What do you think?
Rate this book
Being: The Bottom Line
"Spiritual" dialogues usually aim to guide the seeker towards enlightenment, towards escape from identification as a suffering individual. In The Bottom Line, however, Nathan Gill points out that "enlightenment" only appears significant from the viewpoint of "me" - it's only the story of "me" that requires enlightenment. Your true nature is Being, and Being is already all that is (even when there is seeming ignorance of that), with no requirements whatsoever.
119 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 21, 2006
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
April 26, 2018
Here I am again, with another Nathan Gill book from the world of “non-duality”.
I think he is saying there is no “I”. There is no “WE”. There is only “Being” and being is all of existence happening right now. Somehow there is no history, not yesterday, no tomorrow. All of those are just thoughts that are happening right now. So history only appears now (“presently” as he likes to say) with awareness, which is also awaken-ness, which is also being.
In fact there is a video (with just audio) on YouTube where he seems to be arguing with somebody about whether a photograph proves something happened in the past. Or rather I “think” he is trying to explain that the nature of existence is WAY simpler than usually explained. All in all it is either super brilliant or just outrageously daft. ( https://youtu.be/9Wo99sa8C4Q )
He might not like it but if I were to apply my own logic to it maybe it is that for each person there is really only this actual moment that you are breathing, reading, thinking…you never think in the past or the future (only think of the past and the future). So, given that we creatures living in time there always only ever this present moment. We are reborn in each second, in each millisecond, or something like that.
Now what about there being no I, me, we, you? When you think of yourself or others what do you think of? Hang on this upcoming part as it may be a little shaky but I think it might be appropriate….MAYBE his interpretation of I or YOU is those are thoughts with people’s actions and attributes OVER TIME. So who am I? I am a person born at a date, did some stuff, and then some other stuff and that is me. Sort of like speed being miles per hour over time. There is no speed without time.
BUT for Nathan even though we are living IN time, in reality with clear eyes you realize awareness is only now. Being for the universe is happening NOW. Don’t look back, don’t look ahead, because you can’t since existence is only NOW. And it can be no other way, and in fact most of the worry and fret in the world comes from people trying to do the impossible. It is impossible to truly live in the past just like it is impossible to live in the future. Ideas and thoughts of past and future are always only happening now.
And I think he implies that in the present awareness there cannot be anything else so I, you and me don’t really exist. There is existence, “being”, but that sense of I only comes from the thought filled baggage. If we recognize this baggage is just that, baggage, then there can be relief since we see if for what it is…just baggage.
I am reminded of the idea of “instantaneous velocity” where there was a feeling in Physics that you could never find the speed of something for an instant frozen in time, because there would be nothing to calculate the average speed of time. Without time how could there be an average? Of course somebody comes along and invents Calculus and blammo you have a tool to determine just that thing. BUT since in modern times Physics and Metaphysics are different things, I don’t think Nathan Gill has to worry about some mathematician coming along with a proof or formula to explain away his presently awareness worldview.
I am not sure why this guys’s books have grabbed me, but there is something there that seems true. Of course know most modern science-y people will discount him out of hand. But think if one is open minded about it anybody could at least see something to wonder about. One thing about his is that he never takes it beyond looking at the world in the present moment. In fact if somebody tries to make broader conclusions he shuts them down.
I might update this later as I mull it all over in this presently aware brain.
Quotes
But the brain example serves to reveal how easily overlooked is the obvious fact that thought—and everything else—is simply appearing presently in awareness. - LOCATION: 196
Person 1: But the past did happen.
Nathan: Nothing happened, though a thought may arise that says things happened. - LOCATION: 132
NOTE:
Instantaneous velocity is the velocity of an object in motion at a specific point in time. This is determined similarly to average velocity, but we narrow the period of time so that it approaches zero. If an object has a standard velocity over a period of time, its average and instantaneous velocities may be the same.
I think he is saying there is no “I”. There is no “WE”. There is only “Being” and being is all of existence happening right now. Somehow there is no history, not yesterday, no tomorrow. All of those are just thoughts that are happening right now. So history only appears now (“presently” as he likes to say) with awareness, which is also awaken-ness, which is also being.
