Causal Explanation without Ontological Ground: Buddhism as a Structural Counterexample

Abstract

Philosophical explanation has recurrently been governed by the constraint that causal intelligibility requires termination in an ontological ground, articulated as first cause, permanent being, or unmoved mover. This paper isolates that constraint as structural presupposition rather than logical necessity and argues that early Buddhism constitutes a fully articulated counterexample. The Buddhist causal grammar demonstrates that continuity, efficacy, and explanatory closure can be achieved through conditional relations alone, without unconditioned terminus. Crucially, this counterexample is methodological rather than metaphysical. Through disciplined transmission and cessation-oriented constraint, Buddhist analysis sustained a causal framework that excluded ultimate origin, substrate, or metaphysical foundation, thereby repositioning debates over grounding, regress, and explanatory termination