You are hereBlogs / Nicholas Powiull's blog / Hypothetically, if I was to throw gasoline on you and light you up would the Self that you are say "nothing happened"?
Hypothetically, if I was to throw gasoline on you and light you up would the Self that you are say "nothing happened"?
![A Fresh Look](http://www.nevernothere.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/thumbnail/category_pictures/Fresh-Look.jpg "Some see directly and immediately what "professional seekers" have missed in decades of sifting.")
A Fresh Look"It seems that the non-dual perspective holds that respect & disrespect arise from the same source. So it is with all alleged "opposites". Yet I can not reconcile unbearable suffering, (e.g. being burnt alive as one of many examples), with the view that "nothing happened" because there was not an separate individual to witness this "non-event" and that the One Self is all there is. Hypothetically, if I was to throw gasoline on you and light you up would the Self that you are say "nothing happened"? Also since every body is the One Self, then does that imply that there is a sharing of ALL "possessions, food, money, etc." with every body. Auschwitz ..."nothing happened"; galactic super novas..."nothing happened". Human instinct rejects these examples that Advaita (the One Self) is indifferent to. If Advaita is not a belief system how does the One Self perceive such "non-events"? Your comments would be most appreciated."
"Nothing happened" is just a way of pointing. Actually everything happens but nothing happens in that everything.
As a metaphor, a dream is said to happen, yet when you wake-up from the dream, the dream appears to have not happened at all. Not that you didn't dream, but that in the dream itself even though many things seemed to happen, nothing happened at all since it was only a dream. No events in the dream actually took place, but the dream itself did. Yes fire still hurts in dreams, but looking back on it after you wake, the hurting took place to nobody. You really didn't get hurt by the fire because the fire and the hurt and the you (that was on fire and hurting) was just a dream. Of course you don't want to have another dream with fire in it because while the dream is taking place the fire does hurt quite a bit, but also you realize it is just a dream and the dream will pass. All dreams are temporary, so if you temporarily experience yourself as being on fire, you will wake-up soon and you can then look back on it and see it for what it really is; a dream.
In this sameway, life is much like this. Being set on fire in a dream, it is realized that: the fire, the you that was on fire, and the hurt; was just all parts of awareness.... since that's where it all seemed to take place from (more about this later)
Human instincts actually are perfectly inline with what is being pointed to and doesn't reject it at all. As a way of pointing, I am going to use your "being on fire" example. In the moment of being on fire. In that moment, there is no concept of a "me", who is on "fire", and feeling "pain". The "me", "fire", and "pain" are something that arise after the fire is put out, but during that experience while it is happening in the moment, there is no sufferer, since the sufferer is always bound by another concept called a "timeline". All concepts can only arise in the concept of a "timeline" since in the direct moment no concepts have time to arise, hence the concept of a "timeline" is not there. Since the concept of a "timeline" is needed for any other concept to arise on, no concepts exist.
Therefore, there is only this pure awareness of what is happening and I am not saying that fire doesn't hurt during this "pure awareness without concepts" (just like in a dream, fire still appears to hurt), I am saying there is no time for the concept of a "thinker" to think the most accurate thought of what to do. Instead, whatever is happening, happens without the concept of "you" doing it. You are likely on the ground and rolling around, trying to suffocate the fire, before you even have time to think "stop, drop, & roll".
Moments like this are very telling since they show how all concepts, beliefs, and ideas are not there without the "time" to keep them alive through thought. If everything can die within a moment, then it was never really there in the first place. In every moment only one thought can happen at a time. So during the time of that thought, all other concepts, beliefs, and ideas die. For example, if I asked you "Where did you buy that shirt at?"... you would likely look down at the shirt, think back to a memory, and recall the place that you bought the shirt. During that moment, the moment only consisted of answering the question. All of your concepts, beliefs, and ideas were not present. So if you have a belief that awareness is inside the body, during that moment you were not concerned with rather the awareness is inside a body/mind or not. Neither was your experience in the moment telling you that without a body/mind you wouldn't be aware.
