Consciousness in the Upaniṣads

By Varun Khanna

The study of “consciousness” has been of interest to scientists, philosophers, and

laypeople alike for millennia. But the constant struggle to define consciousness has been

due to its intangible nature. How can we describe something that we cannot perceive with

our senses? We can know what it is like to perceive, and what it is like to have

consciousness, but it has proven difficult over the millennia to actually pinpoint with a

measure of certainty what consciousness actually is. Furthermore, when attempting to

study consciousness, the method by which we can study it is elusive. Is it necessarily

limited to the philosophical realm? Can there be a “science of consciousness”?1 By

current empirical scientific standards, it is difficult to study consciousness objectively and

holistically because either we do not know enough about the brain or there are seemingly

nonphysical components to consciousness that are rendered totally subjective by the

scientific method. But must the methods employed to study consciousness be borrowed

from any of the natural scientific disciplines, like biology, chemistry, or physics, or can it

indeed be studied by the psychological or philosophical disciplines, with an independent

epistemology and methodology?

In the last several centuries, Western philosophers have proposed many theories

regarding consciousness, from Descartes (1596-1650) and Spinoza (1632-1677) to Nagel

(b. 1937) and Chalmers (b. 1966). 2 Today we have many distinct and arguable

philosophies of consciousness. However, the definition of consciousness is itself a

1
Here by “science” we mean the word as it is defined in the Oxford Dictionary: “The intellectual and
practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and
natural world through observation and experiment.”
2
For a comprehensive look at the theories of consciousness proposed by Western philosophers over the
centuries, see Velmans (2009), Part I.
challenge because there are different worldviews that all use similar terms to mean

different things. Humans may have some common experience of being conscious, but the

definition of consciousness and its origin are different based on different philosophies.

For example, according to “substance dualism”, there are two distinct substances

that cannot be reduced to any common existential ground: matter and consciousness. This

means that consciousness is a nonphysical substance. According to “property dualism”

though, consciousness evolves as a property of complex physical systems, yet is itself

nonphysical. But according to “functionalism”, consciousness is just a function of the

brain, and is not a separate substance.3

However, according to Indian philosophies, there are even more ways to look at

consciousness. According to advaita-vedānta, or the system of non-dualism, the entire

perceived world is an “illusion” (māyā) and in fact only “consciousness” (cit, caitanya,

jñāna) exists; instead of being bodies with a consciousness, we are “consciousness” itself,

inhabiting an illusory body, due to false identification (adhyāsa) with the illusory world

(saṁsāra).4

As we can see, there are many distinct worldviews that all refer to the same

underlying experience of consciousness in different ways. Yet, the common experience is

that of “being conscious” – as Descartes pointed out, one finds it very difficult to deny

one’s own conscious existence. It follows that the study of consciousness is one of the

most fundamental studies of humankind, yet its object is highly elusive to systematic

enquiry. It is an ancient study, but also a contemporary study. The current popular

paradigm within the Western scientific world is that of physicalism, which assumes that

3
Velmans (2009), Part I.
4
The chief consolidator and systematizer of advaita-vedānta was Śaṅkara (ca. 788-820). For a modern
exposition of advaita-vedānta, c.f. Rambachan (2006).
only the physical world exists, and that consciousness is some kind of product of brain

activity, inseparable from the existence of the brain. But many theories of consciousness

have come in and out of fashion, and as Max Velmans says, “being out of current fashion

does not mean they are entirely wrong.”5

It is fascinating that consciousness is at the forefront of modern scientific enquiry

today, yet from a philosophical perspective the current methods of enquiry seem

potentially incapable of encapsulating the object of their study. This is, in short, because

within the current physicalist paradigm of science we are using physical methods to study

consciousness, and these methods of enquiry can only reveal physical properties. If there

is more to consciousness than electrical impulses and chemical interactions within the

brain, then the scientific methods we are currently using to study consciousness will not

be able to access that information.

