DEBATE: Causation and Spirituality

[samadhi]

This debate is supposed to be about causation and spirituality but you haven't really made an argument about that relationship; you only say that causation is a fact. Positing causation has no positive impact on spirituality when you use it as an excuse, it does however reinforce the ego to the detriment of it. Without acknowledging that in relation to spirituality, causation implies surrender of ego, all you have is another soapbox which the ego is more than happy to climb on to.

To you causation is simply another truth. Like all truths, without implementing it, it remains inert. From your perspective this is no matter, like A=A, it is simply something to behold and marvel at, pay obeisance to, proclaim to others while carefully avoiding its implications in your own life lest you actually have to give something up. It's a freebie, something to wave around and make noise, like a New Year's party toy, and then toss it when the party’s over and go looking for your next truth to get everyone's attention.

Yes, anything goes under causation. That's the way the ego likes its truths, fast and loose, and why its implications are lost on those who push an agenda. Surrender has nothing to do with passivity, nor is it a promotion of one's own values. As long as proclaiming the truth of the day is your priority, causation will remain just another bauble in your bag of tricks, shiny and bright, yet worthless as costume jewelry.

[David Quinn]

What you’re basically saying is that I am not using the truth of causation to travel down your path of “surrendering”. Hence, I’m just a fraud who uses truths, like causation, for his own egotistical purposes. By “egotistical purposes”, you mean any kind of behaviour which doesn’t conform to your conception of surrendering.

That, essentially, is your underlying argument throughout this whole debate.

The trouble is, I don’t believe in your concept of surrendering, for the reason that it has no connection to truth. Unless you can demonstrate that it does, I have no reason to take it seriously. I don’t believe in surrendering to falsehoods.

I love the way you say that I have not established causation as a fact, when from the very beginning you have insisted that there are no truths or facts, that everything we affirm are just stories, thus undermining any possibility of the debate going in that direction.

I also love the way you reduce the relationship to truth to that of “the ego playing fast and loose”, of giving the ego carte-blanche to "believe anything it likes" – when, again, it was you who created this belief through your insistence that everything is just stories. You don’t seem to have any awareness of what it means to surrender to the objective, unchanging demands of truth.

As I say, to proceed further, we would need to examine your idea of surrender and determine what relationship it has to truth, if any.

-

[samadhi]

My position isn't that your causation story is "wrong," only that its relationship to spirituality is counterproductive when you avoid the surrender it implies. You seem to think that every story of truth can be linked to spirituality in terms of more knowledge, more power, more control and that enlightenment is the accumulation of those attributes within a rationally-grounded ego. If that is your truth, then I am here to disagree, but you still get to believe what you want. "Fast and loose" is about truths adopted to facilitate the aggrandizement of the ego. They aren't "wrong" but they do have consequences. Let's not ignore them.

Surrender as I have discussed it arises from the causation story because the story is about removing the "I" from the picture. Under causation no one is choosing anything. Therefore to turn around and use the story to justify what the "I" wants or does is nonsensical. Reading the story that way is a "fast and loose" interpretation. You can do it but the result is not a cultivating of spirituality but of the ego.

Not all truth is about more control. Causation as story is a truth about less control. But the meaning of the story requires practice and not just interpretation. For instance, all is causation so there is no need to tell others what is true. Could you do that? That would be practicing your story rather than simply repeating it, surrendering to it rather than controlling by it.

[David Quinn]

So what do you make of the spiritual texts that have been written by enlightened people, such as the Diamond Sutra and the Tao Te Ching, which focus on telling the world what is true?

Presumably you consider your own guru, Adya, to be enlightened. Why does he give lectures about what he thinks is true?

Do you seriously believe that enlightened people cease conceiving of the "I" for practical purposes, and cease making decisions and willing things into action?

-

[samadhi]

The spiritual texts don't teach causation as far as I know. Nor does Adya. And it isn't that I have an objection to your teaching it. My objection is teaching it in terms of "hey, I can be a cause too!" That is a free will position. Wanting to be a cause of anything is about free will. And honestly, I don't really care if you want to have it both ways either, just acknowledge it, that's all. You have already said you act as an agent. So what is gained by pretending otherwise?

Strict causation is a dogmatic position (which is why you don't see it as an enlightenment teaching). Because whatever you think you know intellectually, there is nothing to show if someone wants to see the evidence. And as seen by your own behavior, it doesn't jibe well with experience. People simply experience themselves as capable of being a cause of action. Telling them they aren't requires one to bring more to the table than the intellect. It requires one's own surrender. Since you obviously have no interest in surrender, it puzzles me that you adopt a teaching of surrender. All I can surmise is that you either don't understand what the teaching points to or you simply value its intellectual content by itself. What value the content has apart from its practice you have yet to explain.

[David Quinn]

Recognizing that one's decisions and actions have causal consequences isn't an acknowledgement of free will, not when one also recognizes these decisions and actions are effects of previous causes. You really are mistaken here.

If we recognize that a tree is a cause of the shade beneath it, do we suddenly have to believe that the tree has free will? Obviously not. Yet that is essentially what you arguing with respect to people.

My question to you about the Buddha, Lao Tzu and Adya is primarily concerned with your conception of enlightenment and surrender. According to you, I am in error because I behave as a willing agent and tell people about what is true. Given that the Buddha and Lao Tzu also behaved in the same way, as well as Adya, why do you single me out for error and not the other three?

Please don't try to tie this back to my recognition of causation, for the discussion has moved beyond the issue of causation for the time being. The issue at hand is your conception of surrender. You have berated me for not using causation to surrender, on account that I behave as a willing agent and tell others what is true. So why not berate the Buddha, Lao Tzu and Adya for their refusal to surrender as well?

Incidentally, teachings on causation can be found in various spiritual texts, such as the Diamond Sutra, Dhammapada, Nagarjuna's teachings, Chuang Tzu's writings, etc. It's not uncommon.

-

[samadhi]

Whether your decisions and actions have consequences isn't my objection, it is that you believe those decisions and actions are your contribution apart from causation itself. If causation is operating, then there is nothing you are doing. You can't say "it's all causation," and "hey, I can be a cause too." No, you can't. You aren't doing anything, it is being done to you.

I already said I don't object to your teaching per se, I am objecting to its inconsistencies and contradictions. The above-mentioned teachers do not teach strict causation, only karma and conditioning. As for surrender, that's basically ALL the Tao teaches. Adya teaches it too and the Eightfold Path, while not strictly about surrender, implies it in the limitations it imposes on speech, action and livelihood.

The texts you cite teach karma as far as I know, not causation. In any event, outside sources are a no-no here.

I still am waiting for you to tell us what the value of causation is as it relates to spirituality if you reject its implied surrender. Surely you are teaching it for a reason. What might that be? And don't say, "because it's true." I've showed you why it's dogma. Without some practical application and benefit, dogma is about authority, not truth.

[David Quinn]

You've not answered the question. I specifically asked you not to relate it back to my recognition of causation, as we are now focusing on your own conception of surrender - but as usual, you completely ignored me.

I'll put it to you again. How does your conception of surrender tally with the behaviour exhibited by the Buddha, Lao Tzu, and Adya? The Buddha and Lao Tzu both behaved as willing agents and told people what is true, as does Adya nowadays. How can that happen if, as you say, they have surrendered?

We have to deal with this issue because you have berated me for not using causation to surrender, on account that I behave as a willing agent and tell others what is true. But you haven't specified what this surrender is, nor have you specified how the willful behaviour of the Buddha, Lao Tzu and Adya relates to it.