And since this moment never goes anywhere, it is also telling that everything is temporary, like a dream. If you are thinking of a belief in the past, you are thinking of the past right now. If the concept of a future is being thought of, the idea of future is happening presently. Right now never moves and everything else that seems to be happening is finite and after it passes you have no evidence that is was there at all. And you can't really use the concept of "memories of the past" because there is no evidence that a past really exists and anything you can think of as proof of a past (like a scar on your arm), it is always being witnessed right now. If the concept of a past moment actually exists there would be evidence of that outside of the present and nothing is ever outside of the present.
This may seem quite naive and nonsense coming from the perspective that the concept of a timeline does exist, but this is really simply based on direct experience. In your direct experience have you really had any evidence that a past did or does exist? If you do, can you prove it outside of the present? This is looking at life simply from direct experience and nothing more. When doing this, it is easy to see that we were taught many things about life that are not actual fact in our direct experience. They are concepts/ beliefs that don't exist outside the present moment.
This aware presence is the only thing that is stable, unmoving, nonfleeting, infinite, unchanging. It is the only thing that is still there even when everything else fails. In those telling moments like when on fire, everything else fails to remain except pure present awareness. And whatever it is that this pure unmoving present awareness is aware of, that will also change. You will not infinitely be on fire. The fire will be either put out or not and you will either heal or the body/mind will die (yet the presence will not), but something will change. In this sense, nothing ever happened because nothing is ever outside this presence. It is only ever said to happen while it is happening, but when you look back on it (like on a dream) in order to say it happened you need this present moment and a concept on top of this present moment that is presently happening in order to be convince that it did happen.
However, pushing a concept onto this present moment in order to make something outside this present moment more than a concept, you need to divide this present moment into something it is not. For example, when you wake-up from a dream, you look back on the dream and you say "it was a dream". In other words, all of it was a dream. Not part of it was a dream, but this other part was real about it. The only factual statement you could make based on direct experience, would be to say that the present awareness was as real as it is now. Since that is the only "part" that is still happening now. It's the only "thing" that didn't change from: awake, to dream, and back to awake again.
So it's not about perceiving "non-events", it's about seeing that there is no proof or evidence outside the present that events happen. Events can only happen presently and once they are no longer are presently happening, how in your direct experience can you say it happened at all? I mean I am not talking about anything that needs to be imagined, believed/ faith, or fantasied about in order to see. You only need your direct experience and the evidence that remains from that, that's it. It's simple. If you do need to imagine, imagine that you're seeing life for the first time and there is nobody around to teach you what it is, how would you come to your own conclusions about what it is? The only way to know anything for certain is through direct experience.
Yet it seems a bit difficult to actualize what direct experience is, when one has been conditioned to think that what they were experiencing their whole lives is direct, when really it's full of concepts and holes. The biggest concept being "I am the controller, doer, and thinker". Again that concept doesn't always arise especially in telling moments like when instincts are fully involved. Or even simple moments like when I ask where you bought your shirt.
- Nicholas Powiull's blog
- 1095 reads
-
Hi Nicholas,
My body is on fire so I need water. To write about waves that discover water. I never can write about my absence. But you have tempted me to succumb to my vanity.
An “I” cannot say or write or claims about its non presence, or it's non-existence because there is not any need for it anymore or any "I" left to write about it's own absence. A wave that is writing about its essence the water, on the most it results in more waves and words and concepts which is all not true and useless. That what want to express its' story about awakening and the guidelines is false "i".
The side affect of writing blogs about non dual stuff and so that it is stuff merely words causing discussions in any effort trying to describe it. The purpose in to become a non thing. Impossible.
Once this is read it always give the impression there is a writer despite ones discovery. Language and concepts, opposites all the domain of language and mind.
What I am I cannot speak about, let alone talk or write about. So why then all these words and blogs? Vanity of course.
