Guest guest Posted September 2, 2004 Report Share Posted September 2, 2004 CONSCIOUSNESS AND AWARENESS I have noticed in some posts a confusion, one which I also had when I first began reading Nisargadatta. It concerns the difference between the way he uses the two terms " consciousness " and " awareness. " Like most people I had always thought of these two words as meaning basically the same thing, but N. uses them to point to two very different meanings. When he uses the term " consciousness " he seems to equate that term with the " I Am " and when he talks about " awareness " he is pointing to something altogether beyond the consciousness ( " I Am " ), that is, to the absolute. As far as I understand so far he is saying, of the consciousness, that it is all that we know, it is the fundamental sense of presence that we feel, and that it is a universal feeling of the sense of being. Consciousness = " sense of presence " = " the beingness " = the " I Am. " Those four terms are equated throughout his talks. And while he directs us, as we start out, to simply be aware of the " I Am " so that we come to the realization that we are the consciousness itself, and not the body or the mind or the mind's thoughts and identification, he does an amazing twist at the end of all that. When the realization has established itself that I am the consciousness itself (and he always points out that this means the universal consciousness only, the same in a human or a dog or an ant), when I realize that I am the " I am " he take us to the next realization which is when I subsequently realize that I am NOT the " I am, " I am beyond that, I am pure awareness only! These are breathtaking leaps! In his use of the word " consciousness " there is always the touch of the duality. If I am conscious it is in relation to being unconscious. If " I am " it is always in relation to the " not-me. " If I am conscious it is always conscious OF something. Consciousness always has an object of which I am conscious. So while the realization of my identity as the " I am " is very much closer to reality than the idea that " I am so-and-so, a person " it is still a step away from the final realization of the absolute, that I am the non-dual awareness which is allowing the consciousness to be conscious. Awareness is that which is shining through the consciousness, but it beyond the consciousness itself. So " awareness " is different from " consciousness " in Nisargadatta's talks. The pure awareness is the absolute, without which there can be no consciousness. Another way he puts it is that the awareness " is that by which I know that I am. " Thus the awareness is there before the " I am " (or consciousness) appears, and is there after the consciousness disappears (unconsciousness or death). So the awareness is beyond even the universal consciousness. Another way that he put this astonishing distinction is by saying that the absolute is " awareness unaware of itself. " That statement of his is almost like a Zen koan, but I think the idea is of an awareness without a trace of distinction or duality. He speaks of it as " shining. " And of it being an uncaused mystery. This is even beyond our idea of God, so he does not call it " God " but simply says " the absolute, " or the ultimate reality, beyond time, which ever was and ever will be. So while consciousness is always conscious OF something (dual), awareness is not even aware OF itself, and thus is absolutely singular. This difference between his use of the words " consciousness " and " awareness " took me a long time to grasp, because we don't really make this distinction in ordinary common English. Being conscious or being aware are thought of as the same. But Nisargadatta uses the terms differently and difference is a great key, I think, to understanding what he is trying to convey to us. I was amazed when I first realized that he had played a kind of " trick " in leading us from one realization to another. This is the trick: first he is telling us to realize that we are really the " sense of presence " or the " sense of beingness, " and when we finally realize that he turns us around to the next higher realization and says what seems to be the opposite: " NO, you are not that " I Am " either! You are beyond the beingness, beyond the consciousness, beyond the sense of presence, you are the pure awareness only by which the conscious has been able to come into being, you are the absolute pure original awareness only. " The latter realization can only proceed out of the former realization. First I must realize that I am the " I am, " the universal consciousness, then out of that I can realize that I am NOT the " I am! " I am actually the absolute only and nothing else REALLY exists at all! Everything else is just like a dream. This is just breathtaking to me! No one else but Nisargadatta has ever made that line of realization clear to me. It is utterly simple, really, but difficult to stay with and crack open. Elegant but subtle. That is why he tells us that we must become completely obsessed with it. We must develop an intense NEED TO KNOW. You can't just play with it and expect to get anywhere. When he describes the time before his own realization he says that he was thinking and pondering about this nearly every single waking moment! He was OBSESSED to find out what he really was! The usual playing with words has no significance at that level of constant meditation. It simply becomes a life and death matter to really find out for oneself what one is. This religion at it deepest level, the breakthrough into reality. So the consciousness and the pure awareness are quite different really, although the consciousness can only exist because of the prior shining of pure awareness. The awareness, on the other hand, does not depend on any way whatsoever on the consciousness, and is not even touched by it. The consciousness comes and goes, waking and sleeping, birth and death, but the awareness is always there. The consciousness suddenly appears in the morning on top of the birthless and deathless ever existing pure nondual awareness. Other than that absolute, there is really nothing. Another interesting thing that is confusing at first is how Nisargadatta keeps hammering away at the question about " When did you first appear? What was that exact moment when you first knew that you ARE? " That is a very difficult question, but he says it is of extreme importance to contemplate. I can't remember when I first knew that I was! I have no idea! Isn't that rather mysterious in itself? I still puzzle over this a lot but I am beginning to suspect that perhaps his stressing of this question might be to prepare us for the final realization: that I am NOT that " I Am. " In other words, this " I am " had a beginning, seemed to appear out of nowhere, and it will have an end. So I must be beyond that " I am, " because I am the knower of that " I am. " I am not actually the " I am " but rather THAT which is aware of the " I am. " It took me years to figure this much out. Each realization builds on and becomes possible because of the previous realizations, and the final realization can even seem to contradict a previous realization. 