Theory of causation in Advaita- Vada

Jyotirmayee Routray
+3 3rd Year Arts

Theory of causation means it is the relation between cause and effect. Nothing comes
out of nothing. Every event must have a cause. We know very well that cause is the sum total
of all conditions. Nothing happens without cause. A cause is “what makes things to happen”
and an effect “what is made to happen due to something”. In nature many events occur. There
is causal relation between two events, one of which is called cause and effect. So both are
relative terms. There is no fixed event in nature called cause and no fixed event called effect.
The same event which produces another event may be called cause, and it may also be called
effect in relation to its cause. When we come to the Indian treatment of causation, we find an
altogether different approach in this matter. Before we consider the theories accounting for
the change and the difficulties involved in the concept, it will be worthwhile to know the
importance of the concept. The importance of the concept is twofold: - Metaphysical and
logical.

Main problems of causation: -

While the western thinkers are troubled and occupied by the consideration of the
relation of the efficient cause with its effect, the main problem discussed by Indian thinkers is
that of the relation of the material cause with its effect. Where from essence of effect is
derived? Does the material cause imparts any essence to its effect or is completely external to
the cause so far the essence is concerned? Is the essence then derived at from void that means
the effect is created out of nothing? What happens to the cause when the effect comes to the
existence is it annihilated or continues to exist side by side? Does the material cause actually
turn in to its effect or present only an illusory appearance? These are the main problems
discussed in the course of discussion.

Problem of essence of effect: -

The problem of the essence of the effect is the basic problem of Indian thinkers and,
in fact, the whole division of Indian theories of causation is based on its consideration. There
are two possibilities which regard to the essence of effect: either an effect derives its essence
from its cause or it does not. If an effect derives its essence from its cause or it does not. If an
effect derives its essence from its cause, it will mean that so far the essence of the effect is
concerned; it is existent in some form even prior to coming in to formal existence. If an effect
does not derive its essence from what so ever prior to its coming in to formal existence. The
basic question involved in any theory of causation is: does the effect pre-exist in its material
cause? Those who answer this question in the negative are called a Satkaryavadin, while
those who answer it in the affirmative are Satkaryavadins.

Classification of Indian theories of causation: -

There are firstly, two broad theories of causation in Indian philosophy, these are: -
Satkaryavada and Asatkaryavada. Satkaryavada is further divided into Parinamavada or
Vikaraveda advocated by Sankhya and Yoga, and Vivartavada advocated by Sankara
Vedanta. Asatkaryavada is divided in to Arambha-vada advocated by Nyaya-Vaisesika and
followed by Mimamsa, and Pratityasamutpada vada advocated by Buddhists. The Jaina
theory which can be called Sad-asatkaryavada advocated by Jaina and also by theistic
schools of Vedanta. There is however, another theory of causation called Svabhava or
Yadrccha-vada advocated by Carvakas which denies causality.

Carvaka theory of Causation: -

Caravakas are materialists believing in the validity of only perception as a means of
right knowledge. Thus, propounding the reality of only that which is perceptible. They deny
the relation of cause and effect as it cannot be established on the basis of perception. We do
see antecedent and consequent events, but we cannot say that there is an invariable relation
between the two, because we can see only particular instance which are limited in number.
When we see two events together, it doesn’t always mean that one is the cause of the other,
there is always a possibility of unseen error in the form of Upadhi. In the vase of fire and
smoke, for example, it is not only fire which is the cause of smoke, the connection of damp
fire-material with fire is also there as Upadhi without which smoke cannot be produced.
Carvakas though deny causation in the form of invariable and un-conditional and relation
between two events could not evade accounting for the occurrence of events in the world.
Their view in this regard is known as Svabhava-vada that means accidentals. Svetasvatara
Upanishad mentions Svabhava means the nature as the cause of the world. Sankara explains
it as the natural powers inherent in different things, for example the heat in the fire. Fire has a
natural power of burning and water has a natural power to flowing downwards. Breathing fir
example exists so long as the living body exists. So it is the nature of the living body. So,
Svabhava-vada is also known as Naturalism.
Another name for Svabhava-vada or Yadracchavda is accidentals. Sankara explains it
has the doctrine of accidental production of effects that means the effect are produced merely
due to chance. Carvakas thinks that whatever happens in the world, that is accidentally. When
Betel, nut and lime are chewed combine, the red colour spit is produced. This is the Svabhava
of these things.

