Using field research (Meditation) to discover Consciousness

[Swami]

On Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:39 pm, TSGracchus stated the following:

So you think that flipping coins and checking the I Ching, or laying out Tarot cards, or astrology will substitute for science?

Meditation can calm the mind. But it has not produced scientific discovery.

But, by all means, ignore or discard the findings of "Western science" and consult the lint in your navel for answers.

The statements above clearly show a lack of knowledge and experience with meditative practices. It also shows intolerance. As I proposed before, scientists can discover the origins and nature of consciousness and the Universe using field research. You have no evidence that my approach would not work because you lack the experience that I have with meditation. Your proposal is for science to continue in its failed reductionistic and materialistic approach. Centuries have passed and reducto-materialism has still left mankind with the same important questions that we've been asking since our beginning.

""insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."


Let us address some of your claims and show why science needs to adopt meditation as a means to knowledge.

Why should scientist use meditation?
You stated that meditation "only calms the mind" but you're incorrect. Science shows that meditation leads to higher states of consciousness, changes in brain structure, and to emotional well-being. Science needs to be able to deal with consciousness directly instead of relying on "correlates" of consciousness. Meditation just so happens to be an effective first-person approach to deal with consciousness directly. No one has had more first-person experience with all levels of consciousness than the Eastern religionists - some 2,500 years worth of experience. It's only reasonable that scientists collaborate with Buddhists, Hindus, etc. Many are starting to do just that so that should tell you something!!

How does meditation lead to knowledge?
The simple answer is that meditation leads to a state and experience of pure consciousness. In that state, you can explore and experience how consciousness in its most pure form works which of course opens the door to direct "knowledge".

Locke and Hume, believed that we could gain knowledge about the mind through a careful examination of inner experience. If it is true that meditation makes
available certain kinds of inner experience that would not otherwise be possible, then those forms of experience might possibly result in new knowledge.

At the same time, many contemporary researchers in psychology may object to relying on a method of introspection to learn about the mind. In the past, philosophers and armchair psychologists, relying on introspection, have arrived at widely varying conclusions; they have also missed basic facts about how minds work that can be established by simple experiments. Psychologists might argue that introspection simply allows people to project their hypotheses and presuppositions onto their experience and does not help us learn new truths about how the mind works. Only careful experiments, carried out with scienti�c rigor and from a third-person point of view, can reveal such truths.

Buddhists could reply by drawing a distinction between trained and untrained introspection. In most people, they could argue, the faculty of attention is weak and undeveloped, and, as a result, attempts at serious introspection will typically be overwhelmed by various forms of distraction. But those who, through meditation practice, reduce the intensity and frequency of distractions and gradually develop their capacity for attention are eventually able to look at mental phenomena and see them as they actually are.

------------
Article quotations taken from Dr. Charles Goodman article, Buddhist Meditation Theory and Practice. http://www.academia.edu/36937894/Buddhi ... actice.pdf
You don't have to download anything. Just scroll down and the article will start showing up.

[Swami]

Your assumptions are false. I not only have tried meditation, I still meditate. What I dismiss is your supernatural claims. Meditation is simply an effort to get in touch with one's own unconscious. The unconscious mind is so deep, profound, and unfathomable that people mistake it for God and imagine supernatural explanations.

I agree with you that meditation can get you more in tune to your unconscious mind. You start to notice things springing from your unconscious that you never realized before. While this is all good and true, there are of course other things that you can focus on while meditating. For instance, some of my meditation involves not focusing on "mind" (the thoughts, feelings, etc) but instead just focusing on my awareness. From there, my consciousness expands. Lets go into this a bit more.

In another thread, I talked about how we can have awareness without thoughts. Without knowing and experiencing this, your practice will be very superficial which may be the case with many Westerners who meditate. When you gain pure awareness state during meditation, you begin to experience yourself as boundless and formless. In other words, you experience yourself as being more than just your body and you are drawn into this ever expanding awareness. Some may even leave their body leading to an OBE. This can happen when you focus on self or awareness, but when you meditate on other objects, with the same deep focus, you notice that the object also becomes boundless and formless while still maintaining some awareness state to experience this. This is the real nature of the Universe - boundless, formless, pure awareness.

