Dear seekinganswer
S,
In order to understand this ‘phenomenon’ we should begin again from the ‘deep sleep’ state of consciousness. This is the third in the sequence of the states of consciousness according to the Upanishads, where turiya comes forth.
The State of deep sleep is described in the Upanishads as blissful.
When encountering such an assertion, it is likely that we would take it to mean a state wherein our feeling of pleasure is at its maximum. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, it cannot be true. To experience pleasure, there must first exist an
I-consciousness capable of doing so. In the state of deep sleep there is no
I-consciousness to know what is happening.
A happening or event exists within a time span; it is accompanied by a sequential consciousness that is aware of the beginning of the happening, its development and its final cessation. In the state of deep sleep, no one is aware exactly when he enters it, nor is there awareness of its termination.
Our ‘awareness’ of the
non-happening is nothing more than a pre-assumption we make upon
waking. Because there is no memory of deep sleep state (or how could there be any memory?) it is called a happy state in comparison with the dream state and wakefulness.
If this be the case we have to admit a break in the contiguity of one’s personal identity. Do we exist or do we not exist in the state of deep sleep? If we exist, what assurance is there to prove it
?
How can we prove this mass of consciousness did exist, even though there was no personal awareness of it
?
isn't that essentially unconsciousness?
This question can be answered, but only by penetrating into a much deeper and more profound aspect of the self expressed in the ‘deep sleep’ itself.
**************
Now, the forth state is called the ‘witness’ of the other three states.
If a state is to be witnessed, then the witnessing consciousness should also present in that state. The consciousness that is present in the wakeful, dream and deep sleep states cannot be treated as a consciousness separate from all those states. It cannot be classified as the forth in the sense in which the wakeful state can be differentiated from the dream state.
The fourth state is treated therefore as a
part and as the
whole.
It is the whole because it is present in all experiences.
It can be termed as part only for methodological purpose of contrasting its positive, vertical character with negativity of deep sleep, and the horizontality of the dream and wakeful experiences. Love
Bookmarks