Is Consciousness or Awareness Non-duality?

[MikeS80]

There are youtube videos from the Vedanta Society of New York that says consciousness is non-duality, and there are artcles on the Holland Vedanta Society, website that say awareness is non-duality, So which is it? I quoted part of one of the articles below:


"Advaita Vedanta says this that the question “What is awareness?” Is one of the most important question. So here is what many thousands of years of this thinking has concluded:

Awareness is first — consciousness is derivative.
Awareness is pure — consciousness is mixed.
Awareness is immanent — consciousness is bounded.
Awareness is silence — consciousness is noise.
Awareness is truth — consciousness is illusory.
Awareness is one — consciousness is two.
Awareness is perfect — consciousness is lacking.
Awareness is immaterial — consciousness is matter.
Awareness is Self — consciousness is ego.
Awareness is God — consciousness is God’s manifestation.

Consciousness needs (1) a person who is conscious of a thing and (2) the thing that the person is conscious about. Awareness is consciousness in abstraction, that is devoid both of the person and the thing. In other words, awareness is the truth, the non-duality, the Atman. When the same is perceived in duality and through the mind, it is consciousness.

I hope I have given you some food for thought when speaking about consciousness and awareness. "

https://vedantavani.com/2023/02/02/a...%20the%20Atman.

[Goldcup7]

I use both Awareness and Consciousness synonymously, and also God, What Is, The Infinite One, Singularity, the Self. For me there is no difference. I use the term 'mind' to refer to the active, focused form of consciousness, but I differentiate ego as a formation in the mind.

However, I am conceptualising That Which Is with all the above. There is no divide between mind and Awareness. There is no ego or mind. There is only What Is. There comes a point when the words become obstacles to the truth and must be discarded as ultimately inaccurate.

In our search to understand Awareness we will find that it just is.

[J_A_S_G]

How I see it is there's That which illumines (Awareness or Consciousness for lack of better words) and that which is illumined (mind).

Any perception that consciousness resides within mind is Ahamkara (Ego AKA I-Maker AKA appropriating function of mind) claiming Consciousness as its own, as in "I am conscious". It makes Consciousness its own. Appropriates it. It's the superimposition of mind upon Consciousness. The snake superimposed upon the rope.

I suppose I could also say there's Consciousness/Awareness and Its reflection in mind which we perceive as being conscious/aware. The source is pure and limitless whereas the reflection is mixed and limited.

This being the case I would say That is right here, right now. The Extraordinary (Consciousness itself) masquerading as the ordinary (I am conscious). We simply don't realize this to be the case..

[ajay00]

This saying by Nisargadatta Maharaj can give perspective...

Awareness is absolute, consciousness is relative to its content; consciousness is always of something. Consciousness is partial and changeful, awareness is total, changeless, calm and silent. And it is the common matrix of every experience.”

[Starman]

A person can be conscious but unaware. There are lots of people on earth today who lack awareness yet they are conscious. We can grow our awareness, or what Buddhists call “mindfulness.”

I have had experiences of cosmic consciousness, where my awareness expanded beyond my physical body, and the experience is more direct and more awesome then what anyone can say, then even I can say.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Starman

A person can be conscious but unaware. There are lots of people on earth today who lack awareness yet they are conscious. We can grow our awareness, or what Buddhists call “mindfulness.”

Yes, this makes perfect sense, thank you! Awareness is focused consciousness or consciousness that is focused, and focused consciousness takes effort.

[Starman]

In my experience; there is no division between them. Awareness is focused consciousness and mind is conceptualized consciousness. Awareness is projected from consciousness and intellect is projected from a conceptualized mind.

The intelligence from pure un-conceptualized consciousness, commonly called intuition (feeling), does not come from intellect (thought). The intelligence from conceptualized mind is often referred to as intellect. In my opinion they all stem from what is commonly known as consciousness.

Mind with its conceptualizations creates the drama and awareness expands our being into consciousness which can go beyond concepts, beyond the drama of mind. Mind and awareness can work together but awareness can also transcend mind. Again, they are all one thing with different features and dynamics. This is my experience.

Consciousness is the fundamental tool which we have for our very existence. It has many features and dynamics. Words tend to fracture the one thing into many things but in my opinion that is a skewed perspective.

[J_A_S_G]

I admit using Consciousness/Awareness as a label for That is problematic because it's too strongly identified with "I am conscious" or "I am aware", and both those statements are of and about mind and more specifically ego. From mind's perspective consciousness/awareness can be sharp or dull, focused or relaxed, changing from moment to moment and surely that cannot be That.

And yet if we assume nonduality is true and can be a lived experience then Consciousness/Awareness is the only answer and It is neither sharp nor dull, focused nor relaxed nor changing moment to moment. It shines with the same intensity, unchanging.

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by J_A_S_G

I admit using Consciousness/Awareness as a label for That is problematic because it's too strongly identified with "I am conscious" or "I am aware", and both those statements are of and about mind and more specifically ego. .

It's problematic because no-one knows what it is. Those that think Consciousness for examples sake just reflects being conscious then it opens up a manner of all problems when non duality can reflect all appearances arising from that.

It would make no sense for the appearances of the tree to arise in one being conscious.


x daz x

[J_A_S_G]

Originally Posted by God-Like

It would make no sense for the appearances of the tree to arise in one being conscious.

Are you conflating Consciousness with the perception in mind "I am conscious"? I would say the perception of individuated consciousness is Consciousness illumining mind and then mind saying "I am conscious". That's a perfectly natural function of mind and true enough in the relative sense. Mind assumes ownership as in it's my consciousness.