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

[Anton Rogachevski]

I'm really excited to share this here, the best place on earth for this piece to be received.

It started many years ago in a thread in this very forum, and since then was revised and added upon to make it the most comprehensive guide that addresses all the most important points about Non-Duality, and connects it to my new meta theory of epistemology: Post Non-Duality.

If you are just beginning this journey you should check it out, as it collects all the most juicy insights and connects them beautifully.

I hope you enjoy, It's quite the read, but it's really worth it I promise!

I would love to hear the opinions of the masters here, to sharpen and revise this even further, I would be honored.

You can read it here in my blog for a more updated, beautiful and organized view, and I will also post it here so you can reference and comment on the specific details. Bonus: In the blog your can also read the profound user comments that dive even deeper into the subject.

 

---------

 

Deconstructing "Reality" - How to access Direct Experience

I will try to show you step by step how an Illusion of “reality” may be formed within pure experience. We will start by defining and pointing towards Direct Experience, what I call the “The Basic Epistemic Ground” the foundation on which I think we should later lay all our Philosophical Framework. The focus here will be on Phenomenology, and the nature of experience as it relates to reality – after all Experience is presumably our only doorway through which we may eventually access and study the Physical Realm, so we better be sure of it’s ability and accuracy as we are trying to derive Ontological claims, if that’s even possible.

How can we know after all what is real and what isn’t for sure? What really exists? What is “existence”? These are the big questions, and the most interesting questions in my opinion. You first need to be really interested in these questions, because if you don’t actually care about Truth or Ultimate Reality you won’t have the energy, patience and dedication required to focus and to be hyper aware of your direct experience in order to see it clearly.

Prepare for adventure…

This is a radical shift from regular perception, so just for the sake of this experiment, try to open your mind as much as you can. There will be some paradoxical notions, which will appear contradictory at times, and yet, they are the best way to point at something that you can’t really describe:

“You can’t peg a nail into the sky.”

Old zen quote

Imagine with me a world which is completely blank, even from an observer, we then shall draw every aspect of “reality” from scratch. Let’s begin with a clean slate, and gently put all our notions about reality aside for a moment. When the experiment is over, you may take them all back, that is, if you would still consider them valid.

It’s all metaphors that should point to direct experience, so don’t take anything literally here. Try to see where the sign points, and don’t try to over analyze the sign itself.

A very important note before we begin

This text is not meant to be empty theory! It’s a guided live contemplation exercise, so look deeply into your experience as you go along.

Pause from time to time and look directly at your own experience. Ask yourself: is what I’m reading truly aligned with what I’m experiencing right now? Be radically honest. Don’t take my word for it—verify it for yourself. Otherwise, this inquiry risks becoming just another belief system, which would lead you away from what I’m pointing to, not towards it.

The nature of The Void

Important!
Anything you assume “The Void” is – it’s not! So don’t form an “object” out of nothing. Don’t objectify the void.

There is nothing at all—no one to see, no one to hear, no “aware entity” watching a “reality.” There is only The Void, aware of itself. In a strange loop, it turns inward, reflecting itself endlessly. And yet, it needs no knowledge of itself, for it already is what it seeks to know.

The Void has these “channels of perception”: mind, sensations, hearing, sight, smell and taste. Even to call them “senses” already ruins what they truly are. The senses aren’t a separate feature of void, they are The Void! You could say that phenomenologically speaking there are only senses in existence, without an experiencer.

It’s true—we generally assume, with high confidence, that something exists outside our experience. But this belief is rarely examined. It operates as a background assumption, taken for granted so automatically that we don’t even notice we’re making it. What I’m asking you to do is simple but radical: question that assumption. Look closely and see for yourself that it is, in fact, just that—an assumption, not a certainty.

The senses are not located anywhere—not in space, nor in time. Phenomenologically, they appear omnipresent and eternal. Even the feeling of “here” is just another sensation, as is the impression of something being “out there.” These are not facts, but appearances within experience. The senses don’t observe a world from a distance—they are the unfolding of experience itself, the flow of pure energy taking shape, moving from formlessness into form.