Satkaryavada:

The Satkarya-vada maintains that an effect is existent in a potential or latent form

before the casual process. The Satkarya-vadins believed that the effect is not a new creation,
but only an explicit manifestation of that which was implicitly contained in its material cause.
Sankhya-Yoga believes in Satkarya-vada, because, according to it, an effect is already
existent in its cause in a potential or un-manifested state before the casual process. This
theory can be split up into two forms according to the two different conceptions of reality. If
we believe through a casual process change actually occurs and cause actually takes the shape
of effect. It will be one kind of Satkarya-vada. It is specifically called Parinamavada or
Vikaravada and is advocated by Sankhya and Yoga. Both Sankya and Yoga believe that the
reality of which forms the basis of the phenomenal universe, i.e. Prakriti is made of ever
changing three constituent gunas and through the internal mixture of these gunas, it adopts
newer and newer forms which are actual and real. On the other hand, if we believe that the
ultimate reality is unchanging and all kinds of changes are only apparent and illusory, it will
be another kind of Satkaryavada, specifically now as Vivarta-vada, i.e. the theory of unreal
change. Sankara school of Vedanta is an advocate of the theory.

Parinama-vada or Vikara-vada: -

Sankhya theory of causation is also called Parinama-vada or Vikara-vada, which

means that a material causes itself into an effect through a casual process. The main import of
Parinama-vada is that Sankhya believes in a real change Parinama: a cause really changes
into its effect through a casual process. It is in contrast Vivarta-vada of Advaita Vedanta
according to which an effect is an unreal transformation of its cause; a cause remains as such
even after the casual process, but begins to appear in the form of the effect. An effect,
according to the Sankhya, is a real transformation of its cause.

Vivarta-vada: -

According to Vivarta-vada, effect is neither identical with the cause nor is it

absolutely different. Vivarta literally means appearance or semblance. As a theory of
causality, it advocates that when the cause is transformed into effect it doesn’t undergo real
transformation but it simply appears as the effect. The concept of appearance becomes
meaningful only when there is something which is real or fundamental.
On the ontological platform, Shankara has accepted Gaudapada’s theory of non-
origination. Though he pleads in favour of Parinama-vada on the phenomenon plane which
is much similar with Sankhya theory of causality. It advocates Vivartavada on the absolute
plane. By Satkaryavada the real means Satkaranavada. His view of causation is particularly
known as Brahma Vivartavada. But effect is not something different from cause. The cause
alone is real; the effect is only its appearance so according Sankara the modification (Vikara)
originates and exists in merely in speech. But in reality there is no such thing as effect. It is
merely a name and therefore unreal.
The Sankhyaites argue that there is no difference of character between cause and
effect. But Shankar argues that still there is difference between the character of cause and
effect. According to Sankara, as Brahman is the only reality, without a second, is thus the
only cause of this world? This leaves no room for an external instrumental cause. In common
parlance is it thought that effect comes into being by the instrument cause (Nimita karana).
Brahman is regard as both the material and instrumental cause of this world.
Now let us proceed to see how Shankara is a Brahma-vivartavadin on the absolute
plane. Sankara propounded Vivartavada. Vivartavada simply means that effect is unreal
appearance or unreal modification of the cause. So Shankar’s theory of causation is
technically known as Brahma-Vivarta-vada, which means that Brahman is the ultimate cause
of this world.
Sankara agrees with Sankhya in maintaining that the design, harmony or order in the
universe must pre-suppose a single cause which is eternal, ultimate.
But he criticizes Sankhya when is that say that such a cause is the unintelligent Prakrti.
According to Sankara the intelligent Brahman only can be such a cause. How can imminent
teleology in nature be explained by unintelligent Prakrti? We do proceed from the finite to
the infinite, from the limited to the unlimited, from the peros to the aperas, from the effect to
the cause. But only the conscious Brahman associated with its mayasakti can be the creator
pressure and destroyer of this world. Unintelligent prakrti is too poor and too powerless to be
its cause.

