Anton Rogachevski

Introduction We live in an era of extraordinary clarity. Science has provided us with the "how" of the universe: we understand the movement of planets, the electrical activity of neurons, and the evolution of species. Logic can tell us how the world works, but it cannot tell us how it feels to be part of it, or why we feel such a deep and intuitive pull toward a sense of cosmic purpose. To answer this, we must step out of the lab and enter the realm of mythology. We are not looking for a scientific proof of God. Instead, we are looking for a functional myth: a story that is not meant to be literal fact, but rather a poetic map. A good map does not have to be the territory itself; it only needs to help you navigate within it. This article offers a way to look at the universe that satisfies both the rational mind and the seeking heart. It is a story about a universe that is not dead and cold, but alive, learning, and deeply connected to every breath you take. The Silent Universe If we peel away our names, our jobs, and our personal histories, what remains? Most of us assume there is an "I" that lives inside a body and looks out at a world made of dead matter and cold laws. But there is another way to look at it. Instead of a "dead" universe that created life by accident, imagine that the universe itself is a single living consciousness. In its beginning, this consciousness was like a vast and dark ocean. It had the potential for everything, but it knew nothing. It was "pure awareness" without an object or any way to look at itself. To solve this, the universe began to evolve: it did not just "create" us; it became us. It grew eyes to see itself and ears to hear its own music. To use a striking metaphor [Alan Watts], we are the apples that grow on the tree that is the universe. We are not separate from the tree: we are a direct expression of it. If this is true, then whoever is currently watching through our eyes is God. He is pretending to be "Shimon" because it is part of the divine game [Leela]. He wanted to know what it would be like to be us; in this way, He explores all possible variations, including through the eyes of all living creatures. This can also be seen as a dream [Maya]: God dreams and has forgotten He is everything, so within the dream, He is this character that our ego plays. We call waking up from the dream a spiritual awakening or enlightenment, because then God finally remembers who He really is. The "Child-God" and the Laws of Nature Most religions describe God as a perfect and omnipotent king sitting outside the world. This perception creates a problem: if God is perfect and omnipotent, why is there so much suffering? Our myth offers a different answer: the universal consciousness is like a young child. It is not a finished masterpiece; it is a work in progress. It is not "above" the world; it is the world itself. This means it is subject to the laws of physics and the laws of cause and effect just like everything else in the universe. Just as a child must learn to walk through falls, so the universal consciousness must learn to be "sane" through the long and slow process of evolution. Wars and darkness: These are not punishments. These are the mistakes of a young consciousness learning how to handle its own power. Suffering: Since we are the "eyes" of this consciousness, when we suffer, the universe itself suffers. It does not watch us from a distance: it feels everything along with us. The Will of God The will of God is not a series of supernatural whims or interventions that break the laws of reality. Instead, the Will is the rigid structure of physics itself. It is the fundamental "grammar" of the physical realm that dictates how the symphony must be played. Since the universal consciousness is subject to the laws of cause and effect, these physical laws act as evolutionary constraints within which the Child-God must grow. Gravity, entropy, and the speed of light are not just cold facts; they are the fixed boundaries of the divine consciousness. To be sane means to align your internal simulation with this Will. The Stoics reached an insight very similar to the one we are discussing. They saw the universe as a single rational organism governed by the Logos: a term that for them symbolized both "reason" and "God." For a Stoic, the laws of physics were not just mechanical and cold laws, but the active and living intelligence of the universe revealing itself in real time. In the same way, we can think of the Buddhist principle of non-attachment to circumstances. Why? Because everything will happen according to God's will anyway. Seen through this lens, clinging to the desires of the ego is simply insanity. One could say that no matter what happens, everything will always proceed according to God's will. If you align yourself with this and accept it, you will experience "smooth sailing." This is an excellent psychological tool for dealing with the uncertainty of life. Conclusion: The Awakening of the Whole By positioning God as an evolving child rather than a static judge, we change the nature of human existence. We are no longer victims of a random universe or subjects of a distant king. We are the active front line of a consciousness trying to awaken to itself. The weight of sanity is no longer a personal burden for survival: it is our contribution to the cosmic curriculum. Every time we choose clarity over illusion, every time we practice the skill of deep "not-knowing," and every time we love another being, we clear the vision of the universal consciousness. We are the "caretakers" (it seems we are separate, but actually it is the consciousness itself all the time) who help the deity grow out of its darkness toward the light of full awareness. This story is not meant for proof; it is meant for us to live it. When the "symphony" finally reaches its climax and we return to the silence of the source, we will not return empty-handed. We will bring with us the lessons, the love, and the clarity of a life well-lived. Being the eyes through which the universe sees itself, we help it remember what it truly is.