Through these silent marvels—the senses—the Void turns inward, beholding itself without eyes. What they reveal cannot be spoken, for they do not point to things, but shimmer as the very seeing. Their touch is enchantment, their song unspeakable. No language can capture the glory of the Void knowing itself through the miracle of presence.

It can only be recognized when the mind is completely still—when all the senses turn inward and there is no interference or interpretation. In that state, the body is deeply relaxed, and a quiet clarity emerges. The usual boundaries dissolve: there is no separation between subject and object, between body and world. In this collapse of duality, the Void reveals its infinite nature as pure experience.

As a dear friend Jinzo once wisely noted, calling it “The Void” can make it sound barren or empty—when in truth, it’s anything but. He prefers the term “The Source,” a name that better reflects its overflowing fullness, the wellspring from which all energy flows and to which all returns. In that light, “Void” may mislead; it isn’t a lack, but a silent abundance beyond form.

Anything you can imagine it to be, it is not!

The “void” is not the Void.

How appearances are formed within The Source

The Source can transform itself into seeming “objects” at will, but these are just hollow figures without substance, they can’t do anything but to simply appear and disappear.

A castle built in the sand is, from one perspective, truly a castle. And yet, in essence, it’s just a shaped pile of sand—recognized as a ‘castle’ only by the mind. This doesn’t mean objects lack meaning. To the child who built it, the castle is deeply important. It brings joy, imagination, pride. And when a bully comes and knocks it down, the sorrow is just as real.

Its emptiness is not lack, but infinite potential—the silent womb from which all appearances arise. These appearances are not separate from the Void; they are the Void, shaped into fleeting forms. You might say its nature is holographic: a self-generating display in which the formless becomes form, only to reflect itself back in awareness.

Emptiness is unmanifested void, “objects” are manifested void.

When many “objects” are manifested, and “interconnected”, “reality” is formed.

“Reality” is the dream of the unawakened void. Inside the dream, many things might appear to “happen”, but it’s only due to the dream state, or Maya.

This process is analogous to dreaming at night, many things appear to happen to you, but really you just lie there sleeping. Only when you wake up, you realise it was all just a dream.

Maya is vast—so vast it holds galaxies, lifetimes, worlds, space and time within it. But don’t be fooled by the grandeur of these names. They are all just expressions of the Void, dream-figures moving within a dream. These appearances may interact with one another, but they cannot touch the Void itself. Like images on a screen, they flicker and fade—except here, there is no screen at all.

It’s beyond any category, and so it’s neither big, nor small, it’s both and neither, since it contains all there is. It’s paradoxical, so logic can’t grasp it.

The hypothesis of the formation of the idea of “Time”

The idea of “Time” is generated by the movement of attention through memory. The Now is never experienced as a sequence, but always as immediacy. All “past” and “future” are appearances within now. Another aspect of The Void is that it’s timeless and ever-present.

The nature of thought, and how to avoid delusion

Talking about The Void can be highly confusing and dangerous, because in that instance, the low-consciousness mind will invent a concept about the void, and pretend it “knows” it. But we must do that so we can understand our way out this.

Thoughts are like memory files—bundles of stored data containing images, sounds, words, and sensations from the past. As phenomena, thoughts are real in the sense that they can be noticed, even felt, when the mind is quiet. But the content they carry—the narratives they weave—is not reliable. These stories are not truth; they are fragments, shaped by perspective, partial and relative to context.

Eventually, these stories become so dominant that they replace the direct “live feed” with an endless rerun of mental commentary. The brain begins to watch its own echo, rather than the world. And as the light of awareness dims—distracted, fragmented, entangled in narrative—the void forgets itself. It forgets that it was always playing with appearances, and it falls asleep in the dream it authored.

What we are trying to do here is to use thought to describe itself, and later to cancel itself.

“To use a thorn, to take out another thorn.”

R. Maharishi

To protect yourself from delusion, get really good at experiencing directly and seeing thoughts for what they are.

The mechanism of Creation

The creation of “reality” occurs when thoughts floating in the void are glued together into a story, then out of low consciousness, the imaginary story is believed to be true. It’s glue is “logic”, “rationality” and advanced ethereal terms. (which are all thoughts too.)

