Commentary Thread: Causation and Spirituality (Sam vs David)

[Faust]

ok.. Then the universe is uncaused, and hence an exception to causality

No, for the reason that a "whole" is not an "exception" when compared to its parts.

what does that mean? How does it relate to what I said? I'm talking absolutely here, if the Totality exists, then it's an exception to causality.

A part of the whole, and the whole, are really different things, and have different properties.

they're not made of different things are they?

As I said earlier, I'm talking about the God that people commonly believe in, which is not the Totality.

many people believe in god as an infinite eternal being, I don't know where you got the idea that they believe God to be a finite being.

The ego is a deluded conception of the self which views the self as inherently existent.

and what is the benefit of knowing this? Nothing. Nothing happens after knowing this fact, nothing really changes in one's life in a significant way

You stop having deluded conceptions of self and all the nonesense that goes along with it. You might not think that is anything, but I think it is a lot.

well you have to provide reasonable explanations of why you think it's worth alot.

If I were forced to starve to death, I'd rather do it with a knowledge of truth rather than with a mind full of delusions. But when you have fewer delusions you behave more intelligently, and so there is less chance you will starve to death.

umm, I'm talking about the countless situations where you have no choice but to starve to death, or whatever squalor you're in

These emotions require a trigger for them to arise. In enlightened people the trigger does not exist, and so the emotions do not arise.

so that's why Dan still plays video games? And that's why you and David have emotional outburts at times on GF?

[Kevin Solway]

If the Totality exists, then it's an exception to causality.

If you can understand that it's not appropriate to say that a whole is an "exception" when compared to its parts then you can also understand that it's not appropriate to say that the Totality is an exception.

A part of the whole, and the whole, are really different things, and have different properties.

they're not made of different things are they?

A molecule of water and an ocean of water are also made of the same substance, and yet have different properties. The difference between the Totality and its parts is even more extreme than that.

As I said earlier, I'm talking about the God that people commonly believe in, which is not the Totality.

many people believe in god as an infinite eternal being, I don't know where you got the idea that they believe God to be a finite being.

How many Christians do you know who believe that God is absolutely everything, in other words every single thing in the Universe. There are extremely few Christians like that, if any. If you told most Christians that all evil was God, and that the Devil was God, since God was everything, they would not agree with you.

These emotions require a trigger for them to arise. In enlightened people the trigger does not exist, and so the emotions do not arise.

so that's why Dan still plays video games? And that's why you and David have emotional outburts at times on GF?

I was speaking of the ideal enlightenment. Very few people in history, if any, have been perfectly enlightened such that their mind is purely enlightened every moment of the day.

[samadhi]

xerox,

I think all your suggestions are helpful and would have made a big difference if they had been considered before the present debate. I take some responsibility for what happened there. Without the structure, I let myself become ego-oriented. I hope the next debaters make use of your ideas.

[Dave Toast]

But when you use such a path as a wisdom teaching, it implies knowledge that if applied correctly, can have some positive outcome.

It implies a whole lot more in truth.

It implies no path, no wisdom teaching, no knowledge, no application, no positives, no outcomes - ultimately.

One doesn't surrender to the truth of no-self specifically, one surrenders to the truth.

[samadhi]

DT,

sam: But when you use such a path as a wisdom teaching, it implies knowledge that if applied correctly, can have some positive outcome.

DT: It implies a whole lot more in truth. It implies no path, no wisdom teaching, no knowledge, no application, no positives, no outcomes - ultimately.

Yeah, that's been my point from the start! That's why the way he discusses it isn't meant for a wisdom teaching. You can't do anything with it but surrender to it. Which is the very thing he is rejecting.

One doesn't surrender to the truth of no-self specifically, one surrenders to the truth.

Surrender has a specifc meaning in relation to strict causation. As you are using it, surrendering to the truth is just an expression. Until you put it in a frame of reference that entails specific actions, it's just a pose with no substance.

