1 A Comparative Analysis of Consciousness in Advaita Vedanta and Mainstream Western Concepts of Consciousness By Wanda M. Woodward, Ph.D. Abstract Consciousness is understood as radically different in Advaita Vedanta from that in the West. Whereas most Eastern concepts of consciousness have posited for over three millennia a metaphysical basis, the discussion in the West has been fraught with schisms about the definition, origin and nature of consciousness between the disciplines of theology, philosophy, science and, most recently within the past century, psychology. This paper focuses on providing a beginning reader with salient differences and similarities between consciousness within Advaita Vedanta and traditional Western thought in the discipline of psychology. In-depth analyses would require copious and sophisticated discussion regarding various Western psychologists from the cognitive-behavioralists, humanistic- existentialists and transpersonalists, thus, it is outside the intent and limited scope of this essay. Advaita Vedanta The entire repertoire of Indian thought, including philosophical, religious, psychological, ethical and axiological, is sung in the Vedas, the earliest hymns having been written during the Vedic period from 1500 B.C. through 600 B.C. (Radhakrishnan & Moore, 1957). Advaita Vedanta is the oldest of the Vedanta schools of Hindu philosophies and the most widely accepted having been based upon the Triple Foundation of Vedanta: Upanisads, Brahma Sutras and the Bhagavad Gita (Indich, 1980). While Sankara (ca. 788-820) is recognized as the sage who developed the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta into a coherent, systematic treatment, the philosophy is as old as the Vedas. Sankara was the first to develop the model within a systematic framework and, while others have propounded various positions within Advaita Vedanta, it is the views of Sankara which remain the most widely revered due to their coherence and logic. 2 Reality and Knowledge In Advaita Vedanta, the sine qua non question around which the entire system of thought surrounds itself is: Who am I? All arguments, logical analyses and answers stem from this basic, essential question. To an Advaitin, absolute and ultimate truth is revealed in its answer. What is required is a definition of a number of key concepts understood through the lens of Advaita Vedanta. There are two levels of reality and knowledge. At the lower level of knowledge, modified consciousness is understood to be without knowledge of reality and without knowledge of the ultimate truth. It is a dual consciousness that is ignorant because it is dual, mistaking the phenomenal world of subject-object dichotomy for ultimate reality. Said another way, relational consciousness mistakes what is real for what is not real. Thus, reality and knowledge are bifurcated. At the higher level of knowledge, absolute consciousness manifests and this is the stage where reality and knowledge are one and inseparable. It is a higher level of knowledge because it is non-dual, when subject and object become one, seeing only oneness everywhere. When this plenary consciousness unfolds, the person understands that, ultimately, there is only one reality. The knowledge of that homogenous consciousness is the very knowledge of ultimate reality and the knowledge of one’s true nature, one’s authentic Self. Thus, in Advaitic thought, “reality,” “knowledge,” and “the Self” are one at the highest level of consciousness. “Reality” for an Advaitin is metaphysical. Sankara held that there are three distinctions when defining what is true: the “real,” “unreal” and “not-real” 3 (Sankaranarayanan, 1988; Deutsch, 1969). That which is “real” is uncaused, it exists in all three times (past, present and future) without interruption, and cannot be sublated, or subrated, that is, it cannot be cancelled (Deutsch, 1969). Something is “unreal” if it neither can, nor cannot, be sublated by other experience. It is self-contradictory. In other words, it can never exist nor can it ever be an object of thought such as a square circle, virgin prostitute or dry water. That which is “not-real” can be sublated by other experience and it exists sometimes, but not always. The material world is not real because it is caused, it changes and has a beginning and an end. Matter does exist and it can be an object of thought, but it is not eternal, therefore, it is not ultimately real. In this sense, Advaitins refer to the world of matter as being either “not-real” or “appearance.” Only reality is that which is uncaused, eternal, immutable and immediate, thus, there is only one ultimate reality and that is Brahman, pure consciousness. Since it can never be an object and only a subject, it can only be realized. Poonja, a 20th century Advaitin sage, admonished