1. First I realize I am not all this other stuff that people usually think they are. I am not a person. The person is memories, knowledge, habits, and other false identies: " Mr. So-and-so. " I dispense with that. I can see that it is all a false identity made up by thoughts. 2. Then I realize I am not even the more intimate stuff that people usually think they are. I am not the body (that is the toughest one, as Nisargadatta points out again and again). I am not the mind or its thoughts either. I am not the chemistry of all this either. One could spend an entire lifetime and not get through this realization. 3. Then I realize that if I subtract all the above, what is left? Only my sense of existing itself, my sense of presence, my sense of being here, the consciousness. I realize that I am that consciousness only, the feeling of existing. I must be THAT. What IS that? It is very subtle. But now I am coming closer. This is the realization of the mystical phrase " I am that I am. " And along with this stage of realization comes the realization of my universality. This realization of the " I am " brings with it the explosive understanding that there is no such thing as an individual, the " I am " is universal, everyone and every living thing is feeling it the same way. We don't ourselves create our sense of " I am. " Rather we inherit the prior existing sense of presence of the original beingness which spontaneously first appeared on the background of the void, or the objectless pure awareness. 4. When I am thus established in sense of identity with this universal sense of presence, or the " I am, " I am at last poised for the final realization. The realization of the " I am " is already a very high state, and many will simply stop here to enjoy living in the universal personless beingness. This is the knowledge of God and the knowledge that I am God. But some rare ones keep going and keep questioning deeper and come to the breakthrough realization that ALL beingness, even the beingness of " God " is still a form of illusion and duality, and they realize and move into and " become " the pure awareness only, giving up even that last and very high identity as the universal " I am. " This last step is still incomprehensible to me but I love to think about it again and again. Many can give up the lesser false identifications, casting them off like tattered old clothes and stripping naked down to the singular universal consciousness. But who can give up that very sense of beingness itself? We LOVE to be, and fear terribly not being anymore. It is frightening! Looked at from a lower level the final realization seems like absolute and utter anihilation itself, the ending of the " I am, " and who on earth wants to be completely anihilated? Thus, very few rare souls ever realize the final realization! Above all, I WANT TO BE! But the true sage makes the final realization and the final step and is in fact completely anihilated. " He " ceases to exist, and all that is left of him is what was there at the beginning of the world, as Buddha became the Void itself and entered into the great nirvana. A friend of mine called it " The Great Suicide. " Then one realizes the final incredible and terrifying reality: there is nothing. And though really and truly there is absolutely nothing, at the same time that nothingness is inexplicably filled to fullness with an indescribable " something which is not a thing, " the pure awareness of the absolute, unaware of itself. That is the one and only " thing-which-is-not-a-thing " which is truly real. All else is false, a fraud made of spacetime, of things which begin and end and come and go, the Great Maha Maya, the dreams of the universal mind. That a human creature can realize THAT is a miracle to me, a miracle in this incredible dream-Creation. The whole thing boggles the mind. The mind cannot grasp it, because the mind is too limited. As all the sages have sung, it is not a matter of gaining anything, it is just a matter of removing stuff, and removing more stuff, until that which was always there begins to shine through. Certainly I can't CREATE the ultimate reality. All I can do is clean the mirror so that light of the incomprehensible pure awareness can reflect through the mirror and shine. That is why Nisargadatta says that self realization is very simple and easy, and yet it is very subtle and difficult. Removing all the dirt from the mirror is not so easy as it might seem, although that is really all that needs to be done. Above all, in contemplating all this, one feels sometimes like bowing down and thanking heaven that sages like Nisargadatta, and so many others, especially in ancient times (like the " satya yuga " or age of truth), have taken birth and shown the way. As N. points out, our lives, if we sum it all up, are primarily an experience of suffering overall. One thing or another, from birth to death, there are endless problems, unfullfilled desires, stuggle and effort, and suffering. Now and then a few happy moments to keep us going. In fact, if there were no such possibility as realization and liberation one might well say that suicide were a preferable way out and an answer to the sufferings of life. But that awareness has broken through in the cases of so many sages and saints and proven throughout all of human history that a glorious freedom is indeed possible. From the ancient Vedas and Upanishads to the teachings of the Christ, again and again, certain rare ones have demonstrated to mankind that evolution into the likes of angels is possible. For this we must be ever grateful throughout our journeys, and follow the teachings and instructions of those like Nisargadatta, with great earnestness, love and joy. