hetu & pratyaya

    This section, dedicated to questions of causality, deals with the four conditions (pratyaya) and the six causes (hetu). They are worded in the following way in Sanskrit and Tibetan, and in Chinese by Kumarārajīva) (K) and in Chinese by Hiuan-tsang (H):

1. Causal condition, hetupratyaya, rguḥi rkyen, yin yuan (K), yin yuan (H).
2. Immediately preceding condition, samanantarapratyaya, mtshuṅs pa de ma thag paḥi, ts’eu ti yuan (K), teng wou kien yuan (H).
3. Object condition, ālambanapratyaya, dmigs paḥi rkyen, yuan yuan (K), so yuan yuan (H).
4. Dominant condition, adhipatipratyaya, bdag poḥi rkyen, tseng chang yuan (K), tseng chang yuan (H).

1. Associated cause, saṃprayuktahetu, mtshuṅs par ldan paḥi rgyu, siang ying yin (K), siang ying yin (H).
2. Simultaneous cause, sahabhūhetu, lhan cig ḥbyuṅ baḥi rgyu, kong cheng yin (K), kiu yeou yin (H).
3. Homogeneous cause, sabhāgahetu, skal ba mñam paḥi rgyu, tseu tchong yin (K), t’ong lei yin (H).
4. Universal or pervasive cause, sarvatragahetu, kun tu ḥgro baḥi rgyu, pien yin (K), pien hing yin (H).
5. Ripening cause or cause of maturation, vipākahetu, rnam par smin paḥi rgyu, pao yin (K), yi chou yin (H).
6. Enabling cause, kāraṇahetu, byed paḥi rgyu, wou tchang yin (K) (avighnakāraṇa), neng tso yin (H).

    The Buddhist doctrine is primarily a doctrine of causality and the Buddha Śākyamuni, throughout his career, never stopped teaching his disciples the dependent origination of the phenomena of existence (pratītyasmautpāda), the production that conditions the appearance and disappearance of dharmas. His homily inevitably begins with the phrase: This being, that is; from the production of this, that is produced (asmin satidaṃ bhavaty asyotpādād idaṃ utpadyate), and: This not being, that is not; by the cessation of this, that ceases (asminn asatīdaṃ na bhavaty asya nirodhād idaṃ nirudhyāte): cf. Catuṣpariṣat, p. 102, 358-360; Śālistamba, ed. N. A. Sastri, p. 2; Avadānaśataka, II, p. 105-106: Arthaviniścaya, ed. N. H. Samtani, p. 5; Mahāvastu, II, p. 285, III, p. 448; and for the Pāli sources, Vin. I, p. 1; Majjhima, III, p. 63; Saṃyutta, II, p. 1, 25, etc.
    The Buddhist credo quite rightly continues with a single stanza infinitely reproduced on Indian, Serindian and Chinese monuments and images:

Ye dhammā hetuppabhavā tesaṃ hetuṃ tathāgato āha |
tesañ ca yo nirodho evaṃvādī mahāsamaṇo ||
“The Tathāgata, the great ascetic, has told the cause of phenomena coming from causes, and he has also told their abolition.”

    But in the present section, it is more precisely a matter of the system of the four conditions and/or the six causes intervening in the functioning of causality. Does this system already occur in the canonical sūtras or, if not, which school elaborated it? Does the Madhyamaka accept or reject it? Do the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras mention it and, if so, in what sense? Finally, how did the Traité understand it?

     In the early texts the words ‘condition’ (pratyaya) and ‘cause’ (hetu) seem to be equivalent. The Kośavyākhyā, p. 188, makes the following comment: “What is the difference between hetu and pratyaya? There is none. The Blessed One said: dvau hetū dvau pratyayau samyagdṛṣṭer utpādāya. katamau dvau. parataś ca ghoṣo ‘dhyātmaṃ ca yoniśo manaskāra iti. “There are two causes, two conditions for the arising of right view. What are these two? The speech of another and, inwardly, right reflection’ (cf. Majjima, I, p. 294, l. 1-3; Anguttara, I, p.87, l. 32-34). The words hetu, pratyaya, nidāna, kāraṇa, nimitta, liṅga, upaniṣad are synonymous.”

     According to some scholars, the group of six hetus appeared early in some sūtras that today have disappeared. In vain would one look for them in the old texts, but the Sarvāstivādin teacher Kātyāyanīputra was aware of them by the magical power of his praṇidhijñāna and he mentioned them in his Jñānaprasthāna which he compiled three hundred years after the Parinirvāṇa at Tāmasavanavihāra, a Sarvāstivādin monastery of the Cīnabhukti district in northwestern India (cf. Hiuan-tsang, Si-yu-ki, T 2087, k. 4, p. 889c). – Without recourse to such a dangerous hypothesis, other scholars frankly recognized that there is no sūtra dealing with the six hetus ”in order and complete”.
     The problem is quite different if it is a matter of the six hetus taken in isolation. The sūtras that allude to such and such a hetu in particular are not missing. The Mahāvibhāṣā mentions a certain number of them for us. In this sense, the hetus as well as the pratyayas are canonical, but the system that groups together four pratyayas and six hetus is not: it is a theory of the Sarvāstivādin-Vaibhāṣika school. Proof of this is that other schools do not recognize it and in turn have proposed other systems: the Śāriputrābhidharma has drawn up a list of 10 pratyayas (T 1548, k. 25, p. 679b5-7); the Theravādin Abhidhamma lists 24 (cf. Nyanatiloka, Guide through the Abhidhammpitaka, 1938, p. 87-109); Buddhistisches Wörterbuch, 1952, p. 145-152).

