What does “taking a stand as Awareness” mean? Heard James Swartz mentioned in.
Taking a stand as awareness means to assume your true identity — after having been first taught nature of satyam and mithya. Otherwise it's a mere affirmation lacking depth.
Just like upon child's birth, the genetic donors immediately “take a stand” in their new identify as father and mother.
And it's work in progress.
From there on, both parents apply effort and hard work on a daily bases for sake of child's wellbeing.
In Vedanta, we call this effort and hard work, nidihyasana. Perceiving the world and thinking according to one's education received from the guru.
Meaning one assumes the point of view of the pure consciousness — the witnessing awareness that remains untouched by any and all experience.
This takes practice while still appropriate assuming a human role amidst the society, family and work.
Taking a stand as awareness means admitting who you are. And the whole process is backed by the logic's which you have (hopefully) taken time to ascertain and inquiry into their meanings.
When one has firmly ascertained that “I AM” like the ever-present screen upon which is projected the cinematic extravaganza of the apparent reality (mithya) — one will realize that it is not a big deal.
Nothing to get all swelled up with pride about “possessing”. Because every apparent person is the same pure awareness.
Everything is already the same one substance through and through.
Nothing exists that is not consciousness/awareness.
Thus there's no question of superiority nor inferiority.
In fact if one has even a trace of such thoughts in respect to “others”, their knowledge is clearly still divided/partial. They are far from liberated…
In which case, one needs to humbly and silently continue one's saddhana in form of contribution and svadharma (giving to the world where possible).
The true assimilation of this understanding leaves no room for arrogance or comparison.
Owing to past efforts of turning every experience/understanding as “mine” — the ego (ahamkara) too attempts to co-opt enlightenment and claim it as an accomplishment of its own.
One time a student after class said to me via SMS, after I called out his inappropriate behaviors in class, “You are still enmeshed in words. I have gone beyond all these words of the Bhagavad Gita. It's an honor to be in presence of your ignorance”.
This is classic example of ego co-opting a fleeting state of mind — thus projecting onto “others”, while placing itself even above the entire tradition.
When the intellect realizes it true nature, the intellect itself is not actually making the realization at all.
It is actually pure awareness (atman) that sees its own reflection in the mirror of the purified mind/intellect (antahkarana).
The realization that registers within the intellect (buddhi) is, “I, awareness, am not now and never have been this person. I am whole and complete, limitless, actionless, ordinary, unborn, ever-present, all-pervasive, non-dual awareness.”
Hence, liberation (moksha) is not freedom for the body-mind complex — but freedom from the body-mind complex.
Freedom FROM the person who has a need to proclaim for self-satisfaction, “I am beyond the Scriptures. I am beyond the teacher” — as the aforementioned Neo-Vedanta fella said to me.
And yes, at the start there certainly is a DOER taking an ongoing stand-in-awareness. But in time, the need to deliberately do it will turn spontaneous; continuous and effortless.
So keep at it, deliberately and consciously.
This means taking a stand as awareness does not mean eradicating the ego.
Ego is an impersonal mechanism, just like the memory. Both makes it possible to hold a teaching long enough, until it can be assimilated and let go.
In respect to the ego (ahaṇkāra), it's only matter of ceasing to identify with it's mechanism.
While simultaneously, responsibly participating within the the play of mithya. You cannot not participate. Long as body-mind is alive, it'll have a need to do. Thus embrace the mithya-doer, while inquiring into the satyam nature.