Deconstructing “Reality” - The most comprehensive non-dual meta-analysis

[Breakingthewall]

4 minutes ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

Nobody does. At least not yet and not completely.

The first step is not to dismiss science, nor the direct observation of reality, nor the logical mind's ability to structure and understand. There is a facet beyond understanding: the nature of reality, the total. To open yourself to this, you must let go of the mind; it is an obstacle. But then, manifestation is absolutely logical. The logical mind is an arising of total reality and can understand absolutely everything, but it cannot encompass the unlimited. Manifest reality is simply coherence, only what's coherent with the whole appears, just because every change is relative. That's very easy to understand. What's difficult in this game is the opening to the absolute, that's the real challenge 

[Breakingthewall]

17 hours ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

Nobody does. At least not yet and not completely.

I would forget absolutely the non duality, it's a limited perspective full of contradiction and inherently false. That's the problem with spirituality, that changes some concepts by others. In my humble opinion, all that about conciousness and no self absolutely closes the mind in a limited perspective, same than God 

No Self means nothing, existence exist, and you are that, then whats that mess about there is not a self? The mental image, like adjectives? Obviously, but Beneath that lies the ocean. As Rumi said, you are not a drop in the ocean, you are the ocean in a drop. Rumi was a man who had opened his being to the limitless.

Whats that about what you are is conciousness? Conciousness is an arising. As reality is unlimited and conciousness arises, conciousness is infinite, but it's not the source of the reality, is it's result. Same than God. in absence of limitations intelligence is inevitable, then it's infinite. But also intelligence is an arising 

Your true nature is the unlimited, and the unlimited can't be named. You can open yourself to it. The unlimited is not something, is the absence of limits that's make inevitable that you are. You are totality. Open yourself a bit, a bit more, open your heart, drop your mind, then the door will open, you are total, that's it. Your substance has no dimension , not quality, just open. All the qualities, all the dimensions. 

Edited Friday at 11:31 AM by Breakingthewall

[Anton Rogachevski]

@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?

5 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

non duality

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.

Edited Friday at 02:08 AM by Anton Rogachevski

[samijiben]

@Anton Rogachevski Anton, @Breakingthewall is not talking about anything. 

I would suggest not trying to understand what he is on about. 

Excuse me for butting it, but it is clear that Mr. BreakingWall is talking about something utterly unfathomable that is beyond both physics & ontology.

[Anton Rogachevski]

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

Edited Friday at 02:06 AM by Anton Rogachevski

[samijiben]

No, there is definitely more fundamental than physics and ontology, as those are fantasies. Even Leo's ontology is a fantasy. 

 

WHAATTTT??

Yes. 

More fundamental.

Get there!

[Anton Rogachevski]

@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?

Edited Friday at 04:00 AM by Anton Rogachevski

[samijiben]

My point is that ontology is a scam, and reality alone is real, and ontology is fucking shit, bro.

[Anton Rogachevski]

1 hour ago, samijiben said:

My point is that ontology is a scam

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

[samijiben]

@Anton Rogachevski how do you define ontology?

I'd love to have a serious convo with you, so first step is defining our terms.

[samijiben]

Unless you are defining ontology as absolute infinity, that is, you are not defining it, then I stand by what I said

[Anton Rogachevski]

40 minutes ago, samijiben said:

absolute infinity

What do you mean by that? First you might need to clarify what is meant by such a bold term.

41 minutes ago, samijiben said:

how do you define ontology?

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.

Edited Friday at 06:56 AM by Anton Rogachevski

[James123]

50 minutes ago, samijiben said:

absolute infinity

Where was it, when there was nothing?

[Breakingthewall]

11 hours ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

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.

Let's take Rupert Spira as an example about non duality. His ontology can be summarized as follows: reality one not multiple,  , it is made of consciousness, and the self is a modulation of consciousness in a specific configuration. What you are is not a form, is pure conciousness.

Well, then why forms appear? Because the conciousness want to play or anything? Then the conciousness is an entity who wants things? Or are forms an illusion of consciousness? So consciousness is something that has illusions? And what would that consciousness that you are be like if there were no form? Would exist?

He also says: Suffering occurs because you identify with form. If you identify with consciousness, with the screen where reality occurs, suffering disappears. Well, Spira's entire ontology is a mental shift; it's not real. Spira isn't open to the unlimited;  he's simply believed in a mental structure that relaxes him and makes him feel secure, immortal, and he has the feeling, the certainly, about that is direct experience. It's ego, but disguised by something inefable. You can feel the lack of life in all the non duality philosophy. That's happen because it's limited in all directions.

Edited Friday at 12:56 PM by Breakingthewall

[kbone]

15 hours ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

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.

