Did the big bang really happen?

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Hello Mike This is an interesting position, though I agree the physical universe is not illusory simply because it is temporal and finite.

I think we (humanity) assign all manner of idealised states or cases to that which is not us. Say, that which is atemporal and infinite. BUT the whole premise of non-duality is that there is no separation.

And, rather than collapsing everything to the "preferred" or "best" state (according to humanity) and lumping physical existence in with (or subsuming it to) non-physical non-existence...

...we could equally say all are real and all exist as interbeing in relationship (of various sorts) with one another. Even if some persist (so to speak) by virtue of their non-beingness (according to physicality) and some change by virture of their beingness (according to physicality). You can equally switch beingness to align with emptiness (per "best" state according to physicality) and non-beingness to align with temporality (per "worst" state according to physicality).

Same difference. All the standards, biases, and preferential ranking are based on human judgment. That does not make physicality or temporality any less real. What it does is provide an interim tool or conceptual map to see, name, and address the iniquities of the incarnated spirit (individuated consciousness) and the imperfections of physical existence.

Equally (sadly) it gives us reason to blame our iniquities upon the innocent temple, rather than owning that the iniquity is one of our individuated consciousness and that these iniquities persist smoothly across any physical experience we have. Until and unless we consciously address our spiritual failings and wounds with conscious choices and conscious intent, thought, word & deed.



My read of God-Like is that the real assumption being challenged is whether the arising of the physical realm (multiverse etc) is "illusory" due to its temporal nature. God-Like is saying no, all separation is an illusion, and pointing to your incarnated experience at this moment as example. As I understood it.

I would likewise agree with GL that any separation of the "physical" and the "spiritual" (btw these are human conceptual distinctions) reflects an inherent misunderstanding of the reality of our existence or of what is, more broadly. A serious and persistent misunderstanding reflected in many religious traditions or philosophies. And thus taken as a given by many. I do not take it as a given and find this assumption to be fundamentally flawed in its foundations.

Separation is the illusion. Distinction is not separation. Distinction (including individuated consciousness, the multiverse, etc) is as real as Emptiness or Totality. And distinction exists in interbeing (i.e., in relationship) with itself, with others, with One, and with Totality. Things of which we can barely conceive

The body or the physical realm is 1) not separate from "the real" (which is mistakenly presumed to be just the non-physical or perhaps more specifically just pure consciousness). Likewise, the temporal body or the finite physical realm, being real and integrated in interbeing, is 2) not "to blame" for our unique foundational iniquities of spirit...i.e., individuated consciousness, which once arisen then persists and evolves across our physical incarnations. This is another foundational misunderstanding of many traditions -- that our eternal individuated consciousness is pure, full stop.

Individuated consciousness is persistent from its point of creation. It is unique and imperfect and in process of becoming. We are loved purely by All that Is and by the many guides on our path -- and we do have the capacity to live and do in authentic love to whatever degree we actualise -- that is all true. But we are not perfected in spirit. As far as we know, One already has ultimate perfection and is ultimate perfection. Perfection is not our reason for being. Perfection in the ultimate sense is not integral to the scope and definition of what it means to be an individuated quantum iota of One. We are unique, we are in process of becoming -- and in interbeing with us, All That Is is also in process of becoming.

We must own our journey - it is ours regardless. To set out on our journey, we will need to own iniquities and to own that our own set of iniquities -- and all other unique traits -- is unique to us, to our individuated consciousness. This is what persists across lifetimes, across eternity or atemporally, beyond time. This is who we are at core.

It's not the fault of God or Totality...and it's not the fault of our physical existence -- the usual suspects we reach for when we fall back on the myth of separation, LOL.
It's just us...and that is (lovingkindness and) justice.

Peace & blessings
7L

Yes, the whole entire point of the concept of Non-duality is nothing is separate, yet the extreme Non-dualists separate the physical universe from brahman or true/absolute/ultimate reality, which is a contradiction because the physical universe and brahman or true/absolute/ultimate reality are one and the same. These spiritual people put to much attention or focus on duality, duality is a concpt that is only absent of something-what will you get if you where you to delete all matter that is in the physical universe? You will get total and complete nothingness/emtyness, besides energy of course, as you can't destroy energy. Cold is the absence of heat. Time is also a concept that is measured by a man made device/instrument call a clock and watch. Thus time is the true illusion and culprit for spiritual intent and purposes , not the physical universe.