The Upaniṣads can serve as new reference texts for this field of enquiry, because

the nature of reality, which includes the study of “consciousness”, is of vital interest to

the Upaniṣads.6 It is the opinion of the Upaniṣads that Consciousness7 is not limited to the

5
Velmans (2009), pg. 31.
6
Joel Brereton (1990) writes, “An integrative vision of things was not the only concern of the Upanishads,
but it was a central one… The vision comprehends the world, and by it, people know who they are and
where they are. People understand that they are a part of everything, in fact, that they are at the very center
of everything, and they know that everything is a part of them… Especially the later Upanishads insist that
insight into the true nature of things effects the highest attainment of all, the attainment of a final release
from all temporal and spatial limitation… Death cannot affect the true self, nor can anything else, for the
self precedes and embraces everything. The person who truly sees the self in this way, therefore, should
have neither desire nor fear, for that person knows that no harm can come to the self.” (133-134). As S.
Radhakrishnan (1953) explains, “[The Upanishads] are said to provide us with a complete chart of the
unseen Reality, to give us the most immediate, intimate and convincing light on the secret of human
existence… A metaphysical curiosity for a theoretical explanation of the world as much as a passionate
longing for liberation is to be found in the Upaniṣads.” (17-18). He continues, “The Upaniṣads describe to
us the life of the spirit, the same yesterday, to-day and for ever… They are the teachings of thinkers who
were interested in different aspects of the philosophical problem, and therefore offer solutions of problems
which vary in their interest and emphasis.” (24-25).
7
We will refer to consciousness as described in the Upaniṣads as “Consciousness” for the sake of
distinguishing it from other views on consciousness.
physical realm, but rather pervades the physical realm just as space pervades any object

with a form.8 If this is the case, then a research method that reveals physical properties

seems incomplete at best when being used to provide answers to questions that may not

have physical answers.

The Upaniṣads are the philosophical capstones of the Vedas. Since “Veda” means

“knowledge”, the Upaniṣads are also traditionally referred to as vedānta, or the

“culmination (-anta) of knowledge (veda-)”. They leave the myth and ritualism of the rest

of the Veda behind, discarding the desire for objects pertaining to worldly and finite

pleasures, and ask questions about the nature of truth, consciousness, and happiness.9

In this paper, we will examine a few instances of the Upaniṣads dealing with

Consciousness both implicitly and explicitly. Through these few specific examples, we

will attempt to show how the Upaniṣads deal with Consciousness in a broader context,

citing its definitions, the means and purposes of knowing it, and the consequences of not

knowing it. Before highlighting what the Upaniṣads say about Consciousness, however,

we must understand that the Upaniṣads in themselves, like many ancient texts, are

cryptic. Quoting and translating an Upaniṣad directly is not always enough to understand

the full extent of the meaning it may have to offer; we must apply our own sense of

reasoning to extract meaning from it. So let us now explore what the Upaniṣads can offer

to us in the way of Consciousness.

The Upaniṣads are many and this paper is short, so to adjust the question for the

scope of this paper, I have chosen to bring to light only a few occurrences of

8
Ātmabodha (Chinmayananda, 2003), verse 68. This text, allegedly authored by Śaṅkara, attempts to
explain (-bodha) the nature of the Self (Ātma-) according to Vedānta in a concise manner.
9
This trio is often referred to as sat (truth or reality), cit (consciousness or knowledge), and ānanda
(happiness or bliss) in Vedāntic literature.
Consciousness in the Upaniṣads. The cases I have chosen are among those widely known,

but for the interested reader there are innumerable examples to choose from, and the

references in this paper can serve as entry points into exploring those numerous

examples. Since the texts are cryptic, many scholars have commented on them over the

millennia. One of the most popular commentators on the Upaniṣads is Śaṅkara, so we

shall rely upon his commentaries to bring to light some of the subtleties that can be

extracted from them.

