Seeking to Understand Advaita

[Surya Deva]

Is 'consciousness' itself not a category being used for the purposes of your philosophy?

No, because consciousness is not something you can categorize. Consciousness is what allows you the "categorizer" and the forms you categorize to exist. If you take out consciousness there is no categorizer or forms to categorize.

Devoid of categorization and classification, only the pure conscious experience remains. It's an emptying of the mind. Ceasing to make distinctions between things involves letting go of judgment in order to center one's consciousness within that which is.

Yes, that is what I said only pure conscious experience remains .

It still seems like a leap in logic to then say that therefore 'Consciousness is the ground of all cosmic being'. It's generalizing an individual experience beyond the context in which the experience initially arose. All these assumptions are still being made from a particular perspective.

It is not, because when you the 'categorizer' and every category you have abstracted including other 'categorizers' all disappear and only pure conscious experience remains.

There is no need to posit there are many consciousnesses, because there is no proof for that. If there is no categorizer then it means pure conscious experience is all that remains and this consciousness is nobodies specific consciousness. Just as space is nobodies specific space, but is what all categorizers share in. If you factor out the categorizer, then only the space of consciousness remains.

 

[Straw Dog]

It is not, because when you the 'categorizer' and every category you have abstracted including other 'categorizers' all disappear and only pure conscious experience remains.

There is no need to posit there are many consciousnesses, because there is no proof for that. If there is no categorizer then it means pure conscious experience is all that remains and this consciousness is nobodies specific consciousness. Just as space is nobodies specific space, but is what all categorizers share in. If you factor out the categorizer, then only the space of consciousness remains.

Where and when does the judgment arise that 'consciousness is the ground of all being' or 'everything is consciousness'? Within the pure conscious experience itself, there can be no such discernment and attempting to categorize it after the event involves the same limitations in language and conceptualization. In normal experience, we're essentially forced to discern between things in order for practical action so why should we prefer one state over the other when they both ebb and flow together?

 

[Surya Deva]

Where and when does the judgment arise that 'consciousness is the ground of all being' or 'everything is consciousness'? Within the pure conscious experience itself, there can be no such discernment and attempting to categorize it after the event involves the same limitations in language and conceptualization. In normal experience, we're essentially forced to discern between things in order for practical action so why should we prefer one state over the other when they both ebb and flow together?

It is simple. If you remove all conceptualizations, including the conceptualization of subjective and objective, then all remains is only pure conscious experience and no other reality. Hence we can show that if we resolve all the forms back into the substratum only an undifferentiated field of conscious experience remains.

 

[Straw Dog]

It is simple. If you remove all conceptualizations, including the conceptualization of subjective and objective, then all remains is only pure conscious experience and no other reality. Hence we can show that if we resolve all the forms back into the substratum only an undifferentiated field of conscious experience remains.

An undifferentiated field of conscious experience doesn't seem to be synonymous with a cosmic foundational Consciousness, especially since it surrounds a particular perspective. It's just a state of mind where no distinctions are being made. How do you know that this isn't just occurring to the individual consciousness?

 

[Surya Deva]

An undifferentiated field of conscious experience doesn't seem to be synonymous with a cosmic foundational Consciousness, especially since it surrounds a particular perspective. It's just a state of mind where no distinctions are being made. How do you know that this isn't just occurring to the individual consciousness?

Because there is no individual consciousness. As soon as you factor out the individual by removing the subject-object divide, then the inner-space of the individual and the outer space merge into one another. Just as in the famous Advaita analogy: When there is a pot there is a notion of pot-space and space outside of the body, but when the pot is destroyed the pot-space and space outside merge. Similarly, when there is a notion of subject there is a notion of subject space and outside space, when the notion of subject is destroyed the subject-space and outside space merge.

Why do you think you could interact with your friend in dreams? Because your inner space and their inner space is the same space. When you lose your notion of subject, you will realize the entire universe is the same consciousness you experience within yourself.

