On line Study Material for B. A (Part I), Department of Philosophy, A.N.College, Patna . Buddhist Doctrine of Pratitya Samutpada and Second Noble Truth Dr. Shailesh Kumar Singh Professor, Deptt. of Philosophy A. N. College, Patna Dear Students I have already shared a study material related to Buddhism in which we had discussed the Buddhist concept of Substance. In that study material we had compared the Buddhist view with that of the Upanishadic doctrine of Substance. We had pointed out that Early Buddhism that is the teaching of Buddha denies the reality of an eternal substance whether physical or non-physical. In this regard Buddhism denies the reality of eternal soul or Person. We have also referred briefly that for Buddhism change is real. In the present study material we are going to discuss the very core concept of Buddhism which leads to the formulation of the theory of change and the denial of the existence of the eternal substance. This is the principle of causality as has been taught by Buddha and which is known as doctrine of Pratitya samutapada or the theory of dependent origination. The principle of causality, which primarily deals with the nature of relation between cause and effect, has always remained a focused area of study and research in Science. The determination of a particular event, on the basis of certain ascertained facts as ‘cause’ and the subsequent event derived from that cause as ‘effect’ is based on inductive scientific reasoning. Almost all the philosophical systems of India which include the Buddhists, the Jaina and the Brahmanical systems, in their own way, subscribe to the principle of causality as governing all phenomena. All of them (except Madhyamika) took it as ultimately real. The principle of causality as contained in the Buddhist doctrine of Pratitya Samutpada (theory of ‘dependent origination’) constitutes the central thesis for entire Buddhist thought which revolves on pivot of Pratitya Samutpada. According to this doctrine things originate in dependence upon causal conditioning and this emphasis on causality describes the central feature of Buddhist ontology/metaphysics. The Buddhists accepted causality as a universal and objective principle. In Indian Philosophy the relation between cause and effect has been conceived in four different ways. The Samkhya advocates identity between the cause and effect and its theory is called ‘Satkaryavada’ which leads to the theory of self-becoming. According to this view things are produced out of themselves. The Buddhists do not fully adhere to this view by maintaining the difference between cause and effect. The Jaina philosophy combined the two above said views because it believes in the 1 continuous and also in the emergent aspect of the effect. The materialists and the skeptics have rejected all these alternative views as according to them things are produced by chance. The Buddha’s search for the real nature of things led him to the discovery of the uniformity of the causal process (dhammata). According to his teaching, there is nothing in this world that does not come within the realm of the causal law. There is a spontaneous, universal and impersonal law of causation which conditions the appearance of all events, mental and physical. The law (Dhamma) works automatically without the help of any conscious guide. In accordance with it, when- ever a particular event appears, it is followed by another particular event. Everything that we perceive possesses an existence but is dependent on something else and that thing in turn does not perish without leaving some effect. Thus this doctrine adopts the middle view between the two extremes of eternalism and nihilism. This is, in fact, the Buddha’s answer to both the eternalist theory of the Substantialist, who posited an unchanging immutable ‘self’, and the annihilationist theory of the non-Substantialists, who denied continuity altogether. The Buddha is said to have expressed his views on this issue: All things are born of activities. Everything is in a state of continual transformation. There is neither creation nor destruction; there is neither beginning nor end. Yet nothing happens without cause and reason. Hence, causality explains one of the important ontological issues – the arising and passing away of things. According to the natural causal law, that which arises conditioned by causes is sure to pass away when the causes disintegrate. The direct corollaries of the theory of causality are that all things in the world are (1) impermanent (anitya), (2) unsatisfactory (dukkha), and (3) nonsubstantial (anatman). We find some obvious similarity between naturalist theory of ‘inherent nature’ (Svabhava) and the Buddhist theory of ‘dependent origination’. Like the Buddhist’s ‘universal law of causation’ which works as a principle that conditions the appearance of all the events, the naturalist theory holds that the ‘inherent nature’ (svabhava) is a principle which governs the physical