refuting_coverAfter countless days and nights of hard work the book is finally done. I’m very proud of it. I’ve written something that I would have wanted back in the days when I just started to pull the threads of the fabric.

This piece of philosophy will guide you through every step in dismantling the notion of the external world. It will ruthlessly and effectively reveal and dispel any wrong-thinking surrounding this idea upon which all else stands.

This isn’t the first book that tackles this subject. But others have left it at “we can’t really know whether there’s anything beyond our experience,” while I go all the way and say that we can know – and in this book I’ll show you exactly how and why this idea of an external world beyond our perceptions is nothing but a figment of our imagination.

But this is a book for serious people. You won’t find any ‘pointers’ in it. What you’ll find is stone cold logic hacking away at the very foundation of existence itself. And in it’s wake; when the dust settles; you’ll recognize that, not only were the words of the sages true all along, but they’ve gone from being a remote possibility to being the light and guiding principle of your life. What words?
Consciousness is all.

The book is called Refuting The External World and is available as a downloadable E-book.


Further reading:

4 Responses to THE BOOK IS DONE

  1. Eezy Isempty says:

    Friend Goran,

    Excellent read…
    Emptiness is the Dao.
    Effortless action on the head of pin.
    Ended a few faltering thoughts I was still saddled with.

    Eezy Isempty

  2. Marianne Sciberras says:

    loved the free chapter. Must get your book soon.
    Thanks for your clarity and honesty.

  3. Bolis says:

    Hi Goran. For your consideration:You just went thugroh great lengths to assert that it’s nonsensical to claim the existence of anything inconceivable. But then how can you claim the existence of consciousness as the unperceived apparatus of perception, the unseen underlying substratum? Does such a claim not demonstrate that you are somehow conceiving of consciousness as an independent reality, which conception must therefore be fallacious? Is it really any different from the same claim about space?How is saying: no, there is no external world, only consciousness , any different from saying: yes, there is an external world, and it is consciousness ? Isn’t it either way just a last-ditch effort at getting a handle on existence?Why must experience have any underlying substratum? Why must there be a consciousness to manifest anything, what makes you think manifestation doesn’t simply manifest itself? Why must it even be called experience, or consciousness, or anything, if there is nothing to contrast it with?What would actually be the difference between so-called experience, the consciousness to which it ostensibly occurs or from which it ostensibly arises or that is ostensibly witnessing it, and the undeniable fact of being? Does being depend on an independent apparatus or underlying substrate? Is there a you which is that? You refuted the apparent separation between seeing and seen, but you skipped over the apparent separation between seeing and seer. You refuted continuity, but you still claim something independently ever-present, to which we owe frames of experience .It sounds like you are trying to argue towards an a-priori established conclusion. Something you may have heard somewhere, which you are now trying to validate. And by the way, where does metaphysics reside if not in your conceptions?Incidentally, you don’t need to refute the physicality label in order to refute the individuality label. You don’t even need to refute space and time and causality, in fact they can be very useful allies if you care to make an argument. Whether you call it consciousness or matter, doesn’t matter.Apparent individuals aren’t really all that apparent. You don’t need to conceive of some invisible, independent, undifferentiated substrate to make them one. There is nothing to make one. Emptiness is not about an independent void, it’s about dependent appearances.Best regards,Mark

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *