Guest guest Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > NEH encapsulates a great insight, but like > > all spiritual slogans, if taken literally, > > it becomes a huge misunderstanding meant > > to indicate events are not real, or do not > > matter. > > > > The great insight of the phrase resides in > > pointing to the evanescent quality of events. > > The Roman Empire lasted hundreds of years, > > millions of people lived under its rule, and > > yet today for all those millions, the Roman > > Empire is as if it never happened. > > > > Notice that " as if " gives the phrase nothing > > ever happened the right scope. For all those > > dead Romans the Empire is as if it never > > happened, yet for us that Empire still has > > consequences in our language, culture, laws > > and political institutions. > > > > Consequences give reality to things and events. > > We consider things that have no consequences > > unreal. Since death erases all consequences > > for us, we can say that for the dead the whole > > universe never happened. I know some people > > believe in reincarnation and karma, but for me > > that is a cock and bull story. > > > > Shit do happen when it happens, and then it's > > gone without a trace. Each event could be like > > that if not held in memory. Truly for those that > > let go, all things are as if nothing ever happened. > > > > Pete > " Nothing ever happened " means that since there can be no isolated > " event " and no isolated perceiver of an isolated event.........nothing > (specifically) ever happens. > > " Events " like " things " are the conceptual mind's attempts to capture > the flowing nature of reality and freeze frame it for future reference. > > The collection of impressions is then mistaken for reality by the > phantom in the machine. > > Nicely said, Toomb and welcome back. Philosophically seen indeed nothing ever happens. But we are social beings which are collecting, reporting and communicatiing to each other " events " which have to be met in an adequate way to sustain the survival of the collective and of the single member. And therefore constantly so called events are happening. Werner > toombaru > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 " Nothing ever happened " means that since there can be no isolated " event " and no isolated perceiver of an isolated event.........nothing (specifically) ever happens. " Events " like " things " are the conceptual mind's attempts to capture the flowing nature of reality and freeze frame it for future reference. The collection of impressions is then mistaken for reality by the phantom in the machine R: This is an excellent post, Toombaru! .... " ever happened " is past tense. There is a difference between saying, " Nothing ever happened " and " Nothing ever happens " . Therefore I think also Pete's interpretation is also correct, i.e. without memory happening, with no record happening, nothing would ever have happened. But, memory exists. Thus, independent of the structure of " event " or " thing " , i.e. isolated or composed/constructed/dependent, memory, as event/concept/thing, exists, too. " Nothing happened " or " nothing happens " is what people in many languages say, when someone else begs for pardon for some mistake, for example, to demonstrate that no harsh feelings will remain and that the mistake will not carry consequences. However, the use of the term " ever " is quiet interesting, quasi mystical and that's what the person that exteriorized this " verdict " probably intended. It's odd to discuss things with mystics (or any other kind of fundamentalists, he?!). So, if this guy said " Nothing ever happened " to whom was he/her talking, but to himself? Hahaha! Why, because if you say to another person that nothing ever happened, this would include you own act/event/thing of saying it, too (or should do so). That's called the liar's paradox and leaves the things just how they are. So, this guy was actually talking to himself or he was lying. As far as I know the liar's paradox doesn't apply to oneself. If we then come to the conclusion this statement is logically incorrect and is a typical case of liar's paradox, we can ask yourselves, why Pete and Toombaru try to make sense of it! The point is that illogical logic, as used by the " sayer " of nothing ever happened, can attractive, can have poetic connotations, can appear like a divine verdict, for example. It has something enigmatic, like hearing an oracle speaking. To try to make sense of it, however, make posts, as fine as Toombaru's message, possible. Yours, Ricardo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 Nisargadatta , almon2009 wrote: > > " Nothing ever happened " means that since there can be no isolated > " event " and no isolated perceiver of an isolated event.........nothing > (specifically) ever happens. > > " Events " like " things " are the conceptual mind's attempts to capture > the flowing nature of reality and freeze frame it for future reference. > > The collection of impressions is then mistaken for reality by the > phantom in the machine > > > R: This is an excellent post, Toombaru! .... " ever happened " is past tense. There is a difference between saying, " Nothing ever happened " and " Nothing ever happens " . Therefore I think also Pete's interpretation is also correct, i.e. without memory happening, with no record happening, nothing would ever have happened. But, memory exists. Thus, independent of the structure of " event " or " thing " , i.e. isolated or composed/constructed/dependent, memory, as event/concept/thing, exists, too. > > " Nothing happened " or " nothing happens " is what people in many languages say, when someone else begs for pardon for some mistake, for example, to demonstrate that no harsh feelings will remain and that the mistake will not carry consequences. However, the use of the term " ever " is quiet interesting, quasi mystical and that's what the person that exteriorized this " verdict " probably intended. > > It's odd to discuss things with mystics (or any other kind of fundamentalists, he?!). So, if this guy said " Nothing ever happened " to whom was he/her talking, but to himself? Hahaha! Why, because if you say to another person that nothing ever happened, this would include you own act/event/thing of saying it, too (or should do so). That's called