Can causality be infinite?

[Dave Toast]

sam: You have hit upon the problem of treating causation literally in an ontological sense. It leads either to an infinite regress or something out of nothing. Neither one is a satisfying explanation to the mind. Causation should simply be treated as a view of how to relate events which are known and recognized, not as an ultimate explanation of the universe.

DT: Take a look at what sam wrote about 'treating causation literally in an ontological sense' in his first sentence. Then see how he 'treats universe literally in an ontological sense' in is last.

Causation isn't an 'ultimate explanation of the universe' if you 'treat universe literally in an ontological sense'.

As a seeker, the methodological solipsist wouldn't make such a mistake in understanding causation and universe as they would have a different conception of universe to relate the conception of 'causation as an ultimate explanation' to.

sam: Okay, what universe are you talking about?

What causation not treated literally in an ontological sense were you talking about sam?

[David Quinn]

The infinite regression you are talking about is merely imagined, a product of imagining that the Universe really is divided up into "events".

For those who are perceptive enough, causation points directly to the timelessness of the Universe, to its existence beyond life and death, which is immensely satisfying to know.

Causation is the infinite regress through the imagined division of events ad infinitum.

Causation becomes problematic like samadhi said, and upon close inspection you don't find beginnings and endings, borders and limits. So once causality collapses into itself as being an infinite regress or a fuzzy vague notion, then you look somewhere else.

The timelessness of the universe is seen once causality is let go of.

You're on the right track here - although "let go of" is not how I would put it. Rather, it's a matter of fully understanding the casuation concept, recognizing both its strengths and limitations, and dealing with it intelligently.

Its main strength is that it corrects the deluded view that the Universe is comprised of discrete events, that there really are beginnings and ends, etc. Its limitation is that as soon as the correction has been made, its usefulness comes to an end.

Once the causation concept points the mind to the Universe's seamlessness and generates a thorough comprehension of the way in which things don't really exist, then it can be "let go of." Or rather, the mind will naturally let go of it, as it moves to a deeper understanding.

Or I guess through some logic you can see that causality occurs to the parts of the whole, but not to the whole itself. But this would only be a second hand sort of understanding, not a direct awareness.

Understanding how the Whole cannot be caused, due to the fact all things have causes, is a critical part of understanding causality. There can be no moving to a deeper understanding without it.

-

[brokenhead]

Sure. Cause and effect arise with time and occur in a linear fashion. Causation is meaningless in a timeless framework.

But if it is cause/effect and NOT effect/cause, aren't we forgetting something, i.e., that every effect is also a cause, and that every cause is also an effect? I'm dead serious about this. Then why isn't cause/effect completely equivalent to effect/cause? Why do we perceive time's arrow to go just one way?

[samadhi]

David,

sam: Well, causation does not really fit in with timelessness since causation is linear within time.

David: That is a very narrow conception of causation. But even within the constraints of this narrow conception, it can be seen that the process of causation exists outside of time. While things unfold within time in accordance with cause and effect, the causal principle itself never changes. It never evolves, was never born, will never die, etc.

You are referring to the principle as a concept. All concepts exist outside of time. The concept of gravity exists outside of time but I never hear you going on and on about it.

You're going to have to alter your own linear thinking on this issue, if you want to understand it.

Well, educate us. You aren't really suggesting that because causation is a concept, it has these magical properties you ascribe to it. So what are you suggesting?



DT,

What causation not treated literally in an ontological sense were you talking about sam?

You're a little to cryptic for me. I'm going to have to give you a pass.



broken,

sam: Sure. Cause and effect arise with time and occur in a linear fashion. Causation is meaningless in a timeless framework.

broken: But if it is cause/effect and NOT effect/cause, aren't we forgetting something, i.e., that every effect is also a cause, and that every cause is also an effect? I'm dead serious about this. Then why isn't cause/effect completely equivalent to effect/cause? Why do we perceive time's arrow to go just one way?

I think that's another discussion. For me, it's enough to see that cause and effect are about time, not the timeless.

[David Quinn]

David,

sam: Well, causation does not really fit in with timelessness since causation is linear within time.

David: That is a very narrow conception of causation. But even within the constraints of this narrow conception, it can be seen that the process of causation exists outside of time. While things unfold within time in accordance with cause and effect, the causal principle itself never changes. It never evolves, was never born, will never die, etc.