his students to stop objectifying, “You can never get it, It is not an object to get. You cannot objectify it, It is the subject” (Poonja, 2000, p. 220). For Advaitic thought, ultimate reality is Brahman, or “the Self.” The Self is metaphysical, transpersonal, and beyond the ego consciousness, the latter being a dual consciousness. Brahman is absolute consciousness, without form, ubiquitous and eternal. It is pure awareness, pure consciousness, pure knowingness. That which is pure knowingness cannot doubt. This is the authentic Self whose essence is spiritual and reality itself. Relating to ontological terms, we can say that Brahman is “time-less, unconditioned, undifferentiated oneness of being” (Deutsch, 1969, p. 19), whereas “the 4 Unreal is non-being” (Deutsch, 1969, p.25). In Advaita, the ontological levels, or orders of being, between non-being (the unreal) and being (reality) are distinguished by the process of sublation, or subration, which is radical and spontaneous. Subration cannot be gradual and “there might indeed be a considerable process of doubting and evaluating leading up to it, but the actual act of subration is integral and, by its nature, radical” (Deutsch, 1969, p. 17). This process, understood psychologically, is immediate whereby a contradiction is recognized between two kinds of judgments or two kinds of experiences and, because of this new knowledge, the prior object or prior experience is no longer valued as ultimate. The realization of absolute consciousness, for the Advaitin, is spontaneous, not developmental. In Advaita Vedanta, there are two levels of knowledge: apara vidya and para vidya, lower and higher knowledge, respectively (Deutsch, 1969; Indich, 1980; Sankaranarayanan, 1988). Lower, or relational, knowledge requires Aristotelian logic to understand the phenomenal world of subject-object duality. At the higher level of knowledge, Heraclitean logic is necessary, and at the ultimate level of reality, both of these kinds of logic are transcended and sublated. In Advaitic thought, all is one, therefore, the underlying essence of cit, consciousness, is understood to be the only reality and the only eternal existent. Material objects are merely manifestations or images of this one consciousness. All difference and separation is subrated with this understanding, thus, at para vidya, higher knowledge, Aristotelian logic is subrated as well. Classical Advaita Vedanta is interioristically hierarchical (Indich, 1980, p. 104) and has a radically distinct ontological and epistemological nature (Indich, 1980) between 5 apara vidya and para vidya. These two levels of consciousness are radically discontinuous, but not considered different (Indich, 1980, p. 52). Upon realization of Brahman, transcendent consciousness allows for the collapse of the distinctions and this non-dual consciousness is known to always be present as the underlying substratum even when ignorance places a veil over realizing its eternal and omnipresent existence. The ignorance of the ego vanishes when the ultimate truth of the Self luminates with bliss “like a lamp placed inside a jar” (Indich, 1980, p. 111). At the relative level of the jiva (ego) consciousness, subject and object are separate; at the transcendent level of consciousness of the Self, subject and object merge into one. When the truth of one’s nature is realized, an impersonal, tranquil bliss arises resulting in liberation from ignorance and from the bondage due to attachment to the material world. This transcendent awareness of truth and ultimately reality is best understood as a state of contemplation or meditational focus (Indich, 1980). Jiva, Atman and Brahman Vedanta means “end of the Vedas” and Advaita means “non-dualism.” It is an absolute monistic system of transcendental idealism which advocates for the existence of only one substrate, Ekam Sat, “One Being” or “One Essence,” which is the formless, eternal, immutable, ineffable, omnipresent, self-luminous, impersonal Self. This Self is called Brahman. This substrate of all that exists, the omnipresent, eternal ground of all existence, is also referred to as saccidananda: sat (being) cit (consciousness) and ananda (bliss). These are distinct, but not separate or different. Being (sat) is descriptive of the unified oneness; consciousness (cit) refers to the silent witness that is omnipresent and aware; while bliss (ananda) points to the ecstasy (Deutsch, 1969), the “lone splendour” 6 (Sankaranarayana, 1988, p. 78), the “super-excellent, trans-sensuous….of what one always has been” (Sankaranarayanan, 1988, p. 78). This plenary consciousness is called “a state of silent being” or “fullness of being” (Deutsch, 1969, p. 13) because of the expansive epistemic effect and the concomitant sense of bliss. Being a kind of spiritual experience, “Brahman