Awareness vs. Consciousness

[JustARandomPanda]

I confess I am completely confused about this. To me...consciousness *is* awareness. Like the two are synonyms. I'm aware..i.e. conscious.

 

But I gather that what I call consciousness and what Buddhism calls consciousness are two different things. So can someone explain to me precisely what is the difference and how that difference manifests during:

 

1. waking life

2. sleep

3. coma

4. meditation

 

 

A bit of background...

 

I practice meditation everyday. Mostly shamatha but occasionally I dip my toe into 'watching my thoughts' - which is really rather hard at this stage as I still have monkey-mind. But sometimes I do it anyway.

 

I have zero 'meditational realizations' so my confusion comes from having to rely on other people's descriptions and/or experiences. Maybe I'd be less confused if I had my own but unfortunately that hasn't happened yet. Oh well...maybe someday it will. I sure hope so.

[stan herman]

[zenstillempty]

Hi, well the biological psychologists have an operational definition of consciousness as "synonymous with attention". And the next question is attending to what? A person, in order to be conscious, has to be able to

1. perceive the world,

2. their bodily self, and also

3. the flow of their own mental content.

 

So if you are attending to one of those three, or aware of it you are conscious of that stimulus and if not you are not, you are not conscious of that stimulus.

 

So now you just have to decide where to direct your "flashlight of consciousness."

Edited April 17, 2012 by zenstillempty

[JustARandomPanda]

So if you are attending to one of those three, or aware of it you are conscious of that stimulus and if not you are not, you are not conscious of that stimulus.

 

Yes, that's how I define consciousness too (obviously I learned it from modern biology/neurology, etc) but is this how Buddhism defines consciousness too?

 

I always thought Buddhism teaches that Awareness must break through Consciousness (one of the skandas - albeit I'm being a parrot here as I have zero first hand experience of wtf a 'skanda' is).

 

I ask Buddhism - How can Awareness break through *itself* (assuming Awareness and Consciousness are identical)? Or is this a mistaken understanding?

 

If it is mistaken - show me where my error (and that of modern biology/neurology since that's where I learned this viewpoint - ie awareness and consciousness are different words for the exact same thing) has got it wrong.

[zenstillempty]

Aha. I see. That's a good question. I don't know the answer.

[konchog uma]

i can't get specific about it due to my own ignorance, but i believe that awareness underlies consciousness, and can be said to be the more primordial of the two. they are like a yin yang pair with awareness being yin, the witness, and consciousness being yang, that which apprehends and has ideas about.

 

beyond that, i am not sure there is much difference between the definitions as i learned them throughout the various states you asked about. Same across the board.

 

Best wishes and blessings on your practice!

Edited April 18, 2012 by anamatva

[C T]

One way of looking at the distinction is to see consciousness as the primary contents of mind, and awareness as that which can be led to comprehend such contents, their arisings, causes for such arisings, cessations, and causes leading to cessation. Being able to see thus, determine if these arisings are of a neutral, harmful or a helpful one, and in recognizing thus, is able to act wisely and beneficially.

 

Accordingly, as it is said in the Samannaphala Sutta - In going forwards and in going backwards, he is a doer of clear comprehension.

There is a section in the Satipatthana Sutta called The Contemplation of Consciousness which you may (or may not, idrk) find helpful to gain deeper insights into your inquiry.

[xabir2005]

Buddhism unlike Advaita doesn't see awareness underlying consciousness, or consciousness underlying awareness, or awareness being the source of consciousness or vice versa.

 

Post-yogacara Buddhism however makes a distinction between wisdom and consciousness. No such distinctions are made before yogacara.

 

What is perceived dualistically (in subject-object dichotomy) and inherently are the six/eight consciousness, but when everything is perceived in their actual state, the six or eight consciousnesses transform into the five wisdoms/awareness.

 

No super-awareness transcending phenomena here, just phenomena seen wrongly or correctly.

 

As Namdrol points out:

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/10/dzogchen-rigpa-and-dependent.html

 

Further, there is no rigpa to speak of that exists separate from the earth, water, fire, air, space and consciousness that make up the universe and sentient beings. Rigpa is merely a different way of talking about these six things. In their pure state (their actual state) we talk about the radiance of the five wisdoms of rig pa. In their impure state we talk about how the five elements arise from consciousness. One coin, two sides. And it is completely empty from beginning to end, and top to bottom, free from all extremes and not established in anyway.

[C T]

http://www.abhidhamma.org/CommentaryHeart.htm

[zenstillempty]

when everything is perceived in their actual state, the six or eight consciousnesses transform into the five wisdoms/awareness.