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release 8/19/2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2004 Report Share Posted September 2, 2004 Hiya Bill, Some two cents.........in-between - " Bill Morgan " <wmorgan <Nisargadatta > Friday, September 03, 2004 2:02 AM Consciousness and Awareness > CONSCIOUSNESS AND AWARENESS > > I have noticed in some posts a confusion, one which I also had when I first > began reading Nisargadatta. It concerns the difference between the way he > uses the two terms " consciousness " and " awareness. " > > Like most people I had always thought of these two words as meaning > basically the same thing, but N. uses them to point to two very different > meanings. When he uses the term " consciousness " he seems to equate that term > with the " I Am " and when he talks about " awareness " he is pointing to > something altogether beyond the consciousness ( " I Am " ), that is, to the > absolute. > > As far as I understand so far he is saying, of the consciousness, that it is > all that we know, it is the fundamental sense of presence that we feel, and > that it is a universal feeling of the sense of being. Consciousness = " sense > of presence " = " the beingness " = the " I Am. " > > Those four terms are equated throughout his talks. And while he directs us, > as we start out, to simply be aware of the " I Am " so that we come to the > realization that we are the consciousness itself, and not the body or the > mind or the mind's thoughts and identification, he does an amazing twist at > the end of all that. When the realization has established itself that I am > the consciousness itself (and he always points out that this means the > universal consciousness only, the same in a human or a dog or an ant), when > I realize that I am the " I am " he take us to the next realization which is > when I subsequently realize that I am NOT the " I am, " I am beyond that, I am > pure awareness only! ------- Yes the state of " I AM " , a sense of impersonal beingness,... is also a durational occurrence. ---- > > These are breathtaking leaps! In his use of the word " consciousness " there > is always the touch of the duality. If I am conscious it is in relation to > being unconscious. ----- That duality is only when conscious is used to connate conscious of X, Y, Z. Which immediately births the dualistic oppoiste of unconscious of X.Y.Z. The state of " I AM " witnesses both the " consciousness of ...... " ,.............. as well as,......... the " unconsciousness of .... " ----------- > If " I am " it is always in relation to the " not-me. " If I > am conscious it is always conscious OF something. Consciousness always has > an object of which I am conscious. --------- Yes Consciousness simultaneously births,....... with the birth of manifestation. Speaking in the phenomenal context. -------- > So while the realization of my identity > as the " I am " is very much closer to reality than the idea that " I am > so-and-so, a person " it is still a step away from the final realization of > the absolute, that I am the non-dual awareness which is allowing the > consciousness to be conscious. -------- In that awareness, there is no admittance of the " I " . " I am the non-dual awareness " , is an utterance which can only birth in the gestalt of duality. In the gestalt of the dream. -------- > Awareness is that which is shining through > the consciousness, but it beyond the consciousness itself. So " awareness " is > different from " consciousness " in Nisargadatta's talks. The pure awareness > is the absolute, without which there can be no consciousness. ---------- Yes. However in stating as so, the statement-ing, becomes pure noumenal baloney. ---------- > > Another way he puts it is that the awareness " is that by which I know that I > am. " Thus the awareness is there before the " I am " (or consciousness) > appears, and is there after the consciousness disappears (unconsciousness or > death). So the awareness is beyond even the universal consciousness. Another > way that he put this astonishing distinction is by saying that the absolute > is " awareness unaware of itself. " That statement of his is almost like a Zen > koan, but I think the idea is of an awareness without a trace of distinction > or duality. -------- A reference, a citation, a definition, a conceptualization of " Awareness " , is just that...........a conceptualizing by a dreamt-up character, within the dream-drama. Whether that character bears a label as " Nisargadatta " or " Bozo " . The absence of the presence of all conceptualizings, ...........including that of an " awareness " ,........... ..............AND....... .......the absence of the absence of the presence of all conceptualizings,..... .......is what is being pointed by " awareness-not-aware-of-itself " . ------- > He speaks of it as " shining. " And of it being an uncaused > mystery. This is even beyond our idea of God, so he does not call it " God " > but simply says " the absolute, " or the ultimate reality, beyond time, which > ever was and ever will be. > > So while consciousness is always conscious OF something (dual), awareness is > not even aware OF itself, and thus is absolutely singular. > > This difference between his use of the words " consciousness " and " awareness " > took me a long time to grasp, because we don't really make this distinction > in ordinary common English. Being conscious or being aware are thought of as > the same. But Nisargadatta uses the terms differently and difference is a > great key, I think, to understanding what he is trying to convey to us. ---------- Yes. Also remember the book " I AM THAT " was an end-result of a 4-way circus. --------- > > I was amazed when I first realized that he had played a kind of " trick " in > leading us from one realization to another. This is the trick: first he is > telling us to realize that we are really the " sense of presence " or the > " sense of beingness, " and when we finally realize that he turns us around to > the next higher realization and says what seems to be the opposite: " NO, you > are not that " I Am " either! You are beyond the beingness, beyond the > consciousness, beyond the sense of presence, you are the pure awareness only > by which the conscious has been able to come into being, you are the > absolute pure original awareness only. " The latter realization can only > proceed out of the former realization. -------- And then even that,..... goes into the bin. -------- First I must realize that I am the " I > am, " the universal consciousness, then out of that I can realize that I am > NOT the " I am! " I am actually the absolute only and nothing else REALLY > exists at all! Everything else is just like a dream. ------- Including the realizer of the dream being a dream. ------- > > This is just breathtaking to me! No one else but Nisargadatta has ever made > that line of realization clear to me. It is utterly simple, really, but > difficult to stay with and crack open. Elegant but subtle. That is why he > tells us that we must become completely obsessed with it. We must develop an > intense NEED TO KNOW. You can't just play with it