For example:

“I did this”
=
Subject Thought + Action Thought + Object Thought
=
“Reality” Idea
=
Maya

Only when logic is applied to stick the story together, does reality “occur”, but in fact, from a phenomenological perspective all that happened was: three thoughts arose, one after another, no action, no doer, no object were actually present inside of experience.

The Formation of an “Ego” out of fear, logic and language

Out of deluded fear, the void is attaching it’s infinite identity to this little finite idea, and plays a “character” inside the dream of “reality” of low-consciousness.

The “I” is not a subject, but a grammatical habit. The thought “I am” does not prove a self, only a linguistic echo that reflects itself within The Void.

And so attachment that arises out of fear is one cause of the seeming trouble. Attachment sucks The Void into drama, and gets it fully involved in the story, it’s attached to “body, identity, property, thoughts, people, groups, life” – All these appearances are now referred to as “My reality”.

And so the “ego” is simply a thought that was entangled in the “mind”, “body” and “sensations”. The thought “I” is no different than the thought “coffee table”, except it was attached to the “body” and the sensations, out of fear.

Who’s afraid you ask? Who told you there has to be someone to have fear? Fear is another floating sensation in the void. It’s a product of low consciousness, an aspect of darkness. It occurs when the void has bought the story of “being a real entity” completely to the point where it believes it can die. This is how a low-self is being artificially created out of nothing. Now it fears death and other things that may “harm” it.

The “laws” of logic suggest that “subjects” can do “actions” upon “objects”, but who said that was true? Why can’t action be made on it’s own, without a subject? What if object, subject, and action were all one undivided phenomenon, and only appeared as if they were separate.

It’s important to remember here that the ego is a program inside the evolved biological brain out there that is meant to help the body survive better in actual danger, it’s an illusion phenomenologically speaking, but it has an actual function out there somewhere, so don’t just blame it for doing what it was meant to do.

The myth of the nature of Darkness and The Void’s inherent mission

This part is a bit more mysterious and mythological, but it can somehow try to explain the existence of certain phenomenon within experience. So take that into account and remember that it’s a metaphorical story and not actuality.

“So what is ‘darkness’?” you might ask. It is the void’s unawakened side, many times it’s referred to as the “Devil”, and on the opposite side there is the light side of “God”, yet the void transcends and includes such categories, which are only present in the brain.

All these seeming “actions” that I describe are automatic, and there’s no actual “doer” who’s creating them, no one to be angry at, or to blame, it’s just the way the void is, it’s nature is both the good and bad, but these judgments of the brain are only present in low consciousness.

Without some degree of darkness there wouldn’t be any manifestations because the Void is pure light, and just like in a projector you need to filter that light through film that covers some light partly to project a picture.

The void isn’t perfect as we idealize “perfect” to be, it has started from complete darkness, and it is now gradually gaining light through a process of awakening. It’s manifestations are evolving and transforming darkness into the light of Love.

Its perfection is like that of a tree, the grain of wood, or the curve of a drifting cloud—not flawless by calculation, but whole by nature. There are no mistakes in it, only forms that flow with an effortless harmony, pleasing not because they follow a rule, but because they simply are.

The void is exploring itself through its many manifestations, which then return to it, to be born again, and start a new better journey, to better love, until they wake up again, and merge with their source. It’s in a constant battle against the inner darkness, and so it must stay vigilant to keep the light from fading – This is the dramatic aspect of Maya.

You are it, you are void, and all the appearances in it. Your job is to love all of it, including the darkness! Because that’s what gonna heal you, so that you could finally return to your true self and unite into your infinite nature, if it’s the right time for you to do so.

Nothing is hidden. Can you see that now?

A very important final note – How not to use this text

It’s a big mistake to try to apply this material to objective reality – That is what most religions had done, and had created epistemic monsters like “creationism” and “literalism”. All of it true only from a phenomenological perspective, and that is only within experience. Outside of experience it doesn’t make any sense at all, and should not imply any ontology whatsoever.

