Both/either. Independence and dependence are two ways of looking at it: as the thing in itself, or as the thing in relation to other things.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
INDEPENDENT or DEPENDENT
- Thread starter zenzero
- Start date
Oneatatime
Huh?
We assume that all events have a cause but its important to remember that correlation of two events does not imply causation. In science its not enough to say that because two events coincided with one another one must have caused the other. If it was then we would still be debating whether the sun rising causes the cockeral to crow or if the cockeral crowing causes the sun to rise. A mechanism must be proposed which explained the causation and which can be tested to determine whether or not it can account for the observations. Such mechanisms are usually expected to be consistant with the existing body of scientific knowledge which can be a useful or detrimental requirement depending on the state of the current scientific knowledge. A failure to do this typically results false causational relationships being perpetuated with varying results unless succesfully challenged at a later date.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
It is impossible to insulate anything in such a way that even thought does not have an effect on it.
Cause and effect can not be reduced to a simplicity that can be observed or measured.
The act of Observation and or measurement can not be reduced to a point that it has no effect.
Dear friend
Writing it down ........ Is it possible? One can only enquire silently, I suppose, since the realm of thought-word is of cause-effect realm. From this realm it is difficult to intuit what you are saying.
I will give one example:
My late father fell seriously ill whenever we visited a cousin sister of mine. This happened four times in my knowledge. The reason? My sister was a very loving cook who would prepare 5 fish dishes, six chicken dishes, 4 mutton dishes, and at least 7 kinds of sweets and my father would eat all of that like there was no tommorrow.
Now, cause-effect is context specific. From one perspective, my sister-food was the cause and from another, my father's love of food-lack of control.
But I thought, whether these events: the 'meeting' and the 'falling ill' could simply be two separate events programmed in time and juxtaposed -- that they give an appearance of cause and effect? The experience that I had never seen my father fall ill due to excessive eating on any other occassion made me draw an obvious conclusion. But what about an observer whose observations are not according to linear time?
This concept can be examined with another example.
Suppose a boat on a river is hurtling down to a sure crash over a fall but the occupants of that boat do not know that they will die. So, an occupant of the boat who survives records the cause of death as due to something.
But suppose, an airborne observer sees the full river and the boat and knows the future. How will he record the event? The records of one in the boat and one in the sky will surely be different.
Similarly, for a yogi who is as immutable as Shiva, for whom the time is merely an effect of movement of one's own mind, the cause and effect description will be of another order. Shiva tells that a minute thought in moment sprouts an infinite universe spanning eras. In present moment, there is no cause-effect. The cause and effect is entirely in the mind and not in immutable consciousness, which has not changed a bit.
I can only be theoretical about it. And most readers may not even see any logic in this discussion. So, we can only meditate on questions as: when a crow alights on a branch of a coconut tree and a ripe coconut falls --- whether two separte events just happened in mind, which joined the two. Or whether one event triggered another?
For immutable consciousness that observes the changes, there is no change and no cause and effect.
Thanks for asking. Warmest regards.
Last edited:
Dear Zen
What you have indicated may be appreciated only on realisation of the unchanging Self.
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad
Translated by Swami Madhavananda
IV-iv-22
This self is That which has been described as ‘Not this, Not this’. It is imperceptible, for It is never perceived; undecaying, for It never decays; unattached, for It is never attached; unfettered – It never feels pain, and never suffers injury. (it is but proper) that the sage is never overtaken by these two thoughts, ‘I did an evil act for this’, ‘I did a good act for this’. He conquers both of them. Things done or not done do not trouble him.
----------------------------------------------------------
The cause-effect bondage is broken and neither the evil doing becomes guilt-punishment nor good doing becomes boast.
What you have indicated may be appreciated only on realisation of the unchanging Self.
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad
Translated by Swami Madhavananda
Published by Advaita Ashram, Kolkatta
IV-iv-22
This self is That which has been described as ‘Not this, Not this’. It is imperceptible, for It is never perceived; undecaying, for It never decays; unattached, for It is never attached; unfettered – It never feels pain, and never suffers injury. (it is but proper) that the sage is never overtaken by these two thoughts, ‘I did an evil act for this’, ‘I did a good act for this’. He conquers both of them. Things done or not done do not trouble him.
----------------------------------------------------------
The cause-effect bondage is broken and neither the evil doing becomes guilt-punishment nor good doing becomes boast.
Last edited:
zenzero
Its only a Label
Friend atanu,
however, thank you for your response to some vibrations through sound or whatever from somewhere; it is all cause it has to happen without even wishing cause of some *cause and effect* beyond thoughts and so beyond control.
