Being unconscious

[Ariel]

Hawkins had mentioned in one of his books how the spiritual definition of 'consciousness' is different than the medical definition of it.

The former is what you are and what composes All That Is whereas the latter is something that the "me" can lose. ie. "He lost consciousness and is now in bed unconscious."

Does anyone know exactly what happens when one loses consciousness in the medical sense?

I'm reading Nisargadatta's book 'I Am That' right now and Nisargadatta mentioned how you can never know yourself as non-existing or unconscious. The questioner interjected that just because you don't remember, that doesn't disprove the ability for one to be unconscious, to which Nisargadatta suggests the questioner to turn away from the experiencer and towards the experiencer, the 'I am.'

I'll admit this is just mental entertainment, sure, but it'd be interesting to know on what level consciousness exists when the self is unconscious. There seems to be no memory during this process, but is consciousness aware of the Self, the self, or what?

Any ideas?

[Sanders]

When Osho was at his peak, I remember him saying that when he was asleep he was fully conscious (in terms of awareness) as he was in the waking state. By fully conscious I would say that is being mostly if not fully disidentified with the ego (before release of the ego through ego death ( the first stages of enlightenment)). A few months ago I realised that I'd started to surrender in my dreams as well as the waking state

So perhaps when we are unconscious, this means that we are identified with the ego. Maybe Nisargaddata was talking about turning away (disidentifying) and towards (identifying) the experiencer. Did he mean experiencer as the state before observing/the witness?

In cognitive neuroscience 3 types of consciousness are generally recognised:

1. Wakefulness; awake in contrast to sleep or other unconscious states. You can be awake yet you can be unaware of some or most aspects of your internal or external environment.

2. Awareness; subjective awareness of the world. More abstract yet is more conscious than just wakeful. Awareness has varying levels; you could be aware of just the computer screen, or you could be consciously aware of the sounds around you too and perhaps a lamp next to the table.

3. self-awareness (note lower-case "s"). Consciousness in the sense of being aware of oneself as distinct from other selves in the world.

Of course enlightenment is Self-awareness (upper-case "S"), and not many scientists have been able to comprehend this state of consciousness through a linear logical process. It's funny to note that self-awareness can be narcissistic towards others (ego-centric) which would increase unconsciousness (according to Hawkins; those below integrity have little awareness/regard for others around them) or it can be loving towards others which then leads to more Self-awareness. It seems like a paradox, so I obviously don't understand the context of it.

[Ariel]

When Osho was at his peak, I remember him saying that when he was asleep he was fully conscious (in terms of awareness) as he was in the waking state.

Yeah, that's really cool. I've heard a number of other people say the same thing about their sleep states as well. Consciousness is continuous and it doesn't turn off during sleep.

A few months ago I realised that I'd started to surrender in my dreams as well as the waking state

Awesome

So perhaps when we are unconscious, this means that we are identified with the ego. Maybe Nisargaddata was talking about turning away (disidentifying) and towards (identifying) the experiencer. Did he mean experiencer as the state before observing/the witness?

In that context they were talking about being literally unconscious, like out cold, not just being "asleep" in terms of someone being fully under the spell of the egoic illusion, in maya.

It seems like what he was doing was pointing a person away from mental trivia and towards what's important for the direct experience of realization of the Self.

I'm not sure if he meant the experiencer as the state before observing/the witness.

[Sanders]

So perhaps when we are unconscious, this means that we are identified with the ego. Maybe Nisargaddata was talking about turning away (disidentifying) and towards (identifying) the experiencer. Did he mean experiencer as the state before observing/the witness?

In that context they were talking about being literally unconscious, like out cold, not just being "asleep" in terms of someone being fully under the spell of the egoic illusion, in maya.

It seems like what he was doing was pointing a person away from mental trivia and towards what's important for the direct experience of realization of the Self.

I'm not sure if he meant the experiencer as the state before observing/the witness.

As consciousness persists throughout all experience (consciousness as Self) perhaps the memory is there, though it is not in awareness/revealed until enlightenment (past lives are shown). Ah I see, so what Nisargaddata was saying is that it is not possible to have the opposite of consciousness, which would be nothingness or non-existence. So he pointed the guy away from the hypothetical and the duality he was creating in his head. Useful to know as you never know when you'll be faced with such a paradox . I remember Hawkins saying that you could suddenly rise up in LOC and be faced with certain dualities like that (existence vs non-existence).