What is that thing through which we see everything? Light.
What is that thing which in principle can never be seen? Light.
What is light? Light is the dark revealer; itself veiled, it unveils everything else.
And the light of this world is only the shadow of that Intelligible Light which shines in your dreamless sleep, the home to which you return every night after a day of surfing on the ocean of life. Though you can never describe the dreamless state you know for a fact that it is a state of your reality. You don’t know what it is but you know that it is. Like dreamless sleep, Truth too is beyond whatness: It is but It is free of being anything in particular.
Whoever claims that there is no consciousness in dreamless sleep is claiming two things that contradict one another: First, by saying so he/she admits that there is such a thing as dreamless state, as opposed to a dreaming or a waking state. But then he denies in it the very existence of a consciousness that must be there in order for him to know about such a dreamless state. Exactly how did you “know” that there isn’t consciousness in that state? You must have been there yourself in one form or another! And if you hadn’t, you wouldn’t even know about it, let alone talk about it.
In dreamless sleep there is certainly no cognition going on but consciousness is there ever present as it is in all other states of consciousness. So this state should be characterized with the absence of cognition rather than the absence of consciousness, the latter leading to contradiction.
If there is no experience in dreamless sleep it is because there is no cognition to be illumined by the ever shining light of consciousness. Cognition is entirely conditioned and determined by the psycho-physical constitution of the individual being while consciousness is universal and transcendent to the plane of nature cognition.
Experience arises when the Intelligible Light, i.e. consciousness, is reflected back to Itself off of a non-consciousness, matter or cognition. In the absence of a non-consciousness, of a duality, there is nothing to reflect the light of consciousness so that no experience arises; however, the light is still there.
Same is true of the light of this world: That the outer space is dark, as opposed to our sky, is because there is no air or matter to reflect the light. In fact, the empty space is filled with visible light. We cannot see it because light, Intelligible or worldly, is the dark revealer: It only manifests the face of the Other and not Its own.
NOEMAYA 
It’s good to see you back here, Toomaj. I look forward to hearing more of you profound ideas on Consciousness.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Pablo 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Welcome back Tomaj, the veiled revealer ☺. Was thinking of you quite recently.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you brother. Hope all is well with you
LikeLike
Welcome Tomaj. Yes all is well. The drama of everyday life repeats itself. But true happiness or the poise is not touched by it. It is as if the two things are parallel !
LikeLike
Reblogged this on sudhasarathi61.
LikeLike
Dear Tomaj:
A new post after a long time :). When I think of it, I wonder, for a person who has realized the pursuit of reality lies in maintaining an inward stance towards silence, what could possible inspire you to express yourself outwardly. The obvious reason ofcourse is that it is for the benefit of the rest of us. A earnest seeker’s wisdom, I realise, only if expressed outwardly again and again will prod others to seek that truth inside. And that too in your write-ups, I see that even though you know that you express the same thing again and again, that the core content of what you express is same, the aspects of it differ and are epiphanic, every time.
For instance:
“this state should be characterized with the absence of cognition rather than the absence of consciousness, the latter leading to contradiction.”
This is a perfect argument to the commonly held understanding that dreamless sleep is an absence of consciousness – the result of a general insufficient interpretation about what consciousness truly is (I don’t know if maybe awareness is a better word, but again I think that would be a subject of insufficient interpretation even more). Or maybe this insufficiency arises from the fact that we seek our understanding by first looking up on a notation (in this case the word consciousness). We all constantly map our experiences to expressions.
Expressions reduce experiences to mere notations which can never be indicative of the whole subjective nature of an experience(or a non- experience).Notations lack intuition, unlike first hand conscious cognition. It is unfortunate that pursuits of reality rely on understanding based on these notations and empirical assignments, which always keep leading to insufficiency (which I realize is another recurring theme in your posts..)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Ram G for your kind comment. For a while I just didn’t feel like writing or reading so I didn’t publish anything but I miss it anyway.
I think I would myself go with your suggestion that awareness is a better word here as against cognition. So we can describe natural, everyday consciousness is consisting of the two poles of awareness and cognition, similar to Spirit and Nature.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve always liked to make a distinction between awareness and consciousness. Awareness is the potential, always there but without position, name or form. When something is observed, awareness becomes conscious as name and form. Make sense?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for leaving a comment here. I do very much agree with you as such a distinction is absolutely necessary in the structure of any proper metaphysics. Consciousness, or more precisely empirical consciousness, is the awareness of names and forms, or awareness in differentiated mode. While the highest order reality which is devoid of names and forms is beyond this consciousness-of; which we can call awareness, some call it pure consciousness; I personally rather go with unspeakable as I believe any conception of It is a limitation; however, I believe we both are pointing to the same thing.
LikeLike