Interdependence and Cause and Effect

Uncaused causer?

 

The first statement draws an unnecessary conclusion. In this Universe there is chaos and there is order. Out of chaos comes order, out of order comes chaos. The ying-yang.

Within any phenomena which does not have apparent causes, one will usually dismiss them and look for a cause.

Your statement taht "anything can happen at anytime" seemingly implies that everything can happen, that the most impossible thing can happen. Whatever happens, like an airplane falling down on your house, is bound to have a cause because it is subject to physical laws, gravity, for one.

You therefore should expand upon what constitutes "anything".

Your second statement is worded to support the first statement without proving the first statement. You are trying to support conclusions.

If you read U. G. Krishnamurti's tale, he'll tell you that his Enlightenment was uncaused, that he was doing nothing to cause it to happen. And more importantly he says that anyone who is trying to become Enlightened will never be so because it is uncaused, it cannot be caused to occur, one cannot prepare for it.

So, why do two people fall in love? What is the cause?

The cause is that they were able to meet in the first place, that they were both at the right place at the right time. That their chemistry was right, that they were attracted to each other. Under different circumstances they probably would not have fallen in love. If you can decipher the conditions that they fell in love, then you should be able to replicate it. But no one can.

You cannot cause someone to fall in love with you, no matter how hard you try. It just happens. And it just happening proves that it is uncaused.

Coincidence and chance are a big part of life. It just "is". There is no cause other than two bodies happen to meet by chance.

Yes, anything can happen at any time. Like Enlightenment. Buddha supposedly found Enlightenment after stopping to cause it to happen; he just gave up trying, he surrendered to Life. He let it happen.

Anything can happen at any time without cause? You 'betcha.



If something happens which seemingly has no cause, "how far down the rabbit hole" do you want to go? Why not just accept it as "it just is", instead of trying to find causes?

 

what is the constitution of "Anything": take it like an anything event is: an airplane is created from no matter, from void space just above the roof of your house.

"Coincidence and chance are a big part of life. It just "is". There is no cause other than two bodies happen to meet by chance."
Each of the bodies now in presence of each others both have tausends of reason for being here. Every choices they made as responsible persons are their cause.
(The word choice implies thought about and non-thought about choices. When one does something, there is an infinity of things he is not doing) It even makes love between those two more exciting.

Peace

 

In which case, everything in life is caused. If that is the case then contemplating chaos and casuality is a waste of time, the arguement is a non issue, it is moot.

Whether something is caused or not is of no consequence if one accepts that everything is caused; because everything is caused, one may not know why, though. The question is, should one persue it?

Let's take the idea of karma and reincarnation. If you think that before you get Enlightened you will need to cancel out the karmic debt, will you ever be able to? I say no. Conversely, is one to believe that the reason why the rich are rich is because they did good in a past life, then why aren't they saints in this life? For that matter, why aren't the saints rich? Well, it must be because they were bad in a past life. Unlikely. One could say that their past few lifetimes they were getting closer and closer. I say, no. Out of the millions of past lifes, parts of them congealled into this present lifetime. It's like loving someone from a past life - you have had (???) millions of past lives and so have loved millions of times before. Why did you fall in love this time around? What are the chances that it was the exact same person as in your immedite past life?

If everything is caused, then so is our present condition and circumstance. What is one to then do? Knowing this, can one affect the immedite future in this lifetime and the future lifetimes?

If one sees millions of people dying, does one merely accept it as Krishna told Arjuna? If one knows (?) that they will be reborn, then why cry now? One crys because one crys.

I still say that one cannot cause one's Enlightenment. It happens on its own when the time is right. One can make a furtile field for it to happen, but just planting seeds in the ground will not guarantee their growing, one will need water, sunlight and favourable weather.

