Indian Philosophy

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

Page 34

The Relation of Cause and Effect
-change. These infinite number of substances - be they atomic or ubiquitous in size - are different from one another because they are absolutely separate from one another. The mutual difference characterizing these basic substances is doubtless real, and yet there exists in these substances a common element called universal (=sāmānya, jāti)' which is responsible for the similarity which these substances exhibit. Thus treating as absolutely real and independent the two elements generic and specific Kanāda offers an explanation of the two forms generic and specific viewed by a cognitive operation. As for the substances of the form of an effect originating from the atoms which are something eternal-undergoing-no-change, they too were treated as something different from the cause concerned and yet something real. The qualities and actions belonging to these substances too were treated by him as something independent and real. And in this multiplicity of phenomenal effects of the form of substances, qualities and actions he treated things particular as real either on the ground that their respective causes are different or on the ground that their respective effects are different at the same time, he posited in these substances etc. also a common element in the form of numerous types of 'universals'. Thus substances of the form of a basic cause were treated by him in a Sankara-like fashion as something eternal-undergoing-no-change, and yet in order to account for the two forms generic and specific viewed by a cognitive operation he posited two real elements generic and specific.
26
Thus we saw that it was on the basis of admitting the reality of causeeffect relationship that each philosopher proceeded to account for the phenomenon of a cognitive operation exhibiting two forms generic and specific, and yet on account of a difference of fundamental viewpoint the net conclusion was different in the case of each.
The Doctrine of effect Existing in Its Cause (Satkāryavāda) and the Doctrine of effect not Existing in Its Cause (Asatkāryavāda)
Those according to whom a basic cause is something eternal-undergoing-change maintain that in all effect whatsoever there really exist elements of the concerned basic cause, and that is why they are called an advocate of satkaryavāda '. The word 'satkarya' means on the one hand that all cause really exists in the effect concerned, on the other that all effect exists - in the form of a capacity in the cause concerned. The absolute monists like Sankara too are an advocate of satkaryavāda, but in a somewhat different sense-that is, in the sense that the multiplicity of phenomenal effects makes itself apparent in the one underlying substratum that is ultimately real. As for the Buddhists, they treat as real only things particular. Thus according to them there exists no such basic cause as persists in all