Anderz

I have a new practice: to refuse to make choices. It's a test to see what happens. The idea is that choices will be revealed to be false. Or not. Practice is necessary to hammer the concept into the subconscious. Otherwise I will just forget about the idea and continue with my usual ego habits.

Here I found a short video where Mooji makes a useful description of how both the ego and its projections are shaky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtYjJm8acy8 And Mooji described how we can observe both the ego and its projection as being shaky, meaning that we then observe from a stable position since the shaky parts are observed. Something like that. That was a new insight to me, that both the ego and its projections can be observed and most importantly that they can be recognized I think as a false foundation (maybe Mooji even mentioned that). I connect that realization to the choice-making entity which is the ego and its projections (such as choices etc). One danger is the psychological disorder of depersonalization mentioned in mainstream psychology. I believe that can be avoided by recognizing all of it, including the ego, as a whole movement of life.

Ha! Tensions in body and mind and choice go together. Choice is indeed confusion as Krishnamurti said. Choice is disorder which in turn is entropy. And the belief in the necessity of choice forces the body and mind to attempt to lower the entropy, and tensions are a low form of entropy! Why? Because low entropy means structure, and tensions, even when nasty, painful and causing illness, are a form of structure, hence low entropy. Put more simply, the belief in choice causes suffering. To the ego the idea of having no choice seems worse than having choice, because then the ego believes it will be forced to do things and be forced by the will of others. The realization however is that NOTHING can force you or make you do things, not even yourself, because choice is an illusion.

Darn! Maybe J. Krishnamurti was the world teacher that the Theosophical Society intended him to be after all. Krishnamurti for example said that choice is confusion. That's very true! But we don't see the truth of it when we are trapped in the global ego, which has a false foundation causing us to believe that we ourselves have to choose what to do and how to behave. We don't! Choice is a total fiction. In fact, it seems that the belief in choice is one of the major tricks played on us by the global ego. Without choice, which itself is a false belief, the global ego collapses. I don't have as an ego the choice of whether to continue following the global ego or not, but I can see the falseness of it, and I expect that my own choices will start to dissolve.

Wait a minute, isn't authority itself a false construct? Truth doesn't need authority. And knowledge, is that in itself authority? True knowledge is just concepts describing things. I don't see how knowledge can actually be an authority. It's more like the other way around, that authority needs to assert itself to somehow prove that it's about truth. Of course the global ego is built on authority, so in that sense authority is necessary, but remember that the global ego is itself based on a false belief in total separation. J. Krishnamurti talked about freedom from authority, and in this short video clip he talks about how we have been conditioned: Jiddu Krishnamurti - Who is that to tell you what to do? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szW_NeWzljc And here is another quote from Krishnamurti: "What is necessary is the freedom from authority, not the 'how'. The 'how' implies a method, a system, a way trodden by others, and someone to tell you, do this and you will find it. ... to have clarity, the first essential thing is freedom. Freedom from authority." - https://jkrishnamurti.org/content/authority-destructive It seems to me now that Krishnamurti was talking about freedom from the global ego! That explains why people didn't get his message, it was not intended for us as egos within the global ego, it was meant as a pointer to transcend all ego structures.

It seems to me that Leo's description of authority can be used for transcending the ego. My usual approach is to listen to spiritual teachers and teachings, and mainstream and alternative media etc. But all that is external authorities which at best only can give intellectual perspectives and at worst be traps keeping the ego stuck in the global ego. The authority that brings about a transcendence of the ego is not Christ, well, it is Christ in the sense of a pointer but also the Buddha and other spiritual sign posts like that; the ultimate authority is life as a whole process. Christ being the way and the truth and the life is an excellent pointer to that whole process, although the risk is that one gets stuck on the level of the sign post, mistaking the finger pointing at the moon for the moon itself.

Oh! We have FULL authority. Isn't that arrogance? No. I can recognize that I'm identified as a separate ego, and that's a false foundation and a shaky form of authority. Full authority instead means life as a wholeness. It's one unit of motion. And I think it's valuable to experiment with that complete and whole form of authority. The ego is a huge construct and not to be dismissed lightly. And also, as I have mentioned earlier, the ego serves a purpose of enabling us to develop as unique individuals. Still, the ego has a false foundation which is the sense of being totally separate. So somehow, some-when, the ego needs to be transcended or we will remain trapped in what is meant to be a temporary stage of development.

