'dependent origination', is the doctrine of the conditionality of all physical and psychical phenomena,
The article proceeded to attempt to position this as a general theory explaining the basis for all phenomena.
Qn 1: Is there anything inherently wrong with generalizing dependent origination or PS into a theory of conditionality?
FYI, there is a post regarding the appropriateness of treating PS as a law of conditionality. Note that in science, a law is a description of a phenomena (that is scientifically proven) while the article mentioned above is attempting for a general theory of conditionality i.e. to explain the why. (Although the article mentioned principle but I think we can forget it; I don’t think there is anyway to prove it scientifically).
My question is not on the appropriateness as a law but instead as a general theory. Reason for my uncertainty is as follows:
- PS was taught by the Buddha in the context of explaining the arising of suffering.
- In general, physical phenomena have a certain range of possible outcomes. For example, a sapling may or may not grow into a tree or a forecasted rain may or may not occur. In fact, probability is the way to describe the quantum world. But the way PS is explained traditionally, When this exists, that comes to be. With the arising of this, that arises indicates a certainty in outcome, therefore:
Qn 2: How can the certainty alluded in PS be reconciled with the probabilities in outcomes we see in reality?
Personally, I am neither for nor against this generalization of PS into a theory of conditionality. Thanks for sharing of any insights.