Introduction
The doctrine of Impermanence asserts that the aggregates arise and pass. Sensations, perceptions, bodily feelings, desires, hopes, acts of will, states of awareness, and much more, arise and pass from our conscious minds. The doctrine of No Self builds on the doctrine of Impermanence and asserts that among these arising and passing aggregates, no permanent self is found. As no permanent self is found, our psychological attachment to a permanent self is held to be ungrounded.
The doctrine of Dependent Origination, like the doctrine of No Self, builds upon the doctrine of Impermanence and adds that the arising and passing aggregates are caused to arise, and caused to pass. Furthermore, events that are caused to arise – such as psychological attachments and cravings – can be undone by undoing their causes. The doctrine of Dependent Origination is about causality and causal interconnection.
This understanding of causality, we should recall, is also found in the Four Noble Truths. The Four Noble Truths assert that suffering
exists; it has a cause; it can be eliminated by eliminating its cause; and the means to this elimination lie in following the Middle Way and the Noble Eightfold Path. The Four Noble Truths offer a causal analysis of suffering and in doing so are consistent with the doctrine of Dependent Origination. Since suffering is held to be caused by attachment to self, the way to overcome suffering for the Buddhist is to bring to mind and then undo the causes of this attachment by following the Middle Way and the Noble Eightfold Path. We are held to be creatures who, by and large, do not understand the causes of our suffering well: we find our-selves with attachments, in particular to the sense of being a permanent and independent self, without recognizing how this came about. An understanding of causes, which is an understanding of origins, is con-sequently of great importance in Buddhism. It is traditionally asserted that a direct understanding of Dependent Origination was integral to the Buddha’s enlightenment. Understanding Dependent Origination is held to be essential to understanding suffering in the Buddhist sense and the means for overcoming it. It is also described as subtle, profound, and difficult to understand. An exchange between Ananda, a disciple, and the Buddha is recounted as follows:
… the Venerable Ananda came to the Lord, saluted him, sat down to one side, and said: ‘It is wonderful, Lord, it is marvellous how profound this dependent origination is, and how profound it appears! And yet it appears to me as clear as clear!’. ‘Do not say that, Ananda, do not say that! This dependent origination is pro-found and appears propro-found. It is through not understanding, not penetrating this doctrine that this generation has become like a tangled ball of string, covered with a blight, tangled like coarse grass, unable to pass beyond states of woe, the ill destiny, ruin and the round of birth-and-death.’1
Sariputra, a close disciple of the Buddha, in speaking of the teachings of the Buddha (the Dharma, or Dhamma in Pali) is reported to have 1 Mahanidana Sutta, Digha Nikaya II 55, p. 223.
said this: “Now this has been said by the Blessed One: ‘One who sees dependent origination sees the Dhamma; one who sees the Dhamma sees dependent origination’.”1
Dependent Origination is sometimes called ‘conditioned arising’ or
‘interdependent arising’. Herein, we use the phrasing ‘dependent origi-nation’. As described, properly understanding Dependent Origination is important for understanding the Noble Truths and the path to freedom from suffering. This emphasis on causality and a causal understanding of suffering is also displayed with the Wheel of Becoming (which was presented in Chapter Six). On its outer rim, there is a series of caus-ally related events that describe the cycle of birth and rebirth and the conditions of perpetual suffering. The Buddha describes the causal links between these elements: “With clinging as a condition, being; with being as a condition, birth; with birth as a condition, aging and death come to be, and also sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair. That is how there is an origin to this whole aggregate mass of suffering.”2 In the interior core of the wheel there are deeper set causes that keep the whole wheel in motion: craving, volition, and aversion or hatred. This core presents a further level of causal analysis (for while birth leads to aging, which leads to sickness, etc., on the outer rim, the whole cycle is kept in motion with the forces of the core). The symbolism of the Wheel of Becoming presents not merely the cyclical nature of Samsara and suffer-ing, but the causal and mechanical workings of the wheel. An analysis of suffering through an analysis of its causes, provided in the Four Noble Truths and the Wheel of Becoming, has a clear practical agenda. Indeed, a deeply theoretical understanding of the nature of one’s suffering is not said to be needed. But an understanding of the causes of one’s suffering, and of what is required to eliminate these causes, certainly is needed.