Asatkarya-vada: -
According to Astkarya-vadins, the effect is new creation a real beginning. The effect
(Karya) doesn’t pre-exists (asat) in its material cause. Otherwise, there would be no sense in
saying that it is produced or caused. Nyaya, Vaisesikha, Hinayana, Buddhism, Materialism
and some followers of Mimamsa believe in Asatkarya-vada, which is also known as
Arambhavada, i.e. the view that production is a new beginning. In other words according to
Asatkaryavada, we have seen, an effect altogether a new entity. It is not existent in its cause
in any form. But questions may be asked. What happens to the cause when its effect comes
into existence? Is the cause annihilated or continues to exist with the effect? With these
alternative answers there have come into existence two types of theories in Asatkaryavada.
The Buddhist theory of Causation, called a Pratityasamutpadavada, i.e. the theory of
dependent organization, is one of the basis and one of the most important their theories of
Buddhist philosophy. Lord Buddha had declared himself: “He who sees Pratityasamutpada
sees dharma, he who sees Pratitya-samutpada.” It implies that conception of dharma depends
on the conception of Pratityasamutpada. The meaning of the term Pratitya-samutpada is thus
origination after getting (the cause), i.e. there being causes, and there is the effect.
Another basic theory of Buddhist Philosophy is that Ksanika-vada the theory of instantaneous
being, i.e. the theory of that reality is on instantaneous or momentary. The whole of the
Buddhist philosophical literature is classified primarily into two schools: Hinayana and
Mahayana of which Hinayana is earlier. Hinayana consists of two main schools: Theravada
and Sarvastivada. In Theravada we find the theory of causation-paticca-samppada- in a
particular form applicable on a wheel of twelve parts representing the phenomenal life. It is
called the wheel of life. Each member of the series is the effect of each prior member and the
cause of the later. The important contribution of the Sarvastivada school to the theory of
causation is that all elements exists on two different planes, the real essence of the element
(dharma-svabhava) and its momentary manifestation (dharma laksana), it is this phenomenal
existence which is momentary. Buddhists maintain that existence arises from non-existence
that a speed must be destroyed before a sprout can spring up or milk must be destroyed
before curd can come into being. Sankara replies that an entity can never arise from a non-
entity had it been so anything would arise from anything.
The antecedent link in the causal series says, Sankara cannot even be regarded as the
efficient cause of the subsequent link because, according to the theory of momentary ness, the
preceding link causes to exist when the subsequent link arises.
The Mimamsa view on causation is much the same as that of the Nyaya-Vaisesika except
some minor points on which Mimamsa differs. The main point on which Mimamsa differs
from Nyaya- Vaisesika is that of the doctrine of potency (sakti) in a cause to which Mimamsa
subscribes but Nyaya- Vaisesika refutes. Mimamsa advocate Asatkaryavada, the theory that
effect is nonexistent before its production, and it refutes the Sankhya Satkaryavada,
according to which an effect is existent in a latent form in its cause even before its
production. Mimamsakas define causing the same way as the Nyayayikas do. A cause is
defined as an unconditional and invariable antecedent of an effect and an effect as an
unconditional and invariable consequent of a cause. The same cause produces the same effect
and the same effect is produced by the same cause. Plurality of causes is ruled out. The first is
that the quality which is itself cannot be established as a cause by means of co-presence or
co-absence e.g. stickiness in respect of a pot. The second is that in which the antecedent is
established due to being a causal antecedent of some other effect, e.g. in respect of a pot. The
third is that which is devoid of determinate co-presence and co-absence.
Accordingly, Nyaya-Vaishesika speaks of three causes that of inherent (Samavayi), non-
inherent (Asamavayi) and instrumental (Nimitta).
Shankara has refuted the samavaya relation of Nyaya-Vaishesika system relation as a
type of relation which exists between cause and effect, substance and quality and in which
two related entities or objects cannot be separated. Sankara arise that if we shall accept
Sambandha (inherent) relation between the cause and effect then we shall have to admit
another Samavaya relation between the same samavaya and two terms connected by the
samavaya and is this way it leads two fallacy of infinity regress. If we do not admit it will
lead to dissolution of the bond of relation. Sankara put forth another argument to refute the
samavaya relation. He questions how the effect substance which is whole abides in the causal
substance which is in the form of parts? Does it reside collectively or separately?
The next arrangement of Sankara as follows. When the Asatkaryavadin holds that the effect
doesn’t pre exists in its material cause before its origination, he assigns a limit to the effect.
But it is not justified to assign a limit to nonexistent before origination as it is identifiable at
that time.
Theory of causation in Visistadvaita-vada: -
The Parinamavada of Sankhya reappears in Visistadvaita-vada which does away with
the Vivartavada of Shnkara Vedanta and regards both cause and effect as real not only
empirically but also ontologically. The writers of this school regard this world as the real
transformation of Brahman and as such come to accept Parinamavada as their theory of
causation. According to Ramanuja both cause and effect are identically as well as real.
Ramanuja argues against the Sankara’s view that cause and effect are identical because effect
is only illusory. “Those who establish the non-difference of cause and effect on the basis of
the theory of the effect’s unreality are unable to prove what they wish to prove; for the true
and the false cannot possibly the one.”
Visistadvaita-vadins hold the Parinamavada i.e. the real transformation view
regarding the causation, like that of Satkaryavada is not exactly like that Sankhya is never
prepared to admit that there is anything in the effect which is not existent potentially already.
But Visistadvaita admits that though as substance, the effect already exists in its cause, as
form, it does not. Shankara maintains Brahma-karana-vada as he recognizes Brahman is
called Brahma-Vivarta-vada because it takes the world to be only a phenomenal appearance
of Brahman. Sankara is opposed to Brahman-parinama-vada. For him the world is neither a
real creation by Brahman nor a real modification of Brahman. Brahman associated with its
power Maya is the around on which the phenomenal world is superimposed. When true
knowledge dawns and the essential unity of the jivatman with the Paramatman is realized.
The world is subtle. Modification or change in realistic manner (Sattvato nyaya pratha). Like
the change of gold into ornaments or of clay into pots or of milk onto curd, is called
parinama or vikara. Unreal change or seeming modification (atattvato’ nyatha pratha), like
the appearance of water into waves, bubbles, foam, etc, is called vivarta.

**************