The abuse of discovery to share non-dual discovery or awakening, is vanity and always persona. There is nothing wrong or good about that, only that it is keeping the myth alive. Another dream for public attraction in name of the Rose or in name of non dual or Advaita.
Joy of existence, being, I am (without I and Am), does not feel any needs to express itself. "It" is not busy with "o lets see I want to express non duality because its fun/lol and amazing stuff"
It has then become part of the Being/the becoming - from here to there - business. As result "it" has become a concept in the enthusiasm of the writer who is not able to avoid the use of words and making new concepts and beliefs. Replaced one belief for a true living being experience (super belief:) of something or nothing; which is impersonal and does not feel anything or any needs to express its own perfection.
Fun/Lol that is trying to express it's self has nothing to do with the simple joy for there is not any need for that. That which finds its fun/lol or feels a need to write is merely the tendency; the expression of ego as vanity.
Expression of the Self does never exist cause Self does not ever express itself or find a need or a human feeling for it.
I can't know what to write about or to say about any discovery, which is an abstraction and is an object as form in time and space, like a wave, still centered as label.
Menno
http://nowthyself.wordpress.com/
In this experience here, it all equally arises and every arising is embraced since none of it is personal. Rather that arising looks like vanity or ego or both or neither.. I am not concerned with any of it because none of it is of my doing. None of is personal to me.
There is a natural love to share here. A natural love that is storyless of reason or why. It seems here that there is no responsibility but a non-personal responsibility does arise with seeing the same awareness of yourself being aware everywhere. When no sufferer is seen, it moves to ease suffering. Not because suffering is real but because being aware of suffering does sometimes appear to be personal and in that appearance it does feel real and is experienced as real. It seems natural here that the universe (for lacking a better word) speaks to itself, for itself, of itself out of the love it has for itself.
Even though the sharing, the words, the concepts, the explaining; are not the cause of itself seeing itself; there is something to be said in sharing it. There seemingly appears to be a high percentage of 'happenings' unfolding of itself seeing itself from such sharing. That is how it seemed appear here.
However, as I mention, it speaks of itself to itself out of an unexplainable love for itself. It is not trying to solve or fix a problem. It's just natural, it seems, at least here. As natural as the sharing that 'you' just shared.
First I’d like to say I’m not going to say anything you don’t already know. But if you were to throw gasoline on “me," “I” would experience intense physical pain. There is after all physicality to spirituality. Form and formlessness go hand in hand in a manner of speaking, because without emptiness, there’d be no discernable “form.”
And “illusory” doesn’t necessarily have to mean some “holographic” illusion of insubstantiality, where nothing is really happening and “I” can move my hand through the image, no fuss, no pain.
“I’ve also noted that just because some “occurrence, “event”, or “happening” is transitory, doesn’t mean its “unreal” or “illusory”. It’s just transitory. And as “I” look around, what “I” see everywhere is life ever unfolding, ever changing, ever in “transition”. So “I” understand how some folks can conclude from that, that everyday life is “illusory”. As is “I”.
On the other hand, "illusory” may simply be a “misperception,” mistaking a “this” for a “that,” a coiled rope for a snake. Is the rope “illusory” or is the snake simply a blip in “my” perception.
“I” also have come to appreciate that “I” get more mileage from the inquiry “What am I?” rather than “Who am I?,” because “who am I” just plays into “thinking mind’s” strength, which is “language,” “point of view”, “identity,” “conceptual understanding” and hence “duality”. There is the “word” than there is “that” which the word is referring to – “me.” Classic duality 101.
So one of many sand traps of conceptual understanding “I” encountered, was that “thinking mind” can soar in “imagination”, “inquiry”, “wishful thinking”, “magical thinking”, “philosophizing” and before “I” knew it, “common sense,” whatever that might mean, was left by the way side, and “I” found "self" pondering “why is it that if everything is everything and we are all part of one existence, one consciousness, that I can’t read your mind, feel your pain or be all-knowing?”