Individuated consciousness or more accurately a person's attention/focus is only imperfect because of his or her mental and emotional programming/conditioning, which is created by false and incorrect concepts, beliefs and knowledge or people taking concepts, beliefs and knowledge out of context and/or believe in them literally. Most concepts, and knowledge that are available today where created and are meant to lead a person's ego to brahman or ultimate/true/absolute reality. A person believing in concepts, and knowledge does the complete opposite, and that is, puts and keeps the person in a dream or fantasy.

The physical universe being temporal and finite is another concept that places limits on the physical universe/true or absolute reality. When we place limits on the physical universe/true or absolute reality, we place limits on ourselves, because all is one.

True/absolute reality does not depend on the observer, but is absolute in itself. There is no separation between the observer and the observed. We are all One.

Truth is that which corresponds to reality. Truth is the word used to describe things that actually are as opposed to those things that are not. This is important in the context of discussing true or “absolute” reality, which is inevitably the same thing as absolute truth. Reality (truth) must, eventually, be absolute, or else there is no such thing as reality at all. If reality is not absolute, if there is no ultimate, single, all-encompassing truth, then there is literally nothing else to discuss. All statements and concepts of all kinds would be equally valid or wholly invalid, and there would be no meaningful difference.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by God-Like

Hey :)

In this instance all I said was that 'arising' in consciousness or appearances just appearing is more poetic than anything else .
It doesn't actually spread any light on the processes of how form of physical experience came to be .
In my eyes it's misleading because arising from or of consciousness (and remember consciousness is just a made up word used as foundation) appears to bypasses the physical processes .

This is why as explained with previous conversations had that there has been reluctance to admit the obvious, but doesn't it sound grand to say that we just arose out from the bosom of consciousness which is ____ what? lol or I arose like a phoenix out of the ashes or even better still the universe arises from I AM or whatever terms suit best ..

As soon as a peep gets asked questions about this so called consciousness and how appearance/s can arise from within it then this begs the question what is this consciousness that can have stuff arise from it . Consciousness arising out from consciousness, does that mean that consciousness is something in itself that can entertain qualities and entertain knowledge of how to manifest itself as this or that?

We can talk about the elements / platonic solids and we can speak about how long planet earth took to form and we can speak about how long an oak tree takes to mature etc etc, none of this came about simply through arising in consciousness or simply by just appearing per se, it comes about via their specific and individualised blue print / design ..

For myself when I AM returned within awareness there was the world perceived . The world didn't simply arise because I became aware of it . Beyond the thought of I AM there is no thought of the universe there is no desire to create a universe lol .

So for myself I can't see how anyone can make a statement about everything arising out of consciousness being true . If we simply question the statement it becomes apparent that it is pure speculation . The unfortunate thing about such a statement is that there are millions that adopt this theory and use it as their foundation .

No one I have asked before has come up with any answers to questions based upon how this information was attained / realized .


x daz x

Arising in consciousness to me, means what we see with our 2 eyes or arises and appears in consciousness for our 2 eyes to see. By consciousness I mean attention/focus and all encompassing awareness, which is aware of everything, including what we have our attention/focus on. It is a quantum physics thing of consciousness perceives the physical universe. It is not a magical thing.

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by Gem

I think what you've ignored in the past is the appearance in consciousness alludes to the momentary nature of things. It is in that sense that a baby and everything else appears momentarily and is renewed from moment to moment, rather than there being a continuous material like a baby or anything else. In kamma theory, each moment at the gross level resembles that which preceded it, so there appears to be continuity of objects like babies and other things. On subtler levels it becomes less predictable and you see that subtle feelings are popping in and out of existence unpredictably, at random without continuity ans without semblance to those preceding. It is in this sense that the seemingly orderly world is not orderly at all at the substrate level, so the fact it seems orderly is only an appearance in consciousness. Even the very subtle level does not define the nature of things in whole, and it only describes the subtle levels of perception. You only describe the gross levels. I'm actually saying the nature of the appearance is not absolute in any sense and is entirely dependent of the nuance of perception with which it is perceived. It is in that sense that the universe is an appearance in, and concurrent with, the momentary appearing of consciousness.

