Originally posted by _wanderer_:
Yes rather go through proper training on Madhyamika under the
guidance of authentic teachers.
Yes Yound one.
You are right on the point that correlation is not the same as
causal relation. However we got to give John Winters the benefit of
doubt when he includes karma. Is karma a definite causal relation
or merely tendency to be? That is, is it relevant to explain
karma this way correlation between cause and effect?
On a relative level, the law of causation must always involve
time and the definite recurrence of events. That is, an event
(E1) after time interval (T1) must occur without fail after the
presence of conditions C1,C2,C3... The law of cause and effect has
been the main pillar of inductive science and is also our ruling
belief system in this era. The question is, is this merely a
mechanism for the thinking mind to understand the phenomena
universe or is this truth? At the ultimate level, what role do
time, cause and effect play is the question. The answer must be
experiential and alive, not theoritical.
When the term "negation" is used, one has to be extremely
careful.
For Nagarjuna's point is not to affirm nor negate. For affirmation
lends towards eternalism, while negation lends towards nihilism -
both of which are extreme views.
In Nagarjuna's "No", there are always many many "Yes's".
When statements such as "there is no truly existing self and
phenomena" are made, we readers often take it to mean a "negation
of self and phenomena".
Very very well said young one.
And of course no propositions are offered, because "the viewless
view is the highest view". If with analysis, we end up finding a
"view", then it is an indication that we are clinging.
A moment arises and subsides instantly yet it is timeless.
Established no views so that timelessness can be experienced.
However thought always think that non-establishment of views equals
demolishing all views and this is natural when the mind is
dualistic. It only knows either this or that, the many many "Yes's"
are not seen.