And just like the Jains, if you truly believed that our actions cause reactions, you would never bother getting out of bed least there be a chance that you crash your car into someone else, say a bad word to a friend, curse the driver ahead of you which has an overheated motor or scream at the supermarket clerk because her line is moving too slow. If everything has a cause - do you know what affects your actions will have? Knowing this, can you cause something to occur or not occur? At what point does one surrender and just let life unfold before them?

Caused or uncaused, hear:
the peeling bell in the wind
why is its sound sweet?

 

It happens all the time in one's dreams. While dreaming you do not know that it is not reality. You readily accept that it is reality. Therefore it must be real.

If you can imagine it, an airplane popping up out of nothing, hovering over your house roof, then it is so, because what you can imagine and what you can perceive are the same thing, you're using the same mechanism, the brain. It may only exist within your mind, but it exists nonetheless. A neural network has been formed and you can never forget the idea (although you may not remember it. There is a very subtle difference.)

Don't believe that? Then why do you get carried away when discussing politics, watching a game, playing a video game, watching a movie? That monster on screen (game, tv, magazine) does not exist. But it exists in your mind because it has an affect upon your body, hormones are released, feelings are emoted.

Likewise, just because you cannot experience something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It just means that you have not experienced it.

If I say that when making love my thinking stops, there is no time passing, there is no passing of time, just because you have not felt it doesn't mean that it isn't real. It is real to me. Enough people have said that when in a car crash time slows down. Your saying the same thing, as a meditator, may be readily rejected out of hand by the skeptics.

One to chew on: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/03/030310064427.htm

Causality: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-process/

You might as well look up "determinism".

So, yes:

Now, what is that "something"? Yes, everything is inter-related and inter-dependent, but everything is also independent at the same time. One therefore finds chaos within order and order within chaos. Chaos from afar is beautiful (a tornado, a swirling cluster of stars around a black hole) but chaotic within its field of influence.

So we say that thinking is chaotic and no-thinking is silence, bliss and peace.

 

Fricken kaleidoscopes...

 

I'm sorry that I was being obtuse. My problem was that I started to respond to your first statement without reading the whole posit, to it's conclusion. I wanted to do it piece meal, a little at a time.

I agree with you, cause preceedes effect. My contention is that then all is caused. Since all is caused, then why bother trying to contemplate the causes? You can never stop. You will always be in the rabbit hole. So everything in the material world has a cause and affect.

Now what? You say,

You are free to do as you wish, but what you wish may be due to what happened before (just as desire is based on the past). What you do or did was one out of billions of possibilities. Why contemplate the other possibilities? You have an effect; you then search through a billion possbilities. We may not be conscious of it, but the desiring mind probably is. When something unexpected happens we may ask, "Why me?" So while everything as a cause and effect, others say just the opposite (like Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj (who isn't a Buddhist)), that things happen for no reason and cause. He says, "It is the illusion of time that makes you talk of causality. When the past and the future are seen in the timeless now, as parts of a common pattern, the idea of cause-effect loses it validity and creative freedom takes its place." He also says, "You may try to trace how a thing happens, but you cannot find out why a thing is as it is. A thing is as it is because the universe is as it is." (From "I Am That".)

One of my favourite quotes in the book is when the questioner asks,"Which part of the future is real and which is not?" He answers, "The unexpected and unpredictable is real."

Basically it is the mind which searches for the reasons behind cause and effect. If there is no mind, the question doesn't exist. Just as if there were no human consciousnesses now asking the question, the question would be pointless because everything would be as it is even without us. Cause-effect only exists in our minds. That doesn't mean that it isn't real, though, because what we perceive to be reality is only because of the mind. If the mind is an illusion then all it takes to be real is an illusion.That includes cause-effect.

One can rationalise love as being caused. But while in its effect the question does not come up. It is not even moot, it is not contemplated. If time does not exist cause-effect does not exist. Therefore all is causeless.

Which is why I bought up dreams. If we are not aware of cause-effect in our dreams, then even our own individual reality is a dream in comparison to eternity. It is nothing but an air bubble in the ocean.