Gem...hello and just adding a few thoughts here to help myself sort things a bit.

I agree with your descriptive of the "substrate" or micro level of consciousness, as we experience it in our incarnated existence. We certainly cannot prove that this means consciousness originates with our experience nor is defined by it, but only that we experience it in "quantum units" (Planck units, LOL) whilst incarnated. I also think there is a correlation to our physical reality at the quantum particle level, which exists in states of probability, entanglement, and multidirectional causality. Out of our interbeing with existence at this level, reality coalesces from moment to moment.

At the macro level of consciousness (i.e., our individuated experience of consciousness) and of existence (our bodies, the earth, the universe), there appears to be a continuity which we experience as our changing self, which we may recall over multiple lifetimes. In the case of physical existence, there appears to be continuity of physical processes for earth or the universe which occurs over millions or billions of years. The physical realm is also imbued with consciousness but of a varying nature. Oceans form and mountains arise and erode. Mammals and many other creatures reproduce and gestate and give birth from two sexes or gametes in a specified manner...etc.

On the big bang. Scientists have all the evidence so we can say the big bang did happen, and is still happening as light and time leave no absolute space time position of origin. We know it was hotter denser and less formed because, you know, telescopes and stuff, but when we say 'big bang' we don't know what were talking about. We do not know what that is, but we do know it happened, whatever it might be, but don't know if it is the first one or the only one, or if there are not big bangs occurring right now in the distant reaches beyond our own visible universe. In short. We have no idea why or how the universe is, or what it 'really is', and can only say with any certainty that the universe appears to be.

Daz notes that there is a macro level of consciousness and of physical reality with established natural processes. And that it does not smoothly or clearly emanate or derive from the micro level of consciousness and of physical reality. You and I and many others have said in different times and places that clearly it does and that it must because how can they not be connected, the micro and macro levels? We know everything is ultimately connected in interbeing and so there must be a relationship, but we just cannot produce the concrete evidence of a smooth linkage. We are going on faith

In science, we all know this is at the heart of the big questions scientists have been grappling with. Finding a unified theory, a theory of everything. One that describes the relationship of all known forces and which also identifies the first cause (or even just the most recent cause, i.e. of the Big Bang <14B yrs ago) and how the first instance of matter appeared at t0 prior to inflation. AND ideally, one that includes the impact or relationship with consciousness. Better yet...one that can explain the first cause or origins of consciousness and why it is atemporal at core or in its core nature. Hahaha. Throw in the kitchen sink as well.

The macro level of physical reality (what we see all around us, the universe, etc.) can't be smoothly shown to emerge from the micro (quantum) realm. All of which (as you note) we know only a very little.
The macro level of consciousness also can't be smoothly shown to emerge from the micro...and all of which know almost nothing about. Mystics and sages have noted that for ages.

So it's also a very fair statement to say, as Daz did, that the macro level of physical reality does not emerge smoothly from consciousness (any level). We many of us believe that it all does hang together somehow...but it's something we take on faith. Whether as mystics or as scientists.

Now maybe I can answer Daz's post...
Peace & blessings
7L

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by God-Like

Hey :)

In this instance all I said was that 'arising' in consciousness or appearances just appearing is more poetic than anything else .
It doesn't actually spread any light on the processes of how form of physical experience came to be .
In my eyes it's misleading because arising from or of consciousness (and remember consciousness is just a made up word used as foundation) appears to bypasses the physical processes .

