Robert Gimbel wrote: > In order to have cause and effect, there must be the > dimension of time present. Therefore, these laws do > apply in the relative world of time and sequence. > Can you cite an example of cause and effect which does not exist in time and space? If so, it would be transcendental, that is, beyond space and time. That would be termed Brahman, which is not an object of knowledge. Brahman is a metaphysical or philosophical concept.
> But, in the Transcendent, there is no time, it > doesn't exist. > According to Shankara in his commentary on Brahma Sutras, time is an illusion, but it is real as long as we are experiencing it. It is unreal in the absolute sense, so time, according to Shankara, is not real, yet it is also not unreal - it is maya, that is, indescribable. This is the classic Indian transcendental view. Material determinism does not recognize a transcendental view. Causation is the general law of physics which we ALL experience to one degree or another. In contrast, very few have even postulated the existence of a transcendtal state, mostly the Upanishadic thinkers. > So, when one has an intension, in a place of no-time... > Different laws of nature apply. > This is where miracles occur. > Sure, if Rome's Pilot commanded Jesus to quick; > Perform a miracle for some ego satisfaction.. > It would have been quite difficult to do that; > Because of that consciousness being so literal, > material, time-oriented... > Miracles only occur, outside of time. > It is an experience which cannot be explained in > linear terms. > That's why they call it a miracle; > You must be open to something greater than your ego. > That's all. > Jesus said, that we all could perform miracles > greater than he. > Maybe so, but performing miracles can also get you killed. Look what happened to Simon Magus - he rose up off the ground and Simon Peter didn't like that, so Peter caused him to crash to the ground. Lord Krishna lifted up Govardhan Hill and as a consequence, he killed millions of living beings - a sin. If you are always looking up at the sky you might fall into a ditch, hit your head on a rock and die from drowning. > Why is it so hard to believe, that you could > transcend time, and change anything? > If we could cause change at will, we would be magicians. But in fact, there is no such thing as change, only transformations of energy. Things don't change into other things. And there is no force that enters into the world dividing history into a 'before and after'. There are no chance events - everything happens for a reason. > Why is that so hard to believe? > Because it's not based on common sense. We get all our knowledge from our senses, mainly from our eyes and ears. These are the two primary means of gaining knowledge. Otherwise we must depend on inference and verbal testimony. The most reliable senses that we have are general knowledge based on observation: human excrement always flows downstream. It is just common sense to assume that human waste products will always follow the law of gravity and not fly up into our face for no reason. If we do not use our common sense, we might imagine that monkeys are flying up out of our butts instead of crap, and that instead of a corn cob for wiping we should use a baseball bat or a catchers mitt, and instead of crapping in a stream we should be going to the loo out on a softball field or with baboons inside a zoo cell. Which would be non-sensical, would it not? There's nothing wrong with crapping out in a field, and swatting at crap balls as they fly down to the ground, but most people would probably look askance at your actions. Not to mention that it would require great skill, especially without the crap balls flying up towards your face. Have you tried this? I have, and as a skilled janitor I can tell you that it makes quite a mess to clean up. One guy apparently tried this when he was constipated and almost caused a riot. I reported him to the hall monitor who told him to get the hell out and take a bath in the creek and clean himself and put on some shoes before he went back to class. It would probably be better to use an enclosed brick out house for crapping and meditate inside there, day-dreaming about monkeys and baseball, and swatting flies that you imagine to be balls of crap or monkeys in the shape of crap balls. That way, you could probably avoid being put inside the nut house out house or tied into a bed with a straight jacket and given a bed pan and Prozac. It just makes more common sense to assume that a stream would carry away your waste products rather than try to convince everyone in the third world that the spirits of the dead caused you to expel shit and then swat it into your friend's lap. They might get the wrong idea and think that your were out of your mind and not being practical. > > Curtis wrote: > > > Since none of us actually experience causation... > > > > > You may want to re-think this statement, Curtis. Apparently > > you got confused and went over to the transcendentalist > > point of view without realizing it. If you were a philosophy > > major at MUM, this is understandable. > > > > But, in fact, everyone experiences Causation. Everyone knows > > that human excrement always flows downstream. In philosophy, > > Causation is a relationship that describes and analyses > > cause and effect. > > > > In physics, we get from this the first law of thermodynamics: > > energy can be neither created nor destroyed, which gives rise > > to the second law of thermodynamics involving entropy. > > > > According to most Western philosophers, Causality denotes > > a logical relationship between one physical event, the cause, > > and another physical event, the effect - the cause-effect > relationship. > > > > In the transcendentalist view, (Mandukya Upanishad, Brahma > > Sutras, Yoga Vashishta) there is mention of causality, but > > causality is explained as part of the creation of the universe, > > a concept which is opposed to the deterministic view of modern > > science. > > > > In a deterministic world-view, there is nothing but Causation, > > which has been described as a chain of events following one > > after another according to the law of Causation. > > > > "All causes of things are beginnings; that we have scientific > > knowledge when we know the cause; that to know a thing's > > existence is to know the reason why it is". - Aristotle > > > > "Because of this, that happens". - Gotoma > > > > "Looking at the sky, he fell into a ditch". - Punditster > >