 

I think that part of the problem of linguistics is that no statement can be read without thinking of its opposite, the propensity to make assumptions based on experience and prejudice. So a thought is expressed and someone is already thinking where the discussion will end up.

As an example, your cause and affect posit reads as being very logical but also re-inforcing the materialist viewpoint. Without any concrete example of what cause-effect you are thinking about, people can only relate to what their experience is. Someone with spiritual experiences could see it as just another upcoming attack upon his beliefs, being 'shot shy' he perceives a forthcoming trap. This is presumption and if the reader is familiar with the positor it may be assumption.

We call it human nature, this 'ability' to always be thinking. But as Buddhists we know that we should not assume, because we are familiar with the inner workings of the mind. So when someone speaks we [do] not hear what they are saying, our minds are too busy filtering the message. So it is said that we hear but don't listen, or listen and do not hear. In the New Testament Jesus kept saying, "He who has ears to hear, hear." (Or something like it.)

I do it all the time. Even conversing I find it hard not to think ahead while listening. I try to say something even while the other person is talking. Other times I leave many things unsaid. People are awaiting a response and non is forthcoming.

I tend to be all inclusive. So whenever I see an "either / or" arguement I say that it is an "and" arguement. For example, if you said that things are either white or black, I would say that things are white and black. If you said everyone is alive or dead, I would say people are alive and dead, both at the same time. So when I say that all is caused I am also saying that all is uncaused; both at the same time.

If we take the example of the Buddhist monk who found himslef running from a tiger and he had to jump into a revine, catching an outcropping, and looking down he sees another tiger waiting for him to fall, finding himself with the inevitable, rather than thinking about how he got there (cause-effect), what he could now do (infinite possibilities), regretting the present, etc., he looks over and sees the strawberry, and taking it and eating it he finds it to be the best strawberry he ever tasted.

One could make many rationalisations about his exclamations, whether or not it really was the best strawberry he ever tasted or if it was philosophical. It could very well be that the monk attained Enlightenment at that very moment. But we would have no way of knowing. What is known, or at least can be assumed, is that he didn't contemplate casue-effect, he just accepted life, and death. That acceptance transcended cause-effect.

As far as the objective material world is concerned, it is real. "Maya" doesn't really say that the world is an illusion, just that since we are illusions (assumptive? Not really, it just needs further elucidation,) whatsoever we experience and think is therefore an illusion.

My first satori happened meditating on a grantite mountain top in the snow. The snow stopped falling in midflight and an hour later there was an inch of snow on my shoulders. It took me over 90 days to utter my first word. The world was the same, my friends would talk about all their little problems, their divorces, their kids' braces, their good and bad sex, their money problems, births and deaths, etc. And I couldn't say one word because it seemed so trite, so inconsequential, to me. The world was the same but I wasn't. I saw my life as one snowflake, lasting as long as it took for it to fall from the sky to the ground - in comparison to that granite mountain that had been there for millions of years. When the snow stopped falling there were no thoughts of cause-effect, there was no thought at all; time stopped. Afterwards cause-effect had no meaning to me.

Yes, cause-effect is real. But why bother thinking about it? Why bother trying to find out what the possible cause could be for the present effect one finds oneself in? It is a waste of mental energy, perpetuating the thinking process, forcing a further identification with the moment, taking us away from the 'now,' what is now before our eyes, changing every moment.

One could think about it (around and around and around) or one could just accept it. If one accepts that all is caused, one re-inforces it. Buddhism, since it is a science of negation, probably should say that all is uncaused, then the wonder and awe of life continues, each effect is seen as unique; connected yet also un-connected to what came previous and what will follow; what will follow is but one of billions of possibilities. When it comes it must be accepted because it has manifested, inspite of, or because it was caused to manifest, it makes no difference - what is important is what is now before our eyes. Then things just happen, uncaused.