You are referring to the principle as a concept. All concepts exist outside of time. The concept of gravity exists outside of time but I never hear you going on and on about it.

There are two things to say here:

Firstly, the concept of causation points to a reality beyond itself. If it was a mere thought-construct which didn't point anywhere, it would be useless. The value of it lies in its ability to direct the mind's attention to the fundamental principle of all existence.

Secondly, the concept of gravity merely points to a certain type of phenomenon occuring within Reality - and as such, it is philosophically insignificant. It doesn't help mind understand the fundamental nature of all Reality in the way that the causation concept can. That is why I go on and on about the latter, and all but ignore the former.

The causation concept doesn't just point to a mere phenomenon, but to the very principle behind all phenomena, including gravity. As such, its scope is infinitely more vast.

And just to emphasize, it is the very principle of causation itself, the very pulse of Nature, which is beyond time, not our mere concepts which point to it.

-

[average]

what is the fundamental principle of all existence?

[Dave Toast]

sam: You have hit upon the problem of treating causation literally in an ontological sense. It leads either to an infinite regress or something out of nothing. Neither one is a satisfying explanation to the mind. Causation should simply be treated as a view of how to relate events which are known and recognized, not as an ultimate explanation of the universe.

DT: Take a look at what sam wrote about 'treating causation literally in an ontological sense' in his first sentence. Then see how he 'treats universe literally in an ontological sense' in is last.

Causation isn't an 'ultimate explanation of the universe' if you 'treat universe literally in an ontological sense'.

As a seeker, the methodological solipsist wouldn't make such a mistake in understanding causation and universe as they would have a different conception of universe to relate the conception of 'causation as an ultimate explanation' to.

sam: Okay, what universe are you talking about?

DT: What causation not treated literally in an ontological sense were you talking about sam?

sam: You're a little to cryptic for me. I'm going to have to give you a pass.

It's all there sam, you just have to read it.

Look at your very first sentence quoted above. Obviously you have a conception of causation which is not treated literally in an ontological sense. Use that conception to understand a conception of universe which is not treated literally in an ontological sense.

Further, as above, this is the conception of universe that the solipsist knows they can be sure of.

And there you have the universe which causation as an ultimate explanation pertains to.

[Dave Toast]

Basically, your original statement above equivocates via category error. It applies one definition of reality to causation and another definition of reality to universe. Either treat them both literally in an ontological sense or treat neither literally in an ontological sense, when relating them to one another.

This problem is endemic in your writing. You employ an esoteric understanding of a concept and, in the same breath, revert right back to the standard exoteric understanding of the same concept. IMO, this is because you don't understand what surrender is, what one surrenders to - truth, the only genuine authority. Rather, you surrender to arbitrary pronouncements handed down to you by spurious authority, bits of truth validated in only the most cursory manner, their corollaries ignored.

Surrendering to the truth of no self (in perfect isolation) is a positive boon to an, as yet, grossly delusional self.

That last sentence is something you tried and tried to get at in the debate. In fact it was your whole schtick with regard to your objections to David's 'causation teaching in the context of spirituality'. And yet your muddled equivocative version got nowhere near elucidating the true nature of the dilemma, bringing you no closer to realising your objections are unfounded. Again, because you're just parroting received wisdom, as opposed to understanding the truth at hand.

This is how you come to make the following bizarre distinction in your last debate post, "And note that I have never indicated that one gives up choice per se, but only those choices that conform with a belief in free will."

[Peter L]

average, have your intro questions been answered? (Does it make sense now, how so?)

David,

The infinite regression you are talking about is merely imagined, a product of imagining that the Universe really is divided up into "events".

What about the past? <-- Even that sentence can be divided into events. If events are cause and effect, then the past events caused the future ones. If the past is infinitely long, then in a way, we're not really in the present as we know it, we're nowhere.

For those who are perceptive enough, causation points directly to the timelessness of the Universe, to its existence beyond life and death, which is immensely satisfying to know.

In that all future events are already determined?

Past, present and future is a dividing up of time. Time is the measure of change (or cause and effect). We can measure change through cause and effect. Time doesn't ultimately exist and so neither does cause/effect.

Understanding how the Whole cannot be caused, due to the fact all things have causes, is a critical part of understanding causality. There can be no moving to a deeper understanding without it.

What is causality in relation to the whole?