[divine focus]

David - "The Buddha taught that all forms are illusory due to their being created and sustained by co-dependent origination (that is, by causation). "

Ok, how is "co-dependent origination" equal to "causation"? Does the past depend on the future under causation? If so, how is it causation? There would be no causes and no effects, meaning there would be no point in distinguishing between cause and effect. There would only be influences, as everything would influence everything into the past and the future. It would be a huge web of influence, with the center being any particular influence.

If this is causation, how does free will not enter the picture? Ok, if you don't want to call it "free," fine--but if each influence consists of the entire web, what is there to limit freedom?

[Kevin Solway]

Ok, how is "co-dependent origination" equal to "causation"?

As an example, let's take the past and the present.

Is the past the cause of the present? Yes, temporally, the past is the cause of the present. But is the past caused by the present? Since the present is one of the things necessary for the existence of the past, the present is a cause of the past, but not temporally.

If so, how is it causation?

In the broad sense, a "cause" is something that is necessary for the existence of something else.

It would be a huge web of influence, with the center being any particular influence.

Yes, there is an infinite web of influence, which you can call the web of cause and effect, where each effect is itself the cause of yet another effect.

If this is causation, how does free will not enter the picture? Ok, if you don't want to call it "free," fine--but if each influence consists of the entire web, what is there to limit freedom?

We must do what the entire web (God) causes us to do.

[divine focus]

If this is causation, how does free will not enter the picture? Ok, if you don't want to call it "free," fine--but if each influence consists of the entire web, what is there to limit freedom?

We must do what the entire web (God) causes us to do.

This is where I disagree. I actually agree on the surface, taking your statement at face value, but I know you don't see the web as I see it. For one, how can a cause be atemporal? There is no cause and effect outside of time. The present cannot "cause" the past. Co-dependent origination means that everything exists and arises simultaneously. The past and the future exist now, along with the present. Nothing is actually caused, but all exists now and is influencing of everything else now. Influence is will, choice, action. It is all in unison.

[Kevin Solway]

It is all in unison.

I regard unity to be only a stage of spiritual understanding. The ultimate is duality.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

it is about dropping the ego. You can do that whether you are conscious or not

Hmm, isn't ego a function of consciousness which is always a self-consciousness too? It would be way more in tune with teachings out there (and not to mention logic) to say that a certain degree of maturity and development of consciousness is needed to re-orient and abandon selfishness which is mainly a narrow type of ego-orientation, or in other words a belief without taking into account causation (eg you are not really the body in as much the countless of causes making up the body and influencing its functioning aren't you either).

'Any consciousness whatsoever--past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle, common or sublime, far or near: every consciousness--is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: "This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am."

'Seeing thus, the instructed Noble disciple grows disenchanted with the body, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with mental processes, and disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is released. With release, there is the knowledge, "Released." He discerns that, "Birth is depleted, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world."'

- Anattalakkhana Sutta, Samyutta Nikaya XXII, 59

[samadhi]

Diebert,

sam: it is about dropping the ego. You can do that whether you are conscious or not.

Diebert: Hmm, isn't ego a function of consciousness which is always a self-consciousness too? It would be way more in tune with teachings out there (and not to mention logic) to say that a certain degree of maturity and development of consciousness is needed to re-orient and abandon selfishness which is mainly a narrow type of ego-orientation, or in other words a belief without taking into account causation (eg you are not really the body in as much the countless of causes making up the body and influencing its functioning aren't you either).

Well, that's why I don't think it's particularly helpful to teach strict causation solely in terms of an intellectual approach. It tries to avoid the problem of being unconscious by simply saying there is no unconsciousness (i.e. only causation). However if you approach the teaching in terms of surrender, unconsciousness is the first thing you will encounter.

[David Quinn]

This thread illustrates the failings of this sub-forums methodolgy. There's essentially no structure to it, at least not one that conforms to basic standards of debate and/or discussion.

Debate and discussion have differing dynamics and these can cause problems if the format isnt first agreed and the participants yield to an agreed framework of engagement. Without it, participants try to turn it into their own thing and it strays badly.

I disagree with this. If the two participants are intelligent and purposeful, and have enough integrity, they can easily make it work.

I don't like overly-structured debate. People can hide too easily behind formal structures and it stifles spontaneous expression. Unstructured debate can bring all sorts of interesting things to the surface.

Still, as far as the Crucible is concerned, it is up the two participants to decide how they want to structure their debate, while keeping it within the guidelines outlined by Dan.

-

[David Quinn]

David,

David: To my mind, this makes him sound far more calculating and controlled than he really is. It also raises disturbing questions about his moral character.

sam: Wow, you really need to demonize me now, huh? A simple disagreement and I become some kind of monster. What is that about?

David: If you had more respect for people and listened more carefully to what they say, you would have noticed that I was actually arguing against the demonizing of you.

Really? We have a disagreement in a debate and that raises disturbing questions about my moral character and you don't think that is demonizing me?

I just wonder how you function in every day life. Do people have to hold you down and keep repeating themselves over and over until it finally penetrates your awareness?

I'll say it again. No one was demonizing you. I was simply bringing to Dave's attention the implications of what he was suggesting - his suggestion being that your bizarre behaviour in the debate wasn't one of incompetence, but of conscious intent. I basically said that if that were the case, then it would raise the issue of your moral integrity.

Do you understand now? Or do you want me to repeat it?

-

[skipair]

Skip: And that's the thing, he has settled, has stopped challenging himself, is unable to doubt his own views, and therefore can't really be talked to, as he can't really talk to himself.

Sam: Lol. Good excuse for flinging an opinion and running away. Make it my problem.

Well the reason I bring it up is it seems you've landed on a way of seeing the world, a way of the spiritual path, etc. I can't personally say that I've landed on anything specific because anything specific so far I haven't proven with absolute certainty.

It seems like your "surrender", among all your other opinions about this matter, are just that - opinions and not facts. And since you haven't reached the end of this spiritual path you talk about, I'm wondering why you're so confident in what you have to say. I just know that if it were me, and I were to look back on something I thought was absolute true, but on second look wasn't, I would certainly take back what I said. I don't see you doing that, and I find that weird.

Skip: Sam, if what you're talking about is not absolute, then I really wonder what the hell are you talking about. What if you had other beliefs, would it really be so bad? Everything would still be fine, wouldn't it.

Sam: Again, without any specifics it's hard to know what you're talking about.

I mean everything that you've written in the discussion. I'm not clear at all about how you can be so sure about what you say. You can always act like you're sure. I used to win plenty of arguments like that in middle school. Whoever believes what they say the most wins! Personally I think it's better to defend no position when none have been proven.

[Dave Toast]

DT,

sam: But when you use such a path as a wisdom teaching, it implies knowledge that if applied correctly, can have some positive outcome.

DT: It implies a whole lot more in truth. It implies no path, no wisdom teaching, no knowledge, no application, no positives, no outcomes - ultimately.

Yeah, that's been my point from the start! That's why the way he discusses it isn't meant for a wisdom teaching. You can't do anything with it but surrender to it. Which is the very thing he is rejecting.

One doesn't surrender to the truth of no-self specifically, one surrenders to the truth.

Surrender has a specifc meaning in relation to strict causation. As you are using it, surrendering to the truth is just an expression. Until you put it in a frame of reference that entails specific actions, it's just a pose with no substance.

Yep sam, looks like I was wrong, David.

[samadhi]

skip,

skip: And that's the thing, he has settled, has stopped challenging himself, is unable to doubt his own views, and therefore can't really be talked to, as he can't really talk to himself.

sam: Lol. Good excuse for flinging an opinion and running away. Make it my problem.

skip: ... It seems like your "surrender", among all your other opinions about this matter, are just that - opinions and not facts.

Do you want me to "prove" what surrender is to you? Sorry, I can't do that. But if you want to talk about surrender in terms of how teachers approach it, that we can do.

And since you haven't reached the end of this spiritual path you talk about, I'm wondering why you're so confident in what you have to say.

I'm not sure why you think it's so difficult to look at surrender. You know about the ego and an ego agenda, right? Do you think you can surrender and keep your agenda? Why would that make sense to you?

I just know that if it were me, and I were to look back on something I thought was absolute true, but on second look wasn't, I would certainly take back what I said. I don't see you doing that, and I find that weird.

Well, give me something to look at then.

skip: Sam, if what you're talking about is not absolute, then I really wonder what the hell are you talking about. What if you had other beliefs, would it really be so bad? Everything would still be fine, wouldn't it.

sam: Again, without any specifics it's hard to know what you're talking about.

I mean everything that you've written in the discussion. I'm not clear at all about how you can be so sure about what you say.

Give me something specific. I don't know what exactly you're referring to.

You can always act like you're sure. I used to win plenty of arguments like that in middle school. Whoever believes what they say the most wins! Personally I think it's better to defend no position when none have been proven.

I wouldn't talk about what I don't know so I don't know why you would think my confidence is a matter of acting.

[David Quinn]

DT,

sam: But when you use such a path as a wisdom teaching, it implies knowledge that if applied correctly, can have some positive outcome.

DT: It implies a whole lot more in truth. It implies no path, no wisdom teaching, no knowledge, no application, no positives, no outcomes - ultimately.

Yeah, that's been my point from the start! That's why the way he discusses it isn't meant for a wisdom teaching. You can't do anything with it but surrender to it. Which is the very thing he is rejecting.

One doesn't surrender to the truth of no-self specifically, one surrenders to the truth.

Surrender has a specifc meaning in relation to strict causation. As you are using it, surrendering to the truth is just an expression. Until you put it in a frame of reference that entails specific actions, it's just a pose with no substance.

Yep sam, looks like I was wrong, David.

Just change the story and you'll be right, mate.

-

[samadhi]

I was simply bringing to Dave's attention the implications of what he was suggesting - his suggestion being that your bizarre behaviour in the debate wasn't one of incompetence, but of conscious intent. I basically said that if that were the case, then it would raise the issue of your moral integrity.

Misunderstandings happen. I appreciate the explanation and apologize for the mischaracterization.

[skipair]

But if you want to talk about surrender in terms of how teachers approach it, that we can do.

I don't know what teachers you're talking about, and I probably wouldn't be too interested. Alarm bells ring when someone seems to be talking from theoretical and not experiential knowledge, as you seem to be doing. No doubt you have lots of experience with something, but since you've admitted "unenlightenment", these concrete opinions of yours, in everything you write, seem a bit premature. Maybe I'm guilty of the same thing with this very paragraph, but so be it!

I'm not sure why you think it's so difficult to look at surrender. You know about the ego and an ego agenda, right? Do you think you can surrender and keep your agenda? Why would that make sense to you?

Since I don't even really know exactly WHAT my ego or self is, I'm not really in a position to discuss this.

I wouldn't talk about what I don't know so I don't know why you would think my confidence is a matter of acting.

But you would, and you do. You don't know what enlightenment is but you talk very confidently about how to get there. You see no problem with this?

[samadhi]

skip,

sam: But if you want to talk about surrender in terms of how teachers approach it, that we can do.

skip: I don't know what teachers you're talking about, and I probably wouldn't be too interested. Alarm bells ring when someone seems to be talking from theoretical and not experiential knowledge, as you seem to be doing. No doubt you have lots of experience with something, but since you've admitted "unenlightenment", these concrete opinions of yours, in everything you write, seem a bit premature. Maybe I'm guilty of the same thing with this very paragraph, but so be it!

If you don't think I know what I'm talking about, then don't read what I write. I offer my perspective, that's all. Everyone is free to take from it what they want and leave the rest. If there's nothing in it that interests you, what do you expect from me?

sam: I'm not sure why you think it's so difficult to look at surrender. You know about the ego and an ego agenda, right? Do you think you can surrender and keep your agenda? Why would that make sense to you?

skip: Since I don't even really know exactly WHAT my ego or self is, I'm not really in a position to discuss this.

Okay. Then I would suggest you find out and get back to me.

sam: I wouldn't talk about what I don't know so I don't know why you would think my confidence is a matter of acting.

skip: But you would, and you do. You don't know what enlightenment is but you talk very confidently about how to get there. You see no problem with this?

Even if I was fully enlightened, I wouldn't expect you to take my word for anything. Your truth is about your life, not mine. For any words to have value in your life, you must verify them for yourself. In that respect, it doesn't matter who is saying what. I don't require you to find any value in my words. I simply offer them if you're interested in another perspective. If you're not, no one is forcing you to read them.

[David Quinn]

Well, it looks like you got your answer there, Skip.

The main reason why Samadhi sounds confident about material that he hasn't fully tested himself is that he never allows anything to challenge it.

As I'm sure you're aware, the full range of tricks were on show in his response to you:

- His lack of acknowledgement of what you were asking, which is tantamount to full-scale evasiveness.

- The way he shifts all critical attention away from himself and directs it back onto you, as though somehow you were at fault for questioning him.

- The way he transforms your openness and honesty into a limitation which needs addressing.

- The way he abandons all responsibility for the quality and truthfulness of his words by turning them into discardable entities.

As I say, I don't know how he expects to get away with this kind of behaviour, but he evidently lives in a such an isolated bubble that I don't think he is even remotely aware of it.

-

[samadhi]

David,

Well, it looks like you got your answer there, Skip.

The main reason why Samadhi sounds confident about material that he hasn't fully tested himself is that he never allows anything to challenge it.

Well I thought you were challenging me in our debate, no? Haven't I answered all your questions? Is there something else you want to ask? Ask it.

As I'm sure you're aware, the full range of tricks were on show in his response to you:

Ah, my bag of tricks, let's take a look!

- His lack of acknowledgement of what you were asking, which is tantamount to full-scale evasiveness.

Hmm. What was he asking? My experience. I gave it to him and was duly rejected. He is not interested in teachers. And what experience exactly am I missing having to do with the cause and effect, the ego and its agenda? I have plenty of experience but none that he interested in.

- The way he shifts all critical attention away from himself and directs it back onto you, as though somehow you were at fault for questioning him.

What am I supposed to do? He isn't interested in what I had to say but wanted my justification for saying it. Do I need some special qualification to talk about the ego and surrender as it relates to strict causation? I don't think so.

- The way he transforms your openness and honesty into a limitation which needs addressing.

Open and honest? Maybe but also disingenuous. He is not interested in the actual discussion of ego or surrender, only my qualifications, as if I need some special experience to talk about MY OWN SPIRITUALITY.

- The way he abandons all responsibility for the quality and truthfulness of his words by turning them into discardable entities.

Gee, I'm not being truthful by saying he needs to find out about the ego, that my words aren't going to convince him of HIS truth? Please.

As I say, I don't know how he expects to get away with this kind of behaviour, but he evidently lives in a such an isolated bubble that I don't think he is even remotely aware of it.

I'm sorry if it upsets you for me to point out that I'm not here to convince him or you of anything. Nothing I say is going to convince either of you with regard to the ego and its agenda. That's what YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE is for. But in the meantime, I see nothing wrong with our debate on ego and surrender. I'm enjoying it which is why I do it. If he isn't enjoying it, if he doesn't want to discuss my ideas and has no ideas of his own about it, he should go somewhere else for his enlightenment, don't you think?

[Ataraxia]

In the broad sense, a "cause" is something that is necessary for the existence of something else.

Instead of making up a new definition for the word cause,wouldn't it be simpler and more accurate to use the the correct word in the first place--condition?

[David Quinn]

That would be acceptable, except for the fact that it doesn't seem to speak directly enough against the possibility of uncaused events happening. Simply saying that everything is generated by conditions, while accurate enough when understood properly, creates too much room for the irrational mind to weave its imaginings.

I also disagree with your idea that the word "cause" is being given a new meaning.

-

[Cory Duchesne]

Sam,

David talks about overcoming ignorance as purposeful while I have said that the spiritual practice of causation would lead one to see that there is nothing to overcome.

David, arguing for causation, nevertheless invokes personal will as a means of overcoming ignorance. Once again, a free agent argument.

Picture a NASA robot programmed to purposefully navigate the surface of Mars or the Moon. Now imagine the robot coming up against an obstacle, a big rock. Now imagine the robot purposefully struggling to overcome that rock.

Do you honestly believe the robot is exercising it's own free will? Or is the robot instead merely programmed to overcome what it encounters?