Self, Mind, Consciousness and Awareness

I am struggling to understand clearly the distinctions between Self, Mind, Consciousness and Awareness and would appreciate a good discussion around these topics.

If anyone would care to take a stab at defining/explaining any or all of these concepts I would be most grateful - and if you know of any websites/books/videos that you believe might be helpful, I'd appreciate hearing about them as well.

Thanks,

John

Hi John,
I would say your struggling is well founded there I find no consistency, however that does not mean we cannot discuss these for a general consensus.

Awareness - the quality of knowing. The more enlightened may equate this with the absolute, but I have yet to see the knowing of "no thing".
Consciousness - That of knowing and perception. So there is consciousness of mind, sight, touch etc for each type of perception.
Mind - The consciousness of thought. Thought having memories as perception and the application of judgement ( or choice ).
Self - A structure of mind or thoughts that enables subject / object type perception.

There is brief stab with plenty to argue about .

I love reading a narrow topic like this one

Hey guys!

Interesting question. I agree with Garyth, as there is no consistent agreement in the definition of these terms. You will find different traditions and schools of thought presenting them differently. I will take a stab at it.

Traditionally in philosophy, the term consciousness is always used to mean 'consciousness of' some-thing. From there we can build on a chain of reasoning and develop some provisional definitions. According to this definition, consciousness has a perceptual function and as such, is an active faculty dependent on objects of consciousness, and thus, is dormant by definition in their absence. These objects may be sensate or purely mental in origin. Further, we can say consciousness is always changing insofar as it presents in different states of consciousness, which in themselves may be objects of consciousness; therefore, consciousness is not stable and is a contingent phenomena, and thus, dependent on some deeper structure(s) for its existence. I would suggest mind and consciousness are intimately linked.

Mind is that knowing quality of consciousness that knows objects of consciousness and may elaborate on those objects with discursive thought. Mind is capable of higher order thought; thus, it can know it is knowing, and know what it knows about that which it knows; in so doing, it can generate knowledge about objects of consciousness and itself. Thus, to know an object is more than to simply perceive it. Mind and consciousness is intimately linked to the nervous system. Damage to the nervous system will result in damage to the mind that knows, and to consciousness that is 'conscious of'. Thus, we can say mind is a phenomenon dependent on the nervous system for its functioning and existence.
[cont.] edited for spelling.

Awareness is that which is aware of what-is; including itself and objects of awareness like mind, consciousness, life-force and self. This is a poor definition because it is circular. However, as we will see, awareness has no positive description. It can only be said to be awareness itself. It is my contention that it is awareness that is the base structure of mind and consciousness, and all that is. If we were to remove awareness, mind and consciousness would cease to exist. However, if we could remove mind and consciousness, awareness would remain. Awareness is that which sees mind and consciousness as objects of awareness. Further, I would suggest awareness is self-existent; thus, it is not contingent upon any '˜thing' or condition for its existence; nor was there ever a time when it did not exist. Awareness is not a thing, and has no positive description; thus, it is both full and empty. All things and that which could constitute a positive description would be objects in awareness. However, with awareness being the source of the knowing quality of mind, it is aware of itself. Because awareness is self-existent, non-contingent and not a thing, it is atemporally unchanging, and merely witnesses changing objects of awareness. In this way we can see awareness is the base of all that is, and thus, all that is arises out of awareness and is in fact not separate from awareness. This is the key to enlightenment and the peace and satisfaction we all seek. To be eternally awake in our unchanging Being, not dependent on conditions for existence or happiness.

[cont.]

Self is a contingent quality arising out of the interdependent aggregate functions of mind, consciousness, the animating life-force and the nervous system interacting with environment; all of which is seen by awareness, however, mistaken to be real, separate and independent by mind. Through the arising of phenomena mind arrives at the belief in self.

For further elaboration see my post in Dilemmas of an Anagami:

www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discu...boards/message/90067

So that is my basic view. I look forward to hearing what others have to say!

In kind regards,

Adam. Edited for spelling.

Hi Adam,
Interesting that you should say mind is the knowing quality of consciousness I would have said the same thing of awareness, that awareness is the knowing quality of consciousness. Mind knows it is knowing because it takes memories as an object of perception. From a practical point of view I would have thought knowing would be the simplest thing and adding awareness as a backdrop complicates it. As such I think knowing and awareness should be equated. Awareness or knowing always is, but nothing is known without something to know, this is where consciousness comes in and mind is just another thing to know, albeit a special one because it is the only one to operate on memories laid by its own knowing and that of other consciousnesses. If we remove the mind consciousness, forms of knowing can remain via other consciousnesses. I would speculate there are consciousnesses that do not require a nervous system, and therefore a knowing beyond death.

