Causal Relations

[Guest guest]

The cause and effect cannot be perceived apart from each other. They

have no existence of their own. Without the son, a woman cannot have the

designation "mother". Without the mother - there'll be no son. Neither

the mother nor the son have an independent existence, apart from each

other. They have an existence only in relation to each other.

 

If we take an object - it's generally defined as that which comes into

existence, exists for a while and ceases to exist. It's only on the

account of all these three states that something is defined as an

object. But if we analyze further, it can be seen that all the three

states don't exist in the object at the same time. Since all the three

states don't exist together in an object how can it be defined as an

object?

 

Hence there's neither production nor cessation! At the expense of logic

we indulge in makeshift of subject and object and create causal

relations.

 

It's only due to avidhya that we think of subject and object or cause

and effect. To know reality, let go of all such misconceptions which are

but mere thought constructions and rise to an inspired level.

 

Sit down, close your eyes and know yourself.

[Guest guest]

 

nanda chandran [vpcnk]

Tuesday, January 19, 1999 1:25 PM

advaitin

Causal Relations

 

"nanda chandran" <vpcnk

 

The cause and effect cannot be perceived apart from each other. They

have no existence of their own. Without the son, a woman cannot have the

designation "mother". Without the mother - there'll be no son. Neither

the mother nor the son have an independent existence, apart from each

other. They have an existence only in relation to each other.

 

If we take an object - it's generally defined as that which comes into

existence, exists for a while and ceases to exist. It's only on the

account of all these three states that something is defined as an

object. But if we analyze further, it can be seen that all the three

states don't exist in the object at the same time. Since all the three

states don't exist together in an object how can it be defined as an

object?

 

Hence there's neither production nor cessation! At the expense of logic

we indulge in makeshift of subject and object and create causal

relations.

 

It's only due to avidhya that we think of subject and object or cause

and effect. To know reality, let go of all such misconceptions which are

but mere thought constructions and rise to an inspired level.

 

Sit down, close your eyes and know yourself.

 

Harsha: Well stated overall. But why sit down and close your eyes? Why not

sit down and close your ears? After all what is so special about closing

one's eyes? What is so special about sitting down? By your own logic,

sitting down and closing your eyes cannot be the cause of knowing yourself.

Therefore, How does One Know One's Own Self? The practical indication of

this has been given by great sages like Ramana Maharshi.

 

------

[Guest guest]

Even within a scientific framework the perception of cause and effect is

complex. Scientists base cause and effect using data based on

observations. For example, data using oservations of apples falling from

the tree, several hypotheses can be formulated relating to the question:

Why an apple is falling from a tree? The discovery of the cause for the

apple to fall yields the conclusion on the effect of gravitational

force. There is no guarantee for every scientific investigation to

result in unique result linking the cause and effect. In reality,

historically scientists have contradicted, revised and changed their

conclusions.

 

Is it possible for us to measure the cause and effect without any data?

The answer is obviously no and it is possible to speculate the cause

and/or the effect. Such speculations are mostly based on BELIEFS and

beliefs differ from person to person according to intellectual

background and maturity.

 

Purely on logical ground the perception of cause and effect implies an

apparant completion of an event (observation based on mind perception).

I believe that 'time' and 'buddhi' have an important role in the

determination of the subjective cause and effect conclusions. Non

observation of time necessarily implies the observation is incomplete

and consequently cause and effect can't be separated!

 

Let me leave rest of the paradox to more able minded persons!

 

--

Ram V. Chandran

Burke, VA

 

nanda chandran wrote:

>

> "nanda chandran" <vpcnk

>

> The cause and effect cannot be perceived apart from each other. They

> have no existence of their own. Without the son, a woman cannot have the

> designation "mother". Without the mother - there'll be no son. Neither

> the mother nor the son have an independent existence, apart from each

> other. They have an existence only in relation to each other.......

[Guest guest]

At 04:13 PM 1/19/99 -0500, Ram Chandran wrote:

>Ram Chandran <chandran

>

>Even within a scientific framework the perception of cause and effect is

>complex. Scientists base cause and effect using data based on

>observations. For example, data using oservations of apples falling from

>the tree, several hypotheses can be formulated relating to the question:

>Why an apple is falling from a tree?

 

Greetings Ram,

 

What interesting questions you're posing!

 

In the Western tradition, scientific work can be done without resorting to

the cause/effect model, which many scientists feel is based on the

outmoded, mechanistic world-view that was in vogue in the 18th century.

 

In Western science, the probabilistic/statistical model is used at least as

much as the mechanistic cause/effect model. For most scientists, the

question

 

"why does event (X) happen?"

 

can be translated into

 

"what set (Y) of conditions/events is there such that

(1) (Y) tends to precede event (X), and

(2) (Y) does not occur when (X) does not occur?"

 

In Western philosophy, the great British empiricist David Hume (1711-1776)

pointed out that we never observe "causality," but rather merely the

succession of events. Up to his time, causality was thought to be a sort

of operative force that acted on objects and produced events. This force

was hypothesized, but is strictly unnecessary for scientific work.

 

--Greg