Thread: If there was a beginning... is there an end?

You should fly into a black hole and find out.

Fortunately, there is no reason to believe that events would repeat themselves with any significant regularity in a universe that repeatedly collapsed back onto itself and exploded again.

It would be interesting, though, if the universe's topography caused it to collapse back onto itself. Fortunately, relativity requires that space has a Euclidean geometry, which means that unless dark energy reversed itself and pulled the universe back together, there's no way for the universe to collapse back onto itself.

In addition to that, even if the universe did exist on a periodic time line, it would be unprovable, just like that fate/free will argument, and we would therefore have the choice of believing in a non-periodic universe and retaining the meaning in our lives, regardless if what we believe is the truth.

You should fly into a black hole and find out.

Lol that was a good laugh.

In addition to that, even if the universe did exist on a periodic time line, it would be unprovable, just like that fate/free will argument, and we would therefore have the choice of believing in a non-periodic universe and retaining the meaning in our lives, regardless if what we believe is the truth.

Meaning that the next 'repeated existence' wouldn't be the same due to the free will of our consciousness and choosing not to forget what we have experienced?

According to Buddha the universe has no beginning. According to Gnostic Christians it occurred when nirvana became entangled in samsara and started to lose its sense of self, replaced by a sense of individual egos among the many droplets that make up the sea of nirvana. It would therefore end after the last soul has chosen to permanently rejoin nirvana.

The thought that there was ever a beginning, is condradicting towards itself.

If there was a beginning, then there is an end.

Then, there will be another beginning.

If there is no end, how could there be a comprehensible beginning.

If, it is so, then the universe, has created and destroyed itself, for eternity already, and seeing as time, is just a single misunderstood human concept...

cloudWalker

Originally Posted by cloudWalker

The thought that there was ever a beginning, is condradicting towards itself.

If there was a beginning, then there is an end.

Then, there will be another beginning.

If there is no end, how could there be a comprehensible beginning.

If, it is so, then the universe, has created and destroyed itself, for eternity already, and seeing as time, is just a single misunderstood human concept...

There is no evidence to suggest that beginnings and endings must always be paired. Nor that an ending begs another beginning.

To the OP: Most people agree that there will be an end to the universe ("heat death"). Whether or not there will be another one is pretty much unknowable. From our perspective, it doesn't really make much difference, does it?

Originally Posted by skysaw

There is no evidence to suggest that beginnings and endings must always be paired. Nor that an ending begs another beginning.

To the OP: Most people agree that there will be an end to the universe ("heat death"). Whether or not there will be another one is pretty much unknowable. From our perspective, it doesn't really make much difference, does it?

That really, depends.

On what you believe right now.

I believe that it's all infinite.

Also, that consciousness is existence, itself.

Then again, i meditate, and i believe this through my own experiences, and everyone is different.

I agree with cloudwalker, eternity stretches both backwards and forwards. Just because the universe can be destroyed doesn't mean existence is destroyed. I think the idea is that everything from God down gets destroyed, but everything above God remains intact.

above God? what do you think is above God?

the ultimate force which keeps him and everything else together

It depends what you consider God is. If you consider him a being of light that sits in the highest ring of heaven falsely assuming he created the universe and is the highest thing in it, then yes, everything above God. If you call God the force of love that exists inside all of us which is synonymous with Nirvana then there's nothing above that, that we know of.

There are more than 15 planes higher than the highest plane of Heaven with Gods with higher vibrations than Jehova that he is not even aware of.

Once I had this really scary thought that there was no beggining.; and there will be no end. Thus, everything will crash.....when the beginning meets the end? I have no idea, just a thought I had. Like both sides are going to collide.

Kinda scary.

Nirvana. Is within us all.

It is our very existence.

Shedding the physical, astral, buddhic, atmic, (etc.) bodies.

Becoming more than just a part of everything.

Becoming, Nirvana, itself.

The question whether the universe had a beginning is a difficult one. Recent developments in physics have shown that the universe was likely not to have started in the big bang, but existed before that. One theory (string theory) sees the life of the universe as a cycle - expansion (big bang) and compression (big crunch) to a small point, but a point with some spacial size. The size is defined by the uncertainties of the small length scales, that time and size have no meaning at very small distances. So the universe expands, slows down, and implodes to a small area then kind of rebounds back.

In the light of this theory asking when did the universe begin is like asking which came first, chicken or the egg. (well, not really, as Darwin can provide an answer to the chicken - egg question)

So if we are to assume that the universe had no beginning then it would not have an end. It would have existed since an infinitely long time, and in this sense, be infinite.

