Substantial Cause and Contributory Cause

person

The issue of causality has long been a major focus of philosophical and contemplative analysis in Buddhism. Buddhism proposes two principal categories of cause. These are the "substantial cause" and the "contributory or complementary cause." Take the example of a clay pot. The substantial cause refers to the "stuff" that turns into a particular effect, namely, the clay that becomes the pot. By contrast, all the other factors that contribute toward bringing about the pot - such as the skill of the potter, the potter himself, and the kiln that fired the clay - remain complementary in that they make it possible for the clay to turn into the pot.

HHDL The Universe in a Single Atom p.131

Dakini

Clay = substantial cause? hm... I'd think the principal cause would be the potter's vision of the pot and his desire to create it. HHDL must mean "substantial cause" as in "substance".

upekka

substantial cause is the 'cause'

the clay that becomes the pot.

clay is the cause and pot is the effect

and

contributory or complementary cause are the 'conditions'

the skill of the potter, the potter himself, and the kiln that fired the clay - remain complementary in that they make it possible for the clay to turn into the pot.



however if we apply this to our own experience of Dhamma

internal sense base+ external sense base + relevant consciousness (thinnan sangati passa) is the cause

because of many other factors there is an internal sense base,
because of many other factors there is external sense base,
because of many other factors there arises a certain consciousness
are the conditions

and
contact (passa) is the effect

then
contact is the cause
and
feeling is the effect

then
feeling is the cause
and
etc. the Dependence Origination happens

person

Clay = substantial cause? hm... I'd think the principal cause would be the potter's vision of the pot and his desire to create it. HHDL must mean "substantial cause" as in "substance".

Maybe it would be better to think about it in non person terms. Like the substantial cause for ice is water and the contributory cause is the freezing temperature. Substantial cause is considered the "stuff", so a potters vision isn't the same "stuff" as the clay pot. Its not really about primacy or one being more important than the other, its about distinction for further philosophical debate.

I'm not really getting you @upekka, it sounds like you're talking about the same thing with different language.

WallyB

Buddha used at least three words for "cause":

(1) hetu = immediate preceding cause: eg. feeling is cause for craving
(2) paccaya = condition: eg. craving is one condition (of many) for suffering
(3) samudhaya = complete arising or totality of causes: eg. twelve causes all attributing to the final & full arising of suffering

Buddha was not interested in "substantial" & "minor" causes but seeing the whole picture

metta

person

@WallyB In daily Dhamma drops today there was a mention of near and proximate causes. How are those interpreted in Therevada?

Lady_Alison

What is the stuff that became the clay, called?

WallyB

'proximate' means 'closest' or 'immediate', similar to how i described 'hetu' above. the Pali here is 'upanisā' : http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.023.bodh.html

WallyB

Near Causes:
The Cause of Feeling is Contact: Eye-contact, Ear-contact, Nose-contact,
Tongue-contact, Body-contact or Mental-contact. At the moment this
contact ceases, the associated feeling also instantly ceases...

the term 'near' cause, at least used above, is exactly the same as 'proximate' cause, it the context. contact is the near/proximate cause for feeling

Jeffrey

Is not the clay brought together by other causes? Or is it saying that all the causes bring together 'clay' and then that clay is substantive as the empty luminous clay?

I have trouble with the technical terms that I am not familiar with. I would like to participate though.

Is the distinction that there 'is' clay or there would be no discussion and then the deduced causes are the contributory causes? For example we 'say' that the potter had skill. But that is a concept. What do we mean by skill? Well he *must* have had skill I guess. It's kind of like the philosopher who was asked to prove substance of reality to another philosopher and he kicked a stone or what not.

Does this boil down to a distinction between a mental continual stream and a physical real world that is dependently arisen with the stream of mental experiences? I think so. Am I on the right track or totally off?

person

@Jeffrey The example takes place in the context of a clay pot. So, yes, in the broader context clay too is empty and made up of other causes. But strictly in terms of the clay pot the clay is the substantive cause and the others are the contributory cause.

