Student: I am having trouble understanding how existence (satyam) and consciousness (jnanam) are the same thing. They appear to be different.
Vishnudeva: The “difference” between existence and consciousness is only a seeming difference “created” by the apparent manifestation of rupa, form (viz. objects). But if upon investigation form is found to be unreal (mithya/asat) then any difference “created” by form is equally unreal. In other words, to answer the question of how there is no difference between existence and consciousness, you must first question your assumption that the appearance of objects is actually dividing reality (you/atman/brahman) into the categories of “existence” and “consciousness” in the first place. If form is not real, then no real division is being created between existence and consciousness.
But the manifestation of form as an actual entity, independent of its cause, is impossible. Why? Because if a form has manifested, then it manifested from a cause that was already existent (because nowhere in life do we see anything manifesting from nothingness). And if the form latently pre-existed in the cause, then its manifestation is not a novel creation different from the cause, but the cause itself assuming an incidental form. Because the incidental form, upon analysis, is false (seeing as it is just the cause in a different form), then nothing was created. If nothing was created, then no difference was created between existence and consciousness. There is only the appearance of difference.
Once again, we return to the faithful clay pot metaphor. The pot-form is not itself a thing, but rather an incidental, false appearance of the clay. And if the pot-form is false, then any change or division it seems to impart to the clay is also false. So, no real division is created in the clay by the appearance of the pot-form. To be clear, Vedanta is not denying the experience of objects, such as a pot-form. But it is certainly denying that forms are actually real. And by denying that forms are actually real, Vedanta denies that any appearances created by forms—such as the seeming division between existence and consciousness—are actually real.
Something to consider: Speaking from the empirical perspective (vyavaharika), the experience of the clay-pot form is false. But is the entire experience of the clay pot false? No, because even though you are undeniably experiencing the falseness of the pot-form, you are simultaneously experiencing the reality of the clay underlying the false pot-form. You must admit that the the pot-form “is” (meaning, “it exists”) because it is experienced. But the “isness” or existence of the pot-form does not belong to the pot-form itself, because the pot-form cannot exist independently of the clay. Instead, the existence of the pot-form is really the existence of the clay itself.
So, while on the one hand you are experiencing the mithya (false) pot-form, you are also experiencing the satya (real, meaning, “empirically real”) clay. The satya clay and the mithya pot are, for lack of a better description, experienced “side-by-side.” In other words, from the standpoint of experience, the two are inseparable. Thus, it is through understanding alone that we can see the mithya pot and know that we are in fact experiencing the satya clay.
Taking this a step further, consider the experience of clay itself. Clay, as a form (object appearing in consciousness), is false (for reasons you already know). But is the entire experience of the clay false? No, because even though the clay-form is false, you nonetheless experience that the clay “is”; it exists. But does the “isness”/existence of clay belong to the clay itself? No, because “isness” exists uniformly throughout all objects. Particular objects come and go but “isness” in general remains. Hence, “isness” cannot belong to any particular object. This means that in the experience of the clay, you are experiencing the mithya clay as well as the satya “isness” i.e existence in general. But when you negate the actuality of the mithya clay, then you understand that all you are really experiencing is the satya “isness.”
Student: But wait, how can I experience myself as “isness”? If I say I am experiencing “isness” then doesn’t that mean “isness” is an object, and hence, not my self?
Teacher: You are only experiencing objects as objects. But as previously mentioned, “isness” i.e. existence is not an object. It is a “state” of being, meaning the fact that objects are existent, rather than non-existent. Speaking of non-existence, when you are experiencing the clay, are you experiencing your self as non-existent?
Student: No.
Teacher: So, the clay “is” and your self “is.” This “isness” is present in both the subject and the object. But when existence is not itself an object with qualities, then how does the “isness” of the subject (viz. consciousness free of qualities) differ from the “isness” of the object? Or, in other words, how can you differentiate your “isness” from the “isness” of the objects?
Student: I can’t. “Isness”/existence is one. The seeming difference only belongs to the insubstantial forms.
Teacher: Good. Another question: How can you say that you exist?
Student: Because I am conscious.
Teacher: Correct. But notice that you are not actively “being conscious” in order to exist. You exist for the very fact that you are obviously, self-evidently, and effortlessly, conscious.
