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

[Anton Rogachevski]

@Breakingthewall

This is profound thank you sharing ❤️

[kavaris]

I guess theres like, two parts that are always too impossible to try and communicate: Point A (the inherently impossible point) is like, the focus is on the experiencer while hes experiencing, as the gyrating center (as, we cant describe anything else without instantly creating a vector that points outward into unverifiableness) and thus, the thing we were tryina talk about, no longer serves to point to the same direction. Which then leads to the other part, which is like, the thing you need to understand, first and foremost, before ever even mentioning  -how limitless and how nothing exists - is the details by which reality gets deconstructed individually. In that sense its annoying as the communicator (maybe call it like, a super low level communicator attempt) tryina really nail it, e. I mean, its like, a field of things we could point to, but arent pointing to, and, its already flawed from the beginning, at al im not even quite sure how id even begin to try nd make something that intends to encapsulate what it is, since its so fucked from the start, but thats also assuming inwards the right direction. Like, we are already outward as we speakso it musta been that we already decided it wasnt (its also sortve unpredictable, like, **"no thing**" isnt like, a safe point that lives beetween *a thing* and *no thing*, its more like, *do any stable points exist or not?* like, you know what i mean?

Edited Wednesday at 03:29 AM by kavaris

[Anton Rogachevski]

@kavaris

Unknowing is stable in that you simply don't know and can't ever : )

[samijiben]

I read through. 

I think it's great. Surely it can help people gawk the serious side of philosophy & where curiosity might take you...

Not that you were open to what is hopefully perceived as constructive criticism, that is, a touch of humor might add an attractive flare to your prose that Inspires Even Greater Wonder (RE: The Topic/Theme of your exposition. 

All in all,

!אחלה סופר אתה

[Anton Rogachevski]

@samijiben

תודה רבה גבר! אקח בחשבון : )

[kbone]

7 hours ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

@kavaris

Unknowing is stable in that you simply don't know and can't ever : )

I enjoyed the read and appreciate the honesty with which you preceded each section, especially in light of this.

While in Japan, peeling back the layers of the mind with the insights provided by the Zennies and Taoists, spending longer periods of time and presence in nature, and the growing angst of my time in the city and amongst the temples (though lovely), an insight emerged that said to walk away, much like the hermits and yogis of yore. The drive to prepare and do so was immense, almost rabid. The drive and subsequent experiences, never fulfilling, led me deep into the mountains, into simplicity, into solitude.... letting go, disassociating, simplifying, contemplating, filleting the mind of all its nonsense, observing nature, and letting IT 'teach'. Nowhere to go. Nothing to do. Nothing to know....<poof>

Touching the earth

Gazing at a flower

The Suchness of things

[Anton Rogachevski]

@kbone

Thank you for the feedback : )

Your journey sounds magical!

It takes me a couple of days of all day meditation and quiet to really get in touch with the magic of experience again.

[kbone]

1 hour ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

@kbone

Thank you for the feedback : )

Your journey sounds magical!

It takes me a couple of days of all day meditation and quiet to really get in touch with the magic of experience again.

Whatever wrote that essay, touched and moved the mind, and contemplated the precipice of mind itself.  A clarity adorned with insights arose in the mind, giving the impulse to put fingers to keyboard expressing a clarity of what could be formulated via the discerning mind. 

Now tell me, what's not magic?

[Anton Rogachevski]

6 minutes ago, kbone said:

Now tell me, what's not magic?

No such thing.

[kbone]

46 minutes ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

No such thing.

 

What's appearing in its absence?

Edited Wednesday at 04:13 PM by kbone

[Anton Rogachevski]

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

[kbone]

Just now, Anton Rogachevski said:

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

I do not know you on a day to day basis, so perhaps this answer surprises me. You've always expressed yourself in a clear, honest, and healthy way that I respected. The previous comment was just spinning off your comment on "the magic of expereince", as I thought the essay alluded to a depth of insight that was, welp, cool. 

I'm very glad to hear you are handling things of this nature in a such sane manner. I, too, went through a "dark night of the soul" period in my later 20s, so I can appreciate the gravity. For me, it was also quite intense for a while. Would you say your context is intense, or more like a long drawn out, numbing annoyance? I gravitated between them both, and then when the walls started to close in, I intuited it was time to make a dramatic change of scenery... like literally. Is that possible for you?

 

[Anton Rogachevski]

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

[kbone]

Just now, Anton Rogachevski said:

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

Ah, whew, glad to hear that. But yes, those kinds of psychological phenomena do appear, pull all attention to them, and darken the view, to be sure. That's what I read in your posts, somenoone who is aware of the shenanigans of the mind. 

So, part of your theory is that the mind cannot rise above itself, yes? And you're kind of cluing in on how the split mind operates...

And I chuckled with your post elsewhere about some 'other' being able to guide God back to itself. Always love a good existential jest. 

[Anton Rogachevski]

25 minutes ago, kbone said:

the mind cannot rise above itself

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.

25 minutes ago, kbone said:

And I chuckled with your post elsewhere about some 'other' being able to guide God back to itself. Always love a good existential jest. 

25 minutes ago, kbone said:

split mind

What do you mean?

Edited Wednesday at 05:18 PM by Anton Rogachevski

[kbone]

3 minutes ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

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. 

When the mind becomes unconscious of what it is doing (often triggered and goes unconscious leading to addictions and escapes), believes the world it has constructed as independent of 'external reality' is factual/true, regardless of the evidence otherwise. That sort of thing.

Direct experience of the individuated mind and/or being honest about misperceptions is fine.

I have not read your study, so maybe the incongruent terminology is a factor. Not sure. But, to be clear, it's not my field, so I may not be up to speed on the nuances of what your study deals with.

[kbone]

34 minutes ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

split mind

What do you mean?

As I stated in my reply above, it's kinda when the mind is so caught up in the drama it has created about and/or around the self, that it is not even aware of its own contradictions or self-sabotage/self-destructive capacities. It's more or less akin or related to the split-mind theory (aka, dual consciousness), maybe related to bicameral mentality.

[kbone]

57 minutes ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

 

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.

 

Absolutely agree. Everyone must see for themselves. Contemplation, questioning, and taking out the garbage are key. Space and clarity are what emerges, and no one can give it or do it for you.

Ironically, on a psychological level, it is mostly about unlearning, and adding concepts may/may not take up unnecessary space. 

Edited Wednesday at 05:52 PM by kbone

[James123]

1 hour ago, kbone said:

Absolutely agree. Everyone must see for themselves. Contemplation, questioning, and taking out the garbage are key. Space and clarity are what emerges, and no one can give it or do it for you.

Ironically, on a psychological level, it is mostly about unlearning, and adding concepts may/may not take up unnecessary space. 

Be witness of any thoughts, feelings etc ..

[kbone]

5 minutes ago, James123 said:

Be witness of any thoughts, feelings etc ..

Yes, that might be considered the 'impersonal' aspect, when one can at least dis-identify from the self construct, seeing the mind's movements more objectively. It's definitely higher order than all the self-referential thinking that most are lost in and/or wholly identified with.

The witness can at least laugh at the silliness one used to get so wound up in, and not take the self so seriously. That's always noice.