and expect to get > anywhere. When he describes the time before his own realization he says that > he was thinking and pondering about this nearly every single waking moment! > He was OBSESSED to find out what he really was! The usual playing with words > has no significance at that level of constant meditation. It simply becomes > a life and death matter to really find out for oneself what one is. This > religion at it deepest level, the breakthrough into reality. > > So the consciousness and the pure awareness are quite different really, > although the consciousness can only exist because of the prior shining of > pure awareness. The awareness, on the other hand, does not depend on any way > whatsoever on the consciousness, and is not even touched by it. The > consciousness comes and goes, waking and sleeping, birth and death, but the > awareness is always there. The consciousness suddenly appears in the morning > on top of the birthless and deathless ever existing pure nondual awareness. > Other than that absolute, there is really nothing. > > Another interesting thing that is confusing at first is how Nisargadatta > keeps hammering away at the question about " When did you first appear? What > was that exact moment when you first knew that you ARE? " ----------- Yes. A very potent question. ------------- That is a very > difficult question, but he says it is of extreme importance to contemplate. > I can't remember when I first knew that I was! I have no idea! Isn't that > rather mysterious in itself? I still puzzle over this a lot but I am > beginning to suspect that perhaps his stressing of this question might be to > prepare us for the final realization: that I am NOT that " I Am. " -------- What's the puzzle about? And for whom is the " puzzle " ,..........a puzzle to be deciphered? ----- > In other > words, this " I am " had a beginning, seemed to appear out of nowhere, and it > will have an end. So I must be beyond that " I am, " because I am the knower > of that " I am. " I am not actually the " I am " but rather THAT which is aware > of the " I am. " --------- :-) So if this is grasped, what is the puzzle about? ------- > > It took me years to figure this much out. Each realization builds on and > becomes possible because of the previous realizations, and the final > realization can even seem to contradict a previous realization. ----------- Yes. So long its in the realm of realizations. ----- > > 1. First I realize I am not all this other stuff that people usually think > they are. I am not a person. The person is memories, knowledge, habits, and > other false identies: " Mr. So-and-so. " I dispense with that. I can see that > it is all a false identity made up by thoughts. -------- Outside of the " I AM THAT " bromides,.......how have you concluded this? -------- > > 2. Then I realize I am not even the more intimate stuff that people usually > think they are. I am not the body (that is the toughest one, as Nisargadatta > points out again and again). I am not the mind or its thoughts either. I am > not the chemistry of all this either. One could spend an entire lifetime and > not get through this realization. ------- Again, how have you concluded, that you are not the body bearing the label " Bill " ? That you are not the mind? (Incidentally does the mind have thoughts, as you seem to allude? Or thoughts infer the mind?) -------- > > 3. Then I realize that if I subtract all the above, what is left? Only my > sense of existing itself, my sense of presence, my sense of being here, the > consciousness. I realize that I am that consciousness only, the feeling of > existing. I must be THAT. What IS that? It is very subtle. But now I am > coming closer. This is the realization of the mystical phrase " I am that I > am. " And along with this stage of realization comes the realization of my > universality. This realization of the " I am " brings with it the explosive > understanding that there is no such thing as an individual, ----- In order for you to negate the individual, you must have apriori defined what is the " individual " , ..........held onto that definition for dear life...... and now you negate that definition. What is that definition, for " Bill " ? -------- > the " I am " is > universal, everyone and every living thing is feeling it the same way. We > don't ourselves create our sense of " I am. " Rather we inherit the prior > existing sense of presence of the original beingness which spontaneously > first appeared on the background of the void, or the objectless pure > awareness. ------- Who is it, that is supposed to have inherited, something? ------- > > 4. When I am thus established in sense of identity with this universal sense > of presence, or the " I am, " I am at last poised for the final realization. ------- After apparently having negated the individual,........there is still someone poised to make one last jump? ------- > The realization of the " I am " is already a very high state, and many will > simply stop here to enjoy living in the universal personless beingness. ---------- So as per you, the state of " I AM " is an experiencable state, which has an " enjoyer " of it? In contrast, to someone who is to move beyond this enjoyable state? ---------- This > is the knowledge of God and the knowledge that I am God. But some rare ones > keep going and keep questioning deeper and come to the breakthrough > realization that ALL beingness, even the beingness of " God " is still a form > of illusion and duality, and they realize and move into and " become " the > pure awareness only, giving up even that last and very high identity as the > universal " I am. " > > This last step is still incomprehensible to me but I love to think about it > again and again. ------- LOL. Yes thought can be very self-comforting. --------- Many can give up the lesser false identifications, casting > them off like tattered old clothes and stripping naked down to the singular > universal consciousness. But who can give up that very sense of beingness > itself? We LOVE to be, and fear terribly not being anymore. It is > frightening! Looked at from a lower level the final realization seems like > absolute and utter anihilation itself, the ending of the " I am, " and who on > earth wants to be completely anihilated? Thus, very few rare souls ever > realize the final realization! Above all, I WANT TO BE! > > But the true sage makes the final realization and the final step and is in > fact completely anihilated. " He " ceases to exist, and all that is left of > him is what was there at the beginning of the world, as Buddha became the > Void itself and entered into the great nirvana. A friend of mine called it > " The Great Suicide. " Then one realizes the final incredible and terrifying > reality: there is nothing. ------- Tell your freind the realization of nothingness, is somethingness. --------- And though really and truly there is absolutely > nothing, at the same time that nothingness is inexplicably filled to > fullness with an indescribable " something which is not a thing, " the pure > awareness of the absolute, unaware of itself. That is the one and only > " thing-which-is-not-a-thing " which is truly real. All else is false, a fraud > made of spacetime, of things which begin and end and come and go, the Great > Maha Maya, the dreams of the universal mind. ----------- Yes. But Maya and the effect of it's play,........is not something apart or separate. Here's a bromide for you to chew.... The realized state, which is nothing but the unrealized state,........ .........already being the case,........ .......there is none " unrealized " to chase the various stages of realizations, you have listed,......... .........let alone attain any of those stages. ---------------- > > That a human creature can realize THAT is a miracle to me, a miracle in this > incredible dream-Creation. The whole thing boggles the mind. The mind cannot > grasp it, because the mind is too limited. ----- Does it have an existential reality, for it to be limited? Or un-limited? -------- As all the sages have sung, it is > not a matter of gaining anything, it is just a matter of removing stuff, and > removing more stuff, until that which was always there begins to shine > through. Certainly I can't CREATE the ultimate reality. All I can do is > clean the mirror so that light of the incomprehensible pure awareness can > reflect through the mirror and shine. That is why Nisargadatta says that > self realization is very simple and easy, and yet it is very subtle and > difficult. Removing all the dirt from the mirror is not so easy as it might > seem, although that is really all that needs to be done. ----------- Doing, in whatever form, manner, shape and hoopla, ..............happens, ..................moment to moment to moment,.... .....the real spec of dirt is that there is something which needs to be done. And thus someone which needs to do that,.... which needs to be done. ---------- > > Above all, in contemplating all this, one feels sometimes like bowing down > and thanking heaven that sages like Nisargadatta, and so many others, > especially in ancient times (like the " satya yuga " or age of truth), have > taken birth and shown the way. ------- Well as per UG, the world needs to be saved from all these saviours.<LOL> -------- > As N. points out, our lives, if we sum it all up, are primarily an experience of suffering overall. One thing or another, > from birth to death, there are endless problems, unfullfilled desires, stuggle and effort, and suffering. ----- Says who? Such is a conclusion for whom? There is the movement in the momet. Moment to moment to moment. For whom is that movement in the moment,........ a " struggle " , a series of " unfilfilled desires " , an " effort " ,..............a " bottomless bag of sufferings " ? --------- > Now and then a few happy moments to keep > us going. In fact, if there were no such possibility as realization and > liberation one might well say that suicide were a preferable way out and an > answer to the sufferings of life. -------- The biological object, beyond keeping a watchful eye for threats to survival and perpetuation,..........has no issues with Life whatsoever. It has no clue about Consciousness, Awareness, I AM, I AM THIS/THAT, or Awareness-not-aware-of-itself. And thus gives two hoots for all that baloney. It may be in acute pain, but never suffers. Who is it,.............. that is suffering, ...............such that a belief arises for it, that suicide is the answer to the suffering? Who is it, that now replaces the option of suicide and now believes that realization of the Absolute, is the way out of the mess? -------- > > But that awareness has broken through in the cases of so many sages and > saints and proven throughout all of human history that a glorious freedom is > indeed possible. From the ancient Vedas and Upanishads to the teachings of > the Christ, again and again, certain rare ones have demonstrated to mankind > that evolution into the likes of angels is possible. For this we must be > ever grateful throughout our journeys, and follow the teachings and > instructions of those like Nisargadatta, with great earnestness, love and > joy. > Zip-A-Dee-Dah-Doo-Phaat,........which means " Amen " in Noumenal lingo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2004 Report Share Posted September 3, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Bill Morgan " <wmorgan@n...> wrote: > CONSCIOUSNESS AND AWARENESS > > I have noticed in some posts a confusion, one which I also had when I first > began reading Nisargadatta. It concerns the difference between the way he > uses the two terms " consciousness " and " awareness. " > > Like most people I had always thought of these two words as meaning > basically the same thing, but N. uses them to point to two very different > meanings. When he uses the term " consciousness " he seems to equate that term > with the " I Am " and when he talks about " awareness " he is pointing to > something altogether beyond the consciousness ( " I Am " ), that is, to the > absolute. > > As far as I understand so far he is saying, of the consciousness, that it is > all that we know, it is the fundamental sense of presence that we feel, and > that it is a universal feeling of the sense of being. Consciousness = " sense > of presence " = " the beingness " = the " I Am. " > > Those four terms are equated throughout his talks. And while he directs us, > as we start out, to simply be aware of the " I Am " so that we come to the > realization that we are the consciousness itself, and not the body or the > mind or the mind's thoughts and identification, he does an amazing twist at > the end of all that. When the realization has established itself that I am > the consciousness itself (and he always points out that this means the > universal consciousness only, the same in a human or a dog or an ant), when > I realize that I am the " I am " he take us to the next realization which is > when I subsequently realize that I am NOT the " I am, " I am beyond that, I am > pure awareness only! > > These are breathtaking leaps! In his use of the word " consciousness " there > is always the touch of the duality. If I am conscious it is in relation to > being unconscious. If " I am " it is always in relation to the " not- me. " If I > am conscious it is always conscious OF