Absolute Certainty is the Light of Reality

Reality and absolute certainty are not two distinct experiences. They are one and the same. To indicate the Presence of Reality is to indicate that which cannot be doubted, falsified, or escaped, that substantial immediacy which remains irrefutably known throughout the flux of all temporary phenomena. As such this Reality, and its absolute certainty, is not a phenomenon. Rather, it is that which is present prior to the appearance of all phenomena and that which remains when all phenomena have disappeared. It is that Presence which remains immutably present.

This understanding reveals a simple yet profound principle: the source of absolute certainty must not be sought in temporary phenomena, but in that deeper Reality which is always present, in the one constant that neither arrives nor leaves, the substratum that endures through every birth and dissolution of thought, sensation and perception; that endures through every modulation of the mind, body and cosmos at large.

In recognising that absolute certainty can only be found in what is ever-present, we recognise that there is only one true candidate: the constant Presence of Consciousness in which all phenomena arise and subside. Consciousness itself is the only changeless Reality untouched by the play of appearances.

Simply conveyed; the only absolute certainty is the one Presence to which we refer when we say 'I-Consciousness am'. Indeed that very utterance arises from this same Presence that 'Reality is' arises from. These two affirmations of absolute certainty arise from the same Substance. They are the experiential-mark of one, indivisible Presence.

To let this Oneness hit home deeply, in the Substance of our bones, we can experientially contemplate whether there is a substantial distinction between the absolute certainty that 'Reality is' and that 'Consciousness is'. In doing so we verify whether we are referring to two separate realities or to one indivisible Presence of Reality.

Do these statements refer to the same Presence or different presences?

...

They refer to the very same Presence; Reality being conscious of itself.

That experience of being Reality, conscious of itself, is absolute certainty.

Let that in for a moment...

Reality does not need to prove itself; Consciousness does not need to prove itself; it is its own non-objective evidence. To recognise Reality, Consciousness, is to recognise absolute certainty itself, the Presence that requires no confirmation outside its own immediacy.

In this recognition, we see that certainty is not an idea or a conclusion, rather it is the essential attribute of what is changelessly Real, the Presence of Consciousness itself.

If certainty is to be found as to the nature of Consciousness, it cannot be found in that which changes or departs. For only what is unchanging and ever-present can serve as the ultimate evidence of our real nature.

The Reality of Consciousness is always what it is, the foundation of our entire experience. That which shifts with time is relative, bound to alteration, and therefore unable to provide an absolute foundation.

Just as a movie is not fundamental to the screen upon which it plays, so too every phenomenon - every thought, sensation, perception - is not fundamental to the Reality of Consciousness upon which it appears. The movie is impermanent, an illusion of images flowing within the screen. As we understand the impermanence of the images during our viewing of the movie, we are certain that we are not really seeing a landscape of trees and fields, rather we are seeing only the screen. The apparent trees and fields are not what the actuality of our experience is. The actuality or fact of the matter is the screen.

In the same way, the Reality of experience is Consciousness. That is all we ever experience. The apparent forms of experience arise, flow and subside within the one screen of Consciousness. As we understand the transience of all phenomena, we understand directly, experientially, that all we are ever Conscious of, underneath the flow of phenomena, is the Reality of Consciousness.

To take the metaphor further, we can see that the screen gives the movie its possibility of existence, and yet remains unlimited throughout the play of images across its surface. Similarly, the Reality of Consciousness remains unlimited whilst the play of thoughts, sensations and perceptions temporarily flow within it.

As such, no form ever defines or limits the Consciousness in which it arises. In the same way that the movie character never apprehends, limits or interacts with the screen. The movie characters do not have access to the screen, they only have access to the other characters and objects within the movie. Likewise, thoughts, sensations and perceptions do not have the ability to interact with Consciousness on their terms. Their forms can only interact with other forms. They can interact with the Presence in which all forms exist.