Hey there :)
Well Dazza you have got right to the heart of the big questions in science (and philosophy) today...such as:

-How did the physical world come to be and what was the impetus or first cause?
-Finding a unified theory, a theory of everything. One that describes the relationship of all known forces and which also identifies the first cause (or even just the most recent cause, i.e. of the Big Bang <14B yrs ago)
-What is the relationship of matter and consciousness?
-How do we explain the first cause or origins of consciousness? How does consciousness continually arise or persist?
-Why is consciousness beyond space and time? What is the nature of consciousness?
-For philosophy, the related big questions are why is there something rather than nothing? Why do we exist? And...what is the nature of consciousness and being? What does it mean to be (human)?

What we know at present is this:

-The macro level of physical reality (what we see all around us, the universe, etc.) can't be smoothly shown to emerge from the micro (quantum) realm. All of which we know only a very little. At the micro level, solid matter appears to derive from particles that are fuzzy, wavelike (existing over all existence potentially) and exist in states of probability across (apparently) many different potential realities...and are entangled with other particles across the multiverse at some foundational level.

Likewise...
-The macro level of consciousness also can't be smoothly shown to emerge from the micro...and all of which know almost nothing about. Mystics and sages have noted that for ages, of course. This is exactly what Gem and many others have discussed regarding the Buddhist teachings about the macro level (your individuated consciousness) disappearing &/or appearing sporadically at the micro level. The sages have known this for a long time...that the micro level represents a different level of being and understanding of What Is than the macro level.

No clear and smooth correlation between macro and micro levels IOW

This is why as explained with previous conversations had that there has been reluctance to admit the obvious, but doesn't it sound grand to say that we just arose out from the bosom of consciousness which is ____ what? lol or I arose like a phoenix out of the ashes or even better still the universe arises from I AM or whatever terms suit best ..

As soon as a peep gets asked questions about this so called consciousness and how appearance/s can arise from within it then this begs the question what is this consciousness that can have stuff arise from it . Consciousness arising out from consciousness, does that mean that consciousness is something in itself that can entertain qualities and entertain knowledge of how to manifest itself as this or that?

I think that's a very good question and there are loads of potential answers. None of them definite or well-formed as yet. I would say that for humanity, we do know that our individual humanity is formed and developed and maximised in relationship with one another, in community. That is how we survive and thrive and learn to speak and engage and live in interbeing. There is a template (for reaching normal human capacities) but it must be supported and engaged and developed and tested. And the template itself can and does grow and change over time.

I would also say that for myself, I think our "personal" experience of consistency in consciousness across quite different lifetimes -- and the persistence of iniquity and challenges across lifetimes -- provides some of the strongest and best informed understandings I have on consciousness. Those lifetimes "felt" very different and yet the core of me was present there in all of them. And many of my deepest "soul traits" were as well, even as I strive to always learn and to challenge myself on those areas where I need to change or grow. I think that's probably also true for others who remember other lifetimes. It's not a one and done as they say. Everyone in ever moment counts. And always will do. We are the sum total of all we are and do across all now moments we've yet experienced. And this now moment is always the only moment we have

We can talk about the elements / platonic solids and we can speak about how long planet earth took to form and we can speak about how long an oak tree takes to mature etc etc, none of this came about simply through arising in consciousness or simply by just appearing per se, it comes about via their specific and individualised blue print / design ..

For myself when I AM returned within awareness there was the world perceived . The world didn't simply arise because I became aware of it . Beyond the thought of I AM there is no thought of the universe there is no desire to create a universe lol .

So for myself I can't see how anyone can make a statement about everything arising out of consciousness being true . If we simply question the statement it becomes apparent that it is pure speculation . The unfortunate thing about such a statement is that there are millions that adopt this theory and use it as their foundation .

No one I have asked before has come up with any answers to questions based upon how this information was attained / realized .

x daz x

Yes as noted there are huge gaps in many philosophies and traditions and IMO many of them contribute directly to confusion and misdirection. But as I noted to Mike & JustGuy, there are still many who need to come to the understanding that we are more than just the physical and so the dualistic nature of many teachings is still effective for them.

I think that many of us do have some belief in an underlying cohesion and unifying force to the universe and all that is. We have each had our own illuminating experiences with Spirit, even if some folks may lean toward science or toward wisdom teachings. In any case, IMO it is all largely based on a deeper knowing and not on anything we can prove or point to.

