Buddhism explains 'existence' using the analogy of a wheel that has twelve components, and the idea is that each component is the effect of the preceding component. The analogy of a wheel entails that there is no recognizable beginning and/or end to the process. Buddhism sees the destruction of this wheel, brought about by some form of interception, as the key to liberation. Given that the wheel does not have any recognizable beginning and/or end, the interception of the wheel can happen at any point, with any of the twelve components. This interception at the level of one component nullifies not only the following component, which is the effect of the cause, but also the preceding component, which is the cause of the intercepted component, by virtue of the fact that the process is cyclical. In other words, interception at the level of B nullifies both C (the effect of the cause B) and A (the cause of the effect B). This shows that causality works "backwards" as well.
2 Comments
Mark
11/14/2011 06:02:29
I feel like there has to be a paradox here. I'm not sure what it is though. One problem I see is that if one component(B) being nullified destroys the entire wheel is it necessarily true that 'B' is directly nullifying 'A'? It could be just traveling all the way around the circle in one direction, nullifying all twelve components on its way to 'A'. That's what it seems to me should be happening if the process is defined as cyclical. It doesn't even seem to me that 'A' is being effected any differently than all the other aspects of existence. I guess what I'm saying is the backwards causality idea is almost irrelevant when the whole circle is being destructed. A butterfly effect concept(one thing effects all things) makes cause and effect pointless because then everything is causing everything. But perhaps I'm missing the point.
Reply
Ranga Kalugampitiya
11/14/2011 12:49:38
What you say has a very valid point. My use of the word 'backwards' is problematic. One of my friends asked me the question 'Does causality work backwards?' and this is the answer I prepared for it. The use of the word 'backwards' should be seen in that context. Coming back to the point, as you have quite rightly pointed out, the impact of the destruction of B will "move" clockwise affecting the rest of the components, and A would be the final component to be affected. We are talking about a situation where A generates B and the interception that happens at B eventually destroys A. The directionality of both the generation and destruction is the same. My point is that although the directionality is the same, in the case of destruction, we see what happens in the 'effect' having an impact on its 'cause'. The relationship between A and B taken in isolation gives the impression that the relationship is a two-way process.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Nandaka MaduRANGA Kalugampitiya is a faculty member (Department of English) of the University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka. He earned his MA and PhD from Ohio University, USA.
More |