Also, the belief that “if nothing is concrete, then nothing matters, so why do anything at all?” is not insight—it’s dogma, ignorance, and a form of nihilism. Reality’s lack of fixed meaning is not a void to despair in, but an opening into infinite meaning. It’s so profoundly full that, when truly seen, it may bring you to your knees in joy. But to glimpse this, you must first awaken—let go of second-hand spiritual narratives, and meet reality without assumptions.

Edited Sunday at 12:58 PM by Anton Rogachevski

[theleelajoker]

2 hours ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

I would love to hear the opinions of the masters here, to sharpen and revise this even further, I would be honored.

I don't feel like a master, rather as a jester. And this jester wants to comment ; )

General feedback metalevel:

• You could be more clear about your intention and the "what to do with it" from the beginning
• Your writing style: Lots of information that can be left out while keeping the messages. I would go through the text 3,4,5 times and everytime cut a few % of words and sentences. My estimate is that with max. 50% of the text, you can have same message but more clarity and reach more people
• For instance: The brain part doesn't add much meaning or impact for me, but it's a lot of text and IMO unecessarily adding complexity. You can make the point of "I" and "Ego" without including the brain stuff
• I use a trick sometimes: I look at an abstract, or 2-3 sentences and ask myself: How can I express this in one simple sentence?

Content feedback:

• You say: "Ask yourself: is what I'm reading or thinking truly aligned with what I’m experiencing right now?" What is missing is the criteria to decide "ok that's aligned or not"
• I agree principally how you describe Maya, sandcastle analogy etc. Appearances that come and go. Vipassana gave a degree of insight into this. Also agree about attachment and getting sucked into the drama by creating and maintaining stories
• The next three points. Maybe darkness is a bug, maybe it's a feature? Maybe there is free will for us to decide which it is? Honestly don't know
  • The darker the light of consciousness is, the deeper the brain will pull the void into fantasy, and so it falls asleep, and forgets that it was playing with appearances.
  • The void isn't perfect as we idealize "perfect" to be, it has started from complete darkness, and it is now gradually gaining light through a process of awakening. It's manifestations are evolving and transforming darkness into the light of love.
  • It's in a constant battle against the inner darkness, and so it must stay vigilant to keep the light from fading - This is the dramatic aspect of Maya
• The real problem is that one believes that thoughts can relate, or affect one another. This is the sneaky nature of thought, which is allowing for all of reality to "exist". How could thoughts affect one another, if they are just noises floating in an empty vacuum? Not so sure about the thougts being that irrelevant. Also does not really align with "The Maya is nothing but endless circular thoughts pointing at themselves", does it? Can't tell you what thoughts are, but I have a hard time seeing them as only noise without any impact. It's true that thoughts change, and that they are never describing what really is but only a temporary, incomplete labeling...but I have the impression that thoughts have an impact on the survival organism I am experiencing now. Can't say exactly, but the part re thoughts does not seem smooth for me now (maybe it's just me, who knows?)
• Because that's what gonna heal you, so that you could finally return to your true self and unite into your infinite nature. How do you know that this is what is desired? Maybe I want to be here because it like this more then the alternative 

Now the real feedback stuff: 

• If you actually read the text, you might notice the meta-paradox and also the solution to the problem.
• All the material in the text is a thought story. It's now a file in you neural brain network, so it's absolutely useless to you as a story (Other than simple entertainment), unless you can use it to jump out into direct experience
• The big confusion, and an entirely wrong assumption, is talking about non-dual material without studying it thoroughly
• Outside of experience it doesn't make any sense at all, and should not imply any ontology whatsoever
• Bro, so you made a big story telling us to forget stories, you deconstructed meaning to create infinite meaning, you told us to let go of understanding by writing a huge text explaining things and THEN you added as icing on the cake 1) a statement telling us how things should be seen and 2) this stuff needs to be thouroughly studied?    I guess you're the real joker hehe
• If you want me to go to direct experience, let's play a round of table tennis 

Edited June 6 by theleelajoker

[Anton Rogachevski]

@theleelajoker

Thank you very much for feedback it's pretty masterful I would say! I'll try to apply some of it right now.

You didn't like the brain example? I thought that it was a pretty cool and paradoxical example of how the ideas are not the same as reality.