the liar's paradox and leaves the things just how they are. So, this guy was actually talking to himself or he was lying. As far as I know the liar's paradox doesn't apply to oneself. > > If we then come to the conclusion this statement is logically incorrect and is a typical case of liar's paradox, we can ask yourselves, why Pete and Toombaru try to make sense of it! The point is that illogical logic, as used by the " sayer " of nothing ever happened, can attractive, can have poetic connotations, can appear like a divine verdict, for example. It has something enigmatic, like hearing an oracle speaking. To try to make sense of it, however, make posts, as fine as Toombaru's message, possible. > > > > Yours, > Ricardo > Great thinking Ricardo. This stuff is hard to " pin down " . The basic " problem " arises because the assumption of autonomy (the self) tries to make sense of its own collection of post-its. It and its conceptual overlay are essentially " illogical " to start with in that they are imaginary floaters....they have no substantial reality. It would kinda be like Cinderella seeking relief psychiatric help for her abandonment issues. In order for " something " to happen there would have to be " someone " to whom it could happen.....and there isn't one. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 Hi toombaru, In regards to "nothing ever happened", are you saying that there are no sensations, appearances, thoughts, etc? My take is that "appearances" (i.e., sensory/kinesthetic sensations, thoughts, perceptions, ideas, feelings, etc) are "happenings". "Happenings" in the sense that they are present and noticeable, just like this monitor being seen, the sound of the keyboard being typed on, what to ask in this post, etc. Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Michael Adamson " <adamson wrote: > > > > Hi toombaru, > > In regards to " nothing ever happened " , are you saying that there are no > sensations, appearances, thoughts, etc? > > My take is that " appearances " (i.e., sensory/kinesthetic sensations, > thoughts, perceptions, ideas, feelings, etc) are " happenings " . " Happenings " > in the sense that they are present and noticeable, just like this monitor > being seen, the sound of the keyboard being typed on, what to ask in this > post, etc. > > Michael > Hello Michael, It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to speak of the essential emptiness of the conceptual overlay using the very conceptual format that created the illusion that there are separate things and separate events involving those concepts. That problem is compounded by the fact that the one attempting to do so is itself a by-product of that process and has no reality in and of itself. Nisargadatta...and those before him..... refer to it a " washing blood with blood " . Over the years. I have tried to come up with an analogy that points to this.........but can't come up with anything better than that. There IS sentience in which the " world " appears as a flowingness. Only the conceptual mind of man freezes the moments in a conceptual-self-referential context. The persona is nothing more than the interwoven mnemonic frozen moments. " Thoughts " occur in the refractory-recall apparatus and emerge from the brain as a reaction to the perceptual input. There is sentient input but in the mind-0-man it is converted to a conceptual format or map that the mind mistakes for reality. Even the resulting phantom's " feelings " cannot be experienced without a name applied to them since the phantom is itself nothing but the coagulated essence of the conceptual overlay. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Michael Adamson " <adamson@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi toombaru, > > > > In regards to " nothing ever happened " , are you saying that there > are no > > sensations, appearances, thoughts, etc? > > > > My take is that " appearances " (i.e., sensory/kinesthetic > sensations, > > thoughts, perceptions, ideas, feelings, etc) are " happenings " . > " Happenings " > > in the sense that they are present and noticeable, just like this > monitor > > being seen, the sound of the keyboard being typed on, what to ask in > this > > post, etc. > > > > Michael > > > > > Hello Michael, > > It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to speak of the > essential emptiness of the conceptual overlay using the very > conceptual format that created the illusion that there are separate > things and separate events involving those concepts. > > That problem is compounded by the fact that the one attempting to do > so is itself a by-product of that process and has no reality in and of > itself. > > Nisargadatta...and those before him..... refer to it a " washing blood > with blood " . > > Over the years. I have tried to come up with an analogy that points to > this.........but can't come up with anything better than that. > > There IS sentience in which the " world " appears as a flowingness. > > Only the conceptual mind of man freezes the moments in a > conceptual-self-referential context. > > The persona is nothing more than the interwoven mnemonic frozen moments. > > " Thoughts " occur in the refractory-recall apparatus and emerge from > the brain as a reaction to the perceptual input. > > There is sentient input but in the mind-0-man it is converted to a > conceptual format or map that the mind mistakes for reality. > > Even the resulting phantom's " feelings " cannot be experienced without > a name applied to them since the phantom is itself nothing but the > coagulated essence of the conceptual overlay. > toombaru Namaste, Problem is that we see the world as we are not separate from the seer of Saguna Brahman concept. We think we are being subjective when it is objective so we are Saguna and that didn't happen. It is inexplicable like time and astronauts losing time etc etc..A dream that didn't happen..............Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Michael Adamson " <adamson@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi toombaru, > > > > > > In regards to " nothing ever happened " , are you saying that there > > are no > > > sensations, appearances, thoughts, etc? > > > > > > My take is that " appearances " (i.e., sensory/kinesthetic > > sensations, > > > thoughts, perceptions, ideas, feelings, etc) are " happenings " . > > " Happenings " > > > in the sense that they are present and noticeable, just like this > > monitor > > > being seen, the sound of the keyboard being typed on, what to ask > in > > this > > > post, etc. > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > Hello Michael, > > > > It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to speak of the > > essential emptiness of the conceptual overlay using the very > > conceptual format that created the illusion that there are separate > > things and separate events involving those concepts. > > > > That problem is compounded by the fact that the one attempting to do > > so is itself a by-product of that process and has no reality in and > of > > itself. > > > > Nisargadatta...and those before him..... refer to it a " washing > blood > > with blood " . > > > > Over the years. I have tried to come up with an analogy that points > to > > this.........but can't come up with anything better than that. > > > > There IS sentience in which the " world " appears as a flowingness. > > > > Only the conceptual mind of man freezes the moments in a > > conceptual-self-referential context. > > > > The persona is nothing more than the interwoven mnemonic frozen > moments. > > > > " Thoughts " occur in the refractory-recall apparatus and emerge from > > the brain as a reaction to the perceptual input. > > > > There is sentient input but in the mind-0-man it is converted to a > > conceptual format or map that the mind mistakes for reality. > > > > Even the resulting phantom's " feelings " cannot be experienced > without > > a name applied to them since the phantom is itself nothing but the > > coagulated essence of the conceptual overlay. > > > toombaru > Namaste, > > Problem is that we see the world as we are not separate from the seer > of Saguna Brahman concept. We think we are being subjective when it > is objective so we are Saguna and that didn't happen. It is > inexplicable like time and astronauts losing time etc etc..A dream > that didn't happen..............> Yes. And the very thinking that wants to negate it........makes it appear substantial. (This is the point where someone in the back row raises their hand and says: " OK......I understand that......but how can I get it to stop? " LOL toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta@ > > > conceptual format or map that the mind mistakes for reality. > > > > > > Even the resulting phantom's " feelings " cannot be experienced > > without > > > a name applied to them since the phantom is itself nothing but the > > > coagulated essence of the conceptual overlay. > > > > > toombaru > > Namaste, > > > > Problem is that we see the world as we are not separate from the seer > > of Saguna Brahman concept. We think we are being subjective when it > > is objective so we are Saguna and that didn't happen. It is > > inexplicable like time and astronauts losing time etc etc..A dream > > that didn't happen..............> Yes. > And the very thinking that wants to negate it........makes it appear > substantial. > > > (This is the point where someone in the back row raises their hand and > says: > > " OK......I understand that......but how can I get it to stop? " > > > LOL > toombaru Namaste, Yes the problem is any kind of thinking and any kind of mind, as to the mind any thought is as good as any other........The ego even thrives in negative assumptions about it....Any thought is the problem...Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tony OClery " <aoclery@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta@ > > > > conceptual format or map that the mind mistakes for reality. > > > > > > > > Even the resulting phantom's " feelings " cannot be experienced > > > without > > > > a name applied to them since the phantom is itself nothing but > the > > > > coagulated essence of the conceptual overlay. > > > > > > > toombaru > > > Namaste, > > > > > > Problem is that we see the world as we are not separate from the > seer > > > of Saguna Brahman concept. We think we are being subjective when > it > > > is objective so we are Saguna and that didn't happen. It is > > > inexplicable like time and astronauts losing time etc etc..A > dream > > > that didn't happen..............> > Yes. > > And the very thinking that wants to negate it........makes it appear > > substantial. > > > > > > (This is the point where someone in the back row raises their hand > and > > says: > > > > " OK......I understand that......but how can I get it to stop? " > > > > > > LOL > > > toombaru > > Namaste, > > Yes the problem is any kind of thinking and any kind of mind, as to > the mind any thought is as good as any other........The ego even > thrives in negative assumptions about it....Any thought is the > problem...> LOL Tar babies trying to escape the tar pit. Dream characters trying to get a glimpse of the dreamer. Selfs trying to get a peek up their own skirt. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 > LOL > > Tar babies trying to escape the tar pit. > > Dream characters trying to get a glimpse of the dreamer. > > Selfs trying to get a peek up their own skirt. > > > > toombaru P: you forgot the brain, you forgot the brain, nana, nana, nana! Sing with me! The brains in Spain fall mainly in front of trains. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LOL > > > > Tar babies trying to escape the tar pit. > > > > Dream characters trying to get a glimpse of the dreamer. > > > > Selfs trying to get a peek up their own skirt. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > P: you forgot the brain, you forgot the brain, nana, nana, > nana! Sing with me! The brains in Spain fall mainly in > front of trains. > > > Without thinking about it, who are we? (Or would we be?) Hmmmmmm? ~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LOL > > > > > > Tar babies trying to escape the tar pit. > > > > > > Dream characters trying to get a glimpse of the dreamer. > > > > > > Selfs trying to get a peek up their own skirt. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > P: you forgot the brain, you forgot the brain, nana, nana, > > nana! Sing with me! The brains in Spain fall mainly in > > front of trains. > > > > > > > > > Without thinking about it, who are we? (Or would we be?) > > Hmmmmmm? hmmm... let´s think about it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.