It’s common advice in the spiritual community to find the “here and now,” and to reside in a place aware of the present, rather than to linger in a place non-present. It’s about being present in the moment.
However, simply using the advice to be in the here and now is not easy to maintain and what’s suggested is to practice for a few decades and then one will be able to stay in the here and now.
A problem with the suggestion of being in the here and now is that it does not, by default, consider one’s perception of the here and now. It’s pretty well-known that we perceive in a type of delayed portrayal of the raw data that we’re consuming. Thus, being in the perceptual here and now is not being in the here and now, just being in a delayed portrayal of what appears to be the here and now.
The conclusion is that the here and now is impossible to perceive. This makes sense in that perception itself is mildly illusory. This is because perception arrives originally from the manifestation of the qualities of what is knowledge, but since it is made of qualities, which are only facets of the item being referred to, its perception is incomplete and thus mildly illusory.
This also applies to the idea of love. The emotion or state of non-quality is knowledge, and that state demonstrates perceived love on the exaggeration of one of its facets. That is, the qualities describe knowledge in some way, but they are exaggerated and incomplete descriptions, although through their discourse they can tell a story of good or evil.
It is thus that the only way to find the here and now is to find something that already exists in the here and now. This something is the emotion or state of non-quality, which is knowledge. Knowledge can be described, but it, itself, possesses no quality.
When we look at something, we are looking at the quality of the object of interest. We can deduce knowledge from the qualities observed, but the knowledge is not made of simply the qualities combined. Similarly, when we look for something, we only see the qualities. If we only see the qualities, it’s impossible to grasp the underlying notion that is referred to by the qualities.
This applies to temporary “enlightenments” and temporal epiphanies, as well. What I found is going on in these cases is that it was not an illusory enlightenment, but instead, there was a lack of knowledge to support the state’s continued existence. When one perceives enlightenment, one is only looking at a true quality of the self, which is strong and held together by knowledge. One does not see the perceiver. The perceiver in these cases is non-quality, but just experiencing an epiphany doesn’t portray non-quality, because the epiphanies are generally composed of experiencing a quality, often in tandem with a realization, which forms a clue as to what the state was, helping one return in the future. Still, it does not explicitly look like it’s not a quality, as, again, non-quality is impossible to look at.
What is being perceived is what exists with non-quality. The items that exist with non-quality, or knowledge, are accurate descriptions of Heaven. The items that exist from a perspective founded on a bias (of quality), are inherently inaccurate. In order to see, one must be knowledge, which is to be non-quality.