Awareness v. Consciousness in Advaita?

[Martin]

I've heard some Advaitans make a distinction between awareness and consciousness, but I don't understand what they mean.
Is there such a distinction in Advaita, and if so, what is the practical difference? And is there a scriptural basis for such a distinction?

 

[sayak83]

I've heard some Advaitans make a distinction between awareness and consciousness, but I don't understand what they mean.
Is there such a distinction in Advaita, and if so, what is the practical difference? And is there a scriptural basis for such a distinction?

I am (regretfully) completely out of touch with the theological and philosophical details now. But from my memory, this book is an excellent resource where the issues you ask about are discussed often in depth.
Consciousness in Indian Philosophy

 

[Aupmanyav]

I've heard some Advaitans make a distinction between awareness and consciousness, ..

'Aware of', 'Conscious of', 'knowing what is happening around', 'having jnana about..', the meaning of the words is the same. However, some (like me) may not accept a universal consciousness like that of humans. Perhaps what exists in the universe has some kind of quantum consciousness.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I don't make a distinction. Awareness is how I define pure consciousness. Awareness without qualities or attributes.

'Aware of', 'Conscious of', 'knowing what is happening around', 'having jnana about..', the meaning of the words is the same. However, some (like me) may not accept a universal consciousness like that of humans. Perhaps what exists in the universe has some kind of quantum consciousness.

It's interesting that you single out humans.

As I see it, all that is aware shares the same consciousness. It is this consciousness that manifests vyavaharika. All that experience vyavaharika share in this same universal being, though most are ignorant to this as a result of Maya.

 

[Martin]

I don't make a distinction. Awareness is how I define pure consciousness. Awareness without qualities or attributes.



It's interesting that you single out humans.

As I see it, all that is aware shares the same consciousness. It is this consciousness that manifests vyavaharika. All that experience vyavaharika share in this same universal being, though most are ignorant to this as a result of Maya.

You referred to "pure consciousness". Does this mean there is an impure consciousness, one with qualities or attributes?

 

[Aupmanyav]

It's interesting that you single out humans.
As I see it, all that is aware shares the same consciousness. It is this consciousness that manifests vyavaharika. All that experience vyavaharika share in this same universal being, though most are ignorant to this as a result of Maya.

Unintentional. I mean all sentient animals.
What constitutes all sentient animals has the same consciousness except perhaps for different scales of perception, colors, sound, etc.
But the non-living also are constituted by the same, though they are not conscious except in a chemical sense.
So, there is no universal consciousness.
Consciousness actually belongs to 'physical energy' of which the chemicals and atoms are constituted of.

 

[ajay0]

I've heard some Advaitans make a distinction between awareness and consciousness, but I don't understand what they mean.
Is there such a distinction in Advaita, and if so, what is the practical difference? And is there a scriptural basis for such a distinction?

This saying by Nisargadatta Maharaj will be useful in this regard...

'Awareness is primordial; it is the original state, beginning-less, endless, uncaused, unsupported, without parts, without change. Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of duality. There can be no consciousness without awareness, but there can be awareness without consciousness, as in deep sleep. Awareness is absolute, consciousness is relative to its content; consciousness is always of something.' ~ Nisargadatta Maharaj

 

[ajay0]

You referred to "pure consciousness". Does this mean there is an impure consciousness, one with qualities or attributes?

Consciousness with the vasanas or psychological impressions of strong desires of cravings/aversions is what is referred to as impure consciousness.

'The state of craving for anything blocks all deeper experience. Nothing of value can happen to a mind which knows exactly what it wants. For nothing the mind can visualize and want is of much value.' ~ Nisargadatta Maharaj

The nature of all cravings is to externalize the mind towards sensory and intellectual pleasures of an impermanent nature and prevent it from accessing the Self which is the true source of bliss and joy of a permanent nature.

 

[Martin]

This saying by Nisargadatta Maharaj will be useful in this regard...

'Awareness is primordial; it is the original state, beginning-less, endless, uncaused, unsupported, without parts, without change. Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of duality. There can be no consciousness without awareness, but there can be awareness without consciousness, as in deep sleep. Awareness is absolute, consciousness is relative to its content; consciousness is always of something.' ~ Nisargadatta Maharaj

So how do we know awareness is present, when there is no conscious experience?

