CK MacLeod:
. Even then, one gets to go first.

With perception => knowledge as well as knowledge => perception one does have to go first.

With the experiences Anandamayi Ma for example talks about, there is only the experience. That is to to say, only the moment that understands itself by positng time and causality, but does not in fact experience itself that way. Only the exerience is real. The material predicates for conciousness are an illusionary. There is no firstness to go.

This seems nonsense to (perception/knowledge), but how can (PK) exist without that materialless timeless experience?

Or something. I mean I'm struggling here and not sure how much sense any of this makes.

As we get to a finer perception here, I realize my "simple reversal" was not simple either. As close as I can get to a simple reversal is this:

Contingency(emptiness) is existence but perception is based on knowledge.

I think in both the orginal and the reversal, there is no remainder for contingency/existence. But I agree wth your remarks on knowledge/perception. A sense of that perhaps motivated my formulation of "is based on". AT least that's the story I'm sticking to it for now.

Maybe tomorrow I can try again with what I was trying to get at in my original comment.

Simple reversal would be: Contingency (emptiness) is existence, but perception is knowledge.

All verifiable perception/knowledge is limited. All contingency/emptiness/existence is not lmited.

Substituting "presumes" for "is" creates a movement from on to the other (a knowledge) rather than a state (an is).

At least I think I think this.

A lot to react to here, and the burden of coherence has been quite heavy lately. So ths is the best I can do now.
How do we, is it possible, to reconcile that exstence is contingent (empty), but knowledge is based on perception. To deny either puts us in a rather difficult position.

This statement of “having no Aham-Buddhi” resembles the subjective result of the contemplation of metaphysical individualism and ego-continuity as constructs – self contemplating self contemplating self contemplating self… – where the inwardness of any “one” approaches indistinction with “any” and eventually “all”: a way of pointing to one idea indicated by the word “God,” an idea that has only indirectly to do with the crudely anthropomorphic deity-concepts that vulgar atheists are fond of ridiculing.

It may be then that the word "God" may be at least as much obstacle as useful label. It's just not the matter of anthropormorphzing, but the implication of Creator and the implicit sense of relatonship between god/nongodness and maybe not an ego-ized "I" but continuing consciousness that is the same at all times and within all relatonships.