Each moment is complete in in itself like a living cell and being in the moment is the effort if any after which what follows at the moment is totally inexpressible, un-communicable in any known human language simply because the observer to observe any cause and effect no longer exists as they merge as [one]; well is it one or none , still to find a label like so many others who have attempted so far in known history but certainly life/existence continues......
Love & rgds
n.b. [important]
Dependent/Independent are states of the mind - when the mind is dependent it finds cause/effect. When the mind is in a state of stillness/no-mind it can be said to be Independent of the Mind itself - was the point of the thread, if any.
Personal understanding is that there is no *self*; what is, is simply IS!
however, thank you for your response to some vibrations through sound or whatever from somewhere; it is all cause it has to happen without even wishing cause of some *cause and effect* beyond thoughts and so beyond control.
Each moment is complete in in itself like a living cell and being in the moment is the effort if any after which what follows at the moment is totally inexpressible, un-communicable in any known human language simply because the observer to observe any cause and effect no longer exists as they merge as [one]; well is it one or none , still to find a label like so many others who have attempted so far in known history but certainly life/existence continues......
Love & rgds
n.b. [important]
Dependent/Independent are states of the mind - when the mind is dependent it finds cause/effect. When the mind is in a state of stillness/no-mind it can be said to be Independent of the Mind itself - was the point of the thread, if any.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Well. You confound me again and again. You have a personal understanding but there is no Self?
You asked for a personal view and I gave it. So, two selves and a Self (as the medium of understanding) is very much there in this moment.
What you call 'IS', i call Self. Selves are momentary. And Self is "Not this - Not This".
Never mind.
Regards
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Imho, these are the "money" quotes.
On a side note I was quite amused by the unintended irony of Zenzero's comment:
Oh, the things that make one chuckle.
I think the downside to this kind of reflection is that we assume our vision of cause and effect is correct. If I have learned anything in this short lifetime it is that things are often not what they seem.
On a side note I was quite amused by the unintended irony of Zenzero's comment:
Um... how can one have "personal" understanding if there is no self to understand? How could that understanding be described as "personal"?
Oh, the things that make one chuckle.
ellenjanuary
Well-Known Member
Dependent upon the arrow of time. What if there are other arrows? What if we can only process one arrow. Scale diminishes causality, of what effect, neutrino?
Skwim
Veteran Member
Considering the direction your comments have taken, I agree; however, I think this forum is appropriate for Zenzero's question "is an act INDEPENDENT or DEPENDENT on any thing else & why?"
I agree to this also.
Any act is dependent on an actor.
Dharmically, there is no actor, it is the nature (mind) that works.
For Science, this is impossible. Who has heard of mindless science?
Any act -- of body or mind-- when performed with a sense of "I am doing it", "I am seeing it" etc., falls in the realm of cause-effect.
Dharmically, there is no actor, it is the nature (mind) that works.
For Science, this is impossible. Who has heard of mindless science?
Any act -- of body or mind-- when performed with a sense of "I am doing it", "I am seeing it" etc., falls in the realm of cause-effect.
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
When it becomes 'an act' has it been removed from its dependent context already?
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
Any act is dependent on an actor.
Dharmically, there is no actor, it is the nature (mind) that works.
For Science, this is impossible. Who has heard of mindless science?
Nietzsche made an interesting point about this in Beyond Good & Evil:
zenzero
Its only a Label
Friend atanu,
There is no disagreement on whatever you have communicated it is only to say, friend look from within this human form to the limit observable as an observer find that the self is not an independent and at the same time is dependent of the whole and so the thread is all about.
What have trying to point towards is the fact that dependency lies in the form till the mind is active the self is there and the moment the mind stills and its a no-mind the *self* is no longer there and as it is an incommunicable state and only the individual whose self is lost can understand/realize but can not express IT or that merging of the self with the whole.That is the moment of INDEPENDENCE the moment when one as self is free.
Please do raise any issue still unclear as remain limited in the ability to communicate in a manner that every reader can understand.
Love & rgds
Yes, truly controversial.
There is no disagreement on whatever you have communicated it is only to say, friend look from within this human form to the limit observable as an observer find that the self is not an independent and at the same time is dependent of the whole and so the thread is all about.
What have trying to point towards is the fact that dependency lies in the form till the mind is active the self is there and the moment the mind stills and its a no-mind the *self* is no longer there and as it is an incommunicable state and only the individual whose self is lost can understand/realize but can not express IT or that merging of the self with the whole.That is the moment of INDEPENDENCE the moment when one as self is free.
Please do raise any issue still unclear as remain limited in the ability to communicate in a manner that every reader can understand.
Love & rgds