“Like
clay in the modifications of clay, like gold in the modifications of
gold, like thread in woven fabrics, so is the Infinite, the
all-preceding, all-pervading Consciousness. It is without origin,
without end, unchangeable and present in all phenomena. Ananda is the
essence of all happiness flowing from Consciousness, the oceanic
bliss in which all creatures are grounded.” (Anonymous, Sarvasāra
Upanishad)
“To desire something other than this immediately
present Consciousness is like having an elephant at home and still
look for its footprints elsewhere... Thus it is that if you do not
understand that everything comes from Consciousness, it will not be
possible to achieve Buddha-hood... If you do not see that your own
Consciousness is actually the Buddha, Nirvana will remain hidden.”
(Padmasambhava, Self-Liberation
Through Seeing With Naked Awareness)
“Through
Her own Will, Consciousness unfolds the universe on the canvas that
She Herself is... When this is fully seen, the mind – by turning
inward – is expanded and revealed as pure
Consciousness... By thus realizing your innate potential, you absorb
the entire universe within yourself.” (Rajanaka Kshemaraja, The
Recognition Sutras)
Non-Duality
and Idealism
As
the quotes above indicate, Consciousness plays a central role in the
main forms of Eastern non-dual spirituality, namely Advaita Vedanta
(first quote), Buddhism (second quote) and Shaivite Tantrism (third
quote). Why? Why is Consciousness the key to non-duality? The short
answer is: because, according to these traditions, our entire reality
– i.e. everything we can experience and understand – exists only
in Consciousness. All things, material objects no less than thoughts
and feelings, can appear to us only in Consciousness. In this way,
Consciousness is all-embracing, the Whole, the
“Brahman”,
the
“One without second,” as the Upanishads say.
If you
then realize that you are
that Consciousness, that you are the One in which all things appear,
you will
see
that you essentially coincide with the Whole, that you are the
all-embracing, boundless space in which everything takes place.
Everything is One;
and that all-embracing One is Consciousness; and that Consciousness
is you at
your innermost core.
This realization is the seed of Enlightenment, the realization of
your true nature and the liberation from suffering. Your
essence
can no longer be touched by the things and events in the world,
because from now on you know yourself as “That” which precedes
the world, namely
the
Consciousness in
which the world appears.
 |
| Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) |
In
philosophy, the idea that “everything is Consciousness” is known
as Idealism – an idea that is also found in Western philosophy (in
philosophers such as Berkeley and Kant and the contemporary thinker
Bernardo Kastrup). The opposite view, Materialism, says that
ultimately everything consists of matter, i.e. atoms, molecules,
quarks, photons, etc. According to Materialism, Consciousness is
nothing more than a by-product of material-mechanical processes, such
as Darwinian evolution and electrochemical activity in the brain.
Idealism, on the other hand, states that what we experience as
material objects is ultimately nothing more than that: a bundle of
experiences in our Consciousness, sensory sensations that are
(mistakenly) interpreted by our mind as objects existing outside of
us. So where Materialism says: “Matter produces Consciousness”,
Idealism makes the inverse statement: “Consciousness produces
matter”.
Materialism:
A philosophy of despair and conflict
The
debate between Idealism and Materialism may seem abstract and
academic, far removed from everyday life, but on closer inspection
the opposite is true. From the Scientific Revolution in the 16th and
17th centuries onward, Materialism has steadily grown into the
dominant worldview of Western civilization. As such, Materialism has
exerted an enormous – and very harmful – influence in our
culture. It is not for nothing that the
word “materialism”
is synonymous with greed and the exclusive focus on material
possessions. The most important cultural consequence of scientific
Materialism has undoubtedly been modern individualism, an extreme
form of the dualistic belief in the reality of the separate ego.
The
seemingly separate ego experiences itself as detached from – and at
odds with – an indifferent outside world, in which it must struggle
to maintain itself. Materialism naturally leads to belief in
separation because this philosophy sees Consciousness as a by-product
of the brain. In
that case, Consciousness is by definition tied to an individual and
mortal body, and thus
different from individual to individual. In
this way, Materialism is in large part
responsible for the suffering that the dualistic belief in separation
entails: egoism, greed, exploitation, feelings of inferiority,
hatred, abuse, violence… These are all thoughts, feelings and
behavioral patterns that originate in the conviction that I – as
this person, with this body and this mind – am nothing more than
this individual being, separate from the other people around me,
separate from nature, separate from the Universe, separate from the
Divine...