Excellent info in Leo's latest video about authority. In support of Leo's description about science as a status game, here is a quote from the Editor in Chief of The Lancet, one of the most prestigious scientific medical journals in the world: "The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness." - https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1.pdf All you mainstream hugging skeptics, put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Yay! Leo has a new video: How Authority Works - Where Does Truth Come From? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyzYKVL5CB0 Interesting topic. Before I watch the whole video, I think of at least two kinds of authorities: 1) authorities that I outsource responsibility to as a form of convenience, and 2) authorities I trust as a source of knowledge. I have gotten very careful about the second kind of authority. So much manipulation! Even in mainstream authorities. Absolutely incredible.

The new global morphic field that is emerging is much more intelligent than the global ego. It's a higher evolutionary level. And my guess is that it's enough to recognize the possibility of such evolutionary leap and then the new morphic field will start to resonate within oneself. I don't have to try to achieve that with my separate ego.

The global ego is a morphic field! Almost like a living being. Like a great dragon. A new global morphic field will emerge I think, but maybe not like a phoenix rising from the toasted dragon having burned to ashes. It could be that a transcend and include is necessary in an integral way. Integral in the sense Ken Wilber has described it.

And even worse, perhaps, like myself, having a lot of fear and confusion inside with little confidence. That's like my ego double-fooling itself. At least confidence, even as a facade, makes sense together with fear inside. But I think it can be a good spiritual practice to drop one's facade because that's a strong protective wall keeping the fear in place.

The more tough and confident a person is, the more fear and confusion he or she has inside. At least when the ego is genuine and not like for example Donald Trump who just fakes having an ego. If someone was REALLY confident, would confidence even be needed? The whole idea of confidence is an ego delusion. It's like saying: look at that house, look how confident it is!

Personal responsibility is extremely important for the global ego. The very structure of the global ego is held together by the belief in separate individuals and personal responsibility is necessary to prevent the global ego from falling apart. The truth is that nobody is actually responsible. Reality is an automatic process, including all humans. But the illusion of separation needs to be preserved to keep the global ego going. And also, an authority telling people they are not responsible for their actions might be dangerous for people who are still completely trapped in individual and separate egos. People tend to follow authorities and the idea of not being responsible combined with the ego could mess up people's lives and the structure of society as it is today.

Even nations are collective egos and are a necessary result of the global ego. And the global ego is necessary as a developmental stage for humanity. There HAS to be nasty social control structures to keep the global ego intact, because it's made up of individual and separate egos. The good thing is that the global ego is only a temporary stage, even though it's thousands of years old. The Bible describes it as: "Ask me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession. You will break them with a rod of iron; you will dash them to pieces like pottery.” Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the earth." - psalm 2:8-10 "To the one who is victorious and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations—that one ‘will rule them with an iron scepter and will dash them to pieces like pottery’—just as I have received authority from my Father." - Revelation 2:26-27 And of course, "the one" who will be victorious and smash the nations is not a single person, like a dictator or even a collective ego like a new power structure. That's the old order of things. Instead the one is all of humanity breaking free from the global ego.

Nothing can come from nothing. So nonduality teachers talking about nothing are deluded I suspect, or are big conmen/conwomen. Even to say no-thing is confusing, because what is a thing? They need to define what they mean by thing first. EDIT: I came to think that there is also a third possibility: that some spiritual teachers have to be somewhat vague or misleading or the powers of the global ego might attack them and take them down. There are huge ego interests in protecting profit, social control, established collective egos and so on.

I don't fully trust mainstream science but I think quantum entanglement is definitely real. So how to explain quantum entanglement in a net of differences? One way is to assign a unique number to each difference in the net (Indra's net). Take four differences A, B, C and D for example, and then by using subtraction there are cases where A-B = C-D, meaning the same difference can appear at two and more places in the net, meaning entanglement. "Quantum entanglement—physics at its strangest—has moved out of this world and into space. In a study that shows China's growing mastery of both the quantum world and space science, a team of physicists reports that it sent eerily intertwined quantum particles from a satellite to ground stations separated by 1200 kilometers, smashing the previous world record. The result is a stepping stone to ultrasecure communication networks and, eventually, a space-based quantum internet." - https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/china-s-quantum-satellite-achieves-spooky-action-record-distance

The algorithm for Indra's net is extremely simple. Start with reality as difference. For the difference to exist there has to be two other differences which the original difference is the comparison of. And those two differences result in new differences which in turn result in even more differences and so on, with the number differences increasing from 1 to 3 to 5 to 9 to 17 to ... , with the formula: D(1) = 1 D(n) = 2^(n-1) + 1, n > 1 That's an exponential increase of number of differences. So there is a huge increase of the amount of information manifested all the time. And all memories are stored permanently, but how can our universe appear from such simple structure? And how does it contain intelligence and a process of evolution? I haven't figured that out yet other than that each unique individual (soul) is one out of all those possible differences.

