Nisargadatta's Difference Between

Consciousness & Awareness

This is a post I made 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 question "Who am I?"
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 God-realization. This post deals with a
subtle distinction made my 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.