Dr. Hawkins has said a number of times in books and lectures that 'why' is the wrong question to ask. I never understood what he meant, but now I think I'm a step closer:

Why is the incorrect question because 'why' implies causality.

Even when you ask 'why does this calibrate at 140', the answer is "because that's what it is." There are no specific factors that CAUSE low energies. Low energies are low energies, period. In a way, low energies cause themselves by being what they are.

And when you look back on your past and think, "Why did I do that?" there is no specific reason. You did that because the totality of the history of the universe unfolded in that way. Humans don't really have free will in the way it's normally thought of, because we are incapable of comprehending all the information that goes into any decision. Who knows exactly how many molecules of every chemical there are in his body, and therefore knows whether he should eat that cookie or not? It seems that only God knows, and so the only decision humans ever make is in what direction to focus our attention: toward godliness or away from godliness. We base all decisions on what we believe to be the truth, and our capacity to know truth (which is Dr. Hawkins' definition of 'consciousness') is directly proportional to our godliness.

So ultimately, the choice we make regarding the cookie is a choice we've made all the moments of our existence. We can only base our decision on what we know at the time, which is limited by our capacity to know truth, which we have decided over the course of the history of our consciousness based on how toward or away from God we have focused our attention.

This is also why nothing causes anything: the consequences are arrived at based on the choices you've made. The present moment and all its details is nothing but the consequence of the total history of your attention. And the future is nothing but the consequence of your attention at each present moment.


Now doesn't THAT make you wanna meditate all day or what? xD

Mike, your making this awfully hard to respond!

This forum doesn't need discussion or debate when perfectly succinct and whole explanations like the one you just provided are presented.



This forum will soon become totally redundant

Thanks man. Real glad to have you here.

So I guess it's a way of saying that nothing is independent of anything?

Every choice you made, the reasons you make the choice in the first place is dependent upon all of previous time.

Perhaps there IS a cause, but the cause is all events and all preconditions throughout all time. It's not that there is a cause in the traditional sense, but there is one massive cause which leads to what we see in the world as effects, but there is still causality in this sense, is there not?

Ariel wrote:So I guess it's a way of saying that nothing is independent of anything?

Every choice you made, the reasons you make the choice in the first place is dependent upon all of previous time.

Perhaps there IS a cause, but the cause is all events and all preconditions throughout all time. It's not that there is a cause in the traditional sense, but there is one massive cause which leads to what we see in the world as effects, but there is still causality in this sense, is there not?

It seems that to consider the infinite causes as one big fat cause, and then consider one "effect" as separate from the infinite other "effects" is to mix levels.

For instance, you wouldn't say that the passage of time CAUSES Timmy to grow a beard, because the passage of time encompasses EVERYTHING, not just Timmy's beard.

Plus, where does cause end and effect begin? As the Earth rotates, does the sun rise on Ohio because of anything, or simply because that's what happens next?

So it would seem there's just one thing, that's just evolving.