One among the more ancient Upaniṣads is the Chāndogya Upaniṣad. In its sixth

chapter, there comes a story about the student Śvetaketu and his teacher and faher,

Uddālaka. Śvetaketu, having returned from his studies at the gurukula10 comes home,

arrogantly thinking he knows everything. Uddālaka asks him, “Did you ask about that

teaching through which the unheard becomes heard, the unfathomed becomes fathomed,

and the unknown becomes known?”11 Śvetaketu, not knowing this instruction, asks his

father to teach it to him. Uddālaka obliges, and starts off by saying, “In the beginning, all

this before you was Existence alone, only One, without a second.”12

Saying “Existence” (sat) here, according to Śaṅkara, implies a subtle, all-

pervasive thing, which is without distinctions, singular, without parts, and is

Consciousness. This word, sat, he states, is known from all the Upaniṣads.13 In other

words, Existence is the primal substance from which the entire universe, made up of

names, forms, qualities, actions, space, and time, arises. But that is not to say that

10
The gurukula is the traditional Indian system of education. A student would traditionally go, at age eight,
to the home of the teacher to learn for 12 years. He would become part of the family (-kula) of the teacher
(guru-). In this case, however, Śvetaketu goes to the gurukula at age 12 and returns at age 24.
11
Chāndogya Upaniṣad, VI.1.2-3.
12
Chāndogya Upaniṣad, VI.2.1.
13
See Śaṅkara’s commentary on Chāndogya Upaniṣad, VI.2.1.
Existence is separate from creation, for creation is just Existence qualified by names and

forms.

Uddālaka proceeds to explain that sat, or Existence, envisioned itself as becoming

many, and it was this vision from which the universe arose. 14 Here, an interesting

discussion takes place. The very fact of Existence “envisioning”, according to Śaṅkara, is

justification enough to say that Existence (sat) according to the Upaniṣad, is also

Consciousness (in other Upaniṣads called cit, or jñāna). How can this be so? The

Upaniṣad already established that Existence was singular, without a second, and beyond

qualification in the beginning. Then how could it perform the action of envisioning? Thus

it must also be conscious. But “being conscious” implies a quality of Existence, and

Existence has already been stated not to have qualities. From this it follows that

Existence simply is Consciousness. How can it be said that these aspects are one and the

same entity? For, if Existence were separate from Consciousness, then Consciousness, or

the ability to envision, would not exist. And if Consciousness were separate from

Existence, then Existence would not have the ability to envision. Thus Consciousness and

Existence become synonyms for each other.

We may now enquire into another Upaniṣad to further drive home the identity of

Existence, Consciousness, and Brahman, the Taittirīya Upaniṣad. The Upaniṣad states,

“Brahman is truth, knowledge, and infinite.”15 Śaṅkara’s discussion on this topic is very

helpful in understanding this terse statement. He writes:

As for satya, a thing is said to be satya, true, when it does not change the nature that is

ascertained to be its own; and a thing is said to be unreal when it changes the nature that

14
Chāndogya Upaniṣad, VI.2.3.
15
Taittirīya Upaniṣad, II.1.1, “satyam jñānam anantam brahma.”
 is ascertained to be its own. Hence a mutable thing is unreal… So the phrase satyam

brahma (Brahman is truth) distinguishes Brahman from unreal things.

From this it may follow that (the unchanging) Brahman is the (material) cause (of all

subsequent changes); and since a material cause is a substance, it can be an accessory as

well, thereby becoming insentient like earth. Hence it is said that Brahman is jñānam.

Jñāna means knowledge, consciousness. The word jñāna conveys the abstract notion of

the verb (jñā, to know); and being an attribute of Brahman along with truth and

infinitude, it does not indicate the agent of knowing.16

To the ṛṣis, an “end” or a “theory” was meaningless without a method of attaining

it.17 So how can Consciousness be known? In answer to this question, the Aitareya

Upaniṣad lists the ways in which Consciousness (prajñāna), the all-perceiver, can be

“perceived”; that is, the forms in which the effect of Consciousness can be witnessed.

