ed muzika, the difference between ramana and nisargadatta
DESCRIPTION
The difference between Ramana and Nisargadatta by Ed Muzika.TRANSCRIPT
-
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)