ACIM Journal

[Anderz]

Shunyamurti is talking about the Great Awakening, not by using that term maybe but his description from a learned spiritual perspective is about the same thing I think. Here is a new video by Shunyamurti:

 

[Anderz]

I heard that the Dalai Lama said that there is reincarnation, but it's not personal he said. One radical possibility I came to think of is that there already is a collective consciousness of humanity. That's something I have already mentioned, such as the possibility of an ancient breakaway civilization on earth.

Reincarnation, then, is for people in the collective consciousness! And that's why it's not personal. The collective consciousness I speculate is a single being and individuality is preserved through reincarnation.

And the western religions are about bringing the whole of humanity into the collective consciousness, into a new "heaven" which means higher levels of beings and not some separate astral realm or something like that.

This, then, means that those in the collective consciousness are very eager to bring about a Great Awakening, since reincarnation sucks. The eastern religions and spiritual traditions are about liberation from the collective consciousness being trapped in a state of recycling of individuals and the western religions are about transcending the separate ego consciousness.

[Anderz]

I forgot to mention New Age which already is using an integration of eastern and western spirituality. I believe great truths can be found in New Age messages, but from an integrated perspective and not from separation consciousness. For example I think that soul mate and twin flame means the two parts of humanity: 1) individual consciousness and 2) the ancient collective consciousness. It's not about ego relationships, not about what ACIM calls special relationships. It's about the holy relationship that integrates the two separate parts, the twin flames, of humanity into a unified whole.

The people in the collective consciousness on earth have needed to stay "underground" throughout history because if they told us prematurely we would get stuck in their explanations and remain in separation consciousness. So the ancient breakaway civilization can only indirectly give messages and plant time capsules. This will at some point change though and as I see it more disclosure of that is an important part of the process of the Great Awakening. It's "when the disciple is ready, the teacher will appear", that kind of thing.

 

[Anderz]

One of the things I find interesting with the Wolfram Physics Project (WPP) is that it describes all of reality as a single graph. And it's not just confirmation bias because I also use a graph in my model. It means that physical matter and space are the same "no-thing". Or to put it in another way, physical matter is structured space, which is the same as what alternative researcher Nassim Haramein has been saying.

The WPP model is directly consistent with nonduality. Everything, including our physical bodies, are a result of the graph and nothing else! And there is no actual separation other than the points in the graph being connected to each other into a unified whole. So our physical bodies are literally avatars, made of structured space which in turn is a result of the single graph of reality.

Here is a short presentation of the WPP model:

 

[Anderz]

Leo mentioned infinity in his latest video, how that is the opposite of the universe repeating itself over and over. Exactly. That's what I pointed out earlier, that reality cannot be an identical infinite repetition of the universe. Because repetition is the same as finite in an endless loop, so that's actually finite information.

Infinite complexity is ever new, ever changing. Even simple mathematical formulas like the Mandelbrot set and Stephen Wolfram's Rule 30 are likely ever changing. It's very difficult to prove that, but my reasoning, maybe similar to Leo's, is that all finite structures, even endlessly repeating structures, will all fail to produce the movement of time.

 

[Anderz]

I haven't paid much attention to faith in the past. Now I think faith can be useful. Especially when the belief is true, that it's something perceived as an actual possibility, similar to how a scientific hypothesis is actually taken on faith in some sense before it has been extensively verified through empirical experiments.

ACIM talks about faith, such as:

Quote

"We said before that when a situation has been dedicated wholly to truth, peace is inevitable. 2 Its attainment is the criterion by which the wholeness of the dedication can be safely assumed. 3 Yet we also said that peace without faith will never be attained, for what is dedicated to truth as its only goal is brought to truth by faith. 4 This faith encompasses everyone involved, for only thus the situation is perceived as meaningful and as a whole. 5 And everyone must be involved in it, or else your faith is limited and your dedication incomplete." - ACIM T-19.I.1.

 

Edited May 31, 2020 by Anderz

[Anderz]

I have noticed that there is some hormone, enzyme or other regulation causing numbness in the body. That must be to reduce physical pain. There is subconscious pain that is chronic, meaning active all the time, but without us being aware of it on a conscious level.