In fact there is a video (with just audio) on YouTube where he seems to be arguing with somebody about whether a photograph proves something happened in the past. Or rather I “think” he is trying to explain that the nature of existence is WAY simpler than usually explained. All in all it is either super brilliant or just outrageously daft. ( https://youtu.be/9Wo99sa8C4Q )
He might not like it but if I were to apply my own logic to it maybe it is that for each person there is really only this actual moment that you are breathing, reading, thinking…you never think in the past or the future (only think of the past and the future). So, given that we creatures living in time there always only ever this present moment. We are reborn in each second, in each millisecond, or something like that.
Now what about there being no I, me, we, you? When you think of yourself or others what do you think of? Hang on this upcoming part as it may be a little shaky but I think it might be appropriate….MAYBE his interpretation of I or YOU is those are thoughts with people’s actions and attributes OVER TIME. So who am I? I am a person born at a date, did some stuff, and then some other stuff and that is me. Sort of like speed being miles per hour over time. There is no speed without time.
BUT for Nathan even though we are living IN time, in reality with clear eyes you realize awareness is only now. Being for the universe is happening NOW. Don’t look back, don’t look ahead, because you can’t since existence is only NOW. And it can be no other way, and in fact most of the worry and fret in the world comes from people trying to do the impossible. It is impossible to truly live in the past just like it is impossible to live in the future. Ideas and thoughts of past and future are always only happening now.
And I think he implies that in the present awareness there cannot be anything else so I, you and me don’t really exist. There is existence, “being”, but that sense of I only comes from the thought filled baggage. If we recognize this baggage is just that, baggage, then there can be relief since we see if for what it is…just baggage.
I am reminded of the idea of “instantaneous velocity” where there was a feeling in Physics that you could never find the speed of something for an instant frozen in time, because there would be nothing to calculate the average speed of time. Without time how could there be an average? Of course somebody comes along and invents Calculus and blammo you have a tool to determine just that thing. BUT since in modern times Physics and Metaphysics are different things, I don’t think Nathan Gill has to worry about some mathematician coming along with a proof or formula to explain away his presently awareness worldview.
I am not sure why this guys’s books have grabbed me, but there is something there that seems true. Of course know most modern science-y people will discount him out of hand. But think if one is open minded about it anybody could at least see something to wonder about. One thing about his is that he never takes it beyond looking at the world in the present moment. In fact if somebody tries to make broader conclusions he shuts them down.
I might update this later as I mull it all over in this presently aware brain.
Quotes
But the brain example serves to reveal how easily overlooked is the obvious fact that thought—and everything else—is simply appearing presently in awareness. - LOCATION: 196
Person 1: But the past did happen.
Nathan: Nothing happened, though a thought may arise that says things happened. - LOCATION: 132
NOTE:
Instantaneous velocity is the velocity of an object in motion at a specific point in time. This is determined similarly to average velocity, but we narrow the period of time so that it approaches zero. If an object has a standard velocity over a period of time, its average and instantaneous velocities may be the same.
December 18, 2023
The book/story is about an amazing concept, eons old, which many teach - non-duality. Difficult to get the little intellect around such a topic - one that uses concepts to point beyond concepts. I'm fascinated by the subjecct and have to re-read sections, but I really enjoy the question and answer setting and the banter back and forth between the questioner and answerer (Nathan Gill). It's serious and funny and it knocks the wind out of our/my personal concepts about enLightenement, or improvement of any kind for the personality. Another reader explains the concepts well: "Nathan Gill points out that 'enlightenment' only appears significant from the viewpoint of 'me' - it's only the story of 'me' that requires enlightenment. Your true nature is Being, and Being is already all that is (even when there is seeming ignorance of that), with no requirements whatsoever."
119 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 21, 2006
119 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 21, 2006
June 16, 2024
Enjoyed reading
Please read a couple of pages, and I am sure you will not be able to put it down. It keeps questioning the pseudo-I (the me), as whether it exists. Eventually, it weakens your ego, and you will feel good.
Please read a couple of pages, and I am sure you will not be able to put it down. It keeps questioning the pseudo-I (the me), as whether it exists. Eventually, it weakens your ego, and you will feel good.
December 14, 2023
Loved this quiet and simple and direct book. I regret loaning my copy to someone who never gave it back and then moved. But I suppose it’s all just what happens in being.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews