Consciousness and Mind according to Vedanta

[atanu]

There is difference in understanding as what consciousness and mind are. This leads to endless discussions without any resolution. I note here a very brief summary on the subject from advaitic-vedantic POV.

Consciousness is defined as “cintanakartṛ cittam चिन्तनकर्तृ चित्तम्”, which means “The capacity to perceive and discern”. Consciousness, as per Vedanta, is the ultimate reality called Brahman, the Self; the ultimate subject that which cannot be thought by the mind, seen by the eye or heard by the ear. He who thinks he knows It, knows It not.

Consciousness discerns the self (I am) and is identical with it in pure attribute-less state. “I am” awareness is called the existence-consciousness, Consciousness discerns mind-body and the world.

Mind is the flow of thought comprising four categories:

1. Memorizing (Chitta), but much of this memory is not available to conscious mind;
2. Emoting and thinking (Manas);
3. Identifying with, and relating perceptions to an entity called ‘I’; the ego (Ahamkara) and;
4. Differentiating, discriminating, learning; the intellect (Buddhi).

Mind is thus known as reflected consciousness. It is like moon reflected in a puddle.

Spoiler: Body and Consciousness

The materialist's view is that there is no awareness but the activities in body/brain. Or that awareness is an epiphenomenon of the body/brain. The materialistic thinking is primarily supported among other evidences by the following three evidences:

1. When the body is present, consciousness is present (‘co-presence’ statement).
2. When the body is absent, consciousness is absent (‘co-absence’ statement).
3. Therefore either the body is the same as consciousness or consciousness is a product of bodily functions.

Vedantic refutation of the above view is:

1. When death occurs, we see the body but all consciousness-related signs have gone forever. Therefore, consciousness is something other than the body.
2. The monist materialist believes that there is only matter; no such thing as ‘consciousness’ separate from the body. So, materialist holds that matter is both the subject and the object in the act of perception. But how can X be perceived by something which is a quality of X? It is like claiming that the quality of fire, i.e. ‘heat’, could itself burn the fire.
3. Some other materialists propose that consciousness is the attribute of the body as locus. This would mean that consciousness is able to objectify everything except two things – consciousness itself and its substrate, the body. Just as the eye cannot see itself, we would have to conclude that we could never experience our own body or our own brain.
4. If consciousness were an attribute of the body/brain, we ought to be able to experience it in just the same way that we experience the body’s form and color etc. Properties of the body are objects of the sense organs. Yet we are not aware of consciousness as an attribute or object at all. Rather it is we, as Consciousness (the subject), who are aware of everything else.
5. In our dreams, the gross body is absent and we assume a ‘dream body’ and experience a dream world, which exist entirely within our own mind. The gross body does not contribute to our experiences in the dream but lies motionless on the bed. In fact, it is not the eyes/brain/body that ‘see’ but the consciousness sees all these.
6. The agent must be separate from and ‘superior’ to the organs/mind because otherwise it would not be possible to know that the thing that we touch, for example, is the same thing that we earlier saw and the mind itself is an object to the experiencing consciousness.

...

 

[sayak83]

There is difference in understanding as what consciousness and mind are. This leads to endless discussions without any resolution. I note here a very brief summary on the subject from Vedantic POV.

Consciousness is defined as “cintanakartṛ cittam चिन्तनकर्तृ चित्तम्”, which means “The capacity to perceive and discern”. Consciousness, as per Vedanta, is the ultimate reality called Brahman, the Self; the ultimate subject that which cannot be thought by the mind, seen by the eye or heard by the ear. He who thinks he knows It, knows It not.

Consciousness discerns the self (I am) and is identical with it in pure attribute-less state. “I am” awareness is called the existence-consciousness, Consciousness discerns mind-body and the world.

Mind is the flow of thought comprising four categories:

1. Memorizing (Chitta), but much of this memory is not available to conscious mind;
2. Emoting and thinking (Manas);
3. Identifying with, and relating perceptions to an entity called ‘I’; the ego (Ahamkara) and;
4. Differentiating, discriminating, learning; the intellect (Buddhi).

