Anderz

I was listening to Seth Speaks and wondered if such channeled and woo woo sounding information really would be useful or if it's better to think through things myself. And it occurred to me that it is useful to learn from all kinds of sources, because if I only think my own thoughts that's very much limited to what I already know, and if I only look at mainstream "credible" sources that's a limited perspective too. One idea that came to me is that our technology such as the iPhone 12 and Mate40 may be a second order form of technology. That our world is already saturated by what Ray Kurzweil calls computronium and the purpose of our own technology is its uniqueness and our way of developing on our own. It's then a trick! A trick for the purpose of growth and development until we have reached a high enough level of development as a civilization where the already existing computronium is revealed (revelation, apocalypse [means unveiling]).

Then what about transhumanism? Ray Kurzweil doesn't like the term transhumanism because it implies something not human he said, but he also said that in the future we will have bodies made of intelligent matter that can take any form, just like the shapeshifting glorified bodies I mentioned in the previous post. What Ray Kurzweil talks about in this video probably already has happened to other civilizations in our universe, some millions of years older than our own. So the sufficiently advanced technology indistinguishable from magic that Arthur C. Clarke wrote about most likely already exists within our universe. I even speculate that the breakaway civilization on earth that Richard Dolan has researched extensively already has reached and gone beyond a technological singularity and that the people there have the capability to shapeshift their physical bodies! So will we get glorified bodies through spirituality or through technology? I don't know but technology isn't separate from reality. Technology and spirituality are aspects of the one and same reality. Even the transpersonal stage could possibly be reached through technology where we become so interconnected that we transcend the separate sense of self. But in that case it's still consciousness that is the foundation. Physical matter is information experienced in consciousness according to my model. And causality as I mentioned is nondual, so it's actually not technology itself that is causing things, it's reality as a whole that determines what happens.

In the Bible it says that the body of flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Instead we will get a glorified body. But that will also happen on earth (see Revelation 21). I think I will look at the other major religions and see if they too have the concept of a glorified body. From an atheistic perspective I believe that the glorified body is the realization of the intelligence of the vacuum energy, so that in the future our body will be made of zero point energy which can take the shape of atoms and shapeshift into all kinds of physical bodies. In the video pastor Dave discussed what age the glorified body would look like. Well, I think we will be able to shapeshift into any form, so we can within a second shapeshift from a child's body to an old person's body, then to a young person's body and then into a unicorn and after that into a coffee table and then back into a human male or female body. The shape of the body is just a form, similar to how this text is just made of pixels/dots. Even Jesus was able to shapeshift I believe when people didn't recognize his resurrection body.

One good possibility is that since everything is already interconnected, it means that even our suffering and conflict at the personal stage is already connected with the whole world. That's good because then our own suffering can't get worse by connecting energetically with others. Curiously I got this idea when listening what seems to be incredible woo woo presented by Alex Collier in 1996!

Shunyamurti just now published this video where he describes the ego as an inauthentic self. And with inaccurate behavior which is karma, he said. Very interesting! It's very much in line with my own recent ideas about karma.

At the personal stage there is a very sneaky and deep trait which is that we want other people to fail. Even when we on a conscious level want other people to succeed, in the deeper strata of our being the subconscious drive is for others to fail. And it's possibly that trait that fuels the ego's tendency towards sadism. Why do we want other people to fail? It's very simple! Because the personal stage is a false perspective, which needs to be destroyed. So we are consciously and/or subconsciously working for correcting the false perspective of the personal stage. Fortunately, at the transpersonal stage that wacky situation has been resolved. We can then safely wish others to succeed in entering the transpersonal stage because there we are one with each other.

It says in the Tao Te Ching somewhere: Can you make your body as supple as a newborn babe? A baby has a jelly-like body. I think that's a good pointer, but we shouldn't revert back to the body of a baby. Instead the body should be supple yet still firm. For example the spine should be like jelly yet strong, so that when standing up there is an upright body posture effortlessly. At the personal stage the physical body is very rigid and stiff. And people use effort to improve their body posture. That's horrible. And it gets worse and worse as the body ages. A fluid ego in my estimation also means a fluid physical body. What the crystallized ego does is trying to hold the body together while still gathering more and more tensions and numbness. That's a horrible situation. I can feel the tension in my own body when for example being startled by a sudden sharp sound, or when I get irritated. So much tension inside! When the body-mind is fluid, my idea is that then we won't get startled the way we do at the personal stage of development. When the body-mind truly is one with the environment, not just as an intellectual idea but as an actual experience, then there is no fear, not even a biological fight or flight response if we were to meet a wild bear in nature.

Something practical is that I find it tedious to having to worry about past mistakes. My guess is that to remove that worry requires entering the transpersonal stage. Because the worry is a form of reaction to karma. I will experiment with assuming that the past is perfect and that it's error-free. And also that my actions in the now are perfect, and that all my actions in the future will be perfect. That might seem like a ridiculous assumption at the personal stage but the idea is that the transpersonal stage is the recognition of oneness and changelessness at the most fundamental level.

If my view is correct, then why isn't it the mainstream view? Actually I remember hearing (in the apparent past ) that there is an established philosophical view about reality being only what is experienced now. I don't remember the name of it, but it's one of the mainstream philosophical views of reality. And also, our world is still utterly dominated by the personal stage which needs the belief in a past separate from the now in order to maintain the belief in being a separate individual with free will and being personally responsible for past actions.

Now I have another proposal for modifying the hardcore nonduality teachings who say that things are only apparently happening. The true perspective in my opinion is to say that things have apparently happened in the past. But what is happening now IS happening, not apparently happening. How do I know that I'm not deluding myself? What if there is an actual past separate from the now? My answer to that is that my model is consistent with my actual direct experience. The mainstream view of a past separate from the now is not.

Because the crystallized ego is such a massive heap of karma, we become almost insanely absorbed in our own past memories. According to my model, that's a catastrophic illusion. Why? Because all the past manifests instantly in the now. There isn't any past separate from the now. Nobody has done, been, existed in a past away from the now, ever, and never will. So when we say that we have done this and that in the past, the truth is that we haven't! We haven't done squat in the past. Even as a nondual Self we have never existed in a past. The Self is now and only now. A better perspective is to think of the future as something that we will experience. We have never experienced a past other than as the information presented to us now in the present moment. So we will experience the future but we have never experienced the past other than now. And the future is not the same as our thoughts about the future. The future is unknown to us until we experience it.

Another simple spiritual teaching is the extreme form of nonduality that people like Tony Parsons and Jim Newman talk about. They even say that nothing is happening. Maybe they mean that no-thing is happening which I would agree with, but it's unclear what they mean. And instead of saying that something is happening they say that something apparently is happening. In my opinion that ironically makes their teaching more complicated than it needs to be. It's more direct to say that no-thing is happening. So there is something happening! It's just that this something is not a thing like some material stuff. The word 'apparently' then becomes redundant.

Aha! Peter Ralston said that the Absolute is not a distinction. That's a good point. So my model is just a theoretical construct without including spirituality. To make my model spiritual I have to add the Absolute as a concept. I think that's pretty neat because I can add or remove the Absolute depending on whether I want to make the model atheistic or spiritual. It's useful I believe to have some theoretical framework of all of reality and then look at the different stages of personal development within that framework. With a limited perspective our perception of reality becomes trapped within that incomplete perspective, such as scientists trying to explain consciousness within a materialistic framework, as in this recent news article:

I like Advaita because it's a simple teaching that doesn't require extra beliefs, such as in Buddhism they believe in reincarnation. However when it comes to the concept of time Advaita is too dismissive in my opinion. Therefore I have come up with my own model which includes time. I have put the model together from different sources including Leo's explanation of reality as difference, an idea that originally may have come from Peter Ralston who described all of reality as distinction. My model briefly is: Reality is difference. The difference manifests as Indra's net expanding forever at an accelerating rate (which is possible to mathematically define). Indra's net in its complete infinite form is the unmanifested reality and can be illustrated by the unit circle which has the radius of 1. Our multiverse is a point on that circle and that point can be represented by a single real number. Consciousness is that number observing the finite manifestation of itself within the expansion of Indra's net which produces the experience of time. My model might be more complicated than Advaita but to me it explains more. And precise predictions can be made. For example our manifested reality is always finite. It's only the unmanifested reality, the complete unit circle, that is infinite. Think of it as resolution of a screen getting higher and higher making the unit circle drawn on the screen consisting of more and more pixels. The unmanifested circle has an infinite number of pixels (points)! Try to produce a computer screen with infinite resolution.

An observation that I now see more clearly is that the crystallized ego is of course not separate from the rest of reality. It's just that the tensions in the body and mind make the crystallized ego appear as a separate entity. And also, the tensions experientially block much of the connections with the totality so that we experience ourselves as small, separate and isolates selves. One practice therefore is to allow the tensions to relax as a means of increasing one's capacity. A common mistake made at the personal stage is to believe that the more crystallized knowledge one accumulates, the more powerful one becomes. That's only true at the shallow level of the personal stage. And even then, the personal power is a phony kind for the separation between self and not self is ultimately an illusion.

Most people are probably absolutely grim inside. That's the nature of the personal stage. So if we connect with other people nonlocally, how to prevent taking on all the suffering of others? Fortunately the Akashic record has everything, and the idea is to outsource all karma to the Akashic record. And the same with other people's karma. So the nonlocal connection is at a transpersonal level that is free from karma. That's the idea at least.

Just a speculation, but if reality is nondual causality it also means that there are causes possible nonlocally between people and the whole world, and the whole universe actually (plus possibly multiverse(s) and omniverse). The crystallized ego is isolated and localized in the individual person, at least that's how it's experienced. That separate state is actually an illusion, for everything is totally interconnected. I will experiment with nondual causality a bit more to see if it's possible to get an actual experience of it.

Some Christians have the wrong idea about the Rapture I think. It's not about being taken away from earth into heaven. That would be the same as death basically. The Bible says that we will meet Christ in the clouds, meaning on earth. That means the ability to levitate. This is the real rapture, the new earth in Revelation 21 and the Satya Yuga:

I've now got a theory about the fluid ego. And it's based on nondual causality. This means that the causality for everything that happens is systemic and universal, both in time and space. So it's the whole infinite unmanifested that is the cause of everything that happens. At the personal stage we have a crystallized ego which operates based on karma which is the past. And the karma causes tensions because it's a limited bundle created by a struggle for survival. That's NON-flowing activity. That's conflict, both inner and outer. Also note that nondual causality includes causality from past to future, like karma, but it's also more causality than that, from the future to the past and from all over the place. So my new practice is to cultivate nondual causality instead of trying to dissolve inner tensions.

Is there bad karma and good karma? I think it depends on the perspective. From the nondual perspective all karma is good since everything that is, is necessary and good. From a relative perspective at the personal stage there is good and bad karma. From the transpersonal perspective the karma is good yet it's bad that we carry it around. To use a computer metaphor, we need to store our memories in the computer cloud instead of locally in our computer. Or to use a New Age metaphor, to move our memories to the Akashic records and then we can still access our personal memories and also all kinds of other memories and knowledge.

@Lyubov I thought the Schitt tweet was funny, haha, but okay it's my own speculations I admit. I will wait and see what happens and then examine what the actual situation is. 2021 could become an interesting year.

Oh! Now I found something interesting. Karma can be seen as the same thing as sin in Christianity. Most scholars however consider the Last Judgment to be different from karma it says in the same Wikipedia article. However I think as a structure karma can be seen as being the same thing as sin. Karma in my opinion is a result of struggle for survival, and that is sin! That's a pretty radical view, but sin means to miss the mark, and the belief in being a separate entity is a false perspective and is therefore to miss the mark. Also, the Last Judgment and the second coming of Christ can in my opinion be seen as transcending all karma, meaning transcending sin. And this also explains why all sins can be forgiven, because it's the structure of sin that is dissolved, irrespective of content, such as different kinds of sins. And the Pope agrees with that view:

But then what about all the different kinds of karma? People can react and behave very different in similar situations depending on their karma. I think it can be looked at in terms of content vs structure that Leo has explained. The different kinds of karma, that's content. The fundamental structure of karma is the same, a result of billions years of survival struggle. Sadhguru said that a cocoon of the past is holding us. And we allow it to do so, because it makes us feel safe, he said. There is safety, but in safety there is also imprisonment, Sadhguru said. That to me is the crystallized ego. Can I just stay in the present and become enlightened? Not a chance, unless I have a spontaneous spiritual awakening, and those are rare and often followed by severe trauma. Karma is a massive structure.

Eckhart Tolle talked about how karma is old patterns that go far back into the past, even way beyond our current lifetime. Exactly. The crystallized ego consists of structures that go all the way back through thousands of years of social evolution and billions of years of biological evolution. So the heaviness of time is not only thoughts on the conscious level but also all that crystallized karma that we carry around. Karma is an important concept in Buddhism, but also in Hinduism. I will check out what Sadhguru says about it.

One Advaita teacher said that the ultimate reality is beyond time. It's neither past, present or future, he said. That sounds like a trans-transpersonal stage of what to call it, because even at the transpersonal stage there is the experience of time. J. Krishnamurti talked about how time is thought. That's another interesting perspective. So trans-conceptual awareness then means transcending time. Tricky. I guess one has to actually reach those levels of consciousness to be able to grasp it. I will take a look at Eckhart Tolle's most recent video to get a sense of what he calls presence.