A discourse on causuality

[jivatman]

I'd like to begin with a simple illustration of the law of cause and effect, known as causality.

25.4....for the most part, during this time empires died and rose according to the attitudes and energies set in motion long ago, not resulting in strong polarization but rather in that mixture of the positive and the warlike or negative which has been characteristic of this final minor cycle of your beingness.

Empires rise and fall in accordance with cause and effect. An empire begins, it grows eventually becoming weaker, and dies, another taking it's place. The begining of the new empire is a result of the end of the previous empire, ad infinitum, creating an endless chain of cause and effect. This unending chain of action, including rebirth, is also called Samsara.

This law of cause and effect concerns everything in third density existence. Everything experienced by the third density mind, and of the cycle of our own birth and death. In Buddhism the process of causality is called "Dependent Arising", because the arising of the new empire is Dependent on the fall of the previous one. The third density world itself being caught in a complex, long dependent chain of events.

Nearly all important eastern concepts logically flow from the idea of causality. Karma are the effects, back onto ourselves, of the causes we have once placed in motion. What determines the ultimate effect back onto ourselves, the "Fruits" that we reap, are the "Seeds" of the intention behind the action we took.

In Hinduism, Karma Yoga is the first Yoga practiced. It is stated the we are part of the world, and the world is in the throes of action. Arjuna does not want to act, but the world is in the throes of action and it is impossible to not act while being in the world. Thus, one should do good actions in order to receive good karma, increasing one's polarization. It is important to note that it is most desirable to act good without any expectation of reward from good karma, or going to heaven instead of hell, that is, without any attachment to the results. However, some may need theses motivations of good karma or heaven as the begin on their path, and that is fine.

A quote regarding Jesus:

17.20 When the entity had become able to integrate or synthesize all experiences, the entity began to speak to other-selves and teach/learn what it had felt during the preceding years to be of an worthwhile nature. The entity was absolved karmically of the destruction of an other-self when it was in its last portion of lifetime and spoke upon what you would call a cross saying, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.” In forgiveness lies the stoppage of the wheel of action, or what you call karma.

So, why is forgiveness the stoppage of action? Think of a Jesus quote:

38 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
—Matthew 5:38–5:42 KJV

Gandhi says that "An eye of an eye, a tooth for a tooth" makes the whole world blind. Why? because of the causality. As one does harm to another, and each takes their revenge out on another, this forms an endless chain of causality. By forgiving the man that blinds you, you stop the chain, it ends there, stopping the wheel of action.

Causuality in Western Philosophy

Western philosophy asks a lot of things like, "How do we know things" (The field asking this question is called Epistemology), and "How do things in the world happen". Many of the most popular answers to some of these questions are various extrapolations of causality, the law of cause and effect.

In the British tradition, many philosophers such as Francis Bacon and Isaac Newton were experimental scientists, primarily in physics. Thus causality came naturally to them, and they gave importance to it. Today they are called the "British Empiricists" and are considered founders of this philosophical school that focuses on causality. When you do so, you come to certain conclusions, such as,

1. All knowledge comes from experience. That is, from participating in causes and effects.
From this came the scientific method, which is again, simply creating particular causes, seeing the effects, and then trying to create a correlation between them that can be applied generally. Also called Inductive Reasoning.
2. Causual Determinism, the belief that since everything in determined (Dependent!) On causes and effects, if one knew the position of every atom in the universe, one could predict all events until the end of time. This is basically Samsara.
3. Modern Behavioral psychology is reliant on analyzing causes and effects to analyze, modify, behavior.
For the next, I will simply leave some quotes:

The main Business of natural Philosophy is to argue from Phenomena without feigning Hypotheses, and to deduce Causes from Effects, till we come to the very first Cause, which certainly is not mechanical.


-Sir Isaac Newton

A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion. For while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them, confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity.


-Sir Francis Bacon

This is also known as the Cosmological Argument for god. That is, that since everything is caused, ultimately there must be a first cause.

Before I leave for the moment, first consider, what is the Causal view lacking? Is there particular type of knowledge that seems to occur beyond experience, outside of time? There is, and it concerns the main philosophical school that long competed with Empiricism. Next, what about the intentions, purposes of will behind causes that are done by conscious things? That's another school, and there are interesting tie-ins with Eastern Philosophy and LOO.

Rationalism

Across the pond on the continent, the school that opposed the empiricists were called the rationalists. Instead of being experimental scientists, most of them were mathematicians by nature.

Mathematics operates quite differently from experimental science. For a cause to have an effect, that requires time. But math doesn't need time, it's rules operate outside of time, using pure reason. It uses an entirely different epistemology (way of knowing things) from experimental science.