The causation concept doesn't just point to a mere phenomenon, but to the very principle behind all phenomena, including gravity. As such, its scope is infinitely more vast.

In that it's all inter-connected?

average,

what is the fundamental principle of all existence?

Consciousness. (~Did I manage to get away with it... this time?).

[samadhi]

DT,

Basically, your original statement above equivocates via category error. It applies one definition of reality to causation and another definition of reality to universe.

I don't see that. Causation is an everyday phenomena. The universe is what we regard as our environment in toto. Trying to explain our environment in toto through an everyday phenomenom leads to contradictions which I described.

Either treat them both literally in an ontological sense or treat neither literally in an ontological sense, when relating them to one another.

I do treat them both literally. I am just saying that using one to explain the other causes problems. Causation in an everyday sense extended through time won't give you an explanation of the universe.

This problem is endemic in your writing. You employ an esoteric understanding of a concept and, in the same breath, revert right back to the standard exoteric understanding of the same concept.

Example please.

IMO, this is because you don't understand what surrender is, what one surrenders to - truth, the only genuine authority. Rather, you surrender to arbitrary pronouncements handed down to you by spurious authority, bits of truth validated in only the most cursory manner, their corollaries ignored.

You are giving me your interpretation of something I wrote. Give me what I wrote first and we can discuss it.

Surrendering to the truth of no self (in perfect isolation) is a positive boon to an, as yet, grossly delusional self.

That last sentence is something you tried and tried to get at in the debate. In fact it was your whole schtick with regard to your objections to David's 'causation teaching in the context of spirituality'. And yet your muddled equivocative version got nowhere near elucidating the true nature of the dilemma, bringing you no closer to realising your objections are unfounded. Again, because you're just parroting received wisdom, as opposed to understanding the truth at hand.

What I said was that causation implies surrender. Without the surrender, you are where you began. Do you understand that? You want to criticize me without understanding what I'm saying.

This is how you come to make the following bizarre distinction in your last debate post, "And note that I have never indicated that one gives up choice per se, but only those choices that conform with a belief in free will."

Right. Choice is part of life, whether you believe in causation or not. But your choices can reflect a belief in free will or causation. I was pointing out how David's reflect his belief in free will while he promotes causation. That tells you something, doesn't it?

[samadhi]

David,

sam: You are referring to the principle as a concept. All concepts exist outside of time. The concept of gravity exists outside of time but I never hear you going on and on about it.

David: Firstly, the concept of causation points to a reality beyond itself. If it was a mere thought-construct which didn't point anywhere, it would be useless. The value of it lies in its ability to direct the mind's attention to the fundamental principle of all existence.

And what might that be?

Secondly, the concept of gravity merely points to a certain type of phenomenon occuring within Reality - and as such, it is philosophically insignificant.

Cause and effect points to a certain phenomena within Reality too. I mean, it's all within Reality, right?

It doesn't help mind understand the fundamental nature of all Reality in the way that the causation concept can. That is why I go on and on about the latter, and all but ignore the former.

I'm not sure why you think the fundamental nature of reality is understandable. What makes the mind the final arbiter of Reality given that mind arose from Reality?

The causation concept doesn't just point to a mere phenomenon, but to the very principle behind all phenomena, including gravity. As such, its scope is infinitely more vast.

And what is the very principle behind all phenomena?

And just to emphasize, it is the very principle of causation itself, the very pulse of Nature, which is beyond time, not our mere concepts which point to it.

I still don't understand what puts it beyond time other than you're saying it.

[Dave Toast]

sam: You have hit upon the problem of treating causation literally in an ontological sense. It leads either to an infinite regress or something out of nothing. Neither one is a satisfying explanation to the mind. Causation should simply be treated as a view of how to relate events which are known and recognized, not as an ultimate explanation of the universe.

DT: Take a look at what sam wrote about 'treating causation literally in an ontological sense' in his first sentence. Then see how he 'treats universe literally in an ontological sense' in is last.

Causation isn't an 'ultimate explanation of the universe' if you 'treat universe literally in an ontological sense'.

As a seeker, the methodological solipsist wouldn't make such a mistake in understanding causation and universe as they would have a different conception of universe to relate the conception of 'causation as an ultimate explanation' to.

sam: Okay, what universe are you talking about?

DT: What causation not treated literally in an ontological sense were you talking about sam?

sam: You're a little to cryptic for me. I'm going to have to give you a pass.

