[Buddha-l] Dependent arising variants

[Vicente Gonzalez]

Stephen wrote:

SH> Obviously,
SH> birth is a necessary and sufficient condition for death but not the cause.
SH> A cause is an entity or event that imparts a generative force.  If birth is
SH> causal in any sense, it is a cause of life rather than death -- as somebody
SH> else suggested.

at least I think than Dan Lusthaus is right. Causality it's a
faculty of our knowledge. She is not in the perceived things (it is
according with Kant and others). It is the point, I think


SH> Also, if you were to insist that birth is the cause of death, you are making
SH> an arbitrary choice.  Why not embark on a process of infinite regression ?
SH> As Erik implies, the mere fact of our universe itself coming into being is
SH> the ultimate cause of death -- and even then one might argue for further
SH> regression of one accepts recent aspects of string theory.

in that regression using our knowledge, we are not avoiding the
causality between all these phenomena. In fact we are certifying this
in the same progression. This progression is the certainty of the
relation of time and space between them, and it is the definition
of causality. Then just we are investigating the necessariety or
sufficiency of all them in that relation.

In quantics,  scientits use their knowledge in a causal way to
investigate a reality with a non-causal behavior. However, when they
are seeing a non-causal effect arising from a previous causal scenery,
they are forced to establish the causality inside their minds to
satisfy their reason. To satisfy their reason they use mathematics
which is not another thing that a language about time and space.

I think that causality is not only another theory to explain reality
but firstly an explanation of the nature of our knowledge.


SH> So again, I would maintain that dependent arising is not a causal process
SH> but a conditional process.  The Buddha is never reported in the Nikayas as
SH> saying nidana X *causes* nidana Y.  It would have been easy enough to do
SH> this and then the standard account of the nidanas would probably have linked
SH> the items with a causative verb like "uppaadeti" -- but this never happens.

any condition is the knowledge of a causal relation. Precisely, if we
are not able to talk of condition, then we are talking about two
independent phenomena. I think.


SH> Besides, in Buddhist terms, birth is a prajnapti so cannot be causal !

all the phenomena are of causal nature, precisely because we cannot
deny the object of cognition. There are not perceived objects not
subjected to causality. Quantics is science because our reason
can be satisfied in a causal way using mathematics.
Well, I think that if birth is not conditioned from the other nidanas
then it should be from another thing.

I think Buddha use "condition" instead "cause"  because it is an
schema without beginning or end.

If we are seeing a caravan of camels, we don't know why the second
camel walks in second position. Just we can know that the rest are
conditions when they are walking in their own positions.

And if we don't accept the causality between them, we would not be
able to talk of a caravan. Precisely, when we see them in a relation
of time and space, then we named to this "a caravan".


best regards,