Mind is thus known as reflected consciousness. It is like moon reflected in a puddle.

The materialist's view is that there is no awareness but the activities in body/brain or that awareness is an epiphenomenon of the body/brain. stem from the following three evidences:

1. When the body is present, consciousness is present (‘co-presence’ statement).
2. When the body is absent, consciousness is absent (‘co-absence’ statement).
3. Therefore either the body is the same as consciousness or consciousness is a product of bodily functions.

Vedantic refutation of the above view is:

1. When death occurs, we see the body but all consciousness-related signs have gone forever. Therefore, consciousness is something other than the body.
2. The monist materialist believes that there is only matter; no such thing as ‘consciousness’ separate from the body. So, materialist holds that matter is both the subject and the object in the act of perception. But how can X be perceived by something which is a quality of X? It is like claiming that the quality of fire, i.e. ‘heat’, could itself burn the fire.
3. Some other materialists propose that consciousness is the attribute of the body as locus. This would mean that consciousness is able to objectify everything except two things – consciousness itself and its substrate, the body. Just as the eye cannot see itself, we would have to conclude that we could never experience our own body or our own brain.
4. If consciousness were an attribute of the body/brain, we ought to be able to experience it in just the same way that we experience the body’s form and color etc. Properties of the body are objects of the sense organs. Yet we are not aware of consciousness as an attribute or object at all. Rather it is we, as Consciousness (the subject), who are aware of everything else.
5. In our dreams, the gross body is absent and we assume a ‘dream body’ and experience a dream world, which exist entirely within our own mind. The gross body does not contribute to our experiences in the dream but lies motionless on the bed. In fact, it is not the eyes/brain/body that ‘see’ but the consciousness sees all these.
6. The agent must be separate from and ‘superior’ to the organs/mind because otherwise it would not be possible to know that the thing that we touch, for example, is the same thing that we earlier saw and the mind itself is an object to the experiencing consciousness.

...

Upanisads say Atman is Brahman and not consciousness is Brahman. The Self is more fundamental than consciousness. Reflexive self awareness is an intrinsic attribute of Atman, and hence Brahman... and consciousness derives its awareness property from the Self. But there remains a distinction between consciousness and the Self in my reading of the Upanisads. The Self exists in the sun for instance, but consciousness does not.

 

[atanu]

Upanisads say Atman is Brahman and not consciousness is Brahman. The Self is more fundamental than consciousness. Reflexive self awareness is an intrinsic attribute of Atman, and hence Brahman... and consciousness derives its awareness property from the Self. But there remains a distinction between consciousness and the Self in my reading of the Upanisads. The Self exists in the sun for instance, but consciousness does not.

Hello Sayak

Thank you. You are correct. Yet there is nothing substantive in self other than prajnAna. Although brahma is unspeakable yet Veda elects to define brahma as prajnAna brahman.

The Vedic mahavakya prajnAna brahman defines Brahman using the converse statement: 'consciousness is Brahman' (praj~nAnaM brahma), instead of stating directly that Brahman is a conscious entity. This type of converse statement identifies the 'intrinsic' or svarUpa lakShaNa; i.e. it is both the necessary and sufficient qualification for the object defined.

We can study more about it:

brahman is the changeless substantive

 

[sayak83]

Hello Sayak

Thank you. You are correct. Yet there is nothing substantive in self other than prajnAna. Although brahma is unspeakable yet Veda elects to define brahma as prajnAna brahman.

The Vedic mahavakya prajnAna brahman defines Brahman using the converse statement: 'consciousness is Brahman' (praj~nAnaM brahma), instead of stating directly that Brahman is a conscious entity. This type of converse statement identifies the 'intrinsic' or svarUpa lakShaNa; i.e. it is both the necessary and sufficient qualification for the object defined.

We can study more about it:

brahman is the changeless substantive

But prajna does not mean consciousness (chetana). It means supreme insight, wisdom or ultimate truth realizing wisdom.
Prajñā (Hinduism) - Wikipedia

Is there a "chetana is Brahman" somewhere?

