Are there everyday examples of simultaneous causation? Buddhist examples and arguments

The existence of simultaneous causation has long been a subject of controversy. In the literature, the most direct strategy for defending simultaneous causation has been to appeal to everyday examples in which simultaneous causation are alleged to occur. While earlier discussions offered case-specific defenses, they lacked a systematic account of the full range of possible cases. This article reconstructs and evaluates a largely neglected set of defense strategies developed in Indian Buddhist philosophy, especially within the Sarvāstivāda tradition. First, I distinguish two patterns of simultaneous causation discussed in Buddhist sources: the simultaneous dynamic following pattern and the static equilibrium pattern. I then reconstruct the Buddhist arguments advanced by Vasubandhu and Saṃghabhadra. Vasubandhu provides the earliest defenses, appealing to counterfactual analysis for the former pattern and to a powers-based account for the latter. Saṃghabhadra develops a genuinely systematic strategy. He first establishes distinctness through a sufficiently fine-grained individuation of the relata, then determines causality by appeal to an interventionalist account, and finally establishes simultaneity on the basis of the causal relation so determined. I argue that Saṃghabhadra’s strategy applies to both patterns and that his account of simultaneity is more successful than those currently popular in the contemporary literature. More generally, the Buddhist discussion reveals an important methodological point: once these two patterns are successfully defended, commitment to simultaneous causation need not depend on the availability of an uncontroversial concrete case.