To assume that a beginningless thing has an end doesn't really make sense to me. Nothingness is the only thing without a beginning. So what is the end of nothingness? Becoming? So the end of a beginningless thing is another beginning? Bah..

No beginning means that there was no cause. And nothing happens without a cause. No beginning means no existence. But this universe exists, atleast in some way. (Descartes' cognito ergo sum applies here) So this kind of argument is circulatory, and nonsense. Even the Buddha left this question unanswered (the Buddha did NOT say that the universe is beginningless)

Well, disregarding the fact if there was a beginning... Say that before physical existence was created, on a plane that isn't bound by time or space was merely pure consciousness, and eventually the (us) multitude of consciousness eventually took hold of their thoughts and imaginations but became to selfish with them. Thus we eventually fell and became ignorant of what we are truly capable of.

it occurred when nirvana became entangled in samsara and started to lose its sense of self, replaced by a sense of individual egos among the many droplets that make up the sea of nirvana. It would therefore end after the last soul has chosen to permanently rejoin nirvana.

Much like said here. ^ However, this is my question: What exactly IS nirvana? Permanently join with nirvana? It's as if we sacrifice our own individuality and become one with everyone. What is the point of that when life would be pointless at that point? We would all be a collective consciousness and just sit there forever enjoying eternal peace at the highest state of consciousness? This is the question that I desire answering. I have no intention of merging myself with another being only so that we can sit there forever OR existence can recreate itself. I want my individuality. That is what makes me unique. I was born with it for a reason and I am going to keep it for a reason.

Originally Posted by cloudWalker

If there was a beginning, then there is an end.
cloudWalker

If there was a beginning, what was there before the beginning? Just empty space? Isnt that what is out there now mostly, empty space?
And if there is an end, whats on the other side????

Its like on Matrix where the camera pans out from the world, the galaxy and the universe and we look at a marble being played with by a little boy. Is that the end, or can the camera pan out even more?
Where does it end??? If it does, Whats on the other side????

Even if there was only empty space, that is a form of existence and can't rightly be called as being before the beginning.

Stephen Wolfram is a mathematician who is currently attempting to reduce the concept of a universe to its simplest form: connected points, without dimensions of space or time. He has had remarkable success in showing that such points can manifest the qualities of universes with multiple spacial and temporal dimensions, with relationships between the two that have the form of relativity. If our universe is like this, it would be nothing more than a mathematical entity, a collection of points with simple rules that determine how they are connected and how they change in relation to each other. In such a scenario, it is meaningless to say the universe 'began' because time is part of the universe, not outside of it. Space would also be a quality of the universe, so there would be no 'outside' in the traditional sense.

Indeed. Most people are drawing away from the point that I'm curious about and are concerned with the extent of how far space goes or what happened in the beginning. I simply would like to know if there is end (or a repetitive beginning) and if so, why? Who is to say we haven't discussed this on this board infinite times in the past and will infinite times in the future?

Much like said here. ^ However, this is my question: What exactly IS nirvana? Permanently join with nirvana? It's as if we sacrifice our own individuality and become one with everyone. What is the point of that when life would be pointless at that point? We would all be a collective consciousness and just sit there forever enjoying eternal peace at the highest state of consciousness? This is the question that I desire answering. I have no intention of merging myself with another being only so that we can sit there forever OR existence can recreate itself. I want my individuality. That is what makes me unique. I was born with it for a reason and I am going to keep it for a reason.

Originally Posted by Absolute

A lot of reality's existence is based on a single point long ago that everything came to be, obviously commonly known as the 'Big Bang'. However, what if after existing for over one trillion years that we, for whatever purpose our life may be (I do not want to impose my or anyone elses beliefs) that regardless of how many incarnations we have or how we become enlightened - What if it all comes back together and everything restarts?

If you think about infinity and things that are beyond comprehension, we could be living in a finite universe with a beginning and end that continues for infinity. This would mean that we've already discussed this topic on the internet infinite times in the past and infinite times in the future.

But my question is what would be the point of this? We could exist as eternal energy but what if we continuously lived a repetitive existence? Isn't that freightening to think?

Interestingly this is exactly how I see the Bhagavad Gita pointing to it as being. Repetative cycles of distintion arising out of the nothingness.

What if indeed our iideas and thoughts of our own distinct individuality is merely an illusion? A natural play of energy relating to the embodied mind?

