Nisargadutta maharaja's concept of awareness and conciousness.

[Guest guest]

PraNAms to all

 

Nisargadatta Maharaj's terms are slightly different from the Vedantic terms

used.

 

What he calls awareness is the pure consciousness, one without a second -that is

Brahman- sat chit ananda - the chit aspect of Brahman is what he terms

awareness.

 

The consciousness term is the chidaabhaasa - the reflected consciousness in the

mind. The chidaabhaasa depends on the pure consciousness since reflection has to

occur. Since pure consciousness is all pervading, the chidaabhaasa is also an

apparent superimposition on consciousness.

 

In between, there is upahita caitanya which is the witnessing consciousness

which is called limiting witnessing consciousness. It is like pot-space where as

a space it is infinite as in pure consciousness but appears to be limited due to

pot-walls. He calls this also as pure consciousness. In principle he is correct

too.

 

One should be aware of the differences in the terms used in trying to understand

Vedanta vs. what was stated by Nisargadatta Maharaj.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

--- On Sat, 9/13/08, Paavani Simaran Sahani Iyer <paavani.sahani

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 awareness 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.

[Guest guest]

" antharyami_in " <sathvatha wrote:

>

>From what you have portrayed as

> Nisargadatta's theory, it is evident that his views are in total

> contradiction with the Upanisadic doctrines.

>

> Generally traditional Advaitins do not authorize Nisargadatta's

> views. We do not prescribe serious students of Advaita with

> Nisargadatta's works, which is alien to the mainline tradition.

>

 

Dear Sir, namaste

 

It really takes me by surprise the feeling embeded in your words,

since I know many " traditional advaitins " that not only support

Maharaj's view but also endorse the Maharaj's Teachings and advice

others to read them.

Many " traditional advaitins " consider him a Jnani and a great Teacher.

 

Sri Sadaji's posting is very to the point. The Maharaj had a specific

language of his own, but that didn't make him a Dvaitin or a non-advatin.

 

With all due respect, the same thing happened in Christianity when the

Church started to discard the " mystics " because they were going astray

(under the Church's views of course) from their " Dogma " .

 

Yours in Bhagavan,

Mouna

[Guest guest]

Devanathanji

Pranams,

different words do not make different facts. Shri Nisargadatta conveyed the same

truth as

traditional vedanta, just using different terms - in fact opposite terms than

you did. This

might be a bit unfortunate because it can confuse seekers in beginnig stages.

But it can be

clarified easily. As far as I understand, this is what this forum is for and the

way Sadaji did

it, served this purpose perfectly.

Om Shanti

Sitara

 

 

 

advaitin , " antharyami_in " <sathvatha wrote:

>

> Hari OM~

> Shrimati Paavani Simaran Sahani ji,

> PraNams,

>

> According to the general conventions in Advaita, Awareness and

> Consciousness are delineated entirely in different perspectives.

> Awareness refer to the sense of `I'ness which is associated with the

> Mind. Consciousness on the otherhand denotes Suddha-Caitanya. Mind

> is the reflective medium, which reflects the Pure Consciouness. The

> reflected consciousness is known as Cit-Caya or Cit-Abhasa. The

> awareness of I'ness is due to the knot of Cit-Mind and the Body that

> is referred to as Hrdaya-granti / Visnu granti / Avidya granti.

> Individual souls perceive external objects and internal experiences

> with the awareness `I am the doer', `It is mine' `I am happy' `I am

> sad' etc. These sense experiences bring forth awareness when mind

> (illumined by the Consciousness) comes in contact with the external

> objects of this world. Mind is the subject (I'ness) in contact with

> the (external) object is the cause for all perceptions. Pure

> Consciousness is beyond subject-object bifurcations; for it shines

> in its own light since it is essentially infinite and bliss by

> nature. Consciousness is independent while awareness is not. In the

> deep-sleep state, self-awareness is withdrawn due to the fact that

> the mind returns to its original state of being inert. But still the

> fact remains that Consciousness still remains unaffected whatever be

> the state of mind be.

>

> The above said tenets are uniformly upheld by traditional Vedantins

> in the support of Srutis. From what you have portrayed as

> Nisargadatta's theory, it is evident that his views are in total

> contradiction with the Upanisadic doctrines.

>

> Generally traditional Advaitins do not authorize Nisargadatta's

> views. We do not prescribe serious students of Advaita with

> Nisargadatta's works, which is alien to the mainline tradition.

