Breaking the Habits of Western Thinking: Cause and Effect Is Not a Thing

[ziutek]

Interesting essay Luc.
Apropos of cause and effect. I am just planning to do a terrace and it is at the design stage.
If I treat the project as an expected effect then it will determine the causes, that is, the work I have to do in pursuit of the project.
This is a simplification I know.
Everything that is, is an emanation from 7D. The effect for everything that exists and does not exist is a return to 7D.
So all paths on which creation is on its way to 7D are determined. Even if we "deviate" from the path to unity, our experiences enrich the database of experience.
Now one can try to understand why the God of the Bible is more pleased with the return of the "stray sheep" than with those faithfully abiding with Him.

These are just my thoughts.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

 

[Wandering Star]

So all paths on which creation is on its way to 7D are determined. Even if we "deviate" from the path to unity, our experiences enrich the database of experience.

I agree, In the Law of One, Ra says (I'm paraphrasing although I don't think I'm going too far): "The law is one, there are no mistakes!".

 

[Tuatha de Danaan]

Reminds me of this poem by Khalil Gibran (I like the flute part in particular)

What you say iamthatis is thought provoking. Thank you for the poem, which is also thought provoking.

 

[fifty_five]

I try not to interfere too much with the religious question, which concerns me "only" as a Westerner (born in the Western world) and therefore willingly or unwillingly imbued with its culture. In this regard,I agree with what was raised above. On the one hand that the bible is NOT AT ALL in origin a fact of Western culture. On the other that Eastern culture is multifaceted, and certainly a generic reference does not help (perhaps the author specifies elsewhere). For example, confucianism is comparable to nietzsche's camel status, as is much of catholicism. But the path is interesting. after the camel comes the lion (react). and after the lion comes the child (create).

 

[BHelmet]

A lot of good points being made. As for the lost sheep getting attention: I see it as the sheep braying in fear and spiritual suffering and that is what “god” is responding to. The sheep is in pain and asking for assistance so god responds.

Interesting type of article where the title sounds one way and then the bulk of it goes off in a different direction. Even at the bottom of the instant salvation meme is cause and effect. I think the cause and effect idea is part of the wallpaper of 3D. To truly step outside of this, or to initiate a cause that is original and not a part of other chains of cause and effect is a TALL order. To even consider it is mind-boggling at least partly because cause and effect is the fabric of the mind.

 

[whitecoast]

I agree the essay can be easily misunderstood by those who wish to find excuses for not doing anything or not putting any effort into it, but we are among friends here, yes?

Is that your impression of what some people have shared here? FWIW I do understand the frustration that can sometimes come from not being able to connect as well with people due to their not taking on the understanding you acquired from the piece and wanted to share about.

 

[fifty_five]

A lot of good points being made. As for the lost sheep getting attention: I see it as the sheep braying in fear and spiritual suffering and that is what “god” is responding to. The sheep is in pain and asking for assistance so god responds.

Interesting type of article where the title sounds one way and then the bulk of it goes off in a different direction. Even at the bottom of the instant salvation meme is cause and effect. I think the cause and effect idea is part of the wallpaper of 3D. To truly step outside of this, or to initiate a cause that is original and not a part of other chains of cause and effect is a TALL order. To even consider it is mind-boggling at least partly because cause and effect is the fabric of the mind.

perhaps a somewhat Darwinian interpretation? maby we can say that the 3d tends to interpret metamorphosis as a game of cause/effect. Thing that is obviously not. What the author has tried to do here ( grossly in my opinion) is to focus on embody what you already are, a conduit.

 

[luc]

Is that your impression of what some people have shared here? FWIW I do understand the frustration that can sometimes come from not being able to connect as well with people due to their not taking on the understanding you acquired from the piece and wanted to share about.

I think you misunderstood (I was not clear perhaps), I was referring to the author being potentially understood as saying you can be instant-saved without putting effort into it (the trope still popular among some protestants/evangelicals). I didn't mean the people who responded here!

 

[Joe]

I liked it, and I think the guy has a good understanding of a deeper reality, although he only has the bible as a reference and context. Basically, there are (at least) two, let's say 'opposing', futures already existing for each of us. Our job in the here and now is, first and foremost, to recognize that as a general Truth, secondly to figure out the general nature of those two future realities, and thirdly to determine how our thoughts, words and deeds every day might be aligning us with one or other of those two futures. Which 'call' from one or other of those future selves have we (unwittingly) been 'listening' to or 'tuning in' to.