What is simpler than just knowing what arises now? This is the same awareness that illuminates of all structures of a consciousness.

Hey Garyth!

Yeah, it's tricky stuff, and just to use the ordinary language of awareness, consciousness and mind is problematic because they are vaguely defined terms and mean different things to each of us.

I am using awareness to mean the ordinary awareness that you are using right now to see the keyboard and screen. That is the one unchanging constant in reality - that pure, pristine awareness of what is. We might say, but hang on, isn't it consciousness, as you have defined it, that sees the key board? Yes. They are not separate. However, consciousness changes according to various influences, awareness does not; awareness sees the changes. All these terms speak of the same thing, and really we are making artificial demarcations. By separating them, I only seek to point out the simplest thing '“ that which is self-existent and not dependent on conditions and structures for its existence.

Mind and consciousness as per the proposed definition are dependent on the nervous system, and higher energetic astral processes, functions and anatomy, and as such, are subject to change and dependence upon on these structures for their particular 'phenomenal' existence and expression; thus, they are not the simplest thing as they change over time in their expression and presentation. That is how they can be distinguished from the simplest thing that witnesses that which changes. This witness is exactly the same witnessing awareness that is reading this text right now. To know this '˜witnessing awareness' that is the very same ordinary awareness that is witnessing the '˜you' doing the reading in a direct and undistractedly manner is to be enlightened. To know ourselves as this unchanging witness of all that is, is to be enlightened and thus to know ourselves as the simplest thing, and not that which changes and is contingent i.e. mind and states of consciousness.

[cont.] Edited for clarity.

We can very clearly see for ourselves that there is this non-discursive eternal witness that sees the phenomena of mind and states of consciousness as they move through altered states of mind, influence of alcohol, the impact of brain injury and dementia and watches us as ego / mind struggle and pass through the process of dying into brain death, and to the other side as you suggest. This unchanging witness is what I am referring to as Kenneth's simplest thing and awareness. We could, however, just as easily use the term '˜unchanging eternal knowing' that witnesses all else.

The fact that this awareness is that which is seeing you reading is important, because that is the pointing out of our fundamental nature here and now - that which is unborn, unchanging and witness to all else including the changing phenomena of mind and consciousness. Kenneth talks about strata of mind which clearly are not dependent upon the nervous system and presumably are existent at higher levels of astral being; however, they have structure and form, however subtle, and thus, are not the simplest thing; as it is that witnessing quality of awareness that sees those strata of mind come and go as we access them that remains the basic and unchanging constant of reality.

[cont.]

Awareness in the sense that I am using it can be interchangeable with God or Emptiness or Fullness or self-luminous clear light cognizance or simply formless knowing if you prefer. It is not reliant on inferential forms of knowledge such as discursive chains of reasoning. It simply knows that-which-is directly. One may have glimpses of this kind of direct cognizance of intuitive knowing in deep meditation.

I am proposing awareness as the simplest thing because of the question, who is it that knows? One might say there is no one that knows, there is just knowing. Or there is just cognizance; or awareness of what is. However, we can make a subtle distinction on the level of the simplest thing, by suggesting there is no knowing at this level; rather there is unknowing. Knowledge is a constructed artefact that is not of the simplest thing, but an order above it. We may ask who/what witnesses the knowing? If we were to remove the knowing what would remain? If we were to remove the witness to the knowing, who would know that which is known? Here it starts to break down.

[cont.]

I do take your point though, that knowing and awareness could be equated, as we could replace the term awareness with self-luminous cognizance, and fundamental to cognizance is to know or be conscious of that-which-is. However, I am using consciousness as is traditionally used by philosophy and cognitive science to represent that '˜unstable' phenomena of knowing / intelligence / sentience that is dependent on other structures for its existence and presentation - i.e. consciousness of objects, and states of consciousness which depend on neurology, life-force and the presence of objects in awareness, and astral energetic anatomical structures as it were. Remove these and this kind of consciousness, mind and knowing ceases to exist; alter the them, and you alter consciousness. On the development path of meditation these structures are modified or developed and the phenomena of consciousness is developed and altered accordingly. I think what you say is true though, and we could use the term consciousness as that basic simplest thing that is witness to all else instead of using awareness as I have done. Others have spoken of cosmic consciousness, or universal mind. It doesn't matter, as long as it is clear we are pointing to the simplest thing '“ that which does not change and is self-existent; not dependent. However, as I said, I have used my understanding of the definition of consciousness as it is traditionally used in philosophy and the cognitive sciences, and thus have chosen awareness to point to that which does not change, and is not dependent upon structures outside of itself for its existence. In that sense the choice is an arbitrary one.