and human realm. Both of these determining principles work spontaneously without the help of any conscious guide. Nevertheless the Buddhist theory of causality differs from the naturalist on one important issue. The Buddhist theory is much more comprehensive than the naturalist theory as the former recognizes the causal pattern also in the psychic, moral, social, and spiritual realms, where as in latter everything is subordinate to physical causation. If, according to Buddhism, every change has a cause, and that cause again has a cause then there is no ultimate unchangeable or first cause. Science also knows nothing of first cause. The Buddha has attached so much importance to the understanding of the theory of ‘dependent origination’ (pratityasamutpada) that he calls this the Dhamma. He says, to quote Chatterjee and Dutta “He who sees the pratityasamutpada sees the Dhamma, and he who sees the Dhamma sees the pratityasamutpada.”(S. C. Chatterjee and D. M. Dutta, p.132) In other words: He who has understood the chain of causation has 2 understood the inner meaning of the Dharma, and he that has grasped the Dharma has perceived the essence of Buddhahood. Briefly speaking, everything in this universe comes within the framework of causality. Hence to know causality is to know the truth. One’s failure to grasp this ‘truth’ is the cause of misery. Based on the truth of the ‘dependent origination’ the Buddha has introduced important ethical precepts as moral paths for the removal of misery and for the attainment of enlightenment. In fact the Buddha has linked the emergence of suffering to impersonal law like behavior of causation. This impersonal law like nature of causation is well demonstrated in its standard formula found in early Buddhist sources: ‘This existing, that exists; this arising, that arises; this not existing, that does not exist; this ceasing, that ceases’. Thus, for ‘Early Buddhism’ causation is a relationship between events. This relationship can be better explained in terms of ‘dependent origination’ where if ‘X occurs Y follows, and when X does not occur Y does not follow’. The theory of causality as explained in the ‘Early Buddhism’ implies that dependent co-arising inextricably entailed suffering and stress. Happiness based on causal conditions was inherently unstable and unreliable. According to Buddhism as the existence of everything depends on some conditions, there must be something which being there our misery comes into existence. Life’s suffering like old age, death despair and grief is there because there is birth. If we were not born, we would not have been subject to any such sufferings. There is cause of birth. It means birth is also conditional and its condition is called bhava that is will born. Bhava is a blind tendency or predisposition to be born, which causes our birth. Again the question arises what is the cause of this blind tendency? The answer is upadana or mental clinging to the objects of the world is the condition responsible for our desire to be born. This clinging again is due to our thirst or craving to enjoy objects like sights, sounds, etc. The cause of this desire for objects lies in our experience or taste of them in the past. Previous sense-experience, tinged with some pleasant feelings (vedana), is, therefore the cause of our thirst or craving. But sense- experience presupposes contact (sparsa) i.e. contact of sense-organs with objects. But this contact was not possible without the six organs of cognitions, the five sense and manas. Again these six cognitions presuppose the existence of mind-body organism (nama-rupa), which constitutes the perceptible human body. But the development of this organism in mother’s womb was not possible without consciousness. So consciousness is the condition or cause of mind-body organism. And the cause of this consciousness that descends down into the embryo in the mother’s womb is only the impression (samskara) of past existence/past life. In the words of Chatterjee and Dutta “The last state of the past life, which initiates our present existence, contains in a concentrated manner the impressions of effects or all our past deeds. The impressions which make for rebirth are due to ignorance (avidya) about truth. If the transitory, painful nature of the worldly existence were perfectly realized, there would not arise in us any karma resulting in rebirth. Ignorance, therefore, is the root cause of impressions or tendencies that cause rebirth.” (Students are advised to visit page no 3 118 and 119 of the book An Introduction to Indian Philosophy by Chatterjee and Dutta. This book had been recommended in the class. The page no may vary depending upon the edition of the book) Thus the doctrine of Pratityasamutpada or Dependent Origination being the foundation of all the teachings of the Buddha is contained in the Second Noble Truth where we find the elaboration of the twelve links in the chain of causation as the cause of suffering.