It's all there sam, you just have to read it.

Look at your very first sentence quoted above. Obviously you have a conception of causation which is not treated literally in an ontological sense. Use that conception to understand a conception of universe which is not treated literally in an ontological sense.

Further, as above, this is the conception of universe that the solipsist knows they can be sure of.

And there you have the universe which causation as an ultimate explanation pertains to.

sam, I made a post about the matter at hand, then I made a post about how I see your MO. You saw fit to ignore the post about the matter under discussion and instead made straight for the post about you. Where is the surrender to no self in bypassing the substantive point of import and instead addressing the more egoistic concerns?

[Dave Toast]

DT: Basically, your original statement above equivocates via category error. It applies one definition of reality to causation and another definition of reality to universe.

sam: I don't see that. Causation is an everyday phenomena. The universe is what we regard as our environment in toto. Trying to explain our environment in toto through an everyday phenomenom leads to contradictions which I described.

What on earth are you talking about, everyday phenomenon? And Toto were some good musicians who did some decent tracks, but it's pretty ghey music on the whole.

How exactly are you addressing my objections to your applying one definition of reality to causation and another definition of reality to universe here? You've said something vague about what you think causality is and you've said something about what you think universe is (in relation to an 80's AOR supergroup). You haven't addressed the ontological framework in which they're respectively framed in the slightest.

My assertion was as straightforward as they come and the subject of what your answer should address is crystal clear - ontological framework. Yet you don't go anywhere near it and instead go off on vague, muddying tangents. Why?


Let's try to get this back on track by stating it (what's already been said) in a simple and straightforward manner (Open wide sammy, here comes the plaaaaane):

You spoke of how causation can be seen as merely a conceptual framework, i.e. of mind - with no existence beyond that. Then you tried to relate this causation to a concrete universe, i.e. not of mind - with existence beyond that. In doing so, you concluded a problem.

I tried to illustrate this ontological conflation as the source of the concluded problem. Further I suggested that, instead, placing universe in the same ontological framework you'd put causation in resolves the concluded problem.

If you're still not prepared to do the small amount of leg-work required, here we go:

Causation as conceptual framework is an ultimate explanation of universe as mind.

DT: Either treat them both literally in an ontological sense or treat neither literally in an ontological sense, when relating them to one another.

sam: I do treat them both literally [in an ontological sense].

Yeah, except you don't.

DT: This problem is endemic in your writing. You employ an esoteric understanding of a concept and, in the same breath, revert right back to the standard exoteric understanding of the same concept.

sam: Example please.[?]

Just one?

"And note that I have never indicated that one gives up choice per se, but only those choices that conform with a belief in free will."

Esoteric understanding: no self - no free will - no choice.
Exoteric understanding: choice - free will - self.

DT: IMO, this is because you don't understand what surrender is, what one surrenders to - truth, the only genuine authority. Rather, you surrender to arbitrary pronouncements handed down to you by spurious authority, bits of truth validated in only the most cursory manner, their corollaries ignored.

sam: You are giving me your interpretation of something I wrote. Give me what I wrote first and we can discuss it.

I am giving you my interpretation of large parts of the entirity of your writing, that's why I wrote "This problem is endemic in your writing." I am then giving you my interpretation of why that is, that's why I followed it with "IMO, this is because....".

What's so hard to understand about that?

Communicating efficaciously with you is becoming nigh on impossible sam.

DT: Surrendering to the truth of no self (in perfect isolation) is a positive boon to an, as yet, grossly delusional self.

That last sentence is something you tried and tried to get at in the debate. In fact it was your whole schtick with regard to your objections to David's 'causation teaching in the context of spirituality'. And yet your muddled equivocative version got nowhere near elucidating the true nature of the dilemma, bringing you no closer to realising your objections are unfounded. Again, because you're just parroting received wisdom, as opposed to understanding the truth at hand.

sam: What I said was that causation implies surrender. Without the surrender, you are where you began. Do you understand that? You want to criticize me without understanding what I'm saying.

Evidently, you don't understand what you're saying yourself sam. If you did, you'd realise that what I said above pertained, in the correct formulation, to your incorrect formulation. The person who surrenders to the truth of no self, in isolation, as opposed to their surrendering to truth full stop, is the person who's gross delusions about the nature of reality allow and even necessitate their using this surrender to no self to prop up the self.