is divine and the Divine is Brahman” (Deutsch, 1969, p. 13) although not as an object or as a separate deity to be worshiped. Rejecting theism, Brahman is not an object to be worshiped as is “God” in theistic traditions, nor is Brahman anthropomorphic, rather it is the ever-present reality, an immediate awareness, pure consciousness. One need not attain it because it is beginningless and endless, eternal in its shining radiance of splendor, awaiting the person to realize it. Indian philosophers tell the story of the woman who is wearing pearls around her neck, but has forgotten they are there. She searches everywhere for them and not until her friend points them out to her does she feel with her own hands that they were there all along. In her ignorance, she was unhappy, but upon realization of what was always there, she is happy. As with the Self, one need only realize what has been there all along. It is a direct experience, an immediate awareness of ultimate reality and absolute truth. The goal of life to the Advaitin is the realization of absolute consciousness, Brahman, the Self. Hence, no true self-knowledge occurs until this supreme consciousness is realized. The Atman is the individual soul being: the real ‘I’ of every man, his true self….which he calls ‘my’. It is what is behind all these, in the man’s innermost being…man’s true self is deep down in his recesses and is seated inside (Sankaranarayanan, 1988, p. 25)….it is not a physical object…[it] is expansive…and is co-terminous with the Supreme Reality. Being the intelligence or cit which makes knowledge possible, it is all-pervasive. It abides for ever; it is sat, pure existence in its primary nature…so it is pure existence, pure intelligence and pure bliss” (Sankaranarayanan, 1988, p. 27). 7 Jiva is the individual self (ego), a state of plurality consciousness when the ego has a mistaken identity believing itself to be the body. Jiva is unawake until the dawning of absolute consciousness at which time ordinary consciousness is sublated. Thus, the three fundamental levels of being in ascending order are: jiva, Atman and Brahman. However, when viewed from the position of absolute consciousness, jiva is ignorance about authentic identity while Atman is not different from Brahman. Like the drop of water in the ocean, so is Atman not different from Brahman (Deutsch, 1969; Indich, 1980). The jiva, or what is considered the individual person, is “a combination of reality and appearance. It is ‘reality’ so far as Atman is its ground; it is ‘appearance’ so far as it is identified as finite, conditioned, relative” (Deutsch, 1969, p. 51). Brahman is said to be saguna or nirguna although these are not separate in reality. Saguna Brahman is with attributes, or qualities; nirguna Brahman is without attributes and transcends even saguna Brahman even though they are not different. Saguna Brahman is an “objectification of determinate spiritual experience” whereas nirguna Brahman is “an objectification of spiritual experience without distinction or determination” (Deutsch, 1969, p. 13). Deutsch (1969) states: ….like nirguna Brahman, saguna Brahman is a state of being. It is a state of being wherein all distinctions between subject and object are harmonized. In nirguna Brahman all distinctions are obliterated and are overcome; in saguna Brahman they are integrated: a duality in unity is present here, and consequently, the power of love. Nirguna Brahman is a state of mental-spiritual enlightenment; saguna Brahman is a state of vital loving awareness (Deutsch, 1969, p. 13) Saguna Brahman is not the highest level of transcendent experience (Deutsch, 1969, p.14), however, it does validate the plenary nature of absolute consciousness. It is the antecedent ontological experience antecedent to the ineffable intuitive knowledge of 8 the ultimate, Nirguna Brahman. In truth, nirguna Brahman is without any distinctions and cannot be thought because it is trans-intellectual, therefore, Advaitins speak of Brahman, particularly nirguna Brahman, in terms of via negativa as not-this, not-this (neti neti) (Deutsch, 1969, p.11 ). When known, all other forms and types of knowledge are rendered immediately as lower and unwhole. Maya, Karma and Moksa Sankaranarayana (1988) states that “maya is the finitising principle which provides the dynamics of the One appearing as the Many…maya makes the One that is Brahman appear as the Many that is the world” (p. 46). Because Brahman is immutable and not active, the agency which is responsible for the phenomenal world is maya. Whenever the thought, “I,” “me” or “mine” arises, the power of maya is at work (Deutsch, 1968), the jiva is present, and the world is misperceived as dual in nature. The power of maya is the activating principle able to make Brahman appear as many and through