For the record I was debating this:
Edg: This is the constant teaching of Nisargadatta throughout his
talks: awareness is not consciousness.
On 03/19/2015 01:01 PM, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] wrote:
*/Why are you guys discussing -- and Edg melting down over -- such
petty differences?/*
*/
/*
*/In N's original statement, there are no elements of good/better,
better/best or any of that shit. He spoke about three *equivalences*
-- the world as it appears as seen through the mind, the world as seen
from beyond the mind, and the world beyond even witnessing.
/*
*/
/*
*/There is NO hierarchy of experience expressed in this quote.
/*
*/
/*
*/You guys are inventing it and arguing about it. N was hip enough to
realize that all three levels of experience are on exactly the same
level.
/*
*/
/*
*/IMO, of course. /*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* "Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife]"
<FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
*To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2015 8:54 PM
*Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] 37 words
Do you experience awareness? I'm sure you do or you would be residing
up on a hill with some stone markers or in an urn somewhere. So tell
me how can you experience awareness without consciousness? I think
this is an issue of semantics. Does Nisargadatta mean conflate
"awareness" with "being?" Being theoretically exists without
consciousness because it pervades everything and is the basis of
everything. Some folks call that "being" "God." "Awareness" would
then be a poor choices of words. And yes I've read Nisargadatta.
On 03/19/2015 12:18 PM, anartax...@yahoo.com
<mailto:anartax...@yahoo.com> [FairfieldLife] wrote:
Nisargadatta is using the words awareness and consciousness in
specific, technical ways. In his view consciousness is a sub-property
of awareness. Awareness is pure being, and consciousness 'emerges'
from that. Much in the same way M said 'when pure consciousness
becomes conscious', or something like that anyway. So whatever
definition you might have in your head, to read Nisargadatta, you
need to scope out how he is using the words in his context. You have
to be conscious to notice awareness, but consciousness is dead
without awareness, awareness is the essential aspect or property of
being. Consciousness is the expressed character of awareness. When
you become Brahman, this is what you experience, you cannot know this
before then. In speaking this way, dividing experience into such
layers, Nisargadatta, like any teacher, is getting the student to
attempt to enquire more deeply into their own experience to see if
this is so, or not so. If you see it is so, you do not need to think
about it any more for your own use, because it is a teaching fiction
designed to clarify the intellect during enquiry.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>, <noozguru@...>
<mailto:noozguru@...> wrote :
You can't have awareness without consciousness. Without being
conscious there is nothing to be aware of.
On 03/19/2015 11:19 AM, Duveyoung wrote:
*Q:* But when you look at yourself, what do you see?
*Nisargadatta:* It depends how I look. When I look through the
mind, I see numberless people. When I look beyond the mind, I see
the witness. Beyond the witness there is the infinite intensity of
emptiness and silence.
Edg: This is the constant teaching of Nisargadatta throughout his
talks: awareness is not consciousness.