A limited form cannot interact with the unlimited Presence of Consciousness, and thusly no form of thought, sensation or perception can ever tell us about the nature of Consciousness.

Only Consciousness can be directly certain of its Presence and the nature of its Presence. It needs no intermediary agent or transient commentator to know itself, nor is a depiction of likeness rendered by its creations ever capable of accurately, truly representing what it is. The infinite cannot appear as something finite. The screen cannot appear within the movie.

Consciousness' certainty of itself is absolute and unlimited.

What remains in Consciousness' pure certainity of its Presence, when all temporary phenomena have been removed? The pure Consciousness of Consciousness.

Simply rest here as this Consciousness of Consciousness, and ask yourself, what is ever-presently certain in this Presence I am?

...

...

Every aspect of our apparently objective experience is merely relatively certain. Each phenomenon—thought, sensation and perception—that comes and goes is inextricably dependent upon time and locality for its appearance. And since time and space must be considered as one homogenous fabric, (space-time), if time changes, then also space changes accordingly. They go together. So now, let's ground this understanding of relativity in our living experience. We'll use thought as an analogy for every type of phenomenon, for sensations and perceptions are likewise qualitatively identical in that they are also phenomena.

Notice that when the mental image of a triangle arises, it exists within a specific frame of time and space. Subsequently, when the mental image of a square arises, it exists within a different frame of time and space. Experientially for us, only one thought can occur at any given moment, which means within a given space-time frame of reference. By the time the new thought of 'square' arises, the previous thought of 'triangle' has disappeared for us.

The seeming certainty that the mental image of a triangle existed in the past is dependent upon a frame of space-time that has now completely transformed and become a new frame of space-time. The fabric of space-time has changed from one state to another, and therefore the previous 'state' has disappeared entirely. So the certainty we claim to be innate to the previous thought of a triangle is now only a memory, one that cannot be verified as referring to an actuality of our experience independently of our own mind. Thusly the sense of certainty is merely mental, and relative to a state of space-time that no longer exists. Such a supposed certainty can never achieve the true status of absolute, for absoluteness is an attribute only of that which does not come, go or change.

If that is not enough to point to the futility of searching for absolute certainties within the domain of mind, then this following observation of how the mind functions should be sufficient. Notice that each thought that arises is shaped by a dynamic of abstract and comparative conceptual distinctions. Within this mental field, relative certainties are generated—such as the relative certainty that triangles and squares possess specific, definable qualities. These certainties belong to the internally delineated accordance of thought itself. They arise as patterns of conceptual agreement within the mind, rather than as confirmations of any independent, self-evident actuality. And so, if we remove the conceptual elaboration that renders the definition of a triangle or a square, by simply removing the current thought of such shapes, that relative certainty of their existence has vanished.

When a mentally formed certainty falls away, a simple recognition of its nature becomes available. Its disappearance indicates that the content it carried does not possess an import beyond itself. And therefore that the Consciousness into which it dissolves is the only one that has access to Consciousness. What fades cannot define what remains. A thought may display itself with the appearance of certainty, yet its arising and subsiding show that it does not pertain to what Consciousness substantially is. Consciousness remains present before the thought appears, during its brief display, and after it has vanished. In this simple observation, we directly notice that such mental certainties belong to the passing forms of experience, while the certainty of Reality belongs to that which never leaves—Consciousness itself.

Consciousness, 'I am', is an absolute certainty, that is present throughout all time, locality and the appearance of distinctions. Whatever appears to us in the moment, we can affirm with absolute certainty that 'I am conscious.' As such, to remain certainly true of what you essentially are, stay with and as this absolute certainty 'I-Consciousness am conscious' and do not waver from here.

Notice that all wavering occurs in the domain of thought, sensation and perception, and that such wavering is not fundamental to the ever-still depth of Consciousness itself.

You are already at and as what you are, Consciousness certain of its non-conceptual, non-sensational, non-perceptual nature.

This is being certain of what you are; not knowing what you are in terms of something transient, changeful and finite.