Self-Knowledge and Self-Realization

An email sent to me:

Hello, Mr. Muzika.

First of all, thanks for your web. It´s been a great help. I appreciate that you are one of the few teachers who take inquiry to the final end, even before Consciousness, in the way Nisargadatta did. That´s not very usual these days, when most masters tend to use "Consciousness" as their key teaching, in order, I suppose, to not scare their pupils.

But there´s a doubt that has arisen in my mind regarding your explanations on this matter. I´d be very grateful if you coud help me erase it. The problem is this:

The fact that when we wake up in the morning we realize that this present "waking state consciousness" was not there one minute ago, is the undisputable  proof that something (a witness, Turiya) was there during deep sleep too. This witness is there during deep sleep, dream state and waking state, watching the coming and going of the different states. So far, so good...But this leads me to respectfully think that there´s something wrong about the your teaching on the unconsciousness of the Absolute. I will elaborate now:

 You (and Robert and Nisargadatta too) say that the Absolute  is not conscious. You teach that the Absolute is prior to consciousness, and consciousness is like an emanation from this Absolute. Correct? 

But when this "Consciousness" appears, it is conscious of not being there before the birth of the body, just as the "waking state consciousness" knows that it has not been there all the time. As I said before, the fact that while in the waking state consciousness we know without a doubt that it comes and goes in front of us is the proof of a witness who witnessed the appearence and disappearence of the three states.

And I think the same can be applied to the Absolute. I mean, when Consciousness appears as an emanation from the unconscious Absolute, this Consciousness knows it has not been there before. It knows it has been created from the nothingness of the Absolute. But isn´t this the perfect proof that there must be an Absolute Witness who has been there, watching the nothingness prior to Consciousness and the appearence of Consciousness.

When Turiya witness the appearence of deep sleep, we cannot say Turiya is unconscious. We say it is "conscious of the absence of objecs". So, when we say the Absolute is not conscious, shouldn´t we say that it is conscious indeed, but not conscious of a something, but "conscious of the absence of objects"?

I´d appreciate any word on this matter, Mr. Muzika.

MY RESPONSE

"Hello, Mr. Muzika.

First of all, thanks for your web. It´s been a great help. I appreciate that you are one of the few teachers who take inquiry to the final end, even before Consciousness, in the way Nisargadatta did. That´s not very usual these days, when most masters tend to use "Consciousness" as their key teaching, in order, I suppose, to not scare their pupils.

But there´s a doubt that has arisen in my mind regarding your explanations on this matter. I´d be very grateful if you coud help me erase it. The problem is this:

The fact that when we wake up in the morning we realize that this present "waking state consciousness" was not there one minute ago, is the undisputable  proof that something (a witness, Turiya) was there during deep sleep too.

ED: Not really. This would be an intellectual conclusion arising from the consciousness recognition that suddenly “I am awake.” It is certainly not absolute proof of a witness. The witness can have no proof. It is known differently than a mental conclusion or from observation of the coming and going of phenomena.

When awake, we have the ability to be conscious, and in meditation to sink under the level of consciousness through the area of experience Nisargadatta called the Causal body ignorance of no experience. In that state there is no experience nor do we know we exist. After arising, we seem to remember that we existed in that state, but even that is mental.

However, grasping that memory of existence without consciousness while we sit in meditation, allows us to experience while in deep meditation, that state of consciousness we “remember” we experienced in the not knowing state. That is, we directly apprehend that state not through the mind, or the waking or dream level of consciousness, but through a different way of knowing altogether, which I, and Ramesh call “apprehending through being.

To ME:

This witness is there during deep sleep, dream state and waking state, watching the coming and going of the different states. So far, so good...But this leads me to respectfully think that there´s something wrong about the your teaching on the unconsciousness of the Absolute. I will elaborate now:

 You (and Robert and Nisargadatta too) say that the Absolute  is not conscious. You teach that the Absolute is prior to consciousness, and consciousness is like an emanation from this Absolute. Correct? 

ED: Actually, consciousness appears to be an emanation from the Absolute only when we are awake. There is no such appearance during deep sleep, dream or during Samadhi. In fact, Consciousness has nothing to do with US as the absolute.

TO ME: But when this "Consciousness" appears, it is conscious of not being there before the birth of the body, just as the "waking state consciousness" knows that it has not been there all the time. As I said before, the fact that while in the waking state consciousness we know without a doubt that it comes and goes in front of us is the proof of a witness who witnessed the appearence and disappearence of the three states.

ED: Yes, consciousness is self-aware and aware of the coming and going of itself due to the presence of a mind with memory associated with a body. Without memory, a brain and a body, Consciousness would know nothing. You must take into account mind, cognition, thinking, reasoning and memory which operate within consciousness in only the case of humans.

TO ME: And I think the same can be applied to the Absolute. I mean, when Consciousness appears as an emanation from the unconscious Absolute, this Consciousness knows it has not been there before. It knows it has been created from the nothingness of the Absolute. But isn´t this the perfect proof that there must be an Absolute Witness who has been there, watching the nothingness prior to Consciousness and the appearence of Consciousness.

When Turiya witness the appearence of deep sleep, we cannot say Turiya is unconscious. We say it is "conscious of the absence of objects". So, when we say the Absolute is not conscious, shouldn´t we say that it is conscious indeed, but not conscious of a something, but "conscious of the absence of objects"?

ED: Like I said, the absolute is aware of consciousness and the absence of consciousness, but objects are only superficial objects within consciousness and not essential to consciousness itself. Also, consciousness without the presence of a human mind really can’t understand anything about objects or lack thereof.

The Absolute learns to know itself during this human life through this body by discarding mind and consciousness and knowing itself as pure beingness through a direct apprehension outside of the kind of consciousness that everyone identifies as consciousness. In essence, the Absolute, you, has nothing to do with it. It could totally disappear and the Absolute, the witness, would not be touched. The absolute does not care about consciousness or any understanding or phenomena of consciousness in any way. It is free of such things.

Now I will ask you a question.

Why are you interested in challenging the teachings of Robert, Raman and Nisargadatta? Is there an intent to show how all are faulty gurus, or is yours a real attempt to know yourself, become liberated and to help all beings find release and happiness?