 

[atanu]

But prajna does not mean consciousness (chetana). It means supreme insight, wisdom or ultimate truth realizing wisdom.
Prajñā (Hinduism) - Wikipedia

Is there a "chetana is Brahman" somewhere?

Yes. But there is nothing supreme about prajnana actually. It is our very nature, which has got covered up by thoughts. Intellect seems limited. Prajnana is infinite as in deep sleep.

When we say 'prajnanam brahman' we mean “cintanakartṛ cittam चिन्तनकर्तृ चित्तम्”, which means “The capacity to perceive and discern”. And not that what is discerned in mind.

This thread was created to highlight this difference.

 

[George-ananda]

Upanisads say Atman is Brahman and not consciousness is Brahman.

I have understood Brahman to be pure undifferentiated Consciousness. And that Consciousness is best described as pure sat-cit-ananda (being-awareness-bliss).

 

[atanu]

There is difference in understanding as what consciousness and mind are. This leads to endless discussions without any resolution. I note here a very brief summary on the subject from Vedantic POV.

Consciousness is defined as “cintanakartṛ cittam चिन्तनकर्तृ चित्तम्”, which means “The capacity to perceive and discern”. Consciousness, as per Vedanta, is the ultimate reality called Brahman, the Self; the ultimate subject that which cannot be thought by the mind, seen by the eye or heard by the ear. He who thinks he knows It, knows It not.

Consciousness discerns the self (I am) and is identical with it in pure attribute-less state. “I am” awareness is called the existence-consciousness, Consciousness discerns mind-body and the world.

Mind is the flow of thought comprising four categories:

1. Memorizing (Chitta), but much of this memory is not available to conscious mind;
2. Emoting and thinking (Manas);
3. Identifying with, and relating perceptions to an entity called ‘I’; the ego (Ahamkara) and;
4. Differentiating, discriminating, learning; the intellect (Buddhi).

Mind is thus known as reflected consciousness. It is like moon reflected in a puddle.

Mind is a reflected awareness, relecting medium thoughts and objects of dream or of waking states that superimpose upon the non dual prajnana. The living being, the soul, is part of this ensemble. Mind is chidAbhAsha (the reflection of consciousness).

So, when there is no reflection of any object in mind (as during deep sleep or in swoon), the western philosophers, psychologists and scientists surmise lack of consciousness. For Vedanta, however, the prajnana (the consciousness) is never not present. When prajnana is superimposed by names and forms (as in dream and waking states), the mind reflects the names and forms and we appear as if conscious. OTOH, in deep sleep, the mind is devoid of forms-names and prajnana remains as it is -- non dual, limitless, timeless -- and there is no reflection in mind. It appears that mind is unconscious. But actually the prajnana is in display in its primeval non dual glory. Absence of duality makes te state appear as if that of unconsciousness.

Samadhi is that state wherein the deep sleep state is experienced consciously as the non dual dense awareness, devoid of subject-object partition and devoid of Seer-Seen-Seeing trifurcation.

...

 

[Aupmanyav]

Come, let us spoil the spoiler:

- When death occurs, we see the body but all consciousness-related signs have gone forever. Therefore, consciousness is something other than the body.:
Does this means that you take absence as a proof of existence?

- The monist materialist believes that there is only matter; no such thing as ‘consciousness’ separate from the body. So, materialist holds that matter is both the subject and the object in the act of perception.:
Vedanta is not a monolith (Vedanta - Wikipedia). You are talking only of one flavor ('Prajnanam Brahma', Aitareya Upanishad, Third adhyaya - nothing wrong with that, it is your view). The word 'Prajna' has a whole lot of meanings other than consciousness (Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit). But the book has other flavors too. Take for example, the first adhyaya, which answers 'Kohamiti?' (Who am I?) in the following way:

"kimihanyam vavadisaditi, sa etam eva purusam brahma tatamamapasyad idamadarsam iti" Aitareya Upanishad 1.3.13
(.. for did He speak of (or know) anything else? He realised this very Purusha as Brahman, the most pervasive, thus: “I have realised this”).