And what emerged from that “intellectual” quandary, was that just because “we” in form are all manifestations of the universe that doesn’t automatically turn “me” into “you” or “you” into “me”, or mean “I” come to have “telepathic” powers, though that may happen to some manifested entities.
So, if you were to pour gasoline on “me” and light “me” up, “I” would undoubtedly experience intense physical pain, even though “I” “conceptually” understood on some level, that all that is perceived by mind is “illusory”, “dream-like.” Whatever level of awakening or realization “I” think I may have experienced, it would not relieve “me” from suffering “being burned alive.” The only likely rescue for “me” would be that “suffering” is transitory as well.
In the long run “I” suppose “I” have found it’s not been very helpful to contemplate “awareness without a body/mind” so long as “I” am “embodied.” Instead, I’ve come to appreciate this “form” as the vehicle of awakening from “thinking mind”, permitting the shift from “conceptual understanding” to “non-conceptual” understanding, and consequently, and temporarily, leaving language behind. That’s just one of those paradoxes – especially for an “I” that has the urge as “self” to talk to “self”. Good luck in your “self” exploration.
Tony
Thank you for your expression Tony. :)
It's a very good question, and a great example of extreme pain and suffering - burnt alive. Nothing happened? Disregarding this kind of events as never happening would be a great delusion. To me, pain is one of our ally – in the recognition and meeting of it, rather than in the fear or the denial of it lies our salvation – spiritual awakening. If we know our means to salvation do exist why would we deny them once they happen to us? What do we want? Be the greatest Advaita followers? The best scriptural experts? Or an everlasting fulfillment? If the last one is the choice, then acknowledge what is happening – don’t run from it by any means. Turn your face to meet it, whatever that could be - success or failure, pain or fear, happiness or despair – meet it with an open mind to see for yourself for what it really is – with no expectations for anything but with inquiry of sincere and innocent mind - and then you know, you really know it all as a dream. Until then, don’t be tempted to act on that which you don’t know yet unless, of course, that’s your choice.
Irene
Thank you for stopping by, reading, and commenting Irene, you are appreciated :)
Hypothetically...
So Nothing Happened...
Thats IT
silence is all there is
*Laughs out loud* I like that! Very funny! Thank you Wim :)
Vague spiritual statements don‘t bring about a qualitative change in man‘s life!
Statements from Nicholas such as “every body is the One Self“ or “everything happens but nothing happens in that everything“ happen to him and this reflects the depth of understanding that has happened to him which is superficial. A deep understanding that could happen to man is that speaking happens to him and man does not make speaking happen.
Such vague spiritual statements lead to more illusory confusion instead of real clarity! A clear understanding of every aspect of man‘s mind is needed, which is provided by life, if it happens!
If deep understanding happens to man, instead of making statements he would ponder:
What is a body?
What is the One Self?
What is a concept?
What is everything?
What is nothing?
What means "happening"?
What is the past, present and future?
What could be "pure awareness"?
What is suffering?
What is time? What could it mean that time does not exist? Does time really not exist?
What could be meant by “direct experience“? What is an experience?
Are hypothetical questions really helpful for an understanding of the mind?
Who could possibly look back after waking up out of a dream? Is this perhaps another dream?
Quote Dr. Shankar: “The capacity of the mind to imagine is unimaginable!“
Nothing happens in life, everything happens in the mind as thoughts which are sound projected by life. Therefore the world is not an actuality but exists as illusory thoughts in the human mind only. Mind has to be understood as sound and not real.
www.acadun.com
www.evolutionofmind.org
Marcus Stegmaier
Hey Marcus,
Thank you for sharing your words. Beautifully expressed.
Dear Nicholas,
happy for you and humanity that you are open for "my" words.
regards, Marcus
www.acadun.com
www.evolutionofmind.org
Marcus Stegmaier
No, I feel pretty confident that I would say "OWWW!" instead.
And if I had the opportunity to have one lucid second in the midst of my painful experience, I'd probably ask you...
"why are you hurting your self this way?
Thank you Peter!