So I have added to the intentional suffering practice to be mindful of both pain and numbness together in my body and mind. The idea is to bring conscious awareness into the otherwise habitual and instinctual tendency of suppressing suffering and thereby transmute both the numbness and the pain into inner peace, not just in the mind but also emotional and physical inner peace.

[Anderz]

I will experiment with intentional suffering together with the death drive (thanatos). It occurred to me that numbness and pain may be only a part of the total picture. One possible more complete approach is to think of it as an unholy trinity: 1) pain, 2) numbness and 3) death drive. How nasty is that! Haha.

I believe there is such thing as a death drive. Mainstream psychology is divided when it comes to determining whether the death drive is real or not.

Quote

"In classical Freudian psychoanalytic theory, the death drive (German: Todestrieb) is the drive toward death and destruction, often expressed through behaviors such as aggression, repetition compulsion, and self-destructiveness.[1][2] It was originally proposed by Sabina Spielrein ...

In the object relations theory, among the independent group 'the most common repudiation was the loathsome notion of the death instinct'.[52] Indeed, "for most analysts Freud's idea of a primitive urge towards death, of a primary masochism, was ... bedevilled by problems".[53]

Nevertheless, the concept has been defended, extended, and carried forward by some analysts, generally those tangential to the psychoanalytic mainstream; " - Wikipedia 

 

[Anderz]

Maybe it's time to rise above the manufactured conflicts in media and politics. I must confess that I previously swallowed everything that was said in mainstream media as facts. Then I looked into conspiracy theories because things didn't line up very well when the official narrative was scrutinized in even the slightest ways, such as airliners passing through steel and concrete like a hot knife through butter, another passenger jet being swallowed into ground, and yet another plane punching a hole through the Pentagon without the wings even scratching the surface of the building. Edit: Nobody died on 9/11 nor was JFK actually killed. Think stage magician tricks on a very large and long-term scale.

Now I have gone to a third level. Because even the conspiracy theory perspective is fabricated! It's a "stage magician" show on a colossal level. I still believe for example QAnon is important but really, it's a part of the show. There is useful purpose behind it I believe such as dealing with real corruption. But it's also a lot of inefficient friction with all the manufactured conflicts. I plan to use an integral approach and still follow QAnon and so on, but without buying into the conflicts.

Edited June 1, 2020 by Anderz

[Anderz]

Scientists have complained about the Wolfram Physics Projects, such as blaming the approach for circumventing the traditional way of doing science with peer reviews etc. I think that's good! Because mainstream science has become trapped in its own dogma and today has confirmation bias on steroids. Something that doesn't fit that incredible confirmation bias becomes immediately rejected.

Stephen Wolfram started as a mainstream scientist. The difference is that today he has a successful company and can do research on his own without needing to depend on orthodox academia. The benefit of this is that the Wolfram Physics Project can act as a catalyst that speeds up the time it takes to do a paradigm shift tremendously.

Quote

"A paradigm shift, a concept identified by the American physicist and philosopher Thomas Kuhn, is a fundamental change in the basic concepts and experimental practices of a scientific discipline. Kuhn presented his notion of a paradigm shift in his influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962).

Kuhn contrasts paradigm shifts, which characterize a scientific revolution, to the activity of normal science, which he describes as scientific work done within a prevailing framework or paradigm. Paradigm shifts arise when the dominant paradigm under which normal science operates is rendered incompatible with new phenomena, facilitating the adoption of a new theory or paradigm.[1]" - Wikipedia

 

[Anderz]

I just want to log something I found puzzling in relation to math and physics. I'm following the Wolfram Physics Project and came to think of how waves behave in four dimensions. Then I had an idea that maybe 4-dimensional waves are impossible! That would explain why we live in a 3D reality. It's too advanced math for me to figure out at the moment and I didn't find a clear answer on the internet.

