Satkaryavada And Asatkaryavada

SR No.: 269534
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Johannes Bronkhorst
Publisher: Johannes Bronkhorst
Total Pages: 7
Language: English
Classification: Article
File Size: 898 KB

Page 3

The main discussion takes place in the seventh chapter (lit. spoke, ara) of the Dvādaśāranayacakra. The asarkäryavcīda of Vaisesika is attacked right from the very first line:
If the effect is not present in its causes, it would not come into being, for there would be no agent of the operation of coming into being at hand, just as in the case of a sky flower. Or alternatively, also a sky-flower would come into being, because there would be no agent of the operation of coming into being al hand, just as in the case of ancilcct.
Mysterious as this passage is it states quite clearly that the jar exists prior to its coming into being, thanks to a secondary thought. No further details are provided.
If this passage has whetted our appetite, a discussion in the Dvadasāranayacakra of Mallavādin, and in its commentary the Nyāyagamananusarini of Simhasūri will give us further material to think about. We learn here that in Vaišesika things that have come into being are called "existing" because of a connection with the universal "existence" (sanasambandha). This connection with the universal "existence" takes place at the moment of or immediately after their coming into being; it is the reason of the denomination and of the idea of the things concerned.'
Here the following question arises: Are objects completely non-existent before this connection with existence takes place? According to Mallavādin, the Vaiseşikas give a negative answer to this question. Things do exist in a certain way before they come into being. True, they have not connection with existence at that moment, but they have some kind of essence (astitva, svabhāva, svabhāvasatta) which allows them to come into being. This means that even without connection with existence, a substance (or, for that matter, a quality of a movement) has an identity. The Vaišeșika, according to Mallavādin, goes to the extent of reinterpreting the expression asal, which normally means "non-existent". The Vaisesika takes it as a bahuvrihi compound, and interprets it to mean that which does not have existence". The expression asatkāryavāda, seen this way, does not say that the effect is not there before it comes into being; it only says that it has no connection with the universal 'existence as yet.
This is, of course, the familiar problem, which is based on the correspondence principle. The Vaiseșika recognizes the problem, and maintains that the effect does not exist before it comes into being. However, there are two kinds of existence. The effect has no connecion with the universal 'existence (satta) before it comes into being; but it is there, in a certain way - it has astiva, This is why the Vaišeşika answers:2
Unlike the sky-flower, the effect, having come into being through its own ustitvu, becomes, even without the relationship of inherence with the univera! 'existence, a support for that universal.
The opponent of the Vaiseșika then raises the question whether existence (satta) makes existent that which exists, or that which does not exist, or that which exists and does not exist. It is here that the Vaišesika observes that one can deny that substances etc. have a connection with existence, but not their existence
DNC vol.2, p.459 1. 8.9: ... Sattasambandho 'blidhānaprafyayahetuh. DNC vol.2, p.462 1.3-5: N u asar ity atra nana uttarapadábhidheya i varandrrhardt sapratisedhartharval katham asya satmakarvam? na, unekāntar, apuirabrahmanavad agunagunavail yaiha násya putro srity aputro brahmanah ndsya gunosity guno gunuh fathehapi ndsya sad ily usat/: cp. Simhasüri, DNC p.460 1. 10-11.
1 DNC vol. 2, p. 455 I. 1-2 yadyasar karyam notpadyela unannihitabhuvitrkaival khapuspavail khapuspumapi votpadyeta asunnihitabhavitrkatvár karyavat! ? DNC vol. 2, p. 456 I. 1-2 - asrayisamavāyad pre 'pi karyant svanaivastitvenotpannam asrayo bhavari khapuspavaidharmyena ... 3DNC vol. 2 p. 459 1. 1-2: iha prāk sattasambandhar satâm và asarām va sada satan dravyddinām sarkari santa? Similar criticism in the Madhyamakahrdayakärika and Tarkajvālā of Bhavaviveka; see Tachikawa 1994: 898.