I have put away the terms finite and infinite. I simply see all that is in existance as being related to motion. There are no real boundaries save for movement and non-movement. Without movement there re no dichotomies, no dualism. Time and distance do not apply as there are no reference points to measure from. As soon as you have movement, ie starting at the sub atomic level and the creation( or change from energy to..) matter then reference points begin. As soon as motion ceases, all the reference points vanish.
Even In regards to ones percieved self, Past and future really have no bearing either without reference points. If with the cessation of motion all memory ceases to where there is no relative memory where can the reference point be?

What if indeed our iideas and thoughts of our own distinct individuality is merely an illusion? A natural play of energy relating to the embodied mind?

Wouldn't that be so pointless, though? I mean, things could be pre-arranged in our life so we make certain decisions to learn from and experience, but in the end... the true question is are we really individual beings or are we blinded by the thought of individuality and really are a universal collective mind?

If with the cessation of motion all memory ceases to where there is no relative memory where can the reference point be?

The reference point would be on a plane beyond the existence of movement and non-movement, a plane of existence that is timeless and spaceless, a place of pure consciousness that exists beyond our own.

Originally Posted by Absolute

Wouldn't that be so pointless, though? I mean, things could be pre-arranged in our life so we make certain decisions to learn from and experience, but in the end... the true question is are we really individual beings or are we blinded by the thought of individuality and really are a universal collective mind?

I have chewed on this for some time myself. Words and descriptions relating others accounts, ideas and even direct experiences only go so far in settling anything. It isnt until one has a direct experience themselves that anything begins to get settled.
I have had several such experiences, but even then it only brings some "knowing".The whole picture has not yet materialized. The hell of it is that my account would for somone else be just that another account to read. It really wouldnt do a whole lot in the way of providing anything "concrete" for someone other than myself.

What I do know myself at this point is that I am NOT an individual as related to a physical body in any way shape or form, nor anything related to an egocentric "I". Personality, interests etc etc are all transitory and unsubstantial. A purely temporary condition.

I'll try to put into words what I see and how later tonight.

The reference point would be on a plane beyond the existence of movement and non-movement, a plane of existence that is timeless and spaceless, a place of pure consciousness that exists beyond our own.

This too is not yet totally resolved for me. I will elaborate later.

Individuality is like experiencing driving a car.

Cars come in many different makes, models, years and styles. Each has its own unique feel, handling characteristics, looks, and quirks. The body is no different. Each body has its own unique personality,features, quirks and so on.
You, the driver, are not part of the car. When you stand outside of the car your view is open and unhindered. You are unbound by seats and seatbelts, doors and structure of the car. You are free and unencumbered, all stretched out with your full range of motion at your disposal. No rules of the road, driving concepts, or laws to be mindful of. This is sort of what its like being unbound by form.
When the driver gets into a car the perception the driver has conforms to the unique characteristics of the specific car the driver is in. The view the driver has conforms to the limitations of the car from the inside looking out through the windows around the supports and framework.
After driving the car for a time one gets a feel for it and gets used to the driving characteristics it has so much so that reactions and driving technique become almost automatic. Its almost like you as the driver are just part of the car itself, and while driving it, rarely does one ever consider seeing from outside the parameters of inside the car as they go down the road.

The driver can get into an infinite number of cars without themselves being changed. Their view outside of each car is the same from one car to another. The only uniqueness is in relation to being in each car while in each car.

Cars as described above are no different than the body and the driver is no different than the Atman, Unbound Self, or whatever one wishes to label the Presence/Awareness that one actually is.

Wreck the car, get another. Body /personality and circumstances of existance that goes with it dies, start out in another one.

Earlier it was stated:

I have no intention of merging myself with another being only so that we can sit there forever OR existence can recreate itself. I want my individuality. That is what makes me unique. I was born with it for a reason and I am going to keep it for a reason.

This is only natural, a stance of being unaware of the greater Self within. If one has a direct experience of this higher state of being one will laugh outloud at such thoughts they used to have. I did.

Originally Posted by Absolute

Wouldn't that be so pointless, though? I mean, things could be pre-arranged in our life so we make certain decisions to learn from and experience, but in the end... the true question is are we really individual beings or are we blinded by the thought of individuality and really are a universal collective mind?



The reference point would be on a plane beyond the existence of movement and non-movement, a plane of existence that is timeless and spaceless, a place of pure consciousness that exists beyond our own.

Really the comments made in this post:
http://=http://www.dreamviews.com/co...ad.php?t=44969

can apply to both these points as well