Guest guest Posted September 19, 2001 Report Share Posted September 19, 2001 Q: You use the words `aware' and `conscious'. Are they not the same? M: Awareness is primordial; it is the original state, beginningless, endless, uncaused, unsupported, without parts, without change. Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of duality. There can be no consciousness without awareness, but there can be no consciousness without consciousness, as in deep sleep. Awareness is absolute, consciousness is relative to its content; consciousness is always of something. Consciousness is partial and changeful, awareness is total, changeless, calm and silent. And it is the common matrix of every experience. - Nisargadatta Maharaj " I am That " Talks with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, Published by Acorn Press Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2001 Report Share Posted September 20, 2001 This is sort of interesting... Is Nisargadatta an expert in English? Or is this question and answer based on Indian words. In my dictionary I can look up the words consciousness and awareness. These must be different words that Nisargadatta is talking about unless he is helping us to understand what we mean in English by our own words. Nisargadatta, " Hur Guler " <Hur1@a...> wrote: > Q: You use the words `aware' and `conscious'. Are they not the same? > > M: Awareness is primordial; it is the original state, beginningless, > endless, uncaused, unsupported, without parts, without change. > Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state > of duality. There can be no consciousness without awareness, but > there can be no consciousness without consciousness, as in deep > sleep. Awareness is absolute, consciousness is relative to its > content; consciousness is always of something. Consciousness is > partial and changeful, awareness is total, changeless, calm and > silent. And it is the common matrix of every experience. > > - Nisargadatta Maharaj > > " I am That " > Talks with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, > Published by Acorn Press Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2001 Report Share Posted September 20, 2001 Dear Paul, As you probably know Nisargadatta didn't speak English. That was the translation. I remember seeing the relevant Sanskrit words in " I am That " but I cannot remember them now. Once I met a Swedish admirer of Maharaj at www.advaita.org's chatroom and he'd told me he was translating " I am That " to Swedish. I asked him how he translated awareness and consciousness since they're the same in most languages. He'd told me he translated the awareness as " consciousness at rest " and consciousness as " consciousness in movement. " Let me state that I'm neither an authority on Maharaj's teachings nor an expert on Advaita. To make matters even worse, I'm not at home now and I don't have my copy of " I am That " with me but I found online a saying of Ramesh Balsekar which is nearly identical to a line that Maharaj used: " Between pure Awareness and Awareness reflected as consciousness there is a gap which the mind cannot cross. The reflection of the sun in a drop of dew is not the sun itself. " -Ramesh Balsekar I found this quote to be very intriguing. For Maharaj, not only consciousness depends on the food-body but he differentiates between biochemical consciousness in which ego comes to life and pure awareness in which nothing happens. Was Maharaj referring to a mystical state when he spoke of " pure awareness " or is it an everyday experience that we all share? One may also ask if nothing happens and if there is no ego in pure awareness then who was there to remember it? Based on my personal experience it was exactly this reason that I'd found the above quote fascinating because the ego does not cause the experience of pure awareness but it's the ego that is in awe after it happens. Perhaps pure awareness and consciousness are both states of mind. Whether the experience of pure awareness happens or not in the history of a body/mind form, for Maharaj consciousness is the only capital we are born with and it's our link to being. This is rather refreshing since in Advaita circles the concept of consciousness with the capital C is often used for a subtler form of God, which becomes another concept to hang on to. Maharaj pulls away this final security blanket as well and leaves one with nothing to hang on to. I am not proposing to take away the Advaitins God the holy Consciousness since Advaita gives no other handle. I am afraid once we take away the holy Consciousness away, there will be even fewer participants in this small crowd. When one studies Maharaj intellectually, it's important to remember that Maharaj was not very educated in the Western sense of the word and yet through his inconsistent teachings emerges a brilliant, world class philosopher. Personally I never saw Maharaj as a philosopher and soon after I read a few chapters from " I am That " I fell in love with his words. I recognize the irony of the dualistic devotion to a non-dual Guru but this love certainly makes it easier to understand the inexplicable. Hur Nisargadatta, " Paul " <pjcote@l...> wrote: > This is sort of interesting... Is Nisargadatta an expert in English? > Or is this question and answer based on Indian words. In my > dictionary I can look up the words consciousness and awareness. > These must be different words that Nisargadatta is talking about > unless he is helping us to understand what we mean in English by our > own words. > > Nisargadatta, " Hur Guler " <Hur1@a...> wrote: > > Q: You use the words `aware' and `conscious'. Are they not the same? > > > > M: Awareness is primordial; it is the original state, > beginningless, > > endless, uncaused, unsupported, without parts, without change. > > Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a > state > > of duality. There can be no consciousness without awareness, but > > there can be no consciousness without consciousness, as in deep > > sleep. Awareness is absolute, consciousness is relative to its > > content; consciousness is always of something. Consciousness is > > partial and changeful, awareness is total, changeless, calm and > > silent. And it is the common matrix of every experience. > > > > - Nisargadatta Maharaj > > > > " I am That " > > Talks with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, > > Published by Acorn Press Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2001 Report Share Posted September 20, 2001 -Does anybody know what Marathi words Maharaj used for " Awareness " and " Consciousness " - If anybody does may be I can shed some light on the translations. Vijay -- In Nisargadatta, " Hur Guler " <Hur1@a...