Talk 180.

[Guest guest]

Talk 180.

 

Later, the same gentleman (Mr. Maurice Frydman) said that sleep was a state of oblivion and

the wakeful state was the mind’s activity. The mind was in a potential

state in sleep.

 

M.: Were you not in sleep?

 

D.: Yes, I was. But in a state of oblivion. There must be a witness

of oblivion and of the mind which says that ‘I’ am continuous in

both states.

 

M.: Who is this witness? You speak of ‘witness’. There must be an

object and a subject to witness. These are creations of the mind. The

idea of witness is in the mind. If there was the witness of oblivion

did he say, ‘I witness oblivion’? You, with your mind, said just

now that there must be a witness. Who was the witness? You must

reply ‘I’. Who is that ‘I’ again? You are identifying yourself with

the ego and say ‘I’. Is this ego ‘I’, the witness? It is the mind that

speaks. It cannot be witness of itself. With self-imposed limitations

you think that there is a witness of mind and of oblivion. You also

say, “I am the witness”. That one who witnesses the oblivion must

say, “I witness oblivion”. The present mind cannot arrogate to itself

that position.

The whole position becomes thus untenable. Consciousness

is unlimited. On becoming limited it simply arrogates to itself

the position. There is really nothing to witness. IT is. simple

BEING.