Goofaholix wrote:I don't see how that's possible by definition, [...]
acinteyyo wrote:Goofaholix wrote:I don't see how that's possible by definition, [...]
The only interrelation between cause and effect don't have to be necessarily time, the relation between them can also be a logical one.
In my eyes dependent origination (paticcasamuppāda) is an example for cause and effect arising simultaneously.
Action (kamma) and its results (vipāka) is an example for cause and effect arising successively.
best wishes, acinteyyo
It depends on the interrelation of cause and effect. You seem to be concernd only with temporal interrelation. In that case the results obviously have to arise after its cause. There are cases where the cause determines a result logically, where time doesn't play any role at all concerning their interrelation.Alex123 wrote:Wow. Acinteyyo, how can result arise together (at exactly the same time) with its cause?
I knew that this question would come up. It depends on your understanding of paticcasamuppāda. It reminds me of Ven. Ñanavira Thera who said:Alex123 wrote:In the case of paticcasamuppāda there are moments where time plays a role. Ex: how can birth arise at the same time as aging&death?
The Buddha has said (Majjhima Nikaya 28) that he who sees the Dhamma sees paticcasamuppāda; and he has also said that the Dhamma is sanditthika and akālika, that it is immediately visible and without involving time (see in particular Majjhima Nikaya 38). Now it is evident that the twelve items, avijjā to jarāmarana, cannot, if the traditional interpretation is correct, all be seen at once; for they are spread over three successive existences. I may, for example, see present viññāna to vedanā, but I cannot now see the kamma of the past existence—avijjā and sankhārā—that (according to the traditional interpretation) was the cause of these present things. Or I may see tanhā and so on, but I cannot now see the jāti and jarāmarana that will result from these things in the next existence. And the situation is no better if it is argued that since all twelve items are present in each existence it is possible to see them all at once. It is, no doubt, true that all these things can be seen at once, but the avijjā and sankhārā that I now see are the cause (says the traditional interpretation) of viññāna to vedanā in the next existence, and have no causal connexion with the viññāna to vedanā that I now see. In other words, the relation sankhārapaccayā viññānam cannot be seen in either case. The consequence of this is that the paticcasamuppāda formulation (if the traditional interpretation is correct) is something that, in part at least, must be taken on trust. And even if there is memory of the past existence the situation is still unsatisfactory, since memory is not on the same level of certainty as present reflexive experience. Instead of imass'uppādā idam uppajjati, imassa nirodhā idam nirujjhati, 'with arising of this this arises, with cessation of this this ceases', the traditional interpretation says, in effect, imassa nirodhā idam uppajjati, 'with cessation of this, this arises'. It is needless to press this point further: either the reader will already have recognized that this is, for him, a valid objection to the traditional interpretation, or he will not. And if he has not already seen this as an objection, no amount of argument will open his eyes.
PeterB wrote:" time does not play any role at all "..... . Time is dependant too. It is not the field in which things arise.
acinteyyo wrote:It depends on the interrelation of cause and effect. You seem to be concernd only with temporal interrelation. In that case the results obviously have to arise after its cause. There are cases where the cause determines a result logically, where time doesn't play any role at all concerning their interrelation.Alex123 wrote:Wow. Acinteyyo, how can result arise together (at exactly the same time) with its cause?
cooran wrote:Hello all,
My understanding is that the Buddha never taught that there was on cause and one effect. He taught conditionality.
If memory serves me well I think I was reading something related to this in Vism in the Dependent Origination chapter. From my readings, which I hope to confirm later, a cause and effect cannot arise simultaneously.
However, will get back to you on that one.
Ben wrote:I think I well and truly did my head in trying to immerse myself in Buddhaghosa's explanation of dependent origination. I know I've done my head in because I'm going back for another go!
Users browsing this forum: daverupa, Yahoo [Bot] and 20 guests