Kabbalah depicts a tree of life where God moves to create the emptiness which will allow for creation of existence...and then emanates 10 sephirot into what we know as consciousness (including foundational fields and principles) and existence (the last sephirot, which is the entire physical realm of existence). There is general discussion of progressive condensing of ethereal and unknowable energies into what finally emerges as physical matter in the last sephirot, malkuth (kingdom). Physical emergence is taken to be just is the natural progression, but could also be seen as having been divinely brought forth by the prior sephirot yesod -- which could be resonant with the big bang.

The big bang appears to have required a speck of matter, of unknown origin, in order to generate the physical universe. So...no smoking gun there either (or, no one knows how the gun came to be)...and also no reason for its occurrence. All we know is that a speck of physical matter did somehow come into being from somewhere at t0, and thus spacetime and all existence was born. Perhaps from prior big bang and collapse...but still the question of first origins remains.

Which do you fancy? I like both. But as to a smooth progression of this from that and why emergence came to be, none can definitively say. And this is why when folks speak of their own mystical experiences (or their illuminated insights, including scientific insights), I listen...because IMO their truth is a part of the greater truth we are all discovering.

What are your thoughts on how all this hangs together?

Peace & blessings
7L

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Yes, the whole entire point of the concept of Non-duality is nothing is separate, yet the extreme Non-dualists separate the physical universe from brahman or true/absolute/ultimate reality, which is a contradiction because the physical universe and brahman or true/absolute/ultimate reality are one and the same. These spiritual people put to much attention or focus on duality, duality is a concpt that is only absent of something-what will you get if you where you to delete all matter that is in the physical universe? You will get total and complete nothingness/emtyness, besides energy of course, as you can't destroy energy. Cold is the absence of heat. Time is also a concept that is measured by a man made device/instrument call a clock and watch. Thus time is the true illusion and culprit for spiritual intent and purposes , not the physical universe.

Individuated consciousness or more accurately a person's attention/focus is only imperfect because of his or her mental and emotional programming/conditioning, which is created by false and incorrect concepts, beliefs and knowledge or people taking concepts, beliefs and knowledge out of context and/or believe in them literally. Most concepts, and knowledge that are available today where created and are meant to lead a person's ego to brahman or ultimate/true/absolute reality. A person believing in concepts, and knowledge does the complete opposite, and that is, puts and keeps the person in a dream or fantasy.

The physical universe being temporal and finite is another concept that places limits on the physical universe/true or absolute reality. When we place limits on the physical universe/true or absolute reality, we place limits on ourselves, because all is one.

True/absolute reality does not depend on the observer, but is absolute in itself. There is no separation between the observer and the observed. We are all One.

Truth is that which corresponds to reality. Truth is the word used to describe things that actually are as opposed to those things that are not. This is important in the context of discussing true or “absolute” reality, which is inevitably the same thing as absolute truth. Reality (truth) must, eventually, be absolute, or else there is no such thing as reality at all. If reality is not absolute, if there is no ultimate, single, all-encompassing truth, then there is literally nothing else to discuss. All statements and concepts of all kinds would be equally valid or wholly invalid, and there would be no meaningful difference.

Mike, hello there. It may be that the physical world as a whole has no ultimate origin and thus is infinite in its continuing physical cycles of birth to death.
We can only speak to what we know, which is that what is physical is temporal...arising and eventually passing away. So we are assuming the Big Bang which gave rise to this universe had a first cause.
Perhaps we will one day locate the origins of the Big Bang, or of prior big bangs -- or perhaps not, LOL.

Time and space occur together in this physical reality and that is why we refer to our physical realm (multiverse etc) as spacetime.
We are experiencing one instance of it at any point in time and space...as far as we know, LOL.

I agree very broadly that [all that is] exist together in interbeing, in whatever fashion(s) and by means of whatever relationship(s) they do.

However, I think that if reality is absolute, it is largely unknowable by us at that level.
We are able to speak more accurately and with greater clarity on things and experiences which are closer to us and to our form of consciousness and existence.

Thus, as with most things, the most meaningful truths are very often those which are manifest, relational, and relative -- even if they are perhaps also more broadly universal.