Here, the names and attributes of Consciousness are mentioned:

It is this heart (intellect) and this mind... It is sentience, rulership, secular knowledge,

presence of mind, retentiveness, sense-perception, fortitude, thinking, genius, mental

suffering, memory, ascertainment, resolution, life-activities, hankering, passion, and such

others. All these verily are the names of Consciousness.

This One is (the inferior) Brahman; this is Indra, this is Prajāpati; this is all these gods;

and this is these five elements… and this is all these (big creatures), together with the

small ones, that are the procreators of others and referable in pairs… and all the creatures

that there are which move or fly and those which do not move. All these have

Consciousness as the giver of their reality; all these are impelled by Consciousness; The

16
Śaṅkara’s commentary on Taittirīya Upaniṣad, II.1.1. Tranlsation from Ghambīrānanda (1957), pg. 302-
303.
17
Cf. Gambhīrānanda (1983), Introduction. On page xiv, he writes, “To our forebears no philosophy had
any claim to recognition unless it had some bearing on life.” The Upaniṣads seem not to be satisfied with
merely presenting a philosophy. They also present us with clues as to how to realize the philosophy in life
as well.
 universe has Consciousness as its eye, and Consciousness is its end. Consciousness is

Brahman.18 (Emphasis added)

A logical question was first asked. We often mention Consciousness, Existence, or

Brahman as a “final Truth”, but how can we actually know it? Any activity related to

living, knowledge, and emotion is referred to here. Where there is life, there can be seen

the effects of Consciousness. Through these effects, Consciousness can be known, for it

is the principle that underlies them all. But is it just life as we know it? The Upaniṣad

does not stop there. Those creatures that “do not move” are also included under the

purview of Consciousness, which indicates that even inert objects are included as effects

of Consciousness. The Upaniṣad goes on to state that in fact, the entire universe, too, has

Consciousness as its substratum and as its goal. Meditation on these effects of

Consciousness bring one to the knowledge of Consciousness itself.

How else can one achieve the realization of this Consciousness? In the Kaṭha

Upaniṣad, it is said, “The unintelligent people follow the external desires. They get

entangled in the snares of the wide-spread death. Therefore the discriminating people,

having known what true immortality is in the midst of impermanent things, do not pray

for anything here.”19 Reducing one’s desires for objects of the external world is also a

means to this realization.

Finally, Lord Death tells Naciketas in the Kaṭha Upaniṣad: “Arise, awake, and

learn by approaching the excellent ones.”20 In the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad it is said, “For

knowing that Reality he should go, with sacrificial faggots in hand, to a teacher, versed in

18
Aitareya Upaniṣad, III.1.2-3. Translation from Gambhīrānanda (1958), pg. 67, 71.
19
Kaṭha Upaniṣad, II.1.2. Translation from Gambhīrānanda (1957), pg. 178.
20
Kaṭha Upaniṣad, I.3.14. Translation from Gambhīrānanda (1957), pg. 171.
the Vedas and absorbed in Brahman.”21 Value is placed upon going to learn directly from

a teacher who is already a knower of Brahman. But then, why should one strive to

achieve this realization?

The purpose of this enquiry becomes clear at the end of the Aitareya Upaniṣad,

when the Upaniṣad declares, “Consciousness is Brahman.” In fact, nothing other than

Consciousness exists. What is the practical application of this knowledge for a person?

