Effect of words in "cause and effect"

[Sarva]

Hi Sarva,

Yes, I understand the bit about the precise workings of Kamma, but my issue is more about the nature of the relationships between entities in Dependent Origination, rather than the exact entities themselves. If Dependent Origination is something other than causality, then knowing exactly how it differs would help me in understanding it.

The quote is proving elusive, but I will have another look before turning in tonight. If it takes so long that the thread has gone cold, I will PM you!

Best wishes.

Hi Sam,
I have captured some thoughts on DO in a new post here: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=12223" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It might help us or it might be irrelevant to what you personally need to understand above, so I suggest we continue here too.

My understanding is that DO can be considered superior because it helps to remove defilements, end suffering and increase wisdom. An understanding of cause and effect is required in order to embark on understanding DO. However as there is no 'first cause' and all is arising and passing away as anicca, it could be fruitless to permit my mind to find a cause to every effect which arises to my attention. I would, therefore, move on to DO, focus my energy on DO and come back to 'cause and effect' when the task is complete.

What I find is that cause is not as important, when seen through my "DO goggles", because I am no longer grasping at any sense experience in my environment (thoughts included).I find there doesn't seem to be so many burning questions, which habitually for me can follow in a tangent and a fresh question.

Thanks for looking for the quote, there's no rush. I expect you will stumble across it when you least expect

[Sam Vara]

Hi Sarva,

My understanding is that DO can be considered superior because it helps to remove defilements, end suffering and increase wisdom. An understanding of cause and effect is required in order to embark on understanding DO. However as there is no 'first cause' and all is arising and passing away as anicca, it could be fruitless to permit my mind to find a cause to every effect which arises to my attention. I would, therefore, move on to DO, focus my energy on DO and come back to 'cause and effect' when the task is complete.

What I find is that cause is not as important, when seen through my "DO goggles", because I am no longer grasping at any sense experience in my environment (thoughts included).I find there doesn't seem to be so many burning questions, which habitually for me can follow in a tangent and a fresh question.

An earlier poster said that DO was different from causality; the original post was about (I think) the unreality of causality; and you are saying that DO can be considered superior to causality. I am OK with all of these, and would like to explore how DO is different. Such an exploration would help me understand DO a bit better. And it seems like a good tactic, as I am familiar with the idea of causality in a western context, and need to start from where I am, so to speak.

I am quite happy with there being no "first cause". Nor do I need to find a cause for every phenomenon, although I note that if we are describing them as "effects", then it follows that there must be some cause, even if we don't need to know at the moment what it is. Causality would also seem to be (following Kant here) a precondition for any kind of experience of objectivity whatsoever. So any attempt to supplant causality with another concept (if such it be) is important.

I would, therefore, move on to DO, focus my energy on DO and come back to 'cause and effect' when the task is complete.

Do you mean that you focus your energy on a different set of phenomena (i.e. avijja.....dukkha, the links in the chain of DO? I would have no problem with this, in that the relation between those links could still be a form of causality. In fact, I can't see what else the links could be. The different formulations in the Suttas seem to indicate that some phenomena are sufficient conditions, or necessary conditions, or both, for other phenomena.

Or, is it that we retain the basic concept of causality, but treat it in a more diffuse and generalised manner than, say, a materialist scientist who reifies objects would do? Again, I can understand this. We are still talking about causes, but we are less concerned about specifics.

Or, are we talking about an entirely different relation between those links; that they are not what we, in the west, would term "causes" in a most general sense? If contact does not cause feeling, and the cessation of contact does not therefore cause the cessation of feeling, then what exactly is their relationship? To invoke Kant again, if they are uncaused in themselves, then their relation becomes a matter of decreased concern for us. Their connection would be arbitrary, aleatory, and hardly worthy of comment.

[Sarva]

Hi Sarva,
I am OK with all of these, and would like to explore how DO is different. Such an exploration would help me understand DO a bit better. And it seems like a good tactic, as I am familiar with the idea of causality in a western context, and need to start from where I am, so to speak.

Hi Sam
There are some good resources online explaining DO (better than I can), for example I found this document useful and perhaps others have some to share, http://www.vipassati.ch/english/books/P ... ebook.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am quite happy with there being no "first cause". Nor do I need to find a cause for every phenomenon, although I note that if we are describing them as "effects", then it follows that there must be some cause, even if we don't need to know at the moment what it is. Causality would also seem to be (following Kant here) a precondition for any kind of experience of objectivity whatsoever. So any attempt to supplant causality with another concept (if such it be) is important.

I would, therefore, move on to DO, focus my energy on DO and come back to 'cause and effect' when the task is complete.

Do you mean that you focus your energy on a different set of phenomena (i.e. avijja.....dukkha, the links in the chain of DO? I would have no problem with this, in that the relation between those links could still be a form of causality. In fact, I can't see what else the links could be. The different formulations in the Suttas seem to indicate that some phenomena are sufficient conditions, or necessary conditions, or both, for other phenomena.

Or, is it that we retain the basic concept of causality, but treat it in a more diffuse and generalised manner than, say, a materialist scientist who reifies objects would do? Again, I can understand this. We are still talking about causes, but we are less concerned about specifics.

Or, are we talking about an entirely different relation between those links; that they are not what we, in the west, would term "causes" in a most general sense? If contact does not cause feeling, and the cessation of contact does not therefore cause the cessation of feeling, then what exactly is their relationship? To invoke Kant again, if they are uncaused in themselves, then their relation becomes a matter of decreased concern for us. Their connection would be arbitrary, aleatory, and hardly worthy of comment.

I am not very familiar with Kant, and cannot recall much on cause and effect from Western philosophy which I studied. I don't know of any detailed examination of cause and effect other than karma in Buddhism.

By my quote above, I meant that by focusing our energy on learning DO in its entirety, we move from needing to study cause and effect in the same way as one might with Western philosophy. With anatta there is no causal agent as such, rather the cause might be equated to 'craving' itself. Craving drives people on to create ideas, volitional actions and feelings. These in turn drive further arising. The cause of craving is ignorance and craving will lead to dukkha. Ignorance is itself fuelled by this cycle.

When we bring craving and ignorance to an end, then there is still no causal factor per se (anatta). At this point there is still action, but all action is arising and passing away. The question is itself seen as a risk of formation of ideas or view, which could lead to further suffering. I feel this is different to cause and effect as a materialist or scientist might wish to measure, because in my opinion, we have then moved into a universal perspective of all phenomena interacting without the need to pin-point a single cause because the cause of suffering is already known as craving. This seems difficult to grasp, perhaps?

Some one may be able to point out an inaccuracy in this description (I would be pleased to expand my understanding). I wanted to offer a reply to consider.

[Sam Vara]

Hi Sarva,

Many thanks for your account, which is very clear indeed. I have read the Buddhadasa article, but will have another dip into it.

Best wishes.