Peace & blessings
7L

[Gem]

Originally Posted by God-Like

Butt the issue has always been how a baby and everything else appears .

I just explained the thing and you're back at the baby as if I did not explain the manner in which things appear.

What has been bypassed and ignored is the physical processes because hardcore non dualists who I have spoken to as you know will pass off the physicality as something that is only appearance based that simply have arisen out from consciousness .

I just went over the context of that as well.

Forget about moment to moment and what is temporary because until one addresses the nature of appearances then everything else is irrelevant .

The nature of things is momentary/temporary, though... why forget about that?

The foundation as always said has to be firm from the very start and that is why dream foundations from the very start can only be that and reflect that . It doesn't work . There are no comparisons for that .

Forget about your kamma theory also because this is just a theory that reflects what kind of foundation? A dream foundation? A real foundation?

Kamma theory supposes that all experience is volitionally generated.

From what I remember you don't actually have a foundation as such but this raises an important point regarding beliefs doesn't it because kamma amongst other things is built upon a structure, a foundation and a belief .

So if one wants to entertain a philosophy that is structured around a specific field of religion or science or whatever then there has to be a foundational belief that mirrors that in effect .

x daz x

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by Gem

I just explained the thing and you're back at the baby as if I did not explain the manner in which things appear.





I just went over the context of that as well.







The nature of things is momentary/temporary, though... why forget about that?





Kamma theory supposes that all experience is volitionally generated.

Butt you are not explaining how, you are just presenting a theory based upon a conceptual theory . That is your foundation isn’t it . You haven’t worked this out for yourself, you have no proof or realisation to that effect .

So when I said how does a baby appear you are not answering the question you are presenting a theory of kamma and speaking about what is perceived .

I could equally say there appears to be something in the sky and say that the appearance isn’t permanent and it’s not a true reflection or a representation of what is there ..

My main point has been about foundation hasn’t it and the foundation had of the theories/concepts themselves and how they came to be .

If it’s all dreamy to begin with then there cannot be any truth to it .

If a foundation is built upon impermanence and our perception then equally so entertaining the notion of kamma is filtered through by our perceptional means .

If our perceptional filters are not creating or allowing us to perceive and know the correct reality of all things then the theory has no sound footings either .

It’s a dream within a dream trying to in someway be not a dream .

This is why I have always asked you about your foundation and never got anywhere because you had no firm foundation about realty or yourself going to the gym as I recall .

There really is no point in anyone speaking about theories if the theories are not permanent or dreamy or not perceived correctly as a true reality base .

All these scientist are just appearances of scientists and they perceive the universe to be as they perceive it to be .

You can't perceive anything correctly no matter who/m it is because the premise doesn't allow the truth to be perceptually known .

This is why masters or scientists or anyone cannot be put over and above another because none of them can be truthful when we use this foundation .

Peeps don't seem to understand this .


x daz x

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by God-Like

Butt you are not explaining how, you are just presenting a theory based upon a conceptual theory . That is your foundation isn’t it . You haven’t worked this out for yourself, you have no proof or realisation to that effect .

So when I said how does a baby appear you are not answering the question you are presenting a theory of kamma and speaking about what is perceived .

I could equally say there appears to be something in the sky and say that the appearance isn’t permanent and it’s not a true reflection or a representation of what is there ..

My main point has been about foundation hasn’t it and the foundation had of the theories/concepts themselves and how they came to be .

If it’s all dreamy to begin with then there cannot be any truth to it .

If a foundation is built upon impermanence and our perception then equally so entertaining the notion of kamma is filtered through by our perceptional means .

If our perceptional filters are not creating or allowing us to perceive and know the correct reality of all things then the theory has no sound footings either .

It’s a dream within a dream trying to in someway be not a dream .

This is why I have always asked you about your foundation and never got anywhere because you had no firm foundation about realty or yourself going to the gym as I recall .

There really is no point in anyone speaking about theories if the theories are not permanent or dreamy or not perceived correctly as a true reality base .

All these scientist are just appearances of scientists and they perceive the universe to be as they perceive it to be .

