________________
180
The Jaina Philosophy of Non-Absolutism
two co-existent terms. The cause ceases to be when the effect comes into being. Thus, the two terms are never synchronous and hence no relation can be posited between them. In the absence of one of the terms, causality also cannot be a real relation, but only an idea. It is asserted that causal relation is sequential and not synchronous, and so the objection urged on the basis of the lack of synchronism is irrelevant. But Dharmakirti, who does not believe in the reality of relation, which is according to him only a subjective way of evaluation, refuses to take this defence as a logically sound proof of the objectivity of causal relation. He argues, if the character of causality be really subsistent in the cause and in the effect in succession, it must be recognized that it does not depend upon the effect when it occurs in the causal antecedent, simply because the effect has not yet come into being. Similarly, causality quâ a characteristic of the effect is not dependent upon the cause, simply because the latter becomes defunct when the former comes into being. Thus, the character of causality, as an independent and intrinsic determination, either of the cause or of the effect, is self-contained, so far as its reference to the other correlate is concerned. Consequently, the connection between the cause and effect cannot be anything more than a subjective construction. If the relation were factual and the dependence of the effect were real, it must be shown that the cause is of real service to the effect or vice versa. But there is no possibility of service, mutual or solitary, between a non-existent and an existent fact. How could the effect be of service to the cause, when it was not even in existence and likewise how could the cause be of service to the effect, when the former has passed out of existence? Certainly, dependence is ontologically possible only between terms which are related as benefactor and beneficiary (upakārakopakāryabhāva); but with regard to the cause and the effect, one of the two is always absent when the other is in existence. The relation of dependence is thus only a subjective interpretation so far as causality is concerned. A person observes the antecedent, unassociated with the consequent, and
1. kāryakāraṇabhāvo 'pi tayor asahabhāvataḥ. prasidhyati katham dviştho 'dvişthe sambandhatā katham ? ibid., p. 509.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