38 minutes ago, theleelajoker said:

You could be more clear about your intention and the "what to do with it" from the beginning

That would be a bit of a spoiler wouldn't it? 

38 minutes ago, theleelajoker said:

If you want me to go to direct experience, let's play a round of table tennis

If only it were that simple. Simplistic answers are not as satisfying in my opinion. Maybe for some it works.

38 minutes ago, theleelajoker said:

a statement telling us how things should be seen

Isn't that useful for avoiding misleading ways in which it can be interpreted? I think it saves time to know these things instead of getting lost in ideas.

38 minutes ago, theleelajoker said:

Maybe darkness is a bug, maybe it's a feature? Maybe there is free will for us to decide which it is? Honestly don't know

New part to explain more:
Without some degree of darkness there wouldn't be any manifestations because the Void is pure light, and just like in a projector you need to filter that light through film that covers some light partly to even have a picture.

Edited June 6 by Anton Rogachevski

[theleelajoker]

32 minutes ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

@theleelajoker

Thank you very much for feedback it's pretty masterful I would say! I'll try to apply some of it right now.

You didn't like the brain example? I thought that it was a pretty cool and paradoxical example of how the ideas are not the same as reality.

That would be a bit of a spoiler wouldn't it? 

If only it were that simple. Simplistic answers are not as satisfying in my opinion. Maybe for some it works.

Isn't that useful for avoiding misleading ways in which it can be interpreted? I think it saves time to know these things instead of getting lost in ideas.

 

1. Brain example: Depends on your intention + personal taste. If the point is to make a paradoxical example, I would take something that is "lighter" to digest. An easy analogy? Or you had a zen quote, so maybe come up with your own koan? For instance, I created my own during difficult hours in the last retreat: I asked myself "how do I create silence and stillness?"  

2. Spoiler: haha yeah...again, depends on intention of yours

3. Simplistic answers are not as satisfying in my opinion. Maybe for some it works. Yes and no. I always think of the Alan Watts Quote that is along sth like ~ "If you believe you need a psychotherapy, you do need one"   So it's like you say...can be for entertainment.

1. If simple answer are enough - fine, be happy : )
2. So if you want complex answers - fine, be happy : )
3. If you think you need complex answers - fine, be happy : )
4. If you think you need complex answer but you can't be happy needing it, then it's an option to reconsider your assumtions. 

I went through all 4, still go through all for and currently what entertains me most is no. 1  

4. Isn't that useful for avoiding misleading ways in which it can be interpreted? I think it saves time to know these things instead of getting lost in ideas. Re-read the two sentences above. Noticing anything?  

Edited June 6 by theleelajoker

[Anton Rogachevski]

5 minutes ago, theleelajoker said:

If simple answer are enough - fine, be happy : )

So you must like Leo famous "Look at your hand and shut up" I think a complex brain likes complexity and that's pretty simple.

6 minutes ago, theleelajoker said:

Noticing anything?  

Nope still not. hint? Do you want this at the top? to set intentions?

[theleelajoker]

Just now, Anton Rogachevski said:

So you must like Leo famous "Look at your hand and shut up" I think a complex brain likes complexity and that's pretty simple.

Nope still not. hint? Do you want this at the top? to set intentions?

1. Don't know about Leo's quote, but SOMETIMES that can be the right approach : )

2. Sure. Here is my personal impression of what you wrote:  You have the intention for people not to get lost in ideas by GIVING AN IDEA. You try to replace one concept by creating another one. You lead away from "wrong" interpretations to a "right" interpretation. 

Maybe I am misunderstanding. But it reminds me of myself trying to create silence...

[Anton Rogachevski]

5 minutes ago, theleelajoker said:

Sure. Here is my personal impression of what you wrote:  You have the intention for people not to get lost in ideas by GIVING AN IDEA. You try to replace one concept by creating another one. You lead away from "wrong" interpretations to a "right" interpretation. 

There is an old saying in the text "You sometimes need a thorn to take out another thorn." (I'm paraphrasing) 
So it's not so simple, if it were, Buddhism and all the other spiritual traditions wouldn't exist and everyone would just be enlightened. In my opinion a basic conceptual understanding of this is pretty good to have.