- Some other materialists propose that consciousness is the attribute of the body as locus. This would mean that consciousness is able to objectify everything except two things – consciousness itself and its substrate, the body. Just as the eye cannot see itself, we would have to conclude that we could never experience our own body or our own brain.:
You have taken consciousness as different from the brain and body and have needlessly complicated a simple thing. Do we not say 'It is my hand'? Brain is aware of all parts of the body, it is brain's job to be aware of that and it has mechanism to get that information (My hand is hurt but not my leg). There are neurons to do this job (mind you, a full 100 BILLION of them even in a duffer's brain).

- If consciousness were an attribute of the body/brain, we ought to be able to experience it in just the same way that we experience the body’s form and color etc. Properties of the body are objects of the sense organs. Yet we are not aware of consciousness as an attribute or object at all. Rather it is we, as Consciousness (the subject), who are aware of everything else.:
You mean thinking itself should have form and color? It is internal process. Does tiredness also have a form and color? When we are thinking, we are very much aware of the fact that we are thinking. Arguing just for the sake of arguing?

- In our dreams, the gross body is absent and we assume a ‘dream body’ and experience a dream world, which exist entirely within our own mind. The gross body does not contribute to our experiences in the dream but lies motionless on the bed. In fact, it is not the eyes/brain/body that ‘see’ but the consciousness sees all these.:
Without the gross body, there would not be any dreams.

- The agent must be separate from and ‘superior’ to the organs/mind because otherwise it would not be possible to know that the thing that we touch, for example, is the same thing that we earlier saw and the mind itself is an object to the experiencing consciousness.:
It seems that you have not understood the meaning of:
"Brahmarpanam brahma havir brahmagnau brahmana hutam, brahmaiva tena gantavyam brahma-karma-samadhina".
(The act of offering is Brahman. The oblation is Brahman. By Brahman it is offered into the Fire of Brahman. Brahman is That which is to be attained by him who performs action pertaining to Brahman.)

 

[sayak83]

This thread might be better suited for the same faith debate section. @atanu let me know if the shift is needed.

 

[sayak83]

Mind is a reflected awareness, relecting medium thoughts and objects of dream or of waking states that superimpose upon the non dual prajnana. The living being, the soul, is part of this ensemble. Mind is chidAbhAsha (the reflection of consciousness).

So, when there is no reflection of any object in mind (as during deep sleep or in swoon), the western philosophers, psychologists and scientists surmise lack of consciousness. For Vedanta, however, the prajnana (the consciousness) is never not present. When prajnana is superimposed by names and forms (as in dream and waking states), the mind reflects the names and forms and we appear as if conscious. OTOH, in deep sleep, the mind is devoid of forms-names and prajnana remains as it is -- non dual, limitless, timeless -- and there is no reflection in mind. It appears that mind is unconscious. But actually the prajnana is in display in its primeval non dual glory. Absence of duality makes te state appear as if that of unconsciousness.

Samadhi is that state wherein the deep sleep state is experienced consciously as the non dual dense awareness, devoid of subject-object partition and devoid of Seer-Seen-Seeing trifurcation.

...

I am ok with this. The only quibble I have is that since consciousness is an English term which in common usage implies the various qualities of a perceiving mind....I wish to avoid the confusion and say instead that the "spontaneously-illuminating awareness quality" that consciousness has comes from the Atman and is one of the primary attributes of Brahman.
I will also point to several other primary attributes of Brahman. One is Truth...which represents all the eternally true logical, mathematical and meaning making abstract relationships that existence has. The other is the existence property in and of itself. Thus "Truth-Existence-Illuminating Awareness" are the three primary attributes of Brahman.
As a shakta I would also wish to add "shakti" or the creative transformative power that continually makes and breaks the ever incessant phenomenal flux of observable reality as the fourth primary attribute of Brahman. It is shakti that gives the "oomph" that keeps things moving and moving and moving....

 

[Aupmanyav]

"spontaneously-illuminating awareness quality" that consciousness has comes from the Atman ..

I don't think I will ever be able to understand that. Are you talking of 'Quantum Entanglement' (Spooky action at a distance - Action at a distance - Wikipedia)?

 

[atanu]

This thread might be better suited for the same faith debate section. @atanu let me know if the shift is needed.