If you haven't experience I recommend using guided meditation which would help get you in the right mindset.

I believe in natural explanations. Once one starts to consider supernatural forces and beings there is no limit to the fantasies one can imagine. Some even come up with nonsense like astral projection. Resorting to the supernatural 'creates' Gods and Goblins and there is no difference between the two in terms of reality.

If trying to limit this to "natural explanation" is your way of distinguishing between intellect and unreasonable, then why is it that even intelligent/educated believe as I do (or similar) when they experience? Dr. Eben Alexander, a neurosurgeon, a Harvard professor, former atheist/materialist, has an expert understanding of brain yet someone of his profile can still experience and believe.

I would go as far as saying that if all Western scientists took 2 weeks off and travelled to the East to learn and experience, more than half would come back with a different perspective. So perhaps Western (materialist) science is in some ways rooted in cultural bias and lack of experience?!

[Swami]

Here is a historical and philosophical context behind my view on meditation and consciousness overall:

The following is from Dr. James Fieser - University of Tennessee philosophy professor.. (the subtitles are mine)
Why I start with Hinduism instead of any other Eastern philosophy

The best place to begin examining Eastern Philosophy is by looking at Hinduism. Hindu texts are among the oldest in the East, and their concepts directly or indirectly influenced the philosophy of other Eastern philosophical traditions. While many of the world’s religious traditions were founded by renown people—Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad—Hinduism has no founding figure, and it covers a diversity of views of the people of India dating as far back as 3,500 BCE.
…
Hindu philosophical discussions emerged shortly after, from around 800 BCE to 200 CE., emphasizing the pantheistic notion of the divine reality that permeates the cosmos. The Hindu name for this reality is the Atman-Brahman, literally meaning the Self-God, and much of Hindu philosophy focuses on this concept.

One reason I believe we are all "god" and why we don't readily perceive this. 'Atman' is synonymous with soul or pure consciousness

The dramatic implication of the notion of the Self-God is that I am the God of the cosmos. The Atman is our true Self that lies at the inner core of our human identities, and it is only this inner core that is identical with God. Hindus sometimes use an analogy of an onion to describe the various layers of our identities. Like an onion with many layers of skin, our human identities also have different layers. The outer layers of our identities involve common sense views of ourselves that we experience empirically, such as our individual physical bodies, sensations, thoughts and feelings. The Self-God is like the inner core of the onion, hidden beneath many distracting layers, and consequently we fail to immediately comprehend the very existence of that inner core and our divine status. Instead, we see ourselves as distinct beings – each of us with our own bodies and minds – and we see the world itself as consisting of a multiplicity of isolated parts. By pealing away the outer layers of our identities, though, we will find the Self-God within each of us and see the underlying unity of the world.

This is the most important part - the method to discover the self-God. In the opening post or post 1, I referred to this in explaining how meditation leads to the the nature and origin of consciousness (with consciousness being your true self and identical to God). This is the same consciousness that neuro scientist are seeking to explain except that Western scientists attached it with other mental and brain activity that are not really part of the nature of consciousness. The brain is but one of many mediums that consciousness can be expressed in.

It is one thing for us to theoretically understand the concept of the Self-God, and entirely another for us to discover the Self-God within each of us. To assist believers in this task, Hindu tradition developed a series of yoga techniques.

A second type of Yoga discussed in the Bhagavad Gita is that of meditation, which involves immediately experiencing our union with God through contemplation. The practice of meditation requires a disciplined effort, and to that end the Bhagavad Gita provides step-by-step instructions. When attempting meditation, we should first find a private spot, assume a seated posture, gaze ahead, subdue our thoughts and senses, and lose self-consciousness. Through this method, we directly experience the unified Self-God within us.

