Why don't I see Brahman? - A Discussion

Why don't I see Brahman? - A Discussion 

[I am grateful to all the friends who took part and created an opportunity for this discussion -- ramesam.]

J: Everywhere and everything is Brahman. Why don't I see Brahman or Consciousness then?

Ramesam (R): The eye cannot see itself. (In order for my eye to see, a “thing” has to be different from me and it should be in my front as an object (= a thing of limited dimensions)).

Expressing differently, though not in very exact terms,

i) If I have to see something, that 'thing' has to be separate from 'me'. But there is only One Thing and that is Consciousness. There being no 'other', I cannot see Consciousness (since I = Consciousness).   Everything sensed (including yourself) is all One Brahman.

ii) If Consciousness sees Itself, what appears to Itself 
is the world !!!

[A doubt may come up as to who is it that is asking or telling? We shall not get into it now.]

H: So, I'm trying to understand how the above relates to self realization. If I realize myself to be consciousness, nothing else, and all is consciousness, isn't that seeing consciousness? Or should I say Experiencing or knowing consciousness?

What was that great vastness, like the bottom dropping out and everything opening up, that happened during the deconstructing exercise? What was that "seeing"?

Ok, I just had a thought, what I was seeing, was something separate from me, still the witness operating, but not myself as THAT. Am I making sense?

So, once the witness disappears, the veil drops, whatever, I will know myself to be THAT, but I can't see it because I am THAT.

Can the words seeing and experiencing and knowing be used interchangeably here or is that the problem?

H: So, I'm trying to understand how the above relates to self realization. If I realize myself to be consciousness, nothing else, and all is consciousness, isn't that seeing consciousness?

R: Once the realization that all is Consciousness occurs, there is no more a 'myself' there, Nor any seeing by a 'me' occurs (except for, of course, functioning for minimal 'maintenance' needs of the body that continues to exist). 

In fact, one way of describing the position of a liberated individual is "A 'Seer' with no-thing to see."

The metaphor is : like a drop of water in the ocean. Can we say that the drop (of water in the ocean) sees the ocean? Does it not lose its boundary and does not its individuation get dissolved in the whole of the water?

H: Or should I say Experiencing or knowing consciousness?

R: Experiencing is also like 'seeing'. It requires the presence of an experiencer.

But Knowing is different. Knowing is an intrinsic quality of Consciousness. 

In fact, Knowingness or Beingness = Consciousness.

"I" has naturally those two intrinsic qualities. That is why you do not need anybody to tell you that you "are" present and "know" by yourself the fact that you are present even though you happen to be in darkness and cannot see the body.

H: What was that great vastness, like the bottom dropping out and everything opening up, that happened during the deconstructing exercise? What was that "seeing"?

R: When the "individual me" loses its sense of locus, such a feeling (like bottom dropping out) takes place. Now who is this "individual me" ? It is the one who finds that it does not really exist but only believed thus far to have been present and existing. It is the "ego." So what drops down is the "ego" whom we mis-identify as the real "I" in our day to day life. The real "I" is Consciousness.

We normally refer to ourselves as: I am so and so.

This sentence has two parts: "I am" and "this so and so".

The “so and so this” part keeps changing - daughter, lady, mother, employer, boss, expert, engineer, fat, thin, literate, illiterate, Indian, American etc.

"I am" is constant and unchanging.

The unchanging part is Consciousness. When it is mixed with "this so and so" changeable part, the resulting mix is the "ego."

H: Ok, I just had a thought, what I was seeing, was something separate from me, still the witness operating, but not myself as THAT. Am I making sense?

R: The "I am" part above has "known" about the 'bottom dropping.' Another name for this "knowing" is the "Witness Consciousness" which has got the knowledge (of bottom dropping). It has witnessed the 'bottom dropping.' After witnessing the event, it is itself Pure Consciousness.

[An important point to be noted with reference to the word "witness."  As in legalese, the witness is one who is dispassionate and disinterested in what he/she witnesses and is completely dissociated and not involved with what is seen (the 'happening' situation).]

H: So, once the witness disappears, the veil drops, whatever, I will know myself to be THAT, but I can't see it because I am THAT.

R: That is correct. In case 'seeing' takes place, two entities have to exist so that one can be the "Seer" and the other can be the "seen." The Seer is the only conscious entity. The seen is always 'inert.'

H: Can the words seeing and experiencing and knowing be used interchangeably here or is that the problem?

R:  They are not interchangeable. Hope the way I now clarify the meaning of the words as I used is clear. Or is it .......?

H: Thank you, it is clear now.

[Also see: "How come we see changing world and not The Immutabe Brahman?"
http://beyond-advaita.blogspot.com/2013/02/how-come-we-see-changing-world-and-not.html ]