Is Consciousness just a word to describe the 5 senses?

[WeRDivine]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

The 5 senses are 5 parts of consciousness. This is why folks who dismiss the body/put the body in the same camp as the ego do not make any sense. See what I did there? Pun intended.

Awareness on the other hand, is aware of the 5 senses, thus is the observer of the observed.

Don't you need to have senses to be aware of our senses?

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Consciousness is the experiencer, the ultimate subject. It experiences mind while we are awake and dreaming and experiences absence of mind when in deep sleep.




Exactly and Brahman = Atman = Consciousness as in Sat-Chit-Ananda or Existence-Consciousness-Bliss. Body, mind and all of objective reality are but appearances (name, form & function) of and within Brahman which also means of and within Atman and of and within Consciousness.

Self inquiry through negation (Neti Neti) is for the purpose of discernment between the changing (body, mind and all of objective reality) and the unchanging (Consciousness). Discernment between our true nature (Self) and apparent nature (the ego-self). Desuperimposition of the superimposition of Self and the ego-self.

One has to first take the pieces apart to understand the puzzle otherwise one is left thinking one is but a mere piece of the puzzle instead of the puzzle in its entirety.

Here's how I see it.

1 - One can be tightly identified with mind-body and with that comes all the baggage of mind-body. Illness, injury, aging and death. Subjectivity, wishing, wants, needs, likes, dislikes, biases, desires, feelings etc etc. Do you believe mind alone can overcome all this? Be free of its own nature?

2 - One can be tightly identified with Consciousness. If one is Sat-Chit-Ananda and "knows" it then body, mind and all of objective reality are no longer a problem. It's liberation from all you categorize as negatives and more. It's simply recognized as Maya and the veil of ignorance is lifted, though its projection remains. Sit back and enjoy the movie instead of playing a small part in the movie and suffering all its twists and turns.

Consciousness is conscious of the experiences we have and of the contents of our mind, but is not the experiencer. This is why consciousness is called consciousness instead of the experiencer.

Brahman experiences and expresses itself in physical form through the mind (the mental) and body (the 5 senses). The mind and body are 2 aspects of atman. Atman is the physical manisfestation of Brahman-atman is brahman in the flesh on a personal and individual but not separate level.

Dismissing, ignoring, and escaping the mind (the mental) and the body is dismissing, ignoring, and escaping atman/brahman, thus is a major mental and physical contradiction/conflict.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn

So many definitions. This seems so simple and clear. Oh, that was good.

It is easy to throw around the phrases self realization and enlightenment, as those 2 phrases sound spiritual.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by WeRDivine

Don't you need to have senses to be aware of our senses?

It makes sense that consciousness is what gives us our 5 senses. We have senses because we are conscious.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Consciousness is conscious of the experiences we have and of the contents of our mind, but is not the experiencer. This is why consciousness is called consciousness instead of the experiencer.

Brahman experiences and expresses itself in physical form through the mind (the mental) and body (the 5 senses). The mind and body are 2 aspects of atman. Atman is the physical manisfestation of Brahman-atman is brahman in the flesh on a personal and individual but not separate level.

Dismissing, ignoring, and escaping the mind (the mental) and the body is dismissing, ignoring, and escaping atman/brahman, thus is a major mental and physical contradiction/conflict.

Is the mind called the experiencer? The brain? The person? The question isn't what experiences. That is in fact consciousness and in philosophy of mind instances of experience are called qualia and they precede thought. The question is what is the ultimate seat of that which experiences, that which is conscious.

You see the color blue. That's qualia. You then think about what you saw and experience the thinking. More qualia. The thinker is constantly changing and the experiencer is never changing, simply witnessing change.

Philosophy of mind uses the term "zombie" to describe a person that doesn't experience, that has no consciousness. In fact a material reductionist will say something like consciousness is an illusion. That we are in effect philosophical zombies, and here's where it gets interesting because I agree.

We have no inherent consciousness and that's exactly what Advaita posits. Brahman is inherently conscious and that illumines our minds giving the impression of individual consciousness and Ahamkara, the I-maker, makes it its own. That's the illusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia#Zombie_argument

In philosophy and certain models of psychology, qualia (/ˈkwɑːliə/ or /ˈkweɪliə/; singular form: quale) are defined as individual instances of subjective, conscious experience.

A similar argument holds that it is conceivable (or not inconceivable) that there could be physical duplicates of people, called "philosophical zombies", without any qualia at all.