> wrote: > Dear Paul, > > As you probably know Nisargadatta didn't speak English. That was the > translation. I remember seeing the relevant Sanskrit words in " I am > That " but I cannot remember them now. Once I met a Swedish admirer > of Maharaj at www.advaita.org's chatroom and he'd told me he was > translating " I am That " to Swedish. I asked him how he translated > awareness and consciousness since they're the same in most > languages. He'd told me he translated the awareness > as " consciousness at rest " and consciousness as " consciousness in > movement. " > > Let me state that I'm neither an authority on Maharaj's teachings nor > an expert on Advaita. To make matters even worse, I'm not at home > now and I don't have my copy of " I am That " with me but I found > online a saying of Ramesh Balsekar which is nearly identical to a > line that Maharaj used: > > " Between pure Awareness and Awareness reflected as consciousness > there is a gap which the mind cannot cross. The reflection of the sun > in a drop of dew is not the sun itself. " -Ramesh Balsekar > > I found this quote to be very intriguing. For Maharaj, not only > consciousness depends on the food-body but he differentiates between > biochemical consciousness in which ego comes to life and pure > awareness in which nothing happens. Was Maharaj referring to a > mystical state when he spoke of " pure awareness " or is it an everyday > experience that we all share? One may also ask if nothing happens > and if there is no ego in pure awareness then who was there to > remember it? Based on my personal experience it was exactly this > reason that I'd found the above quote fascinating because the ego > does not cause the experience of pure awareness but it's the ego that > is in awe after it happens. > > Perhaps pure awareness and consciousness are both states of mind. > Whether the experience of pure awareness happens or not in the > history of a body/mind form, for Maharaj consciousness is the only > capital we are born with and it's our link to being. This is rather > refreshing since in Advaita circles the concept of consciousness with > the capital C is often used for a subtler form of God, which becomes > another concept to hang on to. Maharaj pulls away this final > security blanket as well and leaves one with nothing to hang on to. > I am not proposing to take away the Advaitins God the holy > Consciousness since Advaita gives no other handle. I am afraid once > we take away the holy Consciousness away, there will be even fewer > participants in this small crowd. > > When one studies Maharaj intellectually, it's important to remember > that Maharaj was not very educated in the Western sense of the word > and yet through his inconsistent teachings emerges a brilliant, world > class philosopher. Personally I never saw Maharaj as a philosopher > and soon after I read a few chapters from " I am That " I fell in love > with his words. I recognize the irony of the dualistic devotion to a > non-dual Guru but this love certainly makes it easier to understand > the inexplicable. > > Hur > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta, " Paul " <pjcote@l...> wrote: > > This is sort of interesting... Is Nisargadatta an expert in > English? > > Or is this question and answer based on Indian words. In my > > dictionary I can look up the words consciousness and awareness. > > These must be different words that Nisargadatta is talking about > > unless he is helping us to understand what we mean in English by > our > > own words. > > > > Nisargadatta, " Hur Guler " <Hur1@a...> wrote: > > > Q: You use the words `aware' and `conscious'. Are they not the > same? > > > > > > M: Awareness is primordial; it is the original state, > > beginningless, > > > endless, uncaused, unsupported, without parts, without change. > > > Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a > > state > > > of duality. There can be no consciousness without awareness, but > > > there can be no consciousness without consciousness, as in deep > > > sleep. Awareness is absolute, consciousness is relative to its > > > content; consciousness is always of something. Consciousness is > > > partial and changeful, awareness is total, changeless, calm and > > > silent. And it is the common matrix of every experience. > > > > > > - Nisargadatta Maharaj > > > > > > " I am That " > > > Talks with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, > > > Published by Acorn Press Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2001 Report Share Posted September 21, 2001 Dear Hur, Allow me to share the response which you words of inquiry and explanation brought forth: > Let me state that I'm neither an authority on > Maharaj's teachings nor > an expert on Advaita. To make matters even worse, > I'm not at home > now and I don't have my copy of " I am That " with me > but I found > online a saying of Ramesh Balsekar which is nearly > identical to a > line that Maharaj used: > > " Between pure Awareness and Awareness reflected as > consciousness > there is a gap which the mind cannot cross. The > reflection of the sun > in a drop of dew is not the sun itself. " -Ramesh > Balsekar > > I found this quote to be very intriguing. For > Maharaj, not only > consciousness depends on the food-body but he > differentiates between > biochemical consciousness in which ego comes to life > and pure > awareness in which nothing happens. Was Maharaj > referring to a > mystical state when he spoke of " pure awareness " or > is it an everyday > experience that we all share? You have no way to know what Maharaj was referring to, unless you have a time machine plus a means to enter the body named Maharaj at the time that body made the statement. So, why not speak of what it means to you? Whatever " pure awareness " is supposed to be, it is not the one who speaks of pure awareness, simply because