Why “Beyond consciousness” is a misunderstanding
Beyond Consciousness or Awareness — I know this has been discussed with varying degrees of intensity and interest here before.
One of the “modern” phenomena associated with “Enlightenment” is the tendency to break down the process into stages and phases. Some suggest various levels of experiences as stages (and here’s my take on them) — Subject-object duality - we can call it the ordinary “unawakened” state The realization that the subject is witness to phenomena (objects) and is apart from the individual self (mind-body complex) - let’s call it the witness state or “awakening” stage 1 The realization that objects are appearances in the subject, and are not ultimately real - unreality or illusory nature of objects — let’s call it “awakening” stage 2 The realization that there is no reality apart from awareness, and that objects are modifications that arise and dissolve within consciousness/awareness — let’s call this “awakening” stage 3 There is another level suggested, which states that even consciousness/awareness is transcended - it’s proponents call it “full awakening” or “full enlightenment”.
i want to explore this stage 5. To understand the ludicrous nature of this claim, one has to understand what nondual traditions (especially the Hindu traditions, which many of the proponents have claimed to have studied/practiced) mean by Consciousness. Consciousness is the Self-effulgent source and cause for all knowing. Hindu traditions clearly demarcate between “mind” and “consciousness”. This, when reflected in a subtle phenomenon called the “chidabhasa”, results in phenomenal knowing and all experience. This chidabhasa comprises of 4 functions, also called the “antahkarana”, namely - Manas or “mind”, which is a field of objects (thoughts, emotions and feelings). This is what represents in thought forms, what the sensory apparatuses of the human body generate (aka the 5 senses). chitta - the storehouse of impressions (memories, and impressions of emotions and feelings left by past experiences) buddhi or intellect, which provides the analytical capabilities of an individual ahamkara or ego, which appropriates and labels experiences as the individual’s identity This four-part complex is lit up by consciousness, which cannot be objectified. In other words, one cannot ever “know” consciousness as one would know a thought, emotion, feeling or material phenomenon such as a ball or an apple.
In a similar vein, all spiritual experiences are also possible by consciousness or awareness. Any mystical experience, no matter how dramatic, sublime, or ecstatic, is also an experience like any other experience one would have in their normal life. They all depend on consciousness to illuminate their knowing. What is called “mind” in the English language is an unskillful and confused approximate term for this antahkarana. It is also erroneously conflated with consciousness. So this imprecision in syntax leads to lot of mistakes in understanding if one doesn’t know/understand or use the precise terminology (or its equivalent in another language) used above.
If all knowing is made possible only by this consciousness (and knowing is in the phenomenal mind), then it is not possible to go beyond consciousness at all. There is no “beyond consciousness” or “beyond awareness” possible. If there is, then it is unconsciousness or unawareness. So how would one know it? If one knows it, that requires consciousness or awareness. So one cannot go beyond awareness, period.
This kind of misunderstanding can be easily resolved by taking time to contemplate, and assimilate one’s own experience, and not blindly accepting claims made by attributing to mystical experiences.
One of the “modern” phenomena associated with “Enlightenment” is the tendency to break down the process into stages and phases. Some suggest various levels of experiences as stages (and here’s my take on them) — Subject-object duality - we can call it the ordinary “unawakened” state The realization that the subject is witness to phenomena (objects) and is apart from the individual self (mind-body complex) - let’s call it the witness state or “awakening” stage 1 The realization that objects are appearances in the subject, and are not ultimately real - unreality or illusory nature of objects — let’s call it “awakening” stage 2 The realization that there is no reality apart from awareness, and that objects are modifications that arise and dissolve within consciousness/awareness — let’s call this “awakening” stage 3 There is another level suggested, which states that even consciousness/awareness is transcended - it’s proponents call it “full awakening” or “full enlightenment”.
i want to explore this stage 5. To understand the ludicrous nature of this claim, one has to understand what nondual traditions (especially the Hindu traditions, which many of the proponents have claimed to have studied/practiced) mean by Consciousness. Consciousness is the Self-effulgent source and cause for all knowing. Hindu traditions clearly demarcate between “mind” and “consciousness”. This, when reflected in a subtle phenomenon called the “chidabhasa”, results in phenomenal knowing and all experience. This chidabhasa comprises of 4 functions, also called the “antahkarana”, namely - Manas or “mind”, which is a field of objects (thoughts, emotions and feelings). This is what represents in thought forms, what the sensory apparatuses of the human body generate (aka the 5 senses). chitta - the storehouse of impressions (memories, and impressions of emotions and feelings left by past experiences) buddhi or intellect, which provides the analytical capabilities of an individual ahamkara or ego, which appropriates and labels experiences as the individual’s identity This four-part complex is lit up by consciousness, which cannot be objectified. In other words, one cannot ever “know” consciousness as one would know a thought, emotion, feeling or material phenomenon such as a ball or an apple.
In a similar vein, all spiritual experiences are also possible by consciousness or awareness. Any mystical experience, no matter how dramatic, sublime, or ecstatic, is also an experience like any other experience one would have in their normal life. They all depend on consciousness to illuminate their knowing. What is called “mind” in the English language is an unskillful and confused approximate term for this antahkarana. It is also erroneously conflated with consciousness. So this imprecision in syntax leads to lot of mistakes in understanding if one doesn’t know/understand or use the precise terminology (or its equivalent in another language) used above.
If all knowing is made possible only by this consciousness (and knowing is in the phenomenal mind), then it is not possible to go beyond consciousness at all. There is no “beyond consciousness” or “beyond awareness” possible. If there is, then it is unconsciousness or unawareness. So how would one know it? If one knows it, that requires consciousness or awareness. So one cannot go beyond awareness, period.
This kind of misunderstanding can be easily resolved by taking time to contemplate, and assimilate one’s own experience, and not blindly accepting claims made by attributing to mystical experiences.
