Cause and Effect and SR

[Deleted]

I am in the camp of those who maintain that cause and efect are illusion. In my estimation time is illusory, a construct of mind. This became forming as conjecture when I first encountered time dilation studying relativity. Then while listening to several advaitins it solidified into a belief. This apparently dispels the notion  of a progressive path, but does it?

Narrow thinking can lead one to such a conclusion. But if the illusion of plowing a garden and planting a seed to harvest a tomato plant is acceptable, then why is the illusion of preparing the way for a more probable outcome by meditation and other practices not acceptable? It's an interesting question.

[andrew]

Jul 7, 2019 10:14:45 GMT -5 zazeniac said:

I am in the camp of those who maintain that cause and efect are illusion. In my estimation time is illusory, a construct of mind. This became forming as conjecture when I first encountered time dilation studying relativity. Then while listening to several advaitins it solidified into a belief. This apparently dispels the notion  of a progressive path, but does it?

Narrow thinking can lead one to such a conclusion. But if the illusion of plowing a garden and planting a seed to harvest a tomato plant is acceptable. Then why is the illusion of preparing the way for a more probable outcome by meditation and other practices not acceptable. It's an interesting question.

I think probabilistic is the best way to look at this. Guarantees/certainties only exist in logic, not in real life. But if you plow and plant a seed, it's definitely more probable that there will be a tomato plant, than if you don't plant a seed at all. Similarly, a kid that wants to be a soccer player will stand a much greater chance of becoming a soccer player if s/he learns to kick a ball. And put a ton of practice in. Of course there's still no guarantee of outcome. I would argue that SR is the same. So doing meditation and self-inquiry or a ton of other spiritual practices changes the brain, creates new neural pathways, changes our thought structures, thought content. There are some that would say SR is not physiological, and thus none of that has relevance, but I strongly disagree, I would say SR (or any other kind of spiritual 'development') is physiological in nature (I would also say 'energetic' but that's a bit controversial perhaps) Of course, it is possible for SR to happen without any practices too, but there must still be a level of unseen 'appropriateness' to that shift. There is always a level of 'readiness' whether one has done a ton of practices, or one hasn't. So, I would say SR is precisely as causal or acausal a becoming a footballer or a cook. The only key difference is that we aren't able to spot how 'ready' someone is...whereas a cook or a footballer, we are able to make somewhat better guesses. The other difference is that there are certain paradoxes involved with SR e.g seeing through the illusion of cause and effect. But, I'm talking here from within the context of there being an individual existing in time and therefore cause/effect. Even in this context, there are no guarantees, but we can at least speak of probability.

[laughter]

Jul 7, 2019 10:14:45 GMT -5 zazeniac said:

I am in the camp of those who maintain that cause and efect are illusion. In my estimation time is illusory, a construct of mind. This became forming as conjecture when I first encountered time dilation studying relativity. Then while listening to several advaitins it solidified into a belief. This apparently dispels the notion  of a progressive path, but does it?

Narrow thinking can lead one to such a conclusion. But if the illusion of plowing a garden and planting a seed to harvest a tomato plant is acceptable, then why is the illusion of preparing the way for a more probable outcome by meditation and other practices not acceptable? It's an interesting question.

Anything that appears to you is relative, and ephemeral, but not everything that appears is an illusion. What we sense is dynamic, and alive, but our conceptions of time, space, and materiality are all in error. Time really is happening, it's just that it's not absolute, and how could it be? .. time, space and the boundary of your skin are all founded on -- as in rooted in -- the relationship of perspective.

In contrast, the only claim to "reality" is non-dual, indivisible, eternal and absolute. But just because time, space and material are relative, doesn't mean that they are illusion. They can be described as "mind-made", but "mind", in this sense, is impersonal, and yet, of course, clearly, I am not you, and you are not me.

[zendancer]

Yes, I'm on board with what both Andrew and Laughter wrote. So, is there a path to SR? Well, yes and no, depending upon how you think about it. At the end of my book I stated, "There is no path and no one who could follow one." When the illusion of being a SVP is seen through, THIS, in the form of a particular human, realizes what's going on. It's like the line in "Catcher in the Rye" where the kid, or his sister (I can't remember which) says, "I saw that it was God pouring God into God" (referring to seeing someone pour milk into a glass.)

