In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Chapter Three Causality The Buddha claimed that his search for the nature of things led him to the discovery of the uniformity of the causal process (dhammat- (hitatii, dhammaniyiimatii, or simply dhammatii). It was the knowledge of the causal pattern that enabled him to put an end to all defiling tendencies and thereby attain freedom (vimutti).l This claim of the Buddha has to be evaluated in the light of the background in which various metaphysical theories, such as that of eternal 'soul' or 'self' (iitman), 'inherent nature' (svabhiiva), or creator God (isvara), were posited in order to explain the functioning of phenomena. One of the most important of the discourses the Buddha addressed to the monks is the "Discourse on Causal Relations" (Paccaya-sutta),2 in which he speaks of (I) causality (paticcasamppiida) and (2) causally conditioned phenomena (paticcasamuppanna dhamma). These two concepts, according to the Buddha, explain everything in this world, the individual things and the relations existing among them. In this chapter the causal relations will be examined, leaving until later a discussion of causally conditioned phenomena, although the two are inseparably connected. Before and during the time of the Buddha, the philosophical atmosphere in India was clouded with many metaphysical theories, and this was so even with regard to the concept of causation. There were three major theories of causality: (I) self-causation (saya'11 kata'11), (2) external causation (para'11 kata'11), and (3) a combination of self and external causation (saya'11 katan ca para'11 katan ca).3 The first was propounded by the Substantialist school, which accepted the reality of the 'self' (iitman) and considered causation as being due to the activity of this principle immanent in everything (sarva'11). Because the immanent 'self' is found in man as well as in the things of the outer world, it was looked upon as the agent in terms of which all the activities of man, as well as the functioning of the things of the world, should be explained. This school, by implication , denied the causal efficacy of any factor outside the 'self'. 26 The second theory was put forward by the Naturalists who, as a reaction against the idealist metaphysics of the Substantialist school, believed that the functioning of phenomena was due to their 'inherent nature' (svabhiiva). According to the Naturalist theory, 'inherent nature' (svabhiiva) is a principle governing physical nature and man himself is determined by this physical principle, his psychic personality playing no effective part in his behavior. In contrast, the Substantialist theory held that a 'self' is recognized even in physical phenomena and is ultimately identified with the psychic principle (cit) considered to be the reality in man. Thus, the Naturalist conception of causation through 'inherent nature' (svabhiiva) came to be recognized as a form of'external causation' (para/'fl kata/'fl) because, as far as anthropocentric philosophies are concerned, it denied man's moral responsibility. The third theory is an attempt to combine the first two theories and was put forward by the Jainas. Although it recognizes both aspects of causation, self-causation as well as external causation, it carries with it all the metaphysical assumptions of the two. The Buddhist theory of causality seems to have been influenced by the Naturalist theory of 'inherent nature' (svabhiiva). Yet it differs from the Naturalist theory in two important ways. First, the Buddhist theory is not confined to physical causation alone, as is the Naturalist theory. In Buddhism, the causal pattern is recognized even in the psychic, moral, social, and spiritual realms, whereas in Naturalism everything is subordinate to physical causation. Second, unlike the Naturalists who believed that the principle of 'inherent nature' is strictly determined and that nothing can change the course ofnature, Buddhists accepted a causal principle that was more or less a theory of conditionality. An examination of some features of the causal nexus as presented in the early texts will help in understanding the nature of the Buddhist theory of causality. In the "Discourse on Causal Relations," the Buddha mentions four characteristics ofcausation: (r) objectivity (tathatii), (2) necessity (avitathatii), (3) invariability (anannathatii), and (4) conditionality (idappaccayatii). These four characteristics are said to be found in the causal relations obtaining among phenomena. The first emphasizes the objectivity of the causal relation. It was, in fact, intended to refute the claim ofsome idealist philosophers who belonged to the Upani~adic tradition and who maintained that CAUSALITY 27 [13.58.216.18] Project MUSE (2024-04-26 07...

Share