Satsang with Nome: None in Bondage, None Liberated

[Guest guest]

Satsang at Sociaty of Abidance in Truth, (SAT) www.satramana.org

None in Bondage, None Liberated

January 5, 2004

 

[N. signifies Nome; Q. signifies Questioner; laughter means that

everyone was laughing, not just the speaker.]

 

Questions adn Answers 1

 

Another Q.: I was reading Timeless Presence. I have been using each

paragraph as a meditation. In it there was a statement pertaining to

stopping thought and quieting the mind in Self-inquiry. When

inquiring, it seems that one becomes so focussed on noticing oneself

that his thinking stops. I was wondering about that. Then I was

contemplating how there is something that runs deeper than thought.

 

Q.: I will read the whole paragraph: Who am I? If only the answer to

this is known, there is then nothing more to be known or attained. He

said, "The inquirer himself is the answer, and there can be no other

answer." Who am I? At one point, it seemed the method to quell all

other notions, and, indeed, it is ideal for that purpose. Yet, it is

still more. It is the revelation of unobscured Being.

 

N.: Did you have a question about quelling thoughts or about the

revelation of unobscured Being.

 

Q.: That seemed to be clear, but "at one point it seemed the method

to quell all other notions, and, indeed, is ideal for that purpose."

 

N.: Yes, because it eliminates the superimposition regarding reality

and identity.

 

Q.: Ok.

 

N.: If, with every thought that rises, you inquire, "For whom is the

thought," that thoughts subsides, and the focus is entirely upon

the "I." The sense of identity and reality have returned to the "I."

But it is not the subsidence of the thoughts that is the fruit to be

counted from the inquiry, but the revelation of Being, which alone is

reality and identity.

 

Q.: So, it is the knowledge of oneself that is the key.

 

N.: The disappearance of the unreal is nothing great, because it is

unreal! (laughter) Yet, Reality comprehending itself,

atmasakshatkara, direct perception or knowing of the Self, is that

for which inquiry is.

 

Q.: The knowing of oneself is also the effect of removing the

misidentifications by that investigation into oneself?

 

N.: Yes.

 

Q.: It feels clearer and my mind feels unobscured by notions.

 

N.: Where do you keep your notions?

 

Q.: Hmm. I guess in my misidentifications. (laughing)

 

N.: All right. Then, where do you keep your misidentifications?

 

Q.: In the mind.

 

N.: What is your mind?

 

Q.: (quiet for some time) My mind seems to be a bunch of thoughts

running.

 

N.: Do the thoughts know themselves, or does something else know?

 

Q.: Something else always knows.

 

N.: So, that something else that always knows combined with the

notions you refer to as the "mind," apart from which there is no mind.

 

Q.: One knows himself as he is without those thoughts.

 

N.: Can you be a thought? Can an idea be a definition for who you are?

 

Q.: No.

 

N.: Then, what is the true definition of one's own Self,

svatmanirupanam?

 

Q.: It definitely cannot be a thought. I can't describe it as

something.

 

N.: If it cannot be a thought, can there be multiplicity in it?

 

Q.: Thoughts are the multiplicity.

 

N.: Yes, you must have thoughts in order to have multiplicity. If

this is That which is not a thought, there can be no multiplicity in

it. Likewise is it with form. Consciousness plus the notions is

called mind. Without the notions and the Consciousness, there is no

mind. If you remove the notions, what is left of your mind?

 

Consciousness can exist without the notions. The notions, or

thoughts, cannot exist without Consciousness. Have you ever

experienced a thought apart from the Consciousness that knows it?

 

Q.: No.

 

N.: Then, there is no such thing as thought, for it has no self-

existence. The only thing existing is pure Consciousness, since

Consciousness is not multiple, not divisible, and will never be

modified at any time. So, what thoughts are you talking about?

Inwardly wonder about this yourself.

 

Q.: It seems much clearer for me. I must have a misidentification to

have them.

 

N.: Yes, starting with primary misidentification of someone, of "I."

Thus, the Maharshi's instruction that the "I" thought is the first of

all thoughts. What is the "I"?

 

Q.: Hmm. What is the "I"?

 

N.: In you. Something seems to be existing as "I." What is it? Who is

that?

 

Q.: (quiet for a while) It is not these notions. It is devoid of a

label. If my mind starts to move, I need to find out if that is I or

a definition for myself.

 

N. All right. Good enough. For whom is the mind?

 

 

----------------------

Not two,

Richard