Buddhist Philosophy Challenges the Need for an Ultimate Cause in Modern Metaphysics
A philosophical study by Ye Si Thu Aung and Nguyen Hoang Hai from Vietnam National University explores how early Buddhist thought offers an alternative model of causal explanation without relying on an ultimate metaphysical foundation. Published in 2026 in the International Journal of Integrative Sciences (IJIS), the research argues that causal relationships can remain coherent and meaningful even without a “first cause” or permanent underlying reality. The findings contribute to ongoing debates in contemporary philosophy about how explanations of reality should be structured.
Rethinking the Idea of a First Cause
In many philosophical traditions, explanations of reality eventually point to a fundamental ground. Philosophers often assume that chains of causes must end with an ultimate source such as a first cause, a permanent being, or an unmoved mover. This assumption has long shaped discussions in metaphysics and philosophy of explanation.
However, debates in modern analytic philosophy increasingly question whether such an ultimate foundation is truly necessary. Concepts such as ontological grounding—the idea that every fact or event must ultimately rest on a deeper reality—have become central topics in these discussions.
The research by Ye Si Thu Aung and Nguyen Hoang Hai introduces early Buddhist philosophy as a powerful intellectual counterexample to this assumption. Instead of grounding explanations in a permanent substance or original cause, early Buddhist thought describes the world as a network of interdependent conditions.
According to the authors, this model suggests that causal explanation can function entirely through relationships among conditions rather than through a final metaphysical base.
Why the Question Matters Today
The question of whether explanations must end in an ultimate ground affects several fields, including philosophy, science, and theology. Many philosophical frameworks assume that without a foundational entity or first cause, explanations would become incomplete or logically unstable.
Yet contemporary debates increasingly recognize the possibility of open-ended explanatory systems, where causes extend through networks of conditions rather than terminating in a single origin.
The study highlights that early Buddhist philosophy developed such a system more than two thousand years ago. By examining Buddhist ideas about causality, the researchers show how philosophical traditions outside the Western canon can contribute valuable insights to modern theoretical debates.
How the Study Was Conducted
The research uses conceptual and philosophical analysis rather than empirical experimentation. The authors closely examined classical Buddhist philosophical concepts—especially those related to conditionality and causation—and compared them with assumptions commonly found in contemporary analytic metaphysics.
The analysis focused on the structure of explanations in both traditions. In particular, the authors investigated whether Buddhist causal theory requires a final ground or whether it can operate entirely through interconnected conditions.
By mapping these conceptual structures, the study demonstrates that the Buddhist model offers a coherent explanatory system without relying on a permanent metaphysical foundation.
Key Insights from the Study
The researchers highlight several important findings about the structure of Buddhist causal reasoning:
These insights challenge a long-standing philosophical assumption known as “ground-compulsion,” the belief that every explanatory chain must ultimately rest on an ontological foundation.
Implications for Philosophy and Knowledge
The study has several implications for philosophical research and interdisciplinary studies.
First, it encourages philosophers to reconsider whether explanatory systems must always end with a fundamental ground. If causal explanations can operate through networks of conditions, then some metaphysical debates about ultimate foundations may need to be reframed.
Second, the research highlights the importance of engaging with non-Western philosophical traditions in contemporary theoretical discussions. Early Buddhist philosophy demonstrates that alternative explanatory models have existed for centuries and can enrich modern philosophical inquiry.
Third, the study suggests new ways of thinking about complex systems in science and social theory. Many modern disciplines—from ecology to systems theory—already emphasize interdependence and relational structures rather than single foundational causes.
In this sense, the Buddhist model may resonate with contemporary scientific approaches that view reality as a dynamic network of interacting processes.
Author Perspective
According to Ye Si Thu Aung of Vietnam National University, the Buddhist framework demonstrates that explanatory systems do not necessarily require a metaphysical endpoint.
In the study, Aung explains that Buddhist causal analysis shows how “continuity, efficacy, and explanatory coherence can arise entirely from conditional relations.” This perspective shifts philosophical attention away from searching for a single ultimate ground and toward understanding how systems of conditions interact.
Co-author Nguyen Hoang Hai, also from Vietnam National University, emphasizes that the significance of the example is methodological rather than theological or metaphysical. The study highlights how Buddhist philosophical analysis developed a consistent explanatory framework without relying on concepts such as an eternal origin or permanent substance.
Author Profiles
Ye Si Thu Aung Vietnam National University.
Nguyen Hoang Hai Vietnam National University
0 Komentar