causality

[Guest guest]

Causality is only valid in the vyAvahArika realm; from the

pAramArthika perspective it is either adhyAsa:

 

On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 sadananda <sada wrote:

> 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.

 

Or illogical:

 

On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 Greg Goode <goode wrote:

> 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.

 

Or a product of avidyA:

 

On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 "nanda chandran" <vpcnk wrote:

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

> and effect.

 

Caught in avidyA, we ask questions that confound the issue:

 

On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 Ram Chandran <chandran wrote:

> Why an apple is falling from a tree?

 

The question "Why?" not only asks for a cause in the sense of a

logical explanation to satisfy the mind, but also a cause in the

sense of a purpose or intention or desired result.

 

It is more accurate to enquire into the circumstances propitious

for an action to take place or not, as:

 

On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 Greg Goode <goode wrote:

> 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 the same post Greg continued:

> 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.

 

Even science gets caught in the dual aspect of the question "Why?"

In seeking to formulate the laws governing the operation of prakRti

they ask "how" objects interact, but there is also a subjective or

purposive side to their research (even if only to justify funding).

 

Because of this purposive aspect (for some benefit or result) that

is implicit in the question "Why?", it would appear better to ask

"How?" (at the vyAvahArika level anyway).

 

On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 "Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar)" <hluthar wrote:

> Therefore, How does One Know One's Own Self?

 

But "How?" presents a problem with this sort of question, for it

implies a means, method or instrument by which could know the Self:

the Self is not an object therefore there can be no way of knowing

It objectively.

 

The truth is that you already know It; in fact, you cannot not know It.

What is required is to _realise_ that you know It, that you are It.

The problem lies in "knowing" a lot of nonsense as well, so that one

limits the real knowledge and identifies/equates the Self with the

body/mind, for example. Thus the question is more correctly expressed

as: What circumstances are necessary or propitious for removing the

limitations and identifications that one habitually associates with

one's Self ? In other words, how does one remove ignorance ?

Here the question "How?" seems valid because what is sought is a

means/method/instrument to remove that ignorance.

 

Ah! But what agent is going to wield that instrument? The individual

himself can do much of the preparatory work (sAdhana-catuSTaya) of

purifying his own mind, but ultimately the ego cannot remove itself:

that requires true knowledge, such as the words of scriptures or the

guru, together with ShrAvanam, mananam and nididhyAsanam.

 

It could still be argued that true knowledge is an instrument: what

then is the agent employing that instrument ? One can continue in

this manner, like a dog chasing its tail, until it is appreciated

that causality is necessarily founded on duality, which lends

credibility to ignorance and its products, i.e. that they are somehow

real. Thus Shankara, on the question of causality of ignorance,

wrote (bRhad. 1.4.10):

 

"Brahman is not the author of ignorance nor subject to error.

But it is not admitted that there is any other conscious entity

but Brahman which is the author of ignorance or subject to error."

 

Go figure!

 

Regards, Charles.

 

P.S. Sept.98 tattvaloka (bi-monthly from Sringeri) is online at

 

http://www.vidya.org/tattvaloka/english/sept98.htm

[Guest guest]

 

Charles Wikner [WIKNER]

Thursday, January 21, 1999 3:05 AM

advaitin

causality

 

Charles Wikner <WIKNER

 

On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 "Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar)" <hluthar

wrote:

> Therefore, How does One Know One's Own Self?

 

But "How?" presents a problem with this sort of question, for it implies a

means, method or instrument by which could know the Self: the Self is not an

object therefore there can be no way of knowing It objectively.

The truth is that you already know It; in fact, you cannot not know It.

What is required is to _realise_ that you know It, that you are It. The

problem lies in "knowing" a lot of nonsense as well, so that one limits the

real knowledge and identifies/equates the Self with the body/mind, for

example. Thus the question is more correctly expressed as: What

circumstances are necessary or propitious for removing the limitations and

identifications that one habitually associates with one's Self ? In other

words, how does one remove ignorance ? Here the question "How?" seems

valid because what is sought is a means/method/instrument to remove that

ignorance.

Ah! But what agent is going to wield that instrument? The individual

himself can do much of the preparatory work (sAdhana-catuSTaya) of purifying

his own mind, but ultimately the ego cannot remove itself: that requires

true knowledge, such as the words of scriptures or the guru, together with

ShrAvanam, mananam and nididhyAsanam.

It could still be argued that true knowledge is an instrument: what then is

the agent employing that instrument ? One can continue in this manner, like

a dog chasing its tail, until it is appreciated that causality is

necessarily founded on duality, which lends credibility to ignorance and its

products, i.e. that they are somehow real. Thus Shankara, on the question

of causality of ignorance, wrote (bRhad. 1.4.10):

"Brahman is not the author of ignorance nor subject to error. But it is not

admitted that there is any other conscious entity but Brahman which is the

author of ignorance or subject to error."

Go figure!

Regards, Charles.

 

Harsha: Beautiful and eloquent answer. It is as good as any. When Lightening

strikes there is no escape. The Self denotes Fullness of Awareness without

thought or doubt. To indicate it one must rely on stories or examples.

Aspirants meditate to know the Truth. The Truth is One's Own Nature. At some

point the Self which appears to be hazy is known to be the Supreme Clarity

which shines forth as Pure Being. It is Pure Knowing prior to entrance of

thought. For example, In the morning when I look at my face for shaving, I

do not say to myself, "Look, there you are! See!" Or "That is Harsha's

face - How handsome and charming"! Such thoughts do not enter my mind. I

simply "Know" it is my face and there is instant recognition without

engagement in the thought process (Now if I were to look in the mirror and

see a monkey or an ape, it would be different :--). Similarly, the Self

Knows It Self, independent of all experiences, as Its Nature is that of Pure

Knowing which is the same as Pure Being.

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Charles, for the URL on tattvaloka. Do you know if earlier

issues are also available electronically ?

 

 

On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Charles Wikner wrote:

> Charles Wikner <WIKNER

>

>

> Causality is only valid in the vyAvahArika realm; from the

> pAramArthika perspective it is either adhyAsa:

>

> [...]

>

> Or illogical:

>

> [...]

>

> Or a product of avidyA:

>

>

> [...]

 

 

A small quibble on an excellent response. Yes, causality is valid only

in the vyavahArika. It does not exist in the paramArthika. Aren't

"adhyAsa", "illogical" and "avidyA" are in vyavahArika only ? As I

see it, "adhyAsa" etc are only an intelligent way of explaining our

ignorance in the vyavahArika.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 21 Jan 1999 Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy wrote:

> Thanks, Charles, for the URL on tattvaloka. Do you know if earlier

> issues are also available electronically ?

 

No, sorry. There were other aspects of that site that interested me

(parallels between advaita and Plato's teaching) -- tattvaloka was a

bonus: it is relevant to this list, so the URL was shared. All the

web pages of that site are dated within the last month or two, so it

is probably new, and from the structure of the site it looks like the

intention is to add more issues of the publication, so give it a month

or two and look again to see whether your wish-fulfilling ashvattha

tree is in flower. :-)

> As I see it, "adhyAsa" etc are only an intelligent way of explaining

> our ignorance in the vyavahArika.

 

Right. The concepts are used by the wise to explain the causality

experienced by the saMsArin, and represent the barriers to knowing

Brahman from duality (hence the Western concept of the Absolute as

unknown and unknowable).

 

Regards, Charles.