We are all unique or we are all the same. It means the same thing. I therefore say that we are all unique and we are all the same; no one is special and we are all special. It all depends on how one views the world.

When one hears the bell peeling in the distance, it could very well be that someone is ringing it. Or it could be ringing by itself. Or it could be a cow coming home or looking for its calf.

Why bother thinking what it could be, thereby missing the sound while it is there? If the bell has no immediate meaning then one is free to enjoy the sound. It is not an opportunity to stop and think, it is an opportunity to stop thinking.

For whom there exists neither the hither nor the farther shore, nor both the hither and the farther shore, he who is undistressed and unbound, - him I call a Brahmana.
-Dhammapada

I guess I'm in the latter part of that sentence, 'nor both' is where I'm stuck at. I am still bound by desire and dreams. It's not that I haven't realised that all is desire and dreams, it is that I (still) enjoy desire and dreams.

I've enjoyed our dialogue. Thanks.

 

Hello!

First, let me say that I have found this thread an interesting read. Thank you.

If I may, I would like to include a few thoughts of "my own" in response to a couple of statements of yours White Feather. My first thought is on the following statement:

I agree with the first and second of "If there is no mind ..." and "cause-effect only exists in our minds." I would also like to add, from my own perspective and the Buddhist theory that it is mind that creates cause. And since cause has an effect, then it can also be said that since the mind creates cause then mind also creates effect, hence the mind is the creator of cause and effect.

Even if the mind is an illusion, or even if the mind has its basis emptiness, that is, the mind does not really exist ... while mind itself exists based on the causes for the mind to exist the result is still none-the-less: the mind is the effect for whatever cause gives it its existence, therefore the mind itself is cause and effect. Mind perpetuates cause and effect in order to perpetuate its own self-grasping existence. So one is left with the basic question of "What is the first cause for the appearance of mind?"

So there I also agree that "all is causeless ...", but only when the mind it-self ceases grasping at its own appearance.

I would also like to comment, or add thoughts that are my own again on the following statement of yours White Feather:

When the snow stopped, was the appearance of snow still there? Did you see snowflakes as if hanging in mid-air, or were there no snowflakes present? Was the mountain still there? Were the clouds still there? Was the sun shinning or not shinning (even if through a cloudy sky or a cloudless sky)? Was the wind still blowing on your face (or body)? Did you experience the sound of wind? Did you experience warmth or cold? Smells? Tastes? Were they any thoughts going through your mind? Perhaps a feeling or thought over the experience of your Satori?

If you can answer any of those questions with a yes or "I don't know", then you were still experiencing causes and effect. When the eye and its associated object come into contact, i.e., sight and form, you are still seeing. The cause: contact with an object of sight. The result: a visual sensation, a feeling, perception, mental volition or fabrication on what it is you are seeing, and the appearance of consciousness.

All of the questions asked have as its cause contact with an external object, and have as the result (effect) a sensation, a feeling, a perception, a mental fabrication on what it is you are sensing, and a consciousness.

You have me agreeing with a lot you say. Such as: But why bother thinking about it? Why bother trying to find out what the possible cause could be of the present effect one finds oneself in? It is a waste of mental energy, perpetuating the thinking process, forcing a further identification with the moment, taking us away from the 'now,' what is now before our eyes. ...

So I would like to do this, just for sake of trying to perpetuate a provocation of thought:
1) But why bother thinking about it? Because, while you still see, hear, smell, taste, feel (tactile), and think, or have a mind to perpetuate thought, I suggest it is inevitable for an untrained mind to do nothing but think about it. The mind is always trying to find happiness in any form, whether it be peace, love, absence of malace or ill-will, freedom from greed, lust, etc. ...

2) Why bother trying to find out what the possible cause could be of the present effect one finds oneself in? I also suggest that somewhere in the grasping of illusion the mind is always seeking an answer to the underlying cause for the effect it experiences moment-by-moment. Whether the experience is a sight (good, bad, or indifferent), a sound (good, bad, or indifferent), a smell (good, bad, or indifferent), a taste (good, bad, or indifferent), a feeling (tactile) (good, bad, or indifferent), or a thought (good, bad, or indifferent). Hence the question "Why Me?"

