Conciousness, Awareness and the Ego, Avidya and the Self.

[Guest guest]

--- On Wed, 9/17/08, Paavani Simaran Sahani Iyer <paavani.sahani

wrote:

 

Someone sent me following:

 

" Consciousness- at-rest is not aware of Itself. It becomes aware of

Itself only when this sudden feeling, I-am, arises, the impersonal

sense of being aware. And that is when Consciousness- at-rest becomes

Consciousness- in-movement, Potential energy becomes actual energy. They

are not two. Nothing separate comes out of Potential energy... That

moment that science calls the Big Bang, the mystic calls the sudden

arising of awareness "

 

Now questions:

 

Shree Paavani Sahaniji - PraNAms

I suggest that you should direct the questions to the one who has send you that

message and from you have gracefully accepted.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

" Paavani Simaran Sahani Iyer " <paavani.sahani wrote:

>

> Someone sent me following:

> " Consciousness-at-rest is not aware of Itself. It becomes aware of

> Itself only when this sudden feeling, I-am, arises, the impersonal

> sense of being aware. And that is when Consciousness-at-rest becomes

> Consciousness-in-movement, Potential energy becomes actual energy.

They are not two. Nothing separate comes out of Potential energy...

That moment that science calls the Big Bang, the mystic calls the

sudden arising of awareness "

>

 

Dear Paavani, namaskar

 

This phrase of yours sounds like an extract from some book of Sri

Ramesh Balsekar, a disciple of Nisargadatta Maharaj, and an

established teacher on its own these days.

As has been suggested a couple of days ago in the exchange of postings

about the difference between " Awareness " and " Consciousness " according

to Nisargadatta, is better, for the sake of clarity and to help the

understanding, to concentrate in one line of thinking, without mixing

concepts and different word meanings from different " branches " of what

is loosely called Advaita these days. At least for a certain amount of

time until we get the fundamentals well established in our thinking.

According to some teachings of Ramesh Balsekar, as I understand,

Consciousness-at-rest is what under Advaita Vedanta one defines as the

Unmanifest, and the sense " I-Am, arising as the impersonal sense of

being aware " , will be what is called Chidhabhasa or reflected

Consciousness, just to give you a few examples.

As you can see, the risk is that we start mixing concepts and we end

up with more confusion instead of clarity, that may be the reason for

so many questions...

(Also, studying this way, we will have always to find out what a

concept means in relation to other philosophies, could you imagine the

time lost?)

A few postings ago there were some recomendations as what to study as

an Introduction to Vedanta, you may want to take a look in the List

Archives of the last few days.

 

All the best,

 

Yours in Bhagavan,

Mouna

[Guest guest]

so these chidabhasa occurs at vyahavarika level and the real conciousness never thinks " I am " ? as it's beyong all thinkings? Sankara says in atmabodha that the Self is nirvikalpa -- beyond thoughts and desire. If that conciousness has thought " I am " then it's not conciousness. Am I missing something here?

 

On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Mouna <maunna wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

" Paavani Simaran Sahani Iyer " <paavani.sahani wrote:>> Someone sent me following:> " Consciousness-at-rest is not aware of Itself. It becomes aware of

> Itself only when this sudden feeling, I-am, arises, the impersonal > sense of being aware. And that is when Consciousness-at-rest becomes > Consciousness-in-movement, Potential energy becomes actual energy.

They are not two. Nothing separate comes out of Potential energy...That moment that science calls the Big Bang, the mystic calls thesudden arising of awareness " > Dear Paavani, namaskar

This phrase of yours sounds like an extract from some book of SriRamesh Balsekar, a disciple of Nisargadatta Maharaj, and anestablished teacher on its own these days. As has been suggested a couple of days ago in the exchange of postings

about the difference between " Awareness " and " Consciousness " accordingto Nisargadatta, is better, for the sake of clarity and to help theunderstanding, to concentrate in one line of thinking, without mixing

concepts and different word meanings from different " branches " of whatis loosely called Advaita these days. At least for a certain amount oftime until we get the fundamentals well established in our thinking.

According to some teachings of Ramesh Balsekar, as I understand,Consciousness-at-rest is what under Advaita Vedanta one defines as theUnmanifest, and the sense " I-Am, arising as the impersonal sense ofbeing aware " , will be what is called Chidhabhasa or reflected

Consciousness, just to give you a few examples.As you can see, the risk is that we start mixing concepts and we endup with more confusion instead of clarity, that may be the reason forso many questions...

(Also, studying this way, we will have always to find out what aconcept means in relation to other philosophies, could you imagine thetime lost?)A few postings ago there were some recomendations as what to study as

an Introduction to Vedanta, you may want to take a look in the ListArchives of the last few days.All the best,Yours in Bhagavan,Mouna

[Guest guest]

" Paavani Simaran Sahani-Iyer " <paavani.sahani wrote:

>

Am I missing something here?

 

Dear Paavani,

 

You might have been missing the opportunity to enquire: " Who is asking

all these questions? "

 

Yours in Bhagavan,

Mouna

[Guest guest]

Who is asking these questions?Please help me here..... 1) This who is reflective consciousness right? asking due to avidya and hence they are not valid?On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 6:27 AM, Mouna <maunna wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

" Paavani Simaran Sahani-Iyer " <paavani.sahani wrote:

>

Am I missing something here?

 

Dear Paavani,

 

You might have been missing the opportunity to enquire: " Who is asking

all these questions? "

 

Yours in Bhagavan,

Mouna