The theory of causation is regarded as one of the metaphysical problems in Indian philosophy. The theory of causation states a universal relationship between a cause and an effect. A cause can be defined as “as the invariable and unconditional antecedent of an effect. Conversely, an effect is the invariable and the unconditional consequent of the cause.”( Datta and Chaterjee 1948, p. 218). Although the theory of causation may share some resemblance to the theory of karma, in this essay we will be mainly focusing on physical occurrences and not moral occurrences. Like any major theory in Indian philosophy, even the theory of causation has been the object of discussion amongst the various schools of Indian philosophy.  For some schools such as the Nyaya- Vaisesikas and the Bauddhas, the effect cannot pre-exist in the cause prior to its production, with this theory also being commonly being referred to as the theory of asatkarya-vada. On the other hand, some schools such as the Sankhya school believe that “ future products pre-exists in a potential state in their underlying, substrate causes ( upandana- karan) prior to their actualization or manifestation ( abhivyakti) as entities identifiable by their specific names and forms”( Bartley 2011, p.85 ). This theory is also known as Sakarya-vada. In this essay, we will formulate an argument by refuting the theory of satkarya-vada put forth by the Sankhya school of philosophy in an attempt to show why it should not be applicable to Indian philosophy as a whole. The essay will start with a brief introduction of the theory of satkarya-vada in order to get a foundation and then we will proceed to form some arguments in contradiction to the theory of satkarya-vada.

As previously mentioned satkarya-vada states that the effect pre-exists within the cause itself. The Sankhya school provides many arguments in far of his theory. One of them is that if the effect was indeed non-existent in the cause, then no amount of force on the part of an agent would make it come into existence. Another argument provided by them is “if the effect is really non-existent in the cause, then we have to say that when it is produced, the non-existent comes into existence, i.e, something comes out of nothing, which is absurd.” ( Datta and Chaterjee 1948, p. 295). The theory of satkarya-vada also has two conceptions, parinama-vada, and vivarta-vada. According to parinama-vada, after an effect is produced, a real transformation takes place from the cause into the effect, such as pot from clay. According to vivarta-vada, the changing of the effect from the cause is merely apparent and not permanent, for example, the snake and the rope.

The theory of satkarya- vada, while being an important doctrine for the Sankhya school, has many loopholes that can be used against them by their opponents. If we take the example of a mold of clay being the material cause and the pot is the effect, then according to the satkarya-vada theory, the pot should pre-exist in the mould itself. However, if the pot really exists in the mould of clay prior to its production, then it should serve the same purpose as a pot does. The functions of a pot, i.e, to either store water or grain, would not be applicable to the mould of clay in its existing form as it will neither be able to store water or grain unless it is transformed. It is important to note here that even though the potter could be regarded as the cause for the production of the pot, he will be a cause that is different as compared to a mould of clay. The potter would be regarded as the efficient cause as compared to the mould of clay, which would be the material cause, because “the activity of the efficient causes, like the potter and his tools, is necessary to manifest the effect, pot, which exists implicitly in the clay” ( Datta and Chatterjee 1948, p. 294) Also the function of the cause is different from the function of the effect. If we take the example of a cloth being created from threads, the function of the thread is different from that of the cloth. The function of the thread is it being turned into a cloth, while the function of the cloth is for covering things. These functions cannot be reversed and thus this proves that both the cause and the effect cannot exist in the same substance.

It is well known that any piece of cloth comprises of threads. Thus over here the effect is the cloth and the material cause are the threads. Even though the cloth and the threads have an inherent relationship, it is unclear on how a cloth, which is a single material thing, would pre-exist in hundreds or even thousands of threads. Christopher Bartley states that “ the whole entity cannot exist without the parts, but the parts can exist without the whole” ( Bartely 2011, p.85)  Thus with the above statement some new questions arise such as if a few threads are removed from the cloth after its production, will the cloth still be considered as a ‘ whole’ cloth even after a part of its material cause is removed from itself? Thus over here the notion of quantity is concerned here.

The Sankhya philosophers claim that “thread and cloth are not two different entities differing from each other in essence also because there is no ‘conjunction’ and ‘separation’ between them” ( Bhartiya 1973, p.40) here the claim is being made that both the thread and the cloth cannot be separated as they are the same entity existing in the same cause. If this is to be true, then won't the production of one entity result in the destruction of the other? For example, if a cloth is being torn and thus being reduced to just threads, then that would result in the creation of a new entity ( threads) and at the same time the destruction of another entity ( cloth) as we can see from the example above, separation is indeed possible as the process of causation will have self-contradictory actions, which is the destruction of the cloths and the production of the threads, or even destruction of the threads and the production of the cloth.

