Consciousness

[Srinivas Sista]

Nanda Chandran wrote:

> The word "Consciousness" is a much used term in discussions on Advaita
> Vedanta. It's generally said that when the mind and it's adjuncts are
> supressed all that's left is pure consciousness. Further sometimes even
> Brahman is described in terms of consciousness. Personally I think the
> word is very misleading and not quite the way to describe the state
> beyond. Let me explain.
>
> Consciousness in it's elementary sense involves two entities - a subject
> and an object. We're conscious of somebody behind us. We are conscious
> of the tree before us.  So the We or the I is the subject, which is
> conscious of an object that is somebody behind or the tree. Even when we
> meditate, most people meditate on something - an ishta deivata or some
> object like the flame of a candle etc Here, our mind or even better We
> are the subject and the object of meditation is the object. So
> definitely there's consciousness involved.

You definitely are getting confused between "consciousness" and
"being conscious". Please examine the definitions more closely.

> Vasubandhu in his Trimsatika states that the Ego, mind, consciousness
> and the intellect are but words referring to the same entity.

The consciousness in the above list obviously is chitta and not the Atman.
In which case your definition of "consciousness" above can be admitted, but
this has got nothing to do with Atman or Brahman.

> I wholeheartedly agree. When I initially tried meditating, in a few weeks
> I realized something - the mind has to dwell on something.

That is true when there is no chitta-suddhi. Not in the case of a chitta
that is completely purified.

> When we try
> not to think ie to go beyond the mind, the fun begins. Initially there's
> the thought not to have any thought! When we close our eyes, the eyes
> still see the eyelids or the play of light like a kaleidoscope and
> that's the object of our mind. With more practice when we concentrate to
> still the mind, the object is the tightening feeling on our forehead.
> Finally when you are able to just sit still without any thought, even
> then it's for only a few seconds, before we're engulfed in thought waves
> again.

Yes, it happens because of all the past tendencies and the chitta is not
purified yet. You should refer to Yogasutras of Patanjali. It is a very
good manual for meditation.

> Lately I've realized the best way is to take a few deep breaths
> and relax! Yes, it works and atleast for a few seconds I'm able to
> remain without any thoughts. IN THIS STATE THERE'S NO OBJECT.

Pranayama is one of the ways of stilling the chitta-vrittis. But that alone
wont do. It has to be supplemented with pratyahara, dharana, dhyana and
samadhi. Only then complete purification can result.

> Strictly
> speaking there's no subject either (for even the consciousness of 'I' is
> ultimately a thought), but then in an explanation without referring to
> this as a subject there's a risk of slipping into absurdity.

Not quite.  The 'I' which is a thought is nothing but the ego. One has to be
very careful with the ways of the ego since it masquerades as the subject
(no doubt based on all the reading done before). The "Self"(with a capital S)
is not a mere convenience to explain a concept without invoking absurdity.

> So here we
> can say there's only the subject without any individuality and it's
> DEFINITELY NOT CONSCIOUSNESS. It's just being or even better just
> existing.
>

Since your definition of consciousness suffers from error, you are getting
into all sorts of confusion. Rectify it and you will see that there is no
confusion of any sort. Also stick to your meditation practice and do
verify your progress with that mentioned in the texts. I am sure you will
attain the goal, which is chitta-suddhi.

regards,
Srinivas Sista.
>From ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU Tue Sep  1 06:21:09 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.1.SEP.1998.062109.0100.ADVAITAL at TAMU.EDU>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 06:21:09 +0100
Reply-To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Subhanu Saxena <Subhanu.Saxena at INTL.PEPSI.COM>
Subject: Re: Brahma/Brahman
Comments: To: advaita_l at tamu.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

> On Friday August 28th Nagy wrote:
>
>                                                   om
> I forgot to add the following in my previous inquiry.
>
> Brahma/Brahman have I think different meanings in different contexts.
> For example "Iam (ayam) atma brahma"      Brahma the creator.
>
> Can somebody explain in simple terms what Brahma means in different
> contexts.
>
>
> This is a point of Sanskrit grammar.The difference is between the base
> form of the word, and the nominative singular. When we learn the
> declensions of this word, the stem form from which all the case
> endings is "Brahman". Hence when learning the declensions of this
> word, Sanskrit students first say "NakArAntaha
> napumsakalinga-"Brahman" shabdaha.", meaning, "now follows the word of
> form "Brahman", which is ends in the letter "na", and is neuter
> gender. Also, in the vocative case (when addressing somebody), it
> would be "Hea Brahman". In the above quote "Ayam Atma Brahma
> sarvAnubhUhu ityanushAsanam" from  Br 2-5-19 has Brahman in the
> nominative singular case, being the subject of the sentence "This
> Atman is Brahman" the experiencer of all".
>
> Note that BrahmA the creator is masculine, and the declensions are
> different.
> For more details, you should be able to find them in any good Sanksrit
> textbook/Shabdaroopamanjari.
>
> As regards to your other question, why to the Upanishads refer to the
> "indescribable" as Sat-chit-aandanda, and objectify Brahman when it is
> unobjectifiable, this can be understood when you understand the
> underlying method that the Upanishads use to take us to the truth,
> namely the method of "AdhyAropa-ApavAda".  Failure to apreciate the
> method( which Shankara cites directly in his GitA BhAshya in Chapter
> 13) has been the result of a number of misinterpretations of
> Shankara's Bhashya's by later sub-commentators. I shall be describing
> this method in detail in the article on "A Vedanta toolkit" I
> mentioned was forthcoming in my new member introduction, when I joined
> the site.  Owing to time pressues I have not yet had time to put it
> together for sending ( I am currently living in Moscow, Russia, and
> things are a little "busy" right now!!).  Rest assured, I will get
> this article out in the next week or so.
>
> Hope this helps
>
> Regards
>
> Subhanu
>
> ----------
> From:         Chelluri at AOL.COM[SMTP:Chelluri at AOL.COM]
> Reply To:     List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
> Sent:         Friday, August 28, 1998 6:02 AM
> To:   ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU
> Subject:      Brahma/Brahman
>
>                                                   om
> I forgot to add the following in my previous inquiry.
>
> Brahma/Brahman have I think different meanings in different contexts.
> For example "Iam (ayam) atma brahma"      Brahma the creator.
>
> Can somebody explain in simple terms what Brahma means in different
> contexts.
>
>
>                                                                  Nagy
>
>