It's the difference between the cause and effect idea he speaks of, of making successive choices that attempt to create a future that doesn't yet exist, and making a definitive and singular 'choice' that is, in a given moment, all-encompassing, that locks in an alignment with a future that already exists. Once that is done, the rest is gravy. That is perhaps 'crossing the threshold' in esoteric terminology.

Until then, there is what we experience as struggle and suffering, when all we had to do was, 'just choose' - or so we will realize at some point in the 'future'. That's when we do the biggest facepalm of our lives.

 

[Ryan]

I think you misunderstood (I was not clear perhaps), I was referring to the author being potentially understood as saying you can be instant-saved without putting effort into it (the trope still popular among some protestants/evangelicals). I didn't mean the people who responded here!

Fwiw, I found there to be a large amount of mainstream Christian gloss on this piece. Although I do understand the author's point and line of force in his argument, and agree with him in essence, I think his signal is not-inconsiderably distorted at times, and some of that distortion does indeed have the "flavour" of Protestant Insta-Save™.

 

[Joe]

I liked it, and I think the guy has a good understanding of a deeper reality, although he only has the bible as a reference and context. Basically, there are (at least) two, let's say 'opposing', futures already existing for each of us. Our job in the here and now is, first and foremost, to recognize that as a general Truth, secondly to figure out the general nature of those two future realities, and thirdly to determine how our thoughts, words and deeds every day might be aligning us with one or other of those two futures. Which 'call' from one or other of those future selves have we (unwittingly) been 'listening' to or 'tuning in' to.

It's the difference between the cause and effect idea he speaks of, of making successive choices that attempt to create a future that doesn't yet exist, and making a definitive and singular 'choice' that is, in a given moment, all-encompassing, that locks in an alignment with a future that already exists. Once that is done, the rest is gravy. That is perhaps 'crossing the threshold' in esoteric terminology.

Until then, there is what we experience as struggle and suffering, when all we had to do was, 'just choose' - or so we will realize at some point in the 'future'. That's when we do the biggest facepalm of our lives.

Basically, we have no "free will", except that which relates to aligning ourselves with one 'higher will' or another, which, once chosen, involves the struggle to remove the impediments to the chosen will acting through us in our daily lives.

 

[Anthony]

In that case, it would be as if we were given free will in order to realize or choose our true nature and where we fit within the totality of existence, to ultimately surrender it back to the source once we're finally fed up (through suffering) with using it to chase illusions.

From Ibn Arabi:

“Things” have no existence in themselves except as places of manifestation or reflections of the expressions of primordial Unity.
[...]
Each “thing” manifests Oneness according to its nature, capacity and possibility, and this also has two aspects: insofar as the thing manifests the One, it possesses an immense and unfathomable dignity, which is its own true oneness; insofar as the thing appears as itself, it is transient, limited and “other” than the One.
[...]
The universe, from the smallest particle to the furthest galaxy, manifests the light of compassion that flows from the Divine Name, the All-Compassionate (al-Rahmän). Yet each part of the universe can only reflect that light according to itself, its limited nature.

 

[iamthatis]

Indeed, I think we can't look at these things as "either/or", which can make it frustrating. I like the formulation "there is nothing to do; therefore you must work tremendously hard!" There must be some kind of balance between faith in "our future selves" or whatever, that things unfold precisely as they are supposed to and always will, and the idea that we are the creators of our future selves and that every action counts. Both things seem to be true in a sense, and part of the art of living is to keep both in mind, and apply each perspective appropriately.

I found the talk where Wilber mentions this formulation on YouTube. It's pretty short, only a few minutes long. His manner of approach leans towards the language of Eastern mysticism, although from what I remember his work draws from many different sources, from Kant to the Buddha.

He talks about the seeming paradoxic of being witness to the horrors of the world (he mentions missing plutonium) and also understanding that everything is okay as it is.

Another good part his mention of cleaning your own house before fixing the world. This was years before Peterson, but it's the same principle. "Let your presence be something that other individuals look at and go, 'I would like to be like that'... and if you're really repulsive, you'll become an activist!'

It was very interesting for me to revisit this vid after an interceding period of 12 years. I sure didn't really get the message all those years ago! I became one of those repulsive ones. In a way it was also an understandable phase. 'I' was feeling under constant threat by destructive social forces, and so the control dramas began. Activism is kinda like cause-and-effect run amok. This occurs because there is no spiritual understanding of the higher order of meaning to the crises on the planet - challenges that are opportunities to grow.