Thus, this type of reasoning is often called A Priori (before), compared to A Posteriori (After) for Causal reasoning

Also, experiments are inherently probabilistic can not result in something being known with 100% certainty, but a mathematical theorem can. By taking premises that are known, it is possible to attain a logical truth using reason alone. This is deductive reasoning. This is what happened with Descartes famous "I think, therefore I am"

While Empiricists liked the Cosmological argument for god, Rationalists tend to favor another.

But, if the mere fact that I can produce from my thought the idea of something that entails everything that I clearly and distinctly perceive to belong to that thing really does belong to it, is not this a possible basis for another argument to prove the existence of God? Certainly, the idea of God, or a supremely perfect being, is one that I find within me just as surely as the idea of any shape or number. And my understanding that it belongs to his nature that he always exists is no less clear and distinct than is the case when I prove of any shape or number that some property belongs to its nature.
—Descartes,  (AT 7:65; CSM 2:45)[sup][22][/sup]

These arguments generally begin with some premises believed to be true, and if these premises are true, god must exist by definition.

Spinoza, Descartes, Leibniz all proposed modified versions of the Ontological argument. Additionally, the famous mathematician Kurt Godel (died only in 1978) proposed the longest, most sophisticated version yet.

Teleology

But wait, there's more. Biology tends to have difficulty escaping terminology implying that Evolution process that is goal-achieving, that is, moving towards ends. That evolution occurs in order to achieve survival, success, etc.

Teleology is the philosophical branch dealing with purposeful action. This has implications for Karma, as I mentioned, the ultimate fruit of karma depends on intention.

The Teleological argument for god sees in creation evidence of purposeful action:

"When you see a sundial or a water-clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence, when it embraces everything, including these artifacts themselves and their artificers?"
—Cicero, De Natura Deorum, ii. 34[sup][36][/sup]

Synthesis

There is a nice dialectic to these three approaches, forming a trinity. The Cosmological (Causual) proof is a posteriori, views the effects and reasoning backwards towards god, The Ontological is A Priori  and tending to argue forwards from god to existence, and The Teleological reasons based on purposeful goals, with seeking an ends, thus from neither the beginning nor the end.

I also associate them with the three Yogas: Casuality with Karma Yoga, Rationalism with Jnana Yoga, and Bhakti (seeking with love towards god) with Teleological, as well as Behavioral Psychology, Cognitive, and Positive psychology.

[Plenum]

Synthesis

There is a nice dialectic to these three approaches, forming a trinity. The Cosmological (Causual) proof is a posteriori, views the effects and reasoning backwards towards god, The Ontological is A Priori  and tending to argue forwards from god to existence, and The Teleological reasons based on purposeful goals, with seeking an ends, thus from neither the beginning nor the end.

I also associate them with the three Yogas: Casuality with Karma Yoga, Rationalism with Jnana Yoga, and Bhakti (seeking with love towards god) with Teleological.

so out of these three approaches to causality, which is the one you favor or rely upon?

[jivatman]

so out of these three approaches to causality, which is the one you favor or rely upon?

They are three different approaches, but my understanding of causality is more advanced than the others other.

It makes for powerful meditation to consider causes, moving backwards, that have brought yourself to it's present state, and then (Buddhist approach) see these as are part of an endless web of samsara/suffering and are "empty" or Western Approach, consider that the move backwards to a first cause, God.

The rationalist approach also has powerful meditation associated with it, called "Negative theology" where one progressively describes Zen/Tao/God but what it is not. Most of the Tao Te Ching is doing this. Zen probably takes this the furthest by resulting in seemingly paradoxical statements, such as koans.

An example of a Teleological Meditation would include Gratitude meditation, which considers that loving purpose behind actions others have done for you, or god's love in the creation of the world.

[Plenum]

They are three different approaches, but my understanding of causality is more advanced than the others other.

It makes for powerful meditation to consider causes, moving backwards, that have brought yourself to it's present state, and then (Buddhist approach) see these as are part of an endless web of samsara/suffering and are "empty" or Western Approach, consider that the move backwards to a first cause, God.

as an individual experience, my current understanding of causuality would be this.

Imagine a mansion with an infinite number of rooms, and all the lights are off.  

As a soul choosing to experience this mansion, one goes in and turns the light on in some rooms, to see what is there.  You can also turn the light off at your discretion.

Given many incarnations, and the loss of concrete memory, one forgets that you might have switched the light on in some rooms, and wonder why that room is still lit.  One may even choose to blame someone else for it still being on.

In this analogy, the mansion represents the infinite potential experiences of reality; the light as choosing to activate that potential, and make it real for you, and the forgetting as representing a karmic force that you don't comprehend, but that forgiveness will allow ownership and deactivation of that ongoing potential.

The causation here is turning on the light switch (always a personal choice), and continuing to experience the contents of that room until you decide you no longer to need to experience it (again, also a personal choice).