>

> With Narayana Smrti,

> Devanathan.J

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Sitara " <smitali17 wrote:

>

> Devanathanji

> Pranams,

> different words do not make different facts. Shri Nisargadatta

conveyed the same truth as

> traditional vedanta, just using different terms - in fact opposite

terms than you did. This

> might be a bit unfortunate because it can confuse seekers in

beginnig stages. But it can be

> clarified easily. As far as I understand, this is what this forum

is for and the way Sadaji did

> it, served this purpose perfectly.

> Om Shanti

> Sitara

 

We should not go by the actual terms alone, but should see the

import of the statement. What Sada-ji said is the correct

interpretation. Nisargadatta Maharaj did not know English. He must

have spoken in his mother-tongue, Marathi, and somebody translated

it into English. So it is the translator who has used these words.

Pure Consciousness is only one and it is pAramArthika satyam. It is

eternal. It expresses through the different minds which have only

vyAvahArika reality. In vyAvahArika there is duality. So there is no

contradiction if we understand the terms correctly.

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

Hari OM~

Pranams Mouna ji, Sitara ji and Shri Sastri ji,

 

In Sada ji's opinion, Nisargadatta's views seem to `actually' differ

from the Vedantic conventions, but Sastri ji opines that it is the

problem of translation, while Sitara ji feels it is mere difference

in the usage of terms and not the content. I really don't know what

to comment upon these views on this issue.

 

As far as I know, Nisargadatta's followers themselves hold a

different idenity; for they claim a separate lineage for themselves

and take patent for their philosophy. Further, those who call

themselves as followers of Nisargatta do not long for getting their

philosophy attested by traditional Advaitins. So why do we have to

bother so much in bringing others into our fold?

 

I am aware that Nisagadatta's work `I am that' has attracted the

status `Best-Seller' and is celebrated by many. I don't deny it. But

from Sastri ji's note-worthy point I now pity upon thousands of

readers who are mis-led with the wrong translation of the text which

on broader perspective has failed to convey the true message that

the author had intended.

 

" Different words do not make different facts " – I beg to differ

here. Words are not mere tools for communicating facts. They

significantly contribute to connote and denote the underlying

syntactic, semantic and semiotic expressions of thought process. For

example, when you say `mind in association with Consciousness, comes

in contact with the external objects' it explains the perceptual

process according to Advaita. But when you say `Atman's

Consciousness comes in contact with the mind, which in turn contacts

the external objects' it becomes the perceptual process explained by

the Naiyayikas. Hence words no matter in what magnitude it is

employed makes massive difference altogether which ultimately

distorts the `factual' content of one's intention.

 

Clarity of thought and expression is most in need for any

Philosopher. Even Ramanuja for instance calls his Philosophy as

Advaita (ofcourse designating some special attributes to it);

Vallabha calls his Philosophy `Suddha-Advaita' while Srikanta calls

his Philosophy `Siva-Advaita'. Let Nisargadatta's version of Advaita

too have its own caption. But they do not enroll themselves to the

Philosophy of Sankara's Kevaladvaita. The beginingless Advaita

Parampara that flows from the lotus feet of Lord Narayana himself

down through Adisesa, Gaudapada, Sankara and his own disciples has

its own unique content to offer us all, which is worth being

cherished amidst cacophonies.

 

With Narayana Smrti,

Devanathan.J

[Guest guest]

Thank you sir.

 

I was so confused on the difference between conciousness and the awareness. Terminology or no terminology it's hard to understand nisargadutta's view from standard advaita point of view. Again i am learning advaita and my head started to spin when i read him.

 

On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 8:19 AM, antharyami_in <sathvatha wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Hari OM~Shrimati Paavani Simaran Sahani ji,PraNams,According to the general conventions in Advaita, Awareness and Consciousness are delineated entirely in different perspectives. Awareness refer to the sense of `I'ness which is associated with the

Mind. Consciousness on the otherhand denotes Suddha-Caitanya. Mind is the reflective medium, which reflects the Pure Consciouness. The reflected consciousness is known as Cit-Caya or Cit-Abhasa. The awareness of I'ness is due to the knot of Cit-Mind and the Body that

is referred to as Hrdaya-granti / Visnu granti / Avidya granti. Individual souls perceive external objects and internal experiences with the awareness `I am the doer', `It is mine' `I am happy' `I am

sad' etc. These sense experiences bring forth awareness when mind (illumined by the Consciousness) comes in contact with the external objects of this world. Mind is the subject (I'ness) in contact with

the (external) object is the cause for all perceptions. Pure Consciousness is beyond subject-object bifurcations; for it shines in its own light since it is essentially infinite and bliss by nature. Consciousness is independent while awareness is not. In the

deep-sleep state, self-awareness is withdrawn due to the fact that the mind returns to its original state of being inert. But still the fact remains that Consciousness still remains unaffected whatever be the state of mind be.

