Dear Sundari
I need a little help for a friend who is a fan of a course in miracles about the difference between consciousness and awareness. For me, they are both the same. I found an explanation from a course in miracles in google.
Vedanta says: Consciousness is who I am. Awareness, in the chart, is in the same place like Brahman. That means that they both are who I am, the subject. So, for me, the course in miracles has a confusion in view, that consciousness is seen as an object and not subject.
Sundari: First of all, you are correct that ACIM is confused, and the reason for that is that it has no real or independent teaching. The problem with ‘channelled’ spiritual ‘teachings’ is that there is a ‘channeller’ involved, and no methodology or valid means of knowledge. You are also right that Consciousness, Awareness, Brahman, etc., are all names that point to the one nondual Self. But the real point of knowing that is to understand what it means.
Anyone can say that their true identity is the Self, by whatever name, and of course, that is true. But if the mind has not been exposed to the nondual teachings, and the inquirer is not qualified and properly taught, assimilation will not take place. ACIM does objectify the Self, and it does not clarify who or what it means by “I” or ‘me’ because it has no satya – mithya teaching, i.e., the teaching on Maya, and the Isvara – Jiva identity. Without the understanding of Isvara/Maya, what the hypnosis of duality is and how it conditions the mind, there is little chance that avidya, personal ignorance, will be removed.
Catherine: Can you help? Here is what is written:
Explanation: Since consciousness is defined in the course as a “receiving mechanism”, i.e. a kind of “antenna” (B-1.7.3), it can be aimed at messages from the ego or the HG. (Holy ghost) Since it cannot be focused on both at the same time, the awareness of what is being perceived can shift quite drastically
Sundari: The mind or Subtle body reflects Consciousness like the mirror reflects your face. The mind is not a ‘receiving’ mechanism or an antenna for Consciousness, though I guess you could say that the mind ‘beams’ Consciousness. This statement is totally confusing because again, there is no discrimination between satya, Consciousness with a ‘big’ C, that which is always present and unchanging, and mithya, consciousness with a small ‘c’, that which is not always present and unchanging – i.e., the personal identity. It does not address what Maya/ignorance is, or the function of Isvara as creator/knower.
Awareness/Consciousness, the Self/satya, does not change or shift, has no parts and is unconditioned by what is appearing in the mind/ego/mithya. Consciousness is what makes the jiva or mind appear to be conscious. The Self is the nondual non-experiencing witness or knower of the mind, that only ‘becomes’ a witness or knower when there is something to witness or know. I.e., when Maya appears and the apparent creation manifests. Additionally, the term Holy Ghost is a bad name for the Self because it makes it sound like some special state or identity to achieve. Whereas, since this is a nondual reality and there is only the Self, you are only ever experiencing the Self, whether or not ignorance (Maya) covers the mind and you are identified with the body/mind. The subject/object split dissolves when you understand that all identities are just proxies for the Self, Consciousness.
Catherine: Jesus put it this way in the definition: Quote from: COURSE (B-1.7.4.)
Consciousness has levels and awareness can shift quite drastically, but it cannot transcend the realm of perception.
Sundari: See above. Again, the satya – mithya confusion. How can the nondual part-less Self have levels, shift its ‘awareness’, or be confined by perception? The Self is what makes awareness (small a)and perception possible, but it is neither confined by it or dependent on it. The Self stands alone, is Self-knowing, and is unaffected by the creation/mind. It seems like they are confusing the function of the mind (Subtle body or jiva), which can only focus on one thought at a time, with Isvara.
Though Isvara is the Self, in its function as the creator of the apparent reality, it is the only real knower. The jiva or mind ‘borrows’ its consciousness/perception/cognitive abilities from Isvara/The Self. But as explained above, the Self is only a knower with reference to the known or the function of knowing when there is something to know, i.e., Maya is operating on the mind. When Self-knowledge negates all the variable factors, the only non-negatable factor is Consciousness/Self.
Catherine: Quote: And with that phrase, another difference between consciousness and awareness is immediately apparent – namely, that consciousness cannot go beyond the realm of perception – in other words, that it is incapable of cognition – while the term awareness refers to both illusion and applies to reality (=not being aware of the body).
Sundari: Same confusion and very confusing. See above.
Catherine: So if we want to take seriously and accept the interpretations of the terms used in the course – and the very importance of this is shown by the very concept of forgiveness as used in the course – we would say
· that we can only be aware of the dream, but not of reality
· however, we can be aware of both the body and our reality.
Sundari: Who is it that this statement is referring to, what is the identity of the ‘we’? When the mind is under the spell of ignorance, it is deluded by duality and is unaware that the dream is a dream. It takes the dream to be real, and identifies with the body mind. The teachings of Vedanta remove ignorance of your true nature and thus reveal that neither the dream nor the body/mind are real. Real, as you must know, is defined as that which is always present and never changes, which can only ever apply to you as Consciousness.
Once avidya is removed, the dream of duality does not disappear, but you are not deluded by it any more. The mind is purified and rests in Self-knowledge because your identity has shifted permanently to the Self, so you can enjoy duality for what it is without getting sucked into it. Forgiveness is a function of moksa because nonduality makes it clear that there is nobody to forgive. There is no ‘forgiver’ and no transgressor when your identity is firm in the Self because there is only you, the Self. Ignorance of Isvara is understood as the only problem for everyone, transgressor and forgiver alike, trapped by Maya.
Catherine: Here is another example of how the two terms sound together:
If I appear here as a body, it does not mean that I am not aware of my reality. If you experience me here as a body, you are not aware of your and my reality. So your body eyes never show you the truth. However, when you focus your consciousness on HG, you become aware of your brothers who are not bodies. And if they are not bodies, then neither can you be a body.
What is the view of Vedanta? Is my understanding right, that it’s both Brahman, me?
Sundari: Again, who is the ‘I” referring to? There is truth in this statement as it vaguely refers to nonduality, but again it is very confusing. They seem to be saying that the ‘Holy Ghost” is the Self, and consciousness is the ego or mind. But as stated the mind is conscious thanks to the light of Consciousness shining on it. The mind is inert, it has no consciousness of its own. Just like the mirror reflecting your face is inert. Further, Consciousness is not personal – there is no such thing as ‘your Consciousness’ because this is a nondual reality. There is only your personal ignorance conditioning the mind to objectify Consciousness.
I am happy to help, and I understand that you are trying to help a friend here, Catherine. But really, Vedanta does not compare with other teachings. ACIM is not a valid teaching, it is a philosophy and has only bits and pieces of knowledge mixed very tightly with a LOT of ignorance. Although Vedanta is a critical tradition in that it deconstructs ignorance in light of the scripture, it does not argue with anyone. When you get questions like these, you need to refer the inquirer to the methodology of Vedanta, and to develop the qualifications for it. If someone is a fan of another teaching and wants to argue, they should stick with that. They will be very difficult to help because they are not qualified for Vedanta.
Much love
Sundari