Despite seeming straightforward, the quotations given above convey that understanding Dependent Origination and the nature of causal con-nection is a subtle and far from simple matter. Dependent Origination, as with the doctrines of No Self and Impermanence, applies to the 1 Mahahatthipadopama Sutta, Majjhima Nikaya, I 191, p. 284.
2 From Nanamoli (1992) 251 ff., as quoted in Williams (2000), p. 65.
aggregates. However, Dependent Origination includes more than the aggregates in attending to causes. The aggregates – bodily processes, sensations, perceptions, intentional and volitional activity, and con-sciousness – may be caused by, and in turn cause, external events that are not themselves aggregates. For instance, a tree in one’s direct line of sight may cause a perception of the tree; a physical blow may cause a bodily injury and feelings of pain. In these examples, the tree and the physical blow are not aggregates; they are external objects or events that are causally connected to aggregates (they cause the perception of the tree and the feelings of pain respectively). The causal connectivity that is the focus of Dependent Origination connects the aggregates to causes and effects that are external and not themselves aggregates. This is a dissimilarity between Dependent Origination and the doctrines of Impermanence and No Self (which concern the aggregates more exclu-sively). This impacts the question of how causality is to be understood in this doctrine for it allows for different possibilities to be considered.
One way to conceive of causality in Dependent Origination is the way we tend to think of causal relations between external physical events;
we will call this ‘physical causation’. A second is the way we generally describe causal relations between mental occurrences; this will be called
‘mental causation’ and it will be seen to have different characteristics from physical causation.
In order to understand causality in the doctrine of Dependent Origination, what will be called ‘Universal Causation’ is of importance.
This is the position that every event has a cause. Since a cause is itself an event, this position implies that every cause has a cause. Thus, under universal causation, there are no uncaused causes; there are no first causes that are not themselves caused. Considering whether or not the doctrine of Dependent Origination includes universal causation is vital for coming to understand the doctrine. Answering this question will involve distinguishing between the concepts of an uncaused cause versus a beginning cause. This will be discussed, and it will be shown that Dependent Origination does entail universal causation.
Altogether three different models of causation will be considered to see if they are appropriate for understanding causality in the doctrine
of Dependent Origination. The first to be considered will be physical causation and this will be presumed to involve universal causation; the second will be mental causation without universal causation; and the third, mental causation with universal causation. The third model will be shown to be the most fitting for appreciating the sense of causality in Dependent Origination, and the Buddhist objectives of overcom-ing sufferovercom-ing and attachment to self. As noted, the Buddha asserts that Dependent Origination is a subtle and difficult doctrine. It is worth going carefully over the first two models so that we can appreciate their difficulties, and thereby see more clearly why the third model is favoured.
The First Model: Physical Causation
Causation between physical events is the conception of causation with which we are most familiar. Typically, physical causation does not admit uncaused events. An uncaused event in our physical surround-ings would involve something coming about, spontaneously and without cause, from apparently nothing. An uncaused event would be difficult to make intelligible, with no scientific explanation (at least insofar as this involves explaining by providing causes). Physical causation, in addition to admitting universal causation, also admits causal determinism. Causal determinism is the position that an effect is fully determined by its ante-cedent cause(s) (together with the operation of the laws of nature). This means that if you have full knowledge of the antecedent cause(s), plus the relevant laws of nature and conditions in which those causes exist, then you could, in theory, accurately predict the effect(s). As a consequence of causal determinism, changes to causal sequences are not possible (since all effects are fully determined and thus necessitated). Universal causation, it is worth making clear, holds that all events are caused, but this does not by itself imply that causal sequences are determined and unchange-able (i.e., universal causation does not imply causal determinism).1
1 It might be thought that a challenge for both universal causation and causal determinism arises with evidence from quantum mechanics, (continued)
Let us now consider whether Physical Causation thus described is an appropriate model of causation for understanding Dependent Origination. Dependent Origination holds that there are causal connec-tions between the aggregates, and that these causal connecconnec-tions allow us to follow our thoughts and feelings backwards to underlying causes, and also to follow forward and predict effects from their causes.
