muni wrote:The interpretation of words can differ.
praeteritum wrote:Imagine a set of children's Lego bricks. If I were to build a flower out of the bricks, I can allow myself to see the flower or the Lego, or both as one and the same.
This is what causality really means, it is the ingredients mixed together that make the broth.
futerko wrote:praeteritum wrote:...or you could see other possible forms of those bricks. The causes here are also the properties of the bricks, the properties of plastic, the designer of the bricks, the licensing and manufacture of them... plastic is itself a by-product of petroleum formed by millions of fossilised organic beings. Then there is your own imagination, your knowledge of what a flower is, etc etc.
where can we locate this thing called "cause"?
praeteritum wrote:Exactly! That is what cause is, not a thing but an ongoing process.
praeteritum wrote:That is what cause is, not a thing but an ongoing process.
futerko wrote:Right, but then we ask either; what started that process, or is the process itself merely an effect of our own perspective?
oushi wrote:Since all phenomena are free, I will allow them to remain free, abandoning the burned of sustaining a view.
Allowance, without grasping after, is undoubtedly available to anyone. If you can see that allowance is indispensable for phenomena to arise, why look for the explanation in tangled concepts of causality? Why bind liberation with awkward explanations? It cannot succeed, by definition.
praeteritum wrote:Again, words make this seem awkward, not causality itself.
praeteritum wrote:in the Lego example
praeteritum wrote:I do think that perhaps we're seeing something similar,
oushi wrote: Phenomena are liberated not by something or someone. In contrary, they are liberated because nothing and no one blocks their arising.
causality all things would arise from their causes, and you would have to figure out how to liberate them. Since they would be bound by their causes, and no different from then (no chance for separation), liberation would be impossible.
KonchokZoepa wrote:how come that way liberation would be impossible?
KonchokZoepa wrote:so logically you have to get rid of yourself , or the clinging and grasping and fixating to self and phenomena inside and outside.
Lindama wrote:Causality is transformed by recognizing inseparability. Allowing the free movement of the universe (for lack of a better term) implies a dropping of ego, conditioning, and ideas about reality. But, for me, it's full of colors and shapes, just that they are empty of any inherent meaning.
oushi wrote:praeteritum wrote:Again, words make this seem awkward, not causality itself.
No phenomena possesses a self. There is no such thing as causality itself. It's all made up by words.
oushi wrote:I do not see or look for an answer "in" any phenomena. I do not go and investigate them until I find something in them.
oushi wrote:We were, but there are few golden chains that you still cling to, like:
"Causality can be seen in everything, and with knowledge of it, new things can be created."
Sounds to good to be abandoned. Who would voluntarily give up power to create? Only someone who knows it is nothing but illusion. Phenomena are liberated not by something or someone. In contrary, they are liberated because nothing and no one blocks their arising.
oushi wrote:In causality all things would arise from their causes, and you would have to figure out how to liberate them. Since they would be bound by their causes, and no different from then (no chance for separation), liberation would be impossible.
praeteritum wrote:Thus creator and creation cease to exist, but avoiding the dualistic nature of "is" and "is not."
praeteritum wrote:Saying no one blocks their arising, is saying there is a separation. There's not a separation, and there are no things to be liberated.
praeteritum wrote:Cause is not separate from effect
Users browsing this forum: JKhedrup and 13 guests