To wit, surrendering to the truth of no self without understanding every aspect of the truth of no self is about as effective as a fish surrendering to the truth of oxygen being available outside of water. It flaps about, wondering why its gills cannot process the oxygen in the air and quickly makes for the shallows where there's just enough processable oxygen, satisfied that it's no longer completely immersed in water.

DT: This is how you come to make the following bizarre distinction in your last debate post, "And note that I have never indicated that one gives up choice per se, but only those choices that conform with a belief in free will."

sam: Right. Choice is part of life, whether you believe in causation or not. But your choices can reflect a belief in free will or causation.

In understanding that all is caused, one realises that free agency and choice are illusory. You are suggesting that one drops the delusion of believing in free agency and yet maintains the delusion of believing in choice. The important part for you is that these illusory choices are made to reflect a lack of belief in the delusion of free will.

And you ask me to provide example of your equivocating ontological frameworks? Can there be any better example than the above? Is there a better example of the problem with surrendering to isolated truths instead of truth? Any better example of a fish out of water?

I was pointing out how David's reflect his belief in free will while he promotes causation. That tells you something, doesn't it?

It does indeed. It tells me that David's surrender to truth has allowed him to understand and accept the true nature of causation and free will in that light, whilst your lack of surrender to truth has not furnished you likewise. This leads you to truly believe that David 'believes' in your conception of free will when he promotes understanding causation and the nature of reality as the key to mastering gross delusion, when nothing could be further from the truth.

[samadhi]

DT,

sam: I don't see that. Causation is an everyday phenomena. The universe is what we regard as our environment in toto. Trying to explain our environment in toto through an everyday phenomenom leads to contradictions which I described.

DT: How exactly are you addressing my objections to your applying one definition of reality to causation and another definition of reality to universe here? You've said something vague about what you think causality is and you've said something about what you think universe is (in relation to an 80's AOR supergroup). You haven't addressed the ontological framework in which they're respectively framed in the slightest.

I don't know what you want from me. My loose definitions are just that. I am not trying to put them in an ontological framework. When I first referred to treating causation in an ontological sense, I simply meant applying it as an explanation of being. It falls apart at that level.

My assertion was as straightforward as they come and the subject of what your answer should address is crystal clear - ontological framework. Yet you don't go anywhere near it and instead go off on vague, muddying tangents. Why?

See above.

You spoke of how causation can be seen as merely a conceptual framework, i.e. of mind - with no existence beyond that. Then you tried to relate this causation to a concrete universe, i.e. not of mind - with existence beyond that. In doing so, you concluded a problem.

My point was that causation on an everyday level is fine. When I push a button, my TV comes on. But when you try to apply it as an explanation of the universe, no go. Don't try to explain the universe through causation, it doesn't work.

I tried to illustrate this ontological conflation as the source of the concluded problem. Further I suggested that, instead, placing universe in the same ontological framework you'd put causation in resolves the concluded problem.

I think you confused what I was trying to say.

Causation as conceptual framework is an ultimate explanation of universe as mind.

I don't know what this means.

DT: Either treat them both literally in an ontological sense or treat neither literally in an ontological sense, when relating them to one another.

sam: I do treat them both literally [in an ontological sense].

DT: Yeah, except you don't.

I do. You are misunderstanding my point.

DT: This problem is endemic in your writing. You employ an esoteric understanding of a concept and, in the same breath, revert right back to the standard exoteric understanding of the same concept.

sam: Example please.[?]

DT: Just one?

It's a start.

sam: And note that I have never indicated that one gives up choice per se, but only those choices that conform with a belief in free will.

DT: Esoteric understanding: no self - no free will - no choice.
Exoteric understanding: choice - free will - self.

Again, misunderstanding. Choice as I framed it is an experience, not a concept of free will.

DT: IMO, this is because you don't understand what surrender is, what one surrenders to - truth, the only genuine authority. Rather, you surrender to arbitrary pronouncements handed down to you by spurious authority, bits of truth validated in only the most cursory manner, their corollaries ignored.

sam: You are giving me your interpretation of something I wrote. Give me what I wrote first and we can discuss it.

DT: I am giving you my interpretation of large parts of the entirity of your writing, that's why I wrote "This problem is endemic in your writing." I am then giving you my interpretation of why that is, that's why I followed it with "IMO, this is because....".

