Summary:

How is awareness same for all? What does it mean to say “Awareness is without attributes”?  Any attribute can be put under Sajatiya-bheda, Vijatiya-bheda, Svagata-bheda. Awareness alone can't be put in these 3 categories. Basic introduction to Satya-mithya relationship.

Kena Upanishad, Chapter 1, Verse 2: Continuing…

• NEXT STEP OF INQURY: HOW TO SHOW YOUR/MY AWARENESS IS SAME?
  • Suppose you tell yourself, “I am that Awareness”, and someone else says “I am that Awareness”. Then how many Awarenesses are there? One.
• HOW TO DEMONSTRATE THAT AWARENESS IS ONE:
  1. My body-mind is changing since childhood to today, shows there’s one awareness. True from your standpoint.
     • OBJECTION: But doesn’t show how is your awareness which is free of the body-mind changes, same as my awareness which is also free of the body-mind changes.
  2. POOR DEMONSTRATION: I see the red cup and you see the red cup, therefore Awareness is same.
     • OBJECTION:  
       • Subjective experience of the word “red” and “cup” is different. We may both call it “red cup”, but our experience is different.
       • That’s only true if both are looking at the red cup. But if 3^rd person is looking at blue cup, then their awareness is different from the awareness of the other two.
       • Your eyes may be programmed to see “red”, but dog eyes can only see yellow/blue.
     • Conclusion: Poor argument, because it’s mixing up range-of-senses and Awareness.
  3. STRONGER DEMONSTRATION: Scriptures say Brahman is Awareness. And since people relate to what scriptures are speaking of in the past, present and future – that implies there’s one common (sādhāraṇa) thing that all people relate with. Otherwise, if there were different awarenesses, then you would need a different scripture for every person on the planet.
     • OBJECTION: What it someone doesn’t believe in scriptures?  Meaning this method fails because it requires one to be involved in Vedanta. Furthermore, people project notions onto Brahman, thus how can we sure for certain that everyone’s understanding of Awareness is the same!
  4. STRONGEST DEMONSTRATION (awareness is attributeless):
     • Awareness doesn’t take on attributes for you, nor me. That’s how it’s able to reveal a new thought, a new color, a new sensation – for both you and me.
     • From your standpoint, nothing gets stuck onto your Awareness. From my standpoint, nothing gets stuck onto my Awareness. Meaning both your and my awareness are without attributes. Thus it’s one attributeless awareness.
     • EG: Awareness doesn’t take on attributes  of what’s seen/smelt/emoted. If Awareness becomes the fragrances, then won’t be able to smell another fragrance.  Showing Awareness is not confined to any attributes, it’s free from the changes taking place at level of mind/senses.
     • SUMMARY: The only way you can say your awareness is different from mine is by giving your awareness an attribute. But we just established that the only way awareness can reveal different attributes is by being free of all attributes. EG: White color reveals RGB because it’s neither RGB.
• SO FAR WE’VE ESATBLISHED:
  • There’s one common awareness because of which my, your mind/senses operate. Same for insects/animals.

INTRO TO SATYA-MITYA RELATIONSHIP:

• • Definition:
    • Satya: Independent reality. It doesn't depend on anything else for it's existence. It's self-existing.
    • Mithya: Dependent. Meaning it requires another substance for it's existence.
  • Our inquiry so far:
    • Step 1: Seen that sense organs/mind is different from Awareness. One is asādhāraṇa (uncommon, changing), other is sādhāraṇa (common, the changeless presence). In other words, you experience yourself as a continuous conscious being. “I am, I am, I am”. You don’t experience yourself as a new entity each moment.
    • Step 2: We showed my Awareness is also the very same Awareness that’s enabling you to see your sense organs/mind. How did we show? Both Awarenesses are attributeless, nothing sticks onto my/your awareness (this is true of past, present and future).
    • Step 3: Now that all body-minds are left out of Awareness, they have to be reclaimed. Otherwise, Awareness becomes limited, because it’s not the universe, body-mind, and all the beauty.
      1. What’s more if Awareness is limited, then it’s another object within time-space that I’m able to see. And if Awareness is the final reality to be discovered, then there’s no incentive to pursue a limited reality.  
      2. Therefore we have to reclaim what was said to be “not I”, as mithya, which doesn’t mean false/illusion, but “that which enjoys a dependent reality”. Only then your understanding is complete.
  • So let’s look at relationship between Mind and Awareness:
    • Relationship between Thought and Awareness is like that of Table and Wood. The substance of a Thought is Awareness.  That’s why can’t imagine Awareness that’s outside the mind, else making Awareness an object away from the mind. Now let’s apply this to thoughts or mind…
    • Mind is series of thoughts (changes forms). EG: Suppose you’re thinking of “cow”. What is the content of “cow”? Awareness (satyam; that which the thought depends – it depends on you, the conscious subject).  No matter what part of cow-thought you analyze, that’s exactly where Awareness (I am) is. While the thought “Cow” can’t exist without awareness, awareness is independent of cow thought. Which is why Awareness can take another form, because it’s free of the cow thought all along.   This also shows there’s no distance between thought (mithya) and Awareness (satyam). Is there any space between you (the conscious subject), and the thought? No. Wherever thought is, that’s exactly where you are, filling that thought with Awareness; your presence.
    • Similarly, where there’s table, that’s exactly where wood is. While table can’t exist without wood, wood is totally independent of being the table. Similarly, one Awareness obtains in different thoughts (saintly/criminal).