"Are zombies possible? They're not just possible, they're actual. We're all zombies. Nobody is conscious." - Daniel Dennett (Consciousness Explained,1991)



If we're going to use Vedantic terminology we should it properly.

https://www.advaita-vision.org/gauda...nce/#more-7567

Prior to my enlightenment, I make the mistake of identifying myself with the body-mind, believing myself to be a separate entity. This is the result of my Self-ignorance – not realizing that I am the unlimited Atman. Gaudapada says that this ignorance is beginningless (anAdi) (K1.16). At the dawn of Self-knowledge, I recognize that I am not the waker, dreamer or deep-sleeper but the non-dual turIya.

https://www.advaita-vision.org/consciousness/

Consciousness is the very basis of existence. It is in and through all. Without consciousness there would be nothing. Everything that is here is by its very nature consciousness. And: If there was nothing here consciousness would still be here.

http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses...riya_peter.htm

The traditional view is that turIya is the non-dual, unconditioned consciousness (e.g. see Guadapada's Mandukya Karika). Sri Ramana refers to it as Pure Consciousness. It is the Atman. As it is "unconditioned consciousness", it is nirguNa brahman, which is also referred to as the parabrahman.



Gaudapada makes the distinction between mind-body and Atman or non-dual turlya. Turlya is the substratum of Consciousness that illumines mind, giving the impression of individual consciousness. Sri Ramana calls it Pure Consciousness. In effect Consciousness = Atman = Brahman. It alone has inherent existence. It alone exists. It is Ineffable and all that is effable is but appearance of It as name, form and function.

This is the view of non-dual Vedanta. Even the dualistic schools of Vedanta/Hinduism do not consider Atman to be a physical manifestation. They just posit there are many Atmans whereas non-dual Vedanta posits there's one Atman and in fact only Atman (or Brahman or Existence-Consciousness-Bliss).

I'm not suggesting we can't have a difference of opinion, but that if we're to have a meaningful discussion we have to use accepted definitions of key words and understanding of key concepts.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Is the mind called the experiencer? The brain? The person? The question isn't what experiences. That is in fact consciousness and in philosophy of mind instances of experience are called qualia and they precede thought. The question is what is the ultimate seat of that which experiences, that which is conscious.

You see the color blue. That's qualia. You then think about what you saw and experience the thinking. More qualia. The thinker is constantly changing and the experiencer is never changing, simply witnessing change.

Philosophy of mind uses the term "zombie" to describe a person that doesn't experience, that has no consciousness. In fact a material reductionist will say something like consciousness is an illusion. That we are in effect philosophical zombies, and here's where it gets interesting because I agree.

We have no inherent consciousness and that's exactly what Advaita posits. Brahman is inherently conscious and that illumines our minds giving the impression of individual consciousness and Ahamkara, the I-maker, makes it its own. That's the illusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia#Zombie_argument

In philosophy and certain models of psychology, qualia (/ˈkwɑːliə/ or /ˈkweɪliə/; singular form: quale) are defined as individual instances of subjective, conscious experience.

A similar argument holds that it is conceivable (or not inconceivable) that there could be physical duplicates of people, called "philosophical zombies", without any qualia at all.

"Are zombies possible? They're not just possible, they're actual. We're all zombies. Nobody is conscious." - Daniel Dennett (Consciousness Explained,1991)



If we're going to use Vedantic terminology we should it properly.

https://www.advaita-vision.org/gauda...nce/#more-7567

Prior to my enlightenment, I make the mistake of identifying myself with the body-mind, believing myself to be a separate entity. This is the result of my Self-ignorance – not realizing that I am the unlimited Atman. Gaudapada says that this ignorance is beginningless (anAdi) (K1.16). At the dawn of Self-knowledge, I recognize that I am not the waker, dreamer or deep-sleeper but the non-dual turIya.

https://www.advaita-vision.org/consciousness/

Consciousness is the very basis of existence. It is in and through all. Without consciousness there would be nothing. Everything that is here is by its very nature consciousness. And: If there was nothing here consciousness would still be here.

http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses...riya_peter.htm

The traditional view is that turIya is the non-dual, unconditioned consciousness (e.g. see Guadapada's Mandukya Karika). Sri Ramana refers to it as Pure Consciousness. It is the Atman. As it is "unconditioned consciousness", it is nirguNa brahman, which is also referred to as the parabrahman.



Gaudapada makes the distinction between mind-body and Atman or non-dual turlya. Turlya is the substratum of Consciousness that illumines mind, giving the impression of individual consciousness. Sri Ramana calls it Pure Consciousness. In effect Consciousness = Atman = Brahman. It alone has inherent existence. It alone exists. It is Ineffable and all that is effable is but appearance of It as name, form and function.

This is the view of non-dual Vedanta. Even the dualistic schools of Vedanta/Hinduism do not consider Atman to be a physical manifestation. They just posit there are many Atmans whereas non-dual Vedanta posits there's one Atman and in fact only Atman (or Brahman or Existence-Consciousness-Bliss).

I'm not suggesting we can't have a difference of opinion, but that if we're to have a meaningful discussion we have to use accepted definitions of key words and understanding of key concepts.

