Question: If Brahman is consciousness, doesn’t there always have to be something for Brahman to be conscious of?
Sri Prabhuji:
Existence-Consciousness-Bliss (sat-chit-ananda) is the intrinsic nature of Brahman. Consciousness is not an attribute of Brahman.
Words can only point to Brahman, words can not objectify Brahman. By saying Brahman is consciousness, we are only negating non-consciousness aspect. Consciousness cannot be known as object. Any description of Brahman is not to objectify Brahman. Words are like the finger pointing at the moon. We should not catch hold of the finger but look at the moon.
If Brahman is not an object, then how can the mind know it ? It is said that “mana Eva karanam manushyanam Bandha mokshaha” which means mind alone causes bondage and liberation. Mind is the cause of bondage when SELF which is nothing but Brahman is objectified as body.
How can mind be the cause of liberation? By understanding the intrinsic nature of Brahman as sat-chit-ananda we negate non-existence (asat), inertness (jada) as essential nature of Brahman. Since consciousness is not an object, the mind has to recognize consciousness not as an object but negating all objects. This is recognition by the mind “I am Consciousness – Aham Brahmasmi” by negating all objects like body-mind-intellect associated with “I am”. Mind cannot know Brahman as an object but as the pure subject SELF.
It is true Brahman being non-dual, there is nothing for Brahman. But the knower – sakshi is Brahman. Sakshi is with reference to sakshyam (witnessed). A person is weight lifter when he lifts weight in Gymnasium, he is called weightlifter. If the weight lifter does not lift weight at home, he is still called a weightlifter. Similarly sakshi is Brahman while witnessing. Sakshi is consciousness. Brahman is consciousness even though there is nothing to witness.