Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Predestination Versus Elements of Randomness in Conditionality

Expand Messages
  • upasaka@aol.com
    Hi, all - There is one question with regard to conditionality in general and to choice in particular that does seem to me to be rather important: Let us
    Message 1 of 5 , Jun 7, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi, all -

      There is one question with regard to conditionality in general and to
      "choice" in particular that does seem to me to be rather important:
      Let us assume, for the moment at least, that there is NO element of
      (intrinsic) randomness ever involved in the arising of phenomena, so that for
      *every* phenomenon, P, there is a set, S, of requisite conditions such
      that if all the phenomena in S have occurred, P MUST occur, but should any
      phenomenon in S be missing, P CANNOT occur.
      It seems to me that if this is true, then so is it true that at any
      moment, whatever will occur from that point in time onwards is fully
      predetermined, with no possible alteration. In particular, for some worldlings, the
      "die has been cast" determining that they MUST eventually awaken, but for
      others it is entirely determined that awakening can NEVER occur.
      If I am making an error here, I would appreciate a clear explanation
      of it.

      With metta,
      Howard

      P. S. This matter is independent of the issue of anatta, though there may
      well be confusion on that point on the part of some. In fact, an element of
      randomness does not in the slightest support an atta-view.



      Seamless Interdependence

      /A change in anything is a change in everything/

      (Anonymous)

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • colette_aube
      GOOD MORNING HOWARD! (laughing) I GOT YA! Your points are very well made and I get the picture that you re painting. There ya go, THE LAW OF DEMINISHING
      Message 2 of 5 , Jun 7, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        GOOD MORNING HOWARD!

        (laughing) I GOT YA! Your points are very well made and I get the picture that you're painting. There ya go, THE LAW OF DEMINISHING RETURNS rears it's ugliness. There can be NO SUCH THING as "randomness". We can suggest that "EVERYTHING" is predetermined so that the creationists can have a little pre-cum dribbling down their cheek thus keeping them thirsty so that they can prove that there is a "CREATOR DEITY" and the Corporate Executive is a good representation of that Deity, yet the second that we suggest this existence of a type of CONTROL being extended to something we raise the issue of CHAOS i.e. either there is ORDER (thus CONTROL) or there is CHAOS. Those Jack Off-Icers cannot stand for the existence of or the chance of the existence of CHAOS since their only mantra is to program robots, educate children, CONDITION, via the glory of CONTROL and ORDER. Even the Brahman Caste that gave us THE BUDDHA from the Hindus of India have known that an addiction to CONTROL exists. How else can we think of the existence of MEDITATION without first recognizing the fluid state of consciousness which is THE MIND.

        We could save the ORTHODOX a lot of head aches and trouble but we've already planted the bija known as THE ALAYA-VIJNANA. "Racing thoughts" are a characteristic of a Turbulent Mind and CONTROL of the MIND is one of the first objectives in the application of MEDITATION. They, the ORTHODOX, cannot escape the TRUTH of the Alaya-Vijnana (storehouse consciousness) existing.

        Thank You, Howard, for posing such a humorous TRUTH to us, so that I could wake up as the children were going out the door on their way to school, and find your humor waiting to brighten my day and start my day on a GOOD NOTE.

        toodles,
        colette

        --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote:
        >
        > Hi, all -
        >
        > There is one question with regard to conditionality in general and to
        > "choice" in particular that does seem to me to be rather important:
        > Let us assume, for the moment at least, that there is NO element of
        > (intrinsic) randomness ever involved in the arising of phenomena, so that for
        > *every* phenomenon, P, there is a set, S, of requisite conditions such
        > that if all the phenomena in S have occurred, P MUST occur, but should any
        > phenomenon in S be missing, P CANNOT occur.
        > It seems to me that if this is true, then so is it true that at any
        > moment, whatever will occur from that point in time onwards is fully
        > predetermined, with no possible alteration. In particular, for some worldlings, the
        > "die has been cast" determining that they MUST eventually awaken, but for
        > others it is entirely determined that awakening can NEVER occur.
        > If I am making an error here, I would appreciate a clear explanation
        > of it.
        <...>
      • truth_aerator
        Hello Howard, all, You have made good points and expressed it much better than I could. I would also like to add this point: Even if there was total
        Message 3 of 5 , Jun 7, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello Howard, all,

          You have made good points and expressed it much better than I could.

          I would also like to add this point: Even if there was total randomness, it like complete determination refutes the ability of the present to influence the future. I have been reading some philosophical things, and this issue is very complex.

          There are even hints of "retro-causality" (at least on QM levels), ability to influence the past?! There are hints that there may be multiple universes with all possible outcomes already existing. It seems beyond much dispute that time is a dimension that can, in theory, be traveled like space.

          It is not impossible that time is relative. This means that past, present and future exists - just like two cities exist in different locations. But of course, I ask myself "how is this relevant to experience". For whatever reason we experience only the present, so how much is this all relevant?

          I guess it is important to investigate experience and not hold "extreme" views, and do what one considers to be the wisest and most appropriate.

          IMHO,
          With metta,

          Alex
        • upasaka@aol.com
          Hi, Alex - In a message dated 6/7/2012 11:37:07 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@yahoo.ca writes: Hello Howard, all, You have made good points and
          Message 4 of 5 , Jun 7, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi, Alex -

            In a message dated 6/7/2012 11:37:07 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
            truth_aerator@... writes:

            Hello Howard, all,

            You have made good points and expressed it much better than I could.

            I would also like to add this point: Even if there was total randomness,
            it like complete determination refutes the ability of the present to
            influence the future. I have been reading some philosophical things, and this
            issue is very complex.

            There are even hints of "retro-causality" (at least on QM levels), ability
            to influence the past?! There are hints that there may be multiple
            universes with all possible outcomes already existing. It seems beyond much
            dispute that time is a dimension that can, in theory, be traveled like space.

            It is not impossible that time is relative. This means that past, present
            and future exists - just like two cities exist in different locations. But
            of course, I ask myself "how is this relevant to experience". For whatever
            reason we experience only the present, so how much is this all relevant?

            I guess it is important to investigate experience and not hold "extreme"
            views, and do what one considers to be the wisest and most appropriate.
            ----------------------------------------------------------
            HCW:
            To be honest about it, neither of us knows much about what is what
            (LOL!), but I think that what you say in this last sentence of yours is
            right-on-target, and we should just do the best we can, conditions allowing.
            -------------------------------------------------------------



            IMHO,
            With metta,

            Alex
            ===============================
            With metta,
            Howard


            Seamless Interdependence

            /A change in anything is a change in everything/

            (Anonymous)


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • truth_aerator
            Hello Howard, all, ... Right. Who knows what underlies experience. Mind, matter, fish in LSD ocean hallucinating our world, brain-in-the-vat created by evil
            Message 5 of 5 , Jun 7, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Hello Howard, all,

              >----------------------------------------------------------
              >HCW: To be honest about it, neither of us knows much about what is >what (LOL!),
              >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

              Right. Who knows what underlies experience. Mind, matter, fish in LSD ocean hallucinating our world, brain-in-the-vat created by evil scientist, G-D, or evil demon? If the world is made of matter, is it possible that there is only one atom that exists? Is 5 minute hypothesis true? Retro-causality? Multiple universe? Etc etc. I've read so much that I can't be surprised.

              We can't be certain of many things. But, IMHO, this is why I prefer to emphasize experience and pragmatic, experiential and logical teachings.

              With best wishes,

              Alex
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.