[Buddha-l] Multi-cause vs single-cause

[Mike Austin]

In message <Pine.GSO.4.58.0503110844070.14309 at sf0.comp.nus.edu.sg>, Wong 
Weng Fai <wongwf at comp.nus.edu.sg> writes
>
>My first posting on this new forum...
>
>A friend of mine brought up the following issue and I would like to get
>some expert opinions. It is mentioned in many books (including say
>Jayatilleke) that the Buddhist theory of causation is one of multiple
>causes, multiple effects. Yet it is hard (impossible?) to find evidence of
>this in the Pali or Mahayanist sutras. There it is almost always mentioned
>that a single event caused a single consequence.


Of interest here may be Tsongkhapa's 'Lam Rim Chenmo':

"Consequently, happiness and suffering do not occur in the absence of 
causes, nor do they arise from incompatible causes such as a divine 
creator or a primal essence. Rather, happiness and suffering, in 
general, come from virtuous and non-virtuous karma, and the various 
particular happinesses and sufferings arise individually, without even 
the slightest confusion, from various particular instances of these two 
kinds of karma. Attaining certain knowledge of the definiteness, or 
non-deceptiveness, of karma and its effects is called the correct 
viewpoint for all Buddhists and is praised as the foundation of all 
virtue."

I think what Tsongkhapa says must be correct here. Although one cannot 
identify a 'particular happiness' (indeed, the very idea of such a thing 
seems ridiculous) the definiteness of karma makes such a conclusion hard 
to avoid.

-- 
Metta
Mike Austin