Ramanas and Nisargadattas Differing Concepts of Self-Realization

One of the key differences between Nisargadatta and Ramana was that for Ramana

there was only Consciousness. For Nisargadatta, there was Consciousness and the

witness behind Consciousness, the Absolute, the noumenon, which was entirely

separate from Consciousness.

For Ramana, there were two Is, the I of the mind, which is destroyed by

Self-inquiry, and the true I of the heart, which is experienced when the mind is

silent. For Nisargadatta, in essence, there were three Is: the I thought; the I

of Atman or the witness of the three states of Consciousness found in turiya; the

absolute witness, the noumenal Self, the Self that does not exist in Consciousness,

and therefore exists prior to Consciousness. Nisargadatta states that the sense of

I am, almost as a physical presence, disappears, leaving one in the Absolute,

which is beyond Consciousness and is the ultimate witness of Consciousness.

Ramana somewhat differently has the student concentrate on the I-thought,

watching where it arises and where it passes away. If one actually practices this

way for a long time, one will actually see the thought as an entity arising out of

emptiness and disappearing into emptiness, which he calls Self, turiya, or the real

I as opposed to the false I of the I-thought. That is, for Ramana, the real I is

the ground state, feeling of turiya, which is the basic essence of sentience, or the

conscious life force. I believe this is what Nisargadatta calls beingness.

If we meditate deeper, and watch that I-thought disappear into the emptiness, one

will find that emptiness is really filled with knowingness, sentience, or a sense of

presence. It appears as a lighted presence within oneself, within the empty space

that is our inner void, and which, after a time, one takes to be oneself. Ramana

calls this the true I.

For Nisargadatta, at least in his experience, even Ramanas true I of

Consciousness is illusory, and his true I is the witness which is entirely beyond

Consciousness, and which is the noumenon, the Absolute, which can never know

itself as object. For Ramana, it is different. For him there is only Consciousness.

Ramana stated that after he had an experience of death he realized that the body

dies but Consciousness is not touched by death: I am immortal Consciousness.

I was reality, the only reality in this momentary state. All conscious activity

that was related to my body flowed into this I. From that moment, all

attention was drawn as if by powerful magic to the I or Self. The fear of

death was permanently extinguished. From this time I remain fully absorbed

in the Self. (The Spiritual Teaching of Ramana Maharshi)

It dawned on him that the full power of his own beingness continued to exist

unabated. He realized in this moment the separation of Consciousness from the

body and that Consciousness had its own separate life force from the body. It is

because of his terrible fear that ordinary Consciousness was so meaningful.

For Ramana, there was only Consciousness. It was not conceivable to him that

there was a noumenal unknowable witness that existed prior to Consciousness. For

Ramana, there was only satchitananda, existence-knowledge-bliss. There was

nothing outside of existence-knowledge-bliss; there was no prior to Consciousness.

All that there was, was Consciousness.

Nisargadatta would agree that all that there is, is Consciousness. But he would

posit the existence of a principle beyond Consciousness that was aware of the

coming and going of Consciousness, which he called the Absolute, or the Witness,

equivalent to the Western concept of noumenon, the unknowable subject of

existence, which was not in existence, but beyond it, or prior to it.

In his life, as a matter of fact, Nisargadatta retreated more and more into this

witness state the older and sicker he got, but he stated that, for the aspirant who

wants to attain jnana, one cannot ignore Consciousness, which he called

knowingness: The absolute state cannot be explained by words. Words are

only pointers. You are that Absolute, unchanging. Consciousness, or the

knowingness, is homogeneous and one only. When you are in that state of

Consciousness, it is all one, all the same, only the expressions are different.

Everything which gets consumed, exhausted is unreal. Your knowingness will,

in due course, be consumed, will disappear, so it cannot be real; but you cant

just dismiss it, you must understand it fully. (Consciousness and the Absolute)

In other words, Nisargadatta is saying that Consciousness is unreal in the sense of

being temporary and also dependent on the existence of the body, and becomes

burnt up by life after a period of time, but for the purposes of jnana,

Self-realization, it cannot be ignored, for it is the gate to awakening.

Self-realization for Nisargadatta meant something entirely different from

Self-realization for Ramana. For Ramana, Self-realization is the recognition that

you are the entirety of Consciousness arising from your recognition that your

essence is the satchitananda of the turiya state, and also all experiences that arise

from and disappear into turiya. In other words, you are the beingness or presence

that experiences everything, and which remains during sleep, waking and dream

states. For Ramana, everything in the world, everything in your body and mind

reside in that sense of presence, satchitananda or the real I, turiya.