You can't perceive anything correctly no matter who/m it is because the premise doesn't allow the truth to be perceptually known .

This is why masters or scientists or anyone cannot be put over and above another because none of them can be truthful when we use this foundation .

Peeps don't seem to understand this .


x daz x

Yes, amen brother

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Hey there :)
Well Dazza you have got right to the heart of the big questions in science (and philosophy) today...such as:

-How did the physical world come to be and what was the impetus or first cause?
-Finding a unified theory, a theory of everything. One that describes the relationship of all known forces and which also identifies the first cause (or even just the most recent cause, i.e. of the Big Bang <14B yrs ago)
-What is the relationship of matter and consciousness?
-How do we explain the first cause or origins of consciousness? How does consciousness continually arise or persist?
-Why is consciousness beyond space and time? What is the nature of consciousness?
-For philosophy, the related big questions are why is there something rather than nothing? Why do we exist? And...what is the nature of consciousness and being? What does it mean to be (human)?

What we know at present is this:

-The macro level of physical reality (what we see all around us, the universe, etc.) can't be smoothly shown to emerge from the micro (quantum) realm. All of which we know only a very little. At the micro level, solid matter appears to derive from particles that are fuzzy, wavelike (existing over all existence potentially) and exist in states of probability across (apparently) many different potential realities...and are entangled with other particles across the multiverse at some foundational level.

Likewise...
-The macro level of consciousness also can't be smoothly shown to emerge from the micro...and all of which know almost nothing about. Mystics and sages have noted that for ages, of course. This is exactly what Gem and many others have discussed regarding the Buddhist teachings about the macro level (your individuated consciousness) disappearing &/or appearing sporadically at the micro level. The sages have known this for a long time...that the micro level represents a different level of being and understanding of What Is than the macro level.

No clear and smooth correlation between macro and micro levels IOW

I think that's a very good question and there are loads of potential answers. None of them definite or well-formed as yet. I would say that for humanity, we do know that our individual humanity is formed and developed and maximised in relationship with one another, in community. That is how we survive and thrive and learn to speak and engage and live in interbeing. There is a template (for reaching normal human capacities) but it must be supported and engaged and developed and tested. And the template itself can and does grow and change over time.

I would also say that for myself, I think our "personal" experience of consistency in consciousness across quite different lifetimes -- and the persistence of iniquity and challenges across lifetimes -- provides some of the strongest and best informed understandings I have on consciousness. Those lifetimes "felt" very different and yet the core of me was present there in all of them. And many of my deepest "soul traits" were as well, even as I strive to always learn and to challenge myself on those areas where I need to change or grow. I think that's probably also true for others who remember other lifetimes. It's not a one and done as they say. Everyone in ever moment counts. And always will do. We are the sum total of all we are and do across all now moments we've yet experienced. And this now moment is always the only moment we have

Yes as noted there are huge gaps in many philosophies and traditions and IMO many of them contribute directly to confusion and misdirection. But as I noted to Mike & JustGuy, there are still many who need to come to the understanding that we are more than just the physical and so the dualistic nature of many teachings is still effective for them.

I think that many of us do have some belief in an underlying cohesion and unifying force to the universe and all that is. We have each had our own illuminating experiences with Spirit, even if some folks may lean toward science or toward wisdom teachings. In any case, IMO it is all largely based on a deeper knowing and not on anything we can prove or point to.

Kabbalah depicts a tree of life where God moves to create the emptiness which will allow for creation of existence...and then emanates 10 sephirot into what we know as consciousness (including foundational fields and principles) and existence (the last sephirot, which is the entire physical realm of existence). There is general discussion of progressive condensing of ethereal and unknowable energies into what finally emerges as physical matter in the last sephirot, malkuth (kingdom). Physical emergence is taken to be just is the natural progression, but could also be seen as having been divinely brought forth by the prior sephirot yesod -- which could be resonant with the big bang.

The big bang appears to have required a speck of matter, of unknown origin, in order to generate the physical universe. So...no smoking gun there either (or, no one knows how the gun came to be)...and also no reason for its occurrence. All we know is that a speck of physical matter did somehow come into being from somewhere at t0, and thus spacetime and all existence was born. Perhaps from prior big bang and collapse...but still the question of first origins remains.