 

But don't you have to go one step further in Buddhism/Advaita? To the fundamental nature. And that's wisdom.

 

Consider the following public knowledge at meditationexpert.com

 

Consciousness vs. Awareness

"In fact, the highest secret of the Zen school of Buddhism is that our consciousness and then even awareness are not the ultimate, fundamental “host” or “Self.” Consciousness and awareness are still a “guest,” they are still a function of the Absolute nature. ... The realm of consciousness is only a projection of the original nature."

 

Before the appearance of objects we still have awareness, but it is empty. Awareness when it touches objects becomes consciousness. So awareness without objects is the aprior state before consciousness and is the ground state that “supports” consciousness. Awareness is always empty in a not-knowing state. It just shines or illuminates. That’s called effulgence, which means radiance, brightness, illumination or shining.

 

Without touching objects, awareness just remains in its own body and shines, it be-s itself, it just is. That’s “presence” or being. That’s also self-effulgence so effulgence is the nature of awareness. It’s like a great bodyless body of not-knowing knowing. You cannot identify it as either existence or non-existence, as either real or not real because it transcends all these descriptions. It is without these two attributes because that is its purity. Awareness is an ever shining function of our real ultimate essence of being. It allows us to know and understand because it allows us to be aware of consciousness - all the moving stuff.

 

Mind is a pattern of consciousness which is born from awareness which is in turn a function of our original nature. At least that’s the explanation of Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, which have had thousands of years to work out robust definitions and explanations."

http://www.meditationexpert.com/consciousness-studies/cs_what_is_consciousness.html

 

PS Seems like you put your finger right on it. Good job SereneBlue!>

Edited April 18, 2012 by zenstillempty

[C T]

Peter Russell asks - "Does our brain really create consciousness?"

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-russell/brain-consciousness_b_873595.html

[JustARandomPanda]

Buddhism unlike Advaita doesn't see awareness underlying consciousness, or consciousness underlying awareness, or awareness being the source of consciousness or vice versa.

 

Post-yogacara Buddhism however makes a distinction between wisdom and consciousness. No such distinctions are made before yogacara.

 

What is perceived dualistically (in subject-object dichotomy) and inherently are the six/eight consciousness, but when everything is perceived in their actual state, the six or eight consciousnesses transform into the five wisdoms/awareness.

 

No super-awareness transcending phenomena here, just phenomena seen wrongly or correctly.

 

As Namdrol points out:

 

http://awakeningtore...-dependent.html

 

Further, there is no rigpa to speak of that exists separate from the earth, water, fire, air, space and consciousness that make up the universe and sentient beings. Rigpa is merely a different way of talking about these six things. In their pure state (their actual state) we talk about the radiance of the five wisdoms of rig pa. In their impure state we talk about how the five elements arise from consciousness. One coin, two sides. And it is completely empty from beginning to end, and top to bottom, free from all extremes and not established in anyway.

 

This almost sounds like it's saying Rigpa is just all these endlessly arising aggregates are aware there's just endlessly arising aggregates and nothing more, nothing less - PERIOD - End of Story. It's all aggregates just minus the whole 'clinging' business. (and therein lies the whole rationale of the saying, "Samsara is Nirvana when Rightly Seen".

 

Well...that puts it in 'dualistic terms' but language kind of forces me to posit it that way. It makes it seem like there's still some sort of separate consciousness or awareness that suddenly wakes up and realizes it's own aggregate-y-ness when that's not really what I'm saying.

 

It's just that aggregates are 'just that' and nothing more (the nothing more part being *very important*)...the "wanting more aggregates" will have finally terminated (for lack of a better way to put it)..Meanwhile..other aggregates continue on their merry way...as they always have..and always will...

 

and for some weird reason that I do not understand

 

that leads to...

 

Nirvana

 

so I guess there's nothing "enjoying" Nirvana except just a bunch of aggregates ( !!)

 

 

 

P.S. Ah yes...I think I understand some things better now. It's kind of like sifting flour for a recipe. Sift out the 'wanting more aggregates' and the rest of the issue kinda takes care of itself by default.

 

 

Now...my next question is...

 

Is Nirvana the exact same thing as Lack of Suffering and Clinging? Or is there something even more subtle about Nirvana than mere Lack of Suffering and Extinguishment of Clinging?

Edited April 18, 2012 by SereneBlue

[xabir2005]

[xabir2005]

 

Is Nirvana the exact same thing as Lack of Suffering and Clinging? Or is there something even more subtle about Nirvana than mere Lack of Suffering and Extinguishment of Clinging?

