Early Buddhism (c. 563–483 BCE)

A comparative analysis with the CoD

The First Sermon—the Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) expounds the Dharma on the turning of the wheel to the four ascetics in the Deer Park at Sarnath, a moment of the Middle Way and the Four Noble Truths made manifest, rendered as a photorealistic scene of historical revelation, courtesy of Nano Banana.

I. Abstract

The core soteriological diagnosis of Early Buddhism is that all conditioned personal experience (saṃsāra) is characterized by three marks: impermanence (anicca), unsatisfactoriness (dukkha), and non-self (anattā). It finds no permanent, independent self or substance within experience; what is conventionally taken as a self is a dependently arisen flow of momentary mental and physical events (dhammas). The Early Buddhist framework is a map of suffering, not a theory of fundamental reality.^[1] This comparative assessment reveals a fundamental divergence in philosophical purpose and scope. Early Buddhism offers a soteriological diagnosis of personal existence, deconstructing the illusion of a unified self to liberate from suffering. The CoD presents a universal ontology of being, positing that the relational process itself—the conference of difference—is the primordial process that functions to transform all phenomena—personal and impersonal. Where Buddhism prescribes cessation of the conditioned process, the CoD identifies that process as the constitutive ground of existence. One is a targeted therapy for the self, the other is a universal theory of being.

II. Overview of Early Buddhism

Emerging in the 5th century BCE in North India, Early Buddhism, as preserved in the Pali Canon, presents a pragmatic soteriology with profound ontological implications. Its core principle is that clinging to a false sense of a permanent self (attā) is the root of suffering (dukkha). To dismantle this clinging, the Buddha taught the doctrine of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda in Sanskrit; paṭiccasamuppāda in Pali), which states that all phenomena arise and cease based on conditions. The key mechanism for understanding reality is the analysis of experience into five impermanent, empty aggregates (khandhas): form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness. Crucially, none of these aggregates, nor any combination thereof, constitutes a permanent self (anattā).

Framed with the OMAF criteria in mind, Early Buddhism posits a manner-of-existence that is fundamentally processual, momentary, and characterized by incessant change (anicca). Regarding the primacy-of-existence, it avoids metaphysical speculation about an ultimate substance or creator, focusing instead on the conditioned nature of all perceived reality. Its stance on the relationship between multiplicity and unity is radical: what is conventionally perceived as a unified entity (a person, a thing) is, upon correct analysis, a causally connected stream of discrete, momentary events (dharmas). True unity is an illusion; only the multifarious flow of interdependent phenomena is real. The soteriological goal, nibbāna/nirvāṇa, is what the Buddha called 'the end of the world'—the final death of the sentient self, with no return.^[2]

In Early Buddhism: a comparative analysis with the CoD, its ontology is assessed as follows:

• Primacy-of-existence: Agnostic toward an ultimate substance or creator; focuses on the conditioned nature of all perceived reality (saṃsāra), with the unconditioned (nibbāna/nirvāṇa) as the soteriological, non-speculative goal.
• Manner-of-existence: Impermanent (anicca), processual, and characterized by suffering (dukkha); a causal flow of momentary mental and physical events (dhammas) driven by craving and ignorance.
• Relationship‑between‑multiplicity‑and‑unity: Deconstructs the conventional unity of the self (anattā); reality is a multiplicity of conditioned aggregates (khandhas), with unity being an illusion to be dispelled for liberation.

III. Overview of the CoD

The CoD model claims that as a 'condition of being', existence is, by extension, a 'process of declaring together of action to be'. The CoD model claims further that this process of declaring together is, in functional terms, a conference of difference, symbolized as {Δ} and defined as a 'condition of bearing together' transforming the 'condition of bearing apart'.^[3] The author has not been able to reduce this expression any further and thus concludes that the conference of difference is the process primitive of existence. For instance, whether we infer the condition of an elementary particle as a discrete corpuscle, a quantum wave packet, or an excitation of a field, each can only realize via the process primitive: the conference of difference. The fundamental implication is that the 'conference of difference' is not a property of any single physical theory, but the universal constant expression of existence itself—one through which every abstracta (construct) is revealed and every existent is transformed. The CoD model asserts that the conference of difference is not only universally observable throughout existence and thus in 1:1 correlation with existence but is the root process of transformation itself and thus cause to all existence.^[4] And whilst the CoD, as process primitive, is deterministic, existent differences in conference, give rise to probability.