This distinction is often used in talking about the mind, I wanted to keep the philisophical point seperate though. Here's what came before and after the OP quote in the same paragraph:

Crucial to understanding the Buddhist concept of conciousness - and its rejection of the reducibility of mind to matter - is its theory of causation...

...This distinction between the substantial and the contributory cause of a given event or object is of the utmost importance for understanding the Buddhist theory of consciousness. According to Buddhism, though consciousness and matter can and do contribute toward the origination of each other, one can never become a substantial cause of the other.

taiyaki

@person

what is the function or purpose of distinguishing a substantial cause verse a contributory cause?

and in some sense isn't everything a contributory cause? is it karma that forces us to input the substantial cause to see patterns of relations?

taiyaki

also in regards to the clay turning into the clay pot.
isn't each moment of eye consciousness (seeing the clay) arising and falling?
if that is the case then each arising of consciousness is distinct and disjointed.
how can we say the clay turns into the clay pot? isn't that just linking one reference point (clay entity) to another reference point (clay pot).
if there is no linking then it is just a flash of eye consciousness arising and falling. each moment distinct and separate.
yet connected through contributory causes/conditions.

so in regards to the external clay object. does causality only make sense to how the object appear. but the deeper reality is that each moment is unique and disjointed arising and falling, yet connected only by the infinite/finite causes/conditions that we infer.

maybe this is what is meant by how consciousness relates directly with conditioned arising?

you're making me think today.

person

@taiyaki The distinction is an ontological one dealing only with conventional truth. From an ultimate perspective cause and effect can't be said to intrinsically exist anyway.

As to the function of making the distinction. I think its just a matter of philosophical precision. The main place I've seen it used is in talking about mind. The Buddhist understanding of mind is raw experience, knowing. Its the mirror that reflects whatever appears before it or the flashlight that illuminates that which it shines upon but is never effected by those things.

So the simple fact that we have experience and aren't merely meat robots going about our lives from a Buddhist perspective is mind. Then they say that something like mind can't be produced from matter because of this distinction between substantial cause and contributory cause.

{ramble}One question I have that I need to ask is that energy, such as fire, can come from matter so why can't mind also. Einstein had his famous formula E=MC2 where energy is a part of matter. What I wonder is if mind is also a part of the universe and permeates both matter and energy. To me quantum superposition needing an observer to collapse the wave function speaks to the possibility of conciousness being a fundamental part of the universe.{/ramble}

taiyaki

"The Buddhist understanding of mind is raw experience, knowing. Its the mirror that reflects whatever appears before it or the flashlight that illuminates that which it shines upon but is never effected by those things."

-this is something I disagree with. in buddhism mind is no mind. meaning mind itself is not findable under analysis and even the one analyzing isn't findable.

there are six arising of consciousness that correspond to each sense sphere. when there is seeing, just the seen, no seer. so when color appears, color itself is the arising of consciousness or "knowing". so just the seen, no subject/object duality. the subject is just an inference based on conditioning.

mind it seems isn't produced because it is dependently originated. dependent on such and such conditions arises mind, which isn't locatable.

in regards to your matter idea: here is a thought. physicality or matter is merely a label projected onto an interplay of visual and tactile consciousness. each consciousness spontaneously arises based on conditions met.

also no seer, no hearer, no taster, no smeller, no observer, just experience with no inferred reference point.

just my observations. tell me what you think.

person

When I was referring to mind as clear and knowing, I was refering to the ultimate nature of mind or rigpa.

The six arising of conciousness that you're referring to are the relative world of phenomena. Mind too doesn't exist in and of itself, it depends upon matter.

I'm just talking about these things with words. I don't want to always explain the whole universe every time I use a relative term. So just assume I already believe everything is in the nature of emptiness but still need to talk about stuff.

Jeffrey

Isn't the distinction an affair of the mind?

I'll leave now no sense in having the rangtong/cittimatra discussion. Or is there?

person

Isn't the distinction an affair of the mind?

Yes, but so is going to the bathroom, still a necessary function. Cause and effect are part of the relative world. Its a way to be precise when talking about things in the world, a philosophical, ontological, phenomenological tool.