something. Consciousness always has > an object of which I am conscious. So while the realization of my identity > as the " I am " is very much closer to reality than the idea that " I am > so-and-so, a person " it is still a step away from the final realization of > the absolute, that I am the non-dual awareness which is allowing the > consciousness to be conscious. Awareness is that which is shining through > the consciousness, but it beyond the consciousness itself. So " awareness " is > different from " consciousness " in Nisargadatta's talks. The pure awareness > is the absolute, without which there can be no consciousness. > > Another way he puts it is that the awareness " is that by which I know that I > am. " Thus the awareness is there before the " I am " (or consciousness) > appears, and is there after the consciousness disappears (unconsciousness or > death). So the awareness is beyond even the universal consciousness. Another > way that he put this astonishing distinction is by saying that the absolute > is " awareness unaware of itself. " That statement of his is almost like a Zen > koan, but I think the idea is of an awareness without a trace of distinction > or duality. He speaks of it as " shining. " And of it being an uncaused > mystery. This is even beyond our idea of God, so he does not call it " God " > but simply says " the absolute, " or the ultimate reality, beyond time, which > ever was and ever will be. > > So while consciousness is always conscious OF something (dual), awareness is > not even aware OF itself, and thus is absolutely singular. > > This difference between his use of the words " consciousness " and " awareness " > took me a long time to grasp, because we don't really make this distinction > in ordinary common English. Being conscious or being aware are thought of as > the same. But Nisargadatta uses the terms differently and difference is a > great key, I think, to understanding what he is trying to convey to us. > > I was amazed when I first realized that he had played a kind of " trick " in > leading us from one realization to another. This is the trick: first he is > telling us to realize that we are really the " sense of presence " or the > " sense of beingness, " and when we finally realize that he turns us around to > the next higher realization and says what seems to be the opposite: " NO, you > are not that " I Am " either! You are beyond the beingness, beyond the > consciousness, beyond the sense of presence, you are the pure awareness only > by which the conscious has been able to come into being, you are the > absolute pure original awareness only. " The latter realization can only > proceed out of the former realization. First I must realize that I am the " I > am, " the universal consciousness, then out of that I can realize that I am > NOT the " I am! " I am actually the absolute only and nothing else REALLY > exists at all! Everything else is just like a dream. > > This is just breathtaking to me! No one else but Nisargadatta has ever made > that line of realization clear to me. It is utterly simple, really, but > difficult to stay with and crack open. Elegant but subtle. That is why he > tells us that we must become completely obsessed with it. We must develop an > intense NEED TO KNOW. You can't just play with it and expect to get > anywhere. When he describes the time before his own realization he says that > he was thinking and pondering about this nearly every single waking moment! > He was OBSESSED to find out what he really was! The usual playing with words > has no significance at that level of constant meditation. It simply becomes > a life and death matter to really find out for oneself what one is. This > religion at it deepest level, the breakthrough into reality. > > So the consciousness and the pure awareness are quite different really, > although the consciousness can only exist because of the prior shining of > pure awareness. The awareness, on the other hand, does not depend on any way > whatsoever on the consciousness, and is not even touched by it. The > consciousness comes and goes, waking and sleeping, birth and death, but the > awareness is always there. The consciousness suddenly appears in the morning > on top of the birthless and deathless ever existing pure nondual awareness. > Other than that absolute, there is really nothing. > > Another interesting thing that is confusing at first is how Nisargadatta > keeps hammering away at the question about " When did you first appear? What > was that exact moment when you first knew that you ARE? " That is a very > difficult question, but he says it is of extreme importance to contemplate. It may seem to be a difficult question, or it may be a simple answer to this: You did first appear *now*. See? What you see as your life, your body and the entire manifested world is being 'created' now. The exact moment when you first knew that you ARE is *now*. We can see existence as a single indivisible event. This single, absolute event is all possibilities for existence. This is the *now*, a singular explosion into infinity. There is now, but there is no 'not now'. Where is the 'not now'? You can *think* about a future, but that thought is a part of this *now*. You can measure the past, but there is no past other than as a history track appearing *now* as a part of this very same *now*. So my advice is: remove time as an actual 'thing' from your mind, and what is left? /AL > I can't remember when I first knew that I was! I have no idea! Isn't that > rather mysterious in itself? I still puzzle over this a lot but I am > beginning to suspect that perhaps his stressing of this question might be to > prepare us for the final realization: that I am NOT that " I Am. " In other > words, this " I am " had a beginning, seemed to appear out of nowhere, and it > will have an end. So I must be beyond that " I am, " because I am the knower > of that " I am. " I am not actually the " I am " but rather THAT which is aware > of the " I am. " > > It took me years to figure this much out. Each realization builds on and > becomes possible because of the previous realizations, and the final > realization can even seem to contradict a previous realization. > > 1. First I realize I am not all this other stuff that people usually think > they are. I am not a person. The person is memories, knowledge, habits, and > other false identies: " Mr. So-and-so. " I dispense with that. I can see that > it is all a false identity made up by thoughts. > > 2. Then I realize I am not even the more intimate stuff that people usually > think they are. I am not the body (that is the toughest one, as Nisargadatta > points out again and again). I am not the