Anderz

How to understand death? We can look at it from the Holy Instant. Take for example Napoleon who in calendar time died 5 May, in the year 1821. Calendar time is just information in the now. Here comes a mind-twister: Napoleon ACTUALLY died now and ONLY now.

And actually, think about it, consciousness CANNOT be the whole reality. Because consciousness is aware of the physical world, so reality is a larger whole that unifies both consciousness and the manifested world. Reality is an endless string of information observing itself. So consciousness is a property of reality. Oneness CANNOT observe itself. The oneness which is the foundation of reality is difference. And the endless string observing itself is a path in the graph of differences arising as a consequence from the one difference.

I wonder if Leo means the same thing by consciousness as what I mean by it. Consciousness is simply awareness of an automatic process. Leo seems to believe that consciousness can do something, such as imagining things. It can't! Consciousness is just an on/off state of being aware as a self. And reality is what ACIM calls the Holy Instant. Holy means whole and instant means this present moment. There is only the present moment and it's a wholeness, so it's a Holy Instant. As I mentioned in my previous post there is no past outside the present moment because then there would be a separation, an "unholy instant" and there is no such thing. So Leo is correct that we were not actually born is some past some years ago separate from our experience right now. We were born now. And there was no consciousness in some past away from the now. There is only consciousness now. So I don't really understand Leo's concept of consciousness. Here is one example of what Leo means by consciousness, and I think his explanation of reality is correct in many ways but then he starts imaging consciousness as being some miracle agent or something like that able to cause and do things, which IMO is totally a redundant idea:

If the world we live in now is the real reality, then what about physical death? First we need to understand what physical reality is. The past is indestructible information in the now and only in the now. There is no past outside the present moment. So for example Elvis Presley exists as a person as information in the now. And Elvis Presley has an eternal, unique and individual soul in the form of a single point within the graph of difference. Reincarnation is as ACIM says ultimately impossible since there is only the present moment. Resurrection is theoretically possible since the individual soul is eternal and indestructible, And God is not some separate deity with free will. So Buddhism is correct about there not being a literal God as some big boss with free will but is wrong about reincarnation. And Christianity is correct about resurrection and actual miracles but wrong about there being a God able to send people to some actual hell.

Notice that what Leo said in his latest video that we are NOT living in a computer simulation also applies to the idea that the world is a dream. Our world is NOT a dream. Just like how it would be stupid for infinite intelligence to construct a world which is a simulation within a simulation and so on, it's equally stupid for that intelligence to create a world that is a dream within a dream and so on. So the physical world is the real deal. And there is no other place such as a separate heaven or a hell. Heaven simply means fourth and higher density. And hell means being stuck in third density forever, which is a delusion since evolution will inevitably and automatically pull us into fourth density. Then what about astral realms and spiritual dimensions? Even if those exist, THOSE are dreams, our physical universe is the real reality.

Why do I take the Law of One seriously? Isn't that just New Age woo woo? The problem with sticking only to our earth view is that it's a too local perspective. To believe that our civilization is the only or most developed one in the entire universe is like centuries ago when people believed that the earth was the center of the entire universe. Steven Greer said that advanced civilizations have spacecraft that can materialize directly out of the vacuum energy in "empty" space. That's a more open-minded and less myopic perspective. And the Law of One seems advanced enough to me to possibly be hinting at actual truths.

If fourth density really means eternal life, and the first heaven, then what about the following quote? My interpretation is that the Law of One is very tricky and often has to semi-hide the truth, just like the Bible. Giving us direct knowledge too early will hamper our own development. So by 90,000 years Ra means I think that it will take 90,000 years to go from fourth to fifth density. So "death" in higher densities is about switching from a lower density to a higher density without actual physical death.

Leo said in a video that for there to be life that has to be death. Is that true? Or is Leo caught in a self-deception himself here? I think it's true in what the Law of One calls second and third density. It's NOT however true in fourth and higher densities I believe. And the Bible talks about that. The Bible calls third density the "old order of things". Check out this Bible quote:

ACIM explains how our perception of the world will change. Aaron talks about that in his new video:

And indeed, I found that ACIM says the same thing:

Oh, well, if the process is automatic I might as well get back to the topic of theory. The endless string observing itself is the largest holon, like an Omega Point an infinite number of years into the future. That creates an intelligent pull from the future moving creation into larger and larger and ever more complex holons. A collective consciousness, which is a larger and much more complex holon than the individual consciousness, is therefore inevitable. It's not like the horrible hive mind of the Borg in Star Trek, BUT assimilation IS inevitable. Resistance is futile.

My New Year's resolution is that I will be assimilated by the collective consciousness.

When Lazy Yoga is successful the tensions in body and mind automatically dissolve. It's the collective consciousness of humanity that is doing the job for us. The collective consciousness is itself powered by an automatic process but it's a much larger and more powerful process than the individual ego. The collective consciousness includes the individual so it knows all of the individual egos and how to transcend, dissolve and include them.