Thus the Advaita teacher Rupert Spira (2017: 2)
calls Materialism “a philosophy of despair and conflict, and, as
such, the root cause of the unhappiness felt by individuals and the
hostilities between communities and nations”. That is why the
debate between Idealism and Materialism is not just theoretical and
academic: ultimately, the fate of Western civilization is at stake
here. The choice between Idealism and Materialism is the fundamental
choice we have to make between universal unity and harmony on the one
hand and the destructive effects of competitive individualism on the
other. This is a particularly weighty choice in the light of the
impending climate apocalypse and the continuing hardening of both
society and international politics.
Non-duality
not an intellectual game
Now, we
could put forward a whole arsenal of theoretical arguments in favor
of Idealism and against Materialism – for example, the fact that
Materialism fails to explain Consciousness (which is known in
philosophy as “the Hard Problem of Consciousness”), or the
constitutive role of the observer in quantum mechanics, or the old
epistemological argument that we cannot know anything outside of
Consciousness (an argument found both in Western philosophers such as
Berkeley and Kant and in Eastern
traditions such as Yogacara Buddhism and Shaivite Tantrism). From a
theoretical perspective, such arguments are of course very important
and – in my opinion – ultimately convincing.
But when
it comes to Enlightenment through non-dual Consciousness, these
arguments are less relevant. Non-duality is much more than just
theory, and certainly not a purely intellectual game with
philosophical subtleties. Non-dual spirituality is primarily about
the living
realization of Enlightenment by directly experiencing the existential
truth behind
Idealism, i.e. by
discovering oneself as the one
Consciousness underlying everything and everyone.
This
also indicates the main
difference between Western Idealism and the non-dual spirituality of
the East. Although both see Consciousness as the ultimate reality,
Western Idealism remains stuck in purely theoretical arguments and
does not penetrate into the experiential dimension of Enlightenment,
the direct intuition of non-dual Consciousness. Whereas it is
precisely this redeeming experience that is the central motive of
Eastern spirituality. In Advaita, Tantra and Buddhism, philosophical
theory and rational argumentation are certainly not lacking, but they
are secondary to the practical pursuit of Enlightenment. In his
classic book Philosophies of India,
Heinrich Zimmer aptly describes this difference between Western and
Indian philosophy as follows:
“India [...] has had,
and still has, its own disciplines of psychology, ethics, physics,
and metaphysical theory. But the primary concern – in striking
contrast to the interests of the modern philosophers of the West –
has always been, not information, but transformation: a radical
changing of man’s nature and, therewith, a renovation of his
understanding both of the outer world and of his own existence; a
transformation as complete as possible […]. The attitudes toward
each other of the Hindu teacher and the pupil bowing at his feet are
determined by the exigencies of this supreme task of transformation.
Their problem is to effect a kind of alchemical transmutation of the
soul. Through the means, not of a merely intellectual understanding,
but of a change of heart (a transformation that shall touch the core
of his existence), the pupil is to pass out of bondage, beyond the
limits of human imperfection and ignorance, and transcend the earthly
plane of being.” (Zimmer 1953: 4-5)
The
Eastern contribution: Consciousness is not individual
In
the following, therefore, I will not go into the many arguments that
can be given for Idealism and against Materialism. Instead, I will
focus on one specific argument from Eastern philosophy about the
fundamental nature of Consciousness – an argument that directly
touches on the experience of Enlightenment. It also addresses one of
the main objections raised by Westerners when confronted with
non-duality. As said, non-duality is about discovering yourself as
the one, all-embracing Consciousness underlying everything and
everyone. For most Westerners, that’s a rather absurd idea, trapped
as they are in the – ultimately Materialistic – belief that
Consciousness is always individual, because always tied to an
individual body.
For Westerners, the Materialist
assumption that Consciousness is in one’s head, and in particular
in the brain, is very natural; it’s what they are brought up with.
As said, if Consciousness is in the brain, then Consciousness is by
definition of an individual nature, tied to an individual body. It is
striking to see that even Western thinkers such as Berkeley and Kant
have – despite their Idealism – not been able to escape this
Materialist assumption of the individuality of Consciousness. In this
respect, Eastern philosophy shows a very different and, above all,
more consistent picture. For if we start from the plausible idea that
the Consciousness necessarily precedes the phenomena appearing in it,
then the strictly impersonal, pre-individual nature of Consciousness
follows automatically.
After all, everything that
characterizes you as you – your body, your thoughts, your feelings,
your character, your social position, your country, your culture –
all these things are objects perceived by Consciousness and are
therefore preceded
by Consciousness. Consciousness is not in your head or brain, on the
contrary: your head and brain are, as objects of experience, in
Consciousness. Everything that individualizes us, everything that
makes us into different individuals – bodies, thoughts, feelings,
personal histories, etc.
– all these things appear in Consciousness, which as such precedes
all of them and is therefore
not defined by any of them. The entire talk of “individual
consciousness” is nonsensical.