-

[samadhi]

I didn't ignore you; you just didn't like my answer. And I can't give you a pass on causation since that happens to be what the debate is about!

But okay, let's talk surrender. What is it? It is a recognition that the ego needs to dial back its agenda. Does that concept reflect badly on the Buddha, the Tao, Adya? No. If you think it does, then please show it.

Behaving as an agent is not in conflict with surrender as long as the surrender being advocated is not the abdication of the agent itself. Clearly this is what you are doing. How can you call for surrendering of the agent and then act like one? You say you don't recognize causation as being about surrender. What else could it be about?

You want to look at what surrender is in relation to causation? Okay. Causation teaches there is no doer and no path to enlightenment. You teach the masculine as a path, logic as a path, and that perfection is some kind of goal. How does that jibe with causation? Why criticize feminine behavior, thinking, etc., if no one is doing it? Why praise masculine behavior when causation underlies it? Why stress logic over emotion when causation governs both? What is not perfect about this moment when causation operates perfectly? Plainly you have an attachment to the masculine, to logic, to "perfection." Can you surrender those attachments belied by causation and follow your own teaching?

[David Quinn]

I've already responded to those questions in a post at the end of page 1, but as usual, you completely ignored it.

What is the point of having a debate if you don't pay any attention to what the other person says and just keep repeating the same already-refuted points over and over again?

Kevin described you as the thickest person he has ever come across, but I think it is more a case that you are currently so uncommunicative, so convinced of your rightness, so firmly entrenched in your point of view, and in possession of so many mental tricks to ward off challenges, that you are no longer able to listen to people and process new information. This, in turn, creates the impression that there is nothing happening inside your head.

I can't really proceed with the debate under these conditions. Unless you pledge to make a serious effort to try and interact with me - just as I do with you - and take on board what I say and respond to the logic in my words, thus making an effort to propel the discussion forwards, there is no point in continuing. At the moment, the debate we are having is a farce.

I'll give it one more go. Let's consider the Buddha. After his enlightenment, he set about creating the Sangha (the saffron-robed monastery in the woods) and a detailed collection of teachings for the purpose of guiding people to enlightenment. That is to say, he continued to behave as a willing agent, continued to use the word "I" when referring to himself and his attainments, and made it business to inform people about what was best for them. If the Buddha was able to this after having surrendered and reaching enlightenment, on what basis to do you criticize me for the same kinds of behaviour? How has he surrendered and I have not?

Please respond to this question directly and with some substance. Otherwise, I'm going to wrap this farce of a debate up.

Think about your response very carefully, Sam. If you demonstrate that you are willing to be a part of this debate and listen attentively to what I am saying, just as I do with you, then I would be willing of revisit those questions on causation. But if you don’t, and you just continue on as before, repeating your already-refuted points over and over as though I wasn’t even here, then the debate will no longer continue.

-

[samadhi]

Okay, let's consider the debate over. Obviously you think anything I say is not to the point and I have the same feeling about you.

I am disappointed that you never answered the very question supposedly under debate, what does causation have to do with spirituality? Why even propose a debate if you didn't want to talk about that?

[David Quinn]

Unfortunately, you made that impossible because of your unwillingness to specify what spirituality (or "surrendering") is.

All you had to do was answer that one question and we would have had a basis for examining how causation relates to it. But for some reason, you could not bring yourself to provide an answer, even though I asked you the same question in four consecutive posts. How is a debate possible under these circumstances?

The impression you have created is that you don't actually have an answer to the question, that you don't really know how it is that the Buddha, who supposedly surrendered, could be a willing agent, use the concept of "I" and tell others what is best for them. In other words, the impression you create is that, for all your talk, you don't really understand what surrendering means.

-

[samadhi]

"Unfortunately, you made that impossible because of your unwillingness to specify what spirituality (or "surrendering") is."

Here is what I've been talking about. You champion causality but I get the blame when things go wrong.

"All you had to do was answer that one question and we would have had a basis for examining how causation relates to it. But for some reason, you could not bring yourself to provide an answer, even though I asked you the same question in four consecutive posts. How is a debate possible under these circumstances?"

I answered your question on multiple occasions only to be told, "hey, you didn't answer the question!" Gee, what a fun game that was. Your idea of a debate was to ignore me and repeat your question, no matter what I said. No thank you. You don't need me for that.

"The impression you have created is that you don't actually have an answer to the question, that you don't really know how it is that the Buddha, who supposedly surrendered, could be a willing agent, use the concept of "I" and tell others what is best for them. In other words, the impression you create is that, for all your talk, you don't really understand what surrendering means."

Yeah, ignore everything I wrote and just declare I never really knew anything to begin with. This is a debate for you, never having to respond but simply blaming your opponent if he opens his mouth. Great technique. A real master debater you are.

[David Quinn]

You're now trying to bluff your way out of it.

Looking back over the thread, and in particular the last few posts, I don't see anything from you that passes for an answer to my question. At most, I can see three vague statements about surrender, none of which addressed my question or were specific enough to move the discussion forward. To wit:

But okay, let's talk surrender. What is it? It is a recognition that the ego needs to dial back its agenda. Does that concept reflect badly on the Buddha, the Tao, Adya? No. If you think it does, then please show it.

Ah, but I did show it. Four times I showed it. But I might as well have showed it to a brick wall.

Behaving as an agent is not in conflict with surrender as long as the surrender being advocated is not the abdication of the agent itself. Clearly this is what you are doing. How can you call for surrendering of the agent and then act like one?

Four times I asked you to explain how the willful behaviour of Buddha, Lao Tzu, and Adya was not a case of acting like a willing agent. But not a peep from you in return.

As for surrender, that's basically ALL the Tao teaches. Adya teaches it too and the Eightfold Path, while not strictly about surrender, implies it in the limitations it imposes on speech, action and livelihood.

A strange statement which doesn't actually address what surrender is, but, bizarrely, who taught it.

That is it, as far as I can see. That has been your attempt to specify what surrender is.

And yet you have the gall to say that you had answered my question. Worse, that I am at fault for ignoring your non-existent answer.

I really can't believe just how deceitful and evasive you are. I haven't come across such blatant dissimulation in quite some time. God knows how you think you can get away with it.

-

[samadhi]

Looking back over the thread, and in particular the last few posts, I don't see anything from you that passes for an answer to my question. At most, I can see three vague statements about surrender, none of which addressed my question or were specific enough to move the discussion forward. To wit:

But okay, let's talk surrender. What is it? It is a recognition that the ego needs to dial back its agenda. Does that concept reflect badly on the Buddha, the Tao, Adya? No. If you think it does, then please show it.

Ah, but I did show it. Four times I showed it. But I might as well have showed it to a brick wall.

Sorry, you just kept rejecting replies and repeating your question. You brought up spiritual texts, I answered that. You brought up the Buddha, the Tao and Adya. I did not find any conflict in their appearing as agents and talking about surrender. You repeated the question. I asked you to show a conflict in the above three. You didn’t answer that but repeated the question. And now you blame me for being uncommuncative?

Behaving as an agent is not in conflict with surrender as long as the surrender being advocated is not the abdication of the agent itself. Clearly this is what you are doing. How can you call for surrendering of the agent and then act like one?

Four times I asked you to explain how the willful behaviour of Buddha, Lao Tzu, and Adya was not a case of acting like a willing agent. But not a peep from you in return.

I accepted them as agents. You did not acknowledge that but repeated again there must be a problem with them being agents and being surrendered. So what am I supposed to say? I answered the question and you kept asking it.

As for surrender, that's basically ALL the Tao teaches. Adya teaches it too and the Eightfold Path, while not strictly about surrender, implies it in the limitations it imposes on speech, action and livelihood.

A strange statement which doesn't actually address what surrender is, but, bizarrely, who taught it.

I told you that surrender is dialing back the ego agenda. You ignored me. If you don’t respond to what I write, what am I supposed to do?

That is it, as far as I can see. That has been your attempt to specify what surrender is.

Direct quote: "But okay, let's talk surrender. What is it? It is a recognition that the ego needs to dial back its agenda."

And yet you have the gall to say that you had answered my question. Worse, that I am at fault for ignoring your non-existent answer.

See above.

I really can't believe just how deceitful and evasive you are. I haven't come across such blatant dissimulation in quite some time. God knows how you think you can get away with it.

Sorry David, blaming doesn't cut it here. Read what I wrote. It's all there.

[David Quinn]

Looking back over the thread, and in particular the last few posts, I don't see anything from you that passes for an answer to my question. At most, I can see three vague statements about surrender, none of which addressed my question or were specific enough to move the discussion forward. To wit:

But okay, let's talk surrender. What is it? It is a recognition that the ego needs to dial back its agenda. Does that concept reflect badly on the Buddha, the Tao, Adya? No. If you think it does, then please show it.

Ah, but I did show it. Four times I showed it. But I might as well have showed it to a brick wall.

Sorry, you just kept rejecting replies and repeating your question. You brought up spiritual texts, I answered that. You brought up the Buddha, the Tao and Adya. I did not find any conflict in their appearing as agents and talking about surrender. You repeated the question. I asked you to show a conflict in the above three.

The conflict lay in your assertion that I have not surrendered because I continue to behave as a willing agent. It is a case of your applying one standard for me and another for them.

My question to you was concerned with why you can accept Buddha and Lao Tzu behaving as willing agents, but not me. Why doesn't their behaviour as willing agents constitute proof that they haven't surrendered, in the same way that my own behaviour as a willing agent supposedly demonstrates that I haven't surrendered?

Why the double standard?

Here was a simple logical conflict that I needed resolving, so that I could understand better what you meant by surrendering.

Behaving as an agent is not in conflict with surrender as long as the surrender being advocated is not the abdication of the agent itself. Clearly this is what you are doing. How can you call for surrendering of the agent and then act like one?

Four times I asked you to explain how the willful behaviour of Buddha, Lao Tzu, and Adya was not a case of acting like a willing agent. But not a peep from you in return.

I accepted them as agents. You did not acknowledge that but repeated again there must be a problem with them being agents and being surrendered. So what am I supposed to say? I answered the question and you kept asking it.

Again, it was because you said to me, earlier in the debate, things like:

Causation is about giving up the "I", not enhancing it. You no longer get to lecture others about right and wrong, good and bad, truth or untruth. Under causation, they all disappear. You simply live watching for the "I" as it tries to assert itself, its knowledge, its understanding, whatever it is that it thinks it has that others do not. That is the path of surrender.

So it was natural for me to ask how you can accept that the Buddha, Lao Tzu and Adya surrendered, when they clearly retained their "I" and continued lecturing others about right and wrong, good and bad, etc.

It goes back to the double standard I was talking about above.

You must know by now what I am asking. You can't be this thick, surely.

That is it, as far as I can see. That has been your attempt to specify what surrender is.

Direct quote: "But okay, let's talk surrender. What is it? It is a recognition that the ego needs to dial back its agenda."

Yes, but what does this mean exactly? For example, in what way did the Buddha's purposeful behaviour (his setting up of the Sangha and lecturing people about right and wrong) not constitute an ego agenda?

Are you able to say?

-

[samadhi]

David: Looking back over the thread, and in particular the last few posts, I don't see anything from you that passes for an answer to my question. At most, I can see three vague statements about surrender, none of which addressed my question or were specific enough to move the discussion forward. To wit:

But okay, let's talk surrender. What is it? It is a recognition that the ego needs to dial back its agenda. Does that concept reflect badly on the Buddha, the Tao, Adya? No. If you think it does, then please show it.

Ah, but I did show it. Four times I showed it. But I might as well have showed it to a brick wall.

sam: Sorry, you just kept rejecting replies and repeating your question. You brought up spiritual texts, I answered that. You brought up the Buddha, the Tao and Adya. I did not find any conflict in their appearing as agents and talking about surrender. You repeated the question. I asked you to show a conflict in the above three.

David: The conflict lay in your assertion that I have not surrendered because I continue to behave as a willing agent. It is a case of your applying one standard for me and another for them.

The conflict is not your appearing as an agent but as one with an ego agenda ("I can be a cause for enlightenment.") What is surrendered is the agenda. The Buddha, the Tao and Adya do not portray themselves as causes, they simply go with the flow.

My question to you was concerned with why you can accept Buddha and Lao Tzu behaving as willing agents, but not me. Why doesn't their behaviour as willing agents constitute proof that they haven't surrendered, in the same way that my own behaviour as a willing agent supposedly demonstrates that I haven't surrendered?

Why the double standard?

Here was a simple logical conflict that I needed resolving, so that I could understand better what you meant by surrendering.

My objection was not your appearing as an agent but as an agent with an ego agenda (I am a cause). The Buddha had no ego agenda. Teaching enlightenment wasn't about his being a cause of the world's salvation. The Buddha also did not teach strict causation which implies there is no path. Everything is already perfect under causation so to offer a path apart from causation implies incompleteness to be remedied by choice. That doesn't make sense.

sam: I accepted them as agents. You did not acknowledge that but repeated again there must be a problem with them being agents and being surrendered. So what am I supposed to say? I answered the question and you kept asking it.

David: Again, it was because you said to me, earlier in the debate, things like:

Causation is about giving up the "I", not enhancing it. You no longer get to lecture others about right and wrong, good and bad, truth or untruth. Under causation, they all disappear. You simply live watching for the "I" as it tries to assert itself, its knowledge, its understanding, whatever it is that it thinks it has that others do not. That is the path of surrender.

So it was natural for me to ask how you can accept that the Buddha, Lao Tzu and Adya surrendered, when they clearly retained their "I" and continued lecturing others about right and wrong, good and bad, etc.

First, the surrender of the Buddha, Lao Tzu and Adya has to do with an ego agenda, not with purposeful action, which will always give the appearance of an agent. To me, there is an ego agenda in the assertion of "I can be a cause of enlightenment." That is also a free will argument. Just substitute in anyone's personal goal for enlightenment. That is how free will operates.

Second, causation is not what the Buddha taught, not what the Tao taught, not what Adya teaches. None of those teachers imply that people are automatons. If you teach that people are automatons, then there is nothing to give them, they are already complete and perfect. When you offer them something like masculinity and logic, you are implying incompleteness that can be remedied by a choice. That is having it both ways.

David: That is it, as far as I can see. That has been your attempt to specify what surrender is.

sam: Direct quote: "But okay, let's talk surrender. What is it? It is a recognition that the ego needs to dial back its agenda."

David: Yes, but what does this mean exactly? For example, in what way did the Buddha's purposeful behaviour (his setting up of the Sangha and lecturing people about right and wrong) not constitute an ego agenda?

Teaching in and of itself is not an ego agenda. I already said I don't object to your teaching but rather using a free will position (I can be a cause) in relation to causation. The Buddha had no agenda in terms of "I am a cause of enlightenment." Purposeful behavior gives the appearance of an agent. An ego agenda gives the appearance of free will.

[David Quinn]

Hello, what's this?

Sam finally makes a bit of an effort to participate in the debate. If only he had decided to do this a week ago .....

David: The conflict lay in your assertion that I have not surrendered because I continue to behave as a willing agent. It is a case of your applying one standard for me and another for them.