I found one possible hint on Wikipedia:

Quote

"In mathematics, a 3-sphere, or glome,[1] is a higher-dimensional analogue of a sphere. ... Due to the nontrivial topology of S3 it is impossible to find a single set of coordinates that cover the entire space." - Wikipedia

What does impossible mean here? Is it possible to have a 4-dimensional sphere? When it comes to 4D waves I found some comments saying that it's possible, but no precise explanations were given which I find suspicious.

[Anderz]

I figured out a definition for emergent properties! Here is the standard definition:

Quote

"In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own. These properties or behaviors emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole. For example, smooth forward motion emerges when a bicycle and its rider interoperate, but neither part can produce the behavior on their own." - Wikipedia

To avoid mixing up concepts I will call my definition true emergent property.

Definition: True emergence is a result that requires a Chaitin constant.

I learned about the Chaitin constants from Stephen Wolfram. It's also collectively called the Omega number.

Quote

"In the computer science subfield of algorithmic information theory, a Chaitin constant (Chaitin omega number)[1] or halting probability is a real number that, informally speaking, represents the probability that a randomly constructed program will halt. ... Each halting probability is a normal and transcendental real number that is not computable, which means that there is no algorithm to compute its digits." - Wikipedia

And if there is no actual randomness in reality, then it follows that no model of reality based only on an algorithm can produce true emergence.

[Anderz]

If it turns out that the Wolfram Physics Project finds a simple rule that explains our universe, then there are two possibilities as I see it. Either that rule completely describes our reality or there is more to reality that the rule doesn't explain.

In either case, my model fits both scenarios. The single number (the Word of God) that represents our reality can either be the result of one simple rule or it can contain true emergence.

And either way, my model is the same as in the Wolfram Physics Project when it comes to determinism. Just as the simple rule in their model timelessly exists so does the Word of God timelessly exists. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the word was God. And then the Word became actualized in the form of Christ, God's only begotten son. Nothing has been created except by the Word.

Quote

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it." - John 1:1-5

Is God omnipotent according to my model? In a sense, yes because the Word is all of our reality and is infinite. One difference between my model and Christianity is that in my model not even God has free will, but other than that, the following is true according to my model:

Quote

"Omnipotence means all-powerful. Monotheistic theologians regard God as having supreme power. This means God can do what he wants. It means he is not subject to physical limitations like man is. Being omnipotent, God has power over wind, water, gravity, physics, etc. God's power is infinite, or limitless.

Omniscience means all-knowing. God is all all-knowing in the sense that he is aware of the past, present, and future. Nothing takes him by surprise. His knowledge is total. He knows all that there is to know and all that can be known.

Omnipresence means all-present. This term means that God is capable of being everywhere at the same time. It means his divine presence encompasses the whole of the universe. There is no location where he does not inhabit. This should not be confused with pantheism, which suggests that God is synonymous with the universe itself; instead, omnipresence indicates that God is distinct from the universe, but inhabits the entirety of it. He is everywhere at once." - Study.com

 

[Anderz]

I got a new idea: there is absolute Truth, relative truth AND there is dualistic truth! I added the dualistic truth as a separate case.

Absolute Truth is explained by Leo in this video:

However, I don't think he made a distinction between relative truth and dualistic truth in that video. For example Leo said that "1 + 1 = 2" is a relative truth. I call "1 + 1 = 2" a dualistic truth, but not a relative truth.

A relative truth to me is for example: "The Eiffel tower is tall" which is true relative to the Trump Tower but is false relative to Mount Everest.

Classical two-valued logic only deals with the values True and False. That's insufficient to capture relative truth. And it fails to capture statements such as: "The cat is only white and the cat is only black". Applied to a black cat, classical logic collapses the statement into the value False.

There is another kind of logic called tetralemma that has the values True, False, Both and Neither. The statement "The Eiffel tower is tall" has the value Both. And the statement "The cat is only white and the cat is only black" has the value Neither for a brown cat and the value Both for a black cat. And it can be applied to statements that in classical logic lead to paradoxes, like the barber paradox:

Quote

"The barber is the "one who shaves all those, and those only, who do not shave themselves". The question is, does the barber shave himself?[1]" - Wikipedia

With tetralemma the barber paradox gets the value Both. The barber paradox is true for everybody except himself, and false for himself.

