Simple Enough?

Simple Enough?

Indra:

The irony of Self-realization is that it is so simple that we try to make it into something more complicated than it is. It can be (and has been) summarized in three words: Tat Tvam Asi; That thou art. The “That” means the Absolute, the Omnipresent, Brahman, or whatever name you choose to represent the infinite and eternal, the actuality which is both imminent and transcendent. Some call it God.

“Thou” means the body-mind organism which seeks to be aware of its true (“divine”) nature—or “you,” as a “seeker” of “spiritual” truth. The three words say—adequately—that the seeker, “me,” and the infinite Presence are not two different “things,” but are the same, “one” thing in essence, in actuality— however otherwise it may appear to be. This is all there is to Self-realization—to realize, consciously and thoroughly, that “you” cannot possibly, in any way, be apart from Omni-presence. However simple this is, and for whatever “mysterious” reasons, there are people (seekers) who go throughout life without inculcating this (rather obvious) realization. One of the possible reasons for this is that this simple (and reasonable) proposition is not complicated enough for them; they refuse to accept that the truth can be so immediately evident.

I Am That, Nisargadatta titled his book; meaning, the all-pervading Presence and that which is aware of its self

as “I” are ultimately identical: not separable. When the awareness of a body-mind has comprehended that it is, in fact, an expression (as are all other things) of the One “mind” (as Buddhists call it), it is clear that the seeker and the Totality that is sought are already “united.”

Therefore, there is no point in ritually repeating any phrase to yourself; nor to continue to cling to ideas (read or heard) about what one needs to do to become united. You cannot possibly be apart from that of which the enlightened say, “There is nowhere It is not.” That means It is where “you” are.

So, “who” is this “me,” under the circumstances? I am That; the body-mind organism is That; and the organism’s awareness is That. Hence, even if it were possible (or necessary) to “get rid of the ‘me,’” as your question suggests, what would be left? Since “all that is, is That,” whatever was left—would still be that! In other words, whether a “me” is present or a “me” is not present, whatever is present is That omnipresent actuality—in any and all cases.

So, recognize (as you say) that “the me is always here”: but, “who”—ultimately—is that “me”…none other than That. This is all there is to Self realization; self and Self are One and the same. Non-dual: “not two.”

Not two. Not two. Not two.