Mind and consciousness are difficult to distinguish for many sAdhaka-s. But the distinction is very important for a serious spiritual aspirant. In the KaThopanishad, Yama the God of Death tells Naciketas:
naishA tarkeNa matirApaneyA
This (The Self) is not attained by argument (reason, logic) or through the intellect
Therefore, it is necessary to at least have some notion of how mind and consciousness are different. To some extent the problem arises with our pre-conceived notions of what we mean by 'mind' and 'consciousness', however vague or precise those notions may be. Science as of today is yet to come up with an accepted definition of consciousness, and is still grappling with defining what it calls the "hard problem' in this field of research (see Crick and Koch, Nature Neuroscience 6, 2003). Just looking at the titles of books on the topic gives a sense of how far modern science has to go in this matter:
Chalmers, D.J. The Conscious Mind: in Search of a Fundamental Theory (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1995).
Shear, J. Explaining Consciousness: the Hard Problem (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1997).
If just the titles of these books don't speak volumes on the matter, here is a typical phrase from the same scientific journal article (see Crick and Koch, Nature Neuroscience 6, 2003) on consciousness:
"It appears fruitless to approach this problem head-on. Instead, we are attempting to find the neural correlate(s) of consciousness (NCC)"
While knowledge gained from reading such scientific studies can be useful in presenting oneself as erudite to friends and colleagues at after-dinner conversations, they are of no practical value to the spiritual aspirant. It is possible that some day medical neuroscience and psychology will do better, but my personal opinion is that is not likely. Looking at the phrase "Instead, we are attempting to find the neural correlate(s) of consciousness (NCC)" is very informative to me. Trying to explain something that is beyond sensorial and mental perception by using the mind and the senses probably violates what might be an extension of Godel's incompleteness theorem in some fundamental way (although Godel's incompleteness theorems apply to a very specific mathematical problem, what I am suggesting here is that there is probably an analogy that is yet to be proved). Since most modern scientists have made a religion out of the scientific method, thereby killing both beautiful birds with one stone, I am not holding my breath for them to teach me about consciousness. We have to make the most of this life using the theories that are already available.
The VedAntic (and Yogic) theory of personality provides us with the necessary tools to clearly distinguish between mind and consciousness (terms that will be defined in the course of this article). In these theories, all activity of the mind is performed by the antahkaraNa, which is the inner instrument. This inner instrument is composed of four parts:
manas: the mental faculty that imports sensory information and exports information for action through the organs, and which is always subject to the indecisiveness of whether to act, or not? This is called the samkalpa/vikalpa aspect of the mind. The word kalpa comes from the root klp, and can be translated as imagination. Samkalpa is usually a good intention, while vikalpa may be translated as an imagination or mental construct that is not necessarily of a good quality.
ahamkAra: the mental faculty that is responsible for the feeling "I do" (aham: I, kAra: doer). This is the egoic sense in the Yoga/VedAnta context.
citta: This literally means 'that which was thought', coming from the root verb cit/cintati (to think/thinks), and is the storehouse of impressions in the mind.
buddhi: this is the discriminating faculty of the mind that is able to stand back and observe the other faculties with detachment. Sometimes this is translated as 'intellect', but that is liable to be misunderstood. Some others translate it as conscience, but even that does not do it justice, because buddhi can see beyond concepts of good and bad. It does not have a strict parallel in English, and is probably best translated as the detachedly observing, discriminating mental faculty. It is the most important faculty on the path to spiritual growth.
The reason why many people are not willing to accept the utility of these concepts is that they do not take it upon themselves to actually practice the methods given in these systems and verify for themselves whether these are true or untrue. It is only through consistent practice and getting to know the mind and its modifications (as SwAmi RAma calls it) that one starts to see the difference. Swami JnAneshwara BhArati's website also has a clear explanation of these terms. I use the same terminology in the rest of this article, so it will be extremely beneficial for the reader to become familiar with the terminology of conscious mind, unconscious mind and subconscious mind as defined there. However, even after reading the writings of these teachers it can be difficult to understand the levels of consciousness and levels of mind as separate entities. I will try to clarify this point with some examples.
