Guest guest Posted January 20, 1999 Report Share Posted January 20, 1999 Revered Sirs Carrying on the discussion of cause and effect. The response received from many mail participants is highly encouraging. The answers are very interesting too. Let us continue the discussion not as dry logic chopping but with sincere interest. "Vivekananda Centre" <vivekananda Continuing on the theme of 'causality' Revered Sirs I am grateful to the response from Sri Sadanandji. This is a very interesting topic. Sri Sadanandji has put forward few points. Basically from what I understand he states that 'causality' belongs to the realms of 'buddhi and time'. (1) Point 1 raised by the response is that this 'causality' comes out of to the realm of 'Buddhi'. I respectfully disagree. I feel that it cannot be true because Buddhi is the determining faculty of the 'mind' (mahat) hence the law of causation cannot be primarily that which belongs to just one aspect of the mind (and not others). S.>Greetings and thanks for the feed-back - Here is some clarification of my >thoughts. >Buddhi as I understand - is not only nischayaatmika aspect or determining >faculty, but also an inquiring aspect too. Inquiry into what is the cause >for the observed effect is done by Buddhi and that one agrees and disagrees >with others conclusions is also by Buddhi; That is how the knowledge takes >place through vichaara - an activity of Buddhi. > >But bottom line of what was important in my discussion was that the inquiry >is in the realm of thoughts or it is of subtler field- kshetram and there >is a kshetraJNa, the knower of the field - the subject-object discussion >which reduces back to the cause-effect relation. The rest of the emphasis >of my discussion is to deduce that thoughts which are effects arise from >the cause, sustained by the cause and go back into its cause - hence into >its material cause - And that is nothing but the subject, the >consciousness. Hence cause-effects are only adhyaasa or superimpositions. >> Respectful observation: If buddhi is more than the determining faculty, it goes to the realm of thought too, even then this is only one further aspect of the mind. If it is only part of the mind then rest of mind will be free of causality. That cannot be true. No scriptures will say that mind is free from causality. (2) Point 2 raised by the response that 'causality' belongs to the realm of 'time'. Here too I respectfully disagree. I can give you examples of how the micro explain the macro world - here time does not enter into the equation and yet causality is present. S.>I would be delighted to read your examples of the micro which is beyond the time! >>Respectful example of Causality which is not in realm of time. In simple Physics you have many examples where say the structure in which the molecules are placed will decide on the property of the substance. i.e. Carbon molecules set in special structure will show property of diamond. The structure is the cause the effect is the quality of diamond. Here just the spacial framework can decide on the outcome. Time does not come into the equation. Before I take up other points raised by Sri Sadanandji's response - I respectfully request other members to throw more light on this interesting topic. pranams jay of Vivekananda Centre S.>Welcome for the thought provoking discussions and I join the Vivekananda >center in welcoming others input on the topic. Where is everybody? Aikya, >Greg, Murthy, Wikner, and other spirited discussers. >Hari Om! >Sadananda >_________________________ ____ > Greg Goode <goode >Re: Digest Number 119 con Karya Karan question > >Hi Sadananda and jay of Vivekananda Centre (welcome also!), > > >I was lurking... What about the Mandukya Upanishad, which argues >eloquently against the notion of causality altogether. I'm away from the >book now, but the second and third chapters use diamond-sharp logic to show >the illogicality of any such phenomena as cause-and-effect. >--Greg Goode >>Hi Greg -jay here. Thanks for your input. Are you talking about the nature of Atman which is beyond causation? - the second chapter deals with concept of Maya and third one deals with Atman being beyond the grasp of causality. That is fine cause and effect does not touch Atman - cannot touch Atman. Otherwise we might as well forget spirituality. We will turn as mere cogs in a huge machine! So far I have not invoked the concept of Atman or Brahman - just causality as explained in the Vedanta school. Not how it relates to Atman. pranams jay __________________________ > "nanda chandran" <vpcnk >Causal Relations > >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. Respectul response to Nanda Chandran:>> Yes agree cause and effect are interchangeable - you cannot have one without the other. The way you have explained is excellent. Cause and Effect are interrelated and cannot be separated. I have come across this in the study of Shankracharya's work somewhere. Vedanta gives much more than this -- Can someone help?? pranams jay > Tue, 19 Jan 1999 16:13:27 -0500 > Ram Chandran <chandran >Re: Causal Relations > >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! > Respectful response:>> Yes modern physics is re-examining it's own idea of causation. They are open to that - at no time does science claims it has all the answers. It is reasonably humble and says all events are connected - it goes further and says there is causality which is non-linear which means causality is more like infinite things interacting in highly complex manner (this is the new frontier of science). It is my strong belief that the findings of Vedanta will give better conceptual appreciation and will help further the progress of science in the near future. That is why I am bothering you all on the list with 'Causality'. >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 Respectful response to Greg:>> Hi Greg - yes science has moved on and view causality in different light now. The reductionist models of the past are replaced with more complex models of non-linear interaction. But interaction there is. The theory of causality has been put on the shelf simply because it appears far too complex to handle. Not because it can be ignored. Any one event breaking the law of causality (like a particle travelling faster than light to upset causality - the whole science community will get a heart attack!) pranams jay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 1999 Report Share Posted