"The Yogi should constantly engage himself in Yoga, staying in a secret place by himself, subduing his thoughts and Self, and freeing himself from hope and greed. He should set up a fixed seat for himself in a pure place, which is neither too high, nor too low, made of a cloth, a black deerskin, and grass, one over the other. Once there he should practice Yoga for the purification of the Self; he should make his mind one-pointed, subduing his thoughts and the functions of his senses. He should hold his body, head and neck erect, immovably steady, looking at the point of his nose with an unseeing gaze. His heart should be serene, fearless and firm in the vow of renunciation. His mind should be controlled as he sits in harmony. In this manner he will think on me and aspire after me." [Ibid, 6]

The point of all these steps in the meditative process is to block out distractions.

Sources: Excerpts can be found https://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class ... astern.htm or http://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/ and just scroll down to relevant sections..


Many have tried to attack me with skepticism but they don't realize that they are coming from a place of ignorance. Many skeptics rely on Western science while forgetting that this science has no explanation for consciousness. The subject was once banned but now that its back and can't be denied so scientists are left dealing with it indirectly. The failure of Western science for this subject stretches from top to bottom, starting with its loaded definition for consciousness.

Contrast this with my use of the Eastern approach in which I come from a place of knowledge of consciousness. Furthermore, I have a method that anyone, including scientists, can use to access this knowledge for themselves. The challenge is in taking all this information and seeing where or how it fits with all of our other knowledge.

If you're still wanting to debate this issue then you're missing the point of the discussion here. But for those who are still intellectually curious, then here's one good debate here...read from pgs. 19-28 viewtopic.php?p=955389#955389
(Mithrae, William, and myself vs. ytrewq and rikuoamero).

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 91 by Razorsedge]

If you're still wanting to debate this issue then you're missing the point of the discussion here.

But this is a debate section of the forum, specifically the Science and Religion section, so if you want a general discussion rather than a scientific debate I think you are posting in the wrong section. It appears you mainly want to bash "western" science, which isn't actually a thing. Science has contributions from people all over the world, and always has. There is no such thing as "eastern" vs. "western" science, although there may be differences in attitudes, philosophies, etc.

For the prior thread you referenced, ytrewq and rikuoamero are correct. Where is there any evidence from the physical sciences (biology, chemistry, physics, genetics, etc.) that consciousness is anything more than an emergent property of the brain? No brain, no consciousness ... this is what observation tells us in every case. Philosophers may debate the issue, but the physical sciences have never supported the idea that consciousness can exist outside of a brain to produce it.

[Swami]

But this is a debate section of the forum, specifically the Science and Religion section, so if you want a general discussion rather than a scientific debate I think you are posting in the wrong section.

I don't like debate and I'm not good at it which is why I try to avoid it. I don't think anyone should be penalized for that.

I will say that the difference between myself and a preacher is that I'm offering an objective approach (meditation) instead of just offering a viewpoint. I admit that I want to share my Eastern views and I choose to post it whereever I see the most action taking place (the apologetics section), but I don't leave you with just that. To be fair, I also engage in minimal amount of debate. But if the purpose of debate is to "prove" then my approach also fulfills this. The main point of my approach is that you don't need others to prove it for you or to you when you can prove it to yourself via experience.

It appears you mainly want to bash "western" science, which isn't actually a thing. Science has contributions from people all over the world, and always has. There is no such thing as "eastern" vs. "western" science, although there may be differences in attitudes, philosophies, etc.

You are correct if we apply the common understanding of science. But I consider the practical use of Eastern philosophy to be science in an informal sense. It involves seeking knowledge in a systematic way with meditation as its tool for knowledge. Unlike the Western approach, materialism is not a necessary component.

You once said that your consciousness science is at its infancy since brain equipment are more recent. But I can also say that research into meditation is just getting started as well and we have much more to learn about it. In fact, meditation can also work like technology when it is used to change brain structure. Tibetan monks use meditation to increase their body temperature in order to keep warm in extremely cold environments.