IV. Comparison

Criterion 1: Manner-of-Existence

• Statement: The OMAF assessment identifies a profound convergence in describing the fundamental nature of experienced reality, with a critical divergence in purpose and metaphysical commitment.
• Early Buddhism's Position: The manner-of-experienced existence is defined by impermanence (anicca). All conditioned phenomena are in a state of constant flux and dissolution. This ceaseless transformation is the diagnosed nature of saṃsāra, the suffering-laden process to be ended.
• CoD's Position: The CoD posits a dynamic manner-of-existence as the universal, constitutive principle of all being. Koan 100.1 states, "The 'condition of being' that is existence has no beginning or end, only ceaseless transformation." This is not a diagnosis but a definition of reality itself.
• Interpretive Analysis: The convergence is foundational: both reject static substance. The divergence is in application. Early Buddhism maps impermanence to liberate from the process (the river's flow is a disease). The CoD identifies it as the irreducible nature of being (the river's flow is its condition of being). One is a soteriological tool; the other is an ontological first principle.

Criterion 2: The Nature of the Self

• Statement: The OMAF assessment identifies the most significant divergence in this comparison: the ontological status of the feeling of being a single, continuous person.
• Early Buddhism's Position: The feeling of a unified self is a cognitive illusion, a fundamental error to be dispelled. What we call a 'person' is a temporary stream of five impermanent aggregates (khandhas)—form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness—held together by craving and ignorance. Unity is the problem; seeing through it is the solution.
• CoD's Position: The feeling of a unified self is created in the Conference of Difference (CoD). The construct of our 'past' self are recollections of past CoDs reassembled in the CoD we perceive as 'now'; just as the construct of our future self is a projection assembled in the CoD we perceive as 'now'. The point being that all of this i.e. (constructs of past, present and future self) are assembled in the conference of difference (process primitive) we perceive as 'now'.^[5]
• Interpretive Analysis: This difference is the conceptual leap that changes everything. Both models dissolve the independent, substantial self. But where Early Buddhism leaves a stream of disparate, conditioned events, the CoD posits that it is the very 'bearing together' of differences that manifest those perceived events. Where Buddhism defines the law of pratītyasamutpāda: 'codependent arising', the CoD goes further to define the underlying ontological process—the conference of difference—the law's very engine.

Criterion 3: Primacy-of-Existence

• Statement: The OMAF assessment identifies a nuanced divergence on what is ontologically primary.
• Early Buddhism's Position: Early Buddhism is famously pragmatic and often agnostic on ultimate metaphysical questions concerning a primal source. The primary focus is the conditioned nature of saṃsāra and the path to its cessation. The unconditioned (nibbāna) is primary in a soteriological sense but is not framed as an ontological source from which existence emanates.
• CoD's Position: The CoD explicitly names the 'conference of difference' as the process primitive of existence. It is the Gospel: 'God spell' (Koan 10.3) without which no quantum fields, cosmos, or complexity could manifest. This process is the 'Principal' (Koan 40.1) and necessary precondition for any and all existence.
• Interpretive Analysis: This divergence highlights the CoD's commitment to a full positive ontology. The CoD answers a question that Early Buddhism sets aside: what is the fundamental 'condition of being' that allows for pratītyasamutpāda and anicca to operate? The CoD's answer is that the relational process itself is primary. It is the 'divine epistle of being' (Koan 10.6), the medium and the message, thereby providing a metaphysical foundation for the phenomenological observations of Early Buddhism.

V. Implications

Examined alongside Early Buddhism, the CoD's distinctive feature becomes clear: its affirmation of the relational process as the foundational reality that actively constitutes pratītyasamutpāda. The central philosophical lesson is that an ontology can be fully process-oriented and non-substantialist without being reductively analytic or nihilistic. Early Buddhism masterfully deconstructs the self but leaves reality as a causally connected cascade of fragments. The CoD, by contrast, identifies the cohesive force not as a hidden substance, but as the active, constitutive process of the condition of being itself: the conference of difference.

This comparison strengthens the case for the CoD by demonstrating its capacity to solve a specific problem that Early Buddhism—for soteriological reasons—deliberately avoided: providing a positive ontological account of the unity-in-multiplicity that interdependence implies. This reframes the very nature of the process Early Buddhism describes: not as a problem to be solved, but as the foundational principle of existence. This sets the stage for future comparisons with models that similarly attempt to ground dynamism in a positive unity, such as Process Philosophy.

The Gospel of Being

by John Mackay

Discover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.

Discover the book