From what is read in your posts, yes, you use the mind in a very sane way. It's very good to have stabilized in such a balanced way. Respect. Yes, to live in the world, the mind is engaged in its functional capacity to play with, manipulate, or rationalize what's apparent. Existentially, the mind itself is soooomewhat one of those appearances. Phenomenology engages the mind to think about the nature of being. So, the question is, is the mind itself a phenomenon?

What's pointed to in the discussion with @James123 is the trans-rational nature of realization, or one might define it as pre-rational.... it is not of the mind. As was said, sometimes it takes 2-3 days of meditation to get back to the 'magic of experience'. See how that works? So, the question is, is mind beyond/prior to BEING? Can phenomenology, physics, ontology ever just BE, or do they arise in the mind?

I understand what you mean by 'differentiate', but would it be clearer that it 'distinguishes' objects/things in awareness?

What is an illusion when it is seen for what it is? Does it still trick the mind, or is the mind just informed of its illusive quality(-ies)?

 

But yes, most discussions approach the search using the rational faculties of the mind. It's much like being thirsty, and going out to the mirage in the desert seeking water, only to find sand. The mind doth protest, is often quite thirsty to function in its capacity, so it keeps doing it... over and over and over. Many so called teachers, claiming they have found water, will be out there amongst the mirages.... selling sand, but telling you it's water. What informs the mind of the illusive nature of the mirage, how it won't quench one's thirst, or whether the purveyor of Truth is selling water or sand?

[Anton Rogachevski]

@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. 

[Anton Rogachevski]

1 hour ago, kbone said:

But yes, most discussions approach the search using the rational faculties of the mind. It's much like being thirsty, and going out to the mirage in the desert seeking water, only to find sand. The mind doth protest, is often quite thirsty to function in its capacity, so it keeps doing it... over and over and over. Many so called teachers, claiming they have found water, will be out there amongst the mirages.... selling sand, but telling you it's water. What informs the mind of the illusive nature of the mirage, how it won't quench one's thirst, or whether the purveyor of Truth is selling water or sand?

A beautiful analogy! 

 

1 hour ago, kbone said:

What is an illusion when it is seen for what it is? Does it still trick the mind, or is the mind just informed of its illusive quality(-ies)?

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. 

[James123]

2 hours ago, kbone said:

magic of experience

When there is no mind, there is no experiencer nor experienced. 

 

2 hours ago, kbone said:

ontology

This is just a belief.

2 hours ago, kbone said:

What is an illusion when it is seen for what it is? Does it still trick the mind, or is the mind just informed of its illusive quality(-ies)?

Just an attachment with so called thoughts / memories.

2 hours ago, kbone said:

I understand what you mean by 'differentiate', but would it be clearer that it 'distinguishes' objects/things in awareness?

Awareness is awareness itself, neither objects or subjects.

2 hours ago, kbone said:

Can phenomenology, physics, ontology ever just BE, or do they arise in the mind?

Arises within the mind.

2 hours ago, kbone said:

Truth is selling water or sand?

Truth does not lie within any attachments, beliefs, ideas, experience, feelings or experienced.

The most important thing is the one, who is the experiencer, must realize that any experience belongs to the attachments, naming / labeling, therefore beliefs or thoughts.

When there is no thoughts or mind Chattering, what is left? 

[kbone]

25 minutes ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

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. 

So you see, the analogy rings 'true', perhaps to a higher order of mind, releasing a degree of tension. Where and when those insights will arise is unknown, but can be like clues to a direction to take. Always beginner's mind.... not knowing, but brave enough to flow.

Sure, it can be characterized as a seeing through (clarity), a letting go (contentment/calmness), a deconstruction/dissolution (samadhi), etc. Words won't do it justice, simply because words engage the mind and are liable to hit anything.

I have always been curious about such neurochemical aspects, but don't know much about the veracity of such claims with respect to cause-and-effect. Maybe you can share what you know.

But yes, there is a cautionary aspect to such an undertaking. It is quite challenging to the mind to more-or-less turn itself inside out in an attempt to 'understand' what's pointed to and question one's beliefs (inquiry/contemplation), and/or attempt to subvert it entirely (meditation). Massive amounts of solitude in nature, making music, reading literature, and contemplation helped to work through this mind's vagaries. But yeah, it was dodgy there for quite a bit, hehe.

 

 

[kbone]

54 minutes ago, James123 said:

When there is no mind, there is no experiencer nor experienced. 

 

This is just a belief.

Just an attachment with so called thoughts / memories.

Awareness is awareness itself, neither objects or subjects.

Arises within the mind.

Truth does not lie within any attachments, beliefs, ideas, experience, feelings or experienced.

The most important thing is the one, who is the experiencer, must realize that any experience belongs to the attachments, naming / labeling, therefore beliefs or thoughts.

When there is no thoughts or mind Chattering, what is left? 

Sand does not quench, so no need to guzzle. And don't trust water dealers out next to the mirages, hehe.