mind or its thoughts either. I am > not the chemistry of all this either. One could spend an entire lifetime and > not get through this realization. > > 3. Then I realize that if I subtract all the above, what is left? Only my > sense of existing itself, my sense of presence, my sense of being here, the > consciousness. I realize that I am that consciousness only, the feeling of > existing. I must be THAT. What IS that? It is very subtle. But now I am > coming closer. This is the realization of the mystical phrase " I am that I > am. " And along with this stage of realization comes the realization of my > universality. This realization of the " I am " brings with it the explosive > understanding that there is no such thing as an individual, the " I am " is > universal, everyone and every living thing is feeling it the same way. We > don't ourselves create our sense of " I am. " Rather we inherit the prior > existing sense of presence of the original beingness which spontaneously > first appeared on the background of the void, or the objectless pure > awareness. > > 4. When I am thus established in sense of identity with this universal sense > of presence, or the " I am, " I am at last poised for the final realization. > The realization of the " I am " is already a very high state, and many will > simply stop here to enjoy living in the universal personless beingness. This > is the knowledge of God and the knowledge that I am God. But some rare ones > keep going and keep questioning deeper and come to the breakthrough > realization that ALL beingness, even the beingness of " God " is still a form > of illusion and duality, and they realize and move into and " become " the > pure awareness only, giving up even that last and very high identity as the > universal " I am. " > > This last step is still incomprehensible to me but I love to think about it > again and again. Many can give up the lesser false identifications, casting > them off like tattered old clothes and stripping naked down to the singular > universal consciousness. But who can give up that very sense of beingness > itself? We LOVE to be, and fear terribly not being anymore. It is > frightening! Looked at from a lower level the final realization seems like > absolute and utter anihilation itself, the ending of the " I am, " and who on > earth wants to be completely anihilated? Thus, very few rare souls ever > realize the final realization! Above all, I WANT TO BE! > > But the true sage makes the final realization and the final step and is in > fact completely anihilated. " He " ceases to exist, and all that is left of > him is what was there at the beginning of the world, as Buddha became the > Void itself and entered into the great nirvana. A friend of mine called it > " The Great Suicide. " Then one realizes the final incredible and terrifying > reality: there is nothing. And though really and truly there is absolutely > nothing, at the same time that nothingness is inexplicably filled to > fullness with an indescribable " something which is not a thing, " the pure > awareness of the absolute, unaware of itself. That is the one and only > " thing-which-is-not-a-thing " which is truly real. All else is false, a fraud > made of spacetime, of things which begin and end and come and go, the Great > Maha Maya, the dreams of the universal mind. > > That a human creature can realize THAT is a miracle to me, a miracle in this > incredible dream-Creation. The whole thing boggles the mind. The mind cannot > grasp it, because the mind is too limited. As all the sages have sung, it is > not a matter of gaining anything, it is just a matter of removing stuff, and > removing more stuff, until that which was always there begins to shine > through. Certainly I can't CREATE the ultimate reality. All I can do is > clean the mirror so that light of the incomprehensible pure awareness can > reflect through the mirror and shine. That is why Nisargadatta says that > self realization is very simple and easy, and yet it is very subtle and > difficult. Removing all the dirt from the mirror is not so easy as it might > seem, although that is really all that needs to be done. > > Above all, in contemplating all this, one feels sometimes like bowing down > and thanking heaven that sages like Nisargadatta, and so many others, > especially in ancient times (like the " satya yuga " or age of truth), have > taken birth and shown the way. As N. points out, our lives, if we sum it all > up, are primarily an experience of suffering overall. One thing or another, > from birth to death, there are endless problems, unfullfilled desires, > stuggle and effort, and suffering. Now and then a few happy moments to keep > us going. In fact, if there were no such possibility as realization and > liberation one might well say that suicide were a preferable way out and an > answer to the sufferings of life. > > But that awareness has broken through in the cases of so many sages and > saints and proven throughout all of human history that a glorious freedom is > indeed possible. From the ancient Vedas and Upanishads to the teachings of > the Christ, again and again, certain rare ones have demonstrated to mankind > that evolution into the likes of angels is possible. For this we must be > ever grateful throughout our journeys, and follow the teachings and > instructions of those like Nisargadatta, with great earnestness, love and > joy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release 8/19/2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2004 Report Share Posted September 3, 2004 > > Bill Morgan wrote: > CONSCIOUSNESS AND AWARENESS > > I have noticed in some posts a confusion, one which I also had when > I first began reading Nisargadatta. It concerns the difference > between the way he uses the two terms " consciousness " and > " awareness. " > > Like most people I had always thought of these two words as meaning > basically the same thing, but N. uses them to point to two very > different meanings. When he uses the term " consciousness " he seems > to equate that term with the " I Am " and when he talks about > " awareness " he is pointing to something altogether beyond the > consciousness ( " I Am " ), that is, to the absolute. > > As far as I understand so far he is saying, of the consciousness, > that it is all that we know, it is the fundamental sense of presence > that we feel, and that it is a universal feeling of the sense of > being. Consciousness = " sense of presence " = " the beingness " = the > " I Am. " > > Those four terms are equated throughout his talks. And while he > directs us, as we start out, to simply be aware of the " I Am " so > that we come to the realization