Nisargadatta's Difference Between

Consciousness & Awareness

This is a post made by Bill Morgan to an egroup devoted
to the teachings of Indian sage Nisargadatta Maharaj.
Nisargadatta, who passed on in 1982, was a self-realized
sage who taught a path of staying constantly with the
inner sense of "I am". This path of self-inquiry was also
taught by the great sage Ramana Maharshi of Arunachala,
who died in 1950. They both said that by dwelling on the
question of our actual identity eventually a series of
realizations occurs which leads to self realization or
knowledge of the Self, which is not different from what
the Buddha called "Awakening". This post deals with a
subtle distinction made by Nisargadatta between the
words "consciousness" and "awareness."
CONSCIOUSNESS AND AWARENESS
I have noticed in some posts a confusion, one which I also
had when I first began reading Nisargadatta. It concerns
the difference between the way he uses the two terms
"consciousness" and "awareness."
Like most people I had always thought of these two words
as meaning basically the same thing, but N. uses them to
point to two very different meanings. When he uses the
term "consciousness" he seems to equate that term with
the "I Am " and when he talks about "awareness" he is
pointing to something altogether beyond the
consciousness ("I Am"), that is, to the absolute.
As far as I understand so far he is saying, of the
consciousness, that it is all that we know, it is the
fundamental sense of presence that we feel, and that it is a
universal feeling of the sense of being. Consciousness =
"sense of presence" = "the beingness" = the "I Am."
Those four terms are equated throughout his talks. And
while he directs us, as we start out, to simply be aware of
the "I Am" so that we come to the realization that we are
the consciousness itself, and not the body or the mind or
the mind's thoughts and identification, he does an
amazing twist at the end of all that. When the realization
has established itself that I am the consciousness itself
(and he always points out that this means the universal
consciousness only, the same in a human or a cow or a
dog or an ant), when I realize that I am the "I am" he take
us to the next realization which is when I subsequently
realize that I am NOT the "I am," I am beyond that, I am
pure awareness only!
These are breathtaking leaps! In his use of the word
"consciousness" there is always the touch of the duality. If
I am conscious it is in relation to being unconscious. If "I
am" it is always in relation to the "not-me." If I am
conscious it is always conscious OF something.
Consciousness always has an object of which I am
conscious. So while the realization of my identity as the "I
am" is very much closer to reality than the idea that "I am
so-and-so, a person" it is still a step away from the final
realization of the absolute, that I am the non- dual
awareness which is allowing the consciousness to be
conscious. Awareness is that which is shining through the
consciousness, but it is beyond the consciousness itself. So
" awareness" is different from "consciousness" in
Nisargadatta's talks. The pure awareness is the absolute,
without which there can be no consciousness.
Another way he puts it is that the awareness "is that by
which I know that I am." Thus the awareness is there
before the "I am" (or consciousness) appears, and is there
after the consciousness disappears (unconsciousness or
death). So the awareness is beyond even the universal
consciousness. Another way that he put this astonishing
distinction is by saying that the absolute is "awareness
unaware of itself." That statement of his is almost like a
Zen koan, but I think the idea is of an awareness without a
trace of distinction or duality. He speaks of it as "shining,"
and of it being an uncaused mystery. This is even beyond
our idea of God, so he does not call it "God" but simply
says "the absolute," or the ultimate reality, beyond time,
which ever was and ever will be.
So while consciousness is always conscious OF something
(dual), awareness is not OF something, it is not even
aware OF itself, and thus is absolutely singular, nondual.
This difference between his use of the words
"consciousness" and "awareness" took me a long time to
grasp, because we don't really make this distinction in
ordinary common English. Being conscious or being
aware are thought of as the same. But Nisargadatta uses
the terms differently and difference is a great key, I think,
to understanding what he is trying to convey to us.
I was amazed when I first realized that he had played a
kind of "trick" in leading us from one realization to
another. This is the trick: first he is telling us to realize that
we are really the "sense of presence" or the "sense of
beingness," and when we finally realize that he turns us
around to the next higher realization and says what seems
to be the opposite: "NO, you are not that "I Am" either!
You are beyond the beingness, beyond the consciousness,
beyond the sense of presence, you are the pure awareness
only by which the conscious has been able to come into
being: you are the absolutely pure original awareness
only." This latter realization can only proceed out of the
former realization. First I must realize that I am the "I am,"
the universal consciousness, then out of that I can realize
that I am NOT the "I am!" I am actually the absolute only,
and nothing else REALLY exists at all! Everything else is
no more real than a dream.
This is just breathtaking to me! No one else but
Nisargadatta has ever made that line of realization clear to
me. It is utterly simple, really, but difficult to stay with
and crack open. Elegant but subtle. That is why he tells us
that we must become completely obsessed with it. We
must develop an intense NEED TO KNOW. You can't just
play with it and expect to get anywhere. When he
describes the time before his own realization he says that
he was thinking and pondering about this nearly every
single waking moment! He was OBSESSED to find out
what he really was! The usual playing with words has no
significance at that level of constant meditation. It simply
becomes a life and death matter to really find out for
oneself what one is. This is religion at it deepest level, the
actual breakthrough into the absolute reality.
So the consciousness and the pure awareness are quite
different really, although the consciousness can only exist
because of the prior shining of pure awareness. The
awareness, on the other hand, does not depend on any
way whatsoever on the consciousness, and is not even
touched by it. The consciousness comes and goes, waking
and sleeping, birth and death, but the awareness is always
there. The consciousness suddenly appears in the morning
on top of the birthless and deathless ever existing pure
nondual awareness. Other than that absolute, there is
really nothing.
