Definitions of Consciousness
Thomas Nagel, an American philosopher, argued that consciousness can never be truly known. In his paper, ‘What Is It Like to Be a Bat?‘, he proclaimed that we can never know what it is like to be a bat because we are missing the experience of being one. No matter how much we observe or read about them, we cannot know how a bat perceives and experiences things. In other words, we cannot know their consciousness, its contents or the level of awareness of a bat. The best we can know about another’s form of consciousness is only intellectual, as we lack the experience itself. For Nagel, consciousness is not exclusive to humans and is shared by all beings. What all beings share is what he calls, “the subjective character of experience”. Whilst this is a shared phenomena, the subjective character of each being’s experience varies.
Buddhist Definition
In Buddhism, definitions generally consist of two aspects: the nature of an object and its function. The definition of consciousness, in Buddhist terms, is “clear and knowing.” The nature of consciousness is clarity—like the vast, clear sky—while its function is to know or perceive. This understanding of consciousness helps illuminate how negative mental states, such as anger or confusion, are like temporary clouds in the sky. They obscure our true nature (or Buddha nature) but are not part of our fundamental consciousness, which remains pure and clear.
The study of consciousness in this context also highlights that human consciousness is distinct from the physical body. In Buddhist terms, mind and matter are mutually exclusive—consciousness is non-material, whereas the physical body belongs to the material dimension. This spiritual model of consciousness emphasises that, although our conscious experience might be clouded by afflictions throughout human life, our intrinsic level of awareness remains untouched and untainted, reflecting a deeper, universal consciousness.
Hindu Definition
Consciousness in Hinduism is known as Brahman or the Self. As it is taught that there is nothing else which exists, Brahman is the indivisible nature of all, “one alone without a second”. It, therefore, is the universal nature of consciousness and all of existence. Everything we perceive, including our physical body, are appearances or forms of Brahman, most fundamentally the conscious experience of being separate from others and the world around us. As consciousness is both all-pervasive and omnipresent, it is non-dual. On a local and relative scale, it appears as individual beings and forms. Ultimately, the Self is one’s own nature and these appearances are a mere reflection.
Hard Problem of Consciousness
Australian philosopher and cognitive scientist David Chalmers argued that consciousness is a product of the brain. He reasoned that it is easy to explain the mechanisms and functions of the brain such as perception, memory and learning by using standard scientific methods and theories. What is not easy, however, is explaining how subjective experience, the quality of consciousness, arises from the human body, from the physical and material brain. There is a gap in rationalising how, from matter (brain), we get an immaterial by-product (consciousness), what is their exact relationship and how do they interact. Chalmers coined this the ‘Hard Problem’ and contrasted it with the ‘Easy Problem’. In consciousness studies, the two problems, therefore, are divided up into what can (Easy) and cannot be measured or explained (Hard).
Real Problem of Consciousness
For Chalmers, the critical question to be answered is what conscious experience is. Anil Seth, a British neuroscientist, argues this is not the ‘Real Problem’ of consciousness. Seth reasoned that our focus should not be on consciousness itself, but its properties. By accepting that there is consciousness, we can then ask how its various phenomenological properties – i.e. how subjective experiences are structured and shaped – relate to the properties of the brain. In what he calls the ‘Real Problem’, it bypasses the necessity to explain consciousness, instead focusing on identifying correlations between patterns of brain activity and conscious experience.
Buddhist and Hindu Perspectives: a Comparison
Both Buddhism and Hinduism regard consciousness as fundamental to the nature of all existence. In both traditions, consciousness is seen as inseparable from reality itself, transcending the limitations of the physical body and material world. Consciousness is considered universal, and both traditions emphasise that the perception of separateness between individuals and the world around them is an illusion.
They teach that this sense of separateness is a false projection, arising from a misunderstanding of reality and that human consciousness is intertwined with the larger fabric of existence. In this sense, the traditions share the belief that consciousness is not confined to an individual self but is part of a broader understanding of consciousness that connects all beings. This is explored through direct experience rather than material or quantitative methods, with both traditions focusing on the qualitative aspects of consciousness, such as perception and awareness.