It
is only through Consciousness that can we see, feel, perceive, think,
understand objects. Consciousness itself, therefore, is not one of
those objects –
that is to say: it is not a thing itself, and in that sense it is a
kind of nothing, a “no-thing”. As
Nisargadatta puts it: “Resolutely reject
what you are not, till the real Self emerges in its glorious
nothingness, its not-a-thing-ness.” (2009: 503)
By thus realizing the true nature of one’s Consciousness, one
ceases to experience oneself as a particular individual, limited in
space and time. Rather, one transcends
space and time, which are now seen as mere appearances in
Consciousness. Thus Nisargadatta again: “In
reality time and space exist in you; you do not exist in them.”
(2009: 196)
A
widely used metaphor in Eastern philosophy is that Consciousness is
the Light in which everything can appear. Of course, this is not
about light in the physical sense of the word (a stream of photons),
but about the ‘spiritual’ Light in which all objects (including
photons) become manifest, i.e. perceptible, knowable and
understandable. Therefore, Consciousness itself cannot be perceived
or understood as an object: the pure Light in which all things appear
cannot itself appear as a thing. In that sense, Consciousness itself
is completely featureless, indefinite and formless.
Consciousness:
a limitless void
Properties
are always determined and as such different from other properties.
Red is red because it is different from other colors, long is long
because it is different from short, warm is warm because it is
different from cold, and so on. In philosophy, this is often
expressed in terms of Spinoza’s statement that “omnis
determinatio est negatio”, that is, every determination (of a
property) is a denial (of another property). In that sense, each
property is necessarily finite because essentially limited by other
properties. But properties can only appear to us in Consciousness,
which is why Consciousness itself is without properties: it precedes
all of them. Consciousness is therefore not finite as properties are:
it is infinite, limitless...
This already shows that all
individuals share the same universal Consciousness. We
have seen that Consciousness – as a condition for the appearance of
objects – must itself be completely indeterminate and limitless, a
kind of infinite ‘no-thing’ that precedes all ‘some-things’.
But how many of such ‘no-things’ – how many indeterminate and
limitless Consciousnesses – can there be? It is obvious that only
one can exist. Because suppose there are several. How then do you
compare them to each other? How do you compare multiple ‘no-things’?
Clearly, this is impossible: these ‘no-things’ do not have any
properties that can be used for comparison. Hence: there is only one
Consciousness.
Put differently: if we were to say that
‘my’ consciousness differs from ‘your’ consciousness, then
they must somehow have (different) properties. Our consciousnesses
must then be limited in some way, for then there must be some kind of
boundary between ‘my’ consciousness and ‘your’ consciousness.
But how is that possible if Consciousness is indeterminate and
limitless? Of course, you are aware of different things than I am.
For example, you eat an apple while I drink a cup of tea; you feel
cheerful while I am sad; you think of your grandmother, while I think
of the pain in my back, etc. But these differences all concern the
objects in Consciousness. That which perceives these objects, i.e.
Consciousness itself, is exactly the same for both of us:
featureless, boundless, formless... Seen in this way, I cannot
distinguish ‘my’ Consciousness from ‘your’ Consciousness. The
whole difference between ‘mine’ and ‘thine’ dissolves in the
limitless void of pure Consciousness.
The
“neti, neti” formula
Let us
return to the fact that properties can only be determined in relation
to each other, by differing from each other. This accounts for the
famous phrase “neti, neti” (“not this, not this”) which
traditionally denotes Consciousness in the Vedanta – an expression
that is already found in the oldest Upanishad: “With
what means can one perceive that through
which one perceives this whole world? About this Self one can only
say “neti, neti”.”
(Brihadaranyaka, 4.5.15)
This
double negation indicates that Consciousness is not characterized by
any property, therefore not by any property A
or by the opposite property non-A (from
which A
must differ in order to be A).
For example, if I merely said “Consciousness is not large”, I
would leave open – due to the relational nature of properties –
the possibility that Consciousness is small. It is to exclude this
possibility that the phrase “neti, neti” is used. Through this
phrase it becomes clear that Consciousness is completely beyond the
relational dimension of mutually limiting properties – as the
Brihadaranyaka
Upanishad (3.8.8) says: “it
is neither gross nor subtle, neither short nor long”,
and so on.
Thus, the
non-duality of Consciousness does not just
mean that there is no longer any
subject-object duality (although that’s
the main meaning of it); it also means that Consciousness is
essentially beyond (or before) the dualities of our empirical,
property-determined world. Consciousness is neither cold nor warm,
neither large nor small, mind nor matter, male or female, good nor
evil, etc.