It is established that “according to Sankhya philosophers, an effect is already existent in its material cause and when it is supposed to be produced, it is only manifested” ( Bhartiya 1973, p.43) This statement also raises some questions as when they say that the effect is only manifested, did this entire manifestation of the effect exist before the operation of the cause, or did it not exist? As previously mentioned at the start of the essay, the Sankhya school do not accept the theory of asatkarya-vada because, as they understood it, the theory talks about something non-existent coming into existence, which for them would be absurd. Now keeping the above question in mind, if the Sankhya philosophers accept the latter part of the question, that is if the effect did not exist before its manifestation, then they literally disprove their own theory as it would mean something being created out of nothing. On the other hand, if they accept the former part of the question, that the effect did exist prior to its manifestation, then what is the use of the causal operation taking place, as there is no necessity of the entire process taking place if the effect already exists.

Also, if the effect really exists in the cause, then it will not be possible for us to identify them as two separate entities and that would result in it being that the effect is indistinguishable from the cause. Even if we consider the cause and the effect to be within the same substance, the functions of these two would still be different, as discussed earlier in the essay. If we were to accept the theory of satkarya-vada, then it could not be known to come under the theory of causation itself. That is because the theory of causation states that it is a relation between a cause and an effect. As the cause is different from the effect, the theory of causation is stating that causation is a relationship between two different entities, which according to satkarya-vada, they are not. Thus the terms cause and effect will have no meaning as it would then be illogical for us to accept that it was caused or produced in any way in the first place.

One of the questions that have been posed by one of the philosophers is “if even before the operation of the cause the cloth is existent in the threads, why is it that it is not seen even though all the conditions required for its perception ( i.e, the organs of vision and light etc. ) are present and there is a desire to see it.” ( Bhartiya 1973, p.243).  The counter-argument for this made by the Sankhya philosopher could be that it is due to the non-manifestation of the effect. That as the effect is not yet manifested in its physical form, it cannot yet be perceived. But, if they mean that it is non-manifested and that it does not yet have a physical form, then that would mean that they are talking about the existence of a non-perceptible object that is capable of performing an action. If they are agreeing to this then they are also accepting the theory of asatkarya-vada and at the same time refuting their theory of satkarya-vada as they are then claiming that the object was non-existing in the beginning but later started to exist, which means the creation of something out of nothing, which according to the Sankhya philosophers, cannot happen.

To prove the theory of satkarya-vada, the Sankhya philosophers have also claimed that “ there is an invariable relation between a material cause and an effect. A material cause can only produce that effect with which it is causally related. It cannot produce an effect which is in no way related to it. But it cannot be related to what does not exist. hence the effect must exist in the material cause before it is actually produced.” ( Datta and Chatterjee 1948, p. 294) This statement can be refuted as according to the Sankhya philosophy, everything around us, including physical objects, is everywhere.  The above statement is supported by Jayanta, who claims that “ the rule of taking a particular material for a particular effect ( upadana-niyama) will not be tenable because, according to Sankhya, everything is everywhere.” ( Bhartiya 1973, p.253) Thus if we apply the above statement into reality, the entire world will go into chaos. For example, we will be able to get blood, not only from bodies but from rocks as well, because everything is available everywhere. Also, precious metals such as silver or gold will have its value reduced, as it will now be available everywhere.

The last contradiction we will look at is the structure of the effect prior to its manifestation and the structure of the cause. If we take the example of a seed, which has the potential to turn into a huge tree, then how can you explain the existence of an approximate hundred foot tree pre-existing inside of a seed that could easily hold in your hand. What also matters here is the weight of both these entities. One cannot expect to believe that a tree weighing hundreds of kilos pre-existed in a seed weighing only a few grams. Thus the problem of form and weight arises here.

At the start of the essay, our objective was to refute the theory of satkarya-vada that was put forth by the Sankhya school of philosophy. By taking some arguments put forth by the Nyaya school of philosophy against the satkarya-vada theory and analyzing them in a different way, and forming some new objections, we have refuted the theory of satkarya-vada. Thus, the theory of satkarya-vada that was put forth by the Sankhy philosophers, should not be applicable to Indian philosophy.

BIBLIOGRAPHY-

Chatterjee, Satishchandra and Dheerendramohan Datta. 1948. An Introduction to Indian Philosophy. Calcutta: University of Calcutta

Bartely, Christopher. 2011. An Introduction to Indian Philosophy. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group

Bhartiya, Mahesh Chandra. 1973. Causation in Indian Philosophy. Ghaziabad (U.P): Vimal Prakashan