This view appeared as a result of the movement in two main directions:

• Modern scientific materialism
• Practice self-research in the traditions of Adwaita and Mahamudra

A little more: Materialism is understood as an evolutionary, brain-centered reductionism which implies (e.g.):

• Multiverse; any forms of the anthropic principle are just tautology
• Evolution as a blind process of Bayesian thermodynamics
• Solipsicity of the brain; existence of external world and its laws are just hypothesis
• Illusions of free will, personality, choice

I do not insist that this is the case. But as Thomas Metzinger wrote, a modern philosopher must be honest and courageous. We must honestly admit that it can be so.

I know and practice Eastern philosophy from a young age and had much contact with Buddhists. But the clearest understanding and awareness was gained by taking the course Daniel P. Brown «The Stages of Meditation in the Mahamudra Tradition» (2 times, 2.5 years)

I’m disciple of the Nisargadatta Maharaj linage, and of course the Adwaita philosophy and practice of self-enquiry played a big role.

The last 2-3 years have been formed a view that is difficult to describe with words. Below I’ll try to do it. Just want to point out two people, whose works have made it clear - me not the only one who came to this view. These are the famous (though marginal) Russian writer and philosopher Yuri Mamleev with his «The Last Doctrine», and controversial but very bright man Geydar Dzhemal with his «Orientation – North».

Everything that is seen, thought, happens and feels is the Picture («Weltbild» of Wittgenstein). God, faith, philosophy, science, meditation, sensations - just its forms, layers. Infinite, eternal, contradictory, fantastic, impossible - also parts of the Picture.

In fact, we can recognize only two points:

• Something is. («Existence exists» of Ayn Rand)
• There are one and the other, some structure. The Picture is not complete chaos, darkness, singularity

All other statements: existence of consciousness, subject, thinking, logic etc. - secondary speculations. Their veracity is verified only within the particular model.

Let’s summarize some conclusions:

• There is nothing but the Picture
• No part of it is special, significant (anti- Essentialism)
• There are no any ways «out», no any view «outside»
• There are no global truths, sense etc.

Combine all the negative words of these (and many other) provisions into one NO. It is argued that this NO has a true, real, independent nature - the nature of the Absolute.

The Absolute is NO; always and only Other.

No one, in any way, can «know» the Other, much less «identify» with It. All «enlightenments», revelations, samadhis take place only within Picture.

There is a region of the Picture in which intersect:

• subjectivity
• denial of what is (conscious or not)
• illusion of choice and action

One form of action is cognitive, for example:

• Focus, awareness
• Acceptance of views, consideration of different models
• Finally, what existential therapists called «take a stand, position»

The last (in my opinion) the only non-trivial action towards the Other. We can choose orientation, recognize the situation, take a stand relative to That, which is neither in any direction, nor attainable. As the great Georgian-Russian philosopher Merab Mamardashvili said:

The real man thinks and speaks, based on (contributing to context) only profound, important things: death, being, infinity etc.