3) It is a waste of mental energy, perpetuating the thinking process, forcing a further identification with the moment, taking us away from the 'now,' what is now before our eyes. While the mind is perpetuating its existence, energy is being expended. Whether there are any processing going on or not, the mind is always expending energy as long as the mind is perpetuating an awareness of its own existence. Even in "Satori" the mind, if it still has a persistent identification or awareness with its own self-grasping existing, is still expending energy and is still perpetuating "the thinking process", is still "forcing a further identification with the moment", and is still "taking us away from the 'now,' what is now before our eyes" (and ears, and nose, and tongue, and body, and mind) -- thought I'd throw that in there.

Or, if I may add another option here. It does appear you are offering an option that has two sides. Or, one can think about it and accept it. It's in the grasping that one steps outside the bounds of AND and enters the realm of OR ... at least in this instance. In Buddhism, one of the truths of the Noble Eightfold Path is this Right Mindfulness. Mindfulness is the ability to become aware of an experience (or an experience event) without grasping to it. Becoming aware of its appearance, of its duration, and of its disappearance without becoming involved in the experience itself. In essence not perpetuating a cause of its appearance into an effect of continual experiences. Just noticing the cause without following it into the effect. Notice it as it becomes 'now', notice how long it is 'now', and notice it as it is no longer 'now' and leave it ... That's It ... it's over, why follow it? This is Right Mindfulness. It's in the grasping that we perpetuate the apperarance of an experience. This is when we begin to create volition which leads to cause and effect, i.e., we perpetuate the appearance of the experience over and over by using the appearance of the first experience to create a copy of the next experience in the next 'now', and the next, and the next ... until we either have a feeling of satisfaction, or repulsion, or neither satisfaction nor repulsion. But a feeling is exactly what we, or better yet our minds have created. And it is this perpetuation of experiences that causes the effect of self-identification, I, me, mine.

So, if there was any kind of experience you had, whether it be sight of a snowflake hanging suspended in space, you were still living in time-and-space because of the distance the object was from your eye, and the amount of time it took for the feeling (or light) to cross this distance to be intrepreted by your mind as a snowflake being there. Or any other kind of feeling experienced by the ear, nose, tongue, body or mind, as long as your mind was grasping to the objects associated with the senses in order to identify it as being there in the space you cognized it to be, you were still creating cause and effect.

As long as your mind is experiencing its own existence, it is creating causes for the perpetuation of its own existence. It is still engaging in cause-effect.

No need to extend any thoughts of my own on the remainder of your last post, White Feather because I agree or at least have similar thoughts and views of the rest.

I too find yours and Meagain's dialog provocative and interesting and hope that I may be able to engage in the conversation from time to time ...

HTML:

HTML:

HTML:

HTML:

 

"darrell,"

You bring up an age old question, "if the Witness is "seen," is not the Witness also part of the Mind?" Can consciousness see consciousness?

In my case the snow stopped in mid air. Since it stopped in mid air it was of a very short duration. But the fact that I was able to see my mind stop thinking, if only for a moment makes me think that it was a valid experience.

I experienced all these sensations before my mind stopped thinking. But not when it stopped thinking. What I saw was my mind stopping, and with it a sense of dread, of actually starting to feel as if I was dying. So I became very freightened and I started to think. Then the snow started falling again, the wind could be heard, a sensation of cold returned.

 

Hello, White Feather.

All I can say in this instance of moment is ... Cool !!!