The above said tenets are uniformly upheld by traditional Vedantins in the support of Srutis. From what you have portrayed as Nisargadatta's theory, it is evident that his views are in total contradiction with the Upanisadic doctrines.

Generally traditional Advaitins do not authorize Nisargadatta's views. We do not prescribe serious students of Advaita with Nisargadatta's works, which is alien to the mainline tradition.With Narayana Smrti,

Devanathan.J

[Guest guest]

Shree Simaran Sahani-Iyer - PraNAms

 

First if you are beginner to advaita Vedanta, I would not recommend reading 1.

Nisargadatta book , or 2. J. Krishnamurthy books. Even Bhagavan Ramana book, I

would suggest to post pone them until you have a clear understanding of advaita

Vedanta.

 

Second, I suggest that 'there are some introductory texts to Vedanta' - if

interested Shree Dennis Waite edited version of my posts in his web site that

you can down load and study - that way the technical terms become clear. Prof.

VK has in his website and Shree sastriji has numerous articles and texts too.

Dennisji has two books on Adviata vedanta. I would however avoid neo-advaitins

books since it will be confusing, if they are not based on traditional vedanta.

 

Once you understand vedanta, you can relish Bhagavan Ramana or Nisargadatta

Maharaj's I am that. Personally I would not recommend their disciples works for

some good reason, as Shree Devanathanji rightly pointed that terminalogy gets

confusing if they do not have basic background in Vedanta or used the words in

different connotation. They may mean something and we may understand as

something else. If have all the backgound need you would filter it out and take

the essence. The same is the problem with JK analysis - He goes out of tangent

and sometimes irrelavent of the message he is trying to make. I see this even

some swamiis doint it and one has to filter it out and take only the honey.

 

Now regarding the question you raised.

 

1. When I say 'I am' + something that something being 'this' that I identify

with starting from my body, mind and intellect along with all the qualities of

the equipments - essentially the whole of my bio data as I am this and that etc.

- In that I am is existence-consciousness that I am - and this is the object of

awareness.

 

2. When I cannot recognize that I am pure existence-consciousness without any

qualifications, (that is I do not know myself who I am) I take myself to be the

objectifiable 'this and that'.

 

These are the known facts.

 

Vedanta says - the existence-consciousness is Brahman, the infiniteness that

infinite cannot include or exclude anything therefore there is nothing other

than Brahman. Since I am is also existent-consciousness, Vedanta provides the

equation - you are that.

 

This is a fact pointed out by Vedanta.

 

If I am consciousness and Brahman what is this world of plurality and who is

Iswara the creator of this plurality - and why I am taking myself what I am not,

why am I born and what is the meaning of this life - etc all these questions are

bound to come for a rational intellect.

 

Hence the rest of the expiations to answer the rational intellect follow.

 

1. The universe arises from Brahman, sustained by it and goes back into it.

 

2. Inert things cannot come from conscious things - but world is inert -

therefore scriptures says is the world and thus all the objects in the world are

just naama and ruupa - name and form on the substantive Brahman.

Just as gold is the substantive for all the ornaments that arise from gold,

sustained by gold and goes back into gold.

 

3. But I am separate individual from my wife or child or my neighbor and I am

conscious entity and they are also conscious entity - Is consciousness one or

many, etc - questions will start.

 

3. To address those questions of a rational intellect, Vedanta has to comedown

to provide an explanation.

a. The all pervading Brahman gets 'as though' limited by the upaadhiis - (Body,

mind and intellect) is called Saakshii caitanya or upahita caitanya - limiting

existence-consciousness. It is like pot space - space is not limited but

pot-space is limited since it can only so much water. Pot-space is limited by

pot-walls. This is at the level of witnessing consciousness.

b. The knowledge of any object- as is being discussed in the knowledge series -

takes place when the object thought that formed gets illumined by the witnessing

consciousness - then I am aware of the object. Similarly the mind is an object

and it is known by the reflection of consciousness of saakshii. The reflected

consciousness of the mind is the knowledge of the mind - as 'this is mind'.