that we are the consciousness > itself, and not the body or the mind or the mind's thoughts and > identification, he does an amazing twist at the end of all that. > When the realization has established itself that I am the > consciousness itself (and he always points out that this means the > universal consciousness only, the same in a human or a dog or an > ant), when I realize that I am the " I am " he take us to the next > realization which is when I subsequently realize that I am NOT the > " I am, " I am beyond that, I am pure awareness only! You have summarized Niz's use of those terms pretty accurately, IMO. > These are breathtaking leaps! In his use of the word " consciousness " > there is always the touch of the duality. The very notion " I Am " entails duality. Identity itself entails duality because identity entails distinction. What need is there for identity when there is not " one among many " ? I regard the statement " I am " as an assertion of identity with being itself. > If I am conscious it is in > relation to being unconscious. If " I am " it is always in relation to > the " not-me. " Your implied premise is: Any statement " I am X " is in relation to the statement " I am not-X " . What is the basis of that premise? The presumption seems to be that any term is understandable only in terms of its opposite. But that is patently not true. If it were true I could explain what I mean by " conscious " simply by saying " not unconscious " . But clearly such an explanation is no explanation at all. For one it is circular. It assumes that one understands what " unconscious " means. What does " unconscious " mean? Well, err..., " not conscious " ... etc. > If I am conscious it is always conscious OF something. Do you mean that as a personal statement? Or do you mean that such is necessarily the case ever and always for anyone? If so, what is the basis of your assertion? Right this moment I am conscious. But there is nothing particular " present to mind " . [Note: It seems self-evident that I am conscious. But I can't explain or justify that assertion.] > Consciousness always has an object of which I am conscious. So while > the realization of my identity as the " I am " is very much closer to > reality than the idea that " I am so-and-so, a person " it is still a > step away from the final realization of the absolute, that I am the > non-dual awareness which is allowing the consciousness to be > conscious. Awareness is that which is shining through the > consciousness, but it beyond the consciousness itself. How is awareness " beyond " consciousness? I consider that Niz's essential point about consciousness in relation to awareness is that consciousness is simply the " highest " illusion. He doesn't describe awareness, really. His use of the term Absolute, as you say, does correspond to his use of the term awareness, but both terms are really just placeholders. They both refer to whatever remains after the parade is over, the street sweepers have moved in, and all the clutter (including consciousness) is dispersed. It is unspeakable, really. > So > " awareness " is different from " consciousness " in Nisargadatta's > talks. The pure awareness is the absolute, without which there can > be no consciousness. > > Another way he puts it is that the awareness " is that by which I > know that I am. " Thus the awareness is there before the " I am " (or > consciousness) appears, Which is the meaning behind the title to Jean Dunne's book of his later talks, " Prior to Consciousness " . > and is there after the consciousness > disappears (unconsciousness or death). So the awareness is beyond > even the universal consciousness. Another way that he put this > astonishing distinction is by saying that the absolute is " awareness > unaware of itself. " That statement of his is almost like a Zen koan, > but I think the idea is of an awareness without a trace of > distinction or duality. He speaks of it as " shining. " And of it > being an uncaused mystery. This is even beyond our idea of God, so > he does not call it " God " but simply says " the absolute, " or the > ultimate reality, beyond time, which ever was and ever will be. Yes. > So while consciousness is always conscious OF something (dual), > awareness is not even aware OF itself, and thus is absolutely > singular. Here is where I disagree... I find no basis for your assertion that consciousness is inherently " of " . <snip> > So the consciousness and the pure awareness are quite different > really, although the consciousness can only exist because of the > prior shining of pure awareness. The awareness, on the other hand, > does not depend on any way whatsoever on the consciousness, and is > not even touched by it. The consciousness comes and goes, waking and > sleeping, birth and death, but the awareness is always there. The > consciousness suddenly appears in the morning on top of the > birthless and deathless ever existing pure nondual awareness. Other > than that absolute, there is really nothing. > > Another interesting thing that is confusing at first is how > Nisargadatta keeps hammering away at the question about " When did > you first appear? What was that exact moment when you first knew > that you ARE? " That is a very difficult question, but he says it is > of extreme importance to contemplate. I can't remember when I first > knew that I was! I have no idea! Isn't that rather mysterious in > itself? I still puzzle over this a lot but I am beginning to suspect > that perhaps his stressing of this question might be to prepare us > for the final realization: that I am NOT that " I Am. " In other > words, this " I am " had a beginning, seemed to appear out of nowhere, > and it will have an end. So I must be beyond that " I am, " because I > am the knower of that " I am. " I am not actually the " I am " but > rather THAT which is aware of the " I am. " It is not that he is trying to get you to remember, really, but that he is trying to drive you to the very ROOT of the matter in the very effort. So yes, much as you say. [just my interpretation, of course] <snip> > All I can do is clean the mirror so > that light of the incomprehensible pure awareness can reflect > through the mirror and shine. You can't even clean the mirror. The quote Tyrone just shared from the ashtavakra gita comes to mind here: I accept nothing. I reject nothing. And I am happy. <snip> Your explication of a very abstruse aspect of Niz's teachings was overall pretty clear (although a bit repetitive toward the end . But more important in my view is the passion with which you write about the subject. May your passion be contagious! Bill 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.