Anton Rogachevski

From my conversation with GPT, we shaped the essay like a dialog between a Zen master and a student: Student: But logic says there are subjects doing actions to objects. Isn’t that real? Master: Logic is the child's net cast into the ocean. It catches a few fish, but not the sea. Subject, object, action—clever words, But the doing is never separate from the doer. And the doer? A flicker in the doing. They are not three, but one unfolding. Student: So what is the purpose of it all? Master: To awaken. To remember. To love. The Source forgets itself in form, And finds itself again in beauty. Every heartache is a lantern. Every joy a mirror. The infinite learning to sing in finite voices. Student: And me? Master: You are the whole thing, dreaming you are small. Your task is not to escape it, But to embrace all of it— Yes, even the fear, even the doubt. Especially the parts you wish would go away. To love without condition is to return home. Student: Is anything hidden? Master: Only by your own refusal to look.

Couldn't agree more. This is the fallacy of believing in it like an ideology.

A beautiful analogy! In the highest degrees (which I don't have personal experience with) they say that you see through it completely. But to reach such a state would take an incredible shift in the neurochemistry, and isn't by any means regular or normal, or "sane" for that matter.

@Breakingthewall I agree that most non dual teachers make that fallacy of applying phenomenological insights onto the ontology of reality. That's what my essay is all about. I'm also trying to not dismiss non-duality but to situate it within a physical framework where both truths can coexist.

What do you mean by that? First you might need to clarify what is meant by such a bold term. The wikipedia definition is not good enough? Ontology isn't about promoting a specific view — it's a branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of being itself. It seeks to clarify what actually exists, what reality is made of at the most fundamental level, and what it means for something to be real.

What is your bold statement based on? How have you reached that unfortunate conclusion?

@samijiben Show me. Ontology is the study of being — of what fundamentally is. There’s nothing deeper than that. Just to clarify, I haven’t made any ontological claims myself, as I’ve mentioned several times in the essay. If physics were mere fantasy, the device you're using right now wouldn’t work. You wouldn’t see anything — because photons wouldn’t reach your eyes. You wouldn’t hear anything — because no air vibrations would touch your eardrums. You wouldn’t even be alive — since there’d be no electrical activity in your nervous system. Science and physics have built everything around you. They’ve sent people to the moon and back. They’ve repeatedly proven themselves in practice. Now ask yourself: what has spirituality really delivered? Aside from cults, religions, dogma, and centuries of conflict?

@samijiben What can there be more fundamental than physics & ontology? "Beyond" where? There is no beyond, it's reality's most basic ground.

@Breakingthewall I'm afraid your epistemology is a bit confused and disorganized. It's hard to understand what you are trying to convey. What are you even talking about? Physics? ontology? I'd recommend sitting and writing it out in an essay form to organize your view and to see things more clearly. What is your priority of values? Is truth important? What is true? What exists? Non duality is not an ideology, it's the most basic nature of experience, it's how it's built and its very essence. It's all verifiable directly in experience, but you need to look with honesty and humility at what's right in front of you.

Nobody does. At least not yet and not completely.

@Breakingthewall "Change" is an idea within experience. I'm afraid you are a bit lost in concepts. There is change in the physical realm I presume, but that I leave for physicists to study.

We didn't yet find a way for a computer to even have experience, or to even understand how the brain is doing it. It's the hard problem essentially.

You just found a new way for it propel itself Your ego is good, it's valuable. You can only love it to death : ) The trouble is not with a strong ego, but it's the weak and inflated one that causes the bad behaviour.

@Breakingthewall Change is a relative notion. First in order for there to be change you decide the thing you are comparing it to. Phenomenologically, purely in experience surprisingly there is no change! you can only register it due to your memory's ability to record experience, but if there was no memory no change would register.

The movement of experience or of physical objects? What dimensions? Where are they? Separation and Unity are yet again a dual idea, but reality is neither united nor is it divided. It simply Is.

Duality is the ability of the sane experience to differentiate your "body" from the "world" in order for you preserve it out there outside the simulation of you mind. It's an evolved mechanism shaped over millions of years, and it functions with a kind of adaptive intelligence. Hypothetically, if you weren't under the illusion of duality in a war scenario, you wouldn't be able to tell apart your enemy that's about to kill you from yourself, you would just love it all and die in peace.

When you are in a fog, it seems endless from within, because you can't see the edge. It doesn't mean it's infinite, but it sure looks like it. This is an idea, a thought experientially is pure ineffable sensory data.

What do you mean by that? The mind is completely self aware, where exactly may it rise to? Only it exists for itself, phenomenologically. Other things outside it may exist or may not, but our study here is what's actually in direct experience. Anyway, I don't recommend taking anything I say, or anyone else sais without a grain of salt. It's good to be able to reach these insights on your own, through plenty of contemplation. It's like learning algebra: you can go to the end of the book and all the answers are there, but it's not the point. You need learn to go through all the steps to be able to solve it on your own. What do you mean?

@kbone I was just talking theoretically what could take the place of magic, but I'm in a good place myself : )

@kbone There can be lots of things: obsessive thoughts, boredom, brain fog, being "busy", obsessive doing, mindless stimulation, low value relationships, substance abuse.

You can guide God back to itself? That would be something : ) Leo, I really hope you didn't take offence. I'm an avid follower and a huge fan of your work for over 10 years. I write these things out of deep care. I truly hope you're doing well—and that others continue to find in your work the same deep inspiration that I have. So thank you for all the work and the dedication. For a long time I have struggled with just simple sanity, and now I've come to really appreciate it, so I'm focused on getting to the highest possible sanity. I'm afraid Enlightenment work is possibly entangled with some insanity, so I just want people to be more cautious.

@Nemra Do numbers exist? What does it mean for them to exist? Where do they exist?

No such thing.

@Nemra "Division" is an idea you can't actually do that, only imagine you are doing it. Leo's explaining it thoroughly in the last video about proving God.

In order for there to be "steps" you need to imagine them first.