What I mean by consciousness is what is called prajnA in Sanskrit, which literally means the 'first way of knowing'. It is also sometimes translated as awareness. This is an important definition to understand and internalize because the word consciousness or awareness can mean very different things in the English language. What is important to realize is that it is a way of knowing that is 'pre-mind'. In other words, the word prajnA is used to distinguish this fundamental way of knowing from other ways of knowing for instance through the antahkaraNa (mind and senses). Sometimes the word consciousness or awareness can also be translated as cit-shakti in Sanskrit, which literally means that which gives the power or capability of thought. Now when understanding the word cit-shakti, it is important to not confuse it with the mind itself. It is that which enables the mind to think, but it is not the mind itself. Unlike Descartes who said cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am), the Vedic equivalent would be 'I am conscious therefore I am'. One can be conscious but not use the mind, although that will only be clear to a meditator who has gained some depth in meditation. It is precisely the Western scientific system's difficulty with clearly distinguishing prajnA from antahkaraNa that creates so much difficulty for scientists to classify and understand coma, the permanent vegetative state, and locked-in syndrome (see Steven Laurey's article in the May 2007 Scientific American article 'Eyes Open, Brain Shut'). If they could broaden their viewpoint and learn from Yoga and VedAnta they would have greater success in understanding these states.
One example that we already encounter in Swami BhArati's website is that consciousness is like electricity, while the mind is an instrument (imagine the filament in a light bulb) through which consciousness flows. Another analogy that is useful is to think of consciousness as light that enters the prism of the mind that then refracts it into myriad colors.
In the early stages of practice, we are usually only aware of consciousness and the mind operating hand-in-hand. Their movement is so coordinated that one is indistinguishable from the other for the beginning meditator. When the conscious mind is used then consciousness is in the waking state. When we dream, again the two move hand in hand to the next level: the unconscious mind is the instrument of consciousness in the dream state (taijasa). When we are in deep sleep (sushupti) then the mind is devoid of all activity and consciousness is in the prajnA state but there are no memories for us to recall on waking up. This coordinated movement of mind and consciousness is what makes it so difficult for the aspirant to distinguish one from the other.
However, in meditation it is possible to maintain consciousness in the waking state but slowly move the mind from its starting point in the conscious mind to the active unconscious mind. With sustained practice it will be found that in meditation the conscious mind can be stilled, thus bringing the unconscious mind forward while keeping consciousness in the waking state. The subtle realm can then be examined and transcended by bringing those impressions of the active unconscious also to a standstill. With continued and sustained effort of concentration, the mind can be transitioned into its latent unconscious while still maintaining consciousness in the waking state. Then the subconscious (or latent unconscious mind) can be directly apprehended and one sees the kAraNa sharira, or causal body. Finally, when even the end of the latent unconscious state of the mind is reached, one sees that Consciousness stands apart from the mind. Then the mind is clearly apprehended as the instrument of consciousness.
For those of you who are familiar with cooking the following example can help to make sense of how consciousness separates from the mind in meditational practice. When you fry onions in ghee for preparing some North Indian recipes, you have to fry them to the point where the ghee separates and stands apart from the onions. Similarly, when the conscious mind is subjected repeatedly to the heat of sincere meditation, at some point the consciousness separates and stands apart from the mind. Then consciousness is also actively perceived at different centers in the body as one goes from waking to dreaming to deep sleep state.
Keeping these examples in mind can help the sAdhaka form a better idea of how consciousness is different from the mind. That stage of practice where this distinction becomes intuitively apparent is a very significant and inspiring moment. From then on the aspirant can start to make serious progress with both meditation and Yoga NidrA (that is also very well explained on Swami JnAneshwara BhArati's website).