Anton Rogachevski

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.

How do you define the "absolute"?

@samijiben You're illustrating exactly the kind of fallacy I'm trying so carefully to help people avoid. I truly wish you well, man. My suggestion: read the entire text again—slowly, word by word—and then look deeply and honestly at your own experience. Set aside everything you think you know. You can always pick it back up later if it still makes sense.

On the Illusion of Infinity and the Confusion of Realms It’s crucial to remember: experience only appears infinite. But reality itself—whatever that is—most likely is not. This is a common trap along the path: when someone awakens deeply into their inner world, they may feel as if they’ve touched something infinite, all-encompassing, eternal. And they have—but only within experience. Within the dream, not outside of it. Phenomenologically, the mind can’t find its edge. So it assumes there isn’t one. But this is not proof of actual infinity— only the shape of a perceptual illusion. 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. This illusion arises because experience itself is inherently limited. It cannot perceive its own limits from within—so it interprets limitlessness. But what cannot be seen might still exist. Edges might be present just beyond the reach of awareness. To confuse this apparent infinity with the structure of the physical world is a mistake— a metaphysical leap that experience does not warrant. Many have made that leap, imagining their felt unity proves the universe is One, or boundless, or somehow “them.” But that’s not insight. That’s projection. Let this serve as a warning and a reminder: Do not draw ontological conclusions from phenomenological data. Do not turn the shape of your dream into the structure of the world. Experience is real. But it is not reality itself. And what reality truly is remains unspeakable—beyond certainty, beyond even this.

@samijiben Bravo. The Nobel Prize Ceremony invitation is on its way : )

This is a very radical and bold Ontological claim. What is it based on? Where is the humility? You are basically claiming to know The Truth itself directly. If that's the case then you have solved all of philosophy and science.

You aren't missing anything. I never claimed to have ontology, I'm very critical of those who do think they have it. I said it multiple times in the essay and in the comments. What's beyond the veil of perception that is the Ontology, we don't have true access to it, but we can use abstractions, intuition and logic to understand it better, and Einstein is the proof that it is possible. So I say like I've said a thousand times, Please leave Ontology alone, unless you are a theoretical physicist. This is an inescapable fact, everything we will ever do or try to will still be Human. So what are you saying? Are you Post Human? -------- Now, I’m speaking hypothetically, so bear that in mind. It may be that experience is made of the same “substance” as everything else — that we ourselves are the Ontology, the very fabric of what is. What we perceive may also be Ontology, but not in a physical sense. Rather, it’s made of the strange, elusive stuff of Experience — a substance we cannot grasp from within experience itself. To experience, experience is like a sea floating within a seemingly infinite sea.

Ahh, where to begin? I already did most of it in the past comments. I just hate repeating myself. The fact that perception is limited it can't perceive limits and so it seems to it that everything is "limitless", like in the fog where you don't see the edge of the fog from within and so you think it's "endless". You are building castles in the sky here, I'm afraid you are disconnected from direct experience and you can't see its inherent limits. In other words, you still don't know just how much you don't know. Logic is a neat little ruler that is the grammar of how our brain understands things using abstractions, it's not that reality is logical, but that logic is built to make it easier for your brain to understand basic survival things better, and so it seems very coherent.

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.