The conflict is not your appearing as an agent but as one with an ego agenda ("I can be a cause for enlightenment.") What is surrendered is the agenda. The Buddha, the Tao and Adya do not portray themselves as causes, they simply go with the flow.

Likewise, in my case.

My question to you was concerned with why you can accept Buddha and Lao Tzu behaving as willing agents, but not me. Why doesn't their behaviour as willing agents constitute proof that they haven't surrendered, in the same way that my own behaviour as a willing agent supposedly demonstrates that I haven't surrendered?

Why the double standard?

Here was a simple logical conflict that I needed resolving, so that I could understand better what you meant by surrendering.

My objection was not your appearing as an agent but as an agent with an ego agenda (I am a cause). The Buddha had no ego agenda. Teaching enlightenment wasn't about his being a cause of the world's salvation.

As I stated on numerous occasions, I also don’t consider myself to be a cause of anything, as I recognize the truth that all things have causes, including every decision that appears in my mind.

The Buddha also did not teach strict causation which implies there is no path. Everything is already perfect under causation so to offer a path apart from causation implies incompleteness to be remedied by choice. That doesn't make sense.

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

He also taught the value of freeing the mind from the illusion that forms (including the self) really exist.

That is how the teaching of causation and the teaching of the path to enlightenment can co-exist. The one automatically leads to the other. There is no conflict between them.

sam: I accepted them as agents. You did not acknowledge that but repeated again there must be a problem with them being agents and being surrendered. So what am I supposed to say? I answered the question and you kept asking it.

David: Again, it was because you said to me, earlier in the debate, things like:

Causation is about giving up the "I", not enhancing it. You no longer get to lecture others about right and wrong, good and bad, truth or untruth. Under causation, they all disappear. You simply live watching for the "I" as it tries to assert itself, its knowledge, its understanding, whatever it is that it thinks it has that others do not. That is the path of surrender.

So it was natural for me to ask how you can accept that the Buddha, Lao Tzu and Adya surrendered, when they clearly retained their "I" and continued lecturing others about right and wrong, good and bad, etc.

First, the surrender of the Buddha, Lao Tzu and Adya has to do with an ego agenda, not with purposeful action, which will always give the appearance of an agent. To me, there is an ego agenda in the assertion of "I can be a cause of enlightenment." That is also a free will argument. Just substitute in anyone's personal goal for enlightenment. That is how free will operates.

True, it is deluded to imagine that one can be a cause of anything, except in a practical sense. I trust that when the Buddha said to himself, “I will set up a community of monks and guide them to enlightenment,” he was only thinking in practical terms and didn’t really imagine himself to be a cause in any fundamental sense. In other words, I trust that he was fully aware of the universal nature of causation.

Second, causation is not what the Buddha taught, not what the Tao taught, not what Adya teaches. None of those teachers imply that people are automatons.

As I say, the Buddha taught that forms are illusory due to their existence being created and sustained by co-dependent origination (that is, by causation). So he most certainly did consider people to be automatons, at root. He recognized that they were ultimately selfless.

Lao Tzu referred to all things and all people as “dummies”, in recognition of their lack of free will and self.

If Adya is saying to people that they have no self, then he is certainly saying that they are automatons as well.

It seems you have conflicting desires here. On the one hand, you want people to be empty of will and self, and yet at the same time you seem horrified at the thought that they are without a self - i.e. that they are automatons.

If you teach that people are automatons, then there is nothing to give them, they are already complete and perfect. When you offer them something like masculinity and logic, you are implying incompleteness that can be remedied by a choice. That is having it both ways.

Again, as I explained in the debate, you are ignoring the reality of consciousness and unconsciousness. An automaton who is unconscious that he is an automaton (and thus unconscious of his buddha-nature) and who instead imagines he is something other than an automaton, is living in a dream world. So this is what can be given to them via the teaching of causation – the gift of insight. The removal of their own unconsciousness.

-

[samadhi]

David: The conflict lay in your assertion that I have not surrendered because I continue to behave as a willing agent. It is a case of your applying one standard for me and another for them.

sam: The conflict is not your appearing as an agent but as one with an ego agenda ("I can be a cause for enlightenment.") What is surrendered is the agenda. The Buddha, the Tao and Adya do not portray themselves as causes, they simply go with the flow.

David: Likewise, in my case.

I'm going to give you a pass on this. Anyone who knows you can draw their own conclusions.

sam: My objection was not your appearing as an agent but as an agent with an ego agenda (I am a cause). The Buddha had no ego agenda. Teaching enlightenment wasn't about his being a cause of the world's salvation.

David: As I stated on numerous occasions, I also don’t consider myself to be a cause of anything, as I recognize the truth that all things have causes, including every decision that appears in my mind.

Again, pass.

sam: The Buddha also did not teach strict causation which implies there is no path. Everything is already perfect under causation so to offer a path apart from causation implies incompleteness to be remedied by choice. That doesn't make sense.

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

Dependent origination was used as a teaching about suffering, not about an individual's lack of agency. It actually promotes choice through education.

He also taught the value of freeing the mind from the illusion that forms (including the self) really exist.

Right.

That is how the teaching of causation and the teaching of the path to enlightenment can co-exist. The one automatically leads to the other. There is no conflict between them.

But your teaching is different than the Buddha's. The Buddha tried to show how suffering can be overcome. Your teaching is that there is nothing to overcome since you are not choosing anything to begin with.

I want to make it clear that I am not devaluing causation as a legitimate teaching, only that it is being misapplied. From what you've said I believe you value causation in relation to spirituality as a wisdom teaching. The Buddha used it as such but from a differenct perspective than you are taking. Your perspective is much more fundamentalist in that it removes the individual from the equation. In that sense it is a direct path, the beginning and the end are the same, you end where you start. But when you use such a path as a wisdom teaching, it implies knowledge that if applied correctly, can have some positive outcome. But one doesn't apply a direct path teaching, one surrenders to a direct path teaching. You cannot apply strict causation to accomplish anything, you just recognize it and surrender to it. There is an implication by using it as a wisdom teaching that it adds something to you but the opposite is the case, it removes the very you to which anything might be added. So applying it that way without the surrender, one can only nod in agreement while continuing to act as before. Which is basically worthless. Without seeing the surrender required that is the heart of your fundamentalism, the teaching is only an intellectual curiosity that serves no function and may indeed create a blockage in that the ego simply excuses all behavior as "caused".

sam: Second, causation is not what the Buddha taught, not what the Tao taught, not what Adya teaches. None of those teachers imply that people are automatons.

David: As I say, the Buddha taught that forms are illusory due to their existence being created and sustained by co-dependent origination (that is, by causation). So he most certainly did consider people to be automatons, at root. He recognized that they were ultimately selfless.

Lao Tzu referred to all things and all people as "dummies", in recognition of their lack of free will and self.

If Adya is saying to people that they have no self, then he is certainly saying that they are automatons as well.

It seems you have conflicting desires here. On the one hand, you want people to be empty of will and self, and yet at the same time you seem horrified at the thought that they are without a self - i.e. that they are automatons.

I recognize that selflessness is the heart of all wisdom teaching. I would say however that there is a difference between being unconscious and being an automaton. Strict causation isn't about becoming more conscious, of awakening from ego, but that there isn't any ego to begin with. Without a surrender into that, it becomes just the ego saying, "yeah, there's no ego, heh, heh, heh, yet here I am!" The above teachers recognize the illusion of ego but renouncing it directly is not what they stress, probably since so few people would understand it or be capable of it. So they create a path that leads you to the edge. But even at the edge, it's not easy to surrender, witness the QRS triumvirate. Direct paths may seem quick but the fact that so few people go there tells you that quick and easy aren't the same thing.

sam: If you teach that people are automatons, then there is nothing to give them, they are already complete and perfect. When you offer them something like masculinity and logic, you are implying incompleteness that can be remedied by a choice. That is having it both ways.