that process of appearance, the world of difference, division and separation manifests. The plurality consciousness of the jiva manifests a delusion that the phenomenal world is real (Sankaranarayanan, 1988) which leads to bondage, a bifurcation between jiva and the phenomenal world, and a life of attachment to objects. The resulting forces of conflictual feelings surface which are joy and sorrow, love and hate, greed and anger, what is considered dukkha, suffering. Advaitins call this the world of samsara (Sankaranarayanan, 1988) and one can only escape it through liberation, or freedom, from misidentification. The classic metaphors in Indian philosophy to describe samsara are that of the rope that appears as the snake which establishes aversion, and the mother- of-pearl that appears as silver which manifests greed. The frightened man runs from the 9 rope misperceiving it as a snake; the avaricious man grabs the mother-of-pearl believing erroneously that it is silver. All sorrow and joy are at the apex of this manifesting power of maya which conceals what is true and projects what is false. When the material world is mistaken as ultimately real, avidya (ignorance) from the power of maya surfaces. When the jiva, individual self, is operative, focus is on external objects which leads to an absence of expansiveness, oneness, self-luminosity and bliss that can only be revealed upon the realization of absolute consciousness. Once absolute consciousness is realized, the notion of the individual self becomes understood as a falsity. Karma is putatively understood in virtually all of Indian philosophy, unlike in Western philosophy, with the exception of pre-Socratic, Platonic and neo-Platonic philosophy and theology. As long as there is unliquidated karma, the jiva is fettered to the repeated cycles of birth and death. Karma, which relates to action, exists as long as ordinary consciousness exists, convincing one of the erroneous belief that the self is the body and the material things to which the body attaches itself (Sankaranarayanan, 1988). This, according to Deutsch (1969), is a process through which we come to believe in the independent self and, consequently, to deny the reality of the Self. Its root cause is avidya, ignorance. We are ignorant so far as we make of our physical, our biophysical, and our mental and emotional vestures something substantial, real, and ultimately valuable—without realizing that all being, reality and value are grounded in, and arise from, our true Self (p. 64). While karma, for the most part, is not discussed critically in Indian philosophy (Deutsch, 1969), it does constitute one of the most fundamental doctrines of basis for samsara, the cycle of birth and death which is responsible for suffering. Deutsch (1969) states: 10 According to the doctrine of karma, everyone—as a jiva in bondage to the world-- -is conditioned and determined by his conduct, as this is enacted over a period of innumerable births, deaths, and rebirths. Every deed that one performs has its effect in the world and forms within the doer a …(tendency) that becomes the basis for his future deeds. Karma is thus a “law” that sets forth the relation that obtains between one’s action as a jiva and one’s state of being (p. 67). Liberation, or moksa, from maya is the goal of the mumuksu, the person longing for release from avidya (Sankaranarayanan, 1988). Liberation is not the result of karma (Sankaranarayanan, 1988), rather is attained through enlightenment. As Sankarayanan (1988, p. 81) states, “liberation is really being liberated from the darkness of a wrong idea; it is synonymous with the disappearance of ajnana [ignorance] and the dawn of true wisdom…about one’s atman and its identity with Brahman.” Once liberated, the person is free from the cycle of birth and death, therefore, incarnations are no longer necessary. Six Pramanas The six pramanas, or six valid means of knowledge, in Advaitic theory are: 1. perception, 2. comparison, 3. non-cognition, 4. inference, 5. postulation, and 6. testimony. (Deutsch, 1969, p. 69). Brief definitions, according to Advaitic theory, will be given (Deutsch, 1969, 69-75). The first three, perception, comparison and non-cognition, are considered within the locus of perceptual knowledge. Perception is the process of going out of the mind through the senses toward an object and assuming its form. Comparison is knowledge derived from judgments of similarity (a recalled object is similar to a perceived one) whereas non-cognition is knowledge derived from judgments of absence (an object is non-existent at a specific time and place). Comparison judgments are such as “A is like B” such that B is immediately perceived and is compared to A which is recalled. Non-cognition is such that “There is no A in the room” such that A would be