The cross-consistency of sensory fields and the generalised path-independence of the relations between distinct points in the world are two kinds of evidence for the existence of a solid reality behind appearances. How else, the argument would go, could so much consistency be underwritten? This carries considerable weight against the notion that reality is dreamed up, or is otherwise a product of the mind and its ever-creative imagination, but it counts for nothing against awareness, against that awareness in which both mind and world appear. This is simply because the evidence of any such consistency is only such as it presents itself to awareness. If this seems complicated it is only because it isn't understood, seen rightly there is nothing simpler. It must be grasped before thought, just because what it points to is before thought. Thought being only the thinking arising in primary awareness, and so on.