The “groundless
openness” of the space of Consciousness
Clearly,
we are reaching the limits of language and conceptual thinking. How
can one talk and think about something that has no properties,
something indescribable, something ineffable? To meet this exigency,
Advaita, Tantra and Buddhism employ
various metaphors to indicate the non-objectifiable essence of
Consciousness. We have already got to know one of these metaphors,
namely the Light in which all objects become visible, but which
itself cannot be seen as an object.
A closely related
metaphor is that of the empty sky or space in which material objects
can find a place. That space necessarily precedes all objects and is
therefore not an object itself. In that sense one can say that
Consciousness “gives space” to all phenomena – or rather: it is
that space, that indefinite and infinite openness in which everything
can appear. Enlightenment is about
experiencing oneself as this infinite space in which everything
happens.
Thus Nisargadatta often used to ask his visitors
questions like: “Have
you ever felt the
all-embracing emptiness in which the universe swims like a cloud in
the blue sky?” (2009: 330)
The Dutch Advaita philosopher Douwe Tiemersma, who
also happened to be one of Nisargadatta’s students,
aptly spoke of the “groundless openness”, i.e.
the boundless and open space of Consciousness that is “groundless”
because there is nothing outside of it and that therefore does not
depend on anything (it is its own ground, one could say).
Of
course, this is not about space in the scientific sense of the word,
i.e. not the geometric space of mathematics or the physical space of
physics. These spaces are objects in
Consciousness, since they can be studied scientifically. As such,
they presuppose an even more fundamental space, the space of
Consciousness in which they can appear as objects. In that sense,
Consciousness is “the space behind space” or “the space around
space”, i.e. the indefinite and groundless openness in which the
geometric and physical spaces can first come to
appearance. This is what the Chandogya
Upanishad means with the following remarkable passage:
“As
immeasurable as the space around is this space in the Heart, which
contains both the earth and the sky, both fire and wind, both the sun
and the moon, both lightning and stars… Now, what is called space
is that which generates name-and-form (nama-rupa).
That in which they are grounded – that is Brahman; that is the
Immortal, that is the Self.” (Chandogya
Upanishad, 8.1.3 & 8.14)
Consciousness
and Enlightenment
The last
sentence of the above quote – “that is Brahman; that is the
Immortal; that is
the Self” – points to the importance of the non-dualistic view
of Consciousness for the ideal of Enlightenment in Advaita, Buddhism
and Tantra. To begin with, we have to see that this indeterminate and
limitless space of Consciousness is our deepest Self, or rather our
deepest I.
For the third-person form of “the Self” can create the dualistic
impression that it is about something apart from us, standing
over against us, a divine He, while the
point is precisely the non-dualistic insight that we are “That”
ourselves. After all, I
am aware of all my experiences, feelings and thoughts. I
am the observer to whom the world appears. I
am the subject to which all objects appear but who can never become
an object itself. In short, I
am that featureless,
boundless Consciousness that underlies and precedes all
phenomena.
The seeing of this is what Enlightenment is,
Awakening, the liberation of suffering. All experiences, thoughts,
feelings appear in Consciousness, but they do not touch
Consciousness; it remains featureless, formless, unmoved – just as
a theater remains unmoved by the drama that takes place in it, or as
a cinema screen is not touched by the film it displays. As the
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says, Consciousness is “the
one who is beyond hunger and thirst, beyond sadness and confusion,
beyond old age and death”
(3.4.2).
Although
Advaita, Buddhism and Shaivite Tantrism place slightly different
accents and use different terminologies, the essence is always the
same insight, namely that you are primarily this non-dual
Consciousness and not one of the limited phenomena that show up in
Consciousness. In a following post I will elaborate on the
relationship between Advaita, Buddhism and Tantra. The superficial
differences that indeed exist between these traditions should not
obstruct our view of the liberating core message they have in
common.
References
-Heinrich
Zimmer, Philosophies of India,
edited by Joseph Campbell, 1953, Routledge and Kegan
Paul.
-Nisargadatta, I
Am That, edited by Sudhaker S. Dikshit,
translated by Maurice Frydman, Chetana, 2009.
-Philip Renard, Non-Dualisme: De
Directe Bevrijdingsweg, 2005, Felix
Uitgeverij (p. 103 for the Padmasambhava quote).
-Rajanaka
Kshemaraja, The Recognition Sūtras,
translated and annotated by Christopher Wallis, 2017, Mattamayūra
Press.
-Rupert Spira (2017), The
Nature of Consciousness: Essays on the Unity of Mind and Matter,
Sahaja Publications.
-Wim van de Laar, De
Upanishads, translated and annotated by
Wim van de Laar, 2015, Uitgeverij Nachtwind.
