who or what or whowhat watches the awakening state?

[Preetom]

This guy named Pradeep Apte has really clarified most of Maharaj's teachings. This is what I just found from his Facebook.

YOUR DESTINY IS NOT DEATH BUT THE DISAPPEARANCE OF ‘I AM’
This is a dialogue I recently had with a seeker, I find it worth sharing:
Q: Could you tell me the teaching of Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj in a nutshell?
A: Yes, you know that you are, don’t you?
Q: Yes, I do know that I am.
A: You know it as the wordless feeling ‘I am’ because you don’t have to make sure of it or prove it to anyone, do you?
Q: Yes, that’ true.
A: Then just stay there, in that wordless feeling ‘I am’.
Q: That’s it?
A: That’s it!
Q: But there are so many books, dialogues, your gita…
A: Forget them all! I have given it to you in a nutshell as you had asked for so why elaborate and waste time?
Q: Will I realize ‘I am Unborn’?
A: Certainly
Q: Have you?
A: Of course
Q: How can you say that with so much certainty?
A: Why should I lie? And what do I stand to gain out of it?
Q: Nothing
A: Exactly!

[Faceless]

6 minutes ago, cetus56 said:

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.

That’s not an opinion 

[cetus]

30 minutes ago, SoonHei said:

it was different in a very subtle but noticeable way

 

@SoonHei It would be well worth farther investigation.

[cetus]

1 minute ago, Faceless said:

That’s not an opinion 

@Faceless

[cetus]

@Preetom That's good! Thanks for sharing that.

[Preetom]

2 minutes ago, cetus56 said:

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. 

Thanks for illuminating this. The Moolmaya concept says the same thing. Everything known by Consciouss is illusion because Consciousness itself is illusion.

4 minutes ago, cetus56 said:

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.

there is certainly some truth in your statement. You are the Para-brahman! But the moment you try to know or grasp or interpret it, you're back in Consciousness.

This reminds me of something I read in ''Prior to Consciousness'' book. It was nearly the end of Maharaj's life, when he was experiencing the terrible pain of throat cancer. But he was still giving satsangs whenever he could. He said something like this.

''I am the Absolute. In that state, there is neither Consciousness nor the knowing of the pain. I was in that state before you came. Now I'm talking with you and all of it is happening in Consciousness. That's why the pain is back again.''

So considering all this, is it valid to say that the Absolute manifested this knowing element called Consciousness to know itself? 

Because the Absolute is said to be beyond knowing and unknowing, beyond being or non being. So in this sense, it only is! It cannot 'know' itself. That's why the Absolute makes this Knowing element to know itself as a reflection?

 

[cetus]

@Preetom I like the story Wolinski tells of  when first meeting with Nis and Nis asks him "Do you know who you are?" And he describes all the things he has experianced to Nis and he's going on and on about it. Then he looks over at Nisargadatta and he said "Nisargadatta was stairing at me with a look of total disgust on his face". hahaha

[Preetom]

5 minutes ago, cetus56 said:

@Preetom I like the story Wolinski tells of  when first meeting with Nis and Nis asks him "Do you know who you are?" And he describes all the things he has experianced to Nis and he's going on and on about it. Then he looks over at Nisargadatta and he said "Nisargadatta was stairing at me with a look of total disgust on his face". hahaha

It just came across that story few days ago through this video 

 

[cetus]

11 minutes ago, Preetom said:

there is certainly some truth in your statement. You are the Para-brahman! But the moment you try to know or grasp or interpret it, you're back in Consciousness.

This reminds me of something I read in ''Prior to Consciousness'' book. It was nearly the end of Maharaj's life, when he was experiencing the terrible pain of throat cancer. But he was still giving satsangs whenever he could. He said something like this.

''I am the Absolute. In that state, there is neither Consciousness nor the knowing of the pain. I was in that state before you came. Now I'm talking with you and all of it is happening in Consciousness. That's why the pain is back again.''

So considering all this, is it valid to say that the Absolute manifested this knowing element called Consciousness to know itself? 

Because the Absolute is said to be beyond knowing and unknowing, beyond being or non being. So in this sense, it only is! It cannot 'know' itself. That's why the Absolute makes this Knowing element to know itself as a reflection?

 

@Preetom That strikes so true. Nisargadatta isn't for everybody but when I found him in my later years it was like "Yes, every word he utters is absolute truth". The connection there was exactly what I had been searching for. 

[cetus]

@Preetom That just cracks me up!  Thanks It really puts things into perspective.

[Preetom]

3 minutes ago, cetus56 said:

@Preetom That strikes so true. Nisargadatta isn't for everybody but when I found him in my later years it was like "Yes, every word he utters is absolute truth". The connection there was exactly what I had been searching for. 

I can't express how much of it resonates with me as well. I'm really not a big believer of karma or past lives but whenever I explored teachings of Maharaj and Ramana Maharshi, I rarely found myself arguing against their message. Everything they said feels so familiar as if I'm just remembering things which I've always known all along.