A conceptual framework is somewhat like a fishnet, and just like with catching fish, you need some tool to apprehend the ethereal spiritual experience, or else you'll simply return empty-handed.

[theleelajoker]

Yes yes I understand that, and I do operate with concepts too. It's not practical without in everyday life for me. I keep them - as best as I can - to minimum or entertainment purposes. 

What I am saying is that instead of taking out a thorn with a thorn, you can act like there is no thorn, or to start with just observe the thorn without taking it out, or to consider the thorn as so small that you don't need to take it out, or decide to take it out but to do it 5 minutes in the future, etc etc.

Except of course, you like taking out thorns. In this case, I know a great master with a great technique for taking out thorns, located in the mountains close to Daramshala. He's difficult to find but if you REALLY want to find him, it's possible...

Edited June 6 by theleelajoker

[Anton Rogachevski]

@theleelajoker

Sounds cool dude! Did you really go to a Guru?

[theleelajoker]

No

[Anton Rogachevski]

10 hours ago, theleelajoker said:

No

 Are you a Joker of some sort? 

I've worked on this essay for two days straight now, I think I might be obsessed! Anyway, it's way more concise and polished now, you would love it.

[theleelajoker]

Sry sometimes can't resist to make some jokes  

Just meant to lighten up things - I like your guide and have fun discussing it with you!

Edited Saturday at 07:49 PM by theleelajoker

[Anton Rogachevski]

20 hours ago, theleelajoker said:

Just meant to lighten up things - I like your guide and have fun discussing it with you!

Thank you dude! I really wish it would spark more of a mutual contemplation around here, but get almost no comments : (

[Breakingthewall]

On 6/6/2025 at 2:59 PM, Anton Rogachevski said:

The void isn’t perfect as we idealize “perfect” to be, it has started from complete darkness, and it is now gradually gaining light through a process

Then the infinity started? When?

[Anton Rogachevski]

8 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Then the infinity started? When?

This part is a hypothetical myth. But I don't see how something other than imagination may be infinite, it doesn't make sense for something to go on forever.

The darkness I'm referring to is the beginning of life on earth. I'm not saying the void is limited or that it has started on Earth, but it is relevant for us humans.

The other option is indian myth - stating that it's cyclical, but these are just backwards rationalization attempts to explain the appearent phenomenon.

Edited Monday at 04:22 AM by Anton Rogachevski

[Breakingthewall]

8 hours ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

This part is a hypothetical myth. But I don't see how something other than imagination may be infinite, it doesn't make sense for something to go on forever.

The darkness I'm referring to is the beginning of life on earth. I'm not saying the void is limited or that it has started on Earth, but it is relevant for us humans.

The other option is indian myth - stating that it's cyclical, but these are just backwards rationalization attempts to explain the appearent phenomenon.

It's quite simple: the absence of limits in the reality makes it inevitable that at some point there will be a fluctuation, a change of state. For this to happen, there must be division, since any change is with respect to another field that remains in another state. Since there are no limits, this has always occurred, and has occurred infinite times.

Two reflected fields changing state only exist as an apparent change if their movement/change is synchronous, since they only exist as a change in relation to each other. Then, above these two fields in synchronous movement, another movement opens in each of them, since each is the bottomless infinity. Thus, infinite changes of state unfold in infinite dimensions, all of them synchronous for the sole reason that the non-synchronous does not appear.

The dimension of this manifestation is immeasurable; it has no bottom. Everything is possible relationships, movements, perspectives at different angles that fit together in an absolutely symmetrical way, since the slightest asymmetry results in infinite asymmetry; therefore, it is not. This is reality. It is essentially the absence of limits, absolute being. In form, it is perfect symmetry in infinite dimensions.

Each node of relationships has infinite ramifications and emits infinite possibilities, infinite expansive potential, which, if it meshes with another possibility and synchronizes, manifests.

[Anton Rogachevski]

@Breakingthewall

Sounds interesting. Are you conscious of this? How did you derive that explanation?

The physical plane is full of limits. The laws of physics for example - the limit on the speed of light.

