Indian Philosophy

Author(s): Sukhlal Sanghavi
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 33

The Relation of Cause and Effect
25
happened in conneetion with what a cognitive operation views as something specific. Thus a seer like Buddha maintained that the observable multiplicity of phenomenal effects has at its basis in the form of an underlying substratum neighter a substance that is something eternal-undergoing-change nor one that is eternal-under-going-no-change. It is only through denying such a basic cause that the Buddhists account for both what is cognized as something generic and what is cognized as something specific. In terms of this accouting the ever new effects gradually emerging in space and in time come into existence owing to the concerned preceding particular effect and then go out of existence. In the midst of these particular effects appearing to form a series there is no element whatsoever representing similarity or identity. Even in the case of such series of particular effects as seem to retain an identical form the effects concerned are in fact absolutely different from one another. Whatever similarity or identity one apprehends in those series is there because the ultimately real nature of the effects concerned is apprehended by one in an incomplete form. To the extent that one is incapable of properly comprehending the nature of these effects - precisely to that extent does similarity or identity appear before one as exhibited by these effects. In this way was this doctrine a doctrine positing real particular effects. Just as Śankara views as ultimately real some one impartite and undifferentiated element while dismissing as unreal or real practically speaking' what appears to be something specific, similarly—and adopting the exactly opposite extreme standpoint-the Buddhists view as ultimately real the particular effects spread out in space and time while dismissing as unreal or real practically speaking' whatever similarity or identity is observable there,
There have also been philosophers who explain otherwise the two forms in question-viz, the generic and the specific - which a cognive operation views. Thus philosophers like Kaņāda maintain that in the form of the basic cause giving rise to the totality of phenomenal effects there exists nei. ther some one element which is something eternal-undergoing-change nor some one element which is something eternal-undergoing-no-change but an infinite number of substances which are something eternal-undergoing-no
5 See Hetubinduţikä p. 86; also
Yathā dhatryabhayādinām nänäroganivartane / Pratyekam saha vă saktir nānātve'py upalaksyate 1/723// Na teșu vidyate kiñcit sāmānyan tatra Śaktimat / Ciraksiprădibhedena rogaśāntyupalambhataḥ 11724|| Evam atyantabhede'pi kecin niyatišaktitaḥ / Tulyapratyavamaršāder hetutvam yanti năpare 1172611
-Tattvasangraha