 Now, Rupert, ultimately the biggest questions lie in the field of metaphysics, what is the ultimate nature of reality, why is there something rather than nothing, what is the nature of consciousness, and then kind of science and spirituality basically do their best to understand that. That's ultimately what we're here doing is trying to understand that. And a good way to, you've said this question before, a good way to begin your Atmavichara self-inquiry is by asking the question, what is my source? Where do I come from? What is the genesis of all of this? What is my real nature? And you had a really good conversation with Sam Harris as well, because I think it was a good way to juxtapose the consciousness only with someone that is also interested in spirituality, but also has a grounding in deep science and materialism. And so he kind of said in return that there's a big temptation to make consciousness the very first principle. And that he then said that that would mean that consciousness then subsumes cosmogony, the Big Bang, and the reasons for that. But then you counter with the question, what is it that knows or is aware of your experience? I think there's good reason for making consciousness the first principle simply because it is the first principle of our experience. So why not start there? It's just an undeniable fact of experience that consciousness that all that is or could ever be known is experience. And consciousness is the fundamental and primary prerequisite of all experience. So if we want to build a model of reality, why not start there? It is the primary element of our experience. So isn't that scientific just to start with something that is actually experienced something that is real in experience rather than starting with an abstract idea, namely the existence of something called matter outside and independent of consciousness, which nobody has ever found or could ever find or will ever find because all it is ever possible to find is the content of consciousness. That to me is abstract. What to me is really realistic and scientific is to investigate experience, ask us what is the primary element of experience. It is obviously consciousness and to build our model of reality based on that rather than on something that is abstract. Okay, so the take is that the most the ground or the most fundamental first principle is experience and then that is consciousness that is awareness, and then that is the nature of reality is that is consciousness is awareness and not that there is a big bang that happens 13.8 billion years ago and after the billions of years of evolution of matter, then the complexity of body activity creates a consciousness that is, is there is there a point of any synthesis there or that model of sorry, sorry to interrupt you that that model of reality is based on the evidence of thought and perception. It presumes that what we perceive of the outside world is is real in the way that it is presented to our senses, and that thoughts interpretation of sense perception is correct and extrapolated from this model of reality we go all the way back to the big bang. But this is this idea is based on the presumption that perception and its interpretation through thought is correct. Okay, okay, not be maybe our senses don't yeah, maybe the combination of perception and conception, that is the finite mind maybe they don't give us an accurate model of reality maybe reality is filtered through sense perception and appears in accordance with its limitations. In other words the limitations that we see that we believe pertain to reality may simply be the limitations of the perceiving apparatus the finite mind through which we perceive. We cannot be sure that the limitations that belong to our perceiving apparatus. Yes, actually pertain to reality itself. How do we know that we are not simply seeing a an object if I station or a reification of the limitations of our own mind. Yes, yes. After all, when the activities of thought and perception subside as they do in deep sleep time and space also subside when thought and perception begins again when thought begins. Again, time seems to begin when perception begins again, space seems to begin. And this happens every, every single time thought and perception disappear. Objective experience disappears every time it arises again. Objective experience arises again. Is that a coincidence. Could there be a connection. Yeah, I would suggest that there is. And these are those hints that we were mentioning earlier these most simple hints in science there is Occam's razor, the most simplest is likely correct. And in this case it's so in a sense simple and so it's so much like a hint. Absolutely. I liked your analogy, your summary at the beginning about the dream. We're given numerous hints as to the nature of reality and if as you say we use Occam's razor Occam said that of two competing theories, we should always choose the one that makes the least assumptions. So here we have two models of reality one that or reality appears within consciousness and is the activity of consciousness. That doesn't make an assumption it is actually our experience. The second assumption is that what we what we know of reality is generated by something outside consciousness, namely matter, and indeed gives rise to consciousness. In other words, the second theory suggests that that which is never experienced, namely matter independent of consciousness gives rise to that which is alone experienced, namely consciousness. So this this makes an enormous assumption the assumption of the existence of something outside consciousness. If it was necessary to appeal to the existence of something called matter in order to explain our experience, then it would be legitimate under Occam's razor to refer to such a substance but it is quite possible to make sense of our entire experience of reality referring only to consciousness in the way that you suggested with the dream analogy and it is this consciousness only model also not only enables us to make sense of our experience of reality, but enables us to make sense of many phenomena that the matter model does not is not able to explain. So the consciousness only model has far greater explanatory power than the matter model. If we were to visualize the Ouroboros the the snakes head eating its tail if we were to envision the wholeness of that, then is then the the infinite consciousness is then present at the present everywhere, but it's present at the God head and the tail in the sense that the tail portion this model of science that currently is that many of us agree to and consensus enjoy the benefits of is at the tail point infinite consciousness is at the tail point and the big bang is the process of the tail point itself, still evolving over time into what we have. So there is still that process and it's going towards a telos of a God head of the continuation. Is that approximately how do you resonate with that. I think the the model of the of the big bang is is a model that is accurate reasonably accurate within the parameters of sense perception and thought it is an interpretation of reality within the limits perception and and conception and it is as such a reasonable interpretation and has is is a useful interpretation I'm not suggesting that I love science I have numerous scientists friends I have great respect for for what they do it's a valid interpretation and can be drew carbon literally made us what we are really yes so so it's a it's a valid relative model of reality that that is useful has numerous useful applications but it is not an accurate model of reality and that there are no accurate models of reality even the consciousness only model that I am suggesting it is that falls short that there are no accurate models. Interesting and that's the idea of the elusiveness of the mystery and the beauty of that and to continue openly and blissfully in complete honor of that mystery while while simultaneously being interested in the models in making and playing with models that can help us live better lives. Yes. Okay.