You simply need to remove all the limiting adjuncts which create the impression of division in reality.

 

[Straw Dog]

Why do you think you could interact with your friend in dreams? Because your inner space and their inner space is the same space. When you lose your notion of subject, you will realize the entire universe is the same consciousness you experience within yourself.

You simply need to remove all the limiting adjuncts which create the impression of division in reality.

I think 'Consciousness' has too many vague and uncertain connotations. I'd just prefer to leave the undifferentiated field nameless. It seems to surmount to an attempt at categorizing the Absolute. What can be said about it?

 

[Surya Deva]

I think 'Consciousness' has too many vague and uncertain connotations. I'd just prefer to leave the undifferentiated field nameless. It seems to surmount to an attempt at categorizing the Absolute. What can be said about it?

If only it was that easy. We cannot deny that we can experience, know, see and feel. Therefore something has to account for that. As soon as we have removed every conceptualization what remains is consciousness. Consciousness is not another one of our objects that we can remove. It is what is always in the background of our experience. It is present in the past, in the present and in the future. It is present in waking, dreaming and sleep. All that changes is the content on the background of consciousness.

It is this great insight which lead to the science of Yoga/meditation. If you remain in a state of consciousness, you will watch the rise and fall of content of consciousness: perceptions, sensations, thoughts, feelings, desires, ideas and states of consciousness. If you remain in this state indefinitely all your conceptualizations will dissolve as you witness them rise and then fall, until you reach the state devoid if all conceptualization, even the conceptualization of 'I' pure absolute consciousness.

 

[Straw Dog]

If only it was that easy. We cannot deny that we can experience, know, see and feel. Therefore something has to account for that. As soon as we have removed every conceptualization what remains is consciousness. Consciousness is not another one of our objects that we can remove. It is what is always in the background our of experience. It is present in the past, in the present and in the future. It is present in waking, dreaming and sleep. All that changes is the content on the background of consciousness.

By labeling it "Consciousness", you are creating a category. We can go on into increasingly abstract notions of the term until it's so far removed from the original context of experience that it can mean anything. Furthermore, you cannot demonstrate that individual consciousnesses do not exist. Isn't our disagreement evidence of differing minds? Or am I just arguing with myself?

As far as I can tell, you've only demonstrated that individuals may enter a state of mind in which no discernments are made and they lose sense of identity. Our names for things are not equivalent to constituting their existence, but they merely map information we receive through our senses and perceptions. Just because one changes their state of mind so that no conceptualization is occurring doesn't mean that their concepts alone constituted reality to begin with. It just means that they stopped conceptualizing.

 

[Surya Deva]

By labeling it "Consciousness", you are creating a category. We can go on into increasingly abstract notions of the term until it's so far removed from the original context of experience that it can mean anything. Furthermore, you cannot demonstrate that individual consciousnesses do not exist. Isn't our disagreement evidence of differing minds? Or am I just arguing with myself?

Consciousness is not an object of our knowledge, it is something we are aware of because we experience. I cannot deny the fact that I experience, it is a self-defeating argument. Thus consciousness is the only certain knowledge I can have. We have differing minds in this waking reality of what seems to be made of discreet individuals and entities suspended in time and space, but in the dream reality our minds are no longer so discreet and limited by time and space, and we can share each others mental space. In deep sleep neither of us have individuality anymore, we coalesce into a purely dormant and causal state. As a saying goes in sleep the beggar and the king are one.

Hence there really is no proof for individuality. It only seems to be active in the waking world, in dream it becomes fuzzy and in sleep it is gone.

As far as I can tell, you've only demonstrated that individuals may enter a state of mind in which no discernments are made and they lose sense of identity. Our names for things are not equivalent to constituting their existence, but they merely map information we receive through our senses and perceptions. Just because one changes their state of mind so that no conceptualization is occurring doesn't mean that their concepts alone constituted reality to begin with. It just means that they stopped conceptualizing.