For the prior thread you referenced, ytrewq and rikuoamero are correct. Where is there any evidence from the physical sciences (biology, chemistry, physics, genetics, etc.) that consciousness is anything more than an emergent property of the brain? No brain, no consciousness ... this is what observation tells us in every case. Philosophers may debate the issue, but the physical sciences have never supported the idea that consciousness can exist outside of a brain to produce it.

I have proof for everything I've said about consciousness. The problem here is not evidence but rather it's your standards. When you say I have no evidence you are really saying you want something that can be assessed using the Western approach. Many Western thinkers have pointed out why this approach is flawed or very limiting. If you used the Eastern approach then you would have already known that you are the proof.

“The body sleeps, the heart sleeps, the mind sleeps -- but you remain alert because you are nothing else but alertness. Everything else is a false identification. Awareness is your nature. The body is your abode. The mind is your computer. Awareness is you; it is your very being.�
- Osho

[Zzyzx]

.
Moderator Intervention

I don't like debate and I'm not good at it which is why I try to avoid it. I don't think anyone should be penalized for that.

I admit that I want to share my Eastern views and I choose to post it whereever I see the most action taking place (the apologetics section),

Science and Religion and Christianity and Apologetics ARE debate sub-forums. There are other sub-forum areas to ‘present one’s views’.

Rules
C&A Guidelines
viewtopic.php?t=216


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 93 by Razorsedge]

I have proof for everything I've said about consciousness. The problem here is not evidence but rather it's your standards. When you say I have no evidence you are really saying you want something that can be assessed using the Western approach. Many Western thinkers have pointed out why this approach is flawed or very limiting. If you used the Eastern approach then you would have already known that you are the proof.

It sounds to me as if you are using this phrase "eastern science" or the "eastern approach" as a catch phrase for something opposite mainstream science ... regardless of geographic location. Anyone who supports the idea that consciousness is some magical thing not dependent on a brain is "eastern", while anyone who supports the mainstream science view that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain is "western." But science has no geographical boundaries and it not separated in arbitrary "eastern" or "western" schools of thought ... at least not in the physical sciences. Using the word "approach" instead of "science" at least removes that problem.

I have this quote from somewhere that I've unfortunately lost the reference to:

"Science is about the physical world broadly understood, the world of experience, and philosophy is about science and indeed any other claims to knowledge and understanding – it is meta-knowledge, meaning it is about knowledge."

There may be "eastern" and "western" approaches to philosophical questions related to consciousness, but from the natural science perspective there are not yet any demonstrations or observations (that I am aware of) which support the idea that consciousness is anything more than an emergent property of a working brain. Kill the brain, and that animal's consciousness disappears with it.

[Swami]

It sounds to me as if you are using this phrase "eastern science" or the "eastern approach" as a catch phrase for something opposite mainstream science ... regardless of geographic location. Anyone who supports the idea that consciousness is some magical thing not dependent on a brain is "eastern", while anyone who supports the mainstream science view that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain is "western." But science has no geographical boundaries and it not separated in arbitrary "eastern" or "western" schools of thought ... at least not in the physical sciences. Using the word "approach" instead of "science" at least removes that problem.

Well not quite. What distinguishes Eastern science from other philosophies involving dualism, is the method of study - meditation. We see that scientists are already utilizing meditation so there is some objective use for it but I believe it can be used for much more than just psychotherapy. In fact, I would take it a step further and distinguish Eastern religions, particularly Hinduism, from other world religions. While many would consider religions to be about spirits, supernatural worlds, etc, but in Hinduism/Buddhism the focus is more down-to-earth since the two largely focus on 'consciousness'. So in that sense it Hinduism has much of the same focus as neuroscience.

Based on what I just explained, I question why someone truly seeking to understand consciousness would not be willing to learn about and engage in a tradition (Eastern religion/philosophy) that has spent over a millennia exploring consciousness. Hinduism has been around since 3000 BCE. I'm sure cultural bias plays a role as well as philosophical ideologies like materialism.