The final section makes it clear:

Through this Self that is Consciousness, he ascended higher up from this world, and

getting all desires fulfilled in that heavenly world, he became immortal, he became

immortal.22

Immortality is the goal. Immortality is the end. Identification with Consciousness indeed

means that one is finally identified with Brahman itself, the unchanging, eternal Reality,

and is freed from the suffering of limitation. This immortality, or identification with

Brahman, gives rise to fearlessness23 and bliss.24 The Kena Upaniṣad corroborates this

goal:

It (i.e. Brahman) is really known when It is known with (i.e. as the Self of) each state of

consciousness, because thereby one gets immortality. (Since) through one’s own Self is

acquired strength, (therefore) through knowledge is attained immortality.25

The Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, too, verifies this same ideal: “This (Self-knowledge) is

(the means of) immortality”,26 and also, “I believe that Self alone to be the immortal

Brahman… Knowing (It) I am immortal.”27

21
Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad, I.2.12. Translation from Gambhīrānanda (1958), pg. 109.
22
Aitareya Upaniṣad, III.1.2.4. Translation from Gambhīrānanda (1958), pg. 74.
23
Refer to Taittirīya Upaniṣad, II.9.1: “The enlightened man is not afraid of anything after realizing that
Bliss of Brahman…” Translation from Gambhīrānanda (1957), pg. 383.
24
Refer to the famous passage of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, IV.3.33, describing the bliss of one who
knows the Veda and is desireless.
25
Kena Upaniṣad, II.4. Translation from Gambhīrānanda (1957), pg. 66.
 What is that person like, who sees this Consciousness in all? How does he

behave? The Kaṭha Upaniṣad postulates a simple description. He is akratu, or without

desires. 28 Desirelessness is the quality of the man who can see the glory of the Self. The

Taittirīya Upaniṣad describes him as fearless: “The enlightened man is not afraid of

anything after realizing that Bliss of Brahman, failing to reach which, words turn back

along with the mind. Him, indeed, this remorse does not afflict: ‘Why did I not perform

good deeds, and why did I perform bad deeds?’”29 The same Upaniṣad provides an

interesting effect of attaining this realization as well:

He who knows thus… continues singing this sāma song; “Halloo! Halloo! Halloo! I am

the food, I am the food, I am the food; I am the eater, I am the eater, I am the eater; I am

the unifier, I am the unifier, I am the unifier; I am the first born (Hiraṇyagarbha) of this

world (with forms and without forms). I (as Virāṭ) am earlier than the gods. I am the

navel of immortality He who offers me thus (as food), protects me just as I am. I, food as

I am, eat him up who eats food without offering. I defeat (i.e. engulf) the entire universe.

Our effulgence is like that of the sun. This is the Upaniṣad.30

Interestingly, the views of the Upaniṣads on rituals performed without this

realization are almost humorous. The Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad seems to mock those who take

the Vedic sacrifices to be the highest:

Since these eighteen constituents31 of a sacrifice, on whom the inferior karma has been

said to rest, are perishable because of their fragility, therefore those ignorant people who

26
Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, II.5.1-14. Each verse in this series of meditations includes this statement.
Translation from Sri Ramakrishna Math (1993).
27
Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, IV.4.17. Translation from Sri Ramakrishna Math (1993).
28
Kaṭha Upaniṣad I.2.20.
29
Taittirīya Upaniṣad II.9.1. Translation from Gambhīrānanda (1957), pg. 383.
30
Taittirīya Upaniṣad III.10.5-6. Translation from Gambhīrānanda (1957), pg. 410-411.
31
Śaṅkara clarifies that the eighteen constituents of the sacrifice are the sixteen priests, the sacrificer, and
his wife.
 get elated with the idea, “This is (the cause of) bliss”, undergo old age and death over

again.

Remaining within the fold of ignorance, and thinking, “We are ourselves wise and

learned”, the fools, while being buffeted very much, ramble about like the blind led by

the blind alone.

Continuing diversely in the midst of ignorance, the unenlightened take airs by thinking,

“We have attained the fullest achievement.” Since the men, engaged in karma, do not

understand (the truth) under the influence of attachment, thereby they become afflicted

with sorrow and are deprived of heaven on the exhaustion of the results of karma.