If we remove all our conceptualizations what remains? If I remove time, space, matter, energy, individuality and mind - what reality remains? What time, space, matter, energy, individuality and mind anyway? How do we define what are the boundaries between them? Indeed, we are the arbiter here abstracting all these divisions, categories, classes. But we cannot arbiter something which is not there, we are differentiating our own field of experience and the forms that we perceive. Thus the essential substance of our entire reality is indeed consciousness. When we resolve all the forms that we perceive back into their substratum consciousness, then only pure consciousness remains.

Right now in this waking reality we share a human consensual reality, as our human brains process information in a certain way we perceive the forms in reality in a certain way. If I see a spoon I see a very specific boundary around the spoon which makes me differentiate it from the surrounding space. I thus posit the spoon is at x point in space and y distance from the sun. In actual fact the spoon and the sun are both forms of the same space and are fundamentally superpositioned. It is because I perceive boundaries to forms I see in waking that I label them as objects. If my brain processes forms differently so that the spoons boundaries merged into the surrounding space I would not see a spoon. The waking reality mirrors what we know as classical physical reality.

In dream reality we notice how the boundaries of forms seem to melt and become fuzzy, not just the boundaries of forms we witness in the dream space but the boundaries between our own dream self and the dream world. The dream reality mirrors what we know as quantum reality.

Thus we can see how whatever reality we perceive is based on the forms we perceive. Objects exist only insofar as we can perceive clear and discreet boundaries and disappear altogether when the boundaries disappear. Similarly, our undifferentiated field of consciousness which spans from the causal state of deep sleep to the physical state of waking reality is differentiated in a multiplicity of forms based on our perception of boundaries.
These boundaries melt away when we enter different states of perception.

I attended the talk of an amazing enlightened master once. He called himself a mystic and was sharing his childhood stories with the audience. He said he remembered as a child how he would sit in class and pay attention to what was happening around him without judgement, simply attend to the sensory information and he started to notice how the forms would start to change in numerous ways, and he would watch playfully the kaleidoscope of sensory information sounds, forms, tastes and smells. The boundaries of forms we see are not real, and when one attends to them, one starts to see how the boundaries melt away.

 

[Straw Dog]

Consciousness is not an object of our knowledge, it is something we are aware of because we experience. I cannot deny the fact that I experience, it is a self-defeating argument. Thus consciousness is the only certain knowledge I can have. We have differing minds in this waking reality of what seems to be made of discreet individuals and entities suspended in time and space, but in the dream reality our minds are no longer so discreet and limited by time and space, and we can share each others mental space. In deep sleep neither of us have individuality anymore, we coalesce into a purely dormant and causal state. As a saying goes in sleep the beggar and the king are one.

Hence there really is no proof for individuality. It only seems to be active in the waking world, in dream it becomes fuzzy and in sleep it is gone.

Right now in this waking reality we share a human consensual we know as classical physical reality.

The only certain knowledge that I have is that I'm not so certain.

If dreams are actually more real, then why is waking life more vivid? Why does it require practice to lucid dream if it's actually a state of mind closer to the foundation of reality? It seems like lucid dreaming would be easier.

If there really is no objective reality outside consciousness, then why has the scientific method been so successful in making predictions and new technologies? Its whole methodology is based on naturalism and it has demonstrated its efficiency. Why? How?

All I experience are changing states and the transformations of nature. I share your skepticism regarding definitive distinctions, but the reasoning is different. Rather than take the leap of saying "Everything is consciousness", I'll stick with what I know which is that I don't know that which is. It simply is.

 

[Pleroma]

The only certain knowledge that I have is that I'm not so certain.

If dreams are actually more real, then why is waking life more vivid? Why does it require practice to lucid dream if it's actually a state of mind closer to the foundation of reality? It seems like lucid dreaming would be easier.

Even this empirical reality is only a state of mind, wake up to the truth.

Bernard d'Espagnat: What we call 'reality' is just a state of mind | Science | guardian.co.uk

If there really is no objective reality outside consciousness, then why has the scientific method been so successful in making predictions and new technologies? Its whole methodology is based on naturalism and it has demonstrated its efficiency. Why? How?

