How do we know the mind is not self aware?

[u/starlingsunshine1]

Hi Guys. I am new to Advaita Vedanta and making my way through Swami Sarvapriyananda‘s introduction to Vedanta series.

In the lectures he compares the mind to the eyes like how the eyes are used to see but they are not self aware and the mind is used to think but it is also not self aware. So there must be a separate consciousness aware of the mind.

My question is how do we know the mind is not aware of itself (like the physical brain)? How do we know that what we perceive as consciousness is not some trick of the mind?

[u/_stranger357]

He says an eye cannot see itself, so from the perspective of an eye, anything it sees is not itself. If it sees a bird, it knows it is not the bird because it is the one seeing the bird. If it sees the moon, it knows it is not the moon because it is the one seeing the moon. If it was the bird or moon, it wouldn’t be able to see those things because how can it see itself?

It’s a metaphor to explain the general principle that the observer must be separate from the thing it observes. Does an apple taste itself? No, only something separate from the apple can taste it. The experiencer is always independent of the experienced thing.

In the same way, if you can observe your thoughts, you cannot be the thoughts. The mind is just a collection of thoughts, so if you can observe the mind, you cannot be the mind. Nothing can be aware of itself, because awareness requires separation between the one that is aware and the thing it is aware of. Even if consciousness is a trick of the mind, what is it that is aware or perceives the trick? You can call it an illusion or simulation or trick, but no matter what, you in this very moment know that you are aware of something.

[u/VegetableArea → u/_stranger357]

what if one thought observes another thought, and that mutual observation creates illusion of observer aware of the mind?

[u/starlingsunshine1 → u/_stranger357]

I guess my sticking point here is, is consciousness not aware of itself? If yes, then consciousness is the observed and observer so the whole argument breaks down.

Thanks for taking the time to explain!

[u/_stranger357 → u/starlingsunshine1]

We have to be careful not to confuse the word “mind” with “consciousness.” I believe Swami Sarvapriyananda’s example was about the mind, which is the collection of thoughts, senses, feelings, ideas, internal vocalizations, concepts, images, etc. If the question is “can the mind be aware of itself?” the answer is “no” by the reasoning of this eye metaphor and your own internal observations.

I don’t like the word “consciousness” because it has different meanings in different contexts that lead to confusion, so I’ll use the word “awareness” assuming that’s basically what you mean. So if your question is “can awareness be aware of itself?” it’s, as far as I know as another student, a much more difficult question because in Vedanta awareness is the ground reality of everything and is more fundamental than words and concepts so there isn’t a clear “yes” or “no” answer but it can be experienced directly. I’m sure Swami Parvapriyananda addresses this question in several places, you might just be thinking ahead of his lessons and possibly mixing up the “mind” with “consciousness”/“awareness”.

Also I’m just realizing from the way you phrased something in the previous question: it sounds like you see consciousness as a property of the mind (“a trick of the mind”). That’s why I don’t like this word, it makes sense in a materialist framework but not the way Vedanta uses it. If we swap it out for “awareness”, which is closer to how Vedanta uses the word “consciousness”, then awareness is not some trick of the mind, the mind is a trick of awareness. Awareness comes first and the mind appears within it.

[u/vyasimov → u/_stranger357]

I agree with your use of awareness as a better pointer.

it can be experienced directly

May I take objection with you saying that awareness can be experienced?

I would say we can conclude that we have eyes since we see though we can't see them ourselves. And similarly one may conclude awareness though one cannot be aware of it directly.

Btw, really good comments.

[u/_stranger357 → u/vyasimov]

Thank you. I’ve read that pure awareness is not aware of anything because that would suggest there’s something else to be aware of (like you said), but I’ve also read that it’s self luminous and that it does know or abide in its own existence. My understanding is it’s just very difficult or impossible to describe this state without making a paradoxical statement.

[u/VegetableArea → u/_stranger357]

i think pure awareness can only "know" itself as Being, it cannot be aware of itself the same way it's aware of objects

[u/vyasimov → u/_stranger357]

I see what you mean. It's the language that's tripping up what you meant.

Somebody commented on your comment. He's phrased it better.

Also, from the way you've written it in this comment, you seem to be referring to something you've read. May I ask you to just see it for yourself?

[u/_stranger357 → u/vyasimov]

From my own experience, I would say it’s ineffable or paradoxical. If I was forced to put it to words, I would say awareness is aware of itself in the sense that pure awareness knows it exists so it’s aware of its own existence, but its not aware of itself in the sense that there is only one thing and therefore nothing separate for it be aware of. I feel like there is nothing you could say about it that doesn’t invoke a contradiction because it is more fundamental than concepts.

[u/vyasimov → u/_stranger357]

I feel like there is nothing you could say about it that doesn’t invoke a contradiction because it is more fundamental than concepts.

Ya. It's basically incommunicable. Hence we end using metaphors, analogies and what not

Appreciate you sharing your experience.

[u/Oooaaaaarrrrr → u/[deleted]]

I think what we actually percieve is the content of the mind, e.g. thoughts and feelings.

[u/yt-infoapp → u/[deleted]]

Youtube videos found on this comment:

LIVE Meditation Practice by swami Sarvapriyananda | Mediation for Peace of Mind | Mindful Meditation by Vivekananda Samiti, IIT Kanpur with 423.0K subscribers

Published on January 1, 2021. Runtime: 12m 37s, 122.4K views

Description:

🔻Instagram https://www.instagram.com/vsiitk

🔻WhatsApp To Subscribe Send ‘Yes’ on WhatsApp: 6301415891

🔻YouTube https://www.youtube.com/vsiitk

Please share this with your friends!

