who or what or whowhat watches the awakening state?

[SoonHei]

it cannot be the I because in that state, the I is "seen" to be an idea which is dissolved at that point

 

whatever it is, which remains, during awakening (i guess the "impersonal awareness" ), whatever the "experience" which is occurring during awakening is also then watched. whatever the insights which come about during awakening are also watched/known/observed 

since the " I " is dead / gone / non-existent during awakening... then whatever, which remains after the death of " I ", that watches (is aware of) the awakening, is THAT not itself watched by a higher self?

so the personal ego I is replaced by something else which is associated with... but that in turn is watched also...

is a further awakening or going-meta to this state required to be present from the place where watching is taking place but not in turn being watched by anything? 

[Nahm]

@SoonHei What’s an I?

[SoonHei]

1 minute ago, Nahm said:

@SoonHei What’s an I?

@Nahm The ego/I . this is what is being referred in the post

 

also - isn't what I really am deep down, the absolute, the being-level me

the me which is the only me in existence - can't that refer to itself as " I " ?

 

i guess the issue with this question here might be that at the highest level of being / the absolute level / the absolute does not talk about or refer to itself it just exists, simply is. not doing anything. 

 

anywho, please guide more on the original question... thanks 

[cetus]

@SoonHei Dug this up by Ramana -Hope it helps.

D: Bhagavan, you always say that the Self is ever present; if I am present then why do I not feel it?

M: Do you not now feel that you exist? Your doubt is whether you will for ever continue to exist. Why should you have any doubt? A little thinking will convince you that the destructible part of your being, the body, is a mere machine, a tool in the service of the indestructible, the mind, which is the all-in-all, the knower and the master – you yourself. Your doubts and difficulties arise from your thoughts which perceive the body and take it for yourself. Stop the thoughts which are your enemy the ego, and the mind will remain as your pure being, the immortal ‘I’.

***

D: How to reach that centre, where what you call ‘The Consciousness’ – the ‘I’-‘I’- arises? Is it by simply thinking “Who am I?”

M: Yes, it will take you up. You must do it with a calm mind – mental calmness is essential.

D: How does that consciousness manifest itself when that centre – the Heart – is reached? Will I recognise it?

M: Certainly, as pure consciousness, free from all thoughts. It is pure unbroken awareness of your Self, rather of pure Being – there is no mistaking it when pure.

***

[SoonHei]

1 hour ago, SoonHei said:

whatever, which remains after the death of " I ", that watches (is aware of) the awakening, is THAT not itself watched by a higher self?

@cetus56 with what you have posted, this is how i feel it answers my above-quoted querry...

 

THAT is not watched by a higher self... but THAT is watched by itself - self-aware pure consciousness is what remains when the "ego/I" is dissolved

[Toby]

You were asking about "consciousness" and "awareness" earlier I guess? This is exactly the "consciousness" / "awareness" paradox. At least how some authors define the terms. You can awaken into consciousness which is beyond ego. But consciousness itself is appearing and disappearing in awareness.

Authors that write on that are:
Bernadette Roberts in "What is self" (self = consciousness, no-self = awareness)
Adyashanti in his audiocourse "experience of no-self" (he sometimes uses rather "being" for consciousness and "absolute" for awareness)
Nisargadatta Maharaj in any of his books ("I AM" = consciousness, absolute = awareness)
Siddharameshwar Maharaj "writes" like Nisargadatta in the book "Amrut Laya" and sometimes uses the term "turiya" or "I am" for "consciousness" and "brahmann" for "awareness".

So, if you are drawn to it, check them out.

[SoonHei]

@Toby

so whatever the view, it is all ultimately one...

 

and wow, the consciousness and awareness distinction as you put it is nice. first time i have seen it described as such (might have missed it before in videos i have seen) 

 

so with this: "What is self" (self = consciousness, no-self = awareness)

can the "path" or the steps "taken" be shown as:            death of ego / I thought >>> transcending consciousness >>> "arriving" at awareness

 

highest/ultimate place of being, which is often described as unknowable, is then the awareness  ? (per the path shown above) ^^

[cetus]

41 minutes ago, Toby said:

Siddharameshwar Maharaj "writes" like Nisargadatta in the book "Amrut Laya" and sometimes uses the term "turiya" or "I am" for "consciousness" and "brahmann" for "awareness".

@Toby Let me ask your opinion on something since you bought up Nisargadatta and turiya (the forth state of consciousness). What is your take on how Nisargadatta used the word conscionseness? He mentions it in a different light than most teachers use the word. Unless I'm misunderstanding the way it's used. For instance "turiyatita" is defined as "beyond conscionseness" (the fifth state). Also some quotes of his. 

"Prior to consciousness who is there? And with what instrument can one be conscious"

"My true nature is that which was before the body and consciousness came into being"

"I who is there before consciousness am not concerned in any way to all that happens within consciousness"

"You are prior to consciousness and whatever is happening in it. You are totally apart from it"

 "Consciousness alone feels the expanse of consciousness. But I- the absolute am not that"  -He often refers to the absolute as Parabrahaman.

See where I'm a bit confused here? Nisargadatta was a man who always said exactly what he ment and never waisted a word or talked in riddles. So my take from these quotes is he is describing a state that is beyoud consciousness. What's your take? Thanks

[Toby]

@cetus56 Yes, that's why I named Nisargadatta as an example. He uses consciousness and absolute differently (as the other authors do also).
A funny little map of his teaching:

[cetus]

@Toby Very cool! Yes "Absense of Absense". I know this but not as a direct experiance b-c there is no experiance to be had. That's exactly what I've been wondering about. When one totally vanishes into oblivion without a trace. "Beyond consciousness". Some ppl have told me when I first asked about it was " ah-you feel asleep". And I know that is not what happened. I know the difference. Many thanks

[Preetom]

@cetus56 I've read both 'I am that' and 'Prior to Consciousness' more than once. The way I understand is this..