Science itself is saying that objective reality exists independent of the human mind.

Bernard d'Espagnat a French theoretical physicist best known for his work on the nature of reality wrote a paper titled The Quantum Theory and Reality according to the paper: "The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."[60] In an article in the Guardian titled Quantum weirdness: What we call 'reality' is just a state of mind d'Espagnat wrote that:

"What quantum mechanics tells us, I believe, is surprising to say the least. It tells us that the basic components of objects – the particles, electrons, quarks etc. – cannot be thought of as "self-existent". He further writes that his research in quantum physics has lead him to conclude that an "ultimate reality" exists, which is not embedded in space or time.

All I experience are changing states and the transformations of nature. I share your skepticism regarding definitive distinctions, but the reasoning is different. Rather than take the leap of saying "Everything is consciousness", I'll stick with what I know which is that I don't know that which is. It simply is.

The live and let live philosophy is over, your position is fundamentally flawed, mind is the only reality.

 

[Straw Dog]

Even this empirical reality is only a state of mind, wake up to the truth.

Science itself is saying that objective reality exists independent of the human mind.

"What quantum mechanics tells us, I believe, is surprising to say the least. It tells us that the basic components of objects – the particles, electrons, quarks etc. – cannot be thought of as "self-existent". He further writes that his research in quantum physics has lead him to conclude that an "ultimate reality" exists, which is not embedded in space or time.

The live and let live philosophy is over, your position is fundamentally flawed, mind is the only reality.

Oh, did he state that the "mind" is the ultimate reality? Or are you misappropriating it for your own justifications?

From the same article: "This reality is something that, while not a purely mind-made construct as radical idealism would have it, can be but the picture our mind forces us to form of ... Of what ? The only answer I am able to provide is that underlying this empirical reality is a mysterious, non-conceptualisable "ultimate reality", not embedded in space and (presumably) not in time either."

So it's wrong to allow people to have multiple, different ways of living and thinking? We must all conform to the One True Perspective??

 

[Pleroma]

Oh, did he state that the "mind" is the ultimate reality? Or are you misappropriating it for your own justifications?

From the same article: "This reality is something that, while not a purely mind-made construct as radical idealism would have it, can be but the picture our mind forces us to form of ... Of what ? The only answer I am able to provide is that underlying this empirical reality is a mysterious, non-conceptualisable "ultimate reality", not embedded in space and (presumably) not in time either."

So it's wrong to allow people to have multiple, different ways of living and thinking? We must all conform to the One True Perspective??

If you figured it out, actually his idealism is very much identical to the Hindu Idealism as espoused in the Upanishads which is the doctrine of Advaita.

Idealism in Ancient philosophy

Hindu idealism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The oldest reference to Idealism in Hindu texts is in Purusha Sukta of the Rig Veda. This sukta espouses panentheism by presenting cosmic being Purusha as both pervading all universe and yet being transcendent to it.[1] Absolute idealism can be seen in Chāndogya Upaniṣad, where things of the objective world like the five elements and the subjective world such as will, hope, memory etc. are seen to be emanations from the Self.[2]

Advaita indeed recognize an objective noumenon world which is made of five elements like earth, water, space, air and outer space etc. So the things which are actually out there in the physical world are just these five elements, mind, Intellect, Gods and they are responsible for the retrospective creation of this empirical reality.

 

[Straw Dog]

If you figured it out, actually his idealism is very much identical to the Hindu Idealism as espoused in the Upanishads which is the doctrine of Advaita.

Idealism in Ancient philosophy

Hindu idealism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The oldest reference to Idealism in Hindu texts is in Purusha Sukta of the Rig Veda. This sukta espouses panentheism by presenting cosmic being Purusha as both pervading all universe and yet being transcendent to it.[1] Absolute idealism can be seen in Chāndogya Upaniṣad, where things of the objective world like the five elements and the subjective world such as will, hope, memory etc. are seen to be emanations from the Self.[2]

Advaita indeed recognize an objective noumenon world which is made of five elements like earth, water, space, air and outer space etc. So the things which are actually out there in the physical world are just these five elements, mind, Intellect, Gods and they are responsible for the retrospective creation of this empirical reality.