In kind regards,

Adam. Edited for clarity.

Adam, thanks for elaborating.

With all this context I would say our concepts are similar, just diffrent labeling. We use the word knowing differently too! We obviously have by different sources a similar result. It is not suprising, when reading ones tends to have to take the meaning of these words from their context. I do think it would be nice to have "dharma definitions" for clearer communication, but I think this is but a dream with so much material available from various sources.

Gotta say it is not looking good for John. Maybe the language purists can jump in.

"@nonsense: I am struggling to understand clearly the distinctions between Self, Mind, Consciousness and Awareness and would appreciate a good discussion around these topics.
"

The above posts have drawn major distinctions between the self, mind consciousness and awareness as concepts.

Hey brother!

Yeah, it's not likely that we will get any agreement on such contentious and nebulous topics as consciousness, being, existence, the divine, liberation and so on. We can just create well defined models that seek to represent these things and then talk about them from there with clarity and consistency.

Gary, how do you use knowing?

Thanks for sharing!

In kind regards,

Adam. edited for spelling.

Thanks, guys - very helpful and informative! I can see from the discussion that merely defining terms is a huge and potentially contentious undertaking.

It seems to me that "I", "me", "self", et al can be said to be mind-created (presumably residing/stored primarily in the brain) place holders for all of one's life experience. From this repository of memories, impressions, etc. the mind interprets, creates, embelishes, and manipulates data to fit the "self" mind has created. It is consciousness that "knows" the end result of that manipulation. Awareness simply observes the process - including the parts added or ignored by the mind.

If not for this process of creating a self, it would seem that our experience of life would simply be an unbroken chain of phenomena instantaneously arising and passing away. So what the self does is to create some stability and the appearance of solidity of one's experience. Does this make sense?

So where does this mind-created self reside? Is it stored in the brain, is it out there in space somewhere? I ask, knowing there isn't a definitive answer but it's interesting to me to speculate about it.

"I am struggling to understand clearly the distinctions between Self, Mind, Consciousness and Awareness and would appreciate a good discussion around these topics.

If anyone would care to take a stab at defining/explaining any or all of these concepts I would be most grateful - and if you know of any websites/books/videos that you believe might be helpful, I'd appreciate hearing about them as well.

Thanks,

John"

Wow! That's an ambitious topic! I'll chew the fat with you about it though. I'm wondering if we should confine ourselves to Buddhist formulations of these concepts to avoid confusion and maintain relevance to meditative practice.

So from Wikipedia regarding Self: " In Indian philosophy, the concept of a self is called ātman (that is, "soul" or metaphysical self), which refers to an unchanging, permanent essence conceived by virtue of existence."
"Mind" is usually designated with the word "Citta" which seems to refer to one's "state of mind" and also the sum total of cognitive processes.
Awareness is usually designated by the term "Jñāna" which technically means "knowledge" - a direct knowing (to be differentiated from vijnana - divided knowing).
It is actually this latter term, vijnana, which is translated "consciousness" and invokes a great deal of Buddhist ontology - in a certain way, one is actually trying to get rid of vijnana along with a sense of self.

I think these things are important distinctions as the words are treated much differently than the western equivalents. Normally I might think of awareness as somewhat equivalent to "attention", and consciousness as "the awareness of awareness." Obviously these meanings are not intended by the Buddhist ontology, and would lead to misinterpretations if substituted.

"I am struggling to understand clearly the distinctions between Self, Mind, Consciousness and Awareness and would appreciate a good discussion around these topics.

If anyone would care to take a stab at defining/explaining any or all of these concepts I would be most grateful - and if you know of any websites/books/videos that you believe might be helpful, I'd appreciate hearing about them as well.

Thanks,

John"

Oops - sorry didn't see all of the above posts - hope that wasn't redundant...