This is a great read: http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/447451

 

(The Meaning of Nirvana)

[stan herman]

As is obvious to this consciousness, at least: All of the above are WORDS. One question leads to another. And so, one must choose whether one most wants to "discuss", or to proceed. Not to say discussion isn't fun, but it's limited in effect.

[JustARandomPanda]

As is obvious to this consciousness, at least: All of the above are WORDS. One question leads to another. And so, one must choose whether one most wants to "discuss", or to proceed. Not to say discussion isn't fun, but it's limited in effect.

 

Huh?

 

Uh... what are you doing posting on a message board if your point is that one needs to choose to "proceed" rather than "discuss"?

 

Everyone here actually DOES do meditation and mindfulness practices. I don't think anyone in this thread yet has posted, "hey..I like WORDS rather than practicing".

 

You're painting a false dichotomy here in this next sentence:

 

one must choose whether one most wants to "discuss", or to proceed.

 

Humans do both and both can lead to greater understanding or equally BOTH can still result in just spinning wheels to be spinning wheels. See Twinner's thread on We All Have Issues for someone who's done 20 years of meditation (including leading classes on it) and he essentially says it's all been for what...nothing of lasting value he can perceive in making one a better human over those who don't practice.

 

If words are so useless to gaining understanding the U.S. can save the nation a ton of money and dissolve all K-12 schools and Universities and just have everyone be apprentices to assorted corporations instead (learn by doing - aka proceeding vs. words)...

[Lucky7Strikes]

This almost sounds like it's saying Rigpa is just all these endlessly arising aggregates are aware there's just endlessly arising aggregates and nothing more, nothing less - PERIOD - End of Story. It's all aggregates just minus the whole 'clinging' business. (and therein lies the whole rationale of the saying, "Samsara is Nirvana when Rightly Seen".

 

Well...that puts it in 'dualistic terms' but language kind of forces me to posit it that way. It makes it seem like there's still some sort of separate consciousness or awareness that suddenly wakes up and realizes it's own aggregate-y-ness when that's not really what I'm saying.

 

It's just that aggregates are 'just that' and nothing more (the nothing more part being *very important*)...the "wanting more aggregates" will have finally terminated (for lack of a better way to put it)..Meanwhile..other aggregates continue on their merry way...as they always have..and always will...

 

and for some weird reason that I do not understand

 

that leads to...

 

Nirvana

 

so I guess there's nothing "enjoying" Nirvana except just a bunch of aggregates ( !!)

 

 

 

P.S. Ah yes...I think I understand some things better now. It's kind of like sifting flour for a recipe. Sift out the 'wanting more aggregates' and the rest of the issue kinda takes care of itself by default.

 

 

Now...my next question is...

 

Is Nirvana the exact same thing as Lack of Suffering and Clinging? Or is there something even more subtle about Nirvana than mere Lack of Suffering and Extinguishment of Clinging?

:lol: :lol:

 

That was brilliant!

 

I have no idea what Nirvana means btw. But I like putting my awareness at the heart, and being fully expressive.

 

I read the other day also that full liberation cannot be attained simply with the Right View in Heart Drops of Dharmakaya. There is apparent more that needs to be done.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

As is obvious to this consciousness, at least: All of the above are WORDS. One question leads to another. And so, one must choose whether one most wants to "discuss", or to proceed. Not to say discussion isn't fun, but it's limited in effect.

Non thinking makes worlds too...like pictures...feelings...tastes...

 

And who makes a poster of their own sayings?

Edited April 18, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[stan herman]

Huh?

 

Uh... what are you doing posting on a message board if your point is that one needs to choose to "proceed" rather than "discuss"?

 

Everyone here actually DOES do meditation and mindfulness practices. I don't think anyone in this thread yet has posted, "hey..I like WORDS rather than practicing".

 

You're painting a false dichotomy here in this next sentence:

 

 

 

Humans do both and both can lead to greater understanding or equally BOTH can still result in just spinning wheels to be spinning wheels. See Twinner's thread on We All Have Issues for someone who's done 20 years of meditation (including leading classes on it) and he essentially says it's all been for what...nothing of lasting value he can perceive in making one a better human over those who don't practice.

 

If words are so useless to gaining understanding the U.S. can save the nation a ton of money and dissolve all K-12 schools and Universities and just have everyone be apprentices to assorted corporations instead (learn by doing - aka proceeding vs. words)...

 

 

Well said and pretty well taken. http://www.thetaobums.com/public/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif.. Remember I did say it was fun.