Talk:Causeless cause

The link to Parabrahm is some shitty Australian album, sort of diminutive to the profound cosmology being discussed here.

deletion?
I am against deleting this article, because I am willing to improve it (if still needed) and cite more sources (I cited another today.) The apparent miscomprehension is probably because of my own writing, not the original, which one cannot necessarily say is more accurate than another cosmological or non-cosmological argument about causality.--Dchmelik (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, if improvements are possible, it would be preferable. Improvements are needed, IMO. It's not even clear what the topic of this article is supposed to be…
 * By some kind of relativism, it's not excusable if, in fact, traditional philosophical terms have simply been franchised and inconsistently redefined, but nothing more. Presumably due to a contagious fuzziness of causal argument (whether cosmological or no), should I take it by “accurate” you mean that one cannot necessarily say if some use for a given term is more undue/notable, or if some term for a given use is more common? Either way it's irrelevant, no? Unless one necessarily cannot say… typically, we can and do.—Machine Elf 1735  05:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're supposed to remove the template, BTW.—Machine Elf 1735  05:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not quite sure what 'by some kind of relativism, it's not excusable if, in fact, traditional philosophical terms have simply been franchised and inconsistently redefined, but nothing more.' means. What I mean by 'accurate' is a concept is reasonable, not incomprehensible. I do not claim this topic is, but thousands of people think so. I guess you mean the deletion template.--Dchmelik (talk) 06:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant the WP:PROD template. Ironically, as a mystery, it is meant to refer to something incomprehensible. I'm just saying that the article can't, for example, describe the Prime Mover as separate from (and temporally subsequent to) the “the Unmoved Mover”. That's an aitia—an attempt to explain or demystify—accomplished by providing a reasonable cause, or in this case, more of a rationale, (not even wrong). To the extent Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine is a syncretic reparsing of heterogeneous philosophies, we should be careful not to imply that Aristotle knew her secret. If Blavatsky wrote that he did, we could say so (with proper attribution), but even if thousands of prolific scholars would agree, there's little chance they'll make it noteworthy in an Aristotle article anytime soon.
 * [[file:Helena Petrovna Blavatsky.jpg|thumb|130px|right|Vogue]]The Secret Doctrine (The Synthesis of Science, Religion, and Philosophy) by Helena Blavatsky does refer explicitly to numerous philosophical ideas, including those of Aristotle.  You're certainly not wrong about that, and sometimes it refers to an aspect of mother darkness as a “causeless cause”… I didn't run across anything too explicit, but the so-called “watchers” are reminiscent of a connection between the unmoved movers and daimones.
 * The term Anupadaka, “parentless,” or without progenitors, is a mystical designation having several meanings in the philosophy. By this name celestial beings, the Dhyan-Chohans or Dhyani-Buddhas, are generally meant. But as these correspond mystically to the human Buddhas and Bodhisattwas, known as the “Manushi (or human) Buddhas,” the latter are also designated “Anupadaka,” once that their whole personality is merged in their compound sixth and seventh principles — or Atma-Buddhi, and that they have become the “diamond-souled” (Vajra-sattvas),* the full Mahatmas. The “Concealed Lord” (Sangbai Dag-po), “the one merged with the absolute,” can have no parents since he is Self-existent, and one with the Universal Spirit (Svayambhu),† the Svabhavat in the highest aspect. The mystery in the hierarchy of the Anupadaka is great, its apex being the universal Spirit-Soul, and the lower rung the Manushi-Buddha; and even every Soul-endowed man is an Anupadaka in a latent state. Hence, when speaking of the Universe in its formless, eternal, or absolute condition, before it was fashioned by the “Builders” — the expression, “the Universe was Anupadaka.” (See Part II., “Primordial Substance.”)
 * For Aristotle, they're utterly oblivious, being immaterial, but then again, they're incapable of moving anything for the same reason. Apart from being a passive term, it does more specifically invert their role, being watched: never mind active intellects can't be seen, one can mimic the planetary motions inspired by nous… Too fun, but the article needs more than a WP:PRIMARY source to stand alone, and I'd be surprised if there isn't already a theosophy article for something close.—Machine Elf 1735  15:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Notability
This article has only a single citation, to the source who is unambiguously least independent on the topic of theosophy. Its notability is therefore clearly in question. If improvement cannot be made, then a redirect (e.g. to Helena_Blavatsky) needs to be contemplated. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Redirect
I have redirected this article to Theosophy of H.P. Blavatsky, the Causeless cause is there explained in detail under the section called Three Fundamental Propositions. We do not need this separate article which has no third party sources on it. GreenUniverse (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

deletion? (2)
After the first deletion proposal, I never got around to adding secondary sources, though many or dozens exist, I just don't have the interest now. But, look above, the page had been redirected before. Maybe you could move the material to where it once was redirected, and if not, then at least just redirect it to such a page.--dchmelik (t|c) 05:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)