Interesting. It still involves making a lot of assumptions beyond the science, though. I agree with the physicist that the "Absolute Reality" is beyond words and conceptualization. I don't see any reason to label it "Consciousness" or "Brahman", etc. It just is.

Anyway, I've got a taste of the Advaita philosophy and had a chance to express my reservations about it. It's sparked my interest nonetheless and I'll probably look more into it. Also, it's a challenging debate, so perhaps I'll continue this dialogue in the future once I'm more informed. Thanks.

 

[Surya Deva]

The only certain knowledge that I have is that I'm not so certain.

So you have certain knowledge of something, which presupposes a knower.

It is impossible to deny that you the conscious subject exists, because to deny the conscious subject you would have deny the denier. It is a self-defeating argument.

If dreams are actually more real, then why is waking life more vivid? Why does it require practice to lucid dream if it's actually a state of mind closer to the foundation of reality? It seems like lucid dreaming would be easier.

Indeed, it is easier for some. Some people can routinely have lucid dreams or have OBES. In fact, the dream reality is far more vivid than the physical reality. Some of the common features of OBES that are documented

1) They are very sharp in colour and form, as if somebody has increased the brighthness on the screen.
2) 360 degree vision
3) Thinking is very lucid, coherent and clear
4) Feeling of pure lightness and completely free, flying
5) Amplified feelings, like the feeling of love that permetates you
6) Life-transforming, subjects who experience very strong OBES completly change their outlook on life

Now what is the explanation for why some can do it easier than others? The answer is some are more bound to body-consciousness than others. Many people ignore their dreams, many people consider the waking reality the only reality. Thus they bind themselves to it.

If there really is no objective reality outside consciousness, then why has the scientific method been so successful in making predictions and new technologies? Its whole methodology is based on naturalism and it has demonstrated its efficiency. Why? How?

In philosophy of science there is a saying, "Science owes more to the steam engine, than the steam engine owes to it" Scientific theories are practical and they serve our practical interests. It is not however necessary that they are true. Newtonian mechanics, for instance, is highly practical and served us for centuries in building bridges, steam engines etc. But we know that it is not true.

The waking reality has definable and clear boundaries, this is why it is possible to gain "objective knowledge" and perform objective acts here and this is why in the Indian tradition we call it "karmabhoomi", the place of action. This is the place where you can obtain your objects of desire. In dream you cannot, if you are thirsty you can drink dream water and your thirst is not quenched. In dreams our desires play out before us but we cannot fulfill our desires there. Hence it is the force of desire which projects us into the waking reality. As long as you have desire, you will keep coming back to waking reality. Hence why liberation is defined as desirelessnes.

All I experience are changing states and the transformations of nature. I share your skepticism regarding definitive distinctions, but the reasoning is different. Rather than take the leap of saying "Everything is consciousness", I'll stick with what I know which is that I don't know that which is. It simply is.

Yes you experience changing states and transformations of matter, because that is the nature of matter. Change, space, time and causality all belong to matter. You are however the unchanging principle that watches this dance of matter - from moment to moment. You watch everything from the changes of mental states, perceptions, sensations to changes in your body. Since your childhood you watched your body, mind and personality change drastically, but you have always been constant.

You will always be constant. You can never be destroyed because you were never born and what is never born can never die. You are changless consciousness. Space, time and causality do not apply to you.

 

[Straw Dog]

So you have certain knowledge of something, which presupposes a knower.

It doesn't presuppose that the consciousness is Absolute however or that there aren't other consciousnesses, etc. You've made some good points, but it still seems like a lot of metaphysical assumptions are being made about what is "Consciounsess", etc. It's an interesting philosophy and I look forward to learning more about it in the future. Thanks for the discussion!