     1. A sūtra says: iyam ucyate darśanamūlikā śraddhā ‘vetyajñānasaṃprayuktā ‘It is what is called faith having seeing as root, ASSOCIATED with the knowledge [subsequent] to penetration’. Sūtras of this kind have dealt with the saṃprayuktakahetu.
     2. A sūtra says: cakṣuh pratitya rūpāṇi cotpadyate cakṣurvijñānam. trayāṇāṃ saṃgatiḥ sparśaḥ. taiḥ saha jatā vedanā saṃjñā cetanā ca ‘As a result of the eye and visibles, there arises the visual consciousness; the meeting of the three is contact; there ARISE WITH them sensation, concept and volition’ (cf. Majjhima, I, p. 111, l. 35037, p. 281, l. 18-29; Saṃyutta, II, p. 72, l. 4-5; IV, p. 32, l. 31-32; p. 86, l. 18-19; p. 90, l. 15-16). Sutras of this kind have dealt with sahabhūhetu.
     3. A sūtra says: samanvāgato ‘yaṃ pudgalaḥ kuśalair api dharmair akuśalair api. asya khalu pudgalasya kuśala dharmā antarhitā akuśalaā dharmāḥ saṃmukhībhūtāḥ. asti cāsyanusahagataṃ kuśalamūlamasamucchinnaṃ yato ‘sya kuśalabhaviṣyati ‘This man is endowed with good and bad dharmas, but within him the good dharmas are disappearing and the bad dharmas are appearing. But there is still within him a persistent root of good which is not cut and, from this root of good, there will grow ANOTHER root of good: thus, in the future, this man will be pure’ (cf. Anguttara, III, p. 404, l. 12-20; Madhyama, T 26, k. 27, p. 601a22-27). Sūtras of this kind have dealt with the sabhāgahetu. <2166>
     4. A sūtra asys: mithyādṛṣṭeh puruṣapudgalasya yac ca kāyakarma yac ca vākkarma yac ca manaskarma yaḥ praṇidhih ye ca taddṛṣṭer anvayāḥ saṃskārāḥ sarve ‘py ete dharmā aniṣṭatvāya saṃvartante ‘kāntatvāyapriyatvāyāmanāpatvāya. [tat kasya hetoḥ. dṛṣṭir hy asya yad uta mithyādṛṣṭiḥ] ‘For the man who has a wrong view, every physical act, every vocal act, every mental act, every resolution and all the formations connected with this view: ALL these dharmas end up in delusion, unhappiness, affliction, disagreement. [Why? Because he has a guilty view, namely, wrong view]. – Cf. Anguttara, V, p. 212, l. 20-29; Saṃyukta, T 99, k. 28, p. 204a25-28. Sūtras of this kind have dealt with the sarvatragahetu.
     5. A sūtra says: asthānam etad anavakaśo yat kāyaduścaritasya vāgduścaritasya manoduścaritasyeṣṭaḥ kānto manāpo vipāka nirvarteta. sthānaṃ ca kaly etad vidyate yad aniṣṭo ‘kānto ‘manāpo vipāko nirvarteta ‘It is impossible, it is unrealizable that a physical, vocal or mental misdeed will result in an agreeable, nice, pleasant, RETRIBUTION, but it is certainly possible that there will result from it a disagreeable, lowly, unpleasant retribution’ (cf. Majjhima, III, p. 66, l. 9-28; Anguttara, I, p. 28, l. 23-24; madhyama, T 26, k. 47, p. 724b8-10). Sūtras of this kind have dealt with the vipākahetu.
     6. A sūtra says: dvau hetū dvau pratayau samyagdṛṣṭer utpādāya: parataś ca ghoṣo ‘dhyātmaṃ ca yoniśo manaskāraḥ ‘There are two causes, two conditions for the ARISING of right view: the speech of another and, inwardly, right reflection’ (cf. Majjhima, I, l. 1-3; Anguttara, I, p. 87, l. 32-34; Madhyama, T 26, k. 58, p. 791a1-2; Ekottara, T 125, k. 7, p. 578a5-6). Sūtras of this kind have dealt with the kāraṇahetu.

     “Question. – Do the hetus contain the pratyayas and do the pratyayas contain <2165> the hetus? – Answer: They are contained mutually according to thir use. Some say that the first five hetus are the hetupratyaya and that the kāraṇahetu is the other three pratyayas. Others say that the pratyayas contain the hetus, but that the hetus do not contain [all] the pratyayas: thus the first five hetus are the hetupratyaya; the kāraṇahetu is the adhipatipratyaya, but the samanantarapratyaya and the ālambanapratyaya are not contained in the hetus.