The basic concept: before anything is, I AM. That means I AM or Consciousness has be present first before any perception or conception can happen. The teaching says, stay with the I AM and keep eliminating everything that is not essential to I AM. By staying with the I AM, you see the unreality or folly of this personal Consciousness or Beingness. Some Maharaj Quotes to support this,

''When fluids come together (in brain), I AM arises.''

''All these cock and bull stories are provided so that the devotee can demolish all falsehood and ultimately see the folly of those stories as well''

This I AM or Consciousness is a 'Portal' to Absolute or Parabrahman. Nagarjuna proposed the 8 negations about Absolute showing that whatever is said about it, is not the Absolute.

1.No cessation 
2.No arising 
3.No annihilation 
4.No permanence 
5.Not one 
6.Not many 
7.No coming 
8.No going

When The Absolute is Directly 'Known' (You can't know it. you are it!), there is no sense of I AM or Consciousness anymore. Upon seeing the folly of I AM, it disappears and you are revealed as you've always been. The Absolute. Maharaj quotes to support this..

''Liberation is freedom from Consciousness'' (He uses I AM and Consciousness synonymously)

''With your birth came this Consciousness and with death it will go away. Why don't you use it to go beyond it and be the Absolute while it lasts''

And you're so right. Maharaj always spoke from direct experience aka from the Absolute. So things like beingness, consciousness that modern teachers speak about more, gets all confusing when you try to build a link with what Maharaj said.

PS: Feel free to correct me if I'm misunderstanding something here.

Further Study materials:

1) Everything that needs to be known about the I AM

https://youtu.be/gPlnNvuypiw

2) Using Consciousness as a Portal to Absolute. Explained by Stephen Wolinsky (A direct disciple of Maharaj)

https://youtu.be/87DmQkTvj0Y

 Quoting from this video, Maharaj once told one of his long time devotee privately to forget Maharaj, his teaching and just rest be with the I AM or Consciousness. That itself will take the disciple to the Absolute.

EDIT: The core of his teaching. ''Anything you can perceive or conceive is not you''

That means even the slightest sense of being or presence cannot be the Absolute me. What can you really talk about that state? 

Edited September 6, 2018 by Preetom

[Faceless]

@cetus56  

 

NO EXPERIENCE POSSIBLE 

NO DESCRIPTION POSSIBLE 

 

NON-REGISTRATION, NON-RECOLLECTION, NON-PROJECTION

 

 

THE ENDING OF EXPERIENCE ...HEADLESSNESS??

 

 

 

[cetus]

@Preetom My main concern is about this state that lies beyond consciousness. Well it can't really be called a "state" but someting is there. And according to Nisargadatta that "something" is the absolute. Am I mistaken?

[SoonHei]

21 minutes ago, cetus56 said:

Some ppl have told me when I first asked about it was " ah-you feel asleep". And I know that is not what happened. I know the difference. Many thanks

wow

 

about this. i have told myself this that i think i feel asleep (during meditations) but it did not feel like the deep-sleep type of sleep. it was different in a very subtle but noticeable way

 

unsure if i got that level. for my, i may actually have been asleep lol (i am a beginner in this process thats why)

 

but when i read what you wrote here. it clicked for me that i may have had this too. 

 

gonna try and again "notice" more deeply this time

[Preetom]

@cetus56

And if you want to frame Consciousness and Absolute in terms of Fourth and Fifth state, I think it can be seen like this.

Consciousness is the Turiya or fourth state which is the knower of the three states of Waking, dreaming and sleeping.

Absolute or Brahman is the fifth state. Prior to Consciousness.

On the Absolute, this Consciousness spontaneously arises. According to Maharaj, this Consciousness is itself An illusion. He calls it Moolmaya or the Mother of Illusion. So whatever is known by this Consciousness, that mean EVERYTHING in 3 states are also False and Not the Absolute.

That's why his primary teaching was being with Consciousness alone to realize the folly of it.

[Faceless]

10 minutes ago, cetus56 said:

Well it can't really be called a "state" but someting is there.

Indeed.. as a state is implies being fixed. 

Edited September 6, 2018 by Faceless

[Preetom]

6 minutes ago, cetus56 said:

@Preetom My main concern is about this state that lies beyond consciousness. Well it can't really be called a "state" but someting is there. And according to Nisargadatta that "something" is the absolute. Am I mistaken?

Whatever that 'something' is, it certainly not something perceivable or conceivable. Because Maharaj clearly declares, ''Whatever is perceived or conceived is not You.''

A saying from Advaita actually verifies this. It says that there is actually no knower of Brahman. There is only Brahman.

This is the end of knowledge, end of seeking, end of everything

[cetus]

8 minutes ago, Preetom said:

Moolmaya or the Mother of Illusion.

@Preetom Exactly!!! 

 

8 minutes ago, Preetom said:

Absolute or Brahman is the fifth state.

Para-brahman that is according to Nis?

[Preetom]

4 minutes ago, cetus56 said:

Para-brahman that is according to Nis?

Yes!

[cetus]

10 minutes ago, Preetom said:

On the Absolute, this Consciousness spontaneously arises.

Yes- he uses the word on and not of the absolute. He also said that consciousness appears on the absolute as if on a screen. Which suggests IMO, that everything which appears on the screen of consciousness is illusion. Consciousness is an aspect of the absolute but not the absolute itself. Again this is only my opinion but I believe any experiance of the absolute is really an experiance of the screen but not the absolute itself b-c there is no direct experiance of the absolute as it is beyond all apperances.