This causal reasoning is important for making the changes needed for overcoming suffering. The idea is that if we find ourselves with a suffering-inducing craving, by working back to its cause we can remove ourselves from the craving. Likewise, if we can predict that certain causes will induce suffered effects, then we know that we should avoid these causes. But as noted, physical causation presumes causal determinism, and this does not allow for changes to be made to causal sequences so that suffered effects can thereby be eliminated. To elaborate, the doctrine of Dependent Origination holds not only that our feelings and attachments and other mental states have causes, but that we can alter these mental states by changing or disrupting the underlying causes that lead to them.
Changing causes so as to change the effects that follow is integral to fol-lowing the Buddhist path. Since causal determinism does not allow for
for this suggests the possibility of randomly appearing and presumably uncaused events. Insofar as there are truly random events, this argues against causal determinism. And insofar as these events are genuinely uncaused, this argues against universal causation. Nevertheless, the controversial possibility of quantum indeterminism is not being considered in discussing physical causation here. The focus of physical causation herein is causation as it is presumed to occur in our physical macro-environment (where all events do appear to be caused and where, at least in theory, a full knowledge of causes, including relevant laws, forces, and other environmental factors, enables accurate predictions of effects). What is under consideration is whether this understanding of physical causation is appropriate for understanding Dependent Origination. Also, it can be said that quantum indeterminism is inappropriate for understanding the sense of causation in Dependent Origination since uncaused or random effects are not effects that can be eliminated by eliminating their causes, as the Third Noble Truth requires.
And most simply, quantum indeterminism is not appropriate for under-standing the intended sense of causality in Dependent Origination since the Buddha would have been unaware of this from the empiricist methods available to him.
such changes (i.e., since it holds that all effects are determined and neces-sitated by their causes), physical causation is not an appropriate model for understanding causality in Dependent Origination.
The Second Noble Truth asserts that suffering is caused. The Third Noble Truth asserts that suffering can be eliminated by eliminating its causes. The Fourth Noble Truth asserts that these suffering-inducing causes can be eliminated by following the Middle Way and disciplining one’s mind and conduct according to the Noble Eightfold Path. We are supposed to be able to bring about an end to suffering through our own efforts. These Truths presume that we can change causal sequences. They presume that we can bring about changes to ourselves – our personalities and attachments – through a disciplining of body, mind and conduct so as to redirect the causal sequences that currently lead to attachment and suffering. Eliminating underlying, suffering-inducing causes implies that causal determinism does not hold and, once again, this conveys that physical causation is not the appropriate model for interpreting causality in Dependent Origination.1
In addition, the aggregates are described (in the Noble Truths and the Wheel of Becoming) primarily in mental terms and not physical terms.
For instance, in asserting that cravings cause suffering and must be over-come it is not asserted that specific brain patterns must be overover-come.
This is not to imply that cravings do not involve specific brain events, but just that the description of the cause of suffering is in terms of mental states, and not the underlying neurophysiological states. This is another reason for saying that physical causation is not the right model for under-standing causality in Dependent Origination. To further elaborate, the objective of Dependent Origination, as with any Buddhist doctrine, is ultimately to overcome suffering. As suffering involves craving and attachment to self, Dependent Origination is thus at the service of over-coming craving and attachment to self. These cravings and attachments
1 It is presumed here that a compatibilist interpretation, according to which one’s apparently free choice to follow the Noble Eightfold Path, while not compelled upon one, is a determined choice that could not have been otherwise, is not appropriate for understanding the Buddha’s doctrine.
are mental events, and are described as such. This gives a further reason for saying the conception of causality in Dependent Origination should not be based on the model of physical causation, extended to include mental events, but should be one whose primary focus is the causal con-nections between mental events. Rupert Gethin raises this very concern:
Buddhist thought does not understand causality in terms similar to, say, Newtonian mechanics, where billiard balls rebound off each other in an entirely predictable manner once the relevant informa-tion is gathered. First, the Buddhist attempt to understand the ways of causal conditioning is concerned primarily with the workings of the mind: the way in which things we think, say, and do have an effect on both our selves and others. Second, Buddhist thought sees causal conditioning as involving the interaction of certain fixed or determined effects and certain free or unpredictable causes.1
Gethin raises two considerations here against physical causation, the mechanical “billiard ball” conception of causality as he phrases it. It is worth discussing both. Gethin mentions – and this is his second point in the above passage – that in the Buddhist view causes can be unpredict-able. Thoughts, cravings, etc., can pop into our minds unpredictably.