Well, it appears you are misunderstanding what I'm saying.

What's so hard to understand about that?

You have to give me my words. When you do, I explain them. Otherwise, I cannot point you to your misunderstanding.

Communicating efficaciously with you is becoming nigh on impossible sam.

Look, this is the first time you have tried to discuss with me what I've written. You misunderstood it, that's all. And why are you blaming me for the problem? You have never attempted communication before and that puts me at fault? Please.

sam: What I said was that causation implies surrender. Without the surrender, you are where you began. Do you understand that? You want to criticize me without understanding what I'm saying.

DT: Evidently, you don't understand what you're saying yourself sam. If you did, you'd realise that what I said above pertained, in the correct formulation, to your incorrect formulation. The person who surrenders to the truth of no self, in isolation, as opposed to their surrendering to truth full stop, is the person who's gross delusions about the nature of reality allow and even necessitate their using this surrender to no self to prop up the self.

This is ridiculous. What the hell does it mean to "surrender to the truth full stop." You give me an absolutely meaningless concept and try to tell me it contradicts what I was saying. If you want to talk about surrender, then tell me what actions you are referring to. Without that, you're spewing nonsense.

To wit, surrendering to the truth of no self without understanding every aspect of the truth of no self is about as effective as a fish surrendering to the truth of oxygen being available outside of water. It flaps about, wondering why its gills cannot process the oxygen in the air and quickly makes for the shallows where there's just enough processable oxygen, satisfied that it's no longer completely immersed in water.

Everyone has to start somewhere. Just because you may make a mistake doesn't mean you can't start. I told you where to start which is with blaming. STOP BLAMING PEOPLE. Do you understand what that means or not? Your argument is basically, you must do everything all at once or it's worthless. That's complete nonsense.

DT: This is how you come to make the following bizarre distinction in your last debate post, "And note that I have never indicated that one gives up choice per se, but only those choices that conform with a belief in free will."

sam: Right. Choice is part of life, whether you believe in causation or not. But your choices can reflect a belief in free will or causation.

DT: In understanding that all is caused, one realises that free agency and choice are illusory. You are suggesting that one drops the delusion of believing in free agency and yet maintains the delusion of believing in choice. The important part for you is that these illusory choices are made to reflect a lack of belief in the delusion of free will.

Again, choice is a matter of experience no matter what your belief is. If your belief is in causation, your choices should reflect that, i.e. STOP BLAMING PEOPLE. If you blame people, you are treating them as free agents. Do you understand that?

And you ask me to provide example of your equivocating ontological frameworks? Can there be any better example than the above? Is there a better example of the problem with surrendering to isolated truths instead of truth? Any better example of a fish out of water?

You misunderstood me. You don't seem to understand the choice is a MATTER OF EXPERIENCE, not belief.

So, what's your next example?

sam: I was pointing out how David's reflect his belief in free will while he promotes causation. That tells you something, doesn't it?

DT: It does indeed. It tells me that David's surrender to truth has allowed him to understand and accept the true nature of causation and free will in that light, whilst your lack of surrender to truth has not furnished you likewise.

More nonsense. David expressly rejects surrender as a path. He preaches causation while blaming others for their ideas and actions all the time. Did you even read the debate? If you did, plainly you don't understand this. Surrender is about ACTION, not about lip service.

This leads you to truly believe that David 'believes' in your conception of free will when he promotes understanding causation and the nature of reality as the key to mastering gross delusion, when nothing could be further from the truth.

David's actions speak louder than words. That's what I listen to, I suggest you do the same.

[average]

samadhi wins.

[David Quinn]

David expressly rejects surrender as a path. He preaches causation while blaming others for their ideas and actions all the time.

I understand why you think this, but you are mistaken. I don't blame you for making this mistake.

-

[samadhi]

Must I quote you?

[David Quinn]

Be my guest.

-

[David Quinn]

David,

sam: You are referring to the principle as a concept. All concepts exist outside of time. The concept of gravity exists outside of time but I never hear you going on and on about it.

David: Firstly, the concept of causation points to a reality beyond itself. If it was a mere thought-construct which didn't point anywhere, it would be useless. The value of it lies in its ability to direct the mind's attention to the fundamental principle of all existence.

And what might that be?

That is for the mind to discover after its surrender to the truth of causation.

