I have been conscious for as long as I can remember.
I do not need scientific proof of that fact. It is self-evident. If you are reading these words, you know you are conscious as well. The ancient sage Patanjali would have called this pratyaksha pramana—knowledge gained through direct experience.
Yet consciousness remains one of the deepest mysteries confronting humanity.
We have mapped genes, landed on the moon, built supercomputers, and peered into distant galaxies. But we still do not understand a simple question:
What is consciousness?
Is it produced by the brain? Is it a fundamental property of the universe? Can a computer ever become conscious? Can consciousness exist independently of thought?
These questions lie at the intersection of philosophy, neuroscience, physics, and spirituality.
In this article, I explore how ancient Indian philosophy and modern scientific thought approach this enduring mystery.
Consciousness and Conscious Experience Are Not the Same
We often use the words consciousness and conscious experience interchangeably. They are not identical.
Your conscious experiences include what you see, hear, think, remember, and feel. They include the redness of a rose, the taste of coffee, the warmth of affection, and the sting of disappointment.
But consciousness itself may be something deeper.
Ancient Indian philosophers proposed that consciousness can exist without any content at all—without thoughts, emotions, sensations, or perceptions. In this view, consciousness is not merely awareness of something; it is awareness itself.
This distinction is crucial because much of modern science investigates conscious experiences while leaving unanswered the deeper question of consciousness itself.
The Hard Problem of Consciousness
Australian philosopher David Chalmers famously distinguished between the “easy problems” and the “hard problem” of consciousness.
The easy problems involve understanding how the brain processes information:
- How we recognize faces
- How memories are stored
- How sensory signals are integrated
- How behavior is generated
These problems are difficult in practice but straightforward in principle because we know how to investigate them scientifically.
The hard problem is different.
Why should neural activity give rise to subjective experience? Why does the color red feel the way it does?
Why do joy, grief, love, or fear possess an inner quality that can only be experienced from the first-person perspective?
Even if every neural pathway associated with an experience were mapped perfectly, we would still face a profound question:
Why should physical processes produce subjective experience at all?
What Neuroscience Can—and Cannot—Tell Us
Neuroscience has made remarkable progress in understanding the brain.
Physicians can assess wakefulness, sleep states, anesthesia, and coma. Brain imaging reveals networks associated with attention, memory, emotion, and perception.
These discoveries are invaluable.
However, identifying a neural pathway associated with conscious experience does not necessarily prove that the pathway creates consciousness itself.
Association is not causation.
A light bulb glows when electricity passes through it, but the bulb does not create electricity.
Similarly, neural circuits may be vehicles through which consciousness is expressed rather than generators of consciousness itself.
This possibility deserves careful consideration.
Ancient Indian Perspectives
More than two thousand years ago, Indian philosophers developed sophisticated theories of consciousness.
In the Samkhya and Yoga traditions, pure consciousness is called Purusha.
In the Upanishads and Vedantic traditions, it is referred to as Atman or Brahman.
These traditions proposed that consciousness exists independently of the mind and body.
Patanjali’s Yoga Sutra describes a state in which the fluctuations of the mind cease:
योगश्चित्तवृत्तत्तनिरोधः
Yoga is the cessation of the modifications of the mind.
When the mind becomes completely still:
तदा द्रष्ट ः स्वरूपेऽवस्थािम्
Then the seer abides in its own true nature.
According to this view, consciousness does not disappear when thoughts cease. Instead, consciousness reveals itself most clearly.
This is a radically different perspective from the dominant Western assumption that consciousness must always have an object of awareness.
Is Consciousness a Fundamental Property of the Universe?
One of Chalmers’ most provocative suggestions is that consciousness may be a fundamental aspect of reality.
Some scientists consider this idea speculative.
Yet the proposal has an interesting parallel in ancient Indian philosophy. We already accept several fundamental properties of nature:
- Gravity
- Electromagnetism
- Strong nuclear forces
- Weak nuclear forces
These are not explained by anything deeper; they are treated as foundational. Could consciousness belong in a similar category?
If consciousness is fundamental, then brains may not create it. Instead, brains may organize and express it, much as a radio receives and organizes electromagnetic signals.
This remains a hypothesis.
But it is a hypothesis worthy of serious investigation.
Different Beings, Different Experiences
If consciousness is fundamental, conscious experiences would still vary enormously.
Humans, bats, dogs, octopuses, and amoebae interact with the world through different biological structures.
Consequently, their experiences differ.
A bat navigating through sonar inhabits a reality very different from ours.
Yet both may participate in the same underlying phenomenon of consciousness. The conscious experience changes.
The presence of consciousness does not.
Why This Question Matters
Some may wonder whether these questions are merely philosophical curiosities. I believe they are profoundly important.
How we understand consciousness influences how we think about:
- Human identity
- Artificial intelligence
- Mental health
- Spiritual experience
- Free will
- Death and mortality
Neuroscience should continue investigating conscious experience with vigor.
At the same time, we should remain open to broader possibilities regarding the nature of consciousness itself.
A mystery should not be dismissed simply because it is difficult.
Indeed, the greatest scientific advances often begin by taking mysteries seriously.
A Personal Reflection
After decades as a physician, scientist, educator, researcher, and administrator, I have come to appreciate both the power and the limitations of scientific inquiry.
Science excels at explaining mechanisms.
But some questions remain stubbornly resistant to reduction. Consciousness may be one of them.
Whether future discoveries ultimately confirm, modify, or overturn the ideas discussed here, one fact remains unchanged:
Consciousness is the most intimate aspect of our existence, yet it remains the most mysterious.
Perhaps the journey toward understanding it requires both scientific investigation and inner exploration.
That possibility lies at the heart of my book, When Science Meets the Soul.
Selected References
- Patanjali. Yoga Sutra, Book I.
- Chalmers D. How Do You Explain Consciousness? TED Talk, 2014.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Glasgow Coma Scale.
- Classical Samkhya and Yoga philosophical texts.
- Upanishadic and Vedantic literature on Atman and Brahman.
About the Author
Vipul Mankad, M.D. is a physician-scientist, educator, and former academic medical leader whose career has included research, patient care, medical education, health policy, and hospital administration. Drawing upon both modern science and Indian
spiritual traditions, he explores how scientific understanding and inner inquiry can work together to illuminate the deepest questions of human existence.