Stephen Wolfram who wrote the book A New Kind of Science also thinks that the universe can be the result of a simple algorithm, And in fiction, the Merovingian describes the consequence in one of the Matrix movies: Notice that the Merovingian doesn't move his hand forward when he says "effect" indicating that the cause isn't necessarily only from past to future but can also be from the future to the past.

Leo seems to say that there is true choice, that someone can choose to imagine etc. I doubt that he means actual choice. There is no choice in the ultimate sense in my view. And Leo also talked about imagination in his video. As I see it reality is not an imagination. Reality is a precise unfolding of an interconnected net that can be described by a deterministic and logically precise algorithm. We as individuals are unique points (positions) in the net. A point is a difference. A difference can not make a difference, or do some action, the difference is changeless. Leo also seems to suggest that reality has existed forever. It hasn't. Reality only exists now. There is no actual time stretching back an infinite number of years or in some past different from the now. Not even "God" has experienced the past or the future. Nothing repeats itself. Time always moves forward from the start of the explosion of differences and into the future, in a single timeline. There are no parallel realities or alternative realities, there is only one reality, this reality. Nobody can for example choose to take shrooms or LSD. Whatever we do is already determined. Reality cannot change itself, and we are reality.

How can my model be the same as Indra's net when that is infinite, changeless and timeless, while my model is an ever expanding net? It's the same net! Indra's net is the platonic form, the changeless aspect of Brahman. Yet since the explosion of differences is infinite, reality will continue to unfold forever. So one can make a distinction between the absolute reality and our relative reality with the manifestation of time as the expansion of the net. And notice one curious consequence of this: our reality is always FINITE! Because the net will never reach infinity. For each iteration of differences leading to more differences, this process is infinite yet the expression of the process (our experienced relative reality) is always finite. One way to illustrate this is to think of the set of natural numbers N = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... which is an infinite set, yet all natural numbers are finite. Think of the set N as an infinitely large urn and the natural numbers as balls in the urn. There is an infinite number of balls in the urn. And let's say that each ball has a unique natural number written on it. No matter what ball we pick from the urn the number written on it will always be finite.

Darn! The description of reality as difference is super clever. I wonder how Leo came to that realization. And even if I make the explanation different (pun intended) than Leo's it makes my model even simpler. And it explains the beginning of time as the start of the explosion of differences. The explosion of differences is like an ever expanding Indra's net: ""Indra's net" is an infinitely large net of cords owned by the Vedic deva Indra, which hangs over his palace on Mount Meru, the axis mundi of Buddhist and Hindu cosmology. In this metaphor, Indra's net has a multifaceted jewel at each vertex, and each jewel is reflected in all of the other jewels.[5]" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra's_net#Avatamsaka_Sutra And a "jewel" in Indra's net is a difference connected to all other differences. The two other things the original difference connects to are themselves differences, or they would be outside reality since reality is defined as difference.

If information is not fundamental then how does information arise from difference? The original difference which is the whole of reality is just one unit, so that's not information in its original form. Instead, information is the explosion of differences the original difference is a result of, as I described in an earlier post. So the original difference is what holds all information which in turn is the interconnected explosion of differences. When did the explosion start? At the Big Bang? No, my hypothesis is that our Big Bang is only a recent branch on a whole multiverse tree. And also, the Big Bang happened now! Get it? The explosion IS now, and continues to expand forever.

Advaita means not two. "Advaita Vedanta (/ədˈvaɪtə vɛˈdɑːntə/; Sanskrit: अद्वैत वेदान्त, IAST: Advaita Vedānta, literally, "not-two"), originally known as Puruṣavādha,[1][note 1] is a school of Hindu philosophy, and believed to be one of the classic paths to spiritual realization in Hindu tradition.[2] The term Advaita refers to its idea that the true self, Atman, is the same as the highest metaphysical Reality (Brahman)." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta Advaita could be a really clever description of the foundation of reality. Starting with Leo's explanation that reality is difference, that's one united whole. And let's assume that the difference is related to another thing which makes them two: the difference and the other thing. But that doesn't compute since what is the difference between the difference and the other thing? The original difference cannot be different than the difference between the original difference and the other thing, so it collapses back into oneness again. (I hope I got that right, that was a real mind twister. ) So the difference then must be between two other things, making a total of three things, not two, therefore Advaita is correct.

Leo said that information is difference. That's a good definition I think. If reality is difference, then that's oneness! Of course words are always duality but as a pointer it seems to describe reality accurately. Start with one difference. For that one difference to exist there has to be a "this" and a "that" between to make a difference. And that results in duality. But then there are THREE things: 1) this, 2) that and 3) the difference. And in turn that causes a new level of differences between the difference and this and that, and so on in an infinite explosion of differences. I like that definition! It's deeper and more fundamental than information.