Without Faith in higher realms, then people can easily be nudged into thinking they have to take the world on their shoulders. It's like trying to erase the black half of the yin-yang. 'No - black is bad! We must eradicate evil!' I think evil loves this kinda thing.

 

[ELT]

One step onto the path and the end of that path will determine your actions. One step onto that path and the outcome is already fixed and will begin revealing itself in your life.

I see here a parallel with the concept of Frequency Resonance Vibration.

The Wave Chapter 28 :
Every time we choose, based on knowledge and love2, rather than chemical-emotional love or love based on assumptions and wishful thinking, we are giving a push to the swing of amplifying our Frequency Resonance Vibration (FRV), our vibratory signature. Such amplification increases our polarization and we grow.

2 To love is to seek knowledge of the beloved. To know is to love.

Repentance involves that deep life altering desire to change the full orientation of our lives.

This can be linked with orientating toward the thought centers of Being or Non-being, as already mentioned in previous posts.

It also appears necessary to me that to "change the full orientation of our lives" one must first make a conscious choice and act on it. It can't merely happen by "snapping the fingers", as can be interpreted as such in the following :

In our materialist view we tend to see growing in Christ something that involves a lot of effort or work on our part as if it involved participation on our part, doing the work, making good choices. Spiritual growth is not really about us doing anything.

I share @iamthatis' view above, particularly that it seems we live in a realm were both Cause-and-Effect AND the 'end' determining our present choices (the thought center by which we act), are at play in what is being manifested here-now.

It's tempting to think about these two paths in terms of an either/or proposition. Do we choose a kind of cause-and-effect? Or a kind of fatalism? To me it makes more sense to say both are valuable for the Work, and set them in right relationship with each other.

Even though this essay has many valuable points, I take it with a grain of salt with the biblical gloss being at its foundation.
I haven't seen @luc's remark at first.

I actually added something along the lines of "we need to be on guard about the evangelical instant salvation trope"

Ashworth's 'three phase progression' has been helpful for me to think about all this.

Would you have a link redirecting to it please ? (I've read in @nicklebleu's post that it's from Paul’s Necessary Sin (?))

I realize that I might be anthropomorphizing God in an inappropriate way, he being essentially unknowable?

I wouldn't say "unknowable", but rather 'it being essentially all there is'; and that we are exactly moving towards knowing it through our experience of Life - to then supposedly become One with It.
(by saying "he" you are indeed anthropomorphizing it)
Us being a vehicle for God to experience Itself through Its Creation. We are God, one and the same.

Q: (L) Okay, what other illusions?
A: Monotheism, the belief in one separate, all-powerful entity.
Q: (T) Is separate the key word in regard to Monotheism?
A: Yes.

In addition to:

A: Right. And when two things each have absolutely no limits, they are precisely the same thing.

Do two things become exactly the same thing once knowing each other perfectly ?

We are sinners (or in Cs terms STO), but still in our imperfection and struggle, we deserve HIS (whoever that might be) forgiveness. For me is seems to be the flip-side of Free Will - why would God imbue us with Free Will, only to harshly criticize and punish us for our failures?

I may see what you mean, by the idea that we 'fell from Eden' by reaching for self-pleasuring.
However, I wouldn't call us "sinners" but "learners" instead. A "sin" implies the moral concept of "good and bad", which ultimately don't exist. There is no such thing, it is what it is.

The Wave Chapter 15:

This distressed me because, while I was ready to “adjust” my Christian position, I was not quite prepared to toss the whole thing out the window. I mean, after all, through all the years of study and investigation, it had been there in the background. When I took the position that I was questioning the existence of a god at all, that was altogether different. There I was asking a question. But, in deciding that Christianity was just simply wrong, foundationally wrong because if there was no original sin from which to be saved, there was no necessity for a savior, then that was an altogether different thing. It amounted to making a choice.

To quote Gurdjieff from somewhere in the forum (if you have the exact sentence, please share it) :
"There is no morality, but there is Conscience."

 

[iamthatis]

Would you have a link redirecting to it please ? (I've read in @nicklebleu's post that it's from Paul’s Necessary Sin (?))

Yes, that's the book in question. Here you go!

Paul's Necessary Sin: The Experience of Liberation - Pauline Christianity = PaleoChristianity

Laura recently recommended the following book by Timothy Ashworth (who happens to be a Quaker): https://www.amazon.com/Pauls-Necessary-Sin-Experience-Liberation-dp-1138379158/dp/1138379158/ I just started reading it yesterday, and so far am only through the first chapter or two, but already I...

cassiopaea.org