Secondly, the concept of gravity merely points to a certain type of phenomenon occuring within Reality - and as such, it is philosophically insignificant.

Cause and effect points to a certain phenomena within Reality too. I mean, it's all within Reality, right?

Cause and effect make up the very body of Reality.

It doesn't help mind understand the fundamental nature of all Reality in the way that the causation concept can. That is why I go on and on about the latter, and all but ignore the former.

I'm not sure why you think the fundamental nature of reality is understandable. What makes the mind the final arbiter of Reality given that mind arose from Reality?

It is precisely because the mind arises from Reality that such understanding is possible. The mind's own nature is Reality's nature. When the mind is no longer deluded about itself, it can perceive both its own nature and Reality's nature, which are one.

The causation concept doesn't just point to a mere phenomenon, but to the very principle behind all phenomena, including gravity. As such, its scope is infinitely more vast.

And what is the very principle behind all phenomena?

Surrender to the truth and you will find out.

And just to emphasize, it is the very principle of causation itself, the very pulse of Nature, which is beyond time, not our mere concepts which point to it.

I still don't understand what puts it beyond time other than you're saying it.

This is because you haven't yet discerned what causation really is. In truth, it is not possible to understand causation without also understanding its timelessness.

Let's take it slowly. Can you at least see how the process of causation is always the same in everything that happens? Whether it is a star exploding, or a cloud forming in the sky, or a pair of quantum particles colliding, or a thought forming inside a person's head - are you able to see the same process at work in all these instances?

-

[average]

That is for the mind to discover after its surrender to the truth of causation.

Causation is the illusion that reality has discrete parts.

Cause and effect make up the very body of Reality.

An idea regarding the imagined separation of reality into parts makes the body of Reality?

Causation's main strength is that it corrects the deluded view that the Universe is comprised of discrete events, that there really are beginnings and ends, etc. Its limitation is that as soon as the correction has been made, its usefulness comes to an end.

Once the causation concept points the mind to the Universe's seamlessness and generates a thorough comprehension of the way in which things don't really exist, then it can be "let go of." Or rather, the mind will naturally let go of it, as it moves to a deeper understanding.

Causation doesn't point to this, as long as you subscribe to it, you will see things in discrete events, and you will think of reality as being made out of something, which is why you said cause and effect make up the body of reality. Which is a mistake.

Understanding how the Whole cannot be caused, due to the fact all things have causes, is a critical part of understanding causality. There can be no moving to a deeper understanding without it.

It is not the case that Reality is not caused, it is the realization that causality and non-causality are illusions.

To say that the Whole is caused, or to say that the Whole is uncaused, is to miss the point.

[David Quinn]

That is for the mind to discover after its surrender to the truth of causation.

Causation is the illusion that reality has discrete parts.

It is a correction to the illusion that reality has discrete parts.

Cause and effect make up the very body of Reality.

An idea regarding the imagined separation of reality into parts makes the body of Reality?

Wherever things exist within the body of Reality, causation is immediately there.

Causation's main strength is that it corrects the deluded view that the Universe is comprised of discrete events, that there really are beginnings and ends, etc. Its limitation is that as soon as the correction has been made, its usefulness comes to an end.

Once the causation concept points the mind to the Universe's seamlessness and generates a thorough comprehension of the way in which things don't really exist, then it can be "let go of." Or rather, the mind will naturally let go of it, as it moves to a deeper understanding.

Causation doesn't point to this, as long as you subscribe to it, you will see things in discrete events, and you will think of reality as being made out of something, which is why you said cause and effect make up the body of reality. Which is a mistake.

If a person still sees things as discrete events, then he hasn't yet understood causation.

If his understanding of causation doesn't direct his mind to the illusory nature of all things, and propel him to the very brink of comprehending the nature of Reality, then it is a limited understanding of causation.

Understanding how the Whole cannot be caused, due to the fact all things have causes, is a critical part of understanding causality. There can be no moving to a deeper understanding without it.

It is not the case that Reality is not caused, it is the realization that causality and non-causality are illusions.

To say that the Whole is caused, or to say that the Whole is uncaused, is to miss the point.

What point is that?

-

[Miacharawan]

I don't know if my typing can quite keep up with my thinking, but I'll give it a try.

