Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
A Quiet Space | moderated by Clive Elwell

Cause and Effect


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 210 in total
Tue, 18 Jul 2017 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3570 posts in this forum Offline

Dan wrote:

.."when we view cause apart from effect, there is an illusory time interval which leads us to the wrong conclusion and on this wrong conclusion all your philosophies are based. The cause passing through time becomes modified. The moment there is an effect, the cause cannot be in the distance. They are together although you may take time to perceive it. But the effect is where the cause is, that is, the moment you are aware of `what is,' which is the cause, the effect is also there. Therefore there is transformation"

This is from the QOTD and I am trying to get my head around it...If I take a physical example (K. uses 'anger' as his example) say 'when it rains the streets get wet'. The cause is the rain, the effect is wet streets. I separate them in my thinking but there actually is no separation, the 'rain' and the 'wet streets' are simultaneous...He says there is a beauty in understanding this and I sense there is. Can anyone comment on this? Is the "wrong conclusion" he mentions above in the quote, the separation of cause and effect?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Jul 2017 #2
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3570 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
If I take a physical example (K. uses 'anger' as his example) say 'when it rains the streets get wet'. The cause is the rain, the effect is wet streets. I separate them in my thinking but there actually is no separation, the 'rain' and the 'wet streets' are simultaneous...

This is indeed intriguing. This is a good example that you give, Dan. When I consider it I see that yes, I do separate in my mind the phenomena as cause and affect, as essentially separate. Why is this? Yes, there is a sort of hidden assumption that there must exist a stage where it is raining but the streets are not yet wet! Sounds silly when one voices it!

I will take your questions to the Laundrette with me, and see if anything comes. Hmm, it is hard not to think that putting coins in the machine, and the machine starting to turn, as cause and effect. I mean they ARE. We know they are. But really we are discussing the psychological, are we not?

I take the liberty of starting a new thread on this one, Dan

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 19 Jul 2017 #3
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3570 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
when we view cause apart from effect, there is an illusory time interval which leads us to the wrong conclusion and on this wrong conclusion all your philosophies are based.

Is saying that the" wrong conclusion" is that effect B follows from cause A, or is some other conclusion inferred?

I must admit that at the moment I cannot understand a single sentence in K's words.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Wed, 19 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 19 Jul 2017 #4
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 718 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Is saying that the" wrong conclusion" is that effect B follows from cause A, or is some other conclusion inferred?

Thank you Clive for starting a new thread with this. After some thought about it, I think it broadly refers to 'identification'. That to be identified in any way will have consequences. The 'identification' is the 'cause' and the 'effects' will be those consequences. So when the consequence occurs, say anger, jealousy, pleasure etc, the cause (identification) is "close by". But it's not 'seen' the consequence is connected (integrally) with the cause (identification). If that were seen, then it would be obvious that one must occur with the other, they are joined.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 19 Jul 2017 #5
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

K:we view cause apart from effect………….. on this wrong conclusion all your philosophies are based.

If we belief that there are separate causes for things, we will always find the separate self there.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 19 Jul 2017 #6
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1837 posts in this forum Offline

I did a quick site search and found this excerpt from K on the topic:

"As has already been stated, the conditioned experience of yesterday meets the present which is always new, and modifies the present according to yesterday's conditioning. This modification is taking place continuously with no time-interval and therefore there is no moment in time when the cause and the effect are two distinct things separate and distant from each other. The whole is one continuous process and the action is a continuous stream where the cause, the effect and the modifier are all one and the same. Why is it that the actor does not realise that he is at the same time the cause, the effect and the modifier? You are sorrow (i.e. today); you are the cause of sorrow (i.e. tomorrow); yet you want to avoid sorrow. Today's experience has been conditioned by yesterday's and it will condition the experience of tomorrow. Therefore, psychological time is created by memory and does not exist except as memory ever undergoing modification. As long as the actor is the result of yesterday in conjunction with the present, he will be the modifier also. Cause and effect and their modification are all fluid and in a state of flux, they are never steady. You are the cause and the modifier always living and moving, always going on as one continuous process. If you realise this, then to you, time as a process of understanding ceases."

