David,
sam: "no longer being bound by forms" - what the hell is this? Even the enlightened have a body, thoughts and feelings.
David: This is a key stage before enlightenment can be realized - that is, knowing how to become free of all forms by utilizing the understanding of the formlessness of all things. In turn, this deep understanding cannot be actualized and put into practice until one thoroughly understands the nature of causation.
In other words, it is through understanding causation that one can realize the formlessness of all things, and it is through understanding the formlessness of all things that one can open up to the freedom of the Infinite.
The Diamond Sutra articulates these points in some detail, as do many other Buddhist sutras.
Sounds bogus but you can believe what you want. In any case, it has zero to do with surrender.
sam: Gravity is in every phenomena too. In fact, without gravity, there would be no cause and effect so it is arguably the more important principle.
David: You need to brush up on your science. Gravity is regarded as one of the four fundamental forces of nature - the others being electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces.
sam: Right. My point is the physical world would not exist without gravity. There would be no basis for galaxies, stars, planets or humans.
David: The physical world would still exist, just not in the way that we currently know it. It would have different properties, that's all.
I don't think so. Matter clumps together because of gravity.
David: Everything that exists is comprised of cause and effect - the physical world, the mental realms, the mystical realms, dreams, gravity, everything.
sam: You are getting metaphysical on me. Cause and effect isn't a thing, it is an idea.
David: It is neither just an idea, nor a metaphysical entity. It is as real as the things we observe in each moment.
I don't think it's meaningful to talk about it apart from the things in which we can actually observe it.
David: There is no instance, anywhere, in Reality where causation isn't happening. This is what distinguishes it from gravity and all other phenomena.
sam: You are assuming your conclusion. And I've already pointed out where it isn't happening.
David: It is a logical truth, not an assumption. It is logically impossible for anything to be without causes.
Without showing a cause, you are assuming your conclusion. Of course you can always find a cause after the fact, and by find I mean imagine.
Your attempt to point where it isn't happening (namely, in dreams) only reveals your misunderstanding of causation.
You can't show any cause. You can only speculate about it. Do you consider speculation proof of causation?
sam: Dreaming is about effects, not causes. For you to say that the dream world operates on the same basis as this world is indicative to me of your attachment to the idea of causation.
David: The problem is that your conception of causation is very limited - basically equating it with what seems to be repeatable or predictable in the physical world. If this kind of repetition or predictability isn't seen to be occurring, such as in dreams, then it means in your mind that causation isn't operating.
This is a primitive, unchallenged view of causation that a six-year-old kid might have.
lol ... Thanks for the superfluous put-down.
It is clear that you haven't thought about these matters in any depth. You haven't kicked on and examined exactly what causation is. You haven't seen into the heart of it. If you did, you would see that causation, repetition and predictability are not the same things.
Causal processes can just as easily throw up events that are random and unpredictable as it can predictable ones. The unpredictability in dreams isn't a sign that causation isn't happening, but rather a sign that some of the constraints normally found in the physical world aren't in operation. The lack of these constraints means that events seem to unfold differently within dreams.
Unpredictibility does put causation into question. What it indicates is that certain conditions may give rise to some phenomena but not necessarily. Everyone who smokes cigarettes doesn't get cancer. Smoking may be a condition that creates a high likelihood for cancer but the cause of cancer is not cigarettes. People also get cancer without smoking. Conditions are necessary to acquire cancer but to speak of a cause for it is assuming knowledge not in evidence.
sam: You can't find a cause for practically anything in a dream yet you will insist it is all cause and effect. No evidence is presented for your conclusion, it's entirely made up and yet nothing I or anyone else could say would dissuade you from your belief. It is purely a matter of faith.
David: No, it is a logical truth. It is logically impossible for anything to be without causes.
Yet without showing the cause, you are assuming your conclusion. Calling it logical only indicates your investment in the conclusion.
For example, an event happening in a dream necessarily depends on the mental "stuff" out of which dreams are made, as well as a dreaming mind to do the dreaming in the first place. It also depends, again out of logical necessity, on the existence of what is not that event, to serve as a contrast to its own existence. So already, with just these examples alone, it is proven that a dream event cannot be without causes.
You are confusing causes with conditions. No, you can't dream without having a brain but a brain is not a cause of a dream. Dreams consist of experiences but experiences aren't the cause of dreams. My attachment to money wasn't the cause of money appearing in my dream, it was a condition of its appearance. Conditions may be necessary for something to happen but they are not causes for what happens. For instance, horrific abuse or wartime trauma are a condition for PTSD but they don't cause it. If they did, anyone who was abused or in combat would become symptomatic. I certainly don't argue the necessity of conditions but causation in cases like these is simply the explanation you are providing after the fact.
David: Causation isn't a physical principle. You are completely mistaken about that. Indeed, it is a principle which can't be described in any terms at all.
sam: So, not physical, not mental, yet here you are talking about it. We are discussing an idea, aren't we?
David: I don't know about you, but I am discussing the reality of how things are created.
God is neither physical, nor mentalistic, nor mystical. Indeed, God cannot be described in such a manner at all. That is why in Buddhism they stress the concept of "emptiness" or "the void".
Ah, now you're making a little more sense. I think causation is more like God to you rather than how ordinary people understand the term.
David: While it is responsible for all physical events, it is also responsible for all mental, mystical and dreams event as well. And yet the principle itself isn't physical or mental or mystical in nature, or anything like that. It is simply the principle of creation - and that is all.
sam: Again, you put it in the world of Platonic forms. And you don't see this as a point of view?
David: It is not a Platonic form. Causation is as real as the nose on your face.
Again, it's not meaningful to discuss it apart from the events in which it is observed. To do that is to make it into a Platonic form.
sam: Causation arises within consciousness, not the other way around.
David: Your own limited understanding of causation can only arise within consciousness, that is true. But causation as it really is, the heart of Nature, is timeless and beyond life and death. It never arises and never goes away. Without it, not even consciousness could come into being.
Right. You are talking about God. You should just say that.