Student: True.
Teacher: Then how is that consciousness different from your existence? When you have investigated the nature of the mind and discerned that it is merely an object appearing in consciousness, then you have seen that the mind (and by extension, thought) cannot establish the existence of the self that is aware of the mind. When the mind cannot establish your existence, then what is left?
Student: If the mind is false, and therefore cannot establish my existence, then consciousness is the reality of my self.
Teacher: So, if 1) you are consciousness, 2) you exist, then how is consciousness different from existence? You have already seen that existence cannot belong to the forms themselves, so there is only one other option—consciousness. It is not that existence comes out of consciousness, or that consciousness comes out of existence. In reality, they are the exact same thing. Try to find a difference between the two that is not dependent on the appearance of an insubstantial, false form, in the mind.
Here is another way to think of it: The word “exists” is a verb that means, “to have objective reality or being.” But if we say, “the tree exists,” is the tree performing some action to either create or maintain its “isness”? No. If it be argued that existence is an action, then what is the agent of that action? If such an agent exists, then upon what is the agent’s existence based? Is there then a second agent that maintains the first agent’s existence, while the first agent maintains the existence of the tree? If that be the case, then there could a third agent to maintain the existence of the second agent, and a fourth agent to maintain the existence of the third agent, ad infinitum. Hence, existence is not what something does; existence is what something “is”; existence is the nature of reality that is not dependent on objects or action.
So, rather than saying, “the tree exists,” it would be more accurate (though slightly awkward) to say, “Existence is tree-ing.” In other words, the existence itself that must have necessarily existed prior to the tree-form is now appearing as a tree-form. Otherwise, we are left with the logical conundrum of predicating the existence of existence on the appearance of forms that we would not even be acknowledging if they did not first exist as existence itself.
Look at the forms. Notice that they exist. Then notice that the existence of the forms (the fact that they are, rather than are not) is not produced by the forms themselves, nor does it belong to the forms. A tree, a rock and a man all equally “are.” This means that forms have existence, but existence itself has no form.
Now, ask yourself: What else is existent, but neither belongs to, or is produced by, forms? Or, what else exists but is not an object?
Student: Easy. Consciousness.
Teacher: Now, considering that both consciousness and existence are formless non-objects with no defining characteristics, how then can you establish a difference between the two? Only if consciousness and existence are objects with characteristics can you distinguish one from the other. But no such basis for establishing a difference between the two actually exists. Trying to differentiate existence from consciousness is like trying to differentiate space from space.
Speaking of space: When a clay pot appears in space, it seems to divide space into “inside space” and “outside space.” But in reality, space remains undivided because the space “inside” the pot is the exact same space as the space “outside” of the pot. There only seems to be a division because of the pot. In the same way, the appearance of forms makes you look like “inside consciousness” and “outside existence.” But the seeming difference between “existence” and “consciousness” is merely created by the false appearance of the form, because formless existence and formless consciousness are the exact same thing. So, once again, try to find a difference between the two.
Try to find consciousness without existence, and existence without consciousness. By the law of agreement, if consciousness and existence are always experienced together, with absolutely no break or variation, then they are not two different things being experienced simultaneously. Instead, they are the exact same thing. For instance, when you experience fire, you invariably experience heat and light. Remove heat and light, and there is no fire. Heat and light, then, are the very nature of fire. You cannot start a fire to create light, but not heat because they are the same thing.
Similarly, you never experience consciousness apart from experience, or vice versa. Remove existence and there is no consciousness (because consciousness itself exists). Remove consciousness, and there is no existence (because who or what exists apart from consciousness?). Can you imagine being conscious without existing? Can you imagine existing without being conscious? No. So, if existence and consciousness are invariably present together, and neither has distinguishing characteristics, how can it be shown that the two are different?
To recap: The nature of the self is existence (satyam) and consciousness (jnanam). Existence and consciousness are the exact same “thing.” But when the mind is present, it seems to divide the self into a conscious subject that knows existent objects. But, upon investigation, the mind is a false appearance. Therefore, the division created by the mind between consciousness “inside” and “existence” outside, is also false.
End Of Knowledge 