David: Again, as I explained in the debate, you are ignoring the reality of consciousness and unconsciousness.

A conscious automaton is still an automaton. In any event, the teaching you promote isn't about becoming more conscious, it is about dropping the ego. You can do that whether you are conscious or not. Most people won't go there however, no matter how well your teaching is understood. The teaching the Buddha used, of becoming more conscious, is a way of leading people to the fact that the ego is illusory. Once that can be taken in, surrender is more of a possibility.

[David Quinn]

David: The conflict lay in your assertion that I have not surrendered because I continue to behave as a willing agent. It is a case of your applying one standard for me and another for them.

sam: The conflict is not your appearing as an agent but as one with an ego agenda ("I can be a cause for enlightenment.") What is surrendered is the agenda. The Buddha, the Tao and Adya do not portray themselves as causes, they simply go with the flow.

David: Likewise, in my case.

I'm going to give you a pass on this. Anyone who knows you can draw their own conclusions.

Create their own stories, don't you mean?

sam: The Buddha also did not teach strict causation which implies there is no path. Everything is already perfect under causation so to offer a path apart from causation implies incompleteness to be remedied by choice. That doesn't make sense.

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

Dependent origination was used as a teaching about suffering, not about an individual's lack of agency. It actually promotes choice through education.

Regarding your first sentence, most of the sutras disagree with you. For example, in the Diamond sutra:

Chapter 3

"All living beings, whether born from eggs, from the womb, from moisture, or spontaneously; whether they have form or do not have form; whether they are aware or unaware, whether they are not aware or not unaware, all living beings will eventually be led by me to the final Nirvana, the final ending of the cycle of birth and death. And when this unfathomable, infinite number of living beings have all been liberated, in truth not even a single being has actually been liberated."

"Why Subhuti? Because if a disciple still clings to the arbitrary illusions of form or phenomena such as an ego, a personality, a self, a separate person, or a universal self existing eternally, then that person is not an authentic disciple."


Chapter 5

"Subhuti, what do you think? Can the Buddha be recognized by means of his bodily form?"

"No, Most Honored One, the Buddha cannot be recognized by means of his bodily form. Why? Because when the Buddha speaks of bodily form, it is not a real form, but only an illusion."

The Buddha then spoke to Subhuti: "All that has a form is illusive and unreal. When you see that all forms are illusive and unreal, then you will begin to perceive your true Buddha nature."

This is standard Buddhist teaching.

As for your second sentence, while it is true that education does lead to greater choice, your implication that education about causation limits choice is completely false.

Understanding causation doesn't involve stripping the mind of choices and becoming an automaton. Rather, it involves understanding our automaton nature that has been present all along.

He also taught the value of freeing the mind from the illusion that forms (including the self) really exist.

Right.

Have you actually studied any of the sutras? Or have you been relying, second-hand, on what others have said about Buddhism?

You always were one for middlemen, so I suppose I can guess your answer.

That is how the teaching of causation and the teaching of the path to enlightenment can co-exist. The one automatically leads to the other. There is no conflict between them.

But your teaching is different than the Buddha's. The Buddha tried to show how suffering can be overcome. Your teaching is that there is nothing to overcome since you are not choosing anything to begin with.

My teaching is about the overcoming of ignorance, which is the root cause of suffering. The wiser teachings in Buddhism are also focused on this.

I want to make it clear that I am not devaluing causation as a legitimate teaching, only that it is being misapplied. From what you've said I believe you value causation in relation to spirituality as a wisdom teaching. The Buddha used it as such but from a differenct perspective than you are taking. Your perspective is much more fundamentalist in that it removes the individual from the equation. In that sense it is a direct path, the beginning and the end are the same, you end where you start.

Not if the result is the removal of ignorance and delusion. In this instance, you end up in a different place.

But you're right in saying that it is a direct path, one that goes straight to the heart of the matters. It examines the foundations of the ego, discerns their illusory basis, and removes the spell they cast upon the mind.

But when you use such a path as a wisdom teaching, it implies knowledge that if applied correctly, can have some positive outcome. But one doesn't apply a direct path teaching, one surrenders to a direct path teaching. You cannot apply strict causation to accomplish anything, you just recognize it and surrender to it.
There is an implication by using it as a wisdom teaching that it adds something to you but the opposite is the case, it removes the very you to which anything might be added. So applying it that way without the surrender, one can only nod in agreement while continuing to act as before. Which is basically worthless. Without seeing the surrender required that is the heart of your fundamentalism, the teaching is only an intellectual curiosity that serves no function and may indeed create confusion.

Again, it is difficult to know what you mean by “surrender”. The only clear information I have received from you so far is that it involves abandoning the idea that one can be a cause of anything.

Let’s examine a couple of practical examples:

Consider a psychopathic killer who regularly goes out on a killing spree. At no time, however, does he consider himself responsible for his actions. He has entirely surrendered to a larger power. It might be Allah that he has surrendered to. Or it might be Jehovah. Or dionysian forces. Or to Nature’s principle of destruction. It doesn’t really matter. The important thing is that he has surrendered and no longer conceives of himself as a willing agent.

By contrast, consider the possibility that the Buddha hadn’t succeeded in completely removed the spell of the “I”, that he hadn’t yet completely surrendered to the truth. Although he set up the Sangha and created some profound teachings, he still sometimes fell into the delusion that it was he who was responsible for all the good work that was being done.

Which of the two is the more spiritually advanced? According to the criteria you have spelt out so far in this debate, it is the psychopathic killer.

Without seeing the surrender required that is the heart of your fundamentalism, the teaching is only an intellectual curiosity that serves no function and may indeed create confusion.

Just out of interest, why do you label what I do as “fundamentalism” when according to your story - namely, that everything is just a story - there can be no fundamentalism, just as there can be no truth?

It seems you have conflicting desires here. On the one hand, you want people to be empty of will and self, and yet at the same time you seem horrified at the thought that they are without a self - i.e. that they are automatons.

I recognize that selflessness is the heart of all wisdom teaching. I would say however that there is a difference between being unconscious and being an automaton. Strict causation isn't about becoming more conscious, of awakening from ego, but that there isn't any ego to begin with. Without a surrender into that, it becomes just the ego saying, "yeah, there's no ego." The above teachers recognize the illusion of ego but renouncing it directly is not what they stress, probably since so few people would understand it or be capable of it. So they create a path that leads you to the edge. But even at the edge, it's not easy to surrender. Direct paths may seem quick but the fact that so few people go there tells you that quick and easy aren't the same thing.

Personally, it tells me that most people have no real desire for enlightenment. If a person doesn’t arrive quickly and easily to enlightenment once he decides to go for it, then it indicates that he is insincere.

In any case, it looks as though you have changed your story from, “causation is a mere story”, to, “causation is a direct teaching which is too difficult for most people”. If so, then I applaud you. The latter is certainly a far more truthful story.

I recognize that selflessness is the heart of all wisdom teaching. I would say however that there is a difference between being unconscious and being an automaton.

Since we are all automatons to begin with, it is an issue of whether one becomes a conscious automaton (i.e. enlightened ) or remains an unconscious one.

Strict causation isn't about becoming more conscious, of awakening from ego, but that there isn't any ego to begin with. Without a surrender into that, it becomes just the ego saying, "yeah, there's no ego."