But not for Nisargadatta. He identifies himself with the witness of Consciousness,

the witness of I am. In a sense, he appears to be identifying with the witness or

the real I that Ramana calls turiya, but Nisargadatta objectifies Consciousness,

the object, while the Absolute is the noumenal subject.

Nisargadattas Absolute in a sense is initially a speculation based on the

assumption that there must exist a principle which recognizes Consciousness and

also the absence of Consciousness, which is beyond Consciousness. One can never

experience this prior to Consciousness existence because it is entirely outside of

Consciousness. As Nisargadatta states, one can never witness the witness, one can

never witness the Absolute, one can only be the Absolute. Therefore there can

never be any experiential proof of the Absolute, but only a conviction. In fact, it is

more than conviction. One develops a faith that is beyond the intellect, beyond

conviction because of the continuity of Self even through unconsciousness states.

When one becomes that witness, for Nisargadatta, one has attained a level beyond

existence and nonexistence, which, he states, is ones true nature, and it is this

which he called Self-realization.

For Ramana, on the other hand, Self-realization is the experience of satchitananda,

or identification or immersion in turiya, the real Self, the only reality. He stated

that all conscious activity that was related to my body flowed into this I. From

that moment on, all attention was drawn as if by powerful magic to the I or the

Self. For Ramana, self-realization was entirely experiential. He felt the power of

the Self within, of turiya, of satchitananda, and from that moment on he was

always aware that he was the Self. This was the true I, which did not dissolve as

for Nisargadatta, although the false I of the mind did. All things in the world

arose from and subsided into the Self. For Nisargadatta, all things arose from and

disappeared into the Absolute, the noumenon.

A possible reconciliation between these two concepts of Self-realization is to join

them both together, and make turiya the flip side of the absolute witness, and the

absolute witness the flip side of turiya or essence of Consciousness.

Nisargadatta appears to be suggesting the same in Consciousness and the

Absolute. In one paragraph he calls the Self the feeling I-Am, which is love to

be, while in another paragraph he says the I is the Absolute unmanifested,

whereas Consciousness is the manifested world, experienced the same by all: Now,

understand the subtle difference, what are you and what do you understand to

be you? The body is not you. The body is the food you have consumed; the

taste of it is the knowledge "I Am". That is the Self, the feeling "I Am", that is

the love to be. How amazing, how incredible, it has no name, but you give

many names to it. That love to be is all-pervading. [] Everything happens

out of our own Self. This consciousness is spontaneously felt in the Self only.

This "I" is not an individual. What is, is the Absolute unmanifested. What

appears, as if in a dream, is the manifested, relative world, and this experience

of the dreamlike state is the same, an identical state, for everyone.

However, exploring Nisargadattas works, one reads his first book, Self-Knowledge

and Self-Realization, and finds that he is a true bhakta, filled with love, devotion,

and divine energies, and experiences Krishna Consciousness. In fact, he talks about

satchitananda and the constant feeling of bliss, surrender to his group, love of his

guru and love of that basic life in a state which he calls the child Consciousness.

Thus, it may well be that Nisargadatta originally experienced the same awakening

as Ramana to the life force, to turiya with all of his attention fixated on it, and

eventually it disappeared, and his identification was no longer with Consciousness,

but more and more with the Absolute experienced as a profound conviction

(apprehension). He did strongly feel the lessening of his own life force along with

the severe pain of his cancer and practically begged Consciousness to leave

him. Not so Ramana.

This may be the case, or it may be the case that Nisargadatta was just tired of life

in the world and chose to begin to ignore Consciousness and the happenings in

Consciousness, and cleaved to the conviction/apprehension of That which knew

the coming and going of Consciousness, which was prior to Consciousness and

which was immortal: My present state is such that this consciousness and all

this physical suffering are unbearable. I am prepared to dispose of it right

now; this is the state of affairs. Nevertheless, people come here and these talks

emanate out of the consciousness. I am addressing you as consciousness; you

are the Godly consciousness. [] I am telling you about the consciousness. In

my true state, if I had been aware of consciousness at the moment the body

formation was taking place, I would have rejected it. But at that highest state

such knowledge is not there and this body formation and consciousness are

both spontaneous. (Consciousness and the Absolute)