There may be "eastern" and "western" approaches to philosophical questions related to consciousness, but from the natural science perspective there are not yet any demonstrations or observations (that I am aware of) which support the idea that consciousness is anything more than an emergent property of a working brain. .

One obvious reason I rely on the Eastern approach is because Western science has not explained consciousness. If your side had all of the answers, then why is there so much dispute on the nature and origin of consciousness? Why is it taking so long to get the answer? Western science has some details here and there but at best it's ruled out 'substance' dualism (mind/body being completely separate). It has not ruled out the hypothesis that the brain is a medium for consciousness. The brain as a medium would mean that consciousness is connected but not limited to it.

Kill the brain, and that animal's consciousness disappears with it.

Actually, this is not proven. How do you know that this is a matter of not being able to measure consciousness? I say this because we hardly know how to measure consciousness in patient's with impaired brain function (comatose patients). Scientists use to say that comatose patients who exhibit no purposeful movement were unconscious but now that's been pushed back. Now we're able to detect "mental" responses by using brain scans to determine the brain activity associated with imagining tennis. We then ask the patient to imagine this and the brain scan can determine if the type of brain activity (one associated with imagination) and its timing (at the point that the patient is asked to do it) corresponds with the imagination. This should’ve been a given since we know that conscious experience can persist even in the absence of external stimuli, which is what happens when we dream and with other subjective experiences. My source on brain scans is from this article: https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... conscious/

If you can agree that consciousness is not an all-or-nothing phenomena and that we can't even explain how brain causes normal 'waking' consciousness, then I question how anyone can determine the most minimal level of consciousness based on brain activity or lack thereof. Under my view, consciousness pervades everything so at the least that would mean that even inanimate matter (no brain needed) exhibits some low degree of consciousness. The lowest or most basic expression is awareness, so even if the Universe as a whole can not 'think' but it is aware.

Here's how a neuroscientist should draw their conclusion:

Do you think that consciousness can be reduced to the brain alone?
We already know quite a bit about the brain processes that underlie attention, perception and emotions. There is no point in throwing this knowledge out the window. As a neurologist, I see the consequences of brain damage every day. It remains to be discovered whether the brain is the entire story. Scientific research has to be conducted with an open mind.

Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... conscious/

Now compare this thinking to how hardline materialist/atheist tend to think and there you'll find the problem!

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 96 by Razorsedge]

Based on what I just explained, I question why someone truly seeking to understand consciousness would not be willing to learn about and engage in a tradition (Eastern religion/philosophy) that has spent over a millennia exploring consciousness.

The physical sciences are based on empirical data and the process of testing hypotheses via experiment, observations, measurements, etc. There is no role in this process for spiritual analysis or consideration of the supernatural. That kind of thing falls under philosophy, religion, etc. So if consciousness is being investigated from the physical science perspective, it has to be studied via experiments and interpretation of their results using known tenets of biology, chemistry, physics, etc.

If your side had all of the answers, then why is there so much dispute on the nature and origin of consciousness? Why is it taking so long to get the answer?

There are many open scientific questions (origin of the universe, mechanism for origin of life on earth, explanations of dark matter and dark energy, etc.). The time it takes to "get the answer" doesn't matter. Sometimes this is dictated by technological development, or the need for new ideas on how to conduct experiments that can reveal the answer. But why propose some supernatural aspect to consciousness when the supernatural has never been demonstrated to exist ... ever ... in any form? It is an unnecessary assumption when studying something from the physical science perspective.

Actually, this is not proven. How do you know that this is a matter of not being able to measure consciousness?

And it has no justification for belief either. What definition are you giving consciousness if it is something that cannot be measured? If an animal or person dies, there has never been any evidence that its consciousness continues to exist in some form. Again, that kind of thing falls into the realm of the supernatural and not within the physical sciences ... especially if it is something that cannot be measured. You could propose virtually anything with that scenario and never be able to determine whether it is true or not. This is like religious people claiming that humans have afterlives. It is safe because it can never be measured (conveniently).

