7

I was having a conversation with a non buddhist about consciousness I was struggling to define some key aspects and it kind of led into not self, but I was looking for a concise simple definition.

9

Technically, consciousness (viññāṇa) is that aspect of the mind that is aware; it is the qualia of modern Western philosophy.

Colloquially, it is used to refer to the entire mental ensemble that includes sensation (vedanā), recognition (saññā), processing (saṅkhāra), and awareness (viññāṇa). This is because the other three aggregates are always accompanied by awareness. Just as water has colour, temperature, etc., so too, consciousness has sensation and other mental concomitants.

Doctrinally, it is a cornerstone of Buddhist philosophy, which takes an experiential paradigm as the basis of reality (as opposed to the temporospatial paradigm of modern science). Each conscious qualia constitutes an atomic entity in the complex matrix of multi-perceptional reality.

cittena nīyati loko, cittena parikassati.
cittassa ekadhammassa, sabbeva vasamanvagūti.

By the mind the world is led, by the mind is it carried away.
Of the mind, the one thing, all indeed go according to its power.

-- SN 1.62

4

Consciousness in English has a different semantic range than it has in Pali. Westerners have spent a lot of ink writing about consciousness, so I think there is a nontrivial risk of talking about biscuits (British cookies) and biscuits (American little round bread thingies).

Some of the relevant Pali jargon words are:

viññāṇa- awareness, especially the sort that is like a chain reaction starting with the physical senses of sight, touch, etc that leads to thoughts of other things. Sometimes translated as consciousness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vij%C3%B1%C4%81na#Overlapping_Pali_terms_for_mind

2

The Buddhas teaching on the Five Aggregates will help you perfectly explain the consciousness!

Here is a passage from the link below:

But physical elements by themselves are not enough to produce experience. The simple contact between the eyes and visible objects, or between the ears and sound cannot result in experience without consciousness (Vijnana). The eyes can be in conjunction with the visible object indefinitely without producing experience. The ears too can be exposed to sound indefinitely without producing experience. Only the co-presence of consciousness together with the sense organ and the object of the sense organ produces experience. In other words, it is when the eyes, the visible object and consciousness come together that the experience of a visible object is produced. Consciousness is therefore an indispensable element in the production of experience.

http://www.buddhanet.net/funbud14.htm

If you do practice formal sitting meditation, you will experientially see this. When you focus on the rising and falling of the stomach, once the mind wanders to a different experience, you no longer are aware of the stomach, this is because you no longer have the physical and mental duality, so there is no experience of the stomach, there is no existence, but..when the mind returns to the stomach, once again you have contact between the mental and physical, and once again the sensation of the stomach is realized! (just a side note: The changing experience is "rebirth/birth)

Metta.

  • It is difficult to give a similar meaning for Pali Buddhists words in English. Actually to define a Pali word, we need 10 - 20 or more English words. Only thing we can do is give a similar English word for the Pali word. But it doesn't completely represent the Pali word. Even in some cases, Buddha too have explained certain Pali words in suttas. Those suttas are known as "Vibhanga Suttas" (Divide and explaining).For example "Saccavibhanga Sutta". Therefore when explaining a Pali word in English, it's better to explain it in detail. – Buddhi Kavindra Aug 9 '14 at 3:07
  • 1
    @Lee Hebditch - Sorry they took out your question on biocentrism. I had only wished it could be reformulated from Buddha's point of view. That would have been a good ground for mulling over consciousness. (Although I don't think that there should be any "centrism" in all this.) Cheers. – user635 Aug 23 '14 at 0:45
  • @RobMacHugh Thank you for your kind words! I know there are more insightful and wise people on this site than me, and if they believe that it was of no value to others, then i can accept that. May your practice be fruitful, my friend. Metta. – user476 Aug 23 '14 at 10:29
1

The Pali scriptures define consciousness as 'sense cognition' or 'sense awareness'. This is the most accurate single definition to use.

'Consciousness, consciousness': Thus is it said. To what extent, friend, is it said to be 'consciousness'? 'It cognizes, it cognizes': Thus, friend, it is said to be 'consciousness.' And what does it cognize? It cognizes 'pleasant.' It cognizes 'painful.' It cognizes 'neither painful nor pleasant.' 'It cognizes, it cognizes': Thus it is said to be 'consciousness.'

Mahavedalla Sutta

~~

And why do you call it 'consciousness'? Because it cognizes, thus it is called consciousness. What does it cognize? It cognizes what is sour, bitter, pungent, sweet, alkaline, non-alkaline, salty, & unsalty. Because it cognizes, it is called consciousness.

Khajjaniya Sutta

~~

And what is consciousness? There are these six classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, mind-consciousness.

