I would say awareness experiences what the nervous system is conscious of; you do not experience awareness, it 'gives' being to whatever is experienced. This is fine cut gobbledygook in the use of words. Awareness is not self-reflective, but allows self-reflectiveness to be experienced. The is no 'you' that experiences it. But there is a mind that ruminates on it, that awareness makes 'visible'. You could say it is the consciousness of consciousness. None of these words really hit the mark. Awareness is a poor choice of words, if you use those words in a different sense than Nisargadatta did, if you want to define them some other way. Now with TM, the words awareness and consciousness do not seem to be used in the same way that Nisargadatta did, they are used more loosely, often completely equivalent.
Here is how a Vedantist uses the word awareness: '...enlightenment is not a transcendental state, a higher state, an altered state, the fourth state beyond waking, dream and deep sleep or any other kind of state. It is simple, unchanging awareness and cannot be directly experienced as an object as it is subtler than the mind, the instrument of experience.' and '...is neither inward-turned nor outward-turned consciousness, nor both. It is not an undifferentiated mass of consciousness . It neither knows nor does not know. It is invisible, ineffable, intangible, devoid of characteristics, inconceivable, indefinable, its sole essence being the consciousness of its own self.' When discussing meditation and related philosophical systems, one is really dealing with a technical language just like in science. Casually we use, say, the word 'energy' in certain ways such as 'the strength and vitality required for sustained physical or mental activity', but in science it means the 'ability to do work. Objects can have energy by virtue of their motion (kinetic energy), by virtue of their position (potential energy), or by virtue of their mass (E = mc²).' This latter is not what most people seem to mean when they say someone has a lot of energy. But different systems use language differently, so first you have to nail down as best as one can, just what in hell someone is trying to say, and that means getting a grasp of how they use those words. Unless those words can be reduced to experience, it will never be clear just what is going on. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <noozguru@...> wrote : 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, anartaxius@... mailto:anartaxius@... [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.
