Not Knowing Is Closer to the Truth Than Knowing

My questions relate to the consciousness only model, the elements of which you so carefully and convincingly explain. As you point out, there is nothing more to my experience other than my knowing of it. No matter what the content of my experience, there is just the knowing of it. You are quite right when you point out that despite how convincing it seems that the world is made out of stuff called matter, all I'm ever actually in contact with is the knowing of that experience or the experience of consciousness itself. But the fact that I cannot find this stuff called matter because my only experience of it is a knowing arising in consciousness made of consciousness. But the fact that I can therefore not find this stuff called matter does not prove to me that matter does not exist. And even though I freely admit consciousness is primary in my experience, that alone is not sufficient for me to conclude that consciousness therefore is all that there is. A simple thought experiment can easily demonstrate this. Let's imagine that the materialists are correct. Let's imagine that matter does in fact exist. And let's go even further by imagining that matter is the primary existent or the main stuff out of which the universe is made. What would our experience be like in this imaginary universe made primarily of matter? Wouldn't it be identical to our current experience? Whatever would we would be aware of, even in a universe made of matter, there would still be nothing more to our experience than the knowing of it. My intuition is that not knowing is the closest we can get to the truth here. And finding the consciousness only model difficult in no way diminishes the beauty and the completely transformative life-changing gift you have given us. That of recognizing our true nature. That's a beautiful question. So would would it be is it true to say that if matter were the the onlogical primitive the primary substance out of which everything was made? Would our experience not be and and that consciousness was was was derived from it? And and is it not true to say that our experience would still only be that all we know is the knowing of experience? But that wouldn't disprove that matter is that I think that's your question. It wouldn't our experience be exactly the same as it is now. Yes, with one exception. If matter was the primary reality, the the stuff out of which reality was made out of which consciousness emerged, then consciousness would be a temporary phenomenon and would therefore be finite and that is not consistent with our current experience. So in that respect in that very important respect our experience would be very different our experience now if we go to the experience of being aware we find it it's neither temporary nor finite but if consciousness were an emergent property of matter it would have started and it would then definitely stop but that conflicts with our experience no one has ever experienced the beginning or the ending of consciousness so that's a big difference Yes. Yes. That's a huge difference and I wasn't addressing the emergence of consciousness from matter but I I completely agree. So I don't know what I don't know where you know my experience when I go to infinite being my being you know me. >> Yes. is that and and I don't know how I know this >> but there's no gender there's no age there there's no time there there's no boundary there's no beyond which it is not >> yes but but when you say I don't know how you know it that there is no way that you know that it's self-evident >> yes yes it just it that knowing it just yes exactly right So I'm not positing that consciousness is emergent from matter. I just don't know that matter >> necessarily doesn't exist or that only consciousness exists. That's all. >> Okay. But can can I ask you a question, Christopher? You you you you understand that whether or not matter exists or all that we know or could ever know indeed all that anyone has or could ever known is is knowing. >> Yes. >> So I if matter does exist it it it would be forever beyond our capacity to know it. >> Yes. Exactly. Exactly right. >> But as you say that that's not a proof that it doesn't exist. But if you want to build a model of reality, and that's what we're trying to do, trying to to to build a model of reality, why would you why would you try to build them unless you needed to? Unless would you not take the the what you know for certain to be the building block of your model? Why would you choose? Why would you imagine a substance that nobody has ever known or could ever know to explain our experience? Unless the substance that we do know, namely consciousness, was incapable by itself of explaining the whole of reality. I totally agree with you that if we take the one absolute certainty of of reality, namely the presence of consciousness, if we cannot build a model that explains everything using just consciousness as the as the onlogical primitive, the the the fundamental substance, then we would have to imagine, we could never experience, but we would have to imagine another substance which would help us fill in whatever gaps remained in our in our model of reality. But we would only need to do that if using consciousness wasn't sufficient. >> Yes. >> Let me just ask you one other question and and that's using um Okam's razor. remember AAM was the philosopher who who who said if of I don't remember exactly what he said but the gist of it was that of any um competing theories you should always choose the one that makes the least assumptions the one that's the most parimonious and economical and so if we build a model of reality using only consciousness we're not using any assumptions we're just using the raw data of our experience we know beyond a certain of there is consciousness. If our model of reality includes consciousness and matter, we're using the raw data of our experience. Consciousness and the assumption that something called matter which we could never actually experience exists. Well, why would we do that if we didn't need to do that? And why would we choose matter? If we if we thought okay consciousness that's the raw data of our experience that that's not sufficient for building a model of reality. So let's we have to imagine something else. Why would we choose matter? Why wouldn't we choose a creator god for instance? What's the difference? We could never experience a creator god. We could never experience matter. or we could invent another substance. I I think what what made the question come up for me is that I have no I have no sense that building a model that explains everything is necessary in order to have this transformative understanding. >> That's completely true. >> Right. So, so because it seems it was it's a stumbling block for me to try to wrap my mind around that or to try to experience that and then there's a sense that, you know, am I really getting it and I'm really trying to get this one thing that's so hard to get, but in my experience, it's completely uh not necessary. >> You're absolutely right. You're absolutely right, Chris. It's not necessary. All that's necessary that the the core teach all you need to know is peace and happiness of the nature of your being and you share your being with everyone else. You you don't need to build a model of the reun the the Buddha never entertained such questions. He he wouldn't the vantins enjoy doing it. It's not part of the core teaching. You're right. It's just for for those of us and I know this is true for some of us here but not others. I dare say that some of you when I start talking about my consciousness only model and consciousness localizing itself and if I I imagine that some of you just switch off and think oh here goes Robert again but you you don't need to know that to know that your true nature is is peace and you share your being with everyone and everything that that's the core teaching. It's just that for those of us that you see there there are two reasons people might come to come to these meetings. 90% of people come to these meetings because they want to be happy. 10% come because they want to know the nature of reality. For those that want to know the nature of reality, you know, I I elaborate my consciousness only model. For those that just want peace and happiness, it it's not necessary. >> Well, it's an elegant model. I love it. But I but I'm my intuition for me is that not knowing is closer to the truth for for me because I >> Again, Christopher, you're right. Not knowing is the very best the mind can do. I totally acknowledge that. Um I acknowledge that my model of reality, the consciousness only model is flawed. All models are flawed. There will never be an accurate model of reality. I completely acknowledge that I could answer every question I get apart from the question that directly relates to the nature of our being. I could answer it. I don't know. But I don't. Why? Because I I have the the kind of mind that when I look out at the universe, I think, what is all this made of? I don't need to know what it's made of in order to be it to know the nature of my being. But I have one of those minds that wants to know what what is what is all this made of. And so hence my exploration over the years and hence I don't answer every question about the nature of reality. I don't know. I I do my best with with my understanding such as it is to to build a model that I acknowledge that that is imperfect. Um, it's a provisional mo model. It's not supposed to it's not supposed to be certain. I acknowledge the only thing we can be certain of is our own being. >> Well, thank you. And I love your mind and I love you. >> Well, likewise. But I'm very touched by your by your letter and and by your question and and and by your openness. Thank you, Christopher.