Realizing the illusory nature of ego does indeed represent an increase in consciousness. One becomes aware of a previously-unknown reality.

A question for you: If there is no ego to begin with, then what is the point of surrendering? Doesn’t the desire to surrender stem from a deluded belief in the existence of the ego?

sam: If you teach that people are automatons, then there is nothing to give them, they are already complete and perfect. When you offer them something like masculinity and logic, you are implying incompleteness that can be remedied by a choice. That is having it both ways.

David: Again, as I explained in the debate, you are ignoring the reality of consciousness and unconsciousness.

A conscious automaton is still an automaton. In any event, the teaching you promote isn't about becoming more conscious, it is about dropping the ego. You can do that whether you are conscious or not.

That’s not true. If a person is too unconscious, then he won’t know what the ego is or how far it extends into his psyche. Nor will he know whether his surrendering is not the evil act of surrendering to a falsehood, as opposed to the pure act of surrendering to truth.

To surrender the ego properly, a person needs to be aware of both the Truth and the ego.

-

[samadhi]

sam: ... The Buddha, the Tao and Adya do not portray themselves as causes, they simply go with the flow.

David: Likewise, in my case.

sam: I'm going to give you a pass on this. Anyone who knows you can draw their own conclusions.

David: Create their own stories, don't you mean?

We have your story. It doesn't make it true for us.

sam: The Buddha also did not teach strict causation which implies there is no path. Everything is already perfect under causation so to offer a path apart from causation implies incompleteness to be remedied by choice. That doesn't make sense.

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

sam: Dependent origination was used as a teaching about suffering, not about an individual's lack of agency. It actually promotes choice through education.

David: Regarding your first sentence, most of the sutras disagree with you. For example, in the Diamond sutra:

Chapter 3

"All living beings, whether born from eggs, from the womb, from moisture, or spontaneously; whether they have form or do not have form; whether they are aware or unaware, whether they are not aware or not unaware, all living beings will eventually be led by me to the final Nirvana, the final ending of the cycle of birth and death. And when this unfathomable, infinite number of living beings have all been liberated, in truth not even a single being has actually been liberated."

This is just pointing to the paradox of enlightenment.

"Why Subhuti? Because if a disciple still clings to the arbitrary illusions of form or phenomena such as an ego, a personality, a self, a separate person, or a universal self existing eternally, then that person is not an authentic disciple."

Yes, no self, we both are aware of this teaching.

Chapter 5

"Subhuti, what do you think? Can the Buddha be recognized by means of his bodily form?"

"No, Most Honored One, the Buddha cannot be recognized by means of his bodily form. Why? Because when the Buddha speaks of bodily form, it is not a real form, but only an illusion."

The Buddha then spoke to Subhuti: "All that has a form is illusive and unreal. When you see that all forms are illusive and unreal, then you will begin to perceive your true Buddha nature."

Life as illusion, standard stuff.

This is standard Buddhist teaching.

Indeed. I do find it disingenuous of you to dig into the sutras while avoiding the most prominent Buddhist teaching of them all, the Eight-fold Path. What is the Eight-fold Path about if not self-betterment?

As for your second sentence, while it is true that education does lead to greater choice, your implication that education about causation limits choice is completely false.

The teaching of strict causation is meant as a spiritual path, not as a general description for mass consumption.

Understanding causation doesn't involve stripping the mind of choices and becoming an automaton. Rather, it involves understanding our automaton nature that has been present all along.

An adherent of strict causation would not see choice as meaningful. That is the whole point of it, to remove the belief in the individual as the decider. It is a path of humility and surrender, not of empowerment or knowledge.

David: He also taught the value of freeing the mind from the illusion that forms (including the self) really exist.

sam: Right.

David: Have you actually studied any of the sutras? Or have you been relying, second-hand, on what others have said about Buddhism? You always were one for middlemen, so I suppose I can guess your answer.

The sutras are second-hand in case you haven't noticed. Someone writes down commentary hundreds of years after the Buddha spoke and you want to take that to the bank? Why not go to a living source?

David: That is how the teaching of causation and the teaching of the path to enlightenment can co-exist. The one automatically leads to the other. There is no conflict between them.

sam: But your teaching is different than the Buddha's. The Buddha tried to show how suffering can be overcome. Your teaching is that there is nothing to overcome since you are not choosing anything to begin with.

David: My teaching is about the overcoming of ignorance, which is the root cause of suffering. The wiser teachings in Buddhism are also focused on this.

Okay, then you need to give up strict causation unless you are interested in its surrender aspect. Overcoming ignorance implies the existence of some deficiency that can be remedied by an informed choice. Under causation, all is already perfect and complete.

sam: I want to make it clear that I am not devaluing causation as a legitimate teaching, only that it is being misapplied. From what you've said I believe you value causation in relation to spirituality as a wisdom teaching. The Buddha used it as such but from a differenct perspective than you are taking. Your perspective is much more fundamentalist in that it removes the individual from the equation. In that sense it is a direct path, the beginning and the end are the same, you end where you start.

David: Not if the result is the removal of ignorance and delusion. In this instance, you end up in a different place.

Teaching strict causation without surrender doesn't remove anything. It simply gives the ego an excuse to continue whatever behavior it wants and chalk it up to causation.

But you're right in saying that it is a direct path, one that goes straight to the heart of the matters. It examines the foundations of the ego, discerns their illusory basis, and removes the spell they cast upon the mind.

Wisdom teaching is not direct in the sense that it requires you to do something with it. Eight-fold path requires you to do something. Strict causation is about not-doing. Surrender is giving up the idea that I need to do something in order to get something in order to be something. Under causation, everything you are or can become exists right now. Give up your ideas, your goals, enlightenment as some future outcome, to see what exists right now. That's it.

sam: ... Without seeing the surrender required that is the heart of your fundamentalism, the teaching is only an intellectual curiosity that serves no function and may indeed create confusion.

David: Again, it is difficult to know what you mean by "surrender". The only clear information I have received from you so far is that it involves abandoning the idea that one can be a cause of anything.

Yes. Being a cause embodies the idea that something needs to change. Under causation, whatever needs changing, changes itself. Beyond that, certain behaviors are revealed as empty such as blaming others or claiming merit. Much of the ego rests on those two. Emotions like anger, greed, self-pity, self-importance, jealousy, etc., are all seen as revolving around the ego that wants to control when there is nothing to control. In surrender the emotions are no longer internalized or projected. Which means they may still arise but are no longer the basis for action. Do you see why surrender isn't something many would be interested in?

Consider a psychopathic killer who regularly goes out on a killing spree. At no time, however, does he consider himself responsible for his actions. He has entirely surrendered to a larger power. It might be Allah that he has surrendered to. Or it might be Jehovah. Or dionysian forces. Or to Nature’s principle of destruction. It doesn’t really matter. The important thing is that he has surrendered and no longer conceives of himself as a willing agent.

Such a person is using causation as an excuse. Rather than surrendering the ego agenda, it is being embraced and justified.

By contrast, consider the possibility that the Buddha hadn't succeeded in completely removing the spell of the "I", that he hadn't yet completely surrendered to the truth. Although he set up the Sangha and created some profound teachings, he still sometimes fell into the delusion that it was he who was responsible for all the good work that was being done.

Which of the two is the more spiritually advanced? According to the criteria you have spelt out so far in this debate, it is the psychopathic killer.

Hardly. Like I said, the psychopath is embracing an ego agenda and justifying it under causation. The ego loves its justifications, especially the airtight ones like causation.

