Co- origination vs. Cause and effect

A question was raised by a student after reading the point of view of philosopher Nagarjuna about the absence of cause and effect in the concept of co-origination.

The Buddha taught us that there is cause and effect, and that there is also oneness in a continuous, uninterrupted, unified, universal consciousness. He also taught us that we use words to describe various phenomena that require experience to give them sense. Thus, the words we use to interpret and exchange about the wisdom given by the Buddha are inadequate to transmit the truth.

From within the oneness, viewed from the point of view of a single isolated observer, one isolated part of the unified universe influencing or reacting to another isolated part of the unified universe, there seems to be cause and effect. However, from the possible perspective of a unified observer looking within a single glance at the unified universe, there might seem to be only a single continuous flow of completely interdependent experiences forming a single event, hence, no separated unit could have influenced another separate unit if separation does not exist.

From a human point of view, or rather should I say I sink into being point of view, the belief in separation can easily justify the concept of cause and effect. From the point of view of oneness, what separate component could possibly influence another separated component if separation does not exist. In some places the Buddha instructed us in the wisdom of cause and effect because he was teaching to humans, thinking beings. When the Buddha philosophizes and inspires us to contemplate what would be the view and experience of oneness, he explains that nothing can possibly an individual cause in itself, and that no separated effects can henceforth be generated.

When one needs to understand his experience of separation, the Buddha teaches about separation, cause and effect. When one wishes to understand his experience of the oneness, the Buddha teaches that cause and effect are one, as much as the creator and the created is united, is the same thing, it is consciousness. Each difference explanation or point of view serve those who are looking from each of those points of views. None of these explanations have to be discarded, and none should be compared in a competitive way, trying to find out which one is about illusion, which one is about reality, which one is true or false.

Things are just as they are. Events and experiences happen following a single stream of experience, unaltered, infinite, and indestructible. The way we explain each of our individual view of the experience depends on each are point of view, either from separation or from oneness. Even then, when we explain ourselves or share about the wisdom, the words themselves that we will use depend on the experience that we have attached to it, which gives rises to a range of possibilities of definitions. Thus, a lot of the ongoing argumentation about the subject is either based on differences in point of use, or differences in dictionary word definitions.

Suffice to say, that without the experience of oneness, one cannot understand every possible explanation given from every possible point of view.

Maha Vajra