The essay was explaining that I don't have access to reality and so I'm not making any Ontological claims, only Phenomenological.

Edited Monday at 12:58 PM by Anton Rogachevski

[kbone]

1 hour ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

@Breakingthewall

Sounds interesting. Are you conscious of this? How did you derive that explanation?

The physical plane is full of limits. The laws of physics for example - the limit on the speed of light.

The essay was explaining that I don't have access to reality and so I'm not making any Ontological claims, only Phenomenological.

1 hour ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

@Breakingthewall

Sounds interesting. Are you conscious of this? How did you derive that explanation?

The physical plane is full of limits. The laws of physics for example - the limit on the speed of light.

The essay was explaining that I don't have access to reality and so I'm not making any Ontological claims, only Phenomenological.

I appreciate you taking the time to type out your essay. I plan to return to it once I have the time to properly mesh into it. Infinity, properly apprehended, would transcend any boundaries of beginning or end (two conceptual polar ends of a continuum).

I dig your honesty and clarity.

Until then, I wonder if you've explored the Buddhist concept of dependent origination along with the more well known ones of impermanence and no self?

Twelve Links of Dependent Origination:

This concept describes a chain of interconnected events that explain the cycle of suffering and rebirth, including ignorance, volitional formations, consciousness, name and form, sense bases, contact, feeling, craving, clinging, becoming, birth, and aging and death. 

 

Might be worth a contemplation as the structure of suffering that could then be meshed in with the essay's intent.

Peacely, brotha.

 

[Anton Rogachevski]

@kbone

Thank you! I'll check it out.

[Breakingthewall]

On 9/6/2025 at 2:48 PM, Anton Rogachevski said:

@Breakingthewall

Sounds interesting. Are you conscious of this? How did you derive that explanation?

The physical plane is full of limits. The laws of physics for example - the limit on the speed of light.

The essay was explaining that I don't have access to reality and so I'm not making any Ontological claims, only Phenomenological.

On 9/6/2025 at 2:48 PM, Anton Rogachevski said:

 

 

There is a basic realization in spirituality ,it's the beginning of opening to what you are.

In my experience, it always happens in this way: at a certain moment, whether with psychedelics, in meditation, or however it comes, the boundaries within which you contain experience dissolve. Your mind , or you, if you prefer, expands without limit.

At first, this is perceived as an absolute, boundless void, because anything that exists , sensory experience, your life, whatever , appears like a hologram stretching into infinity and turning into nothing. Reality is an absolute empty well , like a cosmic gong that rings and shows you the absolute nihilism of reality. It’s actually a pretty horrible experience, by the way.

So you have to return there again and again. The key lies in the absolute void  there’s something there that hasn’t yet revealed itself. What is it? You must be the absolute void, until it’s no longer horrible. Not wonderful either, just… absolute void. You must overcome the horror vacui, like a climber must overcome the fear of heights. Then, at some point, the void opens. It is the total.

Let’s see , the void is something limited; it excludes fullness. It’s a limited perspective in which you are perceiving the inherent emptiness of reality, without realizing that you are there perceiving the void. And then a shift happens: you’re not observing the void . you are the void. And then you open. It’s like a crack breaks open the void and reveals the essence of reality: the absence of limits that makes totality inevitable. Ahhhhh! The prodigal son has returned from the fucking desert he was living in.

The obvious has been revealed , what always was, the total, your nature, what you are beyond time, beyond events, beyond experience , what comes before all of that.

Then, from this realization you could thread a logic that leads you to the inevitable conclusion that manifest reality is the unlimited relating to itself from infinite perspectives, and that only that which is synchronous with itself to infinite potential appears, not by desire, will, or any other reason, but because it is inevitable, because there are not limits. And this infinite synchronicity is absolute intelligence for the sole reason that it is the only possible possibility. Absolutely simple.

Then you can begin to intuit the unlimited interconnectedness that exists within you and of which you are simultaneously a part, the living infinity swirling, flowing upon itself beyond what your mind can even intuit. You can be open to your nature but not grasp your dimension, it's unfathomable.

Edited Tuesday at 05:45 PM by Breakingthewall