@UnbornTao Yep so accurate 🤣

I believe we can explain spirituality in philosophical terms, which would make this profound and useful field more accessible while reducing unnecessary friction with rational thinkers. That's what I always try to do - to build a bridge for those at Stage Orange that are ready for the next level and want a no bullshit approach. I'm currently working on a theory that will explicate all of the most important aspects of spirituality. As I'm working on it I would love to have a discussion with you and to help make it better and move it forward, so I'm very excited to share it with you and I would love for you to check out the current most updated version on my blog. ----------- Meta-Phenomenological Epistemology: A Non-Ontological Framework Introduction The following is an attempt to outline a theory of epistemology grounded in first-order phenomenological truth. It also accommodates second-order, logically inferred truths. It avoids collapsing into idealism, and there remains a place for materialism, though the framework is still dualistic, since the Hard Problem of Consciousness remains unsolved. In the meantime, I propose leaving the field of ontology to physicists, as speaking about what actually exists without at least a basic understanding of physics strikes me as misguided. The question of how to connect epistemology and physics remains open, yet this temporary separation fosters mutual respect. Perhaps, with deeper understanding in the future, the two domains might be fused into a unified theory. We cannot yet study or describe subjective experience in strictly material terms, nor measure it beyond the brainwaves it generates. This leaves us with a pressing challenge: to study experience from within itself, through itself, and in its own terms — a task as philosophically demanding as it is necessary. So let’s dig in, shall we? Keep reading in the blog for the most updated version.

I'm very excited to present an official edition of the essay, though I'm sure I'll keep working and refining it even further, it's pretty solid as it is. Enjoy, and I would love to hear your thoughts on how to improve it further!

@MightyMind Thank you dear reader, I would love to hear what you think. How could I improve it more?

Meta-Phenomenological Epistemology: A Non-Ontological Framework Before we begin you might want to check out the introductory essay from which this theory stems, as it is more direct and less technical than this one is going to be, and also you will see the thought process under the hood that was involved in developing this theory. Introduction The following is an attempt to outline a theory of epistemology grounded in first-order phenomenological truth. While it also accommodates second-order, logically inferred truths, it avoids collapsing into idealism. There remains a place for materialism, though the framework is still dualistic, since the Hard Problem of Consciousness remains unsolved. In the meantime, I propose leaving the field of ontology to physicists, as speaking about what actually exists without at least a basic understanding of physics strikes me as misguided. The question of how to connect epistemology and physics remains open, yet this temporary separation fosters mutual respect. Perhaps, with deeper understanding in the future, the two domains might be fused into a unified theory. We cannot yet study or describe subjective experience in strictly material terms, nor measure it beyond the brainwaves it generates. This leaves us with a pressing challenge: to study experience from within itself, through itself, and in its own terms — a task as philosophically demanding as it is necessary. So let's dig in, shall we? ---- Update: For the sake of discussion I'd made the essay's draft available so you may read more if you like.

