Mulla, Aliyah2025-06-172025-06-172024https://hdl.handle.net/2144/50713There is something that is equally daunting, invigorating, and enlightening in attempting to question the things that we take for granted most in this world. And there is something equally daunting, invigorating and enlightening in juxtaposing two diverging but not dissimilar views on these subjects in an attempt to create some semblance of valuable philosophical discourse. While superficially there is little in common between an 18th century philosopher from Edinburgh and a 2000-year-old Indian belief system, David Hume and the Buddhist tradition both seem to challenge our notions of causation and the self in astonishingly similar, albeit distinctly complex ways. Through this paper, I aim to briefly touch upon the Buddhist notion of causation in contrast with Hume’s notion of causation, and subsequently explore how these contribute to similar conceptions of the self and personal identity. I will do so primarily with the help of Hume’s A Treatise of Human Nature, Malcolm David Eckel’s Bhāviveka’s Arguments for Reincarnation, Amber Carpenter’s Indian Buddhist Philosophy, and Jay Garfield’s Engaging Buddhism.en-USArticle