“Billiard Ball” causation, or causation in line with Newtonian mechan-ics, does not admit of unpredictability (in principle, in any case). On a Newtonian model of causation, if sufficient “relevant information” is available, then effects should be fully predictable. Oftentimes, the rele-vant information that must be in hand and processed is immense, and this makes prediction difficult in practice. This is the case with accurate long-range weather predictions, for instance. But the principal point remains
1 Gethin (1998), pp. 153-54. Also see Williams: “What marked out the Buddha’s approach to this topic, in contrast to his fellow sramanas [ascet-ics], was his psychologising. Trsna [craving] is a matter of the mind, and therefore trsna [craving] is eliminated not by fierce asceticism, torturing the body, but by mental transformation through meditation. For the Buddhist it is the mental factor which is crucial. Liberation is all about the mind.”
Williams (2000), p. 45.
that were this vast amount of information in hand and well-understood and analysed, an accurate prediction could be made. Mechanical “bil-liard ball” causation involves causal determinism. Gethin is correct to note that causality in the Buddhist conception does not involve causal determinism, or a “billiard ball” model, and this was explained above.
However, while causal determinism is at odds with a Buddhist understanding of causation, predictable causation is still essential in Buddhism and it is important to draw this out. The value of Dependent Origination in overcoming suffering requires being able to determine which causes lead to suffered states, and the reliability of this procedure requires being able to make reliable predictions from causes to effects (and reliable judgements from effects back to their causes). Indeed, the value of causal thinking (in Dependent Origination and the Noble Truths) is directly proportional to the predictability of suffered effects given suffering-inducing causes (for it is this predictability that informs us of which causes to eliminate). Predictability is an important part of the understanding of causality in Dependent Origination, even if this is not to a Newtonian degree of necessitation. The degree of predict-ability is not the same, and it could not be since Dependent Origination applies to the aggregates and these are not observable and measurable in the same way as external physical objects and events are. Still, the value of Dependent Origination in overcoming suffering lies in a predictable causal connection between causes and effects. Predictable causality with-out determinism may be difficult to fathom, and this is one of the things that makes Dependent Origination a difficult or “subtle” doctrine. But it is worth pointing out that this is just what we see when we observe ourselves from a first person perspective: we can observe that there is a predictable, but not a necessary, relation between certain mental events and others (e.g., dwelling on a frustrating event and getting angry); and we can also observe that we can, perhaps with much effort, make changes to the underlying causes so as to overcome the predictable effects. It is always worth remembering, in coming to understand these Buddhist doctrines, that they are based on an empiricism that we are all supposed
However, while causal determinism is at odds with a Buddhist understanding of causation, predictable causation is still essential in Buddhism and it is important to draw this out. The value of Dependent Origination in overcoming suffering requires being able to determine which causes lead to suffered states, and the reliability of this procedure requires being able to make reliable predictions from causes to effects (and reliable judgements from effects back to their causes). Indeed, the value of causal thinking (in Dependent Origination and the Noble Truths) is directly proportional to the predictability of suffered effects given suffering-inducing causes (for it is this predictability that informs us of which causes to eliminate). Predictability is an important part of the understanding of causality in Dependent Origination, even if this is not to a Newtonian degree of necessitation. The degree of predict-ability is not the same, and it could not be since Dependent Origination applies to the aggregates and these are not observable and measurable in the same way as external physical objects and events are. Still, the value of Dependent Origination in overcoming suffering lies in a predictable causal connection between causes and effects. Predictable causality with-out determinism may be difficult to fathom, and this is one of the things that makes Dependent Origination a difficult or “subtle” doctrine. But it is worth pointing out that this is just what we see when we observe ourselves from a first person perspective: we can observe that there is a predictable, but not a necessary, relation between certain mental events and others (e.g., dwelling on a frustrating event and getting angry); and we can also observe that we can, perhaps with much effort, make changes to the underlying causes so as to overcome the predictable effects. It is always worth remembering, in coming to understand these Buddhist doctrines, that they are based on an empiricism that we are all supposed