Which do you fancy? I like both. But as to a smooth progression of this from that and why emergence came to be, none can definitively say. And this is why when folks speak of their own mystical experiences (or their illuminated insights, including scientific insights), I listen...because IMO their truth is a part of the greater truth we are all discovering.

What are your thoughts on how all this hangs together?

Peace & blessings
7L

If The big bang did indeed happen. Maybe the universe was already here before the big bang, and the big bang only created matter.

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by God-Like

Butt you are not explaining how, you are just presenting a theory based upon a conceptual theory . That is your foundation isn’t it . You haven’t worked this out for yourself, you have no proof or realisation to that effect .

So when I said how does a baby appear you are not answering the question you are presenting a theory of kamma and speaking about what is perceived .

I could equally say there appears to be something in the sky and say that the appearance isn’t permanent and it’s not a true reflection or a representation of what is there ..

My main point has been about foundation hasn’t it and the foundation had of the theories/concepts themselves and how they came to be .

If it’s all dreamy to begin with then there cannot be any truth to it .

If a foundation is built upon impermanence and our perception then equally so entertaining the notion of kamma is filtered through by our perceptional means .

If our perceptional filters are not creating or allowing us to perceive and know the correct reality of all things then the theory has no sound footings either .

It’s a dream within a dream trying to in someway be not a dream .

This is why I have always asked you about your foundation and never got anywhere because you had no firm foundation about realty or yourself going to the gym as I recall .

There really is no point in anyone speaking about theories if the theories are not permanent or dreamy or not perceived correctly as a true reality base .

All these scientist are just appearances of scientists and they perceive the universe to be as they perceive it to be .

You can't perceive anything correctly no matter who/m it is because the premise doesn't allow the truth to be perceptually known .

This is why masters or scientists or anyone cannot be put over and above another because none of them can be truthful when we use this foundation .

Peeps don't seem to understand this .


x daz x

Hey there Daz :)

Per my above to you, as you know I do largely agree that we do come to our foundational beliefs ultimately based on what resonates most deeply and/or seems most resonant with the truth as we perceive it. But that these are ultimately taken on faith and derived from faith or belief (whether in science, wisdom traditions, both, or other ).

I think you hit upon a deep and well-known issue in both science and philosophy -- and wisdom traditions (but these point you back to your centre). Which is, as we noted, that there is a macro view (our everyday "classical" world and our perception of our individuated consciousness or self) and a micro view (quantum physical realm where the classical realm is no longer self-evident and coherent, and the "quantum" consciousness realm as described by Buddhism and other traditions where the self appears to break down or no longer be coherent). And that there is no smooth connection or transition from one to the other.

So...likewise, as you noted, although we (many of us) inherently feel or perceive or apprehend that matter emerges temporarily from consciousness and emptiness (per various wisdom traditions)...it's true that we cannot prove this, just as we cannot prove or demonstrate definitively how the micro and macro levels of either physicality or consciousness are connected within themselves.

But...wisdom traditions (after pointing this out, LOL...) also then point us back to our illuminated consciousness and essentially direct us to "go with" our illuminated heart centre and our illuminated mind in service to heart. So...from that reference point, all are connected in interbeing and there is some ultimate first cause, and authentic love is what is. Right? And, I would add...based on my own understandings, IMO we are only ever that which we are in every now moment, no matter who, where, or when. So, IMO, interbeing and authentic love imply a clear directive to take ownership and to be and do lovingkindness and equanimity as best we can.

The existence of your divide as noted is true. Neither science nor wisdom traditions can prove a first cause or definitely state how the various micro-to-macro levels connect NOR how consciousness, matter OR consciousness-to-matter states come to be. It's also not clear these can ever be definitely proven or measured empirically, as most respectable scientists will admit.

But, having said that, if you go with your own illuminated knowing or "kenning"...what would you say? Because, IMO, our illuminated knowing (individual and communal) does count for something and ultimately may be all we truly have.

Peace & blessings
7L