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 19 Jul 2017 #7
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 718 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
K. "You are sorrow (i.e. today); you are the cause of sorrow (i.e. tomorrow); yet you want to avoid sorrow. Today's experience has been conditioned by yesterday's and it will condition the experience of tomorrow."

Why is 'sorrow' today, the 'cause' of sorrow tomorrow?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 19 Jul 2017 #8
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1837 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Why is 'sorrow' today, the 'cause' of sorrow tomorrow?

Is it that sorrows breeds attachment and attachment breeds sorrow? Sorrow is both cause and effect.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 19 Jul 2017 #9
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 718 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
If we believe that there are separate causes for things, we will always find the separate self there.

Yes I think that is what is being pointed at here. It is the 'ignorance' of the 'self' that considers 'nationalism' say, as benign, even valuable. But nationalism is inevitably the 'cause' behind war, violence, destruction. They are all one thing. To attempt to understand or eliminate war, violence etc. without seeing the integral part nationalism plays in the process is futile. Same with jealousy,i.e., to not see, realize,the role dependance is playing, is to place the two apart psychologically and treat them as separate cause and effect when they are in fact one.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 19 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 19 Jul 2017 #10
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 718 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
K.-But the effect is where the cause is, that is, the moment you are aware of `what is,' which is the cause, the effect is also there.

I am dependent on someone because they give me pleasure, companionship, a safety from loneliness etc. and at the same time there can be awareness of the jealousy, sorrow, violence, etc potential in that 'dependancy'. If the 'both' sides of dependance were seen at once would it be avoided? (like the proverbial 'snake' or 'precipice'?)

Probably not, especially if the pleasure part is present and the pain part is seen only as a potentiality.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 19 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 19 Jul 2017 #11
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
K. "You are sorrow (i.e. today); you are the cause of sorrow (i.e. tomorrow); yet you want to avoid sorrow. Today's experience has been conditioned by yesterday's and it will condition the experience of tomorrow."

Dan McDermott wrote:
Why is 'sorrow' today, the 'cause' of sorrow tomorrow?

Re#7

This is only true when it is seen from the view point of the separate self.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 19 Jul 2017 #12
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1837 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
If the 'both' sides of dependance were seen at once would it be avoided? (like the proverbial 'snake' or 'precipice'?)

Not if 'I'm' separate from what is seen...from the precipice.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 19 Jul 2017 #13
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3570 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
If we belief that there are separate causes for things, we will always find the separate self there.

Yes. In fact the only “evidence” for thinking an effect is separate from a cause, or follows on from a cause, is exactly that – thinking. That is, there is no real evidence, it is always a matter of knowledge, basically of believing that the two are separate.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 19 Jul 2017 #14
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3570 posts in this forum Offline

Like Tom, I did a bit of internet searching on this topic. Something that K says repeatedly is that in nature there are fixed causes-effects.....for example, if you plant an acorn and the conditions are right, an oak tree will grow. Nothing else. But he suggests (and others do also) that the human mind is not so fixed, there is some uncertainty as to the effect of a particular cause, and this is a factor of uniqueness in the human mind.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 19 Jul 2017 #15
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3570 posts in this forum Offline

K wrote:
But the effect is where the cause is, that is, the moment you are aware of `what is,' which is the cause, the effect is also there. Therefore there is transformation"

To use the example that Dan did, is he saying if it seen that dependency inevitablly bring about the pain of attachment, jealousy, then it is dropped?

But "brings about" is still in the realm of cause and effect. Better to say dependency and jealousy are integrally one. Yet if they are one, how is it that the dependency can be, for a time, experienced as pleasure, not as the pain which is contained within it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 20 Jul 2017 #16
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
how is it that the dependency can be, for a time, experienced as pleasure, not as the pain which is contained within it?

Re#15

Clive you are separating an experience into a “negative” and a “positive” part.

You are dividing dependency into a positive (pleasure) and a negative (jealousy)part,
and think when the negative part is seen then dependency can be dropped.

But the “positive” part is the same illusion.

Thought is superimposing on awareness/consciousness and says on time "I don't like that", and an other time "I like that".

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 21 Jul 2017 #17
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3570 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
Clive you are separating an experience into a “negative” and a “positive” part.