PS: The easiest way to reach a state of desirelessness is to not desire such a state to begin with.

 

[Surya Deva]

t doesn't presuppose that the consciousness is Absolute however or that there aren't other consciousnesses, etc.

No, that in itself does not presuppose that. This is the conclusion one draws after analysis of consciousness and matter. If you begin with the premise of the knower, the conscious subject, then you have to infer a second category the 'known' You the knower have objects that are known to you.

So what is known to you? Solids, liquids, gasses, forces, light, energy, atomic elements, senses, sense organs, perceptions, sensations, information, mental states, biological states, chemical states. All of this comes under the category of that which is 'known' If you analyse all these things which are known you will note they all have a common property: change and transformation. We call this the gunas literally meaning the forces of nature which bring change, transformation and inertia. Thus the entire field of the known is reducible to a single substratum, which we call Prakriti/Maya Prakriti is an undifferentiated field of matter within which all these entities are abstracted.

The knower or consciousness is not made up of the gunas. It is seeing/knowing/sentience and it is not reducible to the known the gunas. To know a changing principle(matter) requires an unchanging principle. Consciousness is always always constant and this is why you can know anything at all. How do you know that your body changed? You know because you are constant between the two states of your body then and now.

This is why we say consciousness never dies, because it is never born. The body is born and it dies. Consciousness is not under the forces of nature(gunas) it is not composite, it is not divisible, it does not change, transform or evolve, and it is not multiple. It a singular infinity. Hence we say it is infinite, absolute, partless and pure. It is based on this principle that we have created the technology of Yoga As we know consciousness is pure and cannot be tainted, we know that our habit patterns, our mental modifications, our personalities, our physical and mental blockages are not real. If we suspend ourselves in a state of just witnessing awareness all of these will dissolve.

I remember meditating once at a retreat I had this really sharp and excruciating pain in my leg, but the rules were you were not allowed to move, you had to remain completely still. The pain was absolutely excruciating, but I remained determined and kept meditating. I decided to change the meditation a little, I decided to focus all my awareness on the leg itself. Initially, that was a bad idea because it just amplified the pain in the leg as I became more aware of it(I literally was about to cry lol) However, I remained detached and kept my awareness there and simply witnessing the leg. Something amazing happened after a while, the pain absolutely disappeared, not only that I lost all sensation of solidity in my leg, it felt like it was pure light. I then lost all physical sensation in my entire body. My entire body had become light. This is when I realized the power of consciousness.

PS: The easiest way to reach a state of desirelessness is to not desire such a state to begin with.

It sounds like common sense, but it is not. It is found that when you have an object you desire so much with complete one-pointed focus and devotion, you desire for that object becomes so strong that in itself becomes a meditation. You lose all other desires and thoughts, and then only you and your object of desire remains. Then there comes a point when you disappear altogether and only the object of desire remains(sabija samadhi) and then comes a point when the object also disappears and a complete state of absolute awareness remains(nirbija samadhi)

 

[Straw Dog]

No, that in itself does not presuppose that. This is the conclusion one draws after analysis of consciousness and matter. If you begin with the premise of the knower, the conscious subject, then you have to infer a second category the 'known' You the knower have objects that are known to you.

Can we know the knower? Who am I? In the state of mystical experience, there isn't anything to identify as "consciousness" because no discernments can be made. Everything just is, full stop. By calling it "consciousness" after the event involves categorization from a relative perspective, which interprets and distorts the experience using cultural preconceptions, etc. I can follow the Advaita reasoning until it seeks to generalize the mystical event to the totality of existence. It involves a leap beyond the context of experience. What is the elusive "Consciousness" we're grasping at? If we cannot really know the knower, then how can we know anything of "Consciousness"? This is why I refuse to label the undifferentiated field as such. I don't know that it's appropriate to label "Absolute Reality" with any conceptual categories. Many words invariably lead to silence.

