cee: it
seems so obvious, the thing that has always been there. the thing that can't
be seen--the consciousness. but what comes up for me is, this is just so obvious,
can it be the same for everyone else? but i know the notion of "everyone
else" can only come when there is already a notion of "i". without
that notion of "i", there is not the notion of "everyone else".
so is it to just stay with what is really obvious? i mean it is so obvious,
it's silly.
nome: yes, the maharshi said many times, everyone is already the self, is there anyone who is not the self? you can pick up any book of his teaching and you will probably find a phrase similar to it. everyone is that same self without the least trace of differentiation. the doubt arises only if we retain or resume individuality. everyone is that. the statement has another meaning to it as well. how thin is that imaginary veneer of ignorance that makes a person think he is other than what he truly is.
look at your own mind. how thin is that imagined ignorance! it's just imaginary stuff that makes you believe that you are something other than what you are--that you are an individual, that there are others, that you are a body, that they are bodies, (that's how you know that there are others, supposedly). that kind of so called knowledge--how thin that is! how indirect, how not self evident it is to those who are looking within.
cee: it is only thought that divides things, like what is manifest and what is unmanifest. there is no division unless you think of a division.
nome: mmm,
if the "i" arises then we can think there is an unmanifest and a manifest. if the "i" subsides, there is only that which is, which is purely unmanifest, in the sense that manifest means form.
cee: it's good to err on the side of the unmanifest!
nome: o. k., if you want to err, you can err on the side of the formless and unmanifest. but we do not need to put the two things together. it seems that way at one point, but if you are pursuing the enquiry in a truly non dual manner, there are no two things to tie together that way.
you are told, or you hear or you meditate up on the fact that the self is unmanifest, it doesn't have a form, you don't sense the self, it doesn't have a shape, it doesn't have a color, it doesn't have a size, and so forth. it is unmanifest. but then the doubt arises, "but what about all this?" and then you have the manifest and the unmanifest.
and then you can have ever so many theories: about the manifest breaking off from the unmanifest, that the manifest is in the unmanifest, the unmanifest has the potential for the unmanifest, there's the many and the one, the one and the many, i suppose the many and the many for some! there's the consciousness in motion and the consciousness still,-- now we're attributing change to the eternal, (in which case it is no longer eternal) and so forth and so on.
the direct path as pointed out by ramana is, why not enquire, for whom is this manifest-unmanifest idea?
who is that? is she manifest?
as long as she is a perceiver, an individualized experiencer, as long as she is taken to be that, there will be that doubt, that question
but the direct path, if you want to see reality is to find out, "who am I?" clear up the question regarding who we are and then we can see what anything "else" is.
the universal experience is,
when you clear up the question of "who am i"
there is no "all this" anymore
the polarity of "i" and " this" have disappeared like the head and tail of a snake, for there was only a rope. there is no need to integrate the head and tail, (laughing) it's just a rope! (note: here nome is referring to the ancient example given in vedanta scriptures about illusion. one could be walking along a forest path and think she sees a snake and fear sets in, but on further examination, the snake is discovered not to be a snake at all, but only a rope.)
similarily, there is no unmanifest. and the manifest,
as gaudapada has stated (shankara's guru's guru) :
"the born can not come from the unborn"
the unborn is the reality.
stay with the enquiry, and yes, if you err on the side of the unmanifest, there will be no difficulty.
cee: thank you!