Another interesting thing that is confusing at first is how
Nisargadatta keeps hammering away at the question
about "When did you first appear? What was that exact
moment when you first knew that you ARE?" That is a
very difficult question, but he says it is of extreme
importance to contemplate. I can't remember when I first
knew that I was! I have no idea! Isn't that rather
mysterious in itself? I still puzzle over this a lot but I am
beginning to suspect that perhaps his stressing of this
question might be to prepare us for the final realization:
that I am NOT that "I Am." In other words, this "I am" had
a beginning, seemed to appear out of nowhere, and it will
have an end. So I must be beyond that "I am," because I
am the knower of that "I am." I am not actually the "I am"
but rather THAT which is aware of the "I am."
It took me years to figure this much out. Each realization
builds on and becomes possible because of the previous
realizations, and the final realization can even seem to
contradict a previous realization.
1. First I realize I am not all this other stuff that people
usually think they are. I am not a person. The person is
memories, knowledge, habits, and other false identies:
"Mr. So- and-so." So I dispense with that. I can see that it is
all a false identity made up by thoughts.
2. Then I realize I am not even the more intimate stuff that
people usually think they are. I am not the body (that is
the toughest one, as Nisargadatta points out again and
again). I am not the mind or its thoughts either. I am not
the chemistry of all this either. One could spend an entire
lifetime and not ever get through this realization.
3. Then I realize that if I subtract all the above, what is left?
Only my sense of existing itself, my sense of presence, my
sense of being here, the consciousness. I realize that I am
that consciousness only, the feeling of existing. I must be
THAT. What IS that? It is very subtle. But now I am
coming closer. This is the realization of the mystical
phrase "I am that I am." And along with this stage of
realization comes the realization of my universality. This
realization of the "I am" brings with it the explosive
understanding that there is no such thing as an individual,
the "I am" is universal, everyone and every living thing is
feeling it the same way. We don't ourselves create our
sense of "I am." Rather we inherit the prior existing sense
of presence of the original beingness which spontaneously
first appeared on the background of the void, or the
object-less pure awareness.
4. When I am thus established in sense of identity with
this universal sense of presence, or the "I am," I am at last
poised for the final realization. Remember, the realization
of the "I am" is already a very high state, and many will
simply stop here to enjoy living in the universal
personless beingness. This is the knowledge of God and
the knowledge that I am God. But some rare ones keep
going and keep questioning deeper and come to the
breakthrough realization that ALL beingness, even the
beingness of "God" is still a form of illusion and duality,
and they will realize and move into and "become" the pure
awareness only, giving up even that last and very high
identity as the universal "I am." The consciousness will
continue on no doubt, and the all the activities of life, but
the identity of myself will now be fixed back at its original
home, the pure awareness which was prior to
consciousness.
This last step is still incomprehensible to me but I love to
think about it again and again. Many can give up the
lesser false identifications, casting them off like tattered
old clothes and stripping naked down to the singular
universal consciousness. But who can give up that very
sense of beingness itself? We LOVE to be, and fear terribly
not being anymore. It is frightening! Looked at from a
lower level the final realization seems like absolute and
utter anihilation itself, and who on earth wants to be
completely anihilated? Thus, very few rare souls ever
realize the final realization! Above all, I WANT TO BE!
But the true sage makes the final realization and the final
step and is in fact completely anihilated. "He" ceases to
exist, and all that is left of him is what was there at the
beginning of the world, as Buddha became the Void itself
and entered into the great nirvana. A friend of mine called
it "The Great Suicide." Then one realizes the final
incredible and terrifying reality: there is nothing. And
though really and truly there is absolutely nothing, at the
same time that nothingness is inexplicably filled to
fullness with an indescribable "something which is not a
thing," the pure awareness, the absolute, unaware of itself.
That is the one and only "thing-which-is-not- a-thing"
which is truly real. All else is false, a fraud made of
spacetime, of things which begin and end and come and
go, the Great Maha Maya, the dreams of the universal
mind.
That a human creature can realize THAT is a miracle to
me, a miracle in this incredible dream-Creation. The whole
thing boggles the mind. The mind cannot grasp it, because
the mind is too limited. As all the sages have sung, it is not
a matter of gaining anything, it is just a matter of
removing stuff, and removing more stuff, until that which
was always there begins to shine through. Certainly I can't
CREATE the ultimate reality. All I can do is clean the
mirror so that light of the incomprehensible pure
awareness can reflect through the mirror and shine. That
is why Nisargadatta says that self realization is very
simple and easy, and yet it is very subtle and difficult.
Removing all the dirt from the mirror is not so easy as it
might seem, although that is really all that needs to be
done.
Above all, in contemplating all this, one feels sometimes
like bowing down and thanking heaven that sages like
Nisargadatta, and so many others, especially in ancient
times (like the "satya yuga" or age of truth), have taken
birth and shown the way. As N. points out, our lives, if we
sum it all up, are primarily an experience of suffering
overall. One thing or another, from birth to death, there
are endless problems, unfullfilled desires, stuggle and
effort, and suffering. Now and then a few happy moments
to keep us going. In fact, if there were no such possibility
as realization and liberation one might well say that
suicide were a preferable way out and an answer to the
sufferings of life.
But that awareness has broken through in the cases of so
many sages and saints and proven throughout all of
human history that a glorious freedom is indeed possible.
From the ancient Vedas and Upanishads to the teachings
of the Christ, again and again, certain rare ones have
demonstrated to mankind that evolution into the likes of
angels is possible. For this we must be ever grateful
throughout our journeys, and follow the teachings and
instructions of those like Nisargadatta, with great
earnestness, love and joy.