A very powerful enlightenment experience disrupts the ability to doubt. The intensity is convincing the brain and the “enlightened” is so convinced that now he has it all figured out, as it was all directly experienced by him. For this reason I suggest to be very careful with powerful psychedelics. In non-dual experience, the usual sense of separation between self and world dissolves, revealing a direct feeling of infinite unity and boundlessness. This experience feels profoundly vast, timeless, and all-encompassing – qualities traditionally associated with divinity. Because the mind naturally interprets unfamiliar experiences through familiar concepts, it often labels this unity as “God.” The intense emotional impact of such states further reinforces the sense of encountering something sacred or ultimate. From a meta-phenomenological perspective, this does not confirm an external God’s existence, but rather situates “God” as the felt substance of experience itself – an infinite, divine-like reality encountered within consciousness. This view honors the power of the experience while maintaining humility about its ontological meaning. There’s a subtle fallacy in the yearning for something beyond the ordinary – a belief that true reality must be more mystical, more profound, than what appears mundane. So when someone has a mystical experience, it often feels like confirmation: Ah, this is what reality really is! But this leap is psychological, not evidential. The extraordinary feel of the experience seduces the mind into projecting that extraordinariness onto the fabric of existence itself. The intensity or beauty of an experience does not determine its ontological status. The mind is evolutionarily tuned to treat powerful sensations as meaningful, but this is a heuristic – not a reliable truth-detection mechanism. Mystical experiences are vivid, coherent, and emotionally overwhelming, but this doesn’t mean they describe an ultimate reality. They may reveal something about the nature of experience, not what exists outside of it. Example: A psychedelic user sees a fractal entity that feels “more real than real.” The brain, overwhelmed by coherence and novelty, infers: This must be the real world, and my everyday life is the illusion. But this is emotional inference, not careful epistemology.

@UnbornTao By the look of it, we agree on most things I do love to contemplate very much to reach a state of strong doubt that is similar to the one a Zen practice is aiming for. Besides, I can't just throw it all away, it's too much fun! Ps- My new theory is finally ready as a first official edition. yay!

I'm very skeptical about the ability of a breakthrough to get you accurate knowledge of theses subjects. Here's a new little addition to the theory that might clarify things: Dualism is essential to this framework because it requires us to see the world through two lenses at once, each valid within its own domain. From the perspective of the inferred, noumenal world, it is true that there exists a biological body, and that this body is the seat of consciousness. Yet phenomenologically, the body is not a thing in itself but an experience, and alongside it there exists only the idea of “body” and the idea of “consciousness.” Physically, it is true that the body is mortal and will one day die. Phenomenologically, however, “death” and “birth” are themselves ideas, while the body remains only one element within the broader field of experience, never the whole of it. This illustrates the gap between physical facts and experiential appearances. Noumenally, no experience could arise without a body; phenomenologically, experience is boundless, and the body plays only a minor role within it. Seen this way, experience proves to be an unreliable guide to physical reality. It carries a mystical quality, for the experiencer encounters everything as mysterious. From this ground we must begin: our only genuine access to the world is inferential, drawn from within an enigmatic field of experience that can never be fully studied from the outside, objectively. Such a situation should instill a deep humility in all claims to knowledge. ------- Mysticism is about a profound unknowing, so if you are looking for knowledge of things, it's not for you.

Dualism is essential to this framework because it requires us to see the world through two lenses at once, each valid within its own domain. From the perspective of the inferred, noumenal world, it is true that there exists a biological body, and that this body is the seat of consciousness. Yet phenomenologically, the body is not a thing in itself but an experience, and alongside it there exists only the idea of “body” and the idea of “consciousness.” Physically, it is true that the body is mortal and will one day die. Phenomenologically, however, “death” and “birth” are themselves ideas, while the body remains only one element within the broader field of experience, never the whole of it. This illustrates the gap between physical facts and experiential appearances. Noumenally, no experience could arise without a body; phenomenologically, experience is boundless, and the body plays only a minor role within it. Seen this way, experience proves to be an unreliable guide to physical reality. It carries a mystical quality, for the experiencer encounters everything as mysterious. From this ground we must begin: our only genuine access to the world is inferential, drawn from within an enigmatic field of experience that can never be fully studied from the outside, objectively. Such a situation should instill a deep humility in all claims to knowledge.

@UnbornTao Dear friend, Would you be offended if I said that your cup is still full? So to speak. You are not yet ready to let go of your imaginary ideas about an "objective reality" and "the brain perceiving" and that's ok. When you see through them finally as imaginary and hallucinatory you will start to see what I mean by the basic phenomenal epistemic ground, the empty mind that is free of believing in imaginary things. Through such a mind you can see clearly the nature of experience and to really know that you don't know. This profound unknowing is the mystical in a nutshell.