And now I discovered another thing that can be added to Lazy Yoga. Jesus Christ said something like: deny thyself. The whole ego self is a part of the global ego which is build on deception. So what is needed is to do nothing! Because the whole ego needs to be dissolved. As Jesus said and what ACIM is talking about, the ego self has to be replaced. And even to do nothing is deception, because that again would be ego action and willpower. And even to practice mindfulness as a detached nonjudgmental observer, even that is ego action. So it's about a total relaxation of the separate self. I will take a look at Leo's videos about self-deception which sounds like they could be related to this. It's important to not throw out the baby with the bathwater, so the valuable things in the ego need to be preserved, transcended and included in integral way, but it's not the ego that is doing it.

I discovered that actually, the effort to relax the body also needs to be relaxed! Because that's the ego delusion of individual responsibility and willpower leading to delusional struggle which itself is a tension.

I found another useful video related to body awareness by Leo where he talks about blocks in the body from about 7 minutes into this video:

Now I remember! Leo's body awareness video reminded me that both the mind and the body need to be relaxed. Eckhart Tolle has useful tips about body awareness practice, but it's only from Leo I have heard about the need for relaxing both body and mind, And I assume Leo means relaxing both body and mind at the same time since they are connected and actually a oneness and ultimately a oneness with all of existence.

Okay, enough of theory for me at the moment. I will focus on body awareness practice. I have already posted this video where Leo talks about body awareness, but it's useful I think to remind oneself. Even ACIM is only practical on an intellectual level essentially with all the lessons. Eckhart Tolle said that there is an energy field that gives life to the physical body. That sounds like a morphic field that Rupert Sheldrake has said controls biology etc. And Nassim Haramein said that our consciousness is connected within our bodies to the vacuum energy which is a much deeper level than the physical atoms. So it seems that body awareness practice is a method for how to actually connect to the deeper reality and higher consciousness.

There is a difference between unmanifested (first order) information and manifested (second and higher order) information. Take as an example two strings of binary information A=1011010 and B=1011010. That's the same string of information on the manifested level: A = B. But notice that when we look at the deeper connection we see that A and B are concepts represented as text. And clearly the text describing A is different than the text describing B when we look at it as pixels on a computer screen. The text for A is at a different position on the computer screen than the text for B. Unmanifested information is always different while manifested information can be either different or the same. When information is destroyed such as deleting a file on a hard drive it's only the manifested information that is destroyed. The unmanifested information on the other hand is always indestructible. And interestingly, mainstream physicist Leonard Susskind said that the deepest physical law he knows of is that information is indestructible. Also, unmanifested information is fully interconnected into a wholeness while manifested information can conceptually be treated as separate bits.

I like how Leo often is talking about absolute vs relative, not as a duality. Ken Wilber pointed out that those who say that "everything is relative", that statement is itself an absolute statement, so they disprove their own claim. Instead of a duality the absolute includes the relative, while the relative does not include the absolute. Absolute vs relative as a duality only exists on the level of concepts. And even though concepts are always relative in a sense, they can point to the actual absolute which is not relative. In my model, the fundamental difference is absolute. Sameness on the other hand is always relative, since sameness is a second order phenomenon. And difference as second order is also relative. So there is a distinction between absolute difference which is fundamental and relative difference which is second or higher order.

What do I mean by increased consciousness? How can an on/off state be increased? It can't. So what I mean is like what is described by the mainstream Integrated Information Theory of consciousness. The higher value of Phi an information system has, the more consciousness. So it's in relation to second order reality that consciousness can be lower or higher. And for humanity to significantly increase the value of Phi requires an integration of our separate Phi values as human beings. Notice that the value Phi is not only about increasing the amount of information processing and connectivity. For example the internet is massively connected and has huge information processing power but essentially zero value of Phi I think. So the internet is as conscious as a rock basically. And even with Ray Kurzweil's prediction of us humans connecting our minds to a big computer cloud, that's still very little if any increase of the value of Phi. A collective consciousness on the other hand results is a huge increase of Phi, or else it would be a collective unconscious with zero Phi value.

Freedom is a result of increasing consciousness. At first it might seem to us that being an independent individual is maximum freedom, but that's an ego mistake. Because the ego is an experience of separation it causes huge amounts of conflict, fear and suffering. So that's actually a very limited form of freedom. With a collective consciousness we start functioning as a single organism, and that's a huge evolutionary leap of increasing consciousness. With a collective consciousness we are able to function without the ego friction so that results in a vast increase of freedom on both an individual and collective level. More freedom means less suffering and therefore increased capacity for consciousness. With suffering consciousness has less capacity.

If reality is based on difference, then what is sameness? Are for example two hydrogen atoms the same? The answer is that they are only the same when we enter the world of concepts, and that's a third order phenomenon. With concepts we can say that the two atoms are the same type of chemical element. Fundamentally the atoms are different. Even two quantum entangled particles are different since they have unique and distinct positions in space.

One curious difference between my model and what Leo has been saying is that in my model consciousness is a property of difference observing itself. And Leo's explanation, if I have understood it correctly, says that difference is a property of consciousness. If so, which explanation is correct? Maybe they are the same just like how left and right define each other. If not, then I prefer my explanation because Leo's brings in the concept of nothingness which is redundant in my model. Difference observing itself is a platonic form/structure/principle or a "no-thing", but not nothing.

Leo asked in his latest video what a distinction is made of. Another simple question. My answer is that reality is difference observing itself. That is the potential for consciousness, so consciousness is absolute in that sense. This means that reality is made of distinction (difference) and not the other way around. So the distinction is the foundation of reality and isn't made on top of some other foundation.