Sammaditthi Sutta

~~~

The six classes of consciousness should be known.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises consciousness at the ear. Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises consciousness at the nose. Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises consciousness at the tongue. Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises consciousness at the body. Dependent on the intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the intellect.

Chachakka Sutta

~~

'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness.'

Consciousness, monks, is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which it arises. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the eye & forms is classified simply as eye-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the ear & sounds is classified simply as ear-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the nose & aromas is classified simply as nose-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the tongue & flavors is classified simply as tongue-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the body & tactile sensations is classified simply as body-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the intellect & ideas is classified simply as intellect-consciousness

Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta

0

Consciousness is simply ability to know or, more complicated, it's property to have object. Pali commentaries define consciousness (citta) in three ways. Agent definition - citta is what cognizes an object (arammanam cinteti ti cittam). Instrument definition - by means of which mental factors (cetasika) cognize the object. Activity definition - nothing other than cognizing (or knowing) the object. Third definition is considered to be ultimate definition, while first two is provisional definitions, all of them are supposed to refute view that these functions are performed by Self.

Probably consciousness could be hard to define in mechanistic-materialistic view (or standpoint), it's because such view eliminate consciousness. So, how to define thing that is fundamentally eliminated? To correct this we should recognize that consciousness is of fundamental (phenomenal) nature and does not need to be reduced to matter or derived from matter. For all of us consciousness is basic fact (phenomenon).

  • The Pali suttas explain in many places there is no consciousness independent of a physical body (eg. SN 22.53, MN 38 & SN 12.76). From where consciousness is derived is irrelevant to Buddha-Dhamma, which only concerns itself with how consciousness is tainted by ignorance to contribute to the origination of suffering. – Dhammadhatu Jul 21 '16 at 4:36
  • 1
    @Dhammadhatu Please kindly spare me of this Theravada revisionism.There is not only your version of Theravada, but different opinions inside of Theravada, besides, there is also other schools. Also, to argue properly you need to understand answer first, which is lacking. Nowhere I said that "consciousness independent of a physical body". And what is 'irrelevant' is obviously not for you to decide. – catpnosis Jul 21 '16 at 20:09
  • Read SN 22.53, MN 38 & SN 12.76. Its all in there. SN 22.53 states the arising of consciousness is impossible without the other four aggregates; MN 38 states impossible with sense organs & sense objects; SN 12.76 states impossible with a mind-body (nama-rupa). The idea of 'independent consciousness' is not from the Buddha but from Brahmans who took over Buddhism at a later time. – Dhammadhatu Jul 21 '16 at 20:40
  • @Dhammadhatu If you think this answer isn't good enough or could/should be better in some way, perhaps it's time for you to post a better answer (to the OP's question) of your own (and stop commenting on catpnosis' answer). The main purpose of a comment is to clarify, improve, or add to answer; and I don't think we should post more than one comment if the first comment isn't welcomed. – ChrisW Jul 21 '16 at 20:50
  • @catpnosis If you disagree with a (any) comment, find it unhelpful (or especially if you find it hostile), it's your choice whether to reply to it (you don't have to). If you don't think it's a good idea to reply and if you just want the comment deleted, you can also 'flag' the comment for moderator attention (after you flag it you can call it e.g. "not constructive", or select "other" to explain to a moderator why the comment isn't helpful and should be deleted). It's also sometimes a good idea to add a reference to your answer (to help readers understand why your answer says what it does). – ChrisW Jul 21 '16 at 21:12
-3

There is no single definition of consciousness, but what seems to be common to all, at least implicitly, is the existence of an internal model of the "external" world, and sensory input to inform the model. Humans have several kinds of sensory input, and their internal models usually consist of a field of different densities (objects with different "hardnesses, e.g. steel, wood, water) and with varied luminance, along with sound, flavor, scent, and so on. Bacteria have very different consciousnesses, built almost solely on chemical concentration gradients (which way to the sugar?).

  • I like this answer. – Dhammadhatu Aug 22 '16 at 18:37
  • If there is no single definition, there are definitions and examples in Buddhist scriptures. In my opinion, your answer is not suitable on Buddhism SE. – Tenzin Dorje Aug 24 '16 at 9:01
  • Very much analytical and full of words which do not make sense. "Internal model of external world" is wrong interpretation. Consciousness is both the phenomenon - the observer and observed. There are no internal and external worlds. Infact external world is a manifestation of internal world. It is very difficult concept to deal with. – Shashank Khare Oct 4 '16 at 19:43
  • @ShashankKhare. the Pali scriptures refer to an internal & external world in many places, such as the Chachakka Sutta. Your comment sounds like Hinduism. – Dhammadhatu Oct 4 '16 at 22:37

protected by Lanka Aug 22 '16 at 17:32

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.