an end does not in of itself mean that the universe also behaves in this manner.

I am not insisting that the universe is infinite and eternal, I just do not know, but to me there is far more evidence of this than there is for a finite universe.

Without time there is no space. What is "beyond" is beyond our intuitive capacity but effectively, it is nothing, just as effectively there was nothing "before" the big bang since no event hence no time hence no space.

This does not, for me anyway, logically follow, for the reasons I gave above. This of course is not to say it is not true, but that it just does not follow for me.

It also sounds like a 'cop out'. Some human beings can be known to say anything instead of just saying, "I do not know". The fear of appearing stupid can make some people say and/do rather particular things. I am not saying you are doing this here. I am just saying that 'we' me included sometimes prefer to say something else rather than "I do not know".

How I explain your view is that you are relying solely on information that is stored within the brain to look at this issue. Looking at anything solely from the brain will give a closed view of, dare I say it, reality. If, however, looking at anything from the truly open Mind, will provide a much smarter, clearer picture. The brains already held stored beliefs, prejudices, preconceptions prevents the truly unique Mind from looking at and seeing (understanding) everything. There is no such thing as a closed Mind but the Mind is not fully functional with a brain that has or already holds beliefs. What I found the best thing to do is to look at anything from a completely open viewpoint, which can only come from the truly open Mind, AND THEN use the brains already held and gathered information and knowledge to verify what is true, right and/or correct.

I think the rest of your post is again a hypothesis which could very well be true. But the thing to consider is that for each of the big bangs, all events are independent with a starting time of t=0.

Thanks, but to say that all big bang events are independent with a starting time of t=0 could also be said and applied to absolutely every event that begins from NOW that is equivalent to a planck time length. The universe can be broken down, by humans, into separate planck time events, each and all of those events with a beginning, a middle, and an end. I do not, however, consider each of the big bangs as independent events with a starting time. To do so would be just as unnecessary as it would be to do that with each planck time length. The universe does not work on a stop/start process. Every thing is dependent upon every other thing. Every thing works together with every other thing to create the One and only thing, i.e., the universe or everything. Every thing as One is everything.

There is no possible way that any information could be exchanged between one big bang and the other, if indeed that is what happens, since all the laws of Science of that particular universe break down at the black holes within that universe.

I think you are looking at this, and thus continuing to see this, as a multi-verse scenario.

There are no different universes. There is the only the One universe. The 'uni' part implies, One and only. The 'uni' part provides the answer here to there only being One. Just imagine, without any preconceived thoughts or ideas that what I am saying is every thing that happens happens in a One and only universe. Stop imagining or thinking there is a multiple of universes. By definition the 'universe', can only be one.

We are not positively sure that the laws of science break down completely at the black holes within THE One universe. What we are sure of however is that we are unable to know what happens exactly inside black holes. But we have to remember that what is sucked into and becomes part of singularity in a black hole would have to be "exchanged" between "this" part of the One universe and "that" part of the One universe, which has now come into "existence", if indeed that singularity exploded with a big bang. The "exchange" or passing over of matter, light, energy and gases, from this part to another part of the same universe, is obvious here. However, as for any 'information' being exchanged I will leave explaining that with the One consciousness, which is coming into awareness, that exists eternally and infinitely.

So to all intents and purposes, there is nothing beyond those black holes just as there is nothing before our big bang.

That seems a strong conviction. I thought the natural causal and effect process that this One universe works under would override this statement.

If every action causes a reaction, which then causes a re-action, which then obviously causes another one, so on forever, and that has been happening forever right NOW, then this would be obvious enough for just One universe. Some people may like to say there is a starting point, in order to override an unknowings of what lays before, but just because some people say there was a starting point in no way means that there was a starting point. If there was no end, then there is no beginning. Just look out as far as you can. Can you see an end point? How could there be a start to a thing that has no end?

Also, since time is reset to zero, no universe can claim a before or an after, just as no point in the universe can claim to be the center of the universe to the exclusion of any other part of the universe. Every point of the universe is its center. That is intuitively not possible either, but that is how it is.

If as you say that "no universe can claim a before or an after", which by the very nature of your statement must include this One and only universe, then that to me states that the universe is eternal and infinite. It does not, to me anyway, mean that the universe had a beginning and an end.

Time, itself, is NOT reset to zero. Some human beings just say that time is reset to zero because they say there was no event prior to what is generally known as the big bang. What about what caused the singularity. Are those number of events also happening without time, nor space? Surely what is apparently clear is that events are happening right NOW, which are causing singularities, namely, black holes, and stuff.

Time, itself, does not start and stop at singularity. Time is just a measurement of events happening, while a clock/watch is just a tool to keep track of this measurement. For a fraction of a planck length time when a singularity explodes this may appear as the stopping/starting or resetting of time but there is no actual evidence of this. Also to be able to measure events light is needed. If we can not see matter in relation to other matter, then we can not measure events. Within a black hole there is no light, as it is sucked into the infinite compression of matter, so from this perspective also without any light, then appears as though time has stopped or resets at singularity.

What do you mean by "That is intuitively not possible either,..."? What exactly is intuitively not possible either, here?

If the universe has a center, then there is a point that can claim to be the center of the universe to the exclusion of any other part of the universe. However, having a center or not is taking us away from the issue of if the universe began or it did not. What actually is at the center of the universe has no bearing on the law of science that states 'Every action has a reaction', which would support the conclusion that the universe has always existed, always will, and always is NOW, eternally and infinitely.

What I learned, I told you.not being a physicist I cannot explain it well but I know it took me a lot of reading and re-reading the same stuff to understand because it is all very counter intuitive.

And no, I am not thinking of a multiverse scenario.

[ken]

What I learned, I told you.not being a physicist I cannot explain it well but I know it took me a lot of reading and re-reading the same stuff to understand because it is all very counter intuitive.

Just maybe that is what my writings need, i.e., a lot of reading and re-reading and ...

My writings begin where the others left off.

[sthitapragya]

What I learned, I told you.not being a physicist I cannot explain it well but I know it took me a lot of reading and re-reading the same stuff to understand because it is all very counter intuitive.

Just maybe that is what my writings need, i.e., a lot of reading and re-reading and ...

My writings begin where the others left off.

Sorry, but I have severe pain in my arms so can't type long, but your questions and some f the things you challenged suggest that you need to read the stuff some more.

Specially the part where you seem to suggest that the big bang was a n actual explosion.