In order to understand causality, one must first look at it's origin. To imagine this, one must make a theory based on a 'beginning' to that particular series of causes and effects. To use the common metaphor, it would resemble the ripples of a pool, traveling outward and thereby effecting, and therefore causing the effect on, all surrounding objects. Next, one must acknowledge that no such 'beginning' truly exists, at least not in the ways it is most often represented; it is too simple to say that the universe is cyclical, though this does factor into the 'grand theory' of causality at some point or another.

I would tend to think, rather, that the universe could more easily be compared to a symphony or orchestra, with repeated motifs and themes, concurrent elements, harmonies and sometimes cacophonies; this 'great song' is based in every dimension of reality known to man, insofar as I know anyway. Not only does it penetrate and flow through the physical dimensions, and the realms of possibilities, time, and branching out into the unfathomable, but it returns full-circle to the very fabric of our existence. By this, I refer to, of course, string theory; but I apply it to the laws of causality.

The true origin of causality is simply the organization of every possible effect, just as music is the organization of every possible note, in a way. That we perceive effect to follow cause is simply our ability to recognize patterns, just as a series of images can be connected to form a series of events, ie: films. The only thing truly connecting our 'perception' of cause and effect is our ability to connect memory (past), sensual perception (present), and projective imagination (future), and to formulate patterns with which to quantify and qualify our perceptions.

With this, I suppose I must also add that, though causality appears to have no definite origins, as we perceive them, and though it might seem that a cause would take an eternity to lead to an effect, this comes simply from assuming that cause and effect are separate things, when they are actually one in the same; our language simply hasn't evolved enough for the transmission of such complex ideas. The truth is, a cause is immediately an effect, and that effect travels and transmits onto the next cause/effect, and also carries with it an unlimited range of causes/effects and possibilities, which is the very foundation of existence.

Unfortunately, cause and effect are devastatingly relativistic, as was demonstrated by the Tathagata's 'theory' of Dependant Origination. The fact is that, because we are the one's who are perceiving these things, everything can only be analyzed from the fundamental point of view which is intrinsic to us all---that is, our limited senses which allow us to directly observe objects (sights, sounds, tastes, sensations, and smells), and the combined use of those senses which can allow us to sense other objects through use of our minds, our instruments, etc., as well as our ability to recognize and categorize these objects, make connections and links between these objects and other perceived objects, and project these calculations into the abstract understanding of how these objects behave, how they behave in relation to other objects, and how they apply to the rest of the perceived universe (the sum collection of all perceived objects and their behaviors in relation to other objects under many different forms of causality), then reassess these objects with our senses, applying the mind, which now has formulated a whole series of abstract calculations based on the initial perception of the object, and thus the process begins anew, building upon itself constantly, and formulating a perception of time in the process of making connections between infinitesimally similar objects/events/causalities.

As I re-read the former, I can find many flaws in what I've stated, and many oversimplifications; I can also see many things that have already been mentioned. Hopefully some of you can work amongst yourselves to dissect this information, analyze it, and criticize it, and hopefully come up with even greater solutions to this age-old, though likely unimportant/all-important, question.

[average]

It is a correction to the illusion that reality has discrete parts.

Thinking in terms of causality is why discrete parts are imagined.

Discrete parts are illusions.

Thus the causality is an illusion.

An illusion is not the correction of anything.
The illusion of causality must be corrected itself.

Wherever things exist within the body of Reality, causation is immediately there.

To see things is to divide reality into parts. To divide reality into parts is to imagine an illusion.

Indeed, where there is causality there is illusion.

If a person still sees things as discrete events, then he hasn't yet understood causation.

To understand causality is to realize it is an illusion.

What point is that?

-

Reality is neither caused nor uncaused - since causality is a fabrication of the mind.

[David Quinn]

Reality is neither caused nor uncaused - since causality is a fabrication of the mind.

It is a necessary fabrication, though, until such time that our minds are no longer fooled by the existence of things.

For example, to experience any kind of fear, or to be scared of death, is a form of being taken in by the existence of things - which would indicate that the fabrication of causation is still needed to perform its lethal work.

-

[average]

It is a necessary fabrication, though, until such time that our minds are no longer fooled by the existence of things.

For example, to experience any kind of fear, or to be scared of death, is a form of being taken in by the existence of things - which would indicate that the fabrication of causation is still needed to perform its lethal work.

It is necessary for practical matters, like overcoming/experiencing a fear or discriminating between a banana and a turd.


Otherwise it is just another illusion to be pierced.