But you are discussing theory not experience. What if the theory
doesn't match the experience?
On 03/19/2015 01:38 PM, anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
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.