Meanwhile the Buddha is pursuing a wisdom path. The "I" need not be abandoned all at once as the Eight-fold Path teaches.

sam: Without seeing the surrender required that is the heart of your fundamentalism, the teaching is only an intellectual curiosity that serves no function and may indeed create confusion.

David: Just out of interest, why do you label what I do as "fundamentalism" when according to your story - namely, that everything is just a story - there can be no fundamentalism, just as there can be no truth?

Fundamentalism implies taking a simple truth and imposing it indiscriminately, usually in a distorted sense. Yes, it's just a story but I am using the term descriptively. I don't dictate what fundamentalism is to you, I tell you what I see. If you see something else, then please share it with me.

David: It seems you have conflicting desires here. On the one hand, you want people to be empty of will and self, and yet at the same time you seem horrified at the thought that they are without a self - i.e. that they are automatons.

sam: I recognize that selflessness is the heart of all wisdom teaching. I would say however that there is a difference between being unconscious and being an automaton. Strict causation isn't about becoming more conscious, of awakening from ego, but that there isn't any ego to begin with. Without a surrender into that, it becomes just the ego saying, "yeah, there's no ego." The above teachers recognize the illusion of ego but renouncing it directly is not what they stress, probably since so few people would understand it or be capable of it. So they create a path that leads you to the edge. But even at the edge, it's not easy to surrender. Direct paths may seem quick but the fact that so few people go there tells you that quick and easy aren't the same thing.

David: Personally, it tells me that most people have no real desire for enlightenment. If a person doesn’t arrive quickly and easily to enlightenment once he decides to go for it, then it indicates that he is insincere.

Do you see the judgment embedded in the above statement? A person doesn't arrive at enlightenment according to your timetable so there must be something wrong with him, insincerity at least. If strict causation were truly your story, you wouldn't have the least judgment about such a person. The person is already perfect under causation. So the judgment tells you you are not accepting cause and effect but deciding there must be some missing factor, that cause and effect is operating inappropriately or else he would already be enlightened. There is nothing that needs to happen in such a case that isn't happening already. So why don't you embrace your own teaching?

In any case, it looks as though you have changed your story from, "causation is a mere story", to, "causation is a direct teaching which is too difficult for most people". If so, then I applaud you. The latter is certainly a far more truthful story.

First, remember we're talking about causation in spiritual terms. In everyday terms, it's a common story we all use to make sense of the present. In spiritual terms, it's one story among many that if actually embraced can lead to the direct experience of no self. But it is difficult. You yourself who claim to embrace the story are a witness to the ease with which it is misunderstood and misapplied.

sam: I recognize that selflessness is the heart of all wisdom teaching. I would say however that there is a difference between being unconscious and being an automaton.

David: Since we are all automatons to begin with, it is an issue of whether one becomes a conscious automaton (i.e. enlightened ) or remains an unconscious one.

I have no issue with becoming more conscious. My point is only that strict causation is about a practice, not about knowledge. Knowing about causation doesn't keep you from acting in ways that belie that knowledge all the time. Without the practice, the knowledge will be of little avail.

sam: Strict causation isn't about becoming more conscious, of awakening from ego, but that there isn't any ego to begin with. Without a surrender into that, it becomes just the ego saying, "yeah, there's no ego."

David: Realizing the illusory nature of ego does indeed represent an increase in consciousness. One becomes aware of a previously-unknown reality.

By all means, become more conscious. Absolute causation can make you less conscious however if you wield it only intellectually, i.e. using it as an excuse for any egoic behavior.

A question for you: If there is no ego to begin with, then what is the point of surrendering? Doesn’t the desire to surrender stem from a deluded belief in the existence of the ego?

The substance of illusion depends on belief. It does no good to say the ego doesn't really exist and so there is nothing I have to do even while one embraces every "I" thought in their head. That is using an intellectual idea as an excuse to follow whatever it is you fancy. The idea that there is no ego to begin with must be embraced, not given lip service, if it is actually to have meaning. That's what surrender is about.

sam: A conscious automaton is still an automaton. In any event, the teaching you promote isn't about becoming more conscious, it is about dropping the ego. You can do that whether you are conscious or not.

David: That's not true. If a person is too unconscious, then he won't know what the ego is or how far it extends into his psyche. Nor will he know whether his surrendering is not the evil act of surrendering to a falsehood, as opposed to the pure act of surrendering to truth.

Sure. Which is one reason why a mere teaching of causation is of little help. There is no motivation to drop the ego without some understanding of how it operates to your detriment. One might be able to understand causation but dropping ego requires more than that.

To surrender the ego properly, a person needs to be aware of both the Truth and the ego.

I agree. But do you agree that surrender is what your causation teaching is actually about?

[David Quinn]

This will be my last post in this debate.

I’ve decided that life is too short to waste on discussing such a critical issue with a person whose mind is entirely frozen when it comes to philosophic matters, who has no love of truth, no capacity to listen to others, and no intention to do anything but lob back formulaic, lifeless scripts as responses. The primitive and delusional nature of Sam’s understanding of causation is far too difficult to deal with under these circumstances.

His concept of “surrender” is also far too vague to deal with. It is so vague that it is difficult to discern any content in it at all. It is an odd thing to witness, but for someone whose pet subject is “surrendering” he has remarkably little to say on the subject. By rights, he should have thousands of things to say, using all sorts of illustrations and examples to clarify his explanations and tease out details. But no. Apart from a few vague, cliched phrases, recycled endlessly, he doesn’t seem to have anything to say on the subject at all.

I will use this post to wrap up the debate by summing up the main objections to causation that Sam expressed and outlining my responses to them (which, of course, have already been spelled out earlier in the debate).

The main delusions that Sam has regarding causation concern the roles of individual choice, individual purpose and individual judgment. In essence, he believes that all three should either disappear or cease to be meaningful with the recognition of universal causation. (I must stress in saying this, however, that it is difficult to establish what his views are on anything, given that whenever he is pressed or gets backed into a corner, he immediately starts changing his story. But for the sake of the debate, I will treat this as his stated position.)

Dealing with each in turn:


The Role of Individual Purpose

David: That is how the teaching of causation and the teaching of the path to enlightenment can co-exist. The one automatically leads to the other. There is no conflict between them.

sam: But your teaching is different than the Buddha's. The Buddha tried to show how suffering can be overcome. Your teaching is that there is nothing to overcome since you are not choosing anything to begin with.

David: My teaching is about the overcoming of ignorance, which is the root cause of suffering. The wiser teachings in Buddhism are also focused on this.

Okay, then you need to give up strict causation unless you are interested in its surrender aspect. Overcoming ignorance implies the existence of some deficiency that can be remedied by an informed choice. Under causation, all is already perfect and complete.

I have already addressed this issue in a number of different ways throughout the course of the debate, but as is his custom, they were completely ignored by Sam. It was as though I had never spoken on the issue.

I don’t see any need to go back and revisit these arguments, just for Sam to ignore them all over again. People can go back and read through the debate themselves, if they want to.

The key point is the recognition that humans have no choice but to adopt values, make decisions and behave purposefully in their lives. It doesn’t matter that universal causation implies Nature is purposeless and already “perfect and complete” – the human process of adopting values and behaving purposefully remains as intact as ever. Given this, the best we can do is to value truth and purposefully work towards the promotion of wisdom (consciousness of truth) – which, among other things, means becoming fully conscious of the nature of causation and its various implications.

Sam has the fantasy that humans can somehow just drop all values and goals and drift along aimlessly – which he sometimes refers to as “surrendering”. (Or at least, that is the view he adopts when arguing with me. When heroes like the Buddha, Lao Tzu and Adya come into focus, such a view is mysteriously abandoned). But in truth, such surrendering is impossible, as evidenced by the way the Buddha, Lao Tzu and Adya continued to make decisions and behave purposefully after their supposed enlightenment.