[satchitananda]

Jul 7, 2019 11:29:18 GMT -5 zendancer said:

Yes, I'm on board with what both Andrew and Laughter wrote. So, is there a path to SR? Well, yes and no, depending upon how you think about it. At the end of my book I stated, "There is no path and no one who could follow one." When the illusion of being a SVP is seen through, THIS, in the form of a particular human, realizes what's going on. It's like the line in "Catcher in the Rye" where the kid, or his sister (I can't remember which) says, "I saw that it was God pouring God into God" (referring to seeing someone pour milk into a glass.)

The seeker isn't going to say, there is no path and no one who could follow one, otherwise there would be no seeking to find out there is no path.

[zendancer]

Jul 7, 2019 12:43:05 GMT -5 satchitananda said:

Jul 7, 2019 11:29:18 GMT -5 zendancer said:

Yes, I'm on board with what both Andrew and Laughter wrote. So, is there a path to SR? Well, yes and no, depending upon how you think about it. At the end of my book I stated, "There is no path and no one who could follow one." When the illusion of being a SVP is seen through, THIS, in the form of a particular human, realizes what's going on. It's like the line in "Catcher in the Rye" where the kid, or his sister (I can't remember which) says, "I saw that it was God pouring God into God" (referring to seeing someone pour milk into a glass.)

The seeker isn't going to say, there is no path and no one who could follow one, otherwise there would be no seeking to find out there is no path.

Exactly. That's one of the humorous paradoxes involved in ND. Looking forward there appears to be a path; looking backward the apparent path is understood differently.

[tenka]

There is awareness of the self unrealised and the awareness of the self realised . So there is something that happens from being unrealised to being realised .

I have no problem saying there is a path between both states of awareness .

In regards to there being a cause or not that brings about awareness of realisation one would have to know the bigger picture that relates to all moments that led up to such a point .

The fact that most don’t remember what they had to eat 5 years ago to this very day gives me the understanding that one can’t say with any surety that there was no cause that led to the realisation . How can they when they don’t know the full story behind the scenes ..

This is why some masters suggest that the work / effort has already been applied in another lifetime if their realization seems spontaneous in this lifetime without any effort or practice of any kind .

Realization doesn’t occur on a lottery type of system butt you have to be in it to win it  lol .

[Deleted]

Jul 7, 2019 10:53:54 GMT -5 andrew said:

Jul 7, 2019 10:14:45 GMT -5 zazeniac said:

I am in the camp of those who maintain that cause and efect are illusion. In my estimation time is illusory, a construct of mind. This became forming as conjecture when I first encountered time dilation studying relativity. Then while listening to several advaitins it solidified into a belief. This apparently dispels the notion  of a progressive path, but does it?

Narrow thinking can lead one to such a conclusion. But if the illusion of plowing a garden and planting a seed to harvest a tomato plant is acceptable. Then why is the illusion of preparing the way for a more probable outcome by meditation and other practices not acceptable. It's an interesting question.

I think probabilistic is the best way to look at this. Guarantees/certainties only exist in logic, not in real life. But if you plow and plant a seed, it's definitely more probable that there will be a tomato plant, than if you don't plant a seed at all. Similarly, a kid that wants to be a soccer player will stand a much greater chance of becoming a soccer player if s/he learns to kick a ball. And put a ton of practice in. Of course there's still no guarantee of outcome. I would argue that SR is the same. So doing meditation and self-inquiry or a ton of other spiritual practices changes the brain, creates new neural pathways, changes our thought structures, thought content. There are some that would say SR is not physiological, and thus none of that has relevance, but I strongly disagree, I would say SR (or any other kind of spiritual 'development') is physiological in nature (I would also say 'energetic' but that's a bit controversial perhaps) Of course, it is possible for SR to happen without any practices too, but there must still be a level of unseen 'appropriateness' to that shift. There is always a level of 'readiness' whether one has done a ton of practices, or one hasn't. So, I would say SR is precisely as causal or acausal a becoming a footballer or a cook. The only key difference is that we aren't able to spot how 'ready' someone is...whereas a cook or a footballer, we are able to make somewhat better guesses. The other difference is that there are certain paradoxes involved with SR e.g seeing through the illusion of cause and effect. But, I'm talking here from within the context of there being an individual existing in time and therefore cause/effect. Even in this context, there are no guarantees, but we can at least speak of probability.

Yes. I can see that. In the two slits experiment without sensors at each slit there is an interference pattern as if the photons were waves. Essentially they are waves moving through slits, canceling and amplifying. There is no trajectory and in essence no way of determining where one particular photon will end up, just probalities. Hence no determistic cause and effect. Once the sensors are on then there is a trajectory and cause and effect. You can trace the path of a particular photon. Interesting, but I need to think about it more.

[satchitananda]

Jul 7, 2019 11:29:18 GMT -5 zendancer said:

Yes, I'm on board with what both Andrew and Laughter wrote. So, is there a path to SR? Well, yes and no, depending upon how you think about it. At the end of my book I stated, "There is no path and no one who could follow one." When the illusion of being a SVP is seen through, THIS, in the form of a particular human, realizes what's going on. It's like the line in "Catcher in the Rye" where the kid, or his sister (I can't remember which) says, "I saw that it was God pouring God into God" (referring to seeing someone pour milk into a glass.)

For me there is a path, but it's not a path where you accumulate more knowledge, it's a path where you remove the obstacle to revealing what is already there and has always been. To know your own Self. To remove the veil of ignorance. Alluding to what Tenka said, you can't win the lottery unless you buy a ticket.

[Deleted]

What is interesting to this mind is how one can write convincingly to negate cause and effect and not see the contradiction inherent in that endeavor and why it doesn't give one pause.

[lolly]

Cause and effect: there is the mechanical physics version, there's the kamma version, there's the simple relativistic version: 'what goes up must come down'; and there's the axiom, if x then y. It is a contingency and there are various ways of talking about it that make sense.

[Deleted]

Jul 7, 2019 22:13:36 GMT -5 zazeniac said:

What is interesting to this mind is how one can write convincingly to negate cause and effect and not see the contradiction inherent in that endeavor and why it doesn't give one pause.

In the realm of the mind there is cause and effect.

In the realm prior to mind and conceptualisation there is only what's happening.

So don't negate cause and effect in the realm of mind and things, and don't believe in cause and effect in the realm of God.

[laughter]

Jul 8, 2019 3:58:23 GMT -5 @jaspa said:

Jul 7, 2019 22:13:36 GMT -5 zazeniac said:

What is interesting to this mind is how one can write convincingly to negate cause and effect and not see the contradiction inherent in that endeavor and why it doesn't give one pause.

In the realm of the mind there is cause and effect.

In the realm prior to mind and conceptualisation there is only what's happening.

So don't negate cause and effect in the realm of mind and things, and don't believe in cause and effect in the realm of God.

It's so simple, down here on Earth!

[laughter]

Jul 7, 2019 22:13:36 GMT -5 zazeniac said:

What is interesting to this mind is how one can write convincingly to negate cause and effect and not see the contradiction inherent in that endeavor and why it doesn't give one pause.

Cause and effect are the common-sense experience of the every day, and it's the basis of how folks make sense of the world with intellect. But this subject/object split that underlies it is the basis for the existential illusion. This is the reason for the extremity of the argument against it, which isn't philosophical: confronting the everyday joe-mind with a stark, counter-intuitive truth.

[Deleted]

Jul 8, 2019 3:58:23 GMT -5 @jaspa said:

Jul 7, 2019 22:13:36 GMT -5 zazeniac said:

What is interesting to this mind is how one can write convincingly to negate cause and effect and not see the contradiction inherent in that endeavor and why it doesn't give one pause.

In the realm of the mind there is cause and effect.

In the realm prior to mind and conceptualisation there is only what's happening.

So don't negate cause and effect in the realm of mind and things, and don't believe in cause and effect in the realm of God.

I get it. In the realm of mind this rock I've thrown at your head is real. In the realm prior to mind there is throwing, hurting and ducking but no you engaged in all these. They're just happening.