I think the fundamental problem materialists have with consciousness being created by some nonphysical process (ie. not by the functioning of a brain) is that there is simply no evidence to support it, and no method by which to quantify or measure it via experiments. You have to believe in the supernatural, and materialists don't believe (by definition) that the supernatural exists, because it has never been demonstrated to exist.

[Swami]

The physical sciences are based on empirical data and the process of testing hypotheses via experiment, observations, measurements, etc. There is no role in this process for spiritual analysis or consideration of the supernatural. That kind of thing falls under philosophy, religion, etc. So if consciousness is being investigated from the physical science perspective, it has to be studied via experiments and interpretation of their results using known tenets of biology, chemistry, physics, etc.

I agree with you that this is what Western science involves but that doesn't mean that's part of what consciousness involves or that consciousness what be a good fit for those methods. This is part of the point introducing an alternative approach, one that would be best suited to handle aspects of consciousness that your view can't. If consciousness, or some aspect of it, is formless, boundless, subjective, and not limited to the brain then it doesn't make sense to use a science that looks for it in a physical sense and within the brain. With that approach, you'll get an incomplete and indirect access to consciousness and that's precisely what Western science leaves us with. You're stuck with "correlates" (pieces of the puzzle, in effect but not the full picture).

To explore consciousness directly, it would only make sense to allow a reliable first-person approach that anyone can practice, can experiment with, and that reliably leads to consciousness in its purest form (without distraction from mind/body). Meditation satisfies this purpose.

There are many open scientific questions (origin of the universe, mechanism for origin of life on earth, explanations of dark matter and dark energy, etc.). The time it takes to "get the answer" doesn't matter. Sometimes this is dictated by technological development, or the need for new ideas on how to conduct experiments that can reveal the answer. But why propose some supernatural aspect to consciousness when the supernatural has never been demonstrated to exist ... ever ... in any form? It is an unnecessary assumption when studying something from the physical science perspective.

This can be answered by distinguishing between third-person data/approach and first-person data/approach.

Philosopher David Chalmers http://consc.net/papers/firstperson.html:

As I see it, the science of consciousness is all about relating third-person data - about brain processes, behavior, environmental interaction, and the like - to first-person data about conscious experience.

Substitute physics, chemistry, and biology after the words "science of" and you'll get your answer. None of these 3 sciences you brought up involve "first-person data". Accounting for consciousness is unlike any other problem in science.

What definition are you giving consciousness if it is something that cannot be measured?

I don't know how we'd measure it but I do know that meditation can be used as a means to experience it. Under my belief, after you die you would simply merge back with the Universal form of consciousness until you enter another individuated form (whether it be as a rock or another human). You see this is why I believe meditation needs to be brought more into the intellectual community, especially among Western philosophers and scientists. The general population already practices but we need the practice more from the people who are more scientifically-minded. Perhaps then we can get the type of explanations that you're looking for.

I think the fundamental problem materialists have with consciousness being created by some nonphysical process (ie. not by the functioning of a brain) is that there is simply no evidence to support it, and no method by which to quantify or measure it via experiments. You have to believe in the supernatural, and materialists don't believe (by definition) that the supernatural exists, because it has never been demonstrated to exist.

Again, I see no evidence for the brain being the cause and place for consciousness as opposed to just being a medium. If consciousness is simply information or software, then why couldn't it be transferred to another medium just like we do with computer data/software? So there's even naturalistic examples we can point to assuming that consciousness involves information. But I don't think that because "mind" and "consciousness" can be separate under my worldview.

[Swami]

Western scientists seem stuck on studying 'individual consciousness' and not realizing that it's only a limited expression of "universal consciousness'. What do we expect to get from this science? What we find is a science that leaves us with incomplete answers (correlates, at best) and all of this based on an indirect (incomplete) approach.