(I should point out that I don’t consider Adya to be enlightened in any shape or form. To my mind, he is a generic fraud, a snake-oil salesman, whose name really shouldn’t be grouped together with such illustrious company as Buddha and Lao Tzu. I’m only doing so within the context of this debate because he is someone who Sam believes has “surrendered”.)

Now I had stated above that “the best we can do is to value truth and purposefully work towards the promotion of wisdom”, but that isn’t really accurate. For it implies, wrongly, that there really is a conflict between human purposefulness and Nature’s lack of purpose. In reality, no such conflict exists.

I explained the reasons why this is so in the “you cannot derive an ought from an is” post on page 1 of the debate, so I refer the reader there. Here, I will simply point out that the more intensely one submits to the truth of causation and pursues its implications, the more purposeful one's life becomes. One doesn’t become less purposeful, but more so. This may seem like a paradox on the surface, but it isn’t really so.

It is a love of truth which drives a person to seek out and understand great truths like causation. And it is a love of truth which drives him to surrender to these great truths and allow them to transform his entire life. Such a love generates a giant ball of momentum, which, if pushed hard enough and long enough, soon becomes unstoppable.


The Role of Individual Choice

Understanding causation doesn't involve stripping the mind of choices and becoming an automaton. Rather, it involves understanding our automaton nature that has been present all along.

An adherent of strict causation would not see choice as meaningful. That is the whole point of it, to remove the belief in the individual as the decider. It is a path of humility and surrender, not of empowerment or knowledge.

The path of humility and surrender doesn’t involve putting an end to the decision-making processes inside the brain - which, short of death, is impossible for anyone to do in any case. It only involves putting an end to the various illusions projected onto them through human ignorance.

The Buddha choosing to set up the Sangha and create teachings is a good example of this. The mental processes involved in choosing between different futures still continued to occur inside his brain after his enlightenment. So clearly, while surrendering to the truth may remove the belief in the individual constituting the decider, it doesn’t put an end to the process of making decisions itself.

Moreover, making choices is still as meaningful as ever in the face of causation. When the Buddha made the choice to set up the Sangha and teach people, it was a meaningful act in the context of creating a wiser future. It was meaningful both to the Buddha himself and to those who became inspired by him.

A choice doesn’t somehow gain more meaning by being a random, non-causal act. Nor does it lose meaning by being a caused act. Sam’s thinking is very confused here.


The Role of Individual Judgment

David: It seems you have conflicting desires here. On the one hand, you want people to be empty of will and self, and yet at the same time you seem horrified at the thought that they are without a self - i.e. that they are automatons.

sam: I recognize that selflessness is the heart of all wisdom teaching. I would say however that there is a difference between being unconscious and being an automaton. Strict causation isn't about becoming more conscious, of awakening from ego, but that there isn't any ego to begin with. Without a surrender into that, it becomes just the ego saying, "yeah, there's no ego." The above teachers recognize the illusion of ego but renouncing it directly is not what they stress, probably since so few people would understand it or be capable of it. So they create a path that leads you to the edge. But even at the edge, it's not easy to surrender. Direct paths may seem quick but the fact that so few people go there tells you that quick and easy aren't the same thing.

David: Personally, it tells me that most people have no real desire for enlightenment. If a person doesn’t arrive quickly and easily to enlightenment once he decides to go for it, then it indicates that he is insincere.

Do you see the judgment embedded in the above statement? A person doesn't arrive at enlightenment according to your timetable so there must be something wrong with him, insincerity at least. If strict causation were truly your story, you wouldn't have the least judgment about such a person.

For me, this comment sums up everything that drives Sam’s deluded approach to causation and indeed his approach to life in general.

After all, it only takes a few seconds of thought to realize that there is nothing incompatible about forming judgments in a causal universe.

Consider a disease-ridden tree, for example.

A disease-ridden tree is causally-created and thus a perfect manifestation of Nature, but this fact alone doesn’t stop it from being a diseased tree. Nor does it stop us from recognizing that it is a diseased tree.

Making judgments about what occurs in the world is a natural function of the mind. It is nothing other than the exercising of intelligence, engaged in accurately discerning what is there in the world.

The mere fact that all things are caused doesn’t mean that all things have the same characteristics and therefore cannot be distinguished and assessed as to their function and value. Yet that's essentially what Sam is wanting to argue.

Of course, making judgments doesn’t mean we have to start moralizing about things and casting blame around. For example, we don’t have take that extra step and “blame” the tree for being diseased. When a scientist assesses the health of a tree, he doesn’t engage in moral condemnation. He simply assesses the situation before him and makes an informed judgment.

This is how the philosopher operates in all matters, with respect to all things, including all people. He makes judgments, but never moralizes. It is part and parcel of having a relationship to truth.

Sam's repeated attempts to turn the natural functioning of mental judgment into a kind of demonic, immoralistic process sums up everything about the man.

-

[samadhi]

First, I would like to thank David for suggesting the debate and his participation in it. Whatever disagreements we have had are always secondary to the larger purpose of sharing ideas and promoting investigation into spirituality.

Obviously there is a rather large difference in our approach to causation which has led to a great misunderstanding. For me, within spirituality, causation suggests a practice, a method, an approach for investigating "no self." I see no value in adopting causation as an intellectual idea and pretending something is accomplished or understood by that when the "no self" it is pointing to is studiously avoided. So let's look at our differences.

David insists that the surrender I have discussed is without content. Yet he avoids what I have actually said, giving up blame, giving up taking credit, recognizing the negative emotions that arise in conjunction with the belief of free agency. Obviously he does not want to give up blaming which he visits on me in his very first paragraph. If he believed in causation as a spiritual path, there would be no fault to find in anyone. My thoughts and actions are as explainable and justifiable as his under causation. Yet he pretends otherwise. A free agent argument.

I am faulted for not understanding individual purpose. 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. Nothing to overcome is a spiritual practice, it is not intended for a general population who have no spiritual intent. It is a perfectly valid practice that David does not recognize because he does not recognize surrender as any kind of practice at all. Nothing to overcome implies no self, that all that happens is not happening because of personal will. David, arguing for causation, nevertheless invokes personal will as a means of overcoming ignorance. Once again, a free agent argument.

David discusses individual choice in terms of how the Buddha acted while ignoring the fact that the Buddha did not teach causation as a spiritual path. He taught the Eight-fold Path. 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. After all, surrender is a choice, you can choose to surrender or not. If you see causation all around you however, it makes no sense to adopt a free will position in relation to it. Why would you blame others if you believe their actions are a result of causation? Why strive for enlightenment when all is already perfect under causation? Can you become more perfect than you already are? Causation is about seeing what is already here, not looking for what isn't. David's insistence on striving is, again, a free agent argument.

When I discuss judgment, it is in the spiritual sense of trying to be better than, not the everyday sense of evaluating circumstances. This should be obvious to someone interested in spirituality yet David purposefully conflates the two to muddy the water. Under causation there is no reason to judge others. Yet his judgment of me as "frozen", "lifeless", "primitive" and "delusional" speaks loud and clear. He argues for causation but has no understanding of the practice of it within a spiritual path. He walks the path of free will proudly and shamelessly while preaching its opposite. Not one word I have said has made a single impression on him. Yet I am the one who is frozen and delusional. What can you do but laugh at this peacock of a man who proclaims his knowledge while demonstrating his ignorance.

Thanks to all for reading along. I hope you all enjoyed it as much as I did.