Absolute Truth includes dualistic truth which includes relative truth. All relative truths are dualistic while a dualistic truth is not necessarily relative. The statement "Trump is the current [at the time of writing] U.S. President" is a dualistic truth but not a relative truth. Nor is "1 + 1 = 2" a relative truth. And the statement: "1 + 1 = 2 is absolute Truth" has the value Both, since everything is absolute Truth yet there is also a distinction between absolute Truth and dualistic truth.

Edited June 6, 2020 by Anderz

[Anderz]

Relative truth is dependent on context. When the context is personal opinions then it can be called subjective truth. For example if someone says: "Trump is the best President ever" then that is, if the person is telling the truth, a subjective truth. The same statement can also be an objective dualistic truth if the context is which U.S. President has posted most tweets (and the more tweets the better).

[Anderz]

The absolute Truth Leo explained is very useful for spirituality. Because the ego only experiences dualistic truth including relative and subjective truths. And we can start with the concept of absolute Truth as everything. That's just a thought, a concept, yet it points to the absolute Truth and that is useful for spiritual realization of absolute Truth as nonduality.

And what I will experiment with is if ego tensions can be dissolved along with a realization of absolute Truth. The ego's limitation of only experiencing dualistic truth is a false perspective and leads to inner and outer conflicts and keeps the ego tensions including the body armor and the pain body in place. Realization and actualization of absolute Truth will I predict dissolve the ego tensions.

Quote

"If the center of the thought system is true, only truth extends from it. But if a lie is at its center, only deception proceeds from it. ... The ego tries to persuade you that it is up to you to decide which voice is true, but the Holy Spirit teaches you that truth was created by God, and your decision cannot change it. ... Vigilance is not necessary for truth, but it is necessary against illusions. ... Truth is without illusions and therefore within the Kingdom. When you threw truth away you saw yourself as if you were without it." - ACIM T-6.V.C.

 

[Anderz]

Leo recently posted this video from Shunyamurti on his blog!

That was a new one to me. Shunymurti said that the ego projects it's own hatred into the world. That's a very good point. When I am blaming other people, events and situations it's actually me blaming myself.  ACIM talks a lot about that, such as:

Quote

"If your brothers are part of you and you blame them for your deprivation, you are blaming yourself. And you cannot blame yourself without blaming them. That is why blame must be undone, not seen elsewhere. Lay it to yourself and you cannot know yourself, for only the ego blames at all. Self-blame is therefore ego identification, and as much an ego defense as blaming others." - ACIM T-11.IV

 

[Anderz]

I came to think of a simple yet powerful practice when listening to Shunyamurti. Instead of hatred and blame of myself and others I consciously direct my attention into confusion. The idea is that blame is an error, a false perspective, and the truth is that I don't know the full picture so confusion is the correct perspective.

In this way confusion is used constructively to undo and transform blame and hatred and also fear which is the root of all that suffering and the mistaken perspective. And the confusion is a result of the ego mind being trapped in a state of separation. It comes back to absolute Truth again, which is the wholeness perspective that is blocked in ego consciousness.

[Anderz]

Notice that as Roger Castillo has pointed out, the statement "you are not your body" is useful but it's only a certain level of spiritual teaching, and that there needs to be a step beyond that into full nonduality. That's easy to explain in relation absolute Truth being everything. So to say not about anything is a duality teaching. The truth is that we are the body, but not ONLY the body. We are everything. That's what absolute Truth means.

[Anderz]

Why is the love of money the root of all evil? My explanation is that the ego is only aware of separation and money is the most valued tool of separation for the ego. And since belief in only separation is sin it causes suffering, and money being the root of ego power, loving money is to love separation only.

In truth money is connected to everything since everything is interconnected. And the failure of understanding the whole picture turns ego activities into love of money. Love is wholeness in harmony. So "love" of money is a mistaken form of love since it's neither wholeness nor harmony.

Notice how in practice this is true, how we in ego consciousness treat money as something separate and we are generally much more concerned about our own money than other people's money, even though in reality there is a deep interconnection.