of the fact that " pure awareness " has been made into a definable term that can be communicated. So regardless of what " pure awareness " may or may not be, or " impure awareness " or " pure nonawareness " , there remains the one who makes and shares such observations. Is this one the body who speaks and types these words? If so, how can it be that a body is observed and spoken of? Who is it that knows the body as body? If this one is not the body, how is it that the words are typed and recognized? These are the lines of inquiry in which statements about " awareness " or " being aware " lead ... One may also ask if > nothing happens > and if there is no ego in pure awareness then who > was there to > remember it? Right. It's just a pointer to what can't be pointed to. The reality of " this " has never been remembered, forgotten, spoken, nor remained silent. > Based on my personal experience it was > exactly this > reason that I'd found the above quote fascinating > because the ego > does not cause the experience of pure awareness but > it's the ego that > is in awe after it happens. It only seems that way if there remains something which can be observed and yet identified with in some way (call it ego, body, mind, it doesn't matter). > Perhaps pure awareness and consciousness are both > states of mind. > Whether the experience of pure awareness happens or > not in the > history of a body/mind form, for Maharaj > consciousness is the only > capital we are born with and it's our link to being. This is your inference about a character given the name Maharaj to whom spoken words are attributed. What consciousness is for him is meaningless, because presumably you are conscious, according to your words, and thus whatever consciousness is to you is what is key. > This is rather > refreshing since in Advaita circles the concept of > consciousness with > the capital C is often used for a subtler form of > God, which becomes > another concept to hang on to. Maharaj pulls away > this final > security blanket as well and leaves one with nothing > to hang on to. Then why hang on to Maharaj and what consciousness and awareness means to him? > I am not proposing to take away the Advaitins God > the holy > Consciousness since Advaita gives no other handle. > I am afraid once > we take away the holy Consciousness away, there will > be even fewer > participants in this small crowd. When there is no crowd whatsoever, there will be no concern with how many participate. Then, questions about the nature of awareness and consciousness will be self-evident. In other words, with no mind present or absent, there will be no need to clear up the questions that the mind invents for itself. > > When one studies Maharaj intellectually, it's > important to remember > that Maharaj was not very educated in the Western > sense of the word > and yet through his inconsistent teachings emerges a > brilliant, world > class philosopher. Personally I never saw Maharaj > as a philosopher > and soon after I read a few chapters from " I am > That " I fell in love > with his words. I recognize the irony of the > dualistic devotion to a > non-dual Guru but this love certainly makes it > easier to understand > the inexplicable. From my perspective, it doesn't. What it does do, is make it easier to believe that one now has words that make it easier to understand the inexplicable. But one doesn't. Love, Dan Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help? Donate cash, emergency relief information http://dailynews./fc/US/Emergency_Information/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2006 Report Share Posted June 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > Questioner: What comes first: consciousness or > awareness? > > Nisargadatta: Awareness becomes consciousness > when it has an object. The object changes all > the time. In consciousness there is movement; > awareness by itself is motionless and timeless, > here and now. > or awareness is the act of being conscious... and consciousness is the fruit of the labor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2006 Report Share Posted June 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > That there is something as awareness is a wide spread spiritual > concept. And in my eyes it is a delusion. I think Niz was prone to > that concept and delusion. > > In my understanding what generally is regarded as awareness > independent of consciousness is another word for NEUROSIS. > > Werner > And searching for 'reality' within a bucket of words isn't? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2006 Report Share Posted June 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > That there is something as awareness is a wide spread spiritual > > concept. And in my eyes it is a delusion. I think Niz was prone to > > that concept and delusion. > > > > In my understanding what generally is regarded as awareness > > independent of consciousness is another word for NEUROSIS. > > > > Werner > > What foundation does your understanding rest upon? > Do you trust to your understanding only because it > is *yours*? > > Bill > All understanding involves things. All understanding is relative and ultimately meaningless. There is an understanding that burns itself up. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2006 Report Share Posted June 9, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > wrote: > > > > > > That there is something as awareness is a wide spread spiritual > > > concept. And in my eyes it is a delusion. I think Niz was prone to > > > that concept and delusion. > > > > > > In my understanding what generally is regarded as awareness > > > independent of consciousness is another word for NEUROSIS. > > > > > > Werner > > > > What foundation does your understanding rest upon? > > Do you trust to your understanding only because it > > is *yours*? > > > > Bill > > > > > All understanding involves things. > > All understanding is relative and ultimately meaningless. > > There is an understanding that burns itself up. > > > toombaru > T'burro, I love your stuff. Anything published? (I know, I know, but, really. I'm serious.) OK, OK, fine, if you want to be that way. Does anyone out there know if he's published anything? ~*~ ~*~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.