Andre A Pais:

Geovani Geo existence is the nature or characteristic of existing phenomena. Without phenomena that exists, where is existence to be found? That's like believing we can find the shape of a body without the body... 😊

__

A question arises, though. Can consciousness ever be without experience? We know experience cannot arise without consciousness, for experience requires a sensitive field capable of registering it. But is the opposite also true – that is, is a consciousness empty of any type of experience possible? The answer is no. Consciousness too cannot exist without experience, for if it did, it would be conscious of no thing. A consciousness that is not conscious of anythingis not conscious at all.Something that is not conscious at all is therefore unsuitable to be posited as consciousness at all.

Awareness and experience are, indeed, synonymous – which can have some remarkable consequences. Experience without awareness is simply not possible. However, one could try to picture awareness without experience – like in some kind of pure or formless state.

Yet, an awareness devoid of experience is an awareness that is not aware of anything. What gives it, then, its aware nature if it is, in fact, unaware? Awareness is programmed to constantly know; if for an instant it wouldn't be aware of anything, it would become unconscious and therefore non-existent. Every particle or phenomenon is programmed to know, to seek its environment and interact. This constant movement of knowingness is the pulse of existence, a natural movement forward, the spontaneous pacing of creation, the very flow of time. This is what experience is at its most fundamental level – pure spontaneity or responsiveness .

What this means is that there is experience happening at every level of existence. Of course, not all types of experience are complex and self-aware like those of a human mind or even animals. But consciousness cannot ever be without content or information, otherwise it would drop into a state of nothingness, out of which nothing could arise again. Besides, we would find the absurd situation of something – manifest consciousness – turning into nothing – contentless consciousness. So experience is the name we give to the natural movement of existence – the primordial and inevitable interaction of emptiness and consciousness.

Awareness and experience are, therefore, never dividable. What this means is that, even in the most subtle and “inert” states of consciousness – what is usually called matter –, some type of experience is taking place. Awareness never dissolves into nothingness or oblivion, because experience, which is what constitutes it and gives it its “shape and color”, is never absent either. There is always knowingness going on.

But if awareness is not separate or independent from the appearances that are known, it must be as transient and fluxing as the very appearances that are known. There is no sensible way in which one single thing (in this case the [conceptual] union of awareness and appearances) can have a split nature or a contradictory way of being.

These being the case - that no awareness exists outside of the arising appearances; and that awareness is thus of a transient nature -, it follows that all there ever exists is the self-knowing, self-luminous appearances, free of an observing or knowing subject beyond themselves, meaning that awareness, mind or any knowing principle are merely beliefs imputed on the flow of naturally luminous appearances.

It follows that we are not experiencing an external reality (naive realism), nor a mental representation (scientific materialism), nor even modulations of our own awareness (most non-dual traditions). There is actually no experiencer, no witness, no observer, no center or core, no knower - and no awareness (as awareness is always posited as "that which knows"). Let's allow that to sink in. This is one of the most powerful insights available to us.

What this means is that there isn't even perception going on. There is no one perceiving anything. The dualistic idea of perception itself is merely conceptually constructed and imputed onto pure manifest activity. What appears is reality as it is - as real, authentic and direct as it gets. Luminosity arises naturally and dependently, empty of any duality of knowing and known, mind and matter, inside and outside, subject and object, etc. Curiously, if one had to choose between the reality of either subject or object, the presence of the "objective world" would be far more undeniable than that of any subjective entity.

Further investigation must happen as to deeply understand the unestablished, empty and merely transient nature of what appears. This will help clarify the answer to "what is this?". However, the main question of all spiritual traditions, "who/what am I?", is answered when reality is understood as being without any observer, experiencer or entity of any kind and thus free of knowingness itself (and its ideas of "distorted" or "undistorted" perception).

What appears is what appears. We could call that ''reality''.

''Reality'', when conceptualized, becomes a ''truth''.

If those concepts express the true nature of what appears, it's an ultimate truth (usually about the emptiness of what appears; or the natural union of emptiness and appearance in what appears).

If those concepts express something other than the true nature of what appears, it's a conventional truth (usually about some function performed by some conceptualized object, like a table; or a belief in the permanence or inherency of some conceptualized object).

Concerning what appears, ''reality itself'', when it arises as ''concealing'' its true nature (emptiness), which is every ordinary appearance, then it's conventional reality.

When what appears, appears as it actually is (happening only when one has a direct perception of emptiness, since emptiness is empty and appears as such), then it's ultimate reality.

So, we have both conventional and ultimate reality. And we have both conventional and ultimate truth.

____

I'm having an issue with the conventional reality aspect. I said ordinary appearances are intrinsically of a ''concealing'' nature, because the tradition says that things always appear as inherently existing. Only emptiness appears in the same way as it is - empty.

I'm not sure I agree. When what is labeled as ''perception of blue sky'' arises, the ''blueness'' that appears is not broadcasting any inherency. It is only ''naturally manifest'', a mere  instance of sheer luminosity. The mask of inherency is added later, conceptually.

So, I'd say all appearances are ultimate reality, because they all naturally express the intrinsic union of emptiness and appearances, nothing else. All else is a mere truth about it - conventional or ultimate.

____

What are people's thoughts about this?