Since I have no knowledge of myself,

This is mind get translated to 'I am the mind' where this is mind has become I

am the mind - or I am this. The ego started. The reflected consciousness in the

mind is called cidaabhaasa. It is also limited since the mind that is reflecting

is limiting. The identification of this as I am this make I am also limited and

that becomes 'ego'.

Thus we have limiting consciousness - called saakshii or upahita caitanya

Now we have reflected consciousness - called cidaabhaasa where knowledge of the

mind occurs.

Then we have identification with that reflection as I am the mind - the

formation of ego or ahankaara.

In the knowledge of the object there is also reflection of the object thought

but that reflection will leave it as this object - if the object is not part of

my body, mind and intellect then it will remains as this object knowledge - if

it is part then - the egotistical knowledge comes down as ' this is mine and I

am this as in this is my hand and if you touch my hand you are touching me since

I am the hand too. These identifications with this occur, Vedanta says, because

I do not know who I am and I take this as I am.

 

These are various stages of identification of consciousness which is actually

all pervading and eternal.

 

In condensed form, that is Vedanta - not layers in consciousness but layers in

understanding of Vedanta about caitanya or consciousness. The saadhana involves

negation of these layers of identification starting from I am the body to I am

the intellect or negation of any 'I am this' - neti neti - not this not this - I

am. It is not dismissal of the body, mind or intellect, but negation of my

identificaiton with the body, mind and intellect as I am these, in turn.

 

 

Hope I am clear.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

---------------

 

--- On Mon, 9/15/08, Paavani Simaran Sahani-Iyer <paavani.sahani

wrote:

 

So there are two things? chidaabhaasa  and pure conciousness? wait is there

multiple layers in chaitanya? i thought it's all same all across? this is

confusing. Please explain me more i am very beginner in learning advaita.

 

Does this multiple layer exists when we talk about conciousness using standard

advaita terminology as per traditional advaitins?

[Guest guest]

Namaste, all respected members,

Sri Devnathanji said:

<<<<Consciousness is independent while awareness is not. In the deep-sleep state, self-awareness is withdrawn due to the fact that the mind returns to its original state of being inert. But still the fact remains that Consciousness still remains unaffected whatever be the state of mind be.>>>> and Sahani iyerji, said<<So this limiting onsciousness - called saakshii or upahita caitanya, and reflected consciousness - called cidaabhaasa occurs only at vyahavarika level? but at paramatmika stage everything is same? the conciousness? then where awareness comes into picture at paramatmika stage?>>May I say:If awareness was totally withdrawn during deep sleep, how can one say that the fact remains that consciousness still remained during deep sleep state. How is one aware of this fact if awareness was not there during deep sleep? Is awareness a state of mind? Is it

not that awareness is required to know any state of mind? Yes, without consciousness Awareness cannot be there, but at the same time to “know” Consciousness is there, is Awareness not required?

Do they, Consciousness and Awareness, not indicate the same thing?

These are my doubts, and I need to be corrected please?

Warm regards and hari om

Mani

 

R. S. Mani-

[Guest guest]

Shree Paavani Simaran Sahani-Iyer - PraNAms

 

First before we get into discussion, we need to follow the guide lines set by

the Moderators of this list. When responding to a post - please quote only the

relevant part of the discussion so that others who are also reading the post

have some idea what is the discussion is all about - and not leave the whole

post to which you are replying. This will save lot of space in the mail box,

particularly when we have so many posts.

 

Here is my understanding to the question you raised.

 

At paaramaarthika level - there is nothing other than Brahman - Any description

even the word sat chit ananda - consciousness - awareness -advaita etc are all

words that also only pointers from the point of vyavahaara only. All

communications stop as the communicator-communicated and communication also

sublimate in that understanding - since it is one without a second - ekam eva

advitiiyam.

 

Self realization is to recognize that I am not cidaabhaasa but I am the

witnessing consciousness because of which (or to say correctly in its presence)

all the rest of the nine yards follow.

 

In that understanding the vyavahaara is understood as only (vyavahaarically)

relatively real and not really real as I am taking it right now due to the

ignorance that I am the saakshii swaruupa. Witness is akartaa and abhoktaa -

neither doer nor enjoyer and but in its presence all doing is done - as Krishna

say - mayaa adhyakshena suuyate sa caraa acaram - under my president-ship the

whole universe of movable and immovable are projected.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

--- On Tue, 9/16/08, Paavani Simaran Sahani-Iyer <paavani.sahani

wrote:

 

So this limiting consciousness - called saakshii or upahita caitanya, and 

reflected consciousness - called cidaabhaasa occurs only at vyahavarika level?

but at paramatmika stage everything is same? the conciousness? then where

awareness comes into picture at paramatmika stage?

[Guest guest]

Hari OM~

Pranams Shri Mani ji,

 

Mind, according to Advaita Vedanta operates on four functional

modes. Each mode is a state of mental modification and each of which

is designated with a unique function. The four functional modes are:

 

1) Ahamkara – I'ness

2) Citta - Awareness

3) Manas – internal state of speculation

4) Buddhi – Intellect

 

Citta is the awareness. In deep sleep state, it is evident that you

are not aware of yourself and some may even have very deep sleep

that they don't feel being touched. This state is when Mind returns

to its inert state and functions of sense organs dissolve in the

minds' inert state. This is the primodial state of Manas-Tattva. The

inert'ness of mind too is witnessed and illumined by Saksi-Caitanya.

In this state pleasure of deep sleep is witnessed the Kutastha

Caitanya – Consciousness and the impression gets automatically

recorded in the Mind. Thus once the person is awake he says, " I

slept well; but I do not know anything " . What he is ignorant about

is that he does not know from where and how he sensed the pleasure.

Ofcourse pleasure is experienced in Deep-sleep but the experiencer

does not know the object of perception which gave his the pleasure.

Hence in deep-sleep the `triputi' is not aware of the object of

perception (of pleasure); he is not aware of the instrument of

perception and above all he is not aware of his own state of

existence - as the knower of the object perceived. He merely

recollects that " I slept well " (in past tense); the present tense of

any experience is never associated with Deep-sleep state when Citta

ceases to operate. Hope I have answered all your Question with

this.

 

With Narayana Smrti,

Devanathan.J

[Guest guest]

Namaste, Sri Devnathanji,

It is kind of you to explain awareness and consciousness.

I think all confusions come because of translation of some of the words from Sanskrit to English. For example, “satyam, gnAnam anantam” is translated into English as follows:

“Satyam” as Existence, Truth, Real

“GnAnam” as Knowledge, Consciousness, Awareness, Intelligence

“Anantam” as Infinite, Bliss etc.

I think none of these English words is capable of conveying the intended meaning of what is actually conveyed through the Sanskrit words. Every language has its own limitations when one compares it with other languages. For example, what is the correct word in Sanskrit for “aware or awareness”? Is it “bodham”? In Malayalam, we translate it as “bodham”. That means, there, it is presence or availability of knowledge of some other knowledge. For example, “Are you not aware that you are a man”, which is translated in Malayalam as “Ninakku nE oru AN ANennu bodham ille”.

That is why; a Teacher is required to unfold to the disciple what is conveyed by the Sanskrit words.

You have kindly said:

<<In this state, pleasure of deep sleep is witnessed the Kutastha Caitanya – Consciousness and the impression gets automatically recorded in the Mind.>>

The questions that come to my mind are:

Is the pleasure of deep sleep witnessed “by” the Kutastha Chaitanya, Consciousness, because the word “by” is missing in your note (maybe a typo)?

Why there is pleasure (Anandam) in deep sleep? Is it because of absence of mind, or absence of I’ness or AhamkAra or Ahammathi? What I understand is, it is not because of “both” these, i.e. mind and ahamkAra. It is because of false knowledge in budhi about the real swarupa of AhamkAra. It is this “false knowledge” which covers the Anandam available all through. Are all the Sadhana not towards removal of this False Knowledge? I know it is not correct to say “removal of false knowledge” as what is required is on the wake of correct knowledge, to recognize false knowledge as false, and be indifferent or udAseena, about it,

I maybe wrong in my way of understanding, and totally out of the track, and I am open for correction in the hands of learned of our group, including you.

With warm regards, and hari om,

R. S. Mani