Why? I stated the advaita vedanta position, not for debate. Do you think that the matter needs a debate? Isn't the shruti and their interpretations across all Vedantic schools in agreement?

 

[sayak83]

Why? I stated the advaita vedanta position, not for debate. Do you think that the matter needs a debate? Isn't the shruti and their interpretations across all Vedantic schools in agreement?

If you and aup reply to each other, its gonna become a debate pretty soon....

 

[sayak83]

I don't think I will ever be able to understand that. Are you talking of 'Quantum Entanglement' (Spooky action at a distance - Action at a distance - Wikipedia)?

No I am not talking about that at all.
I don't think explaining what I am saying will be fruitful. Words can only go so far. We do not have spiritual experience in common, and grasping what I am saying requires one to have them I am afraid.

 

[atanu]

If you and aup reply to each other, its gonna become a debate pretty soon....

Aup? Who?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Brahman. Is there anyone/anything else?

 

[ajay0]

Why? I stated the advaita vedanta position, not for debate. Do you think that the matter needs a debate? Isn't the shruti and their interpretations across all Vedantic schools in agreement?

True. Just imagine if the asura Virochana joins the discussion saying that Brahman or Self is the body, adamantly.

Or if some in Adi Shankaracharya's time joins the discussion saying their son is the Self or Brahman.

It's because of such characters that the upanishadic seers and Shankaracharya have given us accounts and warnings on misinterpretation of the scriptural teachings.

 

[atanu]

I am ok with this. The only quibble I have is that since consciousness is an English term which in common usage implies the various qualities of a perceiving mind....I wish to avoid the confusion and say instead that the "spontaneously-illuminating awareness quality" that consciousness has comes from the Atman and is one of the primary attributes of Brahman.......

Yeah. I agree. Yet ultimately, it is pure consciousness (pure knowledge of existence sans all attributes and all memories) that we are talking of. We cannot easily comprehend pure consciousness because in us consciousness works through layers of memories and attributes. But we can build a couple of thought experiments to help us intuit it. I have borrowed the first thought experiment from Salvadore Poe.

Sensing vs. Knowing - Excerpt from The Way of Freedom • Salvadore Poe

Suppose you are floating in a hermetically sealed, pitch black, soundproof, anti-gravity chamber, so that you have no tactile sensations, no sounds, no sights, no smell and no taste. In this situation, none of the five senses would sense any objects at all. Nevertheless, you would still know the felt sense of I Am. The knowing would know the object, the felt sense of I Am. Knowing needs none of the senses. It is prior to the senses. Let’s go further and make it more recognisable.

So, it is said that the self is self illuminating. No external light is required to sense it. Even the senses that go outward: eyes, ears, nose etc. are also not required.

There is one more step. We can examine the deep sleep state when even the mind is not operative. Yet we exist without sensing a world or "I". But when we wake up we remember that we knew nothing. And that is knowing, implying consciousness.

...

 

[Aupmanyav]

Sensing vs. Knowing - Excerpt from The Way of Freedom • Salvadore Poe

Suppose you are floating in a hermetically sealed, pitch black, soundproof, anti-gravity chamber, so that you have no tactile sensations, no sounds, no sights, no smell and no taste. In this situation, none of the five senses would sense any objects at all. Nevertheless, you would still know the felt sense of I Am. The knowing would know the object, the felt sense of I Am. Knowing needs none of the senses. It is prior to the senses. Let’s go further and make it more recognisable.

Our friend Salvadore Poe has forgotten about the sixth sense, mind/brain. Mind would still work in this "hermetically sealed, pitch black, soundproof, anti-gravity chamber, where you have no tactile sensations, no sounds, no sights, no smell and no taste." It is the brain which gives the feeling of "I am" though that is an illusion. As I said elsewhere similes are mostly defective.

 

[atanu]

I am linking two videos of Swami Sarvapriyananda explaining 'Consciousness', first briefly and then through an extract of discussion with Dr. Deepak Chopra. The nicest thing he says is whatever we are aware of is not consciousness. That which is aware is consciousness.

...