Satsang with Nome - Eloquent Silence - Q&A 2

[Guest guest]

Another Q.: What you were just speaking about is going back to the

one who knows this. I keep forgetting this aspect. I do not know why

I forget. It seems clear at times. It is so important to investigate

that assumption that everything is based upon.

N.: Alright. Do you ever forget yourself?

Q.: Hmm. I can think that I am something else.

N.: But do you forget yourself? Do you forget your existence?

Q.: Probably not at that level.

N.: And the Existence is itself the

substrate upon which the thinking could even appear. It is by the

Light of Existence, or Consciousness, that you can even be aware of

the thinking. Can you remember yourself?

Q.: I've tried.

N.: Has your Self ever been an object of memory?

Q.: That is the confusing part. There is an experience of it. Trying

to remember that experience does it, but it is something more than

that. It is not the memory. It is the actual experience itself.

N.: Is the actual experience a thought or not a thought?

Q.: Not a thought.

N.: Memory is a kind of thought.

Q.: Yes. There is no question of that. I mix those up, though.

N.: In truth, you cannot remember the Self, but you can't forget it,

either.

Q.: (laughing) You say you can't forget it.

N.: Do you ever cease to exist or ever forget your own existence?

That which is within thought can be subject to remembrance,

forgetfulness, and other such mental conditions and modes. Are you a

thought? Is it possible to really think of your Being? Even if you

think "my Being," that is not the same thing, is it?

Q.: No, it is very bland and unexciting.

N.: It is not the actual experience.

Q.: No.

N.: Not the actual Existence. Your Existence is neither subject to

being remembered nor subject to being forgotten. In addition, how

would it be possible to have a memory that is steady and would

survive not only the waking and dreaming states, but also the deep,

dreamless sleep in which there is no thought activity? Self-

Knowledge, though, transcends all three states.

Q.: That really eliminates…If I would examine my meditation to see if

it would survive the transitions involved in those states, so that

the meditation is existing and continuous throughout those three

states, it is valid.

N.: Are you existing throughout all those three states? If you are,

what is the nature of this you? Who are you that you transcend all

three states? Whatever is limited to the scope of a state is merely a

product of that state. So, all the dream perception and conceptions

are just a product of a dreaming state of mind. The waking state

world, perceptions, and conceptions are just a product of the

waking state of mind and is equally imaginary. The apparent not-

knowing or forgetfulness in deep dreamless sleep is just a product of

that state. You exist, though, throughout all. So, your nature cannot

be anything of those states. Self-Knowledge, Self-Realization, to be

eternal and nondual must be of the very nature of the Self that is

realized. Otherwise, it would be dualistic and transient, and what is

transient is not worth seeking, as the Maharshi has stated. Only what

is eternal is worth realizing.

You exist in all three states. The three states pass by and you

still exist. That existence is invariable. Real Knowledge, the

essence of deep meditation, is the very same thing. Look at your own

experience and discern.

Q.: I know that whatever is on a mental level definitely does not cut

it. It seems that I become fooled by that mental level quite often.

N.: The real Self becomes fooled or is there another one?

Q.: (laughing) The other one.

N.: What is the nature of the other one?

Q.: I don't know the nature of it.

N.: Who is the one who doesn't know?

Q.: (quiet for a while) It seems that that one knows more specific

things and is closer to myself. When I try to investigate it, that is

more expansive.

N.: How expansive?

Q.: (quiet for awhile) I don't know…

N.: Find out. If you find that it is

expansive beyond all ideas of expansiveness, it is that which is

formless. This means that whenever you actually inquire into the ego

entity or individuality, no ego or individual is found, but just the

expansiveness, Brahman, the real Self. If conceived otherwise, how

many are there of you?

Q.: This is important. I never really feel that there are multiple

[selves].

However, there is a confusion that there are multiple [selves].

N.: Where does the confusion dwell?

Q.: Definitely on the superficial.

N.: Where is the superficial contained?

Q.: (quiet for a while) It seems that it must be contained in the

notion of "I" existing as something.

N.: Alright. Within the notion of "I am existing as something" is all

that is superficial, all that is just the thin veneer of illusion. It

is all that does not actually exist. It is the stuff of imagination.

One notion of "I" contains all the illusion and is the source of all

the delusion. It, itself, constitutes the entire illusion. All of

maya is just "I."

Q.: This goes back to the original

question, for it is so important to know that which is aware and

always before that existence as an individual.

N.: Is there a "before" and an "after"? Was the "I" born? There is

the unborn real Self, which is also imperishable. Was

another one born? If you assume so, there will be a "before" and

an "after," the "original Self" and the "break-off self." Then, you

will attempt to determine the relation of this "break-off self" to

that Real Self, whether it is entirely divided, partially divided

with some similarities, much similarity but partially divided…

Q.: It will all change.

N.: Yes, it will change.

Q.: Just like the weather. Or the ideas.

N.: The ideas usually change more quickly. (laughter) But, were you

born?

Q.: That being born could be anything. It is just going from one

state to another.

N.: There must be someone who

traverses from one state to another. That one "I" makes up all the

illusion. It, itself, appears as subject and object. So, examine

that "I." See what is there.

Q.: When you say, "examine," what do you mean?

N.: Inquire. Try to see the "I" as it is.

Q.: When you ask me that, my experience becomes much deeper.

N.: Whether described as deeper or more expansive, it is the same

thing. The ego, which was never born, is said to cease to exist. Its

cessation is really the realization of its utter unreality. The one

Self that has been there alone all of the time knows itself.

 

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

Not two,

Richard