Anton Rogachevski

Is it? Who am I to contradict absolute Truths?

So to say "nothing is missing" is the same as "nothing is hidden". Brilliant!

@Leo Gura The Truth just is. To get a relative truth you must separate different aspects of The Truth by imagining them into existence. So to live you must divide it, but at the end of the day let it reconnect back into Truth. Without Illusion there wouldn't be anything. Just pure undivided Being. I guess you can't escape it. So things only seem relative, when in fact there's no such thing as "relative". Only Truth exists. I can't see anything that isn't Truth. How can there be anything that isn't it?

@Leo Gura How to connect the relative with the Absolute?

@Leo Gura The kind of truth you're referring to—about masculine vs. feminine modes of perception—isn’t the same kind of truth you usually mean when you talk about truth in a philosophical or epistemic sense. Isn't it confusing to use the same word for such fundamentally different things?

@Breakingthewall I really appreciate your efforts : ) Thank you for your contribution to the talk. I'm starting to see the limitations of this framework as it so focused on precision it forgets that our life is our experience, and if you have an experience of being God, that means you will have a nice life. Maybe I'm not entirely correct at debunking this persuit of Enlightenment.

@Inliytened1 I did say it was a framework. So yes a theory of a thing isn't the thing. Awakening can only make sense to the one having it. My theory explains why it appears to him like that, and what it actually means. In short it basically means that you fell deeper into illusion and had allowed Descartes Demon fool you completely. Or that you've bough the shadows on the wall of Plato's cave mistaking them for the outside and thus disconnecting from the ability to actually exit some day.

A peak into my new theory arising from this text: Reconceptualizing “God” Within Meta-Phenomenological Epistemology In this framework, God is understood not as an external entity or metaphysical being, but as a phenomenon — the fundamental nature of experience itself. The infinite, ineffable quality traditionally attributed to God corresponds to the boundless, dynamic potential within immediate experience. Experience is the ground from which all phenomena arise and dissolve; it is holographic, continuously unfolding, and without inherent limits. This experiential infinity is what gives rise to the intuition or feeling of “God” — not as a separate transcendent reality, but as the very core phenomenon of being aware. God is thus the experiential field’s infinite openness and depth, the raw “stuff” of conscious presence. By framing God as this fundamental experiential phenomenon, the theory offers a rational and non-ontological understanding of divinity, accessible to those who reject traditional supernatural or metaphysical claims. God is the infinite nature of experience that all beings share, not a distinct metaphysical object. This perspective bridges spirituality and reason, revealing “God” as the foundational phenomenon underlying all conscious life and the source of all appearances, rather than an external being to be believed in or worshiped.

Yep non-dual dogma is the worst! Yep the text is a live contemplation exercise. If you go along with it, you can verify these things in your experience. It's important not to have expectations about how truth should be and what it would be like, because it may be unknown to us yet, but what if it was known and obvious all along, and right in front of our eyes? What if nothing was hidden? : )

@Keryo Koffa It does sound cool : )

Why would you want one?

@gettoefl I'm sorry, I can't quite understand that statement. If you don't exist, then who am I talking to? This seems like a confusion. (Just the kind of confusion I'm warning against in the text, which I assume you didn't read.) If you said that to a Zen master he would hit you with a stick and say: "Here I just hit nobody." : )

@gettoefl The brain can unify all it's perceiving into one "whole" experience, but that's phenomenal and not noumenal. So "wholeness" along with "infinity" are both illusions caused by the inherent lack of ability to perceive the edge that stems from the apparent nature experience as seen from within. "Wholeness" is a nice idea, but it stops there. When you’re standing in a dense fog, it wraps around you like forever. The horizon dissolves. The silence is convincing. You cannot see where it ends, so it feels like it never does. Not infinite—only dressed like it. Experience is non-dual within itself, but from a meta-perspective, it includes the appearance of a duality between experience and a probable external world. This duality is epistemic, not ontological.

@Breakingthewall Everything is limited, there is not one thing that is limitless and I presume that it can't physically exist.