It was, for me, that very same experience that was the first-step forward to becoming a monk. This coming from a person whose mind was in a continual state of "monkey-mind". Only it was not on a mountain top, but at a meditation retreat. When the mind did stop, it was unmistakable because all the thought processes, all the internal dialog (chatter), all the mental images (image chatter) were not there. All I was left with was an indescribable peace that went beyond mere feeling as feeling itself requires a series of events in order to produce the state of feeling and a mind to recognize that sensations are being registered to associate feelings with.

In Theravada style meditation (can't remember if it's Vipassana or Anapanasati), this would be liken to a state called second jhana: Anguttara Nikaya IX.34, Nibbana Sutta (Unbinding) -- "Furthermore, there is the case where a monk, with the stilling of directed thought & evaluation, enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation — internal assurance. If, as he remains there, he is beset with attention to perceptions dealing with directed thought, that is an affliction for him..." This is what you call Satori. And it was the attention to perceptions dealing with directed thought, e.g., "So I became very frightened and I started to think".

I too became aware that I was not entertaining all the internal chatter and that my mind was still and quiet for the first time in my life ... more like a bare awareness rather than another internal chatter of "wow! my mind is quiet!" My exit point was when the meditation instructors voice that brought me out of the meditation ... this was during a meditation retreat.

This is indicative of second jhana states of meditation.

When I was making these statements about awareness to time/space during your description, I was actually trying to compare your experience with the one I had as well, as I did not experience time stopping, or time moving, or of any spatial orientation. Nor did I experience any other sense stimulation or sensation. During that time there was no attention to thought, no attention to sight, no attention to sound, no attention to smells, no attention to tastes, no attention to bodily feelings of pain or feelings of bodily pleasure. However it was the instructors voice that was the cause for my attention to sound and therefore the other cascading attentions to sensations from the other senses.

Thank you for clarifying this ...

HTML:

HTML:

HTML:

HTML:

 

Some times as I meditate while going to sleep I will see the thinking mind as a separate process. I will actually witness "thinking" separating from my consciousness. I see it and I don't get involved with what the mind is thinking; I let it go off on its own to continue doing what it is doing. I believe that I have mentioned that I get p***** upon waking, upon first seeing thoughts forming, seeing the layers of different thought sentences forming one upon another, until they overlap into a non-stopping stream of consciousness.

I loved that. I actually feel that I understood what you said. I fear that others, who are not familiar with the language of a mystic, may be a little lost.

Many cannot even conceive of a non-thinking mind, much less one that "shuts up." I have yet to do so at will, it just happens when it is conducive, when I am open, when I allow it to happen. Once I felt as if I was falling into the pit of my stomach. That sensation I didn't fear, I quite enjoyed it.

But to those who have never experienced such things they probably think that it is impossible or imaginings. I then tell them that they must question reality itself, that they must experience for themselves and that non-experiencing is not proof of it not being possible, that it only proves that they have not experienced it, nothing more.

So when I read the Zen story of two monks talking, "what is it that moves a flag in the wind?" and the Master hits both arguing monks in the back of the head and he exclaims, "It is the mind that moves the flag," I feel that I can more fully appreciate that answer. http://www.rider.edu/~suler/zenstory/movingmind.html

http://www.utah.edu/stc/tai-chi/stories.html#24

 

"I will see the thinking mind as a separate process. I will actually witness "thinking" separating from my consciousness. I see it and I don't get involved with what the mind is thinking"
then i got one question: how is it conscious if it is not thought? (You are able to both think about something and not think about it at the same time?)There must be a time between your two sentences or?

define please, define
ps: That makes 3 questions

 

about all you werre saying white feather, dont take it personally
"We are all unique or we are all the same. It means the same thing. I therefore say that we are all unique and we are all the same; no one is special and we are all special. It all depends on how one views the world."
It is not against u white feather really. Just take it as it is:
How the fuck do I have to act in the next few seconds, let's dare to say next instant?
How do I have to feel responsible for what I am doing? can I murder or love because it is the same?
ps: That makes 3 more questions, I'm sorry really

222!

 

My thoughts exactly, no offence. Go meditate