Actually I am not. I am inquiring. I am not judging as negative or positive, I am not dividing into like/dislike, I am looking at the whole phenomena.

This was, my basic question:

Clive Elwell wrote:
But "brings about" is still in the realm of cause and effect. Better to say dependency and jealousy are integrally one. Yet if they are one, how is it that the dependency can be, for a time, experienced as pleasure, not as the pain which is contained within it?

But it is true that the same experience can be perceived, at different times, as either pleasurable or painful. Generally what starts off as pleasurable eventually becomes a source of pain. So one cause can have different effects.

Olive B wrote:
and think when the negative part is seen then dependency can be dropped.

No, I don't think that. I don't think we can simply choose to drop anything - if that was possible, why is it that people live with so many problems, with so much suffering? I question if dependency itself can 'be dropped'. We might swap one dependency with another, but the roots of dependency are there. But this perhaps is departing from the main issue.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 21 Jul 2017 #18
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3570 posts in this forum Offline

So is it an over-simplification of K's words to say that psychogically cause-effect is an illusion?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 21 Jul 2017 #19
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3570 posts in this forum Offline

So is it an over-simplification of K's words to say that psychogically cause-effect is an illusion?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 21 Jul 2017 #20
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
how is it that the dependency can be, for a time, experienced as pleasure, not as the pain which is contained within it?

Re#17

(Read you/someone)

You interprets an experience which you call dependency one time as pleasure and an other time as pain.

Pain or pleasure are not contained in the experience which you call dependency it is your interpretation of the experience at that time.

Any experience that arises is neutral.

It is thought /separate self that interprets the experience.

Clive Elwell wrote:
But it is true that the same experience can be perceived, at different times, as either pleasurable or painful.

You can’t perceive the same experience at different times.

It is an new/other experience which you(as the separate self) interprets at that moment.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 23 Jul 2017 #21
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3570 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
You interprets an experience which you call dependency one time as pleasure and an other time as pain.

Yes, which points out to us the limited nature of interpretation.

Olive B wrote:
Pain or pleasure are not contained in the experience which you call dependency it is your interpretation of the experience at that time.

I am not sure of this, Olive. I tend to think that when an experience is laid down in the mind, in memory, it is not merely factual, a verbal or pictorial description, it carried an emotional tag. Hurt would be a good example. This implies that there are no 'neutral' thoughts, none that do not contain some element of pleasure or pain - or perhaps both.

Olive B wrote:
You can’t perceive the same experience at different times.

Olive B wrote:
You can’t perceive the same experience at different times.
It is an new/other experience which you(as the separate self) interprets at that moment.

One is talking of the memory of an experience. In fact, all experience is memory, at least that is how I use the word. We have touched on this before, Olive. In the present there is experiencING, which is not of memory, and is free of interpretation.

This is why I am dubious of the motif in your signature:

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 23 Jul 2017 #22
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:

Olive B wrote:

You interprets an experience which you call dependency one time as pleasure and an other time as pain.

Clive:Yes, which points out to us the limited nature of interpretation.

It points out that experience is neutral and thought conceptualizes a multiplicity and diversity of names and forms.

Clive Elwell wrote:
experience is laid down in the mind, in memory, it is not merely factual, a verbal or pictorial description, it carried an emotional tag.

So experience is neutral, and thought is superimposing/tag on experience.

Clive Elwell wrote:
there are no 'neutral' thoughts,

Of course there are no “neutral thoughts”, a thought is an interpretation of experience .

Clive Elwell wrote:
none that do not contain some element of pleasure or pain - or perhaps both.

The word “contain (have or hold)” implies that thought already holds a label/tag.

Clive Elwell wrote:
Hurt would be a good example.

Experience is neural. Experience take the form of a thought, in this case the thought “hurt”

So, thought covers experience with the label/tag “hurt”.

Hurt is no experience. Hurt is the label/thought you give to (an)experience.

Thought interprets experience from moment to moment.

Clive Elwell wrote:
In fact, all experience is memory,

Experience is no memory.

Memory is a thought of a experience.

Experience is always in the present.

You can’t have an experience in the past/future.

