The theory of causation states that a cause is the invariable and the unconditional antecedent of an effect. Conversely, an effect is the invariable and unconditional consequent of a cause. A popular notion among various philosophical schools such as the Bauddhas and the Nyaya- Vaisesikas is that an effect cannot exist in its cause prior to its production, which is also known as Asatkarya-vada. According to Satishchandra and Chatterjee, “ The Sankhya Metaphysics, especially its doctrine of Prakriti, rests mainly on its theory of causation which is known as Sakarya- vada.”( Datta and Chatterjee 1948, p. 293). Sakarya- vada is exactly opposite to asatkarya- vada as it states that “future products pre-exist in a potential state in their underlying, substrate causes (upādāna-kāran .a) prior to their actualization or manifestation (abhivyakti) as entities identifiable by their specific names and forms.”( Bartley 2011,  p. 85) In this essay, I will attempt to find contradictions to the theory of Sakarya-vada by using examples and also by putting forth some arguments made by the Nyaya-Vaisesika school.

If we take the example of the mould of clay which could be turned into a pot, then according to the theory of Sakarya-vada the pot would already pre-exist in the mould of clay. A contradiction to this would be that even though the pot would be produced from the clay, it would not have the same functions as the pot. 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 either water or grain unless it is transformed into a pot by the potter. It should be clarified that even though the potter himself could be regarded as the cause for the production of the pot, he will be a different cause than that of the 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 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)

It is a fact that clothes are made of threads. So, the cloth would be the effect, the threads would be the material cause and the weaver would be the efficient cause. According to the Sankhya philosophers, the cloth itself would pre-exist in the threads. But it is unclear on how a cloth, which is a single material thing, would pre-exist in hundreds or even thousands of threads. Does the cloth exist equally in each and every one of these threads or is the equality uneven? If one thread is removed from the cloth after its production, will the cloth still be considered as a cloth even if a part of its material cause is removed? Thus the second contradiction is that of the difference in the quantity of the effect and of the material cause. Another addition to this point could be that “The whole entity cannot exist without the parts, but the parts can exist without the whole” ( Bartley 2011, p. 85)

Another contradiction that could arise out of the theory of Satkarya-vada is that if the effect exists in the cause, then it will not be possible for us to identify them as two separate actions 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 the same, we would also then have to agree that the functions of these two will also be the same, which from the first argument we can see is not possible. Also, if the effect already exists in the cause, then it would be illogical for us to accept that it was caused or produced in any way in the first place.

In a summary of the two arguments, we can say that for the Sankhya school, the theory of causation is that the effect pre-exists in the cause and for the other schools such as the Nyaya-Vaisesikas, the effect cannot pre-exist in the cause. As we have seen through the entire essay, the theory of causation of the Nyaya-Vaisesika school is more applicable to Indian philosophy.

REFERENCES

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

Bartley, Christopher.2011. An Introduction to Indian Philosophy. Continuum International Publishing Group: London.