Like I said, you've made some good points, but many of the metaphysical claims seem to just be cultural constructs rather than something arrived at through pure reasoning or science. That's fine because we all draw from our cultural preconceptions, but many of the claims don't seem warranted from my perspective. Admittedly, I'm not entirely informed about Advaita philosophy, but I am interested to learn more. Perhaps we can continue in the future after I investigate some unbiased sources. I do appreciate your introduction however. Take care!

 

[Surya Deva]

Can we know the knower? Who am I? In the state of mystical experience, there isn't anything to identify as "consciousness" because no discernments can be made. Everything just is, full stop. By calling it "consciousness" after the event involves categorization from a relative perspective, which interprets and distorts the experience using cultural preconceptions, etc. I can follow the Advaita reasoning until it seeks to generalize the mystical event to the totality of existence. It involves a leap beyond the context of experience. What is the elusive "Consciousness" we're grasping at? If we cannot really know the knower, then how can we know anything of "Consciousness"? This is why I refuse to label the undifferentiated field as such. I don't know that it's appropriate to label "Absolute Reality" with any conceptual categories. Many words invariably lead to silence.

The knower cannot be known, because the knower cannot be objectified. Any attempt at attempting to know the knower will fail. Introspection will not reveal the knower, it will only reveal constantly changing mental states, perceptions, sensations. So how do we know that there is a knower at all? Simply, because there cannot be any knowledge without there being a knower. The fact we have knowledge proves there is a knower.
The fact that there is experience, proves there is an experiencer. It is self-evident that there is a conscious subject. This is not a cultural prejudice, it is a conclusion we all arrive at and simply taken for granted "I am" I may express doubt as to "Who am I" but the fact that I am is certain knowledge.

We are not completely in the dark about consciousness in Advaita. The certitude that "I am" reveals to us there is definitely consciousness. Through inquiry or analysis we can know what the properties of consciusness are. How? Well, first of all we know what the properties of matter are. So as I said earlier, we know matter is governed by time, space and causality(gunas) It is composite(made of the gunas) it is constantly changing, it is productive(it produces). Consciousness is the opposite of this.

From the Samkhyakarika, with commentary:

10. The manifest world of effects is
1) Product, only an effect, not a cause(only effects are observable, not causes)
2) Non-eternal/temporaly limited
3) Non-pervasive/spatially limited
4) Constantly changing and transforming
5) Multiple instances, particular
6) Aggregates of parts and mutually dependent
7) Subordinate

11. The manifest is made of fundamental interactions, and the quantum state is the substratum of these fundamental interactions. They are free fold: active, static and inertial.

They are non-separate from everything else, never operate in isolation.
It is objective, independent of ideas, apprehended by the senses. It is common/public, all apprehend it alike. It is unintelligent/non sentient, simpy a machine like process.

Consciousness is the opposite of this.

Proofs for consciousness's existence are given:

17. Consciousness is a different substance not possessed of the properties of the gunas. There are 5 proofs for the separate existence of consciousnes:

1. Because functional aggregates are for the sake of the use of another(watches, televisions, chairs, beds) and not for their own sake. Hence, brain, heart, lungs etc are for anothers use, and not for their own sake.

2. Because of the absence of the properties of the gunas(matter) Unchanging, sentient, non-composite, non-objective, non-productive, uncommon

3. Because there must be some intelligence that supervises and coordiates various parts to function as a whole, upon whose absence the parts cease to function. It is observed that whatever is possessed of the gunas, is controlled; likewise mind, intelligence ego etc are possessed of the gunas, thus they are controlled.

4. Because there must be an experiencer of pain and pleasure. Matter, being possessed of the nature of pain and pleasure, cannot itself experience pain and pleasure. Thus a separate experiencer must be posited.

The observer must be posited, because none of the material things can be visible and known without an observer​

 

[Bhairava]

Maya is the dream of consciousness. Consciousness in its purest form is bliss and by purest I also mean awake. Theres a term for it, Brahman which is satcitananda which means eternal consciousness bliss.