There is no "perception" nor a "perceiver" besides as concepts phenomenologically speaking just pure experience. ("Out there outside somewhere", maybe, but that's also a thought) It's hard to understand what is happening to you. It seems you don't want to get it. Do you by any chance think. "This can't be it, it must feel amazing and extraordinary, but this is just normal." How good are you at simply stopping thoughts? Can you reach a "no mind" state easily?

Yes a "rock" is Experience, everything is. You can't look anywhere without finding it. And it is you! You don't need to keep walking around in circles around it, it's accessible to you here and now. There's no process Phenomenologically speaking. The "process" is a story.

It's inference. Try to see when you infer things and when you actually look.

When in "time" will you know? In the "future"? This obsession with breakthroughs is not healthy in my opinion and misses the point. I'm not saying it's not gonna be cool. There are cool ways in which experience may dance, but everything is already in front you right now, staring you in the face, as you stare in it's face. There's nothing but You to find within an infinite You. You are it, being, experience, everything forever and ever.

Wow thank you friend, To even be compared to such an elite intellectual is a huge compliment. I do my best

@UnbornTao For the experiencer, from his phenomenological perspective nothing exists but experience. I don't have theories, I don't need them anymore, only direct consciousness. Funny coming from someone who is working so hard to develop a theory of epistemology right? I think that there is some purpose for a theory as an instrument to keep pointing back to raw experience. That is why I want a theory of epistemology that is based in a basic phenomenological ground. Very simple, like a rock. "experience is not existential" What do you mean by that? You can't experience anything that isn't an experience.

@DocWatts You ability to go deep on a subject is incredible. This is the stuff books are made from. If what you wrote is truly understood it will certainly help with building a new healthy and aware perspective.

Here and now, it's eternal. It's another way to look at the nature of experience. Phenomenologically speaking there is no such thing as "time" besides a conception of it. There cannot be an experience of something that doesn't exist, if that is seen, it all becomes an eternal now.

@DocWatts Wow! Thank you for the amazing feedback. I love to see that at least someone finds this kind of writing useful. I'll be sure to check out your essay as soon as possible. It's funny you should mention these kind of sources as I haven't even touched any of them. I do have trouble with reading books. The commitment to such a large volume always deters me. I do learn a lot from podcasts and the like. (I need to be really engaged to get those receptors to perceive at least something) Of course that means I might reinvent the wheel a couple of times, but on the plus side I get the nice feeling of eureka even though someone must have thought about it at one point. Most of the inspiration is from personal contemplation of direct experience. Trying to put things together to make sense of what experience is.

@UnbornTao I'm only conscious of the ever present now, and not of anything else. There's not a thing that is not Now, nor would such a thing make sense.

Are you directly conscious of Being as absolute? What does "absolute" even mean? In what way? "What is now?" That question doesn't make sense. What isn't Now?

Might be good enough for non dual gurus, but it's very problematic if you want some serious philosophical argument. What do you mean by "what is"? These are the same - pure experience - pure hallucination

@Reciprocality Oh I get it now, it's about the previous essay about Deconstructing reality that was linked in the introduction. In that case your paraphrasing is spot on. In this essay I try to make it as technical and rational as possible to be introduced to a serious philosopher rather than the old essay which is like a modern Buddhism take.

The formation of a Duality between experience and the external world Experience, as it is lived – or seen from within, is inherently non-dual – there is no internal split between “subject” and “object” within the immediacy of perception. However, when one reflects on experience from a “meta-level” (which unsurprisingly itself arises within experience), a distinction appears between “what is experienced” and a supposed “external world” that causes it. This is basically the hard problem in a nutshell – the nature of experience is such that it can’t yet be explained in terms of physics, it’s more like magic. In that sense there is an apparent duality that is yet to be resolved by science. I believe we might solve it someday, and explain how such a phenomenon can exists within the brain cells, and can even generate a sense of self awareness in those cells that are aware of this phenomenon, but we are still not there.