 

[ajay0]

So how do we know awareness is present, when there is no conscious experience?

When consciousness is not hijacked by an external or internal object/idea, then we can say that awareness is present.

For example, upon seeing a thrilling cinema, we often identify with the characters,forgetting that it is just a movie. Some cry at emotional scenes, while some, including grownup men, are even known to shriek at horror scenes. There are reports of some suffering heart attacks in the cinema hall due to mental agitation caused by some scenes that affected their mental equanimity and subsequently their physical health.

All the above are so-called conscious experiences, but obviously awareness is lacking.

The accomplished yogi with awareness and mental equanimity obviously will not be affected by external or inner disturbances.

 

[SalixIncendium]

You referred to "pure consciousness". Does this mean there is an impure consciousness, one with qualities or attributes?

There is the western concept of consciousness that is equated with the mind and the state of being awake, i.e. sensation, thought, emotion, and volition. I use the modifier "pure" to make the distinction between this and the eastern concept of consciousness.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

I've heard some Advaitans make a distinction between awareness and consciousness, but I don't understand what they mean.
Is there such a distinction in Advaita, and if so, what is the practical difference? And is there a scriptural basis for such a distinction?

I would ask these Advaitins for the original Sanskrit words.

Until then, I would not take anything seriously. Unfortunately, with Advaita, everyone has an opinion on what it actually means and most of these opinions cannot be traced back to common scripture.

 

[ajay0]

Intellectual interpretations and even misinterpretations of the advaitan scriptures are many. This has been prophesized in the Bhagavatam.

It is experiential understanding that brings about our bearings in terms of Advaita, comprehend the varied intellectual interpretations of the same phenomena, as well as the subjective misinterpretations made by laymen that has nothing to do with Advaita.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So how do we know awareness is present, when there is no conscious experience?

Basically, it is make-believe, an image created by our evolution-molded brain.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Unfortunately, with Advaita, everyone has an opinion on what it actually means and most of these opinions cannot be traced back to common scripture.

A common scripture is a thing from Abrahamic religions. What is wrong with different opinions? Even our books and acharyas differ. We would be deadwood if there were no differences.

 

[Martin]

I would ask these Advaitins for the original Sanskrit words.

Until then, I would not take anything seriously. Unfortunately, with Advaita, everyone has an opinion on what it actually means and most of these opinions cannot be traced back to common scripture.

I've tried asking for Sanskrit terms, but they haven't been forthcoming. Maybe it's a neo-Advaita thing?
In terms of scripture, it might refer to the distinction between vaishvanara and turiya?

 

[Martin]

There is the western concept of consciousness that is equated with the mind and the state of being awake, i.e. sensation, thought, emotion, and volition. I use the modifier "pure" to make the distinction between this and the eastern concept of consciousness.

Though Western psychology does talk about "self-awareness", so it's not limited to basic sense-consciousness.
Anyway, you seem to be saying that "pure consciousness" is different to sense-conscious? Are you talking about non-dual consciousness?

 

[Aupmanyav]

When you need the meaning of any word, I would suggest Sanskrit - Dictionary
See the resources it uses - Monier-Williams, Apte Practical Dictionary, Sanskritdictionary.com and Sanskrit Heritage Site.
VaishvAnara: Sanskrit - Dictionary
Turiya: Sanskrit - Dictionary
Also see:
Vaishvanara - Wikipedia
Turiya - Wikipedia

As a layman, I will say 'Vaishvanara' is the fire through which one has to go to reach 'Turiya'.

 

[Martin]

On a related note, can anyone explain the practical difference between chit and chetana?

 

[ajay0]

On a related note, can anyone explain the practical difference between chit and chetana?

Chit and chetana in Hindu philosophy refers to pure consciousness. The term Chaitanya is derived from chetana.

Chit (consciousness) - Wikipedia

Chaitanya (consciousness) - Wikipedia

In the Buddhist philosophical framework, meaning of Chetana is different and refers to mental factors under the influence of desire (craving-aversion) that stimulate activity and which results in karma.

Cetanā - Wikipedia