If anyone is interested I can post links to the philosophical/articifial intelligence realm on the subject of consciousness and the self. It's relevant here, I think, but if you want to stick to the Buddhist realm that's okay, too, as this would still be a HUGE topic. Anyway, the reason it's relevant is that science and philosophy are now coming to the same set of conclusions Buddhists have been coalescing around for years, but from very different perspectives.

Your call...

Hi Chris,

I'd love to have the link, Buddhist realm or not. I think it's all relevant and helpful to build one's knowledge and understanding.

Thanks,

John

"Gary, how do you use knowing?
"

That which continuously changes before us is always known. This knowing it is constant because if were not constant there is nothing to know its arising and passing therefore relatively (and that's all we can know) it must be constant. That last sentence is hard to get; imagine knowing were arising and passing then what would know its arising and passing? Another knowing! There can only be one knowing and knowing cannot be percieved.

Hey Chris!

You might find David Chalmers' work of interest. A warning though, academic philosophy of mind is a vast, complex and a highly debated specialization within philosophy of science, metaphysics and ontology. Very interesting, but in a sense, ultimately unsatisfying as an infinite regress of intellectual speculation. As the Buddha said, don't worry about who shot the arrow or what it actually is, just remove it before you bleed to death. I think academics is like that. Meditation side steps the mind and its incessant need to know and conceptualize. After realization, however, it is certainly useful to have a model(s) to understand, explain and communicate our experiences to others. Certainly first person experience and intuition can help us settle on one particular model amongst so many competing representations of reality.

consc.net/chalmers/

In kind regards,

Adam.

"Very interesting, but in a sense, ultimately unsatisfying as an infinite regress of intellectual speculation."

I don't believe that's always the case, Adam. There is such a thing as progress in the world of science, and philosophy has to follow if it is to remain relevant. The person who I recommend in regard to consciousness studies, a philosopher whose works I have been reading for years, is Daniel C. Dennett of Tufts University:

ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/incbios/dennettd/dennettd.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett

His specialties are evolution and consciousness. In both cases, I believe he gets it right -- but you should read his works and judge for yourself. As a teaser, I recommend watching to this video of Dennett discussing his theories and related issues with Robert Wright:

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3133438412578691486#

I also recommend two of his books:

1) Consciousness Explained
2) Darwin's Dangerous Idea

I've spent much of my teenage and adult life reading science and philosophy. Something about these topics grabs me and just and won't let go

I should tell you, in the interest of full disclosure, that I helped start a software company (intelligent machine agents based on semantic technology) with a friend of mine at Stanford University, an artifical intelligence researcher, who I've spent hours and hours talking and arguing with about consciousness, artificial intelligence, strong AI, weak AI, top-down and botttom-up AI, among many other other related things both philosphical and practical. This is not an area I'm unfamiliar with. Some of my friend's technology can be found here:

logic.stanford.edu/overview.html

Some day I'd love to talk about how much fun it is to work with that "stuff," but trying to make a business out of it is ... ugh. One of the reasons I got into buddhist practice was this friend. His office is adorned with just one big poster. It has three words on an otherwise blank white sheet. Those three words are "Marvin Misky is........."

Hey Chris,

Yeah, Dennett is great. He is standard reading for all first year philosophy students. Chalmers is his contemporary, and considered a leading light in philosophy of mind. They have different positions, as all of those guys do. It's a full time job arguing one's pet philosophical theories, and analyzing other peoples', and responding to them. ;-P Which is what it basically means to be a professional philosopher. That is what I meant by the trap of conceptualizing about the nature of reality rather than directly apprehending it. Those guys represent living encyclopedias of knowledge - brilliant people - and yet none of them, that I know of, are any closer to actually seeing directly for themselves the nature of reality. It is true philosophy has a very close relationship with the latest scientific research. Philosophy leads science in the development of theory, which is tested through hypothesis and empirical research. However, the process is indeed reciprocal.

In kind regards,

Adam. Edited for spelling and clarification.

What Adam West said seems to be quite true, in my opinion. The philosophers, despite their brilliance, have failed to apprehend reality directly in the same way or to the same degree of depth as the most highly Realized spiritual practitioners.

A similar problem occurs in the sciences.

B. Alan Wallace gave a great talk at Google about the limitations of science imposed by the presumption of materialism.
'Toward the First Revolution in the Mind Sciences.' at Google Headquarters, Mountain View, California, Aug. 8, 2006.
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9831121...2885&q=alan+wallace#