The deluded fools, believing the rites inculcated by the Vedas and the Smṛtis to be the

highest, do not understand the other thing that leads to liberation. They, having enjoyed

(the fruits of actions) on the heights of heaven that are the abodes of pleasure, enter this

world or an inferior one.32

The Bṛhadāraṇyaka also confirms this view: “Those who adore ignorance (rites) enter

blinding darkness. And those that are attached to (ritual) meditation enter into greater

darkness, as it were.” 33 And, “Being in this very body, we have somehow realised

Brahman. Otherwise, (I should have been) ignorant, and (there would have been) great

havoc. Those who know It become immortal, while others only suffer misery.”34 The

Kena Upaniṣad, too, makes this claim: “If one has realised here, then there is truth; if he

has not realised here, then there is great destruction.”35

With all this in mind, how should one understand Consciousness according to the

Upaniṣads? Consciousness is the underlying principle of awareness, the ultimate witness,

of all of creation and beyond. It is one with the fundamental Existence of all things, and

32
Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad, I.2.7-10. Translation from Gambhīrānanda (1958), pg. 103-105.
33
Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, IV.4.10. Translation from Sri Ramakrishna Math (1993), pg. 366.
34
Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, IV.4.14. Translation from Sri Ramakrishna Math (1993), pg. 369.
35
Kena Upaniṣad, II.5. Translation from Gambhīrānanda (1957), pg. 71.
is one with Brahman, the most subtle substratum of all. It is the Self. The Upaniṣads do

not philosophize about some “other”, they expound the Self that is within all of us,

available for realization here and now. It is the “I” within all.

How can Consciousness be realized? By meditating upon its effects in the world

and knowing them to be nothing but the effects of a higher Consciousness. It is realized

through the cessation of desires for finite objects, but also the inculcation of a desire for

knowledge of that, through which, everything becomes known. It is realized by finding a

teacher of this knowledge that is well versed in the Vedas (śrotriya) and established in

knowledge of Brahman (brahmaniṣṭha).

Why should one strive to realize Consciousness? To gain immortality. To gain

infinite bliss. To gain the ultimate knowledge. Consciousness, one with Existence, one

with Brahman, is the cause of the universe, and to know it implies, according to the

Chāndogya Upaniṣad, knowledge of everything. To know Consciousness is to be free

from the sorrow of suffering and to be free from the cycle of birth and rebirth. It is

liberation.

And what if one does not realize this Consciousness? Then he is doomed to

continue suffering from death to death. He remains in darkness. He may attain pleasure

on this earth in the form of objects, or heavenly pleasures, but will continue to feel finite.

To know Consciousness, according to the Upaniṣads, as we have seen, is to be free of the

suffering associated with finitude forever by identifying oneself with the infinite,

immutable, immortal glory of Brahman.

Brereton, Joel. "The Upanishads." Eastern Canons: Approaches to the Asian Classics. Ed. William
Theodore de Bary and Irene Bloom. New York: Columbia UP, 1990. 115-35.

The Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. 2nd ed. Mylapore: Sri Ramakrishna Math, 1993.

Chinmayananda, Swami. Atma Bodha of Śrī Ādi Śaṅkarācārya. Mumbai: Central Chinmaya Mission Trust,
2003.

Gambhīrānanda, Swāmī. Bhagavad-Gītā With the Commentary of Śaṅkarācārya. Calcutta: Advaita

Gambhīrānanda, Swami. Chāndogya Upaniṣad. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1983.

Gambhīrānanda, Swami. Eight Upaniṣads. Vol. 1. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1957.

Gambhīrānanda, Swami. Eight Upaniṣads. Vol. 2. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1958.

Radhakrishnan, S. The Principal Upaniṣads. London: G. Allen & Unwin, 1953.

Rambachan, Anantanand. The Advaita Worldview: God, World, and Humanity. Albany: State University of
New York, 2006.

Velmans, Max. Understanding Consciousness. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2009.