Sei sulla pagina 1di 4

Awareness Is Aware

Hi Isaiah.
I got your name from the Shiningworld website and I would be grateful if you would
address these queries for me:
Isaiah: Hi Jeff. I hope you have been doing well since we last spoke.
Jeff: How do I know that I am awareness itself, as well as being merely aware?
Isaiah: You can't be awareness as well as being merely aware. Being aware is the
very nature of awareness; it is just what it is. It is not a property, attribute or function
possessed by awareness. I think that when you say, being merely aware you are
referring to perception of objects, a function of the subtle body. You, the self, are that
which is aware of the subtle body perceiving objects, but that awareness is in no way
dependent on the subtle body. Awareness is simply aware, with or without objects; it
is self aware.
Jeff: I mean, I know I am aware of a, b and c (except that sometimes I am not aware of
anything till later, when I think, 'Oh, where have I been?') But how do I get from 'I am
sometimes aware of a, b and c' to 'I am awareness'? Can you see what I mean?
Isaiah: You get there by analysis of your experience i.e. discrimination, the very basis of
Vedanta. There are two factors in this situation: a conscious subject (the self /
awareness, or as you say, I am aware) and objects (a, b, and c). There isn't two of you
so you can't be both. So ask yourself, are you that which is aware, or are you the
objects you are aware of? The objects (a,b, and c) are known to you and they are
unconscious. The objects are transient; they previously did not exist, they come into
existence, and then cease to exist once more. Because they are transient and everchanging, they are not real. If you were not conscious, you would not be asking these
questions. If you weren't real, there is no point in you continuing inquiry, because no
amount of self-knowledge will be able to make you real. If you are ever-changing, then
it is the same situation. The you that is here now will soon be replaced with a different
you, so there is no point in inquiring. So, based on this analysis, what makes more
sense? Are you the unconscious, unreal objects or are you the conscious, unchanging

awareness of the objects?


Jeff: There seems to be a jump between these two statements. Everybody knows or
can say,' I am aware of a, b and c ', but people would not say,' I am awareness.'
Isaiah: Yes, it is a jump because ignorance is so tricky. It is the jump from, I am the
body/ mind, to, I am limitless awareness. Although it is obvious that you are
awareness, ignorance makes it look like you are the experiencing entity, i.e. the body /
mind. So when someone says, I am aware of a, b, and c, they take the experience at
face value and think that means, I am the mind perceiving gross and subtle objects.
What they do not understand, without the discrimination provided by Vedanta, is that
the mind perceiving objects is just another object from the perspective of the self.
Awareness being the very nature of the self, does not depend upon the functioning of
the mind to be aware. It is the invariable factor present to reveal all of the functions of
the mind. Without investigation, you take yourself to be the mind revealing objects a,
b, and c, instead of the awareness that reveals the mind.
Jeff: How would you prove to them that as well as being aware, they are also
awareness itself?
Isaiah: To prove to someone that they are awareness, you need to expose them to a
proper means of knowledge i.e. the teachings of Vedanta, because their normal means
of knowledge, perception and inference, do not work in this case. It doesn't work
because the self is not available to be an object of perception or inference.
Like I said above, you cannot be awareness as well as being aware. If you are aware,
you are awareness, because that is your nature. If by as well as being aware, you
mean the mind being conscious of objects, you have to ask yourself something: If the
mind is made of subtle matter, and matter isn't conscious, how can it appear to be
conscious? You have to conclude that it must be borrowing consciousness from
something else. Since all other objects of experience are unconscious, the source of
consciousness cannot be an object of experience; it would have to be consciousness
itself, formless and free of attributes. Then you have to inquire: Am I consciousness or
am I the unconscious objects?
Jeff: You cannot say, 'Because I am aware, I am awareness' any more than you can say,
'Because I am bored, I am boredom', or, 'Because I am happy, I am happiness.'
Isaiah: Yes, you can, because being aware is the nature of awareness. How could you

be aware if you weren't awareness? Awareness being aware is not an object nor is it
object dependent. Does fire need something other than itself to be hot? No, heat is
it's nature. It is the same with awareness: awareness is aware because that is it's
nature. But, if you say, I am bored or happy, that is a different situation. Boredom or
happiness cannot be your nature because they are qualities of mind that are known to
you; they are objects. To say, I am bored or happy, you are mistaking yourself to be
unconscious, transient (and thus, unreal) objects.
Jeff: Also, in the statements,' I am aware' and ' I am Awareness', who or what is the I
that thinks this?
Isaiah: The thoughts, I am aware, or, I am awareness (or any other thought for that
matter) appear in the mind / intellect. These thoughts, as well as the mind / intellect
that thinks them, are objects known by awareness. Awareness does not think these
thoughts because it does not have a mind / intellect. From it's 'point of view' there is
no mind / intellect because there is only itself. It is aware in and of itself, requiring no
mind / intellect (or any other objects).
Jeff: In connection with this, James says in his book (p. 227): 'The final stage of this
discrimination is to determine whether or not awareness is the same as you or different
from you. It obviously cannot be different. Therefore you are awareness...'
Why can awareness not be different from me?
Love,
Jeff
Isaiah: Maybe the better question is, How could I possibly be an unconscious, unreal
object? As we have seen, there are only two categories in existence: awareness, the
conscious subject, and the unconscious objects known by the conscious subject.
Objects here means any possible form of experience, gross or subtle. You have to be
one or the other. This means that if you are different from awareness, then you must
be an object. There isn't another alternative. But it doesn't stand to reason that you
are an object. Here is a quick summary of why this isn't possible:
1. It is obvious and indisputable that you are conscious / aware. You cannot be an
object, which is unconscious.
2. The objects are known to you, you are aware of them. You cannot be what you

are aware of. This would be like mistaking yourself to be a tree when you see a
tree or mistaking yourself to be the emotion 'anger' when you experience anger.
3. What is real never changes; you, the self are unchanging and therefore real.
Objects change, they are not real. You cannot be an unreal, ever-changing
object.
4. In any experience, there is the experience, and the awareness that reveals the
experience. The experience is the variable factor: it comes into existence, stays,
and disappears from existence. The awareness is the invariable factor: it is
present prior to, during, and after each experience. Unless you are non-existent
prior to experience, existent during the experience, and non-existent after the
experience, you cannot be the experience. You could only be the awareness OF
the experience.
I hope this helps Jeff.
Sincerely,
Isaiah

Potrebbero piacerti anche