I put great emphasise on what I put in bold above. You know what subjective means, when it comes to the context of what you quote, which is mind/mental, don't you? Taking the definition of subjective out of context or creating your own definition for subjective will lead people astray:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subjective

Definition of subjective (Entry 1 of 2)

3a: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : PHENOMENAL
— compare OBJECTIVE sense 2a
b: relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states
4a(1): peculiar to a particular individual : PERSONAL
subjective judgments
(2): modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background
a subjective account of the incident
b: arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli
subjective sensations
c: arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes
a subjective symptom of disease
— compare OBJECTIVE sense 2c
5: lacking in reality or substance : ILLUSORY

Originally Posted by MikeS80

I put great emphasise on what I put in bold above. You know what subjective means, when it comes to the context of what you quote, which is mind/mental, don't you? Taking the definition of subjective out of context or creating your own definition for subjective will lead people astray:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subjective

Definition of subjective (Entry 1 of 2)

3a: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : PHENOMENAL
— compare OBJECTIVE sense 2a
b: relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states
4a(1): peculiar to a particular individual : PERSONAL
subjective judgments
(2): modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background
a subjective account of the incident
b: arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli
subjective sensations
c: arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes
a subjective symptom of disease
— compare OBJECTIVE sense 2c
5: lacking in reality or substance : ILLUSORY

Merriam-Webster isn't an authority on non-dualism or spirituality in general. That's not its purpose. If we use it as a guide to experience we're firmly in the world of materialism and the conditioned mind and that's duality.

On the other hand non-dual Vedanta's position is qualia, individual instances of subjective conscious experience, are experienced by Consciousness and that's not of mind. The experiencer, Consciousness, is unconditioned. It's called the Witness for a reason and because It's the witness of all experience. The ultimate experiencer.

If we're left with mind - identified with and trapped in mind - then conditioning cannot be escaped. That's the entire point of non-dualism, a shift in perspective from that which is conditioned to That which is unconditioned. It's there but you're not recognizing It.

The Wiki link is to define qualia and the Advaita links are to establish That which is conscious of qualia is not of mind but beyond mind. It's Atman. That's the breakthrough the ego-self will resist at every turn. It's Self realization and Self (Atman) is not self (mind, ego-self, Ahamkara, I-maker).

Before you reject this as separation it's not. Mind-body (including the ego-self) is an appearance of and within Self. Mind-body is limited by time, space and causation whereas Self is without limit. Time, space and causation are also only appearances of Self and within Self.

In the context of non-duality it's Merriam-Webster that will lead one astray, not Advaita. The prior is a simple reference for definitions and the latter a deep philosophy of non-dualism and road map to Self realization.

[Miss Hepburn]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

...On the other hand non-dual Vedanta's position is qualia, individual instances of subjective conscious experience,
are experienced by Consciousness and that's not of mind.
The experiencer, Consciousness, is unconditioned.
It's called the Witness for a reason and because It's the witness of all experience. The ultimate experiencer.

Boy, I'll say!
I experienced this Witness, certainly, a Consciousness, at 5 or 6 years old one summer.

'It' was inside my little head looking out of my eyes.
Even as a child I felt the wisdom, the haha - 'adultness', and the masculinity.

Now, I could say - it was not motherly, loving, angelic, feminine.
It was a watcher within me...and not me, a mischievous 5 yr old - exactly.

Always there ---like the clock always there, but you aren't noticing...
as if some fog simply got blown away...
and you saw what was in the clearing all along.


What happening at 8 yrs old was a whole other 'event' in 'Seeing' one summer day!
Fun to recall.

Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn

Boy, I'll say!
I experienced this Witness, certainly, a Consciousness, at 5 or 6 years old one summer.

'It' was inside my little head looking out of my eyes.
Even as a child I felt the wisdom, the haha - 'adultness', and the masculinity.

Now, I could say - it was not motherly, loving, angelic, feminine.
It was a watcher within me...and not me a 5 yr old - exactly.

Always there ---like the clock always there, but you aren't noticing...
as if some fog simply got blown away...
and you saw what was in the clearing all along.

Fun to recall.

I had exactly the same experience at four months old only as an OBE! Most vivid memory of my life. It just took me another 59 years to understand its significance. I'm dense. LOL!

It's expressed as the "feeling" that I feel the same as last year, 10 years ago, when I was 18, when I was a child.

[Miss Hepburn]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

I had exactly the same experience at four months old only as an OBE! Most vivid memory of my life. It just took me another 59 years to understand its significance. I'm dense. LOL!

It's expressed as the "feeling" that I feel the same as last year, 10 years ago, when I was 18, when I was a child.

Wow, not surprising it happened, but that you rem it!!!
Before 2 yrs - in the play pen my mom had in the kitchen to rein me in...
I had an astounding exp ---hard to explain, tho ...
not an OBE (out of body, for the newbies), but I think just as good!
I recalled it in my early 20s when I meditated a lot, a lot!
I was placed right back there looking out from the play pen and trying to identify what I was seeing....big white,
floating 'things', flung outta space, as I turned my head this way and that, like a doggie - turned out to be the fridge and a washing machine.

Now! I see the first few daily sentences we are to ponder from ACIM,
A Course in Miracles' Workbook, the Lessons,
for newcomers here...are exactly for a re-shifting of our view of objects in this world...
seemingly childish, a waste of time , but turns after a few Lessons - very very powerful.