Gone beyond

I read Nisargadatta and try to understand his image of non-duality, but I don't. The notion seems to be that if we are all of the unmanifest, then in that context we are all one and everything is of the unmanifest non-dual real. Thus, "I Am" implies the beyond, the unmanifest. I guess each of us, in our I Am-ness, is the same beyond, therefore we are all one in the context of the beyond. In fact, we are not We Are, but the undefinable unmanifest.

However, to me, in our state of being manifest, we are in a temporary state of duality. I can accept that when the wave crests and many drops of water are cast up into the air as individual drops, they are all still of the ocean, a great oneness, and that when they fall back into the ocean they loose their individuality but not their separateness, their duality, even though they do not loose their absolute essence because they are and always were the ocean. Still, in that temporal state, they are, in my mind, separate.

That still leaves the notion of a non-dual, non-state that is absolute reality and is beyond, far beyond, completely beyond consciousness. OK, I will accept that as a stipulation. But, it still leaves me that nagging question. If the unmanifest is beyond consciousness and there is no concept of self or awareness of self, how does it differ from the fundamental notion behind nihilism? If I am not aware that I am in bliss, what is the difference and why do I want to go there?