Reddit Reddit reviews Mutual Causality in Buddhism and General Systems Theory: The Dharma of Natural Systems (Suny Series, Buddhist Studies) (SUNY Series in Buddhist Studies)

We found 6 Reddit comments about Mutual Causality in Buddhism and General Systems Theory: The Dharma of Natural Systems (Suny Series, Buddhist Studies) (SUNY Series in Buddhist Studies). Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Religion & Spirituality
Books
Buddhism
Mutual Causality in Buddhism and General Systems Theory: The Dharma of Natural Systems (Suny Series, Buddhist Studies) (SUNY Series in Buddhist Studies)
Used Book in Good Condition
Check price on Amazon

6 Reddit comments about Mutual Causality in Buddhism and General Systems Theory: The Dharma of Natural Systems (Suny Series, Buddhist Studies) (SUNY Series in Buddhist Studies):

u/hlinha · 2 pointsr/TheMindIlluminated

>However, the real question is: "Even if I knew the answer to that question, would it affect my decision making while I am alive?". As far as I am concerned: "No it would not". Therefore, the whole dilemma is irrelevant, for me. Or as in the link you posted: "This questions belongs to the category to: best put aside."

Yep, I think so. Thank you for the reminder on Sapolsky, he is brilliant. I watched something like 10 episodes of that series a few years ago. His Behave has been sitting untouched on my bookshelf for quite some time so maybe it's time to give it a look?

As Culadasa's approach in TMI jives well with you, you might also find that Joanna Macy's Mutual Causality in Buddhism and General Systems Theory: The Dharma of Natural Systems of interest. He has recommended it emphatically a number of times.

u/Dr_Shevek · 2 pointsr/TheMindIlluminated

The thoughts are just the manifestation of something deeper, I think realizing that thoughts have causes does not per se exclude free will. The whole topic of free will vs determinism has a specific framing to it that heavily relies on the western understanding of causality and the logic of A causes B. Eastern philosophy knows different logics and mutual causality where A and B cause each other. I just started reading about Mutual causality and maybe this can provide a rational stab at the paradox of free will vs determinism. I can't say more yet, sorry.

I just know many Buddhist scholars make the assertion that there is a middle way between the two extremes. But I suspect it as experiences we may have in meditation that can resolve this. Until then I try to avoid falling into extremes and try to dwell in the "don't know mind'

u/cypranius · 2 pointsr/mbti

As a 7w8 ENTP - I find other ENTPs and INTPs annoying if their ideas aren't rooted in practicality. I often also find them willdly speculative. If we can't realize this vision, whats the point? I mean, that being said, I love talking about things just to talk about it, but I still kind of have an end goal. I enjoy talking about radical ideas and systems as a way to change my reality and affect the way I live or do things.

For example, quantam mechanics, relatively useless study for the common person. But I disagree. Quantam mechanics shows that even our greatest scientists, have been wrong. We conceptualize reality to such an extent that our belief blinds us to other perspectives. I care about quantam mechanics because it shows us that reality is much different than we believe. I feel that having such fundamental consensuses about reality affect us personally as people. That is how quantam mechanics is applicable to me. Well, I did read a book connecting quantam theory with buddhism so I may be biased. (Mutual causality, if you're interested)

Space travel? Worm holes? I don't give a fuck about that really. Unless you can connect these to a broader talk about human consciousness and an affect that can have on me or society. Don't care. I could learn about it, sure. But I'm not going to learn in depth to the extent that I could explain it to someone else.

That's where a 7w8s pragmatism comes into play. A 7w8 not only wants to dream, they want to realize their dreams, while a 7w6 or E6 ENTP is going to be more content staying within their heads moreso. A 7w8 wants to see it happen.

u/squidboot · 1 pointr/Buddhism
u/aweddity · 1 pointr/TheMindIlluminated

Context: This comment is technically a reply to an excellent reply by /u/abhayakara, but geared more towards OP u/idigsquirrels. It just seems that a comment I wrote on another thread is highly relevant for this comment-thread. So I copy paste it below (it was reply to u/hlinha):

------

After 4 days: Thanks. I can see how it could appear that I am interested in that whole "self" debate. But I really am not :). For me, the most useful model to view "self" is emergence - self happens (vs self is). The experience of being a "self" emerges from mind-body firing in suitable patterns in the moment. Sometimes I experience self "normally". Sometimes I experience self as "everything I experience". Sometimes I do not experience self at all. Maybe there are more ways of experiencing self. In all cases, self happens in the moment as an emergent property happening over some lower level complexity.

How about belief of having a self / soul / consciousness that exists even after my mind-body dies? Emergence model explains how the experience of believing such a thing happens (it just emerges from a suitable firing pattern). If we limit the experience of anything emerging strictly from this particular biomass, it implies that there is no "life after death". However, we do not know what are the exact rules of any experience emerging. Therefore, we can not rule out the possibility of some form of "self" happening even after death.

However, the real question is: "Even if I knew the answer to that question, would it affect my decision making while I am alive?". As far as I am concerned: "No it would not". Therefore, the whole dilemma is irrelevant, for me. Or as in the link you posted: "This questions belongs to the category: best put aside."

Analogous view that possible existence of God(s) is irrelevant: Apatheism.

Actually, I find it quite fun/beautiful to view that emergence is "the" operating principle of the whole universe(s) on all levels of complexity. Therefore, it might as well be god :D

PS. On Stanford course Human Behavioral Biology, Robert Sapolsky made students practice emergence by simulating cellular automata. According to his experience, some students find it transformative. They are "just at peace". Youtube links:

21. Chaos and Reductionism

22. Emergence and Complexity

------

Later, /u/hlinha added:

>As Culadasa's approach in TMI jives well with you, you might also find that Joanna Macy's Mutual Causality in Buddhism and General Systems Theory: The Dharma of Natural Systems of interest. He has recommended it emphatically a number of times.

u/dreamrabbit · 1 pointr/Buddhism

You might like some of her other work.