Compare this to the Eastern approach where observation has shown that consciousness pervades everything, and that all are manifestations of it. So this discovery of Universal consciousness has led to the very nature of reality. This realization that consciousness is the source of reality should lead one to understand the Universe in terms of it, rather than in terms its products (matter? energy?). Again, all of this can be verified if you are willing to experience the world through a pure conscious state. Those who are not willing to meditate to reach this state (some I've exposed on this thread) simply do not want to learn. This stubbornness is very common in Western science.

Pure/Universal consciousness vs. Individual consciousness

Hindu scriptures suggest that consciousness has two universal states and both of them exist not only in humans but all creation. One is universal, passive, eternal, stateless, without modifications, indivisible, and pure. The other is with qualities, dualities, states, conditions, modes, modifications, and dynamism. The source of the first one is Brahman (God) himself in his highest state. The source of the second is Nature (Prakriti) in its dynamic and differentiated state. The former gives rise to soul consciousness or pure consciousness, whereas the latter results in individualized ego consciousness. Since it arises due to the activity of ego (aham), which is an aspect of Nature, we may also call it ego consciousness.

Universal consciousness:

One is that the universal consciousness is the innermost reality or the center of human consciousness. It exists not only at the universal level as an independent entity and controller of all, but also in all beings as their very center and inner Lord. If you strip all the modifications and components of the individual consciousness, what remains in the end is the one eternal, indivisible, supreme consciousness. That one eternal consciousness alone is true. The rest is an illusion. When one realizes it, one becomes liberated.

As stated before, the Vedic seers believed that higher than the individualized consciousness, and very different from it in purity and composition, was the universal consciousness, which they described as transcendental, eternal, indivisible, indistinguishable, indestructible, complete and free from modifications. They believed that it was independent, all knowing, all pervading, infinite, and present in all as their very essence or Self. Its existence or nonexistence cannot objectively or mentally be proved.

Individual (or ego) consciousness:

The ego consciousness is also referred in the scriptures as chitta, which is not just the mind consciousness, but the whole body and mind consciousness, which is subject to modifications (vrittis) and responsible for several mental afflictions (klesas), restlessness and instability

The inputs for the ego, the lower and higher minds come from the five sense organs (eyes, ears, nose, tongue, skin) and their functional potencies (tanmatras), namely seeing the forms, hearing the sounds, smelling the smells, tasting the tastes, and feeling the touch. They create the basis for the ego consciousness and the illusion of experience, awareness, duality, and individuality (aham or anava).

The individualized consciousness completely perishes at the time of death, except for a few lasting impressions, memories, and dominant desires which are carried forward to the next birth. In other words, a little of the individualized consciousness survives the body and remains either in this world as a ghost copy or travels to the next world as a casual body to become the seed for the next birth.

Here's my proof:
1. Can a scientist tell you how many different levels of consciousness are possible? Why is the waking state, as perceived through the senses, the highest state?

2. Can a scientist tell you when consciousness starts and ends? How do they know it can't survive body in some form?

3. Can a scientist tell you the boundaries of consciousness in nature? How do they know that it's limited to nervous systems? How do they know it doesn't exist in inanimate matter to some degree or form?

Here's my method for answering these questions:
1. Meditation.

The Vedic seers were one of the earliest in the history of human civilization to probe into the nature of consciousness. They internalized the Vedic rituals and devised many Yogic meditative practices to study consciousness both subjectively and objectively to explore the hidden powers and potencies of the mind and use them for human welfare and self-transformation. Their methods and knowledge were subsequently refined further by numerous schools of philosophy, and ascetic and monastic traditions such as Buddhism and Jainism. Their main emphasis, in doing so, was to look beyond the mind to see whether reality was a product of the mind, or existed on its own without the mind and the senses. They also tried to overcome the limitations of the mind to see the world with better clarity and awareness.

Sources:
All quotations were taken from https://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/e ... usness.asp