Revision so far…

• Question posed in 1.1:
  1. Is there a presence because of which prana/senses/mind does it’s job?
     • Yes there is. It’s srotrasya srotram. It’s that because of which ears do their job.
  2. If there is a presence, what is the nature of it?
     1. COMMON: Hundreds of sounds/sights/smells/feelings/thoughts. And there’s one presence that allows all sounds/sights  to be recognized. It is nature of your Awareness. Sounds/images/smells come and go, but there’s only one thing that’s common (sādhāraṇa).
     2. ATTRIBUTELESS: Attributes of sounds/sights/smells don’t stick onto Awareness. So nature of Awareness is attributeless.

Continuing the inquiry into reality…

• HOW MANY AWARENESSES ARE THERE?
  • Suppose your awareness is different from my awareness, then your awareness becomes an object for me (as anything different means it’s within time-space and has attribute). Then I ask you, “What is the attribute of your awareness?”.
  • Therefore awareness is the only principle that is NOT an object, but because of which different objects are seen, heard and thought of.
• ATTRIBUTES VS ATTRIBUTELESS:
  • Attributes are of 3 types: (meaning all objects belong to one of categories below)
    1. Sajatiya Bheda: One group, such as “Tree group”. Within it, there are different types of trees (mango, coconut, oak). What distinguishes mango-tree from coconut-tree? Attributes.
    2. Vijatiya Bheda: Different groups. EG: “Tree group” is different from “animal group”. Attributes of trees are different from attributes of animals.
    3. Svagata Bheda: Within one object, there are differences. EG: Within one body, many parts.  Liver different from leg.  Each part has different attribute to another. Or atom is made of electron, proton, quark, etc.
  • To call “Awareness” an object, you should be able to classify it in one of 3 categories. But can’t because…
    1. Sajatiya bheda: That means “Asian awareness” is different from “black person awareness”. Or man consciousness is different from woman consciousness. Asian/black, man/woman are in reference to facial features, genetics, gender.
    2. Vijatiya bheda: That means “Human awareness” is different from “animal awareness”. However animal body-mind changes just like human body-mind.
    3. Svagata Bheda: That would mean within one awareness, there are different awarenesses. Like waking awareness, dreaming awareness. However the fact your identify both waking and dreaming, means there’s one common awareness throughout.  
• SPACE-TIME & AWARENESS ANALYSIS:
  1. What’s the difference between space and Awareness?  Which category is space?
     • NOT: Space is not sajatiya-bheda, as there’s no second space (unlike “Tree” which enjoys types of trees). And is not svagata-bheda as it doesn’t have parts (such as room-space, glass-space).
     • Space is vijatiya bheda. Even though space of itself has no attributes (just like awareness), and accommodates everything (just like awareness), space is different from what it accommodates. 
     • In short: Space is different from objects that exist in space. For example space is not same as fire. Whereas Awareness is not different from anything, as it’s the only reality. 
  2. What about time? Same as space.
     • NOT:
       • No second time (sajatiya-bheda) (universe is within one time dimension).
       • If you say (svagata-bheda), units of time, those units are within one universal time.
     • Vijatiya-bheda: Time is not tree.
  3. OBJECTION: Space/time is vijatiya-bheda because it is unlike anything, however Awareness is also unlike anything.
     • ANSWER: There is a satya-mithya relationship between the two. If Awareness is unlike anything, then you’ll create image in mind of Awareness. Awareness would only be vijatiya-bheda if you imagine it.
  4. OTHER FEATURES OF SPACE:
     • The “attribute” of space is that it accommodates everything, and distinguishes everything in it, from everything else, because there’s no other object which accommodates everything.
     • Space is within the universe. It started at some point.
     • Space concept can disappear in samadhi/sleep. It’s negatable. While Awareness is non-negatable.  
  5. Point of analysis:
     • Anything that exists within time-space-object framework, has one of 3 categories. Awareness is the only principle not within 3 categories.
     • For something to manifest as both space and fire, it has to be intrinsically free of both, therefore not in any category. Meaning Awareness is one attributeless reality, because of which all objects with attributes can come.
• CONCLUSION:
  • Features of Awareness:
    • Because Awareness is NOT an object, it can’t be experienced, unlike object within 3  categories. Rather Awareness is because of which object is seen, sound is heard.
    • Awareness is the only reality that doesn’t require objectification, and you still know it exists, because it’s self-revealing (Svayam-prakasha: self-luminous).   EG: Have to wait to see pen or remember color of your house door. But don’t have to wait to know that “I am”.
  • Adhyasa (Superimposition):
    • If Awareness is self-revealing, why do I need Vedanta? Adhyasa. Self-revealing presence is mixed up with objects (attributes of body, mind). Words of Vedanta separate self-revealing presence from adhyasa (objects with attributes).
    • So what if my identity is mixed up with body-mind? There’s a cost. You become mortal, subject to emotional traumas, old age, things don’t go your way.  So one mistake of identity causes subsequent mistakes.  We are attempting to undo the mistake.

—

Recorded 9 July, 2024