I don't know if I'm speaking woo woo now but this feeling is undeniable.. 

3 minutes ago, cetus56 said:

@Preetom That just cracks me up!  Thanks It really puts things into perspective.

It sure does! 

[cetus]

1 minute ago, Preetom said:

I don't know if I'm speaking woo woo now but this feeling is undeniable.. 

@Preetom Nothing woo woo about it at all. Nisargadatta had been expecting you. I'm sure of it.

[who chit]

Quote

You are the Para-brahman! But the moment you try to know or grasp or interpret it, you're back in Consciousness.''I am the Absolute. In that state, there is neither Consciousness nor the knowing of the pain. I was in that state before you came. Now I'm talking with you and all of it is happening in Consciousness. That's why the pain is back again.''

This falls in line with what is said here about Turiyatita being a "state" which comes and go's, and not permanent liberation, as it is dependent upon not being drawn back into the "i am".

"Complete Union: Enlightenment has been used to refer to the state of complete union or Turiyatita. The recognition that the Self (Witness) is the Self of the entire universe. This temporary state is also described as the recognition of emptiness as form. (Adding to the confusion among scholars, this state is often accompanied by a simultaneous recognition of liberation, natural enlightenment.the state of complete union is temporary and the final liberation of Natural Enlightenment is permanent because it is ever-present and always available . Liberations in consciousness, unlike states, are not temporary. Once realized, each liberation creates a permanent shift in awareness. Final liberation is not to be confused with the blissful state experience of Complete Union (Turiyatita). Turiyatita, also called One Taste, is a temporary state that comes and goes. Final Liberation is a permanent recognition; ever-present and impossible to avoid.

Edited September 6, 2018 by who chit

[Andrea Marchetti]

The mind. Consciousness becomes aware of itself through the mind, it works as a mirror. No mind, no existence, no self-awareness... Otherwise, it would be awareness of what?

The mind awakes, it drops gradually the ego, it refines and attune itself, throughout cycles of destructions and creations, to the point where its understanding is in tune with the Truth. A polygon with an infinite number of sides is a circle.

[Toby]

@who chit people use terms differently. from what I sense Ken Wilber (whom you are referring to) uses "Turiyatita" or "Nondual" as what Pradeep Apte calls "universal consciousness" in the Nisargadatta-map. Which is still more on the spectrum of "I AM" / consciousness imo.

[who chit]

In reference to what is considered nonduallity or  final liberation:

Natural Enlightenment: In some contexts, enlightenment is used strictly to mean Sahaj Samadhi or ever present self-liberating awareness. This is what we call liberation. It moves beyond simple transcendent witnessing, to include every state imaginable, including a complete loss of witnessing and identifying as the contracted separate self-sense. This is what Zen calls Ordinary Mind. Awareness, just as it is, is the great perfection. There is "just this".

[Preetom]

@who chit

It should be clear that Nisargadatta Maharaj never identified himself with the I AM. He clearly states that this I AM arises 'spontaneously' on the Absolute.

So he, as the Absolute, does not control or exert volition on whether this I AM should arise or not. He remains absolutely unconcerned because he knows perfectly well that this I AM is an illusion and can never taint him a bit.

And also nothing can be said about Para-brahman 'state'. It is beyond bliss, union etc whatever you try to impose on it. Nagarjuna's 8 negations of Absolute come here. It is called a state because the lack of a better term.

Maybe the only thing you can say about Para-Brahman is that it is! It is the only real thing that is. Even that statement falls short to describe it. It's really futile to philosophize about it.

Edited September 6, 2018 by Preetom

[Preetom]

26 minutes ago, cetus56 said:

@Preetom Nothing woo woo about it at all. Nisargadatta had been expecting you. I'm sure of it.

Thanks for those words.

I wonder if I would be able to withstand that fierce gaze without melting on the floor

[who chit]

2 minutes ago, Preetom said:

@who chit

It should be clear that Nisargadatta Maharaj never identified himself with the I AM. He clearly states that this I AM arises 'spontaneously' on the Absolute.

So he, as the Absolute, does not control or exert volition on whether this I AM should arise or not. He remains absolutely unconcerned because he knows perfectly well that this I AM is an illusion and can never taint him a bit.

And also nothing can be said about Para-brahman 'state'. It is beyond bliss, union etc whatever you try to impose on it. Nagarjuna's 8 negations of Absolute come here.

Maybe the only thing you can say about Para-Brahman is that it is! It is the only real thing that is. Even that statement falls short to describe it. It's really futile to philosophize about it.

Good distinction. And I fully agree it's futile to philosophize about it. I just found Wilber's model offered an interesting perspective on the Turiyatita discussion. I honestly hadn't heard of it before until @cetus56 mentioned it,loll.

[cirkussmile]

”The I is a symbol of nothing”

This nothing is the Absolut and what that is can never ever be known.

I see that we can argue about if nothing is litterly Nothing or “something”, unperciveble.