Despite these shared foundations, Buddhism and Hinduism approach the nature of consciousness in distinct ways. As stated earlier, in Buddhism, consciousness is defined as “clear and knowing,” with the function of the mind being to know and its nature compared to the clarity of a vast sky. Here, negative mental states are viewed as temporary, like clouds, and do not form part of our True Nature. The goal in Buddhism is to eliminate the false, purely conceptual sense of self, which is mistaken for having its own existence and realise the emptiness of all phenomena.
Hinduism, on the other hand, categorises consciousness as Brahman, the ultimate and indivisible reality. Brahman is seen as the divine consciousness that encompasses all, including both mind and matter, with the self representing the purest form of this oneness. While Buddhism maintains that mind and matter are mutually exclusive, Hinduism sees both as expressions of the same underlying reality. In terms of the end goal, Buddhism seeks liberation through recognising the emptiness of the self, while Hinduism aims for union with Brahman, where all distinctions dissolve into a singular universal consciousness.
Both traditions’ respective philosophies are informed by the direct exploration of the nature of consciousness and its role in shaping human perception and experience. They seek to investigate how our understanding of consciousness influences the way we perceive ourselves and the world, leading to vastly different worldviews and senses of self. Both Buddhism and Hinduism argue that viewing consciousness as separate from the world around us results in a distorted sense of separation, which defines the cycle of Samsara. This false view is not an innate part of human life but a mental projection. For both traditions, the ultimate goal is to transcend this illusion: Buddhism through recognising the emptiness of separately existing phenomena, and Hinduism through realising the oneness of all existence in Brahman. In this way, the eradication of the illusion of separateness leads to an experience free from confusion, where the distinction between false and real is dissolved, and True Nature is fully realised.
Buddhist and Hindu Perspectives on the Hard Problem
As a result, the Hard Problem does not exist in Buddhism and Hinduism. The reason being that it consists of the view that consciousness stands in direct contrast to the brain and, therefore, there is a clear-cut distinction between them. For both traditions, this is an erroneous understanding at the root of not only not knowing what consciousness is, but ourselves. By teaching that consciousness is not localised, they justify that it cannot be said to be independent or separately existing. From their perspectives, this is why the Hard Problem exists in the first place. It is precisely because consciousness is indivisible and indiscernible that seeking to distinctly categorise it continues to be elusive.
Buddhist and Hindu Perspectives on the Real Problem
According to their teachings, by distinguishing and removing the false view, the Hard Problem disappears. This contextualises why for Anil Seth, like Buddhism and Hinduism, there is no Hard Problem; it is a problem dependent on a certain perspective on consciousness. If this is altered, it no longer exists. Seth clarified the rationale behind the Real Problem in his discussion with Scott on Science & Wisdom LIVE’s podcast episode, ‘How the Brain Creates the Self’. For him, there is an “intimate dependence of consciousness on the brain”, reasoning that, “if you change the brain, you change your conscious experience.”
An extreme position of understanding consciousness in this way, he says, is considering it an “entirely separate realm that interacts somehow with the physical realm of the brain”. Seth acknowledges this view has validity as it seems that consciousness is separate “from the world of physical stuff,” but it does not “stand up too much scrutiny [because] it’s very hard to figure out.” This further contextualises the Hard Problem. The explanatory gap is created by the dualistic view that consciousness exists entirely separate from matter and is treated as merely “a side-effect”. In this way, Anil Seth is aware that it only appears consciousness is separate, just as Buddhism and Hinduism teach.
The Real Problem takes a very similar approach to both traditions because it proposes that the starting point for understanding consciousness should not be what it is or where it comes from, but its contents. However, where the Real Problem differs is the role of the brain. As consciousness is explored subjectively in Buddhism and Hinduism, there is no distinction with the brain, nor is it the focus. Because it is experience itself which is the subject of study, where it comes from or what it may be a product of are external matters akin to the issues of the Hard Problem in understanding consciousness.