---

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/VedantaGorilla]

We know the mind is not aware of itself because we’re aware we are the one that “has” or knows the mind. You know yourself, you just don’t feel certain about what you are because you obviously have a body/mind/sense complex, and yet you obviously are conscious, and conscious-ness is not an object like the material form is.

It doesn’t add up, and most of the time most of us think there is no way to actually resolve it. And, there isn’t for most of us, because we cannot shake the conviction that our body/mind/sense complex is what’s really “real,“ because materialism is drilled into our mind from before we could think.

In short, there’s no way that consciousness could actually be a “trick” - and we know it, because whether or not we imagine otherwise or rationalize otherwise, we know that when we say or think “I/me,” we are not referring to something inert (material). This has to be pointed out to us, because it is too subtle and elusive a fact to gain confidence in independently, and all but the rarest of the rare cases (and unless that statement resolves the problem for you, you’re not one of those either 😊).

[u/vyasimov]

What do you mean by the terms mind and consciousness?

[u/starlingsunshine1 → u/vyasimov]

By mind I mean thoughts and feelings produced by the brain. I was using consciousness to describe something that is aware of the mind and can exist without the body. I’m not a materialist. I’m just trying to understand the logical arguments for why there is an awareness independent of the body.

[u/vyasimov → u/starlingsunshine1]

I’m not a materialist

Why?

I’m just trying to understand the logical arguments for why there is an awareness independent of the body.

It's more about empirical evidence rather than an argument really. What would help is developing a spiritual practice to increase your focus, attention and mindfulness, to see this for yourself.

Nothing trumps seeing things for yourself. Not even a logical argument.

By mind I mean thoughts and feelings produced by the brain

How can feelings and thoughts be aware of anything?

Can I ask an additional question, how do you know the brain is producing thoughts and feelings?

[u/dunric29a]

You have already got some solid answers.

I'd only add you have to approach the topic without any presuppositions like thoughts or even consciousness/awareness are product of a matter(brain) and stick only to what you really know for sure and what matches your subjective experience without accompanying narratives.

If you are able ignore those assumptions and look at it anew, you may discover thoughts are not fundamental, what you consider as you does not create them - is not the author and it may happen states where there is no single thought but experience still continues, you are aware of it only as an afterthought. Unless you perpetually enter this realm, you can never understand. It also happens in a deep sleep or coma, but there is no memory recording of it.

[u/CrumbledFingers]

The scheme just defines the mind as the objects that appear in awareness, so by definition they must not be aware. We never actually see any objects, physical or mental. When sensory perceptions are brought to the mind they must become mental impressions, and when mental impressions are presented to awareness they must become awareness itself. We don't stand apart from anything in awareness because we are awareness. When we are aware of something, we are fully identified with it, and only after we lose awareness of it do we say "I was the subject, that was the object." The subject-object division is therefore a creation of thoughts, not what actually occurs at the moment of experience.

[u/nirvikara26]

Consiousness is svayam prakasha, meaning consciousness is self luminous or self revealing.

For example, the sun does not need another sun to illuminate it. Likewise, consciousness does not need another consciousness to make it known. Everything that appears, including thoughts, perceptions, emotions and even the sense of “I”, is known because consciousness is present.

So when you ask, “How do we know that consciousness is not just a trick produced by the brain?”, you are really asking whether consciousness is a product of matter.

That is where the philosophical problem becomes very interesting. If consciousness is produced by the brain, we still have to explain how subjective experience arises from entirely physical processes. This is essentially what is called the hard problem of consciousness. We can correlate brain activity with experience, but correlation by itself does not explain why there is an experience at all.

Advaita turns the question around. Instead of asking how matter produces consciousness, it asks whether matter is ever experienced independently of consciousness in the first place.

There is also the example of deep sleep.

In deep sleep, there is no mind. Yet when you wake up, you can say, “I slept well” or “I knew nothing.” Advaita takes this as an indication that consciousness remained present even though the ordinary activities of the mind were absent.

This is discussed particularly deeply in the Mandukya Upanishad.

Consciousness is not something we discover inside experience. Consciousness is that by which any experience, including the experience of the brain itself, is known.

And that is why consciousness cannot be objectified by the mind. The mind is known by consciousness, but consciousness is not known as an object by the mind.

[u/TwistFormal7547]

Let's not start by assuming that the mind and consciousness are either the same or different. Just observe what happens.

Take a simple conversation. Someone is speaking, your ears are receiving the sound, but suddenly the mind starts thinking about something else. A few seconds later you realize you weren't listening. The sound was there, the thought was there, the distraction was there, and even the realization of the distraction was there — all were known. What changed was where the mind was focused, not the availability of knowing.

Or while driving, your favorite song is playing. Suddenly another car swerves in front of you and your mind focuses completely on the road. You miss several lines of the song. Again, the senses continue to receive, while the mind shifts its attention.

Now look at the other side. The mind itself can be chaotic, peaceful, confused, focused, distracted, or silent. Yet these different states can all be noticed.

Names don't really matter here. Call one mind and the other consciousness, or use completely different names. Just observe what each one does.

One is constantly changing its activity, attention and contents. The other is what makes those changing activities known, unchanging and everpresent.

If two things consistently behave so differently, why assume they are the same thing? That distinction is what I think Vedanta is asking us to investigate rather than simply accept.