 91. Knowledge (Big Bang of Creation) |
All knowledge is meditation on the knower, who bestows the names "true" and "false," "auspicious" and "evil" on experience. Only in natural relationship, before we "know" a thing, do we also value it. Knowledge is naming and differentiating. When it becomes the fundamental form of our connection to everything, then our participation in Reality has ceased.
The seeker bestows the name "awesome mystery" on all the unknown."To know" is the motive of all knowledge. And once a thing is known, mere knowledge loses its charm. Therefore, things known fall back into unknown.
Nor is the "unknown" the Truth, even though all men seek to know it. The "unknown," like knowledge, describes and points to the knower. Except it bestows the name "ignorant" upon its devotee.
The true Unknown is not that which is not yet known. It is the Eternally Unknowable. If there is such Unknown, then Ignorance is not our misfortune. It is our Nature! And, indeed, we cannot ever know what a single thing is. We may only know about any thing. But what a single thing is is not grasped in any perception, experience, or conception. Therefore, Ignorance is truth. The Unknown is Reality. Our Condition is obvious.
-Franklin Jones
DID CREATION ORIGINATE FROM THE "BIG BANG"?
Franklin Jones States:
To speak about the "Big Bang" is to SPEAK FROM THE CONDITIONAL POINT OF VIEW. "Consideration" of the "Big Bang" is not a consideration about ultimate matters. It is a "consideration" about an appearance, essentially of a gross kind. So you cannot account for Totality merely by referring to that presumed event.
In Reality, the presumed "Big Bang" is a paradox. However, the phrase "Big Bang" has become such a common reference that people presume they know what they are talking about when they use this reference. To take another example, you commonly use the word "atom." But merely to be able to use that word "correctly" does not mean you have comprehended what an atom is. Similarly, you use the word "light", or you use the word "matter"—you use all kinds of words. And merely because words are usable, and have some sort of conventional associations that people find communicative when they are talking with one another, the general presumption is that everyone knows what they are talking about when they use words. But in fact, they do not.
Such is especially the case relative to certain unique notions, such as the "Big Bang" theory (or presumption). The "Big Bang" is not merely an event in time and space, nor is it merely the "starting point" for all otherwise ordinary events. The "Big Bang" is a paradox. The presumption about it is that, "before" (so called) the "Big Bang," There was neither space nor time. Thus, the "Big Bang" is not rightly conceived as an explosion in the midst of space. Rather, the "Big Bang" is the very incident in which space itself appeared. Therefore, to speak about the "Big Bang" as if it is a "something" that occurred "in" space and time (or space-time) is an expression of a rather conventional point of view. Merely the phrasing of the question is already beside the point of Ultimate Truth. How can there be a "before," in the sense of time, relative to something before which there was no time?
In any case, the space-time generated by the presumed "Big Bang" is essentially of a gross nature. What about all the rest of conditional existence? What about Totality Itself? What about Existence Itself, in all planes, and Absolute, Beyond Totality? These are not matters that can be fruitfully spoken about using the conventional mind as the means. The conventional mind is already fitted to location, space-time, and so forth. Such a conceptual framework is not the basis for comprehending what is beyond location and space-time.