In contrast, as a neuroscientist, Seth studies consciousness in relation to the brain. The domains of the respective disciplines, therefore, differ. Buddhism and Hinduism instead examine the subjective contents of the mind and their role in determining the type and quality of experiences they create. The phenomena they concern themselves with are neither observable nor measurable, unlike neuroscience. Their practices, nevertheless, revolve around observation, as it is the mind, its contents and activity which is observed non-judgmentally and non-reactively. What is identified and learned as a result of this method pertains to the various psychological and mental concepts which comprise their philosophies. This reflects an interpretive and qualitative study which is distinct from Seth and the Real Problem’s examination of consciousness in relation to the brain which is the centrepiece.
Overall, Anil Seth and the two traditions reach the same understanding from different perspectives. For Seth, it is the brain which creates our sense of self, and therefore, there is no separately existing self. For Buddhism and Hinduism, it is the mind which our sense of self is dependent on and inseparable from. Ultimately, all three perspectives are informed by what he calls, “a single underlying principle beneath our perceptions of things in the world and the perceptions that collectively form the self.”
In both Buddhism and Hinduism, it is consciousness itself which is the single underlying principle beneath all perceptions, whether taught as Brahman or Buddha nature. All three perspectives state such perceptions are “different in some systematic way from what actually is the case”, Seth says. In doing so, he, like both traditions, recognises relative truth, i.e. how things appear, and ultimate truth, how they actually are, free from distorted perceptions – primarily that of a separate self.
Conclusion
In summary, the study of consciousness reveals a complex, multi-faceted understanding of what it means to experience awareness, both within human life and across all beings. Whether we approach it through Buddhist terms or Hindu terms, the nature of consciousness transcends the physical body and the material dimension. Both traditions highlight that our True Nature is one of clarity and unity, free from the illusion of separateness. The hazy consciousness of everyday experience, with its afflictions and distortions, can be likened to clouds obscuring a vast, clear sky—a metaphor often used to explain the essence of consciousness in Buddhism. Similarly, in Hinduism, the universal consciousness, or Brahman, is seen as the ultimate reality, encompassing all aspects of existence, including both mind and matter.
From the Hard Problem to the Real Problem of consciousness, we see that conscious experience—whether explained as arising from the brain or understood through more spiritual terms—continues to challenge philosophers and scientists alike. The awakening experiences sought in both Buddhism and Hinduism reflect a deeper level of consciousness, where the idea of consciousness shifts from a fragmented individual consciousness to a more profound, divine consciousness. These teachings remind us that the mind is not merely a by-product of the brain or an isolated inanimate object, but an indispensable tool for navigating the vast ocean of existence. Ultimately, consciousness remains an invaluable tool for unlocking the mysteries of human life and beyond, inviting us to explore its limitless depths.
We hope you enjoyed this article as much as we did. A huge thank you to Lewis, one of our Online Learning Volunteers for writing this thought-provoking article! We plan on writing more of these in-depth articles on topics like the nature of consciousness and quantum entanglement. If there are any other topics you’d like to see covered, please get in touch and send your suggestion to hello@sciwizlive.com!
Want to Learn More?
Introducing our online course: Buddhism & Quantum Physics
If you’re intrigued by the fascinating interplay between quantum physics and the nature of reality, we invite you to delve deeper with Science & Wisdom LIVE’s online course, “Buddhism & Quantum Physics.” Explore how modern science, particularly quantum theory, aligns with ancient spiritual traditions to offer a profound understanding of the universe. Discover the role of the conscious observer in quantum phenomena, the mysterious nature of wave functions, and the concept of quantum entanglements. Follow world-renowned quantum physicists, like Carlo Rovelli and Professor John Dunne, and spiritual teachers, like Geshe Tenzin Namdak, to uncover the connections between classical physics and the spiritual worldview. This course offers a holistic approach to understanding the ultimate reality and the implications this has on the laws of physics. Join us for an enlightening journey that bridges the gap between science and spirituality. Learn more here.
Sign up for our newsletter HERE for 20% off our online course Buddhism & Quantum Physics.