This is why you're dubious of the motif in my signature,”Experience alone must be the test of reality.”

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 23 Jul 2017 #23
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 718 posts in this forum Offline

Definition of experience

a : direct observation of or participation in events as a basis of knowledge

b : the fact or state of having been affected by or gained knowledge through direct observation or participation

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 23 Jul 2017 #24
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 551 posts in this forum Offline

K: "Experience is one thing, and experiencing is another. Experience is a barrier to the state of experiencing. However pleasant or ugly the experience, it prevents the flowering of experiencing. Experience is already in the net of time, it is already in the past, it has become a memory which comes to life only as a response to the present. Life is the present, it is not the experience. The weight and the strength of experience shadow the present, and so experiencing becomes the experience. The mind is the experience, the known, and it can never be in the state of experiencing; for what it experiences is the continuation of experience. The mind only knows continuity, and it can never receive the new as long as its continuity exists. What is continuous can never be in a state of experiencing. Experience is not the means to experiencing, which is a state without experience. Experience must cease for experiencing to be.

The mind can invite only its own self-projection, the known. There cannot be the experiencing of the unknown until the mind ceases to experience. Thought is the expression of experience; thought is a response of memory; and as long as thinking intervenes, there can be no experiencing. There is no means, no method to put an end to experience; for the very means is a hindrance to experiencing. To know the end is to know continuity, and to have a means to the end is to sustain the known. The desire for achievement must fade away; it is this desire that creates the means and the end. Humility is essential for experiencing. But how eager is the mind to absorb the experiencing into experience! How swift it is to think about the new and thus make of it the old! So it establishes the experiencer and the experienced, which gives birth to the conflict of duality.

In the state of experiencing, there is neither the experiencer nor the experienced. The tree, the dog and the evening star are not to be experienced by the experiencer; they are the very movement of experiencing. There is no gap between the observer and the observed; there is no time, no spatial interval for thought to identify itself. Thought is utterly absent, but there is being. This state of being cannot be thought of or meditated upon, it is not a thing to be achieved. The experiencer must cease to experience, and only then is there being. In the tranquillity of its movement is the timeless."

Commentaries on living first series chapter 12

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sun, 23 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Jul 2017 #25
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3570 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
Experience is no memory.

I am not sure if this different perception between us is only a matter of word definition or not.

Surely, Olive, for an experience (I am using the word as a noun) to 'exist', it has to be remembered, does it not? It has to be brought to mind. If it is remembered, then it is part of thought, is it not? Whereas you are drawing a clear distinction between thought and experience.

Do you think experience has some independent existence?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Jul 2017 #26
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1837 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Surely, Olive, for an experience (I am using the word as a noun) to 'exist', it has to be remembered, does it not? It has to be brought to mind. If it is remembered, then it is part of thought, is it not?

But in the present moment of experiencing there is no memory....obviously, since it's in the present. Only later, is it recalled...remembered. In Olives signature, I think she is referring to experience in the present moment...experiencing...the verb. This experiencing reveals reality. However as our friend Max used to say, 'there's no 'you' in experiencing'. So experience reveals that you are NOT....not separate. But we want to know what we are. We are the known. And there's no knowing in experiencing. "To know the end is to know continuity, and to have a means to the end is to sustain the known. "(K)

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 24 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Jul 2017 #27
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Do you think experience has some independent existence?

Re#25

Yes Clive I do, because experience is all we know.

Experience does not manifest through a body/mind .

All experience is through awareness/consciousness alone.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Jul 2017 #28
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3570 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
Experience does not manifest through a body/mind .

All experience is through awareness/consciousness alone.

If it has an independent existence, can you tell me WHERE it exists?

Perhaps we shoud take a fresh start of this. What, to you Olive, is an experience?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Jul 2017 #29
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
What, to you Olive, is .. experience?

Re#28

We see, hear, touch, tast, smell the world, but our only knowledge of the world is these 5 perceptions.

The experience of seeing, hearing touching tasting smelling.

There is seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, smelling.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Jul 2017 #30
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 718 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
There is seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, smelling.

Didn't you leave out 'thinking' Olive, which can 'color' everything seen, heard, touched, tasted and smelled? (and does!)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 210 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)