January 21, 1999 Jay - greetings - thanks for the input. >"Vivekananda Centre" <vivekananda > >>> Respectful observation: If buddhi is more than the determining faculty, >it goes to the realm of thought too, even then this is only one further >aspect of the mind. If it is only part of the mind then rest of mind will be >free of causality. That cannot be true. No scriptures will say that mind is >free from causality. You are right and I donot think I implied that either. Here, as I understand, we are not discussing what are causes and what are effects - in that case I will include 'everything" or every "thing"- that is perceived, felt and thought or inferred comes under the effects having some cause, and further becoming in turn cause for some other effects. If one is looking for the what is the cause and the effects one reduces at individual level - the avyakta or Vasanas (kaaraNa shareera) are the cause for all - subtle (buddhi and manas) and gross shareeras. What all you implied follows in the causes and effects. No disagreements on that. The discussion as I understood is centered on the sambhandha - the relation between the cause and effect. Since it is an inquiry - it rests on the validity of the inquirer itself to conduct the inquiry. Since there is an inquirer who is inquiring about the relations, and the inquiry is done at the intellectual level, the discussion (of the cause or causes and effects) is centered at the Buddhi level- This does not mean that other effects are excluded (or included at Buddhi level) - since that is not we are after - but an inquiry of what is the fundamental cause for all the effects that include the mind, body and the whole nine yards - that inquiry into causation is done at the intellectual level; example, this discussion. Since the inquiry is at the thought level, the rest of my discussion follows in terms of what is the thought and the limitation of very thinking process to inquire into the source of thoughts. One has to stand apart to see the very source of the thoughts, which Bhagavaan Ramana emphasizes as the process of meditation. In the process, the subject -object or cause-effect sambandha is realized as that it is only an adhyaasa or superimposition on the consciousness or as Charles Wikner's statement it is only in the realm of vyavahaara. That some thing is in the vyavahaara level and different discriminative faculty needed to distinguish different aspects of vyavahaara is also at the Buddhi level - furthermore even the discrimination (veveka) to inquire into what is real and what is unreal (nityaa anitya vastu viveka) is also at the Budhhi level. My statement relates that, truth that lies beyond Buddhi cannot be deduced by Budhhi but to be realized since it lies beyond cause-effect relation and hence beyond time. > >>>Respectful example of Causality which is not in realm of time. In simple >Physics you have many examples where say the structure in which the >molecules are placed will decide on the property of the substance. i.e. >Carbon molecules set in special structure will show property of diamond. The >structure is the cause the effect is the quality of diamond. Here just the >special framework can decide on the outcome. Time does not come into the >equation. Beautiful. But if one goes into further deeper analysis, the properties of the substance such as diamond is due to the cause - its crystal structure - the cause is pre-existing for the effects to manifest since the implied or observed properties donot exist before the carbon atoms condense into that diamond structure. Although properties themselves are not time bound, the cause-effect is still time bound in the sense that one is pre and the other is post. This is also discussed in vedanta - with reference to Pot - pot is called praakaabhava pratiyogini. Prak means before and abhaava means perception or non-existence. ( Please excuse me - you may be familier with all these but I am giving in detail for the benefit of others who may be interested). What the statement means is that the current existence of a pot counters its non-existence before - This is true for all creations - What was there, before the pot came into existence - the material cause, clay plus the intelligent cause the knowledge of the creation of the pot - What was there before the pot came into existence was the clay plus the potential of clay to become a pot - ChanDigya says - vaachaarambhaNam vikaaro naamadheyam in the beginning was the word "pot" ( knowledge of creation) before the modification of the cause to the effect. For diamond - what was there before - carbon atoms and conducive environments - Current existence of diamond presupposes its absence before it become a diamond - prakaabhaava pratiyogini. Also all creations are uttarrabhaaga pratiyogini too- that is posterior non-existence. Thus one day diamond may not remain as diamond - perhaps when all matter goes into a black hole! This of couse can be seen at an individual thought level - hence reference to Mandukya. Krishna declares in Ch. II about all creations - avyaktaadini bhuutaani vyaka madhyaani bhaarata | avyakta nidhanaanyeva tatra kaa paridevanaa|| All beings are unmanifested in the beginning, only manifested in the middle when they are experienced and go back into unmanifestation - if so why all that crying for? As Greg points out the discussion in the Mandukya emphasizes essentially that the world, jagat, raises with the thoughts, and when the thoughts fold up as in deep sleep state the world is folded too. Hence my discussion of the mechanics of the thought process with reference to the cause-effect relationships Ultimately the Seer-Seen distinction, thinker-thought perception occur in the sea of consciousness. Hence the concept of adhyaasa in the advaita to explain the creation is brought out. Discussion of creation in Chandigya emphasies this aspect - starting from "sadeva soumya idam agra asiit" - existence alone was there in the begining. Existence cannot come under "prak abhaava prati yogini" - that its non-existence before it became into existence - in fact Uddaalaka raises that issue and dismisses as illogical and self-contradictory. I agree with Charles - the whole